2018 College Football Playoff Rankings

[HtownHorn 14468]

8 minutes ago, Texas25 said:

One thing to note to, the NFL is shifting more to a Big 12 brand of football and away from the SEC brand. In the future I think there is going to be a serious up tick in offensive players taken from the Big 12 in the draft. Which will only help recruiting.

Which is why Alabama is already playing Big 12 offense. They just pair it with a defense that is used to SEC offense.

[kopp0e 1135]

Should the Golden Knights be ranked higher than the Sooners..? Maybe so...

 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21781]

He picks his stats like an aggy. He could also have said the Sooners have scored 92 more points than the Knights. And the Knights only have one victory against a P5 team, but are only ranked five spots behind the Sooners. See how that works.

 

OU still sucks

[Vic Mackey 46932]

1 hour ago, kopp0e said:

Should the Golden Knights be ranked higher than the Sooners..? Maybe so...

 

They are ahead of UCF because they are a better team. So no, they should not be ranked ahead of OU.

[Vic Mackey 46932]

50 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

He picks his stats like an aggy. He could also have said the Sooners have scored 92 more points than the Knights. And the Knights only have one victory against a P5 team, but are only ranked five spots behind the Sooners. See how that works.

 

OU still sucks

Exactly. Cherry picking stats and burying the lead. OU would smoke UCF by 3 scores easy. Their offense is fucking dangerous. Defense? Yeah it sucks. But I think they know that and are just going to try and shoot it out with you and outscore you. Like they tried last year with Georgia. 

[DejaVu 39]

2 hours ago, kopp0e said:

Should the Golden Knights be ranked higher than the Sooners..? Maybe so...

No. ousux would pound UCF. 

[SHOOTER12 8788]

On 11/11/2018 at 11:30 AM, maninblack said:

 

Absolutely smart? Or absolute pussies?

[kopp0e 1135]

If the current rankings of an expanded playoff were real:

[utee94 15745]

16 teams?  Gross.  No thanks.

[Treefidy 1463]

On 11/14/2018 at 5:43 PM, Hamttx said:

Actually he made a solid point, and it obviously went against the corporate agenda based on the looks he received from Reece, Joey and Pollock when he said it. 

Simply put, he pointed out that if one feels that the metric of having a great defense based on statistics is a requirement. And then applies those numbers to say that on paper LSU is X amount of points better then ou. Then by the same metric you must also recognize the rarified air that ou is putting up offensively. Numbers that if they hold up will be the highest ever recorded in college football history. And then the logic becomes LSU’s offense sucks so they shouldn’t be in. 

Basiclly he addressed the elephant in the room. That it is easy to pick the numbers that support your case. Yes you can beat up ou for their shit defense. But then you should also beat up the teams that have the suck for offense.

And his closing comment was definitely on point with “you only have to have one more point then the other guy to win. Whether that is 21-20 or 49-50”. I thought it was something that should be pointed out. 

 

having a good offense is a good thing, I think defense still wins championships.  

In a 1 off game the defense should probably have the advantage when a great offense faces a great defense, no?  It should be easier to scheme a defense to an offense rather than the inverse because offense is usually run off a game plan and its need to practice all its action. Whereas the defense is always in reaction mode so it's not really scripted.  

We have seen new defenses come in the B12 and stump offenses, but eventually the offenses have film and are able to attack tendencies or schemes.  But it takes a little time.  

i remember many instances of a prolific offense getting shut down by a great defense, but not so many cases where a great defense gets blown out.  Then again I grew up wanting to hit rather than get hit, but a lot of kids today seem to want the glory.  Look at how many recruits forego their natural positions on defense for a shot at skill positions. 

[chase25 2048]

1 hour ago, kopp0e said:

If the current rankings of an expanded playoff were real:

Poor Iowa State, talk about volunteering as tribute.

[ztejas 43262]

1 hour ago, kopp0e said:

If the current rankings of an expanded playoff were real:

This is sick. Great contribution you Sonner cuck. 

[ztejas 43262]

6 minutes ago, Texas25 said:

Poor Iowa State, talk about volunteering as tribute.

Them and um... we would get ass raped in Clemson. 

[ztejas 43262]

1 hour ago, utee94 said:

16 teams?  Gross.  No thanks.

It should at least be 8. 16 would be the next step. I think it would be a blast. Issue is games played - NCAA ain't moving away from 12 games of cash every year in the regular season. 

[Monster 219]

7 hours ago, kopp0e said:

If the current rankings of an expanded playoff were real:

How fun would this be.  I wonder how many viewers they'd get with 15 CFB playoff games.  I'd watch every one of em.   

As it is, I'll probably watch the 3 or 4 of the exhibition games.  (big 12 teams and UCF..maybe the pirate)   As for the 'playoff', if they put two SEC teams in, I might skip the entire thing.   I seriously can't make myself care about notre dame, bama, clemson...SEC #2.   I can't even generate enough hate to root against them at this point.   No Cinderellas, no darkhorses, no drama.

Fuck the exclusive invite-only 3 game 'playoff'.  Fuck it directly in the ass.  From the front.  With eye contact.

[markstanco 12504]

Which is why Alabama is already playing Big 12 offense. They just pair it with a defense that is used to SEC offense.

That is not what saban was thinking (NFL). He just rolled with the qb he has and his skill set.

