Predictions on Future State of CFB, Playoff, Selection Committee based on current season
"We can't control the committee," Patterson said. “All we can do is try and win.”
That's TCU head coach Gary Patterson after yesterday's win over number 6 Kansas State, a win that shoud elevate his team to number 4 or 5 in the country and the cusp of making the final football four. Yet here we stand, with another coach begging to a committe because his team is out of options to "settle things on the field." At the end of the season, both TCU and Baylor could have one loss, and Kansas State could also be tied for first place in the Big XII with one conference loss. If the playoff committee is going to look at a Big XII team they'll need to choose between these three, who have now all gone 1-1 against each other, and the Big XII does not play a championship game.
The esteemed committee members do not collectively seem the type to say "screw it, too hard to figure out ... just put the B1G Championship Game winner in instead." But this season is shaping up to be the Big XII's worst nightmare. They've been touting their scheduling ability to play nine conference games and have every team play each other, but with their three top teams going 1-1 against each other that has completely backfired. The winner of a TCU-Baylor rematch in a Big XII championship game would surely be chosen over the winner of the weaker B1G, but there is no such opportunity.
This scenario, along with other happenings like Notre Dame being eliminated, have inspired some bold predictions and observations:
Over-arching observation: As long as there are four slots in the bracket and five power conferences, the CFB Playoff will ALWAYS be a referendum on which four conferences were the strongest each year, and those champions will be selected.
Prediction: The Big XII will add two more teams to bring their total to (hey look!) 12 ... and soon. And it doesn't matter much who they are at this point. (By the way, in this "new world" of the Power 5 autonomy and the CFBP, is that "rule" still in place that a conference MUST have 12 teams in order to stage a championship game? Wasn't that a BCS/NCAA thing? Couldn't the Big XII these days just split into two five team divisions? But I digress). This season may already prove without a doubt that they NEED that KSU-Baylor championship game. Grab Cincinnati, Colorado State, BYU, or get the SWC band back together and welcome Houston, Rice and SMU back.
Prediction: Notre Dame will permanently join the ACC. This may not happen right away, but it's clear that the committee will have its hands full already trying to choose among six contenders for four slots -- The power five champions plus the second-best SEC team. Granted, it would have happened in 2012, but the whole landscape has shifted and will continue to shift, especially if the domino of the Big XII adding CCG happens and strengthens their CFBP candidacy. We all know how much of an anomaly that season was for them.
Prediction: The B1G will regret prioritizing TV markets over program strength when expanding. At least where it comes to getting teams into the CFBP, that is. Adding Rutgers and Maryland only weakened the conference and gifted the ACC a slot to add a stronger Louisville program. If the Big XII begins playing a CCG and ND joins the ACC permanently, that makes the B1G's two closest "rival" conferences in the strength-of-schedule battles even stronger. Having Missouri in the B1G West and Notre Dame in the B1G East would have made the conference a lot more compelling.
Long-Term Prediction: In 2025 college football will be NFL-ized anyway. Traditional conferences will be voluntarily dismantled and AFC/NFC-style conferences and divisions will be put in place, allowing for a cleaner 8- or 16-team playoff bracket.
What does this mean for Michigan? Obviously not much right now, we've got our own issues to sort through. Except hey, the more CFB continues to resemble the NFL on a big-time scale, that bodes better for attracting Jim Harbaugh, right?
Discuss...
EDIT: I did not realize that Kansas State and Baylor have not played yet, my error. My point about the possibility of a 2008 Big XII Texas-Oklahoma scenario remains, but I should have done more fact checking than thinking to myself "I'm pretty sure they played each other."
November 9th, 2014 at 10:52 AM ^
The ACC also added Pitt and Syracuse and neither of those teams is doing anything for the league on the field. At least Maryland has looked decent.
November 9th, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
The power 5 needs to break off and form their own division.
Expand the playoff to 8 teams. Power 5 conference champions get auto-bids. 3 at large spots. No more than 2 teams from each conference. Mandate that all conferences play a conference championship.
You are an independent and can't win a conference championship? Sorry better hope you are good enough to get one of those 3 at large bids.
Your conference only has 10 teams and can't make up their mind on who their actual champion is? Sorry guess you gotta expand.
3rd best team in your conference and you got left out? Sorry guess you should have been the best team in your conference.
November 9th, 2014 at 11:09 AM ^
future prediction, except I would break the Power 5 into a Power 8 and either seed the champions or have four "conferences" of two divisions and always have them play a CCG.
November 9th, 2014 at 11:46 AM ^
November 9th, 2014 at 4:51 PM ^
I would think (hope?) it makes teams schedule tougher non-conference opponents to get ready for the conference season?
