[ColoradoTree]

According to this link (http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...-seminoles ), most folks expect that Pac-12 to miss the playoff.  This isn't new, and it's in line with what many other sportswriters have said, but it seemed pretty lopsided nonetheless.

Of the 36 so-called experts polled, 21 picked Clemson to win it all, 5 picked Alabama, 5 Florida State, 2 LSU, 2 Oklahoma, and 1 Ohio State.  Not one picked a Pac-12 team to win it all.  In fact, not a one picked a Pac-12 team to even make the national championship game (and someone even picked Iowa to make the national title game).  And only 7 of the 36 experts even picked a Pac-12 team to make the playoff--with 4 picking Stanford, 2 picking Washington, and 1 picking UCLA.  So, kudos to Desmond Howard, Rocky Boiman, Todd McShay, and Adam Rittenberg for picking Stanford to make the playoff, at least, but there is a national perception issue that could use some changing. 

In fairness to a lot of those experts, however, they're probably not wrong that the Pac-12 champion (which 22 of the 36 expect to be Stanford) will have 2 or more losses, and thus miss out.  (FWIW, 9 of the experts picked Washington, 4 picked UCLA, and 1 picked SC.)  And I don't think most of those experts see that as a negative commentary on the overall quality of the conference, but a recognition that there isn't a team or two that's obviously head and shoulders above the rest at this point, like there is in the ACC (with Clemson and Florida State) Big Ten (Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State), or SEC (Alabama and LSU). 

Other interesting notes from those predictions:

* 6 experts (David Pollack, Mike Bellotti, Anthony Becht, Cole Cubelic, our own Ivan Maisel, and Greg McElroy) picked both Clemson and FSU to make the playoff.  I think that's an awfully tall order, given the overall weakness of the ACC.  Whichever team loses the Clemson-FSU game ain't making it in.  They must be assuming FSU wins over Ole Miss and Florida in non-conference play and Clemson wins over Auburn and South Carolina.  I wouldn't mind seeing Auburn knock off Clemson and Ole Miss beat FSU in Week 1 just to see these experts get some egg on their faces, which would be a turnabout from my usual stance of rooting for SEC teams to lose as much as possible.
* By contrast, just 4 experts (Craig Haubert, Rene Ingoglia, Tom Luginbill, and Jonathan Vilma) picked both Alabama and LSU to make the playoff.  That seems more realistic.  If Alabama runs the table, it's obviously in, and if LSU only has a loss to 'Bama combined with wins over Wisconsin in Lambeau and road games against Florida, Auburn, and A&M, I can see that the committee might put a 1-loss LSU over a 2-loss conference champ.  But Alabama has a relatively tough schedule. It is on the road against #5 LSU, #9 Tennessee (which seems way too high for that team), and #11 Ole Miss. 
* 3 experts have N.D. in the playoff.  Combined with UCLA and U-Dub, that makes 7 predictions of Stanford opponents in the playoff. 

[ColoradoTree]

According to this link (http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...-seminoles ), most folks expect that Pac-12 to miss the playoff.  This isn't new, and it's in line with what many other sportswriters have said, but it seemed pretty lopsided nonetheless.

Of the 36 so-called experts polled, 21 picked Clemson to win it all, 5 picked Alabama, 5 Florida State, 2 LSU, 2 Oklahoma, and 1 Ohio State.  Not one picked a Pac-12 team to win it all.  In fact, not a one picked a Pac-12 team to even make the national championship game (and someone even picked Iowa to make the national title game).  And only 7 of the 36 experts even picked a Pac-12 team to make the playoff--with 4 picking Stanford, 2 picking Washington, and 1 picking UCLA.  So, kudos to Desmond Howard, Rocky Boiman, Todd McShay, and Adam Rittenberg for picking Stanford to make the playoff, at least, but there is a national perception issue that could use some changing. 