Unlike GDGD during vince's soph year.

[kopp0e 1135]

4 hours ago, Monster said:

How fun would this be.  I wonder how many viewers they'd get with 15 CFB playoff games.  I'd watch every one of em.   

As it is, I'll probably watch the 3 or 4 of the exhibition games.  (big 12 teams and UCF..maybe the pirate)   As for the 'playoff', if they put two SEC teams in, I might skip the entire thing.   I seriously can't make myself care about notre dame, bama, clemson...SEC #2.   I can't even generate enough hate to root against them at this point.   No Cinderellas, no darkhorses, no drama.

Fuck the exclusive invite-only 3 game 'playoff'.  Fuck it directly in the ass.  From the front.  With eye contact.

Agreed, i had a conversation with a SEC fan about expanding the playoffs here is the back & forth, enjoy..!

4 teams with at least 3 losses. No thanks. Regular season would be completely irrelevant. Who cares if we lost to Texas? Who cares if we lose to West Virginia? We can still play for the National Title. Gross.

Uhh... You must mean like the regular seasin is "irrelevant" if a team that doesn't even play for it's conference championship, can still be 1 of 2 teams frim the same league in a 4 team "invitational" CFP system... I agree who cares if you win your conference (tOSU_B1G/ UCF_AAC) or lose to Auburn & come in 3rd place, (Alabama) yuck... Haha, I'm kidding with you, but there are valid points there.

[TXSooner518 2432]

12 hours ago, utee94 said:

16 teams?  Gross.  No thanks.

16 is no good unless it is a thing where all 11 conf champs get in plus 5 wild cards. That would give every team a path in, but not make it where ONLY conf champs get in, which would completely make nonconference games worthless. I would also prefer the first 2 rounds at home, which rewards the top teams, and also avoids the situation which would definitely happen with some of those Round of 8 games at neutral sites being played in front of 25k people. 

I would strongly prefer 6, with top two getting byes, or 8, with all 5 P5 champs in plus 3 wild cards with some auto-qualifier for a G5 team for one of the WC spots as long as they meet certain criteria.

But 16 teams with 8-4 middling P5s getting in really would make games completely worthless. I know everyone can come up with a game here or there that you can argue is meaningless, but for example right now, Mich-tOSU will be a win and have a great shot, lose and be dead game. In the 16 team model, they are both locked in, and playing for positioning.  It also would make the conf title games useless in most situations, and actually detrimental to the teams in them in most years. Say ISU wins out to get to 8-3. They are then in in the 16 team model, but could easily fall out by dropping the B12 title game to OU or West Va. 

[Machinator 32097]

1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

16 is no good unless it is a thing where all 11 conf champs get in plus 5 wild cards. That would give every team a path in, but not make it where ONLY conf champs get in, which would completely make nonconference games worthless. I would also prefer the first 2 rounds at home, which rewards the top teams, and also avoids the situation which would definitely happen with some of those Round of 8 games at neutral sites being played in front of 25k people. 

I would strongly prefer 6, with top two getting byes, or 8, with all 5 P5 champs in plus 3 wild cards with some auto-qualifier for a G5 team for one of the WC spots as long as they meet certain criteria.

But 16 teams with 8-4 middling P5s getting in really would make games completely worthless. I know everyone can come up with a game here or there that you can argue is meaningless, but for example right now, Mich-tOSU will be a win and have a great shot, lose and be dead game. In the 16 team model, they are both locked in, and playing for positioning.  It also would make the conf title games useless in most situations, and actually detrimental to the teams in them in most years. Say ISU wins out to get to 8-3. They are then in in the 16 team model, but could easily fall out by dropping the B12 title game to OU or West Va. 

I've always thought 5/6 teams is the Goldilocks range, but the problem is that CFB rankings are way too subjective to determine which teams deserve a bye and which don't.

[rickyspub 801]

5 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

16 is no good unless it is a thing where all 11 conf champs get in plus 5 wild cards. That would give every team a path in, but not make it where ONLY conf champs get in, which would completely make nonconference games worthless. I would also prefer the first 2 rounds at home, which rewards the top teams, and also avoids the situation which would definitely happen with some of those Round of 8 games at neutral sites being played in front of 25k people. 

I would strongly prefer 6, with top two getting byes, or 8, with all 5 P5 champs in plus 3 wild cards with some auto-qualifier for a G5 team for one of the WC spots as long as they meet certain criteria.

But 16 teams with 8-4 middling P5s getting in really would make games completely worthless. I know everyone can come up with a game here or there that you can argue is meaningless, but for example right now, Mich-tOSU will be a win and have a great shot, lose and be dead game. In the 16 team model, they are both locked in, and playing for positioning.  It also would make the conf title games useless in most situations, and actually detrimental to the teams in them in most years. Say ISU wins out to get to 8-3. They are then in in the 16 team model, but could easily fall out by dropping the B12 title game to OU or West Va. 

16 is better than 4, but it does open up a lot of issues without specifics about who gets in and how, or a change in scheduling rules. Even now, I don't see any benefit for a strong SOS for OOC games. Bama gets a cakewalk of a non-con and no one bats an eye. Texas sets itself up for a trap game like Maryland rather than an FCS opponent and puts another game of real mileage on its players, while Bama gets to have 3 soft opponents with no repercussions from the committee. The system already sucks.

