FB Playoff selection watch

[Olympic Fan]

The first official poll by the selection committee comes out a week from tomorrow (Oct. 28) I thought to get ahead of the curve by surveying the situation as of today.

Right now, we have three unbeaten power five teams (with their ranks):

1. Mississippi State 6-0
2, Florida State 7-0
3. Ole Miss 7-0

Obviously, all three are in the four-team playoff at the moment, but the two Mississippi teams both have killer games coming up. While FSU's closing schedule is easier (not EASY -- at Louisville on a Thursday night could be tough), their biggest concern is keeping Jameis Winston eligible. Who knows what he'll do next?

There are 16 power five teams with one loss. Again, in order of their AP ranking:

4. Alabama 6-1
5. Auburn 5-1
6. Oregon 6-1
7. Notre Dame 6-1
8. Michigan State 6-1
9. Georgia 6-1
10. TCU 6-1
11. Kansas State 5-1
12. Baylor 6-1
13. Ohio State 5-1
14. Arizona State 5-1
15. Arizona 5-1
16. Nebraska 6-1
19. Utah 5-1
UNR Minnesota 6-1 (25th in the coaches poll)
UNR Duke 6-1

Obviously, Duke is the least respected one-loss team in the power five. In fact, six two loss teams are ranked ahead of Duke:

17. Oklahoma 5-2
20. Southern Cal 5-2
21. Clemson 5-2
22. West Virginia 5-2
24. LSU 6-2
25. UCLA 5-2

In addition, two teams that are not from a power conference are ranked:

18. East Carolina 5-1
23. Marshall 7-0

IMHO, neither of them is in the national playoff picture, but they are vying for the one major bowl spot reserved for a non-power five team.

As for the one loss teams, still tons of matchups between the unbeaten and the one loss teams. The picture will change dozens of times as the season plays out. But as of today (which means nothing) I think the final four are the three unbeaten and Alabama.

But Alabama still has to play Mississippi State, Auburn and maybe Georgia in the SEC title game. The two Mississippi schools play each other, plus Ole Miss has to play Auburn and MSU has 'Bama -- plus the possibility of Georgia in the title game. Georgia still has to play Auburn in the regular season. Notre Dame gets Arizona State, Louisville and Southern Cal.

Wow ... it's still wide open. For me, I think the dividing line is right behind Georgia. The top nine teams are, IMHO, all viable playoff candidates. After that, it gets rough. I think TCU needs a miracle.
Maybe one of the two Arizona schools could play their way into the picture. But I think the Big 12 teams are all in trouble and the only Big 10 team with a chance is Michigan State.

Not a lot of good matchups this weekend. Only two matchups of ranked teams --USC at Utah and Ole Miss at LSU (that IS a good one).

A few of the other top contenders face minor danger on the road -- Oregon at Cal, Arizona at Washington State, Arizona State at Washington, Bama at Tennessee.

A couple more have to stay awake at home -- Michigan State vs. Michigan and Auburn vs. South Carolina.

But I don't think the unbeaten/one loss list changes much after this weekend. We'll revisit it after next Saturday.

[sagegrouse]

The first official poll by the selection committee comes out a week from tomorrow (Oct. 28) I thought to get ahead of the curve by surveying the situation as of today.

Right now, we have three unbeaten power five teams (with their ranks):

1. Mississippi State 6-0
2, Florida State 7-0
3. Ole Miss 7-0

Obviously, all three are in the four-team playoff at the moment, but the two Mississippi teams both have killer games coming up. While FSU's closing schedule is easier (not EASY -- at Louisville on a Thursday night could be tough), their biggest concern is keeping Jameis Winston eligible. Who knows what he'll do next?

There are 16 power five teams with one loss. Again, in order of their AP ranking:

4. Alabama 6-1
5. Auburn 5-1
6. Oregon 6-1
7. Notre Dame 6-1
8. Michigan State 6-1
9. Georgia 6-1
10. TCU 6-1
11. Kansas State 5-1
12. Baylor 6-1
13. Ohio State 5-1
14. Arizona State 5-1
15. Arizona 5-1
16. Nebraska 6-1
19. Utah 5-1
UNR Minnesota 6-1 (25th in the coaches poll)
UNR Duke 6-1



I expect to see some "regression toward the mean" for the two Mississippi schools -- Ole Miss lost five games a year ago, and State lost six. If each loses two games or more, it is likely that Bama (or Auburn) will represent the SEC West against, I guess, Georgia, which still has to play Auburn. In fact, it may be difficult to fill out a CFP bracket with four teams with one loss or fewer.

[OldPhiKap]

The first official poll by the selection committee comes out a week from tomorrow (Oct. 28) I thought to get ahead of the curve by surveying the situation as of today.

Right now, we have three unbeaten power five teams (with their ranks):

1. Mississippi State 6-0
2, Florida State 7-0
3. Ole Miss 7-0

Obviously, all three are in the four-team playoff at the moment, but the two Mississippi teams both have killer games coming up. While FSU's closing schedule is easier (not EASY -- at Louisville on a Thursday night could be tough), their biggest concern is keeping Jameis Winston eligible. Who knows what he'll do next?

There are 16 power five teams with one loss. Again, in order of their AP ranking:

4. Alabama 6-1
5. Auburn 5-1
6. Oregon 6-1
7. Notre Dame 6-1
8. Michigan State 6-1
9. Georgia 6-1
10. TCU 6-1
11. Kansas State 5-1
12. Baylor 6-1
13. Ohio State 5-1
14. Arizona State 5-1
15. Arizona 5-1
16. Nebraska 6-1
19. Utah 5-1
UNR Minnesota 6-1 (25th in the coaches poll)
UNR Duke 6-1

Obviously, Duke is the least respected one-loss team in the power five. In fact, six two loss teams are ranked ahead of Duke:

17. Oklahoma 5-2
20. Southern Cal 5-2
21. Clemson 5-2
22. West Virginia 5-2
24. LSU 6-2
25. UCLA 5-2

In addition, two teams that are not from a power conference are ranked:

18. East Carolina 5-1
23. Marshall 7-0

IMHO, neither of them is in the national playoff picture, but they are vying for the one major bowl spot reserved for a non-power five team.

As for the one loss teams, still tons of matchups between the unbeaten and the one loss teams. The picture will change dozens of times as the season plays out. But as of today (which means nothing) I think the final four are the three unbeaten and Alabama.

But Alabama still has to play Mississippi State, Auburn and maybe Georgia in the SEC title game. The two Mississippi schools play each other, plus Ole Miss has to play Auburn and MSU has 'Bama -- plus the possibility of Georgia in the title game. Georgia still has to play Auburn in the regular season. Notre Dame gets Arizona State, Louisville and Southern Cal.

Wow ... it's still wide open. For me, I think the dividing line is right behind Georgia. The top nine teams are, IMHO, all viable playoff candidates. After that, it gets rough. I think TCU needs a miracle.
Maybe one of the two Arizona schools could play their way into the picture. But I think the Big 12 teams are all in trouble and the only Big 10 team with a chance is Michigan State.

Not a lot of good matchups this weekend. Only two matchups of ranked teams --USC at Utah and Ole Miss at LSU (that IS a good one).

A few of the other top contenders face minor danger on the road -- Oregon at Cal, Arizona at Washington State, Arizona State at Washington, Bama at Tennessee.

A couple more have to stay awake at home -- Michigan State vs. Michigan and Auburn vs. South Carolina.

But I don't think the unbeaten/one loss list changes much after this weekend. We'll revisit it after next Saturday.

Excellent break-down.

The SEC is a demolition derby; there are two or maybe three teams up there at the top who will be left out but are probably on par with whomever else is selected.

[jtheall]

He's having difficulties following recent knee replacement and back surgeries, so now the committee is down to 12 members. In the event of a tie, the 12 will continue discussions and re-vote until someone makes a change.

Manning was the conference representative of the Mountain West and the ACC, so the committee has split his duties to Mike Tranghese (former Big East commissioner) for the Mountain West and Steve Weiberg (former USA TODAY reporter) for the ACC. It will be interesting to see if this has any implications on how the committee views and selects teams from both of these conferences.

I read something a few weeks ago about the football-watching habits of each committee member. It seemed like Manning watched the fewest amount of games amongst them, which was surprising to me. From that articles, he's quoted as saying that he "would be guilty if he wasn't watching 5 or 6 games a week". This was actually a good read: http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/cfb-playoff-committee-vote-condoleezza-rice-postseason-final-four-100714

Full story: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11732136/archie-manning-steps-college-football-playoff-committee

[Wander]

Good topic, I agree with a lot, but I bet Marshall's going to be in the discussion if they finish undefeated.

1. There's a very realistic chance (it's my pick for what will actually happen) that Marshall is the only undefeated team at the end of the season.
2. They've beaten 5 out of 7 opponents by at least 30 points, and the other 2 they beat by 25 and 15 points.
3. People are going to say "Isn't this why we expanded the championship in the first place?"

I think all reasonable people can agree that their strength of schedule is far below the other playoff contenders. But I promise you, if (1) happens, this discussion is coming (but I don't think the committee will actually put them in).

TCU has a great chance. The Big 12 is a strong conference, there's a sort-of-consensus that they're the best team in it, they have a pretty good non-conference win against Minnesota, and their schedule is relatively favorable. In fact I almost guarantee they'll get in if they don't lose again.

Anyway, as you say, it's still pretty early and the thing is wide open. My too early prediction-that-will-almost-certainly-be-wrong is: Alabama, TCU, Georgia, Arizona (I'd take Oregon for that last one if I didn't now live in AZ)

Of course, the whole caveat to all of this is that none of us actually know how the committee is going to pick teams since it's the first year.

[Bob Green]

Good topic, I agree with a lot, but I bet Marshall's going to be in the discussion if they finish undefeated.

1. There's a very realistic chance (it's my pick for what will actually happen) that Marshall is the only undefeated team at the end of the season.
2. They've beaten 5 out of 7 opponents by at least 30 points, and the other 2 they beat by 25 and 15 points.
3. People are going to say "Isn't this why we expanded the championship in the first place?"



If Marshall finishes the season undefeated, people are going to say, "The College Football Playoff needs to include eight teams."

[-jk]

If Marshall finishes the season undefeated, people are going to say, "The College Football Playoff needs to include eight teams."

I think that's inevitable regardless. Too much money on the table.

-jk

[brevity]

In addition, two teams that are not from a power conference are ranked:

18. East Carolina 5-1
23. Marshall 7-0

IMHO, neither of them is in the national playoff picture, but they are vying for the one major bowl spot reserved for a non-power five team.

(Rant follows. It is not directed at Olympic Fan, who is making an honest assessment of a corrupt situation.)

It has been my belief for years that the college football postseason is so unfair that it actually sets the human race back. But for some reason I remain surprised at its utter contempt for players from non-power conferences that did everything its schedule asked of them and are ignored in favor of teams that did not do everything their schedule asked for them. Were I a person unafraid of consequences, I would take a branding iron to each Alabama player's forehead that says "Ole Miss' b*tch," because that's who they are. And deep down, in their souls, they know it.

It was my impression that the college football playoff, even a four-team one, would address this problem. And right now, like it or not, Marshall is the best reason to have a playoff at all. Here's why. Let's say that Marshall loses a game. Florida State and one Mississippi school stay undefeated. Having a BCS Championship game would be sufficient. Let's say the SEC cannibalizes itself and no team goes undefeated. Well, then Florida State (still undefeated) could just play the best one-loss team in a BCS Championship game rather than 2 one-loss teams in a semifinal and final. Now let's say no team goes undefeated. Picking 4 one-loss teams (or maybe 3 one-loss teams and a two-loss team) is more inclusive than a BCS Championship Game, but is probably not more fair and is certainly not more necessary. And that's the key word here: each of these examples shows a lack of necessity in having a playoff instead of just a single championship game.

The primary necessity of having a college football playoff -- aside from the involved parties needing more money -- is to account for a third undefeated team. Marshall is that third undefeated team. (The Mississippi schools count as one undefeated team because they still have to face each other.) If the committee ignores Marshall, then what was the point of all this?

ETA: I see Wander has made a similar point, with more brevity and less violence. But I stand by my statement; there is not nearly enough scalding forehead injury in college football.

[Duvall]

(Rant follows. It is not directed at Olympic Fan, who is making an honest assessment of a corrupt situation.)

It has been my belief for years that the college football postseason is so unfair that it actually sets the human race back. But for some reason I remain surprised at its utter contempt for players from non-power conferences that did everything its schedule asked of them and are ignored in favor of teams that did not do everything their schedule asked for them. Were I a person unafraid of consequences, I would take a branding iron to each Alabama player's forehead that says "Ole Miss' b*tch," because that's who they are. And deep down, in their souls, they know it.

It was my impression that the college football playoff, even a four-team one, would address this problem. And right now, like it or not, Marshall is the best reason to have a playoff at all. Here's why. Let's say that Marshall loses a game. Florida State and one Mississippi school stay undefeated. Having a BCS Championship game would be sufficient. Let's say the SEC cannibalizes itself and no team goes undefeated. Well, then Florida State (still undefeated) could just play the best one-loss team in a BCS Championship game rather than 2 one-loss teams in a semifinal and final. Now let's say no team goes undefeated. Picking 4 one-loss teams (or maybe 3 one-loss teams and a two-loss team) is more inclusive than a BCS Championship Game, but is probably not more fair and is certainly not more necessary. And that's the key word here: each of these examples shows a lack of necessity in having a playoff instead of just a single championship game.

The primary necessity of having a college football playoff -- aside from the involved parties needing more money -- is to account for a third undefeated team. Marshall is that third undefeated team. (The Mississippi schools count as one undefeated team because they still have to face each other.) If the committee ignores Marshall, then what was the point of all this?

Wait, was that a rhetorical question? Either way. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/sports/ncaafootball/college-footballs-most-dominant-player-its-espn.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)


ETA: I see Wander has made a similar point, with more brevity and less violence. But I stand by my statement; there is not nearly enough scalding forehead injury in college football.

You don't see too many people these days arguing that there aren't *enough* head injuries in football.

[Wander]

ETA: I see Wander has made a similar point, with more brevity and less violence. But I stand by my statement; there is not nearly enough scalding forehead injury in college football.

This is now a thread-derail, but you're right, except you should direct your scalding forehead injuries at the dbag bowl reps who show up to games and not to kids at Alabama. The bowls are the most corrupt thing in the entire sports world, and we live in a sports world where Roger Goodell and FIFA exist. The bowls should be eliminated from existence, not awkwardly integrated into the playoff. One day we'll have a proper 16 team playoff with the higher seeds getting home field advantage until the neutral title game (maybe at the Rose Bowl, the only bowl with any sort of actual tradition that people give a crap about). Maybe not for another 40 years, but one day...

[Olympic Fan]

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. Look, I was on the side of the Boise State's and Utahs in years when they were left out -- but aside from the fact that they played in much stronger conferences (the WAC and Mountain West are MUCH stronger than the current Conference USA). Plus, those teams always had significant wins in the rare chances they got OOC games with powers --

Marshall has nothing like that. The best team on their schedule is Middle Tennessee State ... currently 5-3. Marshall's seven wins are over:

1-7 Miami of Ohio
0-7 Rhode Island
4-4 Ohio
4-3 Akron
3-4 Old Dominion
5-3 Middle Tennessee
3-5 Florida International

Still to play, they get:
3-4 Florida Atlantic
3-4 Southern Miss
3-3 Rice
3-4 UAB
3-4 Western Kentucky

Duke has gotten tons of cr*p -- much of it deserved -- for its lousy schedule. But Duke's schedule is 10 times tougher than what Marshall faces.

I don't know how Duke would fare in a head-to-head with Marshall on a neutral field, but I would bet big money that Duke would go 12-0 against Marshall's schedule. So would Alabama, Auburn, Oregon and every power five one-loss team.

It's not a perfect system and there are going to be years when a non-power five team is going to deserve consideration. Heck, if ECU had won at South Carolina, I'd give them consideration. But this isn't the year and Marshall isn't the team.

PS If you are going to let Marshall in without playing anybody, then watch non-conference schedules go to hell. Why play anybody if SOS isn't a factor in selection. Notre Dame can play 12 non power fove teams and coast into the playoffs every year.

[Duvall]

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.

[JetpackJesus]

PS If you are going to let Marshall in without playing anybody, then watch non-conference schedules go to hell. Why play anybody if SOS isn't a factor in selection. Notre Dame can play 12 non power fove teams and coast into the playoffs every year.

Fortunately, ND is obligated to play 5 ACC teams per season for the next 12ish years so they won't be able to totally game the system for awhile.

[Wander]

PS If you are going to let Marshall in without playing anybody, then watch non-conference schedules go to hell. Why play anybody if SOS isn't a factor in selection. Notre Dame can play 12 non power fove teams and coast into the playoffs every year.

1. Last year, Auburn made it into the title game playing a non-conference schedule of Washington State, Florida Atlantic, Arkansas State, and Western Carolina all at home. We already live in this world.
2. If you let all conference champions in the playoff field - you know, what every single other team sport in existence does - then teams won't be afraid to schedule big non-conference games.

The argument - at least from me, and I suspect a lot of others here - isn't that letting 12-0 Marshall in over 10-2 Auburn or whoever is the right decision. I agree with you that Marshall is probably not going to get in no matter what. The argument is that having to make the choice in the first place because you have an otherwise awesome sport held hostage by a bunch of corrupt bowl dbags that force a laughably small "playoff" is stupid.

[OldPhiKap]

1. Last year, Auburn made it into the title game playing a non-conference schedule of Washington State, Florida Atlantic, Arkansas State, and Western Carolina all at home. We already live in this world.
2. If you let all conference champions in the playoff field - you know, what every single other team sport in existence does - then teams won't be afraid to schedule big non-conference games.

The argument - at least from me, and I suspect a lot of others here - isn't that letting 12-0 Marshall in over 10-2 Auburn or whoever is the right decision. I agree with you that Marshall is probably not going to get in no matter what. The argument is that having to make the choice in the first place because you have an otherwise awesome sport held hostage by a bunch of corrupt bowl dbags that force a laughably small "playoff" is stupid.

Last year, Auburn played at LSU, at Texas A&M, Georgia, Alabama, and a slate of other SEC teams. I think most SEC teams get a pass when it comes to non-conference games, many of their schedules are tougher than any ACC school this year (whether in-conference or OOC). Certainly tougher than Marshall's schedule.

And football takes too much recovery time (and causes too many injuries) for a sweet 16 or more.

[Wander]

And football takes too much recovery time (and causes too many injuries) for a sweet 16 or more.

Sorry dude, this makes no sense. The NFL has a 12 team playoff, Division 1-AA has a 24 team playoff, Division 2 has a 12 team playoff, and Division 3 has a 16 team playoff. Division 1-A is obviously absolutely capable of handling a 12-16 playoff. And anyway, I'd be reducing the number of games and therefore injuries overall, since I'd be getting rid of lots of pieces of junk like the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl (yes, that's a real one).

[Duvall]

Sorry dude, this makes no sense. The NFL has a 12 team playoff, Division 1-AA has a 24 team playoff, Division 2 has a 12 team playoff, and Division 3 has a 16 team playoff. Division 1-A is obviously absolutely capable of handling a 12-16 playoff. And anyway, I'd be reducing the number of games and therefore injuries overall, since I'd be getting rid of lots of pieces of junk like the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl (yes, that's a real one).

Yeah, Towson played 16 games last year with a 63-scholarship limit. Alabama can't do the same?

[Reilly]

... Division 3 has a 16 team playoff ...

D3 was 32 teams last year:

http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/football/d3

... but don't they play a 10-game regular season?

[OldPhiKap]

Sorry dude, this makes no sense. The NFL has a 12 team playoff, Division 1-AA has a 24 team playoff, Division 2 has a 12 team playoff, and Division 3 has a 16 team playoff. Division 1-A is obviously absolutely capable of handling a 12-16 playoff. And anyway, I'd be reducing the number of games and therefore injuries overall, since I'd be getting rid of lots of pieces of junk like the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl (yes, that's a real one).

NFL players get paid to take those risks. And lower divisions play fewer regular season games; there's too much money in the current D-1 (or whatever we're calling it this year) to drop regular season games.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it. I would have 8 teams play on NYE; the four winners play the next week; and then the two finalists play on Super Bowl Saturday. But that's a damn long season with plenty of risk for an injury that prevents a player from ever making the NFL -- more money for the NCAA and the school, but the player gets screwed.


Yeah, Towson played 16 games last year with a 63-scholarship limit. Alabama can't do the same?

Alabama will play 12 regular season games, a conference championship game if they qualify; and two bowl games if they make the playoffs. So that's 15. As for scholarship limits, I would bet that Alabama plays less that 63 players in a season with the number of redshirts they use.


D3 was 32 teams last year:

http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/football/d3

... but don't they play a 10-game regular season?

I think so, which would be at most 15 games -- same as whoever wins the NC this year (assuming they also play in their conference championship; ND would be the obvious possible exception here).

[Wander]

D3 was 32 teams last year:


Oops. Good catch.

Anyway. Now that we've completely derailed the thread. This is, to me, the most fun season since 2007. There's such a great mix of good teams with traditional powers (Alabama, FSU), new powers (Ole Miss, Duke), and non-BCS teams (East Carolina, Marshall). You've also got a great geographic mix since the best conferences are SEC, Pac-12, and Big 12. Good games between powerhouses (FSU-ND), good upsets (WVU-Baylor), good dramatic finishes (Arizona-Cal), and so on. I think we also have the best division in the history of the sport. Only thing we're really missing is an individual transcendent player like Ndamukong Suh or Tim Tebow or Vince Young.

[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/years/2014-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/_/id/76131/acc-playoff-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.

[OldPhiKap]

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.

The last paragraph raises the killer for Duke. Assume FSU and Duke win out, and Duke beats FSU. Who thinks we would get picked over the Seminoles, who in that scenarios beat Clemson, ND, Miami, and Louisville? If you look at how low Coastal teams have been in the polls, I don't think that anyone who got to the ACC Championship with one loss would be in even beating FSU in the Championship.

[uh_no]

The last paragraph raises the killer for Duke. Assume FSU and Duke win out, and Duke beats FSU. Who thinks we would get picked over the Seminoles, who in that scenarios beat Clemson, ND, Miami, and Louisville? If you look at how low Coastal teams have been in the polls, I don't think that anyone who got to the ACC Championship with one loss would be in even beating FSU in the Championship.

I think they've been clear, though, that winning your conference is most important. if duke wins the ACC, and duke doesn't get in, then FSU isn't either. I believe they're viewing the conference championship game as an elimination game. I don't imagine ANY teams that lose their conference championships getting in

[OldPhiKap]

I think they've been clear, though, that winning your conference is most important. if duke wins the ACC, and duke doesn't get in, then FSU isn't either. I believe they're viewing the conference championship game as an elimination game. I don't imagine ANY teams that lose their conference championships getting in

Yup, exactly my point. Running the tables and beating FSU would be fantastic and land us in the Orange Bowl. FSU would still likely get a NYDay bowl but not the playoffs.

I do think an SEC West team could lose its conference championship game and still make the playoffs, depending.

[Wander]

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.

Sagarin uses margin of victory, which I believe the committee is not supposed to consider. A home loss to 4-4 Virginia Tech is worse than a home loss to 6-2 UCLA, 5-3 USC, or a road loss to 4-4 other-USC. Road wins at Oregon, USC, and Virginia Tech are all better than... whichever Big 10 newcomer trash or NCAA punishment dodging team you want to call Ohio State's best win. Pretty clear to me that OSU is easily behind UA and ASU right now... ECU is a little debatable, I guess, but the Virginia Tech results are a nice tiebreaker there.

