[Farm93]

ASU and Oregon won games they easily could have lost thanks turnovers.   
Pac-12 could have easily gone 2-5, but that didn't happen.  Whew!

4-3 is a rather good case.
USC simply doesn't show up for bowl games other than CFP/NY6 games.
Utah got a very raw deal.  They went from CFP to Alamo.   Worse in the Alamo their opponents were a few miles from campus.   

The biggest question coming out of the 2019 bowl season will belong to another conference.
1) Big12 - (Tag you're it) - No question they will be the conference that loses tiebreakers in 2020.   Their best teams were destroyed in the big bowls.   Their schedules have few quality OOC games. 

Other questions/observations - 
Rose Bowl Trends - The Pac-12 went 6-2 in Rose Bowls.   The BigTen went 2-6.   Most of those years it was Pac-12 #1 vs BigTen #2, but that's a different problem.

Pac-12 CG losers - The Pac-12 CG losers are now 0-9 in bowl games.  That's a problem.  

Michigan/Harbaugh - Coach Harbaugh has still not beaten a top 10 team away from Ann Arbor.    Hard to be a BigTen conference champion or CFP champion with that inability to win the big ones on the road.

[Farm93]

ASU and Oregon won games they easily could have lost thanks turnovers.   
Pac-12 could have easily gone 2-5, but that didn't happen.  Whew!

4-3 is a rather good case.
USC simply doesn't show up for bowl games other than CFP/NY6 games.
Utah got a very raw deal.  They went from CFP to Alamo.   Worse in the Alamo their opponents were a few miles from campus.   

The biggest question coming out of the 2019 bowl season will belong to another conference.
1) Big12 - (Tag you're it) - No question they will be the conference that loses tiebreakers in 2020.   Their best teams were destroyed in the big bowls.   Their schedules have few quality OOC games. 

Other questions/observations - 
Rose Bowl Trends - The Pac-12 went 6-2 in Rose Bowls.   The BigTen went 2-6.   Most of those years it was Pac-12 #1 vs BigTen #2, but that's a different problem.

Pac-12 CG losers - The Pac-12 CG losers are now 0-9 in bowl games.  That's a problem.  

Michigan/Harbaugh - Coach Harbaugh has still not beaten a top 10 team away from Ann Arbor.    Hard to be a BigTen conference champion or CFP champion with that inability to win the big ones on the road.

[lex24]

ASU and Oregon won games they easily could have lost thanks turnovers.   
Pac-12 could have easily gone 2-5, but that didn't happen.  Whew!

4-3 is a rather good case.
USC simply doesn't show up for bowl games other than CFP/NY6 games.
Utah got a very raw deal.  They went from CFP to Alamo.   Worse in the Alamo their opponents were a few miles from campus.   

The biggest question coming out of the 2019 bowl season will belong to another conference.
1) Big12 - (Tag you're it) - No question they will be the conference that loses tiebreakers in 2020.   Their best teams were destroyed in the big bowls.   Their schedules have few quality OOC games. 

Other questions/observations - 
Rose Bowl Trends - The Pac-12 went 6-2 in Rose Bowls.   The BigTen went 2-6.   Most of those years it was Pac-12 #1 vs BigTen #2, but that's a different problem.

Pac-12 CG losers - The Pac-12 CG losers are now 0-9 in bowl games.  That's a problem.  

Michigan/Harbaugh - Coach Harbaugh has still not beaten a top 10 team away from Ann Arbor.    Hard to be a BigTen conference champion or CFP champion with that inability to win the big ones on the road.

In all seriousness, why would you want to see a Pac12 team other than Stanford in the NCS?  How does that improve Stanfords program?  Remember ‘99?  Stanford got slaughtered by Texas in the opener and went on to win Pac 10.  The Conference was, I believe, pretty weak that year. Does that draw away from the Championship? No.  They don’t put asterisks next to it.

As far as I’m concerned if the Conference is down, Stanford has a better shot to win it.  I don’t want an Oregon or a Wash competing for the NCS.

[lex24]

ASU and Oregon won games they easily could have lost thanks turnovers.   
Pac-12 could have easily gone 2-5, but that didn't happen.  Whew!

4-3 is a rather good case.
USC simply doesn't show up for bowl games other than CFP/NY6 games.
Utah got a very raw deal.  They went from CFP to Alamo.   Worse in the Alamo their opponents were a few miles from campus.   

The biggest question coming out of the 2019 bowl season will belong to another conference.
1) Big12 - (Tag you're it) - No question they will be the conference that loses tiebreakers in 2020.   Their best teams were destroyed in the big bowls.   Their schedules have few quality OOC games. 

