AP Top 25

[alincoln 2390]

1 hour ago, heso said:

Just in case anyone wasn’t sure, Michigan hasn’t won the big ten since 2004, three years before Lloyd Carr retired. They have not played in any of the 8 conference championship games. 

Penn State, Wisconsin, and Michigan State all have 3 conference championships since Michigan’s last. 

The third Wisconsin title is a bit silly given they actually finished third in their division (4-4 in conference) but for tattoos and pedos

[SnowAggy 154]

14 hours ago, Bone3421 said:

15 hours ago, Machinator said:

 

Jon Wilner seems like a good dude

Jon Wilner seems like he might be high...either way I wanna hang with that dude.

Edited August 20, 2019 by SnowAggy

[texifornia 58780]

55 minutes ago, Texasrocks said:

Did I black out a miss a good year for the Big 10? Other than OSU, they were all somewhere between mediocre and bad. When's the last time Michigan or Penn State beat a good team?

Only looking OOC:

Michigan beat #19 Florida in the 2015 Citrus Bowl (I know that's a stretch but I didn't want to look further)

Penn State beat #12 UDub in the 2017 Fiesta Bowl.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

Yeah they win some OOC games but we don't tend to remember them because when they LOSE, it's usually spectacular. Michigan's split with Florida is a perfect example. Hell, Ohio State has a win over Alabama and a blowout loss to Clemson and in terms of playoff reputation I think the Clemson loss hangs over them a lot more than the 2014 title does.

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

The crazy part about Ohio State's 2014 title run is that it should have never happened in the first place.

[ztejas 44114]

2 hours ago, alincoln said:

The third Wisconsin title is a bit silly given they actually finished third in their division (4-4 in conference) but for tattoos and pedos

Still a more genuine title than anything aggy claims in the past 20 years. 

[ztejas 44114]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The crazy part about Ohio State's 2014 title run is that it should have never happened in the first place.

Yep. TCU got hosed. 

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

16 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Yep. TCU got hosed. 

If you guys or OU were in the same position (11-1 XII "co champs"), Ohio State gets left out.  The playoff established right off the bat that historic brand > resume.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Al_4_ISU

[Tom 2960]

14 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Yep. TCU got hosed. 

 

Yes, but they helped hose themselves by allowing Baylor to pull off a comeback in the 4th quarter to beat them.  Win that game and they would have been guaranteed a spot in the playoffs.

 It was still enjoyable watching their players mock Ole Miss for 4 quarters in that Peach Bowl curb stomping.

[caliHORNia 44]

5 hours ago, Loco said:

i must have glanced over their inclusion like one of those psychology illusions where "red" is written in blue ink.  I stand corrected.

[Tom 2960]

3 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If you guys or OU were in the same position (11-1 XII "co champs"), Ohio State gets left out.  The playoff established right off the bat that historic brand > resume.

Of course.  It's why the playoffs need to expand to P5 conference champs plus 3 at large.  TCU, Baylor, and OSU would have all been in.

[ztejas 44114]

5 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

Yes, but they helped hose themselves by allowing Baylor to pull off a comeback in the 4th quarter to beat them.  Win that game and they would have been guaranteed a spot in the playoffs.

 It was still enjoyable watching their players mock Ole Miss for 4 quarters in that Peach Bowl curb stomping.

Win or lose against Baylor their resume was better than tOSU's and by any metric going into the playoffs they were a top 4 team. Like our corn friend said, if that was UT or OU not a chance in hell tOSU jumps them. 

tOSU's title run of course screws up TCU's case in hindsight, but frog absolutely kicked the shit out of Ole Miss for 4 quarters. They wouldn't have been anywhere close to out of place in the playoffs. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by ztejas

[Horn80 6313]

I don’t buy the Michigan ranking.  They fold under pressure in big games and don’t think that will change this year.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

3 hours ago, ztejas said:

Yep. TCU got hosed. 

That's revisionist history. If anyone got hosed, Baylor did. They were ranked higher. They won the head-to-head matchup. The two teams were conference co-champs but the winner of the head-to-head matchup is the one who gets to go to the bowl game. If the conference was trying to play them off as equals in hopes of the committee selecting TCU then that's on them. 

