NCAA Playoff Committee Rankings 2014 (Unranked)

[MNIrishman]

Here's an interesting analysis of conference bias in the polls. It's done at a better level than I've seen before:

Conference Bias in College Football | The Harvard College Sports Analysis Collective

They also take a look at bias by individual teams, showing the benefit of being a "brand name" school.

Would be nice if they just hired a bunch of mathematicians in a blind study to determine the rankings.

 

[Legacy]

My point of view

My point of view

We each have our differences, T-Town. Your contributions are generally well-received. Here's mine to a few of your statements.

Again ACamp... the era of SEC dominance started around 2004 or so. What's the records from then.

Stats can be useful, but... The SEC record since 2009-14 against the Big East/American conference is 17-12. Subtract the record against the newest members - SMU, Memphis and UCF - and the SEC is 11-12.
Colley Matrix Rankings

The ACC sucks... even FSU. The B1G is a jokeoutside of maybe Mich St. The Big 12 - no defense, light in the trenches. ND? Looks decent but has not been impressive in any of their wins. Their loss to FSU helped them but there is a reason FSU isn't getting much respect this year. They aren't very good.

FSU sucks? Would you prefer the top three CFP teams be SEC teams?
The ACC sucks? Are you saying that the Power 5 conference you play more than any other P5 conference does not provide you with reasonable competition?
If you look back, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss State, Texas A&M and Florida have minimal non-conference competition outside their state.

Head to head against every other conference the SEC has dominated in the regular season for the last 10 years. The information is out there. Look it up. Bowl games.

Another stat is that the SEC is 26-10 over that same period of 2009-14 against the ACC in the regular season. Almost every year the SEC plays seven games against the ACC and goes 5-2 again in the regular season. But the ACC "sucks".

Bowl games? Five of the seven contracted bowl games (non-BCS) are contracted against the ACC or the Big Ten. The other two are against the Big Twelve. Those are two of the Power 5 conferences you feel "suck" or are a "big joke".
Automatic bids to college bowl games

Of all the Independents the SEC could schedule, SEC teams in the regular season has only played one game (BYU) outside of Army and Navy. Why not schedule Notre Dame, the Pac 12 or most of the Big 12?

I hope you continue to post and continue to disagree on some aspects.

 

[MNIrishman]

We each have our differences, T-Town. Your contributions are generally well-received. Here's mine to a few of your statements.



Stats can be useful, but... The SEC record since 2009-14 against the Big East/American conference is 17-12. Subtract the record against the newest members - SMU, Memphis and UCF - and the SEC is 11-12.
Colley Matrix Rankings



FSU sucks? Would you prefer the top three CFP teams be SEC teams?
The ACC sucks? Are you saying that the Power 5 conference you play more than any other P5 conference does not provide you with reasonable competition?
If you look back, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss State, Texas A&M and Florida have minimal non-conference competition outside their state.


Another stat is that the SEC is 26-10 over that same period of 2009-14 against the ACC in the regular season. Almost every year the SEC plays seven games against the ACC and goes 5-2 again in the regular season. But the ACC "sucks".

Bowl games? Five of the seven contracted bowl games (non-BCS) are contracted against the ACC or the Big Ten. The other two are against the Big Twelve. Those are two of the Power 5 conferences you feel "suck" or are a "big joke".
Automatic bids to college bowl games

Of all the Independents the SEC could schedule, SEC teams in the regular season has only played one game (BYU) outside of Army and Navy. Why not schedule Notre Dame, the Pac 12 or most of the Big 12?

I hope you continue to post and continue to disagree on some aspects.

I'd like to point out that the last time an SEC team played Navy, that team was highly ranked (top 10) and needed a last minute score in the 4th just to hang on. So they ARE scheduling tough opponents, like those at the bottom fraction of an ND schedule. Or the SEC is overrated. One of those.

 

[IrishLax]

Here's an interesting analysis of conference bias in the polls. It's done at a better level than I've seen before:

Conference Bias in College Football | The Harvard College Sports Analysis Collective

They also take a look at bias by individual teams, showing the benefit of being a "brand name" school.

