Straight seeding model expected for 2025 CFP

Thiefery · Saturday at 6:17 PM

ralphiewvu said:
I asked Sankey, he said Texas will fall in line.

Sankey is a good hornfan

Thiefery · Saturday at 6:18 PM

Deep Creek said:
No one else does either. Last year ASU was picked toward the bottom and K-State, Okie Lite, Utah were picked at the top. ASU, Colorado and BYU toward the bottom. Well that was upside down! Only school they got exactly correct was TCU and West Virginia, ISU, Texas Tech were just one game off.

Maybe not as extreme but I think it will probably be similar this year.

2024 Predictions (24/7)
8-1 K-State
7-2 OK State, Utah
6-3 West Virginia, ISU, TCU, Kansas, UCF
5-4 Arizona, Texas Tech
3-6 Baylor
2-7 Colorado, Cincy, BYU
1-8 ASU
0-9 Houston

2024 Final Standings
7-2 ASU, ISU, BYU, Colorado
6-3 Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech
5-4 K-State, West Virginia
4-5 Kansas
3-6 Cincy, Houston
2-7 Utah, Arizona, UCF
0-9 OK State

lol, well wtf happened here okie light?!?!?

Deep Creek · Saturday at 8:50 PM

Thiefery said:
lol, well wtf happened here okie light?!?!?

I saw their game here with TCU. They really sucked. That's the worst Okie LIte team I can remember.

78Cyclones · Monday at 11:02 AM

Deep Creek said:
I saw their game here with TCU. They really sucked. That's the worst Okie LIte team I can remember.

Woof!
I saw the 1991 (0-10-1) Cowpokes in person!
I was at the 6-6 tie game @ Iowa State (3-7-1).

ralphiewvu · Monday at 9:21 PM

Sankey not saying one way or the other how the SEC feels about the 4-4-2-2-1-3 CFP idea. According to this article the B1G wants it. Kind of interesting to see what the SEC wants. Half sounds like they aren’t a fan of this model but doesn’t say for sure.

SEC's Sankey: Not settled on preferred CFP format

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said Monday at the league's annual meetings that he's open-minded about the format of the College Football Playoff, while leaving some breadcrumbs about what he thinks are priorities in the conference's decision-making.

www.espn.com

WhosYourDawggy · Tuesday at 12:45 AM

ralphiewvu said:
Sankey not saying one way or the other how the SEC feels about the 4-4-2-2-1-3 CFP idea. According to this article the B1G wants it. Kind of interesting to see what the SEC wants. Half sounds like they aren’t a fan of this model but doesn’t say for sure.

SEC's Sankey: Not settled on preferred CFP format

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said Monday at the league's annual meetings that he's open-minded about the format of the College Football Playoff, while leaving some breadcrumbs about what he thinks are priorities in the conference's decision-making.

www.espn.com

The B1G has been the driving force behind the 4-4-2-2-1-3. Sankey is somewhat ambivalent. I have read that he is an absolute no-go on 4-4-3-3-1-1. He said he would just go with the 5 AQ for the conference champs + G5 before he would do that. He still thinks that once the committee gets their heads out of their asses and realizes you can't just count Ls, that the SEC has a better chance to get 4 or 5. So he won't agree to let the ACC/B12 get 3.

I am also not convinced that he is a big fan of the reported SEC/B1G scheduling agreement. We already play the Nerds, and have scheduled a ton of teams like Clemson, NCSU, FSU, tOSU, etc. I would just rather do that and catch the occasional B1G team.

ralphiewvu · Tuesday at 8:45 AM

WhosYourDawggy said:
The B1G has been the driving force behind the 4-4-2-2-1-3. Sankey is somewhat ambivalent. I have read that he is an absolute no-go on 4-4-3-3-1-1. He said he would just go with the 5 AQ for the conference champs + G5 before he would do that. He still thinks that once the committee gets their heads out of their asses and realizes you can't just count Ls, that the SEC has a better chance to get 4 or 5. So he won't agree to let the ACC/B12 get 3.