OSU's 59-0 dismantling of Wisconsin in the CCG made the committee's decision easy. It was a dominating win and it was an extra data point. (But hey, now the Big 12 has a CCG with a guaranteed rematch from the regular season every year, so you've got that going for you.)

The Buckeyes' performance in the playoff certainly made it look like the right choice. No one got screwed in 2014. And OSU didn't get screwed getting left out of the playoff in 2017 and 2018. 

[ztejas 44114]

8 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That's revisionist history. If anyone got hosed, Baylor did. They were ranked higher. They won the head-to-head matchup. The two teams were conference co-champs but the winner of the head-to-head matchup is the one who gets to go to the bowl game. If the conference was trying to play them off as equals in hopes of the committee selecting TCU then that's on them. 

OSU's 59-0 dismantling of Wisconsin in the CCG made the committee's decision easy. It was a dominating win and it was an extra data point. (But hey, now the Big 12 has a CCG with a guaranteed rematch from the regular season every year, so you've got that going for you.)

The Buckeyes' performance in the playoff certainly made it look like the right choice. No one got screwed in 2014. And OSU didn't get screwed getting left out of the playoff in 2017 and 2018. 

I should have said the B12 got hosed.

We can sit here all day comparing their resumes in 2014 - personally I don't think a 3 point win at home is enough to vault one over the other just because it was H2H. But it's an easy litmus test so I get that. 

As for tOSU's performance making it look better - you can just as easily argue that TCU could have done the same thing in the playoffs based on their bowl game performance. 

And now because of it we have a stupid fucking conference championship game rematch.

Oh well. Sucks to suck I guess. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

7 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I should have said the B12 got hosed.

We can sit here all day comparing their resumes in 2014 - personally I don't think a 3 point win at home is enough to vault one over the other just because it was H2H. But it's an easy litmus test so I get that. 

As for tOSU's performance making it look better - you can just as easily argue that TCU could have done the same thing in the playoffs based on their bowl game performance. 

And now because of it we have a stupid fucking conference championship game rematch.

Oh well. Sucks to suck I guess. 

If you think the B12 got hosed then you have to say it was because Baylor got passed over. If you insist that TCU got hosed then it's just your bias talking.

Who's to say 10-2 Clemson couldn't have done what OSU did? Maybe they should've been in. (The eight team playoff won't solve any of this, btw. It will only make it worse.) 

A conference champ with a 12-1 record trumps a conference champ with an 11-1 record. Then B12 conference champ Baylor went and lost to Michigan State in their bowl game. But maybe, after getting screwed out of the playoff, they really didn't want to be there. 

[ztejas 44114]

19 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If you think the B12 got hosed then you have to say it was because Baylor got passed over. If you insist that TCU got hosed then it's just your bias talking.

I'm not some big TCU fan, and I don't weep for either of them missing it. I simply think that they were the better team that season.

If it was just about H2H then why was TCU ahead of them in every CFP ranking save the final one? Baylor nudged them because they played and beat a ranked K State in their last game - just like tOSU jumped both because of the Wisky win. If rapeU's last game was the loss to WVU there's no way they jump frog.

Say they play a rematch in a hypothetical title game that season - I would take TCU 10 times out of 10. 

(Coaches and AP poll from Dec 7th that season - all 3 were basically equal)

Edited August 20, 2019 by ztejas

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

7 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I'm not some big TCU fan, and I don't weep for either of them missing it. I simply think that they were the better team that season.

If it was just about H2H then why was TCU ahead of them in every CFP ranking save the final one? Baylor nudged them because they played and beat a ranked K State in their last game - just like tOSU jumped both because of the Wisky win. If rapeU's last game was the loss to WVU there's no way they jump frog.

Say they play a rematch in a hypothetical title game that season - I would take TCU 10 times out of 10. 

Sometimes the better team loses. Results matter. 

It wasn't until after the last game of the regular season that Baylor and TCU became conference co-champs with identical records, nearly identical strengths of schedule, so the committee put Baylor ahead of TCU by virtue of the heads up win. If they were in the old Big Ten, Baylor would've gone to the Rose Bowl and no one would've thought TCU got screwed. When the conference isn't separated into divisions, that's how they break the tie. 

