like I said, "depends on the 2-loss teams and their resumes"The point being made, is that a 10-2 Texas doesn't "need a path." 10-2 Texas with wins over Top 12 A&M, OU, and Vanderbilt, is a lock for the playoff. So if Texas had scheduled Georgia State instead of Ohio State, the Horns would be in, even with the loss to Florida.
if a few of the highly respected 2-loss teams lose , then Texas has a path
The point being made, is that a 10-2 Texas doesn't "need a path." 10-2 Texas with wins over Top 12 A&M, OU, and Vanderbilt, is a lock for the playoff. So if Texas had scheduled Georgia State instead of Ohio State, the Horns would be in, even with the loss to Florida.I agree and I posted this question to discuss exactly this issue.
So... what do you do? The committee has stated previously they don't want to punish teams for scheduling tough OOC games, and you better believe the TV Network partners would rather see Texas play Ohio State than Georgia State.
But if Texas doesn't get into the playoff this year, then it's a clear message that scheduling tough OOC games, doesn't pay off if you lose.
Texas is 23rd and Michigan is 22nd. Michigan hasn't been competitive with the three best teams they played. Texas has some good wins but also some rough losses and looked pretty meh in some of their wins. Their rank will rise after this weekend; we'll see how much but probably not far enough that I would feel bad if they were left out.[/list]This! Good take Sam.
But the question at hand, the one medina is working to tease out, is-- if Texas doesn't get into the CFP this year with everything playing out exactly as it has, then what reason is there to schedule tough OOC games at all?none
The answer is because if you win, you get the tiebreaker. No one knows what the results of the season would be before the season happens. In an alternate universe the committee is deciding between 10-2 OSU and 10-2 Oregon. OSU would be in because they beat Texas and Oregon beat Oklahoma State.
But the question at hand, the one medina is working to tease out, is-- if Texas doesn't get into the CFP this year with everything playing out exactly as it has, then what reason is there to schedule tough OOC games at all?
Yeah, for Texas, I agree in general with what y'all are saying on the merits of the season overall, as it stands. There are plenty of deserving teams, that currently are,, and will be, ranked ahead of Texas.Like I said, it's tough. Which is why I think medina's question is a little reductionist. You can't break it down exactly like that...
But the question at hand, the one medina is working to tease out, is-- if Texas doesn't get into the CFP this year with everything playing out exactly as it has, then what reason is there to schedule tough OOC games at all?
I keep bringing up Ole Miss scheduling a home game against Georgia State in their opener, while Texas scheduled an away game @Ohio State.
As poorly as Texas played early in the season, there's no doubt that Texas would have beaten Georgia State. And there's also no question that a 10-2 Texas with the rest of the results exactly as they are, is getting into the CFP.
So if the committee just looks at the W/L column and eliminates Texas at 3 losses, then they're confirming that there's no benefit to scheduling tough. It's especially true given how closely Texas played Ohio State on the road in Columbus. That 7 point differential is by far the closest game anyone has played against Ohio State all season long.
Like I said, it's tough. Which is why I think medina's question is a little reductionist. You can't break it down exactly like that...
Texas has played 4 teams currently in the top 10 of the rankings, and 5 in the top 25. They're 2-2 against the top 10 and 3-2 against the top 25 (top 15, currently, to be more accurate). In that sense, they've proven they can play with the big boys. They do have one "bad loss" vs Florida as well, which hurts.
Michigan, OTOH, has played 2 teams currently ranked in the top 10 and 3 in the top 25, and they're 0-2 and 0-3 respectively. They haven't proven that they can play with the big boys. As mentioned, their best win will have come against a team that won't finish ranked.
IMHO looking at the specific teams, I think I'm coming to the point where I agree with you that Texas should be in the CFP. I'm pretty sure I could look at a number of other teams on the fringe of "in the conversation" that can't claim to have anywhere near the resume of quality wins that Texas has.
I'd love to see the committee to make a show of keeping Texas in, to show that scheduling tough OOC isn't a penalty. But frankly they can do that WHILE also keeping Michigan out, who scheduled tough OOC, but didn't have the actual resume wins to justify getting included.
If your team is that good, you can afford the one loss. Just not two more.But it removes your margin for error. And that's the point.
BTW why are we not including USC in this discussion?why are we including Michigan?
8-3 right now with road OOC loss to [current top 10] Notre Dame, road conference losses to Illinois and [current top 10] Oregon. Win over currently ranked Michigan.
Seems like they have an equal if not better resume than Michigan...
BTW why are we not including USC in this discussion?Fair point. I just thought of TX and M first
8-3 right now with road OOC loss to [current top 10] Notre Dame, road conference losses to Illinois and [current top 10] Oregon. Win over currently ranked Michigan.
Seems like they have an equal if not better resume than Michigan...
Fair point. I just thought of TX and M firstYeah I haven't really looked at it, didn't know what USC's record looked like. I've been assuming ever since the Texas loss to Georgia that the Horns were out.
I haven't checked but, I'm guessing Texas has the best 3-loss resumeBut Texas didn't win the tough non-con game. So it's not helping the resume'. It's torpedoing the resume'.
and you get the best resume by playing that tough non-con game
But Texas didn't win the tough non-con game. So it's not helping the resume'. It's torpedoing the resume'.what I'm sayin is that in a group of 3-loss teams, the tough non-con loss helps\
And by lumping Texas in against the other 3-loss teams you're doing the same thing the committee and the voters always do, kindergarten level analysis.
Does any other team in college football have wins against what will be 3 Top 12 teams at the end of this weekend?
Does any other team in college football have wins against what will be 3 Top 12 teams at the end of this weekend?None, as far as I can tell. That's impressive.
If Duke wins the ACC with 5 losses, do they put in 2 G5 conference champs at the expense of the ACC?Probably, if they are ranked higher, for sure.
Go Duke. Then the format will change again. Imagine the top G5 champion got a bye.It already did happen (Boise got a bye last season), so they already did change the format (in 2025 the top 4 seeds get a bye, not the top 4 conference champs).
The Atlantic Coast has a lot of sand.Nowadays, the pacific one does too.
My first thought is always going to be, who are you up against for the spot? Like, who gets thrown out if Texas gets the “if a cupcake” or more likely, “if TCU” situation? You don’t reward teams in a vacuum.I don't recall pre-BCS days much, but I think maybe back then, you knew that if you had to impress the voters. And a weak non-con wasn't going to get it done, especially if your conference slate was weaker than normal (not so much the case for Texas this year with top 10 OU and A&M on the slate). You needed style points.
And if that No. 10 team really feels like you want to chuck them out, so be it. But that context will always be a big part of it.
Then there are two other thoughts:
-If Texas just went four pure cupcakes, it’s fair to say, it might become a thing and might be held against them. Team tied for fifth, played probably the worst non-con of any contender, that’d be a thing. So for clarity, we should say if they’d played a non-powerhouse P5.
-If anything, the good non-conference opponent thing has meant less than it ever has. In the olden days this board often pines for, losing that game would’ve very likely ended Texas’ title hopes 60 minutes into the season. The four-team era would’ve been more forgiving, but still, if you wanted to chase national title, playing Ohio State was a bad idea.
And yet, with that always being a risk, people did it perpetually. So is the difference that we’re just super playoff focused? That we have a committee that’s answerable in a way voters weren’t? It probably doesn’t totally matter, since they’ll all go to nine plus a power non-conference team, but there’s always going to be the challenge that in this sport, for fans and often team assessments, losing is most of the time treated as worse than winning.
It already did happen (Boise got a bye last season), so they already did change the format (in 2025 the top 4 seeds get a bye, not the top 4 conference champs).The top 4 last year was broken, and they also happened to go 0-4.
I think a major thing people didn't like about the computers was how a team could be ranked, say 3rd, and with a very weak upcoming opponent, knew it was going to drop, no matter how much they won by. I think that was problematic.I like it. Encourages better opponents.
I think a major thing people didn't like about the computersI think a major thing people didn't like about the computers was that they didn't agree with the human polls.
I think a major thing people didn't like about the computers was that they didn't agree with the human polls.And yet many people insist we aren't animals...
If the objective computers didn't agree with the subjective polls, people got mad and demanded they be tweaked. Because they were obviously "wrong".
The committee left out FSU when they didn't have a quarterback. Can they leave out Ole Miss for not having a coach?I was 100% thinking about this. Whatever team gets Ole Miss in the CFP gets a team that will be in complete disarray. Not only because of the coaches leaving but isn’t there also a portal window opening up soon ? Some of these players will be forced to transfer or else lose the opportunity.
I was 100% thinking about this. Whatever team gets Ole Miss in the CFP gets a team that will be in complete disarray. Not only because of the coaches leaving but isn’t there also a portal window opening up soon ? Some of these players will be forced to transfer or else lose the opportunity.The committee has a week and a half to decide.
And yet many people insist we aren't animals...You know I'm not among those people...
I was 100% thinking about this. Whatever team gets Ole Miss in the CFP gets a team that will be in complete disarray. Not only because of the coaches leaving but isn’t there also a portal window opening up soon ? Some of these players will be forced to transfer or else lose the opportunity.It is also interesting because Ole Miss' schedule was remarkably weak.