[vick]

Sagarin uses margin of victory, which I believe the committee is not supposed to consider. A home loss to 4-4 Virginia Tech is worse than a home loss to 6-2 UCLA, 5-3 USC, or a road loss to 4-4 other-USC. Road wins at Oregon, USC, and Virginia Tech are all better than... whichever Big 10 newcomer trash or NCAA punishment dodging team you want to call Ohio State's best win. Pretty clear to me that OSU is easily behind UA and ASU right now... ECU is a little debatable, I guess, but the Virginia Tech results are a nice tiebreaker there.

I believe you are correct on both counts. In practice, though, I'll believe it when I see it. There's enough wiggle room in there (e.g. how games are sometimes decided by the "unexpected bounce of the ball") that I fully expect "the eye test" (i.e. a politically palatable way to say "margin of victory") to come into the picture. In the end, I doubt they will remain deliberately ignorant of useful information that empirically helps predict results.

[OldPhiKap]

In the end, I doubt they will remain deliberately ignorant of useful information that empirically helps predict results.

So, no UNc administrators are involved then? Because willful ignorance is their stock and trade, apparently.

(And agree with your post in whole)

[throatybeard]

I'm just glad Marshall is good again. I felt like hell for them when they moved up and got their butts kicked.

Hopefully, we will be having the same discussion about Appalachian State and Georgia Southern, in about 15 years, or sooner.

Mississippi State culture on social media is interesting right now. There is a lot of anxiety, on several bases.

1) There is a lot of justifiable mistrust of the national media, who continually confuse the two schools and assign MSU the civil rights record of Ole Miss. So MSU folk are scared that everyone is going to think we're the ones with the battle flags and the ugh mascots. Look those up. Don't wanna get this deleted for political content, so go look it up on your own.

2) There is a lot of justifiable mistrust of just about everyone, since people generally are too inconsiderate of other human beings to distinguish--in general--between "University of [name of state], and [name of state] State University. I learned that at a young age. I was in Georgia, and the AJC print TV guide told me Duke was playing UNC. I was like 10, and I thought, no way, y'all, we just played Carolina. Sure enough, it was NC State. I think this is part of the genius of Auburn's brand. Mid-20thC, they were actually called "Alabama Polytechnic University." Good for them that they got out from under that, and they went with the name of the town. This is exactly like if NC State were called "Raleigh University."

My adviser is like the #2 or #3 person in his whole field, and he's at NC State. Most people are incredibly mean. When Duke and Carolina people asked me what I was doing next after Ugrad, I told them, an MA in English at NC State (the Ag school we enjoy looking down upon). They corrected me, even though I knew where I was going. "Don't you mean Carolina?" No. I don't. Most of our culture may hate the humanities, but our land-grant school has an amazing English Dept. So did the next one I worked for. So does the one I work for now, because I broke down and didn't want to live in Starkville.

I had a colleague at Mississippi State University. He said something like this. "There are a lot of amazing faculty at this place, but we have two main problems. One is the word 'Mississippi' and the other is the word 'State.'

3) There is a very conscious "we haven't been here since 1998 or 1941, and not quite even then" vibe. MSU has never been #1 ranked before. Ain't been here before. It's kind of like Duke without the great old history. Which leads me to...

4) General land-grant school paranoia. I don't say this in a way that blames the victims. They've lived their whole lives in a world where the school that calls themselves the flagship looks down at them, for basically no reason. But at these land-grant schools, there is a reflexive defensiveness. If Ole Miss were #1, they'd be telling us how the glory of their program in the 1960s has been restored. Mississippi State fans, though they are worried about what is gonna go wrong next, what they do is spend two hours agonizing on social media about how if the team didn't cover against a [surprisingly good] Kentucky team, on the road, an idle FSU would trump MSU in the polls. They feel like something is going to go wrong any minute.

I have different evaluations of these various positions.

I'm not sure how this 4-team playoff happens. But I'm certain people's prejudices will surface. I'm not against two SEC teams in the four. But I'm pretty sure media preferences will work against the likes of Mississippi State. There's no percentage in that, unless Dak Prescott somehow is the Heisman frontrunner. Guess we gotta beat Bama, But there's a lot bigger percentage in being a "power" program with the same record as a non-power program.

If only such a system existed when Duke was doing this a long time ago. I'd love to be David Cutcliffe, as competent as he is, in like 1941. he'd kill.

[Bob Green]

Mississippi State culture on social media is interesting right now. There is a lot of anxiety, on several bases.

1) There is a lot of justifiable mistrust of the national media, who continually confuse the two schools and assign MSU the civil rights record of Ole Miss. So MSU folk are scared that everyone is going to think we're the ones with the battle flags and the ugh mascots. Look those up. Don't wanna get this deleted for political content, so go look it up on your own.



A thought provoking post; however, I'm having a hard time accepting a potential civil rights record, college football playoff selection nexus. Perhaps the good folks at Mississippi State are overthinking this one.

[BigWayne]

A thought provoking post; however, I'm having a hard time accepting a potential civil rights record, college football playoff selection nexus. Perhaps the good folks at Mississippi State are overthinking this one.

Being from the south and living in California now, I am repeatedly faced with talking to otherwise seemingly well informed people who are completely confused about news from the south. Many of these people can't even distinguish between different southern states. For them to get Ole Miss and Miss St. confused is not a stretch. The good thing for Miss St. this year is that Ole Miss is also having a noteworthy season so both of their names are in the mix. This should make people have to figure out which one is which.

[Olympic Fan]

Being from the south and living in California now, I am repeatedly faced with talking to otherwise seemingly well informed people who are completely confused about news from the south. Many of these people can't even distinguish between different southern states. For them to get Ole Miss and Miss St. confused is not a stretch. The good thing for Miss St. this year is that Ole Miss is also having a noteworthy season so both of their names are in the mix. This should make people have to figure out which one is which.

Not long ago, Cut was talking how recruiting at Duke was different from his past experience. One of the positive examples he used was name recognition -- because of basketball, he said that he could go anywhere in the country and the kids and their coaches would know about Duke. He contrasted that with his experience at Ole Miss -- where outside the South, people couldn't distinguish between Mississippi and Mississippi State.

As for the past racial sins of the various schools, I think that's meaningless. The SEC was the last power five conference to integrate and yet they have the best collection of black talent. Nobody's going back and saying Syracuse integrated in the mid-30s and Alabama didn't integrate until the late 1960s -- therefore we have to give Syracuse an edge in recruiting black kids or on selection. The NCAA and NCAAP are still boycotting South Carolina for flying the confederate battle flag over its capitol building and yet Spurrier still manages to land his share of black athletes.

As for the Mississippi schools, I know that Ole Miss is the place they wave the confederate battle flags and Miss State is the place they wave cowbells (What we need is MORE cowbell!!).

The one civil rights incident I know about involving Mississippi State came in 1963, when Babe McCarthy's SEC champion MSU basketball team snuck out of town to avoid a court order forbidding them from playing Chicago Loyola in the NCAA Tournament. At the time, it was against state law for a white Mississippi team (in any sport) to play against an integrated opponent. Loyola, which would go on to win the NCAA title (beating Duke's first Final Four team in the semifinals), started four blacks. Miss State lost the game, but earned a lot of respect for defy the state's racist laws.

PS Anybody notice that Conference USA hired a public relations firm to try and promote Marshall for the playoffs?:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/10/23/marshall-university-public-relations-firm-college-football-playoff/17792155/

We'll see where Marshall is rated Tuesday when the first poll comes out. I think they might be a bit higher than their No. 23 poll ranking, but I doubt they are in the top 15. I still think they have no chance for the final four playoff -- but I think they are the frontrunner (ahead of ECU and Colorado State) for the one major bowl slot reserved for a non-power five team.

[Wander]

Being from the south and living in California now, I am repeatedly faced with talking to otherwise seemingly well informed people who are completely confused about news from the south. Many of these people can't even distinguish between different southern states. For them to get Ole Miss and Miss St. confused is not a stretch. The good thing for Miss St. this year is that Ole Miss is also having a noteworthy season so both of their names are in the mix. This should make people have to figure out which one is which.

Yeah, but why is this a sign of anything nefarious? I'm at Arizona now, and at least half of my east coast friends have mistaken that for Arizona State in conversation at some point. Also, this happened (http://www.azdesertswarm.com/football/2014/10/13/6971509/football-coaches-association-sends-kadeem-careys-all-american-award-to-asu). Note that these things are the opposite of throaty's supposed reason, as ASU is the school with "State" in its title and UA is generally ranked higher on all those lists (which may or may not be useful, but that's another conversation).

When two names are similar and have lots of words in common, people not from the area get them mixed up. It's not a sign of "land-grant school paranoia" or "people being incredibly mean" or whatever other stuff throaty is ranting about. It's just... people confusing things that have similar names.

[sagegrouse]

Yeah, but why is this a sign of anything nefarious? I'm at Arizona now, and at least half of my east coast friends have mistaken that for Arizona State in conversation at some point. Also, this happened (http://www.azdesertswarm.com/football/2014/10/13/6971509/football-coaches-association-sends-kadeem-careys-all-american-award-to-asu). Note that these things are the opposite of throaty's supposed reason, as ASU is the school with "State" in its title and UA is generally ranked higher on all those lists (which may or may not be useful, but that's another conversation).

When two names are similar and have lots of words in common, people not from the area get them mixed up. It's not a sign of "land-grant school paranoia" or "people being incredibly mean" or whatever other stuff throaty is ranting about. It's just... people confusing things that have similar names

I think the state of Washington has it figured out: the two schools are "UDub" and "Wazoo."

[Duvall]

As for the past racial sins of the various schools, I think that's meaningless. The SEC was the last power five conference to integrate and yet they have the best collection of black talent. Nobody's going back and saying Syracuse integrated in the mid-30s and Alabama didn't integrate until the late 1960s -- therefore we have to give Syracuse an edge in recruiting black kids or on selection. The NCAA and NCAAP are still boycotting South Carolina for flying the confederate battle flag over its capitol building and yet Spurrier still manages to land his share of black athletes.

As for the Mississippi schools, I know that Ole Miss is the place they wave the confederate battle flags and Miss State is the place they wave cowbells (What we need is MORE cowbell!!).

The problem is that Ole Miss's past racist sins aren't even past. (They could start by getting rid of the nickname. Sorry, both nicknames.) I've never been a high school recruit, but it strikes me as unlikely that there aren't *some* recruits that aren't turned off by a school doing business as the Rebels where the fans wave the Confederate flag and the band plays Dixie or variants thereof.

[Wander]

I think the state of Washington has it figured out: the two schools are "UDub" and "Wazoo."

Plus, that awesome logo.

[subzero02]

The problem is that Ole Miss's past racist sins aren't even past. (They could start by getting rid of the nickname. Sorry, both nicknames.) I've never been a high school recruit, but it strikes me as unlikely that there aren't *some* recruits that aren't turned off by a school doing business as the Rebels where the fans wave the Confederate flag and the band plays Dixie or variants thereof.

Yeah, I know it keeps some recruits from considering them as an option. I know the school asked fans to stop bringing the confederate battle flags into games in the 90's because they knew it was crippling their recruiting efforts.

http://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2013/10/former_ole_miss_chancellor_tal.html

[Wander]

My final prediction before the first rankings: top 4 in order will controversially be Mississippi State, Auburn, Florida State, and Ole Miss.

[Acymetric]

2) There is a lot of justifiable mistrust of just about everyone, since people generally are too inconsiderate of other human beings to distinguish--in general--between "University of [name of state], and [name of state] State University. I learned that at a young age. I was in Georgia, and the AJC print TV guide told me Duke was playing UNC. I was like 10, and I thought, no way, y'all, we just played Carolina. Sure enough, it was NC State. I think this is part of the genius of Auburn's brand. Mid-20thC, they were actually called "Alabama Polytechnic University." Good for them that they got out from under that, and they went with the name of the town. This is exactly like if NC State were called "Raleigh University."


Would a better example be if a school like UNC Charlotte were called Charlotte University?

[tommy]

My final prediction before the first rankings: top 4 in order will controversially be Mississippi State, Auburn, Florida State, and Ole Miss.

My guess is Mississippi State, FSU, Alabama, and Oregon.

Auburn #5. Which should be fine with them, as they obviously will get their shot vs. Alabama.

[throatybeard]

Would a better example be if a school like UNC Charlotte were called Charlotte University?

Nooott really. Not that I don't salute your try. The state of Mississippi doesn't really have an analogue to UNCC. A better analogue to UNCC is the school I work at in MO. It's a later, "urban" (read, suburban) 20thC take on the University.

People confusing MSU an OM is just as uninformed as people confusing State and Carolina. It just is.

[subzero02]

My guess is Mississippi State, FSU, Alabama, and Oregon.

Auburn #5. Which should be fine with them, as they obviously will get their shot vs. Alabama.

I agree with your top 4 both in terms of predicted rankings and also in terms of which teams are actually the best.

[throatybeard]

The problem is that Ole Miss's past racist sins aren't even past. (They could start by getting rid of the nickname. Sorry, both nicknames.) I've never been a high school recruit, but it strikes me as unlikely that there aren't *some* recruits that aren't turned off by a school doing business as the Rebels where the fans wave the Confederate flag and the band plays Dixie or variants thereof.

I have a Facebook friend, former student, AfAm dude. He lives in or near ATL. A student from a decade ago in Starkville. We started out on the wrong foot because I gave him some rather bad grade, I think, but we're social media pals now on the basis of similar world outlook. We say a lot of the same things to each other. The utter insanity of the way OM presents is a constant topic.

I like Duvall's oblique quotation of Faulkner.

Me and Mr ATL had a whole convo about the board meeting that probably led to this bear. That was special. Decision makers figured what to do with this bear.

I can't even, y'all. I have to lie down. To the group, I would say, edumacate yourself about Mississippi State and Ole Miss. Wallace Colvard. Nobody doesn't have blood on their hands, including Duke, but Ole Miss is this whole other nother level of rut-roh. They are.

[Wander]

My guess is Mississippi State, FSU, Alabama, and Oregon.

Auburn #5. Which should be fine with them, as they obviously will get their shot vs. Alabama.

I think the difference between mine and yours basically comes down to head-to-head matchups. I'm choosing to believe them when they say they're going to put a lot of weight on that, which may or may not actually end up being true. In which case, for now, Ole Miss > Alabama and Arizona > Oregon (though I'm guessing neither will hold up by the end of the season).

[sagegrouse]

It looks to me that having only one loss this season may guarantee a CFP place.

For example: the PAC-12 and the Big Ten can, at most, have one team with only one loss.

In the Big Ten, it could be Nebr, if it survives at Wisc. and wins the Big Ten championship. It could be either if Mich. State or Ohio State, if the winner of their match-up beats Nebraska. Prediction: MSU with only one loss.

In the PAC-12, OMG. Quel fratricide!! Oregon has the easiest path: survive Stanford in Eugene, beat Utah on the road, and win the PAC-12 championship. Ariz, ASU and Utah all have murderous schedules -- each playing the other two -- plus ASU gets to play the Fighting Irish. Probably no one with one loss.

The ACC can have two teams with one loss, if and only if Duke wins out and FSU avoids another loss. Dream on, Devils! It looks like FSU has the surest route to one or fewer losses, if the team can avoid meltdown over Jameis and other revelations.

The Big-12, where K-State, TCU and Baylor have only one loss, doesn't have a playoff but can have two teams with one loss if and only if K-State loses to both Baylor and TCU and both of them avoid another loss (TCU at WVa looks tough). Baylor has the easiest schedule of the three.

Notre Dame has the second easiest route to a one-loss finish: beat ASU and the Trojans on the road and avoid an upset elsewhere, but I expect the Irish to lose on the road either in Tempe or LA.

The SEC schedule is a meat grinder. The only way it can have two teams with one loss is (2) to have Miss. State win out and then lose to Georgia in the championship game or (b) have Miss. State lose only to Bama and have Bama win out. More likely, there is only one team with one loss. Here are the one-loss scenarios for each:

Bama: beat Mississippi State and Auburn at home and Georgia for the SECs.
Auburn: Win on the road at Ole Miss, Georgia and Bama and win the SEC championship game against either Georgia or Mizzou.
Ole Miss: Beat Auburn and State at home and win the SECs.
Mississippi State: Win at Alabama and at Ole Miss and either win or lose the SEC championship game. Or, lose to Alabama or Ole Miss and win the tie-breaker and then the SEC's.
Georgia: Beat Auburn at home and win the SECs.


While there are theoretically nine possible teams with one loss, in reality it will be more like four or five with one loss. My guesses at the moment are FSU, Mich. State, Baylor and Alabama -- with Oregon, Mississippi State, and Notre Dame as the next most likely. The SEC's case for getting two teams is if there are only two credible teams outside the SEC with one loss, and the SEC gets the fourth spot.

[nocilla]

My final prediction before the first rankings: top 4 in order will controversially be Mississippi State, Auburn, Florida State, and Ole Miss.

IMHO, the SEC won't send 3 teams because they will have beat each other up. One of Auburn and Ole Miss will have at least 2 losses. Ole Miss needs to upset Miss St to avoid a 3rd loss unless they beat Auburn, but that means Auburn has to win @Georgia and @Alabama to avoid a 3rd loss. However it finishes, I think the SEC sends 2 teams and the 3rd in consideration will have lost to one of the other 2 essentially eliminating them since there will likely be several 1-loss teams outside the conference worth considering. That doesn't necessarily mean any of those 1 loss teams are better than a 2 loss SEC West team. But I think it will be seen as that 2 loss SEC team had its shot against the top teams and lost so let's see what a 1 loss ND or Oregon can do. My vague prediction is Miss St, FSU, whoever emerges on top out of Bama, Auburn, and Ole Miss, and then either ND or Oregon.

Big SEC games remaining;
Auburn @ Ole Miss
Alabama @ LSU
Miss St @ Alabama
Auburn @ Georgia
Auburn @ Alabama
Miss St @ Ole Miss

[wilson]

My final prediction before the first rankings: top 4 in order will controversially be Mississippi State, Auburn, Florida State, and Ole Miss.


IMHO, the SEC won't send 3 teams because they will have beat each other up...
Big SEC games remaining;
Auburn @ Ole Miss
Alabama @ LSU
Miss St @ Alabama
Auburn @ Georgia
Auburn @ Alabama
Miss St @ Ole MissI think you're both correct. nocilla, it certainly seems as if the overall strength of the SEC's top half will prevent them from overloading the first playoff. However, I also think Wander correctly predicts that Miss St, Auburn, FSU, and Ole Miss will likely comprise the top 4 in the first rankings, to be released this evening. All three of those SEC teams have at least two more very difficult potential games remaining, as nocilla has observed. Because there are a number of very big games remaining, I think the rankings will be quite fluid for a while.
My prediction for the final top 4 (after conference championship games in December), in no specific order:

Alabama
Georgia
Oregon
Florida State

[Duvall]

ESPN sure thinks a lot of its fake-arse championship selection.

[Duvall]

Duke at #24, Clemson at #21, Louisville at #25. Could matter for bowl placement later on.

[Duvall]

Ole Miss?

[Duvall]

Marshall has won every game they have played. Marshall is unranked, with virtually no chance to compete for ESPN's fake championship.

College football is the most fraudulent of team sports.

[Bob Green]

Duke at #24, Clemson at #21, Louisville at #25. Could matter for bowl placement later on.

Exactly, we need to keep winning to move ahead of Clemson in these rankings in order to have a chance at the Orange Bowl. Who wins and who loses on Saturdays is the most relevant ranking criteria.

[pfrduke]

My final prediction before the first rankings: top 4 in order will controversially be Mississippi State, Auburn, Florida State, and Ole Miss.

Nicely done - only slightly off on order.

[Dev11]

Marshall has won every game they have played. Marshall is unranked, with virtually no chance to compete for ESPN's fake championship.

College football is the most fraudulent of team sports.

By the majority of qualitative and quantitative analyses out there for college football, Marshall is not one of the four best teams out of 120+. Each college football team only plays 10% of the field during the season, so just going by straight record without looking at any other metric is silly.

Also, it's just hard to pick the four best teams out of 120+. I don't envy the task of the committee. At least in basketball, the teams who get left out are really down on the totem pole nationally, not the equivalent of Oregon or Alabama football.

[Duvall]

By the majority of qualitative and quantitative analyses out there for college football, Marshall is not one of the four best teams out of 120+. Each college football team only plays 10% of the field during the season, so just going by straight record without looking at any other metric is silly.

Also, it's just hard to pick the four best teams out of 120+. I don't envy the task of the committee. At least in basketball, the teams who get left out are really down on the totem pole nationally, not the equivalent of Oregon or Alabama football.

I don't think Marshall is remotely close to being one of the top four teams. My objection is to having a four-team tournament and calling it a national championship.

[Wander]

Nicely done - only slightly off on order.

I outsmarted myself into thinking the committee would be bold and put a 1-loss Auburn team ahead of FSU. I think not doing that and keeping Marshall unranked at the same time is sort of hard to justify.

The rankings are slightly more intelligent than the polls, which inexplicably have Alabama ahead of Auburn, Notre Dame ahead of Ole Miss, and Ohio State ahead of the Arizona schools. Then again, Louisville. Haha, nice joke, committee.

[arnie]

Marshall has won every game they have played. Marshall is unranked, with virtually no chance to compete for ESPN's fake championship.

College football is the most fraudulent of team sports.

Huh? Marshall plays in Conference USA - a conference of ex-div 1a schools. Their outside schedule is extraordinarily weak. They don't play any teams nearly as good as the ACC coastal teams. Duke has played a much tougher schedule than Marshall and we also have no chance to compete for the championship.

[-jk]

I don't think Marshall is remotely close to being one of the top four teams. My objection is to having a four-team tournament and calling it a national championship.

It'll be 8 or 16 shortly...

-jk

[Wander]

They don't play any teams nearly as good as the ACC coastal teams.

Marshall's schedule is certainly weak, but you should probably backtrack on that specific statement. (http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400547811)

[OldPhiKap]

I don't think Marshall is remotely close to being one of the top four teams. My objection is to having a four-team tournament and calling it a national championship.

As opposed to just two? Or the press voting for the winner, without them even playing?

The current system is far above what has come before IMO.

[Duvall]

As opposed to just two? Or the press voting for the winner, without them even playing?

The current system is far above what has come before IMO.

The previous systems didn't have ESPN hyping them as evolutionary leaps forward, though.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Now that the first poll has been released, I'll toss in my two cents.
I totally agree with those that say this is important for bowl placement.
In a way, I find all of it silly, since we are not and will not be one of the top 4 teams in the country. But it is still fun.
What I like most...DUKE FOOTBALL just got their name (deservedly so) in the very first release of this poll. I like seeing our team being a part of history.

[arnie]

Marshall's schedule is certainly weak, but you should probably backtrack on that specific statement. (http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400547811)

You have a point- but if we lose to Pitt this week, I don't think we're worse than Akron. Of course a CUSA team can pick off a Power 5 team, but the list of teams Marshall has played and will play or very weak. If they want to be a "player" they need to upgrade their OOC.

