FB Playoff selection watch

[brevity]

Now that we've completely derailed the thread...

The only way this thread gets derailed is if we stop talking about the college football postseason. Playoff expansion and the FCS are fair game.

I strongly disagree with those arguing for Marshall's inclusion in the four-team playoff -- even if they are the only undefeated team in college football.

There HAS to be a consideration of strength of schedule...

There doesn't *have* to be a consideration of strength of schedule, at least for qualifying for the postseason. Is there another team sport in which a team can win all its games and not qualify to compete for a championship, anywhere on the planet? If a four-team playoff isn't big enough to accommodate every unbeaten team and the best title contenders, then expand the playoff.

Were it up to me, I would look at strength of schedule in differentiating teams within two separate groups:

1. Undefeated teams;
2. Everybody else.

This means that if there's a 12-0 Marshall and 11-1 Alabama, I am decidedly NOT comparing their strengths of schedule. Because Marshall's players did everything that was required of them, they are exempt from that comparison. I would look at Marshall's strength of schedule ONLY in comparison to other undefeated teams, and Alabama's strength of schedule ONLY in comparison to other forehead-scarred teams.

This probably sounds like a foreign language, but that's only because everyone else in the college football culture has been speaking it wrong this whole time. Again, I do not intend to single out Olympic Fan, but the dismissal of an undefeated team based on strength of schedule is a widely held opinion based on a fundamentally invalid perspective. Most college football fans are convinced that you need to look at the sport from a program scheduler's point of view. (The athletic director? The head coach? I don't know if this is any one person.) This means that many teams in the 2014-2015 season essentially were eliminated from the playoff field in 2012 or earlier, when the schedules were crafted. Fans in 2012 could easily decide that 2014 Marshall has no business being near a playoff just by looking at its schedule in place, and could logically conclude that the actual game outcomes would never matter.

The program scheduler's perspective is where we are in college football, and it is... depressing. I question the purpose of a sport that constantly has talk of teams being in charge of their destiny if there is no destiny. No, the only valid perspective is that of the players, who cannot control who they play. If they win all of their games, and were one of four or fewer teams to do so, what representative of humanity would deny them the opportunity to play for a championship? College football remains corrupt in part because its fans -- the millions of you -- remain attached to the culture given. You all have to get over the almighty strength of schedule. This is not basketball. SOS has limited utility here.

As to the common claim that teams will avoid challenging nonconference schedules to stay undefeated, that's fine. There is no way to mandate fairness in how 100+ FBS teams handle their scheduling. And realistically, it's hard to go 12-0 or 13-0 against any qualifying college football schedule. Besides, as soon as there are more than four undefeated teams, there's accountability in schedule strength. Does this mean we could have a playoff of Toledo, Troy, Tulsa, and Texas-San Antonio? Yeah, absolutely. But I'd much rather have that than the current culture, where everyone talks about which of those four, if any, will get to join the golden one-loss teams with the big names, the big ratings, and the big, ugly scars on their forehead.

Finally, I have no attachment to Marshall or its players. As with many 7-0 schools of the past, if they lose a game I have no more use for them. I just wait for their equivalent next season and declare war against everyone again.

[Reilly]

According to this computer (which does take strength of schedule into account (I think)):

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/...4-ratings.html

So if FSU and ND are in the playoff discussion, let the Thundering Herd be heard from as well ...

[Tripping William]

The only way this thread gets derailed is if we stop talking about the college football postseason. Playoff expansion and the FCS are fair game.





Were it up to me, I would look at strength of schedule in differentiating teams within two separate groups:

1. Undefeated teams;
2. Everybody else.

This means that if there's a 12-0 Marshall and 11-1 Alabama, I am decidedly NOT comparing their strengths of schedule. Because Marshall's players did everything that was required of them, they are exempt from that comparison. I would look at Marshall's strength of schedule ONLY in comparison to other undefeated teams, and Alabama's strength of schedule ONLY in comparison to other forehead-scarred teams.

This probably sounds like a foreign language, but that's only because everyone else in the college football culture has been speaking it wrong this whole time. Again, I do not intend to single out Olympic Fan, but the dismissal of an undefeated team based on strength of schedule is a widely held opinion based on a fundamentally invalid perspective. Most college football fans are convinced that you need to look at the sport from a program scheduler's point of view. (The athletic director? The head coach? I don't know if this is any one person.) This means that many teams in the 2014-2015 season essentially were eliminated from the playoff field in 2012 or earlier, when the schedules were crafted. Fans in 2012 could easily decide that 2014 Marshall has no business being near a playoff just by looking at its schedule in place, and could logically conclude that the actual game outcomes would never matter.

The program scheduler's perspective is where we are in college football, and it is... depressing. I question the purpose of a sport that constantly has talk of teams being in charge of their destiny if there is no destiny. No, the only valid perspective is that of the players, who cannot control who they play. If they win all of their games, and were one of four or fewer teams to do so, what representative of humanity would deny them the opportunity to play for a championship? College football remains corrupt in part because its fans -- the millions of you -- remain attached to the culture given. You all have to get over the almighty strength of schedule. This is not basketball. SOS has limited utility here.

As to the common claim that teams will avoid challenging nonconference schedules to stay undefeated, that's fine. There is no way to mandate fairness in how 100+ FBS teams handle their scheduling. And realistically, it's hard to go 12-0 or 13-0 against any qualifying college football schedule. Besides, as soon as there are more than four undefeated teams, there's accountability in schedule strength. Does this mean we could have a playoff of Toledo, Troy, Tulsa, and Texas-San Antonio? Yeah, absolutely. But I'd much rather have that than the current culture, where everyone talks about which of those four, if any, will get to join the golden one-loss teams with the big names, the big ratings, and the big, ugly scars on their forehead.

Finally, I have no attachment to Marshall or its players. As with many 7-0 schools of the past, if they lose a game I have no more use for them. I just wait for their equivalent next season and declare war against everyone again.

LaVell Edwards and Kyle Whittingham want to give you a hug. Of course, only the former won a title, while the latter got hosed.

[Wander]

The only way this thread gets derailed is if we stop talking about the college football postseason. Playoff expansion and the FCS are fair game.

Were it up to me, I would look at strength of schedule in differentiating teams within two separate groups:

1. Undefeated teams;
2. Everybody else.

This means that if there's a 12-0 Marshall and 11-1 Alabama, I am decidedly NOT comparing their strengths of schedule. Because Marshall's players did everything that was required of them, they are exempt from that comparison. I would look at Marshall's strength of schedule ONLY in comparison to other undefeated teams, and Alabama's strength of schedule ONLY in comparison to other forehead-scarred teams.

This probably sounds like a foreign language, but that's only because everyone else in the college football culture has been speaking it wrong this whole time. Again, I do not intend to single out Olympic Fan, but the dismissal of an undefeated team based on strength of schedule is a widely held opinion based on a fundamentally invalid perspective. Most college football fans are convinced that you need to look at the sport from a program scheduler's point of view. (The athletic director? The head coach? I don't know if this is any one person.) This means that many teams in the 2014-2015 season essentially were eliminated from the playoff field in 2012 or earlier, when the schedules were crafted. Fans in 2012 could easily decide that 2014 Marshall has no business being near a playoff just by looking at its schedule in place, and could logically conclude that the actual game outcomes would never matter.

The program scheduler's perspective is where we are in college football, and it is... depressing. I question the purpose of a sport that constantly has talk of teams being in charge of their destiny if there is no destiny. No, the only valid perspective is that of the players, who cannot control who they play. If they win all of their games, and were one of four or fewer teams to do so, what representative of humanity would deny them the opportunity to play for a championship? College football remains corrupt in part because its fans -- the millions of you -- remain attached to the culture given. You all have to get over the almighty strength of schedule. This is not basketball. SOS has limited utility here.

