12-02-2015, 08:22 AM
If UNC wins and Stanford loses, UNC is in. It's not like Ohio State's schedule is all that impressive either.
Stanford #7 in CFP Rankings
If UNC wins and Stanford loses, UNC is in. It's not like Ohio State's schedule is all that impressive either.
12-02-2015, 08:36 AM
(12-02-2015, 08:22 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:If UNC wins and Stanford loses, UNC is in. It's not like Ohio State's schedule is all that impressive either.
If Stanford loses, I don't care.
12-02-2015, 11:02 AM
FWIW 538 gives us a 61% chance ... IF WE WIN ... to go to the playoffs: https://twitter.com/andrewflowers/status...3530710016
FWIW 538 gives us a 61% chance ... IF WE WIN ... to go to the playoffs: https://twitter.com/andrewflowers/status...3530710016
12-02-2015, 11:40 AM
(12-02-2015, 11:02 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:FWIW 538 gives us a 61% chance ... IF WE WIN ... to go to the playoffs: https://twitter.com/andrewflowers/status...3530710016
Unfortunately, that's not what the 538 article says.
It says that if Stanford wins, Alabama loses and Clemson wins, Stanford has a 61% of going to the playoff.
There is no overall calculation for Stanford's chances, but my read of the article suggests that 538's model gives us about a 15-20% of getting into the playoffs if we win. Of course, when you account for the possibility that we'll lose, the chances fall closer to the 10% range.
(12-02-2015, 11:02 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:FWIW 538 gives us a 61% chance ... IF WE WIN ... to go to the playoffs: https://twitter.com/andrewflowers/status...3530710016
Unfortunately, that's not what the 538 article says.
It says that if Stanford wins, Alabama loses and Clemson wins, Stanford has a 61% of going to the playoff.
There is no overall calculation for Stanford's chances, but my read of the article suggests that 538's model gives us about a 15-20% of getting into the playoffs if we win. Of course, when you account for the possibility that we'll lose, the chances fall closer to the 10% range.
12-02-2015, 11:44 AM
A lot of people here seem convinced that if Stanford and Alabama win, and Clemson loses, Stanford is in. I sure hope you all are right! But 538's model actually gives Clemson the best chance of grabbing the fourth playoff spot in that scenario (42%), followed by Stanford (34%) and UNC (28%).
A lot of people here seem convinced that if Stanford and Alabama win, and Clemson loses, Stanford is in. I sure hope you all are right! But 538's model actually gives Clemson the best chance of grabbing the fourth playoff spot in that scenario (42%), followed by Stanford (34%) and UNC (28%).
12-02-2015, 11:48 AM
(12-02-2015, 11:40 AM)97fan link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13854.msg145256#msg145256 date=1449079323]
FWIW 538 gives us a 61% chance ... IF WE WIN ... to go to the playoffs: https://twitter.com/andrewflowers/status...3530710016
Unfortunately, that's not what the 538 article says.
It says that if Stanford wins, Alabama loses and Clemson wins, Stanford has a 61% of going to the playoff.
There is no overall calculation for Stanford's chances, but my read of the article suggests that 538's model gives us about a 15-20% of getting into the playoffs if we win.
[/quote]
It actually works out to just over 28% if we win (under the assumption that all of the games are independent of each other).
(12-02-2015, 11:40 AM)97fan link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13854.msg145256#msg145256 date=1449079323]
FWIW 538 gives us a 61% chance ... IF WE WIN ... to go to the playoffs: https://twitter.com/andrewflowers/status...3530710016
Unfortunately, that's not what the 538 article says.
It says that if Stanford wins, Alabama loses and Clemson wins, Stanford has a 61% of going to the playoff.
There is no overall calculation for Stanford's chances, but my read of the article suggests that 538's model gives us about a 15-20% of getting into the playoffs if we win.
[/quote]
It actually works out to just over 28% if we win (under the assumption that all of the games are independent of each other).