Let's not pretend when they scheduled Tulane that OM thought they were getting a decent resume entry.Oh I know but . . .
Idk, a 9-2 G5 team isn't actually a big threat, they just wind up ranked because the alternative would be for voters to (gasp) rank 7-5 big-boy teams.I agree with you 100% but that said, Tulane is still a LOT more legit than GaS, Citadel, and WSU.
How about on the flip side?The sooners gained some respect.
Did OSU and Oklahoma gain anything by beating Texas and Michigan in the beginning of the season?
Or would they be in the exact same boat, had they beaten North Texas and Central Michigan?
Oh I know but . . .Duh, how it played out.
Should we evaluate based on what they tried to do or how ot actually played out?
Idk, a 9-2 G5 team isn't actually a big threat, they just wind up ranked because the alternative would be for voters to (gasp) rank 7-5 big-boy teams.Like Duke
What was the Big Ten's channel for the worse conference game? For the SEC, it was Jefferson Pilot. I can't remember what it was before that. It's where Kentucky would play Miss State. Pre-streaming services.It is funny and you have a point but on the other hand, I can make a srong case that the ACCCG has more CFP impact than the SECCG and the B1GCG combined.
Anyway, that's what the ACCCG reminds me of - one of those games.
How about on the flip side?I'd say Oklahoma might have benefited. The only conference team that they beat who actually had a winning conference record was Alabama (7-1). They lost to Ole Miss (7-1) and Texas (6-2), and beat teams who were 4-4, 4-4, 3-5, 1-7, and 1-7.
Did OSU and Oklahoma gain anything by beating Texas and Michigan in the beginning of the season?
Or would they be in the exact same boat, had they beaten North Texas and Central Michigan?
What was the Big Ten's channel for the worse conference game? For the SEC, it was Jefferson Pilot. I can't remember what it was before that. It's where Kentucky would play Miss State. Pre-streaming services.
Anyway, that's what the ACCCG reminds me of - one of those games.
So, sorta?Well, you asked if they gained anything, not whether they'd have chances to even play these teams...
These big marquis ooc used to be the only way you could play any of these teams outside of a bowl game. Now USC, Oregon and UDub are in the conference, so you don't have to schedule any of them ooc in order to play them. Then if you run through the playoffs, you play up to four big marquis games in a month, to finish the season.
I'm not really sure that they are all that necessary anymore.
It is also interesting because Ole Miss' schedule was remarkably weak.I can see a path where they drop OM just like they did to FSU two years ago.
They went 1-1 against SEC teams that finished with a non-losing league record, Ole Miss' SEC games:
- 7-1 UGA, lost 43-35 on the road.
- 6-2 Oklahoma, won 34-26 on the road
- 3-5 LSU, won 24-19 at home
- 2-6 Kentucky won 30-23 on the road
- 2-6 Florida, won 30-24 at home
- 1-7 MissSt, won 38-19 on the road
- 1-7 South Carolina, won 30-14 at home
- 0-8 Arkansas, won 41-35 at home
Then there is their OOC. Three of the four are indisputably weak: GaSt, WSU, Citadel. The fourth is . . . Intersting. Ole Miss beat Tulane 45-10 and the Green Wave are ranked #24 and a potential playoff team as they are playing North Texas on Friday for the AAC Championship.
I will be happy once the SEC starts playing 9 conference games in 2026 so that its schedule can finally be fairly compared to the Big Ten. All Texas did by playing Ohio St was add a 9th P4 team to its schedule. Oklahoma only played 9 p4 teams, etcAs if someone forced the Big Ten to have 9 conference games this whole time. FFS
If you think about it, by the Big Ten playing 9 conference games, that adds 9 more losses total that all its teams have compared to if they would have scheduled 18 cupcakes instead. How many more top 25 teams would the Big Ten have with 9 fewer losses total?
The SEC is going to find out what 9 conference games do their win-loss records.
I will be happy once the SEC starts playing 9 conference games in 2026 so that its schedule can finally be fairly compared to the Big Ten. All Texas did by playing Ohio St was add a 9th P4 team to its schedule. Oklahoma only played 9 p4 teams, etc9 games What a joke. Chances are you’d end up with one extra game vs Kentucky or some other perennial bottom feeder.
If you think about it, by the Big Ten playing 9 conference games, that adds 9 more losses total that all its teams have compared to if they would have scheduled 18 cupcakes instead. How many more top 25 teams would the Big Ten have with 9 fewer losses total?
The SEC is going to find out what 9 conference games do their win-loss records.
Reminds me of 2008, OSU was preseason #1, lost bad to USC, and the season was over before the Big Ten slate even started. They benched the QB that took them to the NCG the year before, and it was rebuilding mode with a freshman Terrelle Pryor.That one always stuck out to me too. Like I remember watching that game in week, two and thinking, well, they’re cooked.
What was the Big Ten's channel for the worse conference game? For the SEC, it was Jefferson Pilot. I can't remember what it was before that. It's where Kentucky would play Miss State. Pre-streaming services.When I was in college, it was ESPN plus on some sort of local network. Granted, I am probably one of the five youngest people on the board.
Anyway, that's what the ACCCG reminds me of - one of those games.
I'd say Oklahoma might have benefited. The only conference team that they beat who actually had a winning conference record was Alabama (7-1). They lost to Ole Miss (7-1) and Texas (6-2), and beat teams who were 4-4, 4-4, 3-5, 1-7, and 1-7.I would be curious if the distribution above is a sign of playing poorly, or just kind of a bland reality of going 6-2 with a semi-balanced schedule.
I think its probable that Texas will not be in the playoffs
If I were in charge of scheduling for Texas Id make sure no blue blood team was ever scheduled for the first game. the reward just dosent add up
Id adapt the Alabama approach schedule 3 cubcakes at the beginnng of the season and a 4th cubcake towards the end of the season
anyway its a shame to have to do this but the current system requires it
I think its probable that Texas will not be in the playoffswith the 9th conference game coming, does Bama replace one of the 3 early cupcakes with an MSU or Kentucky, or the 4th cupcake late in the season?
If I were in charge of scheduling for Texas Id make sure no blue blood team was ever scheduled for the first game. the reward just dosent add up
Id adapt the Alabama approach schedule 3 cubcakes at the beginnng of the season and a 4th cubcake towards the end of the season
anyway its a shame to have to do this but the current system requires it
What was the Big Ten's channel for the worse conference game? For the SEC, it was Jefferson Pilot. I can't remember what it was before that. It's where Kentucky would play Miss State. Pre-streaming services.Peacock.
Anyway, that's what the ACCCG reminds me of - one of those games.
I think its probable that Texas will not be in the playoffsIt sucks that Wisconsin is now considered a cupcake.
If I were in charge of scheduling for Texas Id make sure no blue blood team was ever scheduled for the first game. the reward just dosent add up
Id adapt the Alabama approach schedule 3 cubcakes at the beginnng of the season and a 4th cubcake towards the end of the season
anyway its a shame to have to do this but the current system requires it
| Saturday Aug. 31 | (https://fbschedules.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/clemson-hel-2024-03.png) (https://fbschedules.com/2030-clemson-football-schedule/) | Clemson Tigers (https://fbschedules.com/2030-clemson-football-schedule/)Sanford Stadium, Athens, GA | Time TBA ETTV TBA | |
| Saturday Sep. 7 | (https://fbschedules.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/north-carolina-at.png) (https://fbschedules.com/2030-north-carolina-at-football-schedule/) | North Carolina A&T Aggies (https://fbschedules.com/2030-north-carolina-at-football-schedule/)Sanford Stadium, Athens, GA | Time TBA ETTV TBA | |
| Saturday Sep. 14 | (https://fbschedules.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ohio-st.png) (https://fbschedules.com/2030-ohio-state-football-schedule/) | Ohio State Buckeyes (https://fbschedules.com/2030-ohio-state-football-schedule/)Sanford Stadium, Athens, GA | Time TBA ETTV TBA | |
| Saturday Nov. 30 | (https://fbschedules.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/georgia-tech.png) (https://fbschedules.com/2030-georgia-tech-football-schedule/) | Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets (https://fbschedules.com/2030-georgia-tech-football-schedule/)Sanford Stadium, Athens, GA | Time TBA ETTV TBA |
I would be curious if the distribution above is a sign of playing poorly, or just kind of a bland reality of going 6-2 with a semi-balanced schedule.I'm not saying they played poorly. The question is whether Oklahoma benefited from beating Michigan OOC. And IMHO that question can't be answered as "did they have a good season", which they invariably did... The question in modern college football HAS TO BE whether that benefits them in the CFP selection process.
if you play three top end teams in the league, two .500 ones and three substandard to bad ones, that seems like a somewhat normal distribution and the most logical way to get to 6-2
As if someone forced the Big Ten to have 9 conference games this whole time. FFSI typed up this reply over the weekend but it disappeared into the cloud so I'll try again.
Endless whining about something that isn't against any rule.
I'm happy the SEC is moving to 9 just so the Big Ten fans can shut the fuck up about it.
9 games What a joke. Chances are you’d end up with one extra game vs Kentucky or some other perennial bottom feeder.I conditionally agree. It is entirely possible that Ohio State's ninth league game this year was Purdue in which case what difference does it make if Ohio State played eight league games and four OOC or nine and three?
