They need to expand the CFP, they said. It'll be better, they said.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

6 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

How would that change from what we have now?  The number of teams in the playoffs would have zero impact on teams not wanting to schedule possible losses.  So, now you need 0-1 loss to get in generally speaking.  You think adding 4 more teams would move that to 0-2 losses to get in?  Okay, so what team on earth would all the sudden say fuck it, let's roll the dice with our OOC and hope we don't end up with 3 losses.  Or that any number of other factors don't come in to play to make our 2 losses look better than the handful of other teams with 2 losses who will all be clamoring to get a spot in the CFP.  4 teams, 8 teams, whatever.  As long as we have conferences set up the way we do, this wouldn't change without a massive expansion of teams, but that brings a whole other set of problems.

They could have all that now.  Why don't they?

Because you can go 0-3 in OOC games and run the table in conference and make the playoffs (in a conf champ auto qualifier model with 😎 teams)

Then let each conference deal with how to Choose their champion as it will have no effect on other conferences (8 game vs 9 game conf schedule)

Edited December 8, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[NowThis 931]

teams that are better than OU --- Alabama, Oregon, Auburn.  So I'm always in favor of 8, but never 16 which is dumb.

[Francisco 2.0 32345]

https://footballscoop.com/news/nuggets-the-playoff-field-is-set-but-lets-talk-about-it-anyway/

 

Quote

Oregon’s season shows the tragic beauty of the 4-team Playoff system. If you read enough people in the know, it’s a when, not if, the College Football Playoff expands to eight teams, most likely in 2026. Your milage will vary on whether or not it’s a good thing, but there’s no denying it will be different. An 8-team playoff would, most likely, award guaranteed berths to each Power 5 champion, thereby turning college football’s non-conference season into something that isn’t quite the NFL preseason, but is still fundamentally different than the sport we’ve known for the past 150 years. Again, I’m not here to tell you if that’s good or bad, but it will be different.

 

Quote

Case in point: the 2019 Oregon Ducks.

Oregon crushed Utah 37-15 for the Pac-12 championship on Friday night. The 11-2 Ducks will head to the Rose Bowl, and the only reason Mario Cristobal’s team isn’t Playoff-bound is because of what happened on the first Saturday night of the season.

 

Quote

As you’ll recall, the Ducks gagged away a game unlike any team gagged away a game all year against Auburn in Dallas:

— A dropped touchdown pass turned a 14-0 lead into 10-0
— Leading 14-3, Justin Herbert fumbled at the Auburn 9, which Big Kat Bryant returned 83 yards the other way
— Leading 21-20 in the fourth quarter, Oregon failed to convert a 4th-and-1 at Auburn’s 41, then failed to stop an Auburn 4th-and-3 at the Tigers’ 47 with 1:21 to play.

 

Quote

Bo Nix threw a 26-yard touchdown for a 27-21 Auburn win, and a game Oregon did not trail until 00:09 showed on the clock on Aug. 31 irreparably altered the three months that came after.

That’s what separates college football from every sport in this country, and that fabric will be lost when the Playoff expands. It’s up to you whether that’s a good thing or not.

(Of course, the argument against the current system is that, had Oregon played Akron instead of Auburn, we’re not even having this conversation because the 12-1 Ducks are in the Playoff.)

 

Edited December 8, 2019 by Francisco 2.0

[BigHorn'13 3355]

Simply put, 4 teams will never make sense with 5 conferences. Even though it seemingly worked out this year, other examples exist where they do not. 

[stork642 4498]

3 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

What would make college football even better is for teams to not be severely penalized for losing an OOC game so we can prioritize high quality OOC matchups over “don’t lose a game.”

 

Well if you are truly a top 4 team why are you worried about losing any game?   Sure anything can happen but the focus should always be on the regular season.  Only college football offers this weekly do or die component.  If you want a big playoff March is right around the corner.  Have fun.  

[utee94 15746]

15 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

 

They could have all that now.  Why don't they?

Because right now scheduling a loss in your OOC pretty much eliminates you from the CFP and the conferences/schools are telling the television network partners they'll have to take what they get.

