2024 College Football Thread: Ohio State advances to play unbeaten hypothetical SEC team (5 Viewers)

[Joe Bryant]

I know some people love it but the beauty pageant subjectiveness of it makes me not care that much. The dismissal of strength of schedule is wild. I've no doubt I'm in the minority there.

Okay, you're in charge of college football now. What would you do to remedy all of this subjectiveness?

Easy.

I think I'm back to where I started: Nobody really knows.

The current system is a subjective beauty pageant that feels massively flawed and unfair in rewarding the best teams. And by “best teams”, I actually mean best teams.

And of course, that’s the real question here. In this current setup, defining “Best” is a challenge.

I feel certain the NCAA as a whole is not smart enough or organized enough to have intentionally orchestrated this, but it feels like they’ve locked in to system that attracts attention.

And in 2024, attention is the gold standard and primary metric.

So it seems like it’s working for them.

And I don’t see it changing anytime soon.

But if you let me be in charge: A 32 or 48-team superconference for just college football can make sense. Mike Leach talked about that and I think Chip Kelly did as well. I would put some sort of NIL salary cap factor in place and organize into two Conferences with Divisions of four teams.

Seems like we’ve seen that work pretty well…

But that’s too radical for most. It solves a problem that I may have with fairness, but it seems clear the current way gets loads of attention.

And as we said, attention is what wins.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I know some people love it but the beauty pageant subjectiveness of it makes me not care that much. The dismissal of strength of schedule is wild. I've no doubt I'm in the minority there.

Okay, you're in charge of college football now. What would you do to remedy all of this subjectiveness?

One big league. Four conferences, two divisions each. 16 teams in each one. 8 team divisions.

Create a standard schedule of out of conference rotation amongst them. So you play like your 7 divisional opponents, then you play whomever finished in the same place as you last year from one division of each of the other three conferences, and then the other division in your conference. Set up the divisions so they tend to contain the major rivalry games (e.g., OUTX, Iron Bowl, tOSU-UM, Border War, etc).

Playoff is: byes to conference champions
5-8 seeds go to conference championship game losers
9-12 seeds go to the next best record in each conference.

Make ND join one of the conferences of screw off.

Replicate system for Group of 5.




If I really get to be magic dictator? Power 4/G5 get a promotion relegation of some kind. But I think that's too far to really happen.

I like it. Approved!

I absolutely love the idea of relegation/promotion.

You can even add 1-2 "preseason weeks" against FCS teams to warm up a bit.

Edit: make them in state ones so you spread the wealth to other small schools in your state

"Relegation Bowls" would be fun. Have Purdue face off against Boise State. Winner gets to play in the Big10 next year. Tulane vs Miss State, San Jose St vs Stanford.....now these would be bowl games fit for a salty snack!

If 20 players from every team weren't sitting out it would be awesome. But no way Ashton Jeanty plays in that kind of game.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I know some people love it but the beauty pageant subjectiveness of it makes me not care that much. The dismissal of strength of schedule is wild. I've no doubt I'm in the minority there.

Okay, you're in charge of college football now. What would you do to remedy all of this subjectiveness?

Easy.

I think I'm back to where I started: Nobody really knows.

The current system is a subjective beauty pageant that feels massively flawed and unfair in rewarding the best teams. And by “best teams”, I actually mean best teams.

And of course, that’s the real question here. In this current setup, defining “Best” is a challenge.

I feel certain the NCAA as a whole is not smart enough or organized enough to have intentionally orchestrated this, but it feels like they’ve locked in to system that attracts attention.

And in 2024, attention is the gold standard and primary metric.

So it seems like it’s working for them.

And I don’t see it changing anytime soon.

But if you let me be in charge: A 32 or 48-team superconference for just college football can make sense. Mike Leach talked about that and I think Chip Kelly did as well. I would put some sort of NIL salary cap factor in place and organize into two Conferences with Divisions of four teams.

Seems like we’ve seen that work pretty well…

But that’s too radical for most. It solves a problem that I may have with fairness, but it seems clear the current way gets loads of attention.

And as we said, attention is what wins.

I'm with you and eliminate those that aren't serious about competing (Vandy, UVA, Wake Forest, Northwestern, etc...). Have 8 team divisions where everyone plays each other yearly and there is a champion. Put all the champions in a playoff and have a few wildcards, if needed.

Love the Salary cap idea. The top 10-12 schools with the most money would never agree because they lose their advantage.

 

[General Malaise]

I know some people love it but the beauty pageant subjectiveness of it makes me not care that much. The dismissal of strength of schedule is wild. I've no doubt I'm in the minority there.

Okay, you're in charge of college football now. What would you do to remedy all of this subjectiveness?

Easy.

I think I'm back to where I started: Nobody really knows.

The current system is a subjective beauty pageant that feels massively flawed and unfair in rewarding the best teams. And by “best teams”, I actually mean best teams.

And of course, that’s the real question here. In this current setup, defining “Best” is a challenge.

I feel certain the NCAA as a whole is not smart enough or organized enough to have intentionally orchestrated this, but it feels like they’ve locked in to system that attracts attention.

And in 2024, attention is the gold standard and primary metric.

So it seems like it’s working for them.

And I don’t see it changing anytime soon.

But if you let me be in charge: A 32 or 48-team superconference for just college football can make sense. Mike Leach talked about that and I think Chip Kelly did as well. I would put some sort of NIL salary cap factor in place and organize into two Conferences with Divisions of four teams.

Seems like we’ve seen that work pretty well…

But that’s too radical for most. It solves a problem that I may have with fairness, but it seems clear the current way gets loads of attention.

And as we said, attention is what wins.