If you take all conference champs then Bama gets rewarded with another cupcake, while Texas risks a lower seed, due to playing a more difficult schedule, and could end up facing a Top 10 team in the first round rather than a G5 patsy. If you could go to 16 and it is based on rankings, then OK, the results are a little less cut and dried, but you still have no scheduling integrity. If you got to 16 and only give the P5 autobids, you likely end up with a lawsuit from the G5, so it is probably committee-ranked or bust.

16 would be more tenable if playing FCS teams were outlawed and a codified SOS component was added to the ranking criteria. Going back to a BCS-style formula isn't perfect, but the committee selection concept has proven corrupt.

[TXSooner518 2432]

2 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

16 is better than 4, but it does open up a lot of issues without specifics about who gets in and how, or a change in scheduling rules. Even now, I don't see any benefit for a strong SOS for OOC games. Bama gets a cakewalk of a non-con and no one bats an eye. Texas sets itself up for a trap game like Maryland rather than an FCS opponent and puts another game of real mileage on its players, while Bama gets to have 3 soft opponents with no repercussions from the committee. The system already sucks.

If you take all conference champs then Bama gets rewarded with another cupcake, while Texas risks a lower seed, due to playing a more difficult schedule, and could end up facing a Top 10 team in the first round rather than a G5 patsy. If you could go to 16 and it is based on rankings, then OK, the results are a little less cut and dried, but you still have no scheduling integrity. If you got to 16 and only give the P5 autobids, you likely end up with a lawsuit from the G5, so it is probably committee-ranked or bust.

16 would be more tenable if playing FCS teams were outlawed and a codified SOS component was added to the ranking criteria. Going back to a BCS-style formula isn't perfect, but the committee selection concept has proven corrupt.

I disagree on strong SOS not being important. Bama's power ratings this year are historically good, so their SOS is less important. But Oklahoma got in last year specifically because they went to Columbus and beat Ohio State. And not trolling, but Maryland is not a "trap game" for a legit playoff contender. They were blown out at home by Temple, got held to 3 TOTAL points by Iowa and Sparty, two solid but not great teams, and lost to Indiana. Beyond Texas, Maryland's wins are over 2-8 Bowling Green, Minnesota, Rutgers, and Illinois. The three B1G teams they have beaten are a combined 4-17 in conference, with 2 of the 4 wins being Illinois beating Minnesota and Rutgers. Maryland is going to end up 5-7, which would have been 4-8 if Texas had done what it should have done week 1. 

You should factor schedule into the seeding as well as how good the team is for sure. Bama's OOC was hot garbage, though they couldn't have known how bad Louisville can be, but their end-of-year overall schedule will be reasonably difficult. It's kind of silly IMO to say that it isn't fair that the consensus by far best team in the country gets a round 1 patsy while Texas would be punished for losing to a team that could verrrry charitably be described as mediocre. I mean, that's how it should work, right?  That's why the 1 seeds in the NCAA tourney get the free win with the 16 seeds (sorry UVA). 

[rickyspub 801]

4 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I disagree on strong SOS not being important. Bama's power ratings this year are historically good, so their SOS is less important. But Oklahoma got in last year specifically because they went to Columbus and beat Ohio State. And not trolling, but Maryland is not a "trap game" for a legit playoff contender. They were blown out at home by Temple, got held to 3 TOTAL points by Iowa and Sparty, two solid but not great teams, and lost to Indiana. Beyond Texas, Maryland's wins are over 2-8 Bowling Green, Minnesota, Rutgers, and Illinois. The three B1G teams they have beaten are a combined 4-17 in conference, with 2 of the 4 wins being Illinois beating Minnesota and Rutgers. Maryland is going to end up 5-7, which would have been 4-8 if Texas had done what it should have done week 1. 

You should factor schedule into the seeding as well as how good the team is for sure. Bama's OOC was hot garbage, though they couldn't have known how bad Louisville can be, but their end-of-year overall schedule will be reasonably difficult. It's kind of silly IMO to say that it isn't fair that the consensus by far best team in the country gets a round 1 patsy while Texas would be punished for losing to a team that could verrrry charitably be described as mediocre. I mean, that's how it should work, right?  That's why the 1 seeds in the NCAA tourney get the free win with the 16 seeds (sorry UVA). 

You are taking my example too literally. (But if you want to play that, almost losing to Oklahoma State due to a missed extra point also isn't the look for a 'legit' playoff contender.) Sorry, but even playing Kansas puts more mileage on your players than an FCS or a bottom tier G5. Or replace Maryland with Iowa or any other middling team that turns out to be Top 20 quality and put it as the first game of the season for a younger team and it can easily turn into a loss. By the end of the season, that young team may have gelled and be playing the best ball of anyone, but an undefeated team who didn't play anyone OOC won't get passed even if they played a bunch of close games. You don't have to worry about an FCS team turning into a Top 20 FBS level team when you schedule them 5 years in advance. If Texas were undefeated this season, the committee would likely still have us behind Bama and Clemson, both of whom would have played an FCS team and at least one less P5.

Bama schedule isn't shit because of how bad Louisville is. It is shit because they scheduled Arkansas State, Louisiana-Lafayette, and Citadel. You are playing the same bullshit game that the committee plays. Bama may be the best team, but there are also absolutely no repercussions for them consciously playing a shitty schedule. Sure, Kentucky would never get that benefit of the doubt nor would any other non-blue blood, but that still doesn't make it fair.

