2018 College Football Playoff

[Circa]

Heres a mind melter: saw Clay Travis posted this:

Georgia has played Alabama 120 minutes the last two seasons, led or was tied for 119 of those minutes, and lost both games.



Or how about this for a mindfuck:

CFP title: Hurts gets pulled, Tua rallies Bama to victory

SEC title: Tua gets hurt, Hurts rallies Bama to victory


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

and we should have beat Georgia In the 1st game last year. says more than any ESPN folk will

 

[Irish YJ]

Wonder what the Vegas line was for GA vs LSU...

they certainly aren't always correct (Ball St), but they are typically the most accurate predictor. they make a whole lot of money off all the people that think they know better.

This whole argument about who would win if X played Y is ridiculous. If you are a P5 school; play the games on your schedule, win the games you play, and good things will happen.

Not to everyone... The CFP who said just today that they value Conf Champs, record, and common opponents most, clearly threw out two of their own primary criteria placing UGA over OSU.

 

[Irish YJ]

Just read an article from Andy Staples on si.com. Sounds like all the discussion was about the fourth team. They discussed OU, UGA and OSU. Never mentioned ND which leads me to believe ND was a solid #3 all the time.

Rob Mullins, the committee chair, said exactly the opposite live on ESPN. He was specifically asked about ND and the three spot. He could have easily said they were locked in (like he implied 1 and 2 were locks) in a 3, but specifically said there was a lot of conversation 3-5. First hand news.

I read the same SI article, and Staples was interpreting vanilla comments by Mullins which mentioned zero school names. At least that's what I remember. Could be wrong, but pretty sure it was the same article you're talking about.

 

[TheSunIsRising]

Just read an article from Andy Staples on si.com. Sounds like all the discussion was about the fourth team. They discussed OU, UGA and OSU. Never mentioned ND which leads me to believe ND was a solid #3 all the time.

Rob Mullins, the committee chair, said exactly the opposite live on ESPN. He was specifically asked about ND and the three spot. He could have easily said they were locked in (like he implied 1 and 2 were locks) in a 3, but specifically said there was a lot of conversation 3-5. First hand news.

I read the same SI article, and Staples was interpreting vanilla comments by Mullins which mentioned zero school names. At least that's what I remember. Could be wrong, but pretty sure it was the same article you're talking about.

From the transcript at... https://augustafreepress.com/transcript-college-football-playoff-selection-committee-chair-rob-mullens-talks-playoff/

ROB MULLENS: Good afternoon, everyone. The committee spent Friday night and all day Saturday watching the conference championship games together. At 11:00 last night, the committee met to rank the 25 teams in college football. As you know, the committee ranked Alabama No. 1, Clemson No. 2, Notre Dame No. 3 and Oklahoma No. 4.

Let me take you inside the room. There was little debate about Alabama, Clemson and Notre Dame. There was a lot of debate about Oklahoma, Georgia and Ohio State. The debate was deep, detailed, and occasionally contentious. There was division.

You may want to put down the booze

 

[Irish YJ]

From the transcript at... https://augustafreepress.com/transcript-college-football-playoff-selection-committee-chair-rob-mullens-talks-playoff/

ROB MULLENS: Good afternoon, everyone. The committee spent Friday night and all day Saturday watching the conference championship games together. At 11:00 last night, the committee met to rank the 25 teams in college football. As you know, the committee ranked Alabama No. 1, Clemson No. 2, Notre Dame No. 3 and Oklahoma No. 4.

Let me take you inside the room. There was little debate about Alabama, Clemson and Notre Dame. There was a lot of debate about Oklahoma, Georgia and Ohio State. The debate was deep, detailed, and occasionally contentious. There was division.

You may want to put down the booze

He did say something different on ESPN (this is not the transcript of the 1 on 3 interview with the guys). I'll try and find the clip. May have it on the DVR.


Here's what he said in the transcript to a similar question. He answers it differently here.

ROB MULLENS: Well, I mean, Notre Dame was part of that discussion for a small piece, but there was rigorous debate around 4, 5 and 6. When you look at the protocol, and obviously we put Notre Dame on the board, 12-0, impressive resume, wins against a ranked Michigan, Northwestern and Syracuse, the committee felt they deserved the No. 3 slot. And then we went about really finding who that fourth team was going to be.

in the transcript, i love how he keeps saying the protocol is clear (not sure that he defines it), and also says their charge is determine the 4 best teams regardless of record.