12-02-2015, 11:51 AM
No matter what 538 says, if Clemson loses to UNC and Stanford beats USC, there is no chance in hell Clemson is getting in. ZERO. If Clemson loses to UNC and Stanford loses to USC, then maybe Clemson might be in, but that also seems highly unlikely.
No matter what 538 says, if Clemson loses to UNC and Stanford beats USC, there is no chance in hell Clemson is getting in. ZERO. If Clemson loses to UNC and Stanford loses to USC, then maybe Clemson might be in, but that also seems highly unlikely.
12-02-2015, 12:03 PM
(12-02-2015, 11:44 AM)97fan link Wrote:A lot of people here seem convinced that if Stanford and Alabama win, and Clemson loses, Stanford is in. I sure hope you all are right! But 538's model actually gives Clemson the best chance of grabbing the fourth playoff spot in that scenario (42%), followed by Stanford (34%) and UNC (28%).
The problem with 538's model is that it's based on historical coaches poll data. In the past in this scenario the #1 team losing would move down to #4, because it didn't really matter that they were #4. But now it does. So they'll end up #5 or maybe even #6. I'm with OF, in 538's parlance there's <1% chance of Clemson losing and getting in.
(12-02-2015, 11:44 AM)97fan link Wrote:A lot of people here seem convinced that if Stanford and Alabama win, and Clemson loses, Stanford is in. I sure hope you all are right! But 538's model actually gives Clemson the best chance of grabbing the fourth playoff spot in that scenario (42%), followed by Stanford (34%) and UNC (28%).
The problem with 538's model is that it's based on historical coaches poll data. In the past in this scenario the #1 team losing would move down to #4, because it didn't really matter that they were #4. But now it does. So they'll end up #5 or maybe even #6. I'm with OF, in 538's parlance there's <1% chance of Clemson losing and getting in.
12-02-2015, 12:17 PM
(12-02-2015, 11:51 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:No matter what 538 says, if Clemson loses to UNC and Stanford beats Unbelievably Spoiled Children, there is no chance in hell Clemson is getting in. ZERO. If Clemson loses to UNC and Stanford loses to Unbelievably Spoiled Children, then maybe Clemson might be in, but that also seems highly unlikely.
I'm with OF. We need to root for Stanford to thump the trojans AND for the Tar Heels to beat Clemson. No way does Clemson get in with that loss. Their only quality win would be ND and they would not be ACC champs.  I don't see Bama faltering...but stranger things have happened. Â
If we win we are either #4 or #5 in the CFP. Let's not let it come down to a late field goal. Let's roll the mercenaries!
(12-02-2015, 11:51 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:No matter what 538 says, if Clemson loses to UNC and Stanford beats Unbelievably Spoiled Children, there is no chance in hell Clemson is getting in. ZERO. If Clemson loses to UNC and Stanford loses to Unbelievably Spoiled Children, then maybe Clemson might be in, but that also seems highly unlikely.
I'm with OF. We need to root for Stanford to thump the trojans AND for the Tar Heels to beat Clemson. No way does Clemson get in with that loss. Their only quality win would be ND and they would not be ACC champs.  I don't see Bama faltering...but stranger things have happened. Â
If we win we are either #4 or #5 in the CFP. Let's not let it come down to a late field goal. Let's roll the mercenaries!