[Wander]

You have a point- but if we lose to Pitt this week, I don't think we're worse than Akron. Of course a CUSA team can pick off a Power 5 team, but the list of teams Marshall has played and will play or very weak. If they want to be a "player" they need to upgrade their OOC.

I'm just saying the division you have in your head is a little oversimplified, and you're vastly overrating the strength of the ACC (also, Akron isn't in CUSA). For example, computer numbers suggest that the difference between the SEC West and the ACC Coastal is bigger than the gap between the ACC Coastal and Conference USA East.

If the committee is going to put a huge weight on strength of schedule, fine. I support that! But be consistent about it - if you're going to rank 1-loss East Carolina (or Duke!) ahead of undefeated Marshall, you should also rank 1-loss Auburn ahead of undefeated FSU. You have to apply the same strength of schedule argument to the SEC-ACC gap as you do to the ACC-CUSA gap.

[Duvall]

You have a point- but if we lose to Pitt this week, I don't think we're worse than Akron. Of course a CUSA team can pick off a Power 5 team, but the list of teams Marshall has played and will play or very weak. If they want to be a "player" they need to upgrade their OOC.

Which is why this system is broken - it takes two sides to schedule an out-of-conference game. A team may not be *able* to upgrade its schedule.

[Wander]

One more example, using Sagarin numbers. 1-loss Ohio State's strength of schedule is ranked 60th. 2-loss teams LSU, Oklahoma, UCLA, and West Virgina have strength of schedules 9th, 11th, 12th, and 13th respectively. Ohio State is ranked ahead of all of those teams.

Believe it or not, I actually wouldn't mind Marshall being unranked - as long as a consistent standard is applied and Ohio State is below all the teams I mentioned, and FSU is placed below Auburn (and maybe Alabama and Ole Miss). The fact that this isn't the case shows that the same old inconsistency is still in the system, and that it's still biased in favor of teams that have famous names.

[OldPhiKap]

The previous systems didn't have ESPN hyping them as evolutionary leaps forward, though.

You raise a different point, with which I think we are simpatico. The hype of this poll at this point is silly, although hype exists every week with the others too. In a perfect OPK-controlled world, no polls would come out until halfway through the season and the big poll would not come out until before the final week. But hell, we already have Kenpom polls on basketball. ;-)

As to the original point -- I would rather argue about who got left out at 5, than who got left out at 3 (like the BCS years). Or, for all the years before, argue about who would have beaten whom although they did not play in a bowl against each other. There will always be an argument no matter where the line is drawn.

[Dev11]

There will always be an argument no matter where the line is drawn.

Seth Greenberg thinks college football needs a 72 team playoff.

[OldPhiKap]

Seth Greenberg thinks college football needs a 72 team playoff.

And VT would be 73! Ultimate bubble boy.

(In true DES fashion, I need to point out the clean assist there Dev11)

[HK Dukie]

I'm just saying the division you have in your head is a little oversimplified, and you're vastly overrating the strength of the ACC (also, Akron isn't in CUSA). For example, computer numbers suggest that the difference between the SEC West and the ACC Coastal is bigger than the gap between the ACC Coastal and Conference USA East.

If the committee is going to put a huge weight on strength of schedule, fine. I support that! But be consistent about it - if you're going to rank 1-loss East Carolina (or Duke!) ahead of undefeated Marshall, you should also rank 1-loss Auburn ahead of undefeated FSU. You have to apply the same strength of schedule argument to the SEC-ACC gap as you do to the ACC-CUSA gap.

Perhaps it is your ranking system that is oversimplified. It's not just who has the best winning percentage and strong SoS for the CFP rankings. They are looking at each team on a holistic basis. On this basis Marshall didn't make the cut. Can't say I disagree but don't really care either way.

The methodology does matter and it appears to be an improvement over the national polls (in particular with regard to head to head matchups). And yes, there is a very good case for Duke to be ranked ahead of Marshall.

For all the disdain the ACC gets in the national media, it is kind of nice to have 4 ACC teams ranked.

[throatybeard]

I'm just enjoying the hell out of this for the time being. When Bama ascends to their cultural inheritance and beats Mississippi State 35-10 in Tuscaloosa, then I'll resign myself to the cruelty of the secret fate of all life. I'm scared of the "Rebel Black Bears" up in Oxford, too. Not a good year for MSU to have its best roster since 1941. Road games at LSU, OM, and Bama. Least we got Auburn at home.

Meantime, I'm doing a touchdown dance if/when Mississippi State plants Arkansas' face in the mud. I've taught my little boy to ring my bass cowbell at the appropriate intervals.

[throatybeard]

Which is why this system is broken - it takes two sides to schedule an out-of-conference game. A team may not be *able* to upgrade its schedule.

You're right. No one except Nick Saban and five hundred of my Facebook contacts and similar people are arguing with this.

"Week in and week out the SEC is..." Well no duh it is. At least the West.

But we've actually reached a point where the undefeated top team in the ACC has to justify itself because (a) no one with something to lose will schedule a non-power conference school, yes, but now, even when they do, (b) even the likes of Florida State can't be respected for their conference schedule. This used to be Boise State's problem, TCU's problem before they snuck back into the Texas conference. Now, Florida freaking State is apparently a bad guy in the power calculus because they had the gall to schedule a resurgent Notre Dame as their best OOC opponent. Seriously, here, ND is considered a mark against FSU, and Dame is better than they've been for the last three years in like two decades. Our Lady of Northern Indiana was top ten when that game happened, and ESPNMouse is acting like that's a crappy win for FSU.

Look, I like the SEC West, I do. But we've reached this insane point where it's like, the national media thinks FSU is terrible, despite winning the whole thing last year, because Clemson isn't great.

God help you if you're Southern Miss or Boise or Fresno or Marshall. Florida State (!!!!) can't get respect? They won the whole thing LY!

The most amazing thing to me of all is that Mississippi State, who only won the SEC once in 1941, is temporarily thriving in this insanity. And that school doesn't have the GDP to pay people off. Dan Mullen must be doing a hell of a job. When I was there, we couldn't even get 2-for-1s with CUSA schools. They were like, okay, UAB, we will go 2-for-2.

Y'all make me gotta lie down.

[gcashwell]

You're right. No one except Nick Saban and five hundred of my Facebook contacts and similar people are arguing with this.

"Week in and week out the SEC is..." Well no duh it is. At least the West.

But we've actually reached a point where the undefeated top team in the ACC has to justify itself because (a) no one with something to lose will schedule a non-power conference school, yes, but now, even when they do, (b) even the likes of Florida State can't be respected for their conference schedule. This used to be Boise State's problem, TCU's problem before they snuck back into the Texas conference. Now, Florida freaking State is apparently a bad guy in the power calculus because they had the gall to schedule a resurgent Notre Dame as their best OOC opponent. Seriously, here, ND is considered a mark against FSU, and Dame is better than they've been for the last three years in like two decades. Our Lady of Northern Indiana was top ten when that game happened, and ESPNMouse is acting like that's a crappy win for FSU.

Look, I like the SEC West, I do. But we've reached this insane point where it's like, the national media thinks FSU is terrible, despite winning the whole thing last year, because Clemson isn't great.

God help you if you're Southern Miss or Boise or Fresno or Marshall. Florida State (!!!!) can't get respect? They won the whole thing LY!

The most amazing thing to me of all is that Mississippi State, who only won the SEC once in 1941, is temporarily thriving in this insanity. And that school doesn't have the GDP to pay people off. Dan Mullen must be doing a hell of a job. When I was there, we couldn't even get 2-for-1s with CUSA schools. They were like, okay, UAB, we will go 2-for-2.

Y'all make me gotta lie down.

Let me preface this by saying, "I'm a Bama fan."

Florida State suffers from a two main problems this year. The first is that the eyeball test makes them look worse than they were last year. The second problems is that everybody hates Jameis and wants to downplay everything they do.

Mississippi State has been one of those schools we have been waiting for. We have been hearing for the past few years how good their recruiting classes have been. I guess it is finally starting to pay off.

[duke blue brewcrew]

If the committee is going to put a huge weight on strength of schedule, fine. I support that! But be consistent about it - if you're going to rank 1-loss East Carolina (or Duke!) ahead of undefeated Marshall, you should also rank 1-loss Auburn ahead of undefeated FSU. You have to apply the same strength of schedule argument to the SEC-ACC gap as you do to the ACC-CUSA gap.

What is consistent about comparing the strength of schedule for the SEC-West against the ACC-Coastal when referencing who FSU has played? I agree with your priciple, but FSU plays in the Atlantic. I don't know the numbers that support my assumption that there is a big difference in the strength of the Atlantic over the Coastal. I will say that currently, there are three teams from the Atlantic ranked in the AP Tope 25, (FSU, Clemson and Louisville) and only one from the Coastal, (Duke). So what is the gap between the ACC-Atlantic vs. the SEC-West, and what is the gap between the ACC-Atlantic and Conference USA-East? That's the true measurement for this conversation. I'm interested in knowing that answer...anyone know? This as close as I have come to an answer: http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm. It does suggest that the gap is greater between the SEC-W than CUSA-E. That said, the gap isn't a significant one, especially when you account for three SEC-W teams nationally ranked in the Top 5 and four in the Top 10.

[Wander]

What is consistent about comparing the strength of schedule for the SEC-West against the ACC-Coastal when referencing who FSU has played? I agree with your priciple, but FSU plays in the Atlantic. I don't know the numbers that support my assumption that there is a big difference in the strength of the Atlantic over the Coastal. I will say that currently, there are three teams from the Atlantic ranked in the AP Tope 25, (FSU, Clemson and Louisville) and only one from the Coastal, (Duke). So what is the gap between the ACC-Atlantic vs. the SEC-West, and what is the gap between the ACC-Atlantic and Conference USA-East? That's the true measurement for this conversation.

Yes, of course - I was responding to a post that was touting the ACC Coastal. 1-loss Auburn's schedule is about 40 spots tougher than undefeated FSU's. 1-loss Duke and East Carolina's schedules are about 30 spots tougher than undefeated Marshall's. Now, maybe those Sagarin numbers aren't exactly right, but does anyone want to argue that they are that far off from reality? If they're even sort of close to right, the principle holds: if you're going to leave Marshall unranked, fine, but apply the same standards to everyone and put FSU behind the 1-loss teams with a much better schedule and Ohio State behind the 2-loss teams with a much better schedule.

[duke blue brewcrew]

Yes, of course - I was responding to a post that was touting the ACC Coastal. 1-loss Auburn's schedule is about 40 spots tougher than undefeated FSU's. 1-loss Duke and East Carolina's schedules are about 30 spots tougher than undefeated Marshall's. Now, maybe those Sagarin numbers aren't exactly right, but does anyone want to argue that they are that far off from reality? If they're even sort of close to right, the principle holds: if you're going to leave Marshall unranked, fine, but apply the same standards to everyone and put FSU behind the 1-loss teams with a much better schedule and Ohio State behind the 2-loss teams with a much better schedule.

Fair enough. My ACC pride hates the result, but I agree with the logic.

[Acymetric]

Nooott really. Not that I don't salute your try. The state of Mississippi doesn't really have an analogue to UNCC. A better analogue to UNCC is the school I work at in MO. It's a later, "urban" (read, suburban) 20thC take on the University.

People confusing MSU an OM is just as uninformed as people confusing State and Carolina. It just is.

I mostly brought it up because they are already actively branding themselves that way (especially in athletics), although they haven't officially changed the name.

[BigWayne]

I'm just enjoying the hell out of this for the time being. When Bama ascends to their cultural inheritance and beats Mississippi State 35-10 in Tuscaloosa, then I'll resign myself to the cruelty of the secret fate of all life. I'm scared of the "Rebel Black Bears" up in Oxford, too. Not a good year for MSU to have its best roster since 1941. Road games at LSU, OM, and Bama. Least we got Auburn at home.

Meantime, I'm doing a touchdown dance if/when Mississippi State plants Arkansas' face in the mud. I've taught my little boy to ring my bass cowbell at the appropriate intervals.

Looking at the schedules, my best guess is that we end up with Alabama as a one or two loss team with Ole Miss and Miss St. playing the last game for the SEC West title, similar to what happened in Alabama last year. If any of these three is a one loss team after not winning the SEC West, they are likely to get a second spot for the SEC in the playoff. The only way that doesn't happen is if Georgia wins the SEC champ game or Georgia runs the table and loses the SEC champ game in a close game. Then they would get the second spot. The Miss. teams and Alabama should be rooting for Auburn to beat Georgia for them.

[Bob Green]

What a crushing turn of events for Ole Miss. They lose the game, their slot in the Top 4 and most likely one of their best players. Auburn 35, Ole Miss 31.

[Dev11]

What a crushing turn of events for Ole Miss. They lose the game, their slot in the Top 4 and most likely one of their best players. Auburn 35, Ole Miss 31.

Elsewhere in Mississippi, MSU picks off Arkansas in the end zone with about 20 seconds left to preserve a 17-10 win and their #1 ranking. The two games ended within minutes of each other. The Bulldogs still have games at Alabama and at Ole Miss.

[Dev11]

Georgia somehow got creamed by Florida today, so the SEC East is probably not getting invited to the playoffs even if their representative wins the SEC Championship.

Everybody outside the SEC should be rooting for more craziness in the West. It's no guarantee that the SEC is going to get two teams into the playoff.

[Bob Green]

What a crushing turn of events for Ole Miss. They lose the game, their slot in the Top 4 and most likely one of their best players. Auburn 35, Ole Miss 31.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11808078/laquon-treadwell-ole-miss-rebels-breaks-leg-dislocates-ankle


Mississippi receiver Laquon Treadwell is out for the season after breaking his left fibula and dislocated his ankle in the Rebels' 35-31 loss to Auburn (No. 3 CFP, No. 4 AP) on Saturday night.

The "most likely" can be dropped from my statement above, Ole Miss' star receiver is done for the year.

[kmspeaks]

I don't watch much ESPN outside of the actual games but has anybody there, or elsewhere in the media, called into question Hugh Freeze's end of game management/decision making? They get a delay of game penalty against LSU so then he decides to run another play rather than kick the field goal. (Although that throw is on Bo Wallace, chuck it into the 2nd row and I believe they still had another down to try the long field goal.) Then last night after the Treadwell injury they get the ball back and end up in 4th and 10 from the 50 and Freeze decides to go Tennessee Titans and lateral the ball all over the field. Auburn was giving them a 12-15 yard pass over the middle of the field. Take the 15 yards, spike the ball once the chains are set, now from about the 35 it's not even a hail mary into the endzone. You can run a regular play. Still a long shot in both of those games? Perhaps, but a little more composure from the head coach maybe gives Ole Miss a better shot. How fun would it have been to see 2 undefeated teams square off in the Egg Bowl?

[sagegrouse]

What a crushing turn of events for Ole Miss. They lose the game, their slot in the Top 4 and most likely one of their best players. Auburn 35, Ole Miss 31.

The Treadwell injury was a tragic moment in college football -- catch, brilliant run, tackle, surge into end zone, injury and fumble. Ole Miss lost the game, a chance for the Playoffs, and its best player. How do you break a leg getting tackled from behind?

[Olympic Fan]

Marshall's schedule is certainly weak, but you should probably backtrack on that specific statement. (http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400547811)

So you believe in the transitive property of college football? Akron beat Pitt, so they are as good as a Coastal Division team?

Then I guess because the worst team in the Coastal Division (Virginia Tech) went to Ohio State and beat the current co-leader in the Big Ten that the Coastal Division is better than anybody in the Big Ten?

Amazing how quickly the critics will jump on the ACC. Take Florida State -- last Thursday night they struggle in a rough environment to beat No. 25 Louisville. The next day, all I hear is now shaky the 'Noles are, how they're not as good as those SEC West powers and if they lose a game, they are out of the playoffs.

Then Saturday night, No. 1 Mississippi State struggles ay home to edge unranked Arkansas -- a team that hasn't won an SEC since Bush was president (okay, that's an exaggeration, but it's stull a two-year SEC losing streak). Miss State trails most of the game and has to stop them twice in the red zone in the final five minutes -- once inside the 5, to preserve the win. The first reaction I hear? "Well, that's SEC football." After Auburn edged Ole Miss, they're bragging about how they habe won something like seven last-minute games over the last two years ... isn't that exactly what FSU has been doing this season?

Anyway, Saturday was a long day and nothing much changed in the playoff picture, except Ole Miss dropped out -- I agree that the play where Treadwell almost scored and was injured was a sad end to a great game. The question is, who moves into the top four in their place?

After the game, I'm watching ESPN and "expert" Danny Kanell comes on and gives his new Final Four -- 1. Miss State; 2. FSU ... then 3. Oregon and 4. TCU. That's all very good, except he dropped No. 3 Auburn out of the top four for barely beating No. 4 Ole Miss. Does that make sense?

I think it's more likely that when the new poll comes out Tuesday, it will be 1. Miss State; 2. Florida State; 3. Auburn and 4. Oregon. Alabama will be No. 5 and they're effectively in since they play Miss State and Auburn and can leapfrog both.

The three teams with realistic Final Four chances that were eliminated were Ole Miss, Georgia and maybe Arizona (maybe they had a realistic chance ... not maybe they were eliminated).

The team helped most by the weekend's outcomes might have been Marshall. They had been ranked behind one-loss East Carolina in the battle for the one major bowl spot set aside for a non-power five team. But ECU's loss to Temple has to boost Narshall (which was idle). Will Marshall crack the top 25 Tuesday? Right now, I'd say Marshall and one-loss Colorado State are the two frontrunners for that "Access" Bowl spot.

Still two power five unbeatens -- FSU and Miss State. We lost four of the 16 one-loss teams (Ole Miss, Georgia, Arizona and Utah), so we are down to 12. Duke remains the lowest ranked one-loss team (from the power five) ... plus we are behind several two-loss teams.

[Wander]

So you believe in the transitive property of college football? Akron beat Pitt, so they are as good as a Coastal Division team?

Then I guess because the worst team in the Coastal Division (Virginia Tech) went to Ohio State and beat the current co-leader in the Big Ten that the Coastal Division is better than anybody in the Big Ten?

No. The original statement was "Marshall doesn't play anybody nearly as good as Coastal Division teams." Marshall's schedule is certainly weak, but this particular statement was oversimplified. An equivalent statement would be "No one in the ACC Coastal is nearly as good as SEC West teams," and that statement would also be oversimplified.

Of course, Ole Miss and Georgia still have realistic scenarios to the SEC title, so are not eliminated yet, even if their chances took a pretty big hit and they don't control their own destiny anymore.

[Newton_14]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11808078/laquon-treadwell-ole-miss-rebels-breaks-leg-dislocates-ankle



The "most likely" can be dropped from my statement above, Ole Miss' star receiver is done for the year.

I was watching the game live. Awful. Just awful. First and foremost my thoughts go out to the kid. A horrific injury, and add insult to injury, the result of the play that caused the injury, also cost his team the go ahead touchdown with about a minute left to go, cost them the game, their spot in the top 4, likely their chance to get back in the top 4, and he is out for the season and possibly much longer.

The injury was so bad they would not show the replay of the angle that showed the view of the injury clearly. He was oh so close to hanging on to the ball long enough to get the TD, but he dropped the ball (due to the incredible amount of pain I am sure) a split second before his momentum got the nose of the ball and then his body across the goal line, and an Auburn player recovered it in the endzone for a touchback. They ruled it a TD on the field, but once they showed the replays it became clear that he did drop the ball just before it broke the plane.

A shocking and sad way to lose a game, your season, and your best playmaker all in one fluke injury/play.

[Olympic Fan]

No. The original statement was "Marshall doesn't play anybody nearly as good as Coastal Division teams." Marshall's schedule is certainly weak, but this particular statement was oversimplified. An equivalent statement would be "No one in the ACC Coastal is nearly as good as SEC West teams," and that statement would also be oversimplified.

Of course, Ole Miss and Georgia still have realistic scenarios to the SEC title, so are not eliminated yet, even if their chances took a pretty big hit and they don't control their own destiny anymore.

And while "the original statement" wasn't mine, I agree with it. Yes, Akron beat Pitt. And Virginia Tech beat Ohio State -- that doesn't mean Virginia Tech is nearly as good as Ohio State. And Akron isn't nearly as good as Pitt ... the best team doesn't always win.

Marshall's schedule is truly awful when you have to cite a 4-4 Akron as one of their strongest opponents.

[Wander]

And while "the original statement" wasn't mine, I agree with it. Yes, Akron beat Pitt. And Virginia Tech beat Ohio State -- that doesn't mean Virginia Tech is nearly as good as Ohio State. And Akron isn't nearly as good as Pitt ... the best team doesn't always win.

Marshall's schedule is truly awful when you have to cite a 4-4 Akron as one of their strongest opponents.

This is a strawman argument, as I've never said that Marshall's schedule was anything other than really weak (neither has anyone else, as far as I can tell), or argued anything about Virginia Tech, who, yes, is worse than Ohio State. The point is to apply the strength of schedule argument consistently: if you want to keep undefeated Marshall behind, for example, 1-loss Duke because of schedule strength, that's perfectly reasonable, but don't turn around and then complain about the SEC West getting more respect than the ACC. Pitt is better than Akron; if you believe that a 4-4 team that plays in a super crappy division isn't "nearly as good" as a 4-5 team that plays in a sort of crappy division when the 4-4 team won a road game at the 4-5 team, then fine - I don't agree but it's a minor point from a full week ago and doesn't change the argument.

[Duvall]

Glorious ESPN Football Programming Championship Tournament update: (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11822679/college-football-playoff-rankings-oregon-ducks-move-first-four)

FSU at 2, Notre Dame 10, Clemson 21, Duke 22, Georgia Tech 24.

[Wander]

FSU at 2, Notre Dame 10, Clemson 21, Duke 22, Georgia Tech 24.

Even though I don't really think Georgia Tech should be ranked, I think it's sort of cool for the following reason: Duke hasn't really beaten a ranked team in a couple decades. I know Virginia Tech and Miami were ranked at the time we played them last year, but the season eventually proved them to be not-top-25 teams, and they finished unranked. It'd be nice at the end of the season to see that Duke did have a victory a legit top 25 team.

[Duvall]

Even though I don't really think Georgia Tech should be ranked, I think it's sort of cool for the following reason: Duke hasn't really beaten a ranked team in a couple decades. I know Virginia Tech and Miami were ranked at the time we played them last year, but the season eventually proved them to be not-top-25 teams, and they finished unranked. It'd be nice at the end of the season to see that Duke did have a victory a legit top 25 team.

Except that Georgia Tech has to finish the season against Deshaun Watson (who will be back) and Todd Gurley. Maybe they can win one?

[Olympic Fan]

As predicted, the new top four are 1. Miss State, 2. FSU, 3. Auburn, 4. Oregon (with Alabama No. 5 and TCU No. 6).

I take no credit in calling it -- any reasonable observer should have been able to do it. I only mention it to show the kind of idiots working as talking heads on ESPN -- Danny Kannel jumps TCU over Auburn, Oregon and Alabama after they barely escape at West Virginia. It was a good win, but not as good as Auburn's victory over Ole Miss.

I like seeing Duke climb to No. 22. I was looking at the list and wondering about the chances of going higher next week. Obviously, we lose to Syracuse and we drop -- probably out of the rankings. But even with an impressive win in the Dome, I doubt we jump anybody that wins or doesn't play this week.