Would be nice if they just hired a bunch of mathematicians in a blind study to determine the rankings.

There's one fatal flaw between his conclusions of "bias" and the actual data he's using to justify that claim. He implies the premise that teams in a poll should be ranked by their F/+. In reality, F/+ measures efficiency, while polls gauge "accomplishment." His conclusions are borderline worthless because polls are NOT supposed to be power rankings.

To illustrate this example, consider Team A that goes 12-0 winning squeakers largely on special teams and "fluke" plays and the like while giving up chunks of yards to opponents would have a bad F/+. Team B that plays a comparable schedule and blows out 10 of the teams but loses close on turnovers and bad calls to the other two -- one of those games being to Team A -- would have a much stronger F/+. No one would ever argue that given comparable SOS the 12-0 team should be ranked behind the 10-2 in the Coaches or AP Poll.

In the bowl era, polls were used to determine who ends up in the title game (and before that they outright crowned the national champion). As such, they have to heavily account for wins and losses above all else... something the efficiency metrics he's referring do not factor in at all.

So that entire article is basically worthless, because it's conclusions are founded on a false assumption. Ohio State is "overrated" not because of bias but because they won a ton of games -- many of them ugly -- over bad opponents, and the poll system rewards wins > all. Why is ASU "underrated"? Because they blow out the crappy teams they play with big plays that show up great in efficiency metrics, but pick up lots of losses whenever they play quality opponents (Stanford, ND, etc.).

Polls != efficiency. Resume test != efficiency. Power rankings = efficiency. This is common sense and I'm disappointed that guy went through all that effort and great research to give bogus conclusions.

 

[ickythump1225]

My thing is I have no problem admitting that the top of the SEC is very tough. I wouldn't envy having to wade through Auburn, Alabama, LSU (who despite always having a mediocre offense seems to win around 10 games), Georgia, and Florida (when Florida is good they are really good).

However what bothers me is when middle and bottom tiers of the conference get this immense benefit of the doubt. Vanderbilt sucks and it would suck in any Power 5 conference. Mississippi State normally sucks and they would have sucked in any other Power 5 conference on most years. aTm and USCe would be middling teams in most other Power 5 conferences this year but there's this feel that because they play in the SEC they are somehow better than other middling or crappy teams.

Another thing that bothers me is when I see "the SEC won 7 national championships in a row." No it didn't. The SEC has never won a national championship, Florida, Auburn, Alabama, and LSU collectively won 7 straight. The SEC is a conference, conferences don't win titles. Teams do. Having 4 SEC teams win 7 straight lends credence to the idea that the top of the SEC is very very good but it doesn't mean that Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, etc. are anything more than they are: mediocre to bad programs.

It also bothers me to see UGA carry so much cachet with the media and pollsters because seriously what have they done to deserve it? Choke in almost every big game they've played in under Mark Richt? Consistently do less with more than almost any other program in the country? People love to ride Bob Stoops for his teams not winning big games lately but at least he has a title. Mark Richt is Bob Stoops without a championship. UGA gets over hyped every year because they are in the SEC whereas if they were in the ACC or Big 12 they would never get free passes for their choke jobs.

 

[Huntr]

So, I gotta be honest. I know it could screw us short-term, but I want FSU to lose so hard right now. They lose to Louisville, they're out of the playoff PERIOD. ND still has games on their schedule to bring up their rank, fsu is SoL. #TalkinBoutTheNoles

 

[wizards8507]

So, I gotta be honest. I know it could screw us short-term, but I want FSU to lose so hard right now. They lose to Louisville, they're out of the playoff PERIOD. ND still has games on their schedule to bring up their rank, fsu is SoL. #TalkinBoutTheNoles

I've been saying this since they played Clemson. A loss or two from FSU helps us more than it hurts us. Let's assume one playoff spot automatically goes to the SEC champion.

Scenario A: FSU wins out
Result: FSU is in. Notre Dame competes for one of TWO remaining spots with a "great loss" to an undefeated team on their resume.

