CFP Top 10 Teams
B1G - 4
PAC12 - 3
SEC - 1
ACC - 1
BIG12 - 1
CFP Top 25 Teams
PAC12 - 5
ACC - 5
SEC - 5
B1G - 4
BIG12 - 3
Bowl Eligible Teams
ACC - 11 / 14 = 79%
SEC - 11 / 14 = 79%
B1G - 10 / 14 = 71%
BIG12 - 6 / 10 = 60%
PAC12 - 6 / 12 = 50%
Three top 10 teams and 5 top 25 teams argues that the PAC12 is at the top, yet the CFP committee seemed to say Washington's strength of schedule was weak.
Washington played 3 cupcakes (Rutgers, Idaho, and Portland St) - One P5 team
Alabama played 3 cupcakes (Western Kentucky, Kent St, and Chattanooga) - No P5 teams
Washington played USC in a cross division game as their 9th conference game.
Alabama played USC out of conference.
The rest of Wash and Bama's games were against conference teams.
Washington played eleven P5 teams.
Alabama played ten P5 teams.
What made Washington's strength of schedule that much worse than Alabama's?
The SEC is in a down year, so how does that make sense?
As a reminder, the PAC12, BIG12 and B1G play 9 conference games while the SEC and ACC only play 8 conference games.
One old article said the CFP committee would look strongly at strength of schedule when deciding which teams will make the playoffs, therefore the PAC12 wanted to add a 9th conference game to improve the overall strength of schedule of its teams and the B1G followed suit starting this year.
Does anyone honestly feel that that strength of schedule made a difference this year for any playoff team? (Most teams play only one "tough" out of conference game. OU for OSU and Pitt for Penn St)
After only one year, does anyone think the B1G made a mistake to go to 9 conference games?
Do you think that the PAC12 regrets doing so now?
B1G - 4
PAC12 - 3
SEC - 1
ACC - 1
BIG12 - 1
CFP Top 25 Teams
PAC12 - 5
ACC - 5
SEC - 5
B1G - 4
BIG12 - 3
Bowl Eligible Teams
ACC - 11 / 14 = 79%
SEC - 11 / 14 = 79%
B1G - 10 / 14 = 71%
BIG12 - 6 / 10 = 60%
PAC12 - 6 / 12 = 50%
Three top 10 teams and 5 top 25 teams argues that the PAC12 is at the top, yet the CFP committee seemed to say Washington's strength of schedule was weak.
Washington played 3 cupcakes (Rutgers, Idaho, and Portland St) - One P5 team
Alabama played 3 cupcakes (Western Kentucky, Kent St, and Chattanooga) - No P5 teams
Washington played USC in a cross division game as their 9th conference game.
Alabama played USC out of conference.
The rest of Wash and Bama's games were against conference teams.
Washington played eleven P5 teams.
Alabama played ten P5 teams.
What made Washington's strength of schedule that much worse than Alabama's?
The SEC is in a down year, so how does that make sense?
As a reminder, the PAC12, BIG12 and B1G play 9 conference games while the SEC and ACC only play 8 conference games.
One old article said the CFP committee would look strongly at strength of schedule when deciding which teams will make the playoffs, therefore the PAC12 wanted to add a 9th conference game to improve the overall strength of schedule of its teams and the B1G followed suit starting this year.
Does anyone honestly feel that that strength of schedule made a difference this year for any playoff team? (Most teams play only one "tough" out of conference game. OU for OSU and Pitt for Penn St)
After only one year, does anyone think the B1G made a mistake to go to 9 conference games?
Do you think that the PAC12 regrets doing so now?