Penn State certainly has some good arguments for inclusion, but I think you are not giving the opposing point of view sufficient credit.
The guidelines state that “When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:”
The committee decided that Penn State and Ohio State were not comparable, but rather that Ohio State was at the core better than Penn State. So they did not even have to resort to the 4 criteria factors.
It seems to me like PSU and OSU should be comparable, at least according to these factors.
One glaring thing left out of this article was the fact that OSU had 1 loss and PSU had 2. That is kind of a big deal. Would be less of a big deal if PSU had higher quality wins, better road wins, better SOS but they do not. The criteria above makes a lot of sense when you compare two teams with the same amount of losses. If we are going to make this thing simple (only conference champions are in), then we wouldn’t need a committee. That’s why we have it, so that they can break down the teams and not rely on simplistic rules for why one team makes it and one doesn’t.
For those who want to put only conference champions in, are you putting VTech in if they beat Clemson or Florida in if they beat Alabama?
For those who rely on head-to-head as the end all be all, then every team would be out, other than Alabama. For Penn St, Pitt and Michigan would be in over them (if you ignore win-loss record). If you don’t ignore win-loss record, Michigan would still be in over Penn St, but Ohio State would be in over Michigan.
Bottom line is this thing isn’t simple, that is why there is a committee.
*Caleb Wilkes – The problem with that “opposing point of view” is that it doesn’t hold water. The committee’s decision that Ohio St. is “unequivocally better” doesn’t apply here for the simple fact that they LOST to Penn St. ON THE FIELD. I don’t know what sort of alternate dimension I woke up in this week, but where I from we go by logic. And logic would dictate that you can’t deem 1 team better than another team when the 1st team lost to the second team on the field. That makes absolutely no sense, thus it doesn’t fly here.
Brandon – by your definition, Michigan should be ahead of Penn St and Penn St is not unequivocally better than Pitt.
I would absolutely agree with you in your comparison of Penn St and Ohio St if they both had one loss. In that scenario, despite Ohio State having a better SOS, Penn St should be higher based on head to head and conference championship. But Penn St lost twice. The head-to-head affords them the opportunity to erase one mistake, not two.
10 years ago, Urban Meyer said: “only teams that won their conferences should compete for the National Championship”…….yet the Buckeyes did not turn down their Fiesta Bowl/semi-final game invite…..hippocrites.
I expect nothing less from Urban Meyer. This is the same guy who faked a medical condition just so he could jump ship from having to play Saban and Alabama every other year and ran to a talent loaded team in a weaker conference in Ohio St.
lol you are stupid. 10 years ago we didn’t have a playoff, and a coach advocating for his team is nothing new.
Ohio st. had a better overall record and that why they should of been in the big ten champtionship game
The old XII method where teams with the same conference record were chosen to represent their division based on the higher BCS ranking, ahead of head-to-head. So, perhaps you’re suggesting that the B1G could choose the entrants to the CCG with the same conference record by overall record.
*James – Sorry, but that’s not the way teams playing for conference champions are decided. Conference wins are what decides who participates in the conference championship, and Penn St. won their division by beating Ohio St. on the field. Period.
the system is rigged
Not only is it rigged, but it’s broken.
Should have been Penn State based on head to head and conference championship. Ohio State may or may not be the better team right now, but they didn’t win their conference. Conference title should be worth something.
They ARE worth something. It is the only reason Penn State is even in the discussion. But it’s not everything, and certainly not enough to overcome a blowout, non-competitive loss to Michigan and a loss to a mediocre 4 loss team.
This entire argument is pointless. To me, Penn St beat OSU in the head-to-head & won the Big Ten. TV ratings dictated having the Buckeyes in the playoffs. This could all be solved easily & to the delight of fans & big media if we expand to an 8-to-10 team playoff. I’m a Clemson fan.
I get how as a Clemson fan you would rather face Washington or Penn St.
Exactly. Just ask college basketball about how easy it is to narrow down the playoff field. They take 68 teams and there’s never anyone upset about being left out. (sarcasm)
Expanding the field does nothing. If we had eight teams this year, then we’d be having the same conversation only about more teams. Teams 8-13 in the final CFP rankings each have three losses. Instead of having a discussion between two or three teams (even though only four Power Five teams ended with one loss or fewer, and all of them made the playoff), we’re now discussing eight. And everyone would be up in arms about the Big Ten getting four teams in. And do you really think teams with three losses deserve a shot at playing for the championship? You’re all already upset about a one-loss non-conference champion playing in the playoff; you think you’ll be happy with a three-loss non-conference champion?
the Committee should NOT revise their criteria.
Every year will have different teams and different nuances. This is where the BCS made mistakes. Nebraska 2001 does not win XII but gets into Championship. So let’s add Bonus Points for Conf Champs. New rules all the time.
As we have learned from Basketball, the Each year there is a different Committee. One group puts greater emphasis on Non-Conf Schedule, the next emphasizes Record Over Last 10 Games, the next targets Top 50 Wins. Football Committee will eventually work that way too.
With this Committee: Ohio St wins over Okla, Wisc, Neb, Mich, carry greater weight than Penn St wins over Ohio St, Wisc, Iowa, Temple. Penn St losses to Mich & Pitt carry greater weight than Ohio St loss to Penn St.
People did not want Computers in charge, so now we have a Committee. But each Committee will have different members. There will not be consistency. The one thing that matters most: the more games you win & the fewer you lose, the better your chances.
A 4 team playoff is different than an 8 team playoff.
I can see OSU getting picked over PSU in an 8 team playoff (they would have both made it though); however, this is not an 8 team playoff. Criteria must be different.
The author tried to trick us into believing her argument was sound by assuming her conclusion. She assumed Penn State was comparable, without ever stating that. She is just hoping we are asleep enough that we don’t notice that she made that assumption so she can bait us into believing her argument is valid. But as other readers pointed out, the committee explicitly said they did not view the teams as equal in terms of their body of work. In the future, please know that if we are reading your article, we are not asleep.
Oh, and you need to pick up the mic.
The author didn’t try to trick anybody. It’s based on the criteria posted on the CFB playoff’s own website.
I agree with Rick. The author assumed the teams were comparable to trigger the four criteria she discussed. But the committee repeatedly state they did not view them as comparable. End of story (or drop the mic).
Notably, to prove her point, the author doesn’t even discuss each team’s out of conference schedule and results. This ignores 1/4 of the whole season.’. The author fails to discuss Penn State lost to Pitt and Ohio State beat Big 12 champion Oklahoma the road. The author fails to consider that two-loss teams almost never get in over one-loss teams. The author fails to consider that Penn State did not beat a single team on the road who had a winning record. In stark contrast, Ohio State beat two 10-win teams on the road and one, Wisconsin, had a bye week to prepare for Ohio State.
This post is not meant to detract from the Penn State’s successful season. To start 2-2 and then finish with nine straight wins is no mean feat. I, for one, hope they stretch it to 10 with a win in the Rose Bowl.
