[ColoradoTree]

Yeah, the point of any playoff or championship is not to determine the "best team", but the champion.

I have a fool-proof proof plan to reorganize "big boy" college football into eight ten-team conferences that finishes with an eight-team playoff among only the round-robin conference champions.  Eleven or twelve game regular seasons; no conference title games. Relegation a la English soccer features prominently.  Sorry Wake Forest; until you can pull a Leicester City, you're out. I'd love to think that plan is sitting on an important desk in a bright red folder titled "LET'S DO THIS!!" However, whenever I float the idea people think I'm nuts.

But if we go to a 12-team playoff with some first round byes, then anyone could be the National Champion in any given year.  All on the field.  Polls and committees wouldn't mean squat other than maybe to seed and determine home fields.

And if you really are the best team, you won't lose any playoff games right?  (I'm looking at you 2007 New England Patriots!)

WARNING:  THIS POST IS LENGTHY AND CONTAINS A GREAT DEAL OF IDLE SPECULATION.

This is fun, though relegation is a concept that will be tough to introduce.  But if it's 8 10-team conferences, what do they look like?  I like the idea of 7 major conferences (there are currently 64 teams in the Power 5 conferences, so we can make 7 10-team conferences without diluting the pool too much), with one spot set aside for the top "non-major" program.  Here's a crack at such a model, which basically restores the pre-expansion Pac-10 and Big Ten, tries to keep geographic regions close together, and divvies up other conferences because I don't really care about them:

1. Pre-expansion Pac-10: the current conference, minus Utah and Colorado.
2. Pre-expansion Big Ten: the current conference, minus Rutgers, Nebraska, Penn State, and Maryland
3. "Gulf Coast South" (the schools from AL, LA, MS, and FL):  Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Arkansas, Florida, Florida State, and Miami.  That's only 9, so you can promote one of the other Florida schools if you really want, like UCF or USF.  Or leave it at 9, because it's a wicked hard conference.  But I don't care.
4. "Atlantic South" (the schools from NC, SC, GA, and TN): South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, UNC, N.C. State, Duke, Wake Forest, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt.
5. Big 8 Plus (this is where Colorado and Utah end up):  Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, OK State, and Utah.  For the tenth team, I promoted BYU.  Holy War every year, people!
6. Mid-Atlantic: Boston College, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, UVA, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia.  I put Notre Dame here because in the new regime, it has to go somewhere, and there's already some affinity with ACC schools, many of which are here. 
7. Southwest: Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, and Houston are the Texas schools (I promoted Houston). Then I add in the Kentucky schools (UK and Louisville) because they don't fit neatly elsewhere.  And I promoted Cincinnati and Memphis to get to 10, so this is the least geographically neat conference of the 7.  I wanted to keep the Texas schools together, though, and keeping much of the SEC West together made it hard to grab teams from there to fit in here. 

Conference champs make it in, and no wild cards from the major conferences can take the 8th spot--it's the highest-ranked FBS team not in one of these conferences.  So there's a possible Cinderella every year, usually as the 8 seed, giving the #1 team a less daunting task than its fellow conference champs.  Every FBS team has hope to make it into the playoff every year.  The non-Power 7 path is tougher, but they're not as good, so whatever.  They should be happy I gave them a seat at the table!  Jeez....

So that's the lineup of teams, but then how they get matched up gets complicated.  That's the next post....

[ColoradoTree]

Yeah, the point of any playoff or championship is not to determine the "best team", but the champion.

I have a fool-proof proof plan to reorganize "big boy" college football into eight ten-team conferences that finishes with an eight-team playoff among only the round-robin conference champions.  Eleven or twelve game regular seasons; no conference title games. Relegation a la English soccer features prominently.  Sorry Wake Forest; until you can pull a Leicester City, you're out. I'd love to think that plan is sitting on an important desk in a bright red folder titled "LET'S DO THIS!!" However, whenever I float the idea people think I'm nuts.

But if we go to a 12-team playoff with some first round byes, then anyone could be the National Champion in any given year.  All on the field.  Polls and committees wouldn't mean squat other than maybe to seed and determine home fields.

And if you really are the best team, you won't lose any playoff games right?  (I'm looking at you 2007 New England Patriots!)

WARNING:  THIS POST IS LENGTHY AND CONTAINS A GREAT DEAL OF IDLE SPECULATION.

This is fun, though relegation is a concept that will be tough to introduce.  But if it's 8 10-team conferences, what do they look like?  I like the idea of 7 major conferences (there are currently 64 teams in the Power 5 conferences, so we can make 7 10-team conferences without diluting the pool too much), with one spot set aside for the top "non-major" program.  Here's a crack at such a model, which basically restores the pre-expansion Pac-10 and Big Ten, tries to keep geographic regions close together, and divvies up other conferences because I don't really care about them:

1. Pre-expansion Pac-10: the current conference, minus Utah and Colorado.
2. Pre-expansion Big Ten: the current conference, minus Rutgers, Nebraska, Penn State, and Maryland
3. "Gulf Coast South" (the schools from AL, LA, MS, and FL):  Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Arkansas, Florida, Florida State, and Miami.  That's only 9, so you can promote one of the other Florida schools if you really want, like UCF or USF.  Or leave it at 9, because it's a wicked hard conference.  But I don't care.
4. "Atlantic South" (the schools from NC, SC, GA, and TN): South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, UNC, N.C. State, Duke, Wake Forest, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt.
5. Big 8 Plus (this is where Colorado and Utah end up):  Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, OK State, and Utah.  For the tenth team, I promoted BYU.  Holy War every year, people!
6. Mid-Atlantic: Boston College, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, UVA, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia.  I put Notre Dame here because in the new regime, it has to go somewhere, and there's already some affinity with ACC schools, many of which are here. 
7. Southwest: Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, and Houston are the Texas schools (I promoted Houston). Then I add in the Kentucky schools (UK and Louisville) because they don't fit neatly elsewhere.  And I promoted Cincinnati and Memphis to get to 10, so this is the least geographically neat conference of the 7.  I wanted to keep the Texas schools together, though, and keeping much of the SEC West together made it hard to grab teams from there to fit in here. 