I wouldn't mind seeing a situation where everyone plays 9 conference games and 2 non-conference games. This way if you make the national championship game you are still only playing 14 games (11 reg, conf champ game, 1st round playoff, nat'l champ game). However less games overall likely won't happen because money exists.
In a situation like this I think you would see most teams schedule 1 creampuff and 1 pretty solid to good team. Then you run into conference play.
November 9th, 2014 at 10:16 PM ^
November 9th, 2014 at 11:05 AM ^
November 9th, 2014 at 11:12 AM ^
It's plausible, too, geographically. The only problem is that the Pac 12 reportedly doesn't want private religious schools like Baylor and TCU (who could be added along with Texas and Texas Tech); and the Big 10 won't want to invite geographically-correct schools like Kansas State and Kansas (although academically they might live with Iowa State).
Then there's the Oklahoma schools. The SEC West would be the most logical landing spot for them, but that would completely overload the division.
West Virginia obviously goes to the ACC.
November 9th, 2014 at 11:06 AM ^
November 9th, 2014 at 11:06 AM ^
If we dont begin to start recruiting by the same rules as the SEC then we might as well admit to not trying to win nationally.
Either that or there needs to be actual consequences to recruiting violations.
Watching college football is ruined for those of us in the B1G because we play with moral integrity when it comes to recruiting and the SEC doesn't.
Something needs to change. I really hope we all wander our way back toward what is right for the kids.
The NCAA should be ashamed.
If it were me, I wouldnt schedule another SEC school until something changes. Let them play against eachoter and the Presbyterians of the world until their schedule basically shrinks to in conference and nothing else.
College football is broken and it sucks.
November 9th, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^
I feel exactly the same way. It's striking to me when I see people saying that Mark Richt is a mediocre coach because his trophy case doesn't look like Saban's or Miles' trophy case. No, he's an excellent coach who seems to play by the rules (unlike his competition), and playing by the rules comes at a high cost. Teams wouldn't bend and break rules - or be as loose as they are ethically - if it didn't offer a serious competitive advantage.
And for fans who give a damn about fair play and ethics, that sucks. You either have to want your team to compromise with those principles or accept a real disadvantage against the other schools that do. Or you could just wait for the NCAA to take these things seriously, which I'll believe when I see.
November 9th, 2014 at 11:14 AM ^
So, the disaster scenario can't happen this year, but I get the point. While such a thing would be a problem for the committee, it wouldn't for the conference as one, perhaps two teams, would make it. anyway It happened a few years ago when Texas, Texas Tech and ? (Oklahoma) all tied and the world didn't end (at least I think it didn't).
I caught Tim Brando once on his radio show blistering a caller who said Brando was wrong and ND would join the Big Ten. Brando's main point was that there were long memories at both ND and the Big Ten about past wrongs and so it would never happen. Too bad there aren't more grown ups as both sides would benefit from such an association instead of the Domers in the ACC. ND would go in the West to help even out the number of historical big programs.
You might be right about the regret as far as football goes, but I doubt any president in the Big Ten is losing any sleep about not being asscicated with Louisville
November 9th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^
I was going to say the OP spent a lot of time talking about the Big 12 three way tie to not realize that KSU and Baylor still have to play each other.
November 9th, 2014 at 8:35 PM ^
But for getting a B1G into the playoff, I think yesterday's trifecta of TCU beating KSU, Baylor crushing Oklahoma and OSU beating MSU was the worst combination in terms of getting a B1G rep into the playoff.
TCU has only @Kansas, @Texas, and Iowa St to close out the season. (There's no Big12 Conf Champ Game. I think a one-loss TCU definitely gets in before OSU.
Baylor has a more difficult path, albeit all at home, featuring a KSU finale after games vs OklaSt & TexasTech. If TCU were to stumble and it came down to OSU versus a lone-loss Baylor, I'm not sure which one to pick. In spite of scheduling three OOC cream puffs, Baylor has the more impressive top end resume. But due to the unheralded middle-to-bottom strength of the B1G, and also due to those three cream puffs, OSU has a far tougher schedule middle-of-the-pack down resume.