With automatic bids for conference champs, OOC losses don't eliminate you from the CFP discussion, so conferences/schools will be more willing to schedule marquee teams both for their own stadium revenue, as well as appeasing the conference television broadcasting partners.  Individually, Texas makes a TON more money hosting LSU than it does Rice or Maryland.  And from a conference revenue perspective, the network partners are going to be a lot more willing to increase their payouts if everyone is scheduling marquee OOC opponents rather than Duke or Texas State.

 

Edited December 8, 2019 by utee94

[mdleast 8262]

As a rabid CFB fan, I cant understand why one wouldn’t be in favor of expansion to 8 teams just to have those additional games of the “top 8” (5 conference champions plus 3 beauty contest picks).

[Landomatic 3813]

5 minutes ago, stork642 said:

When we have 5 undefeated teams at the end of the regular season then maybe someone will have a legitimate gripe.

Can't be emphasized enough.  Five undefeated P5 teams would be a valid complaint.  Had Oregon and Oklahoma both been undefeated this year, then there's an argument.  It never happens that way and if/when it does, my response would be that it's clearly the rare exception and you shouldn't scrap a whole system based on one random, outlier, exception year.

No matter what, there will always be someone in the next set of teams on the outside looking in who thinks they have a valid reason to bitch.  The number of teams will never change that.  That's a fact.  And keeping it at 4 teams keeps the most emphasis on the regular season vs. expanding it to more teams.  Also a fact.  Also, there will always be a need for some form of selection process to determine which teams are in, regardless of the number of teams since every team clearly can't play each other.  Another fact.  So, my point in all of this is that all other arguments are of less importance (at least to me) than those three factors.

Now, if people want to argue it shouldn't be a committee, or we should use computers, or the NCAA should fix realignment or whatever, that's a different conversation.

[NowThis 931]

2 problems -- not all conferences are equal, not all schedules are equal.  Clemson and OU have played exactly no one.

[Landomatic 3813]

11 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Because you can go 0-3 in OOC games and run the table in conference and make the playoffs (in a conf champ auto qualifier model with 😎 teams)

Then let each conference deal with how to Choose their champion as it will have no effect on other conferences (8 game vs 9 game conf schedule)

How the fuck is any 3 loss team who's not a conference champion getting into slots 6, 7 and 8?  Or are you saying we need a 5 team playoff?  Assuming not, the scheduling will still impact the other spots so nobody has any reason to schedule possible losses.  Not to mention, there are other reasons for those early cupcake games like using them much in the same way the NFL uses pre-season games, but that's a different discussion.

[Landomatic 3813]

11 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Because right now scheduling a loss in your OOC pretty much eliminates you from the CFP and the conferences/schools are telling the television network partners they'll have to take what they get.

With automatic bids for conference champs, OOC losses don't eliminate you from the CFP discussion, so conferences/schools will be more willing to schedule marquee teams both for their own stadium revenue, as well as appeasing the conference television broadcasting partners.  Individually, Texas makes a TON more money hosting LSU than it does Rice or Maryland.  And from a conference revenue perspective, the network partners are going to be a lot more willing to increase their payouts if everyone is scheduling marquee OOC opponents rather than Duke or Texas State.

 

Already addressed but, expanding to more teams won't ever change that due to the fact that anything after 5 are "beauty contest" bids which start with overall record.  Nobody wants to roll the dice on having a shittier record in any model.

[Homercles 10205]

12 minutes ago, NowThis said:

2 problems -- not all conferences are equal, not all schedules are equal.  Clemson and OU have played exactly no one.

Neither has Alabama, who lost to both big teams they played...you’ve parroted them since last night, why?

[Landomatic 3813]

16 minutes ago, BigHorn'13 said:

Simply put, 4 teams will never make sense with 5 conferences. Even though it seemingly worked out this year, other examples exist where they do not. 

Still waiting for someone to name all these "examples".

[WBT 20424]

25 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

What would make college football even better is for teams to not be severely penalized for losing an OOC game so we can prioritize high quality OOC matchups over “don’t lose a game.”

