In football, we are a Mid-Major

[Pitt_Boss]

New CFP rankings, same as the old. It's the Big Ten/SEC invitational and ACC & Big 12 are one-bid mid-major conferences. It won't be long before the Group of 5 is the Group of 7 and we are just another Memphis, UNLV, Tulane, etc.

I know we weren't making the playoff this year anyway, and I know a one bid league is better than a zero bid league, but the writing is the on the wall. If your team is not in the Big Ten or SEC, you aren't really a high major or 'power' D1 team....you are just fodder to fill out the bracket.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

New CFP rankings, same as the old. It's the Big Ten/SEC invitational and ACC & Big 12 are one-bid mid-major conferences. It won't be long before the Group of 5 is the Group of 7 and we are just another Memphis, UNLV, Tulane, etc.

I know we weren't making the playoff this year anyway, and I know a one bid league is better than a zero bid league, but the writing is the on the wall. If your team is not in the Big Ten or SEC, you aren't really a high major or 'power' D1 team....you are just fodder to fill out the bracket.

No.

Power 2

Next 2

G6

Also, the ACC will have more success in the CFP than the Big Ten minus their 3 "independents" (OSU, Mich, Oregon). Those are 3 blue blood programs that the ACC cant really match. I know I'm cherrypicking here but beyond those 3, the ACC is the better conference.

 

[Pitt_Boss]

No.

Power 2

Next 2

G6

Also, the ACC will have more success in the CFP than the Big Ten minus their 3 "independents" (OSU, Mich, Oregon). Those are 3 blue blood programs that the ACC cant really match. I know I'm cherrypicking here but beyond those 3, the ACC is the better conference.

It's not about better conference, it's about bids. Big Ten gets 4, ACC gets 1. Means our path is much harder than any Big Ten team's path.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It's not about better conference, it's about bids. Big Ten gets 4, ACC gets 1. Means our path is much harder than any Big Ten team's path.

An 11-1 ACC team who doesn't make the ACCG will always go.

An 11-2 team who loses in the ACCG will always have a really good shot to go.

10-2 = probably not but lets say Clemson beat Georgia and played and beat ND but then slipped up vs Pitt and Lou and didnt make the ACCCG, they'd have a real good shot so it depends on the scenario.

 

[Joe Magarac]

New CFP rankings, same as the old. It's the Big Ten/SEC invitational and ACC & Big 12 are one-bid mid-major conferences. It won't be long before the Group of 5 is the Group of 7 and we are just another Memphis, UNLV, Tulane, etc.

I know we weren't making the playoff this year anyway, and I know a one bid league is better than a zero bid league, but the writing is the on the wall. If your team is not in the Big Ten or SEC, you aren't really a high major or 'power' D1 team....you are just fodder to fill out the bracket.

The sooner, the better.
The current “playov” system is designed to be a B1G/SEC invitational.
The “committee” is a lackey of those two leagues. Why not just let the B1G and SEC conference commissioners decide which four or six or eight or ten or twelve teams to send to the “playov”.
Let the two professional leagues have their “playov” and the rest of the remaining teams shed their mid-major status and just play real “college football.

 

[jivecat]

New CFP rankings, same as the old. It's the Big Ten/SEC invitational and ACC & Big 12 are one-bid mid-major conferences. It won't be long before the Group of 5 is the Group of 7 and we are just another Memphis, UNLV, Tulane, etc.

I know we weren't making the playoff this year anyway, and I know a one bid league is better than a zero bid league, but the writing is the on the wall. If your team is not in the Big Ten or SEC, you aren't really a high major or 'power' D1 team....you are just fodder to fill out the bracket.

Then the ACC should start to schedule like the BIG and npt have their best teams play as well as having a very bad OOC schedule.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Then the ACC should start to schedule like the BIG and npt have their best teams play as well as having a very bad OOC schedule.

