NCAA Playoff Committee Rankings 2014 (Unranked)

[Cackalacky]

anyone else notice these curious new designations:
one is called "Strength of Record"? (SOR)
not "Strength of Schedule"...rather "Strength of Record". dafuq does that mean anyway? to me its coede for hiding the true cupcakes that litter other schools schedules.

and the other one is the "FPI"...Football Power Index....gee that cant be to help the poll rigged SEC teams can it?

i will say it agin we have to go undefeated to ever win a natty, have a chance to play for one. they will find a way even if we win out to keep us out of this final four. just cant shake this feeling, been around a long time. is the bcs computer still working im curious what its top 4 looks like. why cant they for shits and giggles have that plugged in to compare to the committee's choice?

I think the SOR is basically an "up to date" or "as of now" kind of thing. Perfectly fine IMO as that is an objective metric to limit bias based on future schedules. The committee will be releasing a poll each week so that metric and the FPI is sure to change based on how well teams do.

 

[IrishLax]

anyone else notice these curious new designations:
one is called "Strength of Record"? (SOR)
not "Strength of Schedule"...rather "Strength of Record". dafuq does that mean anyway? to me its coede for hiding the true cupcakes that litter other schools schedules.

and the other one is the "FPI"...Football Power Index....gee that cant be to help the poll rigged SEC teams can it?

i will say it agin we have to go undefeated to ever win a natty, have a chance to play for one. they will find a way even if we win out to keep us out of this final four. just cant shake this feeling, been around a long time. is the bcs computer still working im curious what its top 4 looks like. why cant they for shits and giggles have that plugged in to compare to the committee's choice?

No way... they're actually using the FPI!?!?!!? That thing comes into the season with set scores for each team based on NOTHING and then adjusts from there. Michigan was ranked 16 in the first FPI, ND was all the way outside the top 25. That rating system is inherently biased towards everyone who started at the top (i.e. the SEC teams).

 

[gkIrish]

All I'll say is that I'm very glad we're bringing ACC officials on the road for our remaining two PAC games, and I'm really curious to see what happens with the B1G officials for the Northwestern game if MSU and ND are neck-and-neck in the playoff committee poll at that time.

This ranking-a-week process is so dumb... it only exists so that ESPN can have a release show that people will watch much like they did with the BCS.

I tend to agree but to play Devil's advocate...

Teams need to know where they stand in the eyes of the committee. If a team is ranked #1 they know all they need to do is win out. Teams 4-6 know they are in a dogfight and winning out may not be enough. Style points could matter. So that could affect how they game plan.

Also, it's going to be interesting to see how the rankings change on a week to week basis. We are going to see how much beating a top ten team is worth to the committee, or how much they penalize a team that loses to a low-ranked team. Will give teams/fans a lot of insight for future seasons.

 

[NDohio]

Do not disagree with you about how that is a plus for us ... but c'mon! What kind of BS criteria is that? There are plenty of teams out there who are just offensive machines and that their game is outscoring opponents. If this is something that they will use to "judge" if teams are worthy, doesn't it eliminate teams like Baylor, Oregon, etc. from consideration. I do not like having a panel just making up the rules as they go along. I'm with whomever said earlier that they should just use the existing polls, pick the top 4 (or better 8) teams and put them in the playoffs. This subjectivity of a dozen people (who will certainly have their own built in bias) is garbage.

But I do not think that defense is all they are going to look at, just that they are going to look at how a defense will do against multiple styles of offense. It's not a category that gets talked about much. Having a team make the playoffs that can defend against the spread and a power O puts us in a great spot. If ND can show well defensively against ASU, it shows the committee that we are that defense.

 

[GoIrish41]

But I do not think that defense is all they are going to look at, just that they are going to look at how a defense will do against multiple styles of offense. It's not a category that gets talked about much. Having a team make the playoffs that can defend against the spread and a power O puts us in a great spot. If ND can show well defensively against ASU, it shows the committee that we are that defense.

Again, do not disagree that this helps ND's cause. It is just that every team has a different philosophy -- some have great defenses and if you are going to beat them, you better bring it on D yourself because you just aren't going to roll over them.

Some teams are the opposite -- they score 50 or 60 points a game knowing that the other team is going to score, too, but just not as much.

I'd be equally uninspired if they were going to look specifically at offenses and if they have demonstrated that they can drop 40+ on anybody they play. IMO, when they break down individual aspects of the game or the philosophy of a team, they are not necessarily taking into account the strategy employed by every team. I know it isn't going to be the only thing they look at, but separating it out as an element tells me that there will be some degree of focus placed on their opinion of how the defense may perform against other competition who makes it into the playoff. I understand that they don't want there to be blowouts in the playoff games, but I think this type of focus just hurts the chances of teams that are built for offensive in favor of teams built for defense. One of the best games over the past couple of years has been Oregon v Stanford, two teams with opposite mindsets. The fact that they will apply some degree of focus to specifically defense tells me that they would not be reluctant to allow a game like that in the playoffs.

 

[ACamp1900]

I think they may do something overly provocative/controversial on purpose, (like have a tie for fourth, put four SEC teams in the top four, or put a team the nation doesn't view as 'there yet' like TCU or ND in the top four right now), just to get attention and create talking points...

This has nothing to do with 'fairness,'... 'deciding it on the field'.. or 'real champions'... really, it's all about making money for ESPN... the more hype, talk, banter and controversy, the more the dinner bell rings for Bristol.

yep, I'm, cynical.

 

[RDU Irish]

I would argue the Stanford connections should benefit us greatly. They will respect graduation rates and actual Student-Athletes hitting the field. Outside the SEC reps, most of those committee members look to me as if they will give respect to a team that graduates damn near 100% of its players and suspends a bunch of NFL talent starters for cheating (or knowing about it).

I also think OMM hits on a great point, the enemy of your enemy is your friend such that ranking us higher in lieu of a conference you detest stands to lower the overall ranking of said conference. Pac12 reps will definitely give ND preference over pretty much everyone else since we play 3 of their teams this year and they need to knock down B1G, ACC and Big12 in particular. They likely wager a bunch of SEC teams in the top 5 helps since they will cannibalize and drop over time while keeping down the other conferences in the mean time. They have the most to gain by pumping up ND. Their second favorite conference is probably B1G due to Rose Bowl ties.

 

[RDU Irish]

I would especially like it if they drop all the SEC teams a spot or two after their mid-November DivII opponents to give some reps to people who don't water down their schedule that late in the season. Really drawing attention to that crap would be nice and you know every non-SEC conference official thinks it is crap. Sure they all schedule patsies, but most self respecting programs do it to start the year under the guise of a glorified scrimmage.

 

[IRISH in MT]

I just hope 12 human beings can put rational thinking into this because apparently the USA Today Coach's Poll has it backwards right now. ND should be ranked above Oregon. Oregon should be ranked ahead of Michigan State. Not sure why they don't see that. And technically, K-State should be ranked higher than Georgia, Ole Miss, TCU, Oregon and Michigan State. They shot themselves in the foot against Auburn and could be undefeated too. But at least Auburn is #4 and only lost to #1.

I guess I compare quality wins when comparing two or more undefeated teams. For a bunch of 1 loss teams the easiest thing to do is rank who the loss was against and how good the team was that they lost too. This is my Top 10:

1) FSU (defending Champs, defending Heisman winner, longest current winning streak...NUFF said)
2) Miss St (only undefeated in the SEC)
3) Notre Dame (seriously, we are a ref's call from beating #1 and being undefeated)
4) Auburn (lost to #2 Miss St)
5) K-State (lost to #4 Auburn)
6) TCU (lost to #12 Baylor)
7) Oregon (lost to #15 Arizona)
8) Michigan State (lost to Oregon)
9) Nebraska (lost to Michigan State)
10) Ole Miss (lost to #17 LSU)

Am I crazy for thinking this way?