12-02-2015, 12:29 PM
Not to rain on everyone's parade, but I've started to look past the playoff possibilities and have been more interested in our potential Rose Bowl opponent if we manage to beat SC (which, just in case the football gods are reading this, I find a terrifyingly difficult prospect). Part of this is because I think UNC and Florida are terrible and thus highly unlikely to pull off upsets against demonstrably superior teams in Clemson and Alabama, respectively. And the other part is because I married an Iowa alum, so my odds of attending the Rose Bowl go from "highly unlikely" to "sure thing" if we end up playing Iowa.Â
So, which Big Ten team gets in? Assuming MSU wins the Big Ten, it's either Iowa or Ohio State. After MSU beat OSU, most of the bowl predictions I saw thought that Iowa would be the representative after they lost to MSU in the Big Ten title game. But given Ohio State's thrashing of Michigan, and Iowa's relatively weak strength of schedule, I think a Stanford-Iowa matchup is the least likely of the three possibilities. The Rose Bowl has effectively stated that it would pick whatever Big Ten team is ranked higher in the last CFP standings, so the only path I see for Iowa to go to the Rose Bowl is for the Big Ten title game to be extremely close and for Iowa to acquit itself well in that game. Otherwise, I'd have to think that both the eye test and the fact that Ohio State generally beat the 4 common opponents it had with Iowa by more points (albeit not terribly many points)* means that Ohio State would win that comparison and end up ranked higher. Thus, if the playoff is not to be, then I for one am rooting for Michigan State to beat Iowa in controversial fashion after 8 overtimes or so.Â
*For the record, despite playing in the same conference, Iowa and Ohio State only had 4 common opponents, which is both absurd and unhelpful for comparison purposes. But for posterity's sake, here we go:
Indiana (Iowa +8, OSU +7; Iowa +1)
Maryland (Iowa +16, OSU +21; OSU +5)
Illinois (Iowa +9, OSU +25; OSU +16)
Minnesota (Iowa +5, OSU +14; OSU +9).Â
So, which Big Ten team gets in? Assuming MSU wins the Big Ten, it's either Iowa or Ohio State. After MSU beat OSU, most of the bowl predictions I saw thought that Iowa would be the representative after they lost to MSU in the Big Ten title game. But given Ohio State's thrashing of Michigan, and Iowa's relatively weak strength of schedule, I think a Stanford-Iowa matchup is the least likely of the three possibilities. The Rose Bowl has effectively stated that it would pick whatever Big Ten team is ranked higher in the last CFP standings, so the only path I see for Iowa to go to the Rose Bowl is for the Big Ten title game to be extremely close and for Iowa to acquit itself well in that game. Otherwise, I'd have to think that both the eye test and the fact that Ohio State generally beat the 4 common opponents it had with Iowa by more points (albeit not terribly many points)* means that Ohio State would win that comparison and end up ranked higher. Thus, if the playoff is not to be, then I for one am rooting for Michigan State to beat Iowa in controversial fashion after 8 overtimes or so.Â
*For the record, despite playing in the same conference, Iowa and Ohio State only had 4 common opponents, which is both absurd and unhelpful for comparison purposes. But for posterity's sake, here we go:
Indiana (Iowa +8, OSU +7; Iowa +1)
Maryland (Iowa +16, OSU +21; OSU +5)
Illinois (Iowa +9, OSU +25; OSU +16)
Minnesota (Iowa +5, OSU +14; OSU +9).Â
Not to rain on everyone's parade, but I've started to look past the playoff possibilities and have been more interested in our potential Rose Bowl opponent if we manage to beat SC (which, just in case the football gods are reading this, I find a terrifyingly difficult prospect). Part of this is because I think UNC and Florida are terrible and thus highly unlikely to pull off upsets against demonstrably superior teams in Clemson and Alabama, respectively. And the other part is because I married an Iowa alum, so my odds of attending the Rose Bowl go from "highly unlikely" to "sure thing" if we end up playing Iowa.Â
So, which Big Ten team gets in? Assuming MSU wins the Big Ten, it's either Iowa or Ohio State. After MSU beat OSU, most of the bowl predictions I saw thought that Iowa would be the representative after they lost to MSU in the Big Ten title game. But given Ohio State's thrashing of Michigan, and Iowa's relatively weak strength of schedule, I think a Stanford-Iowa matchup is the least likely of the three possibilities. The Rose Bowl has effectively stated that it would pick whatever Big Ten team is ranked higher in the last CFP standings, so the only path I see for Iowa to go to the Rose Bowl is for the Big Ten title game to be extremely close and for Iowa to acquit itself well in that game. Otherwise, I'd have to think that both the eye test and the fact that Ohio State generally beat the 4 common opponents it had with Iowa by more points (albeit not terribly many points)* means that Ohio State would win that comparison and end up ranked higher. Thus, if the playoff is not to be, then I for one am rooting for Michigan State to beat Iowa in controversial fashion after 8 overtimes or so.Â