I am also not convinced that he is a big fan of the reported SEC/B1G scheduling agreement. We already play the Nerds, and have scheduled a ton of teams like Clemson, NCSU, FSU, tOSU, etc. I would just rather do that and catch the occasional B1G team.

I think both the SEC and B1G would be against the 4-4-3-3-1-1 model. It’s very much hopeful/wishful thinking on my part for the 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 model. I truly think Sankey kinda wants no AQs because he believes some years the SEC may actually be able to get 8 in themselves. This model the B1G likes would cap it at 7 at best, more likely 6. I understand why the B1G wants a protected 4 and likely would get 5 some years. I'm hopeful for 2.5 AQs but would take 2 for the B12. (It's not like we can be choosers).

I think Sankey doesn't mind the scheduling agreement but wants to make sure it doesn't hurt any SEC teams chances of making the playoffs which is understandable.

OlyDuck · Tuesday at 9:30 AM

ericd7633 said:
I would agree it's unlikely, but they can still earn one. If Oklahoma State finished with 1 loss this upcoming season, they'd be a top 4 team I'd guess.

that would depend on how the other teams finished. if Big Ten and SEC runners up only losses are in the championship games then they would probably still be in over a 1 loss Big XII champ

OlyDuck · Tuesday at 9:31 AM

WhosYourDawggy said:
Plus the whole Hawaii thing meant the 13th game was played week 0. I have a feeling that week 0 will soon be week 1.

or the hawaii game was week 0

Thiefery · Tuesday at 10:07 AM

WhosYourDawggy said:
The B1G has been the driving force behind the 4-4-2-2-1-3. Sankey is somewhat ambivalent. I have read that he is an absolute no-go on 4-4-3-3-1-1. He said he would just go with the 5 AQ for the conference champs + G5 before he would do that. He still thinks that once the committee gets their heads out of their asses and realizes you can't just count Ls, that the SEC has a better chance to get 4 or 5. So he won't agree to let the ACC/B12 get 3.

I am also not convinced that he is a big fan of the reported SEC/B1G scheduling agreement. We already play the Nerds, and have scheduled a ton of teams like Clemson, NCSU, FSU, tOSU, etc. I would just rather do that and catch the occasional B1G team.

Only schools currently in the BiG that i'd like to play in OOC.. are UM, tosu (both who we are playing currently) and... Udub (only for the trip up there)..

really don't have an interest seeing us play psu or SC.. not even NU.

Hu War Yu · Tuesday at 10:21 AM

WhosYourDawggy said:
I have no idea who the B12 is going to hang their hats on. BYU, ASU, WV, Utah? It gets thin rather quickly.

More likely to see another logjam of 2-loss teams at the top... but unbalanced schedules can make weird stuff happen. It's how the Big Ten got Indiana in there last season. A couple of lucky breaks, a few missed teams during the regular season, and there could be 3 Big XII teams with one loss at the end of the year. Who they might be escapes me, as the league was impossible to predict last season and should be again this fall.

osubuckeye89 · Tuesday at 11:05 AM

Thiefery said:
Only schools currently in the BiG that i'd like to play in OOC.. are UM, tosu (both who we are playing currently) and... Udub (only for the trip up there)..

really don't have an interest seeing us play psu or SC.. not even NU.

You will play Northwestern and you will like it!

fishinabarrel · Tuesday at 11:29 AM

Thiefery said:
Only schools currently in the BiG that i'd like to play in OOC.. are UM, tosu (both who we are playing currently) and... Udub (only for the trip up there)..

really don't have an interest seeing us play psu or SC.. not even NU.

What about Maryland?

WhosYourDawggy · Tuesday at 11:42 AM

ralphiewvu said:
I think both the SEC and B1G would be against the 4-4-3-3-1-1 model. It’s very much hopeful/wishful thinking on my part for the 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 model. I truly think Sankey kinda wants no AQs because he believes some years the SEC may actually be able to get 8 in themselves. This model the B1G likes would cap it at 7 at best, more likely 6. I understand why the B1G wants a protected 4 and likely would get 5 some years. I'm hopeful for 2.5 AQs but would take 2 for the B12. (It's not like we can be choosers).

I think Sankey doesn't mind the scheduling agreement but wants to make sure it doesn't hurt any SEC teams chances of making the playoffs which is understandable.

I just don't see a scheduling agreement where UGA plays Purdue home and away. We can schedule way better than that with FSU, UNC, Clemson, Miami, etc. The ACC makes more sense for our fanbase, even if I would love to travel to some of the B1G campuses.

WhosYourDawggy · Tuesday at 11:43 AM

OlyDuck said:
or the hawaii game was week 0

The Hawaii game can't be week 0 for everyone. The idea was that you if you are going to Hawaii anytime during the year, you are give a bye week the week after. That means you get an extra bye, and you schedule a game in week 0. Some chose to play a 13th game instead.

WhosYourDawggy · Tuesday at 11:44 AM

Thiefery said:
Only schools currently in the BiG that i'd like to play in OOC.. are UM, tosu (both who we are playing currently) and... Udub (only for the trip up there)..

really don't have an interest seeing us play psu or SC.. not even NU.

I'd love to go to a white-out at PSU, of course UCLA and USC to go LA, and I'd even like to play at some crazy places like Minny, NW in their new stadium in a few years. The road trips would be great. We had a blast going to ND.

OlyDuck · Tuesday at 2:31 PM

for 25 Hawaii's home schedule Stanford, Sam Houston, Portland State, Fresno State, Utah State, San Diego State, and Wyoming
not a single one of them has a game 13.

Thiefery · Tuesday at 2:34 PM

fishinabarrel said:
What about Maryland?

fuck you... i still have ptsd.. i was at fedex field in that post monsoon heat.. (when i was still weak since i was living in VA)

WhosYourDawggy said:
I'd love to go to a white-out at PSU, of course UCLA and USC to go LA, and I'd even like to play at some crazy places like Minny, NW in their new stadium in a few years. The road trips would be great. We had a blast going to ND.

LA isn't fun for me anymore.. and i never wanted to go to PA, MN.. now NW.. maybe I will for that just so i can get some authentic deep dish pizza

Deep Creek · Tuesday at 3:16 PM

ralphiewvu said:
I think both the SEC and B1G would be against the 4-4-3-3-1-1 model. It’s very much hopeful/wishful thinking on my part for the 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 model. I truly think Sankey kinda wants no AQs because he believes some years the SEC may actually be able to get 8 in themselves. This model the B1G likes would cap it at 7 at best, more likely 6. I understand why the B1G wants a protected 4 and likely would get 5 some years. I'm hopeful for 2.5 AQs but would take 2 for the B12. (It's not like we can be choosers).

I think Sankey doesn't mind the scheduling agreement but wants to make sure it doesn't hurt any SEC teams chances of making the playoffs which is understandable.

I agree. If there were no auto bids and straight top 16 rankings, it would benefit the SEC a whole lot more than the B1G. JMO.

I just wonder how much viewership numbers will look if it comes down to nearly a complete B1G/SEC playoff.

Deep Creek · Tuesday at 3:19 PM

Hu War Yu said:
More likely to see another logjam of 2-loss teams at the top... but unbalanced schedules can make weird stuff happen. It's how the Big Ten got Indiana in there last season. A couple of lucky breaks, a few missed teams during the regular season, and there could be 3 Big XII teams with one loss at the end of the year. Who they might be escapes me, as the league was impossible to predict last season and should be again this fall.

Agree. The Big 12 is hard to figure out how unbalanced the schedules are BEFORE the season starts because of the parity.