Baylor SOS vs Ohio St SOS
| Baylor Opponent | Sagarin Rank | Result | Ohio St Opponent | Sagarin Rank | Result |
| TCU | 5 | W 61-58 | Michigan St | 12 | W 49-37 |
| @Oklahoma | 6 | W 48-14 | B1G West Champ | 15 (highest Wiscy) | TDB |
| Kansas St | 13 | TBD | @Maryland | 40 | W 52-24 |
| @West Virginia | 29 | L 41-27 | @Minnesota | 43 | TBD |
| @Texas | 39 | W 28-7 | Virginia Tech | 45 | L 35-21 |
| Oklahoma St | 52 | TBD | Penn St | 46 | W 31-24 |
| @Iowa St | 80 | W 49-28 | Cincinatti | 49 | W 50-28 |
| Texas Tech | 82 | TBD | Michigan | 64 | TBD |
| Kansas | 112 | W 60-14 | Rutgers | 76 | W 56-17 |
| Northwestern St | 136 | W 70-6 | @Navy | 83 | W 34-17 |
| Buffalo | 152 | W 63-21 | Illinois | 89 | W 55-14 |
| SMU | 187 | W 45-0 | Indiana | 91 | TBD |
| No CCG | --- | ---- | Kent St | 176 | W 66-0 |
To sum up, I think the following get in before OSU:
• An SEC Champ from the West
Even a two-loss Champ
An SEC Champ from the East would cause chaos
• A one-loss-or-better FSU ACC Champ
FSU: @Miami, BC, Fla, CCG Duke/GT
A Duke/GT CCG winner would cause chaos
• A one-loss PAC12 team
Oregon (Colo, @OregSt, Pac12 South Rep(ASU))
ASU (@OregSt, WashSt, @Ariz, North Rep (ORE))
• A one-loss Big12 team
TCU definitely
Baylor maybe should TCU stumble
November 9th, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^
November 9th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^
November 9th, 2014 at 11:41 AM ^
November 9th, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^
and you "got me" on that one. I suppose my only rebuttals would be
1. At this point, it doesn't matter so much any more. If the B1G had taken Missouri and ND then the Big XII might feel compelled to poach some better teams from somewhere else, but now "any" program that's on par with Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt or Syracuse would "do." I'm looking at Cincinnati and BYU and thinking that's about right. Cincy would get the Big XII playing some games in Ohio recruiting territory. I could see them taking UCF instead of BYU to get them a foothold in Florida as well.
2. Related to my first point, I think the Big XII is already way stronger at the top and doesn't need as much help as the B1G did. They already have Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Baylor and TCU, and that doesn't even include Texas. Looking at the balance of things historically, Baylor and TCU being top 10/BCS-bowl regulars is tatamount to Indiana and Purdue having the same status currently in the B1G. 10 years ago all four programs were nothing ... now only two of them are. Guess which two?
November 9th, 2014 at 12:07 PM ^
November 9th, 2014 at 4:57 PM ^
I think that the Big 12's ambitions lie in Florida and that any expansion by them would be a 4 team affair aimed at building a reasonable bridge to Florida and WVU and would include USF, UCF, Cincinnati and Memphis, all big market teams in fertile recruiting areas. BYU and Colorado State mightbe the best competitve choices for them but I doubt they really happen.
November 9th, 2014 at 11:47 AM ^
November 9th, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
The B1G needs Penn State to be good again
AND Illinois to be good again
AND Purdue to be good again
AND Northwestern to be good again
The B1G needs to return to the late 90s era if they want respect on a national level. In 1999, the Big Ten finished with 7 of 11 teams in the final top 25. Now, we're lucky if we get 3 or 4 out of 14. That's pathetic and well beyond just Michigan sucking.
November 9th, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^
November 9th, 2014 at 12:49 PM ^
November 9th, 2014 at 12:52 PM ^
November 9th, 2014 at 4:52 PM ^
and at Sagarin Ranking 87, 89, and 91, that's the highest we've seen the bottom of the B1G in quite some time.
Conversely
SEC : #109 Vanderbilt PAC12: #98 Colorado Big12: #112 Kansas ACC : 130 Wake Forest
Of course, you're right about Michigan at #64 and Penn State at #46. Until Michigan and Penn State rejoin the competitive level of OSU, MSU, Wisconsin, and Nebraska, the B1G is gonna be thin.
November 9th, 2014 at 12:10 PM ^
8 Team Playoff
* 5 spots for the Power - 5 Conference Champions
* 3 At Large
EDIT: I see others have already commented on the same scenario. This is the correct approach because it would take out the subjective nature of the NC by giving each of the Power-5 Conferences a chance (not subjective - spot earned on the field). If there are other teams that deserve to get in from the Power-5 or at large then the 3 remaining spots would be available (subjective, but limited).
You don't wind up with polls telling you the entire SEC is better than any other team in the country!
November 9th, 2014 at 12:16 PM ^
It's so obvious...8 team playoff with automatic bids for the power 5 conference champions and 3 at-large spots.