Rick and WW taking care of the dirty work for me.
People are upset that the TWO LOSS Penn State team didn’t get the benefit of their three point head-to-head win over the ONE LOSS Ohio State team. Shouldn’t you be upset that Michigan doesn’t get the benefit of their 39 point head-to-head victory over PSU? Especially considering both teams had two losses. Why is no one upset about that? Michigan also boasts three wins over teams ending the year in the top 10 (PSU, Wisconsin, and Colorado) compared to PSU’s two (Wisconsin and Ohio State).
Ohio State is in the CFP (ranked ahead of Penn State) because of the eye-test. The CFP Selection Committee gave itself this loophole by including in their protocol “flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.”
But this goes against the committees own “beliefs that the regular season is unique and must be preserved; and that championships won on the field and strength of schedule are important values that must be incorporated into the selection process.” This belief that the regular season is unique is the “Ethos” of college football.
The eye-test or better talent—perceived—shouldn’t be used as a selection criterion. Ohio State was ranked higher than Penn State in the final CFP rankings through a back-door.
It is the regular season that matters (“based on beliefs that the regular season is unique and must be preserved”). Even the talking heads at ESPN sell/promote their broadcasts by stating that “every game matters” and “who’s in”.
This loophole needs to be eliminated as it contradicts the CFP Selection Committee’s Protocol. They repudiate the Polls for doing the same thing they have just done. “Under the current construct, polls (although well-intended) have not expressed these values [College Football’s Ethos]; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who “deserve” to be selected.” This contradiction is the fundamental part of Amy Daughters article and why it’s titled “Should the CFB Playoff Committee revise their selection criteria?”
Penn State and Ohio State aren’t “at the margins” or “comparable”. Penn State won the Big Ten. Ohio State did not. Teams “at the margins” and “comparable” are Washington compared to Penn State or Clemson compared to Western Michigan.
My question, why on earth play a conference schedule, have a Conference Championship game, and end up with a Conference Champion?!? “Based on beliefs that the regular season is unique and must be preserved” this part of the regular season is equivalent to the first round, second round, “Sweet 16” or quarterfinals in a playoff system.
Every Game Matters.
The CFP Committee doesn’t release rankings until November, which allows them to incorporate conference games into their equation. The committee values conference play. They even say being Conference Champion matters.
Someone in a comment asked that if Florida had defeated Alabama would you leave Alabama out. You bet I would! Alabama was the best in the SEC West, Florida the best in the SEC East. How would you decide which is better other than playing the title game (the only way might be record vs. common opponents)? If you’re worried about your Conference Champion not being “deserving” because they’re not the perceived “better team” you shouldn’t have two divisions and be playing a championship game.
Should we be determining Champions on the field or though polling?
Ohio State shouldn’t be in the CFP final four because Penn State eliminated them! I don’t care if you win by luck or a fluke.
How to whittle down the ten conference champions (or the FBS Independents) is really the question. Who gets into the four team playoff among Temple, Clemson, Penn State, Oklahoma, Western Kentucky, Western Michigan, San Diego State, Washington, Alabama, and Arkansas State OR Appalachian State? Every other FBS team lost their regular season “playoff game” and was eliminated.
The only way is head-to-head and, unfortunately, Strength of Schedule (a system driven by a mathematical equation, which the CFP protocol rails against). SOS assumes Team A would achieve a better record than Team B playing Team B’s schedule.
But after you eliminate everyone but Conference Champions is a touch easier.
To paraphrase Captain Picard…
” THERE ARE TWO LOSSES!”
You don’t lose to Pitt, and lose badly to Michigan, and expect to pass a team whose only loss is a fluke loss to you. Plus, Penn State didn’t face Nebraska, nor Wisconsin (until now). Penn State isn’t even close.
(Nor did Penn State beat a conference champion, viz. Oklahoma.)
Should Oklahoma be in the equation? They lost to Houston, who at best are the 4th or 5th best in the AAC.
Penn St. deserved to go. The committee chose who they wanted. They did not consider that OSU barely beat a bad MSU team by one point the week before the Michigan game. Michigan pretty much gave the game away to OSU. Fumbles, interceptions etc. Everyone said Michigan was the better team. So how did the committee have OSU as a solid top 3 team? Answer: bias. They have not forgotten the PSU scandal. PSU can take heart when Clemson embarrasses OSU on New Years Eve.
You do realize that your entire argument can be turned against Penn St? First, penn st barely beat Minnesota and Indiana (final score was misleading). Second, that Michigan team OSU barely beat, beat PSU by 39. Third, you argue OSU got lucky bc Michigan gave the game away. Isn’t that exactly what OSU did at Penn St with 2 special teams gifts? If you want to be compared to OSU, schedule tougher and beat pitt. And one more thing; what is your argument going to be next year for the final 4 when your only loss is at OSU and OSU wins the conference championship? You going to only want conference champions then?
“For those who want to put only conference champions in, are you putting VTech in if they beat Clemson or Florida in if they beat Alabama?”
JEFF is absolutely correct on this. I think it does suck that it CAN come down to a human decision as opposed to on the field results…….If Penn State beats Pitt, end of discussion.
That being said, Washington has no chance against ‘Bama. I would have rather seen Michigan vs. ‘Bama and OSU vs. Clemson in playoff.
Good article Amy! While the playoffs are an improvement to develop and deliver a clear champion I think the real solution may include an expansion to 8 teams. One additional game would certainly help clean up some of the mess. Please don’t tell me about finals and pressures of college because finals are over this week and there is still 4-5 weeks in between for this to occur and let’s face it while there are some tremendous student athletes the majority of these players subscribed to the Cardale Jones philosophy “we are here to play football”!
If the article’s stated criteria for selection were in force this year with all elements being weighted equally, Colorado would have passed USC for the Rose Bowl. Too many politics still at play.
Huh? I don’t follow. The article makes a big point about the head-to-head result being an ultimate tiebreaker. Last time I checked USC beat Colorado.
As a hard-core fan of USC Football I’m happy they are in Rose Bowl. Though, quite frankly, without winning the Pac-12 it really doesn’t matter.
But, I think Colorado should be in the Rose Bowl. Colorado went 8-2 (including their loss to Washington) in the Pac-12 and finished in front of USC, who went 7-2. There is no need for a tie-breaker WW.
It comes down to wins and losses. Colorado had more of the important one.
No, its a popular contest & USC wins by a mile. Congrats to Colorado & their season but USC beat them on the field & people will rather watch USC vs Penn St in the ROSE BOWL. USC is USC, bottom line! Florida lost to Bama but Auburn is going to the Sugar bowl, that’s how it works. Enjoy your Rose Bowl & if the Trojans wins big then all this nonsense of how Penn St should be in the CFP will be set a side.