Scenario B: FSU loses
Result: FSU is out. Notre Dame competes for one of THREE remaining spots with a "good loss" to a one loss team in their resume.

FSU eliminating themselves from the playoff is more of a benefit than the harm done to our SOS.

 

[Redbar]

Interesting insight from the Chairman:

When the first College Football Playoff rankings were released many were surprised to see Notre Dame ranked all the way down at no. 10 considering they are no. 6 in the AP poll and their only loss was a nail-biter to second-ranked Florida State on the road.

Arkansas athletic director Jeff Long is also the chairman of the playoff committee and he was a guest on "The Dan Patrick Show" when he was asked about Notre Dame's ranking. Long explained that the loss was impressive but it was still a loss. But more importantly, Long noted that Notre Dame doesn't have any impressive wins.

"I think if you look at Notre Dame's resume at this point, they have a very close loss against Florida State on the road and it is a loss," Long told Dan Patrick. "But the rest of the body of their work against the teams they have played has not impressed the committee as much as the teams that are ahead of Notre Dame."

In fact, the committee was so unimpressed with Notre Dame's six wins, all at home and none against teams currently in the top-25, Long suggested that the Irish would have been much lower in the rankings if not for their "good loss" to Florida State.

.
Streeter Lecka/Getty Images Notre Dame's loss was impressive but it was still a loss.
"Then you look at the rest of the body of [Notre Dame's] work, I would tell you [the loss to Florida State] did help them."

This is in part Notre Dame's fault for not having a tougher schedule and not dominating the schedule they do have. However, some of this is just good old fashioned bad luck as teams like Michigan and Stanford, two teams Notre Dame has beaten, are having down years.

While some feel Notre Dame is ranked too low, the committee is sending a clear message that it could have been a lot worse.

 

[Rocknes Ghost]

It's in their protocol and was clarified in some interviews Long (and other members) have done if you can Google up those articles. They have a bunch of metrics at their disposal, but will not and cannot consider margin of victory in any results.

It was initially a little ambiguous in their guidelines "Principles. The committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering:
Conference championships won,
Strength of schedule,
Head-to-head competition,
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and,
Other relevant factors such as key injuries that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance."

But it was clarified about a week ago in an article from one of the major outlets where they reviewed all of the metrics they were allowed to consider versus the ones they did not have at their disposal, and the article explicitly stated that it was confirmed that they cannot consider MOV. The article postulated that this was ridiculous because MOV is one of the most correlative stats of all stats.



In general, most efficiency and "strength" stats would not change based on that game being a win or a loss. But most SOS and thereby W/L + SOS based team rankings (think your standard RPI, etc.) would definitely be affected.

If MOV is not considered, then I really don't understand Alabama's ranking

 

[Cackalacky]

Interesting insight from the Chairman:

When the first College Football Playoff rankings were released many were surprised to see Notre Dame ranked all the way down at no. 10 considering they are no. 6 in the AP poll and their only loss was a nail-biter to second-ranked Florida State on the road.

Arkansas athletic director Jeff Long is also the chairman of the playoff committee and he was a guest on "The Dan Patrick Show" when he was asked about Notre Dame's ranking. Long explained that the loss was impressive but it was still a loss. But more importantly, Long noted that Notre Dame doesn't have any impressive wins.

"I think if you look at Notre Dame's resume at this point, they have a very close loss against Florida State on the road and it is a loss," Long told Dan Patrick. "But the rest of the body of their work against the teams they have played has not impressed the committee as much as the teams that are ahead of Notre Dame."

In fact, the committee was so unimpressed with Notre Dame's six wins, all at home and none against teams currently in the top-25, Long suggested that the Irish would have been much lower in the rankings if not for their "good loss" to Florida State.

.
Streeter Lecka/Getty Images Notre Dame's loss was impressive but it was still a loss.
"Then you look at the rest of the body of [Notre Dame's] work, I would tell you [the loss to Florida State] did help them."