In fairness to a lot of those experts, however, they're probably not wrong that the Pac-12 champion (which 22 of the 36 expect to be Stanford) will have 2 or more losses, and thus miss out.  (FWIW, 9 of the experts picked Washington, 4 picked UCLA, and 1 picked SC.)  And I don't think most of those experts see that as a negative commentary on the overall quality of the conference, but a recognition that there isn't a team or two that's obviously head and shoulders above the rest at this point, like there is in the ACC (with Clemson and Florida State) Big Ten (Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State), or SEC (Alabama and LSU). 

Other interesting notes from those predictions:

* 6 experts (David Pollack, Mike Bellotti, Anthony Becht, Cole Cubelic, our own Ivan Maisel, and Greg McElroy) picked both Clemson and FSU to make the playoff.  I think that's an awfully tall order, given the overall weakness of the ACC.  Whichever team loses the Clemson-FSU game ain't making it in.  They must be assuming FSU wins over Ole Miss and Florida in non-conference play and Clemson wins over Auburn and South Carolina.  I wouldn't mind seeing Auburn knock off Clemson and Ole Miss beat FSU in Week 1 just to see these experts get some egg on their faces, which would be a turnabout from my usual stance of rooting for SEC teams to lose as much as possible.
* By contrast, just 4 experts (Craig Haubert, Rene Ingoglia, Tom Luginbill, and Jonathan Vilma) picked both Alabama and LSU to make the playoff.  That seems more realistic.  If Alabama runs the table, it's obviously in, and if LSU only has a loss to 'Bama combined with wins over Wisconsin in Lambeau and road games against Florida, Auburn, and A&M, I can see that the committee might put a 1-loss LSU over a 2-loss conference champ.  But Alabama has a relatively tough schedule. It is on the road against #5 LSU, #9 Tennessee (which seems way too high for that team), and #11 Ole Miss. 
* 3 experts have N.D. in the playoff.  Combined with UCLA and U-Dub, that makes 7 predictions of Stanford opponents in the playoff. 

[82 Card]

They're just trying to help our guys out with some bulletin board material. /S

[82 Card]

They're just trying to help our guys out with some bulletin board material. /S

[CTcard]

... there is a national perception issue that could use some changing. 

Well, NOT picking a Pac 12 team to make the playoff isn't necessarily a perception that the Pac 12 isn't good. It could be a perception that the Pac 12 is stronger than the rest - and thus likely to produce losses within the conference season.

In reality it is a mix. The national perception seems to be that the Pac 12 top to bottom is very strong but the very best teams are not particularly elite. That may be a reasonable view both with respect to the nature of the Pac 12 this year and what will keep a team out of the playoffs.

Inherent in all of this is that none of the "experts" really believe that strength of schedule is a deciding factor above number of losses. That appears to be at least mostly true.

In fairness to a lot of those experts, however, they're probably not wrong that the Pac-12 champion (which 22 of the 36 expect to be Stanford) will have 2 or more losses, and thus miss out. 

Of course two losses doesn't necessarily mean you are out, just likely that you'll lose out to Power 5 conference champs with 1 or 0 losses.
How often does that happen?
Looking back I see the following years with >1 Power 5 conference champ with 2 losses or more,
2012 Clemson 2 losses, Oklahoma 2 losses (BUT und had no losses)
2011 Oregon, Michigan, Va Tech
2009 Oregon, tOSU, Ga Tech
2007 Va Tech, Oklahoma, LSU, USC
2006 Wake, Oklahoma, USC
2005 FSU, UGa
2004 Va Tech, Michigan,
2003 FSU, Michigan, Kansas State
2002 FSU, Oklahoma, WSU
2001 Colorado, LSU
2000 Purdue, Florida

So, it certainly does happen.

If in fact it comes down to a choice between a Pac 12 champ and another conference champ both with 2 losses (or both with any particular number of losses), then I think the perception of the Pac 12 as a deep conference, and one with difficult schedules, would help.

[CTcard]

... there is a national perception issue that could use some changing. 

