Now I have no idea how close it was between Ohio State at 4 and Baylor at 5, but it may he been very close and if they look at Baylor's schedule quickly they see an out of conference schedule that includes 5-6 Buffalo, which to the committee is just another team that is under .500.

If UB is 6-6, does it look more impressive that it is technically a bowl eligible team? You wonder if the MAC canceling the Buffalo-Kent State game kept Baylor out of the College Football Playoff?

Seriously?

No.

Baylor had the worst OOC schedule out of ALL FBS teams. One of those bad teams maybe winning another game would not have improved it noticeably.

Seeing how Kent played OSU I don't think it mattered

(12-07-2014 07:43 PM)BullBoy Wrote:  If UB is 6-6, does it look more impressive that it is technically a bowl eligible team? You wonder if the MAC canceling the Buffalo-Kent State game kept Baylor out of the College Football Playoff?

Um... two of the UB wins were against FCS. So no, they wouldn't have been "technically a bowl eligible team" because only one FCS win counts towards bowl eligibility.

(12-07-2014 08:11 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  Seeing how Kent played OSU I don't think it mattered

Though OSU's Kent game would be lined up against an FCS game for Baylor or TCU, so OSU had a 13 game FBS schedule against Baylor and TCU's 11 game FBS schedule.

It would rather be that Baylor screwed itself in scheduling Northwestern State, making its schedule look softer on the bottom.

If Buffalo was an 8-4 team instead, while instead of one of their FCS opponents they played, say, a 6-6 P5 team and beat them, that probably would have been enough to edge Baylor up enough.

But Buffalo being like that vs what they were this season -- is asking too much. :)

I think what happened is the committee by releasing the weekly rankings heard the blowback.

They rather logically had TCU above Baylor despite Baylor winning head-to-head (AT Baylor with Bears winning in final minutes).

The easiest thing to do was take neither and blame the lack of a title game.

(12-07-2014 10:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think what happened is the committee by releasing the weekly rankings heard the blowback.

They rather logically had TCU above Baylor despite Baylor winning head-to-head (AT Baylor with Bears winning in final minutes).

The easiest thing to do was take neither and blame the lack of a title game.

I agree with this completely.. I was really just curious with my question in the initial post because it did cross my mind for a moment.

But yes the lack of a conference championship really hurt the Big XII.

(12-07-2014 10:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  They rather logically had TCU above Baylor despite Baylor winning head-to-head (AT Baylor with Bears winning in final minutes).

Do you mean illogically?

There actually was a logic to it, given that they were talking about "quality" wins, and the last week of the season gave Baylor a chance to add a quality win while it only gave TCU a chance to add a win.

But a more prudent committee that wasn't going to look past an undefeated FSU whether it "controlled" the CCG or not would have looked ahead and put TCU at #4.

Baylor has a bad-loss on the level of Ohio State's -- that's why they were ranked below TCU -- while not having played Kansas State yet. But Ohio State blowing out Wisconsin like a 2 dollar whore made more of a statement than Baylor beating K-State.

Baylor screwed Baylor.


2014 non-conference schedule:
SMU
Northwestern St
at Buffalo


And they're going to keep screwing themselves in the future. Check this crap out:

2015:
at SMU
Lamar
Rice


2016:
Northwestern St
SMU
at Rice


2017:
Liberty
UTSA
at Duke


2018:
at UTSA
Duke
tba


2019:
Incarnate Word
UTSA
at Rice



Those schedules are just beyond awful. Incarnate Word!!!!!!! Those are schedules made by a team trying to get to 6-6 so they can be bowl eligible. Those are not schedules made by a national championship contender trying to convince the committee that they're one of the 4 best teams in the country and deserve to be in the playoffs. If Baylor doesn't change those schedules within the next 8 months, they deserve zero sympathy from anybody, no matter what their record is next season.

They do have an extra P5 game in their conference schedule ... but they could upgrade their schedule somewhat in 2016, 2017 and 2019 by buying out their FCS contract and replacing it with a Go5 buy game.

As a smaller private school, they seem to look to save money in their OOC scheduling with FCS buy games and Go5 Home and Away games. But on the other hand, sometimes you get what you pay for. The Big12 being a tough conference assures them a reasonably strong top end to their schedule, but when the weaker Big12 schools are combined with the weak OOC schedule, and add that they have no CCG to go to, the bottom end of their "resume" is going to look softer than most rivals will be unless they schedule 12 FBS schools.

Assume for a moment that Baylor and its ranking and record had TEXAS on their uniforms. Do you think that OSU would then be jumping over TEXAS? I doubt it. The cartel is stronger than ever. The system is rigged such that there are about 12-15 teams that are allowed to win the new national championship. Baylor and TCU and many programs like them experience the ultimate insult. They are a part of the cartel with a stacked deck against them. No one wants to see the smaller private programs beating out the large state U's on the national scene.

