[FarmDad.01]

I think a subset of strength-of-schedule should be the number of opponents who end the season earning a bowl bid. This eliminates wins over FCS cupcakes and FBS schools, while rewarding conference strength.

With only title games left (note that Ohio State's and Oklahoma's regular seasons are done), and mindful of the selection committee's emphasis on winning your conference, here's my final tally of bowl-eligible foes faced by teams still playing:

Clemson (12-0): 7 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
Iowa (12-0): 5 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
Alabama (11-1): 11 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
Oklahoma (11-1): 6 [conference champ, IN]
Michigan State (11-1): 9 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
North Carolina (11-1): 5 [win, ?]
Ohio State (11-1): 7 [no title, OUT]
Florida (10-2): 6 [win, ?]
Stanford (10-2): 10 [win, ?]
U$C (8-4): 11 [even win, NO WAY]

Let the games begin...

[FarmDad.01]

I think a subset of strength-of-schedule should be the number of opponents who end the season earning a bowl bid. This eliminates wins over FCS cupcakes and FBS schools, while rewarding conference strength.

With only title games left (note that Ohio State's and Oklahoma's regular seasons are done), and mindful of the selection committee's emphasis on winning your conference, here's my final tally of bowl-eligible foes faced by teams still playing:

Clemson (12-0): 7 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
Iowa (12-0): 5 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
Alabama (11-1): 11 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
Oklahoma (11-1): 6 [conference champ, IN]
Michigan State (11-1): 9 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
North Carolina (11-1): 5 [win, ?]
Ohio State (11-1): 7 [no title, OUT]
Florida (10-2): 6 [win, ?]
Stanford (10-2): 10 [win, ?]
U$C (8-4): 11 [even win, NO WAY]

Let the games begin...

[OutsiderFan]

Given how monumentally lousy the SEC East is, can the SEC really be called the best conference in the country?  Doesn't it really have to be the Pac-12?  And shouldn't the champion from the best conference be represented in the playoff?

The Pac-12 - Plays 9 conference games and a championship game  (Top 25 OOC: 4 - NDx2, NU, Mich, MSU)

(1) 10+ win team
(2) 9+ win teams
(6) 8+ win teams
(7) 7+ win teams
(10) 6+ win teams

* Stanford played TWO Top 15 teams OOC and will have played 10 games against teams that go to a bowl game, plus they have to beat USC twice

** Stanford will have played FIVE games against teams ranked in the final regular season Top 25, and NINE games against teams that were at one point ranked in the Top 25 this season.  Only Washington wasn't at one time ranked in the Top 25 of all 10 teams Stanford will have played that won 6+ games. 

SEC - Plays 8 conference games and championship game (Top 25 OOC: 2 - OU, Wisc)

(1) 11+ win team
(2) 10+ win teams
(3) 9+ win teams
(7) 8+ win teams
(10) 6+ win teams

Big Ten - Plays 8 conference games and championship game (Top 25 OOC: 2 - UO, Utah)

(1) 12+ win team
(3) 11+ win teams
(4) 10+ win teams
(6) 9+ win teams
(7) 7+ win teams
(8] 6+ win teams

Big 12 - Plays 9 conference games and no championship game (Top 25 OOC: 1 - ND)

(1) 11+ win team
(4) 10+ win teams (assuming Baylor beats Texas)
(4) 9+ win teams
(5) 8+ win teams (assuming WVU beats KSU)
(6) 7+ win teams
(6) 6+ win teams


ACC - plays 8 conference games and championship game (Top 25 OOC: 2 - ND, Florida)

(1) 12+ win team
(2) 11+ win teams
(3) 10+ win teams
(3) 9+ win teams
(5) 8+ win teams
(8] 7+ win teams
(9) 6+ win teams

[OutsiderFan]

Given how monumentally lousy the SEC East is, can the SEC really be called the best conference in the country?  Doesn't it really have to be the Pac-12?  And shouldn't the champion from the best conference be represented in the playoff?

