Formula For CFP | Jayden Daniels Over Joe Burrow? | SEC Falling Behind?

The CFP committee keeps telling us “schedule matters,” but the selections rarely prove it, and that gap is exactly where fan trust goes to die. I open with a blunt problem: a nine-win team without a conference title hasn’t been clearly shown a path, even when the résumé looks tougher than teams with more wins. So I build a straightforward, repeatable way to rank teams that doesn’t rely on mystery logic or changing goalposts.

I walk through four data points that should drive the College Football Playoff conversation: strength of record, strength of schedule, wins against top 25 teams, and overall record. Then I zoom in on the one most people misunderstand, strength of record, and explain it in plain language: how impressive is your record based on who you had to beat to get it? A blind comparison thats shows how this metric can challenge the usual “more wins equals better team” assumption. I also argue for incentives that create better football like rewarding true road matchups, not punishing close losses to quality teams, and rethinking automatic bids that can water down a 12-team playoff.

From there, the show pivots to LSU and a debate that lit up social media: Jayden Daniels versus Joe Burrow and what it really means to “do more for the program”. I close by responding to claims that the SEC has lost its edge in the NIL and transfer portal era.

If you care about fair playoff picks, real competition, and honest college football takes, subscribe, share the show, and leave a review with your take on what the committee should value most.

Thanks for listening to The 3rd Down Conversation. If you enjoyed today's episode, be sure to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with another sports fan. Remember, every down matters but the conversation states here. Until next time, keep the chains moving and keep the conversation going. 

Transcript

Copy

SPEAKER_02 0:00

Teams will follow. And it's understandable, Dusty, to have those conversations and that question because the committee has not shown us that a nine-win, non-conference champion will make it to the playoffs because ultimately they're still gonna they're still looking at the amount of wins in the win column at the end of the year. And that's a shame. And they say they're gonna talk about the stretch of schedule, but they have not shown us that yet.

SPEAKER_01 0:24

Welcome to the third down conversation here, plays for sports and entertainment. I am the turnip seed. Let's talk about it. Welcome to the third down conversation, my good people, where sports meets real opinions and honest conversations. This isn't just about what happened on the field or on the court. It's about why it happened and what it all means. This is the third down conversation. Let's talk about it.