I typed up this reply over the weekend but it disappeared into the cloud so I'll try again.You know what? I probably have a bad attitude this week but all we're doing is polishing a turd with these 16 team conferences anyways. I don't even actually know how many teams the Big 10 has. I think it's up to 18 by now isn't it?
I take a middle-road view of the 9 league games issue. @Gigem (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1706) has a point:I conditionally agree. It is entirely possible that Ohio State's ninth league game this year was Purdue in which case what difference does it make if Ohio State played eight league games and four OOC or nine and three?
The conditions are these:
- What OOC is getting dropped to make room for the ninth league game? For example, this season Florida played eight league games, two P4 (Miami, FSU), a quality G5 (or whatever, USF), and a cupcake (Long Island). Which of those four OOCs are they dropping? It probably isn't going to be Long Island so there is a decent chance that UF going to nine league games will actually make their schedule easier because swapping out Miami for Arkansas is a distinct possibility.
- I've been harping on this point for a while now but in the mega-conference era we simply can't think of all SEC Schedules nor all B1G Schedules as being more-or-less equivalent. They simply aren't.
With respect to point #2, here are Florida's and Ole Miss's SEC opponents ranked 1-8 by final SEC record:
- 7-1 UGA: 7-1 UGA
- 7-1 Ole Miss: 6-2 OU
- 7-1 aTm: 3-5 LSU
- 6-2 Texas: 2-6 UF
- 4-4 Tennessee: 2-6 UK
- 3-5 LSU: 1-7 USCe
- 2-6 UK: 1-7 MissSt
- 1-7 MissSt: 0-8 Arkansas
Those two league schedules aren't remotely comparable. Ole Miss played only two teams that finished with non-losing records in the SEC. Florida played five. We all need to accept the new reality that there are massive variations in the difficulty of league schedules even WITHIN the leagues.
Here are Florida's and Ole Miss's SEC opponents ranked 1-8 by final SEC record:I don't know that UF had the toughest nor that Ole Miss had the easiest SEC schedules though they likely did. For comparison, here are the toughest (UW) and easiest (IU) B1G schedules this year, similarly laid out:
- 7-1 UGA: 7-1 UGA
- 7-1 Ole Miss: 6-2 OU
- 7-1 aTm: 3-5 LSU
- 6-2 Texas: 2-6 UF
- 4-4 Tennessee: 2-6 UK
- 3-5 LSU: 1-7 USCe
- 2-6 UK: 1-7 MissSt
- 1-7 MissSt: 0-8 Arkansas
Those two league schedules aren't remotely comparable. Ole Miss played only two teams that finished with non-losing records in the SEC. Florida played five. We all need to accept the new reality that there are massive variations in the difficulty of league schedules even WITHIN the leagues.
the lesson is........... when ya get a lucky draw and a weak conference sched, take full advantage. Don't "F" it upAlso, the lesson is-- never schedule a potential loss.
Let's just get to 20 team conferences already, and split into 2 divisions again, and that will quell most of this.yup, so (2) 20-team TV negotiations and (4) 10-team conferences (regional hopefully)
(Not that I like 20 team conferences, but if it is inevitable....just do it)
Also, the lesson is-- never schedule a potential loss.yes, that lesson has be taught by many for many decades. Some just don't learn because.......... $$$ - TV money
A solution that isn't practicable or likely is not a solution.Let a fella dream for two freakin' minutes, would ya?
Well...I suspect Texas made pretty good TV revenue from that loss. And they didn't know when they scheduled it that it might be the difference maker regarding its entry into the CFP.The game was at Ohio State, so Texas made nothing from it.
Smaller conferences, conference champions only. Problem solved.
Also, the lesson is-- never schedule a potential loss.I'm with you and that is why I started this thread. The question, to me, is this: Would Texas be in if they had beaten GaSo or some other cupcake at home instead of losing in Columbus back in week #1.
The game was at Ohio State, so Texas made nothing from it.I don't believe either of those statements
But also, the TV revenue is the same no matter who you schedule. So even with Ohio State making the return trip to Austin next year, Texas won't make any more or less than if they scheduled Wake Forest.
yes, that lesson has be taught by many for many decades. Some just don't learn because.......... $$$ - TV moneyThe TV contracts are the TV contracts, regardless of who Texas schedules. The money is the same regardless.
I don't believe either of those statementsThen you don't understand how home-and-home games work.
I'd guess that during negotiations for the future TV contract with the conference - future schedules are looked at and discussed
the Big Ten's whining didn't force the SEC to go to 9 conference games - the future TV contract forced the SEC
The game was at Ohio State, so Texas made nothing from it.
But also, the TV revenue is the same no matter who you schedule. So even with Ohio State making the return trip to Austin next year, Texas won't make any more or less than if they scheduled Wake Forest.
I'd guess that during negotiations for the future TV contract with the conference - future schedules are looked at and discussedThree things.
the Big Ten's whining didn't force the SEC to go to 9 conference games - the future TV contract forced the SEC
This isn't the NFL, where everyone is pretty good, even the "bad" teams.
The TV contracts are the TV contracts, regardless of who Texas schedules. The money is the same regardless.Same in the B1G. The TV money is split and Ohio State doesn't get a bonus for bringing in LOTS of eyeballs by scheduling Texas, same thing for Michigan when the B1G TV contract gets to broadcast the OU/M return game.
I believe that going forward the SEC is going to have a requirement for everyone to play one P4 OOC, but that could be Boston College or Syracuse just as easily as it could be Ohio State, and the requirement would be satisfied.This is a valid concern. I think that the B1G requirement is worded the same as the SEC requirement so yeah, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Michigan could replace each other with BC, Syracuse, etc. That is a potential problem.
Right.Well the game's likely going to be a sellout regardless, so gate receipts will be the same either way, it essentially acts in the same way as a fixed cost.
Now, the gate stands to be a much bigger take for Ohio State coming to Texas, rather than, say, Fresno State. But even that, I'm not sure how it works. It's possible the face value of the tickets is all a university really takes in, and those tend to be rather stable. The secondary market, though.....hoo boy.....those ticket prices go through the roof when an Ohio State comes to town.
Same in the B1G. The TV money is split and Ohio State doesn't get a bonus for bringing in LOTS of eyeballs by scheduling Texas, same thing for Michigan when the B1G TV contract gets to broadcast the OU/M return game.Yup, this is the exact problem that ESPN/Disney and the other network partners need to be concerned about.
That said, the overall contracts are worth more because of games like tOSU/TX and OU/M but 1/16 (TX/OU) and 1/18 (tOSU/M) isn't enough to make it worthwhile. Which leads to this: This is a valid concern. I think that the B1G requirement is worded the same as the SEC requirement so yeah, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Michigan could replace each other with BC, Syracuse, etc. That is a potential problem.
Texas charges the same for a big game ticket per seat as a game against Mississippi state or Kentucky?No you're right, there's a difference. But when something like 80% of the stadium is sold as season tickets, that price is already incorporated into the total. Officially there's a difference, but it's not like the vast majority of the stadium is able to buy a ticket to Ohio State, but opt out for Syracuse, or vice versa, depending on face value ticket price. They've already bought the season ticket regardless of opponents.
or a big game when tOSU comes to town compared to a weak non-con opponent?
Huskers always jacked prices for the texas game in Lincoln
No you're right, there's a difference. But when something like 80% of the stadium is sold as season tickets, that price is already incorporated into the total. Officially there's a difference, but it's not like the vast majority of the stadium is able to buy a ticket to Ohio State, but opt out for Syracuse.I think this is somewhat like TV contract revenue in that it doesn't make much difference when thinking of one game but it does make a difference in the long run. Replacing tOSU with BC next year might not hurt Texas' revenues but 20 years of playing BC (or BC equivalents) instead of tOSU (or tOSU equivalents) is going to make a difference.
And the price of the season tickets has gone up almost every year for the past 30, regardless of the home schedule, so it's not like the quality of the home schedule affects season ticket sales.
I think this is somewhat like TV contract revenue in that it doesn't make much difference when thinking of one game but it does make a difference in the long run. Replacing tOSU with BC next year might not hurt Texas' revenues but 20 years of playing BC (or BC equivalents) instead of tOSU (or tOSU equivalents) is going to make a difference.True. But what's the delta between the extra revenue from playing Ohio State versus Syracuse, or getting additional games in the playoffs? Because that's the real tradeoff here.
Ed Zachery - it's not tuff for TV contract negotiators to use past TV ratings and project future TV ratingsBut that's exactly the point being made here.
I'm not sure programs will alter scheduling as a result of Texas missing the CFP. Maybe.I'm almost certain Texas will. Sarkisian already made comments along those lines, and he wouldn't say anything the AD hadn't blessed.
I understand making comments about it, but changing scheduling seems like a separate thing. He's trying to jaw his way in. I guess we'll see.Oh he's definitely politicking.
Be interesting to list out the major program games scheduled in the future and see if they start to be redone. UGA won't drop Tech, but they could drop Clemson, Ohio State, and FSU.
We might see more of the kickoff specials one and done?
I think its probable that Texas will not be in the playoffsIn recent years, Alabama has been one of the better programs in the SEC in terms of scheduling at least one presumably tough OOC game each year.
