CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Four => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on December 09, 2025, 10:29:12 PM
-
After thinking on it for a bit I'm actually less bothered by the result than I was initially.
My biggest concern was that Texas getting left out would send a message to coaches/ADs NOT to schedule difficult OOC games but there are some offsets:
- Miami would absolutely NOT be in without their H2H over Notre Dame.
- I honestly don't think Oklahoma would be in without their win over Michigan.
- There would be a strong case to exclude aTm if they didn't have that win over ND. They somehow managed to only play one of the SECs ranked teams and they lost that game by two scores. Without the ND win they would have ZERO wins over ranked teams just like Vanderbilt, Utah, you and I. You know what Vanderbilt, Utah, you, and I have in common? We aren't going to the playoffs.
- Ohio State would still be in without their win over Texas but they certainly wouldn't be #2 and they likely wouldn't be getting a first round bye.
Texas is a difficult team to judge. They have five games against ranked teams which is more than any of the other contenders and a LOT more than some of them. They also have a bad loss to unranked Florida, they won a couple of very close games against bad teams, and they got beaten badly by UGA (it is fair to point out that the game was close heading into the fourth quarter).
I'm going to vote that Texas should be in over Miami because, IMHO, Miami's overall resume simply isn't playoff worthy. Personally, I wouldn't even have Miami over ND despite the H2H. That game was a 3 point win by the home team which doesn't prove much and it was Miami's ONLY win over a ranked team. That would be fine if they were 12-0 and it would probably be ok if they were 11-1 but they lost not one but two games to unranked teams. Think of it this way: The at-large teams have a grand combined total of three losses to unranked teams and two of them were by the Hurricanes.
(https://i.imgur.com/C2EZaco.png)
-
There is a vote for ND over Bama, really?
I'd like to hear the justification for that because I don't see it.
Notre Dame has a 10 point win over #16. Alabama has a 16 point win over #14 AND a 3 point win over #3.
Notre Dame has two close losses to ranked teams. Alabama has one and a not-so-close loss (21) to the same #3 that they beat. Notre Dame didn't lose that badly to anyone but they also didn't play anyone that good so I see that as a bit of a wash.
Alabama's big weakness is their 14 point loss to nr FSU but they offset that with having an extra win over a ranked team. In terms of overall resume I just don't see the case for ND and the precedent of punishing Bama for a relatively tough schedule and rewarding ND for a relatively easy schedule would be bad for the sport.
-
Real quick, before I make my real point: you can't just lump UR 8-4 Louisville with UR 4-8 Florida. Those are not one and the same.
My main point is that a lot of this debate has to do with initial expectations vs early results.
ND was preseason #5 and promptly lost their first 2 games. Dismissed in people's minds. Underachievers. They're done.
Texas was preseason #1 and lost their only 2 games vs P4 teams, and famously fall out of the rankings. Dismissed. Underachievers. They're done.
Alabama is preseason #8. They go 10-2. That's about right. Aligned with preseason expectations. Looked great in the 2nd quarter of the season. Fell off late.
Miami is preseason #10. They go 10-2. That's about right. Aligned with preseason expectations. Both losses to good/not great UR teams. Left out of their CCG by some kind of stupid tie-breaker. CFP ranking should be 2nd behind H2H.
If you take all this into consideration, while it maybe shouldn't matter...it obviously does matter.
-
JMU and Tulane should sit home and watch.
-
The biggest error is the desire to push a ratings click bait grab of a weekly tv program, which is treated as testimony by the addict viewers. Then you go and change the dope. What do you expect?
-
There is a vote for ND over Bama, really?
I'd like to hear the justification for that because I don't see it.
Notre Dame has a 10 point win over #16. Alabama has a 16 point win over #14 AND a 3 point win over #3.
Notre Dame has two close losses to ranked teams. Alabama has one and a not-so-close loss (21) to the same #3 that they beat. Notre Dame didn't lose that badly to anyone but they also didn't play anyone that good so I see that as a bit of a wash.
Alabama's big weakness is their 14 point loss to nr FSU but they offset that with having an extra win over a ranked team. In terms of overall resume I just don't see the case for ND and the precedent of punishing Bama for a relatively tough schedule and rewarding ND for a relatively easy schedule would be bad for the sport.
ND
- Has a better record
- Would be favored on a neutral field
- Hasn't been blown out
- Didn't lose to team with a losing record
- Had two coinflip games with playoff teams and dominated the rest of their schedule
-
Message: Join a conference
-
I think ND and Bama both are flawed enough, in different ways, that if either was left out, you’d have a hard time arguing they should be in.
I think the baseline with Bama is a bit cleaner, but if ND was in and you made the pitch (played better, playing better, higher floor, etc), I wouldn’t be on the warpath.
I think this does kind of show the current size it about optimum. Like, if the line is this Miami-Bama-ND trio, that seems good. (I’m not in love with Oklahoma, but respect the resume)
-
Message: Join a conference
The only thing I hate about modern college football is the megaconferences. Pretty much just one program fighting that losing battle.
-
I just hate how Bama gets to have one more loss than everyone else before they are removed from consideration. It's always been that way.
They actually are what everyone thinks Notre Dame is.
-
Notre Dame has historically enjoyed that advantage as well. Let's not pretend that THIS year is not a huge exception.
Which is precisely why Notre Dame fans and administration are all hot and bothered. They're not supposed to be treated this way by the lessers.
-
?
- 2012 had to go undefeated to make their lone appearance in a BCS NCG
- 2018 had to go undefeated to make their first four team playoff.
- 2020 made it to the playoffs with 1 loss, but also won the ACC CCG.
- 2021 missed the four team playoff with only 1 loss
- 2024 made 12 team playoff with only 1 loss
- 2025 missed the 12 team playoff with 2 losses
-
ND
- Has a better record - Against a crap schedule.