Ohio State has played/will play Oregon, Penn State, and Michigan. Obviously Michigan sucks, but they're going to be near the top more often than not. Plus, playing Indiana kind of makes up for that.

Not much different in the ACC. Miami, SMU, and Clemson haven't played each other. All have played FSU, who was supposed to be good but isn't... but, like Michigan, usually will be.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The sooner, the better.
The current “playov” system is designed to be a B1G/SEC invitational.
The “committee” is a lackey of those two leagues. Why not just let the B1G and SEC conference commissioners decide which four or six or eight or ten or twelve teams to send to the “playov”.
Let the two professional leagues have their “playov” and the rest of the remaining teams shed their mid-major status and just play real “college football.

I'm not sure what the argument is this year. The SEC is far and away the best conference. Pound for pound, they might have 7 of the best 9 or 10 teams in the nation but they cant get them all in because they beat each other. Its an extremely strong league. The fraud is the B10 because you only have 2 really good teams and then IU and PSU, both of whom haven't played anybody. That said, if both go 11-1, they are both in, just as an 11-1 Pitt team would have been. So, there's nothing to complain about from that standpoint. Now, if PSU loses to Minnesota and gets a bid at 10-2, 1 kinda bad loss, and no quality wins, THEN that's a problem.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

I'm not sure what the argument is this year. The SEC is far and away the best conference. Pound for pound, they might have 7 of the best 9 or 10 teams in the nation but they cant get them all in because they beat each other. Its an extremely strong league. The fraud is the B10 because you only have 2 really good teams and then IU and PSU, both of whom haven't played anybody. That said, if both go 11-1, they are both in, just as an 11-1 Pitt team would have been. So, there's nothing to complain about from that standpoint. Now, if PSU loses to Minnesota and gets a bid at 10-2, 1 kinda bad loss, and no quality wins, THEN that's a problem.

Tell me Texas' best win. They are #3.

 

[Pitt_Boss]

An 11-1 ACC team who doesn't make the ACCG will always go.

An 11-2 team who loses in the ACCG will always have a really good shot to go.

10-2 = probably not but lets say Clemson beat Georgia and played and beat ND but then slipped up vs Pitt and Lou and didnt make the ACCCG, they'd have a real good shot so it depends on the scenario.

There is no evidence to support this. SMU has one close loss to a high ranked team….they are not in the field and ranked behind 2 loss SEC teams.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Tell me Texas' best win. They are #3.

Vanderbilt. Yikes. Similar resume to Penn State. Unfortunately, yes, Texas and Penn State are ranked as high as they are because they have good players and they MIGHT be good. We just dont know if they are good or not because neither team has played anyone. So the unknown combined with their brand name gets them a high ranking. I'm not so sure Texas should even be ranked ahead of SMU, whose wins at Lou, at Duke, and vs Pitt are better than anything Texas has. So eye test and recruiting rankings comes into play but really shouldn't.

And I think the committee is too hard on BYU. They really seem to be crediting teams for getting off the bus, showing up, but losing to really good teams. Texas and PSU got disproportionate credit for losing to UGa and OSU. I guess the logic is had they played Auburn and Rutgers instead, they'd both be undefeated and maybe they would be but they still wouldn't have a good win. BYU was penalized harshly for beating bad teams by 1 score and then losing to Kansas. A bad loss, sure. But they do have wins over SMU and Kansas State.

If you put up blank resumes of Texas, PSU, SMU, and BYU, you'd probably pick SMU and BYU but Texas and PSU benefit from the eye test, brand name, and the thought that their players are better. In any event, the 4 teams are really, really close, should they be 3, 4, 13, and 14?

I think who you beat is more important than who you lost to. I'd probably go:

1. Oregon
2. OSU

3. IU (undefeated is undefeated)

2 loss SEC teams aĺl have good wins. Bama and UGa have good losses.
4. Bama
5. UGa
6. Tennessee
7. Mississippi

1 loss P4 teams either with no good wins but a good loss or a couple good wins but a bad loss
8. BYU
9. SMU
10. Texas
11. Penn State
12. Miami
13. Notre Dame

14. Texas A&M
15. Boise

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

Tell me Texas' best win. They are #3.