Well, NOT picking a Pac 12 team to make the playoff isn't necessarily a perception that the Pac 12 isn't good. It could be a perception that the Pac 12 is stronger than the rest - and thus likely to produce losses within the conference season.

In reality it is a mix. The national perception seems to be that the Pac 12 top to bottom is very strong but the very best teams are not particularly elite. That may be a reasonable view both with respect to the nature of the Pac 12 this year and what will keep a team out of the playoffs.

Inherent in all of this is that none of the "experts" really believe that strength of schedule is a deciding factor above number of losses. That appears to be at least mostly true.

In fairness to a lot of those experts, however, they're probably not wrong that the Pac-12 champion (which 22 of the 36 expect to be Stanford) will have 2 or more losses, and thus miss out. 

Of course two losses doesn't necessarily mean you are out, just likely that you'll lose out to Power 5 conference champs with 1 or 0 losses.
How often does that happen?
Looking back I see the following years with >1 Power 5 conference champ with 2 losses or more,
2012 Clemson 2 losses, Oklahoma 2 losses (BUT und had no losses)
2011 Oregon, Michigan, Va Tech
2009 Oregon, tOSU, Ga Tech
2007 Va Tech, Oklahoma, LSU, USC
2006 Wake, Oklahoma, USC
2005 FSU, UGa
2004 Va Tech, Michigan,
2003 FSU, Michigan, Kansas State
2002 FSU, Oklahoma, WSU
2001 Colorado, LSU
2000 Purdue, Florida

So, it certainly does happen.

If in fact it comes down to a choice between a Pac 12 champ and another conference champ both with 2 losses (or both with any particular number of losses), then I think the perception of the Pac 12 as a deep conference, and one with difficult schedules, would help.

[ColoradoTree]

If in fact it comes down to a choice between a Pac 12 champ and another conference champ both with 2 losses (or both with any particular number of losses), then I think the perception of the Pac 12 as a deep conference, and one with difficult schedules, would help.

I think this is exactly right.  Perception of conference depth means a 2-loss Pac-12 champ likely gets in over a 2-loss ACC or Big 12 champ.  But my concern is that right now, Clemson and Florida State are miles ahead of the rest of the ACC, so the likelihood that one of them ends up with two losses is smaller than the chance Stanford takes two losses.  I tend to think Oklahoma will survive its schedule with no more than one loss (the only preseason-ranked team it travels to face is TCU).  The Big Ten might be a hot mess at the top, so I could see a 2-loss champ there, but that'd make me nervous.  I think we lose out to a 2-loss Alabama or LSU conference champ.

And I agree with your statement that not picking a Pac-12 team for the playoff isn't reflecting a perception that the Pac-12 isn't good; I think most people see the Pac-12 as a deep conference but one without elite teams right now.  And it's the latter perception--we don't have an elite team capable of rising above the fray--that I meant to highlight as needing changing.  I'm just concerned that it's not a wrong perception. 

[ColoradoTree]

If in fact it comes down to a choice between a Pac 12 champ and another conference champ both with 2 losses (or both with any particular number of losses), then I think the perception of the Pac 12 as a deep conference, and one with difficult schedules, would help.

I think this is exactly right.  Perception of conference depth means a 2-loss Pac-12 champ likely gets in over a 2-loss ACC or Big 12 champ.  But my concern is that right now, Clemson and Florida State are miles ahead of the rest of the ACC, so the likelihood that one of them ends up with two losses is smaller than the chance Stanford takes two losses.  I tend to think Oklahoma will survive its schedule with no more than one loss (the only preseason-ranked team it travels to face is TCU).  The Big Ten might be a hot mess at the top, so I could see a 2-loss champ there, but that'd make me nervous.  I think we lose out to a 2-loss Alabama or LSU conference champ.

