Demand for a 13th Game

[Dizzyphil]

The committee sure didn't have a problem with Alabama playing a few close ones. When MSU was gutting out a victories over Kentucky and Arkansas the narrative was "wow they just win."

The committe also didn't have a problem with Alabama having Florida Atlantic and Western Carolina on the schedule either....


Diz

 

[T Town Tommy]

FSU was ranked #1 too....until the committee decided they don't look like a number one team. The committee was wildly inconsistent throughout the year with how they viewed teams.

I dunno. They gave Fla St every opportunity to stay at #1 as well. Fla St being where they are is more of a reflection on them and not the committee IMO.

 

[EddytoNow]

The committee sure didn't have a problem with Alabama playing a few close ones. When MSU was gutting out a victories over Kentucky and Arkansas the narrative was "wow they just win."

Alabama has proven themselves a national powerhouse over a period of years. That's why they start out in the top 5 every year, even before the first game has been played. When MSU has reached that same level of perennial success nationally, they will deserve the same level of respect. Dantonio and Narduzzi have them headed in that direction. They have a 3-year run of success on a regional basis. They just need to consistently win against national competition, both during the regular season and when given an opportunity in a bowl game.

 

[koonja]

My problems with the committee:

- turnaround time from finishing the conference champ games and deciding. OSU had an out of the blue, dramatic win, and the committee decides the final-4 12 hours later? What is the rush? Take a few days and make sure you get it right.

- Is it really overall resume? If OSU beats Wisconsin in week 4 like that, and beats Minnesota in the conf champ game by whatever it is they beat Minnesota be, like 31-27, are they still in? I do not believe so. OSU is not the team they appeared to be in that game. At least they hadn't shown it before.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I dunno. They gave Fla St every opportunity to stay at #1 as well. Fla St being where they are is more of a reflection on them and not the committee IMO.

So winning 26 straight games, 2 conference championships, and one national championship in the last two seasons represents a team that hasn't demonstrated well enough that they deserve to be #1?

The committee ignored what should have been the #1 deciding factor...WINNING. FSU's schedule wasn't grueling, but it wasn't Marshall's either. 13-0 and ranked third. THIRD!

The committee stated very early on that MoV would not factor in the decision making process. But how quickly they must have forgotten, because they used that line almost every week with at least one team, FSU.

 

[wizards8507]

So winning 26 straight games, 2 conference championships, and one national championship in the last two seasons represents a team that hasn't demonstrated well enough that they deserve to be #1?

The committee ignored what should have been the #1 deciding factor...WINNING. FSU's schedule wasn't grueling, but it wasn't Marshall's either. 13-0 and ranked third. THIRD!

The committee stated very early on that MoV would not factor in the decision making process. But how quickly they must have forgotten, because they used that line almost every week with at least one team.

I 100% disagree with your first point but 100% agree with your second point. A multi-season winning streak and last year's national championship is irrelevant to the 2014 rankings. That said, 13-0 with a conference championship should have been enough for #1.

EDIT: Especially considering they only played one scrub team and the teams ranked ahead of them did the same.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I 100% disagree with your first point but 100% agree with your second point. A multi-season winning streak and last year's national championship is irrelevant to the 2014 rankings. That said, 13-0 with a conference championship should have been enough for #1.

You're right. It shouldn't. But I was trying to balloon a point. FSU (no matter how filthy and disgusting) has a phenomenal football program at the moment. They've won A LOT of games.

 

[T Town Tommy]

So winning 26 straight games, 2 conference championships, and one national championship in the last two seasons represents a team that hasn't demonstrated well enough that they deserve to be #1?

The committee ignored what should have been the #1 deciding factor...WINNING. FSU's schedule wasn't grueling, but it wasn't Marshall's either. 13-0 and ranked third. THIRD!

The committee stated very early on that MoV would not factor in the decision making process. But how quickly they must have forgotten, because they used that line almost every week with at least one team.

I did hear Long state that the committee felt Fla St had been unimpressive against lesser opponents. Does that take MoV in to consideration? Maybe... maybe not. But I don't know if anyone could argue that Fla St actually was playing like a #1 team. Winning matters... but escaping losses to subpar teams every week doesn't help their argument that they are the # 1 team either.

I say that to say this... I think FSU has gotten better and I think they have a much better chance at beating Oregon than some may give them. The matchups favor Fla St IMO.

 

[wizards8507]

I did hear Long state that the committee felt Fla St had been unimpressive against lesser opponents. Does that take MoV in to consideration? Maybe... maybe not. But I don't know if anyone could argue that Fla St actually was playing like a #1 team. Winning matters... but escaping losses to subpar teams every week doesn't help their argument that they are the # 1 team either.