- Would be favored on a neutral field - Yeah, and Ohio State was favored on a neutral field against Indiana.
- Hasn't been blown out - Hasn't played a team anywhere close to as good as the team that blew out Bama.
- Didn't lose to team with a losing record - Didn't beat many teams with winning records either on their crap schedule.
- Had two coinflip games with playoff teams and dominated the rest of their schedule - A schedule that you and 10 of your friends might go .500 against.
FIFY.
I just don't get the hate for Bama. I get the Bama fatigue but the argument that we should put in a team that got a lot of wins against a crap schedule is problematic for the sport because it will simply encourage crap schedules. Does anyone want that?
-
I just don't get the hate for Bama. I get the Bama fatigue but the argument that we should put in a team that got a lot of wins against a crap schedule is problematic for the sport because it will simply encourage crap schedules. Does anyone want that?
Hell no, but that's what we're gonna get.
I doubt you'll ever see OSU/Texas again after next year.
It will be curious to see if OSU/Bama keep their H/H on the schedule.
-
I just hate how Bama gets to have one more loss than everyone else before they are removed from consideration. It's always been that way.
They actually are what everyone thinks Notre Dame is.
I don't see that as a Bama issue nor even a helmet issue. It is a CG issue. Bama is getting one more loss because they had to play a CG and the committee basically didn't hold that against them. They did the same thing with Ohio State. The Buckeyes have the same record as Georgia and TxTech and those two are Conference Champions and yet Ohio State is ranked higher. Why? It isn't helmet, it is because Georgia and TxTech went 11-1 in the regular season and got their 12 win in the 'extra' game while Ohio State went 12-0 in the regular season and got their loss in the 'extra' game.
Before anyone says that it is a helmet issue and Ohio State is getting the same benefit as Bama please explain why SMU didn't get dinged for losing the ACCCG in 2024 and why TCU didn't get dinged for losing the B12CG in 2022. It is NOT a helmet/Bama issue. The committee has consistently shown that they don't want to punish teams for losing CGs.
-
I just don't get the hate for Bama. I get the Bama fatigue but the argument that we should put in a team that got a lot of wins against a crap schedule is problematic for the sport because it will simply encourage crap schedules. Does anyone want that?
I don't think this holds up much. ND was punished for trying to schedule good teams. Replace TAMU with Grambling State and they are in the playoffs. The whole thing comes down to schedule, but by the advanced stats ND was frankly better than Alabama and had a better record. So now we are just letting in inferior teams just because...
-
Hell no, but that's what we're gonna get.
I doubt you'll ever see OSU/Texas again after next year.
It will be curious to see if OSU/Bama keep their H/H on the schedule.
I get this argument, I've been concerned about this issue from the beginning and I'm uncomfortable with Texas being excluded effectively because they travelled to Columbus to play Ohio State instead of staying home and playing a creampuff. That said, as I pointed out upthread:
(T)here are some offsets:
- Miami would absolutely NOT be in without their H2H over Notre Dame.
- I honestly don't think Oklahoma would be in without their win over Michigan.
- There would be a strong case to exclude aTm if they didn't have that win over ND. They somehow managed to only play one of the SECs ranked teams and they lost that game by two scores. Without the ND win they would have ZERO wins over ranked teams just like Vanderbilt, Utah, you and I. You know what Vanderbilt, Utah, you, and I have in common? We aren't going to the playoffs.
- Ohio State would still be in without their win over Texas but they certainly wouldn't be #2 and they likely wouldn't be getting a first round bye.
So yes, Tx/tOSU probably cost Texas a playoff spot but other big OOC games got Miami in, got Oklahoma in, may have gotten aTm in, and probably got tOSU a bye. The impact isn't ONLY negative.
-
I don't think this holds up much. ND was punished for trying to schedule good teams. Replace TAMU with Grambling State and they are in the playoffs. The whole thing comes down to schedule, but by the advanced stats ND was frankly better than Alabama and had a better record. So now we are just letting in inferior teams just because...
This is the problem. Notre Dame at 11-1 with a loss to Miami, a win over USC, and a bunch of crap shouldn't be in.
To me it is a matter of margin of error. Ohio State's schedule wasn't great this year either but the Buckeyes went 12-0 in the regular season and 12-1 after the CCG so they are in. If you only play a couple of ranked teams then, IMHO, you need to beat them or STFU. Now if you go 2-1 against three good teams or even maybe 2-2 against four that is better (to me) than going 0-1 or 1-1.
-
any team bitching about being left out can suck it.
just like any other season with any format - pre-BCS/Alliance, BCS, 2-team playoff, 4-team playoff, 12-team tournament.
schedule better and play better - that's the solution
I wish Bama, ND, Miami, Tulane, JMU, Oregon, and OU were ALL left out.
-
So now we are just letting in inferior teams just because...
This from the guy who argued FOR including the two G5 Champs.
If you want purely the best, drop the cupcake games for Oregon and Ole Miss and have them play ND and Texas.
-
If you want purely the best, drop the G5 and any team with more than 1 loss
-
This from the guy who argued FOR including the two G5 Champs.
If you want purely the best, drop the cupcake games for Oregon and Ole Miss and have them play ND and Texas.
Absolutely. I'm all for more big games being scheduled. But what is the regular season for if we are going to go with the fifth place SEC team over other conference champs. Makes the season more meaningless.
I also think the committee should use things like SP+ not as a final ranking but as a guideline that they have to explain deviations from. Alabama is 13th - why are they in over three teams that performed better? They should have to explain that. JMU is 24th and Tulane is 42nd, yet we have Tulane ranked ahead of JMU and in a rematch. Why? Too many vibes from the committee, which is my main complaint and why I generally hate committees.
