College Football Playoff Rankings 2015 (ND #8...)

[kmoose]

They must have replayed that 50 times and never once played it long enough to show when a player actually took possession of the ball.

#15 (Patrick Chung) comes sliding in and recovers the ball. It's kind of hard to see, but they do show the recovery.

 

[IrishinSyria]

#15 (Patrick Chung) comes sliding in and recovers the ball. It's kind of hard to see, but they do show the recovery.

He doesn't actually get it though. Look at :25 of the video. #23 on Oklahoma picks up the still loose ball which somehow squirted through the pile.

 

[gkIrish]

On another note. Remember when everyone was saying that we needed to "dumb down" our schedule? Quit playing Navy? Need to schedule softer?

Here we are now, hanging on for dear life with the help of the likes of historic seasons for Navy and Temple. Change them out with Georgia Southern and Citadel and we aren't in the top 4. Replace one Texas with Abilene Christian University, we aren't in the Top 4.

First of all I am not for dropping Navy. But regarding your post as a whole, the only reason Texas is important this year is because they happened to beat Oklahoma. If they had also lost to Oklahoma then it wouldn't matter if we had played Texas or Rice.

Also consider whether losing to Clemson helps us more than beating, say Syracuse. If we were 10-0 right now and had beat Syracuse instead of losing to Clemson, I would argue we would still be in the top 4. And I would certainly think we would be in the playoffs if we went on to go 12-0. Iowa, for as mediocre as their schedule is, will be a playoff team if they go undefeated. They will have basically 1 elite win, 2 decent wins, and then a bunch of mediocre wins. No one will care that they played North Texas and Illinois State. Literally will not be a factor.

The goal is to go undefeated while playing a schedule that is better than Houston's. Notre Dame is not getting left out at 12-0 if they do that.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Also we're incredibly lucky that Navy and Temple are having once in a decade type years at the same time. If those two teams are average this year, our schedule becomes a weak point.

 

[woolybug25]

First of all I am not for dropping Navy. But regarding your post as a whole, the only reason Texas is important this year is because they happened to beat Oklahoma. If they had also lost to Oklahoma then it wouldn't matter if we had played Texas or Rice.

Also consider whether losing to Clemson helps us more than beating, say Syracuse. If we were 10-0 right now and had beat Syracuse instead of losing to Clemson, I would argue we would still be in the top 4. And I would certainly think we would be in the playoffs if we went on to go 12-0. Iowa, for as mediocre as their schedule is, will be a playoff team if they go undefeated. They will have basically 1 elite win, 2 decent wins, and then a bunch of mediocre wins. No one will care that they played North Texas and Illinois State. Literally will not be a factor.

The goal is to go undefeated while playing a schedule that is better than Houston's. Notre Dame is not getting left out at 12-0 if they do that.

I mentioned Texas because they were supposed to be a premier game for us. If we would have dropped them for a powderpuff, we would have a weaker SoS and no comparable game to Big12 teams. It was important to our ranking and not in the spirit of "softening our schedule".

If we substituted North Texas and Illinois State for anyone in our schedule, we would not be #4 right now. I don't see how that is rational. An undefeated Iowa and a 1 loss OU would both be over us. I mean, who would you be substituting for those two teams that a) would have made us undefeated. Because if we substitute Clemson, then we definitely arent in the Top 4 (that LOSS is probably our 3rd best win) or b) provided us a better SoS. Navy and Temple are two of our better SoS makers. Remove them for powderpuffs and we would be in trouble.

 

[wizards8507]

Also we're incredibly lucky that Navy and Temple are having once in a decade type years at the same time. If those two teams are average this year, our schedule becomes a weak point.

That's a big problem I have with strength of schedule as a metric. You schedule based on how you think a team is going to be, not how they turn out to be against your control. We should get credit for scheduling Texas even though Texas is down. The Big 12 shouldn't be punished that the Big 12 sucks, but should be punished for playing FCS programs.

 

[IrishLion]

Also we're incredibly lucky that Navy and Temple are having once in a decade type years at the same time. If those two teams are average this year, our schedule becomes a weak point.

The argument could be made that we're incredibly unlucky that Texas is a shit show right now, as well as Georgia Tech. The argument could also be made that USC is underwhelming, but that's been the case for some time now. In a normal year, even with a loss to the #1 team, there wouldn't be a case against ND's resume.

