I wonder if this scenario is possible under strength of schedule, is Florida State immune since they’ll likely remain unbeaten in the ACC… or could four one-loss teams from far more challenging conferences pass them up?
I think you have to give an undefeated team the benefit of the doubt. But it’s a good thing there are 4 teams in the playoff, though, so that benefit will only go so far.
I wanted to see what the differences would be if the 2-loss teams were added in. After realizing that no-loss, 1-loss, and 2-loss teams comprise over 90% of the top 25 I went ahead and did them all.
Instead of trying to figure out if unranked team A is better than unranked team B, I went ahead and counted any unranked team as being equal.
Best Win:
- Arizona (#3 Oregon)
- Ole Miss (#4 Alabama)
- Baylor (#5 TCU)
- UCLA (#7 Arizona St)
- Miss St (#9 Auburn)
6T. Auburn (#10 Ole Miss)
6T. LSU (#10 Ole Miss) - Mich St (#11 Nebraska)
9T. Oregon (#12 Michigan State)
9T. Ohio State (#12 Michigan State) - TCU (#13 K State)
- Utah (#14 UCLA)
13T. FSU (#15 Notre Dame)
13T. Arizona State (#15 Notre Dame) - Georgia (#18 Clemson)
- Alabama (#20 LSU)
- Duke (#24 Georgia Tech)
18T. Nebraska (None)
18T. Kansas St (None)
18T. Notre Dame (None)
18T. Clemson (None)
18T. Marshall (None)
18T. Wisconsin (None)
18T. Colorado St (None)
18T. Georgia Tech (None)
Worst Loss:
1T. Miss St (None)
1T. FSU (None)
1T. Marshall (None)
4. TCU (#6 Baylor)
5. Notre Dame (#7 Arizona St)
6. Mich St (#8 Ohio St)
7T. Kansas St (#9 Auburn)
7T. LSU (#9 Auburn)
9. Alabama (#10 Ole Miss)
10. Nebraska (#12 Mich St)
11. Arizona St (#14 UCLA)
12. Clemson (#16 Georgia)
13. Oregon (#17 Arizona)
14. Ole Miss (#20 LSU)
15. UCLA (#25 Utah)
16T. Baylor (UR West Virginia)
16T. Ohio St (UR Virginia Tech)
16T. Auburn (UR Texas A&M)
16T. Georgia (UR Florida)
16T. Arizona (UR USC)
16T. Duke (UR Miami)
16T. Wisconsin (UR Northwestern)
16T. Colorado St (UR Boise St)
16T. Georgia Tech (UR North Carolina)
16T. Utah (UR Wash St)
Average:
- Miss St 3
- LSU 6.5
3T. FSU 7
3T. Mich St 7 - TCU 7.5
- Ole Miss 8
- Arizona 8.5
8T. Baylor 9.5
8T. UCLA 9.5
8T. Marshall 9.5
11T. Oregon 11
11T. Auburn 11 - Notre Dame 11.5
- Arizona St 12
15T. Alabama 12.5
15T. Ohio St 12.5
15T. Kansas St 12.5
18T. Utah 14
18T. Nebraska 14 - Clemson 15
- Georgia 15.5
- Duke 16.5
23T. Wisconsin 17
23T. Colorado St 17
23T. Georgia Tech 17
Adjusted (Multi-loss teams removed):
Miss St 3
FSU 7
TCU 7.5
Baylor 9.5
Marshall 9.5
Oregon 11
Arizona St 12
Alabama 12.5
Ohio St 12.5
Nebraska 14
Duke 16.5
Colorado St 17
Ah, so that refreshing breeze was the irony whizzing over my head. Got it, and I couldn’t agree more, the Pac-12 South teams are getting no respect.
There are five teams that have at least 2 wins against (currently) ranked teams, not more than two losses, and no losses to unranked teams. Three of them are currently in playoff position according to the committee: FSU, Miss St, and Oregon. Arizona State is down at #9, but will probably rise after beating Notre Dame last weekend (which put it into this group) – but the AP and coaches still have them only at 7 or 8. UCLA is at #18?! EIGHT FREAKING TEEN?? Below such luminaries as Notre Dame (who, as discussed above, haven’t beaten anybody good), Kansas State (who haven’t either, unless you count Oklahoma, which the committee seems inclined to do for some bizarre reason), Nebraska (no good wins), Baylor (only one good win and a highly embarrassing loss), Ohio State (ditto), and I could go on. That’s not even counting teams who I assume UCLA will leapfrog after this weekend, but shouldn’t have been ranked ahead of them in the first place. And the really weird part is that UCLA was ranked #7 in the preseason, so it’s not like they’ve been under the radar. I think many of the poll voters are lazy and just assume a two-loss team can’t be among the nation’s best, but the committee seems to have been smart enough to see through that in the case of Auburn, so why not UCLA?
Alabama gets a paragraph all to itself. I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly say that Alabama is one of the top four teams based on what they’ve done so far, but the committee had them at #5 BEFORE they got their first decent (not great, but just decent) win last weekend, and both of the other polls had them at #3! At least in this case, it shouldn’t really matter, because if the Tide win out against Miss St, Auburn, and the East champion, they will clearly deserve the #1 ranking. If they get to the playoff without winning at least two out of three, it will be a travesty of a sham of a mockery.