[Huckleberry 34404]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That's revisionist history. If anyone got hosed, Baylor did. They were ranked higher. They won the head-to-head matchup. The two teams were conference co-champs but the winner of the head-to-head matchup is the one who gets to go to the bowl game. If the conference was trying to play them off as equals in hopes of the committee selecting TCU then that's on them. 

OSU's 59-0 dismantling of Wisconsin in the CCG made the committee's decision easy. It was a dominating win and it was an extra data point. (But hey, now the Big 12 has a CCG with a guaranteed rematch from the regular season every year, so you've got that going for you.)

The Buckeyes' performance in the playoff certainly made it look like the right choice. No one got screwed in 2014. And OSU didn't get screwed getting left out of the playoff in 2017 and 2018. 

 

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If you think the B12 got hosed then you have to say it was because Baylor got passed over. If you insist that TCU got hosed then it's just your bias talking.

Who's to say 10-2 Clemson couldn't have done what OSU did? Maybe they should've been in. (The eight team playoff won't solve any of this, btw. It will only make it worse.) 

A conference champ with a 12-1 record trumps a conference champ with an 11-1 record. Then B12 conference champ Baylor went and lost to Michigan State in their bowl game. But maybe, after getting screwed out of the playoff, they really didn't want to be there. 

TCU got hosed. They were the best team of those under consideration for the last spot. 12-1 necessarily better than 11-1? That's stupid.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Huckleberry

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

Does anyone believe that if it had been Texas at 11-1 and Purdue at 12-1, with those exact same resumes, that Purdue gets the nod?

I realize the Ohio State fan is going to defend his squad, but that decision had nothing to do with how stupid the Big 12 was in awarding a co championship (Baylor won it) and everything to do with blue blood vs school that struggles to fill a 45k seat stadium

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

 

TCU got hosed. They were the best team of those under consideration for the last spot. 12-1 necessarily better than 11-1? That's stupid.

Take emotion out of it and try to think objectively. Yes, a conference championship game victory and a 12-1 record is better than an 11-1 shared championship with one fewer game. Read the selection committee protocol. They spell out the criteria by which they judge the teams. The whole reason the Big 12 now plays a CCG rematch after a round robin schedule is because of that, so they can get that extra data point in when the competition has already been settled. 

Try to imagine being a member of the selection committee, not a fan. No one in their right mind would want to set the precedent of selecting the loser of the heads up match between conference co-champs just because of their subjective opinion. They don't get to use a hatred of Ohio State and Baylor in their calculation. 

 

[HtownHorn 15243]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Does anyone believe that if it had been Texas at 11-1 and Purdue at 12-1, with those exact same resumes, that Purdue gets the nod?

I realize the Ohio State fan is going to defend his squad, but that decision had nothing to do with how stupid the Big 12 was in awarding a co championship (Baylor won it) and everything to do with blue blood vs school that struggles to fill a 45k seat stadium

Nope, Texas would have gone over Purdue easily. Hell, in would have been between Oregon and Purdue, as Texas is probably the #2 seed.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Does anyone believe that if it had been Texas at 11-1 and Purdue at 12-1, with those exact same resumes, that Purdue gets the nod?

I realize the Ohio State fan is going to defend his squad, but that decision had nothing to do with how stupid the Big 12 was in awarding a co championship (Baylor won it) and everything to do with blue blood vs school that struggles to fill a 45k seat stadium

Did Oklahoma also have an 11-1 record and a win over Texas in your little straw man example?

[Al_4_ISU 12612]

Did Oklahoma also have an 11-1 record and a win over Texas in your little straw man example?

If that happened, the Big 12 gets two teams in.

The two teams at 11-1 only hurt the Big 12 because they were the two teams with the smallest fan bases. My point holds. It was about name on the jersey, and not in season resume

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

12 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Try to imagine being a member of the selection committee, not a fan.

The vast majority of FANS wanted to see Ohio State. The only argument here is that a ratings-driven entity (CFB) should have been fair to lil ol Baylor or TCU because they deserved a reward for their season, and let them have the fourth slot even though what people wanted to see was Ohio State-Alabama.