 

Why?  Are you sure you like college football?  It's always been about trying to go undefeated and untied.

Edited December 8, 2019 by WBT

[Landomatic 3813]

16 minutes ago, mdleast said:

As a rabid CFB fan, I cant understand why one wouldn’t be in favor of expansion to 8 teams just to have those additional games.

And that's fair.

[utee94 15746]

5 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

Already addressed but, expanding to more teams won't ever change that due to the fact that anything after 5 are "beauty contest" bids which start with overall record.  Nobody wants to roll the dice on having a shittier record in any model.

Already addressed, because expanding to more teams would very likely push the first round of games to on-campus which would make seeding far more important than it currently has.  And perceived SOS will be a huge factor in that seeding.  
 

I hear your opinions, I just don't agree with them.

Edited December 8, 2019 by utee94

[HornsOverIthaca 2333]

I'm deflated as the only team I can see myself rooting for is fucking LSU.  FUCK.  ASS.

[BurntOrange&White 39667]

You are correct.  So many idiots will insist on making college football more about the playoffs than the regular season.  When we have 5 undefeated teams at the end of the regular season then maybe someone will have a legitimate gripe.  Until then don’t lose a game and you won’t have any issues making a four team playoff.  Keep the focus on the regular season because that’s what make college football better than any other sport. 

I challenge you to go back as far as you like and find a cfb season with 5 undefeated teams.

[Homercles 10205]

Double post

Edited December 8, 2019 by Homercles

[DanRydell 799]

Why?  Are you sure you like college football?  It's always been about trying to go undefeated and untied.

 

You ask why I prefer watching Oregon-Auburn over Oregon- Portland State and question whether I’m the one who likes college football?

 

The goal should to go undefeated by playing better than everyone else, not by strategically avoiding scheduling losses.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

20 minutes ago, NowThis said:

2 problems -- not all conferences are equal, not all schedules are equal.  Clemson and OU have played exactly no one.

*beat me to it

Edited December 8, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[WBT 20424]

 

3 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

You ask why I prefer watching Oregon-Auburn over Oregon- Portland State and evening question whether I’m the one who likes college football?

The goal should to go undefeated by playing better than everyone else, not by strategically avoiding scheduling losses.

 

But Oregon did play Auburn and lost and you say they shouldn't be penalized for it.  We should expand the playoffs and give them a do over.

Edited December 8, 2019 by WBT

[DanRydell 799]

 

But Oregon did play Auburn and lost and you say they shouldn't be penalized for it.  We should expand the playoffs and give them a do over.

 

I said they shouldn’t be “severely penalized”, not without consequence at all. Losses would still affect seeding. Had Oregon just played Portland State instead, they’d likely be in the playoff. That’s an incentive for bad football.

[DanRydell 799]

If the goal is to go undefeated and untied, then any system that makes it possible to go undefeated and untied but still not compete for the championship is fucked.

[LTbear 4161]

43 minutes ago, Scooter Monzingo said:

I just want away from the fucking eye test. I’m sorry, I don’t give a shit which network or talking head rattles on about quality of loss/win. 

Adding 4 teams may very well be disputed by the 9th team. But it allows the possibility of a Cinderella. Sure the narrative will always be the favorite should win. But like the NCAA’s, upsets will happen. 

The fact that the underdog could win is why the basketball tournament grew in the way that it did from 16. It allowed multiple teams from a conference to enter (when only one ACC team could get in). And it provided excitement.

will it devalue the regular season? Probably to a degree. But with more than one chance of getting in we should see far better match ups in the regular season as we do in basketball. Just this year basketball opened up with a tournament that included Duke, Kentucky, Kansas and Michigan State. Those teams never would never have agreed to that in the old days, under the old metric. The fact they know they can still get in with a loss is why we get to see match ups like this early in the season.