If I were in charge of scheduling for Texas Id make sure no blue blood team was ever scheduled for the first game. the reward just dosent add up
Id adapt the Alabama approach schedule 3 cubcakes at the beginnng of the season and a 4th cubcake towards the end of the season
anyway its a shame to have to do this but the current system requires it
In recent years, Alabama has been one of the better programs in the SEC in terms of scheduling at least one presumably tough OOC game each year.They also hosted Wisconsin this season, which, at the time it was scheduled, looked like a challenging game.
This year, Alabama played @ Florida State in its opening game. And lost.
In 2024, Alabama played Wisconsin in the 2nd game and South Florida, which occasionally jumps up and bites, in the 3rd game.
In 2023, Alabama played Texas in the 2nd game and South Florida in the 3rd game.
In 2022, Alabama played Texas in the 2nd game.
If you want to call Texas a cupcake . . . .
Yeah Alabama played Florida State. Presumably that game was scheduled well before FSU sucked.
How on earth did Alabama lose that game?
Bama does not shy away.neither does Texas but their coach is ready to change that
Maybe the same way that Texas lost to Florida?Maybe so but I think Florida is much better than FSU and the head-to-head would support that.
It will be interesting, the final selections. It all hinges on the competition wrt teams like Vandy and Texas and OU et al. I predict the selections will be criticized, along with the rank ordering.
I'm a bit amused at the UGA position, being 3 now, and would be 3 later had they missed the CG (or if they win, might be 2). If they lose in the CG, their 2/3 slot drops to ... 6?
Oh he's definitely politicking.
But the reality is, in the current 12-team CFP landscape, it's the right thing to do, anyway.
That hasn't always been the case, actually. It wasn't the right thing in the 4-team playoff because the risk/reward ratio was different. In 2023 Texas playing, and beating, Alabama in the OOC schedule, is what put Texas into the playoffs.
But in a 12-team playoff the risk/reward calculation is very different. Pure W/L column appears to rule the day.
In some future 16-team playoff (or larger), those calculations probably change again.
But for now, scheduling a loss is a losing proposition.
I think the other thing that has really a hampered Texas' position is the fact that they played very poorly against Miss State and Kentucky, two teams with horrible records. I don't recall all their games either, but it seems like they had another close call against somebody they shouldn't have as well, plus the loss to Georgia that was a close game until the end.Oh yeah I'm not arguing against any of that, and I'm not arguing that Texas should be included. And I won't shed a tear if Texas is NOT included.
The MSU and UK games are telling of a team that is inconsistent. A&M basically got away with the same thing with SCAR, but you almost expect something like that on almost any good team at some point in the season. When it happens once, you're resilient and able to mount an impressive come-back. When it happens twice, even if you win, it's lack of consistency and signs of weakness.
and next season it could be a "yes"I don't think so. I think a 10-2, 2-SEC-loss Texas with wins over 3 Top 12 teams is going to get into the playoffs in any year, regardless of whether they beat Ohio State, or they beat Georgia State.
but, what if they don't have wins over top 12 teams (0)If Texas isn't beating Top 12ish SEC teams, then they're not beating the Ohio States of the world either, so in that case it'd be even better for Texas not to schedule a guaranteed OOC loss.
maybe there are 5 1-loss teams in the SEC and the other 2-loss team is OU with the head to head
it's improbable as hell, but.............
Anyway, I think we have a new question-- what does the committee do with Ole Miss?I'm guessing it won't happen. The big difference is it was a 4-team field then, and a 12-team field now.
Three seasons ago they ejected Florida State when their QB1 went down. Would they apply similar logic to a coachless team?
I'm guessing not, but is it possible?
I don't think so. I think a 10-2, 2-SEC-loss Texas with wins over 3 Top 12 teams is going to get into the playoffs in any year, regardless of whether they beat Ohio State, or they beat Georgia State.I agree with you. And I'll add to boot, think about this A&M team at 11-1. It's widely acknowledged that we did not have a very tough SEC schedule (after the fact). But they can't take away that we beat ND, at their house, in September. I'm not sure how the committee will end up slotting everybody after CCG weekend but some are saying we could still be inline for a bye if thing shake out just right. That ND win could end up helping us tremendously.
All that matters is the W/L column. So, never schedule a loss.
if Ole Miss is out, there's an SEC spot for the HornsYeah here's hoping! ;)
If Texas isn't beating Top 12ish SEC teams, then they're not beating the Ohio States of the world either, so in that case it'd be even better for Texas not to schedule a guaranteed OOC loss.I think his hypothetical wasn't a Texas team that lost to top-12ish teams it was a Texas team that got an easy SEC draw (al la Ole Miss) and simply didn't get many opportunities against top-12ish teams.
but, had A&M lost to ND, A&M would still be in the playoff at 10-2
I think his hypothetical wasn't a Texas team that lost to top-12ish teams it was a Texas team that got an easy SEC draw (al la Ole Miss) and simply didn't get many opportunities against top-12ish teams.Yeah, absolutely. It's all just a case of risk analysis. Where do the risks outweigh the benefits?
I do think that is a possibility. Lets say Texas has something like Ole Miss' schedule: They win one quality SEC game (say Oklahoma) and lose another (aTm) and don't play ANY other SEC teams with winning records and then they slip up and get upset by a losing SEC team (like UF this year). Now what? You have a 10-2 team with one good win (OU) one "quality" loss (aTm), one bad loss (UF) and nine wins over mediocre to bad teams. That Texas team *MIGHT* get left out but if that Texas team also beat Ohio State (or some other highly ranked OOC opponent) they are almost certainly in.
It seems like the committee has more-or-less made SoS a tiebreaker among teams with the same record. So beating a team like Ohio State would help Texas in that it likely makes them the highest ranked _ loss team. Even losing to Ohio State accomplishes that. Right now in the AP, Texas is #14 which makes them the highest ranked 3-loss team. But I already know your answer will be something to the effect that "Yeah, that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee." and that is a legitimate point.
I think with all of this discussion I can conclude that:It seems to me that at this point #1 is less likely than #4 and substantially less likely than the cumulative chances of #2, #3, and #4 which makes it basically a losing proposition.
- There are potential situations where playing (and winning) a high-end OOC game could help you (ie, OU this year because without that win over Michigan they'd be a LOT more likely to be ranked behind ND, Bama, and even Texas).
- There are potential situations where playing (and winning) a high-end OOC game really doesn't help (ie, tOSU this year).
- There are potential situations where playing (and losing) a high-end OOC game really doesn't hurt you (ie, tOSU if they had lost this year).
- There are potential situations where playing (and losing) a high end OOC game can hurt you (ie, Texas this year because at 10-2 with a home win over GaSo instead of a loss at tOSU they are probably the highest ranked 2-loss team, right ahead of the Sooners whom they beat H2H).
but, had A&M lost to ND, A&M would still be in the playoff at 10-2What a difference an extra point makes!
but, had A&M lost to ND, A&M would still be in the playoff at 10-2Would we really? I can easily see a case where we're not invited, just because our schedule was so weak (says others). Maybe not in this particular year, but it could happen.
gonna need 64 teamsNah. Anyone below the top 32 CFB programs are basically irrelevant. And why dilute the product more than you need to?
Anyway, I think we have a new question-- what does the committee do with Ole Miss?I'm going to join you in guessing not specifically because I think they'll use this the same way they use SoS, as a tiebreaker among teams with the same record. Thus, I absolutely think that if Ole Miss was 10-2 they would get dropped because there are enough 10-2 teams to fill all the slots without them but luckily for Ole Miss they aren't 10-2, they are 11-1 and there are plenty of slots for all of the 1-loss teams so the loss of their coach may ding their seeding but I do not think it will result in their exclusion.
Three seasons ago they ejected Florida State when their QB1 went down. Would they apply similar logic to a coachless team?
I'm guessing not, but is it possible?
as Afro knows - gotta have a few doormats to take perennial beatings so the blue bloods look betterWow... What fragile snowflakes their fans must be.
Oh yeah I'm not arguing against any of that, and I'm not arguing that Texas should be included. And I won't shed a tear if Texas is NOT included.
But I am saying that despite all that, a 10-2 Texas with a win over Georgia State rather than a loss to Ohio State, and with wins over top 12 Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Vanderbilt, isn't getting left out of the playoff. Nobody else has a resume' with wins like that.
And that's the point of this thread that medina brought up. Does it pay to schedule tough OOC games? For Texas, this season, the answer appears to be a resounding "no."
It's very simple.I mean we all know you are joking but isn't this where we're really headed? Maybe not exactly, but we will definitely at some point have something very close to this. Top 32 teams...awful lot of great CFB teams being left out of there. Michigan State...out. Ok State....out.
- We throw out all except the top 32 teams, and make a league out of them.
- Separate them into two conferences, with four divisions each.
- The only play each other; not any of the discarded teams.
- 17 game schedule.
- Play your division mates twice each season, and a collection of other teams once--schedule chosen by the league not the ADs--the rest of the season.
- Every division leader makes the playoffs.
- To ensure worthy teams aren't excluded, we'll have 3 additional teams from each conference make the playoffs. I don't like the term "at large", so let's pick something more fun... How about "wild card"?
- The top team in each conference gets a bye. The rest of the playoff games are giving home field advantage to the team with the best record.
