The Playoff Worked: The Best Four Teams Are In

Sorry Baylor and TCU fans, the committee got it right. You want in? Step up. You have disadvantages going into the system, namely no championship game and a weak schedule. So did Florida State. Florida State won all their games. You didn't. You also didn't schedule up, have a title game or have a harder "week in, week out" grind. You did nothing. And you were left out. It's pretty simple.

I don't think there is any argument that Oregon, Alabama and Florida State deserved to be in (the debate here is between Oregon and Alabama and how Oregon should be #1). The question is, should Ohio State, Baylor or TCU get the #4 spot? Let's see.

Games vs teams that finished ranked:

Ohio State: #8, #25, #18 - 3-0 record.
Baylor: #6, #11 - 2-0
TCU: #5, #11 - 1-1

Ohio State wins. Game over. And we haven't even begun to talk about all the bye weeks that the Big 12 has in their schedule (Baylor played three games then a bye, four games then a bye, two games then a bye, three games. WEAK), the fact that Ohio State's only loss was due to an injury, Baylor/TCU's pathetic OOC schedule, etc. There isn't one area where you can argue TCU or Baylor deserve in, except the "eye" test. LOL. If that is your only argument, your argument isn't that great.

The good news? There is no need for the Big 12 to make wholesale changes. Just last year, Ohio State was shut out of the BCS title game because they lost their conference championship game. Yes, the Big 12 was hurt this year because of a lack of a championship game, but next year? Who knows. They may be helped by not having that game and sneak into the playoffs when another team loses in their title game.

But this year? The committee did a great job, and got the correct four into the playoffs.

Want BYU and Utah to play every year? There is a way.

The Big 12 being left out of the playoff has very real consequences for BYU. The first is The Big 12 deciding to expand to 12 teams, to qualify for a championship game. Then BYU needs to pucker up and do whatever is necessary to get in. 

The second scenario is that the Big 12 petitions and gets approval to hold a championship game with only 10 teams. That means no expansion for BYU, BUT it may mean a Utah/BYU game every year. How, you ask? 

By letting the Big 12 have a championship game with 10 teams, you change the rules in college football. You no longer need two divisions of at least six teams, and the winner of each division playing in the title game. For example, if Alabama and Auburn each have one loss, Alabama and Auburn play for the SEC title. 

How does this affect BYU? Through the PAC-12. The biggest disadvantage of playing in the PAC-12 is playing 9 conference games. The PAC-12 has always had that one "crazy" loss every year (look at when USC was dominating, Oregon vs Arizona the last couple years, etc). Why? 9 conference games. The week in, week out grind. Also, the imbalance in conference scheduling (5 home games year one, 4 year two). It's too hard to have years when you only have six home games and five PAC-12 road games. 

If you take out the divisions and division champs criteria for the conference championship game, you allow the PAC-12 to redo their league in such a way that gives them 8 conference games, and allows them to pit the two best teams together in the title game. 

How? It's very simple. Right now, the PAC-12 plays 9 conference games because Stanford and Cal have demanded to play in LA every year. So, to get scheduling as fair as possible, you have 9 conference games. How do you fix it with new championship rules? Easy. 

Step 1: Create three pods. 

California POD: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal

Northwest POD: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

Desert Mountain POD: Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado

Step 2: You play every team in your pod every year. This allows the California schools to play each other every year. 

Step 3: You play two teams from each pod every year. You rotate two teams every two years. For example, in year 1 Utah would play @Oregon, @USC, UCLA at home, Oregon State at home. Year two, you flip the home/away games. Year three Utah would play @Stanford, @Washington, Cal at home, Washington State at home. 

Step 4: You play one additional team from a different pod every year. You simply line up the teams and rotate them every two years. This allows you to set the teams up in a way to ensure every team gets 4 home and 4 road conference games. 

Step 5: At the end of the year, take the two highest ranked teams, play for the conference title. 

How does this affect BYU? Utah, under the new rules, has 4 OOC games. Utah can have their A, B, C scheduling with BYU added on the end. Also, with Notre Dame and USC playing every year, you can place Utah vs BYU as the last game of the year to offset USC not playing a conference game. Let UCLA develop a rivalry with Colorado. This should also appease Utah, because they would have all December to recover from the game, avoiding the "BYU Hangover" (unless Utah was good enough to play for the PAC-12 title game, but lets be honest, if Utah is the best team from the PAC-12 and vying for a playoff spot, they should beat BYU easily).  

A typical Utah schedule would look like this:

vs "C team" (FCS team)

@ "A team" (another BCS team)

vs "B team" (G5 team)

vs PAC-12 (California)

@ PAC-12 (Stanford)

vs PAC-12 (UCLA)

@ PAC-12 (Washington State)

vs PAC-12 (Oregon)

@ PAC-12 (Arizona State)

vs PAC-12 (Arizona)

@ PAC-12 (Colorado)

vs BYU

The biggest downside for BYU? If the Big 12 stays at 10 teams, then no P5 invite. But at least they could go back to a conference and shoot for a New Year's Bowl or stay independent and try that route. 