I don't think growing to 8 would devalue the regular season, I think it'd make it much more fun. At 8 teams, all P5 champs get in - which means the national convo all year is about the conference races, like the good old days when college football was a regional sport and winning your conference meant something. It keeps "eye test" and name bran bias out of it and allows any team competing for a conference title to have a path, which keeps us from bullsh!t like hearing ESPN start this year talking about how Aggy should be considered for the playoffs if they only have 2 losses. And because a conference champ gets in, as someone else said it encourages much better OOC matchups, as those games 1) make lots of money, 2) wouldn't impact your odds at the P5 champ autobid, and 3) might help your odds if you end up being on the bubble for an at-large bid. 

[Sock Drawer 214]

1 hour ago, El Squared said:

Committees determining champions are for diving and ice dancing.

Especially when Condoleezza Rice has (had, anyway) a vote on the committee that determines who goes to the playoffs. That's about like me weighing in on the Euler-Lagrange equations. 

[Parliament 14138]

I believe there are 3 teams with a legit shot; LSU, Clemson and Ohio State.  We need a 4th to fill out the bracket, and let's make that team...Oklahoma.  They don't "deserve" it, but we need a 4th and they're it.  Maybe they can use their lucky break and win it all.  And maybe not.  Good luck.

[Helobious 9481]

OU lost to fucking Kansas State and is in the playoffs. Are you “leave it at 4 so the regular season matters” people just ignoring that fact? The regular season matters to only about 10-15 teams each year because of the polls, no matter how the regular season shakes out. It all depends on how good people think you might be when those first polls come out. Everything else throughout the year is viewed through that lens. Every year the regular season does not matter for about 115 CFB teams. Memphis, Boise, UCF, etc. never have a shot, and no good team ever has a reason to schedule them in the current format. I just don’t see how that’s a good system.

[NowThis 931]

43 minutes ago, Homercles said:

Neither has Alabama, who lost to both big teams they played...you’ve parroted them since last night, why?

Auburn was gifted 3 points vs. Bama and Tua was out with the backup screwing up a few times. Tua was also not 100% vs. LSU. Bama, even with the backup QB, is better than OU and deserves a top 4 spot. Bama played 2 big teams, OU/Clemson Zero right? You think OU woudn't have 3 loss had they played LSU and Auburn?

[WhatTheBuck 28715]

26 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

What would make college football even better is for teams to not be severely penalized for losing an OOC game so we can prioritize high quality OOC matchups over “don’t lose a game.”

Which teams have been severely penalized for losing an OOC game? If you're talking about Oregon this year, they're not getting left out because they lost to Auburn (total choke job, imo). They're getting left out because they lost to ASU. Just how many losses are you willing to forgive in order to get a team into the playoff?

Ohio State lost to VaTech in 2014 and made it in. They lost to OU in 2017 but weren't left out because of that. They were left out because they got blown out as huge favorites by Iowa. Last year they beat TCU in the OOC but got blown out as a huge favorite by Purdue. They were a one loss conference champion but didn't make the playoff. Should they have? We've seen evidence that you get penalized for really bad losses. I agree with that approach. I don't think tOSU should've been in the playoff last year. I think it sucks that the playoff makes anyone think that winning the Big Ten and winning the Rose Bowl isn't a successful season. An eight team playoff will make anything less than getting in a failure and further diminish the value of the bowls. 

I haven't seen evidence that teams are getting rewarded for playing tough OOC games. (I should also mention that VaTech and TCU were both better teams when tOSU scheduled them than when the games were actually played. It's impossible to know how good a team is going to be several years down the road. That complicates things.) I do think they should reinstate the rule that you could only count a win over a Div I-AA (now FCS) opponent toward your bowl eligibility once every four years. They waived it when they expanded the season to 12 games to make scheduling easier. That was a long time ago. They should bring it back. Teams should be penalized for playing lower division opponents. 

[Landomatic 3813]

21 minutes ago, Helobious said:

OU lost to fucking Kansas State and is in the playoffs. Are you “leave it at 4 so the regular season matters” people just ignoring that fact? The regular season matters to only about 10-15 teams each year because of the polls, no matter how the regular season shakes out. It all depends on how good people think you might be when those first polls come out. Everything else throughout the year is viewed through that lens. Every year the regular season does not matter for about 115 CFB teams. Memphis, Boise, UCF, etc. never have a shot, and no good team ever has a reason to schedule them in the current format. I just don’t see how that’s a good system.