But the seven teams directly ahead of us in the standings all have two losses. I think any of them that get loss No. 3 this weekend would drop below us. Well, No. 21 Clemson ain't losing to Wake Forest and No. 20 Georgia probably doesn't lose to Kentucky (although Kentucky did upset South Carolina). I think No. 19 Arizona will win at home vs. Colorado.

The best chance is No. 17 Utah (which didn't move after an OT loss to UCLA) -- they host Oregon. Either they knock Oregon out of the Final Four or they drop below 8-1 Duke. No. 15 Oklahoma has a good chance to get loss No. 3 vs. Baylor. No. 18 UCLA is at Washington -- that's not an easy game for the two-loss Bruins.

A lot of one loss teams could lose, but I doubt that the loser of Notre Dame-Arizona State drops below Duke. Same with Ohio State-Michigan State.

The top two-loss team is No. 11 Ole Miss (losses to LSU and Auburn). They get a gimmie this week with a visit from Presbyterian (I assume they don't have to eject any Presbyterian fans!). But it's really bugging me -- for two days, the ESPN crawl has listed the game as "Presbytern" at Ole Miss. ... Guys, get it right. I know I make typos and misspellings, but I'm a bozo posting on a message board. You're a national sports network. I can forgive a short-term typo, but when you don't catch it for more than 24 hours, shame, shame shame!

[wilson]

Except that Georgia Tech has to finish the season against Deshaun Watson (who will be back) and Todd Gurley. Maybe they can win one?As much trouble as Georgia had stopping the run against Flarduh, a Jackets victory the day after Thanksgiving is definitely not out of the question.

[sagegrouse]

Even though I don't really think Georgia Tech should be ranked, I think it's sort of cool for the following reason: Duke hasn't really beaten a ranked team in a couple decades. I know Virginia Tech and Miami were ranked at the time we played them last year, but the season eventually proved them to be not-top-25 teams, and they finished unranked. It'd be nice at the end of the season to see that Duke did have a victory a legit top 25 team.

Wander, this is a joke, not a criticism: If any team loses to Duke, it falls out of the rankings and never returns. How the heck do we beat a ranked team by your definition?

[Wander]

Wander, this is a joke, not a criticism: If any team loses to Duke, it falls out of the rankings and never returns. How the heck do we beat a ranked team by your definition?

Beat FSU :)

[Tripping William]

And Auburn butt-fumbles its way out. War Cheeks.

[-jk]

And Auburn butt-fumbles its way out. War Cheeks.

ESPN's Recap (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=400548346) is fabulous understatement:
The Aggies (7-3, 3-3 Southeastern Conference), who came in as 23-point underdogs, pulled off the kind of dramatic finish that had become an Auburn trademark.

-jk

[Tripping William]

ESPN's Recap (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=400548346) is fabulous understatement:

-jk

Karma finally caught up, it seems.

[Olympic Fan]

Another wild week -- much of the craziness coming when Texas A&M stuns Auburn at Auburn.

Pretty much elimination for Michigan State, Notre Dame, LSU and Kansas State. Auburn might have a chance, but it's a long shot after their second loss.

It's going to be interesting to see how the committee reacts to this week's carnage. Anybody who has followed the polls knows that teams are slotted and rarely jump other teams that win -- they only move up when teams above them lose. Will that be the case with the committee? Both Ohio State and TCU have compelling cases to move up and jump some teams. If they just move teams up over teams that lost, the new top 10 looks like this:

1. Miss State
2. FSU
3. Oregon
4. Alabama
5. TCU
6. Arizona State
7. Ole Miss (two losses)
8. Baylor
9. Nebraska
10. Ohio State

Actually, I think that will be the top four, but I think Ohio State is higher ranked than that ... and I think Auburn is ahead of Ole Miss (which won't be as high as 7th).

Lot of commentators like TCU in the top four and I agree, after beating K-State, they are home free at 11-1 with some impressive wins. BUT, I have a hard time understanding how they are ranked ahead of Baylor, which has virtually the same one-loss record (and a MUCH more impressive victory over Oklahoma) and a head-to-head victory over TCU. The committee has said it's top three criteria are (in order) conference championships, head-to-head and strength of schedule. Well, Baylor has the head-to-head win and if the Bears end the season with a home win over K-State, they will be the Big 12 champs. You would HAVE to take Baylor ahead of TCU.

Four one-loss teams lost Saturday, meaning that Duke is one of eight one-loss teams left from the power five (there is also Colorado State from the "other" five). Two undefeateds (plus 9=0 Marshall from the "other" five). Duke has one of the 10 best records from the power five (and is the lowest ranked of the 10).

Where will Duke be ranked Tuesday? Well, seven teams ranked ahead of Duke Saturday lost. We ain't going to jump No. 3 Auburn, No. 7 K-State, No. 10 Notre Dame or No. 8 Michigan State.

We MIGHT jump No. 15 Oklahoma, No. 16 LSU and/or No. 17 Utah -- all three lost for the third time Saturday. So far, we've been ranked behind several two-loss teams, but not behind a three-loss team. Still, hard to believe they could rank Duke ahead of the LSU team that took Alabama to OT or the Utah team that gave Oregon so much trouble (it ended 51-27, but it was 30-27 with 12 minutes left -- and Oregon was only ahead because a Utah receiver going in for a TD stupidly dropped the ball short of the goal -- trying to act cool -- and Oregon picked it up and returned it 99 yards for a TD. It SHOULD have been 34-23 Utah in the fourth).

Just guessing, but I think we do pass Oklahoma and Utah, but not LSU. That puts us at No. 20 (in the CFA poll).

[brevity]

Where will Duke be ranked Tuesday? Well, seven teams ranked ahead of Duke Saturday lost. We ain't going to jump No. 3 Auburn, No. 7 K-State, No. 10 Notre Dame or No. 8 Michigan State.

We MIGHT jump No. 15 Oklahoma, No. 16 LSU and/or No. 17 Utah -- all three lost for the third time Saturday. So far, we've been ranked behind several two-loss teams, but not behind a three-loss team. Still, hard to believe they could rank Duke ahead of the LSU team that took Alabama to OT or the Utah team that gave Oregon so much trouble (it ended 51-27, but it was 30-27 with 12 minutes left -- and Oregon was only ahead because a Utah receiver going in for a TD stupidly dropped the ball short of the goal -- trying to act cool -- and Oregon picked it up and returned it 99 yards for a TD. It SHOULD have been 34-23 Utah in the fourth).

Just guessing, but I think we do pass Oklahoma and Utah, but not LSU. That puts us at No. 20 (in the CFA poll).

Agreed, and you saved me some time.

It's so late in the season that Duke's upward movement requires a lot more carnage. Next week is less marquee than Separation Saturday, but has three important matchups amongst ranked teams outside the Top 10. Aside from the all-important Clemson at Georgia Tech game, we should be rooting for Nebraska (at Wisconsin) and Georgia (vs. Auburn) to lose.

The only other point of discussion is the movement in and out of the CFP. #23 West Virginia will drop out and could be replaced by idle Missouri (7-2), if only to give national press to its game next week against Texas A&M... which it turns out was only mostly dead. #17 Utah would be vulnerable if there were teams on the outside that got the playoff committee excited, but it's clear they have no interest in Marshall (9-0) or Colorado State (9-1).

[HK Dukie]

Just guessing, but I think we do pass Oklahoma and Utah, but not LSU. That puts us at No. 20 (in the CFA poll).

For what it's worth CBS puts us at No. 19

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24791231/tomorrows-top-25-today-week-11

In the seemingly small chance that we can run the table, I would suspect we would need to get ranked at least 8-10th before all the conference championship games to have any chance of benefiting from carnage in the various conf title games and sneaking up and barely earning a 4th spot in the CFP.

If we can get 3 spots this week and get to 19 (this week), and 3 per week for the next 3 weeks that gets us to 10th. Mix in some upsets in conf title games and a convincing win over undefeated and ranked no1 FSU, and the unthinkable could happen. Although most probably we would be ranked 6-8th in that scenario. But hey, you never know.....

[sagegrouse]

The “One-Loss Prediction” is moving along nicely. I have believed for the past month that any Big Five conference member with only one loss at the end of the season had a really good chance to make the College Football Playoff, and -- if there were at least four such teams -- two-loss teams would be out of luck. As of now there are ten teams with one or fewer losses, but at least two will drop out in the conference championships:

Zero Losses
• Florida State
• Mississippi State

One Loss
• Duke
• Alabama
• Baylor
• TCU
• Ohio State and Nebraska – at most, one will survive
• Oregon and Arizona State – at most one will survive

Yes, I am including Duke. No, I am not including Marshall or any other school outside the Big Five conferences (Notre Dame excepted, but they lost).

The only conferences that could have two one-loss teams are the SEC (Alabama wins out and Miss. State beats Ole Miss), the Big 12 (TCU and Baylor -- nno conference championship game), and -- don't laugh -- the ACC (Duke wins out and FSU beats Miami and Florida).

If form holds -- and it won't -- my guess is that the following four teams will make the CFP: FSU, Oregon, Alabama and Baylor. Possible one-loss omissions are Mississippi State, TCU, Oho State/ Nebraska.

Main questions, as of this AM:

If all three have only one loss, would the CFP pick Baylor and Oregon over Mississippi State?
Would the Big Ten champion with one loss really stay home?
Is there any way on earth both TCU and Baylor make the playoffs?
Could any two-loss team make the tournament?
MY answers are yes, yes, no, and yes, but highly doubtful.

BTW College Football Playoff roulette is really fun, and much easier than juggling a 68-team hoops tournament in one's mind.

[bob blue devil]

The “One-Loss Prediction” is moving along nicely. I have believed for the past month that any Big Five conference member with only one loss at the end of the season had a really good chance to make the College Football Playoff, and -- if there were at least four such teams -- two-loss teams would be out of luck. As of now there are ten teams with one or fewer losses, but at least two will drop out in the conference championships:

Zero Losses
• Florida State
• Mississippi State

One Loss
• Duke
• Alabama
• Baylor
• TCU
• Ohio State and Nebraska – at most, one will survive
• Oregon and Arizona State – at most one will survive

Yes, I am including Duke. No, I am not including Marshall or any other school outside the Big Five conferences (Notre Dame excepted, but they lost).

The only conferences that could have two one-loss teams are the SEC (Alabama wins out and Miss. State beats Ole Miss), the Big 12 (TCU and Baylor -- nno conference championship game), and -- don't laugh -- the ACC (Duke wins out and FSU beats Miami and Florida).

If form holds -- and it won't -- my guess is that the following four teams will make the CFP: FSU, Oregon, Alabama and Baylor. Possible one-loss omissions are Mississippi State, TCU, Oho State/ Nebraska.

Main questions, as of this AM:

If all three have only one loss, would the CFP pick Baylor and Oregon over Mississippi State?
Would the Big Ten champion with one loss really stay home?
Is there any way on earth both TCU and Baylor make the playoffs?
Could any two-loss team make the tournament?
MY answers are yes, yes, no, and yes, but highly doubtful.

BTW College Football Playoff roulette is really fun, and much easier than juggling a 68-team hoops tournament in one's mind.

great stuff. thanks.

so looking at next weekend, i believe delusional duke fans are rooting for:
- Duke over VTech (must happen)
- FSU over Miami (probably must happen)
- Mississippi St over Alabama
- GTech over Clemson
- as much chaos as possible with a special eye toward the one loss teams (and probably even some two loss teams)

-kansas over tcu

-oregon st over arizona st

-wisconsin over nebraska

-minnesota over ohio state

p.s. running assumption is that a 12-1 duke gets selected over 12-1 fsu (head-to-head, and conference champ). i agree with that probably being right, but gosh if you pay any attention to SOS it seems unfair.

[HK Dukie]

p.s. running assumption is that a 12-1 duke gets selected over 12-1 fsu (head-to-head, and conference champ). i agree with that probably being right, but gosh if you pay any attention to SOS it seems unfair.

You are correct that FSU's schedule would be tougher than Duke's and would be unfair. Because they would have had to play Duke.

And yes, 12-1 Duke would be selected over 12-1 FSU almost certainly. Not just because of head to head, but because of conference championship, both of which are said to mean something to the committee. Those two would trump SOS, which again is artificially inflated for FSU for having to face Duke :cool:

[CameronBornAndBred]

Criticizing our SOS is unfortunately valid time spent by the committee (and anyone else). However, as others have pointed out before, it's not like we went and sought out cupcakes. Kansas was a legit team when scheduled, Troy has been good before. This year they both sucked and it hurt us. I think it showed in the Miami game when we finally faced some real competition and weren't quite as prepared for it as we would have liked.
We can't do anything about what other teams on our schedule do, though; we can only continue to press forward and beat the teams that we are supposed to, which from this point out is every team on our schedule.
LGD.

[budwom]

apropos to I'm not sure what exactly, I could very much see FSU losing to Miami. FSU is very good, but not what they were last year, and Miami is playing extremely well.

[kmspeaks]

The “One-Loss Prediction” is moving along nicely. I have believed for the past month that any Big Five conference member with only one loss at the end of the season had a really good chance to make the College Football Playoff, and -- if there were at least four such teams -- two-loss teams would be out of luck. As of now there are ten teams with one or fewer losses, but at least two will drop out in the conference championships:

Zero Losses
• Florida State
• Mississippi State

One Loss
• Duke
• Alabama
• Baylor
• TCU
• Ohio State and Nebraska – at most, one will survive
• Oregon and Arizona State – at most one will survive

Yes, I am including Duke. No, I am not including Marshall or any other school outside the Big Five conferences (Notre Dame excepted, but they lost).

The only conferences that could have two one-loss teams are the SEC (Alabama wins out and Miss. State beats Ole Miss), the Big 12 (TCU and Baylor -- nno conference championship game), and -- don't laugh -- the ACC (Duke wins out and FSU beats Miami and Florida).

If form holds -- and it won't -- my guess is that the following four teams will make the CFP: FSU, Oregon, Alabama and Baylor. Possible one-loss omissions are Mississippi State, TCU, Oho State/ Nebraska.

Main questions, as of this AM:

If all three have only one loss, would the CFP pick Baylor and Oregon over Mississippi State?
Would the Big Ten champion with one loss really stay home?
Is there any way on earth both TCU and Baylor make the playoffs?
Could any two-loss team make the tournament?
MY answers are yes, yes, no, and yes, but highly doubtful.

BTW College Football Playoff roulette is really fun, and much easier than juggling a 68-team hoops tournament in one's mind.


I agree with your answers to the last 3 questions. My answer to the first would be I have no clue. I don't necessarily disagree with you I just am not sure yet how this committee will vote. Public and media perception is that the SEC is king but will the committee consider playing in the SEC a tie-breaker when records are even?

What if Mississippi State's one loss is to Georgia/Missouri in the SEC title game and not to Alabama?

You're right, this is fun!

[Olympic Fan]

Main questions, as of this AM:

If all three have only one loss, would the CFP pick Baylor and Oregon over Mississippi State?
Would the Big Ten champion with one loss really stay home?
Is there any way on earth both TCU and Baylor make the playoffs?
Could any two-loss team make the tournament?
MY answers are yes, yes, no, and yes, but highly doubtful.

BTW College Football Playoff roulette is really fun, and much easier than juggling a 68-team hoops tournament in one's mind.

1. Conference championships are supposed to be the No. 1 priority, so yes if Miss State is 11-1 and doesn't get to play in the SEC title game. No, if Miss State is 12-1 and beats Georgia/Missouri for the SEC title.
2. It's looking like a one-loss conference champion will stay home, since there should be five power conference champs that finish with one loss or better and just four playoff spots. If TCU or Baylor, Oregon, Alabama or Miss State all finish with one loss and win their titles, they go ahead of the Big Ten champ. The one team in play for the Big Ten is FSU. If FSU wins out and finishes as the only undefeated power five team, they are a lock. But if they lose to Duke in the title game the Big Ten champ would be in -- since FSU would not have a conference championship. The really interesting scenario is if Miami (or Florida) upsets FSU, then the 'Noles beat Duke in the title game. Who goes then -- a 12-1 ACC champ FSU or a 12-1 Big Ten champ?

[Note: examining this issue reveals why Duke has almost no chance of the playoff, even with a 12-1 finish and an upset. There is no way one-loss Duke could jump one-loss champs from the SEC, Big 12, Pac 12 and Big Ten.

3. I see no way for TCU AND Baylor. The only conference that could get two is the SEC and only if Alabama wins out and Miss State doesn't lose another game -- and even then I think it's unlikely. I think it comes down to Baylor vs. K-State to close the regular season. The Big 12 doesn't have a title game, but this is almost like one. Win it and 11-1 Baylor is the Big 12 champ and gets the bid over a TCU team it beat head-to-head. Lose it and TCU is the 11-1 conference champ and gets the bid.

4. Agree that for a two-loss team to make it is an extreme longshot. The only possible scenario is a two-loss SEC champion ... and looking at the standings and the matchups, I don't see that happening now. Late last night, when it looked like LSU was going to beat Alabama, it looked MUCH more possible.

PS Going through all this makes me wish the NCAA leaders had agreed to an eight team playoff. Five guaranteed spots for each conference champ and three at large. We'd still be debating at large teams, but it wouldn't have the impending controversy of an 11-1 TCU or a 12-1 Ohio State getting left out.

[duke09hms]

PS Going through all this makes me wish the NCAA leaders had agreed to an eight team playoff. Five guaranteed spots for each conference champ and three at large. We'd still be debating at large teams, but it wouldn't have the impending controversy of an 11-1 TCU or a 12-1 Ohio State getting left out.

Agree, this would have been the perfect scenario. Every Power 5 team has a chance regardless of SOS with room for a legitimate ND and an undefeated Whatever 5 team. SEC would likely get 2 teams every year, maybe even 3 some years.

If we go 12-1 and are left out as ACC champs, we can claim "WE WUZ ROBBED!" But in lieu of that, let's hope for more upsets.

[Trapper_John]

PS Going through all this makes me wish the NCAA leaders had agreed to an eight team playoff. Five guaranteed spots for each conference champ and three at large. We'd still be debating at large teams, but it wouldn't have the impending controversy of an 11-1 TCU or a 12-1 Ohio State getting left out.

I think eventually it gets there--once the money from the playoff starts rolling in, the powers that be won't be able to help themselves. That said, I think there is a tipping point where the regular season loses meaning. Let's say Mississippi State beats Alabama and clinches the SECW. In an 8-team playoff scenario, does it make sense to rest starters vs Ole Miss? They still have the SECCG which they'd have to win anyway. 8 teams probably doesn't get us to resting starters, but I like the urgency and angst associated with the 4-team playoff. More games have meaning rather than fewer. Weekends like this past one are a ton of fun--awesome viewing all the way from Duke's kickoff against 'Cuse through Auburn's delicious fumbles, Bama/LSU's dramatics, and Oregon's shaking Utah off some time after midnight. Great stuff.

[Acymetric]

I think eventually it gets there--once the money from the playoff starts rolling in, the powers that be won't be able to help themselves. That said, I think there is a tipping point where the regular season loses meaning. Let's say Mississippi State beats Alabama and clinches the SECW. In an 8-team playoff scenario, does it make sense to rest starters vs Ole Miss? They still have the SECCG which they'd have to win anyway. 8 teams probably doesn't get us to resting starters, but I like the urgency and angst associated with the 4-team playoff. More games have meaning rather than fewer. Weekends like this past one are a ton of fun--awesome viewing all the way from Duke's kickoff against 'Cuse through Auburn's delicious fumbles, Bama/LSU's dramatics, and Oregon's shaking Utah off some time after midnight. Great stuff.

No, because you still have to worry about seeding (rest your starters and lose the game, might be looking at the 8th seed rather than say the 4th). 8 team playoff is the sweet spot, 16 is unnecessary in college football even though I personally would enjoy it.

[Acymetric]

Duke shows up briefly as they flip through theoretical top 4 teams in the ESPN promo...couple that with the Scottie shot earlier this year. Even though we are clearly a long shot as far as consideration for that goes, we are getting way more inclusion in the conversation that would ever have seemed possible even 3-5 years ago. The best part is that (even though certainly there are people who will) Duke football is much harder to hate than Duke basketball even for a lot of carolina fans I know*.

*I tell them upfront that although I value their friendship I do not return their support.

[Trapper_John]

No, because you still have to worry about seeding (rest your starters and lose the game, might be looking at the 8th seed rather than say the 4th). 8 team playoff is the sweet spot, 16 is unnecessary in college football even though I personally would enjoy it.

As I mentioned, 8 doesn't get us there, but 16 might. As to your point, seeding is only so much of a motivator--look at basketball. Wasn't it Ol' Roy a few years ago phoning in the ACC Tourney, saying they were about winning the NCAA Tourney not the ACC?

[Acymetric]

As I mentioned, 8 doesn't get us there, but 16 might. As to your point, seeding is only so much of a motivator--look at basketball. Wasn't it Ol' Roy a few years ago phoning in the ACC Tourney, saying they were about winning the NCAA Tourney not the ACC?

Any chatter Duke being in the playoff conversation this year is 100% predicated on the long shot that we win out and beat #1/2 FSU in the ACC championship game. Expanding to 8 teams usually includes the assumption that the big 5 champions all get in plus 3 at large teams. So yes, in this incredibly hypothetical scenario an 8 team playoff would get us there.

To your point, the NCAA basketball committee explicitly values regular season over tourney results with regard to seeding in basketball (it is bubble teams that have the most to gain or lose in conference tourneys, most other teams would not move up or down more than one seed line as a rule of thumb barring a huge run from a middle seed or a major disappointment from a 2-3 seed, of course depending on how many crazy happenings occurred in other conferences). The football committee explicitly says that they prioritize conference champions, although obviously in a 4 team playoff winning your conference is no guarantee. So kind of apples to oranges there with regards to the value of winning your conference. Plus the general consensus is that was just sour grapes from Roy because Duke (along with other non-unc teams) kept winning the ACC title.

[bob blue devil]

[Note: examining this issue reveals why Duke has almost no chance of the playoff, even with a 12-1 finish and an upset. There is no way one-loss Duke could jump one-loss champs from the SEC, Big 12, Pac 12 and Big Ten.


hmmm... it seems to me that implicit in this comment is the idea that it is very likely for all of the SEC, Big 12, Pac 12 and Big Ten wind-up with 1 or 0 loss champs (since duke would theoretically only need to hop one, although i think 2 teams from SEC is still a bit of a danger with alabama and miss. st.).

i'll leave sec alone - they're getting a team in (if not more than one).
big 12 - tcu is pretty likely to finish with just 1 loss; just a road test against texas really. and even if they do lose, baylor could pull it off with its biggest challenges being home games against kansas st. and ok state. so big 12 is pretty likely to have a 1 loss champ.
pac 12 - we have both oregon and arizona st. with 1 loss. given its remaining schedule oregon would likely need to lose in the pac 12 title game for it to have its second defeat, whereas arizona st. has to win in its finale vs. arizona first. there's some hope that arizona st. drops to arizona and then the south champ knocks off oregon, but that's all a bit of a stretch.
big 10 - 1 loss candidates are ohio state and nebraska. osu is on the road against a decent minnesota team next week and then would have to win a big 10 title game against a decent foe. nebraska goes to decent wisconsin team this week and hosts minnesota and would have to win the title against, likely, osu (even if osu drops another). so, while it may be a touch unlikely, there's a reasonable chance of no 1-loss big 10 team.

i guess to sum it up, i disagree with "... Duke has almost no chance of the playoff, even with a 12-1 finish and an upset." although i do agree that a 12-1 duke would need a fair amount of help to get there. frankly, i'm just worried about the turkeys on saturday.

