Big10 Race and a little CFP tidbit.

[TonyStalloni]

If the 4 entrants to the football championship games are a jumbled mess this will lead to the inevitable "We need 8 teams not just 4".

 

[Redux]

So you are going to set the precedent (as did the BCS), that a conference championship doesn't matter.

That is so bogus on so many levels. Not the way I envisioned a playoff to work. Takes all the objective out, and puts ONLY subjective in.

If conference championships don't matter, that only furthers the argument for Baylor and TCU in 2014. But now everyone is switching how they think.

This is why I'm in favor of thr Conference Champions only ideal. Does it screw over really good teams? Yup. Should they have won that game they needed to win their division? Yup, but they didn't.

 

[Cdog923]

So you are going to set the precedent (as did the BCS), that a conference championship doesn't matter.

That is so bogus on so many levels. Not the way I envisioned a playoff to work. Takes all the objective out, and puts ONLY subjective in.

If conference championships don't matter, that only furthers the argument for Baylor and TCU in 2014. But now everyone is switching how they think.

This is why I'm in favor of thr Conference Champions only ideal. Does it screw over really good teams? Yup. Should they have won that game they needed to win their division? Yup, but they didn't.

Nailed it.

If PSU wins and OSU gets in instead of them, it's going to be the impetus to increase the playoff from 4 to 8, which would only weaken it, IMO.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

So you are going to set the precedent (as did the BCS), that a conference championship doesn't matter.

That is so bogus on so many levels. Not the way I envisioned a playoff to work. Takes all the objective out, and puts ONLY subjective in.

If conference championships don't matter, that only furthers the argument for Baylor and TCU in 2014. But now everyone is switching how they think.

This is why I'm in favor of thr Conference Champions only ideal. Does it screw over really good teams? Yup. Should they have won that game they needed to win their division? Yup, but they didn't.

So that just makes non-conference games exhibition games. Why even have them if they don't "mean anything"?

Also, there could be a 3-loss division champ (in conference) sneak into a conference championship and if they have one lucky win, they make the playoff?

The playoff is supposed to be the best 4 teams, period. Not the best 4 teams with a bunch of caveats.

 

[Cdog923]

So you are going to set the precedent (as did the BCS), that a conference championship doesn't matter.

That is so bogus on so many levels. Not the way I envisioned a playoff to work. Takes all the objective out, and puts ONLY subjective in.

If conference championships don't matter, that only furthers the argument for Baylor and TCU in 2014. But now everyone is switching how they think.

This is why I'm in favor of thr Conference Champions only ideal. Does it screw over really good teams? Yup. Should they have won that game they needed to win their division? Yup, but they didn't.

So that just makes non-conference games exhibition games. Why even have them if they don't "mean anything"?

Also, there could be a 3-loss division champ (in conference) sneak into a conference championship and if they have one lucky win, they make the playoff?

The playoff is supposed to be the best 4 teams, period. Not the best 4 teams with a bunch of caveats.

Then get rid of conferences and conference title games, and leave it completely up to the polls (aka the "human element").

 

[ColoradoHusk]

So you are going to set the precedent (as did the BCS), that a conference championship doesn't matter.

That is so bogus on so many levels. Not the way I envisioned a playoff to work. Takes all the objective out, and puts ONLY subjective in.

If conference championships don't matter, that only furthers the argument for Baylor and TCU in 2014. But now everyone is switching how they think.

This is why I'm in favor of thr Conference Champions only ideal. Does it screw over really good teams? Yup. Should they have won that game they needed to win their division? Yup, but they didn't.

So that just makes non-conference games exhibition games. Why even have them if they don't "mean anything"?

Also, there could be a 3-loss division champ (in conference) sneak into a conference championship and if they have one lucky win, they make the playoff?

The playoff is supposed to be the best 4 teams, period. Not the best 4 teams with a bunch of caveats.

Then get rid of conferences and conference title games, and leave it completely up to the polls (aka the "human element").

If Penn State wants to complain, they shouldn't have lost to Pitt. Penn State shouldn't have gotten their a$$ handed to them by Michigan.

 

[Cdog923]

So you are going to set the precedent (as did the BCS), that a conference championship doesn't matter.

That is so bogus on so many levels. Not the way I envisioned a playoff to work. Takes all the objective out, and puts ONLY subjective in.

If conference championships don't matter, that only furthers the argument for Baylor and TCU in 2014. But now everyone is switching how they think.

This is why I'm in favor of thr Conference Champions only ideal. Does it screw over really good teams? Yup. Should they have won that game they needed to win their division? Yup, but they didn't.

So that just makes non-conference games exhibition games. Why even have them if they don't "mean anything"?

Also, there could be a 3-loss division champ (in conference) sneak into a conference championship and if they have one lucky win, they make the playoff?

The playoff is supposed to be the best 4 teams, period. Not the best 4 teams with a bunch of caveats.

Then get rid of conferences and conference title games, and leave it completely up to the polls (aka the "human element").

If Penn State wants to complain, they shouldn't have lost to Pitt. Penn State shouldn't have gotten their a$$ handed to them by Michigan.

