2016 NCAA Football Thread

[CLEstones]

7 hours ago, HedleyLamarr said:

What the hell does performances in 2015, 2014, or before have anything to do with this season?  I get that you're an Ohio State homer and are flying the Big Ten flag, but don't become ridiculous with your argument.  I can guarantee (and am willing to place four figures on it...you game?) that the CFP committee has not once discussed how Colorado looked in 2015 or, for that matter, any game that was played before the 2016 season being a factor of the 2016 playoff talks.

 

I keep mentioning the protocols the committee looks at because these four things have been what the committee has put the most weight on in both prior playoff selections.  They look at conference championships (which is pretty objective).  They look at head-to-head meetings (again, pretty objective).  They use the same models the BCS polls used for schedule strength (fairly objective, some subjective), and use common opponents to see how teams stack up (not so much final score, but how the games played out....how competitive it was).

 

The biggest difference between the BCS polls and the CFP committee is that the committee allows for the human element to kick in, whether it's how a team performed with/without key injuries, giving credit for a team for trying to make harder schedules, how well a team is playing in the later part of the season, etc.  For example, while Wisconsin won't get the boost they thought they'd get from LSU in the strength-of-schedule component, the "humans being able to discuss things" portion will give Wisconsin credit for playing LSU on a neutral site.  It wasn't Wisconsin's fault LSU didn't hold up their end of things.

 

I think Ohio State will get in, and as the 4-seed (I think the committee will give the top three seeds to the conference champions).  But if Ohio State finishes at #5, it will be because they will lose the ultimate debate between themselves and the Big Ten champion.  The committee, as much as they can, want to preserve the importance of the regular season and the importance of winning your conference outright (especially in a neutral site championship game).  Again, it's going to be really tough to explain to Penn State that both beating a team head-to-head and winning your conference wasn't enough.

 

Assuming Alabama, Washington, and Clemson win, they'll be in.  They'll be undefeated (or 1-loss) conference champions.  One of Wisconsin or Penn State will get a boost because they'll have beaten a top-7 team on a neutral field in a championship game.  They're going to definitely jump idle Michigan.  If the committee is more fixated on wins, OSU will be tied with either PSU or Wisconsin with 11 wins.  And if it's OSU and PSU in those #4 and #5 spots, I can very easily see the committee rewarding PSU for both beating OSU and winning their conference to give them the #4 seed.  Remember, these polls aren't connected from one week to the next like the AP or Coaches polls...the deck gets reshuffled each week.  The latest games then get factored in to ranking teams.

 

Because, as I said, jumping form 4 wins to 10 wins is an anomaly.  Its the exception, not the rule.  In my opinion, when a team makes a significant jump like that, who has been historically bad/terrible for the better part of 15 years, I don't qualify them as a top 10 team.  I look at it rationally and say there are other factors in play.

 

It has nothing to do with your definition of homer or even the notion that I'm flying the B1G Ten Flag.  It revolves around rational discussion.  Last year, when Iowa went 12-0 in 2015, they were ranked 6th in the country!  6th!  I'm far from a genius, but even I knew that was as phony as a $3 bill.  Then you start to look at the schedule, you see the missed Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, and Penn State that year, you start to read analysis of the games, and you start to realize they probably aren't the 6th best team in the country.  They beat the second worst team in the Big XII in Iowa State and then a bad Pittsburgh team.  So looking at this Colorado team, and the rest of the PAC for that matter, Colorado has a quality win against Stanford, but really, their best wins are losses to Michigan and USC (when USC wasn't that good) and they are reaping that benefit, the same way Wisconsin is reaping the benefit of narrow losses to Michigan and Ohio State.

 

The only reason I compare it to the B1G from 5 years ago, is because its the same exact situation.  There were a bunch of teams ranked 18-25 throughout the season, and teams were getting credit for beating them, when really, they weren't all that good.  This is the same situation, and just 3 years ago, they were saying how the PAC was threatening the SEC for best conference in football.