Can you point to a recent year in which you feel the best team did not win the championship? I get where you're coming from, but take a look back - what college team in recent years got the shaft, in your opinion?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I know some people love it but the beauty pageant subjectiveness of it makes me not care that much. The dismissal of strength of schedule is wild. I've no doubt I'm in the minority there.

Okay, you're in charge of college football now. What would you do to remedy all of this subjectiveness?

I think the first step is to acknowledge there are over 250 division 1 football teams in the country with completely disparate schedules, uneven recruiting platforms and no way to do an NFL style playoff system with divisions and schedule control over a month of games playoff games. We admit there is no reliable way to determine a "true champion" in college football - a pipe dream we've been inexplicably chasing since the BCS mistake, with every new version of that just digging the hole deeper and deeper. Then we can either stop trying to make college football the same as pro sports by manufacturing a championship system that will never work, or we can go all-in and stop pretending college football is an amateur affair for "student-athletes." The first option would involve trying to bring back the magic and tradition college football once had - likely a fool's errand as that tradition is surely gone forever. The second option likely involves moving toward a single super-conference of 30-40 schools, incorporating some form of salary cap control on NIL and setting up NFL -style conferences and divisions. The other 200+ college football teams would be free to form some system of their own or disband those programs and move toward a more club-based on intramural-based game.

Pretty much this. All that's been done is taking the responsibility off the sports writers and put it on a committee to determine the story for the year. Though the smoke and mirrors seems to have worked on some people.

In what recent year can you honestly say the best team in college football did NOT win the national championship?

Your framing is a good bit off from what myself and CM are saying. Not sure why this question is tied to our comments.

ETA: To answer your question, the game everyone should have seen JUST THIS LAST YEAR, was UGA vs Michigan.

 

[kupcho1]

It may be smart business, but don't pretend like it isn't an advantage. it is. You know, I know it.

Of course I know it and never pretended otherwise. Why do you think I called it smart business? It's smart business because they get an easy week at the end of the year.

I think you think you made a clever argument; I'm telling you it's hogwash.

If you're referring to the "argument" I'm making that strength of schedule is based on teams played irrespective of when games are scheduled, then sure, I made an argument. But to say it is hogwash is ridiculous.

If you're saying I'm arguing that scheduling cupcakes at the end of the year is irrelevant, then clearly you didn't read what I wrote.

The only real argument I'm making is that every team that could reasonably be considered as a contender should not be scheduling games against Tennessee Tech, Western Kentucky or Mercer. (See, I read what you write.)

However, I doubt this will ever happen, so you may want to get Phil on the phone to see if he can convince your school to rejigger the schedule as soon as practicable.

 

[kupcho1]

I know some people love it but the beauty pageant subjectiveness of it makes me not care that much. The dismissal of strength of schedule is wild. I've no doubt I'm in the minority there.

Okay, you're in charge of college football now. What would you do to remedy all of this subjectiveness?

Easy.

I think I'm back to where I started: Nobody really knows.

The current system is a subjective beauty pageant that feels massively flawed and unfair in rewarding the best teams. And by “best teams”, I actually mean best teams.

And of course, that’s the real question here. In this current setup, defining “Best” is a challenge.

I feel certain the NCAA as a whole is not smart enough or organized enough to have intentionally orchestrated this, but it feels like they’ve locked in to system that attracts attention.

And in 2024, attention is the gold standard and primary metric.

So it seems like it’s working for them.

And I don’t see it changing anytime soon.

But if you let me be in charge: A 32 or 48-team superconference for just college football can make sense. Mike Leach talked about that and I think Chip Kelly did as well. I would put some sort of NIL salary cap factor in place and organize into two Conferences with Divisions of four teams.

Seems like we’ve seen that work pretty well…

But that’s too radical for most. It solves a problem that I may have with fairness, but it seems clear the current way gets loads of attention.

And as we said, attention is what wins.

Throw in a minor league with promotion and relegation for each of the division cellar dwellers, and I'm 1000% on board.

 

[Instinctive]

I know some people love it but the beauty pageant subjectiveness of it makes me not care that much. The dismissal of strength of schedule is wild. I've no doubt I'm in the minority there.

Okay, you're in charge of college football now. What would you do to remedy all of this subjectiveness?

One big league. Four conferences, two divisions each. 16 teams in each one. 8 team divisions.

Create a standard schedule of out of conference rotation amongst them. So you play like your 7 divisional opponents, then you play whomever finished in the same place as you last year from one division of each of the other three conferences, and then the other division in your conference. Set up the divisions so they tend to contain the major rivalry games (e.g., OUTX, Iron Bowl, tOSU-UM, Border War, etc).

Playoff is: byes to conference champions
5-8 seeds go to conference championship game losers
9-12 seeds go to the next best record in each conference.

Make ND join one of the conferences of screw off.

Replicate system for Group of 5.




If I really get to be magic dictator? Power 4/G5 get a promotion relegation of some kind. But I think that's too far to really happen.

I like it. Approved!

I absolutely love the idea of relegation/promotion.

You can even add 1-2 "preseason weeks" against FCS teams to warm up a bit.

Edit: make them in state ones so you spread the wealth to other small schools in your state

Not that it's a bad idea - but what about the other 70 division 1 schools

Like I said - replicate the exact same format for the group of five teams

 

[Moe.]

@kupcho1 @General Malaise

The crux of your argument comes down to total conference games. It is inexcusable that the SEC only plays 8 conference games. If they had to play 9 the late season cupcake would be more palatable. The way it is now it replaces a conference game which rubs people the wrong way.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I know some people love it but the beauty pageant subjectiveness of it makes me not care that much. The dismissal of strength of schedule is wild. I've no doubt I'm in the minority there.

Okay, you're in charge of college football now. What would you do to remedy all of this subjectiveness?

Easy.

I think I'm back to where I started: Nobody really knows.

