OSU had two shots and blew both. If they beat Oregon OR Michigan, they're in and it would have been at the expense of Cincinnati. They had Cincy boxed out in each and every poll. Georgia would have been in under any scenario. Pure speculation there too Their one loss, by far, was of the best quality....as ridiculous as that sounds.
College Football Playoff / Bowl Selections
- Status
Illinir1
- Camdenton, MO
This means the Braggin Rights game Missouri half of the stadium will be less populated than Mizzou's recent home game vs. Paul Quinn college....
Wisconsin and tOSU I believe will be the only winners. Just a gut feeling, some tough matches in there for power style B10
Just a note that the NCAA has nothing to do with this format. The CFP was designed entirely by the 10 FBS conferences + ND. School presidents and chancellors govern the event, the 11 ADs manage it. That collective group selects the committee, who selects the teams.
The fact that they still select the teams from a subjective committee is the issue here.
For March Madness (and I know it’s not a complete Apples to Apples comparison) there are a couple ways to qualify. But one of them is the conference championship route.
The MM format is willing to leave out some of the P5 schools that didn’t perform as well and allow other schools from small conferences a chance to take the higher (13-16 ish) seeds all based on winning the conference tourney.
Bottom line: MM isn’t filled with the 64(68) best teams in the nation.
I’d rather see the CFP look like that. Maybe expand it to 6 teams and include all P5 champions and the best G5 team. That way the selection is ALL based on winning. No subjectivity about who’s losses are better or worse or which 2 loss team should still be in it or out.
If you want in, you gotta win. It’s all about the on field performance.
And it’s not like those other teams that are really good (and get left out) can’t still play a post season game. The other bowls will still exist.
Just my $.02.
For March Madness (and I know it’s not a complete Apples to Apples comparison) there are a couple ways to qualify. But one of them is the conference championship route.
The MM format is willing to leave out some of the P5 schools that didn’t perform as well and allow other schools from small conferences a chance to take the higher (13-16 ish) seeds all based on winning the conference tourney.
Bottom line: MM isn’t filled with the 64(68) best teams in the nation.
I’d rather see the CFP look like that. Maybe expand it to 6 teams and include all P5 champions and the best G5 team. That way the selection is ALL based on winning. No subjectivity about who’s losses are better or worse or which 2 loss team should still be in it or out.
If you want in, you gotta win. It’s all about the on field performance.
And it’s not like those other teams that are really good (and get left out) can’t still play a post season game. The other bowls will still exist.
Just my $.02.
Last edited:
I foresee a 63-14 Cotton Bowl Classic.
I think Michigan has a good chance against Georgia. Michigan-Alabama on paper looks like a good national championship. Better than an all $EC champ game.
I thought GA should have dropped out of the CFP and Notre Dame take the 4 seed.
1. Michigan
2. Alabama
3. Cincinnati
4 Notre Dame
If I were king of the world.
Notre Dame is very over ranked in my opinion. They only played 4 teams with winning records. They lost to Cincinnati, and beat Wisconsin (8-4), Purdue (8-4) and Toledo (7-5).
Also, played 4 away games. Another benefit of the independent schedule.
ND also doesn't play any FCS schools. Alabama, Georgia and Cincy each did so. Michigan did not
Regular season only:
Alabama played 7 home, 4 away games and 1 neutral site game
Georgia played 6 home, 5 away and 1 neutral site
Michigan played 7 home and 5 away
Cincinnati played 6 home and 6 away. They also hosted their conference championship game.
ND played 7 home, 4 away and 1neutral site. Their neutral site game was at Solider Field, and they were technically the away team.
Crazy to me that people think a one loss team with the #52 SOS, a loss to the #4 team, and zero wins against ranked opponents should be in over a one loss team with the #20 SOS, a loss to the #1 team, and 3 wins against ranked opponents. It was a no-brainer.
I think that Georgia making the CFP is very reasonable. The ESPN/SEC bias comes into play when both Alabama leap frogs Michigan AND Georgia only drops 2 places to land at 3 so there is no rematch in the semi. Ohio State dropped 4 slots after losing AT Michigan by fewer points.
There’s a fair amount of subjectivity in the CFP selection process. The committee could have just as easily made a case for Alabama and Georgia to be ranked so that they play in the semi but they didn’t so I claim SEC bias.
You really believe the 13 person committee is biased towards the SEC? Do you believe that the CFP selection process is independent, or highly connected to and influenced by ESPN? Of the 13 committee members, just 1 has direct and current ties to the SEC(Kentucky AD).
The 13 member CFP committee, the 62 member AP poll, and 63 member coaches poll all have the top 4, in the exact same order.
OSU dropped more, because it was 1) their second loss and 2) their first loss was to Oregon, who didn't even go on to win its conference. Georgia lost and had to drop. The choices were either #3 or #4. Arguments could be made for either, but I don't think what the committee ultimately picked, reflected bias. Ultimately, OSU was judged by the committee to be the best 2 loss team in the nation.