 

So again, had this been the second or third year Colorado has put together a 10 win season, this would be a different discussion.  There would obviously be a trend.  There would be a bigger sample size and I wouldn't say "the jury is still out" or that I "invest no stock."  I would, at the very least, say they deserve to be in the discussion for a top 10 team in the country.  Or, if the PAC had more teams that were tested and passed the test this season, and Colorado beat them all, again, I would say Colorado deserves to be in the discussion.

 

Not trying to say you are wrong, I'm just saying, in my opinion, there is much to be determined with Washington, Colorado, and the PAC-12.  Its subjective.  Just like the rankings.

 

But there is still much debate if Washington belongs in the discussion as a top 4 team in the country or if they are just benefiting from being undefeated the longest.  This literally has NOTHING to do with being a "homer" or "flying the B1G Ten flag."

 

That being said, the definition of "homer" seriously needs revised around here.

[Kramerica Industries]

1 hour ago, CLEstones said:

Because, as I said, jumping form 4 wins to 10 wins is an anomaly.  Its the exception, not the rule.  In my opinion, when a team makes a significant jump like that, who has been historically bad/terrible for the better part of 15 years, I don't qualify them as a top 10 team.  I look at it rationally and say there are other factors in play.

 

Cross-sport comparison but same basic idea.

 

In 2012, the Red Sox won 69 games.

 

In 2014, they won 71.

 

In 2015, they won 78.

 

In 2013, they won 97 and the World Series.

 

They were terrible for three years in four. 2013 certainly stands out as a fluke. Should they have to give back their World Series trophy because of that? 

 

I'm not even here to argue the merits of Colorado in the CFP if they win tonight, but I can't possibly agree with this argument. Furthermore, sometimes you can spot a fluke in real-time, but more often than not, a fluke isn't discovered until after the fact. If Colorado had the credentials to be in the playoff, then their struggles in previous seasons hold no water because, well, it's not any of those previous seasons anymore. That would be terribly unfair to them.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I feel like college football is the only sport with those kind of rules. Probably because its playoff structure is so inadequate, you need to invent other, non-on-the-field result metrics to remove teams from championship consideration.

 

College football walks a fine line between actual competition and highly structured exhibition (though that probably applies to most pro sports).

 

For casual fans like myself, there seems to be way too much discounting what happens on the field and a lot more of favoring tradition.

[CLEstones]

47 minutes ago, Kramerica Industries said:

 

Cross-sport comparison but same basic idea.

 

In 2012, the Red Sox won 69 games.

 

In 2014, they won 71.

 

In 2015, they won 78.

 

In 2013, they won 97 and the World Series.

 

They were terrible for three years in four. 2013 certainly stands out as a fluke. Should they have to give back their World Series trophy because of that? 

 

I'm not even here to argue the merits of Colorado in the CFP if they win tonight, but I can't possibly agree with this argument. Furthermore, sometimes you can spot a fluke in real-time, but more often than not, a fluke isn't discovered until after the fact. If Colorado had the credentials to be in the playoff, then their struggles in previous seasons hold no water because, well, it's not any of those previous seasons anymore. That would be terribly unfair to them.

 

How does this even apply?  No where has that mentioned or argued anywhere in this thread.  If Colorado goes on to beat Washington and then beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl, and then comes out next year and beats a Power 5 opponent... then in my opinion, there isn't much discussion anymore.  Colorado belongs in the discussion for maybe even Top 4 team in the country.

 

Furthermore, Major League Baseball is completely different than College Football.  You probably couldn't think of a worse comparison, in all honesty... from the structure of teams, to nature of the game, to salary caps, to individual players, to how the game is played, to seasons, to the playoff structure, to talent evaluation...

 

Deconstructing that comparison, in a way that adequately addresses, it would take... days.  There's just so much wrong with it...

