Is there any situation where we can see two members of these conferences make it into the playoff (to lose to Bama)?
On a similar note, what are the odds that a conference champion will not be represented in the playoff when another school from that conference is?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Easy ohio state wins out, wisconsin beats penn state. Michigan gets bumped out wisconsin has SOS and conference championship on louisville. The only team that could really wreck it would be washington
would a big ten champ in Wisconsin jump louisville? Louisville would essentially be the Ohio state of the ACC at that point.
difference is OSU has a win over oklahoma and 2 top 5 opponent wins in michigan and Wisconsin. Louisville has a win over FSU and houston and not much else
You say that, but....
Washington's next two games will be against Arizona State and #21 Washington State. If they win both of those games, they will play either #10 Colorado, #12 Utah, or #13 USC in the P12CG.
If they can pull that off, I feel like their remaining SoS will push them ahead of 11-1 Louisville, and they'd jump the loser of the Michigan-OSU game, which are the two spots they'd need. The only question mark, then, would be if Wisconsin, with their two losses coming back-to-back by 7 points each against Michigan and OSU, beats Michigan, if they would jump Washington and if Washington would jump Michigan, and if they beat Penn State if they would jump Washington (because I highly doubt 12-1 Washington jumps 11-1 OSU).
Don't forget about WVU, who could end up 11-1 by beating Oklahoma, Iowa State, and Baylor. And Oklahoma has a decent resume if they end up 10-2 (9-0 in the Big XII).
do we really think washington will win out?
I didn't think it would take as long as it did for them to finally drop one, and when they did it was the same week that #2 and #3 were also upset. Not going to rule out any scenario at this point.
I think they definitely could.
Alabama- will be in the playoff even if they lose to Auburn. Ohio State will destroy Michigan and MSU will beat a terribly overrated Penn State team, so OSU is in the 2 spot. Clemson is in if they beat a game, but out-manned VT, and the final spot will go to Washington if they win the Pac 12
Agreed
A bit of stretch maybe...but I'm still with you
Wait..what?
Penn state overrated...probably. 3-7 MSU walking into State College and knocking off Penn State? Let's talk to Ohio State about that. Plus with them possibly playing for the division title?
Here's a scenario for you. What if the moons align just right and Alabama loses to Auburn AND Florida?
E$PN will shut down.
Oklahoma is the only undefeated team in their conference outside of Alabama. Somehow they deserve a bowl game.
Washington State says hello.
As does Western Michigan. And San Diego State, Troy, and Arkansas State.
How does Wazzu keep blowing their FCS opener and go on to wreck everyone for the rest of the year?
The ACC Coastal thinks chaos is its ally, we merely adopted the chaos, Mike Leach was born in chaos, molded by it.
I feel like I've seen that happen before, or something like it... but I have fuzzy recollections of the second Saturday in September of 2010.
ACC? Well, we're beating Clemson, so no.
B1G... Maybe... with Clemson out, they're not going to go with Louisville, and someone has to fill the gap.
This guy gets it.
Hey man it is a math fact, we will win the next 3 than loose our bowl game...
Who you kidding, it will be 4 $EC teams somehow
THE BIG 10 AND ACC AIN'T PLAYED NO ONE PAWWWWWWWWWWWL
If UW wins out, I think they are in. If UW doesn't win out, I think ACC gets two teams (assuming UL and Clemson both win out).
It just now (somehow) occurred to me that Penn State owns their own destiny...geeze. If they win out it will be incredibly interesting as to how the committee handles that ifff Ohio State also wins out. Would they take conference champ and two-loss PSU over 1-loss OSU whose 1 loss is to said conference champ?
I want the committee to be forced into this pickle. I heard someone on tv say yesterday that the committee that does the ncaa tournament would be crazy to release their list every week for the second half of the season, and that we should not force the college football playoff committee to do the same thing.
Do we force them? I thought that was their call to drum up ratings on Tuesday night. I
It probably helps PSU that Pitt also beat Clemson
If PSU gets in to the playoff, you can go ahead and be certain that I will be leading the charge for reform from the CFP. The overvaluing of conference championships is ludicrous given the arbitrary divisions that have consistently kept the two best teams in each conference from playing for the conference championship. I think they should hold much less value unless divisions are removed and that the focus should be on getting THE BEST FOUR TEAMS in the country into the CFP to settle it on the field. A playoff that is more about the arbitrary criteria that has been set forth instead of a playoff of the four best teams is exactly why we get stupid ass games like Michigan State (school child) and Alabama (Anderson Silva).
Yeah, but those teams still end up playing each other at some point in the season....
Sure, I made a longer post on reddit with a section on the importance of timing of losses that I forgot to include in this one. The short version is, teams change over the course of a season in varying degrees, for better or for worse. In 2014, tOSU changed for the better and ended their season on a historic tear that saw them clearly assert themselves as one of the best four teams in the country. A team like Clemson losing to 5-4 Pitt in November should be viewed as a telling microcosm of their season, they have consistently played every average or good team close in a sloppy, turnover filled fashion. Nothing about their season suggests they have gotten better as a team, and this late season loss was just the luck running out that they had relied on to keep that loss column at a zero so far this season. James Quick cuts inside instead of running out of bounds, probable loss. NC State kicker makes a chip shot field goal, definite loss. Florida State doesn't get a backbreaking Dalvin Cook run called back with a chance for them to go up two scores, probable loss. Clemson didn't even "make plays" for those two things to happen, the other team just messed up. The committee viewing the entire season as one static piece where they ignore that teams get better/worse throughout the season is silly in my opinion. Timing of loss should matter, especially if it's to a bad team. If number 1 loses to another top 5 team late in the season in a close game, you don't drop them as much, that's a great team playing another great team, but a loss at home to a 5-4 team in November? that should raise red flags beyond dropping two spots with a guarantee back into the 2/3 game if you win out. Same goes for Michigan, losing to a 5-4 team and not dropping at all.
Tell me who you would put over Clemson and Michigan. Louisville lost head-to-head against Clemson. Wisconsin lost head-to-head against Michigan and also to Ohio State. Washington's loss to USC looks better than Clemson's and Michigan's losses, but they haven't played nearly as challenging of a schedule as either of those two teams overall.
Louisville, WVU, maybe even Wisconsin who doesn't have an embarrassing loss. These make sense if you look at it from the criteria I have taken time to explain. I heavily value the timing of a bad loss and what it says about a team. When I look at a team's resume I look at how they actually played, as explained in the above posts, or my posts on the top 10 thread.
I guess we just view "timing of losses" differently. The rankings are supposed to look at a team's body of work throughout the season. Why should losing early in the year inherently be better than losing late in the year, as long as they recover from that loss going forward?
I've always hated that mindset of "Oh, team such-and-such just lost, that must mean they're worse than we thought they were. We must find some other team to put ahead of them." Last week, we saw #2, #3, #4, #8, and #9 all lose. If #5, #6, and #7 had also lost, would you blindly take #10 and shove them at #2? Just because everyone from #2 through #9 must drop since they lost?
Like I said, Louisville lost to Clemson already, and their best win came very early in the season against FSU, who has fallen off the map with losses to Clemson and UNC. They've been struggling to beat ACC bottom-feeders over the last few weeks in games against Duke and UVA, and that first half against Wake was atrocious. They were able to take advantage of some mistakes in the second half, but it still wasn't very pretty.
WVU's schedule has been even worse. Their best wins have come against K-State, TCU, BYU, and Texas, each of whom are between 6-4 and 5-5 right now, and they lost their one game against a better team, Oklahoma State, fairly convincingly. The CFP committee rightfully has them at #14.
Sure, Wisconsin doesn't have any "embarrassing" losses, but their only two "big" wins are against LSU in the opening week of the season (which, by your argument, shouldn't matter since it was so early), and Nebraska (who has a grand total of 2 wins over teams with winning records, powerhouses such as Wyoming and Minnesota).
On the other hand, Clemson has wins over Auburn, Louisville, and Florida State, which is the best set of 3 wins of anybody in college football. They lost to a Pittsburgh team that now has 2 top-10 wins (they also beat Penn State) and has given everyone they lost to fits, except for Miami.
You discredited two of these wins for other teams above. I totally disagree that these are three great wins. Auburn was the first game of the year and they were a far cry from the still average team they are now, exposed by a bad game against Vandy and a terrible loss to UGA last week. That win shouldn't be impressive. You discredited the FSU win for Louisville and I agree. Louisville is a good win. If those are the three best wins in the country of any team, it's just a bad year for football. I'm more impressed by Alabama's schedule, and the manner in which they've won, without a doubt.
You're missing the point. Louisville is a very good team, just not as good as Clemson. And Clemson having Florida State as your 3rd best win is a lot better than Louisville having Florida State as their only quality win.
And you could make the argument that Bama has a better trio of wins, but win #1 is a lot worse than Clemson over Louisville, and that's not even the main point of my post. The point is that Clemson should be top 4 right now, ahead of Louisville, WVU, and Wisconsin.
I don't think Clemson is better than Louisville at all. They lost a game with shit officiating and I'd take them to win that game 7-8 out of 10 times. Clemson touts their 5 turnovers but it was actually Clemson who consistently benefitted from Louisvilles turnovers and good field position. One of Clemson's TD's was actually the result of great field position after an inexcusable no call PI where the Lousiville receiver was so dumbfounded he took off his helmet and got a flag. Clemson started their next drive in Lville territory and scored a td when Louisville should have had a first down driving on Clemson.
If NC state had beaten Clemson as they should have, I still wouldn't argue they are an overall better team than Clemson.
Sorry, I misspoke, Clemson has a better resume than Louisville. Which is what the committee is looking at.
At this point we're going back and forth finding the tiniest things in each other's posts to disagree with and getting further and further off topic. Agree to disagree and move on?
