I Tell Ya' Herbie- The CFP

   I Tell Ya' Herbie takes a different approach this week. It's all about the CFP, what the committee got right and wrong, and what needs to be fine-tuned for future seasons.

I Tell Ya' Herbie:

                            I would have done one thing differently with the CFP and it is already looming as unfair to the top seed and only unbeaten team in the tournament.

Looking at the brackets, top-seeded Oregon will face the winner of Ohio State-Tennessee, giving the Ducks a potential second-round matchup against a team equal in talent and one that they beat by one point at home or an SEC team that has just defeated Ohio State on the road.

The answer to this problem is to emulate the NBA playoff model, in which the seeding is created anew after each round.

Under the current format, Oregon would still play the Ohio State-Tennessee winner, if all four favorites won in the first round but it would give Oregon a deserved break if someone pulled a surprise.

I Tell Ya' Herbie:

                           I also would seed the teams differently and make a change that I have proposed for the NFL for years.

I would continue to allow the top five conference champions to have an automatic slot, even if they weren't in the top twelve teams overall but they would not be guaranteed to have a bye.

In the NFL, I would guarantee each division champion a playoff berth but I would seed the teams by record, avoiding a mess like 2011 where an eleven-win Saints team was forced to travel to Seattle to play the 7-9 division "winning" Seahawks and lose.

I Tell Ya' Herbie:

                            I may have ranked the fifth through eighth seeds differently but I don't have a problem with the committee's order of Texas, Penn State, Notre Dame, and Ohio State.

Those four teams have different arguments and all would be fair in any order.

My ratings for those? Notre Dame (has a horrible loss to Northern Illinois but it's their only loss), Texas( best win over 8-4 Texas A&M but both losses to number two Georgia), Ohio State (bad loss to Michigan but defeated Penn State on the road and playoff participant Indiana), and Penn State ( didn't beat a team that finished ranked in top 25 and lost to Ohio State).

I would have rated nine through twelve as the committee did with Tennessee at nine (toughest schedule, two losses), Indiana (lacking a good win but just one loss), SMU (two losses, regular season ACC champion), and Clemson (ACC champion but three losses).

I Tell Ya Herbie:

                           I wrote earlier about Oregon's gripe about a second-round matchup and I'd go further than that- The fifth seed (Texas) and sixth seed (Penn State) have easier paths than the top overall seed.

Oregon gets a bye and then the winner of Ohio State-Tennessee.

Texas gets a home game against the only three-loss team in the field (Clemson) and then Arizona State and Penn State draws SMU in Happy Valley, and then Boise State, playing two teams that were Group of Five teams just a season ago.

Which path appears easiest to you?

I don't blame Oregon at all for any anger and I bet that is changed in the future.

I Tell Ya' Herbie:

                            All four first round games have solid favorites (Ohio State 7.5, Notre Dame 8, Penn State 8.5 and Texas 11) and I think it's somewhat important that one of the underdogs win.

If the argument over time becomes that the 9-12 seeds don't/can't win, why not just have an eight team playoff?

I don't know if I would bet money on any of the underdogs to win straight up but if I was given a free bet, I think I might go with SMU over Penn State.

Considering Penn State's lack of dynamic offensive weapons, the erratic play of Drew Allar, and James Franklin's questionable coaching in big games, SMU might be able to win a high-scoring game with their excellent passing game.