The most important question for the CFP is "How is the committee going to view Conference Championship games?" Some CCG matter others do not-

Ones that do not matter

North Texas St vs Tulane-If Tulane wins there go in as #11 or 12 but if NT St wins does that give James Madison a chance? It do not matter, only 1 will go.

Virginia vs Duke-If Virginia wins they go as #11 but if Duke wins do they go as 12 and Tulane 11? Still just minor changes.

Now the big ones

OSU vs Indiana-Winner will be #1 but will the loser drop? How far? If it is a blow out does that matter? If OSU blows out Indiana (by 30+pts, highly unlikely) how far will they drop? If they drop to 6 does that drop Oregon to 7 because of head to head?

Georgia vs Alabama- Georgia wins they stay in the top 3 but if Alabama wins does it drop Georgia? How far?

Now the possible crazy one

BYU vs Texas Tech - Tech wins nothing really changes but if BYU wins it gets crazy. With a win BYU is in but does Tech drop and how far? If Alabama beats Georgia and BYU wins does that put Oregon in the top 4? Who gets bumped to make room for BYU? If Alabama loses its them because they are 10 but if Alabama wins then Norte Dame is next out. Now if Kiffin leaves Ole Miss does that give the committee the ability to drop a one loss Ole Miss for a two loss Norte Dame?

The Nightmare Scenario

I do not wish this on anyone but since it is in the SOP's of the committee I am bringing it up. What if anyone of these teams in CCG has their quarterback get hurt? How far do they drop? Also, do they have to tell the committee how bad the injury is? If so should you lie? (of course they should)

Last question, be honest, how many of you loved watching Mario & Sarkisian beg to get into the CFP?

Whew,

That last scenario is huge. I would hope everyone would agree Georgia put to rest any notion Florida State deserved to be in that last four team playoff (and to be frank, Georgia made a case THEY should have been there). Florida State could barely win their Conference, and they were a shadow of who they were before the injury.

As far as Texas and Miami: As much as I hate to admit it, Texas has a case. They beat A&M, Oklahoma and Vandy. Two of those three are definitely in. They lost to Bama-also in. And they played horribly against Ohio State, with both teams a shadow of what they would become, and only lost by a TD. Miami lost two games they should have handily won. They beat ND early, and I believe we all can agree they would have a much tougher out against Notre Dame now.

BYU is going to have a lot to say about Texas' chances. However, this is a situation where schedule does matter. Texas was all over the map when you look at how they performed all year. But they played FIVE playoff caliber teams. None of them lost more than two games. They defeated A&M, who was undefeated. I believe Indiana, Georgia and Alabama were the only other teams to take down an undefeated playoff bound team. And this isn't in defense of the SEC. A&M proved you can run through your conference unscathed if you face the middle of the pack. Texas proved it is really difficult to go unscathed against a field of playoff caliber teams. Georgia, Ole Miss, OBD and Bama are examples of how tough it is to handle even one playoff bound team when they are playoff bound themselves. And Texas faced two top 3 teams.

Miami has no such argument. Much less, the talent they have nullifies any excuse at justifying their two losses. They have an NFL bound QB, and is far more talented than the rest of their conference. Texas is a tier below Bama and Georgia for certain. They defeated Oklahoma, which is at their level, and took down Vandy, who is also at or near Texas' level.

Ironically, this goes against my "you are what your record says you are" argument. What changed my mind was when I looked at Texas compared to Michigan, whom I initially thought should go instead of Texas had they defeated Ohio State. But Michigan didn't face five playoff caliber teams. The Wolverines faced two that were potential playoff teams, and went 1-1(and we can we acknowledge Michigan looked shaky as well?).

If BYU defeats Texas Tech, they are in. If they lose, that 11 slot should be slated for Texas if and only if Virginia loses. I can't justify rewarding Duke for winning a weak ACC, or giving Miami the nod for "being more talented". That is an insult to the "every week matters" mantra. Because it means you can lose several times and still make the playoffs. And you can get mulligans for losing to twice to teams you have no business losing to in the first place.

I despise the SEC mantra that they have a tougher slate than the rest of college football. This year, Texas and A&M proved the SEC is ordinary UNLESS you play a schedule that actually verifies your mantra. Texas is the first team in a very long time that faced 4 playoff bound/caliber teams, three in their own conference. Texas is correct to say scheduling Ohio State was risking a loss they easily could have replaced with an easy victory. Take away the conference shield, and you still see Texas performed well despite looking awfully shaky all year.

