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

[OlympiaIrishFan]

ND4 life, good post.

I have to say us not being in the top 4 is 100% our fault and there is no blame elsewhere. NO BLAME elsewhere. Yes, we have tons of injuries and it does matter. But, if we wanted to be #4 go show it. And we didn't want to bad enough thus far. If so, don't blow 2 2point conversions. Don't do it. We had the control to change that. Don't look like crap agains weak teams Wake, BC, Pitt. Go own them. We didn't. So, hate to say it. We deserve the ranking we have. Play better, coach better, root better. We got haven't done so. Our big players haven't took it on themselves and owned games. They have played well. But, not owned teams. We are who we are, we have to play so much better to get what other teams get.

We are ND, rise UP if you want it. Quit crying. Go do it.

 

[NDgradstudent]

I'm pretty sure the committee has said that they use the eye test. If you use the eye test, objectively, it's hard to make a case for ND right now to be ahead of Oklahoma. Covering vs non covering the spread isn't really the issue. The issue is that ND looked mediocre vs Wake and flat-out awful vs BC. It's a "what have you done for me lately" world, and lately, ND hasn't done much. I firmly believe that ND would still be in comfortably had they blown out Wake/BC, as we were all shocked when ND debuted at 4 in the initial rankings. The committee was clearly impressed at that point, and it's clear now that they've cooled off. We brought that on ourselves.

I also prefer an 8 team playoff to 4, but extending it to 8 just means drama over who is 8th and who is 9th.

I think that we would have been bumped in the final rankings- I don't think not covering in a win justifies dropping 2 spots. Again, the committee has not been "consistent" in terms of not covering against bad teams. I post about this earlier in this thread:

I've been looking at how the committee has treated teams that win by a TD or less against sub-500 opponents.

Here is a list of such games since the first CFB rankings came out:

OK State beats Iowa State 35-31: rises from 8 to 6
Michigan beats Indiana 48-41 (OT): rises from 14 to 12
Iowa beats Minnesota 40-35: stays at 5
Florida beats Vandy 9-7: drops from 10 to 11
TCU beats Kansas 23-17: drops from 15 to 18
Northwestern beats Purdue 21-14: drops from 18 to 20

People are confusing necessary and sufficient conditions here. Covering might have been necessary, but there is no reason to think it would have been sufficient.

As for the 8 team playoff, there will always be debate, but a 1 (or maybe 2) loss ND team would be in. There would probably be no debate about that.

 

[T Town Tommy]

7-1 vs Top 25 - The old self-fulfilling prophecy. If you have 12 teams ranked in the top 25 to start the year (only 4 if I counted correctly in the playoff), then it's not much of a stretch to get to that number I guess.

And are you looking at "against" the current FPI top 25? If so, that's a misnomer as well. I mean, WVU is 21, with Arkansas ranked 22nd. COrrect me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's a predictive model going forward, not a current strength of schedule tool.

And yea, Charlston Southern is 9-2. But that counts I guess.

Here is an SoS matrix that seems to be relevant for anybody but Bama. How are you compared to the current playoff committee Top 25?

EDIT: Just to be clear, Bama is definitely 2. I just hate how they do this.

Am I supposed to feel bad or apologize if that very matrix has Bama 7-1? Hardly. it's the same matrix published this last week Irish fans used to justify the Irish's SOS. So we are only to use that for the Irish and not anyone else. Got ya.

And I agree that the FPI is the worse matrix IMo for SOS arguments.

Furthermore, determining SOS is not an exact science and maybe not a very good predictor of how one team will do against another. What's more important is the strength of the teams you beat. For example, in most every SOS matrix, team A gets more credit for beating a 9-2 AAC team than Team B gets for beating an 8-3 Pac 12 team. Now, most would agree that the Pac 12 team is probably more impressive than the AAC team most years, so why should Team A get more credit if that is indeed the case? One of the fallacies of SOS. Furthermore, if your team is ranked very high in the polls, you take a hit on SOS because you can't play yourself. So the teams below you get much more credit for playing you than you do playing them.

Finally, Team A can play half their schedule against teams with an SOS of around 40. Team B only plays two games against teams around 40. Team A plays the rest of their schedule against teams ranging from 75-110. Team B plays the rest of their games against teams in the 60-100 range. While I haven't done the math for accuracy purposes, which team has the better SOS? I would guess both end up about the same. But which team actually played better opponents? That's why SOS is really not a good way of determining why one team is better than the other.

