So if TCU and USC both lose

[LoftonPack80]

How we still have a system where schools are scheduling games 4, 5, 6 years or more in advance is beyond me. I'm sure us degenerates here could come up with more than a few options for scheduling that would be far better than how it's been done

 

[dtgold88]

How we still have a system where schools are scheduling games 4, 5, 6 years or more in advance is beyond me. I'm sure us degenerates here could come up with more than a few options for scheduling that would be far better than how it's been done

No issue with my team's current model which seems to be one tough OOC, another P5 opponent and a MAC level school. scheduling years in advance doesn't bother me even though, sure, occasionally it can bite ya.

I'd just like to see a more uniform method among the conferences.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

No issue with my team's current model which seems to be one tough OOC, another P5 opponent and a MAC level school. scheduling years in advance doesn't bother me even though, sure, occasionally it can bite ya.

I'd just like to see a more uniform method among the conferences.

I don't like the current set up with G5 schools being able to get into the cfp, because to make it more fair it would be natural to make G5 schools play the maximum # of P5s and allow the P5s to play more G5s, and they need to eliminate the playing of any FCS schools. But the FCS schools won't like that at all. Are the P5 schools going to have to carry the FCS schools? All that does is encourages them to move up, how many have moved up already? That can't be increasing the quality of play. It might help with spreading out the wealth some, over time, if that is the goal?

So dealing with the current mess, this is one option that includes G5 teams.

P5 schools = 8 Conf games + 2 P5 opponents(1 can be a 9th Conf opponent) + 2 G5 teams. All P5 schools have to follow this schedule.

G5 schools = 8 Conf games + 3 P5 opponents + 1 additional G5 game, can be a 9th Conf game or a non-conf opponent.

Thing about this is it's a way to make schedules more uniform, but it could either favor unworthy G5 schools if they get 3 P5 teams that aren't very good, or it could hurt them if a system is used that credits teams with good SOS's.


A better solution, imo, would be to divide the P5 and G5 schools into different divisions with separate championships, then you could drop one or both of the G5 games the P5 teams play, or you could keep both of those games since there wouldn't be anymore FCS games and everyone would be required to play 10 games vs P5 teams. If you made this break, it would lead to fewer high quality recruits going to G5 schools.


I'd actually be ok with conferences being only allowed to play 8 conf games, to keep things more uniform and would promote more inter conference play, which would be good for football, but not while teams are allowed to play FCS teams and/or all G5 teams. Limit the # of non-P5 teams all the P5 teams can play and it won't be needed to play a ton of conf games.

 

[wazzu31]

We should settle this is the more fair and equitable way possible, if both lose Washington State should get the 4th spot. We would gladly get boat raced by Georgia and would do it with class and dignity.

 

[Ron G]

I don't like the current set up with G5 schools being able to get into the cfp, because to make it more fair it would be natural to make G5 schools play the maximum # of P5s and allow the P5s to play more G5s, and they need to eliminate the playing of any FCS schools. But the FCS schools won't like that at all. Are the P5 schools going to have to carry the FCS schools? All that does is encourages them to move up, how many have moved up already? That can't be increasing the quality of play. It might help with spreading out the wealth some, over time, if that is the goal?

So dealing with the current mess, this is one option that includes G5 teams.

P5 schools = 8 Conf games + 2 P5 opponents(1 can be a 9th Conf opponent) + 2 G5 teams. All P5 schools have to follow this schedule.

G5 schools = 8 Conf games + 3 P5 opponents + 1 additional G5 game, can be a 9th Conf game or a non-conf opponent.

Thing about this is it's a way to make schedules more uniform, but it could either favor unworthy G5 schools if they get 3 P5 teams that aren't very good, or it could hurt them if a system is used that credits teams with good SOS's.


A better solution, imo, would be to divide the P5 and G5 schools into different divisions with separate championships, then you could drop one or both of the G5 games the P5 teams play, or you could keep both of those games since there wouldn't be anymore FCS games and everyone would be required to play 10 games vs P5 teams. If you made this break, it would lead to fewer high quality recruits going to G5 schools.


I'd actually be ok with conferences being only allowed to play 8 conf games, to keep things more uniform and would promote more inter conference play, which would be good for football, but not while teams are allowed to play FCS teams and/or all G5 teams. Limit the # of non-P5 teams all the P5 teams can play and it won't be needed to play a ton of conf games.

I don't disagree with the G5 having a playoff. But at that point, no longer call them Division 1 because they would not be.
TV would be no more interested in showing their games than they are now about showing FCS or Division 2 games.
And of course, it would be necessary to disallow moves from a Group 5 to a Power 5 because then Group 5 would be to P5 as P5 is to the NFL.