Other questions/observations - 
Rose Bowl Trends - The Pac-12 went 6-2 in Rose Bowls.   The BigTen went 2-6.   Most of those years it was Pac-12 #1 vs BigTen #2, but that's a different problem.

Pac-12 CG losers - The Pac-12 CG losers are now 0-9 in bowl games.  That's a problem.  

Michigan/Harbaugh - Coach Harbaugh has still not beaten a top 10 team away from Ann Arbor.    Hard to be a BigTen conference champion or CFP champion with that inability to win the big ones on the road.

In all seriousness, why would you want to see a Pac12 team other than Stanford in the NCS?  How does that improve Stanfords program?  Remember ‘99?  Stanford got slaughtered by Texas in the opener and went on to win Pac 10.  The Conference was, I believe, pretty weak that year. Does that draw away from the Championship? No.  They don’t put asterisks next to it.

As far as I’m concerned if the Conference is down, Stanford has a better shot to win it.  I don’t want an Oregon or a Wash competing for the NCS.

[cardcrimson]

It was pretty nice, though, when Stanford was winning the Pac-12 when it was a lot stronger than it is now.

As far as I’m concerned if the Conference is down, Stanford has a better shot to win it.  I don’t want an Oregon or a Wash competing for the NCS.

---

Utah got a very raw deal.  They went from CFP to Alamo.   Worse in the Alamo their opponents were a few miles from campus.   

They earned what the got: second place and two losses, and it's off to the Alamo Bowl. And by the way, the Alamo is in San Antonio, the University of Texas is in Austin--more than just a few miles from campus.

[cardcrimson]

It was pretty nice, though, when Stanford was winning the Pac-12 when it was a lot stronger than it is now.

As far as I’m concerned if the Conference is down, Stanford has a better shot to win it.  I don’t want an Oregon or a Wash competing for the NCS.

---

Utah got a very raw deal.  They went from CFP to Alamo.   Worse in the Alamo their opponents were a few miles from campus.   

They earned what the got: second place and two losses, and it's off to the Alamo Bowl. And by the way, the Alamo is in San Antonio, the University of Texas is in Austin--more than just a few miles from campus.

[Farm93]

ASU and Oregon won games they easily could have lost thanks turnovers.   
Pac-12 could have easily gone 2-5, but that didn't happen.  Whew!

4-3 is a rather good case.
USC simply doesn't show up for bowl games other than CFP/NY6 games.
Utah got a very raw deal.  They went from CFP to Alamo.   Worse in the Alamo their opponents were a few miles from campus.   

The biggest question coming out of the 2019 bowl season will belong to another conference.
1) Big12 - (Tag you're it) - No question they will be the conference that loses tiebreakers in 2020.   Their best teams were destroyed in the big bowls.   Their schedules have few quality OOC games. 

Other questions/observations - 
Rose Bowl Trends - The Pac-12 went 6-2 in Rose Bowls.   The BigTen went 2-6.   Most of those years it was Pac-12 #1 vs BigTen #2, but that's a different problem.

Pac-12 CG losers - The Pac-12 CG losers are now 0-9 in bowl games.  That's a problem.  

Michigan/Harbaugh - Coach Harbaugh has still not beaten a top 10 team away from Ann Arbor.    Hard to be a BigTen conference champion or CFP champion with that inability to win the big ones on the road.

In all seriousness, why would you want to see a Pac12 team other than Stanford in the NCS?  How does that improve Stanfords program?  Remember ‘99?  Stanford got slaughtered by Texas in the opener and went on to win Pac 10.  The Conference was, I believe, pretty weak that year. Does that draw away from the Championship? No.  They don’t put asterisks next to it.

As far as I’m concerned if the Conference is down, Stanford has a better shot to win it.  I don’t want an Oregon or a Wash competing for the NCS.

Best conferences win national titles.  It really is that simple.  

Stanford women’s soccer won the NCAA title because the PAC-12 made them resilient enough to beat a team from the other good conference. 

Stanford women’s volleyball played in the strong PAC-12 and that brutal conference allowed them to dominate three teams from the other strong conference. 

Stanford Men’s water polo finally has re-emerged as the MPSF’s best.  And as the MPSF attracts the best players they were strong enough to win it all. 

Then ignoring the critical idea that strong conference competition during the season is key for navigating playoff formats, there are three other reasons for Pac-12 passion. 

