CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on November 18, 2019, 12:19:12 PM
-
ACC-Atlantic:
- Clemson has clinched and will be in the ACCCG
ACC-Coastal (still the most interesting race):
- 5-2 Virginia: The Cavaliers have an OOC game this week then VaTech next week. If they win the VaTech game they will face Clemson in the ACCCG because they already beat Pitt.
- 4-2 VaTech: The Hokies are the ones to watch because they play the other two top teams the next two weeks. If they win both, they are going to face Clemson in the ACCCG.
- 4-2 Pitt: The Panthers need to beat VaTech in Blacksburg this weekend then they need the Hokies to turn around and win at Virginia the next week. It is a tall order but it could happen.
- 4-3 Miami: The Hurricanes could still theoretically tie for the division championship but they need to beat Dook on 11/30 and they need a lot of help elsewhere.
The potential ties:
As many as four teams (the four listed above) could all finish 5-3. However, if VaTech beats Pitt then all of this goes out the window because after that the UVA/VaTech winner would win the division outright at 6-2. So all of these require, at a minimum:
- VaTech to lose to Pitt but beat UVA and finish 5-3
- Virginia to lose to VaTech (see #1) and finish 5-3
- Pitt to lose to BC to finish 5-3
In addition to those things:
- Miami would join the 5-3 party if they beat Dook.
Potential ties:
A three-way tie between UVA, VaTech, and Pitt:
- H2H2H: They would all be 1-1 (UVA>Pitt>VaTech>UVA)
- Divisional record: Pitt would be 4-2, UVA would be 4-2, VaTech would be 4-2
- Record against the next best team(s) in the division. This would be either Miami or Miami and UNC. Either way VaTech wins because they beat both the Hurricanes and the Tar Heels while the Hurricanes beat both the Cavaliers and the Panthers. VaTech wins.
A four-way tie between UVA, VaTech, Pitt, and Miami, first the scenario:
- VaTech loses to Pitt but beats Virginia, and
- Pitt loses to BC, and
- Miami beats Dook
Now the tiebreakers:
The first tiebreaker is H2H2H2H:
- VaTech would be 2-1: Beat UVA and Miami, lost to Pitt
- Miami would be 2-1: Beat Pitt and UVA, lost to VaTech
- Virginia would be 1-2: Beat Pitt, lost to VaTech and Miami
- Pitt would be 1-2: Beat VaTech, lost to Miami and UVA
The ACC rules stipulate that once a multi-team tie is reduced to two teams, those two revert to the two-team tiebreaker of H2H so VaTech would go to the ACCCG due to their H2H win over Miami.
SEC-East:
- Georgia has clinched and will play in the SECCG
SEC-West:
- 6-0 LSU: will play UGA in the SECCG if they win at least one of their two remaining games (vsArk, vsaTm)
- 6-1 Bama: Can get to the SECCG only if they win their remaining SEC game (@Auburn) and LSU loses out.
P12-North:
- Oregon has clinched and will play in the P12CG
P12-South:
- 6-1 Utah: The Utes control their own destiny and will play Oregon in the P12CG if they win out. However, they lost H2H to the 6-2 Trojans so if the Utes lose, the Trojans would control their own destiny.
- 6-2 USC: The Trojans need to win their last P12 game (vsUCLA) and hope for a Utah loss.
- 4-3 UCLA: If the Burins win out (@USC, vs Cal) and the Utes lose out (@Zona, vsColo) it would create a three-way tie at 6-3 between the Utes, Trojans, and Bruins, see tiebreaker below:
P12 Three-team tiebreaker, first the scenario:
- Utah loses out (@Zona, vsColorado), and
- UCLA wins out (@USC, vsCal
The tiebreaker:
- H2H2H: All three would be 1-1 (USC>Utah>UCLA>USC)
- Divisional Record: USC would be 5-1, UCLA would be 4-2, Utah would be 3-3. Thus, USC would win the tie and play Oregon in the P12CG.