As to the common claim that teams will avoid challenging nonconference schedules to stay undefeated, that's fine. There is no way to mandate fairness in how 100+ FBS teams handle their scheduling. And realistically, it's hard to go 12-0 or 13-0 against any qualifying college football schedule. Besides, as soon as there are more than four undefeated teams, there's accountability in schedule strength. Does this mean we could have a playoff of Toledo, Troy, Tulsa, and Texas-San Antonio? Yeah, absolutely. But I'd much rather have that than the current culture, where everyone talks about which of those four, if any, will get to join the golden one-loss teams with the big names, the big ratings, and the big, ugly scars on their forehead.

Finally, I have no attachment to Marshall or its players. As with many 7-0 schools of the past, if they lose a game I have no more use for them. I just wait for their equivalent next season and declare war against everyone again.

I agree with a lot of this, but I think your anger is misplaced. People who would argue for 11-1 Alabama over 12-0 Marshall aren't the enemy here.

Look at it this way: the NFL, from a strictly competitive standpoint (i.e., set aside the concussion and player behavior stuff, which is serious, but not relevant here), has the perfect system. And the playoffs are pretty selective - it's not uncommon for a pretty good team, like 10-6 Arizona, to get left out.

Division 1-A college football has 128 teams. And teams play 75% (12 instead of 16) of the games, so there's less information to make playoff selections. That means the college football equivalent to the NFL playoffs involves: (12/32)*128*(16/12) = 64 teams! Now, let's be extremely generous, and say that you can figure things out equally well from 12 college games as 16 NFL games, and also only consider the power 5 teams. Even by these very generous numbers, the college football equivalent to the NFL playoff is: 12/32*62 = 24 teams!

A 16 team playoff that takes the 10 conference champions and 6 at-large bids would be BY FAR the most selective postseason of any major team sport. 2 or 4 teams isn't "selective." It's idiotic. My point is this: there's no right answer in choosing between 11-1 Alabama and 12-0 Marshall. Any system that even lets you get to the point where you're forced to decide between a team that went undefeated and won each game by double digits and a team that navigated the most difficult division in the history of the sport with only one close road loss to an elite team is a corrupt and horrible system beyond repair.

[CameronBornAndBred]

In the ACC, there are only 2 remaining contenders, and Duke is one of them, regardless of how much of a long shot we are.

Where the ACC stands: From now until the end of the season, it’s not about profile or reputation for the ACC. It’s simply about wins and, more specifically, wins for Florida State. The league continues to have just two ranked teams and now has just two officially alive for the playoff. That would be FSU, which beat Notre Dame in controversial fashion, and Duke, the defending Coastal champs that continue to chug along.
....
But if any team is used to being overlooked, it’s Duke. The Blue Devils don’t seem to care. They just keep winning. One week after ending Georgia Tech’s time atop the division, they pulled the same trick with Virginia, and suddenly the chances of Duke finishing out the regular season at 11-1 seem somewhat realistic.

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/i...f-watch-week-9

[OldPhiKap]

"suddenly the chances of Duke finishing out the regular season at 11-1 seem somewhat realistic."

1. Everyone who thought they would read that sentence in their lifetime, raise your hand.

2. Every one of you that has their hands up, you are lying.

3. Even you, Ozzie -- we know you figured 12-0!

[uh_no]

"suddenly the chances of Duke finishing out the regular season at 11-1 seem somewhat realistic."

1. Everyone who thought they would read that sentence in their lifetime, raise your hand.

2. Every one of you that has their hands up, you are lying.

3. Even you, Ozzie -- we know you figured 12-0!

blows my mind. I said at the start of the season there was no chance we'd get to 10-2...but i'm glad we're proven wrong...

all hail Cut.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

"suddenly the chances of Duke finishing out the regular season at 11-1 seem somewhat realistic."

1. Everyone who thought they would read that sentence in their lifetime, raise your hand.

2. Every one of you that has their hands up, you are lying.

3. Even you, Ozzie -- we know you figured 12-0!

My dear OldPhiKap, I have believed that could/would happen (11-1 regular season record). The only time I wavered was briefly during the Carl Franks era.

[OldPhiKap]

My dear OldPhiKap, I have believed that could/would happen (11-1 regular season record). The only time I wavered was briefly during the Carl Franks era.

Damn, I can't call DiBD a liar. And from my experience with her, I am confident that she believed.

The rest of you, though -- I'll call shenanigans on you in a skinny minute. Govern yourselves accordingly.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Damn, I can't call DiBD a liar. And from my experience with her, I am confident that she believed.

The rest of you, though -- I'll call shenanigans on you in a skinny minute. Govern yourselves accordingly.

Somebody had to continue to believe that sort of record was/is possible. As I've said a few other times, never underestimate the power of a determined woman.

Time to do some serious scouting of the Pitt Panthers.

[Olympic Fan]

Amazing that after three weeks of absolute chaos in college football, the top 25 survives this weekend relatively intact.

One of the three unbeaten did fall as Ole Miss was edged at LSU.

But just one of the 16 one loss teams (from the power five conferences) got beat -- Minnesota upset by Illinois.

The only ranked two loss team to lose was Southern Cal, which lost a thriller to No. 19 Utah on the road.

That means we went into the weekend with three unbeaten, 16 one-loss teams and six ranked two loss teams (from the power five).

We came out of it with two unbeaten, 16 one loss teams (ole Miss taking Minnesota's place) and five ranked two losses teams.

Not much wastage.

The first selection committee top 25 to be released Tuesday night. It will be interesting to see where it differs from the AP and coaches polls.

[Wander]

Relatively boring week, but: we'll probably be ranked @ 25! With USC, Minnesota, and Oklahoma State falling safely behind us.

[Olympic Fan]

I'm not a moderator and I know I have no right to tell anybody what they can or can't post. For god's sake, I know I've derailed a few threads in my time.

But I started this thread to have a place to discuss the national playoff picture. The debate as to whether Duke can finish 11-1 or about our status in the Coastal Division race belongs somewhere else (try the Week Nine Thread).

It's my stance that Duke -- with its schedule -- does not have a prayer of competing for the national playoffs this season -- even if Duke does finish 11-1 then upset FSU in the ACC title game -- our SOS is far TOO weak. If you want to debate that, fine -- THAT argument belongs in this thread.

But I'm excited because the selection committee releases its top 25 Tuesday and we get a glimpse at what they are thinking. I listened to the Clemson AD last night (he's the only ACC guy on the committee) and he said that matters of importance to them are (1) conference championships; (2) strength of schedule; (3) head-to-head results.

The first two items could be on conflict -- there will be several teams in the SEC with better SOS (and similar records) than the champions of the Big Ten, Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC. If the third item is important, then it's hard to see taking Michigan State or Oregon or Notre Dame over FSU or TCU over Baylor.

Only four spots -- that means that at least one of the power five conference champs will be left out. Will two? I heard a commentator argue last night that contrary to conventional wisdom, he believes that just one SEC team will make the playoff.

Tuesday's release won't tell us everything -- for one thing, no conference champions have been crowned and that's a HUGE factor. For another, there are still tons of games to play and a bunch of head-to-heads left on the table.

I do want to look at see how high the highest two-loss team is. Is LSU back in the picture after edging Ole Miss? Are the last two undefeateds the two top teams? What's the top one-loss team at the moment?

I am humbly asking that we debate those topics in this thread. I'm as interested in discussing Duke's prospects -- both in terms of records, bowl destinations, conference standings and poll rankings -- as everybody else. Just not here. Please.

[Wander]

I do want to look at see how high the highest two-loss team is. Is LSU back in the picture after edging Ole Miss? Are the last two undefeateds the two top teams? What's the top one-loss team at the moment?

I think the top 1-loss team has to be Auburn. The win at Kansas State is the best win any team in the country has, except maybe Arizona's win at Oregon (speaking of which, if the committee is really serious about margin of victory not mattering, that's a team that will be higher in the playoff rankings than the regular polls), and their loss is a road loss to the #1 team.