All true.  And also nothing that will change by adding more teams to the CFP.  You’re making a different argument here.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

Teams are NOT being rewarded for good OOC schedules. They are being rewarded for pay for wins and D2 opponents in lieu of actually playing a conference team. 
 

The only reason to not use conf champions is to allow the SEC to get two teams in each year. 

[Homercles 10205]

14 minutes ago, NowThis said:

Auburn was gifted 3 points vs. Bama and Tua was out with the backup screwing up a few times. Tua was also not 100% vs. LSU. Bama, even with the backup QB, is better than OU and deserves a top 4 spot. Bama played 2 big teams, OU/Clemson Zero right? You think OU woudn't have 3 loss had they played LSU and Auburn?

Quarterbacks aren’t whole teams unless you’re Jon Bois.    Alabama lost both big games. OU beat Baylor (which otherwise swept the conference unlike Auburn) twice. Clemson went undefeated and unless you’re UCF that matters.  
 

If we had 8 teams then Alabama could’ve competed for an at large spot and maybe proved they’re better than OU on the field.  Their backup quarterback is probably a 4-5* player that could start for dozens of other teams.  Luck/gifts are part of the game, I’m still convinced that the FG towards the end of 2011 osu/ISU was good and we’d have beaten LSU for a natty but alas they called it wide...we beat a Luck-led Stanford that year and were obviously better than that ISU team but we lost, so alas I can’t bitch.  
 

Regarding OU it looks like we will see if they’re better than LSU here soon enough, depending on seeding.  This whole ‘x is better than y’ and ‘eye test’ crap should be useless but alas it’s all we’ve got with such a small ‘playoff’ set by committee with ratings at stake.  We all expected tOSU to boat race Wisconsin last night due to that eye test but they damn near blew it for 3 quarters.  

[Eastwood 4394]

Saying that the playoffs would make the regular season irrelevant is the biggest crock of shit. If they expand it to the P5 conference champs, all that matters is getting to the conference championship game. That makes the regular season important for lots of 2 loss and 3 teams that would be out of today's playoff discussion and just jockeying for bowl spots and wringing their hands about landing in the Cheez-It Bowl. Let's be honest here: very few people want the "regular season is the playoffs" type of system. The vast majority of P5 teams are out of playoff contention by week 4. Except, of course, if you're SEC.

It seems like the college football media are very happy with the "regular season is the playoffs" mentality until it comes to the SEC. The top 3 SEC teams can lose the conference championship game or not even win their division and have people bending over backwards arguing why they should be there, while we've already had an undefeated team left out of the playoff. The real reason why the media pushes against the popular calls for expanding playoffs is because guaranteeing P5 champs access to the playoff takes the power out of the media's hands. Right now, who gets in and who is out is deciding by the media. Sure, teams have to win games to get there, but when you hear things like "passing the eyeball test" and "statement game," that is just taking the power to get to the playoffs out of the hands of the coaches and players and putting it in the hands of journalists. "Nobody wants to see Utah in the playoff." Well, if Utah won the Pac 12 championship, they deserve a shot. Let's have the results on the field be the ultimate deciding factor for the national championship and end the era of the media christened champion.

[StruggleBus 3922]

The playoff will be right when it’s a playoff between all of the major conference winners. Until then, it’s nonsense.

[Treefidy 1463]

2 hours ago, Pancho said:

This is the 1st year since the CFP started where it was a clear top 3 and you can just throw in the 4th because they are gonna lose regardless. 

If this exact scenario had happened consistently, then you'd have a point.  It hasn't, so you don't. 

The move from 2 to 4 was controversial, imagine we are still doing BCS, Clemson probably gets left out this year.  Defending champion, undefeated, won 2 of last 3 would be left out.  

Im in favor of 8 because anything that devalues the current bullshit SEC poll alignment system is a good thing.  How best to debunk the SEC myth of extreme dominance?  Let other teams in who have a chance to beat them.  