The current system is a subjective beauty pageant that feels massively flawed and unfair in rewarding the best teams. And by “best teams”, I actually mean best teams.

And of course, that’s the real question here. In this current setup, defining “Best” is a challenge.

I feel certain the NCAA as a whole is not smart enough or organized enough to have intentionally orchestrated this, but it feels like they’ve locked in to system that attracts attention.

And in 2024, attention is the gold standard and primary metric.

So it seems like it’s working for them.

And I don’t see it changing anytime soon.

But if you let me be in charge: A 32 or 48-team superconference for just college football can make sense. Mike Leach talked about that and I think Chip Kelly did as well. I would put some sort of NIL salary cap factor in place and organize into two Conferences with Divisions of four teams.

Seems like we’ve seen that work pretty well…

But that’s too radical for most. It solves a problem that I may have with fairness, but it seems clear the current way gets loads of attention.

And as we said, attention is what wins.

Can you point to a recent year in which you feel the best team did not win the championship? I get where you're coming from, but take a look back - what college team in recent years got the shaft, in your opinion?

I wasn't really talking about past history. But off the top of my head, maybe undefeated 13-0 ACC Champion Florida State? From less than a year ago? https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...d-for-alabama-shows-the-games-never-mattered/

 

[kupcho1]

@kupcho1 @General Malaise

The crux of your argument comes down to total conference games. It is inexcusable that the SEC only plays 8 conference games. If they had to play 9 the late season cupcake would be more palatable. The way it is now it replaces a conference game which rubs people the wrong way.

Thanks, I was not aware of that. I agree, 8 conference games, especially with the teams added over the last few years, is absurd.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It may be smart business, but don't pretend like it isn't an advantage. it is. You know, I know it. Georgia had Tennessee Tech on Sept 7 and UMASS on Nov 23. That's absurd. Alabama started off with Western Kentucky, moved on to South Florida and then gets Mercer Nov 16? Good lord. Tennessee got the season underway Chattanooga, got a little taste of Kent State and then had UTEP at the end of November.

I'm not sure cherry picking a few games is the best way to make an overall point.

For the bigger point, are you saying strength of schedule should be an important factor, or no?

 

[Joe Schmo]

Your framing is a good bit off from what myself and CM are saying. Not sure why this question is tied to our comments.

ETA: To answer your question, the game everyone should have seen JUST THIS LAST YEAR, was UGA vs Michigan.

I wasn't really talking about past history. But off the top of my head, maybe undefeated 13-0 ACC Champion Florida State? From less than a year ago?

Even then not everyone agrees

 

[belljr]

I know some people love it but the beauty pageant subjectiveness of it makes me not care that much. The dismissal of strength of schedule is wild. I've no doubt I'm in the minority there.

Okay, you're in charge of college football now. What would you do to remedy all of this subjectiveness?

One big league. Four conferences, two divisions each. 16 teams in each one. 8 team divisions.

Create a standard schedule of out of conference rotation amongst them. So you play like your 7 divisional opponents, then you play whomever finished in the same place as you last year from one division of each of the other three conferences, and then the other division in your conference. Set up the divisions so they tend to contain the major rivalry games (e.g., OUTX, Iron Bowl, tOSU-UM, Border War, etc).

Playoff is: byes to conference champions
5-8 seeds go to conference championship game losers
9-12 seeds go to the next best record in each conference.

Make ND join one of the conferences of screw off.

Replicate system for Group of 5.




If I really get to be magic dictator? Power 4/G5 get a promotion relegation of some kind. But I think that's too far to really happen.

I like it. Approved!

I absolutely love the idea of relegation/promotion.

You can even add 1-2 "preseason weeks" against FCS teams to warm up a bit.

Edit: make them in state ones so you spread the wealth to other small schools in your state

Not that it's a bad idea - but what about the other 70 division 1 schools

Like I said - replicate the exact same format for the group of five teams

I get you but in that scenario a Boise St would never get a chance to play in a playoff if they had a great season

*unless you implement the relegation system but then it might be a year too late.

 

[ChiefD]

At this point who cares what they do with college football. They've already stripped it of every last tradition because all the money wasn't enough money.


MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MONNNNNEEEEEYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!! WE NEED EVEN MORE MONEY!!!!!!

Screw everyone involved with ruining college football.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Your framing is a good bit off from what myself and CM are saying. Not sure why this question is tied to our comments.

ETA: To answer your question, the game everyone should have seen JUST THIS LAST YEAR, was UGA vs Michigan.

I wasn't really talking about past history. But off the top of my head, maybe undefeated 13-0 ACC Champion Florida State? From less than a year ago?

Even then not everyone agrees

Sure. I don't think he was asking for something on which there is 100% agreement. Good luck getting that in college football.

He asked,

"but take a look back - what college team in recent years got the shaft, in your opinion?"

I don't have a great memory. But 13-0 ACC Champion Florida State left out less than a year ago seemed, in my opinion, like a team that got hosed.

 

[cheese]

I know some people love it but the beauty pageant subjectiveness of it makes me not care that much. The dismissal of strength of schedule is wild. I've no doubt I'm in the minority there.

Okay, you're in charge of college football now. What would you do to remedy all of this subjectiveness?

I think the first step is to acknowledge there are over 250 division 1 football teams in the country with completely disparate schedules, uneven recruiting platforms and no way to do an NFL style playoff system with divisions and schedule control over a month of games playoff games. We admit there is no reliable way to determine a "true champion" in college football - a pipe dream we've been inexplicably chasing since the BCS mistake, with every new version of that just digging the hole deeper and deeper. Then we can either stop trying to make college football the same as pro sports by manufacturing a championship system that will never work, or we can go all-in and stop pretending college football is an amateur affair for "student-athletes." The first option would involve trying to bring back the magic and tradition college football once had - likely a fool's errand as that tradition is surely gone forever. The second option likely involves moving toward a single super-conference of 30-40 schools, incorporating some form of salary cap control on NIL and setting up NFL -style conferences and divisions. The other 200+ college football teams would be free to form some system of their own or disband those programs and move toward a more club-based on intramural-based game.

