Quote:

---

Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby would like some clarity from College Football Playoff officials on the importance of conference championship games and strength of schedule, he told ESPN on Sunday after the selection committee put 11-1 Ohio State in at No. 3 despite the Buckeyes not winning the Big Ten East Division or their conference title.

"Obviously I acknowledge the difficulty of the task, but I'm not sure what I advise my members right now because we've been telling them that nonconference schedules matter, and one of the four has an exceedingly weak nonconference schedule," he said, referring to No. 4 Washington, which notched wins over Rutgers, Idaho and FCS Portland State. "And we've been telling them the 13th data point matters, and we added a conference championship game because of that. We've always heard that conference championships matter and division championships matter, and now it's confusing."

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

If they hadn't lost to Ohio State by 21, they would have a better argument. It's the same reason Penn State isn't in the final four.

---

When I first read it, I thought he was arguing that Penn State should be in rather than Washington. I was very confused, then amused when I realized he was trying to make a case for OU.

Bowlsby's just trying to figure out how to game the system next year.

91_Aggie said:

---

Every conference would love to schedule Kansas and Iowa state as OOC patsies, but 8 teams in that dumpster fire get those 2 gimmes along with at least 2 others in OOC.

Bowlsby needs to learn there is nothing he can do to polish that turd of a conference

---

Can'take totally say they are gimmicks since that school in Austin lost to KU.

That's the way I read it as well. Are we sure that's not what he's doing? He points out the CCG, which they don't have right now.

coolerguy12 said:

---

I think part of it is referencing Baylor being left in the cold with 1 loss. Remember when Briles unloaded on the commitee for not being southern enough? Guy *****ed and moaned for weeks before going on to lose their bowl game to prove everyone right.

---

And Gary Patterson just shrugged and said, "We should've played better and won all our games." Then went out and massacred Ole Miss by like 40.

Here's the deal Bowlsby...

Advise your members to schedule at least ONE good OOC game AND WIN IT.

Also advise your members to not lose any games.

Problem solved

the BDF will get left out again next year. For some reason most of the teams scheduled their marquee non-conference game on the road in 2017:

Oklahoma at Ohio State

t.u. at Southern Cal

TCU at Arkansas

OSU at Pittsburgh

Hey Bowlsby,

1. Your conference sucks ass
2. The year both TCU and Baylor were in the conversation, their OOC schedule sucked ass
3. When BOTH your OOC and conference schedule sucks ass, you are left out of the playoff picture
4. You playing a conference champion would give your ****ty teams a boost in their SOS
5. The committee was very clear this year when they put the Texas Aggies ahead of Washington, due to SOS
6. Did I mention your conference sucks ass? The AAC had a higher rating than your **** conference

You should just STFU, but you are an idiot, which is why you are commissioner of the big 12. Congrats on that

I think Penn St should have been in before Ohio St. My view is that conference title is a prerequisite for consideration.

The B1G was the best football conference this season and their champ is left out.

To steal from a law saying, when your OOC is on your side, pound your OOC. When your conference is on your side, pound your conference. When neither is on your side, ***** and moan about being left out of the playoffs yet again.

33 said:

---

I think Penn St should have been in before Ohio St. My view is that conference title is a prerequisite for consideration.

The B1G was the best football conference this season and their champ is left out.

---

Agree. We've been told by the committee for 3 years that conference championships matter - usually as the primary driver of who gets in.

It goes back to the argument of most deserving v. best team.

IMO, the most deserving is Penn State - they won the division AND conference that Ohio State is in, plus they beat them head to head. (And I hate Penn St by the way).

I suppose the committee has shown that they go with the best team argument? But if that is the case, do they think Washington is better than Michigan? Clemson is better than Michigan?

33 said:

---

I think Penn St should have been in before Ohio St. My view is that conference title is a prerequisite for consideration.

The B1G was the best football conference this season and their champ is left out.

---

So, say, OSU loses to Michigan, their only loss. Say double OT, 35-34.

PSU loses to Pitt, Furman, and NC State early. However, in B1G - undefeated.

You are FORCED by your view to take say, #14 PSU @10-3 (B1G Champs) over, say, #5 OSU @ 11-1.

My view is that the first milestone is losses. Two-loss teams should be rare. Then...loss to what quality team(s)?
Finally, conference titles. As we know, BDF titles, while nice, are not equivalent to SEC, ACC, B1G titles almost any given year. I could certainly see why BDF apologists would take your view!

Wabs said:

---

33 said:

---

I think Penn St should have been in before Ohio St. My view is that conference title is a prerequisite for consideration.

The B1G was the best football conference this season and their champ is left out.

---

Agree. We've been told by the committee for 3 years that conference championships matter - usually as the primary driver of who gets in.

It goes back to the argument of most deserving v. best team.

IMO, the most deserving is Penn State - they won the division AND conference that Ohio State is in, plus they beat them head to head. (And I hate Penn St by the way).

I suppose the committee has shown that they go with the best team argument? But if that is the case, do they think Washington is better than Michigan? Clemson is better than Michigan?

---

Actually we have been told by the committee that strength of schedule and quality wins are the prime driver of who gets in. A good conference championship game gives another quality win to the winner.

Yr 1, TCU and Baylor got leap frogged because the B1G champ had an extra quality win that the BDF didn't have.

