CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Four => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on November 29, 2025, 05:04:29 PM
-
Michigan and Texas are both 9-3. They'd lost OOC road games to Oklahoma and Ohio State respectively. If they had instead hosted cupcakes they'd be 10-2 and possibly playoff bound.
On one hand, you can say that they had their chances against CFP teams and lost.
OTOH, I'm uncomfortable discouraging games like M/OU and TX/tOSU.
What say you?
-
Rank them higher than you would if they'd played cupcakes and won
Yes, a little higher
Obviously, deserve to be ranked above a few 2 loss teams that played cupcakes
OU is not tOSU - Michigan's schedule is weaker than Texas - Texas handled OU
I'd give Texas a little more of a bump than I would Michigan
-
I'd put Texas in the CFP top 4 but it's possible that I'm biased... :)
No seriously though, if you don't put Texas into the CFP this year, then you're telling the Texas administration to cancel the future games against Ohio State, Michigan, and Notre Dame, and replace them with Georgia State like Ole Miss did.
-
like I said, "depends on the 2-loss teams and their resumes"
if a few of the highly respected 2-loss teams lose , then Texas has a path
-
like I said, "depends on the 2-loss teams and their resumes"
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
I agree and I posted this question to discuss exactly this issue.
The other thing that I'll add is that I'm not sure that the TX/M wins materially helped tOSU/OU. Obviously Ohio State is an unusual case since they are undefeated and you can't be higher than #1 but what about Oklahoma? Would they be materially lower if they had scheduled Georgia State?
If not then that is even worse because it means that there is a SUBSTANTIAL penalty for the loser (TX/M) and no real benefit to the winner.
-
It's tough.
For Texas, they have a couple of really solid wins, but losing to Florida is a bad loss, and one-score wins over Kentucky / MissSt aren't really all that impressive. And yeah, they beat the pants off bad teams like Arkansas, Sam Houston, UTEP, and SJSU, as they should, but they should also have beat the pants off Kentucky and MissSt. I don't fault them for losing on the road in a one-score game to OSU. But have they done enough to overcome the losses? I think so with wins over three teams currently ranked.
For Michigan, it's harder. The losses are worse. Yeah, there's no loss to a team like Florida, but every loss was a 2(+) score game. And who have they beaten? Their best win will likely be Washington who likely will be 8-4 and unranked after today. They haven't shown they can compete with the CFP field. They've lost by 2(+) scores to every ranked team they've played.
I agree with utee that the one thing we want to avoid is penalizing a team for scheduling tough.
But I think that when we look at 3-loss teams, Texas at least has an argument, whereas Michigan doesn't. But it'll ultimately come down to what slots are available. Texas will still likely be an "end of CFP field" team, i.e. 10-12 seed, and you have to ask whether there are teams that have proven themselves more worthy of that spot. Ultimately they're going to need some sort of carnage from a couple teams ahead of them to slide in...
-
The committee always hamstrings itself a little bit because their criteria is a bit nebulous and for whatever reason referring to objective rankings is controversial for whatever reason. But we have good objective rankings and it seems silly not to refer to them to at least see if a team is much better or worse than their record.
My favorite is SP+. Its ranking before this weekend:
- OSU
- Indiana
- Texas Tech
- Oregon
- ND
- Georgia
- TAMU
- Ole Miss
- Utah
- Bama
- Miami
- Oklahoma
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.
-
We don’t yet know their competition.
-
adding a few more 2-loss teams might help the Texas case
such as Oregon losing to Washington or Texas Tech/BYU
-
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.
-
I don't think the committee gives a 3-loss Texas the nod over a 2-loss with with an equal resume, just because of that non-con game vs tOSU, but they might because of the Texas helmet
now, head to head vs 3-loss teams, yes, Texas gets the nod
-
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.
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.
-
Oklahoma in some trouble.
-
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
same as it's always been
the expanded playoff has just moved the margin from 1 loss to 2 losses to maybe 3 losses
smart coaches have said, "Never schedule a loss"
-
Texas needs a Vandy win, but that also means another 10-2 team out there.