[MJWalker45]

That's why Ohio State gets more credit than Penn State. There's also the built in bias of who did you lose to. That's why even if Washington State were playing instead of Washington, that loss to Eastern Washington already disqualified them from the playoffs. If they were 11-1 the committee would have still held that against them and put an 10-2 Oklahoma State in with the loss to Central Michigan. 

[OnWis97]

7 hours ago, 2001mark said:

 

If that's a part of the committee's discussion, I'm quitting.  I know it's a major factor for all other bowl selections, but the playoff should be teams 1, 2, 3, & 4th best judged in the nation.  Period.  

That's part of why I almost wish they'd just kept the BCS points to pick and seed a top-4.  We all know the rest of the bowls are exhibitions and while it's great for a middling program to make a big bowl, those games are still not meaningful and while I don't love it, I can live in a world where they take "TV intrigue" into account.  (Like when Notre Dame used to get clobbered every year being "over-seeded" because of their built-in TV audience).  But when we are talking about actual championship playoffs, that stuff should not matter or else it's like the NFL messing with the seeding so Dallas and Green Bay can potentially meet in an NFC Championship Game.  

 

And I've always been nervous that a "tiebreaker" will be "well, more people will watch USC than Iowa State, so let's put them in."

 

With this many teams playing so few games with so few common opponents, the job of a committee is very difficult.  I'd almost rather let the computers do it.  Schedule integrity cannot exist in FBS the way it does in the NFL.  

[Kramerica Industries]

50 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

How does this even apply?  No where has that mentioned or argued anywhere in this thread.  If Colorado goes on to beat Washington and then beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl, and then comes out next year and beats a Power 5 opponent... then in my opinion, there isn't much discussion anymore.  Colorado belongs in the discussion for maybe even Top 4 team in the country.

 

Furthermore, Major League Baseball is completely different than College Football.  You probably couldn't think of a worse comparison, in all honesty... from the structure of teams, to nature of the game, to salary caps, to individual players, to how the game is played, to seasons, to the playoff structure, to talent evaluation...

 

Deconstructing that comparison, in a way that adequately addresses, it would take... days.  There's just so much wrong with it...

 

The crux of the comparison was because you're discounting Colorado's resume', in part, because they've been bad the last several years. Well, whether they're a generally bad team having an exceptional season or if they're a bad team transforming into a good team is, frankly, irrelevant in the scope of their 2016 playoff merits. The only thing that matters for their 2016 playoff status is what they've accomplished this season. 

 

And, FTR, I'm entirely objectively fine with Ohio State as a playoff team (I rate them #2 personally), but that there's a huge difference between "best four teams" and "correct four teams" based on committee precedence. For my part, I really would hate the idea that there was a premium placed in the initial CFP field of Ohio State getting in over Baylor/TCU because they were an outright conference champion, and then two years later they would get the nod over another outright conference champion despite not qualifying for theirs, whatever the reason may be. After all, the whole point of mothballing the BCS was to streamline the process with rational human mind and not have computers spitting context-free numbers at us. 

 

The committee is going to have to decide if they want to re-establish a precedence, or if they're going to just fly by the seat of their pants. I mean, the choice is their's, and we can't do anything about it, but if they do the latter this year and moving forward, well, they're no better than what the BCS was in the first place; the only difference would be that the BCS never was accompanied by a playoff system, something that I, personally, believe (especially in retrospect) would've made the BCS system significantly more bearable.

[CLEstones]

1 hour ago, Kramerica Industries said:

 

The crux of the comparison was because you're discounting Colorado's resume', in part, because they've been bad the last several years. Well, whether they're a generally bad team having an exceptional season or if they're a bad team transforming into a good team is, frankly, irrelevant in the scope of their 2016 playoff merits. The only thing that matters for their 2016 playoff status is what they've accomplished this season. 