 

[stlnd01]

One thing I took from this: It will be damn hard for a one-loss ND team to make the playoff under the current configuration.

I realize this year was unusual with three undefeateds (plus UCF), two one-loss conference champs that surged late and a highly-regarded Georgia. But there were people seriously arguing that an undefeated ND shouldn't be in there because we didn't play a conference championship game. Now imagine we'd lost to, say, Pittsburgh by 3. We're probably sixth, behind Ohio State.

But unless we play a lights-out schedule, dominate the "eye test" and lose the "right" game (I think the best loss is actually a close one to a good-not-great team, early to midway through the season, rather than a fellow playoff contender), the odds are stacked pretty hard against one-loss Notre Dame getting any favors in all this, which a one-loss team probably needs to make the final four. That conference bias is real.

 

[Irish YJ]

One thing I took from this: It will be damn hard for a one-loss ND team to make the playoff under the current configuration.

I realize this year was unusual with three undefeateds (plus UCF), two one-loss conference champs that surged late and a highly-regarded Georgia. But there were people seriously arguing that an undefeated ND shouldn't be in there because we didn't play a conference championship game. Now imagine we'd lost to, say, Pittsburgh by 3. We're probably sixth, behind Ohio State.

But unless we play a lights-out schedule, dominate the "eye test" and lose the "right" game (I think the "best" loss is actually a close one to a good-not-great team, early to midway through the season, rather than a fellow playoff contender), the odds are stacked pretty hard against Notre Dame getting any favors in all this, which a one-loss team probably needs to make the final four. That conference bias is real.

yup.
i like playing a tough opponent the first game. best game to lose if you're going to lose.
if we lose a late game, even to a tough opponent, we're screwed nine times out of ten.

i'd love it if we could strike a deal with the ACC that said, if we are undefeated in ACC play, and beat one of the teams that lead their division, we take their spot in the CC. this year, we would have taken Pitt's spot and played Clemson. That would give us a path back in had we lost to scUM or Stanford for example.

 

[Free Manera]

I love the disrespect and hate we’re getting. Not only do I think the players are going internalize the noise but the coaching staff too. Let it feed you. Win this game and tell OSU, UGA, Herbstreit, the Big 10, Finebaum, ESPN, r/cfb, the SEC and whoever else to suck it. We coming for that booty. Sunshine Trevor Laurence bout to be shook for the first time.

 

[Irishize]

yup.
i like playing a tough opponent the first game. best game to lose if you're going to lose.
if we lose a late game, even to a tough opponent, we're screwed nine times out of ten.

i'd love it if we could strike a deal with the ACC that said, if we are undefeated in ACC play, and beat one of the teams that lead their division, we take their spot in the CC. this year, we would have taken Pitt's spot and played Clemson. That would give us a path back in had we lost to scUM or Stanford for example.

And if ND lays another egg on the biggest stage, fair or not; that will remain in the back of the minds of the CFP committee going forward.

 

[NorthDakota]

One thing I took from this: It will be damn hard for a one-loss ND team to make the playoff under the current configuration.

I realize this year was unusual with three undefeateds (plus UCF), two one-loss conference champs that surged late and a highly-regarded Georgia. But there were people seriously arguing that an undefeated ND shouldn't be in there because we didn't play a conference championship game. Now imagine we'd lost to, say, Pittsburgh by 3. We're probably sixth, behind Ohio State.

But unless we play a lights-out schedule, dominate the "eye test" and lose the "right" game (I think the "best" loss is actually a close one to a good-not-great team, early to midway through the season, rather than a fellow playoff contender), the odds are stacked pretty hard against Notre Dame getting any favors in all this, which a one-loss team probably needs to make the final four. That conference bias is real.

If ND performs well, wins a game or two in the CFP, they'll start passing the "eye test" these pundits make up as they go along.

Say they go 11-1 next year with a flukey 7 point loss to Duke. I expect they'd probably get in with wins over UGA, Michigan, SC, and Stanford....IF they keep it close or beat Clemson in a few weeks.

 

[Irish YJ]

And if ND lays another egg on the biggest stage, fair or not; that will remain in the back of the minds of the CFP committee going forward.

if we lay another egg, it will be 5x as bad. We have to absolutely keep the Clemson game respectable. If we get boat raced, we'll be relegated to UCF status.

