[winflop]

But if none of those top four teams has played anyone OOC that would be considered a quality opponent, how can you tell if any of those four teams are good enough for the playoff or are they all just pretty good to above average?  There is no external measuring stick because they all scheduled a parade of patsies.  This is exactly what the Committee said they would frown upon, and based on last week they are rewarding it instead.

[winflop]

But if none of those top four teams has played anyone OOC that would be considered a quality opponent, how can you tell if any of those four teams are good enough for the playoff or are they all just pretty good to above average?  There is no external measuring stick because they all scheduled a parade of patsies.  This is exactly what the Committee said they would frown upon, and based on last week they are rewarding it instead.

[PrinceLightfoot]

Change the Rose Bowl loss to a National Championship loss and it will receive my vote. Rose bowl loss makes no sense.

[PrinceLightfoot]

Change the Rose Bowl loss to a National Championship loss and it will receive my vote. Rose bowl loss makes no sense.

[OutsiderFan]

Just saw Danny Kannell making his cases for the rankings.  He said he values undefeated teams while ranking during the season, but he is totally OK with re-ranking them after the whole season has been played. 

My preference is to rank them based on what they have done to date, not what they might do later.  We'll see what the committee believes tomorrow night, because how far can they move Oklahoma State from #14 in one week?  Because let's not forget, TCU didn't have any good wins that justified them bing ranked as high as they were either.

And BTW, look at UNC.  They could possibly beat Clemson in the ACC CG, the way they are playing.

[OutsiderFan]

Just saw Danny Kannell making his cases for the rankings.  He said he values undefeated teams while ranking during the season, but he is totally OK with re-ranking them after the whole season has been played. 

My preference is to rank them based on what they have done to date, not what they might do later.  We'll see what the committee believes tomorrow night, because how far can they move Oklahoma State from #14 in one week?  Because let's not forget, TCU didn't have any good wins that justified them bing ranked as high as they were either.

And BTW, look at UNC.  They could possibly beat Clemson in the ACC CG, the way they are playing.

[BostonCard]

But if none of those top four teams has played anyone OOC that would be considered a quality opponent, how can you tell if any of those four teams are good enough for the playoff or are they all just pretty good to above average?  There is no external measuring stick because they all scheduled a parade of patsies.  This is exactly what the Committee said they would frown upon, and based on last week they are rewarding it instead.

Why would Cal's win over Texas be more valuable than Oklahoma state's win just because it's out of conference?  And why are out of conference losses against power-5 teams more valuable than wins over poor teams.

I'd love to see playoff contending teams play 9 conference games and 2 power 5 non-conference games.  But I'm not for overly penalizing teams.

BC

[BostonCard]

But if none of those top four teams has played anyone OOC that would be considered a quality opponent, how can you tell if any of those four teams are good enough for the playoff or are they all just pretty good to above average?  There is no external measuring stick because they all scheduled a parade of patsies.  This is exactly what the Committee said they would frown upon, and based on last week they are rewarding it instead.

Why would Cal's win over Texas be more valuable than Oklahoma state's win just because it's out of conference?  And why are out of conference losses against power-5 teams more valuable than wins over poor teams.

I'd love to see playoff contending teams play 9 conference games and 2 power 5 non-conference games.  But I'm not for overly penalizing teams.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

It's more about penalizing teams that don't play tough OOC opponents than beating tough OOC opponents, IMO.  If you play tough OOC teams, even if you lost them, you tried.  By not even scheduling them, you basically said you were afraid.

Stanford could be #2 or #3 right now if it played Baylor's or Oklahoma State's OOC schedule and few would be talking about the Pac-12 being down this year if Oregon played SMU instead of Michigan State.  Would Baylor or Oklahoma State be undefeated if they played Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Alabama, Stanford, USC, Oregon, UCLA, and any number of Power 5 teams OOC?  My guess is no, because especially Oklahoma State started the year really slow, barely beating Central Michigan.  If that was against say Notre Dame, as Texas played, they more than likely would have been hammered.

[OutsiderFan]

It's more about penalizing teams that don't play tough OOC opponents than beating tough OOC opponents, IMO.  If you play tough OOC teams, even if you lost them, you tried.  By not even scheduling them, you basically said you were afraid.