The Pac-12 - Plays 9 conference games and a championship game  (Top 25 OOC: 4 - NDx2, NU, Mich, MSU)

(1) 10+ win team
(2) 9+ win teams
(6) 8+ win teams
(7) 7+ win teams
(10) 6+ win teams

* Stanford played TWO Top 15 teams OOC and will have played 10 games against teams that go to a bowl game, plus they have to beat USC twice

** Stanford will have played FIVE games against teams ranked in the final regular season Top 25, and NINE games against teams that were at one point ranked in the Top 25 this season.  Only Washington wasn't at one time ranked in the Top 25 of all 10 teams Stanford will have played that won 6+ games. 

SEC - Plays 8 conference games and championship game (Top 25 OOC: 2 - OU, Wisc)

(1) 11+ win team
(2) 10+ win teams
(3) 9+ win teams
(7) 8+ win teams
(10) 6+ win teams

Big Ten - Plays 8 conference games and championship game (Top 25 OOC: 2 - UO, Utah)

(1) 12+ win team
(3) 11+ win teams
(4) 10+ win teams
(6) 9+ win teams
(7) 7+ win teams
(8] 6+ win teams

Big 12 - Plays 9 conference games and no championship game (Top 25 OOC: 1 - ND)

(1) 11+ win team
(4) 10+ win teams (assuming Baylor beats Texas)
(4) 9+ win teams
(5) 8+ win teams (assuming WVU beats KSU)
(6) 7+ win teams
(6) 6+ win teams


ACC - plays 8 conference games and championship game (Top 25 OOC: 2 - ND, Florida)

(1) 12+ win team
(2) 11+ win teams
(3) 10+ win teams
(3) 9+ win teams
(5) 8+ win teams
(8] 7+ win teams
(9) 6+ win teams

[winflop]

Clemson (12-0): 7 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
Iowa (12-0): 5 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
Alabama (11-1): 11 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
Oklahoma (11-1): 6 [conference champ, IN]
Michigan State (11-1): 9 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
North Carolina (11-1): 5 [win, ?]
Ohio State (11-1): 7 [no title, OUT]
Florida (10-2): 6 [win, ?]
Stanford (10-2): 10 [win, ?]
U$C (8-4): 11 [even win, NO WAY]

Here are the 10 "finalists" (added OK/OKST as #1/#2 in B12) and #teams in the Top 25 they played, and include this Saturday's upcoming games

Clemson (12-0): 3 (ND, FSU, UNC)
Alabama (11-1): 4 (WIS, MISS, LSU, FLA)
Oklahoma (11-1): 3 (TCU, BAY, OKST)
Iowa (12-0): 3 (NW, WIS, MSU)
Michigan State (11-1): 4 (ORE, MICH, tOSU, IA)
Stanford (10-2): 5 (NW, USCx2, ORE, ND)
North Carolina (11-1): 1 (CLEM)
Florida (10-2): 4 (MISS, LSU, FSU, ALA)
U$C (8-4): 5 (STANx2, ND, UTAH, ORE)
Oklahoma St (10-2): 3 (OK, BAY, TCU)

Conference rank by total # of Top 25 teams played by finalists
P12: 10
SEC:  8
B1G:  7
B12:  6
ACC: 4

[winflop]

Clemson (12-0): 7 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
Iowa (12-0): 5 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
Alabama (11-1): 11 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
Oklahoma (11-1): 6 [conference champ, IN]
Michigan State (11-1): 9 [win, IN / lose, OUT]
North Carolina (11-1): 5 [win, ?]
Ohio State (11-1): 7 [no title, OUT]
Florida (10-2): 6 [win, ?]
Stanford (10-2): 10 [win, ?]
U$C (8-4): 11 [even win, NO WAY]

Here are the 10 "finalists" (added OK/OKST as #1/#2 in B12) and #teams in the Top 25 they played, and include this Saturday's upcoming games

Clemson (12-0): 3 (ND, FSU, UNC)
Alabama (11-1): 4 (WIS, MISS, LSU, FLA)
Oklahoma (11-1): 3 (TCU, BAY, OKST)
Iowa (12-0): 3 (NW, WIS, MSU)
Michigan State (11-1): 4 (ORE, MICH, tOSU, IA)
Stanford (10-2): 5 (NW, USCx2, ORE, ND)
North Carolina (11-1): 1 (CLEM)
Florida (10-2): 4 (MISS, LSU, FSU, ALA)
U$C (8-4): 5 (STANx2, ND, UTAH, ORE)
Oklahoma St (10-2): 3 (OK, BAY, TCU)

Conference rank by total # of Top 25 teams played by finalists
P12: 10
SEC:  8
B1G:  7
B12:  6
ACC: 4

[BostonCard]

Note, the Pac-12 played UDFG twice and went 1-1 (Stanford won, SC lost).