 

[eNDzone]

Stop kicking the WF horse. Only one team beat them by more than we did and that was North Carolina. Florida state and Clemson beat them by less than we did.

 

[Guest]

Am I supposed to feel bad or apologize if that very matrix has Bama 7-1? Hardly. it's the same matrix published this last week Irish fans used to justify the Irish's SOS. So we are only to use that for the Irish and not anyone else. Got ya.

And I agree that the FPI is the worse matrix IMo for SOS arguments.

Furthermore, determining SOS is not an exact science and maybe not a very good predictor of how one team will do against another. What's more important is the strength of the teams you beat. For example, in most every SOS matrix, team A gets more credit for beating a 9-2 AAC team than Team B gets for beating an 8-3 Pac 12 team. Now, most would agree that the Pac 12 team is probably more impressive than the AAC team most years, so why should Team A get more credit if that is indeed the case? One of the fallacies of SOS. Furthermore, if your team is ranked very high in the polls, you take a hit on SOS because you can't play yourself. So the teams below you get much more credit for playing you than you do playing them.

Finally, Team A can play half their schedule against teams with an SOS of around 40. Team B only plays two games against teams around 40. Team A plays the rest of their schedule against teams ranging from 75-110. Team B plays the rest of their games against teams in the 60-110 range. While I haven't done the math for accuracy purposes, which team has the better SOS? I would guess both end up about the same. But which team actually played better opponents? That's why SOS is really not a good way of determining why one team is better than the other.

Right, which is why a committee should not be picking teams for a playoff. If the criteria presented don't give us a clear and unassailable answer, then the teams have to settle it on the field.

 

[IrishLax]

I said Saturday that Iowa and OK would jump us, and wouldn't be surprised if MSU did too.

The issue is we looked like crap offensively and defensively once again. Actually we are lucky to be 6 on how we have played. We barely beat Virginia, we looked like crap against BC, we lost another 2 starters, didn't look great against Pitt, didn't look great against Wake.

This is where you lose me. We beat Wake by more than Clemson did this very week. And we DEMOLISHED Pittsburgh unlike Iowa (who needed a 58 yard field goal with time expiring)... we were up so much in the 4th that we put in backups.

We are not a top 4 team. Maybe with Zaire, Folston, Jones, Russell, Crawford. But, not as we are right now. I love this team and school. But, sometimes we have to take our shamrock colored glasses and truly see what we are. A top 10 team, not a top 4.

LOL but Iowa is? MSU is? We're strictly better than both of those schools. Everything says so. We'd be favored by more than a TD over Iowa.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Right, which is why a committee should not be picking teams for a playoff. If the criteria presented don't give us a clear and unassailable answer, then the teams have to settle it on the field.

And that's why I have been a proponent of an 8 team playoff from the start. The P5 conference champs get automatic bids - worthy or not - and then three at large bids. If you finish 9th.. tough shi*.

 

[eNDzone]

We also beat 8-3 Pitt by more points than anyone else this year. This includes Iowa.

 

[IrishLax]

If business was handled against Wake and BC the Irish would be in the Top 4! ND will have to win and play strong against the Trees to have a chance. I am impressed regardless that this team can continue to persevere through multiple injuries. Good season and should be a great bowl even if it isn't against the top 3! Go Irish!!!

How was business NOT handled against Wake Forest when we beat them worse than Clemson? We beat them worse than ANYONE has besides North Carolina. So out-performing 11 out of 12 teams is now a bad team?

ND is the only team where you can beat a team by 21 points... beat them worse than pretty much anyone has the whole year... and have the ESPN personalities talk about how you "looked bad" because you were out gained.

It's completely inconsistent bullshit.

 

[Guest]

And that's why I have been a proponent of an 8 team playoff from the start. The P5 conference champs get automatic bids - worthy or not - and then three at large bids. If you finish 9th.. tough shi*.

I am ok with that, much like how they do it in the pro's. However figuring out the 3 'at large bids I am sure will be rife with just as much controversy as we have now. Maybe a 12 team playoff with 2 at large, and the other 10 are first place or runner up in the P5 conferences.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I am ok with that, much like how they do it in the pro's. However figuring out the 3 'at large bids I am sure will be rife with just as much controversy as we have now. Maybe a 12 team playoff with 2 at large, and the other 10 are first place or runner up in the P5 conferences.

Yeah... the last three slots would have some controversy more than likely. Can't ever see it expanding past eight though. Too many games to have to play for that.

