This Week’s Obsession: Playoffs Comment Count

Seth

HIS ARTICLE HAS A SPONSOR: If you’re trying to not make important life decisions the same way the NCAA makes theirs, talk to Nick Hopwood, our MGoFinancial Planner from Peak Wealth Management.

Our deal is Nick is the guy I go to for financial strategies, and he gets to ask us Michigan questions on your behalf. Anytime it’s a Nick question, we’ll let you know. Anytime you’ve got a financial question, let Nick know. And when you’re ready to figure out how you’re going to plan your retirement and pay for your kids’ college when you just got done paying for your own, don’t wait to do something about that.

-------------------------------

Legal disclosure in tiny font: Calling Nick our official financial planner is not intended as financial advice; Nick is an advertiser who financially supports MGoBlog. MGoBlog is not responsible for any advice or other communication provided to an investor by any financial advisor, and makes no representations or warranties as to the suitability of any particular financial advisor and/or investment for a specific investor.

--------------------------------

Nick’s Question:

What do you guys think of Bama getting in ahead of OSU? Do you still trust they’ll get it right in the future? I know Brian has a six-team playoff, but do you guys all agree on that or have other ideas?

…that we broke into three parts.

Q1: Did the committee get it right this year?

David: I think they got it fine. Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia are the Top 3 and probably should be. Maybe bump the Sooners to 1? This is fine, though.

As far as Bama/OSU goes...whatever, I think its pretty 50/50. Bama's schedule wasn't great, and OSU had an extra loss. It was a coin-toss.

image
Nobody’s arguing Ohio State looked like a playoff team; the problem is Alabama didn’t either. [photo: Patrick Barron]

Brian: I don't think there was a way to get it right, really. You're choosing between a team that has its most notable win over Mississippi State and one that lost to Oklahoma and Iowa uncompetitively. (Remember that OU-OSU game should have been worse than 15-point loss; OU spent the first half driving the field and then shooting itself in the foot.) And USC, which also got blown out embarrassingly by Notre Dame. This isn't a year when there's a clear choice, or even a vaguely clear choice. It's a coin flip.

But it's one the committee got wrong, for the same reason they got it wrong last year. It's a coin flip as far as resume and team quality goes. So make the season count, dammit. If a conference championship isn't going to be a tiebreaker why even bother? Penn State last year and Ohio State this year both went through an extra game against a tough opponent to win a supposedly important thing only to get passed over for a team that sat at home and watched. That's garbage.

[Hit THE JUMP for ripping on the SEC, and how teal were the 90s? So teal]

Ace: As much as it pains me to say Ohio State should be in, agreed for the same reason.

Seth: I agree it was a coinflip. I'm less bothered that they ignore conference championship games* and more bothered that they didn't make the distinction between playing an FCS team versus scheduling Oklahoma. This was the moment for the committee to come out ripping on eight-game conference schedules and FCS games (and correctly label the SEC a weak conference). Instead they functionally rewarded Alabama and the SEC for scheduling decisions that result in worse football.

--------------------------

* [I am bothered they ignored Ohio State beating an undefeated Top 4 team and glad OSU and Wisconsin got to play. But it was only by half dumb luck that we got a good championship game this year, and even that only partially rectified a problem of Wisconsin playing a dramatically easier conference schedule. Championship Games are dumb moneygrabs and fatally flawed by divisions. I hate divisions. Divisions should be outlawed. Divisions are the reason Rutgers is on Michigan's schedule every year and Greg Dooley isn't kept up at nights worried about the Brown Jug running out of room for scores.]

--------------------------

Q2: Do you have confidence they'll get it right in the future?

maxresdefault

this isn’t helping

Ace: I think they’ll kinda get it right by realizing they should expand the playoff, but since this is college football and money is king, they’ll expand it too much.

David: I don't really have confidence because every year is different and there are almost an infinite possibility of situations. So, I guess my confidence in the selection committee is directly related to the clarity of the situation.

Seth: Right. The mistake the committee made was painting itself into a corner last week by claiming Bama and OSU were neck and neck. That's a perception problem from trying to post-hoc justify an ad-hoc system. Giving 10-13 people power to choose whoever they want works if they're honest and transparent. The problem with a bunch of coaches and ADs is they're too used to marketing to say truthful things like "We needed to find four teams with resumes worthy of national championship contention and we had three."

