You would not expect for the final standings and the four teams of the College Football Playoff to be #1 Clemson vs. #4 Oklahoma and #2 Alabama vs. #3 Michigan State.

The problem I have is with the Big 12. As you know, the Big 12 has only 10 teams and no conference championship game. (They need an expansion, not back to 12 teams but to 14 teams).

Last year the Big 12 got left out of the College Football Playoff for not having a championship game (and deservedly so) and that was a little show to the Big 12 that they need a change; and they did not make one.

This year Oklahoma is getting into the College Football Playoff easily, even with a loss to a bad Texas team. Oklahoma did not have to risk a loss in an extra game and Oklahoma did not have to risk men [to injury] in an extra game.

Iowa had no losses going into the Big 10 Championship Game vs. a really good Michigan State team, but unfortunately will miss the College Football Playoff because they had to play the extra game that Oklahoma did not have to play.

Stanford also is not a benefactor from this... They have had a great season with wins over Notre Dame and USC and I think that they should get in... Although they have two losses, they are to two really good football teams; Northwestern and Oregon.

If I was my choice... I would like to see #1 Clemson vs. #4 Stanford or Iowa and #2 Alabama vs. #3 Michigan State... in that case it would be the champion from the ACC vs. Pac-12 and SEC vs. Big Ten.

I know you guys might not agree with this but I just want to put my opinion out there. Thanks!

I wonder if the committee will hold it against Oklahoma for not playing in a Championship game?

could easily drop down to 4.

You're only motive is to get into a P5 conference.

As. Big 12 guy, I think Oklahoma has done enough and earned CFP berth. Iowa should not be in the conversation at all, as they did not win a conference champion. Honestly, Ohio St has more of an argument, just by the fact that their division is much tougher.

I would not argue that Stanford deserves a bid, but they have two losses, and are now 3-2 against the CFP top 25, and that's if USC stays in. Oklahoma is 4-0. As the committee has proven, better wins mean more than poor losses.

(12-06-2015 12:52 AM)mkb627 Wrote:  Iowa had no losses going into the Big 10 Championship Game[/b] vs. a really good Michigan State team, but unfortunately will miss the College Football Playoff because they had to play the extra game that [b]Oklahoma did not have to play.

Iowa and Oklahoma both played nine conference games, so how on earth was Iowa's CCG an "extra game"? Actually, it was a game they had to play to equalize with Oklahoma, not put them ahead of them.

Moreover, Oklahoma had to win their conference by playing everyone. They didn't get to duck any good teams, like Iowa did. If Iowa had won the B1G they would have done so without ever facing Michigan or Ohio State. That's kind of bogus, don't you think?

And would it make you feel better if Oklahoma had played Illinois State today, like Iowa did earlier in the year? Then they'd have played the same number of OOC games too.

(12-06-2015 01:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 12:52 AM)mkb627 Wrote:  Iowa had no losses going into the Big 10 Championship Game[/b] vs. a really good Michigan State team, but unfortunately will miss the College Football Playoff because they had to play the extra game that [b]Oklahoma did not have to play.

Iowa and Oklahoma both played nine conference games, so how on earth was Iowa's CCG an "extra game"? Actually, it was a game they had to play to equalize with Oklahoma, not put them ahead of them.

Would it make you feel better if Oklahoma had played Illinois State today, like Iowa did earlier in the year? Then they'd have played the same number of OOC games too.

He means Iowa played a 13 game season (which included an extra P5 game - 11 total), whereas OU played a 12 game season (10 P5), not that Iowa played more conference games.

Oklahoma had to play every single team in their conference, including the good ones (cough, Iowa, cough). They even played a "championship game" on the road at OKState and destroyed them. Please, OU is easily one of the best four teams in the country.

(12-06-2015 01:04 AM)leofrog Wrote:  You're only motive is to get into a P5 conference.

As. Big 12 guy, I think Oklahoma has done enough and earned CFP berth. Iowa should not be in the conversation at all, as they did not win a conference champion. Honestly, Ohio St has more of an argument, just by the fact that their division is much tougher.