I know SC is in the Rose Bowl because it’s a popularity contest. It isn’t just head-to-head. USC defeated Colorado in October. Long before everyone said SC was hot, that they had an outside chance at the CFP, and everyone (but Alabama) would fear them in an eight team playoff. USC didn’t make the CFP rankings until the second week of the rankings one month after they defeated Colorado. Colorado made the initial ranking (at #15) and were #12 when USC debuted.
Bottom line, the CFP thought up to the final ranking Colorado was better even knowing USC had defeated them.
I also think Colorado should have been ranked higher than Washington heading into the Pac-12 final. Remember, the rankings are supposed to be a snapshot of how the season had gone up that point.
Auburn (3-1 vs common opponents) is in the Sugar Bowl because they are better then Florida (2-2 vs. common opponents, prior to SEC title game). That is why Auburn was ranked higher than Florida prior to the SEC Championship game and the shellacking Florida received confirmed that even more. The only way Florida would get to the Sugar Bowl was to defeat Alabama.
We could go on and on… A person could argue Penn State is as hot as any team right now; along with their other positive factors. But beating OSU came about because Urban choked at the end; sent the kicking team out when they clearly didn’t have enough time to set up for the kick. Disaster followed. I doubt that will ever happen again.
By your argument, couldn’t you put PSU up against Michigan and have Michigan slightly ahead of PSU based on SOS and head to head? Maybe Michigan should be in and PSU still left out.
And btw, PSU could be more “deserving”, clearly not due to resume, but due to head to head & championship, but the committee wants who they think are the best 4 teams on a neutral field. And obviously they think OSU beats PSU on a neutral field and has the better shot at beating Clemson or Alabama.
You can’t put Michigan ahead of Penn State.
Big Ten East standings: Penn State 8-1 (9-1 including B1G final), Ohio State 8-1, Michigan 7-2.
In the CFP Ranking it should be Penn State in front of Ohio State who should be in front of Michigan.
Why can’t people get this? Why do we keep a tally of wins and losses; thus have standings?
Ronnie – So your basically saying non-conference scheduling is completely meaningless. It sounds like in your eyes, Penn St could have lost to Kent, got blown out by Pitt and gotten beaten by Temple, but as long as they run the table in the B10, they are basically in.
In my opinion, (full disclosure, I am an Ohio State fan, if that wasn’t obvious from previous posts), it would be very damaging to the game if you had this conference championship or bust mentality in the current 4-team playoff structure. First of all, you very rarely get the top 2 teams in each conference playing in the conference championship. Case in point, VT wasn’t 2nd best in ACC, Wisc wasn’t 2nd best in B10, Florida wasn’t 2nd best in SEC. If you say conference championships are the only criteria that matters, why is VT allowed to lose 2-3 games in conference but Louisville can’t afford to lose even 1? Another example being Wisconsin (2 losses in conf), who lost to B10 teams with 1 conf. loss and 2 conf. losses played in the B10 championship ahead of both teams. Yet somehow they are more deserving than both teams they lost to?
Second, think about a playoff where we were seeing Penn St, Virginia Tech, Florida and Oklahoma. Would anyone watch outside the fanbases of those teams? The answer is probably not, likely because people would know that the teams representing the best 4 teams were not in-fact the best 4 teams. And remember, the goal of this thing is to get the 4 best teams.
And the last point I will make (I could keep going), is that Ohio State and Penn St had the same conference record (both lost a game). Penn St rightfully won the conference tie-breaker for head to head but that has nothing to do with the national ranking. Also, it is important to realize that Penn St only won the conference tie-breaker because Michigan lost to Iowa by a point. If Michigan wins, there is a three-way tie where Ohio State wins the tiebreaker based on national ranking. If you go by the conference championship or bust mentality, you are basically saying Penn St is better than Ohio State because Michigan lost to Iowa. To me, that doesn’t make sense.
All in all, if you want to go conference championship or bust, you will destroy the sport (lose your audience). The reason there is a committee in place is to figure out the complex comparisons like we had this year. In my opinion, they have gotten it right each year. They took Ohio St in 2014, who won the national championship. Despite OSU and MSU having the same record in 2015, they correctly took MSU by virtue of head-to-head and conference championship of two comparable teams. And now in 2016, they took OSU and Washington over PSU. Conference championships have mattered; 11 of the 12 playoff teams have been one. But situations will come up where a non-conference champion is better and more deserving than a conference champion and that is exactly what the committee is in place to figure out.
“Second, think about a playoff where we were seeing Penn St, Virginia Tech, Florida and Oklahoma. Would anyone watch outside the fanbases of those teams?”
Not only would I not watch but I would go ahead & just hand the NC to Oklahoma.
Just kidding but the Sooners would properly win.
When you’re ranking teams from within a Conference, yes the conference schedule is the most important thing. You have a 8 or 9 game sampling to compare teams with, Instead the all hallowed head-to-head, or SOS. You also 4-7 (9 in the case of the Big12) common opponents to compare team with. Penn State (6-1) and Ohio State (6-1) had seven common opponents (including the Big Ten final). Penn State (7-1) and Michigan (6-2) had eight. Ohio State (6-1) and Michigan had seven (6-1).
How do you know that Ohio State wouldn’t get the same results against Penn State’s non-conference schedule and vice-versa? You don’t, other than your opinion. SOS is fine when comparing teams for different conferences (say Ohio State and Washington), but for in-conference rankings, and using ACTUAL results, looking at a teams overall conference record, common opponent record, and head-to-head is best. These are more certain tie-breakers than SOS. Geez, all the conferences utilize W-L records in their standings, including for breaking ties.
I didn’t say the conference championship games were the important component. In fact I think they are stupid, along with divisions because you get the situations you’re describing. But all the teams involved know the rules. But, Clemson knew that if they lost in the ACC final they probably wouldn’t have made the playoff. Should we not have conference championship games in the first place?
I would say 96% of the college football world wants an expanded playoff (8 teams, 16. Maybe 24?) which would include non-conference champions. What would America say if Wisconsin, Oklahoma, USC, and Temple made the final four?
Sorry the goal of the CFP is to find the National Champion. If you can’t you’re the best in your Conference how are the best in the nation? Again, why have conference champions then? There should just be 12 non-conference games and lets have the committee select the best four.
Michigan wasn’t in the mix because they lost to Iowa you are correct. Why even use that as an example? Should that game not have been played? Should we just say Michigan is better than Penn State despite it? Are you crazy? I guess Michigan should have won that game. Remember Penn State defeated Iowa by 27. it’s called playing out the conference schedule. I could go on and on.
The conference championships, though I dislike them, are the equivalent to Sweet-16 or Quarterfinal game.
You won’t destroy the sport. It hasn’t destroyed NCAA basketball. Not only do you teams making the Elite 8, the Final Four, and winning the National Title that didn’t win their conference title, some haven’t even won their regular season conference title. I think basketball is doing just fine.