[gurufrisbee]

I'll throw my two cents in as well.

Mississippi State makes it if they beat Bama (because then they will run the table).

Alabama makes it if they beat Miss St (because then they will run the table the rest of the way).

Florida State makes it if they run the table.

Those are truly the only three that I think control their own destiny.

The biggest question, I believe, will be if the Miss St- Bama loser gets in. If it's Bama, I think not. Two losses. If it's Miss St, I think so.

Oregon looks solid at this point, but the Pac 12 isn't very good and Michigan State just got badly exposed and they were the Ducks only quality win.

TCU has looked MUCH better - beaten better teams and their only loss was to a much better team (and closer). If it comes down to those two, I gotta believe TCU gets the nod.

Personally I hope Oregon doesn't make it. They are a gimmick and every good team with at least two weeks to plan for them makes them look bad.

And the Big Can't Count looks horrible. Ohio State needs to stay home.

I'd like to see Bama, Miss St, FSU, and TCU.

[Wander]

As to your point, seeding is only so much of a motivator--look at basketball.

Though I know it won't happen, the solution is extremely simple. College football has the best atmosphere on average of any American sport. Bowl games suck, and other than maybe the Rose Bowl, no one gives a crap about any particular bowl game. The bowl system should be trashed entirely, and the playoff games should be held at the higher seed's home field, aside from the title game. Which would be a huge advantage and entice teams to play for seeding.

[Mal]

I think, if we were fortunate enough to continue winning and then beat FSU, that the ACCCG would be treated more as an indictment of FSU than a sign that we're playoff-worthy. So, we're not getting in even if we're a 1 loss team. The committee would absolutely go with a 1 loss Ohio State, TCU, Oregon, Baylor or whoever else over us.

The fact that we're even in position to be pipe dreaming about this after 9 games is ASTOUNDING, however. I mean, whowoodathunkit?

I was at a party last night and a bunch of us concluded that they should just change the college football postseason system every 3 or 4 years, because the amount of conversation stemming from trying to grasp a new one and gaming it all out is through the roof.

I'm betting Miss St., Oregon, TCU and FSU at this point, which probably is way too conventional wisdom and chalky to actually happen. But at this point, those are the most impressive teams to me. I wouldn't sleep on Ohio State, though. They'll get two or three more shots at ranked teams, and the committee could see their one loss as just a freshman QB who is the real deal getting his feet wet. They are rolling right now, and have averaged something like 48 points a week since the otherwise inexplicable loss to VT. With a couple random losses to teams ahead of them, they could still make it.

[Wander]

A bizarre and realistic scenario in our future:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if no one is upset in the Big 12, then the Kansas State-Baylor game at the end of the season determines the champion. If Baylor wins, they are the Big 12 champion. But if Kansas State wins, there is a 3-way tie between KSU, Baylor, and TCU. The playoff committee would likely take whoever is the Big 12 champion as the pick, since they're supposed to put a lot of weight on that... but since the three teams are tied, the tiebreaker for conference champion is whoever is highest in the playoff committee poll. Weird. I'd guess that would be TCU, but who knows.

Also setting up for an Arizona State-Oregon Elite 8 game, which would be pretty cool.

[Wander]

So I think the best thing that can happen for our extremely tiny-and-maybe-impossible playoff chance is for us to solidly get the ACC ahead of the Big 10, and then hope the committee takes the 4 big conference champions. The most realistic way for that to happen is for Ohio State to lose at Minnesota and Nebraska to lose at Wisconsin - then, the Big 10 is out of 1-loss teams, and we can start taking the playoff talk with seriousness (if we also beat VT, of course).

[brevity]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if no one is upset in the Big 12, then the Kansas State-Baylor game at the end of the season determines the champion. If Baylor wins, they are the Big 12 champion. But if Kansas State wins, there is a 3-way tie between KSU, Baylor, and TCU. The playoff committee would likely take whoever is the Big 12 champion as the pick, since they're supposed to put a lot of weight on that... but since the three teams are tied, the tiebreaker for conference champion is whoever is highest in the playoff committee poll. Weird. I'd guess that would be TCU, but who knows.

There is currently a 3-way tie for first place in the Big 12. Kansas State (5-1) lost to TCU (5-1), who lost to Baylor (5-1), who lost to... West Virginia. The Baylor-KSU game would give one of those teams its second conference loss. I don't know how the Playoff Committee will address the Big 12, but they won't have to worry about a 3-way tie.

[Wander]

Oh! I keep forgetting Baylor lost to WVU. Oops. The TCU-Baylor thing will work itself out then, but TCU is in more trouble than I realized. All Baylor needs to do is win three games at home and TCU is probably out, right? They won't have a Big 12 championship, and I assume two Big 12 teams aren't making it in.

[bob blue devil]

So I think the best thing that can happen for our extremely tiny-and-maybe-impossible playoff chance is for us to solidly get the ACC ahead of the Big 10, and then hope the committee takes the 4 big conference champions. The most realistic way for that to happen is for Ohio State to lose at Minnesota and Nebraska to lose at Wisconsin - then, the Big 10 is out of 1-loss teams, and we can start taking the playoff talk with seriousness (if we also beat VT, of course).

an alternative to your big 10 scenario is only one of osu and nebraska losing the two games mention, then the other losing in the big 10 title game. it would be interesting to see what the prediction systems say about the odds of no 1-loss teams out of the big 10. my very unscientific back of the envelope says roughly 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 chance.

[Olympic Fan]

There is currently a 3-way tie for first place in the Big 12. Kansas State (5-1) lost to TCU (5-1), who lost to Baylor (5-1), who lost to... West Virginia. The Baylor-KSU game would give one of those teams its second conference loss. I don't know how the Playoff Committee will address the Big 12, but they won't have to worry about a 3-way tie.

Right -- that's why I said earlier in this thread that the K-State-Baylor game is virtually a championship game.

If Baylor wins (assuming they win their other games), they win the Big 12 and almost certainly rank ahead of TCU in the race for the Final Four (by basis of conference champions and head-to-head).

If K-State wins, TCU is the conference champion.

The only way K-State can win or share the title is if TCU loses another game (which is unlikely).

[Wander]

I wonder if Baylor's non-conference schedule can keep the Big 12 out of the playoffs entirely. If Baylor wins the Big 12, we could maybe have something like: FSU, Oregon/Arizona State, Mississippi State, and Alabama. It all depends on how much weight is given to conference championships, which no one really knows.

[Wander]

an alternative to your big 10 scenario is only one of osu and nebraska losing the two games mention, then the other losing in the big 10 title game. it would be interesting to see what the prediction systems say about the odds of no 1-loss teams out of the big 10. my very unscientific back of the envelope says roughly 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 chance.

Sure, that would also work. But it'd be nice if it happened sooner. I think there's about a 1 in 4 chance of no 1-loss teams out of the Big 10... after this weekend. Something like, Ohio State has a 60% of winning at Minnesota, Nebraska with a 40% of winning at Wisconsin. So maybe the overall odds of a 1-loss Big 10 champ at 50/50.

[Olympic Fan]

I wonder if Baylor's non-conference schedule can keep the Big 12 out of the playoffs entirely. If Baylor wins the Big 12, we could maybe have something like: FSU, Oregon/Arizona State, Mississippi State, and Alabama. It all depends on how much weight is given to conference championships, which no one really knows.

That's a very valid question. Baylor's non-conference schedule is garbage -- almost as bad as ours. But they do have in-conference wins over TCU and Oklahoma and (if this conversation matters) also over K-State and Oklahoma State.

TCU's non-conference schedule is not all that much better -- in fact, the difference is that TCU beat a good, but never top 10 quality Minnesota OOC.

As to your final point, we don't KNOW how important conference championships are ... but the committee members and its written guidelines insist that conference championships are their No. 1 priority (head-to-head and strength of schedule coming next).

[Wander]

That's a very valid question. Baylor's non-conference schedule is garbage -- almost as bad as ours. But they do have in-conference wins over TCU and Oklahoma and (if this conversation matters) also over K-State and Oklahoma State.

TCU's non-conference schedule is not all that much better -- in fact, the difference is that TCU beat a good, but never top 10 quality Minnesota OOC.

As to your final point, we don't KNOW how important conference championships are ... but the committee members and its written guidelines insist that conference championships are their No. 1 priority (head-to-head and strength of schedule coming next).

Agreed on all this. I guess I'm just saying: the fact that "conference champions only" is not an explicit rule makes me wonder how much they really mean it. If a 1-loss Baylor team does get in over (for example) a 1-loss Mississippi State team that lost to SEC champion Alabama - which would not be my choice, but I'd be fine with - then the committee is functionally putting in place that conference champions only rule (not that MSU'S non-conference schedule is any good, but they'd have a much better overall SOS by the end in this scenario). Of course, an effective conference champions only rule is really the only way Duke has even a tiny chance of getting in, so selfishly that wouldn't be the worst.

[sagegrouse]

an alternative to your big 10 scenario is only one of osu and nebraska losing the two games mention, then the other losing in the big 10 title game. it would be interesting to see what the prediction systems say about the odds of no 1-loss teams out of the big 10. my very unscientific back of the envelope says roughly 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 chance.

The probability of a one-loss team for the Big Ten may be less than 0.5. I have some back-of-the-envelope calculations, made easier by the fact that Nebraska and Ohio State would have to win out -- and both can't:

To remain at one loss, Nebraska would have to win @Wisc (0.5), vs. Minnesota (0.7), @ Iowa (0.85), and beat presumably Ohio State (0.3). That comes to 0.09.

For Ohio State, it would have to win @Minne (0.7), vs. Indiana (0.95), vs. Michigan (0.75), and win the Big Ten championship game (0.7). That comes to 0.35.

Because they are "mutually exclusive" (oooh!) sets of events, the probability of a one-loss team emerging from the Big Ten is the sum, or 0.44. The chance of no one-loss teams is 0.56.

You can just fiddle with the assumptions and come up with your own estimates. The probability for each team is the product of the probability of winning each of the four games.

[gcashwell]

I'll throw my two cents in as well.

Mississippi State makes it if they beat Bama (because then they will run the table).

Alabama makes it if they beat Miss St (because then they will run the table the rest of the way).

Florida State makes it if they run the table.

Those are truly the only three that I think control their own destiny.

The biggest question, I believe, will be if the Miss St- Bama loser gets in. If it's Bama, I think not. Two losses. If it's Miss St, I think so.

Oregon looks solid at this point, but the Pac 12 isn't very good and Michigan State just got badly exposed and they were the Ducks only quality win.

TCU has looked MUCH better - beaten better teams and their only loss was to a much better team (and closer). If it comes down to those two, I gotta believe TCU gets the nod.

Personally I hope Oregon doesn't make it. They are a gimmick and every good team with at least two weeks to plan for them makes them look bad.

And the Big Can't Count looks horrible. Ohio State needs to stay home.

I'd like to see Bama, Miss St, FSU, and TCU.

Bama does not have an easy road even if they beat Miss St. The Auburn game is one you would be crazy to put money on. Assuming UGA makes it to the SECCG, you never know which UGA team will show up. Even as a Bama fan, I have to admit that I don't know how good this inconsistent team is. Bama is just working through the tough part of their schedule.

[JasonEvans]

I'm not sure where they got their numbers from, but College Gameday just tweeted (https://twitter.com/CollegeGameDay/status/531877756280119298) that these are the odds that the following Big 5 conference 1-loss teams win out...

TCU - 68% Baylor - 67% Oregon - 62% Ohio St - 45% Alabama - 32% Duke - 11% ASU - 7% Nebraska - 6%

It is gonna take a couple big upsets, but Duke is in the conversation... truly amazing!

-Jason "so you're saying there is a shot" Evans

[pfrduke]

I'm not sure where they got their numbers from, but College Gameday just tweeted (https://twitter.com/CollegeGameDay/status/531877756280119298) that these are the odds that the following Big 5 conference 1-loss teams win out...

TCU - 68% Baylor - 67% Oregon - 62% Ohio St - 45% Alabama - 32% Duke - 11% ASU - 7% Nebraska - 6%

It is gonna take a couple big upsets, but Duke is in the conversation... truly amazing!

-Jason "so you're saying there is a shot" Evans

I assume that does not include the conf. championship - just to the end of the regular season, right? I know we're favorites in each of our remaining three games, but I can't imagine we're such heavy favorites that the chances of going 4-0 including a win over FSU are 1-in-9.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'm not sure where they got their numbers from, but College Gameday just tweeted (https://twitter.com/CollegeGameDay/status/531877756280119298) that these are the odds that the following Big 5 conference 1-loss teams win out...

TCU - 68% Baylor - 67% Oregon - 62% Ohio St - 45% Alabama - 32% Duke - 11% ASU - 7% Nebraska - 6%

It is gonna take a couple big upsets, but Duke is in the conversation... truly amazing!

-Jason "so you're saying there is a shot" Evans
Since it is ESPN, they probably get the numbers from their "FPI". (http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings/_/tab/fpi)
They use the same numbers to project chances of conference champions.
Duke is given 19%, FSU 75%.
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/76981/breaking-down-the-conference-races

[Wander]

I assume that does not include the conf. championship - just to the end of the regular season, right? I know we're favorites in each of our remaining three games, but I can't imagine we're such heavy favorites that the chances of going 4-0 including a win over FSU are 1-in-9.

I think it pretty clearly includes the conference championship, and 11% sounds about right to me for winning out including FSU. You think it's only 11% for beating VT, UNC, and Wake all at home (three teams with losing records)? Not a chance.

[uh_no]

I think it pretty clearly includes the conference championship, and 11% sounds about right to me for winning out including FSU. You think it's only 11% for beating VT, UNC, and Wake all at home (three teams with losing records)? Not a chance.

You'd have to think so....even with just a 50% winning chance in those 3 games, it would put us at 12.5%....

but if we divide out even a 20% chance against FSU, that would put us at 50% chance to win out the regular season, which isn't really reasonable either, as it puts us at 80% chance to win our remaining 3 games....and i don't think we have 80% chance against UNC or VT....but if we bump WF up to 90%...that brings the other two to closer to 75%....which is getting close to reasonability...

[uh_no]

FWIW we're still listed as "on the fence" by ESPN's eliminator guy, but rising after a win. So long as we're not in the "teams eliminated" each week, it's a good sign

[sagegrouse]

Since it is ESPN, they probably get the numbers from their "FPI". (http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings/_/tab/fpi)
They use the same numbers to project chances of conference champions.
Duke is given 19%, FSU 75%.
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/76981/breaking-down-the-conference-races

This basically means that in a Duke-FSU matchup, Duke wins one-fourth of the time (0.25). Let me explain. There is a 0.50 chance that Jameis Winston self destructs by December 7 or is destroyed by the student courts, and Duke's chance of winning against FSU with a back-up quarterback is about 0.45. Duke's chance of winning against Jameis is 0.05.

[Wander]

You'd have to think so....even with just a 50% winning chance in those 3 games, it would put us at 12.5%....

but if we divide out even a 20% chance against FSU, that would put us at 50% chance to win out the regular season, which isn't really reasonable either, as it puts us at 80% chance to win our remaining 3 games....and i don't think we have 80% chance against UNC or VT....but if we bump WF up to 90%...that brings the other two to closer to 75%....which is getting close to reasonability...

I agree, that's what I was thinking. About a 1 in 2 chance to win the last three regular season games, and 1 in 5 chance to beat FSU (with Winston). Seems exactly right to me.

[CameronBornAndBred]

This basically means that in a Duke-FSU matchup, Duke wins one-fourth of the time (0.25). Let me explain. There is a 0.50 chance that Jameis Winston self destructs by December 7 or is destroyed by the student courts, and Duke's chance of winning against FSU with a back-up quarterback is about 0.45. Duke's chance of winning against Jameis is 0.05.
The FPI is indeed where ESPN got the numbers from for the tweet. (And championship projections.)
Here is the full list, we are ranked 33rd in the list. Our chance to "win out" is 10.8%, our FPI is 11.1.

The Football Power Index (FPI) is a measure of team strength that is meant to be the best predictor of a team's performance going forward for the rest of the season. FPI represents how many points above or below average a team is. Projected results are based on 10,000 simulations of the rest of the season using FPI, results to date, and the remaining schedule. Ratings and projections update daily.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings/_/tab/fpi

[bob blue devil]

The probability of a one-loss team for the Big Ten may be less than 0.5. I have some back-of-the-envelope calculations, made easier by the fact that Nebraska and Ohio State would have to win out -- and both can't:

To remain at one loss, Nebraska would have to win @Wisc (0.5), vs. Minnesota (0.7), @ Iowa (0.85), and beat presumably Ohio State (0.3). That comes to 0.09.

For Ohio State, it would have to win @Minne (0.7), vs. Indiana (0.95), vs. Michigan (0.75), and win the Big Ten championship game (0.7). That comes to 0.35.

Because they are "mutually exclusive" (oooh!) sets of events, the probability of a one-loss team emerging from the Big Ten is the sum, or 0.44. The chance of no one-loss teams is 0.56.

You can just fiddle with the assumptions and come up with your own estimates. The probability for each team is the product of the probability of winning each of the four games.

Thanks for running the numbers - it helps a lot to have them out there. Food for thought tangential to the mutual exclusivity point - you give OSU a 70% shot and Nebraska 30% in the title game, summing to 100%. If you believe they are the best two teams, that number should sum to over 100% since there is a decent chance they don't play each other which increases each of their odds of winning that game should they make it.

I think your other numbers are also a bit optimistic (from the prospective of getting no one loss teams). For example Nebraska is a 6 point favorite at wisconsin, but you have it 50/50, while Michigan doesn't have a 1 in 4 shot at OSU; even Minnesota at 0.3 hosting OSU seems a stretch as OSU is a nearly 2 TD favorite. I think I'll stick with my estimate for now.

[bob blue devil]

Thanks for running the numbers - it helps a lot to have them out there. Food for thought tangential to the mutual exclusivity point - you give OSU a 70% shot and Nebraska 30% in the title game, summing to 100%. If you believe they are the best two teams, that number should sum to over 100% since there is a decent chance they don't play each other which increases each of their odds of winning that game should they make it.

I think your other numbers are also a bit optimistic (from the prospective of getting no one loss teams). For example Nebraska is a 6 point favorite at wisconsin, but you have it 50/50, while Michigan doesn't have a 1 in 4 shot at OSU; even Minnesota at 0.3 hosting OSU seems a stretch as OSU is a nearly 2 TD favorite. I think I'll stick with my estimate for now.

I have the Nebraska Wisconsin line reversed - wisc is the fav. Good news!

[pfrduke]

I think it pretty clearly includes the conference championship, and 11% sounds about right to me for winning out including FSU. You think it's only 11% for beating VT, UNC, and Wake all at home (three teams with losing records)? Not a chance.


I agree, that's what I was thinking. About a 1 in 2 chance to win the last three regular season games, and 1 in 5 chance to beat FSU (with Winston). Seems exactly right to me.

So seeing this broken down in more detail makes more sense than my off the cuff reaction. I think it might be a little high, still - even against the teams we're playing, a 50% shot at running the regular season table seems optimistic, but that may just be decades of Duke football fandom making me overly pessimistic. I feel the same about 20% against FSU with Winston.

[sagegrouse]

Thanks for running the numbers - it helps a lot to have them out there. Food for thought tangential to the mutual exclusivity point - you give OSU a 70% shot and Nebraska 30% in the title game, summing to 100%. If you believe they are the best two teams, that number should sum to over 100% since there is a decent chance they don't play each other which increases each of their odds of winning that game should they make it.

I think your other numbers are also a bit optimistic (from the prospective of getting no one loss teams). For example Nebraska is a 6 point favorite at wisconsin, but you have it 50/50, while Michigan doesn't have a 1 in 4 shot at OSU; even Minnesota at 0.3 hosting OSU seems a stretch as OSU is a nearly 2 TD favorite. I think I'll stick with my estimate for now.

No doubt, as to your last para. The other message with ESPN probabilities gave OSU a 0.45 chance (vs. 0.35) and Nebraska a 0.06 chance (vs. 0.09), slightly better than 50 percent (0.50) vs. 44 percent in my made-up numbers.

Let me correct the impression in your first paragraph. The probability of OSU winning in the conference championship is against any Big Ten West opponent who shows up, not just Nebraska. Similarly for Nebraska's 0.30 probability, although it seems HIGHLY likely that Ohio State would be the opponent, and Nebraska would have a fairly low chance of prevailing. You are right that in these circumstances they do not necessarily have to add to 1.0, but I have no reason to think that Ohio State would have different probabilities against Wisconsin or even Minnesota. Would Nebraska have a higher than 0.3 probability if Ohio State stumbled by losing two out of three? Maybe, but that "stumble" seems highly unlikely, doesn't it.

[brevity]

I'm not sure where they got their numbers from, but College Gameday just tweeted (https://twitter.com/CollegeGameDay/status/531877756280119298) that these are the odds that the following Big 5 conference 1-loss teams win out...

TCU - 68% Baylor - 67% Oregon - 62% Ohio St - 45% Alabama - 32% Duke - 11% ASU - 7% Nebraska - 6%


I assume that does not include the conf. championship - just to the end of the regular season, right? I know we're favorites in each of our remaining three games, but I can't imagine we're such heavy favorites that the chances of going 4-0 including a win over FSU are 1-in-9.


I think it pretty clearly includes the conference championship, and 11% sounds about right to me for winning out including FSU. You think it's only 11% for beating VT, UNC, and Wake all at home (three teams with losing records)? Not a chance.

Sorry, late to the party.

If it helps, set Duke aside for a minute and take a look at Arizona State instead. They have only a 7% chance of winning out, but have to play at Oregon State (4-5), vs. Washington State (3-7), and at Arizona (7-2). That 7% number is way too low for those 3 games; it HAS to include Oregon in a Pac-12 championship.

[BigWayne]

Sorry, late to the party.

If it helps, set Duke aside for a minute and take a look at Arizona State instead. They have only a 7% chance of winning out, but have to play at Oregon State (4-5), vs. Washington State (3-7), and at Arizona (7-2). That 7% number is way too low for those 3 games; it HAS to include Oregon in a Pac-12 championship.
Yes, without the championship, they should be at 26%.

[sagegrouse]

OK, College Football Playoff Selection Committee, you are about to earn your money. This is gonna be really tough. THE TOP SEVEN TEAMS IN THE RANKINGS DON'T PLAY EACH OTHER AGAIN. So, it is possible that all seven will go undefeated from here. Then, how do you select the four finalists?

First, whatever their merits, two one-loss teams will not play in a conference championship game and a third one probably won't make the championship game. TCU and Baylor are in the ten-member Big 12. Mississippi State won't make the SEC championship game if Alabama beats Auburn. So, all three could end up 11-1.

Then, Alabama, FSU, Ohio State and Oregon look to be big favorites to win their last two games plus their conference championships.

There could be one undefeated team and six teams with only one loss. Misery loves company, and there could be three miserable teams sitting out in the cold. Here's my guess, assuming there are no more losses among the top seven teams:

Two are clearly in: FSU is undefeated, a conference champion and defending national champion. The Noles will be in the CFP. Alabama will definitely go to the playoffs by virtue of its win over Miss. State and its championship of the toughest conference.

Two are clearly out: Mississippi State won't go because it would mean that two of the Big Five conference champions would have to stay home. And one of Baylor and TCU sits -- no way does the Big 12 get two teams in the CFP in the case of this logjam.