Yr 2 OU got in because they had a decent OOC, with a quality win over Tenn, and several of the BDF teams looked good on paper after racking up OOC wins. They also showed us who you lose to doesn't really matter, just don't lose too many.

Yr 3, they started with Wash on the outside because of a weak OOC schedule. Penn State had 2 losses (too many) yet Ohio State only had 1 with several quality wins. They were only not in the conf championship because of the conference tie breaker rules.

The problem for the b12 is their playoff rules starting next year. They can't let their best (or second best) team sit it out and find a back door into the playoffs. On the upside, there is a chance for the b12 #1 team to go undefeated through the season, lose the conf championship game and still be in. But they will need some quality wins either from OOC or conf schedule.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Wabs said:

---

33 said:

---

I think Penn St should have been in before Ohio St. My view is that conference title is a prerequisite for consideration.

The B1G was the best football conference this season and their champ is left out.

---

Agree. We've been told by the committee for 3 years that conference championships matter - usually as the primary driver of who gets in.

It goes back to the argument of most deserving v. best team.

IMO, the most deserving is Penn State - they won the division AND conference that Ohio State is in, plus they beat them head to head. (And I hate Penn St by the way).

I suppose the committee has shown that they go with the best team argument? But if that is the case, do they think Washington is better than Michigan? Clemson is better than Michigan?

---

Actually we have been told by the committee that strength of schedule and quality wins are the prime driver of who gets in. A good conference championship game gives another quality win to the winner.

Yr 1, TCU and Baylor got leap frogged because the B1G champ had an extra quality win that the BDF didn't have.

Yr 2 OU got in because they had a decent OOC, with a quality win over Tenn, and several of the BDF teams looked good on paper after racking up OOC wins. They also showed us who you lose to doesn't really matter, just don't lose too many.

Yr 3, they started with Wash on the outside because of a weak OOC schedule. Penn State had 2 losses (too many) yet Ohio State only had 1 with several quality wins. They were only not in the conf championship because of the conference tie breaker rules.

The problem for the b12 is their playoff rules starting next year. They can't let their best (or second best) team sit it out and find a back door into the playoffs. On the upside, there is a chance for the b12 #1 team to go undefeated through the season, lose the conf championship game and still be in. But they will need some quality wins either from OOC or conf schedule.

---

You mean the tie breaker rule where if 2 teams are tied the winner advances? Also known as logic except in the BDF of course.

The committee should just lay it on the table... "Stop playing ****ty football that is hard to watch". That should be the main Big 12 focus. All the other factors will take care of themselves if they can do that as a conference.

bigjag19 said:

---

You mean the tie breaker rule where if 2 teams are tied the winner advances? Also known as logic except in the BDF of course.

---

Yes, and that works for conf and division champs because, for the most part, that is based on the same subset of games (conf games). Oddly, the playoffs are based on the whole season and the wins/losses and strength of schedule in an attempt to compare teams across conferences where there are very few games overlapping. Making playoff selection primarily about conference champs makes the playoffs about a single game (who wins the conf champ game) rather than the whole season.

In other words, conference/division championships completely ignore OOC losses (and rightly so), but the playoff committee doesn't.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Wabs said:

---

33 said:

---

I think Penn St should have been in before Ohio St. My view is that conference title is a prerequisite for consideration.

The B1G was the best football conference this season and their champ is left out.

---

Agree. We've been told by the committee for 3 years that conference championships matter - usually as the primary driver of who gets in.

It goes back to the argument of most deserving v. best team.

IMO, the most deserving is Penn State - they won the division AND conference that Ohio State is in, plus they beat them head to head. (And I hate Penn St by the way).

I suppose the committee has shown that they go with the best team argument? But if that is the case, do they think Washington is better than Michigan? Clemson is better than Michigan?

---

Actually we have been told by the committee that strength of schedule and quality wins are the prime driver of who gets in. A good conference championship game gives another quality win to the winner.

Yr 1, TCU and Baylor got leap frogged because the B1G champ had an extra quality win that the BDF didn't have.

Yr 2 OU got in because they had a decent OOC, with a quality win over Tenn, and several of the BDF teams looked good on paper after racking up OOC wins. They also showed us who you lose to doesn't really matter, just don't lose too many.

Yr 3, they started with Wash on the outside because of a weak OOC schedule. Penn State had 2 losses (too many) yet Ohio State only had 1 with several quality wins. They were only not in the conf championship because of the conference tie breaker rules.

The problem for the b12 is their playoff rules starting next year. They can't let their best (or second best) team sit it out and find a back door into the playoffs. On the upside, there is a chance for the b12 #1 team to go undefeated through the season, lose the conf championship game and still be in. But they will need some quality wins either from OOC or conf schedule.

---

Makes perfect sense to me, as you laid it out.

And for OU being left out, Hocutt addressed that directly. They are looking for the best complete teams. That means having some semblance of a defense as well as a powerful offense. That game with tech was basketball on grass, not just on the scoreboard.

Mahomes threw 88 times for 52 completions and 734 yards. Tech only had 121 rushing yards. The Sooner defense knew he was going to throw it and couldn't stop him. Sure, they won it 66-59, but it was a pitiful effort against a team with a losing record.