*For the record, despite playing in the same conference, Iowa and Ohio State only had 4 common opponents, which is both absurd and unhelpful for comparison purposes. But for posterity's sake, here we go:
Indiana (Iowa +8, OSU +7; Iowa +1)
Maryland (Iowa +16, OSU +21; OSU +5)
Illinois (Iowa +9, OSU +25; OSU +16)
Minnesota (Iowa +5, OSU +14; OSU +9).Â
So, which Big Ten team gets in? Assuming MSU wins the Big Ten, it's either Iowa or Ohio State. After MSU beat OSU, most of the bowl predictions I saw thought that Iowa would be the representative after they lost to MSU in the Big Ten title game. But given Ohio State's thrashing of Michigan, and Iowa's relatively weak strength of schedule, I think a Stanford-Iowa matchup is the least likely of the three possibilities. The Rose Bowl has effectively stated that it would pick whatever Big Ten team is ranked higher in the last CFP standings, so the only path I see for Iowa to go to the Rose Bowl is for the Big Ten title game to be extremely close and for Iowa to acquit itself well in that game. Otherwise, I'd have to think that both the eye test and the fact that Ohio State generally beat the 4 common opponents it had with Iowa by more points (albeit not terribly many points)* means that Ohio State would win that comparison and end up ranked higher. Thus, if the playoff is not to be, then I for one am rooting for Michigan State to beat Iowa in controversial fashion after 8 overtimes or so.Â
*For the record, despite playing in the same conference, Iowa and Ohio State only had 4 common opponents, which is both absurd and unhelpful for comparison purposes. But for posterity's sake, here we go:
Indiana (Iowa +8, OSU +7; Iowa +1)
Maryland (Iowa +16, OSU +21; OSU +5)
Illinois (Iowa +9, OSU +25; OSU +16)
Minnesota (Iowa +5, OSU +14; OSU +9).Â
12-02-2015, 12:31 PM
No one really knows what the committee is going to do (except perhaps the people on the committee, and even there I doubt it). We all have guesses, and most of us have solid reasons behind those guesses. But there's so little experience with this process that I don't understand how anyone can say that he knows with absolute certainty what the committee would decide in a particular scenario.
No one really knows what the committee is going to do (except perhaps the people on the committee, and even there I doubt it). We all have guesses, and most of us have solid reasons behind those guesses. But there's so little experience with this process that I don't understand how anyone can say that he knows with absolute certainty what the committee would decide in a particular scenario.
12-02-2015, 12:46 PM
(12-02-2015, 12:31 PM)Roberton3 link Wrote:No one really knows what the committee is going to do (except perhaps the people on the committee, and even there I doubt it). We all have guesses, and most of us have solid reasons behind those guesses. But there's so little experience with this process that I don't understand how anyone can say that he knows with absolute certainty what the committee would decide in a particular scenario.
We're just having fun being fans.
(12-02-2015, 12:31 PM)Roberton3 link Wrote:No one really knows what the committee is going to do (except perhaps the people on the committee, and even there I doubt it). We all have guesses, and most of us have solid reasons behind those guesses. But there's so little experience with this process that I don't understand how anyone can say that he knows with absolute certainty what the committee would decide in a particular scenario.
We're just having fun being fans.
12-02-2015, 01:53 PM
This discussion is relevant. If Stanford had zero chance of getting in the CFP, then Shaw will perhaps use a conservative strategy to win the championship and go as comfortably as possible to the Rose Bowl. But if there is a 50% (seems high, but it is just a number here) chance that the team might get into the CFP with a big victory but only 5% with a squeeker, then he might be a little less conservative.
If it were the case that our chances of making the CFP don't change as long as we win by 1 or 30, then I'd expect a conservative game. But, if we win by 5 and don't make the CFP when we might have if we won by 20, I suspect there will be a lot of second-guessing on this board.
So, before the game happens, I'd like to see people give their measured opinion of whether the win is enough and we should play just to win, or whether it is right to risk the Rose Bowl in order to get a higher percentage chance of the CFP. Remember, the Florida-Alabama game will be over possibly before the kick off. The UNC-Clemson game starts a bit after ours, as does Michigan State-Iowa. (Maybe this should be a different topic, with a poll.)