[TXSooner518 2432]

11 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

You are taking my example too literally. (But if you want to play that, almost losing to Oklahoma State due to a missed extra point also isn't the look for a 'legit' playoff contender.) Sorry, but even playing Kansas puts more mileage on your players than an FCS or a bottom tier G5. Or replace Maryland with Iowa or any other middling team that turns out to be Top 20 quality and put it as the first game of the season for a younger team and it can easily turn into a loss. By the end of the season, that young team may have gelled and be playing the best ball of anyone, but an undefeated team who didn't play anyone OOC won't get passed even if they played a bunch of close games. You don't have to worry about an FCS team turning into a Top 20 FBS level team when you schedule them 5 years in advance. If Texas were undefeated this season, the committee would likely still have us behind Bama and Clemson, both of whom would have played an FCS team and at least one less P5.

Bama schedule isn't shit because of how bad Louisville is. It is shit because they scheduled Arkansas State, Louisiana-Lafayette, and Citadel. You are playing the same bullshit game that the committee plays. Bama may be the best team, but there are also absolutely no repercussions for them consciously playing a shitty schedule. Sure, Kentucky would never get that benefit of the doubt nor would any other non-blue blood, but that still doesn't make it fair.

Hey, no argument with the bold. My point was just that Texas didn't actually trap themselves this season by playing a good team OOC. They played a non-bowl eligible team who has beaten absolutely no one this season except Texas. If your argument is that Maryland COULD have been a Top 25 team, but Arkie State, Louisiana, and Citadel never will be, I can agree with that also.

Certainly there are scheduling decisions that can be made that have benefits or drawbacks, and some of them are unknowable before the season. For example, ND is probably out at 11-1, despite scheduling Va Tech, Stanford, Florida State, and USC. They were unlucky that all 4 of them turned out to be down. On the flipside, they are getting benefits from the Michigan game, winning it before Michigan seemed to improve as the season went on. I would guess (and Sagarin Predictor agrees) that Michigan would be a solid favorite over ND if they were to rematch now.

I think you also are ignoring the teams, like OU last year and tOSU in 2016, that got in directly because of a good OOC schedule.

I don't think the Bama benefit of the doubt is solely blue-blood stuff. OU's OOC is marginal, and they could certainly miss the playoff as a 12-1 conference champion specifically because of it. The Bama BOD is that they are playing WAY beyond what everyone else is doing so far. If Bama loses a game, you might come in here and advocate that some other 1-loss team get in over Bama, but I guaran-damn-tee you that you wouldn't take any team straight up over Bama in an on-field wager. 

I would say that Texas would probably have moved up to #2 by now if they were unbeaten, but hard to know for sure.

Edited November 16, 2018 by TXSooner518

[Tex Long 4346]

 

14 hours ago, kopp0e said:

If the current rankings of an expanded playoff were real:

 

12 hours ago, Texas25 said:

Poor Iowa State, talk about volunteering as tribute.

 

12 hours ago, ztejas said:

This is sick. Great contribution you Sonner cuck. 

It'd be a start - other than the fact that half the pairings are wrong... 16 teams, seeded; first round games all have seeds adding to 17 - 1 plays 16, that's right,  but #6 doesn't play #14, they play #11... so the 0U versus Locational Florida happens after all.

[ztejas 43262]

3 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

 

 

 

It'd be a start - other than the fact that half the pairings are wrong... 16 teams, seeded; first round games all have seeds adding to 17 - 1 plays 16, that's right,  but #6 doesn't play #14, they play #11... so the 0U versus Locational Florida happens after all.

Good catch. 

[rickyspub 801]

8 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Hey, no argument with the bold. My point was just that Texas didn't actually trap themselves this season by playing a good team OOC. They played a non-bowl eligible team who has beaten absolutely no one this season except Texas. If your argument is that Maryland COULD have been a Top 25 team, but Arkie State, Louisiana, and Citadel never will be, I can agree with that also.

Certainly there are scheduling decisions that can be made that have benefits or drawbacks, and some of them are unknowable before the season. For example, ND is probably out at 11-1, despite scheduling Va Tech, Stanford, Florida State, and USC. They were unlucky that all 4 of them turned out to be down. On the flipside, they are getting benefits from the Michigan game, winning it before Michigan seemed to improve as the season went on. I would guess (and Sagarin Predictor agrees) that Michigan would be a solid favorite over ND if they were to rematch now.

I think you also are ignoring the teams, like OU last year and tOSU in 2016, that got in directly because of a good OOC schedule.

I don't think the Bama benefit of the doubt is solely blue-blood stuff. OU's OOC is marginal, and they could certainly miss the playoff as a 12-1 conference champion specifically because of it. The Bama BOD is that they are playing WAY beyond what everyone else is doing so far. If Bama loses a game, you might come in here and advocate that some other 1-loss team get in over Bama, but I guaran-damn-tee you that you wouldn't take any team straight up over Bama in an on-field wager. 

I would say that Texas would probably have moved up to #2 by now if they were unbeaten, but hard to know for sure.