BC

[BostonCard]

Note, the Pac-12 played UDFG twice and went 1-1 (Stanford won, SC lost).

BC

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/TravusHertl/status/6...3467197441

Figured this was a good a place as any to post.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/TravusHertl/status/6...3467197441

Figured this was a good a place as any to post.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

My predictions of the playoff rankings have been pretty spot on after the first week, when Jeff Long made clear how much the committee values schedule strength.  And there is no doubt the committee is fully aware of the numbers in those tweets.  Moreover, conference championships are a prerequisite.

The polls say Ohio State is #6 and Stanford is #7, but it doesn't make sense for the committee to rank Ohio State ahead of Stanford with Stanford in the Pac-12 championship game and Ohio State not in the B1G championship game.  Some may say "but Ohio State only has one loss to Michigan State," to wit the committee will say "Stanford played 9 games against Power 5 bowl teams and went 2-2 against teams ranked in the latest Top 25 poll. Ohio State played just 5 games against power 5 bowl teams and went 1-1 against Top 25 teams. Stanford also beat 10-1 ND, and lost to the #15 team by 2 pts."

If Stanford beats USC, Stanford will finish #5 if Clemson and Alabama win, so why would they put Ohio State ahead of Stanford now?  I honestly don't have a problem with the Iowa/Michigan State winner, Oklahoma, a 1-loss Alabama and undefeated Clemson getting the nod over Stanford. 

However, if...

Alabama or Clemson lose, and Stanford wins:  B1G CG winner, Oklahoma, Stanford, Bama/Clemson winner
Alabama and Clemson lose, and Stanford wins: Oklahoma, B1G CG winner, Stanford, UNC
Clemson, Alabama, and Stanford all lose: Oklahoma, B1G winner, UNC, Ohio State

[OutsiderFan]

My predictions of the playoff rankings have been pretty spot on after the first week, when Jeff Long made clear how much the committee values schedule strength.  And there is no doubt the committee is fully aware of the numbers in those tweets.  Moreover, conference championships are a prerequisite.

The polls say Ohio State is #6 and Stanford is #7, but it doesn't make sense for the committee to rank Ohio State ahead of Stanford with Stanford in the Pac-12 championship game and Ohio State not in the B1G championship game.  Some may say "but Ohio State only has one loss to Michigan State," to wit the committee will say "Stanford played 9 games against Power 5 bowl teams and went 2-2 against teams ranked in the latest Top 25 poll. Ohio State played just 5 games against power 5 bowl teams and went 1-1 against Top 25 teams. Stanford also beat 10-1 ND, and lost to the #15 team by 2 pts."

If Stanford beats USC, Stanford will finish #5 if Clemson and Alabama win, so why would they put Ohio State ahead of Stanford now?  I honestly don't have a problem with the Iowa/Michigan State winner, Oklahoma, a 1-loss Alabama and undefeated Clemson getting the nod over Stanford. 

However, if...

Alabama or Clemson lose, and Stanford wins:  B1G CG winner, Oklahoma, Stanford, Bama/Clemson winner
Alabama and Clemson lose, and Stanford wins: Oklahoma, B1G CG winner, Stanford, UNC
Clemson, Alabama, and Stanford all lose: Oklahoma, B1G winner, UNC, Ohio State

[FarmDad.01]

"Clemson, Alabama, and Stanford all lose: Oklahoma, B1G winner, UNC, Ohio State"

Why tOSU instead of B1G loser? Iowa would be 12-1 and MSU beat the Shmukeyes.

[FarmDad.01]

"Clemson, Alabama, and Stanford all lose: Oklahoma, B1G winner, UNC, Ohio State"

Why tOSU instead of B1G loser? Iowa would be 12-1 and MSU beat the Shmukeyes.

[jacketree]

These are good ways of looking at this.  Stanford is way more alive than I would have guessed going into Saturday.

Makes it seem pretty simple.

