tOfficial Twelve Team Playoff thread

[WhosYourDawggy]

@WhosYourDawggy, did you just make up fake UGA schedules? You seem to be assuming that UGA will just happen to play all the best teams in the SEC all of a sudden on rotating schedules, while missing out on the worst. Are you going to rotate bama/LSU every year? Probably not. Are you going to rotate Tx and OU ever year? Probably not. In reality, your schedule will probably look similar to your current one some years, and similar to what you projected other years. But it will be entirely random. And protected rivalries will lock in some yearly matchups that screw up the rest of the rotation.

Yes, on average going to 9 conference games will likely increase your SOS. No, that has absolutely nothing to do with the playoff or OOC scheduling. It has everything to do with getting the most out of the current/next TV deals, as the B10 has just done. The reason the SEC is being forced into 9 is because with 16 teams you'd have massive breaks in scheduling other teams in conference otherwise.

To the argument @Deep Creek quoted:

While it's absolutely true that in a 2-4 team playoff you're going to have to split hairs to determine what teams get in...this quote especially DOES NOT apply to a 12 team playoff when it comes to the top teams. And it comes right after the quote you're using for making this argument; IE scheduling will get better because it improves chances in the end when splitting hairs. The "splitting of hairs" will only apply to the worst teams now entering the playoff. Teams like Alabama will absolutely serve no benefit in scheduling ANY tough games:



In 2021, if I'm looking at the standings and not missing anyone, there was exactly ONE team with two losses that wouldn't have made a 12 team playoff. It was Oklahoma. And that was likely because in the final three games of the season they lost to both ranked teams they played. In 2019 there would have just been 3 two loss teams left out in the entire power five (counting ND). In 2018 there would have been 1. 2017 there would have been zero....hopefully you're catching on.

So what we're really talking about is THREE loss teams or the final 1-2 two loss teams most years. And yes, a team that played a crazy schedule and lost 3 games may get in over the last 2 loss team who either lost a both games late, or played an easier schedule, but the reality is that WINS matter far more than who those wins are against. The rankings already very much prove this. There is no benefit to scheduling one of your 3 OOC games as a potential loss because at the end of the season your record matters far more than the quality of it.

You are such a dunce, this is my last post to you. Don't know what happened to you, but you went from being a decent poster to someone who has lost all touch with reality. Here is an unreal example:

"did you just make up fake UGA schedules? You seem to be assuming that UGA will just happen to play all the best teams in the SEC all of a sudden on rotating schedules, while missing out on the worst. Are you going to rotate bama/LSU every year? Probably not. Are you going to rotate Tx and OU ever year? Probably not. In reality, your schedule will probably look similar to your current one some years, and similar to what you projected other years. But it will be entirely random. And protected rivalries will lock in some yearly matchups that screw up the rest of the rotation."

It's like you don't follow college football, don't know anything that is going on, and then anytime someone posts evidence you just dismiss it as being "bogus."

I presented a sample schedule based on what the SEC has said they are going to do with their scheduling. What I posted is exactly what our regular season scheduling will look like. You say "probably not" and have nothing to base that on. The SEC has said that it is going to a 3-6-6 schedule. That means we will have 3 permanent rivals - for us UF, UA, and USCjr - and then for the other 12 teams we will rotate through them every other year. The SEC wants each team to play twice - home and away - every 4 years. There are literally hundreds of articles on this, dozens and dozens of blogs, podcasts, etc. I supposed you will say they are all bogus.

The sample that I showed you is exactly how we are going to schedule in the SEC, but you are such a pussy because it blows your argument out of the water that you aren't man enough to come here and say, damn, maybe ole Dawgy is right and regular season schedules are going to be badass. And all of this is 100% because of expansion. How do I know that? Because for a decade or more the SEC has been ripped for an 8 game IC, playing 2 cupcakes. We did that because it made sense and it allowed our teams to get into bowl games and the CFP. Why the fuck would we suddenly go from being willing to be criticized to our scheduling to a schedule that is much harder unless we knew and now know that with expansion you can play harder schedules - IC and OOC - and the SEC will still get 3-4 teams in the CFP each year.

Before you stop typing, I implore you to slow down and think through this. I am stating absolute facts. You are saying probably. You can not want CFP expansion all you want. But you can't deny what is actually happening.

I've done the best I can but you are too stupid or stubborn or both. I am done wasting my time with you.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

 

[Deep Creek]

So tell me, what benefit to Alabama have to schedule tough OOC opponents in a 12 team playoff? I know Cinci benefits from doing it, buy why would Alabama say yes?