Conference champs make it in, and no wild cards from the major conferences can take the 8th spot--it's the highest-ranked FBS team not in one of these conferences.  So there's a possible Cinderella every year, usually as the 8 seed, giving the #1 team a less daunting task than its fellow conference champs.  Every FBS team has hope to make it into the playoff every year.  The non-Power 7 path is tougher, but they're not as good, so whatever.  They should be happy I gave them a seat at the table!  Jeez....

So that's the lineup of teams, but then how they get matched up gets complicated.  That's the next post....

[ColoradoTree]

So, once you've determined the teams in the playoff, there are a few ways for having them play.

Scenario #1 is to have the quarterfinals played on campus sites, with seeding determined by a committee.  1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6, and 4 plays 5.  The semifinal games are played at two of the New Year's Six bowl games (Rose, Cotton, Peach, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange), and the championship game is at whichever NFL stadium bids for it.  The bowls wouldn't be super happy about this, because they're losing 4 quality teams from the bowl mix.  I generally like this idea and think it's probably the most workable, but it also diminishes the importance of the Rose, which makes me sad, though the Rose would get the Big Ten and Pac-10 runner-ups in non-semifinal years (and you could even have a rider that says that if the Big Ten and Pac-10* champs make it to the semis, they play each other in the Rose, regardless of seed).

Scenario #2 is to have the NY6 bowls be the quarterfinals AND semifinals every year, with the QF bowls played on January 1, the semis two weeks later, and the final the week after that (timing can be negotiated here).  The bowls love it because they all get meaningful, marquee games every single year.  It's brutal on fans, though, who face three trips to three different cities in a compressed timeframe.  A version of this scenario would have the QF bowls in mid-December, the SF bowls two weeks later on New Year's Day, and the national championship game two weeks after that, to give the fans a rest.  In a year where the Rose is slated for an early QF matchup, though, it wouldn't be able to both play on New Year's Day and host a Pac-10/Big Ten matchup, so it would have to choose whether it wanted to be included in those QF games. 

Scenario #3 is where I get a little crazy.  If we don't think it's workable to do QF and SF games all in bowls because of fan travel, and we don't want to lose the traditional Rose Bowl matchup forever more, and we don't want to take 4 of the top 8 teams out of the bowl mix to mollify the Powers That Be, then we can be a little creative.  Here's the plan: the top 4 bowls are the national quarterfinals (all on January 1), the semis are played on campus sites, and the championship game is played at whichever NFL stadium bids for it.  All teams are seeded, but the Rose keeps the Pac-10/Big Ten matchup, regardless of seed.  The remaining champs and the wild card are paired by seed as determined by a committee and placed in a rotation of bowls that includes the current roster of NY6 bowls (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Peach, and Cotton).  (The Rose gets special treatment because the Pac-10 and Big Ten insist on it as a condition of joining this new realigned system.)  Then the semifinals are on campus sites, with the highest remaining seed hosting the lowest remaining seed, and the second-highest remaining seed hosting the second-lowest remaining seed.  Some reasonable percentage of seats are initially reserved for the visiting team's fans if they want to make the trip, though.  But the regular season not only matters for getting into the playoff, but for determining your seed, because there's the hugely valuable home semifinal game as a potential carrot.  I know it seems harsh for a team that just won a major bowl game to go have to play a road game to get into the national title game, but having effectively three bowl games just seems like a ton to ask of a fanbase.  Logistically, it seems easier, since the bowl tickets are always complicated and difficult to manage, so giving the usual lead time for that event and then reverting to a campus site game for the semi seems like something the schools would be better able to handle than the reverse (having to handle bowl tickets and logistics on a week's notice or two weeks' notice). 

All in all, though, I think having quarterfinals on campus sites makes the most sense.  It wouldn't be a "bowl experience," but going to play a national quarterfinal game in the Big House in Ann Arbor or the Horseshoe in Columbus or Bryant-Denny in Tuscaloosa would be its own special college football experience.  I'd much rather go to some place like that than to Orlando or Miami or Phoenix.  You'd need to reserve a larger chunk of seats for away fans than teams normally do for normal games, but that's doable.  Then you could have those games in mid- to late-December without affecting the existing bowl schedule.  (Note: this is probably what happens if we move to an 8-team playoff without the radical realignment shown above.) 

* I say Pac-10 because I'm still assuming the radical realignment noted in the last post, which gets to seven 10-team conferences. 

[ColoradoTree]

So, once you've determined the teams in the playoff, there are a few ways for having them play.

Scenario #1 is to have the quarterfinals played on campus sites, with seeding determined by a committee.  1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6, and 4 plays 5.  The semifinal games are played at two of the New Year's Six bowl games (Rose, Cotton, Peach, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange), and the championship game is at whichever NFL stadium bids for it.  The bowls wouldn't be super happy about this, because they're losing 4 quality teams from the bowl mix.  I generally like this idea and think it's probably the most workable, but it also diminishes the importance of the Rose, which makes me sad, though the Rose would get the Big Ten and Pac-10 runner-ups in non-semifinal years (and you could even have a rider that says that if the Big Ten and Pac-10* champs make it to the semis, they play each other in the Rose, regardless of seed).

Scenario #2 is to have the NY6 bowls be the quarterfinals AND semifinals every year, with the QF bowls played on January 1, the semis two weeks later, and the final the week after that (timing can be negotiated here).  The bowls love it because they all get meaningful, marquee games every single year.  It's brutal on fans, though, who face three trips to three different cities in a compressed timeframe.  A version of this scenario would have the QF bowls in mid-December, the SF bowls two weeks later on New Year's Day, and the national championship game two weeks after that, to give the fans a rest.  In a year where the Rose is slated for an early QF matchup, though, it wouldn't be able to both play on New Year's Day and host a Pac-10/Big Ten matchup, so it would have to choose whether it wanted to be included in those QF games. 

Scenario #3 is where I get a little crazy.  If we don't think it's workable to do QF and SF games all in bowls because of fan travel, and we don't want to lose the traditional Rose Bowl matchup forever more, and we don't want to take 4 of the top 8 teams out of the bowl mix to mollify the Powers That Be, then we can be a little creative.  Here's the plan: the top 4 bowls are the national quarterfinals (all on January 1), the semis are played on campus sites, and the championship game is played at whichever NFL stadium bids for it.  All teams are seeded, but the Rose keeps the Pac-10/Big Ten matchup, regardless of seed.  The remaining champs and the wild card are paired by seed as determined by a committee and placed in a rotation of bowls that includes the current roster of NY6 bowls (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Peach, and Cotton).  (The Rose gets special treatment because the Pac-10 and Big Ten insist on it as a condition of joining this new realigned system.)  Then the semifinals are on campus sites, with the highest remaining seed hosting the lowest remaining seed, and the second-highest remaining seed hosting the second-lowest remaining seed.  Some reasonable percentage of seats are initially reserved for the visiting team's fans if they want to make the trip, though.  But the regular season not only matters for getting into the playoff, but for determining your seed, because there's the hugely valuable home semifinal game as a potential carrot.  I know it seems harsh for a team that just won a major bowl game to go have to play a road game to get into the national title game, but having effectively three bowl games just seems like a ton to ask of a fanbase.  Logistically, it seems easier, since the bowl tickets are always complicated and difficult to manage, so giving the usual lead time for that event and then reverting to a campus site game for the semi seems like something the schools would be better able to handle than the reverse (having to handle bowl tickets and logistics on a week's notice or two weeks' notice). 

All in all, though, I think having quarterfinals on campus sites makes the most sense.  It wouldn't be a "bowl experience," but going to play a national quarterfinal game in the Big House in Ann Arbor or the Horseshoe in Columbus or Bryant-Denny in Tuscaloosa would be its own special college football experience.  I'd much rather go to some place like that than to Orlando or Miami or Phoenix.  You'd need to reserve a larger chunk of seats for away fans than teams normally do for normal games, but that's doable.  Then you could have those games in mid- to late-December without affecting the existing bowl schedule.  (Note: this is probably what happens if we move to an 8-team playoff without the radical realignment shown above.) 

* I say Pac-10 because I'm still assuming the radical realignment noted in the last post, which gets to seven 10-team conferences. 

[CowboyIndian]

.... going to play a national quarterfinal game in the Big House in Ann Arbor or the Horseshoe in Columbus or Bryant-Denny in Tuscaloosa would be its own special college football experience.

Then you could have those games in mid- to late-December

I take it you've never been to Michigan...or even Columbus, Ohio...in mid-December. It would be its own special experience, all right.

[CowboyIndian]

.... going to play a national quarterfinal game in the Big House in Ann Arbor or the Horseshoe in Columbus or Bryant-Denny in Tuscaloosa would be its own special college football experience.

Then you could have those games in mid- to late-December

I take it you've never been to Michigan...or even Columbus, Ohio...in mid-December. It would be its own special experience, all right.

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=15599.msg170429#msg170429 date=1473287686]
.... going to play a national quarterfinal game in the Big House in Ann Arbor or the Horseshoe in Columbus or Bryant-Denny in Tuscaloosa would be its own special college football experience.

Then you could have those games in mid- to late-December

I take it you've never been to Michigan...or even Columbus, Ohio...in mid-December. It would be its own special experience, all right.
[/quote]

I grew up in Minnesota, so I get it.  I've tailgated in below-zero temps, so I'm open to the experience, but I can imagine it would not be so pleasant for many of us who hail from warmer climes. 

But leaving aside the conceit of the 7 10-team conferences, using campus sites seems like the most workable option for an 8-team playoff, doesn't it?  I know there would be some cold weather games, but is up to 3 bowl games on short notice really workable?  And if you have to use campus sites, then I'd think a couple of weeks after the conference title games would be the time to do it, to allow teams to prepare for those games. 

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=15599.msg170429#msg170429 date=1473287686]
.... going to play a national quarterfinal game in the Big House in Ann Arbor or the Horseshoe in Columbus or Bryant-Denny in Tuscaloosa would be its own special college football experience.

Then you could have those games in mid- to late-December

I take it you've never been to Michigan...or even Columbus, Ohio...in mid-December. It would be its own special experience, all right.
[/quote]

I grew up in Minnesota, so I get it.  I've tailgated in below-zero temps, so I'm open to the experience, but I can imagine it would not be so pleasant for many of us who hail from warmer climes. 

But leaving aside the conceit of the 7 10-team conferences, using campus sites seems like the most workable option for an 8-team playoff, doesn't it?  I know there would be some cold weather games, but is up to 3 bowl games on short notice really workable?  And if you have to use campus sites, then I'd think a couple of weeks after the conference title games would be the time to do it, to allow teams to prepare for those games. 

[stupac2]

There were 3 Pac-12 CGs hosted by the winners, right? Those all went more-or-less fine (ours had attendance issues but that was more because it was on a Friday night than anything).

[stupac2]

There were 3 Pac-12 CGs hosted by the winners, right? Those all went more-or-less fine (ours had attendance issues but that was more because it was on a Friday night than anything).

[ColoradoTree]

There were 3 Pac-12 CGs hosted by the winners, right? Those all went more-or-less fine (ours had attendance issues but that was more because it was on a Friday night than anything).

That's what I'm thinking.  Campus sites for QFs mean you can basically treat it like another home game, with the playoff committee and the host school working closely to pull off the event.  I think there is a real concern about adding another week of playoff games and the effect it would have on attendance.  For me, it's already tough to rearrange my life so I can make it to a Rose Bowl.  I certainly wouldn't be able to make it work to attend a quarterfinal, semifinal, and a national championship game.  And for our fans that live in California, at least the Pac-12 title game is in our backyard.  For other conferences, and for the non-CA schools in our conference, the conference title game adds another expensive layer to the postseason. 

[ColoradoTree]

There were 3 Pac-12 CGs hosted by the winners, right? Those all went more-or-less fine (ours had attendance issues but that was more because it was on a Friday night than anything).

That's what I'm thinking.  Campus sites for QFs mean you can basically treat it like another home game, with the playoff committee and the host school working closely to pull off the event.  I think there is a real concern about adding another week of playoff games and the effect it would have on attendance.  For me, it's already tough to rearrange my life so I can make it to a Rose Bowl.  I certainly wouldn't be able to make it work to attend a quarterfinal, semifinal, and a national championship game.  And for our fans that live in California, at least the Pac-12 title game is in our backyard.  For other conferences, and for the non-CA schools in our conference, the conference title game adds another expensive layer to the postseason. 

[BostonCard]

The thing is that trying to determine the "best" team is an actively pointless goal. It's so poorly defined that I don't understand why ostensibly smart people even discuss it. There is a reason that literally every other team sport I'm aware of determines a championship based on:

1) Group teams into geographical clusters.
2) The winners (determined somehow) out of those clusters advance to the tournament.
3) The best records of the non-winners (again, determined somehow) also advance to the tournament.
4) Seeding is done either by records or by informed panels producing a consensus.
5) There's a defined path to winning the tournament.

College football is the only sport that doesn't do that and I find it baffling. I find it even more baffling that people defend this approach, especially fans of the team that has been completely screwed over by it at least twice in the past 8 years.

Finall, what I meant by us being better than Oklahoma/MSU is that we wouldn't have put up clunkers of games against Alabama/Clemson. Would we have beaten the latter two? Maybe! It's impossible to know without playing the game, which is all that I want the opportunity to do. Could we have beaten Auburn in 2010? I think so! Alabama in 2011/2012? Probably not but who knows? I want to see those games!

I don't care about determining the "best" team. I admit it is an impossible task. But one argument for the playoffs (made in this thread) is that the "best team" can be left out of the playoffs altogether because they stumbled along the way.  I disagree with that argument and offered reasons why.

When the United States was born, "there was a reason" why literally (ok, maybe not literally) every single country was ruled by a monarch... I think the fact that "every other team sport" does it the way you describe doesn't necessarily make it the right way to do things, just as dismissing Democracy because at the time every other country did it another way makes no sense.

Moreover, your assertion is inaccurate.  The English Premiere league has no playoff.  The 20 teams pay a double round-robin regular season, and the team with the highest number of points at the end of the season is declared the Premiere league champion.  No divisions, no tournament for the winners of the divisions, no seeding, none of that.  We are talking about the third most valuable sports league in the world behind the NFL and MLB, and it has thrived just fine without a playoff.

I respect the fact that you really want an (expanded) playoff.  There are some advantages to such a system.  If crowning a champion through a defined mechanism is important to you, I understand where you are coming from.  If you take umbrage from being arbitrarily left (or "screwed") out of a payoff system because some combination of an untimely loss or a system that doesn't adequately reward strength of schedule, or whatever, I understand.  But for me, college football isn't about "crowning a champion" on the field.  As I said, last year was about the worst possible scenario for Stanford, being the only P5 team to be left out of the playoffs, and I still felt it was a near-perfect season.  I simply don't have an overwhelming desire to see an uncontroversial champion crowned, even if that champion is Stanford, and I don't think when all is said and done, I would enjoy seeing Stanford in an eight team playoff any more or less than seeing Stanford in the Rose Bowl.  Obviously I would be thrilled if Stanford were in the playoff or national championship, but more because it was Stanford than because it was the National Championship.  Last year, I watched the National Championship with about the same level of interest that I watched this year's Notre Dame/Texas game, which is to say that I had it on in the background while I was doing something else.  It was good football.

I get that most people want to see the playoffs expanded to eight or more teams.  I realize it is more or less inevitable.  But in my personal opinion, it won't make college football better, just as the current system isn't any better than the BCS or the BCS any better than the pre-BCS bowl system.  they are just different.

I just wish you would respect my opinion and not treat it like some assault on mom and Apple Pie.

BC

[BostonCard]

The thing is that trying to determine the "best" team is an actively pointless goal. It's so poorly defined that I don't understand why ostensibly smart people even discuss it. There is a reason that literally every other team sport I'm aware of determines a championship based on:

1) Group teams into geographical clusters.
2) The winners (determined somehow) out of those clusters advance to the tournament.
3) The best records of the non-winners (again, determined somehow) also advance to the tournament.
4) Seeding is done either by records or by informed panels producing a consensus.
5) There's a defined path to winning the tournament.

College football is the only sport that doesn't do that and I find it baffling. I find it even more baffling that people defend this approach, especially fans of the team that has been completely screwed over by it at least twice in the past 8 years.

Finall, what I meant by us being better than Oklahoma/MSU is that we wouldn't have put up clunkers of games against Alabama/Clemson. Would we have beaten the latter two? Maybe! It's impossible to know without playing the game, which is all that I want the opportunity to do. Could we have beaten Auburn in 2010? I think so! Alabama in 2011/2012? Probably not but who knows? I want to see those games!

I don't care about determining the "best" team. I admit it is an impossible task. But one argument for the playoffs (made in this thread) is that the "best team" can be left out of the playoffs altogether because they stumbled along the way.  I disagree with that argument and offered reasons why.

When the United States was born, "there was a reason" why literally (ok, maybe not literally) every single country was ruled by a monarch... I think the fact that "every other team sport" does it the way you describe doesn't necessarily make it the right way to do things, just as dismissing Democracy because at the time every other country did it another way makes no sense.

Moreover, your assertion is inaccurate.  The English Premiere league has no playoff.  The 20 teams pay a double round-robin regular season, and the team with the highest number of points at the end of the season is declared the Premiere league champion.  No divisions, no tournament for the winners of the divisions, no seeding, none of that.  We are talking about the third most valuable sports league in the world behind the NFL and MLB, and it has thrived just fine without a playoff.

I respect the fact that you really want an (expanded) playoff.  There are some advantages to such a system.  If crowning a champion through a defined mechanism is important to you, I understand where you are coming from.  If you take umbrage from being arbitrarily left (or "screwed") out of a payoff system because some combination of an untimely loss or a system that doesn't adequately reward strength of schedule, or whatever, I understand.  But for me, college football isn't about "crowning a champion" on the field.  As I said, last year was about the worst possible scenario for Stanford, being the only P5 team to be left out of the playoffs, and I still felt it was a near-perfect season.  I simply don't have an overwhelming desire to see an uncontroversial champion crowned, even if that champion is Stanford, and I don't think when all is said and done, I would enjoy seeing Stanford in an eight team playoff any more or less than seeing Stanford in the Rose Bowl.  Obviously I would be thrilled if Stanford were in the playoff or national championship, but more because it was Stanford than because it was the National Championship.  Last year, I watched the National Championship with about the same level of interest that I watched this year's Notre Dame/Texas game, which is to say that I had it on in the background while I was doing something else.  It was good football.

I get that most people want to see the playoffs expanded to eight or more teams.  I realize it is more or less inevitable.  But in my personal opinion, it won't make college football better, just as the current system isn't any better than the BCS or the BCS any better than the pre-BCS bowl system.  they are just different.

I just wish you would respect my opinion and not treat it like some assault on mom and Apple Pie.

BC

[martyup]

I think I would be happy if every season we just beat Cal and the USC.  It's been great watching this team win 10+ games per season since Harbaugh turned it around.  I hope the winning continues.  But I could live happily with just those two wins each year.  :)

[martyup]

I think I would be happy if every season we just beat Cal and the USC.  It's been great watching this team win 10+ games per season since Harbaugh turned it around.  I hope the winning continues.  But I could live happily with just those two wins each year.  :)

[oldalum]

Here's the thing that makes no sense.  Although I don't think it makes sense to throw away your priors (pre-season expectations) after only a game, I can respect trying to make the season rankings based on results and willing to adjust quickly to new data (and WIlner is willing to do this).  The issue is that is not what he is doing. 

To be fair to Mr. Wilner, he does not say he ranks solely on results once the season starts; he acknowledges his rankings are a blend of priors and results, with priors losing influence as results shed more light on more teams. As he began his column, "It plays off my preseason ballot, which was a projection of how everything will shake out, and makes adjustments based on results where applicable.    There have been several major changes, but the ballot cannot be wholly results-oriented because not every team played a meaningful opponent. . . .It will be several weeks before we have enough quality games to compile a ballot that's completely based on results." That seems correct to me; I don't see any reasonable alternative.

[oldalum]

Here's the thing that makes no sense.  Although I don't think it makes sense to throw away your priors (pre-season expectations) after only a game, I can respect trying to make the season rankings based on results and willing to adjust quickly to new data (and WIlner is willing to do this).  The issue is that is not what he is doing. 

To be fair to Mr. Wilner, he does not say he ranks solely on results once the season starts; he acknowledges his rankings are a blend of priors and results, with priors losing influence as results shed more light on more teams. As he began his column, "It plays off my preseason ballot, which was a projection of how everything will shake out, and makes adjustments based on results where applicable.    There have been several major changes, but the ballot cannot be wholly results-oriented because not every team played a meaningful opponent. . . .It will be several weeks before we have enough quality games to compile a ballot that's completely based on results." That seems correct to me; I don't see any reasonable alternative.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15599.msg170309#msg170309 date=1473207453]
It plays off my preseason ballot, which was a projection of how everything will shake out, and makes adjustments based on results where applicable.    There have been several major changes, but the ballot cannot be wholly results-oriented because not every team played a meaningful opponent. . . .It will be several weeks before we have enough quality games to compile a ballot that's completely based on results.

So...

How is this different than what every other pollster does?  Everybody's polls are pretty much some blend of their priors and the results on the field?

If that is really what he does, then why did Notre Dame go from #10 in his pre-season poll to #6 after week 1 despite losing to a team he had unranked in his pre-season poll.  There is no universe in which that is some combination of his priors (preseason #10) and the results (a loss to a pre-season unranked team) result in the team's ranking improving.

In contrast, Stanford went from a pre-season #8 on his ballot to #13 on his ballot, despite beating a power 5 team.  I mean, I could understand if he said something like "we know no more about Stanford this week than last, because I expect the team they beat to be pretty bad this year", not moving Stanford up in its ranking (even though higher ranked teams ahead of Stanford such as LSU and Oklahoma).  And it's not just a Stanford thing.  He dropped Michigan from 7 to 10 even though they crushed Hawaii.  Again, I get if you want to discount that win as more or less not telling us much because a) Hawaii is not that good and b) Hawaii played a week before in Australia and you expect them to be jet lagged as hell.  So fine, you leave them where they were.  But how does that game tell us that Michigan was any worse than what you thought before it was played.

The man says the right things about his ranking, he just doesn't adhere to what he says.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15599.msg170309#msg170309 date=1473207453]
It plays off my preseason ballot, which was a projection of how everything will shake out, and makes adjustments based on results where applicable.    There have been several major changes, but the ballot cannot be wholly results-oriented because not every team played a meaningful opponent. . . .It will be several weeks before we have enough quality games to compile a ballot that's completely based on results.

So...

How is this different than what every other pollster does?  Everybody's polls are pretty much some blend of their priors and the results on the field?

If that is really what he does, then why did Notre Dame go from #10 in his pre-season poll to #6 after week 1 despite losing to a team he had unranked in his pre-season poll.  There is no universe in which that is some combination of his priors (preseason #10) and the results (a loss to a pre-season unranked team) result in the team's ranking improving.

In contrast, Stanford went from a pre-season #8 on his ballot to #13 on his ballot, despite beating a power 5 team.  I mean, I could understand if he said something like "we know no more about Stanford this week than last, because I expect the team they beat to be pretty bad this year", not moving Stanford up in its ranking (even though higher ranked teams ahead of Stanford such as LSU and Oklahoma).  And it's not just a Stanford thing.  He dropped Michigan from 7 to 10 even though they crushed Hawaii.  Again, I get if you want to discount that win as more or less not telling us much because a) Hawaii is not that good and b) Hawaii played a week before in Australia and you expect them to be jet lagged as hell.  So fine, you leave them where they were.  But how does that game tell us that Michigan was any worse than what you thought before it was played.

The man says the right things about his ranking, he just doesn't adhere to what he says.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Well, the ridiculous thing about using preseason ballots to inform in-season ballots is when voters -- like Wilner, I believe -- justify rankings based on the difficulty of the schedule. This effectively punishes teams twice for scheduling tough -- once, in preseason, for scheduling hard; and the second time, when they lose the games they're implicitly expected to lose anyway.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, the ridiculous thing about using preseason ballots to inform in-season ballots is when voters -- like Wilner, I believe -- justify rankings based on the difficulty of the schedule. This effectively punishes teams twice for scheduling tough -- once, in preseason, for scheduling hard; and the second time, when they lose the games they're implicitly expected to lose anyway.

[oldalum]

BC you are obviously much smarter than I am because you've got me defending Wilner in public which takes some clever doing. But since I've already crossed that line, I would say that you are right, every pollster does that, but the blend is different in degree and timing. Wilner is more willing to make major changes based on an early result, while the majority of voters hang onto their biases longer. That being said, his reasoning based on results often seems specious to me. But I don't necessarily fault elevating both Texas and UFDFG based not solely on the result (which only tells you they should be ranked very closely to each other) but also, at this point in the season, on watching them play as well (which provides more info than a preseason guess). I also have no problem with him moving Stanford down this week, not because he thinks any worse of us per se, but because in his own mind he thinks the wins of all those other teams were better (which you and I might well disagree with). So I am trying to make an admittedly fine distinction between his professed method/approach (which I think is correct) and how he executes that method week to week (which is easy to criticize). Maybe you are looking at the results and thinking, this could not possibly be a rational product of the professed method--and you may be right.

[oldalum]

BC you are obviously much smarter than I am because you've got me defending Wilner in public which takes some clever doing. But since I've already crossed that line, I would say that you are right, every pollster does that, but the blend is different in degree and timing. Wilner is more willing to make major changes based on an early result, while the majority of voters hang onto their biases longer. That being said, his reasoning based on results often seems specious to me. But I don't necessarily fault elevating both Texas and UFDFG based not solely on the result (which only tells you they should be ranked very closely to each other) but also, at this point in the season, on watching them play as well (which provides more info than a preseason guess). I also have no problem with him moving Stanford down this week, not because he thinks any worse of us per se, but because in his own mind he thinks the wins of all those other teams were better (which you and I might well disagree with). So I am trying to make an admittedly fine distinction between his professed method/approach (which I think is correct) and how he executes that method week to week (which is easy to criticize). Maybe you are looking at the results and thinking, this could not possibly be a rational product of the professed method--and you may be right.

[BostonCard]

Haha, it is a Jedi mind trick.

Alright let me look at the individual shifts.  Here are the teams that jumped over Stanford:

#2 Texas (previously unranked): beat previously #10 Notre Dame.  Fine, makes sense with his logic.
#5 Houston (Previously 15): beat previously #3 Oklahoma.  Fine, makes sense, though I'm not sure why Texas' win over previously #10 Notre Dame in overtime would push the Longhorns from unranked to #2, while Houston's double digit win over previously #3 Oklahoma would move the Cougars from #15 to #10.  Houston started more highly ranked, beat a more highly ranked team, and did so more decisively than Texas over Notre Dame, and yet Houston rises less than Texas?  Wilner basically decides that Houston's win over Oklahoma was because Oklahoma wasn't that great (obviously, since Oklahoma lost by 10 to Houston!) While Texas' win over Notre Dame was because Texas was really much better than he thought (of course, since Texas beat a Notre Dame that pushed his new #2 Texas to overtime!)  See what I mean about circular reasoning?  It's almost like it is better to beat another team by a close score, because it proves that you beat a pretty good team rather than crushing the other team, which just proves the team you beat sucked and that your win should be discounted accordingly.  Either way, though, I can justify jumping Texas and Houston over Stanford.
#6 Notre Dame (previously 10):  Wait, what?!?  Wilner jumped a team that lost to a previously unranked Big12 team over a team that beat a previously unranked Big12 team by 13 points.  In what universe does that make sense?  How does Notre Dame lose and move up in the rankings over any team that won?
#7 Wisconsin (previously unranked): Beat previously #5 LSU 16-14.  I can see why he elevated Wisconsin over Stanford.  But the Wisconsin win is at least as good as the Texas or Houston win, so why is Wisconsin behind Notre Dame, who lost?
#8 Texas A&M (previously unranked): Beat previously unranked UCLA.  I'm not sure an overtime win over previously unranked UCLA merits a jump to #8, but you might make the case that UCLA is probably expected to be a stronger team than K-state.  But it was an overtime win over an unranked team, so it's a bit puzzling that it is just worth one space lower on the totem poll than Wisconsin, who beat the previous #5 in regulation.
#11 TCU (previously #13): Beat unranked South Dakota State 59-41.  Here's another one that doesn't make sense.  TCU beats an FCS team by 18 in a game where they were ahead by 7 points after three quarters; Stanford beats a Power 5 team by 13 in a game they were up by two scores after three quarters.  How does the TCU win merit jumping over Stanford, given that they beat an FCS opponent by a not-that-impressive game and Stanford beat a P5 opponent.
#12 Washington (previously #14): Beat unranked Rutgers.  It was an impressive win, so I can understand jumping them, but my gut feeling is that K-State will be a better team (probably a bowl eligible team when all is said and done) than Rutgers, which should suck.  But his assessment may be different, and at this juncture there is no way of knowing.

I can understand Texas, Houston, and Wisconsin jumping Stanford on the basis of very good wins.  I can maybe understand Washington (not a great opponent, but a decisive score), and Texas A&M (not a decisive score, but UCLA was probably a better opponent than KState).  I can't understand Notre Dame (they friggin lost!) or TCU (they beat South Dakota friggin state) jumping Stanford.  Try to defend THAT!

BC

P.S.  The data taken from here showing his current and last week's vote:

http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll-voter/jon-wilner

[BostonCard]

Haha, it is a Jedi mind trick.

Alright let me look at the individual shifts.  Here are the teams that jumped over Stanford:

#2 Texas (previously unranked): beat previously #10 Notre Dame.  Fine, makes sense with his logic.
#5 Houston (Previously 15): beat previously #3 Oklahoma.  Fine, makes sense, though I'm not sure why Texas' win over previously #10 Notre Dame in overtime would push the Longhorns from unranked to #2, while Houston's double digit win over previously #3 Oklahoma would move the Cougars from #15 to #10.  Houston started more highly ranked, beat a more highly ranked team, and did so more decisively than Texas over Notre Dame, and yet Houston rises less than Texas?  Wilner basically decides that Houston's win over Oklahoma was because Oklahoma wasn't that great (obviously, since Oklahoma lost by 10 to Houston!) While Texas' win over Notre Dame was because Texas was really much better than he thought (of course, since Texas beat a Notre Dame that pushed his new #2 Texas to overtime!)  See what I mean about circular reasoning?  It's almost like it is better to beat another team by a close score, because it proves that you beat a pretty good team rather than crushing the other team, which just proves the team you beat sucked and that your win should be discounted accordingly.  Either way, though, I can justify jumping Texas and Houston over Stanford.
#6 Notre Dame (previously 10):  Wait, what?!?  Wilner jumped a team that lost to a previously unranked Big12 team over a team that beat a previously unranked Big12 team by 13 points.  In what universe does that make sense?  How does Notre Dame lose and move up in the rankings over any team that won?
#7 Wisconsin (previously unranked): Beat previously #5 LSU 16-14.  I can see why he elevated Wisconsin over Stanford.  But the Wisconsin win is at least as good as the Texas or Houston win, so why is Wisconsin behind Notre Dame, who lost?
#8 Texas A&M (previously unranked): Beat previously unranked UCLA.  I'm not sure an overtime win over previously unranked UCLA merits a jump to #8, but you might make the case that UCLA is probably expected to be a stronger team than K-state.  But it was an overtime win over an unranked team, so it's a bit puzzling that it is just worth one space lower on the totem poll than Wisconsin, who beat the previous #5 in regulation.
#11 TCU (previously #13): Beat unranked South Dakota State 59-41.  Here's another one that doesn't make sense.  TCU beats an FCS team by 18 in a game where they were ahead by 7 points after three quarters; Stanford beats a Power 5 team by 13 in a game they were up by two scores after three quarters.  How does the TCU win merit jumping over Stanford, given that they beat an FCS opponent by a not-that-impressive game and Stanford beat a P5 opponent.
#12 Washington (previously #14): Beat unranked Rutgers.  It was an impressive win, so I can understand jumping them, but my gut feeling is that K-State will be a better team (probably a bowl eligible team when all is said and done) than Rutgers, which should suck.  But his assessment may be different, and at this juncture there is no way of knowing.

I can understand Texas, Houston, and Wisconsin jumping Stanford on the basis of very good wins.  I can maybe understand Washington (not a great opponent, but a decisive score), and Texas A&M (not a decisive score, but UCLA was probably a better opponent than KState).  I can't understand Notre Dame (they friggin lost!) or TCU (they beat South Dakota friggin state) jumping Stanford.  Try to defend THAT!

BC

P.S.  The data taken from here showing his current and last week's vote:

http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll-voter/jon-wilner

[CowboyIndian]

I get that most people want to see the playoffs expanded to eight or more teams.  I realize it is more or less inevitable.  But in my personal opinion, it won't make college football better, just as the current system isn't any better than the BCS or the BCS any better than the pre-BCS bowl system.  they are just different.

Tell it, brother! This non-stop and noisy clamoring for an extended playoff and the wing-flapping about the current "CFP"  from week ONE of the season is not adding to my enjoyment of college football. Just the opposite, in fact.

[CowboyIndian]

I get that most people want to see the playoffs expanded to eight or more teams.  I realize it is more or less inevitable.  But in my personal opinion, it won't make college football better, just as the current system isn't any better than the BCS or the BCS any better than the pre-BCS bowl system.  they are just different.

Tell it, brother! This non-stop and noisy clamoring for an extended playoff and the wing-flapping about the current "CFP"  from week ONE of the season is not adding to my enjoyment of college football. Just the opposite, in fact.

[FarmBoy]

#5 Houston (Previously 15): beat previously #3 Oklahoma.  Fine, makes sense, though I'm not sure why Texas' win over previously #10 UFDFG in overtime would push the Longhorns from unranked to #2, while Houston's double digit win over previously #3 Oklahoma would move the Cougars from #15 to #10.  Houston started more highly ranked, beat a more highly ranked team, and did so more decisively than Texas over UFDFG, and yet Houston rises less than Texas?  Wilner basically decides that Houston's win over Oklahoma was because Oklahoma wasn't that great (obviously, since Oklahoma lost by 10 to Houston!) While Texas' win over UFDFG was because Texas was really much better than he thought (of course, since Texas beat a UFDFG that pushed his new #2 Texas to overtime!)  See what I mean about circular reasoning?  It's almost like it is better to beat another team by a close score, because it proves that you beat a pretty good team rather than crushing the other team, which just proves the team you beat sucked and that your win should be discounted accordingly.  Either way, though, I can justify jumping Texas and Houston over Stanford.

You can't look at the pre-season AP poll. You have to look at Wilner's pre-season poll. He ranked Oklahoma only 11th, so he didn't thank as highly as the national media of Oklahoma (good on him on that) and perhaps the way Houston won further downgrades teh quality of OU as an opponent. Similarly, Wilner thought UND was #6 (higher than the pundits), so Texas' win has even greater value in his eyes.

#6 UFDFG (previously 10):  Wait, what?!?  Wilner jumped a team that lost to a previously unranked Big12 team over a team that beat a previously unranked Big12 team by 13 points.  In what universe does that make sense?  How does UFDFG lose and move up in the rankings over any team that won?

Again, he had them at 6 before the game. Taking a team to Double OT on the road that he now considers one of the top in the nation isn't inconsistent with a #6 ranking, in my opinion.

#7 Wisconsin (previously unranked): Beat previously #5 LSU 16-14.  I can see why he elevated Wisconsin over Stanford.  But the Wisconsin win is at least as good as the Texas or Houston win, so why is Wisconsin behind UFDFG, who lost?

He probably is giving weight to the fact that Wisconsin won in essentially a home game and ND performed on the road. Nitpicking over #6 vs #7 isn't very constructive at this point anyway.

#8 Texas A&M (previously unranked): Beat previously unranked UCLA.  I'm not sure an overtime win over previously unranked UCLA merits a jump to #8, but you might make the case that UCLA is probably expected to be a stronger team than K-state.  But it was an overtime win over an unranked team, so it's a bit puzzling that it is just worth one space lower on the totem poll than Wisconsin, who beat the previous #5 in regulation.

He had previously ranked A&M #25, so this is still a big jump. And he had ranked UCLA #16. He may have been impressed by the way A&M beat UCLA more than he was Stanford beating KSU as well.

I'd go on but have a meeting to get to. In summary, I'm sure Wilner has his share of inconsistencies and contradictions, but you need to look at his own views/rankings  on the quality of opponents, not general consensus. And I think he does a fair job of trying to be independent on his rankings of teams, unswayed by national perception and hype. He probably overvalues SEC teams and undervalues local teams whose flaws his more familiar with. But on the whole, I value his contribution to the rankings.

[FarmBoy]

#5 Houston (Previously 15): beat previously #3 Oklahoma.  Fine, makes sense, though I'm not sure why Texas' win over previously #10 UFDFG in overtime would push the Longhorns from unranked to #2, while Houston's double digit win over previously #3 Oklahoma would move the Cougars from #15 to #10.  Houston started more highly ranked, beat a more highly ranked team, and did so more decisively than Texas over UFDFG, and yet Houston rises less than Texas?  Wilner basically decides that Houston's win over Oklahoma was because Oklahoma wasn't that great (obviously, since Oklahoma lost by 10 to Houston!) While Texas' win over UFDFG was because Texas was really much better than he thought (of course, since Texas beat a UFDFG that pushed his new #2 Texas to overtime!)  See what I mean about circular reasoning?  It's almost like it is better to beat another team by a close score, because it proves that you beat a pretty good team rather than crushing the other team, which just proves the team you beat sucked and that your win should be discounted accordingly.  Either way, though, I can justify jumping Texas and Houston over Stanford.

You can't look at the pre-season AP poll. You have to look at Wilner's pre-season poll. He ranked Oklahoma only 11th, so he didn't thank as highly as the national media of Oklahoma (good on him on that) and perhaps the way Houston won further downgrades teh quality of OU as an opponent. Similarly, Wilner thought UND was #6 (higher than the pundits), so Texas' win has even greater value in his eyes.

#6 UFDFG (previously 10):  Wait, what?!?  Wilner jumped a team that lost to a previously unranked Big12 team over a team that beat a previously unranked Big12 team by 13 points.  In what universe does that make sense?  How does UFDFG lose and move up in the rankings over any team that won?

Again, he had them at 6 before the game. Taking a team to Double OT on the road that he now considers one of the top in the nation isn't inconsistent with a #6 ranking, in my opinion.

#7 Wisconsin (previously unranked): Beat previously #5 LSU 16-14.  I can see why he elevated Wisconsin over Stanford.  But the Wisconsin win is at least as good as the Texas or Houston win, so why is Wisconsin behind UFDFG, who lost?

He probably is giving weight to the fact that Wisconsin won in essentially a home game and ND performed on the road. Nitpicking over #6 vs #7 isn't very constructive at this point anyway.

#8 Texas A&M (previously unranked): Beat previously unranked UCLA.  I'm not sure an overtime win over previously unranked UCLA merits a jump to #8, but you might make the case that UCLA is probably expected to be a stronger team than K-state.  But it was an overtime win over an unranked team, so it's a bit puzzling that it is just worth one space lower on the totem poll than Wisconsin, who beat the previous #5 in regulation.

He had previously ranked A&M #25, so this is still a big jump. And he had ranked UCLA #16. He may have been impressed by the way A&M beat UCLA more than he was Stanford beating KSU as well.

I'd go on but have a meeting to get to. In summary, I'm sure Wilner has his share of inconsistencies and contradictions, but you need to look at his own views/rankings  on the quality of opponents, not general consensus. And I think he does a fair job of trying to be independent on his rankings of teams, unswayed by national perception and hype. He probably overvalues SEC teams and undervalues local teams whose flaws his more familiar with. But on the whole, I value his contribution to the rankings.

[winflop]

And it makes clear nobody gives much credit for blowing out cupcakes.

Two thoughts:
- As it should be
- Like University of Seventeenth Choice?  :o ;D

[winflop]

And it makes clear nobody gives much credit for blowing out cupcakes.

Two thoughts:
- As it should be
- Like University of Seventeenth Choice?  :o ;D

[oldalum]

Try to defend THAT!

Farm Boy has a good point, but my main point is that you/I often can't defend how Wilner rates results, but his method of trying to give more weight to results than most others do this early in the season is the right approach (like me in tennis, my intention is usually correct, it's the execution that is lacking). I don't know if any other pollster would jump a team in one week from unranked to #2, but that's a good thing to do after week 1 in the right situation. Another example I liked from last year: Wilner ranked Baylor lower than any other AP voter by November because they hadn't played anyone good (then Baylor started losing to good teams and the other voters started ranking them lower accordingly), which tells me at least in this one instance he was trying to be results oriented more than most or all other AP voters. And stop with the Jedi mind stuff, I have enough trouble controlling my own mind without having to deal with external influences.

[oldalum]

Try to defend THAT!

Farm Boy has a good point, but my main point is that you/I often can't defend how Wilner rates results, but his method of trying to give more weight to results than most others do this early in the season is the right approach (like me in tennis, my intention is usually correct, it's the execution that is lacking). I don't know if any other pollster would jump a team in one week from unranked to #2, but that's a good thing to do after week 1 in the right situation. Another example I liked from last year: Wilner ranked Baylor lower than any other AP voter by November because they hadn't played anyone good (then Baylor started losing to good teams and the other voters started ranking them lower accordingly), which tells me at least in this one instance he was trying to be results oriented more than most or all other AP voters. And stop with the Jedi mind stuff, I have enough trouble controlling my own mind without having to deal with external influences.

[BostonCard]

My bad.  I thought that the "previous" ranking was Wilner's previous ranking, not the old AP ranking.  That's just dumb on AP's part, but OK.  Some of the changes are a bit less indefensible.  But I am duly chastened.

BC

[BostonCard]

My bad.  I thought that the "previous" ranking was Wilner's previous ranking, not the old AP ranking.  That's just dumb on AP's part, but OK.  Some of the changes are a bit less indefensible.  But I am duly chastened.

BC

[ColoradoTree]

I think I would be happy if every season we just beat ןɐɔ and the University of Seventh Choice.  It's been great watching this team win 10+ games per season since Harbaugh turned it around.  I hope the winning continues.  But I could live happily with just those two wins each year.  :)

I'm definitely one of those fans that obsesses about the playoff picture and gets super anxious each and every week, but man, there is a lot of truth to this.  Beating SC is the most satisfying thing all year, and though I've grown accustomed to Stanford beating Cal, it's still really meaningful (though sometimes in more of an incredibly relieved "we just dodged a bullet" sense rather than exultation).  Beating N.D. is up there, too. 

[ColoradoTree]

I think I would be happy if every season we just beat ןɐɔ and the University of Seventh Choice.  It's been great watching this team win 10+ games per season since Harbaugh turned it around.  I hope the winning continues.  But I could live happily with just those two wins each year.  :)

I'm definitely one of those fans that obsesses about the playoff picture and gets super anxious each and every week, but man, there is a lot of truth to this.  Beating SC is the most satisfying thing all year, and though I've grown accustomed to Stanford beating Cal, it's still really meaningful (though sometimes in more of an incredibly relieved "we just dodged a bullet" sense rather than exultation).  Beating N.D. is up there, too.