If the current structure was an 8-team playoff then I agree, put the power 5 conference winners, the top non power 5 team and 2 at large in the playoff. In that structure, you at least guarantee the top 4 teams are actually in the playoff. If your sole criteria is conference championship in the current structure, then you can’t guarantee you are getting the top 4 teams. You made the argument that under the conference championship model, every game matters. While that would be true For Ohio state, it essentially gives penn st a free pass in 2 games. Think about if Alabama slipped up vs Florida. You are really going to tell a team that thoroughly dominated their competition for 12 games that because of one slip up, they r not worthy despite every other team having at least 1 slip up as well? Heck, if Alabama lost to Florida i would still keep them at #1 and I’m from B10 country.
Your concept that the conference championship games are like a play-in game would make some sense if u guarantee the top 2 teams from the conference actually played in these games. But they oftentimes don’t. At the end of the day, I just don’t understand people’s obsession with being simple (conference championship or bust) vs actually getting your hands dirty and analyzing who are truly the top 4 teams.
How many times in the past has a conference title game winner not been deserving? Meaning there was such a disparity in overall conference record and national ranking that the result was truly an upset. How many of those “undeserving” Champions would’ve made a CFP final four?
The only thing that happens because of this is a team being eliminated from a national playoff because they couldn’t win an important game (all games in the regular season are important according to college football’s society).
In conferences that don’t have title games it’s much more rare (you could include divisions for that matter) that an “inferior” team wins the title.
Based on what happened in the BCS era, your “doomsday” scenario of an illegitimate CFP final four truly doesn’t hold water. Only in 2001 and 2011 do we get any semblance of what you fear.
14 out the 16 BCS final rankings would’ve given us a final four where the participants finished 6th or higher in the final rankings and I don’t even feel 2001 or 2011 would be less than worthy.
Are you going to tell me teams ranked 5th or 6th are that inferior to anyone in the top four of a ranking?
#5 Baylor or #6 TCU had a legit claim in 2014. #6 Stanford had a legit case in 2015. And, #5 Penn State certainly has a beef with the CFP this season.
The only true fiasco would also have occurred in 2011. Alabama (who would not have made the final four) won the National Title without winning the their division or conference.
Here would be each season’s final four (1998-2013) based on the final BCS Rankings and using only conference champions. I’ve included why someone that finished in the top four wouldn’t make the cut (*Indicates National Champion/Claimed National Champion):
2013: 1-Florida State*, 2-Auburn, 4-Michigan State, 5-Stanford.
3-Alabama tied Auburn in the SEC West, but Auburn won the division on a tie-breaker. Would the college football nation have been in an uproar because Stanford got in?
2012: 1-Notre Dame, 2-Alabama*, 5-Kansas State, 6-Stanford.
3-Florida tied 7-Georgia in the SEC East. Georgia lost to Alabama in the SEC title game.
4-Oregon finished behind Stanford in the Pac-12 North. My belief is that 70% of your schedule, which is the conference season, should mean something. Oregon should have defeated Stanford.
Notre Dame currently has a contract with the Power-5 to make the CFP (and had “way back” in the day to make the BCS title game).
2011: 1-LSU, 3-Oklahoma State, 5-Oregon, 10-Wisconsin.
2-Alabama, who won the BCS title, should never have been in it. They lost the SEC West to LSU. Why should LSU have to play them again? The CFP protocol says the regular season should be protected. ESPN hypes their broadcasts using this thinking!
4-Stanford finished behind Oregon in the Pac-12 North.
NOTE, 18-TCU won the MWC, with 7-Boise State finishing ranked higher than Wisconsin. The CFP repudiates this type of thinking found in past polls: “Under the current construct, polls (although well-intended) have not expressed these values; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who “deserve” to be selected.” Strength of Schedule is a “nuanced” mathematical formula. Maybe TCU should have been ranked 7th instead of Boise State.
2010: 1-Auburn*, 2-Oregon, 3-TCU, 5-Wiscosin.
4-Stanford lost to Oregon in the Pac-10 regular season. Every Game Matters!
2009: 1-Alabama*, 2-Texas, 3-Cincinnati, 4-TCU.
2008: 1-Oklahoma, 2-Florida*, 5-USC, 6-Utah.
3-Texas finished behind Oklahoma in the Big-12 South
4-Alabama lost to Florida in the SEC title game.
2007: 1-Ohio State, 2-LSU*, 3-Virginia Tech, 4-Oklahoma.
2006: 1-Ohio State, 2-Florida*, 5-USC, 6-Louisville
3-Michigan finished behind Ohio State in the Big Ten.
4-LSU finished behind Arkansas (who lost to Florida) the SEC West.
2005: 1-USC, 2-Texas*, 3-Penn State, 6-Notre Dame
4-Ohio State tied Penn State for the Big Ten, but lost whatever tie-breaker that was in place.
2004: 1-USC*, 2-Oklahoma, 3-Auburn, 6-Utah.
4-Texas finished behind Oklahoma in the Big 12 South.
2003: 1-Oklahoma, 2-LSU*, 3-USC*, 4-Michigan
2002: 1-Miami (FL), 2-Ohio State*, 3- Georgia, 6-Washington State.
4-USC finished behind Washington State, but for some reason (it was SOS) they were ranked ahead of the Cougars (who played in the Rose Bowl as Champions of the Pac-10).
2001: 1-Miami (FL)*, 3-Colorado, 4-Oregon, 8-Illinois
2-Nebraska finished behind Colorado in the Big-12 North.
2000: 1-Oklahoma*, 2-Florida State, 3-Miami (FL), 4-Washington
1999: 1-Florida State*, 2-Virginia Tech, 3-Nebraska, 4-Alabama
1998: 1-Tennessee*, 2-Florida State, 5-UCLA, 6-Texas A&M.
3-Kansas State lost to Texas A&M in the Big-12 title game.
4-Ohio State tied with 9-Wisconsin and Michigan (not ranked) for the Big Ten title. Wisconsin was declared Big Ten champion and played in the Rose Bowl.
I guess we will agree to disagree. You clearly want the best 4 conference champions and I want the best 4 teams. As you pointed out, most years we end up getting to the same place but this year was an anomaly where the best 4 teams were not all conference champions.
The four best teams got in, bottom line! If there is so much commotion about this CFP & the BCS, do we not forget what was going on before the BCS, bowls had contracts with conferences so even if you were undefeated you still had to go to that bowl. SEC had to go to the Sugar Bowl, Pac-12 & BIG had to go to the Rose Bowl, like the 1997 season when Michigan & Nebraska had to split a NC due to contracts in bowls. It also happened many other times in the past as well, the system is a lot better then what it once was & I really never had a problem with the BCS. Matter of fact if the BCS was still around the same exact same teams would be in.