Alabama or Clemson lose, and Stanford wins:  B1G CG winner, Oklahoma, Stanford, Bama/Clemson winner
Alabama and Clemson lose, and Stanford wins: Oklahoma, B1G CG winner, Stanford, UNC

I might slot Ohio State or even Iowa with 1 loss over UNC in that second scenario, but that doesn't matter.  Although I think the committee would probably put ACC champ plus recent win over #1 rather than two Big 10 teams.  Never mind, UNC works.

If Stanford loses, I'm not sure I'll watch the Rose Bowl but the playoff will still be interesting.

[jacketree]

These are good ways of looking at this.  Stanford is way more alive than I would have guessed going into Saturday.

Makes it seem pretty simple.

Alabama or Clemson lose, and Stanford wins:  B1G CG winner, Oklahoma, Stanford, Bama/Clemson winner
Alabama and Clemson lose, and Stanford wins: Oklahoma, B1G CG winner, Stanford, UNC

I might slot Ohio State or even Iowa with 1 loss over UNC in that second scenario, but that doesn't matter.  Although I think the committee would probably put ACC champ plus recent win over #1 rather than two Big 10 teams.  Never mind, UNC works.

If Stanford loses, I'm not sure I'll watch the Rose Bowl but the playoff will still be interesting.

[dabigv13]

I just looked at Oklahoma's schedule.....our resume looks better. Not sure why a win over Tennessee in overtime should get everybody all excited. And that Texas loss is atrocious....

[dabigv13]

I just looked at Oklahoma's schedule.....our resume looks better. Not sure why a win over Tennessee in overtime should get everybody all excited. And that Texas loss is atrocious....

[FarmDad.01]

Oklahoma (11-1) won the Big 12, meaning the committee won't squeeze out the conference a second straight year.

A second lock is the B1G winner of MSU (11-1) v. Iowa (12-0). No matter what else happens, this is a one-bid conference.

Should Stanford (10-2) beat U$C (8-4), it still needs either Alabama (11-1) or Clemson (12-0) to lose. Both teams have enough of a cushion, I think, that even an extremely ugly win over a drastic underdog -- say, by 1 point in triple OT -- won't uncrimson the Tide or cage that Tiger. Nor would a victorious Florida (10-2) or North Carolina (11-1) leapfrog the Cardinal, per strength-of-schedule metrics.

[FarmDad.01]

Oklahoma (11-1) won the Big 12, meaning the committee won't squeeze out the conference a second straight year.

A second lock is the B1G winner of MSU (11-1) v. Iowa (12-0). No matter what else happens, this is a one-bid conference.

Should Stanford (10-2) beat U$C (8-4), it still needs either Alabama (11-1) or Clemson (12-0) to lose. Both teams have enough of a cushion, I think, that even an extremely ugly win over a drastic underdog -- say, by 1 point in triple OT -- won't uncrimson the Tide or cage that Tiger. Nor would a victorious Florida (10-2) or North Carolina (11-1) leapfrog the Cardinal, per strength-of-schedule metrics.

[BostonCard]

...  I think, that even an extremely ugly win over a drastic underdog -- say, by 1 point in triple OT -- won't uncrimson the Tide or cage that Tiger. Nor would a victorious Florida (10-2) or North Carolina (11-1) leapfrog the Cardinal, per strength-of-schedule metrics.

A one point win in triple overtime is impossible.  After the second overtime, teams must try for two point conversions, which means that the smallest margin at that point would be two points (one team scoring but failing to convert; the other one converting the 2 pt try)

[BostonCard]

...  I think, that even an extremely ugly win over a drastic underdog -- say, by 1 point in triple OT -- won't uncrimson the Tide or cage that Tiger. Nor would a victorious Florida (10-2) or North Carolina (11-1) leapfrog the Cardinal, per strength-of-schedule metrics.

A one point win in triple overtime is impossible.  After the second overtime, teams must try for two point conversions, which means that the smallest margin at that point would be two points (one team scoring but failing to convert; the other one converting the 2 pt try)

[stupac2]

[quote author=FarmDad.01 link=topic=13825.msg144880#msg144880 date=1448926757]
...  I think, that even an extremely ugly win over a drastic underdog -- say, by 1 point in triple OT -- won't uncrimson the Tide or cage that Tiger. Nor would a victorious Florida (10-2) or North Carolina (11-1) leapfrog the Cardinal, per strength-of-schedule metrics.

