Been a while since we've talked any college football, so i thought i'd throw this nightmare scenario for the College Football Playoff committee out there:

Washington runs the table and finishes as the 13-0 Pac 12 champ. (Will be tough, but definitely possible.)

Florida State runs the table and finishes as the 13-0 ACC champ. (Highly likely..)

Michigan (or Ohio State, take your pick) runs the table and finishes as the 13-0 Big 10 champ. (Highly likely that the winner of the OSU-Michigan game finishes the year unbeaten.)

Texas runs the table and finishes as the 12-1 Big 12 champ. (No worse odds than a coin flip; Texas will be favored in every game it has left on the schedule, including the Big 12 title game if they get there.)

Alabama beats Georgia in the SEC championship game. Alabama is the 12-1 SEC champ, but lost to Texas. Georgia finishes 12-1, but is not the SEC champ, and lost to Alabama (who lost to Texas).

Who are the committee's 4 playoff teams? And does the SEC get left out? (Gasp, the horror.)

I originally read this to read "The CFPB nightmare scenario" before I realized in what forum this was posted and thought "good god" what did they do now.

Same!

Ha!

Me too! I thought maybe the Court had leaked something about their CFPB funding decision.

LOL. What does it say about them when we all immediately think the same thing?

As for the football thing, I hope it all blows up just like you said. It would make a great case for a 8+ team playoff.

The 12 team playoff begins next year.

In that scenario, I think it will be the 3 unbeatens and the SEC champ. SEC will be included over the BIG 12 champ due to strength of schedule and a bias towards the SEC.

I agree that that's what they'll do, and i agree it's because of a bias towards the SEC. "Strength of schedule" is highly subjective. Everyone seems to be forgetting all the non-conference losses by the SEC earlier in the year, which evidently means nothing now.

Like others, I originally read this as "CFPB." But that's your nightmare scenario right there: CFPB decides that CFP rankings are "unfair" and initiates enforcement action.

Of course they don't have the authority. But when has that stopped them before?

that's some funny stuff right there. Everyone knows thet SEC has a unwritten contract with NCAA that guarantees them no less than 1 slot in the final playoff brackets.

True dat.

In your scenario, I think this would be another year with two SEC teams. Bama and Georgia will both receive an invite. Michigan will get spot three. The fourth, if both Wash and FSU finish unbeaten, will pretty much come down to their strengths of schedule and a look at who is highest rated overall at the time.

The SEC champ is practically guaranteed a spot. So if Bama wins, they're in. With Georgia being practically unbeatable over the last couple of years, not inviting them would cause mass hysteria in the media. So, both 1-loss SEC teams would "outrank" the 12-1 Big 12 champ.

I seriously cannot wait for the 12 team playoff.

Burkemi, good to talk to you again, but i think it's crazy talk to suggest that if Washington, Florida State, and Michigan are unbeaten, that somehow the 4 teams in are going to include Georgia AND Alabama if Bama wins. So you think in my scenario, unbeaten Florida State and 1-loss Texas (who beat Bama, who would have beaten Georgia) would sit at home while BOTH Bama and Georgia got in????

Personally, i would welcome "mass hysteria in the media"........because that means ESPN, and ESPN has caused all of this stupidity.

Hi raitch! Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's way I think SHOULD happen, just saying I'm betting that's the way it WILL happen.

If you'll remember in the big conversation from a few years ago, I've always been in favor of a 12-team playoff. That will prevent this from happening and give the Boise States of the NCAA world a fair shot.

But - I think it's a moot point anyway. Bama can't keep up with Georgia. Georgia will finish unbeaten.....at 15-0.

Georgia ain't winning it all. Mark my words. (However, i do agree they'll beat--maybe even smoke--Bama.) But my money's on Michigan or Oregon.

I actually think it would be hilarious if Texas makes the playoff and wins it all.....then next year they join the SEC as the national champ and the only team that beat the national champ.