That means every power 5 conference race is still important, and for tv revenue that's important because you're creating important games in the regular season throughout the country. The reason? More teams are still alive because they can get the automatic bid by winning the conference.
I wil say that I think you need to be top 12 in the country in order to get in. You can't go 7-5, win your division, win your conference championship game and go 8-5 and get into the playoff.
If that's the case, then your conference loses its automatic bid and it simply becomes another at-large spot. You have to be top 12.
12 is the top half of the top 25.
5+3...that still gives you excited at-large races and the SEC is still going to get 2-3 teams in.
Play the first round of games at the home stadium of the upper seed (#1 - #4), teams are seeded by the commitee, at-large teams don't need to be #1-#5, play the rest of the games how it's set up now.
November 9th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^
Assume the following: TV ratings (which drive everything) for non-playoff games are going to plummet because only the playoffs matter anymore. So, to make the other lower tier bowls more appealing, I propose the following:
16 total team playoff:
- select 2 teams from each of the power 5 conferences (ie: East & West champions, North and South, etc). Eliminate conference championship games and have each conference determines their own tie-breaker rules.
- Select 6 at-large teams
- Go back to 10 game schedules, with one non conference and 9 being conference games
- Start the first round of the playoffs over Thanksgiving (maximize TV audience) at 8 of the lower tier REGIONAL bowls (ie: Big Ten vs ACC in Motor City Bowl, etc): it will keep them alive and more viable by increasing their relevancy if they are drivable and actually teams that people in the area care about.
- The second round is first week of December at 4 of the more prominent bowls (ie: one prior BCS bowl, Capital One, etc.)
- The semi-final games Saturday before Christmas (2 week break allows student athelets to study for exams) and rotates between 2 of the previous BCS bowls
- National Championship on New Year's Day and rotates with final prior BCS location.
All revenues are devided on a pro-rata basis (and shared with conference) from each round. People smarter than me can figure out those details, but basically after each team's costs are covered, everyone else is getting some piece of the pie to help offset the fewer games they are all playing.
Advantages:
1. Allows for big conferences to have more representation, but the little guys are in on it too.
2. Cindarellas at least have a chance on the field (ie: Marshall), just like in March Madness.
3. 15 bowls (8+ 4+ 2 + 1 = 15) now have relevance vs. 3 in the current format.
4. The two in the championship game still play 14 total games like they do now; no extra games. All games are done around the holidays, which reduces class time missed.
5. Keeps the big bowls in their all important status role
6. Every other team not in the playoffs can let their students get back to being students earlier since the first 15 bowls of the year really don't count for anything anyways and every team that goes to them loses money to boot.
Just the rambling thoughts of one fan who spends more time thinking about this than he should.
November 9th, 2014 at 2:43 PM ^
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the 8-team playoff (and even less so of the 16-team playoff) if we're going to maintain both a 12-game schedule and a conference championship game. An 8-team playoff would mean the championship participants would have played 16 games that year (and for the 16-team playoff, would be 17 games). As a fan of the sport, I think having more of it to watch is always interesting, but I don't think it's healthy for the participants. You can say "Well, that's what the pros are playing", but the pros are being paid for it. You can say that the lower divisions do it, but they usually play only 11 game schedules, and no conference championship games.
There's no way schools are going to be willing to lose the revenue to cut from a 12 to 11 game regular season schedule, and now that conference championship games exist, the big business aspect of the sport won't allow those games to be eliminated, even if their purpose really becomes minimal with an expanded playoff schedule.
I see no reason to guarantee all five power conferences get a representative in the playoff (ACC and C-USA in recent history have given evidence of this, why do we want a potential #12-20 ranked team participating just because they won a crappy conference). Let the top 4 (or 8, heaven forbid) teams participate, don't pigeonhole conference representation. Keep the conference championship games as an informal playoff eliminator round, as they at least involve games with natural rivalries.
November 9th, 2014 at 7:35 PM ^
I agree with you that 16 games is too mucn for college football, and that was a key point of my proposal: 14 games max for the teams in the championship, less for everyone else.
As for the non-playoff teams not agreeing to fewer games, if they were getting a decent amount of reveue from their share of an expanded playoff revenue pool, and not incurring extra expense of travelling to an extra game or two, they might thing twice about it (especially if it's to BS bowl where they are guaranteed to LOSE money because of minimum ticket purchase requirements). We have to remember that very few other programs bring in anything close in game revenue like the Big House does, with many D1 programs bringing in less than a third of what we do. There are a lot of schools that wan to bring their football programs back to reality and actually have their students be 'student athletes' again, and I think they'd jump on board with a 2 game shorter season that gives them more money.