In 5 years the SEC has never missed out and got 2 teams in once.  Every year it's a major discussion of multiple SEC teams getting in while that discussion is not applied to any other conference.  The biggest downside to expansion is SEC gets at least 2 in every single year.  The upside is they will never get to have 50% of the field, inflating win chances and perpetuating the myth.  

Other expansion upside I see is a major devaluation of the polls which ARE the SEC bias.  We all know how that circle jerk works from pre-season through November patsy week, and the human polls affect the human committee.  

I'm in favor of anything that slows the consolidation of talent that turns the myth into reality.   I'm in favor of the talent spreading out and parity across regions, historically what college football has always been.   The rate of talent consolidation in the SEC should alarm anyone who loves college football.  How to dispel the myth?  Beat them.  How to beat them?  Well, you have to play them.  2017 is a perfect example, the only team outside the southeast that any SEC team played and beat was UGA 20-19 over dome.   The SEC combined lost to Purdue, michigan,  Louisville,  TCU, Cal, Clemson, FSU,  UCLA, and Clemson again.   Collectively they beat NC state, KSU, Syracuse, and FSU.   In bowls they went 2-5 (excluding CFP). Wins over Louisville and Michigan.  Losses to Wake, Domer,  Northwestern,  UCF,  and UT.  Yet they represented 50% of the CFP field.  

[TeddyBearStallion 73]

2 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Uuuhhhhhh no. 
 

The system rewards scheduling for an undefeated season.  It clearly discourages out of conference matchups for fear of that one loss, and discourages the ACC and SEC from actually playing their conference opponents (and to keep playing D2 schools). We are sacrificing the first 3rd of the season to make the artificial “push” at the end of the season to only have 1 or zero losses. The rest of the schedule doesn’t mean shit. Just don’t lose. 
 

8 is great.  A conference championship is the only real metric college football has that is played on the field. Polls and committees should be saved for politics, not sports. 120+ teams and 12 games. Zero like schedules. And a playoff system based on confirmation bias. 

8 teams with automatic births using a seeding process based on the BCS formula that includes both SOS  and MOV (with greater weight given to SOS) to encourage teams to schedule better games OOC.   This would preserve and I would say increase the intrigue and interest in the regular season.  

[Pam Cummings 9584]

9 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Saying that the playoffs would make the regular season irrelevant is the biggest crock of shit. If they expand it to the P5 conference champs, all that matters is getting to the conference championship game. That makes the regular season important for lots of 2 loss and 3 teams that would be out of today's playoff discussion and just jockeying for bowl spots and wringing their hands about landing in the Cheez-It Bowl. Let's be honest here: very few people want the "regular season is the playoffs" type of system. The vast majority of P5 teams are out of playoff contention by week 4. Except, of course, if you're SEC.

It seems like the college football media are very happy with the "regular season is the playoffs" mentality until it comes to the SEC. The top 3 SEC teams can lose the conference championship game or not even win their division and have people bending over backwards arguing why they should be there, while we've already had an undefeated team left out of the playoff. The real reason why the media pushes against the popular calls for expanding playoffs is because guaranteeing P5 champs access to the playoff takes the power out of the media's hands. Right now, who gets in and who is out is deciding by the media. Sure, teams have to win games to get there, but when you hear things like "passing the eyeball test" and "statement game," that is just taking the power to get to the playoffs out of the hands of the coaches and players and putting it in the hands of journalists. "Nobody wants to see Utah in the playoff." Well, if Utah won the Pac 12 championship, they deserve a shot. Let's have the results on the field be the ultimate deciding factor for the national championship and end the era of the media christened champion.

Fucking this right here. The "the regular season wont matter anymore!" argument is horse shit. It would become far more interesting to know that conference winners get in and to watch those races unfold.

 

As it is, we have Oregon, who i have a sneaking suspicion might be better than OU, sitting this one out.

[Iceman 2641]

3 hours ago, Landomatic said:

Bullshit.  This season was a perfect example of why it works just fine as is.  The right 4 teams get in with no controversy and it takes the whole regular season and some conference championship games to get there.  Which is the case just about every year.  Would adding some fringe 2 loss outliers and a no-name Memphis and/or FAU team really make it better?  Fuck no.  This model just makes the regular season so much better than having more teams would.  It's one of the most magical aspects of college football and expanding it would fuck that up.  And yes, I realize I'm in the minority on this.

Wanna bet that the NFL CCG’s are NOT the top 2 seeds in the conferences at the end of the regular season?

Fuck the smell test. Fuck the committees.  Fuck the protectionist/ biased horseshit.

College football should have a 16 team playoff. Period.

[TeddyBearStallion 73]

2 hours ago, Landomatic said:

Really?  Who were all these other teams every year that had a legitimate bitch about not being let in?  I'll hang up and listen.

2014 TCU 

[Treefidy 1463]

1 hour ago, Bevo VIII said:

I challenge you to go back as far as you like and find a cfb season with 5 undefeated teams.

1887 had 5

1889 had 9 including fOSU, Dome, and USC. 

1891- 6

1892- 9

1893- 7. Including UT

1894- 8

1895- 13 including UT who no one scored on  

1896- 9

1897-  8

1898-  10

1900-1918 all had between 5 and 11 undefeated teams   1919 had 4  then through 1926 only 1924 had fewer than 6  

1938, 1940,  43, 44, 49, 51 all had 5 or more   Including 4 or more undefeated teams really opens things up as recently as 1969, and these are undefeated and untied teams.  Going solely off "undefeated" would take some time to sort through  

 

[mdleast 8262]

This may have already been covered here but was listening to a CFB podcast this morning making the point that conference champ auto-qualification in the playoffs will discourage scheduling harder out of conference games. That’s a fair point.

[Eastwood 4394]

1 minute ago, mdleast said:

This may have already been covered here but was listening to a CFB podcast this morning making the point that conference champ auto-qualification in the playoffs will discourage scheduling harder out of conference games. That’s a fair point.

That cat is already out of the bag. Cupcake OOC has been a thing since the beginning of the BCS era.

[mdleast 8262]

Yes but they were discussing in the context of whether Oregon should have scheduled a cupcake instead of Auburn by those arguing that if they had done so, they would be in the playoffs now. Podcast was instead arguing that the Auburn game got them in the discussion and, if they had scheduled a cup cake, they would actually be further back in the rankings.

[LTbear 4161]

6 minutes ago, mdleast said:

This may have already been covered here but was listening to a CFB podcast this morning making the point that conference champ auto-qualification in the playoffs will discourage scheduling harder out of conference games. That’s a fair point.

What? P5 champ auto-qualifiers will encourage scheduling better OOC games. Those games make TONS of money, wouldn't impact a team's shot at the P5 autobid, but would also help their case in an argument for an at-large bid.

[Spankytoes 1736]

1 minute ago, LTbear said:

What? P5 champ auto-qualifiers will encourage scheduling better OOC games. Those games make TONS of money, wouldn't impact a team's shot at the P5 autobid, but would also help their case in an argument for an at-large bid.

This. If you beat a strong ooc opponent, and don’t win the conference, you need a talking point for an at-large bid. Only 1 team can win the conference. If you aren’t that team, you get another bite at the playoff Apple over someone that scheduled Texas A&M school for the Mentally Challenged.

[mdleast 8262]

I guess the argument is you wouldn’t need those games from a qualifying standpoint but the money argument is a good one. Like I said, I’m all for more/better games

[Nivek 16862]

All FCS teams should count as a loss and no stats should be recorded for the players from the FBS team.

That is fix #1.

[mdleast 8262]

Though Spanky is right for a non-conference champion

[Iceman 2641]

10 minutes ago, mdleast said:

This may have already been covered here but was listening to a CFB podcast this morning making the point that conference champ auto-qualification in the playoffs will discourage scheduling harder out of conference games. That’s a fair point.

Why?  There would be less risk for scheduling tougher schedules.

There should also be a 9 conference game requirement, with a loss being given for teams who only play 8.  

 

There are some very realways to standardize the schedules.  That is most obviously and emphatically not the goal.