So as much as I hate to give an SEC team Kudos, Texas is a team I can honestly respect for scheduling and handling a very tough slate. They are the only team this year to play almost half their schedule against teams that lost less than 3 games all year. And they are the only team to face four teams guaranteed to make the playoffs.

Good post, but I think that Texas not being ranked in the top 10 is about to sway Sankey and others to Tony P's PO format.

SI

Why Beating Texas A&M Won’t Help Texas’s Chances at Colle...

The selection committee has shown that losses matter more than big wins this season, and the Longhorns’ three defeats loom large against other bubble teams.

%

In my mind if you if you cannot finish better than tied for 5th in your own conference, why would you expect to play for a national championship? It is simple, win more games.

Their overall record is merely 7th in their own league. No amount of self promotion should work.

This is my problem with unbalanced schedules. Texas played 5 playoff caliber teams, including the bubble. ATM played two and lost to the team that played 5.

The playoff committee continues to value wins and losses over body of work, schedule, and last season performance.

Based on what I have seen the last few weeks, there is no question in my mind that Texas is a better team than ATM right now.

How about the team that lost its head coach, and apparently also its O-coordinator today? Ole Miss.

A&M lost to Texas, which was the only team A&M faced in the upper tier of the final SEC standings. Didn't get much publicity, but A&M's conference schedule was comparable to the ease of Indiana's last season.

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but if Duke beats Virginia in the ACC title game, the ACC will be left out of the playoff!!!! James Madison and the American conference champion will both be ranked higher as the 4th and 5th highest ranked conference champions to get it. This is the ACC Doomsday scenario.

Both Texas and Miami needed more chaos to get in and it didn’t happen. Their best hope is that Alabama gets punished for losing the SEC title game.

The fortunate thing for the loser of the B1G title game is that Oregon is setting the floor for their drop in the rankings. As long as the game is competitive, they will remain ranked higher than Oregon which could be anywhere from 3-5.

There's so much meat on the bone in this discussion. But it's frustrating. I really don't want college football to look more like the NFL. The very heated discussions are what makes college football more interesting. But it is so awesome to see early season matchups between the marquee teams. Not to mention, since the B1G doesn't have the depth or the fanaticism the SEC has, it is very difficult to argue that it is a better conference when it comes to talent in the middle of both conferences.

The problem with a Wisconsin versus Bama matchup is Bama truly exposes how much further the B1G has to go to get the respect middling Florida, LSU and Auburn are getting. Florida ruined Texas' playoff bid, and the conference uses the result as an argument that is is just better. Meanwhile, Penn State totally collapses, fires their coach, and now they are in a terrible situation. They are the last team considered talented enough to compete for titles to find a quality coach. So the B1G truly needs to see its marquee teams step up in performance.

We want those marquee matchups, but since Michigan, Wisconsin and USC "dropped the ball", and Iowa lost to middling Iowa State, the B1G looks silly, and Texas-who has a legit argument because a talented SEC team finally played a real schedule with real consequences-can argue what USC and Michigan can't. BYU, and Utah, who are talented, but lack the depth the B1G and SEC have, are sitting outside looking in. Miami, a marquee team with glory from 1800, is calling out Notre Dame-who refuses to compete in a conference so they can use the college football tactic of arguing its way into playoffs(and is another 1800 blue blood relic).

OBD, Ole Miss, A&M and even Bama are riding their conferences' respective reputations. Even Ohio State is relying on its dominance of a pretty weak schedule outside of "marginal" Texas and Michigan. The Playoff Committee is dishing slop about who should get in right now. How are Utah and BYU considered better than Miami, when Miami lost its games by no more than 4 points, but the Big 12 teams got smoked by their best conference foe-the 11-1 Texas Tech "we're still not sure how good they are" Raiders. SMU messes up the ACC title game and somehow, Duke-whom a forgotten Illinois team flattened, is in the ACC Title game instead of Miami (or any of the other ACC teams with a much better overall record).

Even if we went to a 24 team playoff, how do you settle the ACC mess of seven teams close to each other in conference record with unbalanced schedules. Missouri, who like Vandy and Ole Miss, played the bottom half of the SEC and each struggled against the more talented group of teams they faced in the conference. The appealing aspect of arguing for your team is making all this frustrating, and the more we settle the issue on the field, the closer college football resembles the NFL because it is clear a lot of playoff teams would end up with 3 or more losses in the effort to prove they are truly playoff caliber.