I go back and forth on what is the better system, college or pro. Picking teams for the playoffs like college really doesn't make logical sense, but then I also don't like seeing a 9-8 wildcard team in the super bowl.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Vanderbilt. Yikes. Similar resume to Penn State. Unfortunately, yes, Texas and Penn State are ranked as high as they are because they have good players and they MIGHT be good. We just dont know if they are good or not because neither team has played anyone. So the unknown combined with their brand name gets them a high ranking. I'm not so sure Texas should even be ranked ahead of SMU, whose wins at Lou, at Duke, and vs Pitt are better than anything Texas has. So eye test and recruiting rankings comes into play but really shouldn't.

And I think the committee is too hard on BYU. They really seem to be crediting teams for getting off the bus, showing up, but losing to really good teams. Texas and PSU got disproportionate credit for losing to UGa and OSU. I guess the logic is had they played Auburn and Rutgers instead, they'd both be undefeated and maybe they would be but they still wouldn't have a good win. BYU was penalized harshly for beating bad teams by 1 score and then losing to Kansas. A bad loss, sure. But they do have wins over SMU and Kansas State.

If you put up blank resumes of Texas, PSU, SMU, and BYU, you'd probably pick SMU and BYU but Texas and PSU benefit from the eye test, brand name, and the thought that their players are better. In any event, the 4 teams are really, really close, should they be 3, 4, 13, and 14?

Yeah, it's pretty much the exact same resume as Penn State. The problem is the committee should be (in my opinion) ranking resumes but they're not. They are told to rank them on a "best team" basis, so you're getting some weird mishmash between ranking based on resumes and rankings based on the eye test.

The second problem is the diversity in the schedules, not much unlike basketball. Like, Penn State beat everyone except the #2 team in the country. But no one they beat was particularly noteworthy. Is that better or worse than Alabama, who beat #18 and #10 but lost to Vanderbilt and #11 Tennessee. Like, they have twice as many losses but also two more ranked wins... but a lot of that has to do with the opportunity they've had to play more ranked teams.

Edit - I guess one more ranked win, at least until Illinois loses again.

It's honestly an impossible task, and that's why it should be done strictly objectively.

 

[ChiefJusticeMarshall]

Ohio State has played/will play Oregon, Penn State, and Michigan. Obviously Michigan sucks, but they're going to be near the top more often than not. Plus, playing Indiana kind of makes up for that.

Not much different in the ACC. Miami, SMU, and Clemson haven't played each other. All have played FSU, who was supposed to be good but isn't... but, like Michigan, usually will be.

The SEC is the SEC, they it just means more. Kidding, but most of those top teams played 2-3 of the other top teams. The Big 10 is where they have lucked out with Michigan and UW being incredibly down, and Indiana missing Penn State and Oregon and Penn State missing Indiana and Oregon. Plus both IU and PSU's OOC schedules were abysmal.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Yeah, it's pretty much the exact same resume as Penn State. The problem is the committee should be (in my opinion) ranking resumes but they're not. They are told to rank them on a "best team" basis, so you're getting some weird mishmash between ranking based on resumes and rankings based on the eye test.

The second problem is the diversity in the schedules, not much unlike basketball. Like, Penn State beat everyone except the #2 team in the country. But no one they beat was particularly noteworthy. Is that better or worse than Alabama, who beat #18 and #10 but lost to Vanderbilt and #11 Tennessee. Like, they have twice as many losses but also two more ranked wins... but a lot of that has to do with the opportunity they've had to play more ranked teams.

It's honestly an impossible task, and that's why it should be done strictly objectively.