I would not argue that Stanford deserves a bid, but they have two losses, and are now 3-2 against the CFP top 25, and that's if USC stays in. Oklahoma is 4-0. As the committee has proven, better wins mean more than poor losses.

I am not saying that Oklahoma does not deserve to be in the College Football Playoff, they are having a great season. However, with no Big 12 championship game it might be a little unfair how they could make it without playing another game.

(12-06-2015 01:07 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 01:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 12:52 AM)mkb627 Wrote:  Iowa had no losses going into the Big 10 Championship Game[/b] vs. a really good Michigan State team, but unfortunately will miss the College Football Playoff because they had to play the extra game that [b]Oklahoma did not have to play.

Iowa and Oklahoma both played nine conference games, so how on earth was Iowa's CCG an "extra game"? Actually, it was a game they had to play to equalize with Oklahoma, not put them ahead of them.

Would it make you feel better if Oklahoma had played Illinois State today, like Iowa did earlier in the year? Then they'd have played the same number of OOC games too.

He means Iowa played a 13 game season, whereas OU played a 12 game season, not that Iowa played more conference games.

So as I said, would it have made him feel better if OU had played Illinois State today? That would have equalized them at 13 games.

Point is, folks who harp about the CCG act like the CCG is the extra game compared to schools in the Big 12. It's not. Since they both play the same number of conference games, the extra game is whatever OOC cannon fodder game the team from the CCG conference played earlier in the year.

(12-06-2015 01:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 01:07 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 01:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 12:52 AM)mkb627 Wrote:  Iowa had no losses going into the Big 10 Championship Game[/b] vs. a really good Michigan State team, but unfortunately will miss the College Football Playoff because they had to play the extra game that [b]Oklahoma did not have to play.

Iowa and Oklahoma both played nine conference games, so how on earth was Iowa's CCG an "extra game"? Actually, it was a game they had to play to equalize with Oklahoma, not put them ahead of them.

Would it make you feel better if Oklahoma had played Illinois State today, like Iowa did earlier in the year? Then they'd have played the same number of OOC games too.

He means Iowa played a 13 game season, whereas OU played a 12 game season, not that Iowa played more conference games.

So as I said, would it have made him feel better if OU had played Illinois State today? That would have equalized them at 13 games.

Point is, folks who harp about the CCG act like the CCG is the extra game compared to schools in the Big 12. It's not. Since they both play the same number of conference games, the extra game is whatever OOC cannon fodder game the team from the CCG conference played earlier in the year.

Read my updated post. My computer froze up on me. The number of P5 OOC games wasn't the same. Iowa played Pitt and ISU. OU played UTenn. It's 11 P5 vs. 10 P5.

Do anyone even remember why conference championship games were started? Let me refresh your memory, it was because the SEC wanted another stream of money to come into the conference. So they went to twelve teams, divided the conference into divisions and the winner of the divisions would play in this championship game. The Big Ten saw how successful the SEC CG was and followed suit. The NCAA did not regulate this CG, this was the conferences choice. And it was done to make more money. Now before you ask how are you suppose to determine a conference champion without a CG? Well, how do you determine your division champion if there is a tie? My point is you don't need a CG to determine your champion; it is an unnecessary extra game; exciting but unnecessary from a point of determining your champion. So when I hear fans of the SEC, Big Ten, and PAC 12 say it is a unfair advantage for the Big 12 not to play a CG, well no one told those conferences to go create this money grab extra game in the first place. The conferences have always been allowed to do things that they believe were best for the their conferences. What may be beneficial for the SEC and Big Ten may not be for the Big 12.

So in the first year of the playoffs, all we heard was how the Big 12 was going to get screwed without having a CG. Now in Year Two, we're getting threads of how unfair it is for the Big 12 champion to only have played 12 games to get into the playoffs while the other conference champions had to play 13. Whoppie-damn-do!!! You can't have it both ways. For fans of programs who teams exist in the G-5, you're pissed because the Big 12 will not expand to take your team in and now seeing Oklahoma in the playoffs is adding validity to the Big 12 stance of not having to expand. This pisses you off and rightly so. Tough tittie as my dad use to tell me.