This is in part Notre Dame's fault for not having a tougher schedule and not dominating the schedule they do have. However, some of this is just good old fashioned bad luck as teams like Michigan and Stanford, two teams Notre Dame has beaten, are having down years.

While some feel Notre Dame is ranked too low, the committee is sending a clear message that it could have been a lot worse.

I cant disagree with any of that. I really never even included all of those wins were at home or a neutral site. And he is basically stating that ND needs to win impressively. I have been saying that because we dont have a thirteenth game. Our 12 games need to be as impressive as a conference champion.

 

[JT_IRISH]

If Louisville beats FSU I am convinced that will be good for us given the fact we lost on a penalty..

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Run all over noles in first half, come out second half throwing incompletes stopping clock. Giving fsu plenty of time to score. Jeez where did I see that mistake before

 

[Legacy]

"I think if you look at Notre Dame's resume at this point, they have a very close loss against Florida State on the road and it is a loss," Long told Dan Patrick. "But the rest of the body of their work against the teams they have played has not impressed the committee as much as the teams that are ahead of Notre Dame."

In fact, the committee was so unimpressed with Notre Dame's six wins, all at home and none against teams currently in the top-25, Long suggested that the Irish would have been much lower in the rankings if not for their "good loss" to Florida State.

So the difference between an undefeated ND and a top 2 ranking (all undefeateds) and #10 is a penalty negating a touchdown?

A two loss LSU is climbing over many of the one-loss teams from outside the South in many computer rankings.
Old BCS formula would favor Alabama, Auburn on Week 1 of playoff rankings

 

[irishtrain]

So the difference between an undefeated ND and a top 2 ranking (all undefeateds) and #10 is a penalty negating a touchdown?

A two loss LSU is climbing over many of the one-loss teams from outside the South in many computer rankings.
Old BCS formula would favor Alabama, Auburn on Week 1 of playoff rankings

So let me get this right jeff long-----you want 4 sec teams in the playoff------am I correct on that? Hey jeff I got an idea why don't you get an honest line of work.

 

[stlnd01]

So let me get this right jeff long-----you want 4 sec teams in the playoff------am I correct on that? Hey jeff I got an idea why don't you get an honest line of work.

Long's actual "line of work" is running an athletic department in the Southeastern Conference. If you want to complain, complain about why there are sitting ADs on the selection committee. That's kinda bogus. Though I don't really think the committee is biased in favor of the SEC so much as they are in favor of good football teams, it certainly throws a little extra fuel on the conspiracy fires.

As for us, yeah, it sucks that Michigan and Stanford have less-than-expected this year and we let North Carolina and Syracuse play us closer than we should have. The North Carolina game, in particular, hurt us a lot I think. I'd also argue that every team on our schedule so far has been better than the creampuffs most major schools beat up on early. But it's a fact that we haven't beaten a ranked team, and most of the others have, and we don't tend to drop 85 on anyone. I'll be very interested to see if we "get points" down the road should Stanford go on a tear. Somehow I doubt it'll work that way. But our SOS will improve in the second half, and if we win out, we'll be fine.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Listening to my local radio show this morning when a MSU fan called in. He thought they were where they should be, but said he thought ND was getting screwed. Said we were easily a top 4 team even with our body of work, but that the committee showed they don't like teams that aren't in a conference and we basically have no shot at the playoffs, ever, unless going undefeated.

 

[Irish YJ]

Although I hate Long, hate the SEC bias, etc... there's a lot I have to agree with. A top 4 team might have a bad win or two, but they also should have several great wins, especially at home (we had a great win vs UM, but that is it) against sub par teams. Syracuse/Rice were decent, Stanford good but not great. PU and NC were bad wins, especially as the home team.

A top 4 team trounces Navy this week. BK and team know what they need to do. I think they will do it.

Anyway, F... Long. Let's go throttle some teams.