A one point win in triple overtime is impossible.  After the second overtime, teams must try for two point conversions, which means that the smallest margin at that point would be two points (one team scoring but failing to convert; the other one converting the 2 pt try)
[/quote]

I was just going to post this when I was notified that you beat me to it. Hurray nearly synchronized pedantry!

[stupac2]

[quote author=FarmDad.01 link=topic=13825.msg144880#msg144880 date=1448926757]
...  I think, that even an extremely ugly win over a drastic underdog -- say, by 1 point in triple OT -- won't uncrimson the Tide or cage that Tiger. Nor would a victorious Florida (10-2) or North Carolina (11-1) leapfrog the Cardinal, per strength-of-schedule metrics.

A one point win in triple overtime is impossible.  After the second overtime, teams must try for two point conversions, which means that the smallest margin at that point would be two points (one team scoring but failing to convert; the other one converting the 2 pt try)
[/quote]

I was just going to post this when I was notified that you beat me to it. Hurray nearly synchronized pedantry!

[terry]

[quote author=FarmDad.01 link=topic=13825.msg144880#msg144880 date=1448926757]
...  I think, that even an extremely ugly win over a drastic underdog -- say, by 1 point in triple OT -- won't uncrimson the Tide or cage that Tiger. Nor would a victorious Florida (10-2) or North Carolina (11-1) leapfrog the Cardinal, per strength-of-schedule metrics.

A one point win in triple overtime is impossible.  After the second overtime, teams must try for two point conversions, which means that the smallest margin at that point would be two points (one team scoring but failing to convert; the other one converting the 2 pt try)
[/quote]


Not trying to be uber-geeky . . . but what about this scenario:  In the third overtime, the first team to possess the ball gets a field goal. Three points. The second team throws an interception, with the ball picked off at the one yard line. The guy who picks off the ball runs into the end zone and takes a knee, instead of just taking a knee at the spot of the pick. That's a safety for the second team. Two points. So the margin ends up being one point. Does that work?

[terry]

[quote author=FarmDad.01 link=topic=13825.msg144880#msg144880 date=1448926757]
...  I think, that even an extremely ugly win over a drastic underdog -- say, by 1 point in triple OT -- won't uncrimson the Tide or cage that Tiger. Nor would a victorious Florida (10-2) or North Carolina (11-1) leapfrog the Cardinal, per strength-of-schedule metrics.

A one point win in triple overtime is impossible.  After the second overtime, teams must try for two point conversions, which means that the smallest margin at that point would be two points (one team scoring but failing to convert; the other one converting the 2 pt try)
[/quote]


Not trying to be uber-geeky . . . but what about this scenario:  In the third overtime, the first team to possess the ball gets a field goal. Three points. The second team throws an interception, with the ball picked off at the one yard line. The guy who picks off the ball runs into the end zone and takes a knee, instead of just taking a knee at the spot of the pick. That's a safety for the second team. Two points. So the margin ends up being one point. Does that work?

[stupac2]

Not trying to be uber-geeky . . . but what about this scenario:  In the third overtime, the first team to possess the ball gets a field goal. Three points. The second team throws an interception, with the ball picked off at the one yard line. The guy who picks off the ball runs into the end zone and takes a knee, instead of just taking a knee at the spot of the pick. That's a safety for the second team. Two points. So the margin ends up being one point. Does that work?

That would work, but there are other ways too. If the first team gets a TD (and either scores the 2-point or doesn't) then the second team could score a TD, then do what you just highlighted, which would be a 1-point play (IIRC). So I guess it's not impossible, just wildly unlikely.

[stupac2]

Not trying to be uber-geeky . . . but what about this scenario:  In the third overtime, the first team to possess the ball gets a field goal. Three points. The second team throws an interception, with the ball picked off at the one yard line. The guy who picks off the ball runs into the end zone and takes a knee, instead of just taking a knee at the spot of the pick. That's a safety for the second team. Two points. So the margin ends up being one point. Does that work?

That would work, but there are other ways too. If the first team gets a TD (and either scores the 2-point or doesn't) then the second team could score a TD, then do what you just highlighted, which would be a 1-point play (IIRC). So I guess it's not impossible, just wildly unlikely.

