[pincemob]

If the football selection process is anything like the basketball process, we would be in.  Our RPI would be far higher than the teams in front of us.  In college hoops, you are better off losing to a top-10 team than beating a bottom 100 team.  The SEC would be penalized harshly for their cupcake scheduling.  Losses are not talked about as negatively in basketball, especially road losses.  It is understood that statistically you will see some upsets, and that many times losses help teams refocus and improve for the tourney.  In the past few years, the basketball selection philosophy has driven teams to schedule much more aggressively.  I think that's been a brobdingnagian positive for college basketball.  This year would have been an excellent chance for the committee to send that message by making us the #2 seed or so and emphasizing how our schedule was what made the difference.  That would send ADs scrambling for that 9th game and getting all of the Chattanoogas and Bethune Cookmans off their schedules. 

[pincemob]

If the football selection process is anything like the basketball process, we would be in.  Our RPI would be far higher than the teams in front of us.  In college hoops, you are better off losing to a top-10 team than beating a bottom 100 team.  The SEC would be penalized harshly for their cupcake scheduling.  Losses are not talked about as negatively in basketball, especially road losses.  It is understood that statistically you will see some upsets, and that many times losses help teams refocus and improve for the tourney.  In the past few years, the basketball selection philosophy has driven teams to schedule much more aggressively.  I think that's been a brobdingnagian positive for college basketball.  This year would have been an excellent chance for the committee to send that message by making us the #2 seed or so and emphasizing how our schedule was what made the difference.  That would send ADs scrambling for that 9th game and getting all of the Chattanoogas and Bethune Cookmans off their schedules. 

[stupac2]

If the football selection process is anything like the basketball process, we would be in.  Our RPI would be far higher than the teams in front of us.  In college hoops, you are better off losing to a top-10 team than beating a bottom 100 team.  The SEC would be penalized harshly for their cupcake scheduling.  Losses are not talked about as negatively in basketball, especially road losses.  It is understood that statistically you will see some upsets, and that many times losses help teams refocus and improve for the tourney.  In the past few years, the basketball selection philosophy has driven teams to schedule much more aggressively.  I think that's been a brobdingnagian positive for college basketball.  This year would have been an excellent chance for the committee to send that message by making us the #2 seed or so and emphasizing how our schedule was what made the difference.  That would send ADs scrambling for that 9th game and getting all of the Chattanoogas and Bethune Cookmans off their schedules.

I don't pay attention to basketball at all, who does RPI? Is there any chance of someone making a similarly respected stat for football?

And I think that most smart observers see the writing on the wall WRT cupcakes. Even Saban is saying the SEC needs to go to 9 conference games. It's just a matter of time before everyone does it. I also think that the attitude of aggressive scheduling is picking up, Alabama has tried to open with marquee games the last few seasons, and in 2012 LSU's schedule was ridiculous. I think the lower-tier programs are actually the worst ones, at least in the SEC.

[stupac2]

If the football selection process is anything like the basketball process, we would be in.  Our RPI would be far higher than the teams in front of us.  In college hoops, you are better off losing to a top-10 team than beating a bottom 100 team.  The SEC would be penalized harshly for their cupcake scheduling.  Losses are not talked about as negatively in basketball, especially road losses.  It is understood that statistically you will see some upsets, and that many times losses help teams refocus and improve for the tourney.  In the past few years, the basketball selection philosophy has driven teams to schedule much more aggressively.  I think that's been a brobdingnagian positive for college basketball.  This year would have been an excellent chance for the committee to send that message by making us the #2 seed or so and emphasizing how our schedule was what made the difference.  That would send ADs scrambling for that 9th game and getting all of the Chattanoogas and Bethune Cookmans off their schedules.

I don't pay attention to basketball at all, who does RPI? Is there any chance of someone making a similarly respected stat for football?

And I think that most smart observers see the writing on the wall WRT cupcakes. Even Saban is saying the SEC needs to go to 9 conference games. It's just a matter of time before everyone does it. I also think that the attitude of aggressive scheduling is picking up, Alabama has tried to open with marquee games the last few seasons, and in 2012 LSU's schedule was ridiculous. I think the lower-tier programs are actually the worst ones, at least in the SEC.

[shinsengumi]

Just looking at the latest BCS standings, it looks like the PAC12 is consistently underrated by the coaches in comparison to the computers.