Why CFP Criteria Feels Random

SPEAKER_01 1:00

The soundbite you just heard was Roman Harper of the SEC Network. On first listen, it can't appear that Mr. Harper is minimizing winning. However, if you allow his words to marinate just a little bit, what he's actually expressing is that teams should be rewarded for playing a difficult schedule. The college football playoff committee since its creation has never had any consistent criteria on how they select teams. It puts you in mind of the NBA MVP voting. The criteria just changes from year to year. Florida State goes undefeated, wins their conference championship, and somehow gets left out of the college football playoffs. Last season, two group of five teams make the playoffs. James Madison and Tulane over the likes of a 9-3 Texas and a 10-2 Notre Dame. How is that even possible? So I figured maybe I can help out the playoff committee. I've come up with a formula. Four simple data points to judge teams by. The data that I would look at when it comes to selecting teams would be strength of record, strength of schedule, wins against top 25 teams, and teams overall record. Strength of schedule wins against top 25 teams, and a team's overall record, those are pretty self-explanatory. Strength of schedule is simply who did you play? Wins against top 25 teams, how many did you beat? That were ranked in the top 25. And then a team's overall record is what did you accomplish? So those are pretty straightforward. Therefore, the one I really want to focus on is strength of record. Because it can be a tad bit confusing. But it asks one simple question How impressive is this team's record based on who they had to be to get it? For example, let's do a blind reveal. I'm not going to tell you who the teams are. I'm just going to explain what they accomplished last season. Team A went 9-3. Of those nine wins, they beat two teams that won 10 games, and they beat one team that won 11 games. Team B went 10-2 with wins over a team that won 10 games, 9 games, and two wins over teams that won eight games. Team A also beat team B head-to-head. Of those two teams, who has the strongest record? If you said Team A, you'd be correct. Team A will be Texas, while Team B is Oklahoma. Texas missed the playoffs. Oklahoma made the playoffs. If you look at both teams' schedule, they both played a quality out of conference opponent. Texas played Ohio State at Ohio State while Oklahoma played Michigan at home. Texas lost by seven. Oklahoma won. Texas does have a bad loss against Florida, but they beat Oklahoma head to head. Oklahoma has a really good win at Alabama. However, Texas beat Texas AM, who won 11 games. So if you really just look at both teams' schedule and then see what they accomplish, even though Oklahoma is 10-2, Texas 9-3 record is a bit stronger than Oklahoma's 10-2 record. For this reason, I think strength of record should be the number one data point that the playoff committee uses. I do understand that strength of record can be a bit of a fluid metric because it's attached to teams' week in and week out performance. But what does that create? Drama. And what do fans love? Drama. The next thing I would add as far as the terminal teams that make the playoffs, I would give them bonus credit for playing a powerful team on the road or at a neutral site. I think that helps incentivize quality matchups. I think that increases our opportunity of seeing teams actually schedule these matchups and not cancel them. Like Indiana and Notre Dame just canceled their series recently. The next thing I would do is that I would not penalize teams for losing against quality teams. As long as you lose a close game. For instance, Texas played Ohio State at Ohio State and lost by seven. I wouldn't penalize Texas for that. And the reason why I would not penalize these teams is because I want to incentivize teams to schedule quality opponents. The fans are here for the competition. Nobody wants to see cupcakes week in and week out. The last thing that I would do is I would eliminate auto bids for the highest five-ranked conference champions. This will be removed because that's how we got two group of five teams in a 12-team playoff last season. Auto bids are simply for the Power Four. And that's because competition has to matter. It just has to. So, all in all, playoff committee, here's how this formula stacks up. When you're comparing teams and you look at their schedules, their strength of record should be 50% of their of their grade or score, however you want to call it. Strength of schedule is 25%. Wins against top 25 teams and a team's overall record, 12%. And the reason why the wins against top 25 teams is so low for me is because look, preseason rankings, they are guests. Educated guests, but a guest. So I don't put a lot of a lot of stock into preseason rankings. For me, they don't really mean anything. I think they are fun. I think we should keep them. It creates conversation, but they're pointless in the grand scheme of things. Using this formula, though, will create transparency for fans because now we know what the criteria is. And like I've said, and I will continue to say this, it incentivizes teams to play quality opponents. And that is what we're here for. We want to see those big matchups, we want to see those exciting matchups. So playoff committee, I've laid it out for you. Make it happen, and you can thank me later.

Jayden Daniels vs Joe Burrow Claim

SPEAKER_00 8:41

Jaden Daniels transferred to LSU because he wanted to change the university. Joe Burrow transferred to LSU because he had nowhere else to go. When Jaden Daniels transferred to LSU, he had already been a starting quarterback at Arizona State University for three years. He didn't have to go anywhere, but he chose to go to a bad LSU team that was six and seven the year prior. And he turned them to a nine and three team and then a nine and four team and won the Heisman there. Joe Burrow transferred to LSU because he couldn't play at Ohio State. It wasn't his first option. Joe Burrow transferred to an already stacked LSU team that was nine and four without them. And then the next season he improved them to 10 and 3. Joe Burrow's final year, he won the Heisman. He was 15-0, but LSU as a program fell off when he left because they were five and five the following season. Jaden Daniels transformed LSU as a program. Joe Burrow came to LSU as a backup plan.