For me, who you beat matters. A good win cancels out a bad loss. Problem with Texas and PSU is they have no good wins. So if you have no good wins and you lose a game to a top team, you cant really be placed above a Georgia, who has 2 good losses but a really good win. Or Bama who has 2 really good wins, 1 good loss, and bad loss. Bottom line is if you didnt beat anyone, how do we know you are any good? Anyone can lose to an Ohio State or Georgia. Those losses don't impress me.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

For me, who you beat matters. A good win cancels out a bad loss. Problem with Texas and PSU is they have no good wins. So if you have no good wins and you lose a game to a top team, you cant really be placed above a Georgia, who has 2 good losses but a really good win. Or Bama who has 2 really good wins, 1 good loss, and bad loss. Bottom line is if you didnt beat anyone, how do we know you are any good? Anyone can lose to an Ohio State or Georgia. Those losses don't impress me.

That's why it's all circular logic and not possible. You're saying Georgia has a really good win (Texas) right after saying Texas has no good wins and shouldn't be ranked as high. You almost have to start with some form of predisposition, don't you? Like Oregon beat Ohio State... whose only good win was Penn State.... but Penn State has no good wins, so was beating them a good win?... etc.

 

[BigChungus90210]

How quickly the discourse around this sport has changed is pretty hilarious. Sports writers used to vote on the national champion with the sole metric being record, and now we're arguing if a 7-3 South Carolina is better than a 10-0 Indiana because of advanced metrics and opponent win percentage.

 

[forbesfield]

With all due respect, Texas and PSU are playing the game perfectly. The goal is to at least get into the CFP. They are probably both going to successfully achieve that. Why the hell would they do anything differently than what they are doing? This nonsensical stuff complaining about their schedules is absurd.

 

[jivecat]

Ohio State has played/will play Oregon, Penn State, and Michigan. Obviously Michigan sucks, but they're going to be near the top more often than not. Plus, playing Indiana kind of makes up for that.

Not much different in the ACC. Miami, SMU, and Clemson haven't played each other. All have played FSU, who was supposed to be good but isn't... but, like Michigan, usually will be.

Let me reprhase this.....outside of Oregon, tOSU, PSU, and Indiana....the Big 10 is not good. Happy for Indiana but the only good team they will play this year is tOSU. Same with PSU. The BIG is down this year in reality....why should they get 3-4 teams in the CFP?

 

[Pitt_Boss]

Either before any playoff, or in a 2 playoff team era, or even a 4 team playoff era, the main issue was if the 'best' team was getting a shot because there could someone with a really strong resume getting left out. I think in the 12 team era with all the major conferences champions getting in, at least that problem is solved. No one who is a legitimate, worthy national title contender is getting left out. So progress made on that front.

But that progress comes at the price of a system that is designed for the national champion to come from the Big 10 or SEC almost every year. They will be 75% of the field every year and thus have more chances to produce the winner. This will become a self-fulfilling prophecy over time and the 'other 25%' won't be able to seriously compete in the playoff. The ACC and Big 12 reps will be like Iona and Robert Morris getting into the hoops tourney....they may have an upset win occasionally, but just aren't in the same league.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Let me reprhase this.....outside of Oregon, tOSU, PSU, and Indiana....the Big 10 is not good. Happy for Indiana but the only good team they will play this year is tOSU. Same with PSU. The BIG is down this year in reality....why should they get 3-4 teams in the CFP?

Every conference has a few teams at the top, a few teams at the bottom, and then majority of its teams mired someplace in the middle.

If you take one of those 4 teams out, you have to put another one in. So which BIG team do you think doesn't deserve to be in, and who should replace them?

The top 4 BIG teams have one loss between them, and it was among themselves.

The top 4 ACC teams?

Miami lost to GT, which would be like Ohio State losing to Washington or something

SMU lost to a Big 12 team

Clemson got boat raced against Georgia and lost to a 4-loss Louisville team

Louisville... well, they have 4 losses

You guys keep comparing the BIG to some consummate idealization you have in your heads, rather than what reality is. Very few teams do not have any flaws.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

New CFP rankings, same as the old. It's the Big Ten/SEC invitational and ACC & Big 12 are one-bid mid-major conferences. It won't be long before the Group of 5 is the Group of 7 and we are just another Memphis, UNLV, Tulane, etc.