Stanford could be #2 or #3 right now if it played Baylor's or Oklahoma State's OOC schedule and few would be talking about the Pac-12 being down this year if Oregon played SMU instead of Michigan State.  Would Baylor or Oklahoma State be undefeated if they played Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Alabama, Stanford, USC, Oregon, UCLA, and any number of Power 5 teams OOC?  My guess is no, because especially Oklahoma State started the year really slow, barely beating Central Michigan.  If that was against say Notre Dame, as Texas played, they more than likely would have been hammered.

[CrazedZooChimp]

It's more about penalizing teams that don't play tough OOC opponents than beating tough OOC opponents, IMO.  If you play tough OOC teams, even if you lost them, you tried.  By not even scheduling them, you basically said you were afraid.

Stanford could be #2 or #3 right now if it played Baylor's or Oklahoma State's OOC schedule and few would be talking about the Pac-12 being down this year if Oregon played SMU instead of Michigan State.  Would Baylor or Oklahoma State be undefeated if they played Michigan, Michigan State, the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, Alabama, Stanford, Under Stanford Control, Oregon, UCLA, and any number of Power 5 teams OOC?  My guess is no, because especially Oklahoma State started the year really slow, barely beating Central Michigan.  If that was against say the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, as Texas played, they more than likely would have been hammered.

Yeah, I think the real issue if the committee takes one of those undefeated teams with no OOC games over a 1 loss team that played a tough (or at least not embarrassing) OOC schedule is that is sends the message that there's no point in scheduling decent OOC games, just schedule cupcakes and increase the chance of being perfect.  I seem to recall one of the reasons for creating the committee instead of using polls was to reward hard strength of schedule and punish teams that have a weak sos.  If they ignore that this time around they've failed.

It's interesting to note that the FEI rankings (although they haven't been updated for this week) have Oklahoma as the top Big-12 team, ranked #9.  The newest FEI should be up today.  The F/+ rankings also have Oklahoma also at the top of the Big 12, #6 (surprisingly, Stanford is #9, below U$C).

[CrazedZooChimp]

It's more about penalizing teams that don't play tough OOC opponents than beating tough OOC opponents, IMO.  If you play tough OOC teams, even if you lost them, you tried.  By not even scheduling them, you basically said you were afraid.

Stanford could be #2 or #3 right now if it played Baylor's or Oklahoma State's OOC schedule and few would be talking about the Pac-12 being down this year if Oregon played SMU instead of Michigan State.  Would Baylor or Oklahoma State be undefeated if they played Michigan, Michigan State, the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, Alabama, Stanford, Under Stanford Control, Oregon, UCLA, and any number of Power 5 teams OOC?  My guess is no, because especially Oklahoma State started the year really slow, barely beating Central Michigan.  If that was against say the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, as Texas played, they more than likely would have been hammered.

Yeah, I think the real issue if the committee takes one of those undefeated teams with no OOC games over a 1 loss team that played a tough (or at least not embarrassing) OOC schedule is that is sends the message that there's no point in scheduling decent OOC games, just schedule cupcakes and increase the chance of being perfect.  I seem to recall one of the reasons for creating the committee instead of using polls was to reward hard strength of schedule and punish teams that have a weak sos.  If they ignore that this time around they've failed.

It's interesting to note that the FEI rankings (although they haven't been updated for this week) have Oklahoma as the top Big-12 team, ranked #9.  The newest FEI should be up today.  The F/+ rankings also have Oklahoma also at the top of the Big 12, #6 (surprisingly, Stanford is #9, below U$C).

[stupac2]

F+ has been updated, so you can read this week's FEI from that, and it matches your numbers. (I suppose it's possible it updated in the last 6 minutes, but I think it's always updated on Sunday and they just don't write the explainer post until midweek.)

[stupac2]

F+ has been updated, so you can read this week's FEI from that, and it matches your numbers. (I suppose it's possible it updated in the last 6 minutes, but I think it's always updated on Sunday and they just don't write the explainer post until midweek.)

[Robbie]

My honest and complete reaction to this: I don't care.

Stanford is playing great. I'm thrilled.

I want Stanford to win out. If they are invited to the playoffs I'll be thrilled. If they don't get invited to the playoffs then they'll play in the Rose Bowl and I'll be thrilled. (Or if they win the conference and lose to Notre Dame, then they'll play in Pasadena also.)

And if Stanford loses to the Ducks, or loses the conference championship, then it will still be a great season, just a bit less than we might have hoped.

Everything is awesome.

[Robbie]

My honest and complete reaction to this: I don't care.

Stanford is playing great. I'm thrilled.

I want Stanford to win out. If they are invited to the playoffs I'll be thrilled. If they don't get invited to the playoffs then they'll play in the Rose Bowl and I'll be thrilled. (Or if they win the conference and lose to Notre Dame, then they'll play in Pasadena also.)

And if Stanford loses to the Ducks, or loses the conference championship, then it will still be a great season, just a bit less than we might have hoped.

Everything is awesome.

[CrazedZooChimp]

F+ has been updated, so you can read this week's FEI from that, and it matches your numbers. (I suppose it's possible it updated in the last 6 minutes, but I think it's always updated on Sunday and they just don't write the explainer post until midweek.)

Yeah, the F+ said it updated Sunday, but the FEI page says last updated 11/2.  It looks like the FEI numbers on the F+ page are the updated ones though, as Stanford is up to 4 from 5.  I was expecting Oklahoma State to move up in the FEI, but looks like they're #14 (and OU still 9), with Baylor 15 and TCU 16.  So basically, FEI hates the Big12 and their weak schedules.

[CrazedZooChimp]

F+ has been updated, so you can read this week's FEI from that, and it matches your numbers. (I suppose it's possible it updated in the last 6 minutes, but I think it's always updated on Sunday and they just don't write the explainer post until midweek.)

Yeah, the F+ said it updated Sunday, but the FEI page says last updated 11/2.  It looks like the FEI numbers on the F+ page are the updated ones though, as Stanford is up to 4 from 5.  I was expecting Oklahoma State to move up in the FEI, but looks like they're #14 (and OU still 9), with Baylor 15 and TCU 16.  So basically, FEI hates the Big12 and their weak schedules.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13569.msg140600#msg140600 date=1447098853]
F+ has been updated, so you can read this week's FEI from that, and it matches your numbers. (I suppose it's possible it updated in the last 6 minutes, but I think it's always updated on Sunday and they just don't write the explainer post until midweek.)

Yeah, the F+ said it updated Sunday, but the FEI page says last updated 11/2.  It looks like the FEI numbers on the F+ page are the updated ones though, as Stanford is up to 4 from 5.  I was expecting Oklahoma State to move up in the FEI, but looks like they're #14 (and OU still 9), with Baylor 15 and TCU 16.  So basically, FEI hates the Big12 and their weak schedules.
[/quote]

Right now we've played enough games that 1 game isn't going to change things too much, so it's not terribly surprising that OKST didn't move much. They looked really bad earlier in the season, barely squeaking by a few bad teams, and so it's not clear which team is the "real" one.

I find it interesting how it seems like FEI and S&P+ have different biases. FEI loves us, S&P+ doesn't at all. It's the opposite for Baylor. I've been hoping that one of the authors would talk a bit about those discrepancies, but so far they haven't.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13569.msg140600#msg140600 date=1447098853]
F+ has been updated, so you can read this week's FEI from that, and it matches your numbers. (I suppose it's possible it updated in the last 6 minutes, but I think it's always updated on Sunday and they just don't write the explainer post until midweek.)

Yeah, the F+ said it updated Sunday, but the FEI page says last updated 11/2.  It looks like the FEI numbers on the F+ page are the updated ones though, as Stanford is up to 4 from 5.  I was expecting Oklahoma State to move up in the FEI, but looks like they're #14 (and OU still 9), with Baylor 15 and TCU 16.  So basically, FEI hates the Big12 and their weak schedules.
[/quote]

Right now we've played enough games that 1 game isn't going to change things too much, so it's not terribly surprising that OKST didn't move much. They looked really bad earlier in the season, barely squeaking by a few bad teams, and so it's not clear which team is the "real" one.

I find it interesting how it seems like FEI and S&P+ have different biases. FEI loves us, S&P+ doesn't at all. It's the opposite for Baylor. I've been hoping that one of the authors would talk a bit about those discrepancies, but so far they haven't.

[SamAtoms1980]

Change the Rose Bowl loss to a National Championship loss and it will receive my vote. Rose bowl loss makes no sense.

Concur; the Rose Bowl loss option should instead be a loss in the CFP final.  I am unable to conceive of a scenario in which a Rose Bowl loss would be preferable to a Rose Bowl win.  Maybe the poll appender was trying to see how many rival troll lurkers we have?

[SamAtoms1980]

Change the Rose Bowl loss to a National Championship loss and it will receive my vote. Rose bowl loss makes no sense.

Concur; the Rose Bowl loss option should instead be a loss in the CFP final.  I am unable to conceive of a scenario in which a Rose Bowl loss would be preferable to a Rose Bowl win.  Maybe the poll appender was trying to see how many rival troll lurkers we have?

[Robbie]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=13569.msg140531#msg140531 date=1447076919]
Change the Rose Bowl loss to a National Championship loss and it will receive my vote. Rose bowl loss makes no sense.

Concur; the Rose Bowl loss option should instead be a loss in the CFP final.  I am unable to conceive of a scenario in which a Rose Bowl loss would be preferable to a Rose Bowl win.  Maybe the poll appender was trying to see how many rival troll lurkers we have?
[/quote]

But the same problem exists after make that change: there is no scenario where losing in the semi-final is preferable to losing the final.

[Robbie]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=13569.msg140531#msg140531 date=1447076919]
Change the Rose Bowl loss to a National Championship loss and it will receive my vote. Rose bowl loss makes no sense.

Concur; the Rose Bowl loss option should instead be a loss in the CFP final.  I am unable to conceive of a scenario in which a Rose Bowl loss would be preferable to a Rose Bowl win.  Maybe the poll appender was trying to see how many rival troll lurkers we have?
[/quote]

But the same problem exists after make that change: there is no scenario where losing in the semi-final is preferable to losing the final.

[Rally]

[quote author=SamAtoms1980 link=topic=13569.msg140617#msg140617 date=1447101839]
[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=13569.msg140531#msg140531 date=1447076919]
Change the Rose Bowl loss to a National Championship loss and it will receive my vote. Rose bowl loss makes no sense.

Concur; the Rose Bowl loss option should instead be a loss in the CFP final.  I am unable to conceive of a scenario in which a Rose Bowl loss would be preferable to a Rose Bowl win.  Maybe the poll appender was trying to see how many rival troll lurkers we have?
[/quote]

But the same problem exists after make that change: there is no scenario where losing in the semi-final is preferable to losing the final.
[/quote]

Since we're undefeated in the South, too, I vote they just scrap the CCG and mail us the trophy.

[Rally]

[quote author=SamAtoms1980 link=topic=13569.msg140617#msg140617 date=1447101839]
[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=13569.msg140531#msg140531 date=1447076919]
Change the Rose Bowl loss to a National Championship loss and it will receive my vote. Rose bowl loss makes no sense.

Concur; the Rose Bowl loss option should instead be a loss in the CFP final.  I am unable to conceive of a scenario in which a Rose Bowl loss would be preferable to a Rose Bowl win.  Maybe the poll appender was trying to see how many rival troll lurkers we have?
[/quote]

But the same problem exists after make that change: there is no scenario where losing in the semi-final is preferable to losing the final.
[/quote]

Since we're undefeated in the South, too, I vote they just scrap the CCG and mail us the trophy.

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=SamAtoms1980 link=topic=13569.msg140617#msg140617 date=1447101839]
[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=13569.msg140531#msg140531 date=1447076919]
Change the Rose Bowl loss to a National Championship loss and it will receive my vote. Rose bowl loss makes no sense.

Concur; the Rose Bowl loss option should instead be a loss in the CFP final.  I am unable to conceive of a scenario in which a Rose Bowl loss would be preferable to a Rose Bowl win.  Maybe the poll appender was trying to see how many rival troll lurkers we have?
[/quote]

But the same problem exists after make that change: there is no scenario where losing in the semi-final is preferable to losing the final.
[/quote]

Need 2 separate polls. Rose Bowl victory vs Semifinal loss, and Rose Bowl victory vs Final's loss.

I personally would  like to see us play in  an important game against an SEC team. I've heard they are good and I'd like to see how our guys do.

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=SamAtoms1980 link=topic=13569.msg140617#msg140617 date=1447101839]
[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=13569.msg140531#msg140531 date=1447076919]
Change the Rose Bowl loss to a National Championship loss and it will receive my vote. Rose bowl loss makes no sense.

Concur; the Rose Bowl loss option should instead be a loss in the CFP final.  I am unable to conceive of a scenario in which a Rose Bowl loss would be preferable to a Rose Bowl win.  Maybe the poll appender was trying to see how many rival troll lurkers we have?
[/quote]

But the same problem exists after make that change: there is no scenario where losing in the semi-final is preferable to losing the final.
[/quote]

Need 2 separate polls. Rose Bowl victory vs Semifinal loss, and Rose Bowl victory vs Final's loss.

I personally would  like to see us play in  an important game against an SEC team. I've heard they are good and I'd like to see how our guys do.

[fullmetal]

I would only vote for a RB win if we didn't make it into the CFP.  Making it into the top four is the most desirable situation over the Rose Bowl possibilities.

[fullmetal]

I would only vote for a RB win if we didn't make it into the CFP.  Making it into the top four is the most desirable situation over the Rose Bowl possibilities.

[TheFarm07]

Stanford at #7

N.D. at #4

1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State
4. N.D.
5. Iowa
6. Baylor
7. Stanford

[TheFarm07]

Stanford at #7

N.D. at #4

1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State
4. N.D.
5. Iowa
6. Baylor
7. Stanford

[BostonCard]

Stanford at #7

N.D. at #4

1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State
4. N.D.
5. Iowa
6. Baylor
7. Stanford

Well, this is good for us.  Ohio State will take care of Iowa (or vice versa), and we can take care of UDFG so while we still need help to be selected, our path forward is reasonable: 1) if Baylor stumbles against TCU, Oklahoma State or Oklahoma, 2) if Alabama loses to Florida, 3) if tOSU loses to Michigan or Michigan State, but the winner of that division still beats Iowa.

BC

[BostonCard]

Stanford at #7

N.D. at #4

1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State
4. N.D.
5. Iowa
6. Baylor
7. Stanford

Well, this is good for us.  Ohio State will take care of Iowa (or vice versa), and we can take care of UDFG so while we still need help to be selected, our path forward is reasonable: 1) if Baylor stumbles against TCU, Oklahoma State or Oklahoma, 2) if Alabama loses to Florida, 3) if tOSU loses to Michigan or Michigan State, but the winner of that division still beats Iowa.

BC

[Cardinal96]

This is looking very good for us.  Just keep winning.

[Cardinal96]

This is looking very good for us.  Just keep winning.

[stupac2]

[quote author=TheFarm07 link=topic=13569.msg140831#msg140831 date=1447200968]
Stanford at #7

N.D. at #4

1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State
4. N.D.
5. Iowa
6. Baylor
7. Stanford

Well, this is good for us.  Ohio State will take care of Iowa (or vice versa), and we can take care of UDFG so while we still need help to be selected, our path forward is reasonable: 1) if Baylor stumbles against TCU, Oklahoma State or Oklahoma, 2) if Alabama loses to Florida, 3) if tOSU loses to Michigan or Michigan State, but the winner of that division still beats Iowa.

BC
[/quote]

OKST needs to stumble too, but otherwise yeah, just need one of those things. As has been said many times, winning out is by far the most difficult part of our path to the playoffs. Nate Silver's updated model puts our odds at making it at like 94% if we win out.

[stupac2]

[quote author=TheFarm07 link=topic=13569.msg140831#msg140831 date=1447200968]
Stanford at #7

N.D. at #4

1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State
4. N.D.
5. Iowa
6. Baylor
7. Stanford

Well, this is good for us.  Ohio State will take care of Iowa (or vice versa), and we can take care of UDFG so while we still need help to be selected, our path forward is reasonable: 1) if Baylor stumbles against TCU, Oklahoma State or Oklahoma, 2) if Alabama loses to Florida, 3) if tOSU loses to Michigan or Michigan State, but the winner of that division still beats Iowa.

BC
[/quote]

OKST needs to stumble too, but otherwise yeah, just need one of those things. As has been said many times, winning out is by far the most difficult part of our path to the playoffs. Nate Silver's updated model puts our odds at making it at like 94% if we win out.