 

[Rocket 94]

if we lay another egg, it will be 5x as bad. We have to absolutely keep the Clemson game respectable. If we get boat raced, we'll be relegated to UCF status.

UCF status?? UCF played one Power 5 team, ND played 10 power 5 teams. Big difference. UCF does not deserve to be in the conversation when they don't play anyone.

 

[irishtrooper]

if we lay another egg, it will be 5x as bad. We have to absolutely keep the Clemson game respectable. If we get boat raced, we'll be relegated to UCF status.

Hyperbole much?

 

[ThePiombino]

lol #hottake

if we lay another egg, it will be 5x as bad. We have to absolutely keep the Clemson game respectable. If we get boat raced, we'll be relegated to UCF status.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Irish YJ]

UCF status?? UCF played one Power 5 team, ND played 10 power 5 teams. Big difference. UCF does not deserve to be in the conversation when they don't play anyone.

Hyperbole much?

i sleep in a hyperbolic chamber nightly.

should i have used italics about sleeping in a hyperbolic chamber? lol

answer this. how many times on just about every show that discussed the CFP selection, was the 2012 team brought up? answer - just about every time.... while i was being tongue and cheek about UCF, it's hard to argue that we would have been in the final 4 had we lost a game this year. we would have been behind OSU with a loss. that's only one away from UCF

 

[InKellyWeTrust]

I just want to clear something up. Vegas lines. I'm by no means an expert in anything sports betting or vegas, I mean I think I've bet on a few horses at a racetrack or two. Vegas I'm sure looks into all the advanced analytics for these football games. But at the end of the day their only goal is to get the public to wager 50/50 on either side of the line so they make money regardless of the outcome, right? This is why I put little stock into what vegas says about a game, even though this has become en vogue over the last decade as people throw their money away at alarmingly higher and higher rates. So at the end of the day a vegas line is no more than the court of public opinion, which is heavily, heavily influenced by the media. You know, the media who literally cringes when they bring up ND.

 

[Free Manera]

I just want to clear something up. Vegas odds. I'm by no means an expert in anything sports betting or vegas, I mean I think I've bet on a few horses at a racetrack or two. Vegas I'm sure looks into all the advanced analytics for these football games. But at the end of the day their only goal is to get the public to wager 50/50 on either side of the line so they make money regardless of the outcome, right? This is why I put little stock into what vegas says about a game, even though this has become en vogue over the last decade as people throw their money away at alarmingly higher and higher rates. So at the end of the day a vegas line is no more than the court of public opinion, which is heavily, heavily influenced by the media. You know, the media who literally cringes when they bring up ND.

That’s actually not true but it’s a common misconception. Vegas tries to win. There are instances where the money ends up even certainly but that isn’t the goal. They would rather 51% loses than 50%. There are really good articles out there on it, particularly on the role of sharps.

 

[dmort]

The talking heads said that ND had trouble with USC's speed, And implied they would have trouble with Clemsons speed. But ND beat USC and I think they will beat Clemson.

 

[InKellyWeTrust]

That’s actually not true but it’s a common misconception. Vegas tries to win. There are instances where the money ends up even certainly but that isn’t the goal. They would rather 51% loses than 50%. There are really good articles out there on it, particularly on the role of sharps.

Gotcha. I guess what I'm saying is odds making is as much a science of sociology as it is a science of actual team matchups (at least to my very basic and unknowledgable understanding of it).

 

[ThePiombino]

The talking heads said that ND had trouble with USC's speed, And implied they would have trouble with Clemsons speed. But ND beat USC and I think they will beat Clemson.

Maybe I hit my head, but I don't recall Notre Dame being slower than SC...

 

[Circa]

Who remembers the Hawai Bowl 2008? I am weirdly happy at the moment and It's different than 2012.
<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/ChzfTLSi47FYc" width="480" height="200" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/statements-ChzfTLSi47FYc">via GIPHY</a></p>

 

[Circa]

Maybe I hit my head, but I don't recall Notre Dame being slower than SC...

I looked up speed and USC and all I could find was<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/7qBiBOjcJN81q" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/page-please-usc-7qBiBOjcJN81q">via GIPHY</a></p>

must be the other kind of speed they refer to...

