-- and it might not happen then. I still Oklahoma is going to win out; if it does, they might pass the eye test on the defensive side of the ball enough to get in the playoff, but they'll need help. They actually have enough of a non-league schedule to make it work too. I honestly think Baylor could go unbeaten and still miss out because the non-league schedule was so bad and their defense still gives up way too many points to impress the committee, which actually appears to watch the entire game film.
Looks like Big 12 will have to have an unbeaten team to make the playoffs
- Thread starter doctom4
- Start date
I'm almost certain an undefeated Big 12 team will finish in the top 4 even though both Baylor and OSU have terrible OOC schedules. There are enough (maybe barely) good wins from conference games that it would be sufficient for the top 4. Undefeated means something even when a schedule is not that good.
I agree that Baylor, OSU or TCU would not make it with 1 loss unless there were an almost impossible series of upsets in other conferences. One loss Oklahoma would need some help but could slide into 4th without there being no other 1 loss teams vying for the last spot. It has a win over Tenn. and would also have beat Baylor, TCU and OSU. I could see the committee finding it was a better choice than a 1 loss Iowa, MSU, Stanford, Clemson.... ND would probably get picked over OU with 1 loss because of bias and the fact it trounced Texas while Oklahoma lost to it.
I agree that Baylor, OSU or TCU would not make it with 1 loss unless there were an almost impossible series of upsets in other conferences. One loss Oklahoma would need some help but could slide into 4th without there being no other 1 loss teams vying for the last spot. It has a win over Tenn. and would also have beat Baylor, TCU and OSU. I could see the committee finding it was a better choice than a 1 loss Iowa, MSU, Stanford, Clemson.... ND would probably get picked over OU with 1 loss because of bias and the fact it trounced Texas while Oklahoma lost to it.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State both have a chance to show they deserve a top 4 spot.
I agree about Baylor they have to improve their OOC or they will always been on outside looking in.
I agree about Baylor they have to improve their OOC or they will always been on outside looking in.
The committee has it out for the BIG 12.
Excuse after excuse.
Ohio State who has played no one getting credit for what they might do down the road. Baylor--not.
Oklahoma State with the best win of anyone out there--but behind three one loss teams?
Iowa ahead of ANY BIG 12 teams? ridiculous. Iowa would get smoked by half the BIG 12.
Notre Dame? What happened to having to be a conference champion?
This committee is corrupt and with a strong anti BIG 12 agenda.
Excuse after excuse.
Ohio State who has played no one getting credit for what they might do down the road. Baylor--not.
Oklahoma State with the best win of anyone out there--but behind three one loss teams?
Iowa ahead of ANY BIG 12 teams? ridiculous. Iowa would get smoked by half the BIG 12.
Notre Dame? What happened to having to be a conference champion?
This committee is corrupt and with a strong anti BIG 12 agenda.
Why would the committee "have it out" for the Big 12? One can make the argument that the committee underrates the Big 12 without resorting to silly, paranoid accusations.
Making the case that the Big 12 is unfairly underrated will take more than just asserting it would win games that have not and will not be played.
What is the rational basis for arguing OSU or Baylor deserve to be more highly rated at this point? Both chose not to play a single Power 5 team OOC. The most "impressive" win between them is OSU's win over TCU, which is a pedestrian team with a great QB. As we saw, when he is off TCU's lack of defense and a weak rushing game makes it very beatable.
Frankly, I don't think OSU is likely to finish in the top 10, let alone have a legitimate claim to the top 4. That's subjective at this point, but no more subjective than the assertions being tossed around here to promote the Big 12. If OSU does go undefeated, it will get in; if it doesn't, I don't think it will deserve to be in.
Same for Baylor.
OU could be a close call if it runs the table and have a legitimate gripe if it is excluded.
Making the case that the Big 12 is unfairly underrated will take more than just asserting it would win games that have not and will not be played.
What is the rational basis for arguing OSU or Baylor deserve to be more highly rated at this point? Both chose not to play a single Power 5 team OOC. The most "impressive" win between them is OSU's win over TCU, which is a pedestrian team with a great QB. As we saw, when he is off TCU's lack of defense and a weak rushing game makes it very beatable.
Frankly, I don't think OSU is likely to finish in the top 10, let alone have a legitimate claim to the top 4. That's subjective at this point, but no more subjective than the assertions being tossed around here to promote the Big 12. If OSU does go undefeated, it will get in; if it doesn't, I don't think it will deserve to be in.
Same for Baylor.
OU could be a close call if it runs the table and have a legitimate gripe if it is excluded.
Does anyone ever finish reading these long repetitive troll postings. OSU or Baylor or even a one loss OU (which means that they beat the other two ) will get in the playoff - guaranteed.
Last edited:
If that's the case, then explain why the committee jump Iowa ahead of the undefeated Big 12 teams? The SOS of Iowa is in the 100's, or at least it was. Baylor's and Oklahoma State's is better. Yet, Iowa is #5 currently? Time for you to get your blinders off and look at the clear picture. And that clear picture is that the Big 12 is NOT respected.
1. Clemson (13-0)
2. Bama (12-1)
3. Okie State (12-0)
4. Stanford (12-1)
tOSU loses to either Michigan State or Iowa
Iowa loses to either Michigan State or Nebraska
ND loses to Stanford
Baylor loses at least 1 game between OSU, OK, and TCU
2. Bama (12-1)
3. Okie State (12-0)
4. Stanford (12-1)
tOSU loses to either Michigan State or Iowa
Iowa loses to either Michigan State or Nebraska
ND loses to Stanford
Baylor loses at least 1 game between OSU, OK, and TCU
I agree, it seems that we've joined the Big East 2.0 based on the decisions of the committee so far. It seems they really want a Big10, ACC, and two SEC teams in regardless of SOS and records to an extent. The one wild card is ND. Whose spot will they possibly take?
I'd also bet that half the Big 12 conference would smoke all ACC teams not named Clemson, just to put a stamp on my thoughts on Big 12 SOS.
Answer me this. Are you saying that Stanford's loss to Northwestern is BETTER than a Baylor loss to TCU, Oklahoma State, or Oklahoma? If Baylor finishes with ONLY 1 loss, and it was to one of these schools, how can you justify Stanford's loss to Northwestern? Don't bring up SOS either. The PAC 12 is down this year. They play Notre Dame. Yippie.
I have said repeatedly that I think ALL UNDEFEATED TEAMS including one from the Big 12 will make the playoff.
The Big 12 is going to have a problem if it does not have an undefeated team and is almost certain to miss out if the 1 loss team is not called the Sooners.
OSU is unlikely to win out even though it has already played TCU. That's because it is simply not as good as either Baylor or OU and even at home is unlikely to win both. Baylor has OU at home but must go to TCU and OSU. OU has to go to Baylor and OSU. Baylor has the best chance to go undefeated because it has OU as a home game and the other 2 are not that good despite the current records.
There is a more than 50% chance that none of the teams finish undefeated and only OU is going to have a shot at 1 loss.
The Big 12 is going to have a problem if it does not have an undefeated team and is almost certain to miss out if the 1 loss team is not called the Sooners.
OSU is unlikely to win out even though it has already played TCU. That's because it is simply not as good as either Baylor or OU and even at home is unlikely to win both. Baylor has OU at home but must go to TCU and OSU. OU has to go to Baylor and OSU. Baylor has the best chance to go undefeated because it has OU as a home game and the other 2 are not that good despite the current records.
There is a more than 50% chance that none of the teams finish undefeated and only OU is going to have a shot at 1 loss.
Because the high profile games involving highly ranked teams (by the committee) haven't been played yet in the Big 12. Baylor and OSU and OU haven't played each other as of Tuesday rankings. Iowa has no one left on their schedule that is even ranked - can't impress the committee with any of those wins. Three teams (30% of the conference) are ranked in the Top 12 so that shows a lot of respect. And they all still have to play one another
At this point everyone has blinders on and there is not clear picture until more games are played. Worrying at this point is silly.
Last edited:
I'm not "worried" because we are out of it and what happens to the other teams is more just interesting than something I can get worked up about.
The Big 12's obvious problem is that none of its teams that remain in contention played a particularly good OOC schedule and 2 of them deliberately chose to play wimp schedules. Oklahoma has a decent win over Tennessee. UT is almost certainly a bowl team and plays in the SEC. It also has a favorable stretch run of games and could win out and finish with only 1 loss to an unranked team. that is obviously far more than anything Baylor or OSU will have to brag about if either of them finishes with 1 loss. TCU's win over Minnesota is, unfortunately, the only other decent OOC win in the entire conference.
Now, WVU has always played at least one Power 5 team (it's not our fault Um has sucked recently) and has stepped it up for future schedules. Texas has played good OOC schedules (not done well against them lately). OU has played decent OOC games. The rest of the conference has mostly played all creampuffs except ISU-Iowa and ISU is pretty irrelevant.
Instead of whining about the predicament they put themselves in if they lose a game, the other teams need to man up or shut up if they don't make it.
The Big 12's obvious problem is that none of its teams that remain in contention played a particularly good OOC schedule and 2 of them deliberately chose to play wimp schedules. Oklahoma has a decent win over Tennessee. UT is almost certainly a bowl team and plays in the SEC. It also has a favorable stretch run of games and could win out and finish with only 1 loss to an unranked team. that is obviously far more than anything Baylor or OSU will have to brag about if either of them finishes with 1 loss. TCU's win over Minnesota is, unfortunately, the only other decent OOC win in the entire conference.
Now, WVU has always played at least one Power 5 team (it's not our fault Um has sucked recently) and has stepped it up for future schedules. Texas has played good OOC schedules (not done well against them lately). OU has played decent OOC games. The rest of the conference has mostly played all creampuffs except ISU-Iowa and ISU is pretty irrelevant.
Instead of whining about the predicament they put themselves in if they lose a game, the other teams need to man up or shut up if they don't make it.
Again, you are proving your own point WRONG. Since the "highly ranked teams" haven't played each other yet, explain why the committee gave the nod to IOWA??????? Oklahoma State just played TCU, a highly ranked team. Higher than anything Iowa will play (until perhaps the Big 10 Championship), yet Iowa got the nod in the #5 slot.
It's just barely possible the committee has no agenda, but has simply watched games and collectively holds the sincere belief the undefeated Big 12 teams are not as good as their records suggest. Neither of them has done anything to challenge that perception yet. They have the opportunity down the stretch to dispel that belief by winning out.
I will say that if OSU goes undefeated not only should they be a lock for the playoff, but Gundy should be a runaway winner of coach of the year, because no one will have done more with less.
I will say that if OSU goes undefeated not only should they be a lock for the playoff, but Gundy should be a runaway winner of coach of the year, because no one will have done more with less.
There are two undefeated BIG 12 teams. Oklahoma State beat the AP and coaches top 2 or 3 team.
What rationale does the committee have to claim OSU is less deserving of a high ranking than three one loss teams--as though those losses were an accomplishment? OSU is undefeated and so is Baylor.
Stats wise these teams have been very good--particularly Baylor on the offensive side of the ball.
The committee stated conference championships is a major criteria--but have Notre Dame who CANNOT win a conference championship ahead of the BIG 12 top teams.
Clemson is playing in the easiest conference in the country--yet based on some overhyped games in that conference is sitting at number one while BIG 12 teams with four teams in the top 15 aren't in the top 5?
Ohio State has played no one and beaten no one. A PSU team that lost to Temple is supposedly their best win. But somehow they are top 4? Based on what--the committee told us--based on what they might do in the future. Why then is Baylor not rated in the top 4 based on what they might do in the future?
Rankings from the past aren't supposed to matter according to this committee--but somehow, someway because the Buckeyes did well last year in a BIG 12 less playoff, they are deserving this year?
The committee has gone out of their way to make excuses to boost other leagues up --i.e. "Stanford had to play a game at a time they aren't used to" boo hoo----while claiming a school like OSU which has the best win in the country doesn't deserve a higher ranking because its just one win. Tell me-what win does Iowa have that would cause anyone to rank them ahead of Baylor or Oklahoma or Oklahoma State?
No one is talking about bias that doesn't exist--the committee has alterred there own criteria each step of the way to diminish the BIG 12s top teams and bump up others.
Texas Tech and WVU are as good as many of the teams that other conferences are being credited with playing. The difference is they play in the BIG 12 and have faced several of the top teams in the country while schools like Iowa and Clemson are being credited for the artificial rankings of such schools as Northwestern and Georgia Tech.
Rankings before the committee's own were not supposed to be taken into account anyway per the committee chair just last year. Now, since it devalues the BIG 12's accomplishments and artificially bumps up someone else's they apparently do? How does that work exactly?
If the committee were evaluating things evenly--there would probably be two BIG 12 teams in the top 4 or 5 and another just outside.
Sez you. Lots of people say TTU and WVU are weak teams that any decent team should beat home or away.
You are engaging in circular logic. You claim that TTU and WVU are good teams because they have lost to teams you claim are really good and you base the claim those teams are really good on the fact they have beaten WVU and TTU.
That others don't blindly accept that "logic" does not mean they have a vendetta against the Big 12.
You are engaging in circular logic. You claim that TTU and WVU are good teams because they have lost to teams you claim are really good and you base the claim those teams are really good on the fact they have beaten WVU and TTU.
That others don't blindly accept that "logic" does not mean they have a vendetta against the Big 12.
Easy. Loss was in Week 1, meaning Stanford has since won 12 games straight.
Second part of the answer - Conference Championship Game adds a 12th win
That there is a bias in favor of early losses is true, but I think it is over emphasized.
If you ran into a situation where a team lost an early game to a middling or lesser opponent and another lost its last game to an excellent one, it is unfair to even treat those losses equally let alone count the late loss as a greater negative. That's especially true when most teams in the hunt will play their final game in a conference championship game for the title. Such teams would get hit with a double whammy of a late loss and not winning the championship because of a single loss to a good to excellent team.
If you ran into a situation where a team lost an early game to a middling or lesser opponent and another lost its last game to an excellent one, it is unfair to even treat those losses equally let alone count the late loss as a greater negative. That's especially true when most teams in the hunt will play their final game in a conference championship game for the title. Such teams would get hit with a double whammy of a late loss and not winning the championship because of a single loss to a good to excellent team.
LMD, unfortunately that is a long standing fact of football rankings, whether it is the AP, Coaches, or CFP rankings. Late losses count more than early ones for teams "in the hunt". Rational being that the late loss shouldn't happen if the team is truly what they represent themselves to be.
Championship teams don't lose late. ..regardless.
Championship teams don't lose late. ..regardless.
You're right about what the rationale is, I just don't agree with it. Most teams in contention play their toughest games later in the season, even apart from the championship. I find it difficult to swallow the idea a loss to a weak team is ever better than a loss to a good team no matter when the game is played.
Say the ACC champion lost one game to a 6-6 team with a losing conference record very early in the season then ran the table and the Big 12 had a team undefeated until the final game and it lost to a team coming in with 9-2 with 2 "good losses."
If the ACC team was chosen over the Big 12 team, I'd agree the Big 12 got rooked.
Say the ACC champion lost one game to a 6-6 team with a losing conference record very early in the season then ran the table and the Big 12 had a team undefeated until the final game and it lost to a team coming in with 9-2 with 2 "good losses."
If the ACC team was chosen over the Big 12 team, I'd agree the Big 12 got rooked.
who are these people? WVU is STILL rated 28th in ESPN's FPI ratings judging all teams and Texas Tech is still 37th ahead of such programs as ND's Temple and Penn State which is Ohio State's claim to fame. WVU is rated ahead of IOWA.
Sounds like you personally have a problem with WVU and Tech--don't pretend that spreads to the rest of the college football world which thinks the BIG 12 is excellent.
Oklahoma, Baylor and TCU are 1,2 and 3 in those rankings which are far more accurate than some biased committee whose mission seems to be to exclude the BIG 12 at all costs.
The committees rankings are not a realistic reflection of schedule strength or power.
Last edited:
It's FAR more realistic than the FPI. Models like that do much to illustrate the massive flaws in models that attempt to reduce team comparisons to quantifiable statistical calculations. To a limited extent, such statistical models can be useful in deciding among teams which your eyes tell you are close. Beyond that, it's pretty silly stuff, especially when many games remain to be played. To the extent the models are well constructed they still are of little worth until all the games are played. The FPI is obviously not well constructed. GIGO still holds true and it doesn't matter if you run 10,000 or 10,000,000 "simulations" with garbage.
Not only is it patently absurd to think 4 of the 5 best teams are from the Big 12 (which also serves, obviously, to inflate the ratings of the other conference teams), that it has 3 loss USC at number 7 is laughable. Is beating Utah that impressive?
Not only is it patently absurd to think 4 of the 5 best teams are from the Big 12 (which also serves, obviously, to inflate the ratings of the other conference teams), that it has 3 loss USC at number 7 is laughable. Is beating Utah that impressive?
The BIG 12 is one of the top conferences. There's nothing absurd about that-its the truth--something some don't want to admit.
The committee is skewing the evidence. Eliminating those things that illustrate the strength of the BIG 12 and overinflating those things that make others seem worthy.
The committee is skewing the evidence. Eliminating those things that illustrate the strength of the BIG 12 and overinflating those things that make others seem worthy.
I agree with you but the AAC can make the same argument. Perception is reality and the fact is, the committee does not value the Big 12 conference. That is evident when ND, with their only good wins being against Navy and Temple, and a loss in their only big game, is still way ahead of the nearest Big 12 team. OU could win out and they still will not be ahead of ND because the committee will say their loss is worse than the ND loss. They will completely discredit the wins OU has in the Big 12 conference. Other than money, we would be in a better position in the AAC. Now, I'm not saying we did the wrong thing, just pointing out the facts.
Ok State: we've passed all nine tests without a blemish. we have a top 10 win. by 20 points.
Committee: we don't penalize losing. we don't value winning. we don't like Boykin and Patterson. didn't you learn that last year? we like eye tests. we like name brands. we like KFC.
Ok State: what has Notre Dame done to pass the eye test?
Committee: they almost beat Clemson. they beat 21-ranked Temple. we like defense. we dislike shootouts.
Ok State: Notre Dame beat Pitt 42-30.
Committe: we liked that too.
Committee: we don't penalize losing. we don't value winning. we don't like Boykin and Patterson. didn't you learn that last year? we like eye tests. we like name brands. we like KFC.
Ok State: what has Notre Dame done to pass the eye test?
Committee: they almost beat Clemson. they beat 21-ranked Temple. we like defense. we dislike shootouts.
Ok State: Notre Dame beat Pitt 42-30.
Committe: we liked that too.
The AAC is never going to be in the playoffs. The AAC schools get about $1-$2 million per year.
If WVU were in the AAC it would no longer be considered a major program.
Not sure why anyone is comparing the BIG 12 to the AAC--its an aburd comparison. One is a mid major, one is a major league. TV coverage, exposure, bowls, revenues, the BIG 12 is the only choice and there isn't a BIG 12 school that would consider the AAC, but every AAC squad would cut off their left you know what to join the BIG 12--playoff committee snubs or not. Don't be silly.
One or two--not "one of the top 5". Don't mistake corrupt playoff committee rankings with anything else.
For the trolls among us:
excerpt:
With four playoff spots and five power conferences, at least one is going to be left out each year. Last year the Big 12 was that conference: Baylor ranked fifth and T.C.U. sixth in the final ranking. T.C.U. went on to beat Mississippi, 42-3, in the Peach Bowl, while Baylor lost the Cotton Bowl to Michigan State by a point.
T.C.U. finished the season 12-1 with just a 3-point loss at Baylor. Its average margin of victory was 27 points. But there was no route to the national championship for the Horned Frogs. After the season, Jeff Sagarin’s venerable computer rankings rated T.C.U. the second best team in the country behind national champion Ohio State, and his “predictor” ranking, which emphasizes point differential, rated it No. 1.
Photo
No. 8 Oklahoma State is 9-0 after defeating previously unbeaten T.C.U., 49-29, on Saturday. Credit Brett Deering/Getty Images
The Big 12 could face a similar situation this year, even if one of the current top four falters. Iowa would probably grab Ohio State’s place with a Big Ten championship, and Stanford could jump in the mix by winning the Pac-12.
Yet there is no consensus that the Big 12 is the weakest of the power conferences. Indeed, Sagarin rates it as the best conference in the country and has three Big 12 members in his top six.
The league is full of offensive powerhouses; Baylor is averaging 57 points a game. Oklahoma State’s victory over unbeaten T.C.U. was extremely impressive. Oklahoma has blown out team after team.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/s...miss-college-football-playoff-again.html?_r=0
The problem is NOT the BIG 12 or the nature of its competitiveness.
excerpt:
With four playoff spots and five power conferences, at least one is going to be left out each year. Last year the Big 12 was that conference: Baylor ranked fifth and T.C.U. sixth in the final ranking. T.C.U. went on to beat Mississippi, 42-3, in the Peach Bowl, while Baylor lost the Cotton Bowl to Michigan State by a point.
T.C.U. finished the season 12-1 with just a 3-point loss at Baylor. Its average margin of victory was 27 points. But there was no route to the national championship for the Horned Frogs. After the season, Jeff Sagarin’s venerable computer rankings rated T.C.U. the second best team in the country behind national champion Ohio State, and his “predictor” ranking, which emphasizes point differential, rated it No. 1.
Photo
No. 8 Oklahoma State is 9-0 after defeating previously unbeaten T.C.U., 49-29, on Saturday. Credit Brett Deering/Getty Images
The Big 12 could face a similar situation this year, even if one of the current top four falters. Iowa would probably grab Ohio State’s place with a Big Ten championship, and Stanford could jump in the mix by winning the Pac-12.
Yet there is no consensus that the Big 12 is the weakest of the power conferences. Indeed, Sagarin rates it as the best conference in the country and has three Big 12 members in his top six.
The league is full of offensive powerhouses; Baylor is averaging 57 points a game. Oklahoma State’s victory over unbeaten T.C.U. was extremely impressive. Oklahoma has blown out team after team.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/s...miss-college-football-playoff-again.html?_r=0
The problem is NOT the BIG 12 or the nature of its competitiveness.
let me insert a leaf into the forest of bs....I'm a West by God Virginia fan..I don't care if they don't make the "final four", or whatever you deem to call it..
March Madness > college football. This football playoff committee should not be allowed to call their pairings the Final Four.
NBA playoffs settle it better than anything possible.
8 teams in from West. 8 from East. You are seeded according to the win-loss column & NOTHING else.
Best 4 of 7 series. You either win or you go home.
NBA playoffs settle it better than anything possible.
8 teams in from West. 8 from East. You are seeded according to the win-loss column & NOTHING else.
Best 4 of 7 series. You either win or you go home.
For the trolls among us:
excerpt:
With four playoff spots and five power conferences, at least one is going to be left out each year. Last year the Big 12 was that conference: Baylor ranked fifth and T.C.U. sixth in the final ranking. T.C.U. went on to beat Mississippi, 42-3, in the Peach Bowl, while Baylor lost the Cotton Bowl to Michigan State by a point.
T.C.U. finished the season 12-1 with just a 3-point loss at Baylor. Its average margin of victory was 27 points. But there was no route to the national championship for the Horned Frogs. After the season, Jeff Sagarin’s venerable computer rankings rated T.C.U. the second best team in the country behind national champion Ohio State, and his “predictor” ranking, which emphasizes point differential, rated it No. 1.
Photo
No. 8 Oklahoma State is 9-0 after defeating previously unbeaten T.C.U., 49-29, on Saturday. Credit Brett Deering/Getty Images
The Big 12 could face a similar situation this year, even if one of the current top four falters. Iowa would probably grab Ohio State’s place with a Big Ten championship, and Stanford could jump in the mix by winning the Pac-12.
Yet there is no consensus that the Big 12 is the weakest of the power conferences. Indeed, Sagarin rates it as the best conference in the country and has three Big 12 members in his top six.
The league is full of offensive powerhouses; Baylor is averaging 57 points a game. Oklahoma State’s victory over unbeaten T.C.U. was extremely impressive. Oklahoma has blown out team after team.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/s...miss-college-football-playoff-again.html?_r=0
The problem is NOT the BIG 12 or the nature of its competitiveness.
Sagarin has the Big 12 as the best conference in the country. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Don't make guarantees buddy you lose any credibility that you think you have! Remember last year? If there is a 12-0 team in the Big 12 I would think they get in this year. I doubt a one loss loss Big12 team gets in. Just like a one loss ACC team probably doesn't get. The ACC and the Big12 are the weak sisters. Embraced buddy.
I also saw where apparently the SEC & Big10 both have 6/10 schools ranked higher by the committee than AP & Coaches poll, while Big 12 and Pac 10 have 0 combined.
You better, because WVU is IN the BIG 12. For certain if the conference continues to be shut out it isn't going to be good long term for WVU.
If everyone in the top 4 wins out it will be difficult for any undefeated big 12 team to make playoffs. Been hearing this conversation pertaining to ND being 11-1 at number 4. I don't the there will be an undefeated big 12 anyways so they will get screwed again.
Committee is definitely bias to bigger name schools.
Committee is definitely bias to bigger name schools.