Pretty much this. All that's been done is taking the responsibility off the sports writers and put it on a committee to determine the story for the year. Though the smoke and mirrors seems to have worked on some people.

In what recent year can you honestly say the best team in college football did NOT win the national championship?

Ya, most years we can't even find 4 teams with a decent resume and a shot to win it.

I am just not on the same page as Joe on this anyway, which is fine. My personal opinion is that strength of schedule is already weighted way, WAY too much. The fact that he put in strength of schedule is dismissed is probably not exactly what he meant, but ya... strength of schedule is pretty much all anyone ever talks about and the main way they pick teams for anything.

 

[Moe.]

The Big 12 is an absolute mess in terms of the standings. I am not even going to attempt to digest the tiebreaker scenarios heading into this weekend. The irony is that KU is the best team in the Big 12 right now but they need a win this weekend just to make a bowl game.

 

[Instinctive]

I know some people love it but the beauty pageant subjectiveness of it makes me not care that much. The dismissal of strength of schedule is wild. I've no doubt I'm in the minority there.

Okay, you're in charge of college football now. What would you do to remedy all of this subjectiveness?

One big league. Four conferences, two divisions each. 16 teams in each one. 8 team divisions.

Create a standard schedule of out of conference rotation amongst them. So you play like your 7 divisional opponents, then you play whomever finished in the same place as you last year from one division of each of the other three conferences, and then the other division in your conference. Set up the divisions so they tend to contain the major rivalry games (e.g., OUTX, Iron Bowl, tOSU-UM, Border War, etc).

Playoff is: byes to conference champions
5-8 seeds go to conference championship game losers
9-12 seeds go to the next best record in each conference.

Make ND join one of the conferences of screw off.

Replicate system for Group of 5.




If I really get to be magic dictator? Power 4/G5 get a promotion relegation of some kind. But I think that's too far to really happen.

I like it. Approved!

I absolutely love the idea of relegation/promotion.

You can even add 1-2 "preseason weeks" against FCS teams to warm up a bit.

Edit: make them in state ones so you spread the wealth to other small schools in your state

Not that it's a bad idea - but what about the other 70 division 1 schools

Like I said - replicate the exact same format for the group of five teams

I get you but in that scenario a Boise St would never get a chance to play in a playoff if they had a great season

*unless you implement the relegation system but then it might be a year too late.

Sure they would. They'd play in the group of five playoff. They'd be the G5 champion. Just like there's also an FCS champion.

And FWIW if they wanna be in P4 games they should join one of those conferences. I don't see any intrinsic value to teams that usually lose to the real ones but every now and then they win one.

 

[General Malaise]

It may be smart business, but don't pretend like it isn't an advantage. it is. You know, I know it. Georgia had Tennessee Tech on Sept 7 and UMASS on Nov 23. That's absurd. Alabama started off with Western Kentucky, moved on to South Florida and then gets Mercer Nov 16? Good lord. Tennessee got the season underway Chattanooga, got a little taste of Kent State and then had UTEP at the end of November.

I'm not sure cherry picking a few games is the best way to make an overall point.

For the bigger point, are you saying strength of schedule should be an important factor, or no?

A few games? I provided 8 examples, sir.

Yes, strength of schedule matters. You know what else matters? Playing an out of conference cupcake at the end of November when other teams are playing teams in their conference.

 

[General Malaise]

I know some people love it but the beauty pageant subjectiveness of it makes me not care that much. The dismissal of strength of schedule is wild. I've no doubt I'm in the minority there.

Okay, you're in charge of college football now. What would you do to remedy all of this subjectiveness?

Easy.

I think I'm back to where I started: Nobody really knows.

The current system is a subjective beauty pageant that feels massively flawed and unfair in rewarding the best teams. And by “best teams”, I actually mean best teams.

And of course, that’s the real question here. In this current setup, defining “Best” is a challenge.

I feel certain the NCAA as a whole is not smart enough or organized enough to have intentionally orchestrated this, but it feels like they’ve locked in to system that attracts attention.

And in 2024, attention is the gold standard and primary metric.

So it seems like it’s working for them.

And I don’t see it changing anytime soon.

But if you let me be in charge: A 32 or 48-team superconference for just college football can make sense. Mike Leach talked about that and I think Chip Kelly did as well. I would put some sort of NIL salary cap factor in place and organize into two Conferences with Divisions of four teams.

Seems like we’ve seen that work pretty well…

But that’s too radical for most. It solves a problem that I may have with fairness, but it seems clear the current way gets loads of attention.

And as we said, attention is what wins.

Can you point to a recent year in which you feel the best team did not win the championship? I get where you're coming from, but take a look back - what college team in recent years got the shaft, in your opinion?

I wasn't really talking about past history. But off the top of my head, maybe undefeated 13-0 ACC Champion Florida State? From less than a year ago? https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...d-for-alabama-shows-the-games-never-mattered/

If you aren't talking about past history, what is your beef exactly? Take your statement of "And by 'best teams' I actually mean best teams". Was Florida State absent their starting QB the "best team" at the end of the season? I would have been fine having FSU in the playoffs over Alabama, but the sports' world would explode if the SEC Champ didn't get in.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It may be smart business, but don't pretend like it isn't an advantage. it is. You know, I know it. Georgia had Tennessee Tech on Sept 7 and UMASS on Nov 23. That's absurd. Alabama started off with Western Kentucky, moved on to South Florida and then gets Mercer Nov 16? Good lord. Tennessee got the season underway Chattanooga, got a little taste of Kent State and then had UTEP at the end of November.

