CFP Bracket…

[HG73]

Don't forget the 8 game schedule.

The 8 game schedule is really huge. Drop a conference game you may lose and replace it with Wofford? One extra win and one less loss.

Assume the one less conference game means one less loss for the top 8 teams and one less win for the bottom 8 teams.

If the Big12 only played 8 conference games then we would have had 4 teams with one conference loss and three more with two. Pretty strong conference. Overall we would have three teams with one loss, one with two losses and four more with only 3 losses total. Regular season only. REALLY strong conference.

ACC & SEC are getting away with murder. This has to stop.

 

[NewFrogFan]

5-seed with 0 ranked wins. Smh. And Nobody even questioned their position.

Before Wex swoopes in, yes I do think Bama had a legitimate argument over SMU with regards to ranked wins...but that's not the only factor that should go into it

Yep, can’t ONLY talk about who Alabama beat w/o talking about who they lost to!

 

[BrewingFrog]

The 8 game schedule is really huge. Drop a conference game you may lose and replace it with Wofford? One extra win and one less loss.

Assume the one less conference game means one less loss for the top 8 teams and one less win for the bottom 8 teams.

If the Big12 only played 8 conference games then we would have had 4 teams with one conference loss and three more with two. Pretty strong conference. Overall we would have three teams with one loss, one with two losses and four more with only 3 losses total. Regular season only. REALLY strong conference.

ACC & SEC are getting away with murder. This has to stop.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The BIGXII must go to divisions, and 8 Conference games. That's what the SEC does. Why aren't we doing it?

 

[Wexahu]

Yep, can’t ONLY talk about who Alabama beat w/o talking about who they lost to!

Noboby is not talking about who Alabama lost to. That literally is the only reason there is a debate in the first place. Both teams had legitimate arguments both pro and con. Only one team could be picked. They picked SMU. The end.

 

[This Ain't Chopped Liver]

I don’t like that SMU is in the playoff from the TCU DFW competitive standpoint with them, but it is good for the Big XII and ACC that the committee is not setting the precedent of only one team each; putting a three-loss SEC team in instead would have appeared to be doing that.

 

[Wexahu]

The 8 game schedule is really huge. Drop a conference game you may lose and replace it with Wofford? One extra win and one less loss.

Assume the one less conference game means one less loss for the top 8 teams and one less win for the bottom 8 teams.

If the Big12 only played 8 conference games then we would have had 4 teams with one conference loss and three more with two. Pretty strong conference. Overall we would have three teams with one loss, one with two losses and four more with only 3 losses total. Regular season only. REALLY strong conference.

ACC & SEC are getting away with murder. This has to stop.

The SEC is the best conference in the country, has 16 teams, and only got three bids. The Big 10 got four bids and plays a 9-game conference schedule.

People make way too big a deal out of this 8 or 9 game thing. In some years it probably hurts the SEC.

"This has to stop".....good grief. FYI, the bolded part isn't true unless the outcome and opponent of every conference game "not played" is predetermined. For example, if the Big 10 only played 8 conference games, they wouldn't automatically had three undefeated teams and another with 1-loss, and two more with two losses. It would be highly dependent on which particular game was dropped.

 

[NewFrogFan]

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The BIGXII must go to divisions, and 8 Conference games. That's what the SEC does. Why aren't we doing it?

SEC did away with divisions this year.

 

[Boomhauer]

[ What the heck? ]

 

[BrewingFrog]

[ What the heck? ]

"Be Magnanimous in Victory, and Gracious in Defeat."

 

[Boomhauer]

"Be Magnanimous in Victory, and Gracious in Defeat."

So gracious we’ve stopped scheduling them

 

[HG73]

The SEC is the best conference in the country, has 16 teams, and only got three bids. The Big 10 got four bids and plays a 9-game conference schedule.

People make way too big a deal out of this 8 or 9 game thing. In some years it probably hurts the SEC.

"This has to stop".....good grief. FYI, the bolded part isn't true unless the outcome and opponent of every conference game "not played" is predetermined. For example, if the Big 10 only played 8 conference games, they wouldn't automatically had three undefeated teams and another with 1-loss, and two more with two losses. It would be highly dependent on which particular game was dropped.

The law of averages. Please explain how it hurts the SEC?

 

[Sangria Wine]

It seems to me that what we have in this 12-team format worked. It made hundreds of games relevant through the season. It made conference championships matter. It included the possibility of Cinderella stories.

That’s all true and it only gets better with expansion to 16 teams. This renders mute the complaint that a conference championships ranked in the teens can get a bye while a #2 ranked team could have to play the first round. Just make everybody play the first round and have the only guarantee in the first round be homefield. Guarantee all conference champions a first round home game. Other than that just seed it all out and play the games. Seed the hosts 1-8 but use the overall rating for seeding so if you do have a lower ranked champion the best they can get in an 8 seed.