- When we get things down to the end, we'll have the two top teams from each conference play for the College Football National Championship. Wait... That name is WAY too long. But you know, college football used to be all about the bowls. So maybe we'll name a bowl after it. But what term is superlative enough to explain how big of a bowl game this is? Hmmm... Let's go with "Super Bowl".
See! I've just fixed college football.
I mean we all know you are joking but isn't this where we're really headed? Maybe not exactly, but we will definitely at some point have something very close to this. Top 32 teams...awful lot of great CFB teams being left out of there. Michigan State...out. Ok State....out.Yes, joking, but I'm known for a certain type of humor...
I'm biased because I love great OOC matchups, but I don't think that Texas' experience with TOSU this season is enough data for anyone to state decisively that scheduling OOC patsies is the way to go.The risk/reward ratio just isn't there. Too much risk, too little chance of reward. It's not binary, there are a range of outcomes possible. But I believe the negative or neutral outcomes have a >50% chance of being realized, which is all I need to see, to make a decision.
And my comment echoes your last one: "For Texas, this season, the answer appears to be a resounding 'no.'"
Like I said, that wasn't true in the 4-team playoff. Texas playing Alabama was worth the risk in 2023. But the 12-team playoff field changes the calculation.only because the Horns won that game - if they had lost and then lost to Oklahoma as they did - they would have had 2 losses
only because the Horns won that game - if they had lost and then lost to Oklahoma as they did - they would have had 2 lossesNo what I'm saying is, even with a win, Texas was still very much on the bubble that year. A win over Wake Forest instead of Alabama and everything else playing out as it did, and Texas is out.
in the history of the 4-team playoff no 2-loss team made the playoff
when you can only afford a single loss, it's a poor risk to schedule a road game vs the #3 team
That's what Texas should do because it is Texas. That should be enough.The playoff has changed all of that. We can lament that this is what college football now is, but this is what college football now is.
*Curiously, VaTech had a substantially better 1990s than Texas did. And yet this is my impression of that program. So don't schedule patsies just to pad your record. Play good teams to prove you are good--or at least want to be.
No what I'm saying is, even with a win, Texas was still very much on the bubble that year. A win over Wake Forest instead of Alabama and everything else playing out as it did, and Texas is out.I see and understand
So the risk was worth it. That's the difference between a 4-team playoff where you need every edge to shine over other similar 1-loss teams, and a 12-team playoff where the committee's just sorting by W/L.
as Afro knows - gotta have a few doormats to take perennial beatings so the blue bloods look betterClearly Nebraska would be the cannon fodder, in an all Kings and Barons conference. :111:
Nah. Anyone below the top 32 CFB programs are basically irrelevant. And why dilute the product more than you need to?
as Afro knows - gotta have a few doormats to take perennial beatings so the blue bloods look better
Wow... What fragile snowflakes their fans must be.
The risk/reward ratio just isn't there. Too much risk, too little chance of reward. It's not binary, there are a range of outcomes possible. But I believe the negative or neutral outcomes have a >50% chance of being realized, which is all I need to see, to make a decision.Damned if you do,damned if ya don't
Oh he's definitely politicking.This strikes me not as a difference of system, but a difference of circumstance.
But the reality is, in the current 12-team CFP landscape, it's the right thing to do, anyway.
That hasn't always been the case, actually. It wasn't the right thing in the 4-team playoff because the risk/reward ratio was different. In 2023 Texas playing, and beating, Alabama in the OOC schedule, is what put Texas into the playoffs.
But in a 12-team playoff the risk/reward calculation is very different. Pure W/L column appears to rule the day.
In some future 16-team playoff (or larger), those calculations probably change again.
But for now, scheduling a loss is a losing proposition.
Yeah here's hoping! ;)Leaving them out was still pretty stupid, but it was a great way to get an expanded playoff.
Not really tough. Ole Miss would have earned that spot. And who's to say that their new coach can't coach them to win in the playoffs? That would be a heck of an assumption.
One thing I didn't mention is that for FSU, the committee got to see them play poorly and barely win against a not-great team in the ACC CCG without that QB, and that was used as evidence against the Noles. In this case, there's no evidence against Ole Miss as a Kiffinless team, so even less reasoning to keep them out.
I remain curious as to the impact on future scheduling. I know seeing the SEC going to 9 conference games and a required one more P4 will have an impact obviously. Do you think UGA is going to schedule 12 P4 opponents in 2030 or back off that? Heck, in 2027, they have Laville, FSU, and GaTech scheduled, plus 9 conference games, zero pastries.Man it could be tough for Georgia fans. It seems possible, and even likely, that y'all will just end up playing GaTech every year as your marquee OOC game. And I know you personally don't value that game very much.
Man it could be tough for Georgia fans. It seems possible, and even likely, that y'all will just end up playing GaTech every year as your marquee OOC game. And I know you personally don't value that game very much.Yeah, I'm sure there was a time when GT and Georgia were really competitive with each other in football, but simply put these programs are each heading in different directions despite GT being somewhat good the last several years. Nobody truly expects them to compete for much in the near future, and I've heard that the fan support is dwindling as the school itself becomes more elite and less blue-collar. Not sure how to phrase that truly, but I've heard there is a lot of Asians and other cultures that don't value sports that are becoming the majority.
if you're a team with 3 losses - it's tough to think you could pull off a run like Ohio St did last season in the playoffHorns have already beaten two of the playoff teams, and gave #1 a heck of run for their money, in their own stadium.
but, stranger things have happened
and it's more about getting another game in the playoff win or lose for the $$$
yup, gotta have a little luck to run off 3 in a row vs top 5-10 competition
Osborne said ya had to have a little luck to win a title back in the 70s, 80s, & 90s
Horns have already beaten two of the playoff teams, and gave #1 a heck of run for their money, in their own stadium.That reminds me a lot of some really great A&M teams that missed doing something special *by that much*. So many times we came up just a little short in one or two games where it was a crapshoot, or playing really well until some special player went down in the middle of the season. When Reed came up lame in the Texas game I thought to myself "here we go" but it seemed to be superficial and not serious. Same thing with Moss last year, we were never the same team after he went down.
He's not going to, at this point. He claims he likes challenges. He claimed he wanted to play in the CG. That is contrary to wishing he didn't have to play an elite opponent that might drop his standing in the CFP. Now, what he SAYS and really thinks, well...I'd say among Georgia fans, the concept of losing a big OOC game dropping you out of the CFP being "OK" makes you an outlier. Nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't say that attitude is representative of most helmet fans.
I'd rather play Oregon or Notre Dame or Ohio State OOC than Tech. I'd rather play either than Charleston S. If a loss drops UGA out of the CFP, OK with me.
Horns have already beaten two of the playoff teams, and gave #1 a heck of run for their money, in their own stadium.3 weeks in a row is a little different - hopefully the Horns will get their chance
I'd say among Georgia fans, the concept of losing a big OOC game dropping you out of the CFP being "OK" makes you an outlier. Nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't say that attitude is representative of most helmet fans.
And it goes to my issue that the entire sport has now become "playoff or GTFO, who cares"... Back in the day, if UGA played a marquee OOC opponent and lost knocking them out of NC contention, they still had a path to the SEC championship, still had a path to a great bowl game, still had something to play for. All the helmets wanted to win the NC, but they also all knew it pretty much took perfection and maybe even a little luck. So I am not sure it was something that they viewed as "NC or bust".
Now, it's CFP or bust. You may not see it that way, but I'd say that most of your fellow helmet team fans do.
3 weeks in a row is a little different - hopefully the Horns will get their chanceI'd be shocked if Texas made it in.
I would note that Texas in a hostile environment played UGA almost even for three quarters. The game was in doubt. Then UGA got an onside kick recovery and the wheels came off.All Texas losses on the road, and the two OT wins against bad teams were also on the road.
In another hostile environment and with a relatively unexperienced QB, they lost to OSU by 7. Somehow they managed to lose to Florida, in another hostile environment.
Three losses - so nothing. When you lose a quarter of your games.....you really can't complain about not being in the playoff. The expansion from 4 to 12 teams made sense to eliminate the issue with those teams in the 5/6 range with one loss that were clearly good enough to compete for an NC, but didn't get included in the playoff. Not so we could start complaining about teams that finished 4th, 5th, or 6th in their own conference being excluded. That's just stupid.Literally nobody is complaining.
Literally nobody is complaining.
He's not going to, at this point. He claims he likes challenges. He claimed he wanted to play in the CG. That is contrary to wishing he didn't have to play an elite opponent that might drop his standing in the CFP. Now, what he SAYS and really thinks, well...As others noted, this is probably an outlier position even among UGA fans but I'll add something else:
I'd rather play Oregon or Notre Dame or Ohio State OOC than Tech. I'd rather play either than Charleston S. If a loss drops UGA out of the CFP, OK with me.
I'd say among Georgia fans, the concept of losing a big OOC game dropping you out of the CFP being "OK" makes you an outlier. Nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't say that attitude is representative of most helmet fans.
And it goes to my issue that the entire sport has now become "playoff or GTFO, who cares"... Back in the day, if UGA played a marquee OOC opponent and lost knocking them out of NC contention, they still had a path to the SEC championship, still had a path to a great bowl game, still had something to play for. All the helmets wanted to win the NC, but they also all knew it pretty much took perfection and maybe even a little luck. So I am not sure it was something that they viewed as "NC or bust".