Stanford (Computers: 3, Coaches: 7)
Oregon (Computers: 10, Coaches: 12)
ASU (Computers: 11, Coaches: 17)
UCLA (Computers: 16, Coaches: 18)
USC (Computers: 21, Coaches: NR)

On the other hand, the Big 12:

Baylor (Computers: 9, Coaches: 5)
Oklahoma (Computers: 12, Coaches: 10)
Oklahoma State (Computers: 14, Coaches: 13)

[shinsengumi]

Just looking at the latest BCS standings, it looks like the PAC12 is consistently underrated by the coaches in comparison to the computers.

Stanford (Computers: 3, Coaches: 7)
Oregon (Computers: 10, Coaches: 12)
ASU (Computers: 11, Coaches: 17)
UCLA (Computers: 16, Coaches: 18)
USC (Computers: 21, Coaches: NR)

On the other hand, the Big 12:

Baylor (Computers: 9, Coaches: 5)
Oklahoma (Computers: 12, Coaches: 10)
Oklahoma State (Computers: 14, Coaches: 13)

[76lsjumb]

Just looking at the latest BCS standings, it looks like the PAC12 is consistently underrated by the coaches in comparison to the computers.

Stanford (Computers: 3, Coaches: 7)
Oregon (Computers: 10, Coaches: 12)
ASU (Computers: 11, Coaches: 17)
UCLA (Computers: 16, Coaches: 18)
University of Spoiled Children  (Computers: 21, Coaches: NR)

On the other hand, the Big 12:

Baylor (Computers: 9, Coaches: 5)
Oklahoma (Computers: 12, Coaches: 10)
Oklahoma State (Computers: 14, Coaches: 13)

I'm not surprised the computers like us.  After all, we invented them...  ;D

[76lsjumb]

Just looking at the latest BCS standings, it looks like the PAC12 is consistently underrated by the coaches in comparison to the computers.

Stanford (Computers: 3, Coaches: 7)
Oregon (Computers: 10, Coaches: 12)
ASU (Computers: 11, Coaches: 17)
UCLA (Computers: 16, Coaches: 18)
University of Spoiled Children  (Computers: 21, Coaches: NR)

On the other hand, the Big 12:

Baylor (Computers: 9, Coaches: 5)
Oklahoma (Computers: 12, Coaches: 10)
Oklahoma State (Computers: 14, Coaches: 13)

I'm not surprised the computers like us.  After all, we invented them...  ;D

[Mick]

...there is something colossal in the making, here folks.  There is a very big win coming for one school.  I'm feeling particles all over the place, little signs, little indications, and I don't want to say too much to draw the ire of the woofing goods, but I'm getting a rosy glow...

[Mick]

...there is something colossal in the making, here folks.  There is a very big win coming for one school.  I'm feeling particles all over the place, little signs, little indications, and I don't want to say too much to draw the ire of the woofing goods, but I'm getting a rosy glow...

[DC]

If the playoff system were in effect this year, the 5 guys who hosted ESPN's bowl program provide a small and hopefully not telling sample. They were playing the what if game of next year being this year.

Lou Holtz not only wouldn't put us in the top-4; he wouldn't even put us in the top-6 (first two teams out).  He put Oregon in the 6 hole and said he said on national TV that he thinks they are a better team than we are.  Reason: Mariotta was hurt when they played us.

Another one of the five also wouldn't put us in the top 6.

Of the remaining three commentators, two put us at #6 and only one put us in at our BCS ranking, #5.

We may long for the BCS system in future years. We are the Rodney Dangerfield of college football.

[DC]

If the playoff system were in effect this year, the 5 guys who hosted ESPN's bowl program provide a small and hopefully not telling sample. They were playing the what if game of next year being this year.

Lou Holtz not only wouldn't put us in the top-4; he wouldn't even put us in the top-6 (first two teams out).  He put Oregon in the 6 hole and said he said on national TV that he thinks they are a better team than we are.  Reason: Mariotta was hurt when they played us.

Another one of the five also wouldn't put us in the top 6.

Of the remaining three commentators, two put us at #6 and only one put us in at our BCS ranking, #5.

We may long for the BCS system in future years. We are the Rodney Dangerfield of college football.

[FarmDad.01]

I watched that ESPN segment too. My reaction: But what if the committee announced -- before the season -- that winning your conference carries extreme weight? And that if you don't win your conference, you cannot be chosen ahead of the school that did? That would comport with BB's automatic bids.

[FarmDad.01]

I watched that ESPN segment too. My reaction: But what if the committee announced -- before the season -- that winning your conference carries extreme weight? And that if you don't win your conference, you cannot be chosen ahead of the school that did? That would comport with BB's automatic bids.

