2025 College Football Thread: “Lane won’t do the same thing he’s done for 18 years to us!” LSU says to itself (37 Viewers)

[Desert_Power]

If Texas had played another cupcake instead of OSU, would they be in the playoffs? If USC, like several of its Big 10 colleagues, had played three cupcakes instead of including Notre Dame, would they be in the playoffs? Or at least not decisively out? Is the playoff structure even further incentivizing schools to avoid marquee out of conference matchups?

I think the playoff incentivizes you not to lose to the worst Florida team in the last 30 years, lose by 4 touchdowns to Georgia and need OT to beat those crap Kentucky and Miss State teams.

Everybody is looking at that Ohio State game wrongly. The incentive there wasn’t to avoid a loss, it was to gain a victory that would have clinched a playoff spot for them. That loss with the rest of their results should keep them out.

It's a fun sidestep but what's your opinion on the question he actually asked?

Yeah, I’m not trying to make an argument in favor of Texas. I’m exploring the consequence of their decision to schedule OSU and how that may impact how other teams schedule their OOC games from here on out, particularly with the SEC dropping from 4 such games to 3.

I don't think many SEC teams are going to schedule these type of games, especially those OOC rivals already.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I think the marquee OOC games will continue with little thought about the impact to playoff chances. We're moving to 16 sooner rather than later, there is money to be made here fellas. Just wait until the PE guys get their hands on this thing and really wring it out from the inside.

This year's Texas team is clearly in at 10-2, but it doesn't work that way - who knows how the rest of their season would have played out with a game against Purdue week 1 instead of Ohio State. ADs would be foolish to deprive their fans of these matchups due to concerns about the postseason.

I think a lot of thought will be given to the issue, though keeping the marquee matchup may ultimately win out. USC is pissing off half their hard core fan base over the Notre Dame issue.

Do they (the hardcore base) think they'd be on the outside looking in if they'd beaten everyone on their schedule sans ND?

 

[AAABatteries]

If Texas had played another cupcake instead of OSU, would they be in the playoffs? If USC, like several of its Big 10 colleagues, had played three cupcakes instead of including Notre Dame, would they be in the playoffs? Or at least not decisively out? Is the playoff structure even further incentivizing schools to avoid marquee out of conference matchups?

I think the playoff incentivizes you not to lose to the worst Florida team in the last 30 years, lose by 4 touchdowns to Georgia and need OT to beat those crap Kentucky and Miss State teams.

Everybody is looking at that Ohio State game wrongly. The incentive there wasn’t to avoid a loss, it was to gain a victory that would have clinched a playoff spot for them. That loss with the rest of their results should keep them out.

It's a fun sidestep but what's your opinion on the question he actually asked?

Yeah, I’m not trying to make an argument in favor of Texas. I’m exploring the consequence of their decision to schedule OSU and how that may impact how other teams schedule their OOC games from here on out, particularly with the SEC dropping from 4 such games to 3.

I don't think many SEC teams are going to schedule these type of games, especially those OOC rivals already.

There's still money and recruiting to consider and not just the playoff. Maybe my school isn't the best example as we aren't a top-10 team but GT has games with Tennessee and Notre Dame on the upcoming schedule and I think those games will stay. I'm not 100% convinced I'm right but I think especially once they expand to 16 then teams will realize they can benefit from those games in most circumstances.

 

[General Malaise]

UVA plays Duke in the ACC championship game. If UVA wins they will get into the CFP.

Interestingly, if Duke wins they might get passed over for a group of 5 team. The rules don't allow another top conference team into the CFP (ie Miami). But the weakest top conference champion can get dropped for a group of 5. In this case 10-1 James Madison, who is a solid team but has beaten nobody noteworthy.

I think UVA handles this game easily. Quite a mess though if JMU gets in with their best win being maybe against a 5-6 Wash State team

Crazy thing I learned today: The Virginia loss to NC State was NOT a conference game, therefore, the loss has no impact on their standing in the ACC. What. The. Fork?

 

[bigbottom]

I think the marquee OOC games will continue with little thought about the impact to playoff chances. We're moving to 16 sooner rather than later, there is money to be made here fellas. Just wait until the PE guys get their hands on this thing and really wring it out from the inside.

This year's Texas team is clearly in at 10-2, but it doesn't work that way - who knows how the rest of their season would have played out with a game against Purdue week 1 instead of Ohio State. ADs would be foolish to deprive their fans of these matchups due to concerns about the postseason.

I think a lot of thought will be given to the issue, though keeping the marquee matchup may ultimately win out. USC is pissing off half their hard core fan base over the Notre Dame issue.

Do they (the hardcore base) think they'd be on the outside looking in if they'd beaten everyone on their schedule sans ND?

I’m not sure what they think about that particular question. But the majority of the hard core fan base wants to keep the annual ND game. The administration on the other hand is weighing how that plays with their goal of making the playoffs.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I think the marquee OOC games will continue with little thought about the impact to playoff chances. We're moving to 16 sooner rather than later, there is money to be made here fellas. Just wait until the PE guys get their hands on this thing and really wring it out from the inside.

This year's Texas team is clearly in at 10-2, but it doesn't work that way - who knows how the rest of their season would have played out with a game against Purdue week 1 instead of Ohio State. ADs would be foolish to deprive their fans of these matchups due to concerns about the postseason.

I think a lot of thought will be given to the issue, though keeping the marquee matchup may ultimately win out. USC is pissing off half their hard core fan base over the Notre Dame issue.

Do they (the hardcore base) think they'd be on the outside looking in if they'd beaten everyone on their schedule sans ND?

I’m not sure what they think about that particular question. But the majority of the hard core fan base wants to keep the annual ND game. The administration on the other hand is weighing how that plays with their goal of making the playoffs.

Oh. Is USC saying they are dropping the game because of B1G schedule or some such? Your post (to me) read the opposite. That if they hadn't lost to ND things would be different.

 

[AAABatteries]

UVA plays Duke in the ACC championship game. If UVA wins they will get into the CFP.

Interestingly, if Duke wins they might get passed over for a group of 5 team. The rules don't allow another top conference team into the CFP (ie Miami). But the weakest top conference champion can get dropped for a group of 5. In this case 10-1 James Madison, who is a solid team but has beaten nobody noteworthy.

I think UVA handles this game easily. Quite a mess though if JMU gets in with their best win being maybe against a 5-6 Wash State team

Crazy thing I learned today: The Virginia loss to NC State was NOT a conference game, therefore, the loss has no impact on their standing in the ACC. What. The. Fork?

There was some kind of scheduling issue, and they were not scheduled to play each out in conference. They added this game to get both teams to 12 games.

 

[bigbottom]

I think the marquee OOC games will continue with little thought about the impact to playoff chances. We're moving to 16 sooner rather than later, there is money to be made here fellas. Just wait until the PE guys get their hands on this thing and really wring it out from the inside.

This year's Texas team is clearly in at 10-2, but it doesn't work that way - who knows how the rest of their season would have played out with a game against Purdue week 1 instead of Ohio State. ADs would be foolish to deprive their fans of these matchups due to concerns about the postseason.

I think a lot of thought will be given to the issue, though keeping the marquee matchup may ultimately win out. USC is pissing off half their hard core fan base over the Notre Dame issue.

Do they (the hardcore base) think they'd be on the outside looking in if they'd beaten everyone on their schedule sans ND?

