I fundamentally disagree with this logic because CFB and the NFL are VERY different.Yeah, the variance between P5 and G5 is a problem. Just as it's a problem in NCAA basketball where you have a field of 64, and most of those automatic-bid leagues are one-bid leagues because they have effectively zero chance of winning the championship.
The problem is that there is a LOT more variance in CFB. The best and worst divisions in the NFL are not all that widely separated. They just aren't. You can't say that about CFB. The G5 conferences are WAY behind the P5. It just isn't close. Even the best G5 conference would get mauled if they played a B1G/ACC Challenge type scenario against even the worst P5 conference.
yup, and since it hasn't cost anyone yet............. unless you want to count UCFTo me, that isn't unfair. UCF (and all G5 teams') SoS is inherently ridiculously weak compared to nearly any P5 team. Thus, if you are a G5 team and you want access to the CFP, you need to play a ridiculously tough OOC to make up for your ridiculously weak Conference slate.
I don't count them, they had no chance unless they played murder's row
All this talk about UCF.. OK, so it's a nice story and the coach stayed and yada yada.husker fans are a bit concerned about that defense
But man, they gave up a LOT of points to some not so great teams. I don't like that. So, no.
No soup for you.
If we were at 8, #9 would be screaming bloody murder. If we were at 16, #17 would be screaming bloody murder.I don't buy that argument. #9 or #17 "screaming bloody murder" would get laughed at.
so in your scenario this season we would have champs: OSU, USC, OU, UGA, Clemson
In an 8-team playoff with P5 champions auto-bid, you solve the 2014 problem with TCU and Baylor and OSU still gets in. You solve the 2016 problem where PSU is left out [as B1G] champ but OSU gets in [as a 1-loss team]. This year you get OSU in [as B1G champ] and assuredly still have room for non-champion Bama.
so in your scenario this season we would have champs: OSU, USC, OU, UGA, ClemsonI'd say that about rounds it up, yeah.
and Bama, Wisconsin, & UCF?
Obviously the committee might arrange their final top 8 a bit differently than with 4 teams
Penn St, Washington, Auburn, Miami, and Notre Dame get laughed at? I'm fine with that.
I'd love a 6-8 team playoff with P5 autobids.I'd be fine with 12 if it included all 10 auto-bids.
The Ccgs would become play in games.
I'd hate to see the playoff expand to 12 or 16, because Rivalry Week would be rendered worthless.
In that scenario you could have a stretch of years where, say, OSU and Michigan both get into the Playoffs, no matter who wins THE GAME.
I'd hate to see the playoff expand to 12 or 16, because Rivalry Week would be rendered worthless.FYI the ONLY reason I'd expand to 12 or 16 is if you auto-bid the G5 champs. If you're not going to auto-bid all 10 conferences, then you don't need that many teams in the playoffs. I would agree with you that if you go to 12 (P5 + 7 at large) or 16 (P5 + 11 at-large) without including the G5, you're needlessly diluting the pool.
In that scenario you could have a stretch of years where, say, OSU and Michigan both get into the Playoffs, no matter who wins THE GAME.
You have to be really careful with auto-bids.I didn't say that was my ideal format, simply that if they went to 12, but included all 10 champions, I'd be ok with it.
Remember in 2012 when Wisconsin clubbed UNL in Indy?
That 8-5 team would have got an auto-bid just like it got into the Rose Bowl as the "champion" of the Big Ten. I remember 1996 when the Huskers lost to Texas in the first XII title game. There are many more examples.
Be very careful what you ask for.
You have to be really careful with auto-bids.Two things:
Remember in 2012 when Wisconsin clubbed UNL in Indy?
That 8-5 team would have got an auto-bid just like it got into the Rose Bowl as the "champion" of the Big Ten. I remember 1996 when the Huskers lost to Texas in the first XII title game. There are many more examples.
Be very careful what you ask for.
You have to be really careful with auto-bids.agreed, but if it were a 8 team playoff you'd have the opportunity to have the higher ranked team that was "upset" in the conference champ game back in the playoff to possibly square off in a rematch to see if it would happen again.
Remember in 2012 when Wisconsin clubbed UNL in Indy?
That 8-5 team would have got an auto-bid just like it got into the Rose Bowl as the "champion" of the Big Ten. I remember 1996 when the Huskers lost to Texas in the first XII title game. There are many more examples.
Be very careful what you ask for.
agreed, but if it were a 8 team playoff you'd have the opportunity to have the higher ranked team that was "upset" in the conference champ game back in the playoff to possibly square off in a rematch to see if it would happen again.OK, so I remember in 2000 when UW made it to the Final Four in Hoops.
could possibly be the 3rd game between conference opponents
I'd rather CFB not turn into NCAA hoops. That is all.True. And I think based on discussions over many years, you're more of a traditionalist. I'm suspecting that in the end, you'd rather go back to the old system where you play for a conference championship and the reward is going to face a PAC team in Pasadena, and do away with all this BCS/CFP nonsense. Is that accurate?
if Frost stayed at UCF and went undefeated 3 seasons in a row they would gain the credibility to to broker a slot at the tableSupposedly. But the year that Boise State and TCU faced each other as undefeated teams in the Fiesta Bowl, why do you think that was? Now, I don't fault them for not being in the national championship game, because 2009 was the year that we had 5 undefeated teams, and nobody was going to put anyone other than Alabama and Texas into the championship. But why have the two mid-majors face each other?
good luck to Josh Heupel to keep the training running
True. And I think based on discussions over many years, you're more of a traditionalist. I'm suspecting that in the end, you'd rather go back to the old system where you play for a conference championship and the reward is going to face a PAC team in Pasadena, and do away with all this BCS/CFP nonsense. Is that accurate?That would be me.
That would be me.And that's a fair point...
Times have changed so much since then though. Let's say the Big 12 wanted to add UCF (sounds like they were thinking about). And then ESecPN comes in and says they would be really pissed off about any expansion (which they did) because it would cost them proportionally more money (it would have) to keep the Big 12 rights, with little return.Uhhh, then the XII needs to tell ESPN "tough shit" and add who they want. And have a more valid CCG.
That was not the case when F$U made its run. TV runs the show now.
CFB is in this place because people want to crown a champion, and were unsatisfied with the beauty pageant.people were just unsatisfied
so was USCw.yup, 3 con champs out of 5
Uhhh, then the XII needs to tell ESPN "tough crap" and add who they want. And have a more valid CCG.no one is flush enough with cash to turn down millions
Uhhh, then the XII needs to tell ESPN "tough crap" and add who they want. And have a more valid CCG.It's never a wise thing to piss off your primary investor.
Let's have the most important regular season of any sport. Please?The most important regular season of any sport?
yup, they are liars.
The committee has said two things carry a lot of weight. Strength of schedule OOC and winning your conference championship.
Well, that would've REALLY pissed me off this year because Wisconsin had a stronger schedule.Yeah, but you're honestly telling me that if Wisconsin had a 31-pt loss to Iowa, like Ohio State did, you don't think the committee would justify Bama by excusing the top-10 Auburn loss and calling the Wisconsin loss to an unranked Iowa a "bad loss" that makes their resume weaker?
Not sure about the quasi-helmet comment though. There is probably no such thing. You are or you're not, if you are not you can never be, based on what I've read here and elsewhere.
UCF athletic director Danny White said Wednesday the program has decided to claim a national championship and will place a championship banner inside Spectrum Stadium to recognize its undefeated 2017 season.LOL. What championship are they claiming? Their own? College football (MSU right there) has a rich history of claiming just about anything, but I'm pretty sure those days are over.
Let's not have 2 NFLs.I've agreed with this for a while.Dragging out the season students miss more studies.Athletes risk more injury.Only one benefiting extended seasons are advertisers,networks and venues.Student athletes get more pocket change.4 game Playoff is just fine - win your games or don't complain
Let's have the most important regular season of any sport. Please?
Badgers as a one loss Big Ten champ with victory over the Buckeyes in Indy. Do they get in over Bama?Doubt it.
Yes, even with the 31 point loss to the Hawks
it would have been close, but I think they get the nod over Bama
I could be wrong
everyone is bitching about bama.... but what about Clemson? they have one loss too- and to a ridiculously bad Syracuse team... personally, i think bama deserves to be there more than clemson, and i have the argument from last night to back it up.Agreed Clemson is where tOSU was the year before.Lost too much talent to the draft.Real good not great
I also don't want blowouts in the first round. Clemson putting in its backups in the 3rd quarter, up 55-3 on the Sun Belt champ. Just for fairness.That doesn't bug me a ton, just like when Duke is blowing someone out by 40 in the 1st round of the hoops tourney.
That doesn't bug me a ton, just like when Duke is blowing someone out by 40 in the 1st round of the hoops tourney.Except that those late season G5 games wouldn't be relevant anyway because all they would determine is which crappy G5 Champion got slaughtered by which P5 Champion. Who cares? Do you really care which crappy team Dook is up 40 on in the first round of the NCAA?
Me being whatever about going to 12 teams with 10 auto-bids, is that I may start to pay some attention to those Group of 5 Championship games, to those "big" Tuesday night MAC games. While it may make big OOC games irrelevant, it does make late season Group of 5 games (of which there are far more), far more relevant. That's the one upside I see, is a bigger array of meaningful regular season games.
Meanwhile, 16 seeds are 0-120 or whatever in the tournament. Fairness is brought up - is rewarding someone's season with a very public curb-stomping fair? Is virtually guaranteeing their great season end with a blowout loss fair?This is a great point IMHO.
But no, OSU fans are crying out about fairness this year....with 2 losses.NO most of us aren't
Except that those late season G5 games wouldn't be relevant anyway because all they would determine is which crappy G5 Champion got slaughtered by which P5 Champion. Who cares? Do you really care which crappy team Dook is up 40 on in the first round of the NCAA?Yes.
But no, OSU fans are crying out about fairness this year....with 2 losses.Call it crying if you want. I was attempting to have a conversation.
We're not going to have fairness with 129 FBS teams anway. Let's get 4 big, full conferences and trim the fat off.But if you have 4 big, full conferences, that is fat, by definition. 14 is already fat. You can't play everyone. Why even have conferences? You want the SEC at 18 teams so it can play 8 conference games?