That's a big problem I have with strength of schedule as a metric. You schedule based on how you think a team is going to be, not how they turn out to be against your control. We should get credit for scheduling Texas even though Texas is down. The Big 12 shouldn't be punished that the Big 12 sucks, but should be punished for playing FCS programs.

This.

 

[gkIrish]

I mentioned Texas because they were supposed to be a premier game for us. If we would have dropped them for a powderpuff, we would have a weaker SoS and no comparable game to Big12 teams. It was important to our ranking and not in the spirit of "softening our schedule".

If we substituted North Texas and Illinois State for anyone in our schedule, we would not be #4 right now. I don't see how that is rational. An undefeated Iowa and a 1 loss OU would both be over us. I mean, who would you be substituting for those two teams that a) would have made us undefeated. Because if we substitute Clemson, then we definitely arent in the Top 4 (that LOSS is probably our 3rd best win) or b) provided us a better SoS. Navy and Temple are two of our better SoS makers. Remove them for powderpuffs and we would be in trouble.

Well UMass fits into the bad team category for me. So it's not about replacing two teams, but just one. I think if we had played North Texas instead of Texas this year we would still be a playoff team right now.

 

[gkIrish]

Well UMass fits into the bad team category for me. So it's not about replacing two teams, but just one. I think if we had played North Texas instead of Texas this year we would still be a playoff team right now.

Follow up to this....

The fact that Texas sucks this year and we are still in the playoffs proves that we don't need to schedule an elite opponent outside of USC/Stanford/ACC.

 

[kmoose]

Also we're incredibly lucky that Navy and Temple are having once in a decade type years at the same time. If those two teams are average this year, our schedule becomes a weak point.

Actually, Navy has, for the last decade plus, been a SoS-neutral team. Since Paul Johnson took over in 2002, Navy is 102-64, which is an average of 8-5 per season. They have had as many 10 win seasons (2; 2004 & 2009) as they have had losing seasons (2-10 in '02 and 5-7 in '11). So they, in recent history, have neither helped nor hurt the schedule.

 

[woolybug25]

Well UMass fits into the bad team category for me. So it's not about replacing two teams, but just one. I think if we had played North Texas instead of Texas this year we would still be a playoff team right now.

I don't know what advantage replacing UMass with North Texas would be? Furthermore, I disagree that if we didn't have Texas on our schedule we would still be ranked over an OU team.

Follow up to this....

The fact that Texas sucks this year and we are still in the playoffs proves that we don't need to schedule an elite opponent outside of USC/Stanford/ACC.

How so? Are you expecting that Navy and Temple wins will get us in on a yearly basis? Because those two teams are mitigating Texas sucking.

 

[gkIrish]

I don't know what advantage replacing UMass with North Texas would be? Furthermore, I disagree that if we didn't have Texas on our schedule we would still be ranked over an OU team.

Don't replace UMass. Replace Texas with North Texas. Replace Georgia in 2017 with Louisiana Lafayette. I'm saying don't schedule an elite opponent outside of our normal opponents.

And the Oklahoma thing is pure luck this year. We didn't schedule Texas with that scenario in mind and if we played Texas every year it might only matter once every ten years.

How so? Are you expecting that Navy and Temple wins will get us in on a yearly basis? Because those two teams are mitigating Texas sucking.

No, I'm expecting USC not to suck every year. I'm expecting our ACC schedule to have at least one upper echelon opponent every year.

We are in the precarious position we are in because we lost not because of Texas sucking.

 

[woolybug25]

Don't replace UMass. Replace Texas with North Texas. Replace Georgia in 2017 with Louisiana Lafayette. I'm saying don't schedule an elite opponent outside of our normal opponents.

And the Oklahoma thing is pure luck this year. We didn't schedule Texas with that scenario in mind and if we played Texas every year it might only matter once every ten years.

No, I'm expecting USC not to suck every year. I'm expecting our ACC schedule to have at least one upper echelon opponent every year.

We are in the precarious position we are in because we lost not because of Texas sucking.

And what do you do in '17 when Richt gets fired and the team nosedives into a sub .500 record? What do you do when you pair that with mediocre seasons from all of our "normal opponents" and the ACC's elite team isn't on our schedule that season? You can't say that we are guaranteed enough strong games with the ACC and Rivalry games, and in the next sentence, claim that we need to mitigate playing teams like Texas (who is 4-6). They are opposing ideas.