Winning unimpressively by just a little bit is still better than LOSING, which Alabama and Oregon each did once and Florida State did zero times.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Winning unimpressively by just a little bit is still better than LOSING, which Alabama and Oregon each did once and Florida State did zero times.

This.

 

[Dizzyphil]

You're right. It shouldn't. But I was trying to balloon a point. FSU (no matter how filthy and disgusting) has a phenomenal football program at the moment. They've won A LOT of games.

I also believe that ACC vs. SEC has a lot to do with the eye test as well. Of course, overall the SEC has had its way with the ACC but....since the Nat. Champ game last year, the ACC is 5-1 vs the SEC.

So the question is: are the committee members using the past (not current year) to determine the standings?

Diz

 

[koonja]

I hope FSU wins it all. The eye test can take a hike for all I care.

The eye test had Texas AM and Notre Dame as top 5 teams this year.

 

[Dizzyphil]

I hope FSU wins it all. The eye test can take a hike for all I care.

The eye test had Texas AM and Notre Dame as top 5 teams this year.

.........and Oklahoma

Diz

 

[NDWorld247]

you guys all make valid points...just goes to show how ridiculous this whole CFP selection process is.

its basically a subjective, "eye test" subject to the whims of popular opinion, bias--with "close calls" going to conference champs.

I think leaving it at 4 teams really makes the regular season matter wwhile going to 8 teams lessens the regular season. still not sure I want to go there.

I would only "go to 8" if by doing so you eliminate the conf champ games altogether and in their place you have 1 play 8 2 play 7 etc at the higher seeded home fields. then you slot the remaining 4 teams like they just did. would have to hhave some sort of revenue sharing for the conference and thee team with the higher seed who host the games, and ND if they hosted a game would have to share in such a game as well. some hard hurdles to clear...

I have always been a proponent of an 8-team playoff. I did a research project my freshman year in college (2003) on the merits of going to an 8-team playoff. It wasn't much of a research project since my mind was made up before I put the project together, but it was fun nonetheless.

BUT, for the first time in my life, I'm starting to question whether an 8-team playoff is really the best scenario and my reasoning is two-fold...(1) if you don't win your conference, you shouldn't get to play for a NC and (2) allowing 2nd place teams from conferences into the playoffs lessens the regular season.

I like the way things worked out this year with conference champions left standing at the end. The only problem...there are five conferences and only four spots.

NDWorld's solution...6 team playoff. Five "Power 5" conference champions + top ranked team from the other five conferences/independents.

As for ND's playoff chances in the future...we need to go undefeated. We MAY have gotten in this year at 11-1 with a dramatic last second loss to 13-0 FSU, but that was really the perfect storm scenario of an 11-1 ND getting in. Looking at the past few years, I think we get in at 11-1 20-25% of the time. I don't like those chances.

 

[BobbyMac]

If the Big 12 expands, ND will likely have to join a conference. If so, it will be the ACC.

I'm not totally against it, I just want them Independent, if it's possible. If no, ACC it is.

The truth is the opposite. ND needs the Big12 to expand... and into good markets to remain independent.

And everytime this comes up, the most important thing to watch is Texas.

If the league doesn't do something to ensure Texas is happy, they walk to any conference they want. You are then left with 4 super-conferences and ND football is forced into the ACC. The Big12 needs to add 2 but could add 4 or 6 of the following: Temple, Houston or Rice, San Diego St. UCF, USF, Cincinnati, New Mexico, Tulane (don't laugh) and BYU. SMU doesn't help them, they are already in the market with TCU. Boise is a crap market and travel cost for such an outlier isn't worth it. Boise will end up in the PAC full time someday, they are already in it for some sports. My guess is the PAC wouldn't let the San Diego market get away either.

BYU makes perfect sense for the Big12 as it gets them into a big market, the PAC has no desire for them with Utah on board and they have no current affiliation to muddy the transaction. The Houston market is the largest in the country not in a Power 5. Temple and Philly are next. Though my guess is the ACC would snag Temple if the grabbing starts.

I think it's inevitable that college football / basketball end up in four, 20 team conferences. Money, the aspirations of school presidents and the nature of change as progress guarantee it.

.

 

[wizards8507]

Five "Power 5" conference champions...

Anything that includes the "power five" is absurd because the "power five" is completely made up. It's a media construct. There's NO SUCH THING as the "power five" other than what ESPN and whoever else write in their articles. The conferences are formed and organized independently of the playoff structure. There's no rule that says the ACC even has to exist, let alone consist of the teams it does or be competitive. What if the Mountain West becomes perennially superior to the ACC? What if the Big 10 breaks in half? The playoff power structure can't prevent those things, so basing the playoff based on what the so-called "power five" looks like today is impossible.

