CFP Predictions

I saw something similar to this on r/cfb and thought it was interesting, so I figured i'd share it here.

Based on FiveThirtyEight, below is the % chance that each team in the AP Top 25 makes the playoffs given they win out.

1. Alabama (8-0): >99% chance
2. Penn State (7-0): >99% chance
3. Georgia (7-0): >99% chance
4. TCU (7-0): >99% chance
5. Wisconsin (7-0): >99% chance
6. Ohio State (6-1): 98% chance
7. Clemson (6-1): 98% chance
8. Miami (6-0): 98% chance
9. Notre Dame (6-1): 47% chance
10. Oklahoma (6-1): 95% chance
11. Oklahoma State (6-1): 83% chance
12. Washington (6-1): 83% chance
13. Virginia Tech (6-1): 77% chance
14. NC State (6-1): 92% chance
15. Washington State (7-1): 78% chance
16. Michigan State (6-1): 83% chance
17. South Florida (7-0): 3% chance
18. UCF (6-0): 2% chance
19. Auburn (6-2): 69% chance
20. Stanford (5-2): 67% chance
21. USC (6-2): 27% chance
22. West Virginia (5-2): 41% chance
23. LSU (6-2): 71% chance
24. Memphis (6-1): <1% chance
25. Iowa State (5-2): 55% chance

Things that caught my attention:

- I know we have a loss and Miami doesnt, but it surprises me that they have that much higher of a chance than tech does
- Notre Dame's lack of a conference seems to really be hurting their chances
- USC (who has lost their only two 'hard' games, imo), has a better chance to make the playoffs than a 7-0 USF, because G5.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

I may be wrong. But I don't think this takes into consideration the re-seeding that humans will do when conferences shake out. For example, if we win out I just don't see how they put a non-champion one loss team over a champion one loss team. Maybe they'd keep UW ahead of us if they, Bama, TCU and PSU all win out? I doubt it though.

To expand on a tangent. This is the appeal for Fuente and why I think unless a true blue blood comes knocking, he is here for the long haul. There's just no feasible way that the ACC champion with 0 or 1 loss(es) will be left out. Its just the way it is. Conference championships matter. And VT gives him as good a chance as any to win one.

Conference championships matter.

Penn State would like to have a word...

Twitter me

2-Loss Penn State

Think of it less as a prerequisite and more of the 1a tiebreaker.

Yea Penn State got shafted! *checks last years 49-10 Michigan score... jk they screwed themselves.

But honestly, based on THE OHIO STATE getting crushed last year, given a similar scenario, they take the conference champion over the one loss team.

I can easily see it happening if the one loss non champion team is Alabama or Georgia and they play a close game in Atlanta.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

Eh, we would have beaten two top ten teams, avenged our only loss and became ACC Champs. Georgia would have just lost. Recency, conference championship and big wins would be in our favor. Especially if ND chokes down the road. But most importantly I hope we are in a situation to be talked about being jumped.

Georgia would also have ranked wins over Notre Dame, Mississippi State, Auburn, and potentially Georgia Tech. I just don't see us jumping UGA in this scenario.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

Not that the transitive property applies, but in this scenario, voters would compare how VT and Georgia played against our common opponent, GT.

"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson

"11-0, bro"
-Hunter Carpenter (probably)

I think more of it comes down to who has beaten who. Georgia has played a much tougher schedule than we have.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

Assuming you're saying UGa's loss comes to Bama in the SEC Title game...

Notre Dame, Mississippi State, Auburn (maybe GT) compared to

West Virginia, Miami (top 10), NCSU/Clemson (most likely Top 10), possibly GT and an ACC Title.

Assuming this holds, you'd have a tough time convincing me that Georgia has a better resume than what VT would present. And comparing losses would be #1 Alabama or #2 (and healthy) Clemson. The losses would net, and VT would arguably have the higher profile wins, plus a conference title.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

But if we beat Clemson or NC State that would mean our loss would be against a 2 loss Clemson team because they would have either lost either us or NC State. If we beat NC State best case scenario they'd be a two loss NCSU team. Whereas UGA's loss would best case be a undefeated Alabama team. That just seems like a better resume especially when you factor in an SEC bias. Essentially what I'm saying best case scenario is our loss would be against a 2 loss team and Georgia's would be against a no loss Alabma.

Also, only one of us gets a ranked win over GT. If we beat them they probably won't be ranked but if we lose to them they will probably be ranked. It's hard to tell.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

This is how I would see it probably shaking out. I'm not trying to be a dick, but it does seem somewhat disingenuous to argue that UGa's win over GT makes them more deserving then us (when in the hypothetical we also have a win over GT). (you weren't saying that Alum, but somebody upthread did).

That all being said, I see Georgia pulling a klempson and shitting the bed to FLA this weekend, so it's not going to matter.

I've been drinking.

I don't think UGA's win over GT would make them more deserving us. I think wins over Notre Dame, Mississippi State, and Auburn would make them more deserving. Only way I'd think they wouldn't be is if they get blanked by Bama.

No hard feelings. Fun to discuss this kind of stuff especially with Tech involved.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

Absolutely, it just caught my eye somewhere above (I'm not even sure it was you) when somebody included GT on UGa's resume as a great win, but not ours.

If we get to be a 1 loss ACC champion, Notre Lame would concern me a lot, either as another 1 loss team with great wins, or as a great win for UGA, or possibly even as a good loss for stupid fucking USC.

I've been drinking.

It might have been me but like I said if we and UGA beat GT it won't be a great win. I'd think a one loss ND team would jump us on reputation alone.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

That would be an interesting conversation. Common opponent (who unbaks Miami the hardest) could make that really entertaining.

I've been drinking.

one loss ND team would jump us on reputation alone.

The Fiesta Bowl is calling on Skype.

Where is Lawson?!

I just find it hard to believe they'd put the loser of a conference championship game in the playoff. I think the only way 2 teams from the same conference will ever get in together is if they're in the same division and one avoids the conference championship altogether IE Penn State and Ohio State last year or Bama-LSU in 2011.

