Need UNLV to win and obviously us to win. That's the only way we get a bye.
***OFFICIAL CFP Rankings Show Watch Thread***
- Thread starter ISUCyclones2015
- Start date
We'll have to wait and see, but I think the Big 12 winner will jump ahead of some (if not all) of the 3-loss teams who are idle.
I think the Big XII winner gets put at 12. If Boise and/or SMU lose they get put behind the XII champ. Bama will stay one spot ahead due to rea$on$
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
People will still complain - look at the B1G West situation where a 1-loss East team would whine and moan about not making the the CCG against a 3-loss West division team - but your point stands. That 1-loss East team would have already lost to the East champion. At least there’s a hierarchy of wins and losses that makes sense when crowning a conference champion, rather than “record against the next-highest finishing team” or whatever.
The Boise thing is so stupid on many levels. The fact that the Big12 is locked in to either a road game against a potentially elite opponent or gets a bye is wild. Just two extremely different outcomes that isn’t based on how they perform but if Boise freeking state wins or not.
Again. No G5 team should ever be eligible for a bye and losing to a G5 like ND did should exclude you from the playoff
IMO the Big 12 needs to add a 10th game and make the final week a flex week. I'm not saying pair up the #1 and #2 team but you can massage schedules for the top teams to potentially add a quality data point. IMO they are going to have to try to do something unique in order to help their cause. A 12 team or 16 team won't matter, the deck will still be stacked.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
That’s still a bye and a 4 seed, which I’d take in a heartbeat. As long as they don’t jump Clemson or UNLV above ISU/ASU, which isn’t a given.
Nah then you end up with wildly unbalanced divisions like the big ten west. No one is arguing the two best teams being in the conference championship game is a bad idea
Need SMU and/or Boise to lose to get the bye, and odds are Clemson jumps the XII champ for it if they win
Iowa lost one home game all season. That win at against 8-4 Iowa should carry more weight than it is.
Last edited:
Are you suggesting the flex game be determined mid/end season? Wild idea that will never happen for a bunch of reasons but that’s very creative
The committee completely screwed themselves when they put Boise at 12 in their first rankings release. Attrition ahead of them meant they had to move them up, and now they're entirely too high. It also put a floor to how far some of the top teams could fall after a loss.
I bet they'd handle that differently in retrospect if they were given a mulligan. And, honestly, their G5 love is the only horrendously wrong thing in the current rankings, imo.
Yep, 100%
Boise State is getting all the credit in the world for a close loss. Even their lone former quality win over Washington State is a nothingburger now. They did beat UNLV but who has UNLV beaten? Kansas who the top Big 12 teams lost to but still not a quality win.
I made this comment after the UCF win that as a non football brand school and a team outside the P2 conferences, style points matter more for us than others. And in that regard, we have taken some lumps.
We didn't blow out our FCS opponent. We needed a miracle FG to beat a good but not great iowa team. We needed late heroics to beat a good not great UCF. Utah was a narrow one, and KSU outplayed us in a lot of aspects we just came out on the right side of the turnover battle.
Our losses weren't great either. It is better to lose early in the season, ours were late. And back to back. We lost as a double digit home favorite to TT. And while KU had a little hot streak, they ended 5-7 on the year. So neither of those are going to be looked at as a quality loss. And it dug us a late season hole that we didn't have enough time to climb out of.
Sure, the committee has a history of favoring the blue bloods. But we gave them the chips they need to make it happen. If we would have held on against TT, or bounced back against KU, or opened up a couple of those wins instead of grinding out CMC style nail biters, we wouldn't be having this debate.
Boise has some similar issues, but their loss was early, and quality. And they are a known football brand at this point. We gave the committee just enough wiggle room to look out for Cinderella.
We didn't blow out our FCS opponent. We needed a miracle FG to beat a good but not great iowa team. We needed late heroics to beat a good not great UCF. Utah was a narrow one, and KSU outplayed us in a lot of aspects we just came out on the right side of the turnover battle.
Our losses weren't great either. It is better to lose early in the season, ours were late. And back to back. We lost as a double digit home favorite to TT. And while KU had a little hot streak, they ended 5-7 on the year. So neither of those are going to be looked at as a quality loss. And it dug us a late season hole that we didn't have enough time to climb out of.
Sure, the committee has a history of favoring the blue bloods. But we gave them the chips they need to make it happen. If we would have held on against TT, or bounced back against KU, or opened up a couple of those wins instead of grinding out CMC style nail biters, we wouldn't be having this debate.
Boise has some similar issues, but their loss was early, and quality. And they are a known football brand at this point. We gave the committee just enough wiggle room to look out for Cinderella.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
But his point being at least the teams had played each other is valid. If you miss out on a CCG spot because your only loss was to somebody in your division, well, I guess that team already proved they’re better on the field, right? And if a weaker team from the other division ends up winning an upset, well , aren’t wins on the field supposed to mean something?
Is the use of arcane legalistic tiebreakers to determine CCG participants because they hadn’t played each other actually a more definitive process?
Im just not a fan of teams losing to other teams in their conference getting a second-chance consolation prize of a playoff berth because their division is stronger. You had a chance to prove it on the field, you didn’t do it, move on.
But I live in a fantasy world apparently where on-field results don’t matter as much as vibes and reputation and eye test and the like …
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
But that’s what you said - your premise included a loss by either Boise or SMU. And yes, it looks like the committee is primed to jump Clemson if they win anyway.
It’s really not. The logistics is a mess, who loses the home game in this situation, also the top teams might have already played each other, finally no school would agree to it to risk the additional loss if they were already a top team.
It could very well hurt more years then it helps epically right before the championship game
The easiest way I think would be to determine which half of the conference got the home game on that date before the season and then decide the opponent sometime in October but I'm still not sure that leaves teams enough time to book hotels. I suppose you could have the Big 12 conference book the hotels in advance.
nobody loses a home game, each team would have 4 normal home games then every other year you would get a 5th home game just like they do now.