 

[kmoose]

Well UMass fits into the bad team category for me. So it's not about replacing two teams, but just one. I think if we had played North Texas instead of Texas this year we would still be a playoff team right now.

I'm betting that UMass was scheduled during Charley Molnar's short lived tenure there, and scheduled as a favor to Coach Molnar. As much as we don't like to admit it, there are more important things in life than making the playoffs....

 

[gkIrish]

I'm betting that UMass was scheduled during Charley Molnar's short lived tenure there, and scheduled as a favor to Coach Molnar. As much as we don't like to admit it, there are more important things in life than making the playoffs....

I'm all in favor of playing UMass.

And what do you do in '17 when Richt gets fired and the team nosedives into a sub .500 record? What do you do when you pair that with mediocre seasons from all of our "normal opponents" and the ACC's elite team isn't on our schedule that season? You can't say that we are guaranteed enough strong games with the ACC and Rivalry games, and in the next sentence, claim that we need to mitigate playing teams like Texas (who is 4-6). They are opposing ideas.

What are the odds all of that happens AND we go 12-0 AND miss the playoffs? Slim to none.

What are the odds we lose 2+ games a year if Georgia, USC, Clemson/Virginia Tech/Florida St., Stanford, Michigan St., etc. are all on the schedule in one season? Much higher.

 

[woolybug25]

What are the odds all of that happens AND we go 12-0 AND miss the playoffs? Slim to none.

What are the odds we lose 2+ games a year if Georgia, USC, Clemson/Virginia Tech/Florida St., Stanford, Michigan St., etc. are all on the schedule in one season? Much higher.

How do you know that only playing a couple good teams a year would a) make us go undefeated and b) prevent other undefeated and 1 loss P5 teams from passing us. That is completely subjective, as every year is different.

Same goes for the second point. For those teams you just listed, you could schedule 3 ranked teams and one big name that's having a crappy season (UGA, VT). The same exact argument was being used for this season with "OMG how can we play USC, Texas, Stanford, Georgia Tech and Clemson!!!".... but here we are....

 

[RDU Irish]

Alvarez and another playoff committee member have made comments about how ND's schedule is suicide because they don't have any complete cream puff DII schools and start the year with a month of glorified scrimmages.

 

[gkIrish]

How do you know that only playing a couple good teams a year would a) make us go undefeated and b) prevent other undefeated and 1 loss P5 teams from passing us. That is completely subjective, as every year is different.

Same goes for the second point. For those teams you just listed, you could schedule 3 ranked teams and one big name that's having a crappy season (UGA, VT). The same exact argument was being used for this season with "OMG how can we play USC, Texas, Stanford, Georgia Tech and Clemson!!!".... but here we are....

I'll just say again that we are in a position to make the playoffs this year despite not having a single elite win and Texas & Georgia Tech being really bad.

If we can do that (and even have a loss), what's the point in testing our luck by adding another historically elite team or two. Ignoring the common opponent thing (which is just pure luck), do you honestly think we would not be #4 right now if we played North Texas instead of Texas?

2 losses guarantees you don't make the playoffs. Why risk more losses?

 

[woolybug25]

I'll just say again that we are in a position to make the playoffs this year despite not having a single elite win and Texas & Georgia Tech being really bad.

If we can do that (and even have a loss), what's the point in testing our luck by adding another historically elite team or two. Ignoring the common opponent thing (which is just pure luck), do you honestly think we would not be #4 right now if we played North Texas instead of Texas?

I guess i'll say it again as well. Because Navy and Temple aren't going to have monster seasons every year. If they were both 6-4 right now, we wouldn't be #4. Historically, that would be the case. In those "normal" seasons, those will be looked at as our powderpuffs. So purposely scheduling away P5 teams because they might be good when we play them, is a lot more risky than the chance of losing to a good opponent.

Outside of the Big12, most P5 teams that schedule powderpuffs, are guaranteed a good opponent in their title game. We don't have that. We are even hearing guys like Bielema talking about an SEC-B1G matchup and how it would diversify their schedules and make them better positioned for the playoff panel. The world of playing three tough in conference games with zero decent OOC opponents is going the way of the Dodo. The Big12 is learning this the hard way. In my opinion, the college game is going to start scheduling more like Notre Dame does because how the playoff committee has treated SoS.