If you put both SECCG participants in you're essentially giving yourself a 25% chance of just making the championship a rematch of that game 2 games later, and that's assuming you have a Georgia/Bama that just lost at #2 or #3 and not even #4 so that it's not an immediate rematch. I don't think that's happening.

I have to believe that the playoff committee would view an undefeated UGA-Bama match-up as a play-in game. There is no way you can put the loser of that game in the playoff.

Assume Bama & UGA, win out in regular season setting up an undefeated SEC championship game. Let's also assume PSU, TCU, and VT win out and are conference champions, those games having been wrapped up earlier in the day for our scenario. (Long way to go for all you 1-0'ers, I know. But this is fun and I'm gonna do it anyway so there.) Finally let's assume that any other teams fighting for the playoff have fallen out of contention (ND, UW, WSU, etc.).

So the projected playoff rankings may look something like this going into the Bama & UGA game:

1) Bama (Pending)
2) PSU
3) UGA (Pending)
4) TCU
5) VT

If Bama wins, what do you do with UGA? There is no way putting them ahead of a VT team with an ACC Championship and wins over WVU, Miami, and NCSU/Clemson makes any since. Even if you make the argument that UGA has a stronger strength of schedule than VT you can't argue the conference championships. They'd also have to somehow justify to the public, and to Alabama, why they are giving us a rematch of the SEC championship game as literally both teams next game.

Not wanting a back to back rematch could be a very real factor in Georgia not getting in. Regardless of whether they look the part or deserve to. If somehow they were 2 and only dropped to 3, that would probably be necessary for them to make it. While I know that sounds silly, remember that last year in November Clemson lost at home to 5-4 Pitt and dropped from... you guessed it... 2 to 3.

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm just saying it could.

The real nightmare scenario involves UGA winning that game and then having to figure out what to do with a one-loss Bama team.

Personally, I think if that scenario were to play out Bama should be left out but I doubt it would happen and would certainly understand why.

No Alabama in the playoff is the dream.

I'd love to see the national whiplash of trying to convince people they deserve to be in the playoff if they collapse in the SEC title game and its them vs a remaining Top 5 of a 1-loss B1G champion, BXII Champion, and ACC Champion, all of whom beat a Top 10 team in the Conference Championship Game.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

If that happens you get Alabama at #2 or #3 and Georgia at #1. No rematch in the first round, and a one loss conference champion gets shafted.

The Orange and Maroon you see, that's fighting on to victory.

You have a valid point, but I think it is a bit moot. I don't think anybody other than maybe Bama/Georgia is going to get through anything undefeated.

I honestly think that our best chance at VT making the CFP is for Clemson to steam roll through the rest of it's regular season games and us to win out, including curb stomping Miami and beating Clemson in the ACCCG. Plain and simple. Then you're looking at us vs. ND, assuming they win out. And I'm just taking a stab that they'll most likely take ND solely on history and all that "It's good for the sport for them to be in the elite class" bullshit.

As of right now, I'm saying Bama, Penn State, ACC champ (Clemson/VT/Miami) and TCU.

I'd love that to be Tech, but we would need a bit of help I think.

Warning- Filter lost.

"Look at this... This is just spectacular.... These people are losing their minds"

FREE THE "STICK IT IN" CHANT!!!

If Miami beats ND, and we curb stomp Miami, ND is a non-starter with 2 losses.

You're right, i should have said that it also depends on ND beating Miami. After we curb stomp them.

Warning- Filter lost.

"Look at this... This is just spectacular.... These people are losing their minds"

FREE THE "STICK IT IN" CHANT!!!

I see what you're saying for sure but I'm just kind going off some of the discussion I've heard where people have said they can see Georgia getting in with a loss to Alabama in Atlanta. I honestly see both sides and it kinda comes down to those teams in 4th through 8th I guess.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

"I know we have a loss and Miami doesnt, but it surprises me that they have that much higher of a chance than tech does..."

Other factors are probably taken into account. If Miami wins out, that means they've won the ACC and they're undefeated. NOWAYINHELL do they leave out the Canes if that happens.

But let's say VT wins out, and Miami lays 2 or 3 eggs, AND Clemson loses out or comes close. With the demise of FSU this season, the ACC would appear weak, and Tech has been the victim of an apparent weak conference in the past. So, yeah..

Leonard. Duh.

Yeah, the 'if they win out' qualifier means that basically any P5 conference champion is going to get in. Seriously, what undefeated P5 conference champion doesn't get in this year?

(goes to look at the rankings)

Alabama and Georgia are undefeated so far, but would play each other in the SECCG. the undefeated winner of that game is def in. And would probably be favored to win the NFC South.

Penn State and Wisconsin are undefeated, they would play in the BIGCG. the undefeated winner of that game is definitely in.

TCU is the only undefeated team in the BIGXXII. If they win out they are definitely in.

Miami is the only undefeated team in the ACC, if they win out, they are definitely in, even over a 1 loss SECCG loser.

Note that necessarily there will at most be 4 undefeated P5 teams this year.

LOLPAC12.

So an undefeated Miami (with their first ever ACCCG appearance and victory) absolutely gets in.

So let's say we beat Miami and win out. In a conversation about a 1 loss SECCG loser, possibly 1 loss BIGCG loser (especially if PSU), 1 Loss Notre Dame, 1 loss BIGXXII winner (OU, OKST, TCU), or possibly even whoever rolls out of the LOLPAC12, there are definitely permutations where we don't get in. Like I said, personally, I think we would, but you can't tell me with a straight face that it's 100% like you can with Miami.

I've been drinking.

Yeah any undefeated team gets in. I think it just boils down to what teams a 1 loss team has beaten. If we make it unscathed the rest of the season Tech's resume would hinge on Miami, West Virginia, Clemson, and whoever we'd beat in the ACCCG's wins. Those would be our biggest wins.