How about give fans an opportunity to see them in action against a better opponent than having to watch a 55-0 blowout?

Gonna be hard for Bama to “ schedule up” in conference or out since they are better than everyone. Don’t think any NFL teams will schedule them.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

How about give fans an opportunity to see them in action against a better opponent than having to watch a 55-0 blowout?

Gonna be hard for Bama to “ schedule up” in conference or out since they are better than everyone. Don’t think any NFL teams will schedule them.

My son goes to Bama ... first parents' weekend we went to and the game was against NMSU. Ugh. It was hotter than hell, and they were up 49-0 in the first half, or something crazy like that. I never leave a game early, but I was tempted that game. Most schools will play 1 cupcake going forward ... it's a bye, and they can feel good about knowing they are financing the school's budget. But fans and TV execs are tired of too many cupcake games that end up on ESPN+

 

[Deep Creek]

the suck part is they pay for names
sorry but Texas Alabama is big in name only
Texas South Carolina
Oklahoma vandy
oklahoma Miss state
UCLA Purdue
UCLA Maryland
USC Rutgers
USC Indiana
will never really be big
and unfortunately i feel like we will see those games more often than we see meaningful USC vs Ohio State or Oklahoma vs Alabama
and thats only after USC can get back and maintain
UCLA vs any big name (OHST, Mich, Penn St, Wisc) has no real appeal
same with TX but they actually have a following that will still watch no matter what. UCLA cant say the same.

Yep. Networks are willing to pay put the ass to broadcast the marquee matchups and willing to tolerate those less attractive ones.

There are really 3 tiers of games.

Ohio State/Michigan, Texas/OU, Iron Bowl, Notre Dame/USC type games

Then marquee teams vs lesser ones like TOSU/Rutgers, OU/TCU, BamaMizzou types.

Lastly the “thorns that come with the roses” types that only fans of those teams and us CFB nuts want to watch like USC/Cal, Texas/Texas Tech, Rutgers/Illinois, etc.

 

[iowajerms]

I really like this. I have always been a big advocate that every team in a league (unless punished for a violation) should have a shot at winning the NC.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

JFC ... it's really hard to talk to you when you call a great article, written by a prominent sports writer, from a known sports platform, quoting the exact people who are making these decisions explain why the decisions are made, wrong and bogus.

1. There is no question that OOC schedules have gotten better and are getting better. Just look at the future schedules, and read the article.

2. You say players don't like to play in big games when there are dozens of articles where the players say they love them. You obviously have never played big time sports - they want big games in the spotlight.

3. You have become the worst troll on this site. Unreal.

You are such a dunce, this is my last post to you. Don't know what happened to you, but you went from being a decent poster to someone who has lost all touch with reality. Here is an unreal example:

"did you just make up fake UGA schedules? You seem to be assuming that UGA will just happen to play all the best teams in the SEC all of a sudden on rotating schedules, while missing out on the worst. Are you going to rotate bama/LSU every year? Probably not. Are you going to rotate Tx and OU ever year? Probably not. In reality, your schedule will probably look similar to your current one some years, and similar to what you projected other years. But it will be entirely random. And protected rivalries will lock in some yearly matchups that screw up the rest of the rotation."

It's like you don't follow college football, don't know anything that is going on, and then anytime someone posts evidence you just dismiss it as being "bogus."

I presented a sample schedule based on what the SEC has said they are going to do with their scheduling. What I posted is exactly what our regular season scheduling will look like. You say "probably not" and have nothing to base that on. The SEC has said that it is going to a 3-6-6 schedule. That means we will have 3 permanent rivals - for us UF, UA, and USCjr - and then for the other 12 teams we will rotate through them every other year. The SEC wants each team to play twice - home and away - every 4 years. There are literally hundreds of articles on this, dozens and dozens of blogs, podcasts, etc. I supposed you will say they are all bogus.

The sample that I showed you is exactly how we are going to schedule in the SEC, but you are such a pussy because it blows your argument out of the water that you aren't man enough to come here and say, damn, maybe ole Dawgy is right and regular season schedules are going to be badass. And all of this is 100% because of expansion. How do I know that? Because for a decade or more the SEC has been ripped for an 8 game IC, playing 2 cupcakes. We did that because it made sense and it allowed our teams to get into bowl games and the CFP. Why the fuck would we suddenly go from being willing to be criticized to our scheduling to a schedule that is much harder unless we knew and now know that with expansion you can play harder schedules - IC and OOC - and the SEC will still get 3-4 teams in the CFP each year.

Before you stop typing, I implore you to slow down and think through this. I am stating absolute facts. You are saying probably. You can not want CFP expansion all you want. But you can't deny what is actually happening.