And I agree with your statement that not picking a Pac-12 team for the playoff isn't reflecting a perception that the Pac-12 isn't good; I think most people see the Pac-12 as a deep conference but one without elite teams right now.  And it's the latter perception--we don't have an elite team capable of rising above the fray--that I meant to highlight as needing changing.  I'm just concerned that it's not a wrong perception. 

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15543.msg169292#msg169292 date=1472759462]

If in fact it comes down to a choice between a Pac 12 champ and another conference champ both with 2 losses (or both with any particular number of losses), then I think the perception of the Pac 12 as a deep conference, and one with difficult schedules, would help.

I think this is exactly right.  Perception of conference depth means a 2-loss Pac-12 champ likely gets in over a 2-loss ACC or Big 12 champ.  But my concern is that right now, Clemson and Florida State are miles ahead of the rest of the ACC, so the likelihood that one of them ends up with two losses is smaller than the chance Stanford takes two losses.  I tend to think Oklahoma will survive its schedule with no more than one loss (the only preseason-ranked team it travels to face is TCU).  The Big Ten might be a hot mess at the top, so I could see a 2-loss champ there, but that'd make me nervous. I think we lose out to a 2-loss Alabama or LSU conference champ.

And I agree with your statement that not picking a Pac-12 team for the playoff isn't reflecting a perception that the Pac-12 isn't good; I think most people see the Pac-12 as a deep conference but one without elite teams right now.  And it's the latter perception--we don't have an elite team capable of rising above the fray--that I meant to highlight as needing changing.  I'm just concerned that it's not a wrong perception.
[/quote]


In that case it might depend on who the losses are to. Which is why I'm pinching my nose and rooting for $C this weekend. Stanford/U$C/UCLA and even Oregon to a lesser extent should be further bolstered in any of these comparisons (should one of them be the Pac-12 champ) by the fact they all play 2 power-5 (or equivalent) non-conference games. Compare this to, say Alabama, who should be commended for playing $C and should be punished heavily for playing WKU, Kent State, and Chatanooga. They play only 9 Power 5 schools, vs 11 for Stan/UCLA/U$C/Oregon. A 10-2 Stanford should probably be above a 10-2 Alabama. Of course, that probably won't happen but still.


Your last point is the real concern. I'm not sure the Pac-12 champ won't be a three loss team, especially since 4 of the 5 teams most likely to win the conference are playing 11 power-5 teams. Hopefully we prove the perception wrong, though, and go 13-0. Then we won't have to worry.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15543.msg169292#msg169292 date=1472759462]

If in fact it comes down to a choice between a Pac 12 champ and another conference champ both with 2 losses (or both with any particular number of losses), then I think the perception of the Pac 12 as a deep conference, and one with difficult schedules, would help.

I think this is exactly right.  Perception of conference depth means a 2-loss Pac-12 champ likely gets in over a 2-loss ACC or Big 12 champ.  But my concern is that right now, Clemson and Florida State are miles ahead of the rest of the ACC, so the likelihood that one of them ends up with two losses is smaller than the chance Stanford takes two losses.  I tend to think Oklahoma will survive its schedule with no more than one loss (the only preseason-ranked team it travels to face is TCU).  The Big Ten might be a hot mess at the top, so I could see a 2-loss champ there, but that'd make me nervous. I think we lose out to a 2-loss Alabama or LSU conference champ.

And I agree with your statement that not picking a Pac-12 team for the playoff isn't reflecting a perception that the Pac-12 isn't good; I think most people see the Pac-12 as a deep conference but one without elite teams right now.  And it's the latter perception--we don't have an elite team capable of rising above the fray--that I meant to highlight as needing changing.  I'm just concerned that it's not a wrong perception.
[/quote]


In that case it might depend on who the losses are to. Which is why I'm pinching my nose and rooting for $C this weekend. Stanford/U$C/UCLA and even Oregon to a lesser extent should be further bolstered in any of these comparisons (should one of them be the Pac-12 champ) by the fact they all play 2 power-5 (or equivalent) non-conference games. Compare this to, say Alabama, who should be commended for playing $C and should be punished heavily for playing WKU, Kent State, and Chatanooga. They play only 9 Power 5 schools, vs 11 for Stan/UCLA/U$C/Oregon. A 10-2 Stanford should probably be above a 10-2 Alabama. Of course, that probably won't happen but still.