[Rally]

[quote author=terry link=topic=13825.msg144907#msg144907 date=1448930689]Not trying to be uber-geeky . . . but what about this scenario:  In the third overtime, the first team to possess the ball gets a field goal. Three points. The second team throws an interception, with the ball picked off at the one yard line. The guy who picks off the ball runs into the end zone and takes a knee, instead of just taking a knee at the spot of the pick. That's a safety for the second team. Two points. So the margin ends up being one point. Does that work?

That would work, but there are other ways too. If the first team gets a TD (and either scores the 2-point or doesn't) then the second team could score a TD, then do what you just highlighted, which would be a 1-point play (IIRC). So I guess it's not impossible, just wildly unlikely.
[/quote]

Is there any possibility of a tie eventually?  As in the pros?

[Rally]

[quote author=terry link=topic=13825.msg144907#msg144907 date=1448930689]Not trying to be uber-geeky . . . but what about this scenario:  In the third overtime, the first team to possess the ball gets a field goal. Three points. The second team throws an interception, with the ball picked off at the one yard line. The guy who picks off the ball runs into the end zone and takes a knee, instead of just taking a knee at the spot of the pick. That's a safety for the second team. Two points. So the margin ends up being one point. Does that work?

That would work, but there are other ways too. If the first team gets a TD (and either scores the 2-point or doesn't) then the second team could score a TD, then do what you just highlighted, which would be a 1-point play (IIRC). So I guess it's not impossible, just wildly unlikely.
[/quote]

Is there any possibility of a tie eventually?  As in the pros?

[stupac2]

Is there any possibility of a tie eventually?  As in the pros?

Nope. The NCAA really hates sister-kissing.

[stupac2]

Is there any possibility of a tie eventually?  As in the pros?

Nope. The NCAA really hates sister-kissing.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=terry link=topic=13825.msg144907#msg144907 date=1448930689]Not trying to be uber-geeky . . . but what about this scenario:  In the third overtime, the first team to possess the ball gets a field goal. Three points. The second team throws an interception, with the ball picked off at the one yard line. The guy who picks off the ball runs into the end zone and takes a knee, instead of just taking a knee at the spot of the pick. That's a safety for the second team. Two points. So the margin ends up being one point. Does that work?

That would work, but there are other ways too. If the first team gets a TD (and either scores the 2-point or doesn't) then the second team could score a TD, then do what you just highlighted, which would be a 1-point play (IIRC). So I guess it's not impossible, just wildly unlikely.
[/quote]

Yup, I forgot about the dreaded "conversion safety", of which there have been two in the history of college football:

http://deadspin.com/5973048/only-two-one...-them-both

And I guess one team getting three points and the other two as terry indicated is also a possibility.

So, I was wrong.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=terry link=topic=13825.msg144907#msg144907 date=1448930689]Not trying to be uber-geeky . . . but what about this scenario:  In the third overtime, the first team to possess the ball gets a field goal. Three points. The second team throws an interception, with the ball picked off at the one yard line. The guy who picks off the ball runs into the end zone and takes a knee, instead of just taking a knee at the spot of the pick. That's a safety for the second team. Two points. So the margin ends up being one point. Does that work?

That would work, but there are other ways too. If the first team gets a TD (and either scores the 2-point or doesn't) then the second team could score a TD, then do what you just highlighted, which would be a 1-point play (IIRC). So I guess it's not impossible, just wildly unlikely.
[/quote]

Yup, I forgot about the dreaded "conversion safety", of which there have been two in the history of college football:

http://deadspin.com/5973048/only-two-one...-them-both

And I guess one team getting three points and the other two as terry indicated is also a possibility.

So, I was wrong.

BC

[FarmDad.01]

Well, weren't the 01 DEC committe rankings befuddling? Yes, Oklahoma has clinched. Yes, the B1G champ is in. Yes, SEC's Alabama is in with a win and ACC's Clemson is in with a win. But #4 Iowa, #5 Michigan State, and #6 Ohio State all ahead of #7 Stanford?

My interpretation for non-conference champ tOSU's better ranking is that the committee is hedging should MSU beat Iowa like a rented mule. Then the Shmukeyes could jump Iowa into a prestigious non-championship bowl.

