2 teams from 1 conference in the CFP

[Count 'Bility]

 

I still dont know why it cant be seen from a common sense standopint. If you cant be the best in your division-PLAYED ON THE FIELD-then you cant play for best in your conference. If you cant be the best in your conference-PLAYED ON THE FIELD-you cant play for best in the country.

 

I know pro sports have wildcards winning it all all the time or whatever. Non divisions winners and such. But still, division winners are given preferential treatment with high seeds and home field/court advantages.

 

i think the decision of who to put in a playoff, esp a 4 team that we have, would be made much easier by eliminating non conference champs. Conference championships are played out on the field. You want top notch urgency and drama in the reg season to remain with the prospect of a grwoing playoff format? Make the conference title, and only that, mean something. Adn you wont lose anything with teams losing a game or two early cuz that wont be any different than it is now.

 

I just dont understand the way we have to complicate things when all you have to do is play it on the field.

being that the committees job is to put the four best teams in the thing, I think it makes it difficult sometimes when you have 2 great teams in the same conference that will have to play each other. If Michigan and OSU win out to that game in dominant fashion and play an epic game decided at the end, wouldn't it be fair to consider the loser of that game over 2 2 or 3 loss conference champs who don't look all that impressive and the conference as a whole was down? While OSU and Michigan played it out on the field the loser never got a chance to play it out against the other conference champs, even if they had a better season. I'm in the camp that conference champs should make it in but it's also difficult to justify in some situations

 

I get it. i do. You want the 4 best. But like i said. With this playoff atmosphere, and the chance of it growing, one of the main concerns is dying urgency with the reg season. i think that could be saved (which i dont nec think it needs to be) by adding a high level of significance to games like Mich/Ohio st in such a situation. And would also take a lot of stress-if not all-off the committee by having such prerequisites and disqualifiers. its puts the owness on the field where it belongs. Not in some political meeting room.

[Mavric]

I get it. i do. You want the 4 best. But like i said. With this playoff atmosphere, and the chance of it growing, one of the main concerns is dying urgency with the reg season. i think that could be saved (which i dont nec think it needs to be) by adding a high level of significance to games like Mich/Ohio st in such a situation. And would also take a lot of stress-if not all-off the committee by having such prerequisites and disqualifiers. its puts the owness on the field where it belongs. Not in some political meeting room.

This type of argument was used a lot for why we didn't need a playoff. "Don't de-value the regular season!" But I don't think it really meshes with reality. Do you really think one team is going to say "Eh, doesn't really matter if we win this game. We'll try to get them back in the playoffs."?

[Nebfanatic]

 

I get it. i do. You want the 4 best. But like i said. With this playoff atmosphere, and the chance of it growing, one of the main concerns is dying urgency with the reg season. i think that could be saved (which i dont nec think it needs to be) by adding a high level of significance to games like Mich/Ohio st in such a situation. And would also take a lot of stress-if not all-off the committee by having such prerequisites and disqualifiers. its puts the owness on the field where it belongs. Not in some political meeting room.

This type of argument was used a lot for why we didn't need a playoff. "Don't de-value the regular season!" But I don't think it really meshes with reality. Do you really think one team is going to say "Eh, doesn't really matter if we win this game. We'll try to get them back in the playoffs."?

I agree with this. Big time games will still be big time games because regardless they still could have an impact. It might turn out they put Clemson and Louisville in the playoff but the outcome of that game still has Louisville on the outside looking in. Also no shot at a conference title game which is also important to players and coaches.

 

I think the way it's currently set up is actually in favor of 2 teams of the same conference making it in. They could have very easily made it a non possibility for that to happen when the playoff started but they did not, instead they left the door open for any scenario to occur by giving the committee complete control with no limitations to what teams they could choose

[junior4949]

I have to think last year that Ohio State would have put up a much better showing in the playoffs than Michigan State did. In the past decade, there have only been three undefeated NCs or 30%. If the regular season is to be the be all end all, then only undefeated teams should be allowed to play for a NC. There are times when the best two teams of the year are in the same conference.

[Count 'Bility]

I have to think last year that Ohio State would have put up a much better showing in the playoffs than Michigan State did. In the past decade, there have only been three undefeated NCs or 30%. If the regular season is to be the be all end all, then only undefeated teams should be allowed to play for a NC. There are times when the best two teams of the year are in the same conference. T

That's what hindsight says. But the fact is, Michigan St beat Ohio St, head to head, on the road. Then won the conference championship straight up. Ohio St was not deserving of the opportunity. Michigan St was. Michigan St happened to run into a buzzsaw who was feeling that 2 years off the podium was 2 too many.

[slice1900]

I wouldn't say it is impossible to have a CCG loser be a conference's second representative. Look at Iowa last year. In the second to last committee ranking Oklahoma was 3rd, Iowa 4th and MSU 5th. After MSU beat Iowa by about six inches on 4th down with 27 seconds to go, the committee put MSU 3rd, Oklahoma 4th and Iowa 5th in their final ranking.

 

Let's say that Oklahoma had lost their last game of the season in Stillwater to finish 10-2. Instead of ranking 3rd in those second to last rankings, they would have been somewhere below Stanford the 6th ranked team, and out of the discussion. Iowa would have been 3rd, and MSU 4th prior to the CCG. The question is, after that close win in Indy that put MSU 3rd, would the committee really have put Iowa right behind MSU at 4th, or would they have decided to drop them below Stanford?

 

I think it is FAR more likely they would have moved Stanford up, as even though they had 2 losses versus Iowa's 1 they would have a conference championship and Iowa would not. Stanford's stronger schedule would have been balanced by Iowa crushing NW who beat Stanford, so the conference crown and second loss would be the only real differences in the committee's eyes. So what if Stanford had LOST their CCG and finished 10-3? Then Iowa would have been the 4th team in the playoff, no question! But it would have taken losses by both Oklahoma and Stanford in their final games to get Iowa there as a CCG loser, so a little chaos is probably a prerequisite.

 

So what if Nebraska somehow finished 12-0, which would include a win at OSU, then lost in a down to the wire slugfest with 12-0 Michigan similar to the Iowa/MSU game last year? I think you would theoretically have an easier path than Iowa would have had last year, because of the win at OSU (assuming their only other loss was to Michigan in The Game) The committee would put such a 12-1 Nebraska team ahead of ANY team from the Big 12 that finishes with 1 or more losses, due to that conference's terrible OOC showing. I think they'd also be ahead of ANY two loss conference champion, because of that signature win over OSU and only loss in a close battle to 13-0 and likely #2 ranked Michigan. Right now it doesn't look like the Pac 12, ACC or SEC will have a two loss conference champion, of course...

 

Nebraska's 2016 schedule is nearly identical to Iowa's 2015 schedule other than that OSU game. Everything else would be viewed by the committee as pretty much the same. Sorry, I know that win over Oregon seemed like a big deal at the time but through no fault of your own Oregon is terrible this year and probably won't finish with a winning record. The committee will give that win less weight than they gave Iowa's win over Pitt last year. Iowa played crossovers with Maryland and at Indiana last year - just like you have/will, and played west division matchups at NW, at Wisconsin, at Nebraska just like you have/will play at NW, at Wisconsin and at Iowa. Other than the huge factor of your ninth conference game at OSU, the 2015 Iowa and 2016 Nebraska schedules are for all practical purposes the same.

[junior4949]

 

I have to think last year that Ohio State would have put up a much better showing in the playoffs than Michigan State did. In the past decade, there have only been three undefeated NCs or 30%. If the regular season is to be the be all end all, then only undefeated teams should be allowed to play for a NC. There are times when the best two teams of the year are in the same conference. T

That's what hindsight says. But the fact is, Michigan St beat Ohio St, head to head, on the road. Then won the conference championship straight up. Ohio St was not deserving of the opportunity. Michigan St was. Michigan St happened to run into a buzzsaw who was feeling that 2 years off the podium was 2 too many.

 

 

I would think what a team accomplished during the year would mean something. Ohio State was a one loss team where that one loss was to a top 10 team. Michigan State was also a one loss team where that one loss was to a team that didn't even finish above .500.

 

Clemson probably gets in this year, but they really aren't playing great ball right now. It's a shame better teams get left out of the playoff while a conference champ who really isn't playing very good gets in. It's just like 2014 when Florida State got in. I mean you have to put an undefeated defending NC into the playoff even though they hadn't really played very well all season long. I get why Florida State got in, but it's also the reason why I'd like to do away with the conference championship games and go to an eight team playoff. I would have really liked to have seen what Ohio State could have done a year ago against Bama. I don't think very many people thought or expected Michigan State to go very far in the playoff.

[ScottyIce]

I think there is a legitimate shot our conference gets 2 teams.

 

Alabama - undefeated likely

Michigan- 1 loss in CCG

Clemson - undefeated

Nebraska - undefeated

[knapplc]

At the end of it all, a committee has to select two teams from the same conference. They simply are not going to do that.

[Scratchtown]

I still find it ridiculous that a team can be MNC, but can't even win their own division. Alabama should be stripped of the title in 2012

 

Or just given the SEC title.

[HuskerMav11]

Nebraska's 2016 schedule is nearly identical to Iowa's 2015 schedule other than that OSU game. Everything else would be viewed by the committee as pretty much the same. Sorry, I know that win over Oregon seemed like a big deal at the time but through no fault of your own Oregon is terrible this year and probably won't finish with a winning record. The committee will give that win less weight than they gave Iowa's win over Pitt last year. Iowa played crossovers with Maryland and at Indiana last year - just like you have/will, and played west division matchups at NW, at Wisconsin, at Nebraska just like you have/will play at NW, at Wisconsin and at Iowa. Other than the huge factor of your ninth conference game at OSU, the 2015 Iowa and 2016 Nebraska schedules are for all practical purposes the same.

 

Except 2016 NW is better than 2015 NW. 2016 Indiana is better than 2015 Indiana. 2016 Wisconsin is >>> 2015 Wisconsin. Minnesota seems worse this year. I don't think the two schedules are nearly as similar as people are alluding them to be. The only similarities you can really draw between the two are the fact that to-date both teams are/were undefeated against a relatively weak schedule.

 

I'll agree with you that the Win over Pitt was a bigger deal than the win over Oregon this year.

[slice1900]

 

Nebraska's 2016 schedule is nearly identical to Iowa's 2015 schedule other than that OSU game. Everything else would be viewed by the committee as pretty much the same. Sorry, I know that win over Oregon seemed like a big deal at the time but through no fault of your own Oregon is terrible this year and probably won't finish with a winning record. The committee will give that win less weight than they gave Iowa's win over Pitt last year. Iowa played crossovers with Maryland and at Indiana last year - just like you have/will, and played west division matchups at NW, at Wisconsin, at Nebraska just like you have/will play at NW, at Wisconsin and at Iowa. Other than the huge factor of your ninth conference game at OSU, the 2015 Iowa and 2016 Nebraska schedules are for all practical purposes the same.

 

Except 2016 NW is better than 2015 NW. 2016 Indiana is better than 2015 Indiana. 2016 Wisconsin is >>> 2015 Wisconsin. Minnesota seems worse this year. I don't think the two schedules are nearly as similar as people are alluding them to be. The only similarities you can really draw between the two are the fact that to-date both teams are/were undefeated against a relatively weak schedule.

 

I'll agree with you that the Win over Pitt was a bigger deal than the win over Oregon this year.

 

 

What are you basing this on? In 2015 NW went 10-2 in the regular season, including a win over Stanford, with losses only to Iowa and Michigan.This year NW lost to Illinois State - beating Stanford >>> losing to Illinois State! You're on drugs if you think NW is better this year.

 

Indiana came within a TD of OSU and Iowa, and took Michigan to double OT. Their defense seems to be improved this year, but their offense has dropped several notches so overall the same team. Not sure I'm ready to say Minnesota is worse than last year yet, I think they are pretty similar. Maryland is about the same. Illinois and Purdue are still Illinois and Purdue.

 

I'll grant that Wisconsin is better than last year but NOT by a huge margin - they are ranked higher than last year primarily because of the big jump they got from their upset win over LSU and then their win over MSU. Problem is LSU is not even close to the playoff contender they were advertised as preseason, and MSU is awful this year.

 

Obviously teams differ from year to year, but overall I think the schedule is about the same, again with the exception of that trip to Columbus. Since both schedules included all the same teams in all the same places, trying to argue that Nebraska's 2016 schedule is tougher because you think all the teams are better this year is really a stretch! Sorry, I'm not buying it.

[Redux]

That 10-2 2015 NW record is pretty deceptive. They may have been better last year than this year, but not by that much. Indiana is clearly better this season than last. Wisconsin is much better, mostly on defense and barely if at all on offense. I didn't watch much Illinois last year meaning just the Husker gamr, I assume they are better this year.

[HuskerMav11]

 

 

Nebraska's 2016 schedule is nearly identical to Iowa's 2015 schedule other than that OSU game. Everything else would be viewed by the committee as pretty much the same. Sorry, I know that win over Oregon seemed like a big deal at the time but through no fault of your own Oregon is terrible this year and probably won't finish with a winning record. The committee will give that win less weight than they gave Iowa's win over Pitt last year. Iowa played crossovers with Maryland and at Indiana last year - just like you have/will, and played west division matchups at NW, at Wisconsin, at Nebraska just like you have/will play at NW, at Wisconsin and at Iowa. Other than the huge factor of your ninth conference game at OSU, the 2015 Iowa and 2016 Nebraska schedules are for all practical purposes the same.

 

Except 2016 NW is better than 2015 NW. 2016 Indiana is better than 2015 Indiana. 2016 Wisconsin is >>> 2015 Wisconsin. Minnesota seems worse this year. I don't think the two schedules are nearly as similar as people are alluding them to be. The only similarities you can really draw between the two are the fact that to-date both teams are/were undefeated against a relatively weak schedule.

 

I'll agree with you that the Win over Pitt was a bigger deal than the win over Oregon this year.

 

 

What are you basing this on? In 2015 NW went 10-2 in the regular season, including a win over Stanford, with losses only to Iowa and Michigan.This year NW lost to Illinois State - beating Stanford >>> losing to Illinois State! You're on drugs if you think NW is better this year.

 

Indiana came within a TD of OSU and Iowa, and took Michigan to double OT. Their defense seems to be improved this year, but their offense has dropped several notches so overall the same team. Not sure I'm ready to say Minnesota is worse than last year yet, I think they are pretty similar. Maryland is about the same. Illinois and Purdue are still Illinois and Purdue.

 

I'll grant that Wisconsin is better than last year but NOT by a huge margin - they are ranked higher than last year primarily because of the big jump they got from their upset win over LSU and then their win over MSU. Problem is LSU is not even close to the playoff contender they were advertised as preseason, and MSU is awful this year.

 

Obviously teams differ from year to year, but overall I think the schedule is about the same, again with the exception of that trip to Columbus. Since both schedules included all the same teams in all the same places, trying to argue that Nebraska's 2016 schedule is tougher because you think all the teams are better this year is really a stretch! Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

Ok, I'll just say what I really mean. Iowa is trash this year. Minnesota and Rutgers are both god aweful teams, and they gave Iowa a fit. Iowa is going to get dominated by Wisconsin this week.

 

But I also don't think Nebraska is as good as we appear this year either. We're not consistent. We have a struggling O-line, and we take a lot of risks. Risks that we've needed to take in order to win.

 

With that said, I think the talent at Nebraska is miles above the talent at Iowa. You guys have a stud CB, an OK QB, and some other notable players. Barring injuries, Nebraska should have zero problem man-handling Iowa this year.

[slice1900]

Ok, I'll just say what I really mean. Iowa is trash this year. Minnesota and Rutgers are both god aweful teams, and they gave Iowa a fit. Iowa is going to get dominated by Wisconsin this week.

 

But I also don't think Nebraska is as good as we appear this year either. We're not consistent. We have a struggling O-line, and we take a lot of risks. Risks that we've needed to take in order to win.

 

With that said, I think the talent at Nebraska is miles above the talent at Iowa. You guys have a stud CB, an OK QB, and some other notable players. Barring injuries, Nebraska should have zero problem man-handling Iowa this year.

 

 

Iowa is certainly disappointing considering how many returning starters we had. That said, the coaching staff made some changes to the offensive line and linebacker schemes after a disastrous week 3 - 5. Since then, the offensive line has been blocking much better for both running and passing, the defense has made some strides against the run (but still isn't quite there yet)

 

Wisconsin is not exactly an offensive powerhouse, and their defense (which was ranked #2 in the country last year, and is every bit as good again this year) will insure that the Iowa/Wisconsin game is similar to last year's - a low scoring battle where stuff like turnovers will make the difference. Iowa was lucky to escape with the win last year - we were inside their 10 yard line four times in the first half and came away with only 10 points. That's rarely a winning formula against a team with a top defense! I don't expect to see Iowa "dominated", but if the team that lost two home games already this year makes a return then things could get ugly!

 

I think you're underrating Minnesota. They almost beat PSU in Happy Valley, and dominated at Maryland. They aren't going to contend for the west division, but they are not "god awful".

 

I think Nebraska was not nearly as bad as their record indicated last year - you guys kept losing all the close ones last year. This year you are winning them. You have better talent, but talent alone doesn't win football games or Texas would be in the national championship mix every season! I think it is a bit premature to claim that Nebraska will man handle Iowa, though the way our series has gone with the home team losing four games in a row you guys probably have the advantage this season with the game being in Iowa City

 

Anyway, my point wasn't to derail the thread into an Iowa vs Nebraska thread, but to illustrate that if a couple games in weeks 13 & 14 had gone differently, Iowa would have joined MSU in the playoff last season. So it would theoretically be possible for Nebraska to do the same, though you have a tougher path to 12-0 than Iowa did because of the main difference in the two schedules, your trip to Columbus. I don't think it could happen if you faced OSU in the CCG though, as no one is going to want to see two teams play each other three times in a season...