Two of Oregon, Ohio State, and Baylor/TCU get to go -- one gets to stay home. This is a tough choice.

[Olympic Fan]

OK, College Football Playoff Selection Committee, you are about to earn your money. This is gonna be really tough. THE TOP SEVEN TEAMS IN THE RANKINGS DON'T PLAY EACH OTHER AGAIN. So, it is possible that all seven will go undefeated from here. Then, how do you select the four finalists?

First, whatever their merits, two one-loss teams will not play in a conference championship game and a third one probably won't make the championship game. TCU and Baylor are in the ten-member Big 12. Mississippi State won't make the SEC championship game if Alabama beats Auburn. So, all three could end up 11-1.

Then, Alabama, FSU, Ohio State and Oregon look to be big favorites to win their last two games plus their conference championships.

There could be one undefeated team and six teams with only one loss. Misery loves company, and there could be three miserable teams sitting out in the cold. Here's my guess, assuming there are no more losses among the top seven teams:

Two are clearly in: FSU is undefeated, a conference champion and defending national champion. The Noles will be in the CFP. Alabama will definitely go to the playoffs by virtue of its win over Miss. State and its championship of the toughest conference.

Two are clearly out: Mississippi State won't go because it would mean that two of the Big Five conference champions would have to stay home. And one of Baylor and TCU sits -- no way does the Big 12 get two teams in the CFP in the case of this logjam.

Two of Oregon, Ohio State, and Baylor/TCU get to go -- one gets to stay home. This is a tough choice.

I agree with your reasoning, but I start by eliminating Ohio State -- far and away the weakest schedule of any one-loss team and the worst loss of any P5 champ (assuming they win the champ).

The interesting one to me is the TCU/Baylor debate. If the committee follows its published guidelines, it's got to be Baylor ... but I don't know if I trust them (and maybe K-State will bail them out by beating the Bears).

I have to guess today, it's Alabama, FSU, Oregon, Baylor ... I'd have TCU and maybe Miss State ahead of Ohio State, but I think the committee will favor the conference champ.

PS I have a question about the Big 12 rules. If TCU and Baylor win out, they have the same conference record, but Baylor has the head-to-head ... in the ACC (before the playoff game), that's a co-championship -- the head-to-head doesn't matter. I'm not sure of the Big 12 rules, but it could be important since the committee criteria is (1) conference championships; (2) head-to-head and (3) strength of schedule. If they win out, TCU has a very, very slight edge in strength of schedule -- they played the same conference schedule but TCU has a non-conference win over a good, but not ranked Minnesota team that's better than any Baylor OOC win. But Baylor has the head-to-head. If that also gives Baylor the conference title, then the committee would almost HAVE to pick Baylor. If they are co-champs, then its a roll of the dice. So what is the Big 12 rule?

[Reilly]

per this: http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2014-ratings.html

... the teams you list are:

1. Alabama
2. Oregon
3. [Miss]
4. [GA]
5. [Auburn]
6. Miss ST
7. TCU
8. Ohio State
9. Baylor
10. FSU

I haven't seen Oregon play, but if they are impressing the computers that much, I'd think they get in.

What if FSU barely beats Florida and barely beats Duke in Charlotte? Leave them out?

Duke will hopefully make the committee's job a bit easier.

[sagegrouse]

per this: http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2014-ratings.html

... the teams you list are:

1. Alabama
2. Oregon
3. [Miss]
4. [GA]
5. [Auburn]
6. Miss ST
7. TCU
8. Ohio State
9. Baylor
10. FSU

I haven't seen Oregon play, but if they are impressing the computers that much, I'd think they get in.

What if FSU barely beats Florida and barely beats Duke in Charlotte? Leave them out?

Duke will hopefully make the committee's job a bit easier.

Your list is computer ratings. I am inclined to think that Georgia and Ole Miss, each with two losses, are not gonna make it, unless there are some real upsets ahead of them.

I agree with you about Oregon. I think an undefeated FSU is a shoo-in, even if games are close. Heck, the Noles were lucky to beat Miami and went up to #1 in the AP. I think if Alabama wins out, the Tide is in the CFP.

This leaves one from among Ohio State, TCU and Baylor. Hmmmm...... You are right that Ohio State's record is the least impressive of the three, although its two best wins were in the past two weeks.

[Wander]

Your list is computer ratings. I am inclined to think that Georgia and Ole Miss, each with two losses, are not gonna make it, unless there are some real upsets ahead of them.

I agree with you about Oregon. I think an undefeated FSU is a shoo-in, even if games are close. Heck, the Noles were lucky to beat Miami and went up to #1 in the AP. I think if Alabama wins out, the Tide is in the CFP.

This leaves one from among Ohio State, TCU and Baylor. Hmmmm...... You are right that Ohio State's record is the least impressive of the three, although its two best wins were in the past two weeks.

I think Georgia and Ole Miss are very realistically still in it, although they do not control their own destinies.

If Auburn beats Alabama and Ole Miss wins out, Ole Miss wins the SEC West. Similarly, if Missouri loses one of their remaining games, Georgia wins the SEC East. I think either team would make the playoff if they win the SEC with only two losses.

I agree the idea of an undefeated FSU missing the playoff is silly, even though it would be hilarious.

[Dev11]

I'm just glad the talk has moved away from there being 3 SEC teams in the playoff. I know it was inevitable given that all those teams had to play each other and losses were inevitable, but it seems more likely than not at this point that the playoff will consist of teams from four different conferences. The only way the SEC gets two teams in the playoff is further unexpected chaos in conference championship games.

[Reilly]

Your list is computer ratings. I am inclined to think that Georgia and Ole Miss, each with two losses, are not gonna make it ...

Yes, the list I linked to is computer ratings. Simply showing where the computer ranks the seven teams you referenced (w/ Oregon way ahead of the others). Not advocating that the three highly ranked computer teams will crash the party -- why I denoted them in brackets.

[sagegrouse]

TCU slaughtered the Longhorns last night, being a recipient of six turnovers. Is it enough to make the CFP?

Other zero or one-loss teams include:

FSU -- vs. Florida and Georgia Tech (ACC championship)
Alabama -- vs. Auburn and, if successful, Mizzou or Georgia (SEC ch.)
Mississippi State -- @ Ole Miss and, if Bama loses, vs. Mizzou or Georgia
Oregon -- @ Oregon State and vs. Arizona, Arizona State or UCLA (PAC-12 ch.)
Ohio State -- vs. Michigan and Wisconsin or (I guess) Minnesota (Big Ten ch.)
Baylor vs. Texas Tech and Kansas State (no Big 12 ch.)

I don't think any of these teams can lose and expect to be in the CFP, unless four of these seven lose.

The PAC-12 opponent for Oregon will be settled today, with UCLA hosting Stanford and Arizona State at Arizona. UCLA has beaten both Arizona teams and (I guess) holds the tie-breaker.

[blazindw]

The PAC-12 opponent for Oregon will be settled today, with UCLA hosting Stanford and Arizona State at Arizona. UCLA has beaten both Arizona teams and (I guess) holds the tie-breaker.

UCLA does hold the tiebreaker. If they beat Stanford, they play Oregon. If they lose, the winner of Arizona-ASU represents the Pac 12 South in the conference championship game.

[Olympic Fan]

TCU slaughtered the Longhorns last night, being a recipient of six turnovers. Is it enough to make the CFP?

Other zero or one-loss teams include:

FSU -- vs. Florida and Georgia Tech (ACC championship)
Alabama -- vs. Auburn and, if successful, Mizzou or Georgia (SEC ch.)
Mississippi State -- @ Ole Miss and, if Bama loses, vs. Mizzou or Georgia
Oregon -- @ Oregon State and vs. Arizona, Arizona State or UCLA (PAC-12 ch.)
Ohio State -- vs. Michigan and Wisconsin or (I guess) Minnesota (Big Ten ch.)
Baylor vs. Texas Tech and Kansas State (no Big 12 ch.)

I don't think any of these teams can lose and expect to be in the CFP, unless four of these seven lose.

The PAC-12 opponent for Oregon will be settled today, with UCLA hosting Stanford and Arizona State at Arizona. UCLA has beaten both Arizona teams and (I guess) holds the tie-breaker.

I think TCU still needs a lot of help because if Baylor wins out, TCU will not have a conference championship -- Baylor will. I asked the question on this thread a couple of weeks ago about the Big 12 tiebreaker procedure and most seemed to think its like the ACC -- there is no tiebreaker for the title. But apparently that's wrong -- in the Big 12, head-to-head is a tiebreaker:

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/09/in-the-event-of-an-11-1-tie-big-12-would-submit-baylor-as-its-champion-to-cfp-committee/

Since conference championship is listed as the NUMBER ONE criteria in the committee's own guidelines, it's hard to see how 11-1 TCU can go ahead of 11-1 Baylor (which also has head-to-head win over the Frogs). I know they are ahead right now, but with conference championships undecided, that can't be factored in yet (this might also hurt Miss State if Bama beats Auburn and locks it out of the SEC title game).

TCU can run up the score on a mediocre Texas team all it wants, but unless Baylor loses down the stretch, they're going to have a tough time making it.

PS You are right -- UCLA does have the tiebreaker in the Pac 12 South. If they beat Stanford, then they play Oregon in the title game. If Stanford pulls the upset, then the Arizona-ASI winner plays Oregon for the conference title.

[Reilly]

This Nov 11 WashPo piece says Big 12 would not recommend a single team in the event of a tie:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/11/11/big-12-wont-recommend-either-baylor-or-tcu-to-college-football-playoff-if-they-tie-for-conference-title/

As I read the NBC piece you linked, it was saying the Big 12 recognizes co-champs like the ACC

[sagegrouse]

This Nov 11 WashPo piece says Big 12 would not recommend a single team in the event of a tie:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/11/11/big-12-wont-recommend-either-baylor-or-tcu-to-college-football-playoff-if-they-tie-for-conference-title/

As I read the NBC piece you linked, it was saying the Big 12 recognizes co-champs like the ACC

Here's the direct quote via Twitter from ESPN reporter Jake Trotter, sourcing CFP Exec. Dir. Bill Hancock:

"


Jake Trotter ✔ @Jake_Trotter
Follow

Per Bill Hancock, the conferences advise the committee who their champs are, which is one of factors in selection process…

Per Big 12, while league technically recognizes co-champs, winner of head-to-head would be submitted to playoff by Big 12 as champ
5:33 PM - 9 Nov 2014
There are co-champs, but somehow, the Big 12 would submit the winner of the head-to-head to the CFP Selection Committee. I don't suppose the Selection Committee would necessarily be bound by that submission.

[Reilly]

The espn reporter tweets were November 9.

The November 11 Washington Post article has the Big 12 commissioner saying no team would be recommended over the other.

[sagegrouse]

The Thundering Herd scored 66 today against Western Kentucky, but it wasn't enough. The Hilltoppers prevailed in OT with a successful two-point pass after Marshall had scored seven.

[Olympic Fan]

Wow, the politics going on behind closed doors within the Big 12 must be intense.

Just watched a documentary about the Big Ten vote in 1973 to send Ohio State to the Rose Bowl over Michigan. The two teams had the same record and in the finale, they tied 10-10. So who gets the Rose (the ONLY bowl a Big Ten team could go to in those days)?

By custom is should have been Michigan, based on the Big Ten tradition of not sending the same team twice in a row. But the Big Ten has lost four straight Rose Bowls and league commissioner Wayne Duke didn't want to lose a fifth. Behind closed doors, he reportedly pushed for Ohio State, based on the fact that Michigan QB Don Franklin was hurt late in the OSU game. There are reports -- disputed by Duke and the conference office -- that Duke exaggerated the extent of Franklin's injury. As a result, the league ADs voted either 6-4 or 5-4-1 to send Ohio State -- a decision that still excites great bitterness in Michigan circles.

I can't say what's going on behind closed doors in he Big 12, except I'm sure the conference wants more than anything else to put one team in the Final Four. With TCU ranked slightly higher, naming Baylor the conference champion doesn't help achieve that goal. Not sure either team has more clout with the league office -- it's not like Texas is involved (they always get what they want in the Big 12).

We'll see how it plays out, but you know there's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes.

[Wander]

The most interesting result of the week so far to me was Missouri winning. If Georgia won the SEC, I think they'd be in the playoff even with 2 losses. But now Missouri's in the SEC title game, and what happens if they upset Alabama or MSU? No way a team with a home loss to Indiana (winless in the Big 10!) can make it in, right? But you also can't and shouldn't shut out the SEC, so how do you pick between Alabama, MSU, or both at that point? Some of us mentioned this as a possibility a while back, but now it's a lot more realistic. It'd be a weird situation.

Also wondering if there's any set of dominoes that could put Arizona in, assuming a(nother) victory against Oregon.

[vick]

The most interesting result of the week so far to me was Missouri winning. If Georgia won the SEC, I think they'd be in the playoff even with 2 losses. But now Missouri's in the SEC title game, and what happens if they upset Alabama or MSU? No way a team with a home loss to Indiana (winless in the Big 10!) can make it in, right? But you also can't and shouldn't shut out the SEC, so how do you pick between Alabama, MSU, or both at that point? Some of us mentioned this as a possibility a while back, but now it's a lot more realistic. It'd be a weird situation.

Also wondering if there's any set of dominoes that could put Arizona in, assuming a(nother) victory against Oregon.

In the unlikely--but not impossible--scenario that Alabama loses and MSU wins tomorrow, and Missouri then beats MSU in the championship game, I absolutely could see the SEC being (justifiably) shut out.

[sagegrouse]

The most interesting result of the week so far to me was Missouri winning. If Georgia won the SEC, I think they'd be in the playoff even with 2 losses. But now Missouri's in the SEC title game, and what happens if they upset Alabama or MSU? No way a team with a home loss to Indiana (winless in the Big 10!) can make it in, right? But you also can't and shouldn't shut out the SEC, so how do you pick between Alabama, MSU, or both at that point? Some of us mentioned this as a possibility a while back, but now it's a lot more realistic. It'd be a weird situation.

Also wondering if there's any set of dominoes that could put Arizona in, assuming a(nother) victory against Oregon.

Arizona is currently ranked #11 and is assumed to beat Oregon. It will pass UCLA, #8, which lost to Stanford Friday. It needs four of the 0-1 loss teams to lose: Oregon (by definition) and three others. Not likely to be TCU, which only has Iowa State at home remaining, or FSU which needs to beat the Gators at home and GT in Charlotte. Baylor gets Texas Tech today and tough K-State next Saturday and would be my second choice for a loss. Ohio State really could lose to Wisconsin. There are two candidates from the SEC; one would have to lose -- Bama against Auburn or Missouri; Mississippi State against Ole Miss or Mizzou (which would mean no SEC team has fewer than two losses).

If Arizona beats Oregon (hard to type that once, much less twice), then it should pass Michigan State and Georgia as well as UCLA.

I guess Arizona's best chance is to join a field with TCU, the SEC champ, and FSU. Looks like the key events are (a) Baylor loses, (b) Ohio State loses, and (c) either Miss State or Bama pick up another loss. Conditional probability of all three happening appears to be about 0.20, assuming Baylor's chance of a loss is 0.4, Ohio State's 0.5, and another SEC loss for either Bama or Miss St 0.7. I haven't sorted through the ESPN (or whomever) win probabilities. Then, of course, Arizona has to take care of business against Oregon.

I am rooting for either (a) all the top teams win, which gives the Selection Committee a chance to earn their money (I'm still chapped that I wasn't included). Or (b), no one emerges unscathed so the Committee then has to sort through a bunch of two-loss teams to see who is most deserving.

[Reilly]

... It needs four of the 0-1 loss teams to lose ... Not likely to be ... FSU which needs to beat the Gators at home and GT in Charlotte ...

What do the computers say FSU's chance of winning the next two is? That is, the chance of beating UF multiplied by the chance of beating GT? I would not be surprised if it were less than 50%.

[sagegrouse]

What do the computers say FSU's chance of winning the next two is? That is, the chance of beating UF multiplied by the chance of beating GT? I would not be surprised if it were less than 50%.

If I read the table (http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings) correctly, the ESPN FPI has the "win-out" percentage for Florida State at 48.9%.

[A-Tex Devil]

So thankfully, we aren't going to have two SEC teams in the playoff unless something really crazy happens this weekend. If MSU had won over the weekend and gotten in over any 1 loss conference champion, that would have been a horrible outcome given they would have no wins over any team with less than 4 losses, when every other team would have beaten a top 10 ranked team. If this year doesn't illustrate the self-fulfilling prophecy of the SEC, and specifically, the SEC West's, scheduling inflating the teams rankings, I don't know what will. I am loving the meme that the ACC's whitewash of the SEC last weekend has no bearing on the quality of the SEC West since all of those teams were in the East.

In any event, things always seem to even themselves out. I still think at least 2 of the 6 teams with one loss are going to lose (most likely, in my mind, Baylor and Ohio St.).

Here are some scenarios:

1. If 2 of 'Bama, Ohio St., Florida St. and Oregon lose, does lock in the other 2 of those 4 + Baylor and TCU? If not, why not?

2. If Georgia Tech beats FSU, should a 2 loss conference champion like Georgia Tech, Mizzou, Arizona or Wisconsin get in over a one loss Florida St.? I bet they do, although, I still think number of losses should trump being a conference champion, all other things being equal. You can't ignore those slip ups despite what happens next weekend. Unfortunately, Florida St's other competition did it no favors with Notre Dame and Miami going into tail spins and Florida having another down year. That schedule at the beginning of the season should have been unimpeachable.

3. If it comes to a decision, Baylor or TCU? While I prefer TCU in every possible way, I can't get past the head to head. It's more of a differentiating factor then the UT/OU/Texas Tech debate of 2008 because there isn't a third team. When you add in that TCU only squeaked by WVU, the team that beat Baylor, Baylor's loss isn't as bad, and I think the head to head trumps Baylor's embarrassing non-con (which is embarrassing again next year). That said, TCU is the better team, imo.

I think the committee could save itself a headache in the future by creating a few black and white rules with respect to the P5 conferences:

1. Every team must play at least 1 P5 team every year. Ideally they'd elimiate FCS games as well, but that would kill a lot of FCS programs that need those paydays. So limit that to 1 every 2 years. This would allow for a better (if still very imperfect) understanding of conference superiority and avoid embarrassing stats like the whole of the SEC scheduling only 11 P5 conference games this year, 4 of which were permanent rivalry games.

2. With #1 in place, committee starts with losses first. You can't get in over a team with fewer losses.

3. If a conference champ (or co-champ) has the same amount of losses as an "at-large" team, conference champ gets in first.

There may still need to be some decisions made after applying those 3 rules, but it reemphasizes the damage of a loss and adds value to the conference champion without allowing a 3 or 4 loss conference champ to sneak into the playoff -- which should never happen with 4 teams.

[Wander]

So thankfully, we aren't going to have two SEC teams in the playoff unless something really crazy happens this weekend. If MSU had won over the weekend and gotten in over any 1 loss conference champion, that would have been a horrible outcome given they would have no wins over any team with less than 4 losses, when every other team would have beaten a top 10 ranked team. If this year doesn't illustrate the self-fulfilling prophecy of the SEC, and specifically, the SEC West's, scheduling inflating the teams rankings, I don't know what will. I am loving the meme that the ACC's whitewash of the SEC last weekend has no bearing on the quality of the SEC West since all of those teams were in the East.

Here are the non-conference top-25 wins by division (somebody please correct me with any I missed):

SEC West: #9 (away), #11 (neutral), #22 (neutral)
SEC East: #19 (home)
Pac 12 North: #7 (home)
Pac 12 South: none
Big 10 East: none
Big 10 West: #14 (away)
Big 12: none
ACC Coastal: #6 (away), #12 (away)
ACC Atlantic: none

So, even though the SEC west supposedly scheduled a bunch of nobodies, they still have the most good non-conference wins of any division. In fact, the only division that even comes close is our own ACC Coastal. However, the ACC Coastal has non-conference losses to EIGHT teams and the SEC West has ZERO. The ACC Coastal played a tougher schedule than the SEC West, true.... yet the SECW still got more top 25 wins, and 6 of the 8 ACCC losses were to teams that are now unranked.

Anyone denying that the SECW is by far the best division this year is just being really stubborn. It's not even close. Normally SEC fans are obnoxious as hell about hyping up their conference, but for this one particular season, for that one division, they are 100% correct. (As I mentioned in the other thread, the SEC East is totally ordinary and not better than the ACC).

[Olympic Fan]

1. If 2 of 'Bama, Ohio St., Florida St. and Oregon lose, does lock in the other 2 of those 4 + Baylor and TCU? If not, why not?

2. If Georgia Tech beats FSU, should a 2 loss conference champion like Georgia Tech, Mizzou, Arizona or Wisconsin get in over a one loss Florida St.? I bet they do, although, I still think number of losses should trump being a conference champion, all other things being equal. You can't ignore those slip ups despite what happens next weekend. Unfortunately, Florida St's other competition did it no favors with Notre Dame and Miami going into tail spins and Florida having another down year. That schedule at the beginning of the season should have been unimpeachable.


Maybe I'm misreading this, but why do you include Ohio State -- which as of the last CFA rankings are out of the playoff -- with Bama, FSU and Oregon -- which are currently in.

A lot of talk this weekend about Ohio State losing its QB and how that impacts their chances. But the fact is, they are currently behind TCU -- and this weekend TCU had a better win (a rout of Texas) than Ohio State (a tough win over Michigan). The point is, not whether they fall because f losing Barrett, but how can you justify jumping them over TCU without a QB?

As for your second question, I think it depends on how many of the two-loss teams win conference championship. Yes, one-loss teams from TCU and Byalor should go ahead of two loss champions Georgia Tech, Missouri, Wisconsin. It would be fun to see the chaos, but I don't think that happens.

I think Bama and FSU will win to lock up playoff spots. I also think Oregon wins the rematch with Arizona, but in my eyes, Arizona is the one two loss challenger than I could see getting a playoff spot. I think the Pac 12 game Friday night is an elimination game.

The fourth spot is the one that's hard to figure. I think the Baylor-TCU debate is fascinating. I think I agree with A-Tex ... based on the eye test, TCU is better, but based on the committee's public guidelines, Baylor has the edge. Strength of schedule is interesting -- for 11 of 12 games, the two are virtually identical in strength of schedule (actually 10 of the 12 games ARE identical, nine Big 12 opponents and SMU OOC). TCU's edge is one game -- a non-conference win over Minnesota that Baylor can't match.

Assuming Baylor beats Kansas State this weekend, I think the committee HAS to pick Baylor over TCU or else their so-called guidelines are BS.

[A-Tex Devil]

Here are the non-conference top-25 wins by division (somebody please correct me with any I missed):

SEC West: #9 (away), #11 (neutral), #22 (neutral)
SEC East: #19 (home)
Pac 12 North: #7 (home)
Pac 12 South: none
Big 10 East: none
Big 10 West: #14 (away)
Big 12: none
ACC Coastal: #6 (away), #12 (away)
ACC Atlantic: none

So, even though the SEC west supposedly scheduled a bunch of nobodies, they still have the most good non-conference wins of any division. In fact, the only division that even comes close is our own ACC Coastal. However, the ACC Coastal has non-conference losses to EIGHT teams and the SEC West has ZERO. The ACC Coastal played a tougher schedule than the SEC West, true.... yet the SECW still got more top 25 wins, and 6 of the 8 ACCC losses were to teams that are now unranked.