Another take on strength of schedule, topic of this thread, is each remaining Power 5 conference title contender's record against FBS opponents, including number of Power 5 teams played.

ACC
Clemson (12-0) vs OPP's 67-64 (10 P5 foes + FCS Wofford, 5-6)
North Carolina (11-1) vs OPP's 52-66 (10 P5 foes + FCS N.C. A&T, 9-2; FCS Delaware, 4-7)

B1G
Iowa (12-0) vs OPP's 57-75 (10 P5 foes + FCS Ill. State, 9-2)
Michigan State (11-1) vs OPP's 78-66 (10 P5 foes)

BIG 12
Oklahoma (11-1) vs OPP's 78-62 (10 P5 foes)

PAC 12
Stanford (10-2) vs OPP's 78-67 (12 P5 foes)
USC (8-4) vs OPP's 87-57 (!!) (10 P5 foes)

SEC
Alabama (11-1) vs OPP's 80-51 (9 P5 foes + FCS Charleston Southern, 9-2)
Florida (10-2) vs OPP's 74-70 (9 P5 foes)

Even were Iowa and North Carolina to win on Saturday, they will have defeated opponents who
remain below .500 (though unscathed Iowa will get a bid).

If North Carolina and/or Florida pulls the upset, strength of schedule becomes an Excedrin headache for the committee.

Finally, 11-1 Ohio State's FBS foes finished 74-71 (10 P5 teams). Let's just delete the Shmukeyes from the playoff conversation, okay?

Go Cardinal!

[FarmDad.01]

Well, weren't the 01 DEC committe rankings befuddling? Yes, Oklahoma has clinched. Yes, the B1G champ is in. Yes, SEC's Alabama is in with a win and ACC's Clemson is in with a win. But #4 Iowa, #5 Michigan State, and #6 Ohio State all ahead of #7 Stanford?

My interpretation for non-conference champ tOSU's better ranking is that the committee is hedging should MSU beat Iowa like a rented mule. Then the Shmukeyes could jump Iowa into a prestigious non-championship bowl.

Another take on strength of schedule, topic of this thread, is each remaining Power 5 conference title contender's record against FBS opponents, including number of Power 5 teams played.

ACC
Clemson (12-0) vs OPP's 67-64 (10 P5 foes + FCS Wofford, 5-6)
North Carolina (11-1) vs OPP's 52-66 (10 P5 foes + FCS N.C. A&T, 9-2; FCS Delaware, 4-7)

B1G
Iowa (12-0) vs OPP's 57-75 (10 P5 foes + FCS Ill. State, 9-2)
Michigan State (11-1) vs OPP's 78-66 (10 P5 foes)

BIG 12
Oklahoma (11-1) vs OPP's 78-62 (10 P5 foes)

PAC 12
Stanford (10-2) vs OPP's 78-67 (12 P5 foes)
USC (8-4) vs OPP's 87-57 (!!) (10 P5 foes)

SEC
Alabama (11-1) vs OPP's 80-51 (9 P5 foes + FCS Charleston Southern, 9-2)
Florida (10-2) vs OPP's 74-70 (9 P5 foes)

Even were Iowa and North Carolina to win on Saturday, they will have defeated opponents who
remain below .500 (though unscathed Iowa will get a bid).

If North Carolina and/or Florida pulls the upset, strength of schedule becomes an Excedrin headache for the committee.

Finally, 11-1 Ohio State's FBS foes finished 74-71 (10 P5 teams). Let's just delete the Shmukeyes from the playoff conversation, okay?

Go Cardinal!

[winflop]

Alabama and Clemson lose, and Stanford wins: Oklahoma, B1G CG winner, Stanford, UNC

I think tOSU or Iowa (if they lose to MSU) goes over UNC.  UNC has not played a single team in the current Top 25 rankings and has a horrible loss to South Carolina.  One win, even over the #1 team, isn't going to overcome that weak of a schedule.

[winflop]

Alabama and Clemson lose, and Stanford wins: Oklahoma, B1G CG winner, Stanford, UNC

I think tOSU or Iowa (if they lose to MSU) goes over UNC.  UNC has not played a single team in the current Top 25 rankings and has a horrible loss to South Carolina.  One win, even over the #1 team, isn't going to overcome that weak of a schedule.