-
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?
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.
Scheduling tough games definitely has some risk and reward. If we take out the risk then it ultimately doesn't matter who wins, so that's not fun either. But this has been an issue since the beginning of time - it's not new to this year.
-
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.
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.
-
BTW why are we not including USC in this discussion?
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...
-
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.
Oh I'm not even arguing Texas should be included. Obviously I'd like to see Texas continue post-season play that matters, but if it doesn't happen I'm not gonna cry about it. Texas had its chances.
I'm speaking more to the academic question at hand, that medina has raised.
And unfortunately I think the answer is obvious-- there's no reason at all to schedule tough OOC competition. If the committee is just going to rank within the W/L columns, then there's zero benefit to it.
-
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.
You can't help your conference schedule, but you can absolutely determine your OOC schedule.
Like Fearless said-- Never schedule a loss. Or even a potential loss.
-
BTW why are we not including USC in this discussion?
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...
why are we including Michigan?
-
Horns should be in over a 2-loss Sooner squad
-
BTW why are we not including USC in this discussion?
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 first
-
Fair point. I just thought of TX and M first
Yeah 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'm just discussing the academics of it.
-
I haven't checked but, I'm guessing Texas has the best 3-loss resume
and you get the best resume by playing that tough non-con game
-
I haven't checked but, I'm guessing Texas has the best 3-loss 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'.
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?
-
I found the original poll question confusing, because I first thought this was a question about Michigan's easy Big Ten schedule.
It is clear to me that Michigan benefited from not having to play Indiana, Oregon, Iowa, ILL. The 2 teams Michigan played in the BigTen's top 6, USC and OHio St. Mich lost to badly. The only decent win Mich has is over Wahington at home. Michigan's record is a product of its easy schedule.
-
But Texas didn't win the tough non-con game. So it's not helping the resume'. It's torpedoing the resume'.
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?
what I'm sayin is that in a group of 3-loss teams, the tough non-con loss helps\
so, according to the question - you rank them higher
-
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.
-
yes, and why I would give the Horns the nod over the Sooners
-
I had a long-ass, thorough post on OU-Texas and Texas-UM, but it got errored out of existence, so fuck that.
Summary of Texas/UM: neither has a very strong resume to be in the playoff, so neither can complain if they're left out.
-
I'd put Texas in ahead of this
(https://i.imgur.com/rDbsk7O.png)
-
and in ahead of this 2-loss team
(https://i.imgur.com/fgqNjHK.png)
-
If Duke wins the ACC with 5 losses, do they put in 2 G5 conference champs at the expense of the ACC?
-
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.
-
Notre Dame needs to join the ACC
-
Notre Dame needs to pound sand.
-
the ACC would be a good place for them to do that - less competition, less TV revenue
-
The Atlantic Coast has a lot of sand.
-
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).
-
No three loss team should be on the playoff. I don’t like two loss teams in it either.
-
Having 2 L teams is inevitable because there aren't that many 0-1 L teams of course. But I agree 12 is too many, and we're headed to 16, and then 92.
$$$$$$$$$
I THINK if a really good team schedules an Ohio State and loses, they are unlikely to lose two more games. I THINK Texas is a tad short of "really good". Had they lost to say Oklahoma and UGA by 10, they'd have a better argument, I think. Will this impact future scheduling?
I think the weaker programs that are P4 will garner a LOT of interest for scheduling.
-
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.
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.
-
The Atlantic Coast has a lot of sand.
Nowadays, the pacific one does too.
-
There was a lot of beach erosion on the Atlantic Coast this year.
-
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.
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.
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.
A Texas win over OSU might be necessary to sway the voters if they'd gone 11-1 with two wins over OU and A&M and only one inexplicable loss to a bad Florida team. A Texas one-score loss to OSU might be excused by voters if they'd gone 11-1 with two wins over OU and A&M and blown out everyone else on the schedule. (Obviously not if OSU went undefeated--but if OSU lost two and Texas was being considered against other 1-loss teams for the NC.)