As for Bama & the 2011 season, I do agree with that Bama may should not have been there & I felt bad that LSU had to replay them but who else should’ve gotten in? Remember that Bama lost early in the season & it was not Bama’s fault that Oregon, Oklahoma & Oklahoma St lost at the end of the season in which Bama sneaked back in to the race & as they were smashing teams left & right, they proved they should’ve been there. This would’ve, could’ve, should’ve mentality of what should’ve happened & how it played out is meaningless. One thing I do like about the committee is there is an emotion that goes behind the selecting of teams, I would rather have Buckeyes in then Penn St, I would rather have Washington in then Penn St. The Nittany lions can prove how worthy they are next year, for now they should just enjoy the Rose Bowl, nothing wrong with that.
They weren’t comparable to trigger the 4 criteria. Period. Every single team in the playoff has 1 loss or less. Penn St. lost to a 4 loss Pittsburgh team and lost by 39 to Michigan. Ohio State lost to Penn St., on the road. Penn St. is a very good team right now, but they shit the bed in 2 games. The out of conference games still matter.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
This is a cute article, I would’ve kept out A&M vs UTSA since this is their 1st ever meeting.
If you watched the 2014 Georgia Southern @ Georgia Tech game or better yet, if you attended the game, then you would know the ACC referees took the game out of the players hands with a terrible reversal of an ON THE FIELD call (requires indisputable evidence…it’s still being disputed). Georgia Southern was the better team that day and still has the more dynamic roster. Thank you Paul Johnson and the Tech AD for not being scared (UGAg) and rescheduling the Eagles…GS won’t leave it in question this go around. It would be great for the state if GS and Tech continued to schedule a game (maybe a H&H once Paulson Stadium is expanded to 30k) every other year. Athletically, as of late, the two schools are closer to peers than big brother-little brother.
Georgia has played Georgia Southern six times since 1992, Georgia Tech only once. I don’t think Georgia is scared of GS.
Interesting that 5 of those 6 times were when Georgia Southern had 63 scholarships. The 6th game was a carry over from GS’s FCS days and Georgia elected to move the game from 2016 to 2015 probably because they didn’t want an additional year of FBS recruiting for GS. Georgia was gifted that win last year and every dawg fan knows it. For both parties, it is understood that Georgia no longer wants any part in scheduling GS and frankly that’s fine by me.
Don’t worry Kevin Kelly, that’s just GS non-sense talk. They told GSU that they’d never beat GS – but in the just the second meeting (last year) GSU gave them their worst defeat in the history of Paulson High School County Stadium, The glory days of GS are behind them. The newsflash to GS is that they are the #4 team in the state of Georgia and they think that they are #1.
Georgia Tech got up big in that game and then let up and allowed Georgia Southern back in, the Eagles were far from the better team that day.
Georgia Southern’s coach was on his way out and focused on a million dollar salary…way to go. How’d that bowl game work out for the mighty Panthers? Let’s compare some numbers for a minute…17-53 (129th in FBS) vs. 375-200-10 (14th in FBS)…0 D1 National Championships vs. 6 D1 National Championships (most all-time)…0 D1 Conference Titles vs. 11 D1 Conference Titles. WHEW! I can certainly understand why a Panther fan (those exist?) would cling like hell to that win against Georgia Southern! Run along now, let us men get back to it.
GS has never beat UGA – GS has never beat GT – GS is 50/50 against GSU.
So your excuse is that GS got pounded at home by GSU cause your coach was dreaming about a real job? Really? That’s all it took for the mighty Beagles to lose at home? A coach’s daydream? All that tripe that GS spews about GSU and you got pounded in just the second effing year by a five year old football team? Fact is that Richt got fired because he almost lost to GS so that should tell you about how little respect there is for the GS product. So maybe GS needs to realize that they may start to fall behind KSU or Mercer. You guys have such an incredible false sense of entitlement from all those Pee-Wee league trophies. Probably ought to go on back to FCS Pee-Wee league! How about that Capt GAyTAy?
The Real GSU has played UGA and GT once with equal scholarships. Do you understand that having 22 less scholarships is a disadvantage? Once the playing field was made even, the Real GSU lost by a combined 10 points in their first outings with 85 scholarships. Again, I appreciate GT rescheduling the Real GSU unlike UGAg (I bet you’re a UGAg fan before a GAy St fan). Do you understand that when a head coach does not prep their team for a game that the team is unprepared? Big concepts here. Do you have any facts or just opinions? Richt was on the hot seat at the start of that season and the season before that…try to keep up. The fact that you recognize KSU and Mercer says a lot about where you view GAy St. Pee-Wee trophies…you’re talking about Division 1 National Championships. Do you understand that prior to the College Football Playoff, the FCS Playoff was the highest form of a college football playoff in existence? Oh but computers picking two teams worked out every time. The Real GSU should go back to FCS? You mean the Real GSU with the 18-7 FBS record (.720)? How about GAy St with the 7-30 FBS record (.189). This is too easy man, c’mon. (A) Why would GAy St field a football team and (B) why would ANYONE be a fan???? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!
Southern has never beaten Georgia and never will.
The “REAL” GSU just beat the GaSo clown big talkers AGAIN! GAyTAy!!!
So GaSo now has a LOSING record against GSU along with
never beating UGA and GT! So just go STFU !!!!!!!!!!
what about the Brigham Young-Utah State game or the Notre Dame-Navy game?
Neither BYU nor USU are a Power 5. And Notre Dame and Navy aren’t in the same state.
Matt probably meant to say the BYU-Utah game. Utah is a P5, but BYU is not. The summary would read something like this:
When: Saturday, Sept. 10, 5:30pm MT
Where: Rice-Eccles Stadium, Salt Lake City, UT
All-Time Series Leader: Utah, 58-34-4 (62.5%)
Last-Five: Utah, 5-0 (100%)
Utah has dominated its little brother, BYU, over the last 13 meetings (10-3, 77%). And they will certainly do so again this fall.
how would BYU qualify as a “Big” brother?
Bill, Utah would be the big brother
Someone asked that on Twitter, FBSchedules replied “BYU generally considered P5 so not included.”
BYU fits the P5 requirement for scheduling for most if not all conferences. The SEC looks at BYU as a P5…last time I checked the SEC is the premier program in College Football.
good article ….but i would say Georgia Southern has a much better chance of beating Georgia Tech than many of the games you have ranked as more likely. I don’t think very many people would be surprised is Georgia Southern wins that game.
Utah had to be invited to a conference to be considered P5. BYU did it on their own.
BYU is considered by some to be a P5 “for scheduling purposes.” But we’re not actually a P5, since we don’t belong to a P5 conference. That’s why it’s so important for us to get into the Big XII…the fate and viability of our football program rests on it. If we don’t get in and become an actual P5, our future looks no better than that of New Mexico State.
By that thinking, Toledo would also be considered a Power 5 Power Team, since it can beat 1/2 or more of teams from Power 5 Conferences…
Little brother = going on every web site possible to talk about how Utah should really be a big brother
I think ECU is NC State’s big brother when it comes to football.