I’m not sure what they think about that particular question. But the majority of the hard core fan base wants to keep the annual ND game. The administration on the other hand is weighing how that plays with their goal of making the playoffs.

Oh. Is USC saying they are dropping the game because of B1G schedule or some such? Your post (to me) read the opposite. That if they hadn't lost to ND things would be different.

USC and Notre Dame have yet to come to an agreement on the terms for continuing their annual football rivalry. A whole bunch of USC’s die hard fan base is up in arms because they love the rivalry’s tradition. But here is what the administration is saying about it if you are interested. I posted this a couple weeks ago and it’s hard to argue with the logic.

Another popular topic for media coverage and national conversation of late has been our non-conference football scheduling.

Our ultimate goal, one that we can all align with, is to compete for and win Big Ten and College Football Playoff championships. Playing nine games annually in the toughest conference in college football to qualify for a playoff for which future selection criteria remain uncertain, we have a limited number of strategic levers to pull in pursuit of that goal.

Non-conference scheduling is among the most important of these levers. Not only is it among the few factors entirely within our control, but who we schedule – and when and where we schedule them – also has a meaningful impact on our program's record, our student-athletes' health and wellness, and our preparedness.

First, the when and where: for the well-being of our student-athletes, and to schedule equitably with our Big Ten rivals, we want to play our non-conference opponents in the Coliseum as early as possible every year.

USC is the only team in the Big Ten to play a non-conference road game after Week 4 in either of the past two seasons. USC is also the only team to play a non-conference game after Week 4 in both seasons. Moreover, the only other Big Ten teams to play non-conference games after Week 4 in either the 2024 or 2025 seasons played at home against Group of 5 foes (UCLA vs. Fresno State, 11/30/24; Northwestern vs. UL-Monroe, 10/4/25).

Meanwhile, last year's College Football Playoff champions finished fourth in the Big Ten and played all their non-conference games at home in Weeks 1-3. An additional road trip in the middle of conference play – without key players – may have stressed their roster beyond its limits or cost them a third defeat and eliminated them from playoff contention. Instead, they qualified despite two Big Ten losses.

Intentionally making our road to the CFP significantly more difficult than our Big Ten peers does not align with our goal to win championships. That said, we want to play meaningful games, and we recognize USC's unique position in college football history. USC is the only FBS program that has never played an FCS opponent. We embrace challenging matchups – they prepare us for conference play, excite our fan base, and grow our brand and revenues.

That is why, of our three non-conference games each year, we will schedule at least one Power 4 opponent. If that opponent is a rival with whom we share a long and storied tradition, all the better.

Strategic scheduling is a key competitive advantage, and it is one we must align on. If we don't, we will allow our rivals to leverage us against ourselves, and that can never happen. Trojans are fighters, and we must fight on, together.

Our non-conference scheduling decisions will be based on feedback from stakeholders across the Trojan Family; deliberation with Coach Riley, my trusted staff, and University leadership; and the experience and perspective I've gathered from three decades of experience in college athletics. Most importantly, our decision will be based on what is best for the success of our football program.

We are excited about a 2026 home schedule that features conference matchups against Ohio State, Oregon, Washington, and Maryland – as well as trips to Indiana, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Rutgers – and we look forward to sharing news on our non-conference football schedule in the near future.

 

[AAABatteries]

I'm sure I'm wrong on this but this is I think what I'm reading/understanding:

Locks: OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Ole Miss

Win and in: Alabama, BYU, 2 from Virginia/Tulane/Duke/JMU/Boise

Should (could) get in: Oklahoma, ND/Miami,

I see no plausible way they make it: Texas, Vandy, Utah

Basically, everybody will be rooting for Texas Tech Saturday. The nightmare scenario for the playoff committee is Duke and BYU win. In that scenario, BYU, Duke (or JMU) and Tulane take 3 spots and 2 from Alabama/Oklahoma/Notre Dame/Miami get left out (assuming UGA wins SEC). If Bama wins SEC, then 2 from Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Miami get left out.

Final guess:
OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Alabama, Virginia, Tulane, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Ole Miss - I've heard people speculate about Ole Miss being left out with Kiffin leaving but the only scenario I could see that is if the portal opened before they announce and a bunch of kids leave but it doesn't open. Playoff field is set on 12/7 and portal opens 12/9.

Ok, what did I get wrong here?

ETA: I think I had the wrong date on the transfer portal (last year's date it appears) but it seems like it's even later in to January so same applies. I know they kind of screwed FSU (even though I agreed with it) but I don't see them doing the same thing for a coach.

 

[nirad3]

Happy to see my Horns get by ATM, bummed that they crapped the bed in Gainesville - which'll keep them out of the playoffs. I am a homer, so definitely biased, but I don't think a lot of teams would have wanted to see them in the playoffs. Once they get their defensive captain back, they woulda been a tough out.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I'm sure I'm wrong on this but this is I think what I'm reading/understanding:

Locks: OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Ole Miss

Win and in: Alabama, BYU, 2 from Virginia/Tulane/Duke/JMU/Boise

Should (could) get in: Oklahoma, ND/Miami,

I see no plausible way they make it: Texas, Vandy, Utah

Basically, everybody will be rooting for Texas Tech Saturday. The nightmare scenario for the playoff committee is Duke and BYU win. In that scenario, BYU, Duke (or JMU) and Tulane take 3 spots and 2 from Alabama/Oklahoma/Notre Dame/Miami get left out (assuming UGA wins SEC). If Bama wins SEC, then 2 from Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Miami get left out.

Final guess:
OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Alabama, Virginia, Tulane, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Ole Miss - I've heard people speculate about Ole Miss being left out with Kiffin leaving but the only scenario I could see that is if the portal opened before they announce and a bunch of kids leave but it doesn't open. Playoff field is set on 12/7 and portal opens 12/9.

Ok, what did I get wrong here?

ETA: I think I had the wrong date on the transfer portal (last year's date it appears) but it seems like it's even later in to January so same applies. I know they kind of screwed FSU (even though I agreed with it) but I don't see them doing the same thing for a coach.

I agree with all of this.

Personally, regardless of what happens this weekend, I think ND is undeniably one of the 10 best teams in the country. If they get left out, it will be their own fault. Sucks, but it can happen. Missing the playoff while on a dominant 10-game winning streak, 2 losses by a total of 4 points, one on a botched PAT to two top 15 teams is a tough pill to swallow. But if the chips fall that way, they can only blame themselves. They had chances to win at both Miami and vs. TAMU.

 

[GregR]

If Texas had played another cupcake instead of OSU, would they be in the playoffs? If USC, like several of its Big 10 colleagues, had played three cupcakes instead of including Notre Dame, would they be in the playoffs? Or at least not decisively out? Is the playoff structure even further incentivizing schools to avoid marquee out of conference matchups?

Solely from a view of "do what's best to make the playoffs", I think whether a team should schedule top teams or cupcakes depends entirely on the team's situation with the rest of their schedule and how they expect they'll do.

It is a rare loss that is going to count as better than a win over even a cupcake. #12 team taking #1 to triple overtime in a dramatic hard-fought loss might be worth more than a victory against winless U Mass, might even move them up a spot in the rankings. But outside of extreme cases like that, the loss usually hurts you worse.

But the win against a good opponent is also worth a lot more than the cupcake win.