Now, it's CFP or bust. You may not see it that way, but I'd say that most of your fellow helmet team fans do.
Michigan fans are most certainly "complaining," which is what prompted me to initially pose the question.Huh? Medinabuckeye started this thread to pose the question "what should the committee do?"
Huh? Medinabuckeye started this thread to pose the question "what should the committee do?"and here we are, 16 pages later, discussing all sorts of college football stuff
And as far as I can tell, there's only been one post from one Michigan fan on this thread. It's on page 1 and it's SuperMario agreeing with MaximumSam that Michigan and Texas should not be included in the playoff.
Huh? Medinabuckeye started this thread to pose the question "what should the committee do?"I was listening to the Michigan podcasts after they lost to OSU, and they said that they don't want to play those games anymore because they'd be in the playoffs without the Oklahoma loss. One of them pointed out that Oklahoma really didn't gain anything by beating Michigan either, since they'd be a 2-loss SEC team either way. So I posed the question in this here thread that Medina started as to whether or not OSU and Oklahoma gained anything by beating these teams instead of North Texas and Central Michigan.
And as far as I can tell, there's only been one post from one Michigan fan on this thread. It's on page 1 and it's SuperMario agreeing with MaximumSam that Michigan and Texas should not be included in the playoff.
I was listening to the Michigan podcasts after they lost to OSU, and they said that they don't want to play those games anymore because they'd be in the playoffs without the Oklahoma loss. One of them pointed out that Oklahoma really didn't gain anything by beating Michigan either, since they'd be a 2-loss SEC team either way. So I posed the question in this here thread that Medina started as to whether or not OSU and Oklahoma gained anything by beating these teams instead of North Texas and Central Michigan.Does that constitute complaining? Seems like just pointing out something factual to me. Which is precisely why Medina started this thread.
The issue here is about scheduling OOC, not whether Texas should be a CFP team.I never wanted expansion, maybe 6 going in though,more teams = more questions/problems/complaints but no real answers.94 made a valid point Horns beat two of teams in the P.O. and took the defending NCs to the final snap on the road. So now SoS has to factored in rather than H2H because the Horns scheduled Big where the others MAYBE not so much
I don't listen to Michigan podcasts.You're to be commended :67:
Does that constitute complaining? Seems like just pointing out something factual to me.Only I don't think it is factual as we discussed early on in this thread. IF Michigan was 10-2 with a home win over Incarnate Word instead of a road loss to Oklahoma, I don't think they'd be in anyway. Their loss to #1 Ohio State would be forgiven but their best win would still be Washington (I think). Washington is a 5-4/8-4 unranked team. I just don't think that would get them in this year because there are 10-2 teams with better wins.
But I do like your point about there also being a question as to whether or not it's good for OU and OSU.This is an important point because obviously 'benefit to the winner' is the offset to 'detriment to the loser' in the risk/reward calculus.
It just struck me that there is a team that has a pretty good chance to benefit from Circumstances pretty similar to Texas a few years back.Miami is ranked behind ND by a few spots, with the exact same record and a H-H win.
if Miami had not scheduled Notre Dame, any argument for the playoff would be close to dead in the water. But now they have the same record, our resume that isn’t notably worse than the Irish, and there’s a decent chance that forces the committee to put the hurricanes above them in most any configuration. And that might make all the difference this year.
The only problem with your analogy is that out of 32 NFL teams you have a lot of variety on who wins the SB every year. Sure, there was a bit where the Patriots were pretty dominate, and then you have KC and the Eagles now, and at times past you had SF and DAL and some other teams. But if you look at it over a 30 year cycle there are a lot of teams winning it, or at least playing for it. Even within the conferences you have teams that win their conference that never sniff the SB.
Now it's been NFL'd. I'm not speaking from experience since I don't root for an NFL team, but it strikes me that for fans of 31 teams, the season ends in tears every year. There's only one goal, and only one team can achieve it. Everybody else fails. That used to be what cfb cleverly avoided, but has fallen victim to now.
Only I don't think it is factual as we discussed early on in this thread.That's fine but your opinion is no more nor less valid than their opinion that they WOULD get in. I don't view a Michigan fan opining that this could be the case, as complaining. Do you?
That's fine but your opinion is no more nor less valid than their opinion that they WOULD get in. I don't view a Michigan fan opining that this could be the case, as complaining. Do you?
There are other ways to complain, but simply voicing that opinion, isn't one of them.
And as to debating that opinion, well, Notre Dame is an excellent example of a 2-loss team that lost to the only two good teams it played and yet is still very much in the CFP discussion. I think Michigan would be as well.
I was listening to the Michigan podcasts after they lost to OSU, and they said that they don't want to play those games anymore because they'd be in the playoffs without the Oklahoma loss. One of them pointed out that Oklahoma really didn't gain anything by beating Michigan either, since they'd be a 2-loss SEC team either way. So I posed the question in this here thread that Medina started as to whether or not OSU and Oklahoma gained anything by beating these teams instead of North Texas and Central Michigan.So flip the script... You say that if they'd scheduled a patsy, then they'd be 10-2 but they'd have an extraordinarily weak 10-2 resume, as medina points out below.
Only I don't think it is factual as we discussed early on in this thread. IF Michigan was 10-2 with a home win over Incarnate Word instead of a road loss to Oklahoma, I don't think they'd be in anyway. Their loss to #1 Ohio State would be forgiven but their best win would still be Washington (I think). Washington is a 5-4/8-4 unranked team. I just don't think that would get them in this year because there are 10-2 teams with better wins.
Texas is clearly different. If you replaced their road loss to tOSU with a home win over Incarnate Word then they'd be a 10-2/6-2 team with wins over ranked OU, Vandy, and aTm teams and a "quality" loss at Georgia. Their only weakness would be their bad loss to Florida. Their H2H wins over Vandy and Oklahoma would probably keep them above the Commodores and Sooners and they would likely be in. This is an important point because obviously 'benefit to the winner' is the offset to 'detriment to the loser' in the risk/reward calculus.
For Ohio State this year, there is no material benefit but Ohio State is an unusual case as an undefeated team. If you replaced the win over Texas with a win over Incarnate Word, Ohio State *MIGHT* drop to #2 but it would be irrelevant because they'd still be playing a CG against #1 for the #1 seed so no benefit.
Oklahoma is a different question:
In the last CFP rankings the Sooners were the highest ranked 2-loss team. Would OU be the highest ranked 2-loss team without the Michigan win? I don't know. They'd still have better wins than Notre Dame and a H2H win over Bama but I don't know. Their case is definitely stronger WITH the Michigan win than it would be WITHOUT it.
That's fine but your opinion is no more nor less valid than their opinion that they WOULD get in. I don't view a Michigan fan opining that this could be the case, as complaining. Do you?That could be argued all day. I'll also clarify that I'm not concerned at all with "Texas" nor "Michigan". Those are just examples to me because the issue at hand isn't just about those teams and this year it is the long-term issue of scheduling and, like you, I feel that the committee should avoid discouraging games like TX/tOSU and OU/M because they are good for the sport and ratings and whatnot.
There are other ways to complain, but simply voicing that opinion, isn't one of them.
And as to debating that opinion, well, Notre Dame is an excellent example of a 2-loss team that lost to the only two good teams it played and yet is still very much in the CFP discussion. I think Michigan would be as well.
Miami is ranked behind ND by a few spots, with the exact same record and a H-H win.And we’ll see how things fall in the rankings that count.
That could be argued all day. I'll also clarify that I'm not concerned at all with "Texas" nor "Michigan". Those are just examples to me because the issue at hand isn't just about those teams and this year it is the long-term issue of scheduling and, like you, I feel that the committee should avoid discouraging games like TX/tOSU and OU/M because they are good for the sport and ratings and whatnot.
That said, I still don't think Michigan would be in at 10-2 with a win over Incarnate Word replacing the road loss to OU. Based on last week (because this week isn't out yet, here are the 2-loss P4/ND teams:
- #8 9-2 Oklahoma - Losses to #16 TX and #7 Ole Miss, wins over #10 Bama, #15 M, #19 TN
- #9 9-2 Notre Dame - Losses to #3 aTm and #12 Miami, wins over #17 USC and #22 Pitt
- #10 9-2 Bama - Losses to #8 OU and nr FSU, wins over #4 UGA, #14 Vandy, #19 TN
- #12 9-2 Miami - Losses to nr L'Ville and #21 SMU, wins over #9 ND and #22 Pitt
- #14 9-2 Vandy - Losses to #10 Bama and #16 TX, wins over . . . crickets (now TN)
- #15 9-2 Michigan - Losses to #8 OU and #17 USC, wins over . . . crickets
- #18 9-2 Virginia - Losses to nr NCST and nr Wake, wins over . . . crickets
- #23 9-2 GaTech - Losses to nr NCST and #22 Pitt, wins over . . . crickets
The committee clearly values quality wins. Vandy, Michigan, Virginia, and GaTech were the last four 2-loss P4 teams because they don't have quality wins. That is why I just don't see any way for Michigan to get in even if they hadn't played Oklahoma. Now if they had beaten Oklahoma, I think they'd be in.