-
Even a small committee of "wise" college football people won't do much more than rank teams by number of losses.
As I've said ad nauseum, 7 year olds could do that.
Let's go back to the computers, please. The actual computers, not altered ones from the start. Their best, formulas - whatever they deem that to be.
AND
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.
But wouldn't an easy fix to that be to plug in a team's entire schedule, with future games inputted as a tie? Some average-score tie, like 24-24? That way it doesn't help or harm, but the SOS aspect is already baked into your ranking...everyone's ranking.
Yes, I'd like to see some real nuance and objectivity in the rankings. Yes, sometimes a 3-loss team is better than an undefeated team (with a radical difference in SOS). Yes, sometimes the loser of a h2h game should be ranked higher than the team who beat them, even with an equal number of overall losses.
Since humans suck so badly at this, let's stop having humans do it.
-
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.
-
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.
This tweaking, however logical, is just like the old BCS. Set up a system, it spits out something you don't like, tweak it to your liking. The system spits out something you don't like again, tweak it to your liking.
I hate how limited we (humans - ie decision-makers in a big-money enterprise) are when it comes to this stuff. It's like we insist on bias. Objectivity is the enemy, even when it's the stated goal, lol.
-
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.
-
The committee left out FSU when they didn't have a quarterback. Can they leave out Ole Miss for not having a coach?
-
I think a major thing people didn't like about the computers
I think a major thing people didn't like about the computers was that they didn't agree with the human polls.
If the objective computers didn't agree with the subjective polls, people got mad and demanded they be tweaked. Because they were obviously "wrong".
-
I think a major thing people didn't like about the computers was that they didn't agree with the human polls.
If the objective computers didn't agree with the subjective polls, people got mad and demanded they be tweaked. Because they were obviously "wrong".
And yet many people insist we aren't animals...
-
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.
I'm guessing OM is out.
-
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.
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.
-
Let's not pretend when they scheduled Tulane that OM thought they were getting a decent resume entry.
-
Let's not pretend when they scheduled Tulane that OM thought they were getting a decent resume entry.
Oh I know but . . .
Should we evaluate based on what they tried to do or how ot actually played out?
Same for Ohio State, should we evaluate based on scheduling Texas or this year's Texas.
What if Ole Miss had played Penn State? That is a lot more ambitious scheduling but in actual performance this year . . .
-
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.
-
How about on the flip side?
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?
-
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?
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?
The sooners gained some respect.
Ohio st. Could be ranked #2 behind the Hoosiers had they beaten central Michigan
-
Oh I know but . . .
Should we evaluate based on what they tried to do or how ot actually played out?
Duh, how it played out.
Iintentions are worthless
-
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.
Anyway, that's what the ACCCG reminds me of - one of those games.
-
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.
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.
-
How about on the flip side?
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?
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.
If they'd scheduled a patsy, 9-3 Texas into the CFP over 10-2 Oklahoma would be VERY easy to justify, with a H2H game where Texas beat them by 17. With them getting a decent OOC win, they have a resume worth actually having the discussion. Texas still has 3 marquee wins, but one bad loss (Florida). Oklahoma has two marquee wins, and zero bad losses.
OSU at 12-0 would be fine either way. As Fearless says maybe they'd be sitting at #2 instead of #1, but they could easily jump right to #1 this coming Saturday.
-
So, sorta?
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.
-
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.
Ours was Raycom I believe. Before JP.
-
So, sorta?
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.
Well, you asked if they gained anything, not whether they'd have chances to even play these teams...
I'm saying that Oklahoma has a better CFP resume for the committee at 10-2 with a win over Michigan than they would with a win over North Texas. And that it might be material, since one of the schools they'd be battling for one of those final spots is Texas, who beat them H2H.
-
It is also interesting because Ole Miss' schedule was remarkably weak.
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 can see a path where they drop OM just like they did to FSU two years ago.