4 loss Auburn is not a top 10 team.Agreed. Granted according to the committee, 3-loss Auburn was ranked a top-10 team. At the time of determination of the CFP field we can't look ahead to see that Auburn was going to lose to UCF.
bwarb, one nitpick: Bama didn't beat a "terrible 6-6 FSU team" - they beat a full-strength with their QB #3 FSU at the time. Yes, final ranking is more accurate than ranking at the time, but in this case, FSU crumbled bc their backup QB was a 3* true FR.If I'm wrong on that one, OK. I don't know how much of FSU's 6-6 finish was due to them not being as good as they were hyped to be vs injury problems. But even with a 2nd string QB taking snaps, there should be enough talent on that team to not finish 6-6. I think they very well might have been highly overrated on opening night.
So yes, Bama scheduled tough OOC as well as OSU did.
I was opposed to the expansion of the playoff from two to four teams and I oppose an expansion to six or eight for the same reason: Every expansion of the playoff necessarily dilutes the regular season to at least some extent. The expansion to four made it nearly impossible for a 1-loss team to miss the playoffs. An expansion to eight (with auto-bids for the P5) would make OOC games meaningless and non-divisional games only marginally meaningful.I believe that the 4-team playoff actually diminishes the value of winning your conference. The committee says it should carry a lot of weight but in both 2016 and 2017 they took non-champs over conference champs. Heck, 2016 Penn State beat eventual CFP participant OSU head to head, but because of a week 2 loss to Pitt ended up not making it into the CFP.
But no, OSU fans are crying out about fairness this year....with 2 losses.As the OP, I should point out that I decry the lack of fairness in the system and I am NOT an OSU fan.
To me, it's not national title or bust (which I'll elaborate on later, but don't have time now). I just want meaningful football. A CCG to determine who gets slaughtered by Clemson is still a hell of a lot more relevant than a CCG to determine a conference title, that doesn't really mean anythingWell, the simple fact is that the G5 teams don't really mean anything. They never will. The P5 haven't yet made a move to break off from them, but they certainly make sure that the G5 will never get a seat at the table and do everything they can to keep them out of the power structure.
I believe that the 4-team playoff actually diminishes the value of winning your conference. The committee says it should carry a lot of weight but in both 2016 and 2017 they took non-champs over conference champs. Heck, 2016 Penn State beat eventual CFP participant OSU head to head, but because of a week 2 loss to Pitt ended up not making it into the CFP.I disagree. It wasn't the expansion to four teams that diminished the value of winning your conference. In the BCS era neither 2017 11-1 non-champion Bama nor 2016 11-1 non-champion Ohio State would have even been seriously discussed.
I disagree. It wasn't the expansion to four teams that diminished the value of winning your conference. In the BCS era neither 2017 11-1 non-champion Bama nor 2016 11-1 non-champion Ohio State would have even been seriously discussed.That is true. In the BCS era, because you had 6 power conference champions, you basically never had a scenario where a non-champion would have EVER been selected over a champion. That's just loony talk!
Wisconsin clinched their spot in the B1GCG BEFORE the Michigan game. If Champions got auto-bids then there would have been an argument for the Badgers to rest their starters during the Michigan game. With the knowledge that at least one P5 Champion will be excluded that isn't even discussed.Except that this isn't the NFL. If Wisconsin had rested their starters and lost to Michigan, and then lost to Ohio State, there's no way they'd secure an at-large. But if they had beaten Michigan and lost to Ohio State, they probably would have gotten an at-large berth this year.
What's usually lost in these conversations is that Football is the mother's milk of college athletics. While fans cry at the "greed" of AD's and college presidents because they are seeking to maximize the money brought in, the money goes to fund athletic programs and pay for athlete's education. A lot of people fail to admit how important the money is and cry "greed" when all they are interested in is being entertained more to their liking. I don't blame the power that be for not wanting to rock the boat just because a lot of the people who they they are pure in heart really just are selfish in their desire for better entertainment.Good to see you here pal. And I agree entirely with your post. Happy New Year.
Yes.I think that's a perspective unique to you. That's fine and I respect it but my gut tells me there aren't tons of otherwise indifferent people looking for a reason to watch the CUSA title game.
I soak up those two weeks of mid-major conference tournaments. I'll watch random quarterfinal games online.
I didn't watch a minute of any of the Group of 5 CCGs other than UCF, because they were totally irrelevant.
To me, it's not national title or bust (which I'll elaborate on later, but don't have time now). I just want meaningful football. A CCG to determine who gets slaughtered by Clemson is still a hell of a lot more relevant than a CCG to determine a conference title, that doesn't really mean anything
Well, the simple fact is that the G5 teams don't really mean anything. They never will. The P5 haven't yet made a move to break off from them, but they certainly make sure that the G5 will never get a seat at the table and do everything they can to keep them out of the power structure.Right, I'm not saying what WILL happen
I think that's a perspective unique to you. That's fine and I respect it but my gut tells me there aren't tons of otherwise indifferent people looking for a reason to watch the CUSA title game.I mean a ton of people who don't otherwise watch college basketball, watch the tourney. If the CUSA CCG was meaningful, I'm not saying it would draw SEC CCG numbers, but I would bet there is a bump
Yes.To elaborate...
I soak up those two weeks of mid-major conference tournaments. I'll watch random quarterfinal games online.
I didn't watch a minute of any of the Group of 5 CCGs other than UCF, because they were totally irrelevant.
To me, it's not national title or bust (which I'll elaborate on later, but don't have time now). I just want meaningful football. A CCG to determine who gets slaughtered by Clemson is still a hell of a lot more relevant than a CCG to determine a conference title, that doesn't really mean anything
I mean THIS year it wouldn't have been. In those years you had relatively weak champions from most of the leagues. This year you didn't. The B1G and PAC had relatively weak (2-loss) champions but the SEC, ACC, and B12 each produced 1-loss champions.QuoteI disagree. It wasn't the expansion to four teams that diminished the value of winning your conference. In the BCS era neither 2017 11-1 non-champion Bama nor 2016 11-1 non-champion Ohio State would have even been seriously discussed.
That is true. In the BCS era, because you had 6 power conference champions, you basically never had a scenario where a non-champion would have EVER been selected over a champion. That's just loony talk!
Well, except in the 2011 season where Alabama faced LSU. And almost the 2006 season where we debated an OSU/UM rematch.
There's no way that a non-champ would be seriously discussed!
Badgers as a one loss Big Ten champ with victory over the Buckeyes in Indy. Do they get in over Bama?disagree.. 1 loss bama gets in over a 1 loss big champ named Wisconsin.
Yes, even with the 31 point loss to the Hawks
it would have been close, but I think they get the nod over Bama
I could be wrong
That is true. In the BCS era, because you had 6 power conference champions, you basically never had a scenario where a non-champion would have EVER been selected over a champion. That's just loony talk!In 2011 you had 11-1 Oklahoma State and 11-1 Stanford, who were edged out by 11-1 non-champ Alabama.
Well, except in the 2011 season where Alabama faced LSU. And almost the 2006 season where we debated an OSU/UM rematch.
There's no way that a non-champ would be seriously discussed!
I mean THIS year it wouldn't have been. In those years you had relatively weak champions from most of the leagues. This year you didn't. The B1G and PAC had relatively weak (2-loss) champions but the SEC, ACC, and B12 each produced 1-loss champions.
10-4 Auburn team...Yes, now. My point was at the time the CFP rankings were released, they were a 10-3 Auburn team. That was the known record at the time the committee was evaluating Alabama's resume.
In 2011 you had 11-1 Oklahoma State and 11-1 Stanford, who were edged out by 11-1 non-champ Alabama.Well, a couple of things. I don't think the every member of the committee was necessarily in lockstep with how the rankings came out. It's still made up 12 people with 12 opinions. They just eventually have to come to a consensus. If you were having a drink with one of them individually they might lean in and tell you they had Ohio St at #4.
You can make a claim that Alabama (having only lost to an undefeated LSU team) was the 2nd-best team in the nation. But I'm not sure you can argue that OkSU or Stanford were necessarily "weak" unless by strength/weakness you're comparing the shine of their helmet. They weren't 2-loss champs like PSU in 2016 and OSU or USC in 2017. They were 1-loss conference champs. Shouldn't that mean something?
Either way, however, the BCS was essentially a mathematical formula. It was the polls and the computer rankings. The human polls differ from the committee in that the individual human voters are independent and don't collectively agree on who the representatives in the title game should be.
The committee does, however. And the committee has several stated rationales as far as what should carry weight. 2016 PSU lost in weeks 2 and 4, and then basically rolled roughshod through the rest of the season, but were passed over for a team they beat head to head. And I don't want to argue from results, but that team got completely decimated by Clemson in the semis. 2017 OSU did what they were supposed to do (schedule tough and win their conference) and had a pretty good resume, beating two teams that finished in the top 10, but based on losing to a team that finished 2nd in the standings and having one "WTF?" game were jumped by a non-champion who didn't schedule particularly tough and didn't really have any "signature wins".
I think you can easily argue the 2016 PSU team was tough, and and beat the one-loss non-champ that was selected over them head to head. I think you can easily argue the 2017 OSU team was tough, had some great wins, and 9 times out of 10 beats that Iowa team to a pulp. Is their resume truly worse than an Alabama team with no signature wins that lost to a 10-3 Auburn team?
Although if we want to talk about Auburn, how is it that a 10-2 Auburn team was suddenly the #2 team in the CFP rankings going into the SECCG?Hang on.
Like Ohio State, they scheduled tough OOC and lost that game. Like OSU, they had a 2nd lost on their schedule, and I'll grant that a loss away to a ranked LSU team is better than getting pantsed by an unranked Iowa team. They had a couple high-quality wins (Georgia, Bama). But what exactly had they done as a 2-loss team to be considered ahead of OU, Wisconsin, Bama, Georgia, and Miami, all undefeated or 1-loss teams, and to separate them that much from 2-loss teams like OSU/PSU/USC?
Was it their big win over Mercer?