I hate to defend Notre Dame but they didn't lose to the only two good teams they played. At least that isn't how the committee will see it. In the committee's eyes they have quality wins over ranked USC and Pitt teams and no bad losses.
The only problem with your analogy is that out of 32 NFL teams you have a lot of variety on who wins the SB every year. Sure, there was a bit where the Patriots were pretty dominate, and then you have KC and the Eagles now, and at times past you had SF and DAL and some other teams. But if you look at it over a 30 year cycle there are a lot of teams winning it, or at least playing for it. Even within the conferences you have teams that win their conference that never sniff the SB.
In College FB it's mainly about 5 teams that win in any given year, 5 that win in the other 50% of the time, and about 10-15 who *may* have a slim chance of even competing for it every 20 years. Look at the last 30 year cycle. It's all Ohio State, Alabama, USC, OU, Texas, USC. Florida and Florida state are the only "new comers" in this group with 3. Clemson may be about the only outlier.
BRAD has pointed this out many times but if you're a fan of almost any other school outside of the Top Ten you have almost no chance. And even when you have a good/great season you have to beat the competition and then the polls to have any shot.
The only problem with your analogy is that out of 32 NFL teams you have a lot of variety on who wins the SB every year. Sure, there was a bit where the Patriots were pretty dominate, and then you have KC and the Eagles now, and at times past you had SF and DAL and some other teams. But if you look at it over a 30 year cycle there are a lot of teams winning it, or at least playing for it. Even within the conferences you have teams that win their conference that never sniff the SB.
In College FB it's mainly about 5 teams that win in any given year, 5 that win in the other 50% of the time, and about 10-15 who *may* have a slim chance of even competing for it every 20 years. Look at the last 30 year cycle. It's all Ohio State, Alabama, USC, OU, Texas, USC. Florida and Florida state are the only "new comers" in this group with 3. Clemson may be about the only outlier.
BRAD has pointed this out many times but if you're a fan of almost any other school outside of the Top Ten you have almost no chance. And even when you have a good/great season you have to beat the competition and then the polls to have any shot.
Oh and Pitt isn't ranked.I was basing it off of last week's rankings.
That's all fine. And yet I still wouldn't characterize people opining that Michigan would be in if they'd played a patsy and won, rather than a good team and lost, as "complaining."Yeah, I'm not concerned with the 'complaining' argument.
Which was the entire reason I stated what I stated.
Despite Texas being involved in this particular conversation, I don't really care about the specifics and I'd certainly understand if/when Texas is left out.
Like you I'm more interested in the academic discussion at hand. And I think it's possible and even likely that teams will start canceling tough OOC games if they don't appear to be rewarded by the CFP.
Upthread, however, @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) presented an argument that OU would be out without the win over Michigan. I think there are some weaknesses to that argument but if he is right and if Michigan would be out regardless then the M/OU game results in a net +1 CFP appearances. That is a counterbalance to the TX/tOSU game being a net -1.Yeah I saw it. I don't agree. But there's no way to prove it either way, unlike Texas-Ohio State, which is pretty obvious.
Yeah I saw it. I don't agree. But there's no way to prove it either way, unlike Texas-Ohio State, which is pretty obvious.Yeah, I mentioned that there are some weaknesses to the argument because I don't agree either. Oklahoma would still have a H2H over Bama and a win over TN although TN might be unranked after losing to Vandy so that could lose some luster.
Upthread, however, @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) presented an argument that OU would be out without the win over Michigan. I think there are some weaknesses to that argument but if he is right and if Michigan would be out regardless then the M/OU game results in a net +1 CFP appearances. That is a counterbalance to the TX/tOSU game being a net -1.
Yeah I saw it. I don't agree. But there's no way to prove it either way, unlike Texas-Ohio State, which is pretty obvious.Just to be fair, I did NOT make the argument that OU would be out without the Michigan win. The win over Bama is significant. However I said it would be a noticeable blow to their resume.
The NFL has nothing but the SuperBowl. Everything else is failure. A SB ring is the singular goal of professional football. College football had a lot of things that felt like success. Now, nobody cares about any non-CFP bowl, certainly not the players who won't even play in them, and that's a big reason why fans don't care anymore either. All the hoopla is around the CFP. Some of those formerly prestigious bowls, I think, have been folded into the CFP, meaning they're no longer an end to themselves, they're just another step on the way to the only thing that matters anymore, the NC game.Part of the issue with the CFP, to me, is that it has literally sucked ALL the air out of the room and from the standpoint of media coverage, it's all-CFP, all the time.
The risk/reward ratio just isn't there. Too much risk, too little chance of reward. It's not binary, there are a range of outcomes possible. But I believe the negative or neutral outcomes have a >50% chance of being realized, which is all I need to see, to make a decision.
Like I said, that wasn't true in the 4-team playoff. Texas playing Alabama was worth the risk in 2023. But the 12-team playoff field changes the calculation.
And in a future potential 16-team playoff it'll possibly change again.
But right now, in the 12-team playoff world, it's just not worth the risk. Scheduling a loss eliminates all margin of error. Why would you do that, when you have a choice not to?
Furthermore, silly Aggie, I just counted the Superbowl winners and NC winners in college for the past 25 years. They both have the same number of unique winners, 13. So in modern times, your assertion that a wider variety of teams win the SB than an NC in cfb is false. 13 unique teams have claimed all 25 titles in both the NFL and college.Well, 13 out of 32 is a slightly different proportion than 13 out of ~130...
Also, I appreciate how you left out LSU, who's on that list more times than anybody not named Alabama or Ohio State :93:
That's bad for the programs for which a run at a national title is a pipe dream--or even just a long shot, although IU is showing us that there really shouldn't be that barrier for any team...as long as they can afford it.IU isn't just a matter of money, it seems to be a matter of catching legitimate lightning in a bottle from a coaching hire perspective. They're definitely overperforming their talent level. IU still doesn't IMHO have an actual NC-worthy roster.
Well, now you're just sounding like a Purdue fan. IU's schedule hasn't been a murderer's row, but it's also not like they've skated by against inferior teams. They are destroying bad teams, as a good team should do. A useful measuring stick is UVA. Much different kind of "not that impressive."Well, I might be sounding like a Purdue fan... Because I'm a Purdue fan :57:
I'm genuinely curious to see how things go this weekend. I think Ohio State is the better team, but I'm not 100% sure of it.
This isn't the perennial doormat. Underestimate IU at your own risk. Are they better than OSU? I don't think so, but their resume this season suggests they are a top flight team.IU as a program is a perennial doormat. The 2025 Hoosiers aren't, as they're 12-0. You're distracting yourself.
Nah, I know exactly what I'm talking about. You were suggesting that this change to the system is bad for IU because they will have to play real competition. Maybe they win, maybe they lose, but the idea that they can't take real competition because of their history ignores what this team is this year.Oh, I thought I knew what I meant more than you do.
Tell me they wouldn’t match A&M up with ND in the first round ? We’ve already played.They tipped their hand by jumping Bama over Notre Dame.
[img width=273.619 height=257]https://i.imgur.com/8I2CKZq.png[/img]
Indiana's improvement started long before Cignetti, it just didn't show up on their record because of the juggernaut of the B1G East schedule. It all started with Terry Hoepner. OSU hired Kevin Wilson for a reason. That reason was that his Indiana teams were taking Urban's OSU teams to the wire.:017: Hoeppner died in'07,Wilson left Oklahoma as OC and became HC at Indiana before the '11 season
Now look up the total number of teams that PLAYED for the SB, and lost. Sure, you’ll have your NE that lost several and won several but you’ll also have the Bears and SF and all the other teams. I’m betting you’ll have at least 20-25 teams out of 32 and reached the SB. Hell, 30 years ago I think the Cowboys are in the W column. And then if you look at all the teams that reached their conference championship or at least had a good season and were in contention I think you’ll capture everyone except the Browns. Texans may have even reached the CCG,I really don’t follow them very much.
Now look at CFB, a team like Ole Miss has never played in the SEC CCG in 30+ years, hasn’t won a conference title since the 1960’s. Same for Kentucky. The system never works for these teams, even in the pre-BCS era, the 4 team playoff, the BCS era. Arkansas has been lucky to reach the CCG 3 times, but hasn’t won the conference since the SWC in maybe 1990.
Well, 13 out of 32 is a slightly different proportion than 13 out of ~130...
You and @Gigem (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1706) both pointed this out, and I understand your point. But I don't think it's relevant to my response to his original sentiment. I perceived his comment as a statement about the raw number of fan-bases which can be "satisfied" in a given year over a period of time, which I didn't consider germane to the percentage it represents of total fan-bases. Over a 25 period of time, 13 NFL fan-bases "won." The way things are looked at now, only 13 cfb fan-bases "won" over the last 25 years, same as the NFL. But there are a lot more actual fan-bases which felt like they were having a blast during that time, because we didn't always exist in this CFP hell-scape. If I'm misunderstanding something wrt yall's statements about the percentages, my apologies.Yeah, I think part of the point in throwing out the proportions were related to the fact that in the NFL, every team is relevant. Even the perennially bad teams are usually talented enough to knock off powerful teams on a regular basis, because of the draft, salary cap, etc. In CFB, 80% of the sport or more are irrelevant to the national championship discussion.