The divisionless B12:
- 6-1 Oklahoma: The Sooners clinch if they win either of their remaining games (vsTCU, @OkSU)
- 6-1 Baylor: The Bears clinch if they win either of their remaining games (vsTX, @KU)
- 4-3 OkSU: The Cowboys are theoretically in the race if they win out (@WVU, vsOU)
- 4-3 Texas: The Longhorns are theoretically in the race if they win out (@Baylor, vsTxTech)
- 4-3 ISU: The Cyclones are theoretically in the race if they win out (vsKU, @KSU)
The B12's two-team tiebreaker is H2H. Their multi-team tiebreaker stipulates (like most of the other conferences) that once it gets back to two teams, those two revert to the two-team H2H tiebreaker.
None of this can happen unless:
- Either OU (vsTCU, @OkSU) or Baylor (vsTX, @KU) loses out, and
- Either OkSU (@WVU, vsOU), Texas (@Baylor, vsTxTech), or ISU (vsKU, @KSU) wins out
In theory the whole thing could end up in a five-way tie at 6-3. All of this is highly unlikely and the Sooners and Bears can end the suspense this weekend by beating TCU and Texas.
-
Thanks, Medina, as usual, a lot of work nicely and clearly presented.
-
In theory the whole thing could end up in a five-way tie at 6-3. All of this is highly unlikely and the Sooners and Bears can end the suspense this weekend by beating TCU and Texas.
Which is definitely the most likely outcome, by far. We'll know more in 6 days I suppose.
-
Which two teams would play in the Big XII ccg, if it were to finish in this theoretical five way tie at 6-3?
-
Which two teams would play in the Big XII ccg, if it were to finish in this theoretical five way tie at 6-3?
You just love asking these questions and I find this kind of thing fascinating so I'll indulge.
First the scenario:
- Oklahoma loses out (vsTCU, @OkSU) to finish 6-3, and
- Baylor loses out (vsTx, @KU) to finish 6-3, and
- OkSU wins their other game (@WVU) to finish 6-3, and
- ISU wins out (vsKU, @KSU) to finish 6-3, and
- Texas win their other game (vsTxTech) to finish 6-3
Those five would all be 6-3. The rest of the conference (because it might matter) would be:
- 5-4 or 4-5 TCU (currently 3-4, has to beat OU)
- 4-5 or 3-6 KSU (currently 3-4, has to lose to ISU)
- 3-6 or 2-7 TxTech (currently 2-5, has to lose to Texas)
- 3-6 or 2-7 WVU (currently 2-5, has to lose to OkSU)
- 2-7 Kansas (currently 1-6, has to lose to ISU and beat Baylor)
Per the B12 website (https://big12sports.com/news/2008/7/31/1546006.aspx), the first tiebreaker is the multi-team H2H or in this case H2H2H2H2H:
- 3-1 Oklahoma: Wins over Baylor, ISU, and TX, loss to OkSU
- 2-2 Baylor: Wins over OkSU and ISU, losses to OU and Texas
- 2-2 Texas: Wins over Baylor and OkSU, losses to OU and ISU
- 2-2 OkSU: Wins over OU and ISU, losses to TX and Baylor
- 1-3 ISU: Win over Texas, losses to OU, OkSU, and Baylor
As I read the B12 tiebreaker this means that Oklahoma would be in and ISU would be out.
That still leaves Baylor, Texas, and OkSU for one spot. I'm not certain what happens next. If we start over with just those three, the H2H2H among them is:
- 2-0 Texas: Wins over Baylor and OkSU
- 1-1 Baylor: Win over OkSU, loss to TX
- 0-2 OkSU: Losses to TX and Baylor
In that case Texas would get the other spot.
If not that, then we would proceed to the next tiebreaker but with (I think) only those three teams. The next tiebreaker is record against the best team(s) in the conference. The next best team would be either 5-4 TCU or 4-5 TCU or 4-5 TCU AND KSU.
Against TCU:
- Texas lost
- Baylor won
- OkSU won
Against KSU:
- Texas won
- Baylor won
- OkSU won
In either case, Texas is out. At that point Baylor and OkSU would revert to the two-team tiebreaker of H2H which Baylor won so Baylor would go.
Bottom line, Oklahoma would be in and the other team would either be Texas or Baylor depending on how you read the B12's tiebreaking rules.
-
Thanks. Other than Kansas winning out, it's really not all that unrealistic of a scenario.