I know we weren't making the playoff this year anyway, and I know a one bid league is better than a zero bid league, but the writing is the on the wall. If your team is not in the Big Ten or SEC, you aren't really a high major or 'power' D1 team....you are just fodder to fill out the bracket.

people finally accepting what the ACC is.. welcome aboard, i've been steering this ship for 3 years, im glad i finally have some company..

 

[thebadby2]

Vanderbilt. Yikes. Similar resume to Penn State. Unfortunately, yes, Texas and Penn State are ranked as high as they are because they have good players and they MIGHT be good. We just dont know if they are good or not because neither team has played anyone. So the unknown combined with their brand name gets them a high ranking. I'm not so sure Texas should even be ranked ahead of SMU, whose wins at Lou, at Duke, and vs Pitt are better than anything Texas has. So eye test and recruiting rankings comes into play but really shouldn't.

And I think the committee is too hard on BYU. They really seem to be crediting teams for getting off the bus, showing up, but losing to really good teams. Texas and PSU got disproportionate credit for losing to UGa and OSU. I guess the logic is had they played Auburn and Rutgers instead, they'd both be undefeated and maybe they would be but they still wouldn't have a good win. BYU was penalized harshly for beating bad teams by 1 score and then losing to Kansas. A bad loss, sure. But they do have wins over SMU and Kansas State.

If you put up blank resumes of Texas, PSU, SMU, and BYU, you'd probably pick SMU and BYU but Texas and PSU benefit from the eye test, brand name, and the thought that their players are better. In any event, the 4 teams are really, really close, should they be 3, 4, 13, and 14?

I think who you beat is more important than who you lost to. I'd probably go:

1. Oregon
2. OSU

3. IU (undefeated is undefeated)

2 loss SEC teams aĺl have good wins. Bama and UGa have good losses.
4. Bama
5. UGa
6. Tennessee
7. Mississippi

1 loss P4 teams either with no good wins but a good loss or a couple good wins but a bad loss
8. BYU
9. SMU
10. Texas
11. Penn State
12. Miami
13. Notre Dame

14. Texas A&M
15. Boise

the committee is too hard on BYU

Right up to the point where BYU gets its $hit pushed in by whoever it plays in its CFP game. Not sure how you put anyone in that lost to Kansas, but even if you make the case that they deserve to be in, they're weak. SMU right there with them.

 

[jivecat]

Every conference has a few teams at the top, a few teams at the bottom, and then majority of its teams mired someplace in the middle.

If you take one of those 4 teams out, you have to put another one in. So which BIG team do you think doesn't deserve to be in, and who should replace them?

The top 4 BIG teams have one loss between them, and it was among themselves.

The top 4 ACC teams?

Miami lost to GT, which would be like Ohio State losing to Washington or something

SMU lost to a Big 12 team

Clemson got boat raced against Georgia and lost to a 4-loss Louisville team

Louisville... well, they have 4 losses

You guys keep comparing the BIG to some consummate idealization you have in your heads, rather than what reality is. Very few teams do not have any flaws.

What I am advocating for is 2 ACC teams to be in the playoff as opposed to 1. Based on the idea that all 4 BIG 10 teams are not as good as the second place ACC team. I find it completely possible that Indiana or PSU would lose to a Miami, PITT, Louisvile, or GT....and they are not currently our two best teams.

 

[HailToPitt1985]

The sooner, the better.
The current “playov” system is designed to be a B1G/SEC invitational.
The “committee” is a lackey of those two leagues. Why not just let the B1G and SEC conference commissioners decide which four or six or eight or ten or twelve teams to send to the “playov”.
Let the two professional leagues have their “playov” and the rest of the remaining teams shed their mid-major status and just play real “college football.