I actually hope you're right about GA. I hope they don't!!!!

But back to your original question - If that occurs, there's no scenario that Texas gets in. The only other option that will occur is a 12-1 SEC champ and 3 unbeatens. Like it, love it, hate it, or somewhere in between - as is the perpetual thorn in your side, a like-record SEC champ will outrank a like-record Big 12 champ. Especially given that the loss occurred super early in the season.

Or how's this....

Bama
Georgia
Texas
and only 1 unbeaten??????

That would really ruffle some feathers! Hahahahah

Even some of the talking heads at ESPN are saying that Texas' win over Bama will put Texas in over Bama...i'm not saying that's guaranteed, cuz who knows what 12 dudes and dudettes will do, but i think your statement that "there's no scenario that Texas gets in" is out there. I think the hysteria will occur if Texas wins, Bama wins, and Texas DOESN'T get in, but Bama does. Texas isn't TCU or Baylor.....they're a brand too, and there will be a major backlash if they don't get in in that scenario.

And i love (not really) your "super early in the season" disclaimer.....so very SEC of you. Seriously though, i hear that in the media now.....like that means nothing. Early in the season, late in the season, middle of the season....i don't get it. A loss is a loss.

Out of conference losses in the SEC will NEVER be late in the season, cuz every SEC school is fighting to schedule The Citadel in November.

Not to split hair - but you used that very argument on me once before!

Prove it.

Really, though, this is the crux of the 4-team playoff. Will the backlash be greater or lesser if an SEC school doesn't get it? The argument is circular and there is no actual answer. The 4 team is little better, if any at all, than the old BCS championship game. Although, Cincy REALLY didn't do any favors for the "they deserve a fair shot" schools. lol

You'll either have to believe me or choose not to. No way am I digging that much! lol

'm sure you remember, i think a 4 team playoff is stupid, and i'm glad this is the last year of it. But the SEC shouldn't be immune to getting hosed like Baylor and TCU did a few years back. The SEC hasn't been the best conference this year.

I love my Bama and really want them to beat GA. But they are going to have to stop shooting themselves in the foot. They should have beaten Auburn 44-24 but had those 2 touchdowns revoked due to penalties. They can't play like that against GA and win. I honestly think that the SEC championship game will be the only championship game we play in this year. But we have a young team with a quarterback who has steadily improved this season and two more years to play for Bama. I have high hopes for next year!

Boise State and University of Utah (pre PAC 12) beating power 5 schools in their Power 6 bowl games is enough evidence to show that mid-majors deserve a puncher's chance. They probably won't win the title, but they can be a Cinderella story and play spoiler once in a while. It's always a big story in March Madness, so why wouldn't CFP want to have that dynamic with a 12 team playoff?

Matt - I completely agree! I keep going back to the Boise era where they only lost something like 3 games in 4 years (working purely off memory - so my numbers may not be quite exact). In either case, the punchline is - They aren't good enough, but a 2-loss LSU is. I'm sooooo looking forward to next year's playoff. And it's actually coming a year too late. This would be a prime year for the expansion.

I've been a proponent of the group of 5 having representation for at least the last decade....totally agree. I'm not happy with a system where 60% of the schools playing FBS football have zero chance to win the national championship on September 1st.

One more thought.....it drives me absolutely nuts the way the media (that's ESPN, if it wasn't already clear) drives this narrative that what schools did last year, 2 years ago, 8 years ago, or heck, 15 years ago is somehow relevant. Has anyone been paying attention to the college football landscape the last 5 years?? NIL, transfer portal, early exits to the NFL.....the turnover rate for every team in America is insane.......WAY more turnover than the NFL. But somehow, we're all supposed to buy into this thing that "well, Team A or Conference A" was sooooooooo good last year (or last decade), that they have to be given the benefit of the doubt. Stupid. In no sport played in America is each year's a new year more true than college football.

couldn't agree with you more!

But Michigan is likely to see their wins wiped due to their cheating by stealing signals.