 

And, FTR, I'm entirely objectively fine with Ohio State as a playoff team (I rate them #2 personally), but that there's a huge difference between "best four teams" and "correct four teams" based on committee precedence. For my part, I really would hate the idea that there was a premium placed in the initial CFP field of Ohio State getting in over Baylor/TCU because they were an outright conference champion, and then two years later they would get the nod over another outright conference champion despite not qualifying for theirs, whatever the reason may be. After all, the whole point of mothballing the BCS was to streamline the process with rational human mind and not have computers spitting context-free numbers at us. 

 

The committee is going to have to decide if they want to re-establish a precedence, or if they're going to just fly by the seat of their pants. I mean, the choice is their's, and we can't do anything about it, but if they do the latter this year and moving forward, well, they're no better than what the BCS was in the first place; the only difference would be that the BCS never was accompanied by a playoff system, something that I, personally, believe (especially in retrospect) would've made the BCS system significantly more bearable.

 

But again, its not a fair comparison.  The baseball comparison is just so flawed.  Yes, we are talking about 2016, a singular year, when talking about the 2016 Playoff.  BUT there are significant differences.

 

College Football Playoff

• No defined criteria for the Playoff
• Not a comprehensive Playoff format
• Small schedule/season
• Large number of teams available for the Playoff
• Conferences/Divisions are segmented and provides an extremely small sample size
• Conference/Divisions do not allow for sufficient head to head or cross-conference sample size
• Revolves around Human Element - subjective in nature

Therefore, you have to use all available knowledge to judge a team, and that includes what they have done in the previous years.

 

Baseball Playoffs:

• Specific, well defined Criteria for the Playoffs
• Comprehensive Playoffs format
• Extremely large schedule/season
• Small number of teams available for the Playoffs
• Leagues/Divisions allow for an extremely large sample size
• Leagues/Divisions allow provide sufficient head to head, divisional, and league sample size
• Revolves around Empirical Information/Date

Therefore, you can isolate seasons very easily when determining who "deserves" or should make the Playoffs in Major League Baseball.  Its the polar opposite to College Football.  When it comes to baseball, you can isolate a season, and in the end, since there is 0 subjectivity to your record, you don't have to look outside of this season.

 

In College Football, you have some objectivity when it comes to your conference, but 0 when it comes to the Playoff.  Therefore, looking at a previous year or previous 3 years, is incredibly crucial when comparing conference to conference, team to team, for a incredibly small number of Playoff spots for an incredibly large number of available teams... especially when it is determined by the Human Element, based on ill-defined criteria, using arbitrary reasons, based on subjective statistics.

 

The Committee has to determine if a 10-2 or 11-1 team is really one of the 4 best in the country.  When maybe they have 1 or 2 similar opponents, at most, and when the transitive property has been continually proven to be inadequate, week in and week out.

 

So, what else can you look at?  For comparison's sake, Ohio State has been one of the top programs for the last 15 years, it made the Playoff 2 years ago, it has true signature wins, while Colorado has been one of the worst programs for the last 15 years, and has no signature wins.  Again, this is not an Ohio State/Colorado debate.  What is more likely?  Colorado is a true top 10 team, or they are having an anomaly of a season?  Records, trends, recruiting, etc., lends you to believe this is more likely the exception and not the norm.  So, again, when using ill-defined criteria, using arbitrary reasons, based on subjective statistics, you would rule out a Colorado in favor of say, Michigan or USC.  That's the only argument I'm making.

[JWhiz96]

Heading into championship weekend, here are the viable scenarios I can see the committee acting out:

 

