One thing that is worth pointing out on both Baylor and TCU is that both played Baylor.
I think that there's an interesting distinction here though:
TCU plays Baylor every year - they are long standing rivals in the Metroplex and the scheduling of that game has little to do with padding your schedule with an easy win from a TCU perspective. That game gets played regardless of how good/bad TCU or SMU is.
In contrast, SMU and Baylor while being old SWC rivals, are not yearly rivals. Scheduling SMU for Baylor is a conscious decision where they are using Baylor as part of their C, C, F OOC scheduling.
Just food for thought.
What you posted makes absolutely zero sense. I think I get what you mean, but I think you put teams in the wrong spot.
At least TCU also schedule Minnesota. Baylor went out of their way to schedule a shit OOC. They need to be penalized for it. This makes me also second guess having more than a four team playoff. Because if they increase the number, I think bullshit OOC schedules like this will become the norm.
At least TCU also schedule Minnesota. Baylor went out of their way to schedule a shit OOC. They need to be penalized for it. This makes me also second guess having more than a four team playoff. Because if they increase the number, I think bullshit OOC schedules like this will become the norm.
I agree with that - you want to make sure that the regular season stays special. I would be against anything that expands the playoff to more than 6 (5 conference winners + 1 at-large).
TCU plays at Minnesota next year, then has home/home on the books with Arkansas, Ohio St, and Cal in the next 7 years. So at minimum, they're going to play 10 strong games each year.
At least TCU also schedule Minnesota. Baylor went out of their way to schedule a shit OOC. They need to be penalized for it. This makes me also second guess having more than a four team playoff. Because if they increase the number, I think bullshit OOC schedules like this will become the norm.
I agree with that - you want to make sure that the regular season stays special. I would be against anything that expands the playoff to more than 6 (5 conference winners + 1 at-large).
TCU plays at Minnesota next year, then has home/home on the books with Arkansas, Ohio St, and Cal in the next 7 years. So at minimum, they're going to play 10 strong games each year.
I don't like conference champs getting auto bids. Look back to 2011. What if UCLA had beaten Oregon. Would you want a 7-6 team in the playoff?
At least TCU also schedule Minnesota. Baylor went out of their way to schedule a shit OOC. They need to be penalized for it. This makes me also second guess having more than a four team playoff. Because if they increase the number, I think bullshit OOC schedules like this will become the norm.
I agree with that - you want to make sure that the regular season stays special. I would be against anything that expands the playoff to more than 6 (5 conference winners + 1 at-large).
TCU plays at Minnesota next year, then has home/home on the books with Arkansas, Ohio St, and Cal in the next 7 years. So at minimum, they're going to play 10 strong games each year.
I don't like conference champs getting auto bids. Look back to 2011. What if UCLA had beaten Oregon. Would you want a 7-6 team in the playoff?
If they win their conference, and are the #8 seed on the road at #1 for the quarterfinals, then why not? 3 at-large teams that didn't win conference titles would also be eligible. In terms of 2011, Oregon very well could have got in at 11-2. If not, don't lose games to 6-6 teams.
Comments
TCU plays at Minnesota next year, then has home/home on the books with Arkansas, Ohio St, and Cal in the next 7 years. So at minimum, they're going to play 10 strong games each year.
If only TCU and Baylor had played each other
Ohio State beat Minnesota too!!!!## And Michigan State!