From your lips to God's ear.

Go Dawgs!

Will be interesting to see how that plays out. I don't really disagree with you, except that if it happens, i think it will be well after the games have been played. Wish they would hurry things up a bit....either Michigan should get disqualified for this year's championship now, or they should be able to keep going and win it all. I won't be a fan of the process if somehow nexts summer Michigan's championship (if it happens) is taken away. I mean.......it's stealing signs....the allegations have been out there for weeks if not months. How long is this investigation gonna take?

I think the Big 10 took action to try and head off NCAA action, but I don't think the penalty was enough to avoid an NCAA pile-on.

I agree with you about that.

The problem with vacating the championship and wins is that it's basically meaningless. If it happens, the kids have already played the games. They won the games. They played in the championship. They have the memorabilia. So besides striking from the official record - what exactly are they taking away???

stealing signs...

sounds like he's gunning for Belichik's job

If he's stealing signs, he REALLY needs to get better at cheating! lol

So this exact scenario has come to pass. Have to assume that Michigan and Washington are absolutely in. Either Texas, Alabama or Florida State is going to feel like they got hosed. We'll find out Sunday.

FSU did get hosed. Michigan should be ineligible because of their cheating.

Well, well, well...... So glad Bama played their best game Saturday! The CFP has decided Bama will play in the Championship playoffs. I know they put all sorts of variable in their algorithms but I do feel sorry for FSU. To be the ACC champ and undefeated this season, they had every right to expect they would be in the playoffs.

I love SEC football - but even I have to say the committee is wrong. Kudos to Bama for the win, but that spot should have gone to Florida St.

My main takeaway is this, and i've been saying it for a decade: the 4-team playoff has never made sense in a power 5 conference world. It's not that Bama, or Texas, or FSU isn't worthy.....they're all worthy of the playoff. The format has always been stupid, and the committee in past years has just gotten lucky that 4 teams usually rose above the rest. This year they didn't, and FSU gets hosed.

Very true. But FSU is unbeaten. If there was any question for who is in and who is out, it really should have been between Texas and Bama, since both were 1-loss teams. There were EASILY 7 schools that could have had a bid this year, if you include Georgia and Oh St. I've said it, too - the 4-team playoff is really no better than the old style BCS 1-and-done championship game. The 12 team playoff is coming a year too late. This would have been a prime year to start.

Yes, logic says that Bama is the team that should have gotten hosed...but that was never going to happen.

IMHO, the 4 teams in the championship would have a biogger television draw than the Noles. I agree that Florida should be in it, but again, the Golden Rule - the one bringing in the gold has the rule.

And that brings us back to hand-picking who the committee wants, rather than deserving. I read an article earlier that sums it up pretty nicely. The committee could have chosen the 4 best teams for the playoffs, or the 4 deserving teams for the playoffs - but they didn't get it right either way. The 4 best would be the field as it is now, but minus Bama and add Georgia. The 4 deserving is the same field, but minus Bama and add FSU.

But here we are. It will be interesting to see it play out.

I'm not sure i'm going to be a college football fan in 20 years. ESPN has tried their best to ruin the sport, and they're doing a good job. They aren't the only ones to blame, i get it, but they are most to blame IMHO.

Hook'em Horns and Roll Tide. That is all.

Right, wrong, or in between - the ACC failing to get a spot in the playoffs is almost poetic justice. I didn't bother with all the ins and outs of the expanded playoffs, just that it was starting in 24. So I've only recently learned that the ACC commissioner was against an expansion that could have started in 23. Well, Mr. Commissioner, with a 12-team playoff, you'd be in this year.

That's all true and well and good.....but the FSU players and coaching staff aren't responsible for that.

no matter how many teams are allowed in, there will alwys be the "next" team that had a similar or better record that feels they deserved a shot. i don't care if it is 4, 8, 12, 16, or 100 teams...