ECU has not only won 3 out of 5, but 9 out of the last 15.
Go Pirates! Argh!
What about Penn State vs Pitt this year?
Pitt is P5.
PSU is B1G/Power 5 also
I don’t think many Ohio State fans see any MAC schools as “little brother.” The only school that would make sense to have that designation would be U of Cincinnati.
Toledo, Ohio and BGSU, Ohio are both vastly better than Cincinnati, Ohio !!! As is Ohio Bobcats
Where is Alabama-Auburn? Auburn is the ultimate “Little Brother” who lives to beat Big Brother, Alabama. Alabama lives to win national championships; Auburn lives to beat Alabama.
When they say little brother, I think they actually mean LITTLE BROTHER! Auburn is not a little brother to Bama, same conference, same league, Auburn has done their fair share of butt whooping on Bama in the past. If that was the case then the article would have Michigan vs Michigan St.
Your site states Tulane is playing Georgia Tech & Wake in 2018.
We had it listed in one section, but not the other. The copy has been updated – thanks for the heads-up.
Probably counts as a power five opponent since Tulane was at one time in the SEC.
Actually Joe, it doesn’t. As the article mentions, the Buckeye’s already scheduled 2 other power 5 non-conference games in 2018, meaning 67% of their non-conference schedule will be against power 5 opponents. This percentage is higher than all SEC schools in 2018. I wouldn’t have expected you to pick up on that given the lack of education provided down in SEC country.
Joe was wrong but why label all Southerns as stupid? Tim Cook, Auburn grad / Dr. James Andrews, LSU / John Grisham, Mississippi State & Ole Miss / Harper Lee, Alabama, William Faulkner, Ole Miss / Robert McNair, South Carolina / Jerry Jones, Arkansas ….just to name a few
What Jeff is trying to say is that every Southerner is stupid. That includes all African-American Southerners. Jeff is a racist, plain and simple.
I’m willing to bet Joe was joking. It’s called sarcasm. Don’t be so sensitive Jeff.
Yeah pretty sure Joe was just poking fun at the Big Ten since they have a list of non-P5 conference schools that they count towards their Power 5 schedule requirement
See, Jeff, it’s called a joke.
Webster’s defines a joke as “something said or done to cause laughter.”
Everyone else got it.
It’s interesting that Jeff got so offended by that…
Well, at least his wife still likes me.
And his mother.
They are really desperate to justify this game and get people excited about it, aren’t they. “Tulane enhances… a non-conference schedule”, “Green Wave is part of a fine… conference”. The American is a fine conference, but Tulane finished last in the conference in 2015. They are grasping at straws mentioning that Houston beat Florida State. Yes they did, but what bearing does that have on Tulane? None. Ohio St has already scheduled 2 P5 games for that year with one on the road. I have no problem with them scheduling a team like Tulane. And I can’t stand Ohio St. It wasn’t an FCS team and it’s a school they’ve never played before. There’s your selling point. Why can’t the statement be, “Our 2018 schedule is complete. We’ve scheduled Tulane, whom we’ve never played before.” Or something like that. You don’t belittle Tulane, and you bring something new to the schedule. Let Tulane take the forefront on this and if you feel the need, make a simple statement. These P5 schools need to stop trying to oversell these match ups in an effort to not offend the smaller school. It’s obvious and perhaps a little offensive.
Title IX, thanks for speaking for me and clarifying what I was trying to say (since things are plain and simple to you, I want to clarify that I am being sarcastic). I would be really interested to hear more behind the logic as to how you took my comment and came up with racism. My original comment was a jab at SEC country in response the jab given to the Buckeyes. My jab stemmed from the lack of thought given by Joe in his comment around strength of schedule as a whole. The SEC has this internal bias that their schedule is far tougher than any other conference schedule. While I would agree that a SEC West schedule is generally tougher than say the Big Ten or Pac 12, I wouldn’t say it is by a significant margin. My reasoning is that the SEC non-conference schedule is an absolute joke. It would be difficult for a SEC team to enter their conference schedule with a record worse than 3-1 or 4-0 based on the lack of competition they face. For instance, in 2016 the SEC plays 56 non-conference games, of which only 15 of them (27%) are against power 5 schools and worse, 14 of them (25%) are against FCS opponents. Comparatively, the B10 plays 42 non-conference games in 2016 with 13 games against Power 5 schools (31%) and only 8 against FCS schools (19%). How do the rest of us truly know how good that 4-0 Mississippi State juggernaut is when their wins are against Southern Miss, UAB, South Alabama and UT Martin. I’m sorry if any of you SEC individuals were offended by my original comment, though it would be nice to see a little bit more thought coming from the majority of the pro-SEC commenters on these message boards.
No. The SEC doesn’t say their schedule is toughest. Phil Steele, ESPN, Fox Sports, and every other expert in the business of college football says the SEC schedule is the toughest.
I love these schedule arguments and how they leave out the most important piece… the fact that teams in the SEC will play more NFL level players (players that will be drafted by NFL teams) in their eight conference games, than teams in the Big Ten, or any other conference, will play on their whole schedule.
But I wouldn’t expect a guy like Jeff, who obviously is a racist, to understand that.
ESPN and CBS have to say that the SEC is the toughest and use every flimsy argument that they can find to support it because they paid through the nose for the SEC’s tv rights and to try to get a return on their investment they need to perpetuate the “SEC is the best conference” myth. ESPN will use any opportunity they can to belittle the Big Ten because their tv rights are up for negotiation and ESPN is being cheap and doesn’t want to pay top dollar for the content.
The NFL doesn’t have to say it and they do every draft class.
That’s funny, I always see ESPN bragging on Ubran Meyer & The Ohio State on how good they are & are going to be. ESPN is in it for the money & TV ratings, you may not know this but ESPN LOST money on the Bama vs Clemson game, why? Due to being two southern (east-coast) teams & knowing most of the mid-coast & west was not going to watch, they had to play around with the commercials at the end of the game to keep people intrigued. Once again an SEC basher who luvs to bring up the worst of college football picking on an SEC team in which he/she could careless about. Doubt his/her name is even Ryan.
Playing eleven P5 opponents in a single season (9 conference games plus two OOC games) puts Ohio State in somewhat elite company. The 2018 schedules for many schools is not complete, but I know that in 2016, only four of the 65 schools who make up the five P5 conferences (plus Notre Dame) will play eleven P5 schools. They are Stanford, Texas, Oregon, and Oregon. Stanford and Texas were the only two who did in 2015. Florida State did it in 2014
Pingback: Why Tulane's 2018 Matchup With Ohio State Is Significant - AF
Too bad they couldn’t have rescheduled CMU for 2019, but that would’ve been quite the challenge going @ Wisconsin and @ OSU in the same year.