OH and Boston College. Q U A L I T Y W I N

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

After writing it and thinking about it some more, I think that was the real takeaway from my post, that there are certainly (at this point in time, a lot of) permutations of 1 loss teams that would fucking scare me if we end up as a 1 loss ACC champion.

I've been drinking.

- Notre Dame's lack of a conference seems to really be hurting their chances

I hope this is the case so that ND can get off of their 'special circumstances' - seems like there are way too many "Except if" or "Except when" statements that include Neuter Dame

Might be a good time for them to reconsider that partial membership in the ACC if we start looking for a replacement for Louisville.

Everyone says this but it makes zero sense for ND. They make way more money being an independent and have a good enough brand that they know going undefeated will get them in the playoff every time. They'll take that over a slightly increased chance of making it as a one or two loss in a conference every day of the week.

I get that they have a killer contract, but at some point it is gonna come back to bite them in the ass, especially with how the playoffs work. It will be interesting if we ever see all 5 power conferences champions with 1 loss, and a 1 loss ND team and how it would shake out.

We have a good shot at that this year. I can see both bama and georgia with one loss each (both 12-1) in the playoff, against a 1 loss acc team (12-1) and a one loss b10 team (12-1). Those should be selected ahead of a 11-1 ND team without a conference championship. Big12 is going to implode and pac12 is already eliminated.

If Notre Dame wins out and Georgia doesn't shit the bed they're in. The PAC12 is already in big trouble, and there's a good chance that the Big12 #goacc themselves out as well.

I'm surprised our percentage is so low. The only circumstance under which we don't make it if we win out is if the Atlantic champion has two losses or isn't Clemson.

The Orange and Maroon you see, that's fighting on to victory.

If NC State wins out, they will have beaten two top-ten teams in Notre Dame and Clemson. I would imagine that comfortably puts them in top 4-5 territory, and assuming we win out, I would say we are top 7-8. I still think the winner of that ACCCG puts themselves in the playoff.

The thing I'm the most afraid of is NC State dropping another game to a sub par team but winning their big ones. Their lack of national brand and two losses might not be enough to propel us to the playoff if we beat them in the ACCCG.

The Orange and Maroon you see, that's fighting on to victory.

Agreed, if NC State somehow wins the next two against ND and Clemson, we need to pull for them to win out. Clemson or NC State winning out plus us winning out is the only shot we will have to play our way into the playoff. I'm personally hoping Clemson wins out, we beat Miami, but Miami knocks off top ten Notre Dame to kill two birds with one stone (getting ND out of the picture entirely and making our Miami win look even better).

If ND makes it into the playoff over two P5 conference champions who have even halfway decent resumes, the 8 team playoff rabble will be out in force. Buy stock in torches and pitchforks.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

I see NC State winning the ACC slate, not sure if they beat Notre Dame. Winner of VT Versus Miami is the Coastal winner...The ACC Championship game will still be a good one

Hokies, Local Soccer, AFC Ajax, Ravens

If we win out, it means we'll have beaten a likely Top 5-6 Miami and either a Top 5 Clemson or Top 7-10 NCSU (assuming ND and Clemson bumps) in the ACC Title game.

There is a 0% chance we get left out with that kind of resume. Especially with us already checking in at #13. A win over Miami probably vaults us into the Top 8 alone.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

Going to be pulling for the Cousins this weekend as Oklahoma State travels to Morgantown. That would knock #11 out and boost the strength of our win over WVU. Also pulling for UCLA to upset Washington. With a convincing win from us this weekend, that could put us around #10 going into the Miami game.

a much higher % than 0 we would be left out.

SEC undefeated is in (Bama/UGA)
B10 undefeated is in (PSU/Wisky)
B12 undefeated is in (TCU only option)

It would leave one spot and potentially that comes down to 1-loss teams:
- VT (in this scenario),
- ND (if they are 1-loss, Miami victory by VT isn't as important since ND would have beat them too),
- UDub if they win out
- Bama/UGA losers
- PSU/Wisky losers
- a one-loss B12 champ could also be considered if OU/OSU beat TCU, but then 2 spots would be open above.

If UGA loses like they did the last time they played Bama in the SEC-CG (time ran out, they were on the 3yard line), VT fans should be completely expecting to not be selected ahead of them. If ND wins out, with wins over Miami, USC, Stanford, NCSU, Michigan State, Navy, etc and a 1-point loss to UGA....VT fans should be expecting to be left out. If PSU loses to Wisky in a tight game, they too would probably be selected over VT.

I agree. While maybe we get in over some or all of those other one loss teams, you can't credibly say that we DEFINITELY get in over ALL of them. So without putting numbers on it and trying to pretend like I didn't sleep through statistics, I think the 77% might be somewhat generous. ND and 1 loss BIG and SEC runners up look fucking good. Especially if you then go and compare a hypothetical 3 point last second loss to PSU or UGA to our 2 touchdown home night loss that really wasn't that close to Clemson. An undefeated Georgia and a 1 loss (especially really close) Alabama is about the scariest thing anyone in the ACC, PAC12 or BIGXXII can think of.

CFP of
WISKY
AL
UGA
1 loss PSU or VT or ND

isn't out of the question, even if TCU is undefeated. How good do we feel about our resume up against 1 loss PSU and/or ND? For me the answer is 'not great'.

I've been drinking.

Also, guys and gals.... its late october and we are still in a playoff discussion. Gotta love that.

You are interpreting this incorrectly. IT is showing the chance of getting in if you win out, not the chance of actually winning out. So of course an undefeated ACCC Miami has a fantastic chance to get into the playoffs. If VT wins out and is the ACCC, we still have a loss.

Why doesn't it just say 100% chance for the top 5 teams? They would be undefeated P5 champions, there is no way they would be left out. The only way 1 would be left out is if they all won out but that is not possible with 2 BigTen and 2 SEC teams.

I'm also surprised ND is only 47% chance... a 11-1 ND with their schedule is definitely in. Same could be said about an undefeated Miami.