Anyone denying that the SECW is by far the best division this year is just being really stubborn. (As I mentioned in the other thread, the SEC East is totally ordinary and not better than the ACC).

I don't deny that the SEC West is the best division with the best set of non-conference wins. But by limiting the P5 games played by their teams (and Big XII is guilty, too), it still creates a self-fulfilling prophecy when teams beat LSU or Texas A&M or Auburn, who end up not really being that good, based on a sample size of 2 or 3 non-conference wins. I get that football doesn't really allow for a sample size to determine any measurable conference strength, but it could get better if teams in all conferences were forced to schedule at least 1 P5 opponent each year.

In the end, a lot of this gets relaxed by not requiring the committee to put out rankings each week, but I get that will never happens with the ratings ESPN has been getting on that Tuesday night show.

[Wander]

I also think Oregon wins the rematch with Arizona, but in my eyes, Arizona is the one two loss challenger than I could see getting a playoff spot. I think the Pac 12 game Friday night is an elimination game.


Elimination game for sure, but not necessarily a play-in game. I think Arizona needs help. They almost certainly need FSU or Ohio State to lose... but I think they need both to lose. But amazing that they're in it at all (woo!).

I wonder if there's a situation that would allow both TCU and Baylor in. Say, Georgia Tech, Alabama, Oregon, and Wisconsin all win this weekend?

[Wander]

I get that football doesn't really allow for a sample size to determine any measurable conference strength, but it could get better if teams in all conferences were forced to schedule at least 1 P5 opponent each year.


Yeah, that's really it. I would love to implement what you suggested earlier and mandate a P5 opponent and ban FCS opponents.

[A-Tex Devil]

Maybe I'm misreading this, but why do you include Ohio State -- which as of the last CFA rankings are out of the playoff -- with Bama, FSU and Oregon -- which are currently in.

A lot of talk this weekend about Ohio State losing its QB and how that impacts their chances. But the fact is, they are currently behind TCU -- and this weekend TCU had a better win (a rout of Texas) than Ohio State (a tough win over Michigan). The point is, not whether they fall because f losing Barrett, but how can you justify jumping them over TCU without a QB?


I included Ohio St. because if only one of those 4 teams lose, and it's not Ohio State, I'll be SHOCKED if Ohio St doesn't get in ahead of either Baylor or TCU. I think for both Big XII teams to get in, at least 2 of the other 4 teams have to lose. It would be stunning to me, and a testament to the committee's fortitude, if they put in two private schools from the same conference with very little history or drawing power over a 1 loss conference champion Ohio St.

Edited to add: 'Zona and Wiscy have arguments as potential 2 loss champs based on their losses. Mizzou (Indiana, 34-0 UGa shutout) and Ga Tech (15-501) do not, imo.

[-bdbd]

Maybe I'm misreading this, but why do you include Ohio State -- which as of the last CFA rankings are out of the playoff -- with Bama, FSU and Oregon -- which are currently in.

A lot of talk this weekend about Ohio State losing its QB and how that impacts their chances. But the fact is, they are currently behind TCU -- and this weekend TCU had a better win (a rout of Texas) than Ohio State (a tough win over Michigan). The point is, not whether they fall because f losing Barrett, but how can you justify jumping them over TCU without a QB?

As for your second question, I think it depends on how many of the two-loss teams win conference championship. Yes, one-loss teams from TCU and Byalor should go ahead of two loss champions Georgia Tech, Missouri, Wisconsin. It would be fun to see the chaos, but I don't think that happens.

I think Bama and FSU will win to lock up playoff spots. I also think Oregon wins the rematch with Arizona, but in my eyes, Arizona is the one two loss challenger than I could see getting a playoff spot. I think the Pac 12 game Friday night is an elimination game.

The fourth spot is the one that's hard to figure. I think the Baylor-TCU debate is fascinating. I think I agree with A-Tex ... based on the eye test, TCU is better, but based on the committee's public guidelines, Baylor has the edge. Strength of schedule is interesting -- for 11 of 12 games, the two are virtually identical in strength of schedule (actually 10 of the 12 games ARE identical, nine Big 12 opponents and SMU OOC). TCU's edge is one game -- a non-conference win over Minnesota that Baylor can't match.

Assuming Baylor beats Kansas State this weekend, I think the committee HAS to pick Baylor over TCU or else their so-called guidelines are BS.

I had the same thoughts about Ohio State. There will be a lot of "traditionalists" who want to see the Big10 in the playoffs, but I just don't see OSU getting in over TCU/Baylor. The close game with Michigan, and the loss of their QB is just the final dagger. It isn't like their conference competition has been very strong this year, and they lost to a mediocre 6-6 ACC team in OOC play.

I think it comes down to TCU vs. Baylor, in the end, for the finsl playoff spot. And I'd look for the championship to be Bama over Oregon. But I really like that they'll have to beat two top-quality opponents to earn it.

[sagegrouse]

I don't deny that the SEC West is the best division with the best set of non-conference wins. But by limiting the P5 games played by their teams (and Big XII is guilty, too), it still creates a self-fulfilling prophecy when teams beat LSU or Texas A&M or Auburn, who end up not really being that good, based on a sample size of 2 or 3 non-conference wins. I get that football doesn't really allow for a sample size to determine any measurable conference strength, but it could get better if teams in all conferences were forced to schedule at least 1 P5 opponent each year.

In the end, a lot of this gets relaxed by not requiring the committee to put out rankings each week, but I get that will never happens with the ratings ESPN has been getting on that Tuesday night show.

Was that Jim Nantz Saturday night who made a suggestion I found intriguing. "Why not take one Saturday in September and have the entire Big Ten play the ACC and the SEC play the PAC-12?" (I forget his specific examples, but these are representative.)

[Olympic Fan]

I included Ohio St. because if only one of those 4 teams lose, and it's not Ohio State, I'll be SHOCKED if Ohio St doesn't get in ahead of either Baylor or TCU. I think for both Big XII teams to get in, at least 2 of the other 4 teams have to lose. It would be stunning to me, and a testament to the committee's fortitude, if they put in two private schools from the same conference with very little history or drawing power over a 1 loss conference champion Ohio St.

Edited to add: 'Zona and Wiscy have arguments as potential 2 loss champs based on their losses. Mizzou (Indiana, 34-0 UGa shutout) and Ga Tech (15-501) do not, imo.

Fair enough opinion, but it doesn't seem to be shared by the polls or the CFA committee -- which all have TCU ahead of Ohio State. While the CFA committee has the Buckeyes ahead of Baylor, both the AP and the coaches also rank Baylor ahead of the Buckeyes.

Throw in the concern about the quarterback situation and I'll be shocked if Ohio State makes it unless there are multiple losses ahead of them.

[A-Tex Devil]

Fair enough opinion, but it doesn't seem to be shared by the polls or the CFA committee -- which all have TCU ahead of Ohio State. While the CFA committee has the Buckeyes ahead of Baylor, both the AP and the coaches also rank Baylor ahead of the Buckeyes.

Throw in the concern about the quarterback situation and I'll be shocked if Ohio State makes it unless there are multiple losses ahead of them.

Long and the committee can easily justify shifting things around if they need to based on their criteria of the week methodology thus far. I do hope you end up being right, though. But the committee may be trolling us at this point. Last week, Long said they consider the ranking AT THE TIME THE GAME WAS PLAYED as a reason Ms St. was still at 4. To quote Poehler/Myers, "Really?!?" So, for instance, TCU gets credit for taking down a fifteenth ranked Oklahoma St. earlier this year, while Baylor only beat them when they had a losing record. Or consider the multitude of top 10 teams Mississippi St beat - LSU, Texas A&M, Auburn. Oh wait, all of those teams have at least 4 losses now.

Next week, if TCU, Baylor and tOSU all win, TCU's win is pretty meaningless, while Baylor and tOSU will have beaten top 10 teams to vastly improve their quality wins. Those wins aren't taken into account yet, but I think it's fair to re-evaluate. I really, really want TCU to make as it's my parents alma mater, but I think they need more help then people realize even if they are a strong 4 this week.

[Wander]

But the committee may be trolling us at this point. Last week, Long said they consider the ranking AT THE TIME THE GAME WAS PLAYED as a reason Ms St. was still at 4. To quote Poehler/Myers, "Really?!?" So, for instance, TCU gets credit for taking down a fifteenth ranked Oklahoma St. earlier this year, while Baylor only beat them when they had a losing record. Or consider the multitude of top 10 teams Mississippi St beat - LSU, Texas A&M, Auburn. Oh wait, all of those teams have at least 4 losses now.

Totally with you on this. I can't believe the committee actually said this last week. Honestly, I sort of doubt they really believe it, which makes me wish we wouldn't have these damn shows every week (a ranking without the show I think would be fine).

Anyway, Ohio State's biggest concern isn't TCU's schedule or how the committee will consider the injury, if it all. Their biggest concern is Wisconsin, who is a really good team and actually a favorite to win the game.

[Olympic Fan]

Ranking at the time of the game DOES matter ... but it is actually much more complicated than that.

Oklahoma State is a good example. The Cowboys started the season with a very good, very talented QB. That's the team FSU beat and, I assume, TCU beat. But when their QB got hurt, they were never able to replace him. The OSU team that Baylor beat WAS a much weaker team.

The same applies to Clemson -- it makes a world of difference whether you beat the Tigers with Deshaun Warson at QB or Cole Stoudt.

I would hope there are enough good football minds on the committee to understand and evaluate that kind of issue. But Jeff Long's statements at those weekly announcements don't give me much faith in their judgment.

[Wander]

Ranking at the time of the game DOES matter ... but it is actually much more complicated than that.

Oklahoma State is a good example. The Cowboys started the season with a very good, very talented QB. That's the team FSU beat and, I assume, TCU beat. But when their QB got hurt, they were never able to replace him. The OSU team that Baylor beat WAS a much weaker team.announcements don't give me much faith in their judgment.

Oklahoma State is a perfect example of why A-Tex Devil is correct and rankings at the time should not matter at all.

Oklahoma State's original starting quarterback played a grand total of 1 game. He was injured very early in the second game of the season. In other words, he's completely irrelevant in regards to how to evaluate Oklahoma State this year. So, no, it's not fair to say that OSU was a "much weaker" team when they played Baylor compared to when they played TCU, even though they were ranked when they played TCU. They were ranked when they played TCU because (a) they were 3-0 in the Big 12, but now we know that those three wins came against by far the worst three teams in the conference and they would go on to lose to every other conference team by over 20 points each, and (b) they were getting a little credit for playing FSU close in a loss, but now we know that my flag football team could play FSU close in a loss. Again, basically the ideal example of why ranking at the end of the season is what should be considered.

Is it the case that Oklahoma State was a better team when they played FSU and they had the original starting quarterback? Probably, but it's a fool's errand to ask the committee to try to quantify that and give FSU significant extra credit, as they don't really have any data this season to go by and would need to just guess. And Oklahoma State was unranked in the preseason, so it's not like they were expected to be some powerhouse with that quarterback anyway.

[Tripping William]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though. It seems endemic to the process, at this point.

http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/12/01/baylor-bears-pr-firm-college-football-playoff-spot

[Wander]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though. It seems endemic to the process, at this point.

http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/12/01/baylor-bears-pr-firm-college-football-playoff-spot

Haha, did they just karmically guarantee a loss to Kansas State this weekend?

[Tripping William]

Haha, did they just karmically guarantee a loss to Kansas State this weekend?

Probably. Unless they posted their Request for Proposal in the "I won't be the one to jinx it" thread. In which case, they're safe.

[devildeac]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though. It seems endemic to the process, at this point.

http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/12/01/baylor-bears-pr-firm-college-football-playoff-spot

Made me look. I thought maybe Baylor started having paper class/GPA/APR/eligibility issues:rolleyes:.

[Olympic Fan]

Oklahoma State is a perfect example of why A-Tex Devil is correct and rankings at the time should not matter at all.

Oklahoma State's original starting quarterback played a grand total of 1 game. He was injured very early in the second game of the season. In other words, he's completely irrelevant in regards to how to evaluate Oklahoma State this year. So, no, it's not fair to say that OSU was a "much weaker" team when they played Baylor compared to when they played TCU, even though they were ranked when they played TCU. They were ranked when they played TCU because (a) they were 3-0 in the Big 12, but now we know that those three wins came against by far the worst three teams in the conference and they would go on to lose to every other conference team by over 20 points each, and (b) they were getting a little credit for playing FSU close in a loss, but now we know that my flag football team could play FSU close in a loss. Again, basically the ideal example of why ranking at the end of the season is what should be considered.

Is it the case that Oklahoma State was a better team when they played FSU and they had the original starting quarterback? Probably, but it's a fool's errand to ask the committee to try to quantify that and give FSU significant extra credit, as they don't really have any data this season to go by and would need to just guess. And Oklahoma State was unranked in the preseason, so it's not like they were expected to be some powerhouse with that quarterback anyway.

I agree that the Oklahoma injury situation -- as it applies to the TCU-Baylor debate -- should have no impact. I didn't realize that the kid was hurt before the TCU game --although t the kind of thing that the committee should know.

IO do think it factors into the Florida State consideration -- he DID play and play very well against the Noles. It may b impossible to know the exct difference his presence makes, but that why we supposedly have football people on the committee -- to make that kind of judgment.

We've certainly seen enough of Clemson with and without Deshaun Watson to consider the difference between beating the Tigers with a healthy Watson at QB and beating them with Cole Stoudt at !QB. FSU should get the credit it deserves for winning that game.

[Tripping William]

And by chaos, I mean:

Mizzou over Bama
Zona over Oregon
GT over FSU
Iowa St. over TCU
Bucky over Brutus
K State over Baylor

Talk about a committee that might have to earn its money . . . .

[jimsumner]

And by chaos, I mean:

Mizzou over Bama
Zona over Oregon
GT over FSU
Iowa St. over TCU
Bucky over Brutus
K State over Baylor

Talk about a committee that might have to earn its money . . . .

The Las Vegas oddsmakers would have to earn their money to come up with odds on that happening.

[Duvall]

And by chaos, I mean:

Mizzou over Bama
Zona over Oregon
GT over FSU
Iowa St. over TCU
Bucky over Brutus
K State over Baylor

Talk about a committee that might have to earn its money . . . .

The committee chucks everything and tells Alabama and Florida State to show up in Jerryworld on January 12.

[sagegrouse]

And by chaos, I mean:

Mizzou over Bama
Zona over Oregon
GT over FSU
Iowa St. over TCU
Bucky over Brutus
K State over Baylor

Talk about a committee that might have to earn its money . . . .

The Las Vegas oddsmakers would have to earn their money to come up with odds on that happening.

Using the ESPN FPI data, the chance of six upsets is 0.0052%. (Five chances out of 100,000?) The chance of the favorites winning all six games is 15.9%. The chance of exactly one upset seems to be 36%. Ergo, the chance of two or more upsets is 48%.

[Wander]

I agree that the Oklahoma injury situation -- as it applies to the TCU-Baylor debate -- should have no impact. I didn't realize that the kid was hurt before the TCU game --although t the kind of thing that the committee should know.

IO do think it factors into the Florida State consideration -- he DID play and play very well against the Noles. It may b impossible to know the exct difference his presence makes, but that why we supposedly have football people on the committee -- to make that kind of judgment.

We've certainly seen enough of Clemson with and without Deshaun Watson to consider the difference between beating the Tigers with a healthy Watson at QB and beating them with Cole Stoudt at !QB. FSU should get the credit it deserves for winning that game.

I'm definitely with you that we've seen enough of Clemson to know that they are far better with Watson than Stoudt. But what difference does it actually make? They only lost one game while Watson was injured, a road game against Georgia Tech. But Georgia Tech would probably be favored in that game anyway, even with a healthy Watson - obviously, the committee shouldn't just decide Clemson would have won that game. Meaning Clemson's ranking probably hasn't actually been affected by the injury, so giving FSU extra credit for that win seems silly.

For me, the same thing applies to Ohio State. I don't know why people are angsting about the injury as it relates to playoff selection given that the quarterback isn't coming back for the possible playoff game. If they lose to Wisconsin, they're out no matter what, no matter the QB situation. And Wisconsin is a really good team, so style points shouldn't matter in a victory - squeaking by with a 21-20 victory or something shouldn't, in mind, invalidate their other wins because they have a different QB.

There are lots of other reasons I don't like selection committees taking into account injuries (for example, having good depth and a good backup quarterback is part of being a good team), but my point here is that the situations where the injuries would even make a meaningful difference in a team's ranking and ability to contend for a playoff are much rarer than most people think.

[A-Tex Devil]

And by chaos, I mean:

Mizzou over Bama
Zona over Oregon
GT over FSU
Iowa St. over TCU
Bucky over Brutus
K State over Baylor

Talk about a committee that might have to earn its money . . . .

TCU is giving Iowa St. 33.5 points. That would be a top 5 all time upset. Plus it's in Ft. Worth, and TCU isn't going to have any let down. That's not happening.

All the rest are more than possible. Now -- I heard on the radio today (Brad Edwards of ESPN being interviewed in Austin) that the protocol of the committee is actually more specific than advertised. I looked it up, and here is the key paragraph (http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/selection-committee-protocol):


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.

So to the chaos above, I think that it adds a ton of "equivocation" (to use the protocol's root word) such that they should pick who they feel are the top 4 conference champs.

At that point, it's TCU and 'Zona (by virtue of beating Oregon twice and no "bad" losses), and a toss up between the other 4 teams (Wiscy, Mizzou, Ga Tech, K-State, who would be co-champs with TCU :) ). I would live with however that played out.

That paragraph also explains why the Big XII is putting TCU and Baylor both up if they both win. It puts it on the committee to decide to override the commissioner of the Big XII's prerogative by ID'ing only one of those teams as a conference champion. The way the committee *should* evaluate that last spot if everyone wins is to take the 3 teams at issue (TCU, Baylor, and Ohio St), and eliminate the team they think is the third best. If that is Ohio St., then Baylor gets in over TCU on head to head. But if committee thinks TCU and Ohio St. are better than Baylor, the head to head doesn't come into play, then the committee chooses between Ohio St. and TCU.

[Tripping William]

The Las Vegas oddsmakers would have to earn their money to come up with odds on that happening.

To be clear, I don't see all of this happening, by a long shot, especially Iowa St. over TCU and Mizzou over Bama. The rest, though, has some plausibility, and this *is* college football after all (with the 2007 season waving to say "Remember me??!").

[chris13]

I'd love to see Florida State, Ohio State, Oregon, TCU and Baylor win, and Alabama lose. Then I'd like to see the committee exclude Mizzou (even though I like Mizzou) and leave the SEC out of the playoff. That would just be awesome.

[OldPhiKap]

And by chaos, I mean:

Mizzou over Bama
Zona over Oregon
GT over FSU
Iowa St. over TCU
Bucky over Brutus
K State over Baylor

Talk about a committee that might have to earn its money . . . .

The four would be (not in order) tOSU, Bama, Zona (jumping Sparty), FSU.

Or not. You need to predict the scores, too. ;>)

[jimsumner]

I'd love to see Florida State, Ohio State, Oregon, TCU and Baylor win, and Alabama lose. Then I'd like to see the committee exclude Mizzou (even though I like Mizzou) and leave the SEC out of the playoff. That would just be awesome.

When it looked like Auburn might bump off Alabama, we were faced with the delicious possibility of the SEC sitting it out.

How would ESPN have spun that one?

[Wander]

Pretty sure Alabama would (and should) make the playoff as an 11-2 SEC champion anyway.

I absolutely love that the committee is willing to put 1-loss teams ahead of undefeated Florida State. The idea that teams with X losses must be placed ahead of teams with X+1 is absolutely absurd. Good for them.

But TCU ahead of FSU is, I think, too far. TCU has wins over 9 and 20 at home, FSU has wins over 18 at home and 21 on the road. Those two things are about equal... but then TCU has a loss, which should put FSU ahead. Florida isn't *that* bad that only winning by a few points is embarrassing enough to make a switch there.

[A-Tex Devil]

Pretty sure Alabama would (and should) make the playoff as an 11-2 SEC champion anyway.

I absolutely love that the committee is willing to put 1-loss teams ahead of undefeated Florida State. The idea that teams with X losses must be placed ahead of teams with X+1 is absolutely absurd. Good for them.

But TCU ahead of FSU is, I think, too far. TCU has wins over 9 and 20 at home, FSU has wins over 18 at home and 21 on the road. Those two things are about equal... but then TCU has a loss, which should put FSU ahead. Florida isn't *that* bad that only winning by a few points is embarrassing enough to make a switch there.

I still think anyone ahead of FSU is too far, but I guess I don't care so long as they get in if they remain undefeated. FSU hasn't impressed, but they also haven't lost, and losses should be the single most differentiating component in my opinion - especially 1 loss vs. no losses.

If you want to look at things from a more sinister angle -- if everyone wins next week, I assume this 4 stays the same. That puts Bama and FSU in New Orleans and TCU and Oregon in the Rose Bowl. Convenient. It also separates TCU and Baylor even more. The more teams you are comparing, the less important the head to head is - and, frankly, I think that is fair. Now that TCU (who has close to a guaranteed win) is 3, and Baylor 6, if Ohio St and FSU lose and Baylor wins, Baylor slides into that 4 spot. You can argue who should be 3 or 4, but if both teams squeeze in, swap them and make everyone happy.

... and if 'Bama had lost to a 3 loss Auburn team at home, then gone on to win the SEC Championship, no way they should get in over a one loss conference champion. A one loss FSU that loses to Ga Tech? Sure

[MulletMan]

When it looked like Auburn might bump off Alabama, we were faced with the delicious possibility of the SEC sitting it out.

How would ESPN have spun that one?

Most likely with pre-written columns about how a 2-loss SEC team deserved to be in the playoff over 1-loss teams like OSU, Baylor, etc.

[MulletMan]

I still think anyone ahead of FSU is too far, but I guess I don't care so long as they get in if they remain undefeated. FSU hasn't impressed, but they also haven't lost, and losses should be the single most differentiating component in my opinion - especially 1 loss vs. no losses.

If you want to look at things from a more sinister angle -- if everyone wins next week, I assume this 4 stays the same. That puts Bama and FSU in New Orleans and TCU and Oregon in the Rose Bowl. Convenient. It also separates TCU and Baylor even more. The more teams you are comparing, the less important the head to head is - and, frankly, I think that is fair. Now that TCU (who has close to a guaranteed win) is 3, and Baylor 6, if Ohio St and FSU lose and Baylor wins, Baylor slides into that 4 spot. You can argue who should be 3 or 4, but if both teams squeeze in, swap them and make everyone happy.

... and if 'Bama had lost to a 3 loss Auburn team at home, then gone on to win the SEC Championship, no way they should get in over a one loss conference champion. A one loss FSU that loses to Ga Tech? Sure

I think its funny that we are having this debate about FSU, and I think that it puts a little too much weight on all these advanced metrics. You know what the number one metric should be? WINNING THE GAMES. I am no fan of FSU and would love to see them lose to GT this weekend (who... by the way... if they win... really should be in the discussion for the playoff, shouldn't they? Clemson, mighty Georgia and then FSU in consecutive weeks? Who else has that resume?), but if they win, and have won all their games, they should be the one seed. Period. Bama lost to Ole Miss... who got wrecked by 30 points by a sub .500 Arkansas team, and Bama was only in that game due to a missed face mask that resulted in a scoop and score (which the committe members know because they watch all the games). Its not as "good" of a loss as everyone is saying. TCU lost. Oregon lost. FSU has won every game on their slate. Yes, some of it has been ugly, but does it matter if you've got the most points at the end of the game?