About time this game happens. Cincinnati should be part of the Big 12
way to schedule up buck nuts
another extremely weak opponent on the Buckeye schedule….i’m sure everyone is surprised.
You seem to be terribly misinformed about Ohio St and their scheduling. The entire Big Ten will be playing nine conference games. In several of those season they will be playing 2 Power 5 opponents and in 2023 will also be playing 3–Texas, Notre Dame, and Boston College. I hardly call that weak.
They will play Oklahoma in 2016 and 2017.
We’re trying to copy the SEC’s way of thinking. However, it’s considered a D-1 opponent as opposed to the numerous D-1AA opponents who fill out the SEC’s non-conference slate. Ever since we beat LSU in Columbus, no SEC team is willing to come North. Only LSU (Lambeau in 2 years) and Alabama a couple years ago who traveled to Penn State have the nads to travel North.
Georgia agreed to play a home-and-home with Ohio State, but it was scrapped when the B1G announced they were changing to a nine-game schedule.
Arkansas played at Rutgers in 2013 and they’re schedule to play at Michigan in 2018.
Yes Arkansas did and they LOST, both games against Rutgers.
And OSU looked to schedule UGA for future games when the PAC 12 head to head was canceled and UGA AD respectfully declined. The SEC won’t play the blue bloods of the Big Ten with a home and home. They lose and they know they’ll lose. The biggest stadiums in the country are in the B1G. This isn’t about tickets sales. Money is to be had. They just don’t want to lay it on the line. OSU has played TX, USC, Miami, VT and Oklahoma next year for home and homes over the past decade. No SEC program that has done that.
What are you talking about? The Ohio State backed out of the Georgia game cause they did not want to play a PAC-12 & SEC opponent in the same year because of the PAC-12/BIG partnership. There is no truth behind the comment “They lose and they know they’ll lose”, Alabama beat Penn St twice. There will be future SEC vs BIG but right now the SEC is scheduling ACC, PAC-12 & BIG-12 games.
SEC is scared to play Home and home series outside of the south. It’s a fact. Just look at their schedules the last 10 years and in the future. Please don’t mention Bama they are the king of cowards. The ygit their 2sses beat in 2 back to back seres in the early 2000’s..lost 4 games OOC in a row and have never scheduled a home and hoe series since. Penn State was scheduled before their @ss whippings.
Day please look up the last time an SEC program played Ohio State and won in Columbus or Ann Arbor. They are the blue bloods of the B1G. Did you read the link I provided? UGA wants none of Urban Mayer. Moreover do your research and look up the SEC win loss records outside of the south during the BCS era. Abysmal. The teams with wins were Arkansas playing A&M and Kentucky over Miami OH. During BCS era Vandy played the most games outside of south during NCS. SEC want nothing to do with home and home against Big Ten. Those are the facts.
Arkansas and Kentucky the only two with wins outside the south? Never mind LSU has wins at Arizona, Arizona State, and Washington. Georgia also won at Arizona State and Alabama at Penn State and those are just the ones off the top of my head. There probably aren’t too many more, but don’t go on about facts when yours aren’t even accurate.
Arkansas and Kentucky had the most wins for the SEC for OOC outside of the south. You know what I meant but way to cherry pick and ignore the rest of what I posted. The SEC OOC is terrible. Neutral site BS and OOC games against FCS teams in November. Worst of the Power 5 conferences.
And let’s also disclose UGAs loss at Colorado, the worst PAC 12 program and UT losing to Cal. How about Vandy losing to Northwestern? Mizzou losing to Indiana last year? Again, name a SEC program that has played USC, Miami, TX, VT and OU? Hell, OSU played a Phillip Rivers lead NC State team with a home and home. Coast to coast! OSU plays anyone, well except the SEC because they don’t like home and homes. They like their games in Arlington and Atlanta.
Your facts are a little misguided. I luv Michigan but they have not been a blue blood of the BIG in a long time, btw Michigan has a home n home with Arkansas in the future so there goes those facts plus you will see more SEC vs BIG home n home as well. So basically your link says Georgia wants none of Urban Meyer but in 2012 when The Ohio State canceled the game with Georgia, does that mean Buckeyes wanted none of the Dawgs? Seems like a balancing act to me.
You don’t stop being a blue blood because you haven’t been successful. Tennessee is an SEC blue blood and haven’t been successful since the early 2000’s. UM is a blue blood. Always will be.
Regardless of semantics, the SEC won’t play a legit blue blood in OOC with a home and home. Arkansas scheduling UM is misleading as well. Arkansas can’t beat Rutgers. When Bama, LSU, AU, UF, and UT schedule home and homes with Big Ten blue bloods I’ll be less judgmental on their historical dodging of playing in the north.
Moreover, yes OSU canceled the home and home with UT and UGA because of the Big Ten PAC 12 agreement but that was canceled in 2012 because the PAC 12 decided to go to a 9 game conference schedule. Since then UGA has declined to play OSU for future OOC match ups. Instead OSU has scheduled OU, TCU, TX, ND AND BC.
What does it matter if Arkansas can’t beat Rutgers right now? Michigan can’t beat Rutgers either, you don’t know how Arkansas is going to look in three years so no, it’s not misleading. So basically cause the SEC won’t schedule a home n home with the only two blue blood teams in the BIG it dodging the north, ok.
The point being made is that of the SEC teams that do, none of them have any hopes of winning their divisions let alone the SEC. When did Arkansas win the SEC last? How about Vandy who played Northwestern home and home? No one cares that these scrub programs are playing OOC because they’re not winning the SEC and certainly aren’t national title contenders.
The point is, of the programs that have a shot they all play neutral site games. Meanwhile programs like OSU who just won a title are going to play VT in Blacksburg. They play at Oklahoma next year. The SEC programs that do travel north are doing it for a payout and not protective of a potential title run. When Bama, LSU, AU, UF, schedule home and homes for OOC then it’ll be a level playing field. Until then, they continue to manipulate their schedules to put a team in position for the playoff while the Big Ten, PAC 12 and Big 12 are playing home and homes. I mean seriously USC played at BC and Oregon traveled to Virginia. You’ll never see Bama play at USC or AU play at Oregon. That’s why Bama has a neutral site game against USC in Arlington.
Not sure if you have not looked up the schedules but the SEC has home n home games with PAC-12, BIG-12, ACC as well. Of course the teams that travel north or anywhere are playing for payout, why would teams play for free? I just find it ironic that you blast the SEC for such a “terrible OOC” meanwhile OSU plays, Hawaii, Florida Atlantic, Army, UNLV, N.lllinois, W.Mich, Bowling Green & Tulsa. Looks almost like an SEC OOC schedule to me. Yes, OSU is playing some great home n home & the big dogs of the SEC are playing more neutral sites but who really cares, last time I checked the SEC had neutral site games with Wisconsin, Michigan. Also neutral games are played by all conferences, PAC-12, BIG-12, BIG & ACC. The SEC is not the only one playing in them, just ask Wisconsin, how many have they been in? Plus Ole Miss & Auburn have home n homes with California, so yes the SEC is traveling off to the West. The game between USC & Bama is a money maker & big win for both teams & conferences, that’s why it is being played in Arlington.