• All the favorites (including Wisconsin) win today and tomorrow. This is the cleanest scenario and the easiest decision for the committee to make; it would result in this:
  1. Alabama
  2. Clemson
  3. Ohio State
  4. Washington
• All the favorites except Washington win this weekend. I would predict from the current rankings that the committee would drop Washington from the top 4 and insert the B1G champion (in this case Wisconsin).
  1. Alabama
  2. Clemson
  3. Ohio State
  4. Wisconsin
• Alabama and Wisconsin win their championships, but Clemson and Washington are upset by Va. Tech and Colorado respectively. This makes for an interesting scenario for the committee, as they would have to choose between Pac 12 champ Colorado, the Big XII champ, and 2-loss Michigan. Seeing as the committee has the Wolverines ranked three spots ahead of Colorado (whom they also defeated this year), I believe the committee would put Michigan in the playoff. This would be the nightmare-ish scenario that I think would play out:
  1. Alabama
  2. Ohio State
  3. Wisconsin
  4. Michigan
• Penn State wins the B1G but the other favs win their conferences, this presents a small challenge. Due to Penn State defeating Ohio State previously, one could make the argument for PSU to go to the playoff. However, as has already been mentioned previously, the gap the committee has presented between OSU and PSU is not close. This bodes well not only for the Buckeyes, but for the Huskies as well, who will have one less loss than Penn State. I believe this would be the scenario if such were to occur:
  1. Alabama
  2. Clemson
  3. Ohio State
  4. Washington
• Penn State and Colorado win their respective conferences and Alabama and Clemson win theirs. This presents a less tricky and easier scenario:
  1. Alabama
  2. Clemson
  3. Ohio State
  4. Penn State
• Alabama is the only favorite to win its' conference. The 'dogs win the ACC, B1G, and Pac 12 championships. This would again come down to the argument between Michigan and Colorado, of which I think the committee would choose Michigan due to the H2H.
  1. Alabama
  2. Ohio State
  3. Penn State
  4. Michigan

Those are my scenarios for the playoff. The ugliest scenarios have three B1G teams in the playoff, which, as outlandish as it seems, is possible despite Michigan being a 2-loss team that didn't win its conference. The committee seems to value the Wolverines, and I don't see Colorado jumping them even if they win the Pac 12. I don't think the committee will put a Big XII team in the top 4, as they are behind all other likely contestants from the other conferences. I also think Bama and OSU are guaranteed to have playoff spots, even if the former loses its championship game, due to their strength of schedule, recognizable victories against ranked opponents, and eye test.

[IceCap]

Eight team playoffs. Top five ranked Conference Champions and three at-large. 

 

Pay me money NCAA.

[CLEstones]

22 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Eight team playoffs. Top five ranked Conference Champions and three at-large. 

 

Pay me money NCAA.

 

Too.  Easy. 

 

Not.  Enough... Manufactured... Drama.

 

(waits for "it diminishes the regular season" straw man)

[OnWis97]

24 minutes ago, JWhiz96 said:

Heading into championship weekend, here are the viable scenarios I can see the committee acting out:

 

1. All the favorites (including Wisconsin) win today and tomorrow. This is the cleanest scenario and the easiest decision for the committee to make; it would result in this:
   1. Alabama
   2. Clemson
   3. Ohio State
   4. Washington
2. All the favorites except Washington win this weekend. I would predict from the current rankings that the committee would drop Washington from the top 4 and insert the B1G champion (in this case Wisconsin).
   1. Alabama
   2. Clemson
   3. Ohio State
   4. Wisconsin
3. Alabama and Wisconsin win their championships, but Clemson and Washington are upset by Va. Tech and Colorado respectively. This makes for an interesting scenario for the committee, as they would have to choose between Pac 12 champ Colorado, the Big XII champ, and 2-loss Michigan. Seeing as the committee has the Wolverines ranked three spots ahead of Colorado (whom they also defeated this year), I believe the committee would put Michigan in the playoff. This would be the nightmare-ish scenario that I think would play out:
   1. Alabama
   2. Ohio State
   3. Wisconsin
   4. Michigan
4. Penn State wins the B1G but the other favs win their conferences, this presents a small challenge. Due to Penn State defeating Ohio State previously, one could make the argument for PSU to go to the playoff. However, as has already been mentioned previously, the gap the committee has presented between OSU and PSU is not close. This bodes well not only for the Buckeyes, but for the Huskies as well, who will have one less loss than Penn State. I believe this would be the scenario if such were to occur:
   1. Alabama
   2. Clemson
   3. Ohio State
   4. Washington
5. Penn State and Colorado win their respective conferences and Alabama and Clemson win theirs. This presents a less tricky and easier scenario:
   1. Alabama
   2. Clemson
   3. Ohio State
   4. Penn State
6. Alabama is the only favorite to win its' conference. The 'dogs win the ACC, B1G, and Pac 12 championships. This would again come down to the argument between Michigan and Colorado, of which I think the committee would choose Michigan due to the H2H.
   1. Alabama
   2. Ohio State
   3. Penn State
   4. Michigan