Also, for those of you that post your guesses at the CCG score, you may want to consider what Shaw's strategy will be. He might just surprise you. I can't see him saying that winning the CCG was the first priority, and I can see him saying that he has no control over how the committee votes (but that isn't true, since he can influence the score of the CCG). But I can't see him saying that Stanford is comfortable just winning the CCG, when the CFP is still possible.
I think going for a big win also improves McCaffrey's chances of records and recognition. Shaw might just take off the gloves in this one.  If I were a betting man, ...
If it were the case that our chances of making the CFP don't change as long as we win by 1 or 30, then I'd expect a conservative game. But, if we win by 5 and don't make the CFP when we might have if we won by 20, I suspect there will be a lot of second-guessing on this board.
So, before the game happens, I'd like to see people give their measured opinion of whether the win is enough and we should play just to win, or whether it is right to risk the Rose Bowl in order to get a higher percentage chance of the CFP. Remember, the Florida-Alabama game will be over possibly before the kick off. The UNC-Clemson game starts a bit after ours, as does Michigan State-Iowa. (Maybe this should be a different topic, with a poll.)
Also, for those of you that post your guesses at the CCG score, you may want to consider what Shaw's strategy will be. He might just surprise you. I can't see him saying that winning the CCG was the first priority, and I can see him saying that he has no control over how the committee votes (but that isn't true, since he can influence the score of the CCG). But I can't see him saying that Stanford is comfortable just winning the CCG, when the CFP is still possible.
I think going for a big win also improves McCaffrey's chances of records and recognition. Shaw might just take off the gloves in this one.  If I were a betting man, ...
This discussion is relevant. If Stanford had zero chance of getting in the CFP, then Shaw will perhaps use a conservative strategy to win the championship and go as comfortably as possible to the Rose Bowl. But if there is a 50% (seems high, but it is just a number here) chance that the team might get into the CFP with a big victory but only 5% with a squeeker, then he might be a little less conservative.
If it were the case that our chances of making the CFP don't change as long as we win by 1 or 30, then I'd expect a conservative game. But, if we win by 5 and don't make the CFP when we might have if we won by 20, I suspect there will be a lot of second-guessing on this board.
So, before the game happens, I'd like to see people give their measured opinion of whether the win is enough and we should play just to win, or whether it is right to risk the Rose Bowl in order to get a higher percentage chance of the CFP. Remember, the Florida-Alabama game will be over possibly before the kick off. The UNC-Clemson game starts a bit after ours, as does Michigan State-Iowa. (Maybe this should be a different topic, with a poll.)
Also, for those of you that post your guesses at the CCG score, you may want to consider what Shaw's strategy will be. He might just surprise you. I can't see him saying that winning the CCG was the first priority, and I can see him saying that he has no control over how the committee votes (but that isn't true, since he can influence the score of the CCG). But I can't see him saying that Stanford is comfortable just winning the CCG, when the CFP is still possible.
I think going for a big win also improves McCaffrey's chances of records and recognition. Shaw might just take off the gloves in this one.  If I were a betting man, ...
If it were the case that our chances of making the CFP don't change as long as we win by 1 or 30, then I'd expect a conservative game. But, if we win by 5 and don't make the CFP when we might have if we won by 20, I suspect there will be a lot of second-guessing on this board.
So, before the game happens, I'd like to see people give their measured opinion of whether the win is enough and we should play just to win, or whether it is right to risk the Rose Bowl in order to get a higher percentage chance of the CFP. Remember, the Florida-Alabama game will be over possibly before the kick off. The UNC-Clemson game starts a bit after ours, as does Michigan State-Iowa. (Maybe this should be a different topic, with a poll.)
Also, for those of you that post your guesses at the CCG score, you may want to consider what Shaw's strategy will be. He might just surprise you. I can't see him saying that winning the CCG was the first priority, and I can see him saying that he has no control over how the committee votes (but that isn't true, since he can influence the score of the CCG). But I can't see him saying that Stanford is comfortable just winning the CCG, when the CFP is still possible.