SPEAKER_01 9:44

Okay, so I'm not sure who was speaking on this soundbite. So um I can't give credit. I wish I could, but I'm not sure who the guy is. I just want to address what are you saying? I found this clip on Twitter and the caption reads Jaden Daniels did more for LSU as a program than Joe Burrow. Now the part that I want you to remember about that caption is as a program. Now before I dive into this completely, I want to give a bit of a backstory to what's happening here. Noticed to LSU that they could no longer use his name, image, and likeness anymore. And it's all due to LSU now coach Lane Kiffin allowing a defensive back, I think he's a cornerback, to wear Jaden Daniels' jersey, which is number five. For the record, that number is not retired. Jaden Daniels' representation stated that himself, meaning Jaden, and his family is deeply hurt and feel disrespected because LSU has allowed someone to wear his number. I'm assuming he didn't give his blessing. Now, if you have forgotten, Jaden won the Heisman Trophy at LSU. So all of this is surrounding that. That then turned to why is he so upset? It's not like he won or brought a championship to LSU. That is where Joe Burrow comes in. Because people are saying, well, no one has number nine. They're not doing Joe Burrow like this. And the rebuttal is well, Burrow won a championship. So now that prompts this guy to say that Jaden has done more for LSU as a program than Joe Burrow. And I think he's completely wrong. Completely wrong. LSU has always been LSU. Like I'm in I'm in my mid-30s, right? And since my since I came to really love college football, LSU has been really good. Like all the time. They've always been one of those top teams in the country. So LSU was never uh some university or program that needed saving. Did they have bad seasons? Sure. Most programs do have bad seasons from time to time. But let's not treat them like they're Vanderbilt. Let's not treat them like they're Rutgers or Northwestern. No disrespect to those schools, by the way. But LSU has a very, very historic and prideful history. It's a prestigious university and program. So don't make it seem like Jaden was some savior for LSU. That's so far from the actual truth. We're talking about a program that was great with Nick Saban. We're talking about a program that was great with Les Miles. We're talking about a program that won a national championship with Ed Oron. Can't even make out half stuff he's saying. They won a championship. And those three coaches that I just mentioned all got a national championship at LSU. So easy on the Jaden came and saved LSU. Now let's compare Jaden and Burrow. And I can hear it. It hasn't been said yet out loud, but I can hear it. This is not a race thing, so don't make it a race thing. We're simply talking about what they accomplished. That's it. For the program. That's it. So keep it about that. So if you look at just what happened on the field, Joe Burrough clearly did more for the program. Winning a Heisman doesn't do much for your program. It does a lot for said individual. But that doesn't help the program per se. Winning a championship. Oh yeah, that changes a lot of things for your program. And Burrow did that. You want to say, well, the team was stacked when Burrow joined? That's fair. They had uh Jordan Jefferson, Jamar Chase. Both of those guys are tanning up in the NFL. They're probably 1A and 1B as far as the best receivers in the league. That's fair. But they wouldn't win it without Joe. So you got to put some respect on that. You say that, well, Jaden Daniels was a starter at Arizona State, and he came there as like he alright. I'm choosing to be at LSU because I'm this, that, and then third. Bro, is Arizona State? It's Arizona State. They're in the Big 12. Like, why are you talking about him starting at Arizona State as if he at Ohio State or Oregon or somewhere like that? Don't do that. Arizona State. It's Arizona State. I mean, the name itself. Like, come on. Joe was at Ohio State and he couldn't win the job. Fair enough. That's true. So he leaves, goes to LSU, never played, didn't play much at Ohio State. Came to the SEC, the big dog conference, and got off. And you gonna poo-poo that and say that, well, he was a cog in the system and not the system. They go 15 and 0. He was the system. And I hated on Joe Burrow for a nice little minute. But Joe was he was a dude. Joe was like Lair Bird. Like, man, that boy can play. I ain't gonna say the white boy part. But that boy can play. Like he was, he was, he was, he was, he was that. And I'm not saying Jaden wasn't a great player at LSU. Clearly he was. He won the Heisman. But this is this is about who helped the program more. And it's Joe. Because he got the Heisman and the Championship. Jaden didn't even get LSU to the playoffs. I firmly believe that Cam Newton is the best Auburn athlete in Auburn history. Because he got a Heisman and a championship. Had he just got the Heisman and not a championship, I don't think he'll be where he's at as far as how Auburn fans see him. They see him as this mythical athlete because he got both. So while I can understand that Jaden didn't want someone to have his number, I get that. I can understand that you feel disrespected. That's how you feel. But when someone comes out and says that you did more for the university, that you did more for the program, that's just simply not true. Burrow did more for LSU. Both are great. Both were incredible college athletes. The only difference is one got a national championship and one didn't. I rest my case.