-
If you want purely the best, drop the G5 and any team with more than 1 loss
If you want purely the best, drop any team with more than zero losses.
And also drop any team that played fewer than 12 P4 games in the regular season.
-
Remember when everyone said we had to expand from the 4-team playoff, because we might be able to argue that the 5th-place team was worthy to be involved?
And some people said "Well that will just change the argument to the team griping about being left out in 9th or 13th"...
And the retort was "That'll never happen. The 5th place team has a meaningful claim... The team left out in 9th or 13th doesn't have CLOSE enough of a resume to complain! We won't argue about that, we'll just tell them 'tough luck'..."
Yeah... That was fun.
-
Remember when everyone said we had to expand from the 4-team playoff, because we might be able to argue that the 5th-place team was worthy to be involved?
And some people said "Well that will just change the argument to the team griping about being left out in 9th or 13th"...
And the retort was "That'll never happen. The 5th place team has a meaningful claim... The team left out in 9th or 13th doesn't have CLOSE enough of a resume to complain! We won't argue about that, we'll just tell them 'tough luck'..."
Yeah... That was fun.
Personally, I think the four team playoff was a low point for college football. This is 12 million times better.
-
If you want purely the best, drop any team with more than zero losses.
And also drop any team that played fewer than 12 P4 games in the regular season.
B.R.A.D. agrees.
(https://i.imgur.com/GCvJhl9.png)
-
Personally, I think the four team playoff was a low point for college football. This is 12 million times better.
We haven't hit the low point yet.
-
If you want purely the best, drop any team with more than zero losses.
And also drop any team that played fewer than 12 P4 games in the regular season.
I'm ok with this
-
I don't see that as a Bama issue nor even a helmet issue. It is a CG issue. Bama is getting one more loss because they had to play a CG and the committee basically didn't hold that against them. They did the same thing with Ohio State. The Buckeyes have the same record as Georgia and TxTech and those two are Conference Champions and yet Ohio State is ranked higher. Why? It isn't helmet, it is because Georgia and TxTech went 11-1 in the regular season and got their 12 win in the 'extra' game while Ohio State went 12-0 in the regular season and got their loss in the 'extra' game.
Before anyone says that it is a helmet issue and Ohio State is getting the same benefit as Bama please explain why SMU didn't get dinged for losing the ACCCG in 2024 and why TCU didn't get dinged for losing the B12CG in 2022. It is NOT a helmet/Bama issue. The committee has consistently shown that they don't want to punish teams for losing CGs.
Bama is the only CCG loser that didn't drop at least one spot in the rankings, even though they were blown out and rushed for -3 yards.
-
OSU conversely has had several seasons where one loss knocked them out of consideration. Didn't matter if they lost to a good team, bad team, or if it was in Sept, Oct, or Nov.
-
hell, I'd be happier if my team was in the conversation and I had something to whine about
-
Remember when everyone said we had to expand from the 4-team playoff, because we might be able to argue that the 5th-place team was worthy to be involved?
And some people said "Well that will just change the argument to the team griping about being left out in 9th or 13th"...
And the retort was "That'll never happen. The 5th place team has a meaningful claim... The team left out in 9th or 13th doesn't have CLOSE enough of a resume to complain! We won't argue about that, we'll just tell them 'tough luck'..."
Yeah... That was fun.
Who said this?
The 69th team annually complains about being left out of the NCAA Hoops tournament.
-
Hell no, but that's what we're gonna get.
I doubt you'll ever see OSU/Texas again after next year.
It will be curious to see if OSU/Bama keep their H/H on the schedule.
That is an unfortunate inevitability, but on the other side of that coin those teams are going to be playing each other more than ever before... in the playoffs.
-
The problem with the "meaningful chance" theory is that eventually the 12th team is going to win it. Just like an 8-seed has won the basketball title, and wild card teams have won the NFL. So the 13th--first left out--will have a gripe that, given the chance... (e.g., if Alabama were to pull off a title this year, which is unlikely, but not close to impossible, then ND and Texas fans will be in a fervor about their missed chance).
Also, Badge847, I just can't let it go: every time someone says that ND should join a conference, I reflexively think, "well, they'd be in the Big Ten were it not for Michigan and anti-Catholic bias." So blame Michigan, not ND.
:)
-
OSU conversely has had several seasons where one loss knocked them out of consideration. Didn't matter if they lost to a good team, bad team, or if it was in Sept, Oct, or Nov.
11-1 Bama jumped 12-1 Wisconsin after Wisconsin lost a close CCG to OSU.
Bama didn't play in the SECCG.
-
11-1 Bama jumped 12-1 Wisconsin after Wisconsin lost a close CCG to OSU.
Bama didn't play in the SECCG.
exactly.
Even if you want to argue that Saban earned a mulligan, he isn't there anymore, and they are a shell of what they were when he was. So why is it still happening?
-
ESecPN.
-
Who said this?
The 69th team annually complains about being left out of the NCAA Hoops tournament.
"Complains"? I mean, we know that typically those teams are around 12 seeds and at most can hope for an upset or two before being taken out... They're disappointed, but rarely do I think those fan bases think they were robbed of a chance to win the NC.
At some point the size of the playoff grows beyond "not excluding worthy teams", to including allowing unworthy teams* and excluding other unworthy teams.
I'm gonna say that every expansion gets us closer to that, and I'm thinking we're beyond the tipping point. So we shouldn't care THAT much about which team was one past the inclusion point.
(* Not referring to unworthy P4 or G5 conf champs; IMHO that's a necessary evil of the structure of the CFP.)
-
11-1 Bama jumped 12-1 Wisconsin after Wisconsin lost a close CCG to OSU.
Bama didn't play in the SECCG.