 

[Rocket89]

We're going from a system in which computers and/or polls conducted by media members, SID's, or former players spending 10 minutes on their rankings to one in which a 12-person committee is going to be putting about 6 million times more thought and work into the process.

I hope everyone realizes:

1) There will be controversy no matter what happens
2) We're still taking a huge step forward with the new system

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

I think we come in at #5. Our only loss is a last second, controversial nail biter to one of the two undefeated. Almost every pundit in America glorified us after that game and I have little doubt the committee will feel the same.

Michigan St and Oregon could argue their way into our spot but our loss is simply the most impressive. I don't think the disparity in SOSs between the three it's enough to discount the quality of loss.

Either way.. I think we'll be in a spot that affords us a"win and we're in" opportunity.

 

[TheChosen1]

Today's rankings mean nothing. College football is a week to week season. Call me in December.

 

[gkIrish]

I just hope 12 human beings can put rational thinking into this because apparently the USA Today Coach's Poll has it backwards right now. ND should be ranked above Oregon. Oregon should be ranked ahead of Michigan State. Not sure why they don't see that. And technically, K-State should be ranked higher than Georgia, Ole Miss, TCU, Oregon and Michigan State. They shot themselves in the foot against Auburn and could be undefeated too. But at least Auburn is #4 and only lost to #1.

I guess I compare quality wins when comparing two or more undefeated teams. For a bunch of 1 loss teams the easiest thing to do is rank who the loss was against and how good the team was that they lost too. This is my Top 10:

1) FSU (defending Champs, defending Heisman winner, longest current winning streak...NUFF said)
2) Miss St (only undefeated in the SEC)
3) Notre Dame (seriously, we are a ref's call from beating #1 and being undefeated)
4) Auburn (lost to #2 Miss St)
5) K-State (lost to #4 Auburn)
6) TCU (lost to #12 Baylor)
7) Oregon (lost to #15 Arizona)
8) Michigan State (lost to Oregon)
9) Nebraska (lost to Michigan State)
10) Ole Miss (lost to #17 LSU)

Am I crazy for thinking this way?

Your rankings are inconsistent with your philosophy. Michigan St. lost to the #3 team in the country. Yet you have TCU and K-State ahead of Michigan St. Doesn't make sense.

I'm still befuddled why our fan base simply ignores the "who have you beat" part of the equation. ND has a lot of work to do.

 

[irishfan]

Long reminded the committee members of the five main criteria -- strength of schedule, head-to-head matchups, records against common opponents, conference championships and injuries -- but stressed they are not weighted or in any priority.

Head-to-head matchups are supposedly one of the five main criteria.

If they actually take head-to-head into consideration, that means Arizona should be ahead of Oregon. Ole Miss should be ahead of Bama. Baylor should be ahead of TCU. Nearly every mock selection has had this flip-flopped. Everyone has Oregon>Arizona, Bama>Ole Miss, TCU>Baylor.

IMO, if they actually emphasize head-to-head results, this is what the rankings could look like:

1) Mississippi State
2) Florida State
3) Auburn
4) Notre Dame
5) Ole Miss
6) Alabama
7) Arizona
8) Oregon
9) Kansas State
10) Baylor
11) TCU
12) Michigan State
13) Georgia
14) Utah
15) Arizona State
16) Ohio State
17) Nebraska
18) LSU

 

[ACamp1900]

The nation will flip a f'in shit if ND is number four... lol... that would go perfectly in line with what I'm expecting in terms of riling up the masses someway/somehow... I'll be surprised if it's all clear cut and without at least one major controversy.

 

[phork]

I dont know why anyone is losing sleep over this. If ND wins out, they will be in the top4 somewhere. I guarantee it, or I will do a naked lap, AND MEAN IT, around whichever landmark you choose.

 

[GoIrish41]

I dont know why anyone is losing sleep over this. If ND wins out, they will be in the top4 somewhere. I guarantee it, or I will do a naked lap, AND MEAN IT, around whichever landmark you choose.

The Arctic Circle?