Ryan Clark On The SEC Shift

SPEAKER_03 18:16

The SEC used to have this. If you come here to one of these bigger schools, it's more likely you're gonna play for a national championship than anywhere else. It's more than likely you're gonna go to the pros than anywhere else. There's this thing that if you start a certain amount of games at LSU, your percentages as a wide receiver going to the league are astronomical compared to other schools based on the receivers that have gone in. We remember Nick Saban would basically camp out on the stage with Roger Goodell, right? Because at the time the SEC could offer you more. It can offer you better coaching, it can offer you better opportunity, it can offer you better competition, you can play in bigger stadiums, right? You can win more games, learn more all these things. No, they don't mind it because they're going for the bag. So whatever the bag, that's what they're gonna play. And encouraging me in the end, they just said, we're just gonna get a team full of grown men. They showed a picture another nigga, a little industry when he was 18, and the world industry when he was 24. That's two different humans. Everybody on the other team was uh industry 24, right? And so teams are understanding how to utilize this NIML transfer portal era in a better way than some of these SEC schools have been, and SEC still schools still splitting them up, still beating each other up. But they do have to figure out a way to go win. It ain't the same, right? The the script has flipped on the SEC. Are they still great teams? Absolutely. Are there those top one, two, three teams in the country like we used to have? Absolutely not.

SPEAKER_01 19:50

To close out the show, that was uh that sound bite was Ryan Clark on his podcast called The Pivot. His words are interesting to me. He mentions that players wanted to come to the SEC because they'd have the best chance to win a championship and claim that's no more. I disagree with that. That's not true. The SEC had five teams in the college football playoffs just last year. He goes on to say that Nick Sabin used to camp out on the stage with Roger Goodell, that is the um NFL's commissioner, and claims that's no more. Brian Clark is also wrong about that. The SEC has had the most draft picks of any conference over the last like five, seven, eight years. So again, that's not true. Now, do they need to catch up in the in the NIL and transfer and transfer space? No. I think they are right there with everyone else. They are right there with the Big Ten in particular. This notion that they are behind all because the Big Ten has won the national championship the last three years, and I get it, it's been three separate teams. We've all heard it, that does not mean that the SEC is behind. So that notion to me is just wrong. It does highlight that the SEC is more difficult. It does highlight that the SEC probably shouldn't have gone to a nine game conference schedule. He also adds that players play against that they play against the best and this, that, and the other. And all that is still true. Regarding the SEC, you do play the best players week in and week out. Caleb Downs, who was at Alabama, I want to say for two years, transferred to Ohio State and said himself that week in and week out, the Big Ten was easier. He asked, Are there still good teams? Yes. Do we have any top dogs? No. And I just think he's just he's wrong again.

Indiana Hype And Schedule Reality

SPEAKER_01 22:30

Look, Kirk Signetti is the new kid on the block. Right? Saving disciple. Smug, cocky, walking around like he's just the best thing since sliced bread. I get it. You won. Talk your talk, King. Talk your talk. Everybody's like, well, look what Indiana's doing. But he mentioned in the video they got 24 and 25 year olds. They might as well be 30-year-old players out there. No wonder they're winning. Look who they play week in and week out. Like, go back and look at Indiana's schedule from last season. It's horrible. Especially non-conference. No wonder they went undefeated. All this Indiana talk, honestly, is is on my nerves. Why we acting like they the next Alabama or they the next Georgia? They won one championship. One. They haven't reeled off multiple. I would love, or I should say, I can't wait to see how see what happens this season with them. Because that schedule they have is much more difficult than last season's schedule. Their non-conference sucks again. North Texas, Howard, Western Kentucky. But they then play Ohio State. They go to Michigan, USC, at home, on the road at Washington. Those are all quality teams. Going to Nebraska won't be a walk in the park. So we're going to see. We're going to see just how good Indiana is. Going to the portal all the time. That can't be good for culture. But we're going to see. Kirk, we're going to see. I'm very, very curious to see how that season unfolds. This has been the third down conversation. Please remember to like, subscribe, and share the show. Remember, every down matters, but the conversation starts here. Until next time, keep the chains moving and keep the conversation going. Jesus loves you, and I'm out. Peace.