I'm not sure cherry picking a few games is the best way to make an overall point.

For the bigger point, are you saying strength of schedule should be an important factor, or no?

A few games? I provided 8 examples, sir.

Yes, strength of schedule matters. You know what else matters? Playing an out of conference cupcake at the end of November when other teams are playing teams in their conference.

Great. I too think strength of schedule matters. A ton. And not just 8 games.

Here's a good look at full strength of schedule from ESPN's FPI.

Ranking Strength of Schedule for College Football Playoff Top 25 from weakest to strongest

The College Football Playoff committee heavily weighs strength of schedule, and ESPN ranks the Top 25 from weakest to strongest.

www.on3.com

Won't fit some of the narratives but looking at the actual data is helpful in my opinion.

 

[Joe Bryant]

@Capella might have thoughts on if a team has ever been omitted...

 

[General Malaise]

It may be smart business, but don't pretend like it isn't an advantage. it is. You know, I know it. Georgia had Tennessee Tech on Sept 7 and UMASS on Nov 23. That's absurd. Alabama started off with Western Kentucky, moved on to South Florida and then gets Mercer Nov 16? Good lord. Tennessee got the season underway Chattanooga, got a little taste of Kent State and then had UTEP at the end of November.

I'm not sure cherry picking a few games is the best way to make an overall point.

For the bigger point, are you saying strength of schedule should be an important factor, or no?

A few games? I provided 8 examples, sir.

Yes, strength of schedule matters. You know what else matters? Playing an out of conference cupcake at the end of November when other teams are playing teams in their conference.

Great. I too think strength of schedule matters. A ton. And not just 8 games.

Here's a good look at full strength of schedule from ESPN's FPI.

Ranking Strength of Schedule for College Football Playoff Top 25 from weakest to strongest

The College Football Playoff committee heavily weighs strength of schedule, and ESPN ranks the Top 25 from weakest to strongest.

www.on3.com

Won't fit some of the narratives but looking at the actual data is helpful in my opinion.

Have the SEC play 9 conference games and not 8. You get no points from me for beating UMASS in late November when other schools are playing teams within their conference.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I am just not on the same page as Joe on this anyway, which is fine. My personal opinion is that strength of schedule is already weighted way, WAY too much. The fact that he put in strength of schedule is dismissed is probably not exactly what he meant, but ya... strength of schedule is pretty much all anyone ever talks about and the main way they pick teams for anything.

It's good to have disagreement. But my point on Strength of Schedule not being given enough weight was 10-0 Indiana ranked #5. With the 10 wins against a schedule that was a cupcake ranked in the 100+ range.

Not the players fault. They can only do what they can do and play the games on the schedule. They can't help it that Michigan ranks 34th in the country this year. https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

But I think it matters when your signature win is against the 34th best team.

And for sure, I fully understand others think that does not matter. But we're talking about opinions here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It may be smart business, but don't pretend like it isn't an advantage. it is. You know, I know it. Georgia had Tennessee Tech on Sept 7 and UMASS on Nov 23. That's absurd. Alabama started off with Western Kentucky, moved on to South Florida and then gets Mercer Nov 16? Good lord. Tennessee got the season underway Chattanooga, got a little taste of Kent State and then had UTEP at the end of November.

I'm not sure cherry picking a few games is the best way to make an overall point.

For the bigger point, are you saying strength of schedule should be an important factor, or no?

A few games? I provided 8 examples, sir.

Yes, strength of schedule matters. You know what else matters? Playing an out of conference cupcake at the end of November when other teams are playing teams in their conference.

Great. I too think strength of schedule matters. A ton. And not just 8 games.

Here's a good look at full strength of schedule from ESPN's FPI.

Ranking Strength of Schedule for College Football Playoff Top 25 from weakest to strongest

The College Football Playoff committee heavily weighs strength of schedule, and ESPN ranks the Top 25 from weakest to strongest.

www.on3.com

Won't fit some of the narratives but looking at the actual data is helpful in my opinion.

Have the SEC play 9 conference games and not 8. You get no points from me for beating UMASS in late November when other schools are playing teams within their conference.

I don't think anyone is asking to give anyone points.

I'm pointing out the accepted measure of Strength of Schedule. Objectively looking at all the games. https://www.on3.com/news/ranking-st...-top-25-weakest-to-strongest-indiana-georgia/

Again, that may not fit some narratives. But I'm more interested in actual data.

 

[General Malaise]

@Capella might have thoughts on if a team has ever been omitted...

For a big Strength of Schedule guy, I went back and looked where Florida State was ranked in 2023. 78th....right between Rice and Illinois. So maybe they were taking that into account last year.

 

[Capella]

@Capella might have thoughts on if a team has ever been omitted...

Yea I might be a little upset about it still! Especially with Verse and Fiske steamrolling NFL offenses.

 

[Joe Bryant]

@Capella might have thoughts on if a team has ever been omitted...

For a big Strength of Schedule guy, I went back and looked where Florida State was ranked in 2023. 78th....right between Rice and Illinois. So maybe they were taking that into account last year.

I'm sure that was their argument. And maybe it was valid. It seems like something one could argue.

You asked if anyone could ever remember a team missing out on the playoffs in their opinion. 13-0 Florida State less than a year ago was my answer.

Are you saying Florida State had no argument for getting into the playoffs?

 

[General Malaise]

@Capella might have thoughts on if a team has ever been omitted...

For a big Strength of Schedule guy, I went back and looked where Florida State was ranked in 2023. 78th....right between Rice and Illinois. So maybe they were taking that into account last year.

I'm sure that was their argument. And maybe it was valid. It seems like something one could argue.

You asked if anyone could ever remember a team missing out on the playoffs in their opinion. 13-0 Florida State less than a year ago was my answer.