Big 12 is getting jobbed and robbed by the others. Been going on for a while.

(12-07-2014 09:02 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 07:43 PM)BullBoy Wrote:  If UB is 6-6, does it look more impressive that it is technically a bowl eligible team? You wonder if the MAC canceling the Buffalo-Kent State game kept Baylor out of the College Football Playoff?

Um... two of the UB wins were against FCS. So no, they wouldn't have been "technically a bowl eligible team" because only one FCS win counts towards bowl eligibility.

At 6-6 with 2 FCS wins technically UB would have been bowl eligible...they just could not have been picked until all the other 6-6 or better teams that only had 1 FCS win.

Just the same as 5-7 Northwestern was technically bowl eligible because they were in the top 5 in APR this year.

Neither of those teams would have needed a waiver from the NCAA if a bowl was still open.

(12-07-2014 11:19 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  Assume for a moment that Baylor and its ranking and record had TEXAS on their uniforms. Do you think that OSU would then be jumping over TEXAS? I doubt it. The cartel is stronger than ever. The system is rigged such that there are about 12-15 teams that are allowed to win the new national championship. Baylor and TCU and many programs like them experience the ultimate insult. They are a part of the cartel with a stacked deck against them. No one wants to see the smaller private programs beating out the large state U's on the national scene.

Texas would have likely gone to the playoffs had they had the same resume as TCU. I'm not sure they would have had they had Baylor's but they would have had a better chance than Baylor.

There are have nots in the P5 as well. Even Auburn found itself on the other side of that coin in 2004.

But TCU and Baylor both have the opportunity to change that with OOC scheduling. At least TCU appears to be trying to schedule so that they can put themselves in a position to make the playoffs in the future.

(12-08-2014 11:50 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 11:19 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  Assume for a moment that Baylor and its ranking and record had TEXAS on their uniforms. Do you think that OSU would then be jumping over TEXAS? I doubt it. The cartel is stronger than ever. The system is rigged such that there are about 12-15 teams that are allowed to win the new national championship. Baylor and TCU and many programs like them experience the ultimate insult. They are a part of the cartel with a stacked deck against them. No one wants to see the smaller private programs beating out the large state U's on the national scene.

Texas would have likely gone to the playoffs had they had the same resume as TCU. I'm not sure they would have had they had Baylor's but they would have had a better chance than Baylor.

There are have nots in the P5 as well. Even Auburn found itself on the other side of that coin in 2004.

But TCU and Baylor both have the opportunity to change that with OOC scheduling. At least TCU appears to be trying to schedule so that they can put themselves in a position to make the playoffs in the future.

The problem with programs like TCU and Baylor is that they are too good for real P5 programs to want to play them OOC, and they are not good enough in the image department for P5 OOC programs to want to risk a loss that would reveal their true strength.

(12-08-2014 11:50 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 11:19 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  Assume for a moment that Baylor and its ranking and record had TEXAS on their uniforms. Do you think that OSU would then be jumping over TEXAS? I doubt it. The cartel is stronger than ever. The system is rigged such that there are about 12-15 teams that are allowed to win the new national championship. Baylor and TCU and many programs like them experience the ultimate insult. They are a part of the cartel with a stacked deck against them. No one wants to see the smaller private programs beating out the large state U's on the national scene.

Texas would have likely gone to the playoffs had they had the same resume as TCU. I'm not sure they would have had they had Baylor's but they would have had a better chance than Baylor.

There are have nots in the P5 as well. Even Auburn found itself on the other side of that coin in 2004.

But TCU and Baylor both have the opportunity to change that with OOC scheduling. At least TCU appears to be trying to schedule so that they can put themselves in a position to make the playoffs in the future.

Speaking of Auburn in 2004, I jokingly tell Auburn fans here in Atlanta that BG did them in when we dropped them for Oklahoma for our first OOC game that year. Auburn replaced us with College of Charleston, IIRC and lost out to Oklahoma when both were undefeated. BG actually gave OU a decent game losing 40-24. Adrian Peterson's first game as well as Omar Jacob's first game.

(12-08-2014 11:30 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:02 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 07:43 PM)BullBoy Wrote:  If UB is 6-6, does it look more impressive that it is technically a bowl eligible team? You wonder if the MAC canceling the Buffalo-Kent State game kept Baylor out of the College Football Playoff?

Um... two of the UB wins were against FCS. So no, they wouldn't have been "technically a bowl eligible team" because only one FCS win counts towards bowl eligibility.

At 6-6 with 2 FCS wins technically UB would have been bowl eligible...they just could not have been picked until all the other 6-6 or better teams that only had 1 FCS win.

Just the same as 5-7 Northwestern was technically bowl eligible because they were in the top 5 in APR this year.

Neither of those teams would have needed a waiver from the NCAA if a bowl was still open.

OK, you are correct. They would have needed a lot of help.