I'd be all in for this. Let the pro college teams play their silly games. I don't care about them. College football needs to be back playing college football with real college teams and players, not professional journeymen who jump from one team to another every year for one reason...money.

 

[Pitt_Boss]

What I am advocating for is 2 ACC teams to be in the playoff as opposed to 1. Based on the idea that all 4 BIG 10 teams are not as good as the second place ACC team. I find it completely possible that Indiana or PSU would lose to a Miami, PITT, Louisvile, or GT....and they are not currently our two best teams.

This.

The loser of a Miami/SMU ACC CG will be 11-2, with the 2nd loss occurring in a post-season game. They will not get into the playoff. Not only that, they won't even be seriously considered....they loser of that game is OUT so that a 4th team from the Big Ten & SEC can get in. The committee has shown us this with every update released, yet people still refuse to believe it.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

the committee is too hard on BYU

Right up to the point where BYU gets its $hit pushed in by whoever it plays in its CFP game. Not sure how you put anyone in that lost to Kansas, but even if you make the case that they deserve to be in, they're weak. SMU right there with them.

BYU, much like Pitt, much like TCU 2022, is a 7-5 team who just happened to win every game at the end. A lot of luck. I'm not saying they should be Top 5. I'd have them at 8 because they have a really good win at SMU and KSt is a nice win. Others around them dont have that. They have the bad loss but I'm more interested in who you beat.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

What I am advocating for is 2 ACC teams to be in the playoff as opposed to 1. Based on the idea that all 4 BIG 10 teams are not as good as the second place ACC team. I find it completely possible that Indiana or PSU would lose to a Miami, PITT, Louisvile, or GT....and they are not currently our two best teams.

And it's also possible that SMU would lose to Iowa, as they almost lost at home to a BC team with its backup QB this past weekend.

And it's possible that Miami, who lost to GT and should have lost to Cal and arguably VT, could lose to Rutgers.

Lots of things are possible. What's the point? If Miami, SMU, Clemson, and Louisville only had one loss between them and that loss was between two of those teams, they would be viewed pretty favorably.

 

[PittPharm2002]

the committee is too hard on BYU

Right up to the point where BYU gets its $hit pushed in by whoever it plays in its CFP game. Not sure how you put anyone in that lost to Kansas, but even if you make the case that they deserve to be in, they're weak. SMU right there with them.

It’s not about quality of teams
It’s about tv rating only

 

[jivecat]

And it's also possible that SMU would lose to Iowa, as they almost lost at home to a BC team with its backup QB this past weekend.

And it's possible that Miami, who lost to GT and should have lost to Cal and arguably VT, could lose to Rutgers.

Lots of things are possible. What's the point? If Miami, SMU, Clemson, and Louisville only had one loss between them and that loss was between two of those teams, they would be viewed pretty favorably.

Right now, Indiana has played the 66tH TOUGHEST SCHEDULE. They are going to be rewarded by that. How does that system make sense?

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Right now, Indiana has played the 66tH TOUGHEST SCHEDULE. They are going to be rewarded by that. How does that system make sense?

Using those same rankings....

Miami is 64th and only 4 spots below Indiana despite losing a game.

https://collegefootballnetwork.com/2024-college-football-strength-of-schedule/

So I'm not really seeing the BIG bias in this case. They're undefeated. If they lose, they'll drop. And it won't only be a spot or two. If you're a 10-0 P4 team and have only beat one team by less than double digits, you're going to be ranked high.

 

[PittPharm2002]

Right now, Indiana has played the 66tH TOUGHEST SCHEDULE. They are going to be rewarded by that. How does that system make sense?

Winning matters more than losing ?

 

[jivecat]

Using those same rankings....