So it comes down to how you feel about the rest of your schedule. With how you think you'll be end of season with the opponents you faced, if you think you're going to struggle to get in, then you probably want to gamble on playing a higher echelon team even if the loss will keep you out.

A good analogy is a PAT or going for two. The PAT is worth half as much, but it's more likely to succeed. So you go for 2 when you think you need that extra boost from the additional point that comes with success.


That is just based on draconian only care about making the playoffs though. I think one could make good arguments that rivalry games and high profile games are of a benefit to the schools involved and to the overall sport, in ways that definitely should be included in the decision.

 

[TennesseeJed]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

"Where are we at with Vandy?"

Analyst: "Allstate playoff predictor has them at a 5% chance of making the playoffs? Should we tell them?"

"He just had his first 10-win season since 1923 and crushed his rival. LET HIM DANCE!"


queue Vandy Pimp song...

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

UVA plays Duke in the ACC championship game. If UVA wins they will get into the CFP.

Interestingly, if Duke wins they might get passed over for a group of 5 team. The rules don't allow another top conference team into the CFP (ie Miami). But the weakest top conference champion can get dropped for a group of 5. In this case 10-1 James Madison, who is a solid team but has beaten nobody noteworthy.

I think UVA handles this game easily. Quite a mess though if JMU gets in with their best win being maybe against a 5-6 Wash State team

Crazy thing I learned today: The Virginia loss to NC State was NOT a conference game, therefore, the loss has no impact on their standing in the ACC. What. The. Fork?

Easy travel and both teams wanted a P4 OOC instead of scheduling Richmond or Campbell.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I'm sure I'm wrong on this but this is I think what I'm reading/understanding:

Locks: OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Ole Miss

Win and in: Alabama, BYU, 2 from Virginia/Tulane/Duke/JMU/Boise

Should (could) get in: Oklahoma, ND/Miami,

I see no plausible way they make it: Texas, Vandy, Utah

Basically, everybody will be rooting for Texas Tech Saturday. The nightmare scenario for the playoff committee is Duke and BYU win. In that scenario, BYU, Duke (or JMU) and Tulane take 3 spots and 2 from Alabama/Oklahoma/Notre Dame/Miami get left out (assuming UGA wins SEC). If Bama wins SEC, then 2 from Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Miami get left out.

Final guess:
OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Alabama, Virginia, Tulane, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Ole Miss - I've heard people speculate about Ole Miss being left out with Kiffin leaving but the only scenario I could see that is if the portal opened before they announce and a bunch of kids leave but it doesn't open. Playoff field is set on 12/7 and portal opens 12/9.

Ok, what did I get wrong here?

ETA: I think I had the wrong date on the transfer portal (last year's date it appears) but it seems like it's even later in to January so same applies. I know they kind of screwed FSU (even though I agreed with it) but I don't see them doing the same thing for a coach.

I'd love to know what A&M has done to be a lock other than SEC bias. They have 7 SEC wins against the bottom 8. They only good win is ND, which Miami has too.

 

[Jayded]

I feel like this keeps coming up, but curious what others would say - is the playoffs about getting the most deserving teams or the best teams?

Obviously the answer is both in an ideal world. But with increased parity, we are likely to see more years like this where you have a BYU team screaming deserving and teams like Texas trying to scream best.

This is less a debate amongst specific teams this year or years past, but a forward looking question. How should the committee truly weigh these two concepts? A team with one more loss in a tough conference vs a team with fewer losses but an easier schedule where people would argue most feel the former would win on the field?

I think that answer will tell us what to expect of directional OOC schedules in the future.

 

[AAABatteries]

I'm sure I'm wrong on this but this is I think what I'm reading/understanding:

Locks: OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Ole Miss

Win and in: Alabama, BYU, 2 from Virginia/Tulane/Duke/JMU/Boise

Should (could) get in: Oklahoma, ND/Miami,

I see no plausible way they make it: Texas, Vandy, Utah

Basically, everybody will be rooting for Texas Tech Saturday. The nightmare scenario for the playoff committee is Duke and BYU win. In that scenario, BYU, Duke (or JMU) and Tulane take 3 spots and 2 from Alabama/Oklahoma/Notre Dame/Miami get left out (assuming UGA wins SEC). If Bama wins SEC, then 2 from Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Miami get left out.

Final guess:
OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Alabama, Virginia, Tulane, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Ole Miss - I've heard people speculate about Ole Miss being left out with Kiffin leaving but the only scenario I could see that is if the portal opened before they announce and a bunch of kids leave but it doesn't open. Playoff field is set on 12/7 and portal opens 12/9.

Ok, what did I get wrong here?

ETA: I think I had the wrong date on the transfer portal (last year's date it appears) but it seems like it's even later in to January so same applies. I know they kind of screwed FSU (even though I agreed with it) but I don't see them doing the same thing for a coach.

I'd love to know what A&M has done to be a lock other than SEC bias. They have 7 SEC wins against the bottom 8. They only good win is ND, which Miami has too.

That’s just how I read it but I also agree with it. Even playing the bottom 8 in the SEC their wins are more impressive than Miami’s. Missouri, Auburn and LSU >> Pitt, NC State and Stanford which I think are Miami’s best ACC wins. I guess you can swap in Florida but LSU and Missouri are good teams.

 

[General Malaise]

Ohio St and Indiana should play their back-ups only. IMO. Or 3rd string. Or just forfeit.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I think the marquee OOC games will continue with little thought about the impact to playoff chances. We're moving to 16 sooner rather than later, there is money to be made here fellas. Just wait until the PE guys get their hands on this thing and really wring it out from the inside.

This year's Texas team is clearly in at 10-2, but it doesn't work that way - who knows how the rest of their season would have played out with a game against Purdue week 1 instead of Ohio State. ADs would be foolish to deprive their fans of these matchups due to concerns about the postseason.

I think a lot of thought will be given to the issue, though keeping the marquee matchup may ultimately win out. USC is pissing off half their hard core fan base over the Notre Dame issue.

Do they (the hardcore base) think they'd be on the outside looking in if they'd beaten everyone on their schedule sans ND?

I’m not sure what they think about that particular question. But the majority of the hard core fan base wants to keep the annual ND game. The administration on the other hand is weighing how that plays with their goal of making the playoffs.

Oh. Is USC saying they are dropping the game because of B1G schedule or some such? Your post (to me) read the opposite. That if they hadn't lost to ND things would be different.

USC and Notre Dame have yet to come to an agreement on the terms for continuing their annual football rivalry. A whole bunch of USC’s die hard fan base is up in arms because they love the rivalry’s tradition. But here is what the administration is saying about it if you are interested. I posted this a couple weeks ago and it’s hard to argue with the logic.

Another popular topic for media coverage and national conversation of late has been our non-conference football scheduling.

Our ultimate goal, one that we can all align with, is to compete for and win Big Ten and College Football Playoff championships. Playing nine games annually in the toughest conference in college football to qualify for a playoff for which future selection criteria remain uncertain, we have a limited number of strategic levers to pull in pursuit of that goal.

Non-conference scheduling is among the most important of these levers. Not only is it among the few factors entirely within our control, but who we schedule – and when and where we schedule them – also has a meaningful impact on our program's record, our student-athletes' health and wellness, and our preparedness.

First, the when and where: for the well-being of our student-athletes, and to schedule equitably with our Big Ten rivals, we want to play our non-conference opponents in the Coliseum as early as possible every year.