I think going for a big win also improves McCaffrey's chances of records and recognition. Shaw might just take off the gloves in this one.  If I were a betting man, ...
12-02-2015, 01:55 PM
I want to see Shaw hulk out and grind USC into dust. First, no injuries to key starters... ::)
12-02-2015, 02:08 PM
USC is good enough to have a 1 pt win be enough, IMO, provided Stanford otherwise plays well.Â
USC is good enough to have a 1 pt win be enough, IMO, provided Stanford otherwise plays well.Â
12-02-2015, 02:28 PM
(12-02-2015, 02:08 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Unbelievably Spoiled Children is good enough to have a 1 pt win be enough, IMO, provided Stanford otherwise plays well.
But just to be safe, let's go for a 30 point win.
(12-02-2015, 02:08 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Unbelievably Spoiled Children is good enough to have a 1 pt win be enough, IMO, provided Stanford otherwise plays well.
But just to be safe, let's go for a 30 point win.
12-02-2015, 03:06 PM
The "experts" (whatever that is worth) at ESPN seem to be in agreement that a Stanford win coupled with a Clemson loss would likely boost Stanford into the top 4. I tend to believe that, if only because I really want it to be true. I don't think it's unrealistic to think Clemson could lose.
The "experts" (whatever that is worth) at ESPN seem to be in agreement that a Stanford win coupled with a Clemson loss would likely boost Stanford into the top 4. I tend to believe that, if only because I really want it to be true. I don't think it's unrealistic to think Clemson could lose.
12-02-2015, 03:15 PM
(12-02-2015, 03:06 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:The "experts" (whatever that is worth) at ESPN seem to be in agreement that a Stanford win coupled with a Clemson loss would likely boost Stanford into the top 4. I tend to believe that, if only because I really want it to be true. I don't think it's unrealistic to think Clemson could lose.
If you read the Connelly article WiM linked in some other thread, UNC might even be the favorites.
(12-02-2015, 03:06 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:The "experts" (whatever that is worth) at ESPN seem to be in agreement that a Stanford win coupled with a Clemson loss would likely boost Stanford into the top 4. I tend to believe that, if only because I really want it to be true. I don't think it's unrealistic to think Clemson could lose.
If you read the Connelly article WiM linked in some other thread, UNC might even be the favorites.
12-02-2015, 06:41 PM
I get the overall thrust of the question being raised, but I would like to point out that the throttle that Shaw operates is not nearly so finely calibrated as might be implied by the poster. If I read Shaw correctly, I believe he is the kind of person who wants the team to strive to play their very best; to come as close as possible to perfection every time out. After that, I believe he is a, "let the chips fall where they may" kind of guy.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
I get the overall thrust of the question being raised, but I would like to point out that the throttle that Shaw operates is not nearly so finely calibrated as might be implied by the poster. If I read Shaw correctly, I believe he is the kind of person who wants the team to strive to play their very best; to come as close as possible to perfection every time out. After that, I believe he is a, "let the chips fall where they may" kind of guy.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
12-03-2015, 01:38 AM
(12-02-2015, 03:06 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:The "experts" (whatever that is worth) at ESPN seem to be in agreement that a Stanford win coupled with a Clemson loss would likely boost Stanford into the top 4. I tend to believe that, if only because I really want it to be true. I don't think it's unrealistic to think Clemson could lose.
The "experts" at this SI roundtable seem to agree that Stanford is more deserving in this scenario (with a few exceptions):
http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/...nl_siextra
(12-02-2015, 03:06 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:The "experts" (whatever that is worth) at ESPN seem to be in agreement that a Stanford win coupled with a Clemson loss would likely boost Stanford into the top 4. I tend to believe that, if only because I really want it to be true. I don't think it's unrealistic to think Clemson could lose.
The "experts" at this SI roundtable seem to agree that Stanford is more deserving in this scenario (with a few exceptions):
http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/...nl_siextra
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »