Top tier teams are willing to leave their State for future non con games.
USC, tOSU, FSU, Clemson, Bama, etc.
Why won't Iowa do that? What are they afraid of?
CFB Final 4
- Thread starter cmjh10
- Start date
USC, tOSU, FSU, Clemson, Bama, etc.
Why won't Iowa do that? What are they afraid of?
I wish we'd start a series with a legit OOC opponent like Wisco/LSU, OSU/OU. Would be awesome but don't see it happening.
Because him and Barta are kind of pussies about such things and like to schedule with programs they have a connection with like Pitt, Wyoming, etc. Not sure if KF has any connection with Pitt other than growing up and playing HS ball there, but he seems to like those guys.
But they aren't even doing that in the future? By not leaving the State, by not playing NDSU's anymore, how do they gain National attention and gain a strong out of conference S.O.S. when the in conference one has been weak?
Do Iowa fans hammer the administration about this? I don't know.
Also doesn't Iowa hold firm to 7 home games a year? You can't get that with 9 conference games + Iowa State unless both of your other two non-cons are at home each season. Something would have to give to either play a home-and-home or a neutral site series like Wisconsin-LSU.
Is Bowlsby finally growing a pair? Asking all of the incredibly obvious questions about how the CFP has no set criteria whatsoever from year to year.
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...tate-buckeyes-washington-huskies-make-playoff
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...tate-buckeyes-washington-huskies-make-playoff
He will ask all the questions he wants but no one will care. The Big 12 and Pac-12 are the only conferences that have been left out so far. And if the ACC gets left out in the next few years, it won't really be very surprising.
The playoff is only going to change if the SEC or B1G gets left out. They have the power in college football right now simply because they have enormous fan bases and all of the money that comes with that. The committee avoiding risking its own existence in 2014 by getting Ohio State in ahead of lowly, no tradition, small fan base TCU. They will do it again when needed.
There is incentive to schedule tough (tOSU '16, Baylor '14) and there is incentive not to (Washington '16, OU '16, Penn St '16).
Championship games matter (TCU '14/Baylor '14/tOSU '14) except when they don't (OU '15, tOSU '16).
Losing less games matters (tOSU '16/Penn St '16) except when it doesn't (WMU '16).
Hard to take a system that is so arbitrary seriously.
Championship games matter (TCU '14/Baylor '14/tOSU '14) except when they don't (OU '15, tOSU '16).
Losing less games matters (tOSU '16/Penn St '16) except when it doesn't (WMU '16).
Hard to take a system that is so arbitrary seriously.
Don't forget LSU making the championship game in 2007 with 2 losses including that traditional football powerhouse - Kentucky.
Clemson has one loss by a single point to Pitt. Michigan has 2 losses in their last 3 games. Penn State has 2 losses.
The committee got it right by taking only 1 Big Ten team.
When will the Big 12 get a clue and drop the round robin model? It screws the conference over year after year. It's great for football, but terrible for the playoff model. Round-robin makes earning a playoff-caliber record almost impossible to achieve. Especially if you play decent non-conference teams. It will be even harder next year with the Big 12 title game.
No other conference does round robin, so the committee has no more respect for going 9-0 in the Big 12 vs. Winning in the B1G by beating bottom feeders from each division (see Nebraska's schedule). All you need is a couple high profile wins, and even if you lose all the high profile games (like Wisconsin) you're still in the running - because you only to lost the best teams. Unless playoff is expanded to 8 teams, the Big 12 is going to have a very hard time competing against all the bloated records in the B1G and other super-conferences.
The round robin plus the CCG starting next year makes it a near certainty that a 12-1 Big 12 champion would be in the playoff though. They can't dodge the good teams.
Go back just one year to Iowa and the B1G West, which was horrible. If Iowa had dropped a regular season game, but had beaten Michigan State to go 12-1 with a B1G title, they probably would have been left out because they dodged all of the good teams in the conference. The Big 12 can't do that.
It will be more difficult to go 12-1 in the Big 12 but if you get to that point you'll be in every time. Because of this it might drive the big boys away from difficult non-con games.
Bowlsby should know this answer, but I'm glad he's asking it. If you aren't in the SEC or the B1G, you will be getting screwed over. Pretty simple really.
It doesn't matter how good you are, or whether you won your conference, or whether you played anyone, etc.
This only has a benefit for one Big 12 team if they happen to go 12-1, which will be rare with a schedule like Oklahoma + Championship. Meanwhile B1G has 4 teams lined up for every possible situation. Each with only a couple wins over teams with winning records, but who cares - they only have two losses. All but one are ranked ahead of Oklahoma.
Round robin and 10 team league makes it impossible to have multiple contenders like that. With the politics stacked in B1G and SEC favor the way they are, Big 12 can get used to watching from home.
I preferred the 11 team version of the Big 10, but as it stands they aren't going to have less than 14 teams so their schedules won't change. Same with the SEC. The Big 12's best option is still to add teams in my opinion. That way they too can avoid the round robin schedule. If Oklahoma had one loss this year they would be in over Washington or Clemson. I think the committee got the 4 teams right. None of the 4 has more than one loss which seems pretty straightforward. None of them have a bad loss either. It doesn't change that TCU got jobbed two years ago, but it's time to move on from that. Winning the conference championship is one criterion they look at, but not the end all be all.