USC is the only team in the Big Ten to play a non-conference road game after Week 4 in either of the past two seasons. USC is also the only team to play a non-conference game after Week 4 in both seasons. Moreover, the only other Big Ten teams to play non-conference games after Week 4 in either the 2024 or 2025 seasons played at home against Group of 5 foes (UCLA vs. Fresno State, 11/30/24; Northwestern vs. UL-Monroe, 10/4/25).

Meanwhile, last year's College Football Playoff champions finished fourth in the Big Ten and played all their non-conference games at home in Weeks 1-3. An additional road trip in the middle of conference play – without key players – may have stressed their roster beyond its limits or cost them a third defeat and eliminated them from playoff contention. Instead, they qualified despite two Big Ten losses.

Intentionally making our road to the CFP significantly more difficult than our Big Ten peers does not align with our goal to win championships. That said, we want to play meaningful games, and we recognize USC's unique position in college football history. USC is the only FBS program that has never played an FCS opponent. We embrace challenging matchups – they prepare us for conference play, excite our fan base, and grow our brand and revenues.

That is why, of our three non-conference games each year, we will schedule at least one Power 4 opponent. If that opponent is a rival with whom we share a long and storied tradition, all the better.

Strategic scheduling is a key competitive advantage, and it is one we must align on. If we don't, we will allow our rivals to leverage us against ourselves, and that can never happen. Trojans are fighters, and we must fight on, together.

Our non-conference scheduling decisions will be based on feedback from stakeholders across the Trojan Family; deliberation with Coach Riley, my trusted staff, and University leadership; and the experience and perspective I've gathered from three decades of experience in college athletics. Most importantly, our decision will be based on what is best for the success of our football program.

We are excited about a 2026 home schedule that features conference matchups against Ohio State, Oregon, Washington, and Maryland – as well as trips to Indiana, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Rutgers – and we look forward to sharing news on our non-conference football schedule in the near future.

Thanks!

And I agree it makes sense. I'll never understand why people think it matters how a team splits up their OOC schedule. The completeness of your schedule is what should be evaluated. So it sounds like USC is open to continuing to play ND, but they want to do it early in the season.

 

[bigbottom]

I think the marquee OOC games will continue with little thought about the impact to playoff chances. We're moving to 16 sooner rather than later, there is money to be made here fellas. Just wait until the PE guys get their hands on this thing and really wring it out from the inside.

This year's Texas team is clearly in at 10-2, but it doesn't work that way - who knows how the rest of their season would have played out with a game against Purdue week 1 instead of Ohio State. ADs would be foolish to deprive their fans of these matchups due to concerns about the postseason.

I think a lot of thought will be given to the issue, though keeping the marquee matchup may ultimately win out. USC is pissing off half their hard core fan base over the Notre Dame issue.

Do they (the hardcore base) think they'd be on the outside looking in if they'd beaten everyone on their schedule sans ND?

I’m not sure what they think about that particular question. But the majority of the hard core fan base wants to keep the annual ND game. The administration on the other hand is weighing how that plays with their goal of making the playoffs.

Oh. Is USC saying they are dropping the game because of B1G schedule or some such? Your post (to me) read the opposite. That if they hadn't lost to ND things would be different.

USC and Notre Dame have yet to come to an agreement on the terms for continuing their annual football rivalry. A whole bunch of USC’s die hard fan base is up in arms because they love the rivalry’s tradition. But here is what the administration is saying about it if you are interested. I posted this a couple weeks ago and it’s hard to argue with the logic.

Another popular topic for media coverage and national conversation of late has been our non-conference football scheduling.

Our ultimate goal, one that we can all align with, is to compete for and win Big Ten and College Football Playoff championships. Playing nine games annually in the toughest conference in college football to qualify for a playoff for which future selection criteria remain uncertain, we have a limited number of strategic levers to pull in pursuit of that goal.

Non-conference scheduling is among the most important of these levers. Not only is it among the few factors entirely within our control, but who we schedule – and when and where we schedule them – also has a meaningful impact on our program's record, our student-athletes' health and wellness, and our preparedness.

First, the when and where: for the well-being of our student-athletes, and to schedule equitably with our Big Ten rivals, we want to play our non-conference opponents in the Coliseum as early as possible every year.

USC is the only team in the Big Ten to play a non-conference road game after Week 4 in either of the past two seasons. USC is also the only team to play a non-conference game after Week 4 in both seasons. Moreover, the only other Big Ten teams to play non-conference games after Week 4 in either the 2024 or 2025 seasons played at home against Group of 5 foes (UCLA vs. Fresno State, 11/30/24; Northwestern vs. UL-Monroe, 10/4/25).

Meanwhile, last year's College Football Playoff champions finished fourth in the Big Ten and played all their non-conference games at home in Weeks 1-3. An additional road trip in the middle of conference play – without key players – may have stressed their roster beyond its limits or cost them a third defeat and eliminated them from playoff contention. Instead, they qualified despite two Big Ten losses.

Intentionally making our road to the CFP significantly more difficult than our Big Ten peers does not align with our goal to win championships. That said, we want to play meaningful games, and we recognize USC's unique position in college football history. USC is the only FBS program that has never played an FCS opponent. We embrace challenging matchups – they prepare us for conference play, excite our fan base, and grow our brand and revenues.

That is why, of our three non-conference games each year, we will schedule at least one Power 4 opponent. If that opponent is a rival with whom we share a long and storied tradition, all the better.

Strategic scheduling is a key competitive advantage, and it is one we must align on. If we don't, we will allow our rivals to leverage us against ourselves, and that can never happen. Trojans are fighters, and we must fight on, together.

Our non-conference scheduling decisions will be based on feedback from stakeholders across the Trojan Family; deliberation with Coach Riley, my trusted staff, and University leadership; and the experience and perspective I've gathered from three decades of experience in college athletics. Most importantly, our decision will be based on what is best for the success of our football program.

We are excited about a 2026 home schedule that features conference matchups against Ohio State, Oregon, Washington, and Maryland – as well as trips to Indiana, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Rutgers – and we look forward to sharing news on our non-conference football schedule in the near future.

Thanks!

And I agree it makes sense. I'll never understand why people think it matters how a team splits up their OOC schedule. The completeness of your schedule is what should be evaluated. So it sounds like USC is open to continuing to play ND, but they want to do it early in the season.

Yes, but I think ND has already committed one of those early spots to another school and they like having the USC matchup later in the season, so it’s a bit of a game of chicken right now.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'm sure I'm wrong on this but this is I think what I'm reading/understanding:

Locks: OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Ole Miss

Win and in: Alabama, BYU, 2 from Virginia/Tulane/Duke/JMU/Boise

Should (could) get in: Oklahoma, ND/Miami,

I see no plausible way they make it: Texas, Vandy, Utah

Basically, everybody will be rooting for Texas Tech Saturday. The nightmare scenario for the playoff committee is Duke and BYU win. In that scenario, BYU, Duke (or JMU) and Tulane take 3 spots and 2 from Alabama/Oklahoma/Notre Dame/Miami get left out (assuming UGA wins SEC). If Bama wins SEC, then 2 from Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Miami get left out.

Final guess:
OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Alabama, Virginia, Tulane, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Ole Miss - I've heard people speculate about Ole Miss being left out with Kiffin leaving but the only scenario I could see that is if the portal opened before they announce and a bunch of kids leave but it doesn't open. Playoff field is set on 12/7 and portal opens 12/9.