Am I reading this wrong?

I agree, ND should be way higher if they win out.

Miami has a higher percentage because they are BAK

Pretty confident we make playoff with one loss to Clemson if we are 12-1 ACC champs. I also firmly believe 12-1 (hypothetically, of course) Georgia with only loss to Bama would deserve a playoff spot over 1 loss Oklahoma or Clemson who have BAD losses. Why punish Georgia for being in the conference that has to play Bama? Especially since ND is making their schedule stronger every week while Clemson's resume gets weaker with each passing week (except for us) with the decline of Auburn and extreme decline of Louisville.

Obviously this is all hypothetical and we have to go 1-0 every week. I think we have a lot of chinks in our armor, specifically with slow starts on offense that have me worried about a few games down the stretch.

Also note, I'm more worried about GT than Miami. How do you guys feel about those two games?

Why punish Georgia for being in the conference that has to play Bama?

If we're assuming Alabama is already in, then why waste one of the four spots with the team that lost to another one of the four most recently?

If we're assuming Alabama is not in, then I agree.

Because rematches don't always yield the same result. But if Georgia gets demolished by Alabama I'd agree with your point.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

If Georgia gets in at #4 after losing the SECCG it'll surpass the rematch NCG as most dumbassed thing to happen in college football this century.

The Orange and Maroon you see, that's fighting on to victory.

What if that SECCG game plays out like LSU BAMA pt. 1 did? Wasn't that a last second field goal game? I get that timing matters, but I get the sads thinking about comparing our Clemson loss to a hypothetical UGA/BAMA 3 point loss as time expires to BAMA/UGA.

I've been drinking.

2011 was a 9-6 OT game. It was tied for 14 minutes of the 4th quarter.

Technically, it was a walk-off FG, but I wouldn't call it a last second FG game.

I knew it was something like that. I didn't actually watch that game (was at OKST KSU that night) but I remember it was real close.

I've been drinking.

It was also boring as hell, and that's why I had no interest in the rematch in January. You definitely had a better game experience that night.

They also blew out every other team they played. Only teams that could play them close that year were each other.

K State Okie State 2011 was one of the best games I've ever watched

We were on the edge up next to the basketball stadium they have there, down pretty low. Dez Bryant Justin Blackmon scored a late touchdown where he was running a slant pretty much right at us and then outran everybody. It was one of the best games I've been to in person, and the overall experience from that weekend is one of the reasons that I'm really high on Stillwater and OKST.

I was barking at my friend all weekend about missing the LSU BAMA game, but turns out she was right and we were in the right place.

I've been drinking.

I disagree with this comment in every way, LSU and Alabama were easily the two best teams in the country that year and 100% that national title game had the two best teams playing in it. Oklahoma State would have a great argument if they didn't lose to a bad Iowa State team. Go back and look at Alabama and LSU's schedules and numbers from 2011 they were historically dominant teams.

Do you honestly think a team with a loss to Syracuse would have a better resume than a team who only lost to Alabama?

If you're just all out anti-SEC homer then there won't be any fruitful discussion from this, but if you want to explain to me why 2011 was so dumb and why a Georgia team with a loss to the best team in the country (and this decade) doesn't deserve a spot over a team that lost to a Syracuse team with a losing record, I'd love to hear it.

Aren't you the same guy that argued Ohio State absolutely deserved to get in last year even after they got stomped?

I remember him arguing that Michigan State didn't deserve to be in the CFP in 2015 because they got stomped by Alabama, but never would tell us who he thought should have gone instead.

They weren't one of the best four teams and it was really evident. You could see that if you watched any of their games that season.

The best teams don't always win. This is what gets me the most about college football. It doesn't matter how the results on the field play out, if popular belief has you as inferior to someone else, they deserve more than you, even if you beat them.

I'm tired of this fucking beauty pageant in college football. Line em up, and to the victor goes the spoils. I don't care how you look, if you win a Power 5 conference, you deserve to play for the National Title over every other team who didn't win one. Until there is an 8 team playoff, winning your conference absolutely MUST be a prerequisite for making the playoff. I'd even be in favor of a 6 team playoff, with all Power 5 conference champions included, and the highest ranked Group of 5 Conference Champion, with the Top 2 seeds getting a 1st round bye.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

This makes no sense because the P5 conferences are not equal in difficulty or talent and there are five of them If there are five unbeaten power 5 champions what do you do? You absolutely cannot have that as a pre requisite unless it is also an AQ, which in current format it can't be. Until there is an 8 team playoff, a conference pre-req just makes it easier for every other conference than the SEC to make the playoff because they don't have to play Bama.

P5 conferences are not equal in difficulty or talent

Don't care

If there are five unbeaten power 5 champions what do you do?

We'll deal with that when the time comes. The next time something like that happens, it'll be the first.

Until there is an 8 team playoff, a conference pre-req just makes it easier for every other conference than the SEC to make the playoff because they don't have to play Bama.

Once again, don't care. Bama is good. BFD. Every conference has a good team. Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Washington, etc. I'm tired of this whining that these poor SEC blowhards have it so tough because there's this big bad meanie sitting in their way. If its so bad, man the fuck up and beat them. If you can't do that, then sit down, shut up, and let the schools that are actually capable of winning a championship deal with it.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

"Don't Care"

Not a real answer to a question this is an issue and if you don't have a response to back up why then you are just shouting into the void.

"We'll deal with it when it happens"

Who cares if it hasn't happened, that isn't relevant to my fucking question. Answer the god damn questions I'm raising. How the fuck are you getting upvoted for saying absolutely nothing of value or meaning? You didn't make a single argument in this whole thing other than showing that you are squarely in the middle of a the super lame anti-SEC circlejerk.

Answer the god damn questions I'm raising.

Aren't you the guy who notoriously wouldn't say who they'd have in over Michigan St after being asked multiple times?

Are you just going to comment this under all of my comments today? While I'm busy making points and having actual discussions?