Ironically the Bama reason then is the ND case now, they’re playing good and have high potential. It was the power rating case.
-
"Complains"? I mean, we know that typically those teams are around 12 seeds and at most can hope for an upset or two before being taken out... They're disappointed, but rarely do I think those fan bases think they were robbed of a chance to win the NC.
At some point the size of the playoff grows beyond "not excluding worthy teams", to including allowing unworthy teams* and excluding other unworthy teams.
I'm gonna say that every expansion gets us closer to that, and I'm thinking we're beyond the tipping point. So we shouldn't care THAT much about which team was one past the inclusion point.
(* Not referring to unworthy P4 or G5 conf champs; IMHO that's a necessary evil of the structure of the CFP.)
I think this is kinda why the current setup seems good.
A field with or without Bama or ND doesn’t feel lacking, but is fine with them. A top-10 with a lukewarm last spot argument and two extras for inclusion seems honestly AOK.
-
Ironically the Bama reason then is the ND case now, they’re playing good and have high potential. It was the power rating case.
This is the rub for the Bama-haters. Both in the BCS and Playoff era, Bama was argued for by the school, Saban, and probably most importantly, mediots, based on whatever their argument was for that year. If they had a good schedule with quality wins, that was touted and said to be what should really matter. If they didn't, but looked like the best team, that was touted and said to be what should really matter.
It got old, but fortunately, I don't much care anymore.
-
the worst part about bama getting in for me personally............... I'm gonna hafta root for the Boomer Sooners
:96:
-
I guess I could select other, but I'm not bothering to register an opinion in the poll because the teams that deserve to be there are there, as are a few other teams that qualify under the rules. Are there some other teams that could have been there in a couple of places? Yes. Are they more or less deserving? Meh--all about the same. The most deserving teams, IMO, are Indiana and Georgia, with Ohio State coming in a close third. Texas Tech won its conference, but its conference isn't much to write home about. Everyone else is just to generate TV revenue. There are seasons where there could be six or even seven teams with a good argument for why they truly deserve to be there. I don't think this is that season, and with conference realignment, I'm not sure that's as likely as it used to be, when there were six legitimately competitive major conferences.
Looking at the pretenders that made it:
5) Oregon: Oregon had a good season, but did it do anything to suggest that it is better than Indiana or Ohio State? No. Indiana beat Oregon, at Oregon, by two scores. Is there anything else Oregon did that would make you sit up and think, "well, that was just kind of a fluky result?" No.
6) Ole Miss: great record, but shockingly weak schedule for an SEC team. One high quality win, one loss (to the actual conference champ), and, like Oregon, nothing in the record that screams out, "yeah, but give them another shot at Georgia!"
7) aTm: much like Ole Miss, good win at Notre Dame, but what else to write home about? And lost to 3-loss Texas. Frankly, that, like Oregon's loss to Indiana, didn't feel like, "oh, just a bad day." Nah, that's just who aTm is.
8) Oklahoma: feels a lot like Ole Miss and aTm. 3-loss Texas kicked their ass, lost to Ole Miss, but a quality win over 3-loss Alabama. Their offense is weak, their defense is good, and nothing about their resume screams out national title contender.
9) Alabama: nuff said about Alabama.
10) Miami: couldn't win a [maybe historically?] weak ACC. So why should I care? Because they beat another team that was left out of the playoff (ND)? Lost to Louiseville and SMU. If we can forgive one head-scratching loss (and I think we probably can), I'm not here to forgive 2. PS, squeaked by a[nother] bad FSU team.
11) Tulane. Wait, what?!? I'm a fan of giving non-P4 teams a shot...if they earn it. If you're Boise State or TCU from a few years back, beat everyone on your schedule, including scheduling and beating one of the big kids, by all means, give it your best. But Ole Miss smoked Tulane, and so did UT-San Antonio. WTF. Why is this team here?
12) JMU: same. Lost to Louisville. Louisville. Is that a decent team? Sure. Is that a loss to build an entry into the CFB playoff on when the rest of the schedule is a collection of non-P4 creampuffs? No.
Ok, but what about the teams that were left out? I'll start with
13) ND: first, two losses, including a home loss. Were they to good teams? Sure. Were they to the elite teams? Not really. And the rest of the schedule was soft. No softer than most of those SEC teams that are crowding the middle of the CFB field, but they also don't have any great wins to point to (like those schools do). Is this a really good team that, given a break or two, could win the CFP? Yes, it's both of those things. But do they "deserve" to be there? No.
14) Texas: 3-loss Texas. 3 losses. I don't care if one was a game they didn't have to schedule, they lost to Florida. Bad Florida, not Urban Meyer or Steve Spurrier Florida. And Georgia kicked their ass. Yes, they have better wins than most of the teams on this list, but this isn't a case of a single oopsie, plus an unfair scheduling situation. Nope, even with just their two SEC losses, they wouldn't "deserve" to be here. Could they generate some nice TV revenue for the playoff? Sure. Could they win it? Yeah, maybe. See ND, above.
15) BYU: come on. Stop playing.
16) Duke? Lol.
17) Michigan? Michigan is, by my estimation, the 7th best team in the Big Ten. Pass.
18) Vanderbilt? Like their quarterback and, to be honest, they should have as good an argument as anyone on this passed-over list: but they lost to 3-loss Alabama, and it wasn't close, and they lost to 3-loss Texas. So...no, they weren't screwed either.
-
I guess I could select other, but I'm not bothering to register an opinion in the poll because the teams that deserve to be there are there, as are a few other teams that qualify under the rules. Are there some other teams that could have been there in a couple of places? Yes. Are they more or less deserving? Meh--all about the same. The most deserving teams, IMO, are Indiana and Georgia, with Ohio State coming in a close third. Texas Tech won its conference, but its conference isn't much to write home about. Everyone else is just to generate TV revenue. There are seasons where there could be six or even seven teams with a good argument for why they truly deserve to be there. I don't think this is that season, and with conference realignment, I'm not sure that's as likely as it used to be, when there were six legitimately competitive major conferences.
Looking at the pretenders that made it:
5) Oregon: Oregon had a good season, but did it do anything to suggest that it is better than Indiana or Ohio State? No. Indiana beat Oregon, at Oregon, by two scores. Is there anything else Oregon did that would make you sit up and think, "well, that was just kind of a fluky result?" No.
6) Ole Miss: great record, but shockingly weak schedule for an SEC team. One high quality win, one loss (to the actual conference champ), and, like Oregon, nothing in the record that screams out, "yeah, but give them another shot at Georgia!"
7) aTm: much like Ole Miss, good win at Notre Dame, but what else to write home about? And lost to 3-loss Texas. Frankly, that, like Oregon's loss to Indiana, didn't feel like, "oh, just a bad day." Nah, that's just who aTm is.
8) Oklahoma: feels a lot like Ole Miss and aTm. 3-loss Texas kicked their ass, lost to Ole Miss, but a quality win over 3-loss Alabama. Their offense is weak, their defense is good, and nothing about their resume screams out national title contender.
9) Alabama: nuff said about Alabama.
10) Miami: couldn't win a [maybe historically?] weak ACC. So why should I care? Because they beat another team that was left out of the playoff (ND)? Lost to Louiseville and SMU. If we can forgive one head-scratching loss (and I think we probably can), I'm not here to forgive 2. PS, squeaked by a[nother] bad FSU team.
11) Tulane. Wait, what?!? I'm a fan of giving non-P4 teams a shot...if they earn it. If you're Boise State or TCU from a few years back, beat everyone on your schedule, including scheduling and beating one of the big kids, by all means, give it your best. But Ole Miss smoked Tulane, and so did UT-San Antonio. WTF. Why is this team here?
12) JMU: same. Lost to Louisville. Louisville. Is that a decent team? Sure. Is that a loss to build an entry into the CFB playoff on when the rest of the schedule is a collection of non-P4 creampuffs? No.
Ok, but what about the teams that were left out? I'll start with
13) ND: first, two losses, including a home loss. Were they to good teams? Sure. Were they to the elite teams? Not really. And the rest of the schedule was soft. No softer than most of those SEC teams that are crowding the middle of the CFB field, but they also don't have any great wins to point to (like those schools do). Is this a really good team that, given a break or two, could win the CFP? Yes, it's both of those things. But do they "deserve" to be there? No.
14) Texas: 3-loss Texas. 3 losses. I don't care if one was a game they didn't have to schedule, they lost to Florida. Bad Florida, not Urban Meyer or Steve Spurrier Florida. And Georgia kicked their ass. Yes, they have better wins than most of the teams on this list, but this isn't a case of a single oopsie, plus an unfair scheduling situation. Nope, even with just their two SEC losses, they wouldn't "deserve" to be here. Could they generate some nice TV revenue for the playoff? Sure. Could they win it? Yeah, maybe. See ND, above.
15) BYU: come on. Stop playing.
16) Duke? Lol.
17) Michigan? Michigan is, by my estimation, the 7th best team in the Big Ten. Pass.
18) Vanderbilt? Like their quarterback and, to be honest, they should have as good an argument as anyone on this passed-over list: but they lost to 3-loss Alabama, and it wasn't close, and they lost to 3-loss Texas. So...no, they weren't screwed either.
Time to declare Indiana the MNC and not care about the CFP winner.
-
the worst part about bama getting in for me personally............... I'm gonna hafta root for the Boomer Sooners
:96:
I'm not. That's an easy choice. Never, ever, pull for the dirt burglars.
-
The main point about Texas is had they played a cupcake their first game instead of a top team they would be in the playoffs.
Because of this after current contracts are taken care of there will be no big matchups in OOC games for Texas. If number of wins is more impotant then quality of wins UT will probably change its scheduling strategy. Im thinking one of their OOC games will take place late in the season as well.
-
The main point about Texas is had they played a cupcake their first game instead of a top team they would be in the playoffs.
Because of this after current contracts are taken care of there will be no big matchups in OOC games for Texas. If number of wins is more impotant then quality of wins UT will probably change its scheduling strategy. Im thinking one of their OOC games will take place late in the season as well.
A&M Kingsville?
-
The main point about Texas is had they played a cupcake their first game instead of a top team they would be in the playoffs.
Because of this after current contracts are taken care of there will be no big matchups in OOC games for Texas. If number of wins is more impotant then quality of wins UT will probably change its scheduling strategy. Im thinking one of their OOC games will take place late in the season as well.
yep. they (committee) told us that last yr when smu got in b/c conference politics. only homers thought they belonged more or less.
with a 9 game sec schedule coming down the tracks if tx is smart they will trade ohio state for purdue moving forward.
-
A&M Kingsville?
SEC rules stipulate one P4 OOC per year. So I'm guessing Texas will be knocking on doors at Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse, Boston College, Oklahoma State, etc.
-
I'm not. That's an easy choice. Never, ever, pull for the dirt burglars.
I will not be heart broken if the Sooners lose
-
yep. they (committee) told us that last yr when smu got in b/c conference politics. only homers thought they belonged more or less.
with a 9 game sec schedule coming down the tracks if tx is smart they will trade ohio state for purdue moving forward.
or Nebraska - they NEVER lose to Nebraska
-
Time to declare Indiana the MNC and not care about the CFP winner.
Not the intended takeaway. Indiana won its major conference (are there major conferences other than the SEC and Big Ten right now?). It deserves to be there. Same for Georgia. If you really wanted to be in a snit about the olden times (and many of us would), Indiana vs. Georgia would be a quality NC game. But, I don't necessarily hate a playoff. Ohio State lost in a very close game to Indiana, and otherwise their resume sparkles. Would Indiana be a big favorite in a rematch? I doubt it. So if we're playing this thing out, no reason Ohio State shouldn't be there. Texas Tech won its [sort of] major conference and doesn't have any glaring problems (see Duke). So, ok, sure.
There are also seasons where what happened with Ohio State, or something similar, happens in other conferences, or multiple conferences. Let's say Alabama loses to LSU in the regular season, then plays LSU again in the SEC championship game and wins. Decent argument that both teams belong (assuming otherwise good records)? Yeah, good argument. Conference champion wrecks near everyone, has a great couple of wins, but loses a head-scratcher? That sounds like college football. So I'm ok with the head-scratching loss not barring a team from eligibility.
But we can't devise a playoff based on how the teams look at the end, we need a plan at the beginning. I guess my point is that with a 12-team playoff, we're already well beyond who "deserves" to be there. And sure, there are other teams (beyond Indiana, Georgia, and Ohio State) that could win this thing. Might be Alabama, with its three losses. Have to like Oregon's chances to at least reach the semifinal.
But maybe the Big Ten really isn't that good, the SEC is, and a random SEC team not named Georgia will go on a run. Could happen. Some year it will. (Could have been Texas or Vanderbilt as easily as Ole Miss, OU, aTm, or Alabama). Pretty confident it's not going to be JMU or Tulane--though in some year it could be that team. Also, the weakness in the Big 12 and the ACC this year were gifts to those non-P4 conferences.
But given the constraints did the committee "get it right?" Sure, close enough.
-
SEC rules stipulate one P4 OOC per year. So I'm guessing Texas will be knocking on doors at Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse, Boston College, Oklahoma State, etc.
Wisconsin fits that. No reason for Texas to be scared anymore. :57:
-
Wisconsin fits that. No reason for Texas to be scared anymore. :57:
(https://i.imgur.com/4rWoqdh.png)
-
Not at the moment, it's not.
-
The main point about Texas is had they played a cupcake their first game instead of a top team they would be in the playoffs.
Because of this after current contracts are taken care of there will be no big matchups in OOC games for Texas. If number of wins is more impotant then quality of wins UT will probably change its scheduling strategy. Im thinking one of their OOC games will take place late in the season as well.
Feels like they would probably get punished for completely no showing the non-conference.
Should they have scheduled a big brand who turned out to be mediocre or a team that went something like 9-3 instead of the top program in the land, yeah, probably.
-
IMO, the teams whining that they deserve to be in the playoff are more concerned about the $$$ they would receive than the opportunity to win a MNC
-
(https://i.imgur.com/4rWoqdh.png)
I wish.
I was looking at some of this in relation to someone saying that Notre Dame strategically schedules mid to bad P5 teams. And it reminds you how deeply random this often is.
Like, more than 10 years if you were a big name school, you could’ve scheduled Texas and you would’ve felt pretty great about notching a name-brand win with less work. Look at the ups and downs of FSU on that front!
-
yep. they (committee) told us that last yr when smu got in b/c conference politics. only homers thought they belonged more or less.
with a 9 game sec schedule coming down the tracks if tx is smart they will trade ohio state for purdue moving forward.
so, there will be a season in the future where Texas will have scheduled Purdue instead of Ohio St.
Texas will lose 2 games and be excluded because of the weak schedule
-
Feels like they would probably get punished for completely no showing the non-conference.
Should they have scheduled a big brand who turned out to be mediocre or a team that went something like 9-3 instead of the top program in the land, yeah, probably.
Eh, I doubt it. If Texas had played Akron instead of Ohio State, the Horns would have gotten in this year, with wins over 2 CFP top 10 teams and 3 CFP top 14 teams total.
But in general, yeah, the new scheduling philosophy will most likely be to schedule low-level P4 teams as the "marquee" opponent, then a couple of bodybag/cupcake/scrubs. Then the 9-game SEC schedule. In most years Texas with only 2 losses against that schedule is going to get in.
-
so, there will be a season in the future where Texas will have scheduled Purdue instead of Ohio St.
Texas will lose 2 games and be excluded because of the weak schedule
Texas will have 9 games against SEC teams. The schedule will be a lot stronger than Miami's, which was good enough to get them in with 2 losses.
-
Or you could avoid losing to 4-8 teams.
-
Or you could avoid losing to 4-8 teams.
Sure. Or also just never schedule a loss. Either works.
I'm not saying I like it or approve of it, just commenting on what the likely outcome of missing the CFP will be for Texas' future schedules.
-
Or you could avoid losing to 4-8 teams.
don't lose to " " can be said about anyone not undefeated & of course it's true relative to the florida game but the point stands relative to tx' decision to schedule the ohio state game & the consequences for losing it. had they scheduled northwestern instead of ohio state they'd have a win over another playoff team in oklahoma, they'd have handed aTm their only loss, & also beat a very good 10-2 vandy team & the committee would be falling all over themselves to put them in over miami. truth be told they're more deserving than miami now but that doesn't play b/c 10-2 > 9-3 & they don't care who you played unless the records match or you're in the sun belt.....errr.
-
I'm not so sure.
Northwestern's not as bad as Florida.
:D
-
This is the rub for the Bama-haters. Both in the BCS and Playoff era, Bama was argued for by the school, Saban, and probably most importantly, mediots, based on whatever their argument was for that year. If they had a good schedule with quality wins, that was touted and said to be what should really matter. If they didn't, but looked like the best team, that was touted and said to be what should really matter.