Ok, what did I get wrong here?

ETA: I think I had the wrong date on the transfer portal (last year's date it appears) but it seems like it's even later in to January so same applies. I know they kind of screwed FSU (even though I agreed with it) but I don't see them doing the same thing for a coach.

I'd love to know what A&M has done to be a lock other than SEC bias. They have 7 SEC wins against the bottom 8. They only good win is ND, which Miami has too.

Agree here. I don't get the love. It has to be driven by the rankings and the old philosophy of "move up the ranks as long as you win and people in front of you lose". But the resume is not all that impressive to me.

 

[AAABatteries]

Ohio St and Indiana should play their back-ups only. IMO. Or 3rd string. Or just forfeit.

As a neutral, I'm just excited to watch the game. But your point is valid if you (or I) dismiss the Big 10 title. I think both end up top 4 no matter the outcome.

Indiana is sure to want to win the B1GCG as it's their first appearance.

 

[AAABatteries]

I'm sure I'm wrong on this but this is I think what I'm reading/understanding:

Locks: OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Ole Miss

Win and in: Alabama, BYU, 2 from Virginia/Tulane/Duke/JMU/Boise

Should (could) get in: Oklahoma, ND/Miami,

I see no plausible way they make it: Texas, Vandy, Utah

Basically, everybody will be rooting for Texas Tech Saturday. The nightmare scenario for the playoff committee is Duke and BYU win. In that scenario, BYU, Duke (or JMU) and Tulane take 3 spots and 2 from Alabama/Oklahoma/Notre Dame/Miami get left out (assuming UGA wins SEC). If Bama wins SEC, then 2 from Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Miami get left out.

Final guess:
OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Alabama, Virginia, Tulane, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Ole Miss - I've heard people speculate about Ole Miss being left out with Kiffin leaving but the only scenario I could see that is if the portal opened before they announce and a bunch of kids leave but it doesn't open. Playoff field is set on 12/7 and portal opens 12/9.

Ok, what did I get wrong here?

ETA: I think I had the wrong date on the transfer portal (last year's date it appears) but it seems like it's even later in to January so same applies. I know they kind of screwed FSU (even though I agreed with it) but I don't see them doing the same thing for a coach.

I'd love to know what A&M has done to be a lock other than SEC bias. They have 7 SEC wins against the bottom 8. They only good win is ND, which Miami has too.

Agree here. I don't get the love. It has to be driven by the rankings and the old philosophy of "move up the ranks as long as you win and people in front of you lose". But the resume is not all that impressive to me.

I'd argue it's just as impressive as Texas Tech's and Oregon's (just looking at wins)

Notre Dame, Missouri, LSU > BYU, Utah, Kansas State (for me)

Notre Dame, Missouri, LSU > Iowa, USC, Washington (again, for me)

Missouri is damn good - they went 8-4 with their 4 losses being to top-10 teams.

 

[Moe.]

I think the marquee OOC games will continue with little thought about the impact to playoff chances. We're moving to 16 sooner rather than later, there is money to be made here fellas. Just wait until the PE guys get their hands on this thing and really wring it out from the inside.

This year's Texas team is clearly in at 10-2, but it doesn't work that way - who knows how the rest of their season would have played out with a game against Purdue week 1 instead of Ohio State. ADs would be foolish to deprive their fans of these matchups due to concerns about the postseason.

I think a lot of thought will be given to the issue, though keeping the marquee matchup may ultimately win out. USC is pissing off half their hard core fan base over the Notre Dame issue.

Isn't the USC/ND thing more about the timing of the game? USC wants the flexibility to schedule other marquee schools and not have a tough OOC game in Oct/Nov was my impression based on the statement from the AD you posted, but you know more there obviously.

These games are scheduled so far out, I really don't see the ADs dialing it back. I get that fans will talk about it, but it would take a lot of time for the overall strategy to adjust, and by then we're probably on a different iteration of the playoff. I think we can find just as many examples of a big win helping a team get in (Texas two years ago comes to mind) vs. a loss keeping them out. This is only the second year of this, I think ADs take a longer view and won't overreact but I guess we shall see.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I'm sure I'm wrong on this but this is I think what I'm reading/understanding:

Locks: OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Ole Miss

Win and in: Alabama, BYU, 2 from Virginia/Tulane/Duke/JMU/Boise

Should (could) get in: Oklahoma, ND/Miami,

I see no plausible way they make it: Texas, Vandy, Utah

Basically, everybody will be rooting for Texas Tech Saturday. The nightmare scenario for the playoff committee is Duke and BYU win. In that scenario, BYU, Duke (or JMU) and Tulane take 3 spots and 2 from Alabama/Oklahoma/Notre Dame/Miami get left out (assuming UGA wins SEC). If Bama wins SEC, then 2 from Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Miami get left out.

Final guess:
OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Alabama, Virginia, Tulane, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Ole Miss - I've heard people speculate about Ole Miss being left out with Kiffin leaving but the only scenario I could see that is if the portal opened before they announce and a bunch of kids leave but it doesn't open. Playoff field is set on 12/7 and portal opens 12/9.

Ok, what did I get wrong here?

ETA: I think I had the wrong date on the transfer portal (last year's date it appears) but it seems like it's even later in to January so same applies. I know they kind of screwed FSU (even though I agreed with it) but I don't see them doing the same thing for a coach.

I'd love to know what A&M has done to be a lock other than SEC bias. They have 7 SEC wins against the bottom 8. They only good win is ND, which Miami has too.

Agree here. I don't get the love. It has to be driven by the rankings and the old philosophy of "move up the ranks as long as you win and people in front of you lose". But the resume is not all that impressive to me.

I'd argue it's just as impressive as Texas Tech's and Oregon's (just looking at wins)

Notre Dame, Missouri, LSU > BYU, Utah, Kansas State (for me)

Notre Dame, Missouri, LSU > Iowa, USC, Washington (again, for me)

Missouri is damn good - they went 8-4 with their 4 losses being to top-10 teams.

Missouri didn't beat anyone. I think it was Mississippi State and a bunch of scrubs. Utah is better than Missouri and K-State and LSU are about the same as 40 other mediocre teams.

Texas and Alabama have far better resumes than Texas A&M despite each having a bad loss. Both have way better wins. I could get behind A&M over Miami and both over Notre Dame and BYU though.

 

[AAABatteries]

I'm sure I'm wrong on this but this is I think what I'm reading/understanding:

Locks: OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Ole Miss

Win and in: Alabama, BYU, 2 from Virginia/Tulane/Duke/JMU/Boise

Should (could) get in: Oklahoma, ND/Miami,

I see no plausible way they make it: Texas, Vandy, Utah

Basically, everybody will be rooting for Texas Tech Saturday. The nightmare scenario for the playoff committee is Duke and BYU win. In that scenario, BYU, Duke (or JMU) and Tulane take 3 spots and 2 from Alabama/Oklahoma/Notre Dame/Miami get left out (assuming UGA wins SEC). If Bama wins SEC, then 2 from Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Miami get left out.

Final guess:
OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Alabama, Virginia, Tulane, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Ole Miss - I've heard people speculate about Ole Miss being left out with Kiffin leaving but the only scenario I could see that is if the portal opened before they announce and a bunch of kids leave but it doesn't open. Playoff field is set on 12/7 and portal opens 12/9.