 

[eNDzone]

I dont know why anyone is losing sleep over this. If ND wins out, they will be in the top4 somewhere. I guarantee it, or I will do a naked lap, AND MEAN IT, around whichever landmark you choose.

How about the Grand Canyon?

 

[ACamp1900]

How about the Grand Canyon?

Nah, White House....

 

[Irish#1]

We'll arrive at number five.

 

[NDohio]

The nation will flip a f'in shit if ND is number four... lol... that would go perfectly in line with what I'm expecting in terms of riling up the masses someway/somehow... I'll be surprised if it's all clear cut and without at least one major controversy.

I am all in on this theory. UND will be number 4. Twitter explodes. The Irish hate across the land grows bigger and bigger because of us always being rated higher than we deserve.

It's gonna be glorious ...

 

[ACamp1900]

'And now to follow up on the rankings... we turn it over to our experts, Mark May and Lou Holtz."

 

[ickythump1225]

I think we land anywhere from 4-7. I'd be fine with any of those rankings.

I'm actually glad that the committee is releasing the rankings. It allows for us to see how they think week to week to get a better grasp of it. It's also nice to know where ND stands to see what needs to happen.

 

[Cali_domer]

'And now to follow up on the rankings... we turn it over to our experts, Mark May and Lou Holtz."

And special guest via the Subway hotline Clay Travis..

 

[Grahambo]

I just hope they pit FSU against ND when all is said and done.

 

[Old Man Mike]

While this probably wont happen, at least this scenario has some internal logic rather than the voters just basing the ranking off of an uneven set of standards.

1 MsSU
2 FSU
3 AUB - only loss is to #1
4 ND - only loss is to #2

Edit: This is probably the easiest top 4 to defend that the committee can come up with.

This is exactly what Seahorn said yesterday and for the same reasons.

On a slightly different note: Kannell just said that if Notre Dame runs the table, they are in. {since they clearly have the "best loss"}. He also said that Notre Dame vs Arizona State will be the most interesting game that weekend.

 

[nsideirish]

I have us coming in at 6 or 7. The quality wins just isn't there yet. We definitely have the best loss on our resume...but Michigan and UNC really shit the bed this year. Stanford sitting unranked at 5-3 as our best win doesn't do much for us.

 

[irishfan]

I think we land anywhere from 4-7. I'd be fine with any of those rankings.

I'm actually glad that the committee is releasing the rankings. It allows for us to see how they think week to week to get a better grasp of it. It's also nice to know where ND stands to see what needs to happen.

This. If we get screwed and we're 9th or 10th right, Kelly knows he's going to have to win some blowouts.

 

[IRISH in MT]

Your rankings are inconsistent with your philosophy. Michigan St. lost to the #3 team in the country. Yet you have TCU and K-State ahead of Michigan St. Doesn't make sense.

I'm still befuddled why our fan base simply ignores the "who have you beat" part of the equation. ND has a lot of work to do.

It supports my reasoning 100%. That was my point...the Coachs' poll has Oregon at # 3 but I have them 7th because they lost to #15 Arizona. K-State and TCU lost to better opponents than Oregon so they are ranked ahead of the Ducks. Obviously MSU can't be ranked ahead of Oregon. What am I missing here?

You can't compare "who have you beat" until the end of the year when all is said and done. On paper we had one of the toughest schedules but that isn't looking so hot right now. Saying you are ranking a team based off "who they beat" can change week to week. Look at our Stanford win. They were #13 when we beat them and now what? Unranked. We barely had any pretty wins in 2012 but as long as we didn't have an LOSS we were always in consideration.

 

[Irish Insanity]

I'd obviously like to see us as high as possible. But listening to all the commentary, reading all the articles, and whats been posted here, I don't know if it really matters where we are at this week. As long as its in the top 10. Anyone could legitemately argue that we are the best 1 loss team or that we are the worst. And I can see the side of both. At this point it all rests on our shoulders. IF we win out, we need to do it impressively. Our schedule isn't doing us any favors yet, and I don't know if we've really dominated anyone in the fashion we should have. I'd like to see us at 5 or 6.