Those are my scenarios for the playoff. The ugliest scenarios have three B1G teams in the playoff, which, as outlandish as it seems, is possible despite Michigan being a 2-loss team that didn't win its conference. The committee seems to value the Wolverines, and I don't see Colorado jumping them even if they win the Pac 12. I don't think the committee will put a Big XII team in the top 4, as they are behind all other likely contestants from the other conferences. I also think Bama and OSU are guaranteed to have playoff spots, even if the former loses its championship game, due to their strength of schedule, recognizable victories against ranked opponents, and eye test.

Nice work.

 

I have changed your bullets to numbers so I can comment...

1. Agree.  MAYBE OSU stays at 2, but it would not matter.  This is the Committee being on Easy Street.  There's no reason to move any of the top four out of the top four. Wisconsin vaults Michigan, perhaps.  Not that it matters.
2. Your 1-3 are right (again, maybe 2/3 swap).  4 is trickier.  Maybe Michigan, who beat Wisconsin?  But Wisconsin has no Iowa-caliber loss and I think the 5-6-7 ranking of the B1G sets up for the winner to jump Michigan.  I guess I'll say that I agree here, though maybe the Bedlam winner creeps up?  Or even Colorado?
3. My dream scenario. Disagree, though.  I just don't see three B1G teams getting in.  I'd say Alabama, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and the Big XII Champ.  The seeding would be interesting.  It should be in that order, but would they bump Wisconsin to 4 to prevent OSU vs. Wisconsin?
4. Agree.  I think the OSU body of work beats out the PSU co-division title / conference title / head-to-head. And I agree with it.  I think the Committee members understand that a conference title is somewhat random (with a tied record and all) and that non-conference games count.
5. Agree. There's no way a conference champ Penn State gets leapfrogged.  If they win and Clemson or Washington loses, they are in.
6. Once again, I have to disagree.  I just don't see one conference getting three.  This would be a very difficult scenario with Michigan having manhandled both PSU and Colorado.  I think the Big XII comes into play here.  I don't see Michigan getting in in any scenario.

 

30 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Eight team playoffs. Top five ranked Conference Champions and three at-large. 

 

Pay me money NCAA.

This would be nice.  Right now with only four teams getting in, I think conference championships almost have to be a tiebreaker.  As I've mentioned, they can occur because of funny division alignments and tiebreakers.  With three at-large births, however, that would prevent a situation where someone like this OSU team (Clearly better than Penn State or Wisconsin) gets bumped.  It also gives me some comfort with the fact that a conference champ could go 0-3 in the non-conference.  Right now, I disagree with the prevailing wisdom that you should have to win your conference to get in because it effectively turns the non-conference into exhibition games.  Looking back at Penn State's schedule, they played a fairly close one with Temple.  Had they lost that would everyone still be trumpeting them as more worthy than Ohio State?  

 

I'd also consider going with the top six conference champs because I'd rather the other conferences get a small part of the action.  Two at-large would probably mean the "best team out" would not have a resume on par with Ohio State's this year.

[CLEstones]

54 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Eight team playoffs. Top five ranked Conference Champions and three at-large. 

 

Pay me money NCAA.