1)  Reputation
The CFP invites are a lot about conference reputation.  At the start of the year Auburn v Oregon was a key test for the Pac-12.  A test the PAC-12 did not pass.  No one ever said it was a key test for the SEC.  I am very confident that if Auburn won the SEC even with a loss to the Ducks they would have been invited 

2) United we stand.   
The SEC is very good at supporting their conference.   LSU v Bama sure.  But in the postseason it is crystal clear that coaches administrators and players understand that they are members of the SEC.  

Scott owns a bit of this but the member schools and their supporters own it too.  

3) Fame and Fortune
Stronger conferences get more money, and better TV ratings.  Even if alums might say those are not important, they matter to recruits.   

Recruits want to see great facilities, compete in great venues and play in games with big ratings.  Especially going forward as the players can start to monetize their fame. 

The CFP committee has become very comfortable leaving the PAC-12 out of the CFP.  It will be very hard for many PAC-12 member schools to stay competitive in football and the Olympic sports without that revenue. 

Stanford will not thrive in postseason play in many sports if the conference is the newest member of the Group of 6.  

Sure cheering or not cheering for another program at home on 1/1 is rather insignificant, but PAC-12 apathy in the geographical footprint is noticeable to advertisers, bowl committees and recruits. 

Therefore...Congrats Ducks!

[Farm93]

ASU and Oregon won games they easily could have lost thanks turnovers.   
Pac-12 could have easily gone 2-5, but that didn't happen.  Whew!

4-3 is a rather good case.
USC simply doesn't show up for bowl games other than CFP/NY6 games.
Utah got a very raw deal.  They went from CFP to Alamo.   Worse in the Alamo their opponents were a few miles from campus.   

The biggest question coming out of the 2019 bowl season will belong to another conference.
1) Big12 - (Tag you're it) - No question they will be the conference that loses tiebreakers in 2020.   Their best teams were destroyed in the big bowls.   Their schedules have few quality OOC games. 

Other questions/observations - 
Rose Bowl Trends - The Pac-12 went 6-2 in Rose Bowls.   The BigTen went 2-6.   Most of those years it was Pac-12 #1 vs BigTen #2, but that's a different problem.

Pac-12 CG losers - The Pac-12 CG losers are now 0-9 in bowl games.  That's a problem.  

Michigan/Harbaugh - Coach Harbaugh has still not beaten a top 10 team away from Ann Arbor.    Hard to be a BigTen conference champion or CFP champion with that inability to win the big ones on the road.

In all seriousness, why would you want to see a Pac12 team other than Stanford in the NCS?  How does that improve Stanfords program?  Remember ‘99?  Stanford got slaughtered by Texas in the opener and went on to win Pac 10.  The Conference was, I believe, pretty weak that year. Does that draw away from the Championship? No.  They don’t put asterisks next to it.

As far as I’m concerned if the Conference is down, Stanford has a better shot to win it.  I don’t want an Oregon or a Wash competing for the NCS.

Best conferences win national titles.  It really is that simple.  

Stanford women’s soccer won the NCAA title because the PAC-12 made them resilient enough to beat a team from the other good conference. 

Stanford women’s volleyball played in the strong PAC-12 and that brutal conference allowed them to dominate three teams from the other strong conference. 

Stanford Men’s water polo finally has re-emerged as the MPSF’s best.  And as the MPSF attracts the best players they were strong enough to win it all. 

Then ignoring the critical idea that strong conference competition during the season is key for navigating playoff formats, there are three other reasons for Pac-12 passion. 

1)  Reputation
The CFP invites are a lot about conference reputation.  At the start of the year Auburn v Oregon was a key test for the Pac-12.  A test the PAC-12 did not pass.  No one ever said it was a key test for the SEC.  I am very confident that if Auburn won the SEC even with a loss to the Ducks they would have been invited 

2) United we stand.   
The SEC is very good at supporting their conference.   LSU v Bama sure.  But in the postseason it is crystal clear that coaches administrators and players understand that they are members of the SEC.  

Scott owns a bit of this but the member schools and their supporters own it too.  

3) Fame and Fortune
Stronger conferences get more money, and better TV ratings.  Even if alums might say those are not important, they matter to recruits.   

Recruits want to see great facilities, compete in great venues and play in games with big ratings.  Especially going forward as the players can start to monetize their fame. 

The CFP committee has become very comfortable leaving the PAC-12 out of the CFP.  It will be very hard for many PAC-12 member schools to stay competitive in football and the Olympic sports without that revenue. 

Stanford will not thrive in postseason play in many sports if the conference is the newest member of the Group of 6.  

Sure cheering or not cheering for another program at home on 1/1 is rather insignificant, but PAC-12 apathy in the geographical footprint is noticeable to advertisers, bowl committees and recruits. 

Therefore...Congrats Ducks!

[Phogge]

Haven’t heard of much Oregon thuggery under Cristobal so if the program is clean why not root for them? However yesterday rooted for Wisconsin through some family ties.

[Phogge]

Haven’t heard of much Oregon thuggery under Cristobal so if the program is clean why not root for them? However yesterday rooted for Wisconsin through some family ties.

[BigEasyCard]

I recall one of the postgame interviews for the Rose Bowl noting Oregon's improvement over the past four seasons:

2016 4-8
2017 7-5
2018 9-4
2019 11-2

So, does this mean there's a chance for Stanford?

Geaux Cardinal!

[BigEasyCard]

I recall one of the postgame interviews for the Rose Bowl noting Oregon's improvement over the past four seasons:

2016 4-8
2017 7-5
2018 9-4
2019 11-2

So, does this mean there's a chance for Stanford?

Geaux Cardinal!

[BostonCard]

The CFP committee has become very comfortable leaving the PAC-12 out of the CFP.  It will be very hard for many PAC-12 member schools to stay competitive in football and the Olympic sports without that revenue. 

The CFP committee is very comfortable leaving two-loss teams out of the CFP.  I don't think there has ever been a 2-loss team in the CFP, as the committee has shown its willingness to prioritize a one-loss non-conference champion over a two-loss conference champion.  I also don't think a 12 win conference champion has ever been left out (in the first year of the playoffs, the CFP left out two 11-1 Big12 teams that shared a conference title; they did not play a playoff game back then).

It would have been interesting to see who got in between a one-loss Oregon and a one-loss Oklahoma, but alas, Oregon laid an egg against ASU, as it would have forced the committee to chose between two one-loss conference champions.

BC

[BostonCard]

The CFP committee has become very comfortable leaving the PAC-12 out of the CFP.  It will be very hard for many PAC-12 member schools to stay competitive in football and the Olympic sports without that revenue. 

The CFP committee is very comfortable leaving two-loss teams out of the CFP.  I don't think there has ever been a 2-loss team in the CFP, as the committee has shown its willingness to prioritize a one-loss non-conference champion over a two-loss conference champion.  I also don't think a 12 win conference champion has ever been left out (in the first year of the playoffs, the CFP left out two 11-1 Big12 teams that shared a conference title; they did not play a playoff game back then).

It would have been interesting to see who got in between a one-loss Oregon and a one-loss Oklahoma, but alas, Oregon laid an egg against ASU, as it would have forced the committee to chose between two one-loss conference champions.

BC

[cardcrimson]

4-3 is a rather good case.
USC simply doesn't show up for bowl games other than CFP/NY6 games.
Utah got a very raw deal.  They went from CFP to Alamo.   Worse in the Alamo their opponents were a few miles from campus.   

The biggest question coming out of the 2019 bowl season will belong to another conference.
1) Big12 - (Tag you're it) - No question they will be the conference that loses tiebreakers in 2020.   Their best teams were destroyed in the big bowls.   Their schedules have few quality OOC games. 

Other questions/observations - 
Rose Bowl Trends - The Pac-12 went 6-2 in Rose Bowls.   The BigTen went 2-6.   Most of those years it was Pac-12 #1 vs BigTen #2, but that's a different problem.

Pac-12 CG losers - The Pac-12 CG losers are now 0-9 in bowl games.  That's a problem.  

Best conferences win national titles.  It really is that simple.  

Stanford Men’s water polo finally has re-emerged as the MPSF’s best.  And as the MPSF attracts the best players they were strong enough to win it all. 

Regarding Bowl Season, take a peek at Scott Van Pelt's perspective.

https://thespun.com/college-football/sco...oing-viral

Using the MPSF as an example for the strongest conferences win championships isn't quite a fair one, now is it. . . .

[cardcrimson]

4-3 is a rather good case.
USC simply doesn't show up for bowl games other than CFP/NY6 games.
Utah got a very raw deal.  They went from CFP to Alamo.   Worse in the Alamo their opponents were a few miles from campus.   

The biggest question coming out of the 2019 bowl season will belong to another conference.
1) Big12 - (Tag you're it) - No question they will be the conference that loses tiebreakers in 2020.   Their best teams were destroyed in the big bowls.   Their schedules have few quality OOC games. 

Other questions/observations - 
Rose Bowl Trends - The Pac-12 went 6-2 in Rose Bowls.   The BigTen went 2-6.   Most of those years it was Pac-12 #1 vs BigTen #2, but that's a different problem.