Are you saying Florida State had no argument for getting into the playoffs?

No, I think FSU belonged last year. I think they got jobbed. But I also think the best team was crowned champion last year. I think that's generally how it's worked out.

 

[belljr]

Bill Hancock cited Travis's injury and a lower strength of schedule as the cause of FSU's exclusion; according to the ESPN Football Power Index, Florida State's strength of schedule ranked No. 55 in the FBS, while Michigan's, the lowest of the four playoff teams, was No. 33.[29]

If the FSU QB didn't get hurt - I think they make it in. THey only produced 134 yards with the backups earlier in the year

 

[Joe Bryant]

@Capella might have thoughts on if a team has ever been omitted...

For a big Strength of Schedule guy, I went back and looked where Florida State was ranked in 2023. 78th....right between Rice and Illinois. So maybe they were taking that into account last year.

I'm sure that was their argument. And maybe it was valid. It seems like something one could argue.

You asked if anyone could ever remember a team missing out on the playoffs in their opinion. 13-0 Florida State less than a year ago was my answer.

Are you saying Florida State had no argument for getting into the playoffs?

No, I think FSU belonged last year. I think they got jobbed. But I also think the best team was crowned champion last year. I think that's generally how it's worked out.

Thanks. And last thing to make sure I understand where you're coming from, are you saying you acknowledge the Strength of Schedule rankings here https://www.on3.com/news/ranking-st...-top-25-weakest-to-strongest-indiana-georgia/

 

[General Malaise]

@Capella might have thoughts on if a team has ever been omitted...

For a big Strength of Schedule guy, I went back and looked where Florida State was ranked in 2023. 78th....right between Rice and Illinois. So maybe they were taking that into account last year.

I'm sure that was their argument. And maybe it was valid. It seems like something one could argue.

You asked if anyone could ever remember a team missing out on the playoffs in their opinion. 13-0 Florida State less than a year ago was my answer.

Are you saying Florida State had no argument for getting into the playoffs?

No, I think FSU belonged last year. I think they got jobbed. But I also think the best team was crowned champion last year. I think that's generally how it's worked out.

Thanks. And last thing to make sure I understand where you're coming from, are you saying you acknowledge the Strength of Schedule rankings here https://www.on3.com/news/ranking-st...-top-25-weakest-to-strongest-indiana-georgia/

Here's a more recent one. https://collegefootballnetwork.com/2024-college-football-strength-of-schedule/

Which SOS am I to use?

 

[Yo Mama]

Here’s another way to look at strength of schedule rather than looking at rankings either at the time they played or based on current rankings (since rankings can be biased and tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies IMO).

Number of P4 bowl-eligible teams some notable teams have beaten. I know it’s not perfect or even better than the current SOS formulas, but I thought it was interesting (stolen from Tom Fornelli).

Penn State: 5
SMU: 5
Texas: 5

Alabama: 4
Georgia: 4
Miami: 4
Ohio State: 4
Ole Miss: 4
South Carolina: 4
Texas A&M: 4

BYU: 3
Illinois: 3
Indiana: 3
Iowa State: 3
Missouri: 3
Notre Dame: 3
Oregon: 3
Tennessee: 3

Arizona State: 2
Colorado: 2

 

[Joe Bryant]

@Capella might have thoughts on if a team has ever been omitted...

For a big Strength of Schedule guy, I went back and looked where Florida State was ranked in 2023. 78th....right between Rice and Illinois. So maybe they were taking that into account last year.

I'm sure that was their argument. And maybe it was valid. It seems like something one could argue.

You asked if anyone could ever remember a team missing out on the playoffs in their opinion. 13-0 Florida State less than a year ago was my answer.

Are you saying Florida State had no argument for getting into the playoffs?

No, I think FSU belonged last year. I think they got jobbed. But I also think the best team was crowned champion last year. I think that's generally how it's worked out.

Thanks. And last thing to make sure I understand where you're coming from, are you saying you acknowledge the Strength of Schedule rankings here https://www.on3.com/news/ranking-st...-top-25-weakest-to-strongest-indiana-georgia/

Here's a more recent one. https://collegefootballnetwork.com/2024-college-football-strength-of-schedule/

Which SOS am I to use?

The one I referenced is current as of today. https://www.on3.com/news/ranking-st...-top-25-weakest-to-strongest-indiana-georgia/ It uses the ESPN FPI that is what most people use. For which one to use, I would suggest that one as it's more known and accepted.

I'm not familiar with https://collegefootballnetwork.com/2024-college-football-strength-of-schedule/ but I'd assume it's ok too. I mainly wanted to see if you were ok with a Strength of Schedule that factors in all the games.

 

[General Malaise]

It may be smart business, but don't pretend like it isn't an advantage. it is. You know, I know it. Georgia had Tennessee Tech on Sept 7 and UMASS on Nov 23. That's absurd. Alabama started off with Western Kentucky, moved on to South Florida and then gets Mercer Nov 16? Good lord. Tennessee got the season underway Chattanooga, got a little taste of Kent State and then had UTEP at the end of November.

I'm not sure cherry picking a few games is the best way to make an overall point.

For the bigger point, are you saying strength of schedule should be an important factor, or no?

It is an important factor.

I also think the SEC teams have an advantage playing 8 conference games and scheduling cupcakes in late Nov when other conferences and playing teams in conference. I'd like to see uniformity in all conferences.

 

[kupcho1]

I'd like to see uniformity in all conferences.

I think you'd need some sort of overarching athletic association, ideally one that included all colleges and operated on a national level.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

SOS should be one data point but it's got holes. Like the SEC starts with 12 teams in the top 15 every year so they have built-in SOS advantages. Then you have someone like Indiana that people want to penalize because Michigan, Washington, and other really good teams from last year suck this year. It's not their fault Penn State and Oregon aren't on their schedule this year. But they have dominated almost everyone they've played which tells me they are a legit top 10 team.