Ace: They’ve done that before, too. The weekly rankings releases make for awful TV that people apparently watch but they also make it apparent that the criteria is a bit fluid.

Or, perhaps more likely, they go more by feel than they let on and then retrofit the explanations.

David: Maybe this is the wrong place for this, but the fact that we talk about rankings on a weekly basis is dumb. Once the season is about 2/3 over, it is easy to tell who is generally eligible for the Playoff and what the paths of elimination are. So, having Clemson and Miami at #2 and #3 is like pointless because only one can possible qualify.

Brian: They still employ Bill Hancock. No, they won't get it right. The weekly rankings are a symptom. It makes money, it creates controversy, so they do it. Since that's the way this whole thing works they will always approach it from that angle. 

--------------------------

Q3 What's Your Ideal System?

Ace: A six-team playoff. It preserves college football’s uniquely important regular season by giving byes to the top two teams in the country, something that will be contested through the conference championship week. It also opens the door for, perhaps, a Group of Five team to finally sneak in, which I’d like to see, and helps in years like this where there’s not a clear #4.

image
What do you do with ‘06? Current system would invite Michigan and…LSU? Six-teamer would have to decide between USC, L’Ville, Wisconsin, and Boise. Variable system would hopefully have M/FL play for a chance to play OSU.

David: Brian's 6-Team format is good. I could live with 8 (5 Conf Champs. 1 G5, 2 wild cards). What about a 12 team? (10 Conf champs and 2 wild cards.) That would prioritize winning your conference getting a Top 4 for a bye week. Plus, you would get to play lower seeds, etc. That might be too many teams, though. These are all kind of interesting, but I would be fine with just a Top 6.

Seth: I'd like a variable system of two to six teams, with the extra game(s) around Christmas. A few years ago I went through all the years since the BCS began and tried to decide which system would be best for most of them. The answer was six by a slim plurality, which should tell us that the answer varies by year.

This year they could invite five, have a play-in game between OSU-Bama, and continue as normal. Last year they could have skipped the first round and put Clemson and Bama in the championship game. The four in 2015 were fine. The 2014 playoff would have been six. 2013 would have been two. 2012 would have been five. You can look at any year and it's amazing how non-controversial the obvious breaking point is.

Ace: While I enjoy the guaranteed chaos of arguing over how many teams should be included, I have no idea how you go about choosing that doesn’t go sideways.

Seth: Only way I could figure is it goes to the committee to decide. Use this year as an example, if they announce they went with a five-team format with Ohio State in and Wisconsin out, who can argue that?

Ace: Five teams is weird as hell, though.

Seth: Play-in game on Christmas or thereabouts and then you're at four.

Ace: Man, that sucks for Alabama and Ohio State. I like it.

David: I feel like 'ulterior motives' would just...explode.

Ace: do think the less you give the committee to screw up, the better. Getting too complex is going to lead to problems. And I’m not ready to turn it over to the computers.

Seth: It has all the same problems as the current system.

[we wait around for Brian’s response]

I think however we can all admit this is infinitely better than the BCS, which was bogged down by tons of restrictive rules (e.g. can't consider margin of victory). And that was better than polling lazy journalists and coaches who do things like vote 1997 Michigan fourth to give Tom Osborne a parting gift. And that was better than a few East Coast Notre Dame-loving journalists informally clapping themselves on the back, or whatever the system was before it.

Ace: Oh, without a doubt. I’m thoroughly enjoying the playoff era. Even at its worst it gives us some incredible matchups. Like, it kinda retroactively kills me that we couldn’t settle 1997 on the field.

BiSB: (Michigan opens Big Ten play against Scott Frost next season. So, in a way...)

Ace: I thought that was already settled when UCF outhit us.

Seth: The incredible number of 1997 Michigan and 1997 Nebraska downloadable teams on EA's NCAA 2014 servers is a testament to how badly the country still wants that one. I think Osborne himself once admitted he was glad they didn't, because Michigan's defense was exactly the kind that could give them fits: sound up front, fast at linebacker, and running at the cornerbacks was doom.

We've gone off-topic.

Ace: Someone rescue Brian from, I’m sure, doing the OSU UFR.

David: Where does Scott Frost's Mom fit in? She has to be relevant to this.

Seth: We should get her on the podcast that week.