I've done the best I can but you are too stupid or stubborn or both. I am done wasting my time with you.

I read the article. The assumption being made in the article really has nothing to do with the playoff. It hints that the SEC is trying to schedule bigger teams, some of which are already moving to the SEC, to get a bigger contract. That's fine, I still think it's a lot of talk from the AD's that isn't reality. It has nothing to do with scheduling due to expanding playoff potential. It's also temporary until TV contracts are signed. Could a TV contract include some control over OOC scheduling? Maybe, but that has yet to be tied in with any of the major conferences OOC scheduling. The only thing built in is where those get aired, not who they face. And as I read it, it seemed the equivalent of coach-speak coming out of AD's. In reality, nothing they've done has changed. They're always going to try and promote the thing they're doing as the next best thing. No AD is going to go "yeah, we suck we probably shouldn't schedule Samford".

The article provides no evidence that schedules have gotten better. It points to 8 games that have been scheduled to suggest this. Again, looking at Alabama Greg Byrne started in 2017. The CFB playoff started in 2014. We'll go back to 2008, Alabama opened with Clemson. 2009 opened with VT. 2010, 2nd game against Penn State. 2011, Penn State. 2012 Michigan. 2013. VT. 2014 WVU. 2015 Wisconsin. 2016 USC.

Nothing has changed with Alabama's scheduling. So to go "ooh look they scheduled Texas", who's going to be in the SEC anyway is dumb. You keep saying I'm ignoring facts but I'm listing a bunch of facts you keep ignoring. So yeah, there is a big question that OOC have gotten better. Taking Alabama, there's absolutely no change pre playoff or pre their current AD.

Recruits aren't picking Alabama because of a future game with West Virginia or Notre Dame. They're picking Alabama to play in the SEC.

You keep saying things like "I'm speaking absolute facts" while typing no facts. I asked a simple question, what benefits do top teams have to schedule tougher OOC opponents in regards to their playoff chances. You still haven't answered. You listed TV contracts, recruits, ect. You listed the benefits smaller schools will get. What benefit does an Alabama get by scheduling a strong OOC schedule in terms of their playoff chances in a 12 team format?

 

[Voltaire]

I always knew scUM fans were pussies, but man they are even exceeding my expectations lately on this board.

Disclaimer: shout out to @Voltaire who actually is a college football fan

Thank you ... by the way, I love hating ohio state!!! I was actually feeling bad for you guys, because you were annually kicking our asses (takes away from the hate). I hope we are back!!!

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

How about give fans an opportunity to see them in action against a better opponent than having to watch a 55-0 blowout?

Gonna be hard for Bama to “ schedule up” in conference or out since they are better than everyone. Don’t think any NFL teams will schedule them.

That's a different issue really. Yes, most fans enjoy the bigger games. But also yes, teams are putting themselves at a disadvantage by playing bigger games in the OOC.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I read the article. The assumption being made in the article really has nothing to do with the playoff. It hints that the SEC is trying to schedule bigger teams, some of which are already moving to the SEC, to get a bigger contract. That's fine, I still think it's a lot of talk from the AD's that isn't reality. It has nothing to do with scheduling due to expanding playoff potential. It's also temporary until TV contracts are signed. Could a TV contract include some control over OOC scheduling? Maybe, but that has yet to be tied in with any of the major conferences OOC scheduling. The only thing built in is where those get aired, not who they face. And as I read it, it seemed the equivalent of coach-speak coming out of AD's. In reality, nothing they've done has changed. They're always going to try and promote the thing they're doing as the next best thing. No AD is going to go "yeah, we suck we probably shouldn't schedule Samford".

The article provides no evidence that schedules have gotten better. It points to 8 games that have been scheduled to suggest this. Again, looking at Alabama Greg Byrne started in 2017. The CFB playoff started in 2014. We'll go back to 2008, Alabama opened with Clemson. 2009 opened with VT. 2010, 2nd game against Penn State. 2011, Penn State. 2012 Michigan. 2013. VT. 2014 WVU. 2015 Wisconsin. 2016 USC.

Nothing has changed with Alabama's scheduling. So to go "ooh look they scheduled Texas", who's going to be in the SEC anyway is dumb. You keep saying I'm ignoring facts but I'm listing a bunch of facts you keep ignoring. So yeah, there is a big question that OOC have gotten better. Taking Alabama, there's absolutely no change pre playoff or pre their current AD.

Recruits aren't picking Alabama because of a future game with West Virginia or Notre Dame. They're picking Alabama to play in the SEC.

You keep saying things like "I'm speaking absolute facts" while typing no facts. I asked a simple question, what benefits do top teams have to schedule tougher OOC opponents in regards to their playoff chances. You still haven't answered. You listed TV contracts, recruits, ect. You listed the benefits smaller schools will get. What benefit does an Alabama get by scheduling a strong OOC schedule in terms of their playoff chances in a 12 team format?

Address how wrong you were about the 9 game SEC IC schedule. Then I might engage with you. Otherwise you are a half wit not worthy of my time.

 

[OlyDuck]

All conferences have teams that aren't as well known. That's obvious. And those games will draw eyeballs because of the better top teams. I can't speak for the B1G and their scheduling, but the SEC schedule starting in 2025-ish is absolutely going to have 3-4 times as many big team v. big team games.

As for paying for names, yeah, that's what blue bloods do. Nothing wrong with that. I think that Bama blows Texas out. But let's see what happens in about in 5 years when UT hopefully has a proven coach and are living up to their expectations.

5 years? its been over 10 since they had any kind of sustained success

 

[OlyDuck]

Yep. Networks are willing to pay put the ass to broadcast the marquee matchups and willing to tolerate those less attractive ones.

There are really 3 tiers of games.

Ohio State/Michigan, Texas/OU, Iron Bowl, Notre Dame/USC type games

Then marquee teams vs lesser ones like TOSU/Rutgers, OU/TCU, BamaMizzou types.

Lastly the “thorns that come with the roses” types that only fans of those teams and us CFB nuts want to watch like USC/Cal, Texas/Texas Tech, Rutgers/Illinois, etc.

i would throw in one more. not marquee but not exactly crap either. the games that people should pay attention to but dont because of snobbery or ignorance.
Houston vs UTSA for example

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Address how wrong you were about the 9 game SEC IC schedule. Then I might engage with you. Otherwise you are a half wit not worthy of my time.

I asked if you made that up. It looks made up and have yet to verify that. If it's a projection, I'd still maintain it's an entirely unrealistic one. That's not how these schedules play out, see Michigan State last year missing the top 3 teams in the B10 west. Even if divisions are removed, it doesn't change that reality.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I asked if you made that up. It looks made up and have yet to verify that. If it's a projection, I'd still maintain it's an entirely unrealistic one. That's not how these schedules play out, see Michigan State last year missing the top 3 teams in the B10 west. Even if divisions are removed, it doesn't change that reality.

I responded fully. That's a sample of exactly what it is going to be. Everything you said was wrong.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

5 years? its been over 10 since they had any kind of sustained success

Don't make me defend Tejas. Like it or not, results or not (mostly not), they are a big player in college sports. It is what it is. Whether their results ever match up to their promise, who knows. But games against Texas will be big TV draws because they are Texas.

 

[Deep Creek]

i would throw in one more. not marquee but not exactly crap either. the games that people should pay attention to but dont because of snobbery or ignorance.
Houston vs UTSA for example

Damn right. And it is more snobbery IMHO. A lot of games like that are a hell of a lot more entertaining than some “ higher profile” games.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I responded fully. That's a sample of exactly what it is going to be. Everything you said was wrong.

No you didn't. You said "I presented a sample schedule based on what the SEC has said they are going to do with their scheduling.". Which, again, sounds like a way of re-phrasing that you made it up. I wouldn't mind seeing where that sample comes from.

 

[Deep Creek]

Don't make me defend Tejas. Like it or not, results or not (mostly not), they are a big player in college sports. It is what it is. Whether their results ever match up to their promise, who knows. But games against Texas will be big TV draws because they are Texas.

The past several years the rusty cows have measured success using the Jerry Jones definition. Revenue generation trumps performance on the field. As long as the money rolls in (and is spent exorbitantly) errryyything is good. The agnuts also have a tendency to use this method as well. Their numbers have just been in better balance than the rusty cows.

Must be a Texas thing. I blame JJ.

 

[Deep Creek]

That's a different issue really. Yes, most fans enjoy the bigger games. But also yes, teams are putting themselves at a disadvantage by playing bigger games in the OOC.

Yes teams risk more playing a more difficult schedule…at least as far as making the playoff goes. But expanding to 12 mitigates that risk quite a bit. So why not take on that risk? If you can’t run with a more difficult team you’ll know what level you need to get to in order to run with ‘em.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

No you didn't. You said "I presented a sample schedule based on what the SEC has said they are going to do with their scheduling.". Which, again, sounds like a way of re-phrasing that you made it up. I wouldn't mind seeing where that sample comes from.

Go back to the kiddies table ... adults talking football here.