I think Oklhoama should be out b/c they lost to a bad Texas team on a neutral field, plus Texas beating Baylor, and they got both TCU and Baylor without their starting QBs and these programs are more about the offense than defense. lol

but i do blieve every league should have the same format, b/c players are risking injury in every game they play and wear and tear on their body. It is an advantage to not have to play a title game

(12-06-2015 02:26 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  I think Oklhoama should be out b/c they lost to a bad Texas team on a neutral field, plus Texas beating Baylor, and they got both TCU and Baylor without their starting QBs and these programs are more about the offense than defense. lol

but i do blieve every league should have the same format, b/c players are risking injury in every game they play and wear and tear on their body. It is an advantage to not have to play a title game

Well greed runs College Football and when conferences have different agendas you get this kind of crap. The argument has been in existence a long time about the football players playing too many games and taking away from classroom time. But this haven't stop the sport from going to 10 regular season games to 11 and now 12. And 13 if you play in the CG. It's not about being fair, it's about making money which is the purpose of the CG.

(12-06-2015 02:26 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  I think Oklhoama should be out b/c they lost to a bad Texas team on a neutral field, plus Texas beating Baylor, and they got both TCU and Baylor without their starting QBs and these programs are more about the offense than defense. lol

but i do blieve every league should have the same format, b/c players are risking injury in every game they play and wear and tear on their body. It is an advantage to not have to play a title game

Why should it matter how teams win? If teams are awesome on offense, then have a good defense to stop them. That's an asinine argument, but it is one that the CFP committee does count. That's more a problem with the committee than teams like Oklahoma, Baylor, or TCU.

(12-06-2015 01:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 12:52 AM)mkb627 Wrote:  Iowa had no losses going into the Big 10 Championship Game[/b] vs. a really good Michigan State team, but unfortunately will miss the College Football Playoff because they had to play the extra game that [b]Oklahoma did not have to play.

Iowa and Oklahoma both played nine conference games, so how on earth was Iowa's CCG an "extra game"? Actually, it was a game they had to play to equalize with Oklahoma, not put them ahead of them.

Moreover, Oklahoma had to win their conference by playing everyone. They didn't get to duck any good teams, like Iowa did. If Iowa had won the B1G they would have done so without ever facing Michigan or Ohio State. That's kind of bogus, don't you think?

And would it make you feel better if Oklahoma had played Illinois State today, like Iowa did earlier in the year? Then they'd have played the same number of OOC games too.

You do wonder how Oklahoma would do if they faced either Navy or Houston for the Big 12 title if those 2 were in the Big 12?

Illinois State is not a pushover team from the FCS. MVFC is the tops and in some cases better than the MAC and SBC playing P5 schools.

(12-06-2015 12:52 AM)mkb627 Wrote:  You would not expect for the final standings and the four teams of the College Football Playoff to be #1 Clemson vs. #4 Oklahoma and #2 Alabama vs. #3 Michigan State.

The problem I have is with the Big 12. As you know, the Big 12 has only 10 teams and no conference championship game. (They need an expansion, not back to 12 teams but to 14 teams).

Last year the Big 12 got left out of the College Football Playoff for not having a championship game (and deservedly so) and that was a little show to the Big 12 that they need a change; and they did not make one.

This year Oklahoma is getting into the College Football Playoff easily, even with a loss to a bad Texas team. Oklahoma did not have to risk a loss in an extra game and Oklahoma did not have to risk men [to injury] in an extra game.

Iowa had no losses going into the Big 10 Championship Game vs. a really good Michigan State team, but unfortunately will miss the College Football Playoff because they had to play the extra game that Oklahoma did not have to play.

Stanford also is not a benefactor from this... They have had a great season with wins over Notre Dame and USC and I think that they should get in... Although they have two losses, they are to two really good football teams; Northwestern and Oregon.

If I was my choice... I would like to see #1 Clemson vs. #4 Stanford or Iowa and #2 Alabama vs. #3 Michigan State... in that case it would be the champion from the ACC vs. Pac-12 and SEC vs. Big Ten.

