Can anyone recall the two divisional champions of any conference having such a horrific 24 hours? It certainly calls into question many aspects of the CFP and how it assesses the participants. Was Stanford really the deserving school? How underrated was a competitive PAC? How overrated was the Big 10?

I can't but I'm young.

I put this squarely on the shoulders of the committee. The committee is a joke intended to let ESPN and their masters manufacture games and narratives.

Bring back the computers!

Figure this one out. Scores from this year.

Northwestern 16, Stanford 6

Iowa 40, Northwestern 10

Stanford 45, Iowa 16

OP, you now how this goes in the college football world. Just like how we have seen teams that were 40 point favorites lose. The reason why we have seen FCS teams take P5 teams into overtime or even win.

While I know your agenda with this thread, it's just a tiny meaningless thread in the big scheme of the sport.

Michigan is on the verge becoming the dominate program in college football for the immediate future and the SEC fan boys will be crying on the sidelines while Michigan raises natty title trophies.

This not even close to the Big10's worst day. At least OSU and Mich blew out their opponents. The worst bowl day for the Big10 was January 1, 2011 following the 2010 season.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...istory-yep

Not only did the big10 go 0-5 that day, the Big Ten went 0-3 against the rival SEC in bowls, dropping the three games by a combined score of 138-45

(01-01-2016 08:58 PM)goofus Wrote:  Figure this one out. Scores from this year.

Northwestern 16, Stanford 6

Iowa 40, Northwestern 10

Stanford 45, Iowa 16

You left one out. Tennessee 45 Northwestern 6

The answer to your real question is simple. Northwestern had a great starting unit at the first of the season. What they don't have is depth. Stanford started slowly and caught fire. Iowa remained constant for the most part and just had a great day against a somewhat depleted Northwestern.

Size and athleticism was Tennessee's advantage. And unless there is an intentional effort to schedule a smattering of P5 OOC games with each other establishing parameters for comparison the supposed weakness or strength of any conference's overall scheduling is extremely difficult to ascertain.

(01-01-2016 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 08:58 PM)goofus Wrote:  Figure this one out. Scores from this year.

Northwestern 16, Stanford 6

Iowa 40, Northwestern 10

Stanford 45, Iowa 16

You left one out. Tennessee 45 Northwestern 6

The answer to your real question is simple. Northwestern had a great starting unit at the first of the season. What they don't have is depth. Stanford started slowly and caught fire. Iowa remained constant for the most part and just had a great day against a somewhat depleted Northwestern.

Size and athleticism was Tennessee's advantage. And unless there is an intentional effort to schedule a smattering of P5 OOC games with each other establishing parameters for comparison the supposed weakness or strength of any conference's overall scheduling is extremely difficult to ascertain.

meh...northwestern just had one of those rare seasons like they had this year. I have said that many times. People just don't grasp it.

TN blowing out Northwestern was expected. TN had more talent and better athletes and should have won and they did win.

It is up to TN to actually live up to their hype during the regular season.

I don't think it calls the playoff into question at all.

I did think Stanford deserved to be in over Oklahoma, but there's no place for that argument when one had two losses and the other only had one. Michigan State handled their business and just ran into a wall the same way Iowa and Florida did. Those losses aren't necessarily indicative of the division's or conference's strength. Bowl games are just about the teams that play in them. We can safely say now that the top four teams probably weren't in the playoffs, but I don't think you could fault their logic in choosing who they did.

Remember when the SEC West nearly lost all their bowl games? It wasn't a good look, but it didn't mean anything for real. It's still one of the strongest divisions. Just because the division winners got blown out, it doesn't say anything about their respective divisions or the conference. There was certainly a time when the Big 10 was down, but that's in the past. As far as the PAC goes, I think it has the most parity out of the power conferences for sure and that it has been that way for a while.

Regardless, I believe the two best teams in the country are going to play for the championship. It sucks that Ohio State and Stanford didn't get the opportunity, but there was no way they had the right over the teams that made it in.

Although not the same thing, the SEC last year did not do well in the NY6 bowls.

Bama getting upset plus Miss St and Ole Miss getting blown out.

(01-01-2016 09:12 PM)Hopeful Wrote:  I don't think it calls the playoff into question at all.

I did think Stanford deserved to be in over Oklahoma, but there's no place for that argument when one had two losses and the other only had one. Michigan State handled their business and just ran into a wall the same way Iowa and Florida did. Those losses aren't necessarily indicative of the division's or conference's strength. Bowl games are just about the teams that play in them. We can safely say now that the top four teams probably weren't in the playoffs, but I don't think you could fault their logic in choosing who they did.

Remember when the SEC West nearly lost all their bowl games? It wasn't a good look, but it didn't mean anything for real. It's still one of the strongest divisions. Just because the division winners got blown out, it doesn't say anything about their respective divisions or the conference. There was certainly a time when the Big 10 was down, but that's in the past. As far as the PAC goes, I think it has the most parity out of the power conferences for sure and that it has been that way for a while.

Regardless, I believe the two best teams in the country are going to play for the championship. It sucks that Ohio State and Stanford didn't get the opportunity, but there was no way they had the right over the teams that made it in.

You are conflating division prestige with bowl selection.

It's hard to argue that the series of mismatches validate the CFP selection process.

(01-01-2016 09:16 PM)goofus Wrote:  Although not the same thing, the SEC last year did not do well in the NY6 bowls.

Bama getting upset plus Miss St and Ole Miss getting blown out.

That's very true. And it is just as true this year. The FCS & G5 games have got to go. Schedule all P5 play an FCS or G5 in late August for a preseason 7th home game in the ticket book and then let the committee have more data to crunch. Relative strength and weakness would be more evident in any one given year and nobody would get the pass they do based on the previous year's performances and the preseason hype and poll positions.

Seriously, these are some low blows, try being humble for a change, I expect more from a few of you including my fellow Big Ten fans. Michigan State did what they needed to do, Stanford is a much more improved team, Alabama may be in another league in comparison and have Saban as their coach. But go ahead and rub it in like 12 year olds, starting to sound like Michigan fans.

(01-01-2016 09:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You are conflating division prestige with bowl selection.

It's hard to argue that the series of mismatches validate the CFP selection process.

The reason I made mention of the division stuff is because the questions in the opening post reference the relative strength of the divisions, and, ultimately, the conferences. I just didn't get some overarching notion that the Big 10 is a joke since the champ got rolled, that their was some kind of crazy talent gap, that SEC speed is for real and other conferences just can't handle it, and all the other rhetoric.

I'm not sure what you guys want from the selection process. All the teams in the playoffs made it in on their own merit. If the committee opted to be more ambitious and picked Stanford then they would have been hearing it for real had they lost. If they left the Big 10 out, it would have been TCU/Baylor all over again. There are always going to be teams on the outside looking in. That's just the nature of the system we have right now.

Instead of one playoff committee, why not two or three? Then they could sit down and come to a consensus/compromise for the 4 playoff spots. It's a little outside the box but we did have two polls for years that determined the champion. Either that or expand to eight teams; though I think that may dilute the meaning of the regular season a bit.

(01-01-2016 09:23 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Seriously, these are some low blows, try being humble for a change, I expect more from a few of you including my fellow Big Ten fans. Michigan State did what they needed to do, Stanford is a much more improved team, Alabama may be in another league in comparison and have Saban as their coach. But go ahead and rub it in like 12 year olds, starting to sound like Michigan fans.

You missed my post in the bowl thread Dexter. I said I was giving some of the mouthy Big 10 posters who have harangued the SEC all year long over last year by saying constantly that we were done, overrated, past our prime, etc, etc, that tonight and tonight only I was going to give them a dose of their own medicine. They need to taste the distasteful and own it. One of them has bugged out for the evening. Nebraskafan is taking it like a man. Due apologies to SeaBlue, you, and Ohio 1317. You guys have been good fans and worthy posters, and downright good guys.

So yeah, it is turnabout is fair play. I told them I bit my tongue all year long and waited for this. After midnight it is over. I'll even think about removing my sig. I've never used one before and find them childish as well.

So pardon me while I parse out the bitters. JR

(01-01-2016 10:34 PM)texasorange Wrote:  Instead of one playoff committee, why not two or three? Then they could sit down and come to a consensus/compromise for the 4 playoff spots. It's a little outside the box but we did have two polls for years that determined the champion. Either that or expand to eight teams; though I think that may dilute the meaning of the regular season a bit.

They would just job the selection of 8 for ratings too!

(01-01-2016 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Can anyone recall the two divisional champions of any conference having such a horrific 24 hours? It certainly calls into question many aspects of the CFP and how it assesses the participants. Was Stanford really the deserving school? How underrated was a competitive PAC? How overrated was the Big 10?

Well two teams from the weakest division in the P5 ran over USC and UCLA.

(01-01-2016 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 08:58 PM)goofus Wrote:  Figure this one out. Scores from this year.

Northwestern 16, Stanford 6

Iowa 40, Northwestern 10

Stanford 45, Iowa 16

You left one out. Tennessee 45 Northwestern 6

The answer to your real question is simple. Northwestern had a great starting unit at the first of the season. What they don't have is depth. Stanford started slowly and caught fire. Iowa remained constant for the most part and just had a great day against a somewhat depleted Northwestern.

Size and athleticism was Tennessee's advantage. And unless there is an intentional effort to schedule a smattering of P5 OOC games with each other establishing parameters for comparison the supposed weakness or strength of any conference's overall scheduling is extremely difficult to ascertain.

I don't know. I thought Michigan-Tennessee would be a close matchup and Florida-Northwestern would be close. Tennessee-Northwestern seemed one-sided to me and it was. I figured Michigan would win, but didn't really think they could score that much against Florida.

And most everyone knew that Michigan St. was Alabama's easiest matchup and MSU's worst. Now that was a function of seeding (although you certainly wonder about whether the matchup was planned).

(01-01-2016 10:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:34 PM)texasorange Wrote:  Instead of one playoff committee, why not two or three? Then they could sit down and come to a consensus/compromise for the 4 playoff spots. It's a little outside the box but we did have two polls for years that determined the champion. Either that or expand to eight teams; though I think that may dilute the meaning of the regular season a bit.

They would just job the selection of 8 for ratings too!

Probably so. I am just trying to think a little outside of the box on the selection process. While I'm not necessarily opposed to an 8 team playoff; I like it at 4 so one of the P5's will miss out & it keeps everyone on their toes & fans on edge.