 

[OlympiaIrishFan]

The pressure was on us against BC, everybody (including the coaches) knew we had to be great against Wake and BC to have a chance to get in the top 4 (and beat Stanford). But what happened? We did win, but we certainly did not look good, then we lost 2 more starters. Come on, we deserve 6. Arguing that we are not in the top 4. We don't flipping deserve it.

Beat Clemson, and we were in. we didn't. Own BC and have a better chance in getting in. We didn't--a bad offense scored 16. Dominate Wake and look better getting in. We didn't.

We didn't do all we had to do to have a chance to get in. Sorry, I firmly believe we have done this to ourselves. Outside injuries, our offensive line didn't put up when it was needed on the 2 2 point conversions, and the rest of the team didn't rise up in the other games to get us in the top 4.

Crap, it isn't hard to see why. I want to be in the top 4, but I can't argue on us being in though. Just watch the the BC game with so much on the line. And we looked like crap.

 

[ohara831]

Sadly, ND has only itself to blame for a really poor showing against BC. We need a strong showing with a Win over Stanford, and then we need a little help. Otherwise, we may be the team left standing outside the door. Those careless turnovers from Saturday night are really hurting us tonight.

 

[wizards8507]

Just got out of volleyball and saw. We melting down yet?

 

[IrishSteelhead]

College Football Playoff Rankings 2015 (ND #6!!!)

College Football Playoff Rankings 2015 (ND #6!!!)

Weird thought that just occurred to me:

IMO, just about everyone at this point thinks that ND will lose to Stanford based on recent injuries and other factors, and the committee dropped us this week so they don't have egg on their face in the unfortunate event that Stanford blows out ND, avoiding a hearty dose of "WE KNEW YOU WERE IDIOTS!"

*The most unfortunate thing about this theory is even if we win in a handsome manner, it won't be enough to get back into the mix if everyone else handles their business too.

 

[irishnd31]

Yet you chicken fucking little,

NEGATE THE LOSS OKLAHOMA HAD TO TEXAS, WHOM WE PRISON RAPED INTO OBLIVION 38-3!!!

LMAO.

Okay I'm done.

 

[NDgradstudent]

The pressure was on us against BC, everybody (including the coaches) knew we had to be great against Wake and BC to have a chance to get in the top 4 (and beat Stanford). But what happened? We did win, but we certainly did not look good, then we lost 2 more starters. Come on, we deserve 6. Arguing that we are not in the top 4. We don't flipping deserve it.

Beat Clemson, and we were in. we didn't. Own BC and have a better chance in getting in. We didn't--a bad offense scored 16. Dominate Wake and look better getting in. We didn't.

We didn't do all we had to do to have a chance to get in. Sorry, I firmly believe we have done this to ourselves. Outside injuries, our offensive line didn't put up when it was needed on the 2 2 point conversions, and the rest of the team didn't rise up in the other games to get us in the top 4.

Crap, it isn't hard to see why. I want to be in the top 4, but I can't argue on us being in though. Just watch the the BC game with so much on the line. And we looked like crap.

You are demanding something completely unrealistic -going undefeated- that is expected of nobody else. If that is what we have to do to get into the playoff, the title drought will continue indefinitely.

It's not just "we did this to ourselves." Everybody who is so sure that we would not be in this position in two weeks -even if we had covered against BC and then beaten Stanford- is pretty unrealistic. Look at what happened last year.

Also, if this was true, then why aren't teams that fail to cover and/or win by less than a TD against a sub-500 opponent always dropped in the rankings? Of the 6 cases I was aware of prior to tonight, 3 dropped and 2 rose, and 1 stayed put.

8 team playoff. Now.

 

[wizards8507]

You are demanding something completely unrealistic -going undefeated- that is expected of nobody else. If that is what we have to do to get into the playoff, the title drought will continue indefinitely.

It's not just "we did this to ourselves." Everybody who is so sure that we would not be in this position in two weeks -even if we had covered against BC and then beaten Stanford- is pretty unrealistic. Look at what happened last year.

Also, if this was true, then why aren't teams that fail to cover and/or win by less than a TD against a sub-500 opponent always dropped in the rankings? Of the 6 cases I was aware of prior to tonight, 3 dropped and 2 rose, and 1 stayed put.

8 team playoff. Now.

We don't need to be undefeated. We need to beat inferior teams as if they're inferior. We never ever ever win games 51-6 like these other schools do.

