Correct. It's better this season, but they still place all of their emphasis on win/loss record, and not on what it should be . . . strength of schedule - which is the only fair way to do it when you are blending the all conferences together. For context, in approximately 70 years how many undefeated Super Bowl Champions do we have? One. All other Super Bowl Champions lost multiple games. The point being, the hyper-focus on win/loss records is misplaced.
JMU & Tulane can be explained with two words - antitrust lawsuit. That's what they are afraid of, and that's why we have JMU and Tulane.
Lastly, the bye teams should be getting homes games. Alabama should have to play Indiana in the freezing cold of Bloomington, Indiana, not the cushy Rose Bowl. And we all know warm-weather SEC teams do not fare well in the cold.
The reason the bye teams are losing is because those teams were seeded incorrectly. If you give the best four teams a bye, and a home playoff game, the problem would be solved.
The byproduct of this hyper-fixation on win/loss records is that, in 2026, you would be an absolute fool to schedule a tough out-of-conference game because, instead of rewarding teams for scheduling tough games, the playoff committee punishes them. Texas/Ohio State game is a perfect example. Texas missed the playoff for one reason, and one reason only . . . they schedule Ohio State. Had they scheduled they Little Sisters of the Poor like Notre Dame would have done, they would be in the playoffs. Texas should have been rewarded for scheduling Ohio State, but they weren't . . . they were punished. The fact that the playoff committee had a team like Notre Dame ahead of Texas is an absolute disgrace to college football. Texas played one of the most difficult schedules in all of college football, and should have absolutely been in the playoffs.
Established in 1995,
it's utterly hilarious right now
Hot Forum Topics