Miami is 64th and only 4 spots below Indiana despite losing a game.

https://collegefootballnetwork.com/2024-college-football-strength-of-schedule/

So I'm not really seeing the BIG bias in this case. They're undefeated. If they lose, they'll drop. And it won't only be a spot or two. If you're a 10-0 P4 team and have only beat one team by less than double digits, you're going to be ranked high.

Right but Miami is the 3rd place team in the ACC

 

[cashisking884]

Right but Miami is the 3rd place team in the ACC

2nd place

 

[dmaw]

No.

Power 2

Next 2

G6

Also, the ACC will have more success in the CFP than the Big Ten minus their 3 "independents" (OSU, Mich, Oregon). Those are 3 blue blood programs that the ACC cant really match. I know I'm cherrypicking here but beyond those 3, the ACC is the better conference.

If you haven’t been paying attention, the ACC is lagging behind in overall revenue, high school recruiting, coaching salaries, tv ratings, NFL draft picks, and almost every other metric you could use to gauge conference strength.

Clemson had a nice run before they were caught stealing signals, and FSU has been good off and on, but those programs are leaving, and then what are you left with?

Who’s going to be the national title contenders, Miami? I know they’re probably having their best year in decades, and they’re the highest ranked ACC team according to Vegas power ratings. But their odds are only +4000 to win a title. Even Indiana is at +2500. Vegas doesn’t seem to agree with you about the ACC being a strong league.

The next round of media rights negotiations without North Carolina, Florida State and Clemson will probably cement the ACC’s status as a mid major.

 

[Burgh15]

I'm not sure what the argument is this year. The SEC is far and away the best conference. Pound for pound, they might have 7 of the best 9 or 10 teams in the nation but they cant get them all in because they beat each other. Its an extremely strong league. The fraud is the B10 because you only have 2 really good teams and then IU and PSU, both of whom haven't played anybody. That said, if both go 11-1, they are both in, just as an 11-1 Pitt team would have been. So, there's nothing to complain about from that standpoint. Now, if PSU loses to Minnesota and gets a bid at 10-2, 1 kinda bad loss, and no quality wins, THEN that's a problem.

This is interesting, especially after Lane Kiffin talked about Conference Championship games. No doubt a lot of coaches will feel this way.



Not much upside to playing in this game unless you're a bubble team. A bye week is negated by playing in a conference championship game and you don't get the chance at a home game. A loss could knock you out while a team sitting at home gets to play next week.

It won't be long before they expand the playoffs to 14-16, but at the very least, change it to the top 4 teams getting the bye rather than top 4 conference champions.

 

[GomerTV]

The sooner, the better.
The current “playov” system is designed to be a B1G/SEC invitational.
The “committee” is a lackey of those two leagues. Why not just let the B1G and SEC conference commissioners decide which four or six or eight or ten or twelve teams to send to the “playov”.
Let the two professional leagues have their “playov” and the rest of the remaining teams shed their mid-major status and just play real “college football.

Actually like this at first glance and if that happens they can all just play each other. No more The Citadel on your schedules.

 

[ChiefJusticeMarshall]

Let me reprhase this.....outside of Oregon, tOSU, PSU, and Indiana....the Big 10 is not good. Happy for Indiana but the only good team they will play this year is tOSU. Same with PSU. The BIG is down this year in reality....why should they get 3-4 teams in the CFP?

Yeah if Michigan and USC are down, I don't know how you can consider the Big 10 a good conference this year.

 

[PittFanDan17]

B1G is not a good conference. None of there teams will win a playoff game and I cannot wait for Ped St to get embaressed at home again. OSU will probs win it bc oregon is terrible. Almost and should have lost too WIS on sat

 

[forbesfield]

One thing that will be interesting to watch is the SEC teams having to play in the cold. I read the other day that Kentucky's game in Texas is the furthest west they have ever played. I doubt that an SEC team has hardly ever played north of the Mason-Dixon line after October.

I remember when Miami came here a while ago in November, and were heavily favored. It was maybe 48F and they looked like they thought it was 20F. And, of course, they lost.