This isn't a mystery guys. Some of you are willfully blinded by conference affiliation. It's almost comical.And you are definitely blinded by conference affiliation. It's not comical at all; pathetic is the 1st word I associate with your dogma.
In 2011 you had 11-1 Oklahoma State and 11-1 Stanford, who were edged out by 11-1 non-champ Alabama.I want to address a few things in here that haven't already been covered by others:
You can make a claim that Alabama (having only lost to an undefeated LSU team) was the 2nd-best team in the nation. But I'm not sure you can argue that OkSU or Stanford were necessarily "weak" unless by strength/weakness you're comparing the shine of their helmet. They weren't 2-loss champs like PSU in 2016 and OSU or USC in 2017. They were 1-loss conference champs. Shouldn't that mean something?
Either way, however, the BCS was essentially a mathematical formula. It was the polls and the computer rankings. The human polls differ from the committee in that the individual human voters are independent and don't collectively agree on who the representatives in the title game should be.
The committee does, however. And the committee has several stated rationales as far as what should carry weight. 2016 PSU lost in weeks 2 and 4, and then basically rolled roughshod through the rest of the season, but were passed over for a team they beat head to head. And I don't want to argue from results, but that team got completely decimated by Clemson in the semis. 2017 OSU did what they were supposed to do (schedule tough and win their conference) and had a pretty good resume, beating two teams that finished in the top 10, but based on losing to a team that finished 2nd in the standings and having one "WTF?" game were jumped by a non-champion who didn't schedule particularly tough and didn't really have any "signature wins".
I think you can easily argue the 2016 PSU team was tough, and and beat the one-loss non-champ that was selected over them head to head. I think you can easily argue the 2017 OSU team was tough, had some great wins, and 9 times out of 10 beats that Iowa team to a pulp. Is their resume truly worse than an Alabama team with no signature wins that lost to a 10-3 Auburn team?
Guys, strength of schedule doesn't just come into play in losses. Auburn beat two #1 teams, that's why they moved up so high. It wasn't just a "couple high quality wins" - they beat the #1 team twice in a 3-week span. So instead of moving up with everyone else as other teams lost, they jumped a few spots each time.And I grant them that. Auburn had quality wins. And the loss to Clemson was a quality loss. The loss to LSU wasn't so much a "bad" loss, but it was a second loss which has seemed to exclude any team from CFP consideration every time it's come up. Yet they jumped all the way to #2 in the country with those two losses.
This isn't a mystery guys. Some of you are willfully blinded by conference affiliation. It's almost comical.
And I grant them that. Auburn had quality wins. And the loss to Clemson was a quality loss. The loss to LSU wasn't so much a "bad" loss, but it was a second loss which has seemed to exclude any team from CFP consideration every time it's come up. Yet they jumped all the way to #2 in the country with those two losses.I agree with you, sadly. The rules keep changing to get an answer they seem to look for...
My own suspicion was that the committee had determined in advance that the SEC champ was in regardless of whether it was Auburn or Georgia, and to forestall any bellyaching over a 2-loss team getting in they put them SO high prior to the SECCG that it would look natural that they stay in the top 4. Auburn jumped both 1-loss Oklahoma and undefeated Wisconsin to get into that #2 slot before the CCG.
Past behavior by the committee says 2 losses disqualify you from the CFP. Except when they decide they don't.
Collectively, the Buckeyes and Sooners probably lose one CFP berth by playing each other the last two years. So the message sent by the committee is to schedule cupcakes because at the end of the day "# of losses" is a higher ranking criteria than "SoS".Except that it isn't. Auburn should get credit for scheduling Clemson, as OSU/OU should get credit for scheduling each other.
I agree with you, sadly. The rules keep changing to get an answer they seem to look for...DING DING DING! We have a winner!
Actually you are being simply ridiculous. Auburn had just beaten two number 1 teams on successive weekends. At the time Auburn was ranked number 2 they had not lost by 30 points to a mediocre team. They deserved the number two ranking. There was no comparison between their ranking and how Ohio State was treated.Now, as I said to OAM, note that I'm not an OSU fan. I'm not a fan of any helmet team in general. I'm a Purdue fan, so it's not like CFP selection criteria will ever affect my team either way. I just think it's a bad system.
The BCS was good; not perfect, but good. Certain people didn't get what they wanted so they cried, and cried and they changed the system. Now, those people didn't get what they wanted again; so we are back to the cry fest again.
on 8 team playoff, i'm not really a fan of going to 8, but not completely against it either.I think that would be cool... However I'd almost prefer the other idea of keeping the traditional bowl games as the quarterfinal sites (perhaps without seeding) such that the traditional bowl matchups are preserved. Something about the Rose being B1G champ vs PAC champ just seems like it shouldn't be messed with.
and in one sense, i am excited about the potential: cfp games at home stadiums. if they will make rd1 games at the higher seeded home stadiums that'd be amazing.
The PAC and B1G wanted home venues for the 4 team playoffs we currently have.Of course not. It's self-serving. The PAC is far from everywhere, so it forces other teams to travel to them. The B1G is cold, and nobody in any of the other conferences wants to play a game in December outdoors in Ann Arbor, Columbus, State College, or Madison.
The other 3 conferences wanted no part of it.
And I grant them that. Auburn had quality wins. And the loss to Clemson was a quality loss. The loss to LSU wasn't so much a "bad" loss, but it was a second loss which has seemed to exclude any team from CFP consideration every time it's come up. Yet they jumped all the way to #2 in the country with those two losses.Your own suspicion was that the committee had determined in advance that the SEC champ would get in? Why? Why would you think that? Jesus guys. Please stop with the conspiracy theories. What do people like Gene Smith, Kirby Hocutt, Frank Beamer, Rob Mullens, Ty Willingham, Dan Radakovich, Herb Deromedi, and Chris Howard have to gain for being shills for SEC football?
My own suspicion was that the committee had determined in advance that the SEC champ was in regardless of whether it was Auburn or Georgia, and to forestall any bellyaching over a 2-loss team getting in they put them SO high prior to the SECCG that it would look natural that they stay in the top 4. Auburn jumped both 1-loss Oklahoma and undefeated Wisconsin to get into that #2 slot before the CCG.
Past behavior by the committee says 2 losses disqualify you from the CFP. Except when they decide they don't.
I agree with you, sadly. The rules keep changing to get an answer they seem to look for...obviously it would help fan's perception if the committee would let everyone know what answer they are looking for, instead of the lying
2-loss Auburn did something I'm not sure anyone else did - hence their being rewarded with the #2 ranking. Yes, it's odd to see a 2-loss team ranked over 1-loss helmets and undefeated Wisconsin.......but at the same time, haven't we all bitched about the laziness of voters when they simply rank the teams by how many losses they have? We can't have it both ways.Here's the other thing. I don't consider it "jumping." That is sort of old school poll terminology. Each week the committee wipes the slate clean and re-ranks the teams. So if a team is #9 one week they aren't using that as a baseline when they go to rank them the next week. Everyone is essentially unranked and they start the process over. A team can move up or down not only based on what they did but what their opponents did.
The only team that came to mind, doing what AU did, was Miss State a few years back when they were #1. They jumped from unranked (AP poll) all the way up to #1 because in 3 straight weeks they beat #8, #6, and #2. So in the first committee ranking, they were first. Rewarded for their multiple wins over highly-ranked teams. They jumped a much bigger, undefeated helmet in FSU (defending champs) thanks to those big wins.
If we're going to penalize teams for bad losses (as we do and should), we should also reward teams for great wins. Obviously, right?
Each week the committee wipes the slate clean and re-ranks the teams.Ed Zachery!!!!
Everyone is essentially unranked and they start the process over.
The committee just needs to be silent until the CCG's are over.then they wouldn't appear to be assclowns
then they wouldn't appear to be assclownsAll ESPN cares about is TV ratings. Whether it's true or not, they believe driving controversy... errr... "conversation"... on a weekly basis, helps them increase TV ratings, both weekly and at the end of the year. I don't know whether or not it really helps, but it probably does, and that's their sole focus.
All ESPN cares about is TV ratings. Whether it's true or not, they believe driving controversy... errr... "conversation"... on a weekly basis, helps them increase TV ratings, both weekly and at the end of the year. I don't know whether or not it really helps, but it probably does, and that's their sole focus.and this is also the only logical reason for the cfp committee to say that 5-8 were so close and then ultimately reverse on that stance when it came to final rankings. otherwise, it makes 0 sense.
I know nobody here is complaining about the selections (other than in jest). These are two worthy teams, for sure. They proved it last weekend.Agreed. Although again, I don't like to argue from results, because we don't know what PSU would have done had they been included over OSU last year, and we don't know what OSU would have done if they'd been included over Bama this year.
It's the process that is in question.
and this is also the only logical reason for the cfp committee to say that 5-8 were so close and then ultimately reverse on that stance when it came to final rankings. otherwise, it makes 0 sense.At least with the polls (human or computer) you could see the total number of votes/points/etc, so you actually had a mathematical sense of how the voters or computers were setting gaps between teams.
i still don't know why they decided to create essentially another poll to pick the teams instead of using the bcs polls/system.But these are the "finest minds in college athletics"!
But these are the "finest minds in college athletics"!Exactly. Why open themselves up to this?
Seriously, it was a way to manufacture credibility for the process, but failed spectacularly when they can't seem to offer consistency in how they apply their own stated criteria.
Exactly. Why open themselves up to this?but, the media (ESPN) wants to rake cash so............ we have a circus
There should be no poll. Hell, there should be no weekly release. There should just be a bracket on the first Sunday in December
You could eliminate polls tomorrow, and there'd be a new one up to replace them the next day.absolutely, because they generate $$$
Exactly. Why open themselves up to this?
There should be no poll. Hell, there should be no weekly release. There should just be a bracket on the first Sunday in December
You could eliminate polls tomorrow, and there'd be a new one up to replace them the next day.Well, the whole point of the committee was that these were uncorruptable minds who made their decisions from a background of deep knowledge, unlike AP journalists who may not know the game well enough and coaches who don't have time to watch all the other teams enough to fill out polls. The idea of not using the polls is that these people are purported to be smarter than the people filling out the polls, so their opinion is the credible one.
The AP were (are?) mindless cattle, stacking up the teams in the preseason, then lining them back up each week according to that list and who lost. The final AP poll is a history of simple minds - undefeateds listed first, then the 1-loss teams, then the 2-loss teams. The only ones breaking the line were mid-majors who were further down.mindless cattle gather together
Personally, I think it's great that the committee had a 2-loss team ranked over another P5 undefeated. The specific schools are irrelevant - it shows that they're not mindlessly ranking the teams the way a 7 year old might. Now, they might've been right or wrong in doing so, but at least they were using their adult minds.
It's progress.
mindless cattle gather togetherThat is just so awesome.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings (http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings)
On OSU being out and Bama in, here's an interesting nugget:I noticed that too. But I can't get past the "very little separation" thing.
3 teams in the top 10 won their conference championship game and had room to move up:
Georgia
Ohio State
USC
All 3 teams moved up 3 spots. That's pretty consistent. Alabama moved up one spot because 2 teams above them lost. So I don't know how much the Buckeyes can complain when they moved up exactly as many spots as conf champs UGA and USC did. (AP poll anyway.....in the playoff poll, USC only moved up 2 spots).
There is no good way to do this, so that means...
Rose: PAC vs. B1G - USC vs OSU
Sugar: SEC vs. at large - UGA vs PSU
Cotton: XII vs. at large - OU vs UW
Orange: ACC vs. at large - Clemson vs Bama
Fiesta: at large vs. at large - Auburn - UCF
Let the arguments begin. Just like now. at least 4 teams have a chance at being voted #1 after the bowls if there are a couple upsets
There is no good way to do this, so that means...That's hot.
Rose: PAC vs. B1G
Sugar: SEC vs. at large
Cotton: XII vs. at large
Orange: ACC vs. at large
Fiesta: at large vs. at large
Let the arguments begin. Just like now.
This is a great point IMHO.While I agree with you that college football playoff should not mirror the NCAA Basketball Tournament, 15 seeds have beaten 2 seeds. The SOS is important in college basketball just like football so they count wins and losses as well as who teams beat and lost to in order to determine seeding. I agree with Afro on his point that the conferences are too imbalanced, which is why a winning record against a comparable SOS should be the predominant factor.
Another issue that I have with the BB comparison is that with a 64 team field every major conference team with an even remotely plausible argument and a bunch without a plausible argument gets in. My team (like every major conference team) has been left out multiple times in favor of obviously inferior conference champions from crappy conferences but when that happened my team wasn't very good so I didn't care. If you go to 12 teams with 10 auto-bids the 3rd best P5 non-Champion is going to be left out. This year that would have been (per CFP ranking) Auburn. Other P5 teams left out would have been PSU, Miami, and Washington. Those four teams were obviously better than most of the G5 Champions so letting in the G5 champions while keeping them out is ridiculous.
But if you have 4 big, full conferences, that is fat, by definition. 14 is already fat. You can't play everyone. Why even have conferences? You want the SEC at 18 teams so it can play 8 conference games?I agree with you Badge and will repeat again: Auburn may not be as good as we thought they were, but the UCF win was no fluke if you break down the numbers as Auburn did NOT dominate with size at the line nor did they dominate with SEC speed. Every prediction on this game looked like this: The Tigers have beaten two of the four members of 2017’s College Football Playoff. That’s just too much for the best UCF team in program history to compete with. Well, that was NOT true and now we will never know how far they could have gone. What I see happening if the CFP does not expand is teams like this will move to a Power 5 conference in order to compete at the big dance and that will devastate the smaller conferences. In fact, it has already happened! Due to most of the conference's football-playing members leaving the WAC for other affiliations, the conference discontinued football as a sponsored sport after the 2012–13 season. The WAC's demise didn't occur in one fell swoop. Rather, its fall from grace began in 1999, when the WAC was a swollen 16-team conference. That year, eight teams split off to start the Mountain West Conference. Conference realignment and expansion remodeled the NCAA landscape forever. If your team is in a Power 5 conference--that's great--but the super conferences growing bigger means that the smaller conferences cannot compete and grow smaller. "Individual institutions chase more prestigious conferences, and there's a hierarchy that's always existed. WAC teams always wanted to elevate to the Mountain West because there's a perception that it's more prestigious. The club that they're currently in doesn't have the social status that perhaps another club has. As a result, they want to be part of this other club. ... That's just as important as money." "It's virtually impossible to generate any sponsorship dollars and any long-term television opportunities when you have a constant change in membership, and that goes back 15 years. "When you try to negotiate a better or new deal, the issue [with television providers] always is, 'What are we buying? What's the commitment on the part of the conference?'" Restructuring a media deal for the WAC was impossible because there was no idea what the conference membership would be. The WAC was able to live with its revolving door ethos for more than a decade, but universities are not a renewable resource, and the conference in the Intermountain West already had a shortage of programs from which to choose. After the Mountain West was established, the WAC had to expand its footprint from Louisiana to Hawaii. Even though the conference widened its swath, teams continued to leave, and the WAC pipeline of universities ran dry as there just aren't as many FBS or even FCS level institutions in the western third of the country as there are in the eastern third. I see a proliferation of smaller conferences going away as the super conferences take the best of those teams from those smaller conferences if the CFP doesn't expand. That's not good for the game overall.
Hell, UW played Michigan in Madison this year for the FIRST TIME SINCE 2009!! We're talking about two charter members here, in a "conference" that was founded in 1895, for F sake. What the hell would it look like if there were 18 members? It would look like crap, that's what.
F it and just have all schools be independent. Then all the helmets can play with themselves and everyone will be "happy" or something.
Posted by: ELA
« on: Today at 09:31:23 AM »
I'll definitely watch, but I'm not looking forward to it. I don't think it's an SEC thing, I think just it all feels anti-climatic after NYD. At least in the BCS era you had a couple BCS bowls played in those evenings on like January 2 and 3, and then the title game a couple days later, so it sort of extended the bowl season.
I've just sort of mentally moved on after NYD, and it's been a continuous problem in the whole CFP era, with the schedule structure.
i couldn't agree more.Yeah, and I'm not sure what the answer is, since obviously you need time in between. I would think the only solution would be to not make the semifinals part of the bowl system. Play them on campus 2 weeks after the CCGs, and then have your national championship game on NYD, and still let the semifinals losers go to bowls? While that makes sense for the fan watching at home, I'm not sure it make sense otherwise. What Clemson and Oklahoma fan is going to travel to a bowl game after they just lost a semifinal game? Plus at least as it is now, no matter how you feel about bowl games in general, 2 of the 6 are "meaningful," and this would truly make them all of them exist outside of the Championship Game. Although, that's what we had until a couple years ago anyway. You would probably have to scale back from 6 to 4 again, because 12 teams, once you remove the National Title participants, is starting to really push it on how good the teams in the selection pool are.
the title game needs to be on or around nyd.
if they aren't going to do that, they need to at least make is a saturday game instead of a monday game.
| Associated Press Top 25 |
| 1. Alabama (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/BAMA/alabama-crimson-tide) |
| 2. Georgia (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/UGA/georgia-bulldogs) |
| 3. Oklahoma (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/OKLA/oklahoma-sooners) |
| 4. Clemson (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/CLEM/clemson-tigers) |
| 5. Ohio State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/OHIOST/ohio-state-buckeyes) |
| 6. UCF (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/UCF/ucf-knights) |
| 7. Wisconsin (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/WISC/wisconsin-badgers) |
| 8. Penn State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/PSU/penn-state-nittany-lions) |
| 9. TCU (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/TCU/tcu-horned-frogs) |
| 10. Auburn (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/AUBURN/auburn-tigers) |
| 11. Notre Dame (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/ND/notre-dame-fighting-irish) |
| 12. Southern California (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/USC/southern-california-trojans) |
| 13. Miami (Fla.) (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/MIAMI/miami-fla-hurricanes) |
| 14. Oklahoma State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/OKLAST/oklahoma-state-cowboys) |
| 15. Michigan State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/MICHST/michigan-state-spartans) |
| 16. Washington (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/WASH/washington-huskies) |
| 17. Northwestern (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/NWEST/northwestern-wildcats) |
| 18. LSU (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/LSU/lsu-tigers) |
| 19. Mississippi State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/MISSST/mississippi-state-bulldogs) |
| 20. Stanford (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/STNFRD/stanford-cardinal) |
| 21. South Florida (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/SFLA/south-florida-bulls) |
| 22. Boise State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/BOISE/boise-state-broncos) |
| 23. NC State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/NCST/nc-state-wolfpack) |
| 24. Virginia Tech (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/VATECH/virginia-tech-hokies) |
| 25. Memphis (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/MEMP/memphis-tigers) |
The final AP poll is out. I don't know if the coaches or playoff committee release a final anymore, but this kinda pisses me off. How many teams could administer a beating on a top-10 team playing at home in a NYD6 bowl game, and still drop a spot in the rankings?It’s an interesting case. UCF was gonna get a bump going undefeated and beating a higher-ranked team. OSU doesn’t fall by throttling USC.
Probably just the one that went from #6 to #7. WTF. No respect whatsoever.
Associated Press Top 25 1. Alabama (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/BAMA/alabama-crimson-tide) 2. Georgia (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/UGA/georgia-bulldogs) 3. Oklahoma (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/OKLA/oklahoma-sooners) 4. Clemson (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/CLEM/clemson-tigers) 5. Ohio State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/OHIOST/ohio-state-buckeyes) 6. UCF (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/UCF/ucf-knights) 7. Wisconsin (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/WISC/wisconsin-badgers) 8. Penn State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/PSU/penn-state-nittany-lions) 9. TCU (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/TCU/tcu-horned-frogs) 10. Auburn (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/AUBURN/auburn-tigers) 11. Notre Dame (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/ND/notre-dame-fighting-irish) 12. Southern California (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/USC/southern-california-trojans) 13. Miami (Fla.) (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/MIAMI/miami-fla-hurricanes) 14. Oklahoma State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/OKLAST/oklahoma-state-cowboys) 15. Michigan State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/MICHST/michigan-state-spartans) 16. Washington (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/WASH/washington-huskies) 17. Northwestern (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/NWEST/northwestern-wildcats) 18. LSU (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/LSU/lsu-tigers) 19. Mississippi State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/MISSST/mississippi-state-bulldogs) 20. Stanford (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/STNFRD/stanford-cardinal) 21. South Florida (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/SFLA/south-florida-bulls) 22. Boise State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/BOISE/boise-state-broncos) 23. NC State (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/NCST/nc-state-wolfpack) 24. Virginia Tech (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/VATECH/virginia-tech-hokies) 25. Memphis (https://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/MEMP/memphis-tigers)
Not dropping the playoff teams was interesting. UCF also got a boost from statement makers. In either case, polls are not serious. They are amalgamations of general feeings with numbers next to them. Ain’t a measure of respect and ain’t worth being pissed over.Agreed. Granted, other than not playing defense (which was an issue for them all year), Oklahoma didn't show anything that IMHO would warrant them dropping too far. They played a very tight 2OT game against the team that took the national champion to OT.
I would like to know the last time it happened.In 2008 to Texas. Beat No. 10 OSU and fell. OSU actually went up a spot because polls are all so relative, ie, every move is largely determined by moves around it.
If you don't finish #1, then who the hell cares what number you end up at??? No one's going to give a damn if you finished 3rd or 7th.I dunno about that. Seems to me a certain rival of yours got a lot of mileage out of talking about a billion top-5 finishes in a row.
should beI'd put PSU over UCF at a minimum. I think they'd tear them a new one. Probably TCU, Washington, USC, MSU, Notre Dame and Miami too.
bama
uga
okey
tosu
wiscy
clemson
ucf
Exactly.That's just people's moronic infatuation with round numbers.....top 5 is just as arbitrary as top 6 or top 7 or top 3.
Being able to say "we're top-5" is a lot different than saying "we're #7" or whatever.
I dunno about that. Seems to me a certain rival of yours got a lot of mileage out of talking about a billion top-5 finishes in a row.Alright, here. Without looking it up, where did Ohio State finish ranked in the AP poll last year?
Alright, here. Without looking it up, where did Ohio State finish ranked in the AP poll last year?Iowa fans know the Iowa answer as I am sure Wisconsin fans know the Wisconsin answer. Iowa finished 9th in 2015, which is actually pretty typical for Kirk Ferentz.
Iowa in 2015? Wisconsin in 2014?
I'm not sure the drop was so much disrespect for Wisconsin, as it was trying to make a statement about UCF.This one.
Don't ask me to defend voters, I'm as critical of them as anyone.I can defend them on a week to week basis.
I'd put PSU over UCF at a minimum. I think they'd tear them a new one. Probably TCU, Washington, USC, MSU, Notre Dame and Miami too.Is that the standard? Who we think would win on a neutral field? That seems like a poor use of a season's worth of data.
Sounds like your college pal did the new head coach of his alma mater a solid on that vote.I don't doubt that had some role. He's a bit of a populist as it is.
Is that the standard? Who we think would win on a neutral field? That seems like a poor use of a season's worth of data.The simple answer is that nobody forced UCF to play an OOC of FCS, FIU, Maryland. If you want to have a chance to be included with the big dogs then put on your big boy pants and go play somebody. As a G5 team, you can't play that OOC and then complain that you got left out.
I wonder if most would prefer we just not rank G5 teams at all. It makes folks so angsty. I know UCF had only one chance to prove itself. But if the answer is that going undefeated means you're still considered JV, why not do away with the charade and treat them like another level of FCS? (I'm aware there's a faustian bargain there. The G5 spot allows the chance to prove mettle against bigger teams, which happens with regularity, and access to certain bowl monies. Too bad because I'd watch a G5 playoff, granted I watch a lot of bowls)
The simple answer is that nobody forced UCF to play an OOC of FCS, FIU, Maryland. If you want to have a chance to be included with the big dogs then put on your big boy pants and go play somebody. As a G5 team, you can't play that OOC and then complain that you got left out.That's not quite fair. They scheduled Georgia Tech and Memphis. Hurricane Irma canceled those games, and they couldn't get them rescheduled. So FCS games got filled in.
I think the best chance for a G5 to crack the playoff could have been last year if Houston had been able to run the table. They beat Oklahoma to start the year and then beat Louisville late in the year when they were 9-1 and ranked #3. If they had been able to run the table in the AAC with those two wins I think it would have been a very interesting decision for the committee. They would have had two wins over ranked P5 teams, including a P5 champion.And I think this is fine because playing a G5 schedule is ridiculously easy compared to playing a P5 schedule.
But, as others have said, it takes that kind of scheduling and luck (the P5 OOC teams you schedule have to have good seasons) for a G5 to get in. Not impossible, but really, really hard.
The simple answer is that nobody forced UCF to play an OOC of FCS, FIU, Maryland. If you want to have a chance to be included with the big dogs then put on your big boy pants and go play somebody. As a G5 team, you can't play that OOC and then complain that you got left out.I suppose no one FORCED them to, but what OOC scheudle would satisfy? Most of that slate was built before the current coach even arrived. You had an act of god take out one game. And ou have the factor some of the stuff is just hard to predict (play GT and MD last year, it means something. This year, it’s trash).
And I think this is fine because playing a G5 schedule is ridiculously easy compared to playing a P5 schedule.It feels weird to call is an advantage. This sport is by nature unbalanced. UCF is almost assuredly on the not-advantaged one.
Ohio State's big loss to Iowa last season is a good example of that. Ohio State played a really bad game and Iowa was good enough to blow the Buckeyes out. If Ohio State played in the AAC and played that same game against any AAC team not named Memphis or UCF, they still would win. That is a humongous advantage for the UCF's of the world.
I saw this on fivethirtyeight:Only if you take the expansion to 8 without conference champ auto-bids. If you auto-bid the conference champions, it is only a slight increase for 1-loss non-champs over the current 4-team CFP and would be quite rare for a 2-loss non-champ to get in at all.
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/silver-feature-cfbplayoff-2.png?w=575&quality=90&strip=info)
I didn't think the increase to four teams was necessary, I definitely don't think a further expansion is necessary. An expansion to eight would give 1-loss non-Champions a 97% chance of making it. That means that everybody would effectively have a mulligan. It would also give 2-loss non-Champions a pretty good chance and that just takes too much away from the every game matters aspect of the season.
I suppose no one FORCED them to, but what OOC scheudle would satisfy? Most of that slate was built before the current coach even arrived. You had an act of GOD take out one game. And ou have the factor some of the stuff is just hard to predict (play GT and MD last year, it means something. This year, it’s trash).I don't disagree, I just get tired of the complaining from the G5 fans. Those conference schedules are complete crap so don't complain when you play a crap OOC, a crap conference schedule and don't get into the CFP.
The point is, a team like that is rarely going to be able to schedule itself into position to have that baller OOC shedule, and rarer still be able to time it up with one of the best teams in program history. You can’t just say, “we’ve got a good team here,” best load up this year.
In short, this is true, but it is not something they have much of a measure of iron clad control over.
It feels weird to call is an advantage. This sport is by nature unbalanced. UCF is almost assuredly on the not-advantaged one.Sure, Ohio State and Bama have advantages that UCF couldn't dream of, but I'm not interested in making a level playing field, I'm interested in putting the best four teams in the country into the CFP.
UCF has an advantage in terms of going undefeated, with a relative disadvantage in everything else. Now I think it's bad UCF can do everything it can against the schedule presented and be perpetually shut out. But I also don't think UCF should've been in a four-team playoff, if that makes any sense.
Lets face it, OSU has some pretty big advantages as well. If Bama doesn't lose to Auburn, OSU is likely in with two losses. Hell, If the Iowa game is 24-21, OSU might be in, or if Iowa beat NW and Purdue. So OSU in the right year has two-loss cushion. USF some years is a loss away from Birmingham or the Liberty Bowl at 11-1.
IT looks pretty clear a non Power 5 team has no real shot at ever making it. Alabama and OSU had pretty stinky resumes and neither had much claim over UCF, but UCF wasn't even in the conversation. Really, Bama's best wins and UCF's best wins were pretty similar, so the whole schedule thing looks really overrated.Really? What were UCF's best wins (pre-bowl because we are talking about at the time of selection)? Memphis (twice, home and neutral)?
Only if you take the expansion to 8 without conference champ auto-bids. If you auto-bid the conference champions, it is only a slight increase for 1-loss non-champs over the current 4-team CFP and would be quite rare for a 2-loss non-champ to get in at all.I'm operating under the assumption that an increase to eight teams will necessarily include auto-bids for the P5 Champions. I do not think the P5 commissioners would do it without that protection. I also think that an auto-bid for the highest ranked G5 Champion will be included if only to forestall potential legal or political challenges.
Right now, a 1-loss non-champ basically has a 50% chance of a mulligan, which OSU got last year and Alabama got this year. That merely increases to 70% if you keep the auto-bids.
I'm operating under the assumption that an increase to eight teams will necessarily include auto-bids for the P5 Champions. I do not think the P5 commissioners would do it without that protection. I also think that an auto-bid for the highest ranked G5 Champion will be included if only to forestall potential legal or political challenges.Well the chart you posted shows that if you were operating under that assumption, going to 8 teams *with* auto-bids wouldn't basically guarantee (97%) a mulligan or make it too likely (30%) that 2-loss non-champs would get in. With auto-bids those numbers are 69% and 14%, respectively.
If it were simply up to me I probably would not give any auto-bids just because I don't think that a team like Wisconsin a few years ago that sneaks into a CG because the two teams that finish ahead of them are in jail then pulls off an upset and wins a P5 Championship with an 8-5 record should be included.
Well the chart you posted shows that if you were operating under that assumption, going to 8 teams *with* auto-bids wouldn't basically guarantee (97%) a mulligan or make it too likely (30%) that 2-loss non-champs would get in. With auto-bids those numbers are 69% and 14%, respectively.This is a minor point, but those numbers aren't quite exact because the eight-team options they list are:
And yes, I get the 2012 Wisconsin problem, just like the 2010 UConn problem.
But we're not comparing my 8-team playoff against some platonic ideal. We're comparing it against a BCS that left out undefeated teams, that crowned a 2-loss LSU a champion, and that left multiple 1-loss conference champions out in order to play a rematch between non-champ Alabama and LSU. We're comparing against a CFP where the selection committee says one thing [SOS and conf champs matter] and then does the opposite. We're comparing a potentially flawed system that I propose against known flawed systems that exist.
I started the OP by saying that there's sometimes a debate between the "best teams" and the "most deserving" teams. I think an 8-team playoff with auto-bids actually serves both ends. The auto-bids are teams who deserve a chance to play for the championship by virtue of winning their conference. The at-large selection allows for the inclusion of teams that might be "the best" but who for whatever reason didn't escape their conference race unscathed and didn't win their conference.
Some years we'll get a conference champion that doesn't truly have a realistic chance at winning the playoff. I'm willing to accept that, as they did still win their conference. That's worth something, right?
This is a minor point, but those numbers aren't quite exact because the eight-team options they list are:Agreed on the minor point. But again, that actually helps reduce the "mulligan" or "double mulligan" likelihood, albeit at the expense of the increased likelihood that an unworthy conference champ will get in.
I'm probably in the minority on this but I actually like that there currently not enough slots for the P5 Champions because that means that everyone knows that each game *could* end up being decisive. Ohio State's loss to Oklahoma (at least in theory) could have kept the Buckeyes out of the playoffs even without the second loss because if the ACC, SEC, B12, and P12 each produced an undefeated Champion then it would be reasonable to expect 12-1 Ohio State to miss out on the CFP.
Similarly, Bama's loss to Auburn would have kept them out either if the Pac Champion had been a decent team or if the Buckeyes had beaten either Iowa or Oklahoma.
I saw this on fivethirtyeight:I think this chart is Horsesh!t.
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/silver-feature-cfbplayoff-2.png?w=575&quality=90&strip=info)
quick correction, 2011 didn't leave out multiple 1 loss conf champs, it left out 1, ok st. all other conf champs had 2+ losses pre-bowl selection.Ahh, for some reason I had thought Stanford was the PAC champ, but didn't realize they were 11-1 without getting into the CCG due to the H2H against Oregon. My mistake.
Agreed on the minor point. But again, that actually helps reduce the "mulligan" or "double mulligan" likelihood, albeit at the expense of the increased likelihood that an unworthy conference champ will get in.That isn’t what the committee is telling teams. The committee rewards teams when they schedule and WIN. Scheduling tough is only part of it. Winning is the other part. Last year, if Ohio St has a win over Bowling Green instead of Oklahoma there is a good chance they don’t make it in without a conference championship.
But I'd argue that the Oklahoma loss actually DID keep OSU out. Had OSU beaten Oklahoma, they most assuredly would have gotten in over Alabama. Of course, that gives them another marquee win. But let's say OSU hadn't scheduled Oklahoma, replacing them with, say, Syracuse. A 12-1 OSU with a win over Syracuse and the loss to Iowa probably STILL would have gotten in over Bama. Yes, their loss was worse, but their conference championship would have likely elevated them.
So what the committee is basically telling teams is "schedule easier OOC because it'll help you get in." OSU scheduled tough OOC and ended up getting penalized for it.
The takeaway from 2017 is that we'll likely see fewer marquee OOC matchups, not more, as the committee has basically shown that # of losses is a lot more important than OOC SOS.
I think if you make the conference championship an auto-bid, helmet teams might be willing to take on more OOC chances since they know those games will prepare them better for conference play where they really need to be on top.
Agreed on the minor point. But again, that actually helps reduce the "mulligan" or "double mulligan" likelihood, albeit at the expense of the increased likelihood that an unworthy conference champ will get in.The problem is that it is a double-edged sword. If you have auto-bids for P5 Champions then maybe marquee teams will take on more marquee OOC opponents but the games won't matter.
But I'd argue that the Oklahoma loss actually DID keep OSU out. Had OSU beaten Oklahoma, they most assuredly would have gotten in over Alabama. Of course, that gives them another marquee win. But let's say OSU hadn't scheduled Oklahoma, replacing them with, say, Syracuse. A 12-1 OSU with a win over Syracuse and the loss to Iowa probably STILL would have gotten in over Bama. Yes, their loss was worse, but their conference championship would have likely elevated them.
So what the committee is basically telling teams is "schedule easier OOC because it'll help you get in." OSU scheduled tough OOC and ended up getting penalized for it.
The takeaway from 2017 is that we'll likely see fewer marquee OOC matchups, not more, as the committee has basically shown that # of losses is a lot more important than OOC SOS.
I think if you make the conference championship an auto-bid, helmet teams might be willing to take on more OOC chances since they know those games will prepare them better for conference play where they really need to be on top.
That isn’t what the committee is telling teams. The committee rewards teams when they schedule and WIN. Scheduling tough is only part of it. Winning is the other part. Last year, if Ohio St has a win over Bowling Green instead of Oklahoma there is a good chance they don’t make it in without a conference championship.I get that, but it is a zero sum game. Every time two "helmet" teams (like OU and tOSU) play an OOC game against each other, one of them WILL lose.
Scheduling tough is high risk/high reward. Yeah, a loss can hurt but a win can really help you too.
I think this chart is Horsesh!t.I don't completely disagree with you and I also noticed that they had undefeated G5 at 25% compared to only 17% for 2-loss P5 Champion but I do want to point out a couple of things:
We have a 4 team playoff now. It claims an undefeated G5 team has a 25% chance of making the playoff. No. No they do not, we had an undefeated G5 champion and they were not even sniffed at.
It lists a 2 loss P5 champ behind a an undefeated G5 team. This would also be patently false, we had two, 2 loss P5 champs both ranked ahead of the undefeated G5 team.
Really, I think we only need a minor tweak to the 4 team model and move on from there. And that tweak would be to prioritize wins instead of losses. That gives the conference champion an equal footing for playing that extra end of season difficult game against non-conference champion participants.
Ahh, for some reason I had thought Stanford was the PAC champ, but didn't realize they were 11-1 without getting into the CCG due to the H2H against Oregon. My mistake.it's still a valid point, though. as much as i enjoy bama winning it that year and can argue bama being in over ok st, i can still see and agree its a shame a p5 champ is left out under that scenario. hell, i'd argue lsu suffered more for that than ok st. wasn't fair to either of them, really.
Really? What were UCF's best wins (pre-bowl because we are talking about at the time of selection)? Memphis (twice, home and neutral)?Truly. By final S&P+ rankings , you find:
Here is the same list for Bama:
- #8 Auburn, lost on the road
- #17 MissSt, won on the road
- #19 LSU, won at home
- #28 Florida State, won at a neutral site
So Bama was 3-1 in four games against teams better than any team that UCF played and Ohio State was 4-2 in six games against such teams. It is NOT CLOSE. A G5 team needs to play a ridiculous OOC to get close to even but it also isn't impossible. It was pointed out upthread that last year Houston beat P5 Champion Oklahoma and also played Louisville. That is the kind of schedule that could make it. If UCF had replaced Austin Peay and Maryland with quality OOC opponents then I think they would have had an argument.
I think you are right, all else being equal, if Ohio State had defeated some crap opponent in week two instead of challenging themselves and coming up short against B12 Champion (to be) and Playoff team (to be) Oklahoma, then Ohio State would have gotten in over Bama as a 12-1 B1G Champion with a weak OOC. I do NOT like that message being sent by the committee.So... your saying if OSU scheduled say ... Mercer for example ... they would not have been placed in the playoff over a 2 loss conference champ?
What I don’t get is all this uproar over UCF when this has happened before to better Other5 teams.Could be Alabama fatigue?
Oh oh, let me try this one! Look at your S+P whatever rankings and list the next 8 toughest opponents for Bama and UCF....Should we pick teams based on who played more average teams?
What I don’t get is all this uproar over UCF when this has happened before to better Other5 teams.Such as?
Such as?Maybe the year that both Boise St and TCU finished undefeated (along with Cincinnati)? BSU used to schedule pretty tough, and had a several-year run of excellence rather than UCF which jumped up from bad results to undefeated really quickly.
Maybe the year that both Boise St and TCU finished undefeated (along with Cincinnati)? BSU used to schedule pretty tough, and had a several-year run of excellence rather than UCF which jumped up from bad results to undefeated really quickly.Definitely. The combo of a strong G5 team along with what was the weakest field of P5 teams yet is the issue. The committee chose an Alabama team that didn't win it conference, division, or any games over great teams. If an undefeated G5 team can't make it in then, when can it?
But that doesn't necessarily jive, as they weren't passed over by 11-1 non-champs. There were only 2 slots in those days and there were two P5 undefeated teams ahead of them.
In all honesty, undefeated G5 teams are not all that common. Not to say they're truly rare, but for *any* team to finish undefeated is difficult. Which is why I think they should have a legitimate shot at finally proving they're worthy.
2016 Western Michigan 13-0 L Cotton Bowl vs #8 Wis
2010 TCU 12-0 W Rose Bowl vs #4 Wis
2009 Cincinnati 12-0 L Sugar Bowl vs #5 UF
2009 TCU 12-0 L Fiesta Bowl vs #6 Boise
2009 Boise State 13-0 W Fiesta Bowl vs #3 TCU
2008 Utah 12-0 W Sugar Bowl vs #4 ALA
2008 Boise State 12-0 L Poinsettia Bowl vs #11 TCU
2007 Hawai'i 12-0 L Sugar Bowl vs #4 UGA
2006 Boise State 12-0 W Fiesta Bowl vs #7 OU
2004 Utah 11-0 W Fiesta Bowl vs # 19 Pitt
2004 Boise State 11-0 L Liberty Bowl vs #7 UL
1999 Marshall 12-0 W Motor City Bowl vs Unranked BYU
1998 Tulane 11-0 W Liberty Bowl vs Unranked BYU
I don't disagree, I just get tired of the complaining from the G5 fans. Those conference schedules are complete crap so don't complain when you play a crap OOC, a crap conference schedule and don't get into the CFP. Sure, Ohio State and Bama have advantages that UCF couldn't dream of, but I'm not interested in making a level playing field, I'm interested in putting the best four teams in the country into the CFP.
I don't think you're interested in getting the four best teams in. I think you're interested in getting the four most accomplished in. And that's fine. In the current context, it's a system that disqualifies half the teams at this level. And if we're honest about it, that's fine. What's weird is the anger from those in the privileged spot ("complete crap" crap, crap, crap). This is a sport that hates upstarts, a fact that never stops seeming a hint weird.
UCF has a humongous advantage if we simply let in all Conference Champions or select solely based on record because their schedule is ridiculously easy compared to any P5 team. They don't have the week-in, week-out grind of playing competent opponents. Really? What were UCF's best wins (pre-bowl because we are talking about at the time of selection)? Memphis (twice, home and neutral)?
Using Sagrin's rankings, Ohio State played (final ranking because I can't find pre-bowl):
- #4 Penn State, won at home
- #6 Oklahoma, lost at home
- #7 Wisconsin, won at a neutral site
- #18 Iowa, lost on the road
- #23 Michigan State, won at home
- #26 Michigan, won on the road
#32 Memphis was UCF's best pre-bowl opponent so Ohio State had six games against better teams than the best team UCF played all year.
Here is the same list for Bama:
- #8 Auburn, lost on the road
- #17 MissSt, won on the road
- #19 LSU, won at home
- #28 Florida State, won at a neutral site
So Bama was 3-1 in four games against teams better than any team that UCF played and Ohio State was 4-2 in six games against such teams. It is NOT CLOSE. A G5 team needs to play a ridiculous OOC to get close to even but it also isn't impossible. It was pointed out upthread that last year Houston beat P5 Champion Oklahoma and also played Louisville. That is the kind of schedule that could make it. If UCF had replaced Austin Peay and Maryland with quality OOC opponents then I think they would have had an argument.
We come back to that "humongous" advantage. Assuming every UCF team is of top-10ish quality, then they would totally have an advantage. But they're not. UCF was winless three years ago. Did they have a massive advantage because the league was weaker? Do mid-major teams have an easier time getting into the basketball tournament? Nope. If UCF builds a top-10 team, it definitely has an advantage in going undefeated (but it's worlds harder to build that team). It has a disadvantage in that it needs everything to line up to have a shot. Again, it's an unbalanced sport. No need for the haves to complain about those advantages held by the have-nots
What's interesting about the Oklahoma/Louisville thing is it shows how hard that is. If they catch those teams two years prior, it's 8-5 Oklahoma and 9-4 Louisville that didn't beat a team with a pulse. Houston didn't play for the Cardinals to get a Heisman winner (Oklahoma under Stoops was probably always a good bet, granted I bet Houston never thought it would have a team that could win)
If they have a playoff that lets conference champs of non-P5 conferences in, why wouldn't Arizona State move to the MWC and get into the playoffs every year? Why wouldn't Illinois move to the MAC?Money. As soon ASU moves to the MWC their wallet gets much lighter. Besides that, while they might have an advantage on the field when they first move eventually they would be what every other MWC team is, a MWC team. And recruiting would eventually reflect that. The biggest reason kids go to P5 schools is that they are P5 schools. They know the advantages.
The G5 or Other5 or whatever you want to call them are voluntarily participating in a system in which they cannot finish #1. That's an odd choice, but it has been their choice. Yes, they should move down. And yet year after year, FCS teams keep jumping up instead, to join in with the ever-growing group of football teams that have no chance at #1. Seems to me these ADs at Georgia State and App State and UTSA have some 'splainin' to do to the actual players themselves.
Seems odd.
If they have a playoff that lets conference champs of non-P5 conferences in, why wouldn't Arizona State move to the MWC and get into the playoffs every year? Why wouldn't Illinois move to the MAC?I agree about schools moving up. About 10 years ago I was talking to an Appalachian St fan/alum at a work function. He said he hoped App St never moved up. He enjoyed playing FCS level and being relevant and playing for something meaningful every year.
The G5 or Other5 or whatever you want to call them are voluntarily participating in a system in which they cannot finish #1. That's an odd choice, but it has been their choice. Yes, they should move down. And yet year after year, FCS teams keep jumping up instead, to join in with the ever-growing group of football teams that have no chance at #1. Seems to me these ADs at Georgia State and App State and UTSA have some 'splainin' to do to the actual players themselves.
Seems odd.
If they have a playoff that lets conference champs of non-P5 conferences in, why wouldn't Arizona State move to the MWC and get into the playoffs every year? Why wouldn't Illinois move to the MAC?They don’t really choose these things. College football grows in weird ways, i.e. the BCS/playoff happenening. They idea a school chooses things on the basis of being able to make the playoff simply has no ground in reality.
The G5 or Other5 or whatever you want to call them are voluntarily participating in a system in which they cannot finish #1. That's an odd choice, but it has been their choice. Yes, they should move down. And yet year after year, FCS teams keep jumping up instead, to join in with the ever-growing group of football teams that have no chance at #1. Seems to me these ADs at Georgia State and App State and UTSA have some 'splainin' to do to the actual players themselves.
Seems odd.
That's the issue - but in the UCF vein, let's look at Utah. The Utes have multiple undefeated seasons as a G5 school within a 5-year period and have nothing to show for it. Okay, they say, we'll join a P5 conference, so that our next undefeated season yields a championship (what I'm saying UCF needs to do).Utah won 28 games in three years, rising to No. 3 one year and No. 11 the next.
Great. What's Utah done since joining the big boys? Jack squat. Hmm, I wonder why? Life's harder without a high school schedule. UCF would realize that, too, but then the championships are earned.
I agree about schools moving up. About 10 years ago I was talking to an Appalachian St fan/alum at a work function. He said he hoped App St never moved up. He enjoyed playing FCS level and being relevant and playing for something meaningful every year.If I recall correctly, GSU pushed it off for the longest time becuase they liked being good. They got up a level and actually we’re good, but then a BAD hire torpedoed them.
I remember him saying it would suck to join the Sun Belt and even if you win it you play in some crap bowl no one cares about. Of course, we know where App St is now...
Utah won 28 games in three years, rising to No. 3 one year and No. 11 the next.TCU's performance has been very impressive. It will be interesting to see how they maintain it over the next decade or so, especially if the two elephants in the state wake up and start performing to their respective ceilings, as opposed to their floors.
TCU won 11 games three times in four years and has three top-10 finishes.
It’s weird, these teams seem to do more than jack squat.
Can we play the game so the G5 actually wins? (Gets the money and gets the trophy?)I kind of like the idea of the best 4 competing in a tournament. Not sure I like sending UCF to the Peach, just to watch Toledo, Boise, FAU and Troy duke it out.
Call me crazy (hey Cra-Cra!)
There are 5 Conferences in the Group of 5, what if they sent their top champ to a New years 6 Bowl? (Keeps the money coming in) and have the other 4 conference champs participate in a 4 team playoff, (that occurred say 3~ish hours before the CFP playoff.)
The winner of the playoff is crowned G5 champion, and if the top G5 team wins their New Years Day Bowl Game they are crowned co-champ. So what, there are 2 lower level champs. They get to keep the Big Money and have their own playoff.
The only negatives I see is a couple of minor Bowls get dropped due to 4 teams no longer participating, some mid tier bowls reshuffling who gets invited. And "controversy" over who the "real" G5 champ is. But I think the controversy will actually get them more press time, and draw more interests to their games.
There also could be some back lash from the top G5 team wanting to be in the playoff instead of the Bowl game, but I think we the fans would want to see it. I don't know, would you rather play 1 "elite" team or 2 really good teams to get a trophy?
Utah won 28 games in three years, rising to No. 3 one year and No. 11 the next.those are bad examples. we should look at aTm, neb and mizz and how they've done after their move up to p5 conf. :)
TCU won 11 games three times in four years and has three top-10 finishes.
It’s weird, these teams seem to do more than jack squat.
While everyone is spit balling, what about a six-team playoff where, just as in the NFL, the top two teams get byes. Conference champs from the Power 5, and the top-rated team from among everyone else (Notre Dame and the lower-tier conferences). Does that mean 2012 Wisconsin (8-5) gets destroyed in one of the first-round games? Probably, but it also means conference championships mean something. And it gives a real advantage to the teams that finish 1, 2, without excluding other conference champs who may or may not have played a tougher schedule (or so they argue).not sure why that excludes bama, they were the highest ranked 'everyone else', unless you limited it to 1/conf.
It excludes Alabama this year, but again, that makes a conference championship more meaningful. I kind of like returning to an era in which the conference championship is everyone's goal. Given that Alabama won in OT, would it have been a sin if Georgia wins the title this year? Is there any real evidence that Alabama was "more" deserving than Georgia?
I'm sure I'm missing something, but I kind of like it. And just like the NFL system, have the first round the week after conference championships, the second round the week after that, and the championship on New Years Day.
those are bad examples. we should look at aTm, neb and mizz and how they've done after their move up to p5 conf. :)Mizzou and Nebraska won division titles (2, 1) when they moved. But now, well, now they are not too good.
If they have a playoff that lets conference champs of non-P5 conferences in, why wouldn't Arizona State move to the MWC and get into the playoffs every year? Why wouldn't Illinois move to the MAC?Money. Purdue won't sniff a national championship. But we get millions and millions of dollars in the B1G, and would get none of that in the MAC.
The G5 or Other5 or whatever you want to call them are voluntarily participating in a system in which they cannot finish #1. That's an odd choice, but it has been their choice. Yes, they should move down. And yet year after year, FCS teams keep jumping up instead, to join in with the ever-growing group of football teams that have no chance at #1. Seems to me these ADs at Georgia State and App State and UTSA have some 'splainin' to do to the actual players themselves.
Seems odd.
Mizzou and Nebraska won division titles (2, 1) when they moved. But now, well, now they are not too good.i know, just a dig at the bigxii. it still baffles me how mizz played for sec title 2 times. they were decent teams, but not that good. east was just a clusterf.
Luckily Nebraska helped the Big Ten dodge the Mizzou bullet.Mizzou was never a candidate, as much as they wanted to be (and probably still do). No bullet to dodge there.
i know, just a dig at the bigxii. it still baffles me how mizz played for sec title 2 times. they were decent teams, but not that good. east was just a clusterf.Not much of a dig. Mizzou never won the B12. The last time NU and A&M won conference titles (and they only won 2 and 1 title respectively), was way back in the 90s. They were all second tier when they left the conference. Could not compete with either OU or Texas in the 00’s, and if they’d stuck around they would have had a lot of trouble with OkState, Baylor and TCU this decade.
not sure why that excludes bama, they were the highest ranked 'everyone else', unless you limited it to 1/conf.Actually, I was thinking P5 conferences only get conference champs in. I know this sounds like a rule to get ND in, but that's actually not my thought; it's to get the "little sisters of the poor" (end sarcasm) their shot. Also, in the last 10 years, I think ND would only qualify something like twice (once when undefeated, and once when #10 at 10-2). Or, it could be your way, which is just the highest ranked non-conference champ, but that defeats my purpose, which is to make the conference championship the primary goal for every P5 team. Or an interim step would be any non-P5 that is in the top 8 (which would reward quality OOC scheduling), and if no such team exists, then the highest ranked non-Champion.
also, i don't like the hard set rule of conf champs in. i do not want to see 2012 gt (6-6 going into acccg), 2012 wisky (7-5), 2015 usc (8-4), 2011 ucla (6-6), and the many 3 loss teams that have played in all conf title games. all of those specific teams listed all lost, but eventually 1 will win and some 3 loss teams have won.
i'd be perfectly fine adding a "nd" type caveat, that if you're a p5 champ and in the top 8/10, you're guaranteed a spot.
but not a cut/dry line of conf champ. i value a 1 loss non champ over any 3+ loss team.
Utah won 28 games in three years, rising to No. 3 one year and No. 11 the next.Ehhh, Utah went from 2 undefeated seasons in 5 years to......nothing. Highest finish ranked 17th since joining the PAC. No division titles. They don't matter. Fun slant you tried to put on it, though.
TCU won 11 games three times in four years and has three top-10 finishes.
It’s weird, these teams seem to do more than jack squat.
UW played defense really well and OU didn't. I think Big Red could hang with them or even beat them on a neutral field. Not sure the Cotton would be neutral for UW though.For Sooner fans, it's easy to blame the loss to Georgia on our crappy defense.
I'd rather they play in the Sugar or Orange (and not Miami in the Orange).
What I do know is that UW could not "out Bama" Alabama. Not enough depth to even think about winning against them.
I'd like to see Bama play OU this year. I think that would be an excellent game to watch.
Well, we got six (6) stops on Georgia, and we held them to three (3) FG attempts (if you count just before halftime and the 1st OT). AND we got a defensive score, which I don't think we had done all year long. That should have been enough.Yep. As we’ve talked about some on the B12 board, I think the main difference in that game was UGa’s coaches had a better 2nd half game plan than our guys. Lincoln and co coached so impressively in the first half, running when they were expecting passes, and vice versa, but Georgia made some impressive adjustments and shut down the OU offense in the 3rd Q, and Riley’s boys didn’t counter until mid 4th and by then it was back to even and anyone’s game.
And it would have been enough if our offense had done more in the second half than score one (1) time in 8 possessions in regulation.
Actually, I was thinking P5 conferences only get conference champs in. I know this sounds like a rule to get ND in, but that's actually not my thought; it's to get the "little sisters of the poor" (end sarcasm) their shot. Also, in the last 10 years, I think ND would only qualify something like twice (once when undefeated, and once when #10 at 10-2). Or, it could be your way, which is just the highest ranked non-conference champ, but that defeats my purpose, which is to make the conference championship the primary goal for every P5 team. Or an interim step would be any non-P5 that is in the top 8 (which would reward quality OOC scheduling), and if no such team exists, then the highest ranked non-Champion.yes, it is. i don't want to see a .500 team have a shot at the playoffs.
And yes, this means some weak P5 champions will get in from time to time because of some oddities, but if they lose, who cares, and if they win (which would be really rare), that will mean they had to beat three top 6 teams. Is that so bad?
Ehhh, Utah went from 2 undefeated seasons in 5 years to......nothing. Highest finish ranked 17th since joining the PAC. No division titles. They don't matter. Fun slant you tried to put on it, though.9-4, No. 24 in final poll
TCU has done well, but 3 things on that:
1 - continuity at HC (Patterson)
2 - they're in the XII
3 - Texas has been hibernating
I kind of like the idea of the best 4 competing in a tournament. Not sure I like sending UCF to the Peach, just to watch Toledo, Boise, FAU and Troy duke it out.That split is interesting. It reminds me of a kid I knew in HS. He seemed real salty he wasn't getting to compete in spring football, but he also very much wanted a shot at a state track title. Do you take a playoff with a nice trophy at the end, or a chance at P5 pelts?
Ehhh, Utah went from 2 undefeated seasons in 5 years to......nothing. Highest finish ranked 17th since joining the PAC. No division titles. They don't matter. Fun slant you tried to put on it, though.And yet they've beaten teams from the B1G, SEC and PAC in bowl games in recent years. They hold their own outside the XII too.
TCU has done well, but 3 things on that:
1 - continuity at HC (Patterson)
2 - they're in the XII
3 - Texas has been hibernating
That split is interesting. It reminds me of a kid I knew in HS. He seemed real salty he wasn't getting to compete in spring football, but he also very much wanted a shot at a state track title. Do you take a playoff with a nice trophy at the end, or a chance at P5 pelts?It would be a P5 belt, co-G5 National title, and a whole lot of Money. In this scenario in the end I think the money wins in the getting done perspective, even if the athletes may prefer playing in the tournament.
My gut is, the pelts thing is novel, but less essential. You can play Auburn in the regular season. The issue is the NYD bowl payout might be up in the air, so that money would have to stay in place to get a playoff done.
Mizzou was never a candidate, as much as they wanted to be (and probably still do). No bullet to dodge there.geez, thanks for nuttin
I was just feeling a little better about the Huskers bringing a bit of positive energy to the B1GI know OU fans at least would love that Husker energy (and great rivalry) back in the XII. I can’t speak for Texas fans though ;^)
I know OU fans at least would love that Husker energy (and great rivalry) back in the XII. I can’t speak for Texas fans though ;^)Frost will make them better, but they have to be able to get through Big Red to make things matter.
With Frost coming on board, I think you’ll be back in the B1G title hunt real soon though.
Frost will make them better, but they have to be able to get through Big Red to make things matter.So having grown up in the shadow of Huskerdom, I thought it was a given that Nebraska was Big Red.
:86:
2-loss Auburn did something I'm not sure anyone else did - hence their being rewarded with the #2 ranking. Yes, it's odd to see a 2-loss team ranked over 1-loss helmets and undefeated Wisconsin.......but at the same time, haven't we all bitched about the laziness of voters when they simply rank the teams by how many losses they have? We can't have it both ways.Actually, it's because people complain about the laziness of voters that the CFP committee does this stuff. They like to "prove" they are better than the polls by doing things they think "show" they are better than the polls, regardless of how nonsensical is it. They've gotten themselves into trouble doing that, in one case, putting and undefeated team #4 in the prior to last poll (to show how they don't look at just record) and then were forced to drop a winning team 2 positions in order to save face.
Along those lines, the Buckeyes were one game under .500 vs Western Reserve, but were also one game over .500 vs Case Tech. So now that those two schools have merged together they are an even .500 against Case Western Reserve.Ha good one. Your post inspired me to look them up, and wow they have some good history including games against Yost’s Michigan and Knute Rockne’s ND, and even a few undefeated seasons and a Sun Bowl appearance.
Ha good one. Your post inspired me to look them up, and wow they have some good history including games against Yost’s Michigan and Knute Rockne’s ND, and even a few undefeated seasons and a Sun Bowl appearance.Yep. And they are currently a Conference rival of everyone's favorite former Big Ten member, the Chicago Maroons.
Actually, it's because people complain about the laziness of voters that the CFP committee does this stuff. They like to "prove" they are better than the polls by doing things they think "show" they are better than the polls, regardless of how nonsensical is it. They've gotten themselves into trouble doing that, in one case, putting and undefeated team #4 in the prior to last poll (to show how they don't look at just record) and then were forced to drop a winning team 2 positions in order to save face.Well isn't a failed attempt better than no attempt at all? I'll take anything over the laziness of lining all the teams up by number of losses and sending one to the the end of the line for each loss, rewarding Sept losses in a nonsensical way.
Well isn't a failed attempt better than no attempt at all? I'll take anything over the laziness of lining all the teams up by number of losses and sending one to the the end of the line for each loss, rewarding Sept losses in a nonsensical way.I know, right?
Having mediocre teams become champions is the entertainment end of the sliding scale. The other end is the competition end - wanting the best team to be the champ.Auburn was moved up to a top-ranked team, even after two losses, because it beat Georgia and Alabama. If UCF consecutively beat the Big Ten Champion, the Big XII Champion, then the SEC Champion (for example), are you saying they wouldn't have earned it? Seems to me like they would have, even if their previous best was against Memphis.
Neither end is perfect in isolation - but genuine competition, to me, is entertaining. Seeing the best be identified as such. Yes, they still need to play the games, but being "fair" and giving everyone a chance doesn't necessarily belong in this.
An underdog story is great....but not to crown a champion...unless that underdog truly earned its way. UCF would be an obvious underdog story, except it's toughest game was vs. Memphis. That's not earning your way.
For all the moaning and bitching about LSU's 2007 2-loss NC, I'm stunned at the support for an expanded playoff. 2-loss champs would happen more and more often, with certainty.
And PS: I don't ever remember Wisconsin being Big Red--Let's go Red, yes, but Big Red, no. I dated a girl at Cornell. That school has always been Big Red. I think Wisconsin just started jawing about Big Red when Nebraska showed up. Call yourselves what you want--but accept the ribbing that comes with your choices. That's what I say. :-)Ed Zachery