Ohio State 2015 and 2016 OOC Matchups:
@VT, Hawaii, NIU, Western Michigan, Bowling Green, Tulsa, @Oklahoma
I’ll go with the SEC programs that have legit chances of winning a national title, whom have won one in the last 10 years and look at their two year OOC schedule. (I’ll throw in UGA too since they’re always expected to do something)
Bama: Wisconsin, MTSU, ULM, Charleston Southern, USC, WKU, Kent State, UT Chattanooga. (USC toughest opponent)
AU: Louisville, Jackson State, SJSU, Idaho, Clemson, Arkansas State, ULM, Alabama A&M (Clemson toughest opponent)
LSU: McNeese State, @Syracuse, Eastern Michigan, WKU, Wisconsin @ Lambeau, Jackson State, Southern Miss, South Alabama (Wisconsin toughest opponent)
UF: NMSU, East Carolina, FAU, FSU, UMass, North Texas, @ FSU. (FSU toughest opponent)
UGA: ULM, Southern, Georgia Southern, GT, UNC, Nicholls State, U of Louisiana. (GT toughest opponent)
LSU playing Wisconsin in Lambeau is the first time this will ever have happened. And go ahead and tell me that of these 5 SEC OOC schedules that they’re better than OSU’s when they’re playing at VT this year and at Norman Oklahoma next year, both at the start of their seasons. OSU plays a Mountain West program, MAC schools and Tulsa who is an AAC school. Meanwhile, the SEC has the worst FBS conference in the Sun Belt, and a bunch of FCS cupcakes. So, yeah when OSU has historically played home and homes against anyone and the SEC is playing BS cupcake OOC they’re going to get called out. LSU is the only program that of the 5 that is playing a legit game outside of their backyard, and I’ll give credit where credit is due and say good for them. But don’t think for a minute that they did this without being forced, because with the playoff they have to raise their OOC resume. OSU two consecutive years away OOC against very good programs. Not even comparable. We agree to disagree.
I understand where you’re coming from & due respect your opinion but please note that all conferences are being forced to schedule better games since the playoffs have arrived. Games are now being scheduled 10-15 yrs in advance not even knowing how well certain teams will be in future. My point is this, OSU is doing the same thing that some SEC teams do. They are scheduling one P5 in Va.tech then they have Hawaii, N.lll & W.Michigan, 2016 it is P5 Oklahoma, Bowling Green & Tusla or I guess you could call them cupcakes? Creampuffs? Let’s just say guaranteed wins.Yes, it looks like OSU is scheduling better games in the future then a lot of other teams but it is 8. 9., 10 yrs down the road, by then we may have 4 super conferences with 16 teams in each, who knows. You will also see other teams do the same thing but right you have a nice little schedule in the future, congras!
The big ten is just as good as the sec and nobody wants to admit it. The buckeyes will play anyone anywhere.
And Georgia cancelled a series with Oregon. And Texas A&M and Kansas St did the same.
Kodiak…you’re wasting your time with Day. No amount of rational discourse and presentation of legitimate data will allow him to remove his blinders. It’s not his fault he can’t see outside of his (SEC) bubble.
Is it possible to be a college football fan and respect both the B1G and the S.E.C.? The B1G play nine conference games, a possible tenth, another P5 and no more games against FCSers. The S.E.C. play eight games in the deepest conference, a possible ninth, usually a major non conference rival, and sometimes a major P5 in some neutral site venue. If equivalent programs from each conference played each other home and home, they would probably split, and both would prefer safer and more lucrative games at home or in neutral venues.
Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. There are two programs from the SEC who have historically traveled for OOC, UT and LSU. The rest of the conference doesn’t do it. Many college football fans like myself who are not fans of schools in the SEC pay particular attention to this when SEC fans pound their chest and yell to the masses that they’re the best in college football. Is this really a true statement? How do we know when the SEC only plays themselves, doesn’t schedule home and home games by their top teams and play Sun Belt and FCS programs for OOC? The SEC has multiple narratives from the coaches of the programs and from the fans. When they win they point to the weekly battle tested programs. When they lose they complain it’s because they’re conference is so tough. They complain that teams like Ohio State don’t play anyone which is completely and absolutely absurd. OSU played the perceived best of the SEC and beat them. Even then there are continued excuses from fans and Nick Saban himself makes excuses. If you’re old enough to remember, the Big Ten conference was the best during the 90’s from top to bottom and you didn’t hear the narrative that northern football was better than the south. It was never about that until the SEC started being successful during the BCS era. Never in the history of college football had a conference supplied a national champion 7 years in a row. How is that possible? Play only yourselves, don’t leave the south or your state for OOC and get most of your bowl games at home. We know the BCS was flawed after what happened last year. Had the BCS been used last year we would have watched FSU play Alabama. One can only hope that with the playoffs here and potentially expanded to 6 or 8 that the sport will be more level and fair across all power 5 conferences.
Sometimes it’s hard to allow yourself to look at the “whole” picture, but if you can look at the data of an entire conference (not just one team or year) you will see that the SEC has every year since the beginning of the BSC era had the weakest non-conference slate (each and every year). In fact, if you look at what is stacking up for next year (2016) the SEC will continue to hold this low honor. There is no question the SEC has had some outstanding teams, but to state the entire lot as outstanding teams and to think the SEC is playing a “tough” schedule is very naïve. College Football in today’s world is about MONEY, and apparently the SEC has a system in place that leads their masses into spending/donating/you name it, dollars to their institutions in BIG numbers. If the fans of the SEC are happy with the product they’re getting, so be it, enjoy it, but don’t tell the world how impressed we should be with you, truly it’s not that great.
Bob Stoops called it like it is 2 years ago before he beat Bama. The bottom half of the SEC is not good and to continue to hear SEC fans brag about how great their conference is absurd. 5 SEC programs have won a BCS title. 3 of them have their last and only other title from the 1950’s. Bama and Florida are the two with titles within a decade of the BCS and Florida won their first national title in 1996. SEC fans don’t like hearing the facts though, it makes their numerous narratives look ridiculous. UT is the only blue blood in the SEC that has been pretty bad since the mid 2000’s. The Mississippi schools, UK, South Carolina, Vandy, Arkansas are not title contenders. They’re average to below average football programs. When was the last time these schools won the SEC let alone their division? Mizzou a mid pack Big 12 program came in and dominated the SEC east in their 2nd and 3rd year. Ole Miss was last relevant in the 1960’s. These teams at literally half of the SEC. If UGA wasn’t so talented they could be added to the list too but every year they’re expected to finally win. All this being said, the SEC has some great teams but so do other conferences who actually leave their backyard for OOC.