Are you just going to comment this under all of my comments today?

I've commented twice. The second time I pointed out an irony in you berating someone to answer your question when you're notorious for not doing so. (BTW you still haven't answered the question, just saying.)

While I'm busy making points and having actual discussions?

Well don't let me stop you! You keep on defending rematches of games already played since they meet your eye test!

The main difference here is that we are discussing something that is relevant to this season. A stark contrast to who I would have put in the playoff over Michigan State two years ago.

Dude I don't know what your issue with me is but I'm sorry if I offended you somewhere down the line. I'm argumentative but I don't just shout my opinions without providing the reasoning behind them. I think anyone who frequents this board would have noticed that. I certainly played a controversial role in the CFP thread last season but I was providing data and reasoning behind my points. The only thing I didn't answer was who I would have put in the playoff over Michigan State, which after awhile I just thought it was funny people cared so much, and I never answered as a result.

Also, most of the debates I've gotten in have ended up with everyone on good terms afterwards, regardless of whether anyone ever agreed.

...I don't have a problem with you at all. I just don't like your argument and definitely did not like hypocritical answer the question bit.

Fair enough, but I think its a little less hypocritical given that the answer you seek is totally irrelevant and I just wanted him to defend his position on why conference championships are so important, which would be relevant to this year. Me saying Michigan State shouldn't have made it is totally irrelevant now, almost as irrelevant as that team was as Bama embarrassed them in primetime. And I don't answer it because I think it's funny that people got so caught up on it, when it didn't matter at all. It didn't matter last year, and it certainly didn't matter this year. None of my arguments are contingent on who I would have put into the playoff instead of Michigan State. My answer to that is simply, not that joke ass Michigan State team. I have held strong to my thought that the four best teams should get in. And while Clemson roasted the Ohio State team I lobbied for, I also predicted on this board that Clemson would beat them handily. As an additionally irrelevant side note, I think the playoff games would have been better last season if you flipped the games. Washington's passing attack and surprisingly good defense posed a much greater threat to Clemson and Ohio State's style lent themselves to a closer game against Bama.

Not a real answer to a question this is an issue and if you don't have a response to back up why then you are just shouting into the void.

Not caring is my answer. Literally, I don't care. You can stomp your foot as much as you want, I'm not going to care any more than I do right now, which is not at all. Win your conference title, or shut up about your national contention.

Who cares if it hasn't happened, that isn't relevant to my fucking question.

Its not that it hasn't happened, its that its never been close. The closest we've ever had to having that many Power 5 undefeated teams in one season was in 2009 when Alabama, Texas, TCU, Boise, and Cinci were all undefeated going into the bowl season. Only Alabama and Texas were in a Power conference, and as such, they met in the title game. So the closest we've ever had is 2 out of 5 undefeated. That's not enough of an argument to scrap this, but if you want to go there, then use rankings as tiebreakers among the conference champions. Top 4 highest ranked P5 champions meet in the playoffs. Then expand to 6 where its all 5 P5 champions plus the highest ranked G5 conference champion in the playoff.

This makes the regular season that much more important. Makes divisional play a de-facto group stage of the football season. Division champions meet in Round 1 of the playoffs. Conference Champions move on to the main playoff, where the top 2 teams get a BYE to prepare. Seed based on the committee. Single elimination to a national championship.

You didn't make a single argument in this whole thing other than showing that you are squarely in the middle of a the super lame anti-SEC circlejerk.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

Saying something with an air of superiority doesn't make what you're saying right.

I'm not the one stamping my foot, it's actually hilariously ironic that you would word it that way because this right here

Win your conference title, or shut up

Is exactly what I think of and remember from the CFP discussion last season where like a ten year old, you said this over and over and over again (with some variation of course) as if saying it the most often and loudest would somehow make you right.

Thank you for actually answering my second question. It's true that it hasn't happened and hasn't been that close to happening but it certainly doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. If you want to set a hard pre-requisite that you must win your conference to be in the playoff, then you are left every year with one conference champion team being subjectively left out. My point is that with the current 4 team playoff it's impossible to set AQ's or prereqs because eventually you will be subjectively leaving someone out. If the goal of the 4 team playoff is to get the four best teams in (which is how they usually refer to it) then you have to weigh all these different parts of the equation as subjective. Which, while not ideal, is great for message boards, writers, the sports media in general because it generates so much controversy like this. You value conference championships a lot more than I do, and that's exactly why they can generate so much discussion. As of right now, it's not a hard pre req or AQ and it won't but until there is an 8 team playoff (if there ever is, though I hope there will be) it will always be this unclear subjective weighing of all the teams.

Also, I didn't downvote you or anyone on this thread, for the record.

I don't get the "HERMAGERD ALABAMAMAMA is SOOOOO good so any loss to nick satan should count the same as a win over ANY ACC/BIG/BIGXII/PACWHATEVER team because alabama is A-mazing and did you know bear bryant used to coach there" argument. Bama's good, they've been pretty good for a while. It's cyclical. They'll come back to the pack.

Besides, a lot of the time, they, and the rest of the SEC are playing a schedule consisting of teeter-totter's preschool and the rest of the SEC, so meaningful comparisons aren't really available, since their only other games are each other. (not necessarily the case every year, but it's happened).

I'm not that old, but I have first hand memories of Alabama being really fucking bad. We're not and we shouldn't make a 'Alabama rule' where any loss to alabama doesn't count so that team is 'undefeated' too.

Ideally I would like to see a 6 or 8, all the P5 champs, and 1-3 wild cards.

Most years the argument for who is 3/4/5 is between teams that are pretty close, and sometimes the #5 team could have a legit argument for being in (like, say, with 5 undefeated conf champs). Nobody fucking believes #9 deserves a shot, so while they'll inevitably bitch about being left out, it really doesn't matter because they will have some flaw that SHOULD keep them out, so deciding between 7/8/9 isn't going to screw a deserving team, only one that's realistically undeserving.

I've been drinking.

Exactly.

As I keep saying "best team" does not always equal "champion" and vice versa.

Just look at the last two Giants wins in the Super Bowl.

You do realize it's possible for conference champions to be like 8-5. Every team still plays nonconference games. Plus the divisional setup means that a conference champion won't even have to have the best conference record. Point being, you put in the team with the best resume in the conference regardless of champion.

The extreme version of your scenario happened in 2014 with TCU and Baylor being left out because: "no one was named a champion". Give me a fucking break. TCU was the best team in the country (yes it's an opinion but there's solid supporting evidence) and had the best resume! Only loss? By THREE, ON THE ROAD, IN OVERTIME. TO A TOP 5 TEAM. Went on to wax Ole Miss (who beat Bama) 42-3 in the Peach Bowl. It's a crime that team never got to play for a title, and it never happened because of the bullshit conference champion argument.

You do realize it's possible for conference champions to be like 8-5.

Don't care. Win your conference, then talk. Otherwise, better luck next year.

It's a crime that team never got to play for a title, and it never happened because of the bullshit conference champion argument.

And the Big XII fixed that problem by going to the divisional alignment with a conference championship game the next year. That year exposed the problem inherent on the BXII not having a title game, and that problem no longer exists. But that doesn't change my opinion. Likewise, if ND finishes the year with 1-loss, I'll defer to any other conference champion over them, because those teams had to win a title. That means they had to line up against no less than 6 other teams they play annually, with those teams knowing their tendencies, come out on top of their division, and then winning the title game against the other divisional champion in their conference. And if you're not in a system that allows that, you absolutely deserve to be punished for it.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

If you're fine with an 8-5 team in the playoff, by all means be the only person on the planet.

The B12 has 10 teams and 9 conference games, it's the most fair way to decide a champion, a conference championship game is meaningless. Baylor was that champion with head to head tiebreak. The problem is TCU had inarguably the best record in the country. If they don't get in under your format with the rules you think are fair then fine. I'm just saying any format that leaves a team like them out is inherently flawed.

If you're fine with an 8-5 team in the playoff, by all means be the only person on the planet.

As someone eloquently put it... Saying something with an air of superiority doesn't make what you're saying right.

Every other level of every other sport rewards winning your division or conference with an automatic entry into the main overall playoff. Doesn't matter what your record is, doesn't matter if "better" teams get left out, by winning a division/conference title, they earned their way in. I have far, far less of a problem with those teams being allowed in than allowing someone who wins the beauty contest but can't win the games necessary to win their own league.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

Hahahaha touché.

We agree to disagree my man.

If you're fine with an 8-5 team in the playoff, by all means be the only person on the planet.

Umm, isn't that how almost every sports league on the planet settles these things? Some divisions/conferences are just better than others, and that changes from year to year.

Tough shit.

Since 1900 only four teams have "won" a national title with more than one loss.

1929 USC - 10-2
1935 LSU - 9-2
1941 Bama - 9-2
1960 Minnesota - 8-2

All of those teams shared the title with other schools in the age of many different math and poll metrics for awarding titles. This info is from Wikipedia so feel free to back check and see if these schools actually claim those titles for themselves.

The point here being that college football has always had a post season structure that is very different than any other sport. No 8-5 team, no matter what conference they win, will make the playoff or play for a national title as the system currently stands.

Can anyone here even find the last team to win a P5 conference with more than 3 losses?

I understand the point but it's kind of a fantasy scenario.

To answer your question, actually in 2012 the B1G sucked and a 7-5 Wisconsin team beat Nebraska 70-31 in the conference championship game. Got into the Rose Bowl with a 8-5 record.

That is a bit of an asterisk though because Wisconsin technically finished third in their division behind 12-0 Ohio State and 8-4 (6-2) Penn State, both of whom had post-season bans at the time and therefore could not play in the B1G title game.

May not be last time, but 7-4 FSU beat us in the ACCCG in 2005.

And they rose all the way to No. 22 in the final BCS of the regular season. Nowhere near close enough to be in even a playoff discussion had that system been in place at the time.

I fought this logic very, very, very hard during last season's discussion. Why make college football like every other sports league? The most unique thing about college football is that there is no other sport where a loss counts as much as in college football. In every other sport losses aren't so bad, especially during the regular season.

I would go as far to say that one of the biggest reasons that college football is so popular and many peoples' favorite sport is that it is the highest stakes of any sport. Obviously other leagues have single elimination playoffs, but no sport has as much on the line with every single game of the season as college football, and I for one, don't want to lose that aspect of college football.

Tough shit? No it's dumb shit to have a system that sets it up that way.

But again, that's the way most every other sport is set up. If you win your conference at 8-5, do you know what that means? It means that you won more of the games that you "had to win" then anyone else in your conference.

Nobody complains when a Wild Card or 4th-5th place team wins the World Series, or the Super Bowl, or the Stanley Cup (maybe some people do, but its a minority). That's the point of a playoff, you earn it by playing.

Sometimes maybe a team that had a less than perfect record in a hard conference but ultimately beat all comers from said conference is really the best team in the country? I will use the Alabama/UGA example here, if UGA can't beat Alabama (or vice versa) the first time they play in an elimination game, why in the world should they get another shot?

I don't really understand your response because you are arguing for literally only 1 sport in the entire country that operates on the premise that the most important thing is how good someone else thinks you are. Its not about making college football "like every other sport", but its like folks make this weird mental exception that winning when it counts is the most important thing in almost everything else...except for college football so we can "feel" like the best team won.

I don't care if the "best" team wins, I can about which team actually wins on the field.

As I said, tough shit if you aren't that team

Winning matters more in college football than any other sport. Losses hurt you more than any other sport. I don't want to lose that. It's cool that a 9-7 team can make the playoffs in the NFL and win the Super Bowl, but that isn't how college football is and it's part of what makes college football unique. I don't want to lose that. It's the highest stakes sports season from start to finish.

edit: It should be noted that part of the reason college football isn't like other sports, particularly the NFL is that there are far, far more teams. So the elimination curve is much steeper. I don't think 2008 Virginia Tech deserved a shot at the playoff. We deserved our shot at the Orange Bowl, which would be like a NY6 game now, but we weren't a national title contending team. We fumbled and bumbled our way through a wacky ACC season with a terrible offense in a down year for the league overall, and we certainly didn't deserve to make a playoff over a 1 or 2 loss team who finished 2nd in a tougher conference (which was probably every other conference that season).

Notre Dame's schedule this year:
2 AAC schools (Temple and Navy)
1 MAC school (Miami-OH)
1 SEC school (UGa)
5 ACC schools (BC, UNC, NCST, Wake, Miami)
1 B1G team (MSU)
2 Pac16 schools (Stanford, USCw)

I'm not Notre Dame fan, but that is a decent SoS right there and, in the seasons where their slate is competitive, I'd say give them credit for it. A lot of years, they play a better schedule than most P5 schools. Look at the Big 12. Lotta shitty teams there, but TCU gets to waltz through it this year and claim conference champion. Same could be said for the Pac16 and has definitely been said of the ACC in the past. So you won your crappy P5 conference? In the words of a certain TKPer "Don't Care." Show me you've beaten enough good teams to have earned a spot on the national stage this year.

That said, outside the playoff, I think Notre Dame should never get a say in any conference tie-ins. Bowls aren't about getting the best teams anyway. They pick based on conference and draw and if a conference has done the work to negotiate with and support a bowl, then ND shouldn't get to waltz in and grab one of the spots.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

And the Big XII fixed that problem by going to the divisional alignment with a conference championship game the next year. That year exposed the problem inherent on the BXII not having a title game, and that problem no longer exists.

Maybe I just missed the implied /s, but I don't think the Big 12 fixed the problem. They just brought back the championship game this year, without the divisional structure. In fact, I think ultimately they will be worse off by doing that, because one of these years, a 9-3 or 8-4 team is going to beat a 11-1 or 12-0 team and completely screw with the rankings.

TCU and Baylor . . . I don't think it was just the conference lack of championship that got them.

If you're trying to decide between 3 teams for 1 spot, then the first elimination should be head-to-head within that pool. TCU lost to Baylor. Therefore, they have no argument.

After that, it's between Baylor and Ohio State. And again, I don't think it was having an extra game or conference championship per se that helped Ohio State. I think what boosted Ohio State was the fact that they played with a backup QB and shellacked a team in a conference championship.

Yeaaah see I disagree about the argument between TCU and Baylor. Baylor got killed by West Virginia a team that TCU beat during the year.

If you replaced the resumes of Baylor and TCU and all the top teams with records of the teams they beat instead of the names, TCU would have no doubt the best resume in the country. There's just no question. As I see it a team with the best resume, and a pretty damn good shot of winning it all, should be in. And if the system leaves them out, you should take a long look and probably change that system.

You can disagree all you want, but if the BCS had still been in effect in 2014, Baylor would have been playing in the Fiesta Bowl as the Big 12 champion, thanks to head-to-head.

Baylor got killed by West Virginia a team that TCU beat during the year.

I don't see the point in going all around the Big 12 circle of suck when Baylor beat TCU directly. One step.

The point is TCU had a better record than Baylor vs the same teams, and therefore a better resume. The fact that Baylor eeked out a win, at home, in a game that was a virtual draw, doesn't carry a whole lot of weight to me.

This is one of the reasons I miss the computers, they look at the whole picture and body of work. They don't zoom in on one game and say "this is the only thing that matters".

I just went through and upvoted all the -1 posts. Absolutely ridiculous to downvote someone for having a different idea of how past rankings could have or should have played out for bowl/CFP selections

Chem PhD '16

Thanks! Whoever I offended with that post I'm sorry 😂.

Not just you... there were like 8 or 9 posts all at -1

Chem PhD '16

Honestly, the TCU vs. Baylor discussion may have been a moot point in 2014, because the committee probably figured Ohio State was better than both of them, so it didn't matter.

I too, miss the computers, and the balances they provided the human element.

And for the record, no downvoting coming from me.

So who should have been the fourth team instead of Michigan State? They beat Iowa and Ohio State, the only other 1 loss P5 teams available.

Still think they deserved it as a 1 loss team over a 2 loss team.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but you could also go looking through my comments and find where I said that Clemson had an extremely favorable matchup with Ohio State and that it probably wouldn't be close. Since we are bringing up my old comments.

My argument to Georgia being in after losing to Bama is they played the game and lost. Clemson lost to Syracuse, but maybe they match up better against Bama than UGA did. Maybe if UGA lost a real close coin flip game, but if I were on the committee I would look at the UGA Bama game as a defacto play in or extension to the 4 team field. If UGA wants to win the natty, beat Bama. If they can't, it aint gonna happen anyway so why schedule a rematch.

Make it 8 teams with each P5 champion, highest G5 and two at large. End the arguments.

Agree 100%

If there's a situation where Teams Y and Z both have similar resumes and are vying for a matchup with Team X, and Team X beat Team Y the week before, then Team Z should get in. I don't care that Team X is the best team in the country. Team Y just had their chance to beat them. Why should Team Z not get a shot at Team X if Team Y has proven they can't get it done in their most recent game?

If you're just all out anti-SEC homer then there won't be any fruitful discussion from this

You're projecting. My opinion on this has nothing to do with being anti-SEC. You're awfully interested in poisoning the well for someone who wants a fruitful discussion.

The Orange and Maroon you see, that's fighting on to victory.

Well, it's hard to remember who is super anti-SEC on this board because there are so many of them. The anti-SEC circlejerk has gotten way worse than the perceived SEC bias ever was.