That might not be the majority opinion here or in the big cities of Texas where most of the posters work-- I WONDER WHY????-- but it's the reality. The playoff is always going to be made up of the four most deserving AND most appealing teams, and if there's any doubt as to who the fourth most "deserving" team is, well guess what? Stuff from Column B ends up in Column A, so "people actually want to watch them play and that will drive ratings and ad revenue" becomes a factor. 

I'm not sorry. I think the playoff should be 8 teams anyway, and to the extent I care when I step on an ant, I can agree it sucks for TCU and Baylor and Central Florida. "Fair" is a crock of shit. People should know better. 

[Huckleberry 34404]

14 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Does anyone believe that if it had been Texas at 11-1 and Purdue at 12-1, with those exact same resumes, that Purdue gets the nod?

I realize the Ohio State fan is going to defend his squad, but that decision had nothing to do with how stupid the Big 12 was in awarding a co championship (Baylor won it) and everything to do with blue blood vs school that struggles to fill a 45k seat stadium

Round robins have awarded co-championships for as long as they have existed in every sport in which they have existed. Baylor and TCU were the rightful co-champions of the Big 12 in 2014.

Head-to-head as a tiebreaker was created and only exists for postseason purposes. The error by the Big 12 administration was not instructing the committee to consider Baylor the Big 12 champion for playoff consideration purposes only. There was absolutely nothing wrong with awarding co-championships to both schools.

[Hozz 1033]

The way that year worked out convinced me the committee was fraudulent.  TCU lost to Baylor on the road and they barely lost.  If that game was replayed 100 times from the 4th quarter on I don't know how many times Baylor wins it...maybe just the one time.  TCU was up 21 with 11 and change left in the game...Baylor had a later road loss at WV that was more convincing.  TCU looked like the better team that season by a convincing margin to me and the bowl game results cemented that unless Baylor and Ole Miss just didn't want to be there...

Then Ohio State and Baylor jump TCU in the final rankings.  Ohio State mainly because Wisconsin absolutely went fetal position in the Big 10 CCG but Baylor why?  Because of a head to head result that had happened two months ago?  This result lead the Big 12 to the short sighted decision to have a CCG despite being the only P5 conference whose teams play each other every year.  The thinking being that had Baylor and TCU played each other in a CCG the winner would have gotten in over Ohio State...but I doubt that.  Texas or OU would have gotten in over Ohio State, probably.  TCU or Baylor?  I think the committee would have gone with Ohio State.

[ztejas 44114]

22 minutes ago, Hozz said:

but Baylor why?  Because of a head to head result that had happened two months ago?

Because Baylor beat a top 10 ranked KState team in Week 13 on Game Day. 

But... TCU beat ISU 55-3 that same weekend. I think it was less about the H2H and more about the recency of Baylor winning their last game against a ranked opponent on national TV. 

TCU whipped that same K State team 41-20 just a few weeks prior. 

[A’Dam Psycho 1490]

17 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Take emotion out of it and try to think objectively. Yes, a conference championship game victory and a 12-1 record is better than an 11-1 shared championship with one fewer game. Read the selection committee protocol. They spell out the criteria by which they judge the teams. The whole reason the Big 12 now plays a CCG rematch after a round robin schedule is because of that, so they can get that extra data point in when the competition has already been settled. 

Try to imagine being a member of the selection committee, not a fan. No one in their right mind would want to set the precedent of selecting the loser of the heads up match between conference co-champs just because of their subjective opinion. They don't get to use a hatred of Ohio State and Baylor in their calculation. 

 

Mehhh. Alabama got in without winning their division. “Extra data point” is 100% bullshit

[notre dame joe 202]

21 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If you think the B12 got hosed then you have to say it was because Baylor got passed over. If you insist that TCU got hosed then it's just your bias talking.

Who's to say 10-2 Clemson couldn't have done what OSU did? Maybe they should've been in. (The eight team playoff won't solve any of this, btw. It will only make it worse.) 

A conference champ with a 12-1 record trumps a conference champ with an 11-1 record. Then B12 conference champ Baylor went and lost to Michigan State in their bowl game. But maybe, after getting screwed out of the playoff, they really didn't want to be there. 

The PC contradicts themselves every year.  The only constant is that the controversy over the 4th slot is resolved by the helmet.