Ok, what did I get wrong here?

ETA: I think I had the wrong date on the transfer portal (last year's date it appears) but it seems like it's even later in to January so same applies. I know they kind of screwed FSU (even though I agreed with it) but I don't see them doing the same thing for a coach.

I'd love to know what A&M has done to be a lock other than SEC bias. They have 7 SEC wins against the bottom 8. They only good win is ND, which Miami has too.

Agree here. I don't get the love. It has to be driven by the rankings and the old philosophy of "move up the ranks as long as you win and people in front of you lose". But the resume is not all that impressive to me.

I'd argue it's just as impressive as Texas Tech's and Oregon's (just looking at wins)

Notre Dame, Missouri, LSU > BYU, Utah, Kansas State (for me)

Notre Dame, Missouri, LSU > Iowa, USC, Washington (again, for me)

Missouri is damn good - they went 8-4 with their 4 losses being to top-10 teams.

Missouri didn't beat anyone. I think it was Mississippi State and a bunch of scrubs. Utah is better than Missouri and K-State and LSU are about the same as 40 other mediocre teams.

Texas and Alabama have far better resumes than Texas A&M despite each having a bad loss. Both have way better wins. I could get behind A&M over Miami and both over Notre Dame and BYU though.

We can just agree to disagree on Missouri. Are you saying you would take Texas over A&M, ND and Miami?

I agree that was a "weak" SEC schedule compared with others but that's not A&M's fault and they have the ultimate Trump card over Notre Dame.

 

[Sammy3469]

I'm not sure why any Big10/SEC team would schedule marquee OOC games given the current playoff construct where losses seem to matter more than anything else. You are almost 100% guaranteed to be in the playoff if you can get in by being 7-1 in your conference (and you're even better off getting to 7-1 and not playing in your conference championship...cough Bama cough where a bad OCC loss could keep them out if they lose to Georgia). The only benefit a good OOC win gets you is if you are 6-2 (OU) and it effectively eliminated 6-2 Texas, Michigan, and USC.

 

[bolzano]

I feel like this keeps coming up, but curious what others would say - is the playoffs about getting the most deserving teams or the best teams?

Obviously the answer is both in an ideal world. But with increased parity, we are likely to see more years like this where you have a BYU team screaming deserving and teams like Texas trying to scream best.

The question of desert depends on the purpose of the thing we’re talking about. In this case, it’s the playoffs for the national championship, which is supposed to determine the best team. So, best = most deserving, and thus the system has failed if the selection criteria is not weighted towards teams like Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami, and Texas.

 

[AAABatteries]

I feel like this keeps coming up, but curious what others would say - is the playoffs about getting the most deserving teams or the best teams?

Obviously the answer is both in an ideal world. But with increased parity, we are likely to see more years like this where you have a BYU team screaming deserving and teams like Texas trying to scream best.

The question of desert depends on the purpose of the thing we’re talking about. In this case, it’s the playoffs for the national championship, which is supposed to determine the best team. So, best = most deserving, and thus the system has failed if the selection criteria is not weighted towards teams like Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami, and Texas.

How does this math work?

 

[Moe.]

I'm not sure why any Big10/SEC team would schedule marquee OOC games given the current playoff construct where losses seem to matter more than anything else. You are almost 100% guaranteed to be in the playoff if you can get in by being 7-1 in your conference (and you're even better off getting to 7-1 and not playing in your conference championship...cough Bama cough where a bad OCC loss could keep them out if they lose to Georgia). The only benefit a good OOC win gets you is if you are 6-2 (OU) and it effectively eliminated 6-2 Texas, Michigan, and USC.

I think it's a little premature to be drawing these conclusions though. It's been two years, and the SEC hasn't even gone to 9 yet.

One of the teams actually wins the game, and it ends up being helpful to them. OU-Michigan basically created a playoff swing game for those two teams. Replace Michigan with a patsy and I wouldn't be able to argue for OU over Miami or BYU.

 

[Jayded]

I feel like this keeps coming up, but curious what others would say - is the playoffs about getting the most deserving teams or the best teams?

Obviously the answer is both in an ideal world. But with increased parity, we are likely to see more years like this where you have a BYU team screaming deserving and teams like Texas trying to scream best.

The question of desert depends on the purpose of the thing we’re talking about. In this case, it’s the playoffs for the national championship, which is supposed to determine the best team. So, best = most deserving, and thus the system has failed if the selection criteria is not weighted towards teams like Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami, and Texas.

But at what point does it tip over? I can agree a G5 school with 1 loss is not better than Texas in nearly every instance. But BYU is technically in a P4 conference. I think Texas wins, but BYU is more deserving. How do you make it most “fair” to both in that equation just because I think Texas would likely win?

 

[General Malaise]

Ohio St and Indiana should play their back-ups only. IMO. Or 3rd string. Or just forfeit.

As a neutral, I'm just excited to watch the game. But your point is valid if you (or I) dismiss the Big 10 title. I think both end up top 4 no matter the outcome.

Indiana is sure to want to win the B1GCG as it's their first appearance.

Just seems like the risk of injury is too great to go all-in here when it likely means so little (other than Indiana getting to celebrate their first championship).

I don't know ANY Oregon fans who point to their Big10 Championship last year as a point of pride, even if it was their 1st. All it got them was a date with Ohio State and a demoralizing end to their season.

 

[Moe.]

BYU's non-conference isn't egregious at all. They have one loss and are behind some two loss teams, so I don't think we can say it's all about wins and losses. BYU got jobbed last year though so maybe the biggest thing is to just be a name brand school, that way the narrative gets bent to fit whatever you need.

 

[Yo Mama]

I think the committee really handcuffs themselves by releasing these rankings weekly. If they just waited until after all the conference title games were complete, they could make up whatever criteria they think make sense to get the most deserving teams in and could react to upsets and how they impact the overall field.

The way it works now is they come up with and have to justify certain criteria for things like head to head, good wins, bad losses, records, schedule strength, etc early on and then get stuck to that line of thinking (and previous week rankings) going forward.

Just let the networks do bracketology projections every week and then simply release the official ranking and playoff brackets once after everything is done. You only have to explain your reasoning once and don’t have to backtrack on any earlier rankings.

For example, aside from another ND loss, what would it have taken for the committee to change their rankings to move Miami ahead of ND in their final rankings this week? There’s no way (IMO) they’d be able to justify a switch of those two at this point since they made the decision to put ND higher than Miami a few weeks ago. My conspiracy thinking is this is also why they moved Alabama below ND and have BYU higher than Miami, so they can explain why h2h doesn’t matter for ND/UM. If they didn’t have to do rankings until the end, it would have been “easier” on the commitee to move Miami ahead if they felt them more deserving (I’m not saying they are/aren’t, just that the committee would have more flexibility).

 

[AAABatteries]

I think the committee really handcuffs themselves by releasing these rankings weekly. If they just waited until after all the conference title games were complete, they could make up whatever criteria they think make sense to get the most deserving teams in and could react to upsets and how they impact the overall field.

The way it works now is they come up with and have to justify certain criteria for things like head to head, good wins, bad losses, records, schedule strength, etc early on and then get stuck to that line of thinking (and previous week rankings) going forward.

Just let the networks do bracketology projections every week and then simply release the official ranking and playoff brackets once after everything is done. You only have to explain your reasoning once and don’t have to backtrack on any earlier rankings.