 

[phork]

The problem I have is that in the old rankings you ranked based on who you thought the best teams were. How will team A fare against team B on a neutral site? I believe that ND would beat FSU on a neutral site game 9/10 times.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I cant disagree with any of that. I really never even included all of those wins were at home or a neutral site. And he is basically stating that ND needs to win impressively. I have been saying that because we dont have a thirteenth game. Our 12 games need to be as impressive as a conference champion.

MOV isn't supposed to be considered. A win is a win. A loss is a loss. I think what he's saying is ND's wins aren't impressive, not because of MOV, but because of the teams they've beat just aren't that good...not good enough to warrant a high ranking. Stanford beating Oregon, beating ASU, etc will change that.

 

[Woneone]

If MOV is not considered, then I really don't understand Alabama's ranking

Exactly this.

If this weekend plays out like it should (TCU beats WVU, Georgia beats Florida, MSU beats Arkansas), then Alabama will have beaten 2 teams above .500 (WVU and TA&M) and no one in the top #25.

You think an AD in the SEC is going to go on national radio and make the same speech about Alabama? No, they're going to move into the top 4 after this week, with a worse resume (to this point) than we have.

Edit: Or at least similarly lacking (Our two teams above .500 are Rice and Standford, with NC having a game against Miami to move above it).

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Exactly this.

If this weekend plays out like it should (TCU beats WVU, Georgia beats Florida, MSU beats Arkansas), then Alabama will have beaten 2 teams above .500 (WVU and TA&M) and no one in the top #25.

You think an AD in the SEC is going to go on national radio and make the same speech about Alabama? No, they're going to move into the top 4 after this week, with a worse resume (to this point) than we have.

Nah. I don't see how Alabama moves into the top 4 during a bye week and if TCU beats WVU. If Oregon wins, then Oregon moves into the Top 4 w/ MSU, FSU, and winner of Auburn/OleMiss. Then TCU should theoretically jump Alabama. Truth is, if there's no SEC bias, a WVU loss to TCU might actually drop Bama pretty far considering they're currently Bama's only win over a top 25 team because WVU will end up dropping out of the top 25 w/ another loss. Hell, you could even argue a TCU win over another top 25 team may help them jump Oregon (even with a win over Stanford...if ND isn't getting love for that win, then neither will Oregon).

 

[Guest]

My input:

1) Not everyone on this board, Tommy, have been convinced that ND is a shoe-in and rules all. Like you said, they haven't beaten anyone yet this year. I've been saying this for over a week. (My main complaint isn't where ND is ranked, it's where MSU is ranked, but that's another debate).

2) Wyvrn, hit my point dead on about the middle-to-low level SEC teams getting boosts from playing the upper level teams. In every other conference, a loss to the upper level teams is a loss. But in the SEC, a loss is at most times considered a "hard fought, close loss" or "a moral victory" and you almost never see said teams drop very far in rankings. Which brings me to

3) Rankings in general. The SEC always gets hyped in the preseason. See South Carolina and TX A&M this year. I'm not going to breakdown their schedules and wins/losses. But it has taken multiple losses before people finally pulled them from the Top 25. Miss St wasn't even ranked in the preseason, but their "big wins" are over #6 A&M (currently not ranked), #8 LSU (currently #11), and #2 Auburn (currently #3). I'm not knocking Miss St...but you better believe that win over A&M started their rise to the top....proving my point that over-hyped, over-ranked teams in the SEC always catapult the winning team, and never drop the losing team as far as other conferences. This is proven year after year after year. And it will happen again this year when Bama, Miss St, Ole Miss, and Auburn all play each other. Throw in GA and LSU, and you have the potential to see 6 SEC teams in the top 12-15 regardless of losses because of who they played...who they beat and who they lost to. Start playing tougher teams outside the conference and see how they stack up on a regular basis (almighty Bama barely beat WVU, almighty Auburn barely beat KSU, etc...sure they won, but these are teams that people in the SEC rave about. Use some common sense and logic to see that the SEC isn't as far ahead of everyone else as you might think.