No matter how you slice it, what a great change this time of year to be bitching about who is 12-13 rather than 4-5 or 2-3. This general concept is better no doubt. Make tweaks…Just don’t throw out the conference guarantees, reward conference champions, and keep more programs in the hunt and engaged.

 

[Mean Purple]

The SEC is the best conference in the country, has 16 teams, and only got three bids. The Big 10 got four bids and plays a 9-game conference schedule.

People make way too big a deal out of this 8 or 9 game thing. In some years it probably hurts the SEC.

"This has to stop".....good grief. FYI, the bolded part isn't true unless the outcome and opponent of every conference game "not played" is predetermined. For example, if the Big 10 only played 8 conference games, they wouldn't automatically had three undefeated teams and another with 1-loss, and two more with two losses. It would be highly dependent on which particular game was dropped.

Pickle ball

 

[Wexahu]

The law of averages. Please explain how it hurts the SEC?

Let’s say this year that 9th league game for Alabama was Texas and Alabama wins that game. Alabama probably gets in ahead of SMU and Texas still makes it as an at-large. There’s all kinds of scenarios where one extra decent win would help teams.

You just assume every additional game will result in a loss for the teams that need a win. Just like you assumed every additional game Big 12 teams played resulted in a loss and that had they not played that 9th game, all the T1st place teams would have had one less loss. It doesn’t work that way.

I get it that it can help at times, but it does hurt the SEC overall strength of schedule, were they to play 9 like everyone else their SOS would be even that much better so that’s a negative for them too.

 

[HG73]

Let’s say this year that 9th league game for Alabama was Texas and Alabama wins that game. Alabama probably gets in ahead of SMU and Texas still makes it as an at-large. There’s all kinds of scenarios where one extra decent win would help teams.

You just assume every additional game will result in a loss for the teams that need a win. Just like you assumed every additional game Big 12 teams played resulted in a loss and that had they not played that 9th game, all the T1st place teams would have had one less loss. It doesn’t work that way.

I get it that it can help at times, but it does hurt the SEC overall strength of schedule, were they to play 9 like everyone else their SOS would be even that much better so that’s a negative for them too.

Half of the teams would have one less loss, the other half one less win. Normally the better teams in the conference will have one less loss and the worse teams will have one less win. So I deducted one loss from the top 8 and deducted one win from the bottom 8 as an example. Most years it won't work out exactly like that but will be close.

Would you like to drop a conference game to schedule Wofford? Sure. That's what the SEC does.

Or would you run a race of 90 yards when your opponent only has to run 80?

 

[Wexahu]

Half of the teams would have one less loss, the other half one less win. Normally the better teams in the conference will have one less loss and the worse teams will have one less win. So I deducted one loss from the top 8 and deducted one win from the bottom 8 as an example. Most years it won't work out exactly like that but will be close.

Would you like to drop a conference game to schedule Wofford? Sure. That's what the SEC does.

Or would you run a race of 90 yards when your opponent only has to run 80?

You have it backwards. Normally the better teams would have one less win and the worst teams would have one less loss. Because the better teams normally win and the worst teams normally lose.

 

[TooColdU]

 

[Wexahu]

View attachment 16802

I’d like to hear his explanation of the “that is not good for college football” comment. How would scheduling more competitive games be bad for college football?

I do think people lump the entire SEC unfairly into the weak OOC schedule narrative. LSU played USC and UCLA. Georgia played Clemson and Georgia Tech. Florida played Miami and Florida State. I know UCLA and FSU absolutely stunk this year but when you schedule those games you’re not expecting easy games. Take a look at Florida’s schedule and imagine FSU being what they normally are. They probably had the toughest schedule in the country even with FSU sucking.

Playing that extra G5 game might help some teams that would otherwise be 5-7 become bowl eligible but that’s about the only benefit that comes out of it, and it probably hurts the top teams as often as it helps them.

 

[froginmn]

I’d like to hear his explanation of the “that is not good for college football” comment. How would scheduling more competitive games be bad for college football?

I do think people lump the entire SEC unfairly into the weak OOC schedule narrative. LSU played USC and UCLA. Georgia played Clemson and Georgia Tech. Florida played Miami and Florida State. I know UCLA and FSU absolutely stunk this year but when you schedule those games you’re not expecting easy games. Take a look at Florida’s schedule and imagine FSU being what they normally are. They probably had the toughest schedule in the country even with FSU sucking.

Playing that extra G5 game might help some teams that would otherwise be 5-7 become bowl eligible but that’s about the only benefit that comes out of it, and it probably hurts the top teams as often as it helps them.

Agree, but you have to admit it's pretty funny to hear Alabama's AD saying publicly that after playing an FCS, two G5, and one below mediocre P4 school, they should take the P4 team off of the schedule.

 

[Limey Frog]

So gracious we’ve stopped scheduling them

We want to save them the exhausting effort of coming up with so many different touchdown celebrations. Also it can be dangerous for the lower back to be forever bending down to pick up those fumbles.