They didn't lose to a No. Illinois like Notre Dame. They didn't lose to an Arkansas like Tennessee. They didn't lose to an Oklahoma like Alabama. They will likely be seeded right where they belong - behind every other 11 win team and probably behind both Georgia and Texas. Hard to argue with that.

The bowl projections today are pretty much the 12 teams we discussed yesterday. I think that's correct. I don't think A&M should be in the discussion unless they beat both Texas and UGA and then they automatically get in. I think the next team up should be South Carolina if they beat Clemson. They have several impressive wins in November and look like a playoff team. I don't know what their SOS is though but they are the best 3-loss team, IMO.

 

[General Malaise]

SOS should be one data point but it's got holes. Like the SEC starts with 12 teams in the top 15 every year so they have built-in SOS advantages. Then you have someone like Indiana that people want to penalize because Michigan, Washington, and other really good teams from last year suck this year. It's not their fault Penn State and Oregon aren't on their schedule this year. But they have dominated almost everyone they've played which tells me they are a legit top 10 team.

They didn't lose to a No. Illinois like Notre Dame. They didn't lose to an Arkansas like Tennessee. They didn't lose to an Oklahoma like Alabama. They will likely be seeded right where they belong - behind every other 11 win team and probably behind both Georgia and Texas. Hard to argue with that.

The bowl projections today are pretty much the 12 teams we discussed yesterday. I think that's correct. I don't think A&M should be in the discussion unless they beat both Texas and UGA and then they automatically get in. I think the next team up should be South Carolina if they beat Clemson. They have several impressive wins in November and look like a playoff team. I don't know what their SOS is though but they are the best 3-loss team, IMO.

This is a very good post.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Then you have someone like Indiana that people want to penalize because Michigan, Washington, and other really good teams from last year suck this year. It's not their fault Penn State and Oregon aren't on their schedule this year. But they have dominated almost everyone they've played which tells me they are a legit top 10 team.

This is a big point.

Yes. It's not their fault Michigan and Washington suck.

But this isn't about overlooking something that isn't their fault.

The reality is their schedule is soft outside of one game. Where they looked a team with 10 wins against a soft schedule.

I know we live in a world where everyone is good enough and we like participation trophies. But the reality is it wasn't fair to overlook the soft schedule Indiana played and push them to #5 just because they have the most losses in NCAA history and this was a feel good story.

 

[MAC_32]

@Capella might have thoughts on if a team has ever been omitted...

For a big Strength of Schedule guy, I went back and looked where Florida State was ranked in 2023. 78th....right between Rice and Illinois. So maybe they were taking that into account last year.

I'm sure that was their argument. And maybe it was valid. It seems like something one could argue.

You asked if anyone could ever remember a team missing out on the playoffs in their opinion. 13-0 Florida State less than a year ago was my answer.

Are you saying Florida State had no argument for getting into the playoffs?

I get it, this is a message board, if we're not debating position x, then what are we doing here. But if the 12 team playoff were in place last year, then FSU would've been in, and positioned to prove they were more than just Jordan Travis. I don't understand what here arguing about- subjective measurements will be used to determine the final 2-3 road teams to make the dance. So what?

 

[Joe Bryant]

They (Indiana) didn't lose to an Arkansas like Tennessee. They didn't lose to an Oklahoma like Alabama.

No they did not.

But outside of Ohio State, they also didn't play any team as good as Arkansas (32) and Oklahoma (23).

 

[cheese]

They (Indiana) didn't lose to an Arkansas like Tennessee. They didn't lose to an Oklahoma like Alabama.

No they did not.

But outside of Ohio State, they also didn't play any team as good as Arkansas (32) and Oklahoma (23).

You are really nitpicking if you think there is a serious difference between those teams and Michigan/Washington. None of the 4 are anyone you should be losing to and making the playoffs.

 

[Joe Bryant]

@Capella might have thoughts on if a team has ever been omitted...

For a big Strength of Schedule guy, I went back and looked where Florida State was ranked in 2023. 78th....right between Rice and Illinois. So maybe they were taking that into account last year.

I'm sure that was their argument. And maybe it was valid. It seems like something one could argue.

You asked if anyone could ever remember a team missing out on the playoffs in their opinion. 13-0 Florida State less than a year ago was my answer.

Are you saying Florida State had no argument for getting into the playoffs?

I get it, this is a message board, if we're not debating position x, then what are we doing here. But if the 12 team playoff were in place last year, then FSU would've been in, and positioned to prove they were more than just Jordan Travis. I don't understand what here arguing about- subjective measurements will be used to determine the final 2-3 road teams to make the dance. So what?

Of course. Talking football is what we do here.

I don't know I'm arguing with my GB @General Malaise as much as I'm discussing. He asked me if I thought any team had ever been left out of the playoffs. I said I think Florida State had an argument for that last year. That's what we're talking about.

For the bigger picture on what I wish were different is the same thing but with a different cut off point. Some teams I think will be left out of the playoffs this year because it's a subjective beauty pageant and I don't like that. And it's mostly due to it being really tough to determine the best teams because they play wide range of schedules. If you let me be in charge, I'd change that as I said above.

But also as I said, I doubt that'll ever happen as the way this thing currently is, generates a ton of attention. As evidenced by this discussion. So I don't see it ever changing.

 

[Joe Bryant]

They (Indiana) didn't lose to an Arkansas like Tennessee. They didn't lose to an Oklahoma like Alabama.

No they did not.

But outside of Ohio State, they also didn't play any team as good as Arkansas (32) and Oklahoma (23).

You are really nitpicking if you think there is a serious difference between those teams and Michigan/Washington. None of the 4 are anyone you should be losing to and making the playoffs.