Why guarantee the power 5 get in more representation? The same reason March Madness has more big conference teams in it than the Colonial Conference does (or any of those other second tier confeneces). The big confrerences get rewarded for playing tougher schedules, and the little conferences get their 'Cinderella' opportunity.
With my plan, the conference chapmionship games become obsolete if you send one from each division in the conference, and the non conference games occur during the playoffs, when they really count.
November 9th, 2014 at 2:54 PM ^
My crystal ball is broken, so all I get is a wish:
I wish that students and alums of the Power 5 universities would see the incompatibility with the ethos of college football in continuing a playoff and a crowned national championship game.
Sure, I'm advocating a return to the past. I can say with certainty that college football was more interesting and more fun to watch pre-BCS. For those who remember those days with me, what's improved your enjoyment of the game with first, the BCS, and now the 4 team playoff?
Probably nothing. It's just added another layer of BS and angst as far as I'm concerned, feel free to disagree.
What we are going after with the national championship thing is fool's gold, and I don't care how many teams go to playoffs.
If you want something new, college-sponsored professional football, that's where you're headed, and enjoy the Dave Brandon-ness of the whole thing.
If you're like me, and enjoy the traditions and want to keep as much commercialism out of college football as you can, well we are going to a very bad place.
November 9th, 2014 at 4:25 PM ^
in football. Everyone's flush with TV cash, but they're still crying poor because they're trying to feed a million non-revenue mouths. Schools like Michigan can handle having 8287483897387 sports, schools like Purdue can't. They need to stop trying. SEC schools put the vast majority of revenue back into the football programs, and look at them versus Big 10 programs.
We're at a place where a national championship contender from the Big 10 has to go undefeated in conference. If you lose to one of the 4-5 schools with a pulse, you jeopardize making it the the championship game. If you lose to anyone else in the conference, it's the black spot on your record. You can lose a tough out of conference game like Sparty did and remain in the convo, but Ohio State's loss to Va Tech has effectively ended all hope for a playoff for them.
This isn't really tenable for the conference going forward. If you slip up, you're dead because you won't get a chance to prove it was just a slip and not an indictment of who you are.
November 9th, 2014 at 4:43 PM ^
Seed them 1 thru 6. Power 5 guaranteed 5 of the 6 spots. 6th goes to highest ranked power 5 or independent.
Round 1- 1&2 have bye. 3&4 host games
Round 2- 1&2 host winners of Round 1
Round 3- Championship
I don't like 8 teams anymore than I like 39 bowl games.
November 9th, 2014 at 7:24 PM ^
I dont know about the locations per se but if we are going to continue the farce that this is not a semi pro league and just add game after game after game, I have advocated the same simple solution of going from 4 to 6 teams and giving the #1, #2 seeds a first round bye. This would allow all 5 conf chamions in IF they are deserving (i.e. a 9-3 Wisconsin should not get in), and offer 1 extra slot.
I think they would still utilize the bowl system because "money" but I sure as hell would love to see a SEC team or team from Cali come to the Midwest in mid December for a first round game.
But if you dont want to add any games and keep it simple just add 2 slots and make it 6 instead of 4. If you are debating #7 v #6 well those teams didnt do enough during the regular season anyhow - I can at least see a debate at #4 v #5 being valid.
But unless you go to a 16 team playoff you will encourage teams to play no more than 1 tough non conf game and only those teams that need to (i.e. Big 10, ACC teams to prove they are not creation of their pathetic conferences). The SEC West teams have no reason to play a tough non conf due to the perception of their division.
November 9th, 2014 at 4:47 PM ^
I kind of wonder if college football hasn't already hit its apex. John Bacon has talked quite a bit about how college athletics is becoming corporatized, and it's not just happening at Michigan. Throw in the emerging research on concussions, the liklihood that college football players will get paid, the enormous salaries of coaches, expansion of conferences, the fact that every Div 1 game is available somewhere on TV, and cfb playoffs, I just don't see it as sustainable.
November 9th, 2014 at 5:07 PM ^
in the form you know it, it isn't.
Long term, and I'm talking 50-75 years here, I see college football as being a collection of quasi-independent clubs affiliated with universities like UNAM's Pumas in Mexican soccer. Michigan would own a stake in a professional development team that played on campus and would offer scholarships to the players on the team, they would compete against other university backed or privately owned development teams nationally... maybe as many as 60 or as few as 40-some.
November 9th, 2014 at 7:37 PM ^
4conferencea x 16teams per conference = 64total.