That's true, but the public outrage (or even the outrage from the excluded team) for an 8-4 or 6-6 team not getting in will never equal the outrage for an unbeaten power 5 conference champ not getting in.

Imagine if the Philadelphia Eagles went 17-0 and won the east and didn't make the playoffs. Now imagine the Tampa Bay Buccaneers going 7-10 and missing the playoffs by one spot. Not comparable.

If you want to use the NFL as an analogy, you can find better ones. There have been years when teams in a stacked division and good records (say 10-6) missed the playoffs while a team from a crappy division got in as division champ with an 8-8 record.

But here's the thing about FSU this year. They played in a conference that is worse than the SEC and the PAC 12 (and maybe the Big 10). They went undefeated but they had some close shaves against teams that were not that great, and they had one very impressive win against LSU in the first game of the season. At the end of the season, they simply don't look as powerful as Texas, Michigan, Alabama, or Washington. Going undefeated is something, but it's not everything.

As i've said many times already in this thread, whomever got left out was going to feel (and be) hosed.....because a 4 team playoff with 5 major conferences was and is simply stupid. If the ACC isn't a power 5 conference because they're not as good as the other 4, they should have been demoted. And my example above was responding to Happy.....the 8-8 division champ who got in over a 10-6 team from another division wasn't applicable IMO.... because my example was trying to point out that outrage from an undefeated team is always going to be way greater than if Northwestern at 8-4 doesn't get into a 32 team playoff. So, i've been saying throughout this thread that Bama, Texas, and FSU all deserved entry into the playoff. Let me ask this.....is there any demonstrable way to say that Bama, Texas or FSU is more deserving than the other (you can definitely put Texas in over Bama, but that's about as far as you can go)? We can talk about strength of schedule (which people talk about as if it's some sort of concrete, tangible thing...but it isn't....all strength of schedule talk centers around someone's rankings...influenced by ESPN). We can talk about head to head....but only Bama and Texas play into that. It's just a really stupid, flawed system currently.

There is really no way to say which conference was best, or 2nd best, or 3rd best this year. What criteria are you using?

ACC had a winning record against the SEC, so it sounds like you want to use the "the SEC is always great; everyone knows they're always great" argument.

There are lots of ways to slice it, but here's one: How many of the top 10 teams in the CFP rankings are from which conferences? How many from the top 25?

So, the SEC is the best conference because the committee says it is. Ok.

How many teams ranked behind the SEC in the committee rankings have the same or better records as the SEC teams ranked ahead of them?

I just want to add one last thing, because this has bothered me for a long time:

I'm old....my college football fandom goes back to the mid-1970s. Starting then and deep in the 90s, i have a couple of observations:

1) No one in 1978 was even having the discussion about which conference was best, and there certainly was no chanting of conference affiliations during games.

2) Individual teams (not an exhaustive list, but here are some--Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Notre Dame, Penn State, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, etc.) were highly valued as brands. Vanderbilt, Kentucky, and Ole Miss didn't receive any sort of respect because they played in the SEC.

3) The SEC was nothing like a dominant conference. Bama was perenially great. Others popped up occasionally--Florida, Georgia, maybe LSU. But again, no one cared or talked about conferences. Individual teams were respected (or not).

4) Here we are today, and like never before, conference affiliations are talked about ad nauseum. Why do you think this is so? And without question, the SEC has been the dominant conference for the last 20 years. What changed? Why was the SEC a good, but far from dominant conference, for 80 years.....then suddenly they win a lot more championships, and this "conference pride" or "dominance" narrative replaced the respect given to individual teams? Because in a vacuum, there's really no reason why the SEC should be playing better football today than they did 50 years ago.

Well, let's see:

Alabama is 12-1. Only 3 teams behind them had the same or better record: FSU (ACC) at 13-0 and Georgia, also 12-1 and Liberty (CUSA) at 13-0. (Are you going to tell me that Liberty should be ahead of AL?)

Georgia is 12-1. Only 1 team behind them had the same or better record: Liberty (CUSA) at 13-0.