[utee94 16065]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

The PC contradicts themselves every year.  The only constant is that the controversy over the 4th slot is resolved by the helmet.

Exactly.

ESPN owns the playoff, ESPN owns the selection committee, so of course ESPN's selection committee is going to say and do everything it can to justify putting a marquee blue-blood helmet team into the playoff over a non-helmet.  They've invested over seven billion dollars, nothing is going to stop them from attempting to get the maximum return on that investment.

[Vic Mackey 47843]

On 8/20/2019 at 3:11 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

If you think the B12 got hosed then you have to say it was because Baylor got passed over. If you insist that TCU got hosed then it's just your bias talking.

Who's to say 10-2 Clemson couldn't have done what OSU did? Maybe they should've been in. (The eight team playoff won't solve any of this, btw. It will only make it worse.) 

A conference champ with a 12-1 record trumps a conference champ with an 11-1 record. Then B12 conference champ Baylor went and lost to Michigan State in their bowl game. But maybe, after getting screwed out of the playoff, they really didn't want to be there. 

How in the hell does an 8 team playoff make it worse? 4 is absolutely stupid and is just the BCS +2 teams. We still don't have every P5 conference represented which is ridiculous. College football is a regional sport. Go back to where winning your conference is the most important thing and not having to compare your teams to every other team for a chance at 4 playoff spots. This guarantees every single conference championship is meaningful. Winner goes to the playoffs. And you have 3 at large spots.

But in reality, it needs to be 16 teams. How lower division can have a real playoff but FBS fans actually say having a legit playoff is a bad idea, are brain dead.

[alincoln 2390]

8 is fine.  Power 5 conference champs, highest ranked non-BCS and two at-large.  

[utee94 16065]

16 would be absolutely horrible.  There aren't 16 teams that are good enough to be the champ in any given year. 

There really aren't even 8 but 8 solves a lot of problems, as long as it's conference champ auto-bids to the P5.  The 3 others could be a guaranteed G5 plus 2 at-large, or whatever keeps the anti-trust regulators away.  But there would also absolutely need to be a "No more than 2 teams from any conference rule" for quite obvious reasons.

[notre dame joe 202]

Expansionist Threadjackers stealing my annual Lol Michigansranking moment. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

13 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Round robins have awarded co-championships for as long as they have existed in every sport in which they have existed. Baylor and TCU were the rightful co-champions of the Big 12 in 2014.

Head-to-head as a tiebreaker was created and only exists for postseason purposes. The error by the Big 12 administration was not instructing the committee to consider Baylor the Big 12 champion for playoff consideration purposes only. There was absolutely nothing wrong with awarding co-championships to both schools.

I never said there's anything wrong with conference co-champs. Happens all the time. Sometimes there have been three-way championships. But there are always tie-breakers in place to determine which co-champ receives the honors normally bestowed upon a sole champion (in the Big Ten and Pac-10, that was traditionally the Rose Bowl, that's why I used that example.) My whole point here has been that, if anyone thinks the Big 12 got screwed in 2014, it was Baylor who got screwed, not TCU. 

To all of those who are arguing the 6th ranked team got screwed out of the 4-team playoff, I look forward to your rants in several years about how the 12th ranked team got screwed out of the 8-team playoff. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

4 hours ago, utee94 said:

16 would be absolutely horrible.  There aren't 16 teams that are good enough to be the champ in any given year. 

There really aren't even 8 but 8 solves a lot of problems, as long as it's conference champ auto-bids to the P5.  The 3 others could be a guaranteed G5 plus 2 at-large, or whatever keeps the anti-trust regulators away.  But there would also absolutely need to be a "No more than 2 teams from any conference rule" for quite obvious reasons.

A 16-team playoff was a foregone conclusion the moment they created the 4-team playoff. 

[utee94 16065]

14 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

A 16-team playoff was a foregone conclusion the moment they created the 4-team playoff. 

Nah, but an 8-team playoff certainly was.