 

[koonja]

7 Starters gone, backup QB, 3rd string RB, #4 in the country, 9-1, and GK is saying the schedule is too tough and questioning BK as a coach at the same time.

GK is straight trippin.

 

[gkIrish]

I guess i'll say it again as well. Because Navy and Temple aren't going to have monster seasons every year. If they were both 6-4 right now, we wouldn't be #4. Historically, that would be the case. In those "normal" seasons, those will be looked at as our powderpuffs. So purposely scheduling away P5 teams because they might be good when we play them, is a lot more risky than the chance of losing to a good opponent.

Outside of the Big12, most P5 teams that schedule powderpuffs, are guaranteed a good opponent in their title game. We don't have that. We are even hearing guys like Bielema talking about an SEC-B1G matchup and how it would diversify their schedules and make them better positioned for the playoff panel. The world of playing three tough in conference games with zero decent OOC opponents is going the way of the Dodo. The Big12 is learning this the hard way. In my opinion, the college game is going to start scheduling more like Notre Dame does because how the playoff committee has treated SoS.

I get your point but "normal" seasons will also include a really good USC team and a really good ACC team. You can't assume normal seasons for Navy but abnormal seasons for USC.

 

[woolybug25]

I get your point but "normal" seasons will also include a really good USC team and a really good ACC team. You can't assume normal seasons for Navy but abnormal seasons for USC.

Right, you can't assume any of it. So the best way to maximize the opportunity for 3-4 top tier games, you need to schedule more than three marquee opponents. If you really look at even SEC schedules, their championship game gives them one guaranteed premier opponent. Then they have at least three additional "marquee" opponents. I think the fact that our powderpuffs are still decent teams, mitigates only the fact that they play more games. After that, we still have to have equal or more marquee wins to pass them.

 

[gkIrish]

7 Starters gone, backup QB, 3rd string RB, #4 in the country, 9-1, and GK is saying the schedule is too tough and questioning BK as a coach at the same time.

GK is straight trippin.

I did not say the schedule was too tough. I actually think we have had a weak schedule. The "scheduling" is what I'm discussing. There's a difference.

We met expectations this year. YAY! 2nd time in 6 years! Let's keep it going!

 

[wizards8507]

I guess i'll say it again as well. Because Navy and Temple aren't going to have monster seasons every year. If they were both 6-4 right now, we wouldn't be #4. Historically, that would be the case. In those "normal" seasons, those will be looked at as our powderpuffs. So purposely scheduling away P5 teams because they might be good when we play them, is a lot more risky than the chance of losing to a good opponent.

Outside of the Big12, most P5 teams that schedule powderpuffs, are guaranteed a good opponent in their title game. We don't have that. We are even hearing guys like Bielema talking about an SEC-B1G matchup and how it would diversify their schedules and make them better positioned for the playoff panel. The world of playing three tough in conference games with zero decent OOC opponents is going the way of the Dodo. The Big12 is learning this the hard way. In my opinion, the college game is going to start scheduling more like Notre Dame does because how the playoff committee has treated SoS.

This this this this this this this this this.

I'm so sick of hearing the argument that the reason the Big 12 was left out of the playoff last year is because they didn't have a conference championship game. False. The Big 12 was left out of the playoff last year because TCU and Baylor played SMU twice, Northwestern State, Buffalo, Samford, and Minnesota. We should be sprinting as fast as we can in the opposite direction of that methodology. The Big 12 will too, after they're left out of this year's playoff as well. There's a reason games like Alabama - USC to open 2016 are popping up all over the place. We won't need cupcakes because, before long, nobody is going to have cupcakes. We're ahead of the curve on where the game is heading. It's going to be more important to prove yourself against quality competition than finish undefeated against scrubs, even if that means the playoff teams end up with a loss or two. It's good for the sport, good for the fans, good for the universities, and good for the networks to have Baylor play Oregon rather than Wofford.

 

[IrishLax]

My ideal schedule -- given ND constraints -- would be:
Navy
USC
Stanford

ACCx5

1x Northwestern, Purdue, or Indiana... local, not traditionally tough
1x "blue blood" from Big 12 or Big Ten, or Shamrock Series (if not used for an ACC game)... either play someone like Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Ohio State, etc. OR play someone like Vanderbilt in Rome or Texas Tech on the moon
2x "Cupcake"... someone like UMASS, Rice, or a directional Michigan school...