Regardless, my larger point was that the old bowl system used to accommodate and allow for teams with good seasons to get a good bowl berth and celebrate something, and that now the playoff system kills the vibes for everything but the CFP winner.
Yup, Texas and Michigan positioned outside the "danger zone" of potentially being included.I don't usually watch Cowherd but a YouTube suggestion popped up last night of him talking to Urban Meyer. They were talking about Texas getting punished for playing a challenging game and Urban said almost exactly what we've been saying in this thread. His example was Old Dominion instead of Georgia Southern or Incarnate Word but he said that Old Dominion was going to get really popular as a team to schedule and suggested that Ohio State and Texas might even cancel their game next year. I don't know if it will be that fast but I do anticipate a general shift as it sinks in for AD's and coaches that the committee may claim that they value SoS but not enough to make it worthwhile.
Next up, we'll see whether or not they stick to the "CCG losers won't be punished" statements they've put forth in the past. If Alabama loses they'll have a 3rd loss and the loss to FSU is even uglier than Texas' loss to Florida.
The B12 CCG is interesting too because whoever loses will be taking a second loss and then could start getting compared on SOS and SOR to all the other 2-loss teams.
Simple question: Why can't a playoff appearance, and chance to win it all, be > than some bowl game that is essentially meaningless. How many bowl games do you remember outside of the Big 6 or whatever they were called. Does anybody remember when A&M won the Galleryfurniture.com bowl from 2001? Probably not even our own fans.
If we win our 1st round PO game, and make it to the 2nd round, even if we lose the season will be considered a rousing success. And technically I think it is a bowl game. We've never played in the Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl. We've played in the Sugar (1998 and 1940), Orange (2020). Cotton bowl many times, but it's importance has waned over the last 30-40 years.
Guess we see things differently.Who was in the Orange Bowl in 2006? Don't cheat.
I remember virtually all the four BCS bowls each year, and a lot of the non-BCS ones too. They felt like a big deal.
I don't remember many of the first-round games of the 4-team playoff era. They were just stepping stones to the finale, we kind of all sense it's not what actually mattered, it was just the last mile to the real destination.
In the old system, lot of those bowl games were destinations in and of themselves. The media certainly treated/treats this way, which reinforces perception as to the meaningfulness of the games.
I know a lot of Texas fans who view their last two seasons as good seasons, making the semi-finals. But are they "successful?" Well, they don't tend to feel like Texas achieved something, which is different than having a good season, and it seems to be because there's only one thing to achieve now. That, of course, is anecdotal.
Simple question: Why can't a playoff appearance, and chance to win it all, be > than some bowl game that is essentially meaningless. How many bowl games do you remember outside of the Big 6 or whatever they were called. Does anybody remember when A&M won the Galleryfurniture.com bowl from 2001? Probably not even our own fans.Remember, we all come at this from very different viewpoints. A team like your Aggies (or Mike's Tigers, or various posters' Buckeyes) actually have a legitimate chance to make playoffs and win it all.
If we win our 1st round PO game, and make it to the 2nd round, even if we lose the season will be considered a rousing success. And technically I think it is a bowl game. We've never played in the Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl. We've played in the Sugar (1998 and 1940), Orange (2020). Cotton bowl many times, but it's importance has waned over the last 30-40 years.
You're still missing my point, but I don't know how to make it any clearer.I dunno IMHO it's still the thrill of the chase - the season itself.Look at just the last month and all the crazy-close games and teams involved. Sometimes it seems like even the N.C.G.s are anti-climatic. There are many contests that don't amount to a hill of beans that are still hotly contested all thru Sept/Oct/Nov.
To reiterate: Teams used to be able to go 10-2 and play a good bowl which got a lot of attention, players were excited for it, fans were excited for it, and talking heads hashed everything out before, during, and after. It felt like a good season had something tangible attached to it, even without an NC. The NFL is full of fans who are bummed that their team hasn't won a Superbowl in X amount of years, because that's all there is in that sport. And it's basically what we have now in cfb. Your insistence that things are bleak and hopeless for most teams now is something I agree with, and it's exactly my point. I'm saying it wasn't always this way, and the old way provided more excitement and fulfillment for a greater number of teams each year.
Who was in the Orange Bowl in 2006? Don't cheat.
Remember, we all come at this from very different viewpoints. A team like your Aggies (or Mike's Tigers, or various posters' Buckeyes) actually have a legitimate chance to make playoffs and win it all.Do you really think that Indiana fans aren't going to look back fondly on these playoff runs?
A team like mine... Does not. It would be magic to even make the playoff. But with the structural imbalances of the sport, there's no way we'd have a roster capable of winning 3-4 games in a row once we got there.
Look at Indiana, for example. They are in the middle of pretty much the most magical two years of their entire program. Does anyone truly believe they can win 3 in a row? Their talent level isn't nearly on par with the rest of the real contenders. Heck, they're lucky that the first round byes are changed to the top 4 teams... In last year's system, they'd have to win 4 in a row after they lose to OSU on Saturday.
So from the standpoint of that "other 80% of the sport", we think it's nice that y'all get your nice big shiny playoff and the CFP is all we're ever going to hear about for the rest of time. And we wonder... What are the rest of us even doing this for?
Do you mean for the 2006 season or the game actually played in January 2006?Impressive. I have no memory of either game, not even vaguely. So you can see how different our experiences are.
The game for the 2006 season was, I think, between Louisville and Wake Forest. I remember being interested in that one because Wake Forest hadn't done much lately. I even remember Dwayne Wade did the coin toss for some reason. I watched that in my recliner at home. Check the details, because I am pulling that from memory.
For the game played in 1/26, I actually did check that one because I thought I knew which game that was, but wasn't sure. That was one I was very excited for and remember very well, PSU vs. FSU. The Old Fart Bowl, JoePa vs. Bobby Bowden. Penn State had a linebacker named Tamba something and fans had posters that said "Tamba is hungry." I watched that game in a hotel room in College Station, where I was working at the time. Though I had to verify the team, I remember the game very well, and even I, an LSU guy, was very excited to watch it. I remember JoePa and Bowden walking off the field together at the end of the game, arms around each other.....I thought that was cool.
As I've previously mentioned, some of this almost certainly has to do with the fact I recall almost everything about football games back in those days better than recent games, because my interest has been waning for a decade now. However, I stand by my point that those games were genuinely more memorable to me, because those bowls were a bigger deal to make, and win. I don't remember semi-final games of the 4-team playoff era, and I sure don't remember first round games of the 12-team monstrosity last year. Couldn't even tell you who was in them, even though I watched all of them. Fact is, they didn't feel like they mattered.
Do you really think that Indiana fans aren't going to look back fondly on these playoff runs?Of course they will. But only the most delusional among them believe that they have a chance to win it all.
If Purdue had a similar run to Indiana the last two years, it would be held up next to the Drew Brees years as some of the best in school history
Of course they will. But only the most delusional among them believe that they have a chance to win it all.
Do you think they'd look back any less fondly if they lose on Saturday, Ohio State (rightly) would be in the BCS #1 vs #2 matchup, and they were shipped of to the "lowly" Rose Bowl for the first time in ~60 years? Or even if it was pre-BCS and OSU went to the Rose, and they were in the Citrus bowl? I think they'd hold it up right there with the way Purdue fans hold up 2000. It'd still be a 12-1 season counting the CCG, and a chance to make it 13-1.
The CFP still ultimately doesn't improve anything over that for Indiana, because I believe they can't win it. So it'll be a great--historic even--season for them. But not IMHO any better than if it ended in a marquee bowl. And they'd have a MUCH bigger chance of winning that marquee bowl game than winning the whole CFP tournament. Because facing one team, even as an underdog, is a lot less daunting than facing 3 straight legit teams.
What should the committee do with Michigan and Texas?????
_____________________
toss 'em out!!!
:96:
No decision will be universally accepted, as noted. I can argue both ways, as others have done. I'm willing to abide by whatever they decide, given I have no influence anyway. Of more interest is whether scheduling in the future changes.This is the purpose of this thread that mb started.
That would be ...Went ahead and fixed that for you.unfortunateinevitable.
Different sport, but the little guys in the NCAA Tourney look like they're having a lot of fun -- whilst knowing they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning it all.Basketball is a very different situation for a lot of reasons. Absent postseason tournaments, those teams would be sitting at home. There's nothing analogous to the bowls.
And IU has much better odds than they do.
Some folks value getting invited to the Big Boy Dance. (even if they don't/can't) win.
Basketball is a very different situation for a lot of reasons. Absent postseason tournaments, those teams would be sitting at home. There's nothing analogous to the bowls.
The closest analogy would be the NCAAT vs the NIT or CBI. One can certainly suggest that the continued expansion of the NCAAT has "crowded out" any competing postseason tournament.
Wink Twinkletoes Fuckface was run out of the NFL for a reason- he's fat over the hill washed up dirty ass cheeks.He makes faces like he swallowed tobacco juice and woke up on floor of a cab. He'd prolly would make a good movie double in a Deliverence/Slasher/Porky's remake
It sounds like Michigan and Texas will be playing a bowl game against each other.perfect