LSU was never out of the picture - people just overreacted. Whoever wins the SEC is getting in, it's entirely realistic the SEC West champion has 2 losses, they have a decent non-conference win - and besides, a 2-loss LSU team got into the "playoff" when it only had 2 instead of 4 teams.

[Olympic Fan]

I think the top 1-loss team has to be Auburn. The win at Kansas State is the best win any team in the country has, except maybe Arizona's win at Oregon (speaking of which, if the committee is really serious about margin of victory not mattering, that's a team that will be higher in the playoff rankings than the regular polls), and their loss is a road loss to the #1 team.

LSU was never out of the picture - people just overreacted. Whoever wins the SEC is getting in, it's entirely realistic the SEC West champion has 2 losses, they have a decent non-conference win - and besides, a 2-loss LSU team got into the "playoff" when it only had 2 instead of 4 teams.

Here's a scenario I was thinking about last night. Georgia is leading the SEC East, but they have a game coming up with Auburn. Still possible (even probable) they lose that and reach the SEC title game.

What happens if they then upset the West champion -- maybe a 12-0 Miss State (which would have wins over Auburn, Alabama and Ole Miss)?

I think based on the committee's rhetoric, they HAVE to take Georgia in that case -- even with two losses. But would they also take Miss State? Or if it's one-loss Auburn or Alabama or Ole Miss as the SEC west champion, does that change anything?

Throw in the unlikely chance that Georgia loses its season ending rivalry game with Georgia Tech ... would a three-loss Georgia be a lock if they win the SEC title? Remember, not every conference champ will be in the playoffs!

[Wander]

Similarly, Missouri can still win the SEC as well. They have a relatively favorable schedule getting the two worst SEC west teams, so if they win out, they could conceivably be ahead of the Georgia team they lost 34-0 to. Then an upset in the title game means the SEC champion has a blowout loss with 0 points scored and a home loss to Indiana, who currently has no wins in the Big 10. Would Missouri be in?

So I agree - I take back my statement that the SEC champion is a lock to be in the playoffs. But if the SEC champion is an SEC west team, then it's a lock, including LSU.

[OldPhiKap]

I'm not a moderator and I know I have no right to tell anybody what they can or can't post. For god's sake, I know I've derailed a few threads in my time.

But I started this thread to have a place to discuss the national playoff picture. The debate as to whether Duke can finish 11-1 or about our status in the Coastal Division race belongs somewhere else (try the Week Nine Thread).

It's my stance that Duke -- with its schedule -- does not have a prayer of competing for the national playoffs this season -- even if Duke does finish 11-1 then upset FSU in the ACC title game -- our SOS is far TOO weak. If you want to debate that, fine -- THAT argument belongs in this thread.

But I'm excited because the selection committee releases its top 25 Tuesday and we get a glimpse at what they are thinking. I listened to the Clemson AD last night (he's the only ACC guy on the committee) and he said that matters of importance to them are (1) conference championships; (2) strength of schedule; (3) head-to-head results.

The first two items could be on conflict -- there will be several teams in the SEC with better SOS (and similar records) than the champions of the Big Ten, Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC. If the third item is important, then it's hard to see taking Michigan State or Oregon or Notre Dame over FSU or TCU over Baylor.

Only four spots -- that means that at least one of the power five conference champs will be left out. Will two? I heard a commentator argue last night that contrary to conventional wisdom, he believes that just one SEC team will make the playoff.

Tuesday's release won't tell us everything -- for one thing, no conference champions have been crowned and that's a HUGE factor. For another, there are still tons of games to play and a bunch of head-to-heads left on the table.

I do want to look at see how high the highest two-loss team is. Is LSU back in the picture after edging Ole Miss? Are the last two undefeateds the two top teams? What's the top one-loss team at the moment?

I am humbly asking that we debate those topics in this thread. I'm as interested in discussing Duke's prospects -- both in terms of records, bowl destinations, conference standings and poll rankings -- as everybody else. Just not here. Please.