 

[TeddyBearStallion 73]

1 hour ago, Dr. Beeper said:

8 is enough. This thread feels like deja vu. 4 is not enough, clearly, and 2014 demonstrated very resoundingly. The committee got it right, and always gets it right. In 2014, tOSU was the clear choice. Clear. TCU got fucked by a 4-team playoff, and Baylor to a lesser extent. Both got fucked by this dumbass conference. Ohio St just murdered a very good team 59-0 in a showcase any sane conference would have that our conference did not. Then they proceeded to win the whole thing from the 4-spot, including convincingly beating favorite Bama. 

And the year everyone was bitching about Bama making it when they were second in their own division - first, they won the NC, and second that’s an exceedingly tough division, and they slipped once. Lots of 1-loss champs have been crowned. 

The problem that exists now is merely one of too few teams, and I’d argue that in most years 8 is too many. But you’ve got to have it for years like 2014 where 6 teams were deserving. The committee is not the problem. They always get it right. 

They didn't convincingly beat Alabama.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

11 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Nah, but an 8-team playoff certainly was.

It will happen. Just give it time. We already have a case study to learn from in the NCAA basketball tournament. 

What faction will oppose it? The fans will want it as soon as their team misses inclusion in the 8-team playoff. Some of them will want it just for more football to entertain them while they sit at home watching on TV. The broadcasters will want it because they want more money. They'll pay the schools to go along. The coaches will want it because if they can just make the playoff from time to time, they'll have job security even if they never win a conference championship. 

At 8 teams, making the playoff will already be an achievement in and of itself for teams who have no business being considered for a possible championship let alone a chance to actually win one. It won't stop there. 

[HtownHorn 15243]

My hope is once they expand the playoffs to include every P5 champion, the Big 12 will drop the shitty conference championship game.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

8 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

They were up by 2 scores down the stretch, had over 500 yards of O, had nearly 300 yards rushing (6.7 ypc), and beat the national champion of three of the prior five seasons by 7, as 7-point underdogs. They won convincingly. 

spotted them a 21-6 lead, too

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

we're going to get an 8-team playoff eventually regardless, but that timetable will be accelerated greatly if we get another 2008. Try picking four teams out of OU, Florida, USC, Texas, and Alabama, plus unbeaten Boise and unbeaten Utah and one-loss Big Ten champ Penn State. Obviously Boise and Utah get left out, either one of which wouldn't generate a ton of controversy but both of which simultaneously would have a lot of people's heads exploding. The committee's probably going to want Texas, but... at the cost of having Alabama? USC had thirty-point wins over two 10-win teams (Ohio State and Oregon). Is it as simple as saying you take Big 12 champ OU and the one-loss team that beat them, but leave the Pac-12 champ out?

Basically in that situation, a true blueblood will get left out and that's a different kettle of fish than Baylor or TCU. I don't think we've had anything quite similar in the five years of the playoff-- the two Ohio State teams that got left out had terrible losses compared to the five bluebloods I mentioned in 2008, the Penn State team from 2016 lost to Michigan by five touchdowns, etc. 

The other thing that will hasten the demise of the four-team playoff is if Alabama, Georgia at large, Clemson, and OU all go again this year. CFB fans like tradition until it becomes repetition. If the entire Big Ten and Pac-12 feel like the playoff is just something the southern schools have access to, the playoff will be expanded or those conferences will pull out and go back to just sending their champions to the Rose Bowl (much less likely). 

Edited August 22, 2019 by SwanderedTalent

[ztejas 44114]

10 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Is it as simple as saying you take Big 12 champ OU and the one-loss team that beat them, but leave the Pac-12 champ out?

Yes. Gata, OU and Texas were clearly the 3 best teams in the country that season. Maybe there would have been drama regarding the fourth spot but I'm not sure 2008 is the best example. I doubt anyone wins a 4 team playoff save one of those 3 that season. (we were closer to a Texas/OU rematch than either B12 team being left out of the top 4 in any final poll)

There was a huge gulf between Bammer and Texas.

The only controversy would have been do we take SC or do we take Bama for the 4th spot? Bama had one good win on the season and lost H2H in the SEC title game against Gata. That was the year they proceeded to lose to Utah in the Sugar Bowl. SC had one good win (tOSU in week 2) and a bad loss@ Beaver. 