[Wander]

I think its funny that we are having this debate about FSU, and I think that it puts a little too much weight on all these advanced metrics. You know what the number one metric should be? WINNING THE GAMES. I am no fan of FSU and would love to see them lose to GT this weekend (who... by the way... if they win... really should be in the discussion for the playoff, shouldn't they? Clemson, mighty Georgia and then FSU in consecutive weeks? Who else has that resume?), but if they win, and have won all their games, they should be the one seed. Period. Bama lost to Ole Miss... who got wrecked by 30 points by a sub .500 Arkansas team, and Bama was only in that game due to a missed face mask that resulted in a scoop and score (which the committe members know because they watch all the games). Its not as "good" of a loss as everyone is saying. TCU lost. Oregon lost. FSU has won every game on their slate. Yes, some of it has been ugly, but does it matter if you've got the most points at the end of the game?

I look forward to all of you guys arguing that Gonzaga deserves a higher seed than Duke in March.

[Des Esseintes]

I look forward to all of you guys arguing that Gonzaga deserves a higher seed than Duke in March.

Duly noted. I dislike the winz argument as well, but isn't FSU different? They're the defending champions AND they haven't lost a game. They haven't lost a game in, literally, years. Granted that this team != last year's team, the two share a ton of personnel. I think an undefeated defending champ deserves to stay #1 until someone beats it on the field of play.

[A-Tex Devil]

I look forward to all of you guys arguing that Gonzaga deserves a higher seed than Duke in March.

False equivalency. But frankly, yeah, if there is any undefeated team in March with Gonzaga's schedule, I am fine with them having a higher seed than even a 1 loss Duke. In the end, they'd both be #1 seeds. If it was SFA or FGCU or some other small conference school? No. Just like Marshall was properly ranked all year before they lost.

In any event, if we are going to pump up the ACC, and Florida St unquestionably plays in the tougher division of the ACC (arguably 4 of the best 5 teams in conference on that side depending on whether you think Duke could beat BC), they need to get some credit for going undefeated. They may be squeaking by, but they also never had the slip up that any of the other teams had.

On another note, I was interested to see how they'd rank the 2 loss teams. They absolutely buried Missouri, which is fair because its 2 losses are probably worse than every single loss of the teams in front of them. If chaos reigns and they beat 'Bama, I can't see any way that Mizzou gets in the top 4, and it's also going to hurt 'Bama's ability to sneak back in.

[Highlander]

I'd love to see Florida State, Ohio State, Oregon, TCU and Baylor win, and Alabama lose. Then I'd like to see the committee exclude Mizzou (even though I like Mizzou) and leave the SEC out of the playoff. That would just be awesome.

So would I. IMO, the only way that could happen would be for Mizzou to beat Alabama while the remaining top 3 win out. Then Ohio St. has a legitimate claim for spot #4 if they beat Wisconsin w/o their QB and have a better record than Alabama. That's a lot of "ifs" though. Does anyone think that the selection committee would agree that none of the top 4 teams in College Football reside in the SEC?

A-Tex Devil always said that if you lose twice, you have no business playing for the national title, end of argument, and I tend to agree. But I have a hard time seeing how the SEC bias wouldn't convince the committee that at least ONE of their teams belongs in the playoff, regardless of how many losses they have. Missouri would have the biggest gripe if Alabama remains - they would have beaten Bama head to head, won the SEC, and have the same record as Alabama, yet still get left out. In that scenario, its more Alabama bias than SEC.

FWIW, I think part of the reason the committee has flip-flopped the top 4 rankings so much is to give them leeway to shuffle things around however they want this last week. If FSU wins convincingly and Bama struggles with Mizzou, they could flip those two teams. Any detractors could be shot down with "We've flip flopped teams on a weekly basis all season based on how we see them. Haven't you been paying attention?"

I also think that it doesn't matter too much who is #1 vs. who is #4, and that the committee should try to create compelling matchups at that point. Is it fair for FSU to have to travel to California to play Oregon, or Oregon to travel to LA to play Alabama? I think TCU/Oregon and FSU/Bama are probably the best pairings matchup-wise, and if all 4 teams win out I think that's what we'll get. Won't really matter who is 1/4 and 2/3.

[Wander]

False equivalency. But frankly, yeah, if there is any undefeated team in March with Gonzaga's schedule, I am fine with them having a higher seed than even a 1 loss Duke. In the end, they'd both be #1 seeds. If it was SFA or FGCU or some other small conference school? No. Just like Marshall was properly ranked all year before they lost.

In any event, if we are going to pump up the ACC, and Florida St unquestionably plays in the tougher division of the ACC (arguably 4 of the best 5 teams in conference on that side depending on whether you think Duke could beat BC), they need to get some credit for going undefeated. They may be squeaking by, but they also never had the slip up that any of the other teams had.

On another note, I was interested to see how they'd rank the 2 loss teams. They absolutely buried Missouri, which is fair because its 2 losses are probably worse than every single loss of the teams in front of them. If chaos reigns and they beat 'Bama, I can't see any way that Mizzou gets in the top 4, and it's also going to hurt 'Bama's ability to sneak back in.

Agreed that Missouri doesn't deserve to be in the Top 4, even if they upset Alabama. The SEC East is nothing special, so there's no reason to consider a 2-loss champion from there... maybe if they had better non-con wins or something. But who loses to Indiana? Horrible.

I actually think the two divisions of the ACC are about equal. Atlantic has 3 of the 4 best teams (I'd put Duke above BC, but it's close), but also unquestionably the two worst teams.

[CDu]

Mike and Mike made a good point this morning about the ridiculousness of the selection committee. Last week, the committee deemed it appropriate to have Mississippi State ahead of TCU. The Bulldogs played a tough game against Ole Miss at Ole Miss and lost. Had MSU won, there's no way TCU jumps ahead of them, right?

But the committee decided that TCU's win over a terrible Texas team was meaningful enough that it caused them to bump FSU down to 4th. So had MSU won, would the committee really have put the ONLY UNDEFEATED BCS CONFERENCE TEAM out of the playoff?

The logic of TCU jumping over FSU based on last week's result is mindboggling. As is the logic of bumping FSU down to 4th despite being undefeated, and despite having the the second best strength of record, and despite being the only BCS team in the country to play 3 other BCS teams in their 4 non-conference games. For comparison, while Alabama was feasting on Western Carolina in November, FSU took on Florida. And Alabama had two other chump games (Southern Miss and FAU) while FSU played only one gimmee (Citadel) and then Notre Dame.

Yes, it's true that FSU has had a ton of close wins. But they've continually won, and they've won against a better schedule than they're getting credit for.

Hopefully, it won't matter. They should beat Georgia Tech this weekend, and if they do so they should get in. But man, this process seems even murkier/questionable than the BCS was.

[nocilla]

So would I. IMO, the only way that could happen would be for Mizzou to beat Alabama while the remaining top 3 win out. Then Ohio St. has a legitimate claim for spot #4 if they beat Wisconsin w/o their QB and have a better record than Alabama.

I thought these quotes from back in week 3 were interesting. I don't mean to single out these particular posters as the views were shared by many. But the thoughts were that Mich St was the only team from the B1G with a chance and that was a slim one. And here we are 11 weeks later with OSU sitting at the doorstep as possibly the first team in if one of the top 4 falters in their final games.


I'm burying the Big Ten ...

Yes, Michigan State or Wisconsin could win out in the league and finish 12-1. But that 12-1 would be at the end of the one-loss line.


I agree that there's a lot of football left to play out yet, and that theoretically MSU and Wisconsin could find their way back into the mix. Let's just say that I think the chance is so small that it's kinda not worth mentioning... If I had to predict right now, I'd go with FSU, Oregon, and two of Alabama, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma.


All I'm saying is that it's so early in the season, that it's silly to say any team ranked 11th in the country has no realistic shot at making it into the field of four, even if their conference is performing poorly.


Their conference is performing abysmally, and they've pretty much completed the bulk of their OOC slate, so they can't really improve vis a vis the other conferences. Barring a complete implosion of the other 4 major conferences, the B1G playoff hopes basically rest on the shoulders of Nebraska and Penn State.


We've seen this before though haven't we? If a team that is currently ranked #11 wins the rest of their games, regardless of who they are playing, they will inadvertently keep moving up as teams ahead of them lose games. Right now, me and lots of sports writers can say that a one loss MSU team shouldn't be ahead of any other one loss power 5 team. But will everyone remember that late in the season when one of the top 4 teams losses and MSU is sitting there at #5 or #6?

[brevity]

FSU hasn't impressed, but they also haven't lost, and losses should be the single most differentiating component in my opinion - especially 1 loss vs. no losses.


I think its funny that we are having this debate about FSU, and I think that it puts a little too much weight on all these advanced metrics. You know what the number one metric should be? WINNING THE GAMES.

College basketball is about winning games. College football is about pushing a product. The committee believes in the Alabama brand (despite Ole Miss) and the Oregon brand (despite Arizona) more than it believes in the walking reality show of FSU.


The logic of TCU jumping over FSU based on last week's result is mindboggling.

As opposed to Alabama and Oregon, TCU's rise really has nothing to do with FSU and everything to do with the committee's desire to boldly separate it from Ohio State and Baylor. This takes care of the Big 12 problem a week in advance.

Also, this week's shakeup sets the committee up nicely for no real surprises in the final rankings. Take a look:

1. Alabama
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. FSU
5. Ohio State
6. Baylor
7. Arizona
8. Michigan State
9. Kansas State
10. Mississippi State
11. Georgia Tech
12. Ole Miss
13. Wisconsin
14. Georgia
15. UCLA
16. Missouri

If the top 4 teams win, there's your playoff. But if Oregon, TCU, or FSU lose, they're out, and things get interesting.

Let's say one of them loses, and Ohio State and Baylor both win. Which is in? The committee can make a logical argument for picking either: Ohio State because it's ranked higher, won its conference outright, and gives the playoff 4 teams from different leagues; Baylor because it beat a better team in its last weekend, is healthier, and is co-winner of its conference. There is no Big 12 problem if both TCU and Baylor get in.

Ohio State and Baylor are the only 2 teams that are likely to crash the 4-team playoff. Arizona is the highest ranked team with 2 losses. If they beat Oregon (again), they'll still need either TCU or FSU to lose, and probably either Ohio State or Baylor to lose as well.

Finally, if Alabama loses, and Oregon, TCU, and FSU win, it will be very amusing to see whether the committee can justify keeping them in the playoff at #4 over Ohio State or Baylor. I think they will, but it's a tough argument. Months of SEC West superiority comes to a crashing halt if Missouri wins the conference championship.

[Dev11]

Finally, if Alabama loses, and Oregon, TCU, and FSU win, it will be very amusing to see whether the committee can justify keeping them in the playoff at #4 over Ohio State or Baylor. I think they will, but it's a tough argument. Months of SEC West superiority comes to a crashing halt if Missouri wins the conference championship.

I can't imagine many tears that would taste sweeter to a majority of the country than those of an SEC getting shut out of the new 4 team playoff.

[TexHawk]

Let's say one of them loses, and Ohio State and Baylor both win. Which is in? The committee can make a logical argument for picking either: Ohio State because it's ranked higher, won its conference outright, and gives the playoff 4 teams from different leagues; Baylor because it beat a better team in its last weekend, is healthier, and is co-winner of its conference. There is no Big 12 problem if both TCU and Baylor get in.

I find this whole thing to be incredibly interesting. This is the 1st time a committee will be doing this. What kind of precedent do they want to set?

For example, let's say Bama, Oregon, and TCU win, but FSU loses. Ohio State and Baylor both win. Committee can (a) award Baylor and the Big12, shutting out the Big10 (b) award the Big10, deny the Big12 two teams.

If it's (b) the SEC, Big12, Pac12, Big10 are all represented. The ACC had a shot, but lost. This outcome likely maximizes the number of happy people across the sport. The Big12 and Baylor may have a beef, but that would fall on mostly deaf ears. They would still have a representative in the playoff.

If it's (a), well, there would be PO'ed people everywhere (outside of Dallas). The Big10 would be upset, obviously. The ACC would be upset, FSU v Baylor is a legitimate argument. The SEC and Pac12 would be upset that they only got one rep, while a inferior conference (in their eyes) got two without a CCG.

[A-Tex Devil]

I find this whole thing to be incredibly interesting. This is the 1st time a committee will be doing this. What kind of precedent do they want to set?

For example, let's say Bama, Oregon, and TCU win, but FSU loses. Ohio State and Baylor both win. Committee can (a) award Baylor and the Big12, shutting out the Big10 (b) award the Big10, deny the Big12 two teams.

If it's (b) the SEC, Big12, Pac12, Big10 are all represented. The ACC had a shot, but lost. This outcome likely maximizes the number of happy people across the sport. The Big12 and Baylor may have a beef, but that would fall on mostly deaf ears. They would still have a representative in the playoff.

If it's (a), well, there would be PO'ed people everywhere (outside of Dallas). The Big10 would be upset, obviously. The ACC would be upset, FSU v Baylor is a legitimate argument. The SEC and Pac12 would be upset that they only got one rep, while a inferior conference (in their eyes) got two without a CCG.

I think in that scenario, Ohio St. gets in ahead of Baylor, mostly because they are ranked ahead of them now, and they are playing comparable teams this weekend. I really think the order you see is the order you are going to get as far as ability to get into the top 4. That said, if Ohio St. slips into the top 4 and Oregon wins, I'll be stunned if they don't tweak the seeding to have a traditional Rose Bowl game.

[Duvall]

I think in that scenario, Ohio St. gets in ahead of Baylor, mostly because they are ranked ahead of them now, and they are playing comparable teams this weekend. I really think the order you see is the order you are going to get as far as ability to get into the top 4. That said, if Ohio St. slips into the top 4 and Oregon wins, I'll be stunned if they don't tweak the seeding to have a traditional Rose Bowl game.

Which would be superfraudulent to have Ohio State leapfrog FSU after FSU beat a higher ranked opponent than Ohio State did, both playing on neutral fields.

[A-Tex Devil]

Which would be superfraudulent to have Ohio State leapfrog FSU after FSU beat a higher ranked opponent than Ohio State did, both playing on neutral fields.

True. But I think there is something to be said that if you are in, seeding doesn't really matter. If 8 or 16 teams, sure. But not 4. I wouldn't have a problem at all with the committee pairing the 2 playoff games regionally.

[Reilly]

Here's the 4-team playoff if we let the computer at www.sports-reference.com pick the teams, as of today:

Oregon
Alabama
Mississippi
TCU

Here's the 4-team playoff if we selected teams first based on winning percentage:

FSU
Ohio State
Marshall
Oregon
Alabama

... and then further winnowed them based on their "srs" computer ranking:

FSU (#10)
Ohio State (#7)
Oregon (#1)
Alabama (#2)
(Marshall out at #24)
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2014-standings.html

[nocilla]

Anyone know what the BCS rankings would have been?

Personally, I would have been fine with them keeping the BCS rankings and using that to determine the 4 playoff teams.

[A-Tex Devil]

Anyone know what the BCS rankings would have been?

Personally, I would have been fine with them keeping the BCS rankings and using that to determine the 4 playoff teams.

It's not really easy to figure out because the computers were forced to eliminate margin of victory as a variable for the BCS. The computer rankings that were part of the BCS that included MOV ran two sets of rankings and submitted the one without MOV to the BCS. Some of those rankings had major shifts taking, or not taking, into account MOV. When the BCS died, most of those models stopped running the non-MOV rankings.

Also, the Harris Poll no longer exists.

Brad Edwards, and others, are doing their best to model it anyway. Long story short, it's not that much different and would have FSU and 'Bama playing in the title game.

[nocilla]

It's not really easy to figure out because the computers were forced to eliminate margin of victory as a variable for the BCS. The computer rankings that were part of the BCS that included MOV ran two sets of rankings and submitted the one without MOV to the BCS. Some of those rankings had major shifts taking, or not taking, into account MOV. When the BCS died, most of those models stopped running the non-MOV rankings.

Also, the Harris Poll no longer exists.

Brad Edwards, and others, are doing their best to model it anyway. Long story short, it's not that much different and would have FSU and 'Bama playing in the title game.

And who would be the other 2? Oregon and TCU?

[gcashwell]

Anyone know what the BCS rankings would have been?

Personally, I would have been fine with them keeping the BCS rankings and using that to determine the 4 playoff teams.

•Alabama, .96431 BCS points (1)
•Florida State, .95977 (4)
•Oregon, .92933 (2)
•TCU, .86107 (3)

[Tripping William]

So much for complete chaos. Oregon's in.

[Wander]

So much for complete chaos.

Well, maybe. The thing is that Arizona was sort of the agreed-upon 2 loss team to make the jump it was needed. But now if FSU, Ohio State, and Baylor all lose (each of which is pretty realistic), how do you pick between Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, and Mississippi State for the 4th team? MSU is the highest ranked at the moment, but of course GT and Wisc would then have conference championships...

[Tripping William]

Well, maybe. The thing is that Arizona was sort of the agreed-upon 2 loss team to make the jump it was needed. But now if FSU, Ohio State, and Baylor all lose (each of which is pretty realistic), how do you pick between Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, and Mississippi State for the 4th team? MSU is the highest ranked at the moment, but of course GT and Wisc would then have conference championships...

Still a chance for some less-than-complete chaos, but I'm guessing TCU is now in as well.

[ice-9]

Still a chance for some less-than-complete chaos, but I'm guessing TCU is now in as well.

I don't know if that's a given, because if Baylor beats Kansas St a good argument can be made that TCU and Baylor have similar resumes, with Baylor beating TCU in the head to head. Sure, TCU has a better win with Minnesota, but, I'd think the head-to-head result trumps that.

Would that mean FSU gets bumped out? Not necessarily, because beating Georgia Tech would be considered a great win. Probably the best of the season for FSU, and will be enough to keep them in the top 4. Anyway, I'd be shocked if the committee kept out the undefeated reigning champion.

[Tripping William]

I don't know if that's a given, because if Baylor beats Kansas St a good argument can be made that TCU and Baylor have similar resumes, with Baylor beating TCU in the head to head. Sure, TCU has a better win with Minnesota, but, I'd think the head-to-head result trumps that.

Would that mean FSU gets bumped out? Not necessarily, because beating Georgia Tech would be considered a great win. Probably the best of the season for FSU, and will be enough to keep them in the top 4. Anyway, I'd be shocked if the committee kept out the undefeated reigning champion.

So TCU drops two+ spots after a 55-3 win (assuming FSU wins)? Really hard for me to see absent a *complete* blowout by Baylor. And even then.

[Wander]

So TCU drops two+ spots after a 55-3 win (assuming FSU wins)? Really hard for me to see absent a *complete* blowout by Baylor. And even then.

Yeah. I think basically what we've learned is that, like in basketball, head-to-head doesn't really matter to the committee. Unless the committee just completely changes the order tomorrow. Baylor and TCU are both 11-1 (if Baylor wins, which is not a given), TCU's schedule is slightly better, so TCU is ahead. That simple.

[arnie]

Would that mean FSU gets bumped out? Not necessarily, because beating Georgia Tech would be considered a great win. Probably the best of the season for FSU, and will be enough to keep them in the top 4. Anyway, I'd be shocked if the committee kept out the undefeated reigning champion.

Probably a moot point in a few hours, but if GaT wins, we beat the ACC champs. When was the last time Duke did this? I can't answer my own question, maybe Sumner can. Would guess it may occurred in the 60s.

[Tripping William]

Add Bama.

[ice-9]

Yeah. I think basically what we've learned is that, like in basketball, head-to-head doesn't really matter to the committee. Unless the committee just completely changes the order tomorrow. Baylor and TCU are both 11-1 (if Baylor wins, which is not a given), TCU's schedule is slightly better, so TCU is ahead. That simple.

The committee has shown that it's willing to shuffle teams around.

Conference championships and head-to-head are two of the stated criteria. In Baylor's case, they have claim to both.

It'll be interesting to see what the committee does, but I think only one of the two gets in.

If FSU loses, Ohio State gets the last spot.

[OldPhiKap]

The committee has shown that it's willing to shuffle teams around.

Conference championships and head-to-head are two of the stated criteria. In Baylor's case, they have claim to both.

It'll be interesting to see what the committee does, but I think only one of the two gets in.

If FSU loses, Ohio State gets the last spot.

I don't like tOSU -- but they are putting on a clinic so far tonight. Against a good Whisky team.

[Wander]

Conference championships and head-to-head are two of the stated criteria. In Baylor's case, they have claim to both.

It'll be interesting to see what the committee does, but I think only one of the two gets in.

If FSU loses, Ohio State gets the last spot.

Hey, if I had a vote, I'd put Baylor above TCU. But the committee hasn't seemed to care about head-to-head so far, despite their guidelines. Not sure why that would change this week. TCU has a share of the conference championship too, so that part cancels out.

Of course, what actually needs to happen is for college football to tell the conferences that they each need a way to come up with an unambiguous single champion, and give each of the five power conference champion auto bids. I bet we'll get to that point fairly soon.

I think the situation is actually pretty clear right now - Alabama, Oregon, TCU, and FSU if they win, Ohio State otherwise.

[vick]

The committee has shown that it's willing to shuffle teams around.

Conference championships and head-to-head are two of the stated criteria. In Baylor's case, they have claim to both.

It'll be interesting to see what the committee does, but I think only one of the two gets in.

If FSU loses, Ohio State gets the last spot.

If the committee treats a three point loss at Baylor as some sort of trump card, that is truly idiotic, given that home field advantage in college football is usually estimated to be around three points.

[Wander]

On 2nd thought, if Ohio State is going to win in an infinity point shutout, I guess they could be a threat to beat out both Big 12 teams even if FSU wins. But I think it's a lock to be Alabama, Oregon, and two of TCU/FSU/OSU.

Not that anyone cares too much about seeding, but I wonder if Oregon can jump Alabama given that their opponent this weekend was ranked higher.

[Duvall]

On 2nd thought, if Ohio State is going to win in an infinity point shutout, I guess they could be a threat to beat out both Big 12 teams even if FSU wins. But I think it's a lock to be Alabama, Oregon, and two of TCU/FSU/OSU.

Not that anyone cares too much about seeding, but I wonder if Oregon can jump Alabama given that their opponent this weekend was ranked higher.

I imagine the "seeding" will be whatever is required to get a Big Ten/Pac-12 Rose Bowl, with Alabama to the Sugar.

[ice-9]

Hey, if I had a vote, I'd put Baylor above TCU. But the committee hasn't seemed to care about head-to-head so far, despite their guidelines. Not sure why that would change this week. TCU has a share of the conference championship too, so that part cancels out.

Of course, what actually needs to happen is for college football to tell the conferences that they each need a way to come up with an unambiguous single champion, and give each of the five power conference champion auto bids. I bet we'll get to that point fairly soon.

I think the situation is actually pretty clear right now - Alabama, Oregon, TCU, and FSU if they win, Ohio State otherwise.

I read somewhere that each conference is supposed to submit their champion, and for the Big 12, Baylor is that pick even though they are formally co-champions with TCU. In the event of a tie, the head-to-head result determines the outcome for the Big 12.

If I remembered or read that incorrectly though, my bad.