 

[IrishLion]

My ideal schedule -- given ND constraints -- would be:
Navy
USC
Stanford

ACCx5

1x Northwestern, Purdue, or Indiana... local, not traditionally tough
1x "blue blood" from Big 12 or Big Ten, or Shamrock Series (if not used for an ACC game)... either play someone like Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Ohio State, etc. OR play someone like Vanderbilt in Rome or Texas Tech on the moon
2x "Cupcake"... someone like UMASS, Rice, or a directional Michigan school...

I like this. I would add that, in my perfect world, one of the cupcakes would be the first game, and the other cupcake would be after Navy.

 

[Cackalacky]

I guess i'll say it again as well. Because Navy and Temple aren't going to have monster seasons every year. If they were both 6-4 right now, we wouldn't be #4. Historically, that would be the case. In those "normal" seasons, those will be looked at as our powderpuffs. So purposely scheduling away P5 teams because they might be good when we play them, is a lot more risky than the chance of losing to a good opponent.

Outside of the Big12, most P5 teams that schedule powderpuffs, are guaranteed a good opponent in their title game. We don't have that. We are even hearing guys like Bielema talking about an SEC-B1G matchup and how it would diversify their schedules and make them better positioned for the playoff panel. The world of playing three tough in conference games with zero decent OOC opponents is going the way of the Dodo. The Big12 is learning this the hard way. In my opinion, the college game is going to start scheduling more like Notre Dame does because how the playoff committee has treated SoS.

This this this this this this this this this.

I'm so sick of hearing the argument that the reason the Big 12 was left out of the playoff last year is because they didn't have a conference championship game. False. The Big 12 was left out of the playoff last year because TCU and Baylor played SMU twice, Northwestern State, Buffalo, Samford, and Minnesota. We should be sprinting as fast as we can in the opposite direction of that methodology. The Big 12 will too, after they're left out of this year's playoff as well. There's a reason games like Alabama - USC to open 2016 are popping up all over the place. We won't need cupcakes because, before long, nobody is going to have cupcakes. We're ahead of the curve on where the game is heading. It's going to be more important to prove yourself against quality competition than finish undefeated against scrubs, even if that means the playoff teams end up with a loss or two. It's good for the sport, good for the fans, good for the universities, and good for the networks to have Baylor play Oregon rather than Wofford.

This is the crux of my argument since day 1 of the Playoff Committee. ND has to schedule tougher. HAVE TO.

No 13th game and no conference championship. Our 12 games have to be top notch.

 

[woolybug25]

My ideal schedule -- given ND constraints -- would be:
Navy
USC
Stanford

ACCx5

1x Northwestern, Purdue, or Indiana... local, not traditionally tough
1x "blue blood" from Big 12 or Big Ten, or Shamrock Series (if not used for an ACC game)... either play someone like Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Ohio State, etc. OR play someone like Vanderbilt in Rome or Texas Tech on the moon
2x "Cupcake"... someone like UMASS, Rice, or a directional Michigan school...

 

[wizards8507]

My ideal schedule -- given ND constraints -- would be:
Navy
USC
Stanford

ACCx5

1x Northwestern, Purdue, or Indiana... local, not traditionally tough
1x "blue blood" from Big 12 or Big Ten, or Shamrock Series (if not used for an ACC game)... either play someone like Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Ohio State, etc. OR play someone like Vanderbilt in Rome or Texas Tech on the moon
2x "Cupcake"... someone like UMASS, Rice, or a directional Michigan school...

I really really hate the ACC arrangement. It's so limiting. I'd love:

Army
Navy
Air Force
USC
Stanford
Boston College
Michigan / Michigan State
Purdue / Northwestern / Indiana
Pitt / Georgia Tech
SEC
Big 12
BYU

The academies take care of the cupcake slots. That schedule just screams "WE ARE NOTRE DAME AND WE MAKE OUR OWN RULES." But alas, I dream.

 

[gkIrish]

Raise your hand if you think we would not make the playoffs this year if we played North Texas instead of Texas without taking the common opponent thing into consideration. Just from a pure strength of schedule standpoint, would it have made a difference?

That's the only change I would have made to this year's schedule. Instead of Texas, play a North Texas.