My point isn't about any particular season, it is the aggregate. Texas's schedule is more likely over the long term to keep us out of the playoffs that it is to get us in. It may not because we lost to a middling P5 OOC early in the season, more likely it because we lost to a middling conference opponent due to the physical and mental toll of facing more legit teams over the course of a season than a team that plays an FCS and 2 G5s most years. The undefeated team is held in too much regard IMO, especially when the schedules can be so different. Sure there is a chance that we get in over someone else due to SOS, but I would imagine in most seasons we are more likely to get in base on having 'Texas' on the jersey than whom we played.

Who did you beat out last year to get into the playoffs? I think Wisconsin was the only other 1 loss team that didn't make the playoffs and they were behind OU from the start and didn't pass you guys even after you loss. If you started the season where you did and had Wisconsin's schedule and finished with 1-loss, I bet you still get in because you have 'Oklahoma' on your jersey. In 2016, OSU was one of only 4 undefeated or 1-loss P5 teams, schedule didn't get them in. OSU in 2014 is about the only one where I remember SOS being mention, as Baylor's OOC was so bad, but even then the '13th game' was what the final criteria offered by the committee for bumping TCU for OSU.

[Hagbard Celine 10752]

that bracket is goald.

the ticket distribution for the first round would not be your typical league arrangement with 10% of capacity going to the visitor.  more like 25%.

death valley is 102k.

imagine 25000 jorts in death valley.  at night.

the entertainment value and potential for mayhem is unmeasurable with current technology.

 

[Zepol87 9171]

14 hours ago, kopp0e said:

If the current rankings of an expanded playoff were real:

So that is your twitter handle. I saw this earlier.

Very in for this btw

Edited November 16, 2018 by Zepol87

[TXSooner518 2432]

2 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

My point isn't about any particular season, it is the aggregate. Texas's schedule is more likely over the long term to keep us out of the playoffs that it is to get us in. It may not because we lost to a middling P5 OOC early in the season, more likely it because we lost to a middling conference opponent due to the physical and mental toll of facing more legit teams over the course of a season than a team that plays an FCS and 2 G5s most years. The undefeated team is held in too much regard IMO, especially when the schedules can be so different. Sure there is a chance that we get in over someone else due to SOS, but I would imagine in most seasons we are more likely to get in base on having 'Texas' on the jersey than whom we played.

Who did you beat out last year to get into the playoffs? I think Wisconsin was the only other 1 loss team that didn't make the playoffs and they were behind OU from the start and didn't pass you guys even after you loss. If you started the season where you did and had Wisconsin's schedule and finished with 1-loss, I bet you still get in because you have 'Oklahoma' on your jersey. In 2016, OSU was one of only 4 undefeated or 1-loss P5 teams, schedule didn't get them in. OSU in 2014 is about the only one where I remember SOS being mention, as Baylor's OOC was so bad, but even then the '13th game' was what the final criteria offered by the committee for bumping TCU for OSU.

For one, last year OU beat out the B1G champion tOSU, whereas if OU hadn't played them, it would have been a beauty contest between two 12-1 conference champions.

In 2016, Ohio State got in over B1G champ Penn State which had beaten tOSU, due largely to whipping OU's ass in Norman. Conversely, if OU had won that game, it allows them a huge chip to offset the Houston loss, and likely earns them a berth that year. If they had played Arkansas State instead, sure, they are 12-1, but with no big win, may have been on the outside looking in.

Your point is valid about wear and tear, but I do also think that there is something to be said for what winning a game like that does for a team mentally and emotionally. I think it would have been MUCH tougher for Texas to rally from double digits down in the 4th Q against USC if they hadn't beaten a damn good Ohio State team in the Horseshoe at night and instead beat The Citadel 100-0.  

The committee said "13th data point" and meant the fact that Ohio State beat a good Wisky team by 59 fucking points not "hey they played 13 games."  If either Baylor or TCU had won a big OOC game that year, things may have been different.

[rickyspub 801]

32 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

For one, last year OU beat out the B1G champion tOSU, whereas if OU hadn't played them, it would have been a beauty contest between two 12-1 conference champions.

In 2016, Ohio State got in over B1G champ Penn State which had beaten tOSU, due largely to whipping OU's ass in Norman. Conversely, if OU had won that game, it allows them a huge chip to offset the Houston loss, and likely earns them a berth that year. If they had played Arkansas State instead, sure, they are 12-1, but with no big win, may have been on the outside looking in.

Your point is valid about wear and tear, but I do also think that there is something to be said for what winning a game like that does for a team mentally and emotionally. I think it would have been MUCH tougher for Texas to rally from double digits down in the 4th Q against USC if they hadn't beaten a damn good Ohio State team in the Horseshoe at night and instead beat The Citadel 100-0.  

The committee said "13th data point" and meant the fact that Ohio State beat a good Wisky team by 59 fucking points not "hey they played 13 games."  If either Baylor or TCU had won a big OOC game that year, things may have been different.

Last year was happenstance. If Wisconsin would have beaten OSU in the CCG, they would have passed OU because they were undefeated, not because of who they actually played. OU beating OSU only meant that OSU couldn't afford to lose another game, which they did. In 2016, if OU hadn't played either Houston or OSU and replaced them with an FCS and weak G5, they would have been undefeated and in the playoffs...this is basically the Bama method.

Bama and Clemson really have suffered mentally by having an FCS team on the schedule every year, haven't they? I have seen nothing to suggest there is a correlation between a strong OOC and a team being more likely to win their conference or a national title. 

