If I am the complete CFP committee, the first thing I’d do is sleep with my 13 wives, one after the other.
That was one reason I was dying on Saturday, I dreaded the possibility of IU getting in and PSU not being chosen.The wildest thing about this is in the first year of an expanded playoff Penn State is a likely 4 seed in a four team playoff year.
Auburn over Bama, too - three bad losses would cancel out some of that SOS and 4 top 25 wins.Losses by Texas and Notre Dame this weekend would help solve their dilemma. Crossing my fingers.....
Why wouldn’t it work?I would declare Penn State as National Champions, send a note to Sue Paterno apologizing on behalf of Richard Nixon for 1969, and then continue on with the playoffs for everyone to play for 2nd place.
And if that didn't work I would order a Code Red.
"You couldn't handle a Code Red."I would declare Penn State as National Champions, send a note to Sue Paterno apologizing on behalf of Richard Nixon for 1969, and then continue on with the playoffs for everyone to play for 2nd place.
And if that didn't work I would order a Code Red.
Keep in mind, the Big 12 Champ will already knock out the "12"I mean, looking at the list, seems the first 11 are a lock, barring no major upsets in the last week. Only remaining question is do you take 2 loss Clemson over 3 loss Alabama, and I think the answer is yes, but only because 3 losses and still the ability to compete for a Natty is a bad look IMO.
Edit: that said, this is also why I wanted only an expansion of the playoff to 6 teams. Even 2 losses is pushing it in my mind as to who is "worthy" to win a National title.
I think the nonconference winner highest seeds are :The wildest thing about this is in the first year of an expanded playoff Penn State is a likely 4 seed in a four team playoff year.
It kind of really doesn't matter. It's a relative ranking system. There are no "absolute" numbers, with the exception of the number of teams in the playoff to fill out the brackett.I mean, looking at the list, seems the first 11 are a lock, barring no major upsets in the last week. Only remaining question is do you take 2 loss Clemson over 3 loss Alabama, and I think the answer is yes, but only because 3 losses and still the ability to compete for a Natty is a bad look IMO.
Edit: that said, this is also why I wanted only an expansion of the playoff to 6 teams. Even 2 losses is pushing it in my mind as to who is "worthy" to win a National title.
I mean, looking at the list, seems the first 11 are a lock, barring no major upsets in the last week. Only remaining question is do you take 2 loss Clemson over 3 loss Alabama, and I think the answer is yes, but only because 3 losses and still the ability to compete for a Natty is a bad look IMO.
Edit: that said, this is also why I wanted only an expansion of the playoff to 6 teams. Even 2 losses is pushing it in my mind as to who is "worthy" to win a National title.
Assuming they beat Maryland, I can't see how PSU isn't the highest ranked non conference team. Which is good.I think the nonconference winner highest seeds are :
Oregon
Penn State
Notre Dame or Tennessee
I just can't see the Buckeyes losing to Oregon on a neutral field
Along those lines:I mean, looking at the list, seems the first 11 are a lock, barring no major upsets in the last week. Only remaining question is do you take 2 loss Clemson over 3 loss Alabama, and I think the answer is yes, but only because 3 losses and still the ability to compete for a Natty is a bad look IMO.
Edit: that said, this is also why I wanted only an expansion of the playoff to 6 teams. Even 2 losses is pushing it in my mind as to who is "worthy" to win a National title.
Big 10 CCG loser will get the 5 spot (assuming OSU wins against Michigan)Assuming they beat Maryland, I can't see how PSU isn't the highest ranked non conference team. Which is good.
Edit: assuming the Buckeyes beat Michigan
And head to The Phyrst and have a chick tell you to GFY! With a rum and coke of course!I would declare Penn State as National Champions, send a note to Sue Paterno apologizing on behalf of Richard Nixon for 1969, and then continue on with the playoffs for everyone to play for 2nd place.
And if that didn't work I would order a Code Red.
They likely would have been left out as #5, giving ND the nod, since the Big 10 already had 2 squads in the top 4. So, we're likely being saved from an absolute shafting (hopefully Bob can control himself).The wildest thing about this is in the first year of an expanded playoff Penn State is a likely 4 seed in a four team playoff year.
Penn State would have almost certainly been left out of a 4-team playoff this year. It would have been Oregon, Texas, tOSU and ND (or maybe Georgia) barring major upsets the rest of the season. We would have been looking at another NY6 bowl.They likely would have been left out as #5, giving ND the nod, since the Big 10 already had 2 squads in the top 4. So, we're likely being saved from an absolute shafting (hopefully Bob can control himself).
This would be a pretty good draw for PSU. R1 vs Ind and R2 v Boise.My bracketology would be...
1 Oregon (current B1G leader)
2 Texas (current SEC leader)
3 Boise (current G5 leader
4 SMU (current ACC leader)
5 Ohio State
6 Penn State
7 Notre Dame
8 Georgia
9 Miami
10 Tennessee
11 Indiana
12 Arizona State (current Big XII leader)
Actually they would have put ND as the 4th seedThe wildest thing about this is in the first year of an expanded playoff Penn State is a likely 4 seed in a four team playoff year.
So, I am curious. What team are you advocating for that has a “quality win” but more losses?Along those lines:
I looked back just three years ago - before the latest rounds of conference expansion stuff really took off:
The top 12 teams after 11 weeks of play ALL had at least one win over a top 20 team. Every one of them.
This year?
Of the top 12 teams in the polls - seven of them - SEVEN - have not a single win against a top 20 team on their entire schedule.
That is what the move towards "dilution of quality" expansions, and the move by more and more teams (not all) to avoid top OOC opponents will do for you.
Penn State, of course, is one of those teams in the top 12 without a top 20 win. FWIW, PSU played 4 conference games this year where they faced relatively new adds to the conference - the best of which sits at 6-5, and have combined for a 20-24 record - just 13-24 against P4 opponents. Add in the gauntlet of OOC foes, and there you have it. Conference dilution and Pay Days.
But that is just one for instance, this is not a Penn State issue, it is a college football issue - they have a lot of company. Indiana, Texas, Boise St, Miami, SMU, and Clemson also have ZERO top 20 wins. That, to me, is very damning wrt the state of college football.
Again, just three years ago, every top 12 team had at least one top 20 win, and most had 2 or more.
Is this the new age of "schedule as much mediocrity as possible, make as much $$ as possible through pay day games, and hope to win 10 out of 12 to make the playoffs"? Time will tell.
But if the CFP goes down the road of elevating teams based on # of wins, regardless of whether or not they beat anyone good, it just may be.
I don't think that is what anyone - at least not the fans - hoped to see. Be careful what you wish for.
I actually hope the CFP will take a closer look and elevate those teams with quality wins (no matter which conference they are from) - more so than they elevate teams with fewer losses, but no quality wins.