 

[ND NYC]

The truth is the opposite. ND needs the Big12 to expand... and into good markets to remain independent.

And everytime this comes up, the most important thing to watch is Texas.

If the league doesn't do something to ensure Texas is happy, they walk to any conference they want. You are then left with 4 super-conferences and ND football is forced into the ACC. The Big12 needs to add 2 but could add 4 or 6 of the following: Temple, Houston or Rice, San Diego St. UCF, USF, Cincinnati, New Mexico, Tulane (don't laugh) and BYU. SMU doesn't help them, they are already in the market with TCU. Boise is a crap market and travel cost for such an outlier isn't worth it. Boise will end up in the PAC full time someday, they are already in it for some sports. My guess is the PAC wouldn't let the San Diego market get away either.

BYU makes perfect sense for the Big12 as it gets them into a big market, the PAC has no desire for them with Utah on board and they have no current affiliation to muddy the transaction. The Houston market is the largest in the country not in a Power 5. Temple and Philly are next. Though my guess is the ACC would snag Temple if the grabbing starts.

I think it's inevitable that college football / basketball end up in four, 20 team conferences. Money, the aspirations of school presidents and the nature of change as progress guarantee it.

.

agree that Big 12 expansion helps ND remain independent.

there are some rumors (aren't there always) out there to the following:
Big 12 adds UCF (primary reason being access to the florida market) and BYU (for your reasons above)

and also:
Texas to the SEC (this from Gary Danielson during interview with Madddog this week)

we shall see...don't ever underestimate how powerful Texas is and can be in all of this. they've been down and somewhat quiet last couple years but they have a HUGE impact (just like us in many ways that's why jack deloss can relate to each other) on college FB and therefore all of college athletics.

 

[NDWorld247]

Anything that includes the "power five" is absurd because the "power five" is completely made up. It's a media construct. There's NO SUCH THING as the "power five" other than what ESPN and whoever else write in their articles. The conferences are formed and organized independently of the playoff structure. There's no rule that says the ACC even has to exist, let alone consist of the teams it does or be competitive. What if the Mountain West becomes perennially superior to the ACC? What if the Big 10 breaks in half? The playoff power structure can't prevent those things, so basing the playoff based on what the so-called "power five" looks like today is impossible.

I disagree. If the "Power Five" was made up, why did the NCAA approve autonomy for them? Why is the NCAA allowing them to make their own rules that don't apply to the other conferences? I don't know who started calling them that, the media or the Power Five conferences themselves, but now everyone (i.e. NCAA, Power Five, "Other"), recognize the "Power Five" as such.

 

[Cali_domer]

agree that Big 12 expansion helps ND remain independent.

there are some rumors (aren't there always) out there to the following:
Big 12 adds UCF (primary reason being access to the florida market) and BYU (for your reasons above)

and also:
Texas to the SEC (this from Gary Danielson during interview with Madddog this week)

we shall see...don't ever underestimate how powerful Texas is and can be in all of this. they've been down and somewhat quiet last couple years but they have a HUGE impact (just like us in many ways that's why jack deloss can relate to each other) on college FB and therefore all of college athletics.

Deloss is gone now and now they have Patterson(Former ASU AD)who ND had a spat with over game cancellation.

 

[wizards8507]

I disagree. If the "Power Five" was made up, why did the NCAA approve autonomy for them? Why is the NCAA allowing them to make their own rules that don't apply to the other conferences? I don't know who started calling them that, the media or the Power Five conferences themselves, but now everyone (i.e. NCAA, Power Five, "Other"), recognize the "Power Five" as such.

Maybe "made up" was the wrong term. Maybe temporary? Informal? The point being, there's no structure that says "the power five is legitimate and permanent." They didn't exist three years ago and they might not exist three years from now. The college football playoff, NCAA, ESPN, conferences, and each individual school are all independent entities. The college football structure is formed from the bottom-up. Schools join conferences. Conferences sign bowl agreements and design the postseason structure. A system that officially incorporates the "power five" would need to be top-down. The NCAA or college football playoff apparatus establishes the postseason structure, the conferences comply with those rules, and the schools comply with the conferences. That's now how it's supposed to work. The Patriots have to do what the NFL says, but Notre Dame and Alabama and Texas can do what they want. The bigger the postseason apparatus becomes, the more control resides with the central authority. It's the political analogue of an overbearing federal government that crushes the ability of the states, towns, and individuals to govern themselves.

 

[BobbyMac]

agree that Big 12 expansion helps ND remain independent.

there are some rumors (aren't there always) out there to the following:
Big 12 adds UCF (primary reason being access to the florida market) and BYU (for your reasons above)

and also:
Texas to the SEC (this from Gary Danielson during interview with Madddog this week)

we shall see...don't ever underestimate how powerful Texas is and can be in all of this. they've been down and somewhat quiet last couple years but they have a HUGE impact (just like us in many ways that's why jack deloss can relate to each other) on college FB and therefore all of college athletics.

Texas will go where the Board of Regents wants them to. The most lucrative move is to the B1G. It's all about markets. If I'm the governor, I put pressure on the BoR to make UT go anywhere BUT the SEC. You already have that demographic coming into your state for A&M home games, you are already getting a cut of their bowl, basketball and tv money. If you want more sports tourism $$$ and bigger cuts of TV and basketball money , you chose the B1G. That's as easy to figure out as 5th grade math. The SEC and PAC can fight over the rest.

*** and never underestimate the value of AAU membership texas shares with all B1G schools (minus the temporary Nebraska situation) As ND fans we all know uber academics think differently than most. When A&M joined the SEC it doubled the AAU schools in the SEC. The SEC is an embarrassment when compared to the B1G, the ACC and to a lesser extent, the PAC.

I also think if Texas joins the B1G, Mizzou leaves the SEC for the B1G too.

.

 

[ND NYC]

Deloss is gone now and now they have Patterson(Former ASU AD)who ND had a spat with over game cancellation.

I know, the point was that the schools they represent regardless of the individual (ND and Texas) actually have a lot of shared interests and are in similar situations; things that a wise AD realizes.

 

[ND NYC]

Texas will go where the Board of Regents wants them to. The most lucrative move is to the B1G. It's all about markets. If I'm the governor, I put pressure on the BoR to make UT go anywhere BUT the SEC. You already have that demographic coming into your state for A&M home games, you are already getting a cut of their bowl, basketball and tv money. If you want more sports tourism $$$ and bigger cuts of TV and basketball money , you chose the B1G. That's as easy to figure out as 5th grade math. The SEC and PAC can fight over the rest.

do you really think UT, their BoR, or anyone affiliated with them is happy that A+M is the king of the hill in college football in the state of texas right now? cant help that Baylor and tcu in the mix too. everyone BUT UT.

and you think that the that moving them into the B1G solves that problem? its about pride, ego (not just money) with dem boys too.

they simply cannot abide the status quo of the dynamic I mention for much longer

history tells us that Texas always has an itch and frequently scratches it when comes to conferences, and changing them, blowing them up, etc.

they're due...but I just cant see it joining the B1G.

who knows: if this things stays at 4 wouldn't surprise me AT ALL if Texas AND ND joined the ACC...

 

[Cali_domer]

do you really think UT, their BoR, or anyone affiliated with them is happy that A+M is the king of the hill in college football in the state of texas right now? cant help that Baylor and tcu in the mix too. everyone BUT UT.

and you think that the that moving them into the B1G solves that problem? its about pride, ego (not just money) with dem boys too.

they simply cannot abide the status quo of the dynamic I mention for much longer

history tells us that Texas always has an itch and frequently scratches it when comes to conferences, and changing them, blowing them up, etc.

they're due...but I just cant see it joining the B1G.

who knows: if this things stays at 4 wouldn't surprise me AT ALL if Texas AND ND joined the ACC...

IMO it will be the ACC. They will negotiate with the ACC so they can keep the LHN and bring some friends along(TCU,Baylor, Tech ect)

OU I think will go to the Pac or Big 10 along with Kansas.

 

[NDWorld247]

Maybe "made up" was the wrong term. Maybe temporary? Informal? The point being, there's no structure that says "the power five is legitimate and permanent."

I would argue the NCAA granting the Power Five autonomy proved they are legitimate and permanent. Also, who do you think created the BCS? It was the Power Five, or six at the time with the Big East. Formerly known as the "haves", the Power Five have been legitimate since the beginning of modern day college football (i.e. 1998).

The college football playoff, NCAA, ESPN, conferences, and each individual school are all independent entities. The college football structure is formed from the bottom-up. Schools join conferences. Conferences sign bowl agreements and design the postseason structure. A system that officially incorporates the "power five" would need to be top-down. The NCAA or college football playoff apparatus establishes the postseason structure, the conferences comply with those rules, and the schools comply with the conferences.

Who do you think owns the College Football Playoff? It's the ten conferences. They decide who has access to it. They established it and will continue deciding what the rules are.

All the "have nots" or "other five conferences" have ever wanted is access. They eventually gained access to the BCS and, when the CFP was created, they were granted "access", although it would take a miracle for one of them to be included in the top 4 (see Marshall in initial CFP ranking).

My proposal for a 6-team playoff would continue giving them access, as well as automatic qualifying spots for the Power Five champs. If anything, it would give the "have nots" greater access than they enjoy today.

 

[IrishLion]

I would argue the NCAA granting the Power Five autonomy proved they are legitimate and permanent. Also, who do you think created the BCS? It was the Power Five, or six at the time with the Big East. Formerly known as the "haves", the Power Five have been legitimate since the beginning of modern day college football (i.e. 1998).

Therein lies the contradiction of the "power five" being "official" and "permanent." Three schools leave a conference, and suddenly that conference is re-branded and no longer a "big boy" in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Crazy Balki]

I said I DON'T want us to schedule FCS so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

If you're saying we need to bury teams like Purdue and Syracuse when we play them, then I totally agree.

We definitely do need to bury those teams. I wouldn't mind that being our 13th game, a Temple or Nevada or USF...on second thought maybe not...

 

[BobbyMac]

do you really think UT, their BoR, or anyone affiliated with them is happy that A+M is the king of the hill in college football in the state of texas right now? cant help that Baylor and tcu in the mix too. everyone BUT UT.

and you think that the that moving them into the B1G solves that problem? its about pride, ego (not just money) with dem boys too.

they simply cannot abide the status quo of the dynamic I mention for much longer

history tells us that Texas always has an itch and frequently scratches it when comes to conferences, and changing them, blowing them up, etc.

they're due...but I just cant see it joining the B1G.

who knows: if this things stays at 4 wouldn't surprise me AT ALL if Texas AND ND joined the ACC...

UT will be the best team in Texas in '16 where they will remain for another decade. You can't keep them down. A&M has already peaked and the fall is going to be ugly if Ole Miss and Miss St can keep it going. A&M will finish last in the SEC-W in the next two years, book it.

...and if you think it's not about the money, you're being silly. It's always about the money and the B1G has the AAU membership importance covered too. Every school in the B1G is an AAU school minus Nebraska currently. They were, but lost their membership due to the medical program being at their Omaha campus and they didn't have the correct proportion of private vs. federal research grants (if I remember correctly) The ACC has only THREE AAU schools. UVa, UNC and Duke after losing Maryland to the B1G.

I'll take your assumption about ND and UT joining the ACC and flip it on it's head. I say there's a much better chance of UVa and UNC joining the B1G than your scenario. Duke might come along too to keep it's partnership with UNC alive.

You eastcoast Irish fans have to let go of the B1G hate. They are and will always be the 800lb Gorilla in the room. They command the markets and have 2x-3x the alumni base. They own the money.

.

 

[kmoose]

Ohio State didn't make the play-offs this year because of the strength of their schedule. They made the play-offs because they buried their competition under an avalanche of points.

The Ohio State University made the playoffs because they are an outstanding all around team. Even if they don't excel at any one thing, their TEAM is outstanding. They lost their starting QB before the season began. So 4 new starters and 1 veteran on the offensive line came together to keep the heat off of the backup. They also opened gaping holes for the tailbacks, who piled up yards to take even more pressure off of the QB. When the backup went down? They rallied around their 3rd team QB, and their offense completely dominated their conference championship game. The receivers, linemen, and running backs made the backup QB, and the backup to the backup QB, look very capable. Their defense was not outstanding, but it played well enough.

 

[ickythump1225]

MSU was ranked #1 for five or six weeks. I don't think the committee looked at MSU any differently. As far as "narrative" I guess that depends on who was talking. It sure doesn't seem to have been the committee.

Yeah they didn't look at MSU any differently, that was my point. Even when they had a few close calls against vastly inferior teams (at least in the eyes of the polls, the rankings of the committee, and the general opinion of the media) they didn't get punished by the committee. Yet Florida State kept winning too and they kept sliding down the rankings because of things like "the eye test" and "game control." If Florida State's patch on their uniform read S-E-C and not A-C-C they wouldn't have been moved down. When Alabama had a close shave with Arkansas they weren't knocked down.

Hell 2 one loss teams are ranked ahead of FSU still because A) the SEC and Pac-12 are very well represented on the committee and B) the ACC is not respected as a conference to the same degree the Pac-12 and especially the SEC is. Which is why I don't want ND to saddle up with ACC though it looks like we will at some point.