Ace: /giphy mmmbop

slack-imgs

Good god, I forgot how 90s the 90s were.

BiSB: Teal. Teal as far as the eye could see.

Ace: Brian do you have any thoughts on ideal playoff setups or Hanson or teal or Scott Frost’s mom?

Unless we hear otherwise, I bet Brian loved wearing lots of teal while listening to Hanson and writing angry letters about Scott Frost’s mom.

Head to toe teal.

In fact, Brian briefly served as the mascot for the Charlotte Hornets.

Until his angry letters about Scott Frost’s mom caused too much controversy.

This better all go in the post.

Seth: There is a lesson from the 1990s, and that was don't mess with jeans. We stonewashed them, changed shades of blue, wore them too high, wore them too low, wore them too baggy, wore them with holes, even put elastic on them. None of these were good decisions.

We wore them as shirts. It was awful.

Ace: I spent most of the 90s pulling my damn pants up.

BiSB: Bugle Boys did tend to droop

Ace: Being skinny in the 90s: not a good look.

David: That's why I stuck to Nike gym shorts. Not much has changed.

Brian: I've advocated six teams for going on ten years now and this season's edition of pickin' time made it clear that this is yet another year when six is the fairest field possible:

1. Clemson vs 4. Alabama or 5. OSU
2. Oklahoma vs. 3 Georgia or 6. USC

There were some complaints on twitter that it's not fair to Georgia, who has to play an extra game when their resume is on par with Clemson or Oklahoma, but literally every system bundles in some unfairness. Ask PSU last year or OSU this year. Six is the best compromise between the urgency of the regular season and a wide enough field to encompass all reasonable contenders.

Also note that from the perspective of the college football watcher, the potential bye unfairness is actually a feature. When Miami lost to Pittsburgh just before the end of the season, everyone was quick to point out that Miami's loss was essentially a mulligan. If they beat Clemson, they were in, Pittsburgh did nothing. In a six team system, Miami just tossed their potential bye out the window. The thing CFB does better than any other sport is reduce the number of meaningless games. Six improves that feature while still expanding the field a little bit.

Seth: How did you wear your jeans in the '90s Brian?

Ace:

jncobus

Brian: I spent the 90s as the lead singer of the Four Tops. We mostly wore weird flowy glitter slacks.

Seth: I don't know anyone who owned a pair of jncos who ever tucked them in, or had less than 8 inches of flannel boxers showing above the waistline.

Adam: Hey guys, sorry I'm late. The committee got it wrong because why even have a stupid conference championship game; I only trust the committee if they don't have to make a decision so nope don't trust them; and a six-team playoff is ideal unless we go to Seth's system, which only works if the blogpoll is resurrected.

As for jeans, I spent most of fifth grade lobbying for these. Multiple people in my school had these. Multiple. I'm not sure why either. My mom said no because she thought they were incredibly stupid, and I need to publicly thank her for that.

image_720

Adam: But I did have a teal backpack at one point, so...

Brian: This is now very long.

Ace: But we haven’t heard your thoughts on Hanson.

Brian: Seriously it’s too long.

Comments

mgowild

December 5th, 2017 at 2:36 PM ^

Eight teams would be perfect. All five P5 conference champions, plus 3 at large bids. Or maybe two at large bids and the G5 champion. That would eliminate a lot of the mystery in the selection process: win your conference and you're guaranteed a spot.

LKLIII

December 5th, 2017 at 2:48 PM ^

There is no single G5 Champion.  It's five of the lesser conferences.

I agree w/ the 8 team playoff model though.  Guaranteed bids for the winner of the Power 5 conferences, then 3 at large bids where Notre Dame, a strong G5 school, or (more likely) a strong also-ran in the Power 5 conferences could slide in.

 

Blue Durham

December 5th, 2017 at 5:40 PM ^

If you look at the 2006 situation from the OP, the 8-team with 5 auto-bids for conference champs works out pretty well. Florida, OSU, USC, Oklahoma and the ACC champ whoever that was.

Then you have Michigan and LSU as at-large, and Boise State as the non-P5 team (I think that was the year BSU smoked Oklahoma in their bowl).

A pretty strong field, and most everyone should be happy with it.

The 8 team format with 5 auto-bids satisfies Brian's concern about the conference championship games meaning something, practically insures that the 2nd best team in the NCAA gets in (that being the case when the 2 best teams are in the same conference), and can accommodate the non P5 conferences by enabling that the best of them has a chance to get in.

As a side note, I really don't understand this blog's enthusiasm for the 6 team format, and am not even sure I would prefer it over the current 4-team one.

InterM

December 6th, 2017 at 1:22 PM ^

The main feature of the 6 team format is the byes for 1 and 2, which puts even more of a premium on regular season performance.  Brian gave an example from this year -- Miami's loss to Pitt would no longer be meaningless, as it is under the 4 team format (and likely would be under an 8 team format as well).  Also, any expansion that creates the opportunity for home games for the higher seeds would be awesome, but this admittedly could be achieved through either a 6 or 8 team format.

DualThreat

December 5th, 2017 at 2:42 PM ^

With all the possible parity in a 120+ team league, a bye is too much of a reward for two teams that are at best notionally crowed as the top two.

An 8 team playoff is and always has been best.  No byes.  Just homefield advantage.  And 8 teams preserves the regular season just about as well as a 6 team playoff.  Plus, it allows for the option (not that it has to be done this way) of conference champs getting automatic bids with a couple at-large.

LKLIII

December 5th, 2017 at 2:50 PM ^

Exactly.  The conference champs getting automatic bids doesn't diminish the conference games at all.  It strengthens them & offers up a chance for a late rising/cinderalla team to get into the mix.  If the favored (loser) of the championship game is that good, they'll probably still get in w/ one of the 3 at-large bids, but w/ a lower seed & no home field advantage.

Tuebor

December 5th, 2017 at 3:28 PM ^

You don't need to give auto bids to conference champs with 8 teams.  

 

Bolded are the P5 champions.  

2014: Alabama, Oregon, FSU, OSU, Baylor, TCU, Mississippi St, Michigan St

2015: Clemson, Alabama, Michigan St, Oklahoma, Iowa, Stanford, OSU, ND

2016: Alabama, Clemson, OSU, Washington, PSU, Michigan, Oklahoma, Wisconsin

2017: Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, OSU, Wisconsin, Auburn, USC

 

I think the closest we'd have to a p5 champ being outside the top 8 is if 9-3 stanford had won the pac 12 this year.

crom80

December 5th, 2017 at 2:43 PM ^

force all FBS teams into 10 team conferences.

9 conference gmes + 1 nonconference 'preseason' game

all conference champs go to 16 team playoff with 3 'wildcard' teams.

all nonplayoff teams get to play 2 additional 'bowlgames' after conference season.

first playoff round losers get 1 additional 'bowlgame' after loss.

 

every 6-8 years reshuffle  conferences to balance out teams by region and record.

if political parties can develop AI to draw maps for gerrymandering why can't they use it to draw up conferences.

Baugh So Har

December 5th, 2017 at 3:17 PM ^

I'm working on a Diary that delves into the case you're making a little more. I think smaller conferences would be better than these super conferences we're trending towards. "Real" non-conference games should be at the end of the season, and not just at neutral sites.

Kevin13

December 5th, 2017 at 4:03 PM ^

team format, like they play at all other levels of college football. Hell you could still play an 11 game regular season. Have the best 16 play in the playoffs and of the 16 teams that don't make it, still have a bowl system for a winning season and get an extra game.

Blue Mike

December 5th, 2017 at 4:36 PM ^

I've actually worked through that type of scenario before myself. The biggest issue with your idea is that you have all 130 Div 1 teams in it, and that isn't realistic or smart. To have 13 conferences, either a MAC team is getting into the playoff every year to be slaughtered by Alabama, or you are reshuffling every conference so that there are only a couple of good teams in each conference.

What I've played with before is separating FBS/Div 1 into two groups similar to the P5/G5 system. I go back and forth between 6 or 8 conferences and I think 6 makes more sense. Tell me there are more than 60 teams with any real chance to win the playoff? Anyway, the other schools would be in their own division and have their own playoff.

6 conferences, 10 teams; round-robin scheduling with a couple of OOC games before. 8 team playoff (6 champions, 2 wild-card) and presto: everyone has a clear path to the playoff.

ESNY

December 5th, 2017 at 4:43 PM ^

I think you are onto something.  At least force P5 teams to play 9 games in conference and no FCS teams in order to qualify for the playoff and maybe even force each P5 team to play at least one other P5 team to be eligible. 

I would also love the last 2 weeks of the season (pre-playoffs/bowls) to be a mini-tournament type of the four best teams in each league (1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 and the winners face each other and the losers face each other).  The rest of the league can still play two more games against each other in some sort of predetermined fashion.  You settle the conf. championship, ensure each top team plays against 2 of the top teams in the league (instead of Wisco playing zero of the top teams until the championship game)

I would also like them to get rid of the divisions.  No reason to require a division just to identify the top two teams

Wazoo

December 5th, 2017 at 4:24 PM ^

The goal of the playoffs is to make sure they get the top two teams.  Since there are 3 top teams this year (all 11-1 with decent schedules), I'd say they were successful with this year's picks.  

If you want more than 4, start paying the kids since you are extending their "amateur" seasons once again, and the NCAA will make even more boatloads of cash.

Wolverine 73

December 5th, 2017 at 2:47 PM ^

Lost a week too late. Similar crappy schedule to Alabama, one loss, but it came at the end. Bama was smart to lose a week earlier, to not have to play and possibly lose a championship game, and sneak in with a late loss and a crappy schedule because, hey, it’s Bama. But that just changes the team I most root against in the playoff from OSU to Bama, so no big thing.

Naked Bootlegger

December 5th, 2017 at 5:09 PM ^

Agree with the sentiment, but would Wisconsin losing to Minnesota, then beating OSU in the B1G championship game put them in over a 1-loss 'Bama team.   Where losing to Auburn >>>>>> losing to Minnesota (swap Michigan for Minnesota, would things change appreciably?).   

My overall opinion - the B1G West has been too Charmin soft in the B1G championship game era.

S5R48S10

December 5th, 2017 at 2:47 PM ^

There has been a lot of griping about Alabama's schedule.  You can fairly complain about the SEC's 8 game schedule, but Bama opened the season against (then-ranked) #3 Florida State.  They probably scheduled that game right around the time FSU won their National Championship and had every reason to believe that would be equivalent to OSU's game vs. Oklahoma. 

Its not their fault FSU was this year's biggest goat rodeo outside of Knoxville (though Bama probably started them down that path by knocking out Francois).

ST3

December 5th, 2017 at 3:20 PM ^

Give FSU Francois for the full season and they are probably finishing 9-3 with losses to Bama, Clemson, and maybe that inexplicable result against BC (35-3?) holds up because teams do get upset. That's the team Bama played. They should get credit for that. LSU, MSU, and Fresno give bama three more good wins. They blew out everyone else they played except for one tough road loss at Auburn.

Ohio State beat Penn State by 1 point at home. They whipped MSU like a dog without any dignity and beat Wisconsin who hadn't played anybody better than us, and they got us at home and we had them beat until Peters went out. That's not enough to overcome a blowout loss at Iowa and a double-digit loss AT HOME.

The main problem with the Big 10 this year was that there was NO out of conference victory to hang their hat on. OSU beat Ohio (S&P 33.) We beat Florida (S&P 87.) Iowa beat Iowa State (S&P #44) in OT. That may be the conference's best victory. Heck, even Maryland over Texas (S&P #54) isn't that impressive.

Penn State over Pittsburgh just further exposes Miami's weakness after they got blown out by Clemson. But Miami blew out ND who blew out USC and MSU. The Irish played spoiler for the Big 10 and the Pac 10. That is why we have 2 SEC teams in the CFP. So say it with me everyone, To Hell with Notre Dame!

ESNY

December 5th, 2017 at 7:24 PM ^

But you are jumping to pump up Bamas schedule by doing what ifs and promoting LSU (lost to Troy) and MSU (4 losses and beat no on) and then criticizing OSU for only beating PSU by one point. OSU had three wins better than any one Bama win. Is that enough to overcome a brutal blowout? That I don't know. But if you looked at blind resumes, I'm not sure Bama looks all that much better than Wisconsin but only one team was maligned for a weak schedule

trueblueintexas

December 5th, 2017 at 4:13 PM ^

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Bama has a paper tiger schedule every year and it is a concrete formula. 

1) Play a nationally recognized OOC game in the first week giving Bama all off-season to put a plan together to win that one game to gain recognition.

2) Play two additional OOC games no one will pay attention to where there is no chance of losing. 

3) Beat the one or two good teams in the SEC

4) Play a completely ridiculous OOC game before the Iron Bowl to give a late season rest/live practice.

4) Feast on the rest of the SEC.

 

2017: FSU, Fresno St, Colorado St, Mercer

2016: USC, Western Kentucky, Kent St, Chattanooga

2015: Wisconsin, Middle Tennessee St, Lousiana Monroe, Charleston Southern

2014: West Virginia, Florida Atlantic, Southern Miss, Western Carolina

2013: Va Tech, Colorado St, Georgia St, Chattanooga

2012: Michigan, Western Kentucky, Florida Atlantic, Western Carolina

In each of those years, the first team listed was the first game of the season and the last team listed was the game before the Iron Bowl. The middle two teams most often were played in weeks 2 & 3, although the SEC started to introduce an early season game which sometimes pushed the week OOC game out to week 4.

teamort2

December 5th, 2017 at 2:47 PM ^

OSU vs. WISC?  Big ten title means nothing, if Wisc wins they are in, but if not Ala is in.  Other than the fact I hate OSU the Big Ten fks themselves!

stephenrjking

December 5th, 2017 at 2:49 PM ^

6 could potentially work with byes (especially if the first round games are played at home sites, what a scene that will be). I think the 8 team playoff is more practical politically and competitively, as long as the P5 conferences each get an autobid for a champion and the top-ranked G5 team has either an autobid or an almost-autobid that can only be revoked if nobody has fewer than 2 losses or something.

The key is that the non-conference regular season gets less relevant with conference autobids, but the conference regular seasons retain their importance. Michigan-OSU still has huge stakes with a conference championship berth on the line, a major upset can still toss a team out of the running, etc.

Not spoken of, but important: We would really need home sites to be involved in this kind of arrangement. Let higher ranked teams host. Let the fans and the weather be a factor. 

Caveat: I think the current system is fine. But I also opposed playoff initiatives before and that turned out to be the wrong position, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.

ak47

December 5th, 2017 at 2:53 PM ^

6 is better, 8 is too big, 4 is honestly fine.  The reality is that the only reason OSU was close to bama was because of the conference championship, without OSU is has a worse resume, they weren't tied before the confernce championship which is why osu was 3 spots below bama, not 6th. 

And I think the committe did the the right thing by recognizing that Bama scheduling fsu was equivalent to osu scheduling oklahoma even though fsu finished 6-6.  You want to encourage difficult scheduling and so recognizing the intent even when the other team isn't as good as advertised should have some value.

SpilledMilk

December 5th, 2017 at 3:16 PM ^

Had better wins than Bama before the conference champions games. Alabama has Miss State and LSU (*and Fresno State!). OSU beat PSU, MSU and UM.

I can totally see us being snubbed for an SEC team in the future in a very similar scenario as to what happened to OSU this year.

Firstbase

December 5th, 2017 at 4:06 PM ^

...I don't know. The nice thing about March Madness is it removes most of the terrible selection bias. On any given Saturday, nearly any D1 team can beat another with a few big plays. As of now, naming a college football national champion under our current subjective playoff system is rather specious and silly. 

Then again, an 8-team playoff scenario would extend the season by a week or more (depending on TV scheduling) making it harder on the student athletes physically and from a class-juggling perspective. 

These arguments notwithstanding, 8-teams makes more sense to me. I'd love to see the dynamic of an 8th seed going up against the number 1 seed, etc... Far more interesting than this pre-selected 4-team dog and pony popularity contest.

 

M go Bru

December 6th, 2017 at 6:48 AM ^

And it includes all 5 power conference champions plus 3 wild cards.  Its going to take 3 weeks anyway. You might as well max it out with 8 teams.

Byes are BS.

The first week can be home games for the top 4 teams and occur 1/2 way between the championship games and new years.

I'd love to see a southern wild card play in the big ten in mid December!

I'll never forget the 2009 Wisconsin - Miami Champ Sports bowl played in Orlando at night. It was 40 degrees and the Badgers were in short sleeves while miami had long sleeves and hoodies. No way Miami was going to win that game. Wisconsin 20-14

 

corundum

December 5th, 2017 at 2:55 PM ^

If you automatically give each P5 conference champion a spot, then the OOC schedule is worthless and might as well be the preseason. Bring back the BCS rankings and invite the top 8 teams.