 

8 is the ideal number, until we eventually move to 4 super conferences.  Once we hit the 4 super conferences, we go back down 4 and you take the winner of each division, to play for the conference championship, then conference champions get the automatic bid.  No room for discussion... no room for debate.

[OnWis97]

1 minute ago, CLEstones said:

 

8 is the ideal number, until we eventually move to 4 super conferences.  Once we hit the 4 super conferences, we go back down 4 and you take the winner of each division, to play for the conference championship, then conference champions get the automatic bid.  No room for discussion... no room for debate.

Wouldn't that put us in the same position we are in now with Penn State and Ohio State?  The best team in the B1G is not going to win the conference because of circumstance.  Non-conference games (which will exist so the big teams can have more games) would not count and three-way tiebreakers will send teams to conference title games.

[CLEstones]

29 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Wouldn't that put us in the same position we are in now with Penn State and Ohio State?  The best team in the B1G is not going to win the conference because of circumstance.  Non-conference games (which will exist so the big teams can have more games) would not count and three-way tiebreakers will send teams to conference title games.

 

With mega conferences, and I'm talking... 16-20, not just 14 or 16...  Assume its 16, that means AT Least 2 divisions per conference, with would be 7 division games, with another 4 rotating the other division?  Leaves 1 non-conference.  Unless they just say fug it and treat each division like a separate conference... which I could see the B1G doing something like that.  So, it would be like the B1G West doesn't play anyone from B1G East until the B1G Championship.

 

But in the end, if its 4 conference, you get rid of all subjectivity, the interpretation, the non-criteria.  The criteria is very clear cut... win the PAC, B1G, SEC, and ACC and you are in.  End of discussion.  Even if Michigan is 8-4, but wins the B1G, doesn't matter if Auburn is 11-1... Michigan won the conference, Auburn didn't.  At least there, we have defined, known, simple, plain, objective, fair criteria for ALL teams and ALL conferences.

[dfwabel]

28 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Wouldn't that put us in the same position we are in now with Penn State and Ohio State?  The best team in the B1G is not going to win the conference because of circumstance.  Non-conference games (which will exist so the big teams can have more games) would not count and three-way tiebreakers will send teams to conference title games.

That was my initial thought as well.  Scheduling better teams would not occur.  FCS paydays would remain, but for the B1G.

 

Plus, as long as the ACC and SEC continue to have eight game conference schedules, apples to oranges will be compared.

[BlackBolt3]

1 hour ago, JWhiz96 said:

1.Alabama

2.Ohio State

3.Penn State

4.Michigan

K i l l   m e   f a m

[JWhiz96]

I just now remembered that there are scenarios in which Washington wins but Clemson loses. Oh well, it's pretty much a cluster  at this point.

 

6 minutes ago, BlackBolt3 said:

K i l l   m e   f a m

Believe me, I don't want two teams from one conference in the playoff, let alone three, but I think the committee, rightly or wrongly, looks at Michigan favorably. I'm not sure if it's due to their schedule or performance, but the fact that they're ranked three spots ahead of the next non-B1G team is troublesome for me.

[HedleyLamarr]

16 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Here's the thing though. Say Bama loses to Florida while Washington, Penn State and Clemson all win. Do we think Alabama would be out of the playoffs because they aren't SEC Champs? I feel this is the same rationale being applied by the committee to Ohio State. With the committee saying Alabama and Ohio State are miles away from everyone else, I don't think we'll see them drop below 3rd. A Fiesta Bowl matchup with Clemson would bring in a lot of viewers too so I don't see any big changes in the top 3 unless utter chaos occurs Friday and Saturday.

If Alabama loses the conference championship game to 24-point underdog Florida?  They shouldn't be in the top-4.

[4_tattoos]

Gotta be honest. Wish the Pac-12 hadn't moved to a neutral site for their football championship game. There was just something cool (to me) about the early years of the game being played at the home stadium of one of the participating teams. Usually only saw mid-majors conferences doing that.