That is if they dont turn around and beat FSU in ACC CG. OU now has a path to one of those as they should move into the Top 12 this week
Louisville loss opens NY6 slot
- Thread starter Soonerborn59
- Start date
Louisville's loss does not open up a slot because the ACC has a contractual tie-in with the Orange Bowl. So if they lose to Florida State, they will still get the Orange Bowl slot by rule as the second highest ranked team in the ACC. A few years ago, a 9-4 Virginia team got the Orange Bowl slot when Clemson won the ACC and went to the playoffs.
So, in short, one of the Orange Bowl slots is reserved for the ACC. It's either going to be Florida State or Louisville. If Florida State is undefeated, they'll be in the playoffs and Louisville will be in the Orange Bowl. If Louisville beats Florida State in the ACC championship game, they will get the Orange Bowl slot and Florida State will be ranked high enough to get an at-large bid in the Peach, Cotton or Fiesta Bowl.
Last edited:
Only in years that the Orange Bowl is not a part of the Playoffs. But you are correct for this year in that regard. The same rule applies for the B12 and SEC if the Sugar Bowl isnt in the playoffs rotations. The Sugar Bowl has contracts with both the SEC and Big 12 as tie ins when not in playoff rotation.
True, and the Rose Bowl has long standing contractual agreements with the Pac-12 and Big Ten when they're not a playoff site.
The good news (or bad news, depending on how you look at it) is that this will all go away starting next year. The NY6 games will all be used for playoff games (four bowls for the quarterfinals and two bowls for the semifinals), so the teams will be placed by seed and not by conference anymore.
I am just glad we will finally get a bigger playoff system. I think it will be good for college football. Still not and never will be a fan of 13 guys in a room making the decision of who gets in and who doesnt.
Just look at the poll this year. Why is the committee valuing who you lost to over best win with teams with the same record? IE OU, Ole Ms, PSU? Like it or not best win when teams are equal should matter more than who your losses came from. Its not like OU lost to scrubs. This is just one of my issues with this committee. They say “ We discussed and compared these teams” but it reality its more about increasing the revenue for the B10 and SEC by getting them more teams in the NY6 Bowls which have higher payouts.
Surely in this day and and time CFB can come up with a better system to decide playoff teams and eliminate the human bias.
Last edited:
The committee has its flaws for sure, but in OU’s case they’re also looking at the fact that OU only played well twice in the final six games of the season. The win over Texas is huge, but it’s almost like OU was a different team in that game.
One of the problems with the new paradigm for next year, is that there is typically a lot less difference between the 10th and 14th best teams, than between the fourth a fifth. So the subjective views of the committee is going to make a lot more difference.
I always go back to what Dennis Franchione said about long playoffs. It's less about how good you are, and more about the attrition of your roster in the playoffs. Especially in football, when these guys get to game 15, the wearing down of athletes is substantial. And the breaks of who you play along the way makes a huge difference. Sometimes the better opponents are less a problem than how physical they are.
When I was a freshman student at OU, we played ten game regular seasons, with no CCG's. A maximum of an 11 game season. Much less stress on the bodies of the players. Twelve game seasons, plus a CCG, plus four rounds of playoffs for any team that was ranked five through 12 is SIXTEEN GAMES.
I know high schools can play 16 games if they make the state finals in Texas. Each game being 12 fewer minutes. By the finals, that's the equivalent of more than three games. It's just not good for the game and makes the regular season a lot less important. That's why I'll always oppose this, even though it's now a reality.
I always go back to what Dennis Franchione said about long playoffs. It's less about how good you are, and more about the attrition of your roster in the playoffs. Especially in football, when these guys get to game 15, the wearing down of athletes is substantial. And the breaks of who you play along the way makes a huge difference. Sometimes the better opponents are less a problem than how physical they are.
When I was a freshman student at OU, we played ten game regular seasons, with no CCG's. A maximum of an 11 game season. Much less stress on the bodies of the players. Twelve game seasons, plus a CCG, plus four rounds of playoffs for any team that was ranked five through 12 is SIXTEEN GAMES.
I know high schools can play 16 games if they make the state finals in Texas. Each game being 12 fewer minutes. By the finals, that's the equivalent of more than three games. It's just not good for the game and makes the regular season a lot less important. That's why I'll always oppose this, even though it's now a reality.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Hoops: Transfer portal thread (Jadon jones committed)
- Latest: BeardedSooner
-
