All I know is that Ohio State is the next QB transfer portal U with Ryan Day as head coach.
Thanks! Now that you mention it I do remember Burrow transferred not too long after the spring game. Was it in May?
And to clarify I wasn't drawing a correlation that not naming a starter right after the spring game means your QB will have a Haskins type year. That would be ridiculous. I was simply saying it wasn't a problem last year so there's no reason to think it will be a problem this year. You took it a few steps farther than I intended!
2015: Clemson vs ND occurred Oct 3rd. Teams are very different by end of December. Rematches happen all the time in other sports and nobody shrieks. It would be no big deal because it never is. And ND isn't "rewarded" for losing their "biggest game", they would be rewarded for winning enough games to get an at large bid, if that ended up happening in this hypothetical scenario.
2016: Again, you're using one game as an example of "punishment/reward." Teams are not put in the playoffs because of 1 game, they are put in the playoff because of their season. And you could easily change how seeding is done to avoid the rematch between tOSU and ttun. Top 5 seeds go to conference champs, then seeds 6-8 are the at large. So in 2016 the top 5 seeds would be: 1 Bama 2 Clemson 3 Washington 4 PSU 5 OU 6 tOSU 7 ttun 8 UW. See? no problem at all. Also, UW getting in at 8 would be a product of no other team having a better resume. That was a good Wisconsin squad in 2016. Their 3 losses were all by 1 score. They beat a good LSU team early in the season. They deserved a top 8 ranking when you look at the competition.
2017: UCF could get in by writing in that an undefeated non-P5 champ gets a 6th auto bid. So problem solved. Seeding for the playoff doesn't have to strictly follow top 8, thats another benefit of expansion. You take away the archaic ranking system which relies on what people think and lets the teams play it out and decide it on the field. A 10-3 Auburn team isn't gross, considering they pummeled both UGA and Bama that year (both of which were in the championship game), and 2 of their losses were close games to top ranked teams Clemson and LSU. They had a great resume and in fact were ranked #2 in then nation with 2 losses headed into conference championship weekend. Lastly, why risk injury in the CCG game? because you're talking about guaranteeing a spot in the playoff vs hoping for an at-large bid, and improving your seed so your 1st game isn't vs a top 4 team. If we take the matchups you listed, UGA vs Auburn with UGA winning, they get the #3 seed and get to play #6 while Auburn gets the #8 seed and has to play #1. tOSU and UW would end up being #4 seed playing #5 compared with #7 seed playing #2. So there still is motivation because it guarantees your spot vs relying on the at large selection and it improves your seeding, on top of the pride of saying you're conference champions. There is PLENTY of motivation to win that game and it is in NO WAY meaningless.
2018: ttun wouldn't get in. Seeds 1-5 would go to the champions (Bama, Clemson, OU, tOSU, Washington), ND and UCF get auto-bids for being undefeated taking seeds 6 and 7, and the 8th seed would go to UGA. Problem solved.
In my opinion, an 8 team playoff would have improved each of the 2015-2018 4 team playoff, and pretty much mitigate all the concerns you raised about it making the playoff "stink".
Someone can verify this, but I don't remember Urban officially naming Haskins the starter this time last year either. That worked out OK.
2. Three programs (OSU, Bama, Clemson) have accounted for a staggering 87% (13 out of 15) playoff wins. The only two games these three teams didn't win were the Rose Bowl in year #1 (Oregon vs. FSU) and the Rose Bowl in year #4 (UGA vs. OU). Also, these three programs have never lost a playoff game to anyone but each other (Bama has lost to Clemson and OSU, Clemson has lost only to Bama, and OSU has only lost to Clemson).
Nice work with the statistics. I think including us in with Bama/Clemson though is over-stepping things. While tOSU/Bama/Clemson account for 13 of the 15 playoff wins, Bama/Clemson account for 11 of those 13.
Which is important to note when you're talking about more parity needed because the playoff era thus far has really been the Bama/Clemson era. tOSU kicked things off though.
This. I wish the man no ill-will. He made a decision he felt was in the best interest of his career. That is literally what you go to college for, whether you're a D1 football player or an english major.
The problem with the committee is that they wrote in their protocol the ability to bypass the criteria. Here's the section copied from the Selection Committee website:
"Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines).
The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:
Strength of schedule
Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)"
There's enough soft language in here to allow the committee to pretty much do whatever they want, particularly the parts "when circumstances at the margins," and "under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country".
So for your 3 scenarios where you state the committee didn't follow their own guidelines: in 2016-2018 the committee could simply have said "tOSU/Bama/ND is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country", and the comparisons end there. So in essence, they have been following at least the written explanation of how the select the 4 teams, because the way its written it allows them to bypass the criteria if they feel strongly one team is definitely a top 4 team.
My problem with the committee hasn't been that they aren't following their own rules, or that the teams they've selected each year have been egregious mistakes, its that IMO 4 is simply not enough to objectively choose based on the sample size of the season, and it will always come down to subjectivity of the committee. If you take last year as an example, I disagree that you can unequivocally come up with a ranking of OU/ND/UGA/tOSU based on their resumes before bowl season. You can easily say "I think" or "X is probably better than Y", but its no where near unequivocal, and it rarely is year in and year out. There's always 5-8 teams in the fold causing enough doubt.
I also hate the beauty pageant feel the committee has made the sport of football. It feels wrong; this is football not figure skating or american idol. Figure out a way to let them settle it on the damn field, but also allow a path for non-P5 conference teams to compete. No system is perfect, but 8 does that significantly better than the current format.
I think 8 is coming, probably not anytime soon, but certainly within the next 5-10 years. Until then, I will just have to put up with the circus show this CFP committee has turned the sport I love into.