Missouri is 10-2. 5 teams behind them had the same or better record: PSU (Big 10) 10-2, Ole Miss (SEC) 10-2, OU (Big 12) 10-2, Liberty (CUSA) 13-0 and SMU (AAC) 11-2

Ole Miss is also 10-2. 3 behind them had the same or better record: OU (Big 12) 10-2, Liberty (CUSA) 13-0 and SMU (AAC) 11-2

I stopped at the top 11.

I'm as old as you, probably a little older. I think you could probably also add UCLA and Nebraska to your list of fabled programs (currently suffering hard times). I don't think Vanderbilt or Kentucky get any respect right now just for being in the SEC, any more than Northwestern or Indiana get respect for being in the Big 10. Before the CFP, we had the AP and UPI polls and a "mythical" national champion. Maybe people didn't talk as much about conferences then, but they sure talked about strength of schedule - and the conference you're in affects that.

That's quite a few teams behind SEC teams with the same or better record who are ranked worse than those SEC teams. What does that tell us?


Why do you think the SEC is MUCH more respected and valued and more consistently has great teams than they did in 1975? Is t in large part because ESPN pays them millions (is it billions now? I honestly don't know) and as part of their investment, hypes them non-stop? It's a serious question.

And i wish you hadn't stopped at top 11......i'm of the belief that the top of the SEC is usually ranked about right. It's those teams from 10-25 that i believe are consistently, year in and year out, ranked too high, simply because they play in the SEC.

Although Ole Miss in front of OU is comical. OU has a much better win. Committee seems to be valuing a loss to Georgia, but they got absolutely drove in that game. That loss should have dropped them a lot, but of course, didn't.

Also have to mention.....it's way easier for SEC teams to have good records...only play 8 conference games, and replace the lost conference game with someone like Furman in November. Add to that the fact that the AP and the committee always ranks those good but no great SEC teams too high, and voila, you get support for the narrative that "Alabama's SOS is better than ___________________" because they beat this many "ranked" teams.

That one had me scratching my head, but I know nothing about Ole Miss. Looking at the schedules, OU had a better win, but its losses were much worse (OSU and freaking Kansas). Ole Miss's losses were to Georgia and Alabama. And yes, they played Mercer, Vanderbilt, and UL Monroe. But OU played Arkansas State, Tulsa, and BYU.

Kansas and OSU are pretty good teams this year. OSU currently ranked and Kansas was, before their QB got hurt. No way Ole Miss should be ahead of OU.

So a loss to Kansas by a few points is "much worse" than getting drove by Georgia? I don't remember the exact score, but i think Ole Miss got beat by 50. Kansas actually a great example of what i was talking about...Kansas is 8-4 and currently unranked by the committee. Tennessee is 8-4 and ranked 25th. So, we have to assume Tennessee is better than Kansas because the committee says so, right?

I don't assume anything because the committee says so and I don't agree with everything the committee does. I just have no problem with them putting UT, AL, MI, and UW ahead of FSU this year. As to Kansas and TN, it's not just the CFP, but also AP and coaches put TN ahead.

TN Losses (all ranked teams at the time played):
Fla.
Al.
Mo.
Ga

KS Losses:
UT
OSU
Texas Tech (unranked)
K.State

KS beat OU - that was impressive, but losing to Texas Tech hurt
TN didn't have any win as impressive, but it didn't have any crappy losses either

How is losing to Florida not a crappy loss but Kansas losing to Tech is? Florida is 5-7...Tech 6-6.

And I'm not picking on the committee...I think ESPN's 20 year spin has had its effect on all the polls. Human rankings are opinion...nothing else.

well, i must agree with you on this. the committee makes the rules, the committee spoke...SEC is the best conference.

kind of like the golden rule - he whom has the gold makes the rules

Well I must agree with you that much the same as when America votes on the best singer on the voice, by definition they are clearly the best singer on the show.