I know you guys might not agree with this but I just want to put my opinion out there. Thanks!

Completely agree

(12-06-2015 03:04 AM)leofrog Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 02:26 AM)ClemVegas Wrote:  I think Oklhoama should be out b/c they lost to a bad Texas team on a neutral field, plus Texas beating Baylor, and they got both TCU and Baylor without their starting QBs and these programs are more about the offense than defense. lol

but i do blieve every league should have the same format, b/c players are risking injury in every game they play and wear and tear on their body. It is an advantage to not have to play a title game

Why should it matter how teams win? If teams are awesome on offense, then have a good defense to stop them. That's an asinine argument, but it is one that the CFP committee does count. That's more a problem with the committee than teams like Oklahoma, Baylor, or TCU.

The Big XII needs to get in step with the other major conferences, plain and simple

No one cares about your stupid round robin argument, get a championship game like the rest of the conferences in FCS

(12-06-2015 01:12 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 01:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 01:07 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 01:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 12:52 AM)mkb627 Wrote:  Iowa had no losses going into the Big 10 Championship Game[/b] vs. a really good Michigan State team, but unfortunately will miss the College Football Playoff because they had to play the extra game that [b]Oklahoma did not have to play.

Iowa and Oklahoma both played nine conference games, so how on earth was Iowa's CCG an "extra game"? Actually, it was a game they had to play to equalize with Oklahoma, not put them ahead of them.

Would it make you feel better if Oklahoma had played Illinois State today, like Iowa did earlier in the year? Then they'd have played the same number of OOC games too.

He means Iowa played a 13 game season, whereas OU played a 12 game season, not that Iowa played more conference games.

So as I said, would it have made him feel better if OU had played Illinois State today? That would have equalized them at 13 games.

Point is, folks who harp about the CCG act like the CCG is the extra game compared to schools in the Big 12. It's not. Since they both play the same number of conference games, the extra game is whatever OOC cannon fodder game the team from the CCG conference played earlier in the year.

Read my updated post. My computer froze up on me. The number of P5 OOC games wasn't the same. Iowa played Pitt and ISU. OU played UTenn. It's 11 P5 vs. 10 P5.

Well, that's not a CCG vs no-CCG issue. Michigan State also played ten P5 games. I don't hear anyone complaining about that.

Also, playing a P5 isn't necessarily better than playing a G5. E.g., LSU played Western Kentucky, who just won the C-USA title and is ranked #37 in the Massey Composite. Iowa State is #81. So WKU is better than plenty of P5 teams.

What should matter is overall SOS, and Oklahoma's is #19 (Sagarin) while Iowa's is a much softer #57, despite playing a CCG.

(12-06-2015 03:19 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 01:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 12:52 AM)mkb627 Wrote:  Iowa had no losses going into the Big 10 Championship Game[/b] vs. a really good Michigan State team, but unfortunately will miss the College Football Playoff because they had to play the extra game that [b]Oklahoma did not have to play.

Iowa and Oklahoma both played nine conference games, so how on earth was Iowa's CCG an "extra game"? Actually, it was a game they had to play to equalize with Oklahoma, not put them ahead of them.

Moreover, Oklahoma had to win their conference by playing everyone. They didn't get to duck any good teams, like Iowa did. If Iowa had won the B1G they would have done so without ever facing Michigan or Ohio State. That's kind of bogus, don't you think?

And would it make you feel better if Oklahoma had played Illinois State today, like Iowa did earlier in the year? Then they'd have played the same number of OOC games too.

You do wonder how Oklahoma would do if they faced either Navy or Houston for the Big 12 title if those 2 were in the Big 12?

Illinois State is not a pushover team from the FCS. MVFC is the tops and in some cases better than the MAC and SBC playing P5 schools.

What I wonder about is how Iowa would have fared against Oklahoma's #19 rated (Sagarin) schedule versus the much softer #57 schedule that Iowa actually played. That seems far more relevant, eh?

(12-06-2015 07:53 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  The Big XII needs to get in step with the other major conferences, plain and simple

No one cares about your stupid round robin argument, get a championship game like the rest of the conferences in FCS