15 hours ago, mikethehiker said:

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but if Duke beats Virginia in the ACC title game, the ACC will be left out of the playoff!!!! James Madison and the American conference champion will both be ranked higher as the 4th and 5th highest ranked conference champions to get it. This is the ACC Doomsday scenario.

Both Texas and Miami needed more chaos to get in and it didn’t happen. Their best hope is that Alabama gets punished for losing the SEC title game.

The fortunate thing for the loser of the B1G title game is that Oregon is setting the floor for their drop in the rankings. As long as the game is competitive, they will remain ranked higher than Oregon which could be anywhere from 3-5.

It's possible, but I think both Miami and Notre Dame will be in the field.

Another question to ponder:

If Mario gets injured and will obviously miss the playoffs, does that put Miami back in????

4 minutes ago, Mike West said:

There's so much meat on the bone in this discussion. But it's frustrating. I really don't want college football to look more like the NFL. The very heated discussions are what makes college football more interesting. But it is so awesome to see early season matchups between the marquee teams. Not to mention, since the B1G doesn't have the depth or the fanaticism the SEC has, it is very difficult to argue that it is a better conference when it comes to talent in the middle of both conferences.

The problem with a Wisconsin versus Bama matchup is Bama truly exposes how much further the B1G has to go to get the respect middling Florida, LSU and Auburn are getting. Florida ruined Texas' playoff bid, and the conference uses the result as an argument that is is just better. Meanwhile, Penn State totally collapses, fires their coach, and now they are in a terrible situation. They are the last team considered talented enough to compete for titles to find a quality coach. So the B1G truly needs to see its marquee teams step up in performance.

We want those marquee matchups, but since Michigan, Wisconsin and USC "dropped the ball", and Iowa lost to middling Iowa State, the B1G looks silly, and Texas-who has a legit argument because a talented SEC team finally played a real schedule with real consequences-can argue what USC and Michigan can't. BYU, and Utah, who are talented, but lack the depth the B1G and SEC have, are sitting outside looking in. Miami, a marquee team with glory from 1800, is calling out Notre Dame-who refuses to compete in a conference so they can use the college football tactic of arguing its way into playoffs(and is another 1800 blue blood relic).

OBD, Ole Miss, A&M and even Bama are riding their conferences' respective reputations. Even Ohio State is relying on its dominance of a pretty weak schedule outside of "marginal" Texas and Michigan. The Playoff Committee is dishing slop about who should get in right now. How are Utah and BYU considered better than Miami, when Miami lost its games by no more than 4 points, but the Big 12 teams got smoked by their best conference foe-the 11-1 Texas Tech "we're still not sure how good they are" Raiders. SMU messes up the ACC title game and somehow, Duke-whom a forgotten Illinois team flattened, is in the ACC Title game instead of Miami (or any of the other ACC teams with a much better overall record).

Even if we went to a 24 team playoff, how do you settle the ACC mess of seven teams close to each other in conference record with unbalanced schedules. Missouri, who like Vandy and Ole Miss, played the bottom half of the SEC and each struggled against the more talented group of teams they faced in the conference. The appealing aspect of arguing for your team is making all this frustrating, and the more we settle the issue on the field, the closer college football resembles the NFL because it is clear a lot of playoff teams would end up with 3 or more losses in the effort to prove they are truly playoff caliber.

Mike, great post. I think playoff expansion discussions are ongoing that will lead to at least a 16-team field or, more likely, a 24-team PO field with automatic qualifiers.

Too much like the NFL? Other than for guardrails agreed upon by the NFL and the Players Union, what in CFB today does not resemble the NFL?

Money rules the CFB roost, but unlike the NFL, the CFB billionaires have not learned to coexist. Better than a Super Conference would be a 24-team field with 6 at-large teams, which keeps a 4-team ACC and the 4-team B12 in existence.

I don't believe a 3-loss USC, and Michigan, a 3-loss Georgia Tech and SMU, a 3-loss Arizona and 2-loss Utah, and two G6 teams in the field will destroy the foundation of CFB and CFB's regular season.

I'd even be OK with 3-loss Texas and 2-loss Vandy being in the field.😁

A PO with AQs would likely lead to a B1G/SEC football challenge. I believe it could also lead to 10-game conference schedules (five home and five away games), which makes sense in this era of mega-conferences.

Give the 'lesser conferences' four teams in the field and the G6 two teams in the field, and guardrails in CFB, as we see in the NFL, may lead to Congress giving CFB relief from litigation.

BTW, A&M's conference schedule this season was putrid.

I always enjoy reading your comments.