For example, aside from another ND loss, what would it have taken for the committee to change their rankings to move Miami ahead of ND in their final rankings this week? There’s no way (IMO) they’d be able to justify a switch of those two at this point since they made the decision to put ND higher than Miami a few weeks ago. My conspiracy thinking is this is also why they moved Alabama below ND and have BYU higher than Miami, so they can explain why h2h doesn’t matter for ND/UM. If they didn’t have to do rankings until the end, it would have been “easier” on the commitee to move Miami ahead if they felt them more deserving (I’m not saying they are/aren’t, just that the committee would have more flexibility).

What will the Paul Finebaum fans watch during that hour if they don’t release them during the year?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I'm sure I'm wrong on this but this is I think what I'm reading/understanding:

Locks: OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Ole Miss

Win and in: Alabama, BYU, 2 from Virginia/Tulane/Duke/JMU/Boise

Should (could) get in: Oklahoma, ND/Miami,

I see no plausible way they make it: Texas, Vandy, Utah

Basically, everybody will be rooting for Texas Tech Saturday. The nightmare scenario for the playoff committee is Duke and BYU win. In that scenario, BYU, Duke (or JMU) and Tulane take 3 spots and 2 from Alabama/Oklahoma/Notre Dame/Miami get left out (assuming UGA wins SEC). If Bama wins SEC, then 2 from Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Miami get left out.

Final guess:
OSU, Indiana, UGA, Oregon, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Alabama, Virginia, Tulane, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Ole Miss - I've heard people speculate about Ole Miss being left out with Kiffin leaving but the only scenario I could see that is if the portal opened before they announce and a bunch of kids leave but it doesn't open. Playoff field is set on 12/7 and portal opens 12/9.

Ok, what did I get wrong here?

ETA: I think I had the wrong date on the transfer portal (last year's date it appears) but it seems like it's even later in to January so same applies. I know they kind of screwed FSU (even though I agreed with it) but I don't see them doing the same thing for a coach.

I'd love to know what A&M has done to be a lock other than SEC bias. They have 7 SEC wins against the bottom 8. They only good win is ND, which Miami has too.

Agree here. I don't get the love. It has to be driven by the rankings and the old philosophy of "move up the ranks as long as you win and people in front of you lose". But the resume is not all that impressive to me.

I'd argue it's just as impressive as Texas Tech's and Oregon's (just looking at wins)

Notre Dame, Missouri, LSU > BYU, Utah, Kansas State (for me)

Notre Dame, Missouri, LSU > Iowa, USC, Washington (again, for me)

Missouri is damn good - they went 8-4 with their 4 losses being to top-10 teams.

Missouri didn't beat anyone. I think it was Mississippi State and a bunch of scrubs. Utah is better than Missouri and K-State and LSU are about the same as 40 other mediocre teams.

Texas and Alabama have far better resumes than Texas A&M despite each having a bad loss. Both have way better wins. I could get behind A&M over Miami and both over Notre Dame and BYU though.

We can just agree to disagree on Missouri. Are you saying you would take Texas over A&M, ND and Miami?

I agree that was a "weak" SEC schedule compared with others but that's not A&M's fault and they have the ultimate Trump card over Notre Dame.

Texas beat A&M head to head last weekend and also beat Oklahoma and Vanderbilt so yeah that's more impressive than a single ND win three months ago.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I think the committee really handcuffs themselves by releasing these rankings weekly. If they just waited until after all the conference title games were complete, they could make up whatever criteria they think make sense to get the most deserving teams in and could react to upsets and how they impact the overall field.

The way it works now is they come up with and have to justify certain criteria for things like head to head, good wins, bad losses, records, schedule strength, etc early on and then get stuck to that line of thinking (and previous week rankings) going forward.

Just let the networks do bracketology projections every week and then simply release the official ranking and playoff brackets once after everything is done. You only have to explain your reasoning once and don’t have to backtrack on any earlier rankings.

For example, aside from another ND loss, what would it have taken for the committee to change their rankings to move Miami ahead of ND in their final rankings this week? There’s no way (IMO) they’d be able to justify a switch of those two at this point since they made the decision to put ND higher than Miami a few weeks ago. My conspiracy thinking is this is also why they moved Alabama below ND and have BYU higher than Miami, so they can explain why h2h doesn’t matter for ND/UM. If they didn’t have to do rankings until the end, it would have been “easier” on the commitee to move Miami ahead if they felt them more deserving (I’m not saying they are/aren’t, just that the committee would have more flexibility).

The committee claims if Miami is in the same tier as ND, then head to head will come into play. Miami has to be in the same tier tomorrow. They performed better in the common opponents argument.

 

[Moe.]

I think the committee really handcuffs themselves by releasing these rankings weekly. If they just waited until after all the conference title games were complete, they could make up whatever criteria they think make sense to get the most deserving teams in and could react to upsets and how they impact the overall field.

The way it works now is they come up with and have to justify certain criteria for things like head to head, good wins, bad losses, records, schedule strength, etc early on and then get stuck to that line of thinking (and previous week rankings) going forward.

Just let the networks do bracketology projections every week and then simply release the official ranking and playoff brackets once after everything is done. You only have to explain your reasoning once and don’t have to backtrack on any earlier rankings.

For example, aside from another ND loss, what would it have taken for the committee to change their rankings to move Miami ahead of ND in their final rankings this week? There’s no way (IMO) they’d be able to justify a switch of those two at this point since they made the decision to put ND higher than Miami a few weeks ago. My conspiracy thinking is this is also why they moved Alabama below ND and have BYU higher than Miami, so they can explain why h2h doesn’t matter for ND/UM. If they didn’t have to do rankings until the end, it would have been “easier” on the commitee to move Miami ahead if they felt them more deserving (I’m not saying they are/aren’t, just that the committee would have more flexibility).

I am fine with them doing it weekly, the TV partners need something to broadcast, but I wish they would come out and say it's for funsies and we aren't beholden to previous weeks, the only ranking that matters is the last one, etc.

I don't care about criteria or consistency from week to week or anything like that - just give me the bracket that you think makes the most sense once all the games are done. I do agree with you that they feel like they have to justify changes from one week to the next, but I don't think it should be that way.

 

[Yo Mama]

If Alabama wins and BYU loses this week, you could have ND and Miami ranked 10/11. The committee has said all along h2h doesn’t come into play here because they were ranked too far apart for it to matter. Do they still keep ND as last team in and Miami last team out if the rankings are like this? I guess they can put Ole Miss in between them.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

BYU's non-conference isn't egregious at all. They have one loss and are behind some two loss teams, so I don't think we can say it's all about wins and losses. BYU got jobbed last year though so maybe the biggest thing is to just be a name brand school, that way the narrative gets bent to fit whatever you need.

East Carolina, Stanford, and Portland State? East Carolina might be okay but Stanford is terrible and Portland State? BYU wasn't even competitive in the Texas Tech game.

 

[General Malaise]

Texas should have beaten Florida.

 

[Moe.]

BYU's non-conference isn't egregious at all. They have one loss and are behind some two loss teams, so I don't think we can say it's all about wins and losses. BYU got jobbed last year though so maybe the biggest thing is to just be a name brand school, that way the narrative gets bent to fit whatever you need.