Unless the new Bowl Poll (or whatever the official name is) has Duke in the top 20 already, I agree that we are probably on the outside of the playoffs even if we run the table and beat FSU in the conference championship (which, btw, I think we would have a better than fair chance of doing). It would simply keep an ACC team from making the playoffs.

The fly in the ointment nationally is if an SEC East team like Georgia beats the SEC West team (which would almost certainly be a top three team) in the SEC Championship. You couldn't keep UGa out, and it would be hard to argue that the West team still wasn't one of the four best teams in the country.

ND, if you want consideration, join the ACC full time. Otherwise, you are not getting in. Not saying that's right or wrong -- just saying that's the reality.

Marshall, bless their hearts -- a very good team that will probably run the table, but (as with ND) this is a decision being made by the big conferences. Will be an interesting match for someone in the other New Years Day bowls though.

[brevity]

It's my stance that Duke -- with its schedule -- does not have a prayer of competing for the national playoffs this season -- even if Duke does finish 11-1 then upset FSU in the ACC title game -- our SOS is far TOO weak. If you want to debate that, fine -- THAT argument belongs in this thread.

I agree about keeping the thread on point, but there really isn't much of a debate, unfortunately. Let's say Mississippi State wins out (13-0) and Duke goes 12-1, beating FSU in the ACC championship. I can still think of at least three one-loss teams NOT in the SEC that would be better positioned to make the playoffs than Duke. Because there are a LOT of them right now, and I can easily see three of them winning out as well. (I've discussed unbeaten Marshall in detail upthread, and am loath to repeat myself. I'm not forgetting them; I'm just assuming they succumb to the pressure of remaining perfect.)

So let's just look at the 1-loss teams in power conferences (besides Duke). Put them in alphabetical order, and they are seemingly indistinguishable:

Alabama (7-1)
Arizona (6-1)
Arizona State (6-1)
Auburn (6-1)
Baylor (6-1)
Georgia (6-1)
Kansas State (6-1)
Michigan State (7-1)
Mississippi (7-1)
Nebraska (7-1)
Notre Dame (6-1)
Ohio State (6-1)
Oregon (7-1)
TCU (6-1)
Utah (6-1)

Trying to sort the one-loss teams will likely be the toughest responsibility of the Playoff Committee every season (and maybe the topic that keeps this thread going). The easy answer is "Let's wait and see which of these teams survive after they consume each other," but by releasing their own Top 25 this week, they have to make some difficult decisions now.

Back to Duke: keep in mind that in the above hypothetical, FSU would also be a 1-loss team, and would have a much better strength of schedule. But if I had to guess right now, I would say that the Playoff Committee places FSU below similarly rated 1-loss teams that did win their conferences, and removes the ACC from the 4-team field entirely. An undefeated FSU really has no margin for error.

[Wander]

So let's just look at the 1-loss teams in power conferences (besides Duke). Put them in alphabetical order, and they are seemingly indistinguishable:

I don't know, I think there are some clear lines. Ohio State, for example, will give us a good idea for how serious this committee is. They should basically be at the bottom of the 1 loss teams, and that includes East Carolina. The polls having them above ECU and the Arizona schools is silly.

[vick]

I don't know, I think there are some clear lines. Ohio State, for example, will give us a good idea for how serious this committee is. They should basically be at the bottom of the 1 loss teams, and that includes East Carolina. The polls having them above ECU and the Arizona schools is silly.

I dunno. Just as an example, Ohio State is ahead of all three of those teams in Sagarin (OSU 16, ASU 21, UA 27, ECU 40) but behind all but ECU in Massey (ASU 13, UA 20, OSU 21, ECU 35). I never take any computer poll as "truth," but if they aren't pointing in some general direction, I think it's fair to say the picture is pretty muddled. So I think brevity is basically right that there is very little to differentiate that mass of teams at the current time, except that the one-loss SEC West teams are probably the class of the pack.