I think with your logic we just weigh things differently. I think losing to a bad team should discredit your resume more and that should be why team Z doesn't deserve a shot at the playoff, I think team Y, in your scenario, still has a better resume since they took care of business and only lost to the best team in the country, team X. If it's a blow out, then my logic changes but if it's like the 2012 SECCG (which was practically the NCG) then I think both deserve a shot at the playoff. My logic has always been to get the best four teams, regardless of conference affiliation. I also really hate this idea of "mulligan" games in the CFP era where Clemson can lose to 3-4 Syracuse and only drop like 5 spots to number 7. Especially when Clemson's resume looks weaker every week except for their win against us, which I think in hindsight was a little flukish given our bad turnovers.

I also really hate this idea of "mulligan" games in the CFP era

But couldn't it be argued that if both participants of the SEC (or any) championship game end up in the CFP, then it's a mulligan for them?

losing to Bama in the SECCG does not equal losing to Syracuse.

No, but it's more of a mulligan than what Clemson gets.

"It's okay, Georgia, you didn't win, but you'll either get another chance either at the same team, or the team that actually beat them."

Yeah at that point, why even play the SECCG?

You're making the assumption they can beat them twice. I mean if Georgia was to get destroyed then yeah I would see your point but Tech fans should know better than anyone a second shot can make all the difference. Look at what we did against BC in 07 and 08. BC had already beaten us - why even play the ACCCG that year?

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

On the flip side, the 2012 Pac-12 Championship Game.

Stanford at UCLA to end the regular season. UCLA at Stanford for the Pac-12 title a week later. Stanford won both.

Yeah, I'm just saying it's not a given. Like I said, if it's not a close game I doubt it happens.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

Tech fans should know better than anyone a second shot can make all the difference

Yeah, which is why Bama fans would be irate if they beat UGA and had to play them again as their very next game. Fair or not there would be a big difference in perception if that game were to happen a month prior (see Bama-LSU in the NCG).

If I were a Bama/Jawja fan, I'd be irate if those 2 met in the conference title game only to see both in the playoff. The loser should be eliminated. Make the conference title mean something. If Bama beats Ugga once in a championship game, they shouldn't have to beat them a second time to win the national championship.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

it almost sounds like you think being a conference championship should be a requirement for getting into the CFP or something.../s

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

I hear you, but there was a half of a season between those two games. This would be back to back games (with the bowl break, so maybe a moot point).

Yeah. But imagine it being a close, exciting game. I don't think that many people would be against a rematch with even more implications, especially if teams 5-8 don't have the resume Georgia does. Which is really what it depends on.

I have no idea why my username is VT_Warthog.

Arkansas blew a 24-0 lead in the Belk Bowl.

I've watched GT twice this year.....very impressive Paul Johnson team...which is why I have hope-Foster is solid against PJ. Not to say it's a gimme at all, but he gives us a great chance. They shot themselves in the foot against a now-bad UT team. I'd feel better if we could ball-control with our run game, but 2nd string D-line gave me some hope vs unc.
UM is going to be a vintage old-school VT/UM 'means something` game with implications which is cool to get again. But maroon-glasses on, we've certainly got the players to hang. Crowd will be a factor.
Syr threw 4 interceptions.....take some of those away and Syr wins. Syr also ran for 250+.

Look up "shoot themselves in the foot" in a dictionary and you'll find our game against GT last year.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

- I know we have a loss and Miami doesnt, but it surprises me that they have that much higher of a chance than tech does

Once we beat Miami, their odds will drop significantly. If they win out, and finish up undefeated, it'd be hard to keep them out.

What surprises me more is that at #14 NC State, sitting at 6-1...if they win out, they have a 92% compared to our 77%. Granted them winning out would include wins over #9 ND and #7 Clemson in back to back weeks, then against us in the ACCCG. Whereas Miami is the lone ranked team left on our schedule, at #8 (plus whoever we may see in the ACCCG)

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

Y'all are jinxing us. We will now loose to dook

Hopefully we don't play too tight.

“I turned down 12 other opportunities. You know what I mean?” - Fuente

Love me some Nate Silver. Hate it that so few people grasp how to properly use his models.

First off, this model was built using FPI to determine probability of game outcomes. It is fundamentally imperfect, but it's good enough to give a rough idea of probabilistic outcomes. Do not take the numbers as gospel, especially this early in the season. There is a ton of football left to be played, and there will be some major shakeups (especially in two weeks).

Second, the model takes into account previous playoff committee preferences. That variable is necessarily subjective, and won't really be useful until the first playoff rankings come out. The numbers will swing once we've gotten our first indicator of who the committee likes.

Third, because so many games are left to be played, the model doesn't want to let you select more than two teams to win out, even though the eyeball test makes it seem more likely that that will happen. Again, it'll refine as games are actually played.

What everyone should take away from this is that we are in a very good spot, but have work left to do, and will still need some help. Put into words in that way, none of this should be surprising or controversial.

Also love Nate Silver, his book is great.

He gets this kind of flack for all of his models. Comment sections/replies are always filled with a bunch of pissed off people who don't understand his models or statistics/modeling in general.

Most of the hate is likely due to people being too used to frequentist statistics and the noisy bullshit that gets the most exposure on TV. I like Nate because he's very transparent about his methods, his biases, and his flaws. And his stuff is top notch, if you understand how to read it. I just wish more people did. His book should be required reading.

Truly one of those books that is hard to put down once you pick it up.

I think it'll be interesting for the Big XII Championship, with no division has whichever teams are 1 vs 2 and the ramifications from that for the playoff this year and future playoffs. It's going to be a rematch so it appears to set a case that teams could rematch in a season. I wonder if that sets up the case that it could occur in the playoff, ex: Georgia vs. Alabama?

I'm a simple man. I like pretty, dark-haired women and breakfast food.

I don't give a damn what the fans think cause, quite frankly, I know what the fans want better than they do.

Don't worry... Clemson will beat GT, we'll beat Miami, GT will beat us, UVA or Pitt will beat Miami, and the Coastal will knock itself out of the playoffs.

If you're reading the above post and thinking, "is this guy serious?!?," you can safely assume I'm not.