I see a difference between a group that has the 45th and 34th best teams (Washington and Michigan) vs a group that has the 32nd and 23rd best teams (Arkansas and Oklahoma). https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

 

[Joe Bryant]

I see a difference between a group that has the 45th and 34th best teams (Washington and Michigan) vs a group that has the 32nd and 23rd best teams (Arkansas and Oklahoma)

But mostly, I just don't like we're deciding things on subjective rankings like this. (outside of the Conference Champions of course with clearly defined pathways to get in)

 

[MAC_32]

@Capella might have thoughts on if a team has ever been omitted...

For a big Strength of Schedule guy, I went back and looked where Florida State was ranked in 2023. 78th....right between Rice and Illinois. So maybe they were taking that into account last year.

I'm sure that was their argument. And maybe it was valid. It seems like something one could argue.

You asked if anyone could ever remember a team missing out on the playoffs in their opinion. 13-0 Florida State less than a year ago was my answer.

Are you saying Florida State had no argument for getting into the playoffs?

I get it, this is a message board, if we're not debating position x, then what are we doing here. But if the 12 team playoff were in place last year, then FSU would've been in, and positioned to prove they were more than just Jordan Travis. I don't understand what here arguing about- subjective measurements will be used to determine the final 2-3 road teams to make the dance. So what?

Of course. Talking football is what we do here.

I don't know I'm arguing with my GB @General Malaise as much as I'm discussing. He asked me if I thought any team had ever been left out of the playoffs. I said I think Florida State had an argument for that last year. That's what we're talking about.

For the bigger picture on what I wish were different is the same thing but with a different cut off point. Some teams I think will be left out of the playoffs this year because it's a subjective beauty pageant and I don't like that. And it's mostly due to it being really tough to determine the best teams because they play wide range of schedules. If you let me be in charge, I'd change that as I said above.

But also as I said, I doubt that'll ever happen as the way this thing currently is, generates a ton of attention. As evidenced by this discussion. So I don't see it ever changing.

How would you change it? Sorry if I missed it, but scrolling back I don't see it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And that'll be enough from me for today. I've got an email update to write tonight. And hope that Lamar Jackson does something good.

 

[Joe Bryant]

@Capella might have thoughts on if a team has ever been omitted...

For a big Strength of Schedule guy, I went back and looked where Florida State was ranked in 2023. 78th....right between Rice and Illinois. So maybe they were taking that into account last year.

I'm sure that was their argument. And maybe it was valid. It seems like something one could argue.

You asked if anyone could ever remember a team missing out on the playoffs in their opinion. 13-0 Florida State less than a year ago was my answer.

Are you saying Florida State had no argument for getting into the playoffs?

I get it, this is a message board, if we're not debating position x, then what are we doing here. But if the 12 team playoff were in place last year, then FSU would've been in, and positioned to prove they were more than just Jordan Travis. I don't understand what here arguing about- subjective measurements will be used to determine the final 2-3 road teams to make the dance. So what?

Of course. Talking football is what we do here.

I don't know I'm arguing with my GB @General Malaise as much as I'm discussing. He asked me if I thought any team had ever been left out of the playoffs. I said I think Florida State had an argument for that last year. That's what we're talking about.

For the bigger picture on what I wish were different is the same thing but with a different cut off point. Some teams I think will be left out of the playoffs this year because it's a subjective beauty pageant and I don't like that. And it's mostly due to it being really tough to determine the best teams because they play wide range of schedules. If you let me be in charge, I'd change that as I said above.

But also as I said, I doubt that'll ever happen as the way this thing currently is, generates a ton of attention. As evidenced by this discussion. So I don't see it ever changing.

How would you change it? Sorry if I missed it, but scrolling back I don't see it.

And now I'm really out.

Easy.

I think I'm back to where I started: Nobody really knows.

The current system is a subjective beauty pageant that feels massively flawed and unfair in rewarding the best teams. And by “best teams”, I actually mean best teams.

And of course, that’s the real question here. In this current setup, defining “Best” is a challenge.

I feel certain the NCAA as a whole is not smart enough or organized enough to have intentionally orchestrated this, but it feels like they’ve locked in to system that attracts attention.

And in 2024, attention is the gold standard and primary metric.

So it seems like it’s working for them.

And I don’t see it changing anytime soon.

But if you let me be in charge: A 32 or 48-team superconference for just college football can make sense. Mike Leach talked about that and I think Chip Kelly did as well. I would put some sort of NIL salary cap factor in place and organize into two Conferences with Divisions of four teams.

Seems like we’ve seen that work pretty well…

But that’s too radical for most. It solves a problem that I may have with fairness, but it seems clear the current way gets loads of attention.

And as we said, attention is what wins.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Then you have someone like Indiana that people want to penalize because Michigan, Washington, and other really good teams from last year suck this year. It's not their fault Penn State and Oregon aren't on their schedule this year. But they have dominated almost everyone they've played which tells me they are a legit top 10 team.

This is a big point.

Yes. It's not their fault Michigan and Washington suck.

But this isn't about overlooking something that isn't their fault.

The reality is their schedule is soft outside of one game. Where they looked a team with 10 wins against a soft schedule.

I know we live in a world where everyone is good enough and we like participation trophies. But the reality is it wasn't fair to overlook the soft schedule Indiana played and push them to #5 just because they have the most losses in NCAA history and this was a feel good story.

The #5 ranking was meaningless to me. I knew if they beat Ohio State they were going to #2 or #3 and then the game with Oregon would decide if they were #1 or #5. I knew if they lost, they would drop where they belong.

Let's see where everything shakes out in the final rankings. We will probably nitpick #6 vs #7 but I doubt someone we all think is a top 4 team is the 10-seed.