-
All of this is moot, of course.
OU will win out, Baylor will go 1-1 at worst, and the two of them will have their rematch in the Big 12's totally-unnecessary-and-done-only-for-the-money CCG.
-
Saturday seems like moving day in a golf tournament.
-
All of this is moot, of course.
OU will win out, Baylor will go 1-1 at worst, and the two of them will have their rematch in the Big 12's totally-unnecessary-and-done-only-for-the-money CCG.
Well, not JUST for the money. How could you forget that it's also a result of the selection committee infamously commenting they wanted to see a "13th data point" for the B12 when Baylor and TCU were tied at the top of the league a few years back?
Nevermind that the "13th data point" wasn't required for OU a year later, or Notre Dame who never plays 13, or Alabama and Ohio State teams that didn't play in their CCG... :)
-
Well, not JUST for the money. How could you forget that it's also a result of the selection committee infamously commenting they wanted to see a "13th data point" for the B12 when Baylor and TCU were tied at the top of the league a few years back?
Nevermind that the "13th data point" wasn't required for OU a year later, or Notre Dame who never plays 13, or Alabama and Ohio State teams that didn't play in their CCG... :)
Variations from year-to-year are inherent in the system. They are looking for the best four teams in the current year.
Look at the BCS era for a comparison. The BCS era lasted 16 years from 1998-2013. Of those 16 years LSU's 2007 team could only have made the CG in one, 2007. Of those 16 years, Auburn's 2004 team could only have missed in one, 2004. LSU was just lucky to have that 2-loss year in 2007 when 2-losses wasn't a disqualifier and Auburn was just unlucky to have that undefeated year in 2004 when that wasn't enough.
The CG is a double-edged sword for every league. In 2014 it got Ohio State in but in 2017 it kept Wisconsin out. That is just the way the ball bounces.
-
Variations from year-to-year are inherent in the system. They are looking for the best four teams in the current year.
Look at the BCS era for a comparison. The BCS era lasted 16 years from 1998-2013. Of those 16 years LSU's 2007 team could only have made the CG in one, 2007. Of those 16 years, Auburn's 2004 team could only have missed in one, 2004. LSU was just lucky to have that 2-loss year in 2007 when 2-losses wasn't a disqualifier and Auburn was just unlucky to have that undefeated year in 2004 when that wasn't enough.
The CG is a double-edged sword for every league. In 2014 it got Ohio State in but in 2017 it kept Wisconsin out. That is just the way the ball bounces.
I'll echo NorthernOhioBuckeye (I think). I'd just like them to shut up about their reasoning and their critera, since the reasoning and the criteria vary from week to week and from year to year. One time it's best losses, another time it's best wins, another time it's body of work, another time the 13 data point is all-important, another time it's offense-defense balance, another time it's taking injuries into account. I wish they'd just pick the four teams and not tell us a bunch of lies about all the chicken entrails they inspected.
-
Starting to hear more and more people coming on board with the fact that the CFP has largely ruined college football, by making the focus way too narrow. That the NY6 is not what the non-title BCS bowls were, that conference title races are meh. Danny Kanell was saying it on the radio this week, heard a couple podcasters, including Pete Fiutek this week saying the same. That we get to this point of the year, and so few things matter anymore.
-
I don't see it that way.
-
I don't see it that way.
Of course you don't. You and I follow a team that has been in the CFP hunt every single year. In fact, Ohio State has been in the thick of the controversy in each of the five years of the CFP's existence:
- 2014: The big controversy was B1G Champion tOSU vs B12 co-Champions Baylor and TCU.
- 2015: To the extent that there was a controversy, the big controversy was that basically everyone knew that tOSU was uber-talented but they lost to MSU. Nearly every serious CFB fan, if they had been forced to put $1,000 down on a neutral site game would have picked the Buckeyes over the Cardinal, Hawkeyes, Sooners, or Spartans but those teams were ranked higher.
- 2016: The big controversy was that PSU was B1G Champion and had a H2H win over the Buckeyes but the Buckeyes had fewer losses and a "better" loss.
- 2017: The big controversy was that the Buckeyes were a conference champion and had more and better quality wins than Bama but the Tide had fewer losses and their loss was "better" than the Buckeyes.
- 2018: To the extent that there was a controversy, the big controversy was that Oklahoma had a "better" loss than the Buckeyes but the Buckeyes had more and better quality wins than the Sooners.
The problem isn't for you and I. As fans of Ohio State the CFP era has been about as interesting for us as possible. The problem is for everyone else. Regional rivalries and even conference titles have become largely irrelevant unless they impact the CFP race.
Several weeks ago I posted a thread for the upcoming tOSU/M game (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/3-ohio-state-(5-08-0)-at-14-michigan-4-27-2)-game-thread/) that was (then) nearly a month away. I posted it to point out that it just felt weird to not be very excited about THE GAME. At the time Ohio State had four or five remaining games and I stated that I felt that THE GAME was the least important of the five. Now Ohio State has two or three games left and THE GAME is clearly the least important of the three. That is how the CFP has changed the game in ways that a lot of fans don't like.
-
CFB is in the eye of the beholder. I don't get into the gambling end, and that's far more prevalent than CFB playoff talk. If I can read around all the chatter about Vegas odds and point spreads, then others can ignore the playoff banter.
-
CFB is in the eye of the beholder. I don't get into the gambling end, and that's far more prevalent than CFB playoff talk. If I can read around all the chatter about Vegas odds and point spreads, then others can ignore the playoff banter.
STRONGLY disagree. I don't think there is any college football discussion at this point that isn't about the playoff impact.
-
There aren't any threads that don't mention point spreads either, but I get by.
The midweek Maction thread doesn't have any playoff banter, as I recall. Does the MSU-Rutgers thread have any? Not to my recollection. Sure, the thread about P5 divisional races is going to have a little. Or the Top 25 thread. Those would b good ones to skip over if you don't want to read playoff banter.
-
There aren't any threads that don't mention point spreads either, but I get by.
The midweek Maction thread doesn't have any playoff banter, as I recall. Does the MSU-Rutgers thread have any? Not to my recollection. Sure, the thread about P5 divisional races is going to have a little. Or the Top 25 thread. Those would b good ones to skip over if you don't want to read playoff banter.
People aren't talking about here, they are talking about the discussion at large. There is no discussion of the importance of any games, except their impact on the CFP. That's fine in basketball, where any team remotely decent is at least in the discussion for the tournament, so you are truly just ignoring the dregs. But here you are basically ignoring half the conferences right off the bat, and then by this point, 120 or so teams are totally irrelevant. Fiutek was talking, and I agree, how even at this point of the year in the BCS, we'd be talking about races for the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, etc..., or can Minnesota play in the NYD bowl. Instead on Sunday it was a discussion about how Minnesota's dream season was done.
-
Fiutek writes his own blog. He can talk about whatever he wants. If he elects to engage in non-stop playoff banter, then he has no one to blame but himself.
-
People aren't talking about here, they are talking about the discussion at large. There is no discussion of the importance of any games, except their impact on the CFP. That's fine in basketball, where any team remotely decent is at least in the discussion for the tournament, so you are truly just ignoring the dregs. But here you are basically ignoring half the conferences right off the bat, and then by this point, 120 or so teams are totally irrelevant. Fiutek was talking, and I agree, how even at this point of the year in the BCS, we'd be talking about races for the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, etc..., or can Minnesota play in the NYD bowl. Instead on Sunday it was a discussion about how Minnesota's dream season was done.
This is an interesting thought.
In some ways the CFP is the worst of all worlds here. In the BCS era there was plenty of discussion of the NC but only a very few teams were realistically in that race by this point of the season so there was still room for discussion of those other things you mention. The CFP discussion includes enough teams to basically take up all the oxygen in the room but still a small enough number that the vast majority are left completely out of the discussion.
-
It is the elephant in the room, but folks do discuss who might make significant bowl games, like cincinnati.
-
I guess I'm just jealous that his "thing" is a lot easier to avoid than mine. I have a pretty good feel for how w much playoff banter there will b from the title. College Game Day? That will have a lot. Mark Dantonio's coaches show? That won't have any. Paul Finebaum? He is gonna be talking about it a lot. A weekly Maize and Blue vlog? They might mention it a time or two in passing, but it won't be the focal point. A piece on Nebraska's second season under Frost? Not a peep about CFB Playoffs.