 

[Irish YJ]

That’s actually not true but it’s a common misconception. Vegas tries to win. There are instances where the money ends up even certainly but that isn’t the goal. They would rather 51% loses than 50%. There are really good articles out there on it, particularly on the role of sharps.

they try to set it very close, but will skew it to make losers bet.
one could say they set the ND/Clemson at -11.5 to entice folks to bet on ND as they think Clemson will win by more. One of the shows even kind of implied that (Bear). They don't skew too much, and have formulas that tell them when to adjust. They even know (or think they know) which fans will bet first, which will wait, etc.. They've got it down to a science.

But overall, Vegas is far more accurate than the talking heads.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

i'd love it if we could strike a deal with the ACC that said, if we are undefeated in ACC play, and beat one of the teams that lead their division, we take their spot in the CC. this year, we would have taken Pitt's spot and played Clemson.

And this is why everyone hates us lol.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FLDomer]

Was watching Fox News this morning and they had Joel Klatt on. What is that turds problem? Why the hate for ND? Does he spend to much time with Cowerd? He argues Notre Dame doesn’t belong and that OU and UGA are more deserving. Seriously, UGA that lost by 20 to LSU or OU who’s defense is weaker than an anemic 7yr old girl!

 

[arrowryan]

Was watching Fox News this morning and they had Joel Klatt on. What is that turds problem? Why the hate for ND? Does he spend to much time with Cowerd? He argues Notre Dame doesn’t belong and that OU and UGA are more deserving. Seriously, UGA that lost by 20 to LSU or OU who’s defense is weaker than an anemic 7yr old girl!

It isn't just him. I no longer value Herbstreit's opinion a highly as I used to because of the same issue; he wanted to to flip flop ND and UGA even though UGA shit their pants in the 4th quarter. Joel Klatt, Herby, and Joey Galloway have hated Notre Dame all season.

But no one, in my opinion, was worse than Danny Kanell. I used to love watching him on ESPN, but he gone full idiot this year. Saying that Notre Dame shouldn't be in because they don't play in a conference championship. Well, neither did OSU and Bama the last few years.

Cowherd exited the womb hating Notre Dame. He was giving them love in the beginning of the year, but Joel Klatt was on his show so much that I think Klatt's hate started rubbing onto Colin.

All of these guys were beating their drum to the same "Ohio State should be in before Notre Dame" beat. I just want to know, since when does the season start on Thanksgiving weekend? OSU was a dead man walking all the way up to Michigan. They played GREAT against Michigan, but that doesn't discount them getting curb stomped by Purdue and them almost losing to Maryland. I've noticed that a lot of the analysts have a "who are the best 4 teams right now?" instead of "who have been the best 4 teams all season?".

Basically, the only opinion's I'll value anymore are David Pollack's and Jesse Palmer's because they're the only ones that talk about Notre Dame fairly.

 

[stlnd01]

The talking heads said that ND had trouble with USC's speed, And implied they would have trouble with Clemsons speed. But ND beat USC and I think they will beat Clemson.

What gave us issues in the first half with USC was their aggressive blitzing and their quick passing game. We adjusted and it was fine. Pure speed had very little to do with it, unless you're talking about them trying to chase down Dexter Williams.

 

[NDohio]

The talking heads said that ND had trouble with USC's speed, And implied they would have trouble with Clemsons speed. But ND beat USC and I think they will beat Clemson.

What gave us issues in the first half with USC was their aggressive blitzing and their quick passing game. We adjusted and it was fine. Pure speed had very little to do with it, unless you're talking about them trying to chase down Dexter Williams.

Yep. I do think the game against USC is a pretty good barometer though. The recruiting rankings between USC and Clemson are about even the last 4-5 years. Obviously the coaching is much better at Clemson, but the talent that our boys will be going up against won't be anything they haven't experienced recently.

 

[wizards8507]

i disagree though. they didn't have to say anything about the 3 spot, at all.

Didn't Rece Davis ask about it specifically? I'm pretty sure he did. The answer felt, to me, like "yeah yeah Rece, we swear we were thorough and considered everything."

 

[Free Manera]

Didn't Rece Davis ask about it specifically? I'm pretty sure he did. The answer felt, to me, like "yeah yeah Rece, we swear we were thorough and considered everything."

Yeah Rece asked and the answer was along the lines of "We considered ND for everywhere from 3 to 6. They're 3. They beat good teams (he named Syracuse and Michigan)"