In 2014, OSU was getting in the playoff so long as they beat Wisconsin. They could have played Baylor's OOC and they were in. If Baylor and TCU had a rematch for the Big 12 championship, it would have been interesting to see how the committee would have approached it. I think OSU winning huge over a flawed Wisconsin would have trumped even TCU winning the rematch because "OSU". I am sure the committee would have used SOS to leave out Baylor, but fuck Baylor. If Bama had played that schedule, they would have gotten in.

Edited November 16, 2018 by rickyspub

[Tex Long 4346]

The Tex Long Full Playoff System gives every single one of the 128 teams a shot at the National Championship .  I know, three gotta go, to get started, but that's how it goes - when this system was conceived, there were 125, so...

Define 8 regions with 16 teams each, that's the 128-team bracket.

All teams have two sets of games: Regular and Playoff games. Teams play 9 Regular and 4 Playoff games. The Regular games have no effect at all on the Playoffs, so they can be whatever is most desirable - they can be Conference games, big-name games (think USC-Texas, Bama-tOSU, etc.) or whatever - the point is that they have no impact on the Playoffs.

Start the season with 5 or 6 Regular games, then alternate weeks between Playoff and Regular games - you have a week off between Playoff games, and you can rest, play scrubs, or whatever.

All 16 teams play all four rounds, with initial seeding being done by whatever Beauty Contest bullshit is desired. Losers play losers next round, winners play winners. At the end of the Regionals, someone is 4-0 and headed to the Nationals; someone is 0-4 and is relegated and replaced by the best of the next level for next season's Regionals - no impact on Conference or whatever. There's your 8-team playoff.

I think it should be 16, though, so either 16 Regions of 8 or the 8 Regions should each be allowed to choose an at-large team as "runner-up", and the first playoff round would be champs versus a runner-up from a different Region. Keep as many "bowls" as you like, and continue the alternation between Playoffs and Bowls. I would think Playoff teams could be in a bowl or not, as they choose. The Playoff games would be Winner Advances, Loser Heads Home, so 8 games round 1, 4 games round 2, 2 games round 3, and then the Grand Finale - 15 National Playoff games altogether, which covers close to half the number of bowl games we've got now, so not a huge impact overall.

Of course, as already pointed out in Hornfans, Barking Carnivore, and Shaggy, it will never happen - because of entrenched interests (conferences, bowl committees, broadcasters, etc.) filled with Administrators who have not had an original thought since their first pubic hair appeared. Fuck them, I can dreams it in my head.

[TXSooner518 2432]

WTF what would be the point of the regular games?  That sounds dreadful to me.

It's like the model of 8 10 team conferences, and the 8 winners and no one else makes it.  So every relevant game you play from now on is against the same 9 teams, whee, how fun. And let's just completely kill any excitement of big OOC matchups. Barf.

[joeycovers 377]

My proposal has always been this.

 Power 5 Conf champs are in.

MWC Champ plays AAC champs during championship week and winner is in. 

2 at  large teams selected by "commitee"

They rank those 8 teams. HIghest seed plays on campus the week after conf championships.

Then proceed to have NY Day games for F4 and Title game the following week. 

 

 

[Tex Long 4346]

40 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

WTF what would be the point of the regular games?  That sounds dreadful to me.

It's like the model of 8 10 team conferences, and the 8 winners and no one else makes it.  So every relevant game you play from now on is against the same 9 teams, whee, how fun. And let's just completely kill any excitement of big OOC matchups. Barf.

Most of the Regular games would continue to have exactly the same point they have today: conferences, big OOCs, rivalries... the exceptions would be the exchange of FCS-scrimmage-level bullshit games for the Playoffs, and the fact that a Regular loss would mean diddle-e-squat instead of "Oh shit, our season's fucked". 

[TXSooner518 2432]

2 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

Most of the Regular games would continue to have exactly the same point they have today: conferences, big OOCs, rivalries... the exceptions would be the exchange of FCS-scrimmage-level bullshit games for the Playoffs, and the fact that a Regular loss would mean diddle-e-squat instead of "Oh shit, our season's fucked". 

I think most people drastically underestimate the impact on the entertainment/enjoyment of a game when a loss means "diddle-e-squat."  MLB and NBA playoffs are awesome, MLB and NBA regular season are meaningless dreck.

[Phoenix 65]

I don't think we should be giving preferential treatment to P5 teams over G5 teams. Just take the top 5 ranked conference champs and 3 at large. Most years that is going to be P5 teams anyway and no one can cry about it being unfair.

[Machinator 32097]

2 minutes ago, Phoenix said:

I don't think we should be giving preferential treatment to P5 teams over G5 teams. Just take the top 5 ranked conference champs and 3 at large. Most years that is going to be P5 teams anyway and no one can cry about it being unfair.

Problem with that is P5 teams get preferential treatment in the rankings.

[Phoenix 65]

1 minute ago, Machinator said:

Problem with that is P5 teams get preferential treatment in the rankings.

I think that is a misconception and not actually the case. For instance, you have computer rankings like Sagarin, which are unbiased, ranking UCF at 23 right now. If anything, the CFP is giving UCF the benefit of the doubt by ranking them so high. People may complain that it is unfair, but it isn't actually true.

