OTOH, I like that they didn’t feel bound to put Ohio State #1 just because they are the undefeated defending champions. I’m happy that they ranked Northwestern, although it seems baffling to me that you would pick them over Wisconsin if you’re only taking one 6-2 B1G team. I was hoping Stanford and/or Iowa might be ranked higher, but at least they didn’t treat them worse than the AP did. Overall I don’t think they made any other mistakes comparable to the massive overrating of Notre Dame.
Just for fun, let’s compare Stanford and Notre Dame. Notre Dame’s loss was closer and to a better team; point for ND. Both teams have one win over a CFP-ranked (but fairly low-ranked) team (though I give Stanford two to ND’s one). Stanford has played one non-P5 team, ND has played three. Granted that one of them, Temple, is very good for their level, still an advantage for Stanford. Weirdly, they both beat USC by the exact same score, 41-31, but Stanford did it on the road. Three of ND’s wins have been by eight points or less, two of those against teams with losing records. Stanford’s only win by less than ten was on the road against a winning team.
What am I missing here that would lead someone to conclude Notre Dame is significantly better than Stanford? Is it that I don’t love Jesus enough??
They also have Florida ranked above Stanford. Florida has one bright shiny win over Ole Miss, which is very impressive but also their only quality win. Their loss is respectable (7 points at LSU). But they beat East Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee by a total of 13 points, with two of those games at home. If that’s a Top 10 team, Donald Trump is a brilliant statesman.
In other news, will people please STFU about Memphis? They also beat Ole Miss (and, big whoop, Kansas), but again, no other quality wins. Three of their wins over their mid-major brethren were by a touchdown or less; they are lucky to be undefeated and amazingly lucky to be ranked #13. And yet there are people who presumably are permitted to wipe their asses without supervisionwhining that they aren’t ranked higher!
It’s not baffling at all why you’d pick Northwestern over Wisconsin. Northwestern has beaten Stanford and Duke. Wisconsin hasn’t beaten a team with a winning record and their best win is over 4-4 Illinois.
Unleash your hate! I knew you had anti-ND bias. Their only loss was a flukey game at Clemson in a damn hurricane. They also easily handled a pretty good USC team. (I know USC had a 4th quarter lead but if you watched the game the outcome was never really in doubt). That said, they’re higher than I thought they’d be. But good for the committee for not rewarding Big 12 teams with their joke of a non-conference schedule.
I’m not arguing for or against Notre Dame, but I have to point out the absurdity of this comment. Think about it for a second…trailing is kind of the definition of “in doubt”.
“Hah! We’ve got 'em right where we want 'em…in the lead.”
Well, those are mostly excellent points, and I can see being persuaded by them, so I retract the bafflement.
The argument for Wisconsin is that they have been more consistent. I don’t like to read too much into a single common opponent, but still: Iowa beat Wisconsin 10-6 and NU 40-10 (They both also won by two points at Nebraska). Northwestern’s point differential against power 5 opponents is -20, Wisconsin’s is +45. NU played a bad mid-major team (Ball State) and barely won; Wisconsin played three (Miami OH, Troy and Hawaii) and beat them by a cumulative 114-3.
I’m certainly not sold on Duke as a quality win; they are 6-2 but they haven’t (at least officially) beaten a single FBS team with a winning record, including their two mid-major opponents. Still, they do have a winning record, which is more than any of Wisconsin’s opponents can say. NU clearly has by far the most impressive win, which counts for a great deal, but their two losses are far more embarrassing than either of Bucky’s.
Overall I am inclined to call it a draw for now and await the head-to-head meeting, and NU’s date with Penn State this weekend, to pass further judgment.
It’s true that, as a fan, I can’t stand Notre Dame. But where’s the bias? What have I said against them that isn’t true or is misleading? I’m not saying they aren’t* good*, but the number of teams with more impressive resumes than theirs is much closer to 24 than 4.
And I always love the “that game doesn’t count because the weather was bad” argument.
Of course trailing at any point in the game is not a favorable position, and that’s not what said. I really do get your point, but haven’t you ever watched a game and as it flows you can see the weaker team is kind of hanging around and even if they take a brief lead early in the 4th quarter you just know the better team is going to take care of business?