East Carolina, Stanford, and Portland State? East Carolina might be okay but Stanford is terrible and Portland State? BYU wasn't even competitive in the Texas Tech game.

I said that it wasn't egregious. It's an ACC team, a team from the American who is not bad, and an FCS team. Very much in-line with the rest of the at-large contenders. I wouldn't have them in either, but it's clearly not just based on wins and losses alone is my point.

 

[bolzano]

I feel like this keeps coming up, but curious what others would say - is the playoffs about getting the most deserving teams or the best teams?

Obviously the answer is both in an ideal world. But with increased parity, we are likely to see more years like this where you have a BYU team screaming deserving and teams like Texas trying to scream best.

The question of desert depends on the purpose of the thing we’re talking about. In this case, it’s the playoffs for the national championship, which is supposed to determine the best team. So, best = most deserving, and thus the system has failed if the selection criteria is not weighted towards teams like Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami, and Texas.

How does this math work?

He inquired about how the system should work, not necessarily how it’s going to play out. I’m also not saying that all four of those teams should make it. But, I don’t think any of those four teams should be omitted in favor of BYU, Boise State, Virginia, Duke, Tulane, North Texas or JMU. If that happens, it’s frustrating the purpose of the CFP, and therefore we need to reevaluate the selection criteria (e.g., getting rid of automatic bids to conference champs).

 

[nirad3]

Texas should have beaten Florida.

Such a bad loss. I knew it was going to happen, too. Gainseville is a tough spot to play but that's no excuse. UT should have won by 2 TDs. Not that it matters, but if those teams played now they would crush the Gators.

 

[AAABatteries]

I feel like this keeps coming up, but curious what others would say - is the playoffs about getting the most deserving teams or the best teams?

Obviously the answer is both in an ideal world. But with increased parity, we are likely to see more years like this where you have a BYU team screaming deserving and teams like Texas trying to scream best.

The question of desert depends on the purpose of the thing we’re talking about. In this case, it’s the playoffs for the national championship, which is supposed to determine the best team. So, best = most deserving, and thus the system has failed if the selection criteria is not weighted towards teams like Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami, and Texas.

How does this math work?

He inquired about how the system should work, not necessarily how it’s going to play out. I’m also not saying that all four of those teams should make it. But, I don’t think any of those four teams should be omitted in favor of BYU, Boise State, Virginia, Duke, Tulane, North Texas or JMU. If that happens, it’s frustrating the purpose of the CFP, and therefore we need to reevaluate the selection criteria (e.g., getting rid of automatic bids to conference champs).

I more meant "what does that mean?" - weighted in what way? Are you just suggesting the "eye test"? I don't see much value in arguing about Duke and Tulane as that is just the current rule and they have to stick to it. I do think that possible nightmare scenario should convince them to either move (faster) to 16, adjust the rules to prevent a Duke situation or just pick the 12 best teams without any rules.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I feel like this keeps coming up, but curious what others would say - is the playoffs about getting the most deserving teams or the best teams?

Obviously the answer is both in an ideal world. But with increased parity, we are likely to see more years like this where you have a BYU team screaming deserving and teams like Texas trying to scream best.

The question of desert depends on the purpose of the thing we’re talking about. In this case, it’s the playoffs for the national championship, which is supposed to determine the best team. So, best = most deserving, and thus the system has failed if the selection criteria is not weighted towards teams like Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami, and Texas.

How does this math work?

He inquired about how the system should work, not necessarily how it’s going to play out. I’m also not saying that all four of those teams should make it. But, I don’t think any of those four teams should be omitted in favor of BYU, Boise State, Virginia, Duke, Tulane, North Texas or JMU. If that happens, it’s frustrating the purpose of the CFP, and therefore we need to reevaluate the selection criteria (e.g., getting rid of automatic bids to conference champs).

I more meant "what does that mean?" - weighted in what way? Are you just suggesting the "eye test"? I don't see much value in arguing about Duke and Tulane as that is just the current rule and they have to stick to it. I do think that possible nightmare scenario should convince them to either move (faster) to 16, adjust the rules to prevent a Duke situation or just pick the 12 best teams without any rules.

The rules are adjusted to prevent a Duke situation. JMU is about to show us that if Duke wins.

 

[AAABatteries]

I feel like this keeps coming up, but curious what others would say - is the playoffs about getting the most deserving teams or the best teams?

Obviously the answer is both in an ideal world. But with increased parity, we are likely to see more years like this where you have a BYU team screaming deserving and teams like Texas trying to scream best.

The question of desert depends on the purpose of the thing we’re talking about. In this case, it’s the playoffs for the national championship, which is supposed to determine the best team. So, best = most deserving, and thus the system has failed if the selection criteria is not weighted towards teams like Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami, and Texas.

How does this math work?

He inquired about how the system should work, not necessarily how it’s going to play out. I’m also not saying that all four of those teams should make it. But, I don’t think any of those four teams should be omitted in favor of BYU, Boise State, Virginia, Duke, Tulane, North Texas or JMU. If that happens, it’s frustrating the purpose of the CFP, and therefore we need to reevaluate the selection criteria (e.g., getting rid of automatic bids to conference champs).

I more meant "what does that mean?" - weighted in what way? Are you just suggesting the "eye test"? I don't see much value in arguing about Duke and Tulane as that is just the current rule and they have to stick to it. I do think that possible nightmare scenario should convince them to either move (faster) to 16, adjust the rules to prevent a Duke situation or just pick the 12 best teams without any rules.

The rules are adjusted to prevent a Duke situation. JMU is about to show us that if Duke wins.

That's not the adjustment I would be talking about. I would skip them altogether, everything else being equal.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Missouri is damn good - they went 8-4 with their 4 losses being to top-10 teams.

I see Missouri as an ok team who lost to the best teams on their schedule.

 

[Instinctive]

I feel like this keeps coming up, but curious what others would say - is the playoffs about getting the most deserving teams or the best teams?

Obviously the answer is both in an ideal world. But with increased parity, we are likely to see more years like this where you have a BYU team screaming deserving and teams like Texas trying to scream best.

The question of desert depends on the purpose of the thing we’re talking about. In this case, it’s the playoffs for the national championship, which is supposed to determine the best team. So, best = most deserving, and thus the system has failed if the selection criteria is not weighted towards teams like Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami, and Texas.

How does this math work?

He inquired about how the system should work, not necessarily how it’s going to play out. I’m also not saying that all four of those teams should make it. But, I don’t think any of those four teams should be omitted in favor of BYU, Boise State, Virginia, Duke, Tulane, North Texas or JMU. If that happens, it’s frustrating the purpose of the CFP, and therefore we need to reevaluate the selection criteria (e.g., getting rid of automatic bids to conference champs).

I more meant "what does that mean?" - weighted in what way? Are you just suggesting the "eye test"? I don't see much value in arguing about Duke and Tulane as that is just the current rule and they have to stick to it. I do think that possible nightmare scenario should convince them to either move (faster) to 16, adjust the rules to prevent a Duke situation or just pick the 12 best teams without any rules.

The rules are adjusted to prevent a Duke situation. JMU is about to show us that if Duke wins.

Yeah the ACC may want to adjust to make playoff ranking the first tiebreaker for conference title but otherwise I don't think duke winning gets them in.

 

[Instinctive]

Does Duke winning allow Miami to get in as an at large? Or is there a rule that prevents taking a team from a conference unless that conference champ is also going?