Pertaining to the movement of players, the highly rated Academic Schools will really suffer. ND, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Duke, Rice, Northwestern,
Tulane, Souther California, even Cal Berkley, will not likely take transfers after the junior year. They likely won't want to award degrees to students who only attend one year. ND will not accept transfers after the sophomore year. Graduate students with eligibility would not be affected.

 

[thunderc]

I know not many will agree with me but the fairest way to do this is to bring a computer component back into it. The computers don’t care what conference you are from. As for this thread if TCU and USC both lose it will be Ohio State and Alabama, I have no doubt about that.

 

[PIBuckeye]

Lmfao

 

[Bedlam131]

Um..TBOW TBOWed with all the talent in his hands. Someone stole Christmas from Grinch.

 

[Gator]

I don't like the current set up with G5 schools being able to get into the cfp, because to make it more fair it would be natural to make G5 schools play the maximum # of P5s and allow the P5s to play more G5s, and they need to eliminate the playing of any FCS schools. But the FCS schools won't like that at all. Are the P5 schools going to have to carry the FCS schools? All that does is encourages them to move up, how many have moved up already? That can't be increasing the quality of play. It might help with spreading out the wealth some, over time, if that is the goal?

So dealing with the current mess, this is one option that includes G5 teams.

P5 schools = 8 Conf games + 2 P5 opponents(1 can be a 9th Conf opponent) + 2 G5 teams. All P5 schools have to follow this schedule.

G5 schools = 8 Conf games + 3 P5 opponents + 1 additional G5 game, can be a 9th Conf game or a non-conf opponent.

Thing about this is it's a way to make schedules more uniform, but it could either favor unworthy G5 schools if they get 3 P5 teams that aren't very good, or it could hurt them if a system is used that credits teams with good SOS's.


A better solution, imo, would be to divide the P5 and G5 schools into different divisions with separate championships, then you could drop one or both of the G5 games the P5 teams play, or you could keep both of those games since there wouldn't be anymore FCS games and everyone would be required to play 10 games vs P5 teams. If you made this break, it would lead to fewer high quality recruits going to G5 schools.


I'd actually be ok with conferences being only allowed to play 8 conf games, to keep things more uniform and would promote more inter conference play, which would be good for football, but not while teams are allowed to play FCS teams and/or all G5 teams. Limit the # of non-P5 teams all the P5 teams can play and it won't be needed to play a ton of conf games.

Most of this I agree with. My problem is your obsession with FCS. I know it get old but.... Let's compare a couple of schedules:

View attachment 315632
Now as you can see I split the schedule with the top 9 opponents at the top and the worst at the bottom. In the top 9 games UF played P5 opponents just like UM but UF's opponents had better records in 8 of the 9 games. In the bottom 3 games UM played teams with better records (UF played a 5-7 P5 when UM played a 6-6 G5 which I still think favors UF). So, in your mind the fact that UF played an FCS team means UF's schedule is worse than Michigan's? Or are you saying that bottom 3 games out-weigh the top 9 games? I don't think either of those are justifiable.

How about another comparison?



Now, in the 8 of the top 10 games UF plays P5 opponents with better records than does OSU and played equal opponents in the other 2 games. In the lowest 2 games OSU played better opponents than UF. Again in your mind the lowest 2 games out-weigh the top 10 games???

You rank the three schedules. Banning FCS teams does NOT mean better schedules. Playing better team AT THE TOP means better schedules.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

I know not many will agree with me but the fairest way to do this is to bring a computer component back into it. The computers don’t care what conference you are from. As for this thread if TCU and USC both lose it will be Ohio State and Alabama, I have no doubt about that.

The computers love OSU and Bama.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Most of this I agree with. My problem is your obsession with FCS. I know it get old but.... Let's compare a couple of schedules:

View attachment 315632
Now as you can see I split the schedule with the top 9 opponents at the top and the worst at the bottom. In the top 9 games UF played P5 opponents just like UM but UF's opponents had better records in 8 of the 9 games. In the bottom 3 games UM played teams with better records (UF played a 5-7 P5 when UM played a 6-6 G5 which I still think favors UF). So, in your mind the fact that UF played an FCS team means UF's schedule is worse than Michigan's? Or are you saying that bottom 3 games out-weigh the top 9 games? I don't think either of those are justifiable.

How about another comparison?

View attachment 315634

Now, in the 8 of the top 10 games UF plays P5 opponents with better records than does OSU and played equal opponents in the other 2 games. In the lowest 2 games OSU played better opponents than UF. Again in your mind the lowest 2 games out-weigh the top 10 games???

You rank the three schedules. Banning FCS teams does NOT mean better schedules. Playing better team AT THE TOP means better schedules.

The computers measure OSU as having had the harder schedule. Sorry.

 

[mall3013]

OSU is a lock at 4. Only thing that can change is the seedings if TCU loses, which I think they will. I don't see anyway Bama gets in with 2 losses. Just my opinion. I have to think a 1 loss TCU is in regardless unless it's so lopsided.

 

[mall3013]

The computers love OSU and Bama.

Of course they do. These two institutions bring a large iaudience and big $$$.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

OSU is a lock at 4. Only thing that can change is the seedings if TCU loses, which I think they will. I don't see anyway Bama gets in with 2 losses. Just my opinion. I have to think a 1 loss TCU is in regardless unless it's so lopsided.

You would think that would be the fair way to go about it considering the committee has never allowed a 2 loss team in.

Hopefully TCU wins.

 

[mall3013]

You would think that would be the fair way to go about it considering the committee has never allowed a 2 loss team in.

Hopefully TCU wins.

I think K State will win this game. I don't care who wins honestly. We are in and hopefully our team will have the extra time to get healthy and study film on Georgia. JSN and hopefully our
RBs will be fully healthy by then.

 

[thunderc]

I think K State will win this game. I don't care who wins honestly. We are in and hopefully our team will have the extra time to get healthy and study film on Georgia. JSN and hopefully our
RBs will be fully healthy by then.

I could obviously be wrong but I think TCU is just too good on offense to lose to KState. Their wideouts are NFL guys.

 

[Boglodyte]

Once again we see Lincoln at his finest when a big game is on the line

Fuck osu

 

[ElPatron1]

OSU is a lock at 4. Only thing that can change is the seedings if TCU loses, which I think they will. I don't see anyway Bama gets in with 2 losses. Just my opinion. I have to think a 1 loss TCU is in regardless unless it's so lopsided.

It would be OSU and BAMA...They are the 5th and 6th ranked team so they would be the first to move up...Ironically they are also the better teams compared to TCU and USC so the playoffs will be better anyways. Bama needs TCU to lose tho...Although there is an outside chance they keep TCU in anyways even with a loss. USC is out tho

 

[Gator]

The computers measure OSU as having had the harder schedule. Sorry.

That's one of the things that I have tried to show people. The computers rate SOS based on how a mythical "average" team would do against each teams schedule. There are 131 FBS teams so team number 66 is the "average" team. If team 66 played a slate of opponents 60-65 and 67-71 odds are they would end up 6-6. If team 66 played a slate of opponents 1-6 and 126-131 odds are they would also end up 6-6. So to computers the two schedules are equivalent. However, if team #7 played those same two schedules their records would NOT be the same. Team 7 would most likely be 12-0 vs teams 60-65 and 67-71. While Team 7 would probably be 6-0 vs teams 126-131 they would NOT be 6-0 vs the teams 1-6 in the other schedule. So I say those schedules are not equivalent. If you are interested in finding the best teams for a playoff then the "SOS" should reflect how the top teams would do vs each schedule.

 

[Gator]

Most of this I agree with. My problem is your obsession with FCS. I know it get old but.... Let's compare a couple of schedules:

View attachment 315632
Now as you can see I split the schedule with the top 9 opponents at the top and the worst at the bottom. In the top 9 games UF played P5 opponents just like UM but UF's opponents had better records in 8 of the 9 games. In the bottom 3 games UM played teams with better records (UF played a 5-7 P5 when UM played a 6-6 G5 which I still think favors UF). So, in your mind the fact that UF played an FCS team means UF's schedule is worse than Michigan's? Or are you saying that bottom 3 games out-weigh the top 9 games? I don't think either of those are justifiable.

How about another comparison?

View attachment 315634

Now, in the 8 of the top 10 games UF plays P5 opponents with better records than does OSU and played equal opponents in the other 2 games. In the lowest 2 games OSU played better opponents than UF. Again in your mind the lowest 2 games out-weigh the top 10 games???

You rank the three schedules. Banning FCS teams does NOT mean better schedules. Playing better team AT THE TOP means better schedules.

Sorry about he missing data in my post. Apparently 1:50 AM is NOT my best time to post (I'm not great at ANY time!). FYI here is the data in context.


Now as you can see I split the schedule with the top 9 opponents at the top and the worst at the bottom. In the top 9 games UF played P5 opponents just like UM but UF's opponents had better records in 8 of the 9 games. In the bottom 3 games UM played teams with better records (UF played a 5-7 P5 when UM played a 6-6 G5 which I still think favors UF). So, in your mind the fact that UF played an FCS team means UF's schedule is worse than Michigan's? Or are you saying that bottom 3 games out-weigh the top 9 games? I don't think either of those are justifiable.