Your last point is the real concern. I'm not sure the Pac-12 champ won't be a three loss team, especially since 4 of the 5 teams most likely to win the conference are playing 11 power-5 teams. Hopefully we prove the perception wrong, though, and go 13-0. Then we won't have to worry.

[ColoradoTree]

In that case it might depend on who the losses are to. Which is why I'm pinching my nose and rooting for $C this weekend. Stanford/U$C/UCLA and even Oregon to a lesser extent should be further bolstered in any of these comparisons (should one of them be the Pac-12 champ) by the fact they all play 2 power-5 (or equivalent) non-conference games. Compare this to, say Alabama, who should be commended for playing $C and should be punished heavily for playing WKU, Kent State, and Chatanooga. They play only 9 Power 5 schools, vs 11 for Stan/UCLA/U$C/Oregon. A 10-2 Stanford should probably be above a 10-2 Alabama. Of course, that probably won't happen but still.


Your last point is the real concern. I'm not sure the Pac-12 champ won't be a three loss team, especially since 4 of the 5 teams most likely to win the conference are playing 11 power-5 teams. Hopefully we prove the perception wrong, though, and go 13-0. Then we won't have to worry.
[/quote]

I'm with you, though I won't really have to pinch my nose to do it.  SC beating Alabama would be massively helpful for the Pac-12 as a whole, and for Stanford if we can manage to beat SC.  Now, I'm not all that optimistic about it, since I'm trying to be realistic.  Both teams have oodles of talent, but one team has Nick Saban and an impressive recent culture of winning and mental toughness, and the other one has Clay Helton and a recent culture of not living up to expectations and a marked lack of mental toughness. 

Same goes for all non-conference games involving Pac-12 teams--I want the Pac-12 to win them all.  And I want Notre Dame to beat everyone except for us and SC (and I obviously want us to beat SC). 

And yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that a 2-loss Alabama team would deserve to make it over a 2-loss Stanford team, just that such is life.

[ColoradoTree]

In that case it might depend on who the losses are to. Which is why I'm pinching my nose and rooting for $C this weekend. Stanford/U$C/UCLA and even Oregon to a lesser extent should be further bolstered in any of these comparisons (should one of them be the Pac-12 champ) by the fact they all play 2 power-5 (or equivalent) non-conference games. Compare this to, say Alabama, who should be commended for playing $C and should be punished heavily for playing WKU, Kent State, and Chatanooga. They play only 9 Power 5 schools, vs 11 for Stan/UCLA/U$C/Oregon. A 10-2 Stanford should probably be above a 10-2 Alabama. Of course, that probably won't happen but still.


Your last point is the real concern. I'm not sure the Pac-12 champ won't be a three loss team, especially since 4 of the 5 teams most likely to win the conference are playing 11 power-5 teams. Hopefully we prove the perception wrong, though, and go 13-0. Then we won't have to worry.
[/quote]

I'm with you, though I won't really have to pinch my nose to do it.  SC beating Alabama would be massively helpful for the Pac-12 as a whole, and for Stanford if we can manage to beat SC.  Now, I'm not all that optimistic about it, since I'm trying to be realistic.  Both teams have oodles of talent, but one team has Nick Saban and an impressive recent culture of winning and mental toughness, and the other one has Clay Helton and a recent culture of not living up to expectations and a marked lack of mental toughness. 

Same goes for all non-conference games involving Pac-12 teams--I want the Pac-12 to win them all.  And I want Notre Dame to beat everyone except for us and SC (and I obviously want us to beat SC). 

And yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that a 2-loss Alabama team would deserve to make it over a 2-loss Stanford team, just that such is life.