-
Starting to hear more and more people coming on board with the fact that the CFP has largely ruined college football, by making the focus way too narrow. That the NY6 is not what the non-title BCS bowls were, that conference title races are meh. Danny Kanell was saying it on the radio this week, heard a couple podcasters, including Pete Fiutek this week saying the same. That we get to this point of the year, and so few things matter anymore.
Yes. For helmet teams, making the CFP has been the sole metric of a successful season. And, even once they make it, 3 of the 4 teams end their seasons as losers.
Winning your conference, going to a major bowl and defeating another conference-winner, and maybe finishing in the top 3 to 5 teams after everything shakes out is no longer good enough. For other major-conference teams, the CFP has sucked all the air out of the room. Even with a great season, say, going 10-2, winning a first conference championship in 15 years, and going to a "major" bowl game is not what it used to be, because all the focus is on the playoff.
-
Winning your conference, going to a major bowl and defeating another conference-winner, and maybe finishing in the top 3 to 5 teams after everything shakes out is no longer good enough. For other major-conference teams, the CFP has sucked all the air out of the room. Even with a great season, say, going 10-2, winning a first conference championship in 15 years, and going to a "major" bowl game is not what it used to be, because all the focus is on the playoff.
This is exactly what I meant in my post above. In some ways the 4-team CFP is the worst of all worlds. Per my post in another thread, 538 calculates that 12 teams have at least a 20% chance to reach the CFP if they win out:
- 99%+ LSU
- 99%+ tOSU
- 99%+ Clemson
- 99%+ Georgia
- 91% Penn State
- 76% Oregon
- 73% Minnesota
- 68% Utah
- 66% Oklahoma
- 33% Wisconsin
- 25% Baylor
- 20% Bama
That is a decent number of teams and and there is plenty of discussion to be had about it. There is enough discussion to, as you said, suck all the air out of the room which doesn't leave any room for anything else.
With an eight team playoff (assuming P5 auto-bids, an auto-bid for the highest ranked G5 Champ, and two at-large spots) the discussion would also include:
- Florida: Could potentially secure an at-large spot with an impressive finish and a few things going their way.
- Michigan: Could potentially secure an at-large spot with an impressive finish and a few things going their way.
- Notre Dame: Could potentially secure an at-large spot with an impressive finish and a few things going their way.
- Memphis: Could potentially get the G5's bid.
- Cincy: Could potentially get the G5's bid.
- BoiseSt: Could potentially get the G5's bid.
- ApSt: Could potentially get the G5's bid.
- SMU: Could potentially get the G5's bid.
- Temple: Could potentially get the G5's bid.
- OkSU: Could (at least mathematically) win the B12.
- ISU: Could (at least mathematically) win the B12.
- Texas: Could (at least mathematically) win the B12.
- USC: Could (at least mathematically) win the P12.
That would be a 25-team discussion that includes pretty much every team having a potentially great season.
-
I don't think going to 8 teams would fix it, Medina, any more than going to 4 teams fixed what was wrong with the BCS system.
Also, we would expand the number of teams guaranteed to end the season with losses from 3 to 7.
-
I don't think going to 8 teams would fix it, Medina, any more than going to 4 teams fixed what was wrong with the BCS system.
Also, we would expand the number of teams guaranteed to end the season with losses from 3 to 7.
I'm not sure where I stand on this anymore.
I was opposed to expanding the playoff from two to four because any playoff expansion inherently degrades the regular season.
What I really don't like about an eight team playoff is that I assume it would come with automatic bids for the P5 Champions and the highest ranked G5 Champion. That, by definition, turns every P5 team's OOC games into meaningless exhibition games.
As it stands now every game could be decisive, see Ohio State's game against Purdue last year.
When we go to eight it will necessarily further degrade the regular season but it will keep more teams in the hunt deeper into the season.
-
I like the current system, might as well, can't change it. I enjoy what we have.
It is true that ten or so top programs see it as "playoff or bust", but other programs have interest in getting to a major bowl, and some like Minny and Baylor have exciting seasons regardless.