It got old, but fortunately, I don't much care anymore.
I think most people do this and, to me, it is funny to watch. They'll grab whatever argument fits their preferred outcome, it is called outcome based reasoning.
-
11) Tulane. Wait, what?!? I'm a fan of giving non-P4 teams a shot...if they earn it. If you're Boise State or TCU from a few years back, beat everyone on your schedule, including scheduling and beating one of the big kids, by all means, give it your best. But Ole Miss smoked Tulane, and so did UT-San Antonio. WTF. Why is this team here?
In one of the iterations of the BCS formula they had a stipulation that the highest ranked G5 Champion got a BCS Bowl (major bowl not NC) but it was conditional on being ranked in the top-12 (IIRC).
I think it would make sense to say something like:
- The four highest ranked conference Champions get in unconditionally.
- The fifth highest ranked conference Champion gets in IF they are ranked in the top-16.
We could debate whether that should say "top-16" or "top-20" or "top-25" but I don't care as much about the exact condition as that there should be SOME condition.
-
Texas will have 9 games against SEC teams. The schedule will be a lot stronger than Miami's, which was good enough to get them in with 2 losses.
As I said, it will happen someday. not often. It may not be Miami or Notre Dame's weak ass schedule you're competing with for that slot.
Could be other SEC teams or 2-loss Big Ten teams
as you stated in a previous post.......... In most years Texas with only 2 losses against that schedule is going to get in.
-
As I said, it will happen someday. not often. It may not be Miami or Notre Dame's weak ass schedule you're competing with for that slot.
Could be other SEC teams or 2-loss Big Ten teams
as you stated in a previous post.......... In most years Texas with only 2 losses against that schedule is going to get in.
Sure but that's nothing more than the risk/reward calculation. Right now we know that Texas scheduled a loss that kept them out of the playoff. That's already happened. So going forward, it will no longer happen. Remove the enormous, known, and already detrimental risk, and also the slight chance of being rewarded.
And we all know you're being nothing more than an argumentative pot-stirrer right now because you've stated a million times "never schedule a loss." Going forward I expect Texas to follow that prescribed course of action.
-
Texas will have 9 games against SEC teams. The schedule will be a lot stronger than Miami's, which was good enough to get them in with 2 losses.
But will it?
I've been beating this drum for a long time but it matters because it IS a possibility:
Texas had a TOUGH SEC schedule this year. There were seven SEC teams that went 6-2 or better and Texas played four of them. The other side of the coin is in your state. The Aggies also played an "SEC Schedule" but theirs involved playing just two of the 6-2 or better teams and FIVE 2-6 or worse teams.
When you go to nine Texas might add Bama (7-1) and aTm might add UK (2-6) in which case Texas' schedule gets even tougher and aTm's gets even easier.
To be clear, I'm not picking on the SEC here, the same thing applies in the B1G. In the mega-conference era it needs to be understood that conference schedules vary GREATLY from one team to the next. My own team had a pretty lightweight league schedule in 2025 (played five of the seven teams that went 3-6 or worse) but they had a very difficult league schedule in 2024 when they played all three of the teams that went 8-1 or better (and went 2-1).
So yeah, Texas' nine-game SEC Schedules will generally be tougher but not always. Some years they'll end up playing almost the entire bottom half of the league and only a couple quality teams. Other years they'll face a murder's row of almost the entire top half of the league.
-
But will it?
Yes it will.
Texas 2026 schedule includes current CFP Top 10 and playoff teams: Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Ole Miss. The 2027 schedule includes CFP Top 10 and playoff teams: Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Georgia, and Alabama, plus CFP Top 14 team Vanderbilt. Then it alternates back to the 2026 schedule but reversing home/away, and then back to the 2027 schedule while revesing home/away.
(https://i.imgur.com/sVfFvRb.png)
-
Just because a team was top 10 one year doesn't mean that they will be the next.
Look how much Florida State fluctuates on a year to year basis.
-
It's unrealistic to think that Texas will be playing a bottom half SEC schedule in any future year. The potential volatility of one team, like Florida State, is much higher than the expected volatility for 3-5 teams.
-
it was realistic for Ole Miss and A&M
-
(https://i.imgur.com/m8BZBNZ.jpeg)
-
It's unrealistic to think that Texas will be playing a bottom half SEC schedule in any future year. The potential volatility of one team, like Florida State, is much higher than the expected volatility for 3-5 teams.
It can go the other way too. You might schedule Syracuse or BC as a W ooc, and then they could become the next Indiana or Vanderbilt.
-
it was realistic for Ole Miss and A&M
I just showed you the schedules. If you think in either 2026 or 2027, Texas will end up playing a schedule that includes every bottom-half SEC team but one, well then I guess you can keep doing you.
-
Hell, Texas lost to Maryland back to back years. Maryland.
-
It can go the other way too. You might schedule Syracuse or BC as a W ooc, and then they could become the next Indiana or Vanderbilt.
Definitely true. Scheduling down doesn't eliminate the risk, it just reduces it.
-
Hell, Texas lost to Maryland back to back years. Maryland.
Dark days indeed. I'd like to think we're past those Charlie Strong/Tom Herman years, but it's possible that we could go right back there.
-
I just showed you the schedules. If you think in either 2026 or 2027, Texas will end up playing a schedule that includes every bottom-half SEC team but one, well then I guess you can keep doing you.
I don't think 26 or 27
perhaps in 30 or 31, you know after you get the Buckeyes and other prime opponents off the schedule
-
I don't think 26 or 27
perhaps in 30 or 31, you know after you get the Buckeyes and other prime opponents off the schedule
I'll just say... it's highly unlikely. It's possible but so unrealistic it's not worthy of examination. If you'd like to keep discussing it though, feel free, Mr. Never Schedule A Loss.
-
Hell, Texas lost to Maryland back to back years. Maryland.
To be fair to @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) , that was SEPTEMBER Maryland. They are a really good team. You are looking down at these losses because you are thinking of NOVEMBER Maryland, they suck.
-
it's possible we could go undefeated next yr. i mean i doubt it, but it's possible.
a lot of things are possible. the committee has told us what they reward. schedule the terps.
-
it's possible we could go undefeated next yr. i mean i doubt it, but it's possible.
a lot of things are possible. the committee has told us what they reward. schedule the terps.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyone but them.
(Or Cal-Berkeley)
-
Eh, I doubt it. If Texas had played Akron instead of Ohio State, the Horns would have gotten in this year, with wins over 2 CFP top 10 teams and 3 CFP top 14 teams total.
But in general, yeah, the new scheduling philosophy will most likely be to schedule low-level P4 teams as the "marquee" opponent, then a couple of bodybag/cupcake/scrubs. Then the 9-game SEC schedule. In most years Texas with only 2 losses against that schedule is going to get in.
There’s a lot of faith that a committee wouldn’t say “you didn’t try at all, you’re getting dinged.” I’m guessing it would at least be a thing.
Now the alternative is to just go ahead and schedule someone reasonable (call TCU?), and then you get your win you can crow about.
-
Sure but that's nothing more than the risk/reward calculation. Right now we know that Texas scheduled a loss that kept them out of the playoff. That's already happened. So going forward, it will no longer happen. Remove the enormous, known, and already detrimental risk, and also the slight chance of being rewarded.
And we all know you're being nothing more than an argumentative pot-stirrer right now because you've stated a million times "never schedule a loss." Going forward I expect Texas to follow that prescribed course of action.
I mean, Miami and Oklahoma are probably in because of good non-conference opponents.
Yeah, you have to actually beat the the other team, but if you have a Texas playoff team, most years, you win games against all but like 5-7 other teams. It’s regrettable yall got one of those teams (and took a bad loss along the way)
-
There’s a lot of faith that a committee wouldn’t say “you didn’t try at all, you’re getting dinged.” I’m guessing it would at least be a thing.
I'm guessing it wouldn't. The OOC schedules for Indiana and Ole Miss weren't held against them.
I mean, Miami and Oklahoma are probably in because of good non-conference opponents.
Yeah, you have to actually beat the the other team, but if you have a Texas playoff team, most years, you win games against all but like 5-7 other teams. It’s regrettable yall got one of those teams (and took a bad loss along the way)
Scheduling a loss is what cost Texas. Sounds like it's not going to happen again. For better or for worse.
-
Oh and just for the record, I'm one of the two "the committee got it right" votes because although they could have made other choices, the choices they made, were no better nor worse than the various alternatives, in my opinion.
I would have liked to see Texas make it in, but the 3 losses were always going to be a major problem. And every other team that was on the bubble and didn't get in, had plenty of warts as well.
-
I'll just say... it's highly unlikely. It's possible but so unrealistic it's not worthy of examination. If you'd like to keep discussing it though, feel free, Mr. Never Schedule A Loss.
That was Hayden Fry's line
that's where Wild Bill Snyder learned it
and where I stole it
-
That was Hayden Fry's line
that's where Wild Bill Snyder learned it
and where I stole it
Snyder scheduled Oregon OOC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp4TeP4rw0s
-
I'm guessing it wouldn't. The OOC schedules for Indiana and Ole Miss weren't held against them.
That is all part of the risk/reward. It didn't get held against IU because they went undefeated but I DO think that Indiana's weak (and it was pathetic) OOC would hurt them if they had gone 11-1 and it DEFINITELY would have hurt them if they had gone 10-2.
Before the CCG this year, Indiana played only two teams that ended up ranked (#5 Oregon, #23 Iowa). If they had lost that game they would have missed the B1GCG and finished 11-1/8-1. Would the committee have excluded them? I don't know but it is certainly possible. 11-1 is great but if your best win is is against an 8-4 team I'd have a hard time putting you in.
Ole Miss is a slightly different situation. They had one ranked win in conference and an OOC game against a playoff team. Yeah, that playoff team was Tulane and everybody knows they don't really belong but that still gave them two wins over ranked opponents and no bad losses.
-
Snyder scheduled Oregon OOC.
When?
-
I'm guessing it wouldn't. The OOC schedules for Indiana and Ole Miss weren't held against them.
Scheduling a loss is what cost Texas. Sounds like it's not going to happen again. For better or for worse.
Those teams lost one game combined. Different kettle of fish.
What cost Texas was losing games. They put themselves in better position to do that with one scheduling choice, but there are plenty of good alternatives beyond begging for Akron.
Shoot, a 10-2 SEC team that actually had a bad P5 win got left out this year.
-
When?
My bad, it was a fiesta bowl. the K-State end zone threw me off.
-
My bad, it was a fiesta bowl. the K-State end zone threw me off.
That's what I thought.
-
Those teams lost one game combined. Different kettle of fish.
What cost Texas was losing games. They put themselves in better position to do that with one scheduling choice, but there are plenty of good alternatives beyond begging for Akron.
Shoot, a 10-2 SEC team that actually had a bad P5 win got left out this year.
For the record, I'm not "begging for Akron." I'm not in favor of any changes to scheduling practices at all, I'm just noting that replacing Ohio State with a highy unpalatable alternative, still gets Texas into the CFP this year. Which means that scheduling a top marquee team like Ohio State, made the difference this year.
Regardless, if Texas does go forward with changing the scheduling practices as a result of this, it'll still have to be a P4 team, it wouldn't be Akron or the like.
-
It's amazing that the same announcer called both instances of the 1 point safety.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKLKbpWLHJ8