Dialogue on Oklahoma

[Spence]

It is the whole fantasy that is the Big12 right now. Oklahoma isn't good. They don't play any defense. They play in a conference that doesn't play defense. That makes them look like they have elite offenses. They score a lot of points, which will happen when you play against air. Oklahoma wouldn't have beat West Virginia this weekend if West Virginia could have hung onto the ball. They gave up the ball inside the 5 yard line three different times. Oklahoma would be lucky to score a touchdown against Wisconsin. Clemson would kill them. Alabama would make them look like a powderpuff team. No team in the Big 12 right now should be ranked under 15-16.

[Spence]

Without SOS as a factor...

We would now be talking about 11-0 Western Michigan and 10-1 Boise State for the Play off....Hey, Sam Houston State is 11-0,,,BUT with an SOS of #220

If SOS says Oklahoma is good, it need to be revamped. Oklahoma is a brand, but they are a brand without bite.

[Cane from the Bend]

Oklahoma has an SOS of #17...they should be considered if a two loss conference champ....they will have played a tough schedule

Part of that SoS has to do with Ohio State & Houston being there. Except those were both embarrassing losses for the Sooners. I wonder what the Strength of Schedules would look like across the board, if having the teams you lost to were not counted as a building point and being removed from the equation; rather than getting credit for losing.

---

Year number 10 of this discussion where no one has changed their mind.

For some of us, it has been closer to 16 or 17 years ... right Spence.


Coincidentally, it was an Oklahoma Sooner fan, and a Nebraska Cornhusker fan who I first had this debate with, back on the original CFP forum, back in 2000, when they were arguing that Miami's SoS was not sufficient enough to deserve playing for the National Championship, when Miami was undefeated.

The Big XII was very much at the heart of the Strength of Schedule debate then, too. And in the end, they were embarrassed after all was said & done then.

.
.
.

[billybud]

What's to change?

If you can't play everyone head to head on the field...you have to make a judgement about who is "good" when you have 120+ teams..

You do have to look at competition played....Is Western Michigan as good as Ohio State? By sheer win-loss, they are better.

It is difficult, perception is involved...I could say.."Hey the Bucks aren't good, I saw Penn state beat them...and Pitt beat Penn State"

That is a fan's perspective.


"Hey...Iowa beat Michigan and Iowa lost to North Dakota State, scraped by awful Rutgers by 7 and lost to 5 loss Northwestern...."

We all see football through our unique perspectives...one man will say that Oklahoma is not good...another will say that XXX isn't good...and we can all base it on some fact, slant, or twist.

[Cane from the Bend]

Thats great, but ... I'm not differing to Western Michigan's Strength of Schedule.

In this case, Western Michigan did not play Ohio State, or Penn State, the argument doesn't hold.

But Oklahoma did play Ohio State, and Oklahoma was put down soundly. Same with the Houston game. Remove those two games from the Strength of Schedule, and how Strong is Oklahoma's slate have been.

You can say Ohio State lost to Penn State, but you cannot say the same for Western Michigan, whose schedule didn't include any ranked teams.

.
.
.

[billybud]

I don't know ...but Houston may very well have beaten Michigan early...

But SOS is only one factor,,,it is also what you do within that schedule...which is why Oklahoma is not in the top 4....

SOS is a measure of what you have faced...win/losses is a measure of how you performed.

You can not isolate the two....or you have Western Michigan better than Ohio state...

[Spence]

I don't know ...but Houston may very well have beaten Michigan early...

But SOS is only one factor,,,it is also what you do within that schedule...which is why Oklahoma is not in the top 4....

SOS is a measure of what you have faced...win/losses is a measure of how you performed.

You can not isolate the two....or you have Western Michigan better than Ohio state...

I understand your point, I just think that the formula is flawed. I know Oklahoma isn't very good. Of the last 14-16 years this is the least consistent team Ohio State has fielded with the exception of the year between Tressell and Meyer and Oklahoma hasn't gotten better, at least not that much better than when Ohio State played them. Oklahoma got the two losses then ran the table in their conference - a really bad conference - and they are getting national attention because they are Oklahoma rather than the fact they are good. Ohio State got the same treatment in the middle and late parts of the 2000's for much the same reason when the Big 10 was really bad. Oklahoma has no business in the playoff conversation. We have proof of their strength, head to head against teams from other conferences. Their two losses came against teams that probably won't even win their conference.

[Cane from the Bend]

I don't know ...but Houston may very well have beaten Michigan early...

But SOS is only one factor,,,it is also what you do within that schedule...which is why Oklahoma is not in the top 4....

SOS is a measure of what you have faced...win/losses is a measure of how you performed.

You can not isolate the two....or you have Western Michigan better than Ohio state...

Don't get me wrong here.

I'm not suggesting the formula disregard SoS. I'm just presenting a theory, that if you subtract teams you have lost to from your schedule's strength, instead of being credited for it, then a clearer picture can be drawn.

Oklahoma has no business in the playoff conversation. We have proof of their strength, head to head against teams from other conferences. Their two losses came against teams that probably won't even win their conference.

That is exactly right. And yes, you are also correct in saying that Oklahoma is getting a pass because they are Oklahoma. My suspicion has me thinking it is something to do with an attempt at skewing the perception of the Big 12. In hopes to keep the validity of their Power 5 rating alive.

It's just sad that the measuring stick is the SEC, when only 1 half of 1 division in that conference is what keeps it so relevant.

.
.
.

[donovan]

So the problem is there are too many teams in the mix. Do it like Boxing, have a heavyweight for FSU, OSU,Alabama, etc. Go down to the Bantamweight for the Western Michigan's and Welter weights for the Boises. Have four conferences in each division.

FBS 124. FCS 125. Division II 171. Division III 247. NAIA 87 is 754 teams.

Use some criteria, it can be whatever, But lump all college football teams.

Four conferences in each division with ten teams each is 40 teams per conferences so you have 18 divisions.

Just happens to be 18 divisions. This way it is just score on the field.

Heavyweight
Cruiserweight
Light heavyweight
Super middleweight
Middleweight
Super welterweight
Welterweight
Super lightweight
Lightweight
Super featherweight
Featherweight
Super bantamweight
Bantamweight
Super flyweight
Flyweight
Light flyweight
Minimumweight
Light minimumweight

[Spence]

My problem with SOS isn't that it shouldn't be used. It is finding an equitable way to use it. Any team in FBS, or whatever they want to call it, should have a clear path to the playoff at the beginning of the season. Then they should live and die based on how they handle their schedule. All they have done with this playoff is create two extra big money making games for TV and the league. I have no problem with them wanting to make as much as they can make, just don't act like they went to a playoff so teams that aren't the national powerhouse brands can now make it to the championship game. That is just not true. There is no Cinderella in NCAA Division one football.

That doesn't mean that I believe Boise State hasn't had several capable teams. Maybe BYU, Maybe TCU. There have been several. It just means that the powers that be want the brands. It is money related. A good Iowa team will get passed over by a good Ohio State or Michigan team. We have proof of that in 2002. Iowa isn't a national brand. They are a big school, but they aren't going to deliver those big ratings that drive prices up. My point some years ago with RazorHawk was that the playoff would not change things in this regard and they haven't changed anything. Well, except to allow the league to rake in some more cash.

I also made the point that the lesser bowls would go away too. That hasn't happened yet, but I still think they will. ESPN is already hemorrhaging cash, they will look for ways to stop that from happening. The bowls that they lose money on can't be long for this world.

[collegefbfan-8898]

Not saying anyone's views are wrong. I have so many mixed up views. Do you deserve to play for national title if you don't win your conference? I mean, dang, the Buckeyes did beat Oklahoma in Norman. The Sooners could win their conference. If this very thing could send Oklahoma to a possible playoff spot, what does this mean for a one loss Buckeyes team that beat the Sooners? Penn State beat Ohio State. Penn State has two losses, but could be conference champs. I mean what do you do? As far as a CFP mmittee member goes. This could bring about the same situations each year. Conferences with great top teams knock each other off from the conference champs game, but still have a loss each. Team A beats Team B who beats Team C who beats Team A. What happens?

Would Western Michigan have the same record with Southern Cal's schedule or Ohio State's schedule? Will more teams start scheduling tougher out of conference teams, lose to them, and win the conference championship? So, the result is a Florida team that loses to Michigan and Florida State and has one SEC loss, but wins SEC. A three loss Florida team in the four team playoff?

[Spence]

If you don't win your conference you shouldn't get a spot in the playoff.

[billybud]

You know...Spence's comments about the Big 12 are very close to ACC/SEC fans comments...

They pass around Realtime RPI's conference ratings

Which have the conference strength current as

1...SEC
2...ACC
3...Big 10
4...Pac 12
5...American Athletic
6...Big 12

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/ncaaf_conf.html

[billybud]

You know...Spence's comments about the Big 12 are very close to ACC/SEC fans comments...

They pass around Realtime RPI's conference ratings

Which have the conference strength current as

1...SEC
2...ACC
3...Big 10
4...Pac 12
5...American Athletic
6...Big 12

http://realtimerpi.com/college_football/ncaaf_conf.html

[Spence]

I generally don't consider conference when I look at a team, but when Oklahoma really never played well at all out of conference and then they run through their conference, how can you conclude any thing else. I actually have no problem with the conference order listed. That is close to what I would have, except I believe their are 4 conferences that are very close in strength and they are the first four you listed. The order could be debated, but I don't mind the order you have in the post.