Pac-12 CG losers - The Pac-12 CG losers are now 0-9 in bowl games.  That's a problem.  

Best conferences win national titles.  It really is that simple.  

Stanford Men’s water polo finally has re-emerged as the MPSF’s best.  And as the MPSF attracts the best players they were strong enough to win it all. 

Regarding Bowl Season, take a peek at Scott Van Pelt's perspective.

https://thespun.com/college-football/sco...oing-viral

Using the MPSF as an example for the strongest conferences win championships isn't quite a fair one, now is it. . . .

[OutsiderFan]

Haven’t heard of much Oregon thuggery under Cristobal so if the program is clean why not root for them? However yesterday rooted for Wisconsin through some family ties.

No program is more slimy in recruiting than Oregon. That goes for football and hoops, but probably every sport.

Thankfully, guys like Justin Herbert are model students on and off the field.

[OutsiderFan]

Haven’t heard of much Oregon thuggery under Cristobal so if the program is clean why not root for them? However yesterday rooted for Wisconsin through some family ties.

No program is more slimy in recruiting than Oregon. That goes for football and hoops, but probably every sport.

Thankfully, guys like Justin Herbert are model students on and off the field.

[Mick]

SEC is the only conference that is demonstrably better than the Pac-12.  They finished 6-2, 75% bowl win rate with two more wins than any other conference.

The Mountain West conference won four bowls against two losses for a 67% win rate.  Had a big loss to Washington, none of their other teams were ranked.  Some very minor bowls.  Notre Dame won, Liberty won for a 67% win rate for the independents.  Yeehah.

Big 10, with its slew of six ranked teams was 4-4 and 1-2 against the Pac 12.  

ACC was 4-5.  Yes, they have Clemson.  their other two ranked teams were 1-1.

The rest of the conferences were demonstrably less than the Pac-12.  We didn't do all that badly.

[Mick]

SEC is the only conference that is demonstrably better than the Pac-12.  They finished 6-2, 75% bowl win rate with two more wins than any other conference.

The Mountain West conference won four bowls against two losses for a 67% win rate.  Had a big loss to Washington, none of their other teams were ranked.  Some very minor bowls.  Notre Dame won, Liberty won for a 67% win rate for the independents.  Yeehah.

Big 10, with its slew of six ranked teams was 4-4 and 1-2 against the Pac 12.  

ACC was 4-5.  Yes, they have Clemson.  their other two ranked teams were 1-1.

The rest of the conferences were demonstrably less than the Pac-12.  We didn't do all that badly.

[cardcrimson]

Haven’t heard of much Oregon thuggery under Cristobal so if the program is clean why not root for them? However yesterday rooted for Wisconsin through some family ties.

No program is more slimy in recruiting than Oregon. That goes for football and hoops, but probably every sport.

Thankfully, guys like Justin Herbert are model students on and off the field.

I assume you're being complementary rather than sarcastic about Herbert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_V....ell_Trophy

[cardcrimson]

Haven’t heard of much Oregon thuggery under Cristobal so if the program is clean why not root for them? However yesterday rooted for Wisconsin through some family ties.

No program is more slimy in recruiting than Oregon. That goes for football and hoops, but probably every sport.

Thankfully, guys like Justin Herbert are model students on and off the field.

I assume you're being complementary rather than sarcastic about Herbert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_V....ell_Trophy

[BostonCard]

SEC is the only conference that is demonstrably better than the Pac-12.  They finished 6-2, 75% bowl win rate with two more wins than any other conference.

The Mountain West conference won four bowls against two losses for a 67% win rate.  Had a big loss to Washington, none of their other teams were ranked.  Some very minor bowls.  Notre Dame won, Liberty won for a 67% win rate for the independents.  Yeehah.

Big 10, with its slew of six ranked teams was 4-4 and 1-2 against the Pac 12.  

ACC was 4-5.  Yes, they have Clemson.  their other two ranked teams were 1-1.

The rest of the conferences were demonstrably less than the Pac-12.  We didn't do all that badly.

A combination of small numbers and the importance of match-ups (for example, because the Pac-12 didn't have a CFP team or two NY6 teams, it was slotted into the normal order of bowls, and wound up in match-ups against teams that were slotted one bowl up from where they would have been), makes this cursory examination rather uninformative.

BC

[BostonCard]

SEC is the only conference that is demonstrably better than the Pac-12.  They finished 6-2, 75% bowl win rate with two more wins than any other conference.

The Mountain West conference won four bowls against two losses for a 67% win rate.  Had a big loss to Washington, none of their other teams were ranked.  Some very minor bowls.  Notre Dame won, Liberty won for a 67% win rate for the independents.  Yeehah.

Big 10, with its slew of six ranked teams was 4-4 and 1-2 against the Pac 12.  

ACC was 4-5.  Yes, they have Clemson.  their other two ranked teams were 1-1.

The rest of the conferences were demonstrably less than the Pac-12.  We didn't do all that badly.

A combination of small numbers and the importance of match-ups (for example, because the Pac-12 didn't have a CFP team or two NY6 teams, it was slotted into the normal order of bowls, and wound up in match-ups against teams that were slotted one bowl up from where they would have been), makes this cursory examination rather uninformative.

BC

[Phogge]

OF, are you aware of recent bar fights, woman beating, etc by Duck players. Thinking back to Kiki Alonzo and other Duck “Student Athletes” spending time riding in the back of squad cars.

[Phogge]

OF, are you aware of recent bar fights, woman beating, etc by Duck players. Thinking back to Kiki Alonzo and other Duck “Student Athletes” spending time riding in the back of squad cars.

[Farm93]

The CFP committee has become very comfortable leaving the PAC-12 out of the CFP.  It will be very hard for many PAC-12 member schools to stay competitive in football and the Olympic sports without that revenue. 

The CFP committee is very comfortable leaving two-loss teams out of the CFP.  I don't think there has ever been a 2-loss team in the CFP, as the committee has shown its willingness to prioritize a one-loss non-conference champion over a two-loss conference champion.  I also don't think a 12 win conference champion has ever been left out (in the first year of the playoffs, the CFP left out two 11-1 Big12 teams that shared a conference title; they did not play a playoff game back then).

It would have been interesting to see who got in between a one-loss Oregon and a one-loss Oklahoma, but alas, Oregon laid an egg against ASU, as it would have forced the committee to chose between two one-loss conference champions.

BC

LSU won the SEC West, but imagine they lost a few times.  If Auburn won the SEC by going 11-2 with a loss to Oregon and a loss to some SEC school do you really think they would not be in the CFP?

I can hear it now...Oh, Oregon was the first game of the year...things are different now...they meet the eye test...to go 7-1 in the SEC is almost impossible....they beat the amazing SEC East winner... They have to be in the CFP.

BTW - If both Big12 and Pac12 champs had two losses?   Georgia would have gone.   That's for sure as they were #5 and Oregon was #6.   So we already know a 2 loss SEC runner-up can get in before a two loss Pac-12 champion.

The SEC does so much to make sure their conference has a number of teams with 0 losses or 1 loss. 
4 OOCs at home by most
FCS weekend before Rivalry weekend
Each team getting a specific "cross-division rival".  (Sorry Tennessee)

So we may never know, but I really doubt a 2 loss SEC champ would need to worry about the committee finding them a spot as long as no other SEC team had only 1 loss.

[Farm93]

The CFP committee has become very comfortable leaving the PAC-12 out of the CFP.  It will be very hard for many PAC-12 member schools to stay competitive in football and the Olympic sports without that revenue. 

The CFP committee is very comfortable leaving two-loss teams out of the CFP.  I don't think there has ever been a 2-loss team in the CFP, as the committee has shown its willingness to prioritize a one-loss non-conference champion over a two-loss conference champion.  I also don't think a 12 win conference champion has ever been left out (in the first year of the playoffs, the CFP left out two 11-1 Big12 teams that shared a conference title; they did not play a playoff game back then).

It would have been interesting to see who got in between a one-loss Oregon and a one-loss Oklahoma, but alas, Oregon laid an egg against ASU, as it would have forced the committee to chose between two one-loss conference champions.

BC

LSU won the SEC West, but imagine they lost a few times.  If Auburn won the SEC by going 11-2 with a loss to Oregon and a loss to some SEC school do you really think they would not be in the CFP?

I can hear it now...Oh, Oregon was the first game of the year...things are different now...they meet the eye test...to go 7-1 in the SEC is almost impossible....they beat the amazing SEC East winner... They have to be in the CFP.

BTW - If both Big12 and Pac12 champs had two losses?   Georgia would have gone.   That's for sure as they were #5 and Oregon was #6.   So we already know a 2 loss SEC runner-up can get in before a two loss Pac-12 champion.

The SEC does so much to make sure their conference has a number of teams with 0 losses or 1 loss. 
4 OOCs at home by most
FCS weekend before Rivalry weekend
Each team getting a specific "cross-division rival".  (Sorry Tennessee)

So we may never know, but I really doubt a 2 loss SEC champ would need to worry about the committee finding them a spot as long as no other SEC team had only 1 loss.

[Phogge]

Will not watch the final but will watch North Dakota State vs James Madison in what I still call 1AA.

[Phogge]

Will not watch the final but will watch North Dakota State vs James Madison in what I still call 1AA.

[Goose]

A combination of small numbers and the importance of match-ups (for example, because the Pac-12 didn't have a CFP team or two NY6 teams, it was slotted into the normal order of bowls, and wound up in match-ups against teams that were slotted one bowl up from where they would have been), makes this cursory examination rather uninformative.


BC

Totally agree. It is also difficult to compare teams that are structured for their conference opponents when they are matched up against a completely different type of team. The three top teams are so good that they match up well against anybody. Everybody else is in some way flawed, and if you play a team that can exploit your weak spot(s), anything is possible.

[Goose]

A combination of small numbers and the importance of match-ups (for example, because the Pac-12 didn't have a CFP team or two NY6 teams, it was slotted into the normal order of bowls, and wound up in match-ups against teams that were slotted one bowl up from where they would have been), makes this cursory examination rather uninformative.


BC

Totally agree. It is also difficult to compare teams that are structured for their conference opponents when they are matched up against a completely different type of team. The three top teams are so good that they match up well against anybody. Everybody else is in some way flawed, and if you play a team that can exploit your weak spot(s), anything is possible.

[OutsiderFan]

OF, are you aware of recent bar fights, woman beating, etc by Duck players. Thinking back to Kiki Alonzo and other Duck “Student Athletes” spending time riding in the back of squad cars.

Kiko Alonso was a long time and several coaching staffs ago, begging the question: How does past football player behavior have anything to do with the current ones?  Am I suppose to be judging the current players based on bad behavior of past ones?

It can cut both ways. I already pointed out the quality of Justin Herbert on and off the field.  How about this, about former Duck, Keanon Lowe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IXNd4jPiVM
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IXNd4jPiVM][/url]

[OutsiderFan]

OF, are you aware of recent bar fights, woman beating, etc by Duck players. Thinking back to Kiki Alonzo and other Duck “Student Athletes” spending time riding in the back of squad cars.

Kiko Alonso was a long time and several coaching staffs ago, begging the question: How does past football player behavior have anything to do with the current ones?  Am I suppose to be judging the current players based on bad behavior of past ones?

It can cut both ways. I already pointed out the quality of Justin Herbert on and off the field.  How about this, about former Duck, Keanon Lowe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IXNd4jPiVM
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IXNd4jPiVM][/url]

[DC 86]

I also don't think a 12 win conference champion has ever been left out.

BC

One year ago (2018-2019) Ohio State was left out of the playoff despite being 12-1 and Big Ten conference champion. In fact their final committee ranking was 6th (behind 11-2 SEC runner up Georgia which was ranked 5th). They then beat Washington in the Rose Bowl to finish 13-1.

[DC 86]

I also don't think a 12 win conference champion has ever been left out.

BC

One year ago (2018-2019) Ohio State was left out of the playoff despite being 12-1 and Big Ten conference champion. In fact their final committee ranking was 6th (behind 11-2 SEC runner up Georgia which was ranked 5th). They then beat Washington in the Rose Bowl to finish 13-1.

[cardcrimson]

A combination of small numbers and the importance of match-ups (for example, because the Pac-12 didn't have a CFP team or two NY6 teams, it was slotted into the normal order of bowls, and wound up in match-ups against teams that were slotted one bowl up from where they would have been), makes this cursory examination rather uninformative.


BC

Totally agree. It is also difficult to compare teams that are structured for their conference opponents when they are matched up against a completely different type of team. The three top teams are so good that they match up well against anybody. Everybody else is in some way flawed, and if you play a team that can exploit your weak spot(s), anything is possible.

Agreed squared.

The single thing the SEC has done to make it perceived as the best conference, was to be the first to sell their channel to the Mouse. Massive, 24/7 marketing effort by the talking heads across multiple channels, magazines, radio and the like. Brilliant.

And prior to that, they had a significant agreement to televise a ton of their games. . . .

As for the Pac-12 Braintrust, well there was that agreement with FS1, and it's network might be in a 750k homes at this point.

[cardcrimson]

A combination of small numbers and the importance of match-ups (for example, because the Pac-12 didn't have a CFP team or two NY6 teams, it was slotted into the normal order of bowls, and wound up in match-ups against teams that were slotted one bowl up from where they would have been), makes this cursory examination rather uninformative.


BC

Totally agree. It is also difficult to compare teams that are structured for their conference opponents when they are matched up against a completely different type of team. The three top teams are so good that they match up well against anybody. Everybody else is in some way flawed, and if you play a team that can exploit your weak spot(s), anything is possible.

Agreed squared.

The single thing the SEC has done to make it perceived as the best conference, was to be the first to sell their channel to the Mouse. Massive, 24/7 marketing effort by the talking heads across multiple channels, magazines, radio and the like. Brilliant.

And prior to that, they had a significant agreement to televise a ton of their games. . . .

As for the Pac-12 Braintrust, well there was that agreement with FS1, and it's network might be in a 750k homes at this point.

[BostonCard]

I also don't think a 12 win conference champion has ever been left out.

BC

One year ago (2018-2019) Ohio State was left out of the playoff despite being 12-1 and Big Ten conference champion. In fact their final committee ranking was 6th (behind 11-2 SEC runner up Georgia which was ranked 5th). They then beat Washington in the Rose Bowl to finish 13-1.

Right!  Thanks for the correction; I feel silly.  They were left out in favor of a 12-0 Notre Dame team.  It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Notre Dame not been undefeated; although as you point out their committee ranking was 6th, behind an 11-2 SEC runner-up, I wonder whether the committee would have had tOSU leapfrog Georgia had a playoff spot been on the line.

BC

---

LSU won the SEC West, but imagine they lost a few times.  If Auburn won the SEC by going 11-2 with a loss to Oregon and a loss to some SEC school do you really think they would not be in the CFP?



I can hear it now...Oh, Oregon was the first game of the year...things are different now...they meet the eye test...to go 7-1 in the SEC is almost impossible....they beat the amazing SEC East winner... They have to be in the CFP.



BTW - If both Big12 and Pac12 champs had two losses?   Georgia would have gone.   That's for sure as they were #5 and Oregon was #6.   So we already know a 2 loss SEC runner-up can get in before a two loss Pac-12 champion.



The SEC does so much to make sure their conference has a number of teams with 0 losses or 1 loss. 

4 OOCs at home by most

FCS weekend before Rivalry weekend

Each team getting a specific "cross-division rival".  (Sorry Tennessee)



So we may never know, but I really doubt a 2 loss SEC champ would need to worry about the committee finding them a spot as long as no other SEC team had only 1 loss.

Some day this may become a testable hypothesis, though for the reasons you mention, a 2-loss SEC champ (with no other SEC teams having fewer losses) may be rare.  I think the specific situation you brought up (Auburn getting in this year after losing to Oregon and another SEC team), though, would be hard to justify given a head-to-head loss versus another team looking to get in.

BC

[BostonCard]

I also don't think a 12 win conference champion has ever been left out.

BC

One year ago (2018-2019) Ohio State was left out of the playoff despite being 12-1 and Big Ten conference champion. In fact their final committee ranking was 6th (behind 11-2 SEC runner up Georgia which was ranked 5th). They then beat Washington in the Rose Bowl to finish 13-1.

Right!  Thanks for the correction; I feel silly.  They were left out in favor of a 12-0 Notre Dame team.  It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Notre Dame not been undefeated; although as you point out their committee ranking was 6th, behind an 11-2 SEC runner-up, I wonder whether the committee would have had tOSU leapfrog Georgia had a playoff spot been on the line.

BC

---

LSU won the SEC West, but imagine they lost a few times.  If Auburn won the SEC by going 11-2 with a loss to Oregon and a loss to some SEC school do you really think they would not be in the CFP?



I can hear it now...Oh, Oregon was the first game of the year...things are different now...they meet the eye test...to go 7-1 in the SEC is almost impossible....they beat the amazing SEC East winner... They have to be in the CFP.



BTW - If both Big12 and Pac12 champs had two losses?   Georgia would have gone.   That's for sure as they were #5 and Oregon was #6.   So we already know a 2 loss SEC runner-up can get in before a two loss Pac-12 champion.



The SEC does so much to make sure their conference has a number of teams with 0 losses or 1 loss. 

4 OOCs at home by most

FCS weekend before Rivalry weekend

Each team getting a specific "cross-division rival".  (Sorry Tennessee)



So we may never know, but I really doubt a 2 loss SEC champ would need to worry about the committee finding them a spot as long as no other SEC team had only 1 loss.

Some day this may become a testable hypothesis, though for the reasons you mention, a 2-loss SEC champ (with no other SEC teams having fewer losses) may be rare.  I think the specific situation you brought up (Auburn getting in this year after losing to Oregon and another SEC team), though, would be hard to justify given a head-to-head loss versus another team looking to get in.

BC