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

[NDinL.A.]

Herbstreet is a hack - listening to him on Mike and Mike this AM was nauseating. F-ing homer slams UNC for playing two D-2 schools but thinks OSU deserves the nod? They played NOBODY until the second to last week of the year? But they "look good" so they should get in? Why even play games! F-ing knob.

He was saying this only if Clemson loses Saturday. And in fairness, he has a point. I don’t think OSU should get in either, but I don’t think it’s completely out of left field if they were to get in over UNC. Both sides have points. And UNC’s pathetic OOC games and loss to a horrible uSCe team hurts. OSU’s Big 10 slate hurts as well, but their OOC schedule, as bad as it was, just murders UNC’s.

I disagree wholeheartedly. OSU's weak schedule is because the Big 10 sucked this year. That's not their fault. UNC CHOSE to play two FCS schools. FCS schools should never, ever, ever, ever be on a Power Five program's schedule, let alone two in the same year. Ohio State did not play a hard schedule, absolutely correct. But Hawaii, Norther Illinois, and Western Michigan are stratospheres above North Carolina A&T and Delaware. North Carolina A&T? Are you fucking kidding me?

The funny/sad thing about it was that UNC was supposed to play Ohio State this year, but that got pushed back to 2017, and then finally both sides decided to scrap the game altogether. Crazy.

So one of those games wasn't supposed to be. But still UNC, do better.

 

[Luckylucci]

4 ranked wins? It would've been very close. I still think Oklahoma gets the nod, they'd have 4 ranked wins as well.

The debate with the Big Ten would've gotten interesting though.

Yea, that would've been a damn close race for those 2 spots between those 3 teams.

 

[Bugzly21]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Six teams played 5 games vs <a href="https://twitter.com/CFBPlayoff">@CFBPlayoff</a> top 25:
(3-2) Notre Dame
(1-4) South Carolina
(0-5) Minnesota
(0-5) Iowa St
(0-5) Penn St
(0-5) SMU</p>— Brian Fremeau (@bcfremeau) <a href="https://twitter.com/bcfremeau/status/671845243613020160">December 2, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

And we were 4 points away from 5-0 against that slate.

6 points. 4 points would have had ND 3-0-2. 6 points needed from 5-0

 

[gkIrish]

UNC's problem is not that they played some FCS teams....it's that the lost to South Carolina.

If they had won that game they would definitely be in the top 6-7 right now and in a position to make the playoff with a win over Clemson.

Being undefeated in a Power 5 conference basically makes your OOC irrelevant. For as bad as Baylor's schedule was in the OOC, they would be in the top 4 right now if they were undefeated. Same with Oklahoma St. Iowa already is...etc.

 

[IrishLion]

I disagree wholeheartedly. OSU's weak schedule is because the Big 10 sucked this year. That's not their fault. UNC CHOSE to play two FCS schools. FCS schools should never, ever, ever, ever be on a Power Five program's schedule, let alone two in the same year. Ohio State did not play a hard schedule, absolutely correct. But Hawaii, Norther Illinois, and Western Michigan are stratospheres above North Carolina A&T and Delaware. North Carolina A&T? Are you fucking kidding me?

Yeah, it's not their fault, but the fact is that their schedule IS garbage, and it's garbage that Herbstreit can talk up OSU as if they've actually won games or have earned any benefit of the doubt. They've played two good games all year.... that's it.

So though it's not their fault, it's still crazy that anyone acts like OSU has accomplished anything worthy of a top 6 ranking right now. The drubbing of scUM was impressive, yes, but they literally have no other impressive points on their resume.

UNC schedule is trash too, but that doesn't mean RDU is crazy for questioning the OSU love.

 

[wizards8507]

Yeah, it's not their fault, but the fact is that their schedule IS garbage, and it's garbage that Herbstreit can talk up OSU as if they've actually won games or have earned any benefit of the doubt. They've played two good games all year.... that's it.

So though it's not their fault, it's still crazy that anyone acts like OSU has accomplished anything worthy of a top 6 ranking right now. The drubbing of scUM was impressive, yes, but they literally have no other impressive points on their resume.

UNC schedule is trash too, but that doesn't mean RDU is crazy for questioning the OSU love.

Whiskey's favorite F/+ ranking has Ohio State at #4, literally in the playoff today. North Carolina is at 19. That's not homer bias, that's statistical analysis.

 

[IrishLion]

Whiskey's favorite F/+ ranking has Ohio State at #4, literally in the playoff today. North Carolina is at 19. That's not homer bias, that's statistical analysis.

Statistical metrics aren't my area of expertise. I like *obvious* strength of schedule. And though UNC's schedule is laughable, that doesn't excuse OSU's schedule this year, either.

There absolutely is a chance that they are the fourth best team in the country with how they looked against scUM. But they also looked like garbage throughout the year against a weak schedule. And they only had two chances at good wins. So we don't know how good they are, and it's not unreasonable to question that.

 

[gkIrish]

Statistical metrics aren't my area of expertise. I like *obvious* strength of schedule. And though UNC's schedule is laughable, that doesn't excuse OSU's schedule this year, either.

There absolutely is a chance that they are the fourth best team in the country with how they looked against scUM. But they also looked like garbage throughout the year against a weak schedule. And they only had two chances at good wins. So we don't know how good they are, and it's not unreasonable to question that.

Why do you say Ohio St. looked like garbage all year? They blew out everyone but three teams on their schedule...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskey's favorite F/+ ranking has Ohio State at #4, literally in the playoff today. North Carolina is at 19. That's not homer bias, that's statistical analysis.

FEI, S&P+, and F/+ measure performance to date, not resume quality. I do put great stock in those metrics, but they're not sufficient for establishing playoff eligibility.

 

[IrishLion]

Why do you say Ohio St. looked like garbage all year? They blew out everyone but three teams on their schedule...

They didn't impress me against VT in game one, where Cardale struggled at times.

Norther Illinois 20-13? Again Cardale struggled, kind of got bailed out by Barrett. That was an ugly game.

The Indiana game was entertaining, but Indiana also didn't have their greatest weapon in the game... OSU might lose if Howard is healthy for this game. That's not great.

The Minnesota game is kind of a weird situation because Minn was probably all emotionally jacked up to compete in light of the Jerry Kill stuff, but OSU again looked underwhelming against a team that they should beat comfortably.

Michigan State was just a terrible debacle and was baaaaaad for OSU. Coaching and execution failures were amazing to behold from a team that *might* be top-4.

 

[Buster Bluth]

UNC's problem is not that they played some FCS teams....it's that the lost to South Carolina.

If they had won that game they would definitely be in the top 6-7 right now and in a position to make the playoff with a win over Clemson.

Being undefeated in a Power 5 conference basically makes your OOC irrelevant. For as bad as Baylor's schedule was in the OOC, they would be in the top 4 right now if they were undefeated. Same with Oklahoma St. Iowa already is...etc.

I think an undefeated North Carolina would be at #2 or #3 right now. People and the media wouldn't complain because of the style points and wanting to set of a game of the century with Clemson.

 

[gkIrish]

I think an undefeated North Carolina would be at #2 or #3 right now. People and the media wouldn't complain because of the style points and wanting to set of a game of the century with Clemson.

I agree. I was just saying they would be 6-7 at worst.

 

[wizards8507]

FEI, S&P+, and F/+ measure performance to date, not resume quality.

What's the difference, assuming performance to date is opponent-adjusted?

 

[GoIrish41]

Why do you say Ohio St. looked like garbage all year? They blew out everyone but three teams on their schedule...

They blew out Hawaiii, Maryland, Penn State, Western Michigan, and Rutgers -- all bad teams.

The beat a poor VT by 18, Minnesota by 14, Illonis by 21 -- not terrible, but at the low end of expectations for the No. 1 team in the country.

They also played some absolute cupcake teams that they had no busineness on their schedule like Indiana (conference) and N. Illinois (OOC) and only managed to beat them by a TD.

They had two legitimate challenges on their schedule in MSU (another mediocre team, IMO, which they lost to) and Michigan, which they blew out. While Michigan showed some promise at the beginning of the season, they faded a bit by the end of the year.

OSU's resume was not impressive to me. I hope we get them in the bowl game this year.

 

[gkIrish]

They blew out Hawaiii, Maryland, Penn State, Western Michigan, and Rutgers -- all bad teams.

The beat a poor VT by 18, Minnesota by 14, Illonis by 21 -- not terrible, but at the low end of expectations for the No. 1 team in the country.

They also played some absolute cupcake teams that they had no busineness on their schedule like Indiana (conference) and N. Illinois (OOC) and only managed to beat them by a TD.

They had two legitimate challenges on their schedule in MSU (another mediocre team, IMO, which they lost to) and Michigan, which they blew out. While Michigan showed some promise at the beginning of the season, they faded a bit by the end of the year.

OSU's resume was not impressive to me. I hope we get them in the bowl game this year.

I would do backflips if Notre Dame was able to beat the teams you listed by three touchdowns. The games against Indiana and Northern Illinois were poor performances, no doubt, but no different than our games against BC and Virginia. Northern Illinois had a couple 11+ win seasons when Ohio St. scheduled them. They destroyed Michigan, which is far more impressive than basically anything Notre Dame did this year. Michigan is still a top 15 team.

Not trying to make this about ND v. Ohio St., but I'm just offering perspective to make the argument that Ohio St. has looked good this year. They don't have the resume, but I don't think it makes sense to say they haven't looked good.

 

[gkIrish]

If ND beat 9 out of 12 teams badly (none being FCS teams), including an away game against a top 15 team, suffered their only loss to a top 5 team, and was coming off a national championship with almost the entire same team, people would be losing their fucking minds if we weren't in the playoffs.

Again, not saying Ohio St. deserves to be in, but let's not pretend like they are frauds.

 

[GoIrish41]

If ND beat 9 out of 12 teams badly (none being FCS teams), including an away game against a top 15 team, suffered their only loss to a top 5 team, and was coming off a national championship with almost the entire same team, people would be losing their fucking minds if we weren't in the playoffs.

Again, not saying Ohio St. deserves to be in, but let's not pretend like they are frauds.

There are two other teams in the BIG with the same or better record. The one with the better record hasn't lost to anyone. The one with the same record beat them. I'm not saying they are terrible, but I'm saying that they don't belong in the conversation. After ND's loss to Stanford, they don't belong in the conversation either, so I'm not comparing. That said, I watched several OSU games this year, and each time I watched, I was not impressed. Obviously, I didn't watch and rewatch every snap like I did with ND but given what I know about the Irish team and what I've seen from OSU, I would love to face them in a bowl game next month.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Why do you say Ohio St. looked like garbage all year? They blew out everyone but three teams on their schedule...

How much did you watch them this year? They've looked like garbage MOST of the year, there's no doubt about that, relative to their talent level.

I think you and I have a different definition of "blow-out". To me, they did not blowout the following teams:

* Vtech - Losing at the half, and VT was driving for the lead when their QB went out, and that was all she wrote. That was a close game despite the final score.
* Northern Illinois - 20-13
* Indiana - 34-27
* Maryland - I mean, it was a 7 point game with 20 seconds left in the 3rd. That's not a blowout, especially considering how putrid Maryland was this year.
* Minnesota - That was a 7 point game with 2 minutes left and Minnesota going for an onside kick. Not a blowout.
* Michigan State – Loss

Even games like Penn State (horrible team), which was 21-10 after 3 quarters, and Illinois, which was 14-3 in the 3rd when Illinois fumbled in the red zone, Ohio State was pretty bad for a large part of the game.

So I highly disagree that they blew out all but 3 teams on their schedule...FAR from it if you have seen them play IMHO.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

What's the difference, assuming performance to date is opponent-adjusted?

Because, no matter how good you are, if you haven't played anyone, you don't deserve a shot in the playoffs. See Boise State under Petersen in the late '00s. The advanced models accurately rated them as one of the best teams in the country. But there were several years where their only marquee opponent turned out to be weak, and their conference slate was pathetically weak compared to P5 teams, so they were legitimately passed over for New Year's Eve Bowls.

Play a real schedule or GTFO.

 

[pumpdog20]

Some of you guys are nuts. The B1G sucked? MSU is a mediocre team?
The big ten has 3 teams in the top 10 and 5 in the top 15. I don't know if that makes them the best, but it sure doesn't mean they sucked.

MSU probably has the most impressive resume in the country. Or is at least debatable.

 

[wizards8507]

Because, no matter how good you are, if you haven't played anyone, you don't deserve a shot in the playoffs. See Boise State under Petersen in the late '00s. The advanced models accurately rated them as one of the best teams in the country. But there were several years where their only marquee opponent turned out to be weak, and their conference slate was pathetically weak compared to P5 teams, so they were legitimately passed over for New Year's Eve Bowls.

Play a real schedule or GTFO.

What are they supposed to do about their conference slate? They can't change that. All they can do is handle their business against the teams that the Big 10 says they have to play, and they did.

It applies to Notre Dame too. We shouldn't get too much credit that Temple turned out to be legit because our goal in scheduling that game was to get a cupcake win. We also shouldn't take too much criticism that Texas turned out to suck because that was supposed to be a marquee matchup.

 

[gkIrish]

How much did you watch them this year? They've looked like garbage MOST of the year, there's no doubt about that, relative to their talent level.

I think you and I have a different definition of "blow-out". To me, they did not blowout the following teams:

* Vtech - Losing at the half, and VT was driving for the lead when their QB went out, and that was all she wrote. That was a close game despite the final score.
* Northern Illinois - 20-13
* Indiana - 34-27
* Maryland - I mean, it was a 7 point game with 20 seconds left in the 3rd. That's not a blowout, especially considering how putrid Maryland was this year.
* Minnesota - That was a 7 point game with 2 minutes left and Minnesota going for an onside kick. Not a blowout.
* Michigan State – Loss

Even games like Penn State (horrible team), which was 21-10 after 3 quarters, and Illinois, which was 14-3 in the 3rd when Illinois fumbled in the red zone, Ohio State was pretty bad for a large part of the game.

So I highly disagree that they blew out all but 3 teams on their schedule...FAR from it if you have seen them play IMHO.

I watched every single game in its entirety outside of the Penn St. game. I went to grad school there so I DVR all their games so I can talk to my friends about them (even though I hate them). Overall, they looked like a better team to me than everyone I've seen play this year outside of Clemson and Bama. Although I have rarely watched Iowa so idk about them...

If you want to define blowouts like that we didn't blow out UMass or Navy either. Three of the teams you mentioned were not included in my 9/12 statement. I also don't see why putting teams away in the 4th quarter somehow doesn't make it a blowout. Being up 11 in the 3rd and winning by 3+ touchdowns is a blowout to me.

 

[IrishLax]

Some of you guys are nuts. The B1G sucked? MSU is a mediocre team?
The big ten has 3 teams in the top 10 and 5 in the top 15. I don't know if that makes them the best, but it sure doesn't mean they sucked.

MSU probably has the most impressive resume in the country. Or is at least debatable.

You probably don't realize it, but you're making a circular argument that revolves around the fact that they're overrated by voters/humans.

The Big Ten has the 4th, 8th, and 11th rated teams in the country in the West. That's very good. The only top 25 team in the entire East is Iowa, who is 24th. Iowa is getting credit by voters for being undefeated... against the worst division in all of the power conferences.

 

[koonja]

I watched every single game in its entirety outside of the Penn St. game. I went to grad school there so I DVR all their games so I can talk to my friends about them (even though I hate them). Overall, game they looked like a better team to me than everyone I've seen play this year outside of Clemson and Bama. Although I have rarely watched Iowa so idk about them...

If you want to define blowouts like that we didn't blow out UMass or Navy either. Three of the teams you mentioned were not included in my 9/12 statement. I also don't see why putting teams away in the 4th quarter somehow doesn't make it a blowout. Being up 11 in the 3rd and winning by 3+ touchdowns is a blowout to me.

I don't care at all about what you guys discussing. But since you're the OSU expert, would we beat them if we played them on Dec 31st?

 

[gkIrish]

I don't care at all about what you guys discussing. But since you're the OSU expert, would we beat them if we played them on Dec 31st?

We would lose 8 out of 10 times IMO.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

What are they supposed to do about their conference slate? They can't change that. All they can do is handle their business against the teams that the Big 10 says they have to play, and they did.

They can schedule better OOC opponents. Or they can not lose to their divisional rival's backup QB.

It applies to Notre Dame too. We shouldn't get too much credit that Temple turned out to be legit because our goal in scheduling that game was to get a cupcake win. We also shouldn't take too much criticism that Texas turned out to suck because that was supposed to be a marquee matchup.

Bullsh!t. Your resume is what it is. You get no brownie points for trying to schedule well, but for playing actually tough opponents. We deserve credit for beating a ranked Temple, just as we deserve little credit for beating a weak Texas team. Fortunately for us, we don't play any FCS cupcakes, so there's a good chance that when one of our marquee opponents is down, one of our typically mid-table opponents will be up.

To be clear, I think OSU's a very dangerous team. Of our likely bowl matchups, I'd want to play them least of all. But they don't deserve a playoff spot because: (1) their SoS is pathetically weak; and (2) they lost to Tyler O'Connor. I've got no sympathy for them. If you want consideration as a 1-loss team, schedule tougher OOC opponents in the future.

 

[NDinL.A.]

I watched every single game in its entirety outside of the Penn St. game. I went to grad school there so I DVR all their games so I can talk to my friends about them (even though I hate them). Overall, they looked like a better team to me than everyone I've seen play this year outside of Clemson and Bama. Although I have rarely watched Iowa so idk about them...

If you want to define blowouts like that we didn't blow out UMass or Navy either. Three of the teams you mentioned were not included in my 9/12 statement. I also don't see why putting teams away in the 4th quarter somehow doesn't make it a blowout. Being up 11 in the 3rd and winning by 3+ touchdowns is a blowout to me.

1. I never mentioned ND when talking about blowouts, so that has no bearing on this at all.

2. You and I have WAY different definitions of blow-outs.

3. Going by your definition, 2 games are indisputable: MSU, N Illinois, and Indiana. Now let’s look at Minnesota. Up by a score with 2 minutes left in the game, and they take a knee if Cardale merely gets a first down instead of romping for a TD late after an onsides kick. I’m sorry, but there is no way that any football fan in the country would consider that game a blowout, other than you, a few myopic OSU fans, and NDSean (if it were an ND game).

Bottom line, OSU played like crap relative to their talent most of the year, and they definitely did not blow out 9 of their opponents. Not even close IMHO.

 

[gkIrish]

1. I never mentioned ND when talking about blowouts, so that has no bearing on this at all.

2. You and I have WAY different definitions of blow-outs.

3. Going by your definition, 2 games are indisputable: MSU, N Illinois, and Indiana. Now let’s look at Minnesota. Up by a score with 2 minutes left in the game, and they take a knee if Cardale merely gets a first down instead of romping for a TD late after an onsides kick. I’m sorry, but there is no way that any football fan in the country would consider that game a blowout, other than you, a few myopic OSU fans, and NDSean (if it were an ND game).

Bottom line, OSU played like crap relative to their talent most of the year, and they definitely did not blow out 9 of their opponents. Not even close IMHO.

Ok---I'll give you Minnesota, that's still 8 blowouts. I mention Notre Dame because we are talking about the perception of OSU and whether they area good team. My point is that if you want to make the argument that OSU is a fraud based on your analysis, I'd have a hard time making the case that ND is not a fraud.

Do you agree that if Notre Dame had a similar season to Ohio St. this board would be losing its mind if we didn't make the playoffs? It would be our best season in the last 20 years outside of 2012.

 

[pumpdog20]

You probably don't realize it, but you're making a circular argument that revolves around the fact that they're overrated by voters/humans.

The Big Ten has the 4th, 8th, and 11th rated teams in the country in the West. That's very good. The only top 25 team in the entire East is Iowa, who is 24th. Iowa is getting credit by voters for being undefeated... against the worst division in all of the power conferences.

You still haven't proven how they sucked. This isn't an argument if the Big Ten has bad teams, or if the west is the worst (I don't think it is, but it is debatable). I just don't think the entire conference sucks. I think they're similar to the SEC the last couple of years. A few highly rated teams (sure they may be overrated a bit), and some shitty ones on the bottom, and some good quality in the middle.

No one thought the SEC sucked, just overrated. Same should be said for the Big Ten, though I don't think anyone actually thinks they're overrated.

I have no idea where you're getting your rankings from, and you can keep them to yourself because they don't mean anything. Everybody knows the only rankings that mean anything are the CFP's. If you want to discuss different metrics, fine. However, Iowa is not the 24th ranked team by any ranking system that is important.

 

[IrishLax]

You still haven't proven how they sucked. This isn't an argument if the Big Ten has bad teams, or if the west is the worst (I don't think it is, but it is debatable). I just don't think the entire conference sucks. I think they're similar to the SEC the last couple of years. A few highly rated teams (sure they may be overrated a bit), and some shitty ones on the bottom, and some good quality in the middle.

No one thought the SEC sucked, just overrated. Same should be said for the Big Ten, though I don't think anyone actually thinks they're overrated.

I have no idea where you're getting your rankings from, and you can keep them to yourself because they don't mean anything. Everybody knows the only rankings that mean anything are the CFP's. If you want to discuss different metrics, fine. However, Iowa is not the 24th ranked team by any ranking system that is important.

This is just a logical mindf*ck. To defend that something isn't "overrated" or "sucks" you can't point to the very thing people are saying is wrong...

Ratings were from F/+.

The Big Ten has 4 teams in the top 30. That's 28%.

The ACC is even worse. 3 in the top 30.

But the SEC has 6 in the top 20, 9 in the top 40. Obviously miles ahead of the Big Ten.

The Big 12 has 5 in the top 30. That's 50% of the conference, so effectively almost double the talent concentration of the Big Ten.

The PAC12 has 6 in the top 31... again, 50% like the Big 12.

So there's effectively no logical argument that the Big Ten is as strong in terms of performance on the field as the Big 12, SEC, or PAC12.