To the first point, I was referring back to their win at Temple being the only one you called out as “underwhelming” when other teams had arguably far less impressive wins last week. And really, I only say it in jest.
To your second point, I never said the Clemson game doesn’t count. Just that a close loss on the road, at night, against a top ranked team in a hurricane should be penalized less than, say, a loss to a mediocre team or a blowout loss. For example, Florida State has a close, fluky road loss but it was to a Georgia Tech team that has turned out to be not very good. And Utah has one loss to what I consider to be a pretty decent USC team, but they got smoked. All losses aren’t created equal is all I’m saying.
I think you should stop digging. Yes, you expect the better team to win, but there are upsets every week, and to say the outcome isn’t in doubt is just ridiculous, with so many games won or lost on the last play.
I speak from experience. In the last series of this year’s Superbowl, I was confident that Lynch would pound it in and win the game, and make me some money. But there was some doubt, which turned out to be justified.
If people’s arguments about who was better and who was worse were valid, then there’d be no reason to play the games.
The bitching about the committee and what they are thinking, is still waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than the BCS or any other method previously used to determine a national champion.
I’m hopeful that when the next rounds of TV rights negotiations begins and the eventful conference realignments happens that there will be 4 super conferences of 16 teams each, and the top 2 teams from those conferences each make an 8 team playoff.
I think the time has come to make a 16 team tournament. Every conference champion should get in- including those like the Mountain West and the MAC. If they’re in the FBS, they should get a shot. All conference champions plus enough at large to fill it out. Play the first two rounds at home field of higher seeded team, then get to semis and finals as it is now.
I’ve always like the idea of a first round at home if they expand further. Part of why I liked it is warm weather teams forced to play outdoors in a Big Ten stadium in Dec/Jan.
That’s probably one of the two reasons why they won’t expand to 16 any time soon; the other being, even if it is just the two best teams in the country, some people still believe that a 17-game season (12 + conference championship + four playoff games) is too much - and make that 18 if they had a game at Hawaii and decided to schedule the extra game they’re allowed.
I have a feeling the Power 5 response to “all conference champions get into the playoff” is, “Fine - as long as the other current FBS conferences are dropped to FCS first. Otherwise, no.”
Well, like I said, the main reason I thought that result was noteworthy was that, according to my particular rating system, Notre Dame fell (at least temporarily) in the ratings relative to other teams with arguably less impressive wins. And I certainly agree that not all losses are created equal, as per the NU/Wisconsin discussion above.
Did you watch the USC / ND game and if so, did you at any point in the 4th quarter legitimately think that USC was going to win?
Again, I get your point and I agree. Crazy things happen. But if you did watch the game, you know that SC lost their lead 40 seconds into the 4th quarter and ND never looked back. And you could see it unfolding because SC’s defense was whipped by that point.
I am one of those who wouldn’t care to see college football turned into the NHL, with playoffs dragging on two months after the season ends.
It would also be disruptive to the academic schedules of the student-athletes, which of course is the only basis on which the NCAA makes its decisions. I’m also not sure it would make money for the NCAA, which of course is irrelevant because they are a nonprofit organization.
The problem with a 16 team playoff is, where do you put the extra games? You can’t shorten the regular season, because that takes revenue away from all the teams that don’t make the playoff. And if you go deeper into January, you’re competing more directly with the NFL playoffs.
If you do as Bob suggests and let all the mid-major champions in, they will almost always get blown out in the first round. Relative to the number of people interested in a regular-season power 5 conference game, not many people are going to want to watch those games, especially in the second half. And if you ignore the mid-majors and let the actual best 16 teams in, you will have 2 and even 3 loss teams getting in and the importance of the regular season is diluted.
I don’t like the megaconferences and would prefer to go back to more, smaller conferences which can play a round robin schedule and produce a real champion. Big conferences can’t have balanced schedules; for example, this year, Wisconsin’s interdivisional opponents are Rutgers and Maryland, while Northwestern’s are Penn State and Michigan. You could have seven 9- team conferences and have a three round playoff between the champions, plus the highest ranking other team (independent or mid-major).