[notre dame joe 172]

13 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

Hey, no argument with the bold. My point was just that Texas didn't actually trap themselves this season by playing a good team OOC. They played a non-bowl eligible team who has beaten absolutely no one this season except Texas. If your argument is that Maryland COULD have been a Top 25 team, but Arkie State, Louisiana, and Citadel never will be, I can agree with that also.

 

I would say that Texas would probably have moved up to #2 by now if they were unbeaten, but hard to know for sure.

Teams in the top 4 with the same record appear to be ranked by their reputation.  Now the top 3 is upside down. Clemson has beaten nobody, but they are above us because of 2015-17.  

[TXSooner518 2432]

Teams in the top 4 with the same record appear to be ranked by their reputation.  Now the top 3 is upside down. Clemson has beaten nobody, but they are above us because of 2015-17.  

If you really think Bama and Clemson should be below ND, I will be happy to take either of them straight up against ND if they meet in the playoff. I’ll even give you that same deal with Michigan, Georgia, or Oklahoma.

[Hagbard Celine 10752]

22 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

For one, last year OU SUX beat out the B1G champion tOSU, whereas if OU hadn't played them, it would have been a beauty contest between two 12-1 conference champions.

In 2016, Ohio State got in over B1G champ Penn State which had beaten tOSU, due largely to whipping OU's ass in Norman. Conversely, if OU had won that game, it allows them a huge chip to offset the Houston loss, and likely earns them a berth that year. If they had played Arkansas State instead, sure, they are 12-1, but with no big win, may have been on the outside looking in.

0u sux.

Your point is valid about wear and tear, but I do also think that there is something to be said for what winning a game like that does for a team mentally and emotionally. I think it would have been MUCH tougher for Texas to rally from double digits down in the 4th Q against USC if they hadn't beaten a damn good Ohio State team in the Horseshoe at night and instead beat The Citadel 100-0.  

The committee said "13th data point" and meant the fact that Ohio State beat a good Wisky team by 59 fucking points not "hey they played 13 games."  If either Baylor or TCU had won a big OOC game that year, things may have been different.  0u sux.

repaired.

[rickyspub 801]

52 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

 

If you really think Bama and Clemson should be below ND, I will be happy to take either of them straight up against ND if they meet in the playoff. I’ll even give you that same deal with Michigan, Georgia, or Oklahoma.

 

Lulz. Talk about the regular season being meaningless! Clemson and Bama should be ahead of ND based not on who they played but how YOU think they played?!? ND should have just dropped all their difficult games, blown out everyone by 30...oh wait, you then tell us their schedule wasn't good enough...

How about this. Only conference champs make the playoffs. Seeding among teams with the same record are based on their OOC scheduling. If you play a Bama schedule you will always be behind a Texas schedule, no matter how many games either team won or lost OOC. If you scheduled the same number of P5 games, then your W/L and SOS and margin of victory in those games can be used. If you play dregs in OOC, you risk not getting a home game in the playoffs.

[TXSooner518 2432]

7 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

Lulz. Talk about the regular season being meaningless! Clemson and Bama should be ahead of ND based not on who they played but how YOU think they played?!? ND should have just dropped all their difficult games, blown out everyone by 30...oh wait, you then tell us their schedule wasn't good enough...

How about this. Only conference champs make the playoffs. Seeding among teams with the same record are based on their OOC scheduling. If you play a Bama schedule you will always be behind a Texas schedule, no matter how many games either team won or lost OOC. If you scheduled the same number of P5 games, then your W/L and SOS and margin of victory in those games can be used. If you play dregs in OOC, you risk not getting a home game in the playoffs.

Only conference champs make the playoffs is trash because it kills every OOC game as totally meaningless. Also you are just ignoring that different conferences have different strengths, and those games do also count, like it or not. 

And it's not me who says Bama and Clemson have played better than ND, it is literally every single computer rating or advanced metric formula. If you disagree, I will extend the same offer to you and take either one of them over ND straight up for as much as you want if they play.

Also "all their difficult games" is kind of LOL for ND. They have played the mighty sum of 2 teams in the FPI top 40, one of which was Week 1 against a team that definitely seems to be playing a lot different now than they were then.  Other than that, they have beaten #21 Stanford at home. They have their 3rd toughest game of the year this week against #36 Syracuse.  Alabama, on the other hand is 4-0 against teams in the top 20 of FPI, still with games left against #18 and #3.  Clemson is 5-0 against the FPI top 40, with 2 more games to come.

So for the season, ND will play 3 FPI top 40, Clemson will play 7, and Alabama will play 6, all of whom are top 20. Tell me again how much better the ND SOS is.

Don't like FPI?  Alabama has as many Sagarin top 30 wins as Clemson and ND combined. No team has as many top 30 wins as Bama. Sagarin has Bama SOS at 37, Clemson at 46 and Notre Dame at 49.

ND is #3 in Strength of Record, which is where they are ranked in CFP. Alabama is #1, Clemson is #2.  What you are failing to see is that it is MUCH easier for a top 10 team to go unbeaten against a grind of 10 teams ranked #44 like ND than it is against a group of 5 teams that average #12 and 5 teams that average #76 like Bama, even though they both would have the "same" SOS, averaging 44. 

[TXSooner518 2432]

And for the ridiculous people who think Bama and UCF have the same schedule, UCF is 0-0 against the Sagarin top 30. UCF is #27 in Sagarin Predictor.  Cincy is #43. 

UCF is #31 in FPI, with wins over teams ranked 127, FCS, 88, 97, 55, 51, 116, 65 and 101. Their last two games are against #44 and #90.  So UCF will have ZERO top 40 FPI games this season, and Bama has 6 top 20 FPI games.  Same, though!  Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Miami, Northwestern, Duke, Arizona State, USC, Purdue, and Oklahoma State are among the teams higher ranked in FPI than every single one of UCF's opponents this season.  UCF is #11 in strength of record.

[rickyspub 801]

35 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

And for the ridiculous people who think Bama and UCF have the same schedule, UCF is 0-0 against the Sagarin top 30. UCF is #27 in Sagarin Predictor.  Cincy is #43. 

UCF is #31 in FPI, with wins over teams ranked 127, FCS, 88, 97, 55, 51, 116, 65 and 101. Their last two games are against #44 and #90.  So UCF will have ZERO top 40 FPI games this season, and Bama has 6 top 20 FPI games.  Same, though!  Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Miami, Northwestern, Duke, Arizona State, USC, Purdue, and Oklahoma State are among the teams higher ranked in FPI than every single one of UCF's opponents this season.  UCF is #11 in strength of record.

I am definitely not in the UCF=Bama crowd, but I do think year-over-year Bama and the SEC gains a decided advantage by mostly playing 3 patsies OOC. They have less wear and tear and of course get the extra wins. Advanced metrics will then also be skewed. I am not sure how the SEC racks ups such high marks with the computers when they play so many weak teams, but I take it the advanced metrics are all about smoothing out quality of opponent. 

I have no interest in betting you as the point isn't that ND will beat Bama or Clemson. (Of course, with the shitty scheduling rules they are likely to almost never play each other.) It is about the fact that Bama gets to be #1 while they play a decided weak schedule. Sure the metrics say they play a lot of good teams, but then Bama and all the teams they play in conference have also honed their metrics and increased their win totals playing the same sort of powder puff schedules. You bitch and moan about the sanctity of the regular season and then shit all over the concept with your beauty contest bullshit that allows Bama to play a regular season less of P5 teams as a team like Texas has over the past 5 years.

[C-Man 27041]

Only conference champs make the playoffs is trash because it kills every OOC game as totally meaningless. Also you are just ignoring that different conferences have different strengths, and those games do also count, like it or not. 
And it's not me who says Bama and Clemson have played better than ND, it is literally every single computer rating or advanced metric formula. If you disagree, I will extend the same offer to you and take either one of them over ND straight up for as much as you want if they play.
Also "all their difficult games" is kind of LOL for ND. They have played the mighty sum of 2 teams in the FPI top 40, one of which was Week 1 against a team that definitely seems to be playing a lot different now than they were then.  Other than that, they have beaten #21 Stanford at home. They have their 3rd toughest game of the year this week against #36 Syracuse.  Alabama, on the other hand is 4-0 against teams in the top 20 of FPI, still with games left against #18 and #3.  Clemson is 5-0 against the FPI top 40, with 2 more games to come.
So for the season, ND will play 3 FPI top 40, Clemson will play 7, and Alabama will play 6, all of whom are top 20. Tell me again how much better the ND SOS is.
Don't like FPI?  Alabama has as many Sagarin top 30 wins as Clemson and ND combined. No team has as many top 30 wins as Bama. Sagarin has Bama SOS at 37, Clemson at 46 and Notre Dame at 49.
ND is #3 in Strength of Record, which is where they are ranked in CFP. Alabama is #1, Clemson is #2.  What you are failing to see is that it is MUCH easier for a top 10 team to go unbeaten against a grind of 10 teams ranked #44 like ND than it is against a group of 5 teams that average #12 and 5 teams that average #76 like Bama, even though they both would have the "same" SOS, averaging 44. 

The reason “all conference champs” works is because of all the vagaries of playing different schedules and different rules. The only teams you can remotely compare yourselves too are the teams in your conference playing roughly the same schedule.

I disagree about killing OOC games in that i think you see more of them since they don’t torpedo a season in the first month and the novel thought that you get better by playing better competition. And it can help your tournament seeding with some quality non-con wins.

[TXSooner518 2432]

I don’t oppose “all conference champs” per se, I oppose “only conference champs.”

[Vic Mackey 46932]

7 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I don’t oppose “all conference champs” per se, I oppose “only conference champs.”

That's why it needs to go to 8 minimum. All P5 conference champs and then 3 at large. Winning your conference should always be the most important thing and you should be rewarded. It should not be a dick measuring contest during the season and see which conferences are better. It would make the end of college football a lot more interesting. But then the CFP committee would be deemed worthless with their "eye" tests during the season. All they would have control over is the 3 at large.

[notre dame joe 172]

It's actually #1 Bama #2 ND.  We forgive Bama's unimpressive schedule because they have such power.

 

 

Which barely makes sense.  A power team should play a better schedule.  But Bama and the rest of the sec understand there is no real penalty for playing The Citadel and real risk playing Navy.

[HtownHorn 14468]

8 teams is enough. 5 P5 + best G5 + 2 WCs. Technically every team has a shot, though it would be a lot harder for the 60+ G5 teams. To qualify as a WC you would need to play at least 10 P5 games.