[stupac2]

The thing is that the talking heads are not the ones doing the picking. I think we'd get in even at 11-2 as a major conference winner with by far the best SOS of the not-obvious candidates (Auburn and FSU are obvious, I think Auburn's SOS beats ours). Going 11-2 with our schedule is far more impressive than 11-1 as Alabama or Baylor.

[stupac2]

The thing is that the talking heads are not the ones doing the picking. I think we'd get in even at 11-2 as a major conference winner with by far the best SOS of the not-obvious candidates (Auburn and FSU are obvious, I think Auburn's SOS beats ours). Going 11-2 with our schedule is far more impressive than 11-1 as Alabama or Baylor.

[CowboyIndian]

I think Auburn's SOS beats ours).

Stop with the $EC stuff....please! Take a look at the end-of-year Sagarin rankings (link below). If I'm reading Sagarin accurately, our SOS is #4 and Auburn's is #20. In fact, I believe I read somewhere last week that Oregon is our outlier with #28. The only reason we are only at #4 is because we don't have to play ourselves. The $EC rankings account for the fact that they play only 8 conference games and the rest tomato cans. I hope next year's committee does the same accounting.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

[CowboyIndian]

I think Auburn's SOS beats ours).

Stop with the $EC stuff....please! Take a look at the end-of-year Sagarin rankings (link below). If I'm reading Sagarin accurately, our SOS is #4 and Auburn's is #20. In fact, I believe I read somewhere last week that Oregon is our outlier with #28. The only reason we are only at #4 is because we don't have to play ourselves. The $EC rankings account for the fact that they play only 8 conference games and the rest tomato cans. I hope next year's committee does the same accounting.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

[stupac2]

Stop with the $EC stuff....please! Take a look at the end-of-year Sagarin rankings (link below). If I'm reading Sagarin accurately, our SOS is #4 and Auburn's is #20. In fact, I believe I read somewhere last week that Oregon is our outlier with #28. The only reason we are only at #4 is because we don't have to play ourselves. The $EC rankings account for the fact that they play only 8 conference games and the rest tomato cans. I hope next year's committee does the same accounting.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

I was going off of memory and thought that Auburn's FEI SOS rank was #4 or something silly. Now that I look I see you're right, it's #21.

(I don't like to use Sagarin because most people seem to think his results are goofy, whereas I don't know of anyone who distrusts Football Outsiders and DVOA.)

[stupac2]

Stop with the $EC stuff....please! Take a look at the end-of-year Sagarin rankings (link below). If I'm reading Sagarin accurately, our SOS is #4 and Auburn's is #20. In fact, I believe I read somewhere last week that Oregon is our outlier with #28. The only reason we are only at #4 is because we don't have to play ourselves. The $EC rankings account for the fact that they play only 8 conference games and the rest tomato cans. I hope next year's committee does the same accounting.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

I was going off of memory and thought that Auburn's FEI SOS rank was #4 or something silly. Now that I look I see you're right, it's #21.

(I don't like to use Sagarin because most people seem to think his results are goofy, whereas I don't know of anyone who distrusts Football Outsiders and DVOA.)

[washingtonismoney]

Sagarin is 4, Football Outsiders before the championship games was like 4, and ESPN was like 2. Everyone agrees: Stanford played a top 5 schedule; few other contenders even came close.

[washingtonismoney]

Sagarin is 4, Football Outsiders before the championship games was like 4, and ESPN was like 2. Everyone agrees: Stanford played a top 5 schedule; few other contenders even came close.

[stupac2]

Sagarin is 4, Football Outsiders before the championship games was like 4, and ESPN was like 2. Everyone agrees: Stanford played a top 5 schedule; few other contenders even came close.

Why does the championship game seem to have made our SOS go down? Even though we walloped ASU twice, they're generally pretty highly ranked. I don't understand it.

[stupac2]

Sagarin is 4, Football Outsiders before the championship games was like 4, and ESPN was like 2. Everyone agrees: Stanford played a top 5 schedule; few other contenders even came close.

Why does the championship game seem to have made our SOS go down? Even though we walloped ASU twice, they're generally pretty highly ranked. I don't understand it.

[martyup]

Some things that would really help set us up for next year's playoff system:

1.  We win the Rose Bowl
2.  FSU destroys Auburn
3. OK beats Alabama.  (Hey, who thought AZ would thump Oregon?)

[martyup]

Some things that would really help set us up for next year's playoff system:

1.  We win the Rose Bowl
2.  FSU destroys Auburn
3. OK beats Alabama.  (Hey, who thought AZ would thump Oregon?)