Texas had the best win and best loss of any of the 1 loss teams. Easily. (also a shit kicking of Mizzou and a win against 7th ranked OSU)

Edited August 22, 2019 by ztejas

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

39 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Yes. Gata, OU and Texas were clearly the 3 best teams in the country that season. Maybe there would have been drama regarding the fourth spot but I'm not sure 2008 is the best example. I doubt anyone wins a 4 team playoff save one of those 3 that season. (we were closer to a Texas/OU rematch than either B12 team being left out of the top 4 in any final poll)

There was a huge gulf between Bammer and Texas.

The only controversy would have been do we take SC or do we take Bama for the 4th spot? Bama had one good win on the season and lost H2H in the SEC title game against Gata. That was the year they proceeded to lose to Utah in the Sugar Bowl. SC had one good win (tOSU in week 2) and a bad loss@ Beaver. 

Texas had the best win and best loss of any of the 1 loss teams. Easily. (also a shit kicking of Mizzou and a win against 7th ranked OSU)

Texas didn't win its conference. That would be a larger factor than you're allowing for. The BCS rankings you're citing above don't exist anymore; that's not how the playoff committee selects the playoff participants.

You are kidding yourself if you think 2008 would have just been "oh well flip a coin between Alabama and USC, no biggie". You're also missing my point if you don't see the impact it will have the next time the playoff has to slot five programs of that caliber into four slots, when there isn't a clear-cut demarcation between any of them. 

My larger point, without trying to litigate a hypothetical in great detail, was that if it's Alabama or Texas or USC that gets left out instead of TCU or Baylor, you're going to see an expansion of the playoff field.

Edited August 22, 2019 by SwanderedTalent

[utee94 16065]

7 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Texas didn't win its conference. That would be a larger factor than you're allowing for. The BCS rankings you're citing above don't exist anymore; that's not how the playoff committee selects the playoff participants.

You are kidding yourself if you think 2008 would have just been "oh well flip a coin between Alabama and USC, no biggie". You're also missing my point if you don't see the impact it will have the next time the playoff has to slot five programs of that caliber into four slots, when there isn't a clear-cut demarcation between any of them. 

My larger point, without trying to litigate a hypothetical in great detail, was that if it's Alabama or Texas or USC that gets left out instead of TCU or Baylor, you're going to see an expansion of the playoff field.

Agree with all your points, but we're going to see an expansion to 8 regardless.  Might hasten it by a year or two, though.

[ztejas 44114]

1 minute ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Texas didn't win its conference. That would be a larger factor than you're allowing for.

Eh. I don't think it would have been. Bama got in a few years ago without winning its conference. Texas is just as big of a brand (if not bigger). 

2008 would have raised some questions - but mostly about the 4th spot imo. Sure you can say Texas didn't win its conference, but Texas had the same record as OU, had the H2H against OU, and had already whipped the B12 North champ's ass earlier that season. Texas getting left out would have been comical. The 4th slot would have created a lot of drama, but it tends to more years than not. 

I know the BCS rankings aren't totally reflective of what the CFP would have been, but keep in mind Texas got 6 first place AP votes in week 15 that season, and 4 first place votes in the coaches poll. There would have been zero question of Texas deserving a spot in the CFP that year. 

I agree with your larger point. Bama or USC would have gotten left out, and it would have stank to high heaven. 

So, let's just go to 8 teams.

9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It will happen. Just give it time. We already have a case study to learn from in the NCAA basketball tournament. 

Different sports. C'mon man. Why doesn't the NFL have a 16 team playoff? Hockey and basketball do. 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

11 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Agree with all your points, but we're going to see an expansion to 8 regardless.  Might hasten it by a year or two, though.

that's what I meant-- we're on that trajectory no matter what, but if you could replicate 2008 in 2019 or 2020 with those same 5 teams, kaboom

['stache 22115]

Win your damn conference to make the playoff. It's that fucking simple. Yeah, sometimes a "better" team will be left out, but newsflash, that shit happens in pro sports all the time. How many Western Conference teams in the NBA are left out which are better than the bottom half of the Eastern Conference playoff seeds? Shit happens, but at least its objective.

[Magus Ossis 2996]

Just now, Dr. Beeper said:

Bama is a significantly bigger brand than Texas. 

Winning sells. Bama winning sells more of some things than does Texas losing. Texas winning sells more than most imaginable alternatives.