OTF Premium Flawed logic has tainted the College Football Playoff selection process

[Here for the Wins]

1 hour ago, Burnt Orange Horn said:

No, the greater inclusion of teams was a brilliant move.  The NFL is a 32 team private league.  Regression to the mean favors them.  The FBS is a 139+ public league.  It is seeking the best of that public league to include in the playoff.  Playing Portland State is not the same as a SEC or most B1G teams, nor should it be.

Fewer games than the NFL, far more unbalanced schedules leads to inconclusive choices.

[Junior]

12 hours ago, Burnt Orange Horn said:

Which is exactly why total losses is the wrong criteria by which to classify teams.  Head to Head and Strength of Schedule must come first.  It is non critical thinkers who accept the Committee's losses first criteria.  Kind of like the good Germans in the 30s who justified accepting Hitler.

The committee ranks teams as it wants, then works backward to make it make sense. This is the fatal flaw of the Committee which invalidates all of its actions. It has negated the value of marquee match ups.  The consequence of invalidating such elevated competitive matchups means less CFB fans will be able to view them.  Which also means total revenue for the networks and the involved colleges will decline.

If Texas and other colleges with premier football programs will not speak against this obviously flawed model, then the networks must.  Kudos to Jeff for articulating the obvious flaws of this Committee of program fans and professional pundits expressing personal biases over sober evaluation.  The NCAA must do better or be kicked to the gutter by the power conference members.

 

 

[Junior]

I think the fan base is split 80/20. Eighty percent know there's a screwjob happening but don’t know how to push back without sounding like complainers. The other 20% are indirectly defending the committee by using the lazy argument that "you shoulda beat Florida"—maybe they’re just fed up with the season or simply don’t get why a 9-3 team with a difficult in conference and out of conference schedule should get in over a 10-2 team that had it easy for most of the year. 

I agree with the play in game concept but its too late for that this year. However, it's not too late to force the committee to debate live on national TV this weekend. They should be made to explain their reasoning and hear the other side. Many respected media and sports figures—not from Texas—agree this ranking is a screwjob and needs fixing immediately.

[Inspired73]

12 hours ago, marathon said:

The committee should be fired for ranking Notre Dame over Miami even though Miami beat ND and they both have 10-2 records. It’s as if Miami never played ND. Why even play the game.

Flawed logic implies there was logic to begin with. Their selection process is simple. They look at won loss records and pick the prettiest records.

 

I zapped the record information from Marathon's analysis for brevity.  I think he really hit the nail on the head....... the "committee" looks at won/loss records.  That is the flaw. College football is NOT the NFL!  The differences between the best and worst teams in the NFL are small.  Won/Loss records are a valid analysis.

This is not true in college ball.  There is a huge difference between the top 20 schools and the bottom 70 schools.  The Committee and other pundits that use only W/L which is insane.  

Finally, what makes the football tournament so frustrating is that it doesn't even follow the same logic format as all of the other NCAA sports.   I am sure Jeff or someone can elaborate, but the final tournament rankings do not value wins against cream puffs and assign a + value to games with the highest ranked teams. 

Basically, the people that control football are idiots.  Ultimately these guys will force a 48 school (or less) national league upon us.   This will kill the Texas States, James Madisons, etc.   I need to stop now.

 

[Junior]

I believe that if you surveyed college football fans, media members, coaches, and other respected figures in the sport about who deserves a playoff spot this year—Texas or the other contenders (Notre Dame, Miami, Oklahoma, Alabama)—Texas would receive the most support. Their résumé stands out when you look at the combination of overall record, the difficulty of both their conference and non-conference schedules, and their head-to-head results.

Choosing Texas would also avoid setting a precedent that encourages teams to schedule weak non-conference opponents. And when you consider the context of their losses—falling to Ohio State by just one score on the road while outgaining them in total yards, and trailing Georgia by only four points in the fourth quarter—it strengthens their case even further. The committee’s framing of the Florida loss also seems misleading; Florida was far from a Division III-level opponent, had an elite roster, and nearly beat Georgia this season.

[charlie990]

I keep seeing people pointing to the fact that the gators have 4 wins and that looks bad. Are we forgetting Florida has the 2nd hardest schedule in the nation? I know Billy was fired but if that team is remotely healthy they are probably favored against all but 1 big 12 team. 

[charlie990]

Also, what are we rewarding when the 118th (JMU), 125th (North Texas) strength of schedules are getting in the CFP, lol.

[Here for the Wins]

1 hour ago, charlie990 said:

I keep seeing people pointing to the fact that the gators have 4 wins and that looks bad. Are we forgetting Florida has the 2nd hardest schedule in the nation? I know Billy was fired but if that team is remotely healthy they are probably favored against all but 1 big 12 team. 

Forgetting?  No.  I’d wager people are unaware, don’t care.

 

1 hour ago, charlie990 said:

Also, what are we rewarding when the 118th (JMU), 125th (North Texas) strength of schedules are getting in the CFP, lol.

 I wasn’t aware.  I’ve paid quite a bit of attention, but you’re the first I’ve known give this any attention.

 

Thing is this year that Texas and Vandy have the potential to make waves, probably more so than many years.

So the “win it on the field” mantra isn’t exactly accurate this year.

[Junior]

It's flawed logic and lazy group think dynamics combined with massive conflicts of interest and a legion of media muppets who willingly do the committees bidding. 

[Thanos72]

On 12/3/2025 at 8:58 PM, LECHorns said:

I haven’t seen this mentioned yet, but what’s the upside of playing the big OOC games?  Aggies went on the road and beat ND…and yet they fell below TT, Oregon and Ole Miss with the same record.  It’s really hard for me to see why Aggies should be any lower than #4.
 

Miami obviously is seeing no upside.

Is the rationale for OU being so far ahead of us their win over Michigan? Seems dumb, but they’re the only school seeing any benefit from scheduling these games.

Making college football watchable? Good teams playing each other vs playing chess trying to get into the playoffs? Being competitive? Enjoy challenges? 🤷🏽‍♂️

[Jeff Howe]

23 hours ago, charlie990 said:

I keep seeing people pointing to the fact that the gators have 4 wins and that looks bad. Are we forgetting Florida has the 2nd hardest schedule in the nation? I know Billy was fired but if that team is remotely healthy they are probably favored against all but 1 big 12 team. 

Don’t know you know that there’s no room for nuance in a world stuffed to the gills with hot takes?

[EHoff99]

On 12/3/2025 at 6:13 PM, Jeff Howe said:

In all seriousness, I wrote most of this this morning. Last night's rankings were when the country threw up its hands and decided that the CFP selection committee had completely missed the mark.

Whenever the Big Ten and SEC decide they've played nice for long enough, everyone outside of those two leagues can blame the committee for mucking up the process so badly that it had to be changed.

At the end of the day, 16-18 team super conferences aren't good for the sport in my opinion and SEC and Big 10 created this problem themselves.

[Burnt Orange Horn]

On 12/4/2025 at 9:23 AM, Here for the Wins said:

Fewer games than the NFL, far more unbalanced schedules leads to inconclusive choices.

Hence the more inclusive playoff slate is necessary!

🤘🏻🤘🏼🤘🤘🏽🤘🏾🤘🏿

[Burnt Orange Horn]

1 hour ago, EHoff99 said:

At the end of the day, 16-18 team super conferences aren't good for the sport in my opinion and SEC and Big 10 created this problem themselves.

Both conferences might have had a little help from the networks.

[Here for the Wins]

8 minutes ago, Burnt Orange Horn said:

Both conferences might have had a little help from the networks.

Money is the cause of much of this no doubt.  But fans have clamored for playoffs for decades.  With that those with the most power were never going to be satisfied getting shorted their seats at the table and their dollars.

People are complaining about the top 12, but it’s also the seeding that matters too.  That won’t change.  
 

If you expand it to 16, you’re introducing more into the argument.  And you still have the issue of too many teams with too few games in unbalanced schedules.  With 16, you’ll have to do something with the conference championships because now there’s no byes.

Right now you get people arguing over Miami versus Notre Dame because they won a coin flip game late on a FG in the first game of the year.  Is it the best 12 teams or those with the seasons?   I’d say Texas and Notre Dame are both top 12 right now based on the available information.  Theres more of a debate whether Notre Dame and Texas have had one of the 12 (or 10) best seasons.  In my opinion they have.        
 

With each attempt to get the playoffs right, you give away something that was meaningful over the 100 plus years of college football that made it a special thing.  Bowl games and conference championships meant something.

You know what season was perfect?  Texas-USC.  Last year Ohio State didn’t even win their conference but were national champs.  Not making the conference championship likely helped that effort.

The super conferences are the only way to get this consistent.  You can schedule as you like in non-conference cause advancement is not dependent upon it.  You can then somewhat balance the conference schedules.  Then the divisions within the conference determines who advances.  It sounds terrible, but that’s the path.

[Burnt Orange Horn]

The SEC and the B1G together would include 10 of the top 12 teams every year without a G6 slot and no special ND treatment.  The ACC and mediocre 12 are irrelevant anyway.  Give them their own 4 team play in tournament for two slots, maybe??

[Steven Conant]

No conference should get a guaranteed number of teams.  Things change over time and power shifts are going to happen-especially with NIL free agency.  Texas Tech comes to mind.   The biggest problem with the committe is it doesn't have a unified goal for the post season.  Do you want the best match ups? The highest revenue generation?  Need to include smaller schools to recognize their season?   Want to repeat conference match ups in the post season?  They don't know what they want to do.  Does Texas Tech vs MIami draw any attention?  Would fans travel to see Oregon vs OLe Miss this year?   Does a Texas A&M rematch with Notre Dame have any appeal?  At least the original bowl system found interesting match ups and competitive games.

Here's a thought -market based rankings.  Fans send cash to the NCAA to vote for their team.  The two teams raising the most cash play for the championship.  The next highest revenue teams play for 3rd and foulrth etc.  Or, in th altemative market based system,  there is only one post season game allowed per team after the season.  There are  no bowl/conference affiliations.  Bowls bid for teams at the end of the season.  The two teams attracting the highest dollar bowl play for the Championship, the next highest paid pair play for 3rd and 4th etc.   Let TV bid on the bowls after the teams are announced.  Bowls will have to compete for teams making the teams alot of $$$$.  Since we are all about the money now let the market decide.  Didn't get a bowl bid? Challenge someone and split the  gate.  (Don't get excited, this is clearly not a serious proposal, but it probably makes as much sense as a committee that has different ideas about what they are trying to do with the post season.) 

One serious thought about the post season, all teams should have the option of practicing until the final game is played and not just the ones in the playoffs.  That practice time is a huge advantage to teams with an extended season.

[Junior]

How about a ontexas football town hall special livestream this weekend to discuss the playoffs issue. I understand there some want to move on to recruiting or to 2026 but could be useful to have a meeting of minds solely on this issue and come up with ideas/ strategies to ensure committee accountability. Does the sport need a collection of appointed watchdogs from across the country tasked with overseeing this process throughout the season Could be respected and knowledgeable business or community leaders who love the sport and have the time and organizational capabilities. 

[Jordan91]

The committee chair seriously needs to get involved in politics. He can spin his story as good as any politician can. He’s never wrong, despite all evidence to the contrary. 
 

Desmond Howard can you please shut up? I am so tired of him saying Ohio State has played nobody. Even win other people say Texas, he’s silent and then repeats the same thing. Same guy that talked about Coach leaving.

[Deej]

4 minutes ago, Jordan91 said:

The committee chair seriously needs to get involved in politics. He can spin his story as good as any politician can. He’s never wrong, despite all evidence to the contrary. 
 

Desmond Howard can you please shut up? I am so tired of him saying Ohio State has played nobody. Even win other people say Texas, he’s silent and then repeats the same thing. Same guy that talked about Coach leaving.

He’s got beef for some reason with Texas. At one point this year he was saying Bryce Underwood had proven to be better than Arch Manning

[Steven Conant]

Is it time to fire the NCAA completely?  The NCAA has been driving the bus from the back seat most of its existance and doesn't really provide any direction, enforcement or purpose.  Is it  time for the schools to decide via their own conference by laws how they want to participate.   Certainly the ADs can figure out where their school fits in.  If I'm in a conference that wants to spend money, travel cross country and play in fromt of TVs then these are the rules we agree too play by.  Schools  can self police the conference and, by contract, punish and expel those who don't want to comply with the agreed to conference rules.  Smaller schools may decide to have a different emphasis and set an agenda to play regional games with other less funded (or sports driven) schools.  The goal maybe to provide entertainment and some level of on campus interest to their school without going bankrupt.   Number of scholarships, salary caps, number of games played, recruiting rules can all be set by conference contract.  Hey, I'm East Compass Point University and I want to challenge you Goliath-let's set up a game in April!   Why not?   Most of the structure currently in place wouldn't really change without the NCAA.  The difference is the schools and conferences would determine their own rules and champions- maybe they challenge either other in the end too!  But, the schools would be able to determine their own paths without paying for non-existant services.