Then Ohio State shouldn't complain, because they lost to Penn State.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

So you are going to set the precedent (as did the BCS), that a conference championship doesn't matter.

That is so bogus on so many levels. Not the way I envisioned a playoff to work. Takes all the objective out, and puts ONLY subjective in.

If conference championships don't matter, that only furthers the argument for Baylor and TCU in 2014. But now everyone is switching how they think.

This is why I'm in favor of thr Conference Champions only ideal. Does it screw over really good teams? Yup. Should they have won that game they needed to win their division? Yup, but they didn't.

So that just makes non-conference games exhibition games. Why even have them if they don't "mean anything"?

Also, there could be a 3-loss division champ (in conference) sneak into a conference championship and if they have one lucky win, they make the playoff?

The playoff is supposed to be the best 4 teams, period. Not the best 4 teams with a bunch of caveats.

Then get rid of conferences and conference title games, and leave it completely up to the polls (aka the "human element").

If Penn State wants to complain, they shouldn't have lost to Pitt. Penn State shouldn't have gotten their a$$ handed to them by Michigan.

Then Ohio State shouldn't complain, because they lost to Penn State.

Yeah, but Ohio State would have only 1 loss (and a fluky loss at that), while Penn State has 2 losses (with one of those by 39 points). It's a complete resume review.

 

[Cdog923]

So you are going to set the precedent (as did the BCS), that a conference championship doesn't matter.

That is so bogus on so many levels. Not the way I envisioned a playoff to work. Takes all the objective out, and puts ONLY subjective in.

If conference championships don't matter, that only furthers the argument for Baylor and TCU in 2014. But now everyone is switching how they think.

This is why I'm in favor of thr Conference Champions only ideal. Does it screw over really good teams? Yup. Should they have won that game they needed to win their division? Yup, but they didn't.

So that just makes non-conference games exhibition games. Why even have them if they don't "mean anything"?

Also, there could be a 3-loss division champ (in conference) sneak into a conference championship and if they have one lucky win, they make the playoff?

The playoff is supposed to be the best 4 teams, period. Not the best 4 teams with a bunch of caveats.

Then get rid of conferences and conference title games, and leave it completely up to the polls (aka the "human element").

If Penn State wants to complain, they shouldn't have lost to Pitt. Penn State shouldn't have gotten their a$$ handed to them by Michigan.

Then Ohio State shouldn't complain, because they lost to Penn State.

Yeah, but Ohio State would have only 1 loss (and a fluky loss at that), while Penn State has 2 losses (with one of those by 39 points). It's a complete resume review.

A loss is a loss. And, under that scenario, no where on OSU's resume would you find "Conference Champion" or even "Division Champion".

 

[Redux]

So you are going to set the precedent (as did the BCS), that a conference championship doesn't matter.

That is so bogus on so many levels. Not the way I envisioned a playoff to work. Takes all the objective out, and puts ONLY subjective in.

If conference championships don't matter, that only furthers the argument for Baylor and TCU in 2014. But now everyone is switching how they think.

This is why I'm in favor of thr Conference Champions only ideal. Does it screw over really good teams? Yup. Should they have won that game they needed to win their division? Yup, but they didn't.

So that just makes non-conference games exhibition games. Why even have them if they don't "mean anything"?
Also, there could be a 3-loss division champ (in conference) sneak into a conference championship and if they have one lucky win, they make the playoff?

The playoff is supposed to be the best 4 teams, period. Not the best 4 teams with a bunch of caveats.

Non con games are for beefing up strength of schedule and watming your team up before conference play.

So what if a 3 loss team gets in? If they suck that bad, they won't win it. Win the games that matter that are in front of you, that's rule #1.

 

[Undone]

Then Ohio State shouldn't complain, because they lost to Penn State.

Is that actually how it works though when they have fewer losses than Penn State? I don't think so, and that's why I currently am a pretty big fan of the committee paradigm.

 

[Undone]

Penn State is not as good of a team as Ohio State is. You can see that in the whole of the season that has been played so far.

The committee exists to put the four best teams into the playoff. Penn State's fluke of a win over Ohio State, combined with Penn State then beating us or Wisconsin in Indy shouldn't put them in the same league as Alabama, et al. That's crazy talk. They're not that good.

And because they're not that good, they don't deserve it, despite whatever they do in Indy.

 

[Nebfanatic]

Just start the season with every power 5 team set up in a big single elimination tournament

 

[Redux]

Likliest thing to happen, in my humble opinion:

-PSU wins out, as does Wiscy. PSU beats Wiscy.

-Ohio State and Louisville both go 11-1

-Washington loses to Wazzu, doesn't win title game.

-Oklahoma wins out, wins B12.

-Bama wins out, beats Florida in title game.

-Clemson wins out, beats.....IDFK in title game.

#1 Bama vs #4 Louisville

#2 Clemson vs #3 Ohio State

#5 Penn State vs #6 Oklahoma non playoff

 

[QMany]

Wisconsin has a similar scenario to Penn State, except for the head-to-head with Ohio State. They could go 10-2, only 2 losses by 7 points to tOSU and UM, and win the Big Ten. The committee will have some tough decisions to make.