I think you are putting too much emphasis on the eye test. There just aren't enough cross-conference games to know how good anybody is except relative to their own conference. If Louisville has a problem with Clemson getting the edge after a conference championship, they should have taken care of business when they still controlled their destiny. Same goes for Ohio State.
If Penn State ends up making it, that means they will have beaten Ohio State and Wisconsin, and lost to Michigan and Pitt. Michigan will have 2 losses but still be top 10, and Clemson also lost to Pitt, so that's not but so bad of a loss.
If they end up one of the top 4 teams because enough chaos happens, why shouldn't they get in the playoffs?
Because Ohio State, who lost to them because of a blocked fg returned for a touchdown, would only have one loss. They would have also beat #3 Michigan who beat Penn State by 39 in this scenario.
Like I said if you're saying the "deserve it based on the committee's (over)emphasis on conference championships" then yes, they do. I think that is a shit metric and have explained why.
I would assume that Ohio State will still be ranked ahead of Penn State at 11-1.
The CFP committee says that they value conference championships, but if another team clearly has a better resume it doesn't matter. Pretty much, if they're picking between two 11-2 teams with comparable strengths of schedule, one of whom won their conference and the other of whom lost, they will rank the conference champion over the other.
Penn State doesn't control their own destiny, if Michigan beats OSU they win the tiebreaker with PSU by virtue of having beaten them earlier this season.
MYBADBRAH. Thank you.
...or take both and not a two loss Michigan
Speaking of playoff teams, this is probably not a good thread for this but did you know that Alabama was using Trent Richardson on their scout team?
Here's Urban's reaction...looks like he's about to go hire some of his former players for the OSU scout team
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/urban-meyer-had-a-funny-reaction-when-learn...
They also used Blake Sims, and someone else. They are technically allowed to do this, and consulted the NCAA before doing so. They've used them to emulate specific players on opposing teams.
In all seriousness... Is there any reason Michael Vick shouldn't be the QB for our scout team going forward?
I mean, ignoring the fact that it would allow our defense to prepare weekly against one of the most dynamic athletes to ever play the game, but the recruiting aspect of "oh, hey... come to VT and you can practice against Michael Vick every day"....
Genius.
Great idea until ankle injuries increase ten fold for the defense...
would you rather be enshrined forever in a poster getting dunked on by Michael Jordan or in a replay getting your ankles broken by Michael Vick?
But seriously... One of the biggest weaknesses VT (and any defense, really) has is the ability to contain and stop a mobile QB. So what better way to help this cause than to have one of the best to ever have that skillset practicing against our defense every day?
Stopping these ACC QBs will seem like child's play when we're accustomed to stopping Michael freakin Vick in practice
That would be awesome, except...
Word of mouth isn't publishing by the school.
I think you missed the bolded phrase, which is the more important bit.
And technically, if any university officials (ie, coaches or staff) are participating in the word of mouth... the NCAA would be within their rights to call that "publicizing".
what if players tweet it after the fact and it becomes a regular, occasional thing, but never announced ahead of time? If it's widely known as a regular thing, there's no need to publicize it officially.
It would be pretty cool for some of these guys to practice against Michael Vick.
You don't have to publicize it. Just make it well known throughout campus that over the course of the season should you come to VT, you will be practicing with the likes of Mike Vick and who knows how many other Hokie greats from our past.
Once a week is an occasional basis.
New question: Who would be the top 2 this year under the old bcs system?
Alabama's first string and Alabama's second string.
I think Louisville is currently settling any debate about 2 from the ACC going to the playoff this year....
I guess this is what happens when you don't know what plays the opponent is running
Does the conference get a better payout if more teams go, like for NCAA tourney?
If you assume that all four CFP teams get the same bowl payout, and that such an amount is higher than the other New Year's Six bowls, which is higher than all of the other bowls, I think the answer is fundamentally yes.
Look at it this way. Let's say the ACC has 10 bowl eligible teams. In the normal peking order, that would cover the Orange Bowl, RA Bowl, four Tier 1 bowls, and 4 Tier 2 bowls. If a team makes it into the CFP, then everyone else gets bumped up a notch, and the bowl game at the bottom of the list has to go looking at other conferences.
If the ACC gets into a situation where two teams get into the CFP, and get a Citrus Bowl spot, we've just eliminated the bottom three bowls. And I'm sure the CFP and Citrus Bowls pay more than the Independence, Quick Lane, and St. Petersburg Bowls.
Plus, the ACC pools their bowl money, so everyone gets an even cut out of the total bowl payouts.
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/revenue-distribution
Each semifinal slot is worth $6m, and each slot as an "at large" in a NY6 bowl is worth $4m. Additionally, each team is allotted $2.16m in expenses for each NY6 bowl or the CFP championship game.
I'm sure the tier 2 bowl payouts are under $1m each, so each extra team we get in the NY6 is a huge bonus for the conference.
Well it looks like Louisville isn't going to make the the playoffs.
...but Louisville won TOP by three whole minutes!!
Sacks do run down the clock a lot.
it takes 6.6666666667 minutes for TOP differential to become a predictor. I have 7 data points that prove it.