1. I don't get how not having Bama and Georgia play each other is SEC bias. The only way that's good for the SEC is if you think they're better than the other teams and it will yield you an all-SEC championship game. Otherwise, the SEC would prefer to have them play each other and guarantee one makes the championship game, right? And if they ARE the 2 better teams, then why would making them play each other in the semis be the right move?
2. This is driven by $$$. The worst thing for the CFP is bad matchups/blowouts in the championship game. It's hard to say whether the SEC teams are significantly better than Michigan or Cincinnati. If they are, the last thing you want is Alabama beating Cincinnati by 50 in your big finale. Better to get those lopsided matchups (if that's what they end up being) out of the way in the semis.
Probably because Bama has a clearly better resume, and UGA is quite deserving of #3 considering their entire body of work through the entire season.
I’m on board with your #2. And CFP/SEC/ESPN are basically one and the same, wanting to drive entertainment dollars. The subjective committee knows this and at some level is influenced by it. It’s human nature. Placing the 2 SEC teams in different semi games drives more total fan interest and viewership. The SEC wins because it guarantees 2 SEC games with a very good chance at a 3rd. If Alabama and Georgia play in the semi then the SEC is maxed at 2 games. Plus who outside of the SEC is really excited about seeing Alabama and Georgia again in the semi?
I just struggle with committee pretending that they completely ignore this and only focus on ranking teams 1 to 4 based on body of work, SOS, recent victories, blah, blah, blah. Baloney!! Unlike pro sports, as long as there is no pure objective process for determining the playoff teams and pairings there will be bias and/or claims of bias.
Agreed. ND is a fine team, but they simply haven't proven that they are playoff material.
If Georgia hadn't sucked and OkSt didn't let Baylor intercept them 14 times, we'd have a much more pleasant-looking playoff. But, here we are, with Alabama looking like the favorite. Again.
I think if Oklahoma St would've won against Baylor they would be the 4 seed over Georgia. Both resumes would've been nearly identical and conference championships are supposed to act as somewhat of a tie breaker in these situations. Of course there is a lot of subjectivity and the committee could've easily just used the "eye test" to leave it the same with minimal reasoning.
Illinir1
- Camdenton, MO
With regards to B1G teams that got bowl bids and those who didn't, I did a little exercise to look up each team's B1G rank (1-14) for total yds. of offense gained and for defense total yds. allowed. I summed each team's rank on offense and rank on defense, then sorted the teams from lowest total rank points to highest. For example, if a team was #4 in yds. gained by their offense and #7 in yds. allowed by their defense, their total rank points is 4 + 7 = 11. Results table is below. A few of the surprises to me:
1. Purdue is higher in the list than I would have thought
2. Nebraska!!! 3rd in total yards offense and 8th best yds. allowed defense. 1-8 conference and 3-9 overall. Can you say "underperformed"?
3. Michigan State total rank points 19 is the same as Illinois! MSU is ranked #11, was 7-2 in conference, 10-2 overall, had the B1G Coach of the year. Some serious smoke and mirrors there with the #14 yds. allowed defense (and #11 points/game allowed defense).
4. The last four teams in the list are the teams that did not get a bowl bid; Illinois 19, Rutgers 24, Indiana 24, Northwestern 25. Oh wait, darnit, take Rutgers out of that list. Shoulda, coulda, woulda Illinois.
1. Purdue is higher in the list than I would have thought
2. Nebraska!!! 3rd in total yards offense and 8th best yds. allowed defense. 1-8 conference and 3-9 overall. Can you say "underperformed"?
3. Michigan State total rank points 19 is the same as Illinois! MSU is ranked #11, was 7-2 in conference, 10-2 overall, had the B1G Coach of the year. Some serious smoke and mirrors there with the #14 yds. allowed defense (and #11 points/game allowed defense).
4. The last four teams in the list are the teams that did not get a bowl bid; Illinois 19, Rutgers 24, Indiana 24, Northwestern 25. Oh wait, darnit, take Rutgers out of that list. Shoulda, coulda, woulda Illinois.
| Team | Off. Rank (Total Yds.) | Def. Rank (Total Yds.) | Total |
| Michigan | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Ohio State | 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Purdue | 6 | 3 | 9 |
| Wisconsin | 8 | 1 | 9 |
| Nebraska | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| Minnesota | 9 | 2 | 11 |
| Penn State | 7 | 5 | 12 |
| Maryland | 4 | 12 | 16 |
| Iowa | 11 | 6 | 17 |
| Michigan State | 5 | 14 | 19 |
| Illinois | 10 | 9 | 19 |
| Rutgers | 13 | 11 | 24 |
| Indiana | 14 | 10 | 24 |
| Northwestern | 12 | 13 | 25 |
- Status