 

[johnnycando]

irishnd31,

brush your teeth.

 

[NDgradstudent]

We don't need to be undefeated. We need to beat inferior teams as if they're inferior. We never ever ever win games 51-6 like these other schools do.

Oklahoma has done that four times- against Akron, Iowa State, Kansas, and K-State (a team TCU almost lost to, but now beating TCU is a big deal). When have Iowa or Michigan State done that this year?

ND is being held to a higher standard- fair enough, I guess, but as long as 4 is smaller than 5 an 8 team playoff is what we need.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

We don't need to be undefeated. We need to beat inferior teams as if they're inferior. We never ever ever win games 51-6 like these other schools do.

Michigan State had one win by 20+ points, and it was against Indiana.

*MSU had a 28-26 lead heading into the 4th

 

[OlympiaIrishFan]

Unrealistic? We have done it before. And other have done so, so not unrealistic. Win and then you don't have to wine and cry that you are getting hosed.

Or if you know you don't have a conference championship game---there is style points. And our style was not even close to good enough against Wake, Pitt, and definitely BC. So, knowin g we had to look good agains those teams---we didn't. And our last look we gave up 16 against a horrible, horrible offense. And scored a whopping 19. Sorry, that is bad when the pressure was on to look good. We didn't. So, look ndgradstudent this is 100% on us. We didn't totally handle our business. And we left it up in their hands, and gave them an easy out to keep us out. And poof, it happened. I truly think if we dominated totally those 3 games we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, we didn't and look where we are. You can say unrealistic all you want. It was in our hands and we blew the Clemson game. We blew our chance to look really good against a bad team and we didn't.

I firmly believe this is 100% on us. I love this school as an alum, but we are who we are. A really good team with tons of injuries--and didn't look good against bad teams.

If we want it, go take it. It won't be given to us. And we didn't take it.

 

[gkIrish]

We don't need to be undefeated. We need to beat inferior teams as if they're inferior. We never ever ever win games 51-6 like these other schools do.

Yup. Oklahoma blew out basically everyone but Tennessee and obviously Texas. Perception is that they are a better team as a result.

 

[wizards8507]

Michigan State had one win by 20+ points, and it was against Indiana.

*MSU had a 28-26 lead heading into the 4th

Oklahoma has done that three times- against Akron, Kansas, and K-State (a team TCU almost lost to, but now beating TCU is a big deal). When have Iowa or Michigan State done that this year?

ND is being held to a higher standard- fair enough, I guess, but as long as 4 is smaller than 5 an 8 team playoff is what we need.

I have no defense for Michigan State. Iowa is undefeated, so that is what it is. My point was mostly about Oklahoma. If we played Kansas or K-State, we'd win by 8.

 

[IrishLax]

We don't need to be undefeated. We need to beat inferior teams as if they're inferior. We never ever ever win games 51-6 like these other schools do.

We beat Wake Forest by more than anyone but UNC (including Clemson). Never trailed, 3 score victory. And ESPN still said it was bad because we were "out gained" as if that matters in a 21 point victory. Like WTF is this standard that only we get held to?

We put up more yards than anyone on BC (out gained! yay!) and lead by 2 scores pretty much the entire game. It looks ugly because we have a bunch of bad turnovers. Fine.

MSU gets a complete pass for their half dozen shitty, close victories though over TERRIBLE teams? Really???

ND is objectively superior to every one of the schools ranked ahead of us in at least some metrics. But somehow the committee is allowed to just say "meh, eye test, go f*ck yourself" and that's fine?

 

[johnnycando]

Yup. Oklahoma blew out basically everyone but Tennessee and obviously Texas. Perception is that they are a better team as a result.

Hell maybe they are!?

Good luck to them.

May they control their own fate.

May we steer what's left of ours.

 

[OlympiaIrishFan]

Irishsteelhead, BUT MSU beat a top 4 team at the time and we lost. So, it is what it is. We lost and they won.

Now they only beat 2 other rankable teams in Oregon and Michigan though. But, they beat the best team on their schedule and we didn't.

 

[irishnd31]

irishnd31,

brush your teeth.

Says the man with a porn stache...

 

[OlympiaIrishFan]

Now we have to go blow out Stanford to get what we lost by the BC, WAKe, and Pitt Games IMO.

Go Irish, we all need this.

 

[johnnycando]

Says the man with a porn stache...

It's there to trap women's pheromones.

A purgatory of coochie scent son.