Here’s how I see the current top 10:
- Miss St
- Oregon:D
- FSU
- Auburn
- UCLA
- Arizona State
- Baylor
- TCU
- Alabama (would have been maybe 15 last week)
- Marshall
I wouldn’t argue if you wanted to swap FSU and Oregon. The Ducks have two wins which are better than FSU’s best and a perfectly respectable loss, but undefeated is undefeated. I agree with the committee that Auburn is being scandalously underrated by the polls, probably due to a myopic focus on win-loss record; they, like UCLA, are an example of how a two-loss team can have an overall resume superior to many one-loss teams. Marshall hasn’t played anybody, but they also haven’t lost to anybody. I don’t see a road to the playoffs for them, but I think an undefeated record in *any * FBS conference should at least get you into a major bowl; otherwise, what’s the point of even calling those conferences part of the FBS?. The committee appears to strongly disagree.
To reward those who have read this long and cranky post, I was looking for a clip of the Play of the Year from Oregon-Utah last weekend, and couldn’t instantly find
one, but this is much cooler than the version seen on TV. Seriously, you owe it to yourself to watch this.
That was Awesome!
Hilarious, especially the selfies.
A “myopic focus”? If winning isn’t the primary criteria what do you suggest should replace it? Trying hard? Best uniform? Should they do an essay on why they should be selected?
Yeah, this seems to be a problem with trying to integrate the committee and playoff into the existing bowl structure. They should have done the CFP as 3 new post-bowl games and left the bowls intact. They also should have created major bowl slots for the winners of the non Power 5 conferences (as well as slots for any Power 5 winners not invited to the CFP).
I have a feeling the NCAA was a little hesitant to support adding two games to anybody’s schedule - even one was pushing it. Of course, they’re going to have to add another game if they ever do make it an 8-team playoff.
Another possible reason: two weeks of post-bowl games really stretches the schedule out. On top of that, when do they play the two semi-finals - on a Monday and Tuesday? A weeknight doubleheader would have ratings problems, and the NFL has two of the early January Saturdays taken.
Speaking of CFP, based on the 11/11 ratings, it would be Mississippi State - TCU in the Sugar, and Oregon - Florida State in the Rose. I’m a little surprised Alabama was left out, but of course, Mississippi State plays Alabama this week, so that ought to shake things up.
I was assuming that the CFP 4 would NOT play in a major bowl.
Oh, I would LOVE to have championship trophies awarded for best uniform! 
Seriously, of course winning is the idea, but it also matters who you beat and who you lose to when we are comparing teams across conferences with few if any common opponents. For example, #18 UCLA has played five currently ranked teams and beaten three of them. #13 Nebraska, after surviving its scare against mighty McNeese State, has played one ranked opponent, losing. In what world is going 3-2 against high quality opponents worse than going 0-1? I think it is not especially rare for a two-loss team to be among the four best in the country; this year, for instance, I think Auburn should go to the playoff if they win out, even though they probably wouldn’t win their division. I can imagine circumstances where I might send a two-loss Alabama. And it would be a criminal atrocity if UCLA were to win the Pac-12 and not go (though currently they need help to reach the title game). But it could happen, since the only impressive win they would have between now and then would be the title game against Oregon, so it seems unlikely that they would rise 14 spots between now and then.
I don’t think, as a general rule, bowls that minor conference champions go to can ever really be “major bowls”, because nobody wants to watch them except the small fan bases of the teams involved. Games matching these champions against near-champions from the power conferences would usually be boring blowouts.
But if they’re going to tell these teams that they are in theory part of the same division as the big boys, it can’t be absolutely impossible for them to get a New Years date, so I think that in this case win-loss record is actually crucial, and only perfection should do. Teams that go undefeated arouse interest and will make people curious to see if they can knock off some Goliath.
Ah, I can ask this gentleman!
What surprises you about Alabama being left out? What have they done so far this season that you feel would qualify them as one of the very best teams in the country?
OK, this will be my last post tonight. Maybe.
The Committee Sees the Light***
UCLA has jumped seven spots for its win over…Washington? Didn’t see that coming. They are now ranked higher than Nebraska and Notre Dame, glory halleluyah. And Arizona State has now been given a very clear road to the playoff. On the other hand, #8 Ohio State? #5 Alafrickinbama? And the committee still seems to have the curious belief that the Big 12 is a tougher league than the Pac-12 South, go figure. Nice to see that Minnesota is getting a little love.
Aye, that totally fucking rocked!
That was wicked good.
I’ve watched it five times.
What the hell are you talking about, you moron? UCLA has only played four ranked teams!
Oh. :o Never mind.
I still maintain the basic point, though, that they shouldn’t be kept out of the playoff if they win out, and that they absolutely deserve a top 10 ranking right now.
INSULTS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THIS FORUM! DON’T DO THIS AGAIN! BAD!
Just kidding. :o
Fairly sure there isn’t a rule for talking about oneself.
Just worked this out: records of the top six teams in each conference against all teams except each other:
SEC: 41-2 according to the polls, 40-0 if you replace Georgia with Texas A&M as the sixth-best team. These teams are 2-0 against ranked teams from other conferences.
Pac-12, 36-3 and 2-0
ACC, 38-4 and 1-1
Big 12, 28-5 and 1-2
Big 10, 39-7 and 0-3
Not sure if it means anything, but it does seem to correlate to generally perceived conference strength, although the ACC looks better than I would have expected.
If you eliminate OOC, this would be a measure of conference parity. A really lopsided record would indicate that the top of the conference is a whole lot better than the bottom.