Wouldn't it be great for a BYU/Utah game that the winner goes to the playoff (Utah) or New Year's Bowl (BYU)? There may be a way, and the Big 12 holds the keys to that path. 

Travis Wilson took too much blame, and this is what we are left with.

Yes, Wilson threw INT's last year. Yes, had he not thrown some against OSU or UCLA we might have won. BUT, a lot of those INT's were on the WR's and I'm glad everyone is starting to take notice of this (although Whitt and myself repeated it time and time again). 

The problem is, all this emphasis on INT's had destroyed Wilson. Yes, he is one of three players in the NCAA with more than 100 attempts and zero INT's. BUT, he isn't Travis Wilson. 

I think we can beat USC. BUT, we need Wilson to have a good game. Not great, but good. We need him to go 18-25, 150 yards. 

This sounds insane, BUT, I think we beat USC if Wilson throws for 2 TD's and AN INTERCEPTION. 

We need him to push the ball more. We need him to take risks. We need him to open the field up. QB's throw INT's. It's okay. It's not the end of the world. 

Travis Wilson is a risk taker. He throws picks. But, he can also make big plays. We need that Wilson back. That Wilson throwing off Booker makes us a playoff contending team. 

The non-TO Wilson? Eh. We will get 8 wins. 

We need to play to win. Everyone whines about that. 

We need the Wilson back that is willing to take a chance to throw INT's. We need Wilson from last year, a year wiser, a year smarter. 

We need the Wilson that through the first six games, had thrown 13 TD's. That guy could put us on his back and carry us. 

I said earlier that I wanted 30 TD's and 12 INT's from Wilson. I'd LOVE to have that guy. We win the south with that guy. 

This Wilson we have, the one with no INT's but no balls either? No thank you. He won't take us anywhere.

I'd rather win 10 games and lose two because of Wilson INT's then have Wilson not throw any INT's and struggle to win 7 or 8 games.

USC Stats

Some quick stats on USC:

vs Fresno State

Fresno ran for 157 yards, 4.8 ypc and had 4 TO's, 2 fumbles and 2 interceptions.
USC had 424 yards passing and 64 yards rushing and two fumbles.


vs Stanford

Stanford ran for 128 yards, 3.4 ypc, and had 2 TO's (2 fumbles).
USC had 135 yards passing, 156 yards rushing and 0 TO's.

vs Boston College

BC had 452 yards rushing, 8.4 ypc, and had 1 TO (1 INT).
USC had 317 yards passing, 20 yards rushing and 0 TO's.

vs OSU

OSU had 58 yards rushing, 2.8 ypc, and 2 TO's (2 INT's).
USC had 261 yards passing, 200 yards rushing and 0 TO's.

vs ASU

ASU had 31 yards rushing, 1.4 ypc, and 0 TO's.
USC had 273 yards passing, 220 yards passing and 0 TO's.

vs Arizona

Arizona had 77 yards rushing, 2.7 ypc, and 1 TO.
USC had 185 yards passing, 239 yards rushing, and 2 TO's (1 INT).

vs Colorado

Colorado had 172 yards rushing, 3.7 ypc, and 2 TO's.
USC had 319 yards passing, 213 yards passing, and 1 TO (1 fumble).

Michigan's Defense: A Mirage

- Michigan has 4 sacks through 3 games. They have no pass rush. In comparison (and remember, both Utah and Michigan have played two patsies and Michigan has played 3 games vs Utah playing two) Utah has 8 sacks by my count.

- Michigan has 1 TO in 3 games.

- In the first half, Notre Dame averaged 6 yards per play. Their first two drives of the second half yielded over 5 yards per play and 1 TD. Then ND shut down their offense. From that point on (remember, ND averaged 6 yards per play in the first half and first two drives of the second half), ND average 1 yard per play.

- Yes, ND only averaged 2.6 yards per carry rushing vs Michigan in the first half and the first two drives of the second half. But, Michigan gave up 8.1 yards per pass attempt and 13.5 yards per completion. Oh, and Michigan also gave up 28 points.

So, why does Michigan's defense look so good? It's not their defense. They gave up 6 yards per play to ND when ND tried and were down by 28 points when ND stopped playing. That isn't stout defense at all.

What covers up Michigan's defense is their offense. And no, their offense isn't good. It's just SLOW. BIG TIME. In Michigan's three games, they have averaged 2 plays/min vs ND, 1.96 plays per minute vs Miami (no, not that Miami), and 1.82 plays per minute vs App St.

They are old school slow. Huddle up, take a deep breath, relax, run the clock down, go run a play.

Compare that to Utah's offense this year. We averaged 3 plays per minute vs ISU and 2.63 plays per minute against FSU.

Michigan struggled BIG TIME vs hurry up teams last year. We will score points tomorrow. Throw in that Michigan ran a 6 man front vs ND, which ND ate up, and two of their 4 starting DB's are hurt....Well, you decide how great their defense is.

Call me a homer, but the numba's don't lie.