What does CFP success for a conference look like?

[UTE98]

So before I read Stone’s musings below I was thinking, conferences which are successful in the CFP era all seem to have quite a bit in common. Two of these three allows for a “good” CFP candidate.

A. One really dominant team which ends up with zero or one loss. The rest of the teams are all mediocre to poor.

ACC, Big 12, and to a degree SEC (see next category)

B. Only play 8 conference games and have an undefeated team in conference from one of the divisions, and have several really sub-par teams.

SEC, ACC

C. The conference champion didn’t play anybody OOC. (Sorry Oregon, that Auburn game was the difference)

ACC, Clemson played aTm but they played four OOC games and the other three were horrible and is the only reason they made a bowl, 4-4 in the SEC.

Big 10, OSU played three lesser teams out OOC, Cincinnati, Miami of Ohio, and FAU.

 

When you look at the ACC and SEC 10 of 14 teams made a bowl game. 6 of the Pac12 teams did, if Oregon St and Colorado had a gimme game against a lesser opponent they’d have made a bowl. Kentucky played Toledo, Eastern Michigan, Univ Tennessee Martin and Louisville OOC and beat Arkansas and Vanderbilt.

IMHO ASU, Cal, Washington, Washington State, and maybe UCLA are better than most of the ACC/SEC/Big12/Big 10 middle of the pack teams. Why is UCLA not going bowling? Because they played Cincinatti, SDSU, and Oklahoma, that’s really poor OOC scheduling if you ask me. Lost all three and were two wins short of a bowl.

Until the schedules and conferences are equalized and taken into account the Pac12 will always be at a disadvantage. We need some NC States, Georgia Techs, Vanderbilts, Arkansas, Kansas, Rutgers, Maryland, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, etc. I will concede Oregon State, Cal and Colorado have been those teams at times, however Colorado beat Nebraska, Cal beat Ole Miss this year. Colorado isn’t bowling but Cal is.

We need a commissioner who understands if you’ve got a strong conference top to bottom, you HAVE to pad the Wins with a fourth OOC game against a gimme. The nine game conference schedule is pushing the Pac12 farther and farther behind.

 

[PlainsUte]

Agreed, and what is sad is what is best for internal competition and the fans is worse for gainng bowl bids and, especially, CFP qualification.  If there were an 8-team playoff with automatic qualification for all P5 Conference Champions that would eliminate some of those problems.  Admit the best G5 Conference Champion and two other at-large teams.  That way the Conference Championship games sort of serve as extensions of the playoff making it more like a 13 P5-team playoff (plus one or more of the G5 champ games).   This year Oregon would be in the mix and would have a shot.

[Stone]

Yes, the 8-team playoff would resolve a lot of the beauty contest posturing. Hopefully that happens sooner than later. Until then, a conference that wants to be in the national title discussion benefits from a top heavy league and weak non-conference scheduling. 

Although it is just “sports,” the current arrangement, which places more emphasis on how one looks (read: where the school is from, its prestige and fanbase) and its lineage (read: history), is the type of non-meritocracy cronyism that is fought vehemently in other contexts.

[PhiladelphiaUte]

It’s my understanding that the REASON why Scott was able to secure a 12-yr $3B contract for our league, was BECAUSE we were committed to a 9-game league slate.  Nine conference games = better broadcasting inventory = worth more $$$

Had we committed to an 8-game league slate, we might not have got up to $3B.

[PlainsUte]

I’d rather see a leveling of the playing field by requiring 9 conference games everywhere than dropping all to 8.  Max of one FCS team on sked to be eligible.

[BulgieUte]

No more FCS, the scheduling of FCS opponents is a disgusting joke that lacks integrity in the context of competition. Play it if you must and call it a practice game but it shouldn’t count for stats or bowl eligibility.