4) The SEC, like every other conference, has your elite teams on top. And every year there's a slight shuffle. But your powers stay among the top 3-5 times. The SEC has earned the benefit of the doubt in the last 10 years because of national championships, no doubt. But to arrogantly say the SEC is deeper, or that X-team couldn't handle the schedule, etc is ignorant and proven so by hype, overranking, weak OoC scheduling, overall OoC Power5 records, etc.

To sum up, I really feel the rankings need to be thrown away completely. Teams of all power conferences should be forced to play only teams from other power conferences for their OoC games. And the playoff should be expanded to 8 teams with the seeding coming only after everyone has played a full season. It'll never happen that way, but imo, it's the most fair.

BINGO. This is the only way in which you know whether poll ratings means a hill of beans. Without settling it on the field, nothing else matters. It is all just opinion (mine, yours, whomever's). If we aren't going to get a typical playoff in college football at the end of the season, at least force teams to play each other during the regular season we can have more objective discussion on the rankings as the year progresses.

 

[ND NYC]

i was rooting for fsu last night.
a 12-1 FSU vs 11-1 ND for the last spot--no way this committee picks us. "head to head" is at the top of their list of criteria.
still think the "bad loss" to the 13-0 fs can/will help us.

go stanford!

 

[Black Irish]

I'm coming around to the thinking that FSU dropping a game helps the Irish more than it hurts. Sitting at #10, our boys have a lot of ground to make up. Them winning out is paramount, but some other things need to break our way. The fewer teams that have playoff spots locked up, the better for ND. Too bad the 'Noles couldn't have played as bad in the 2nd half last night as they did in the 1st.

This weekend, aside from wanting to see the Irish blow out Navy, I'm rooting for: Stanford, West VA., Florida, Arkansas, OK State, ASU. I can't say which way I want the Ole Miss-Auburn game to go. Apparently, it's not possible for both teams to lose without divine intervention.

 

[BeauBenken]

It's funny because you can make the argument that Alabama hasn't "beaten anyone" either.

Their one quality win is over WVU in a "neutral site" game in Atlanta, Georgia which is as far from WVU as South Bend is.

 

[NCND]

ND anit dead.. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Wishing everyone a safe & happy Halloween. Follow <a href="https://twitter.com/NDFootball">@NDFootball</a> to see our guys in costume over the years. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NDHalloween?src=hash">#NDHalloween</a> <a href="http://t.co/RgBo1NOUru">pic.twitter.com/RgBo1NOUru</a></p>— Brian Kelly (@CoachBrianKelly) <a href="https://twitter.com/CoachBrianKelly/status/528176199571619840">October 31, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[ND NYC]

It's funny because you can make the argument that Alabama hasn't "beaten anyone" either.
Their one quality win is over WVU in a "neutral site" game in Atlanta, Georgia which is as far from WVU as South Bend is.

over the next few weeks they will/should...IMO they are sitting very nicely (control ther own destiny) for them its truly "just win and in"

 

[Wingman Ray]

It's funny because you can make the argument that Alabama hasn't "beaten anyone" either.

Their one quality win is over WVU in a "neutral site" game in Atlanta, Georgia which is as far from WVU as South Bend is.

And I would take Stanford over WVU any day of the week. Im sure everyone would agree to that.

Bama has played no ne yet. An overrated TX AM and lost to Ole Piss. Played a bunch of AA teams and bottom tier SEC teams. How is that fair?

 

[Wild Bill]

Arkansas athletic director Jeff Long is also the chairman of the playoff committee and he was a guest on "The Dan Patrick Show" when he was asked about Notre Dame's ranking. Long explained that the loss was impressive but it was still a loss. But more importantly, Long noted that Notre Dame doesn't have any impressive wins.

"I think if you look at Notre Dame's resume at this point, they have a very close loss against Florida State on the road and it is a loss," Long told Dan Patrick. "But the rest of the body of their work against the teams they have played has not impressed the committee as much as the teams that are ahead of Notre Dame."

In fact, the committee was so unimpressed with Notre Dame's six wins, all at home and none against teams currently in the top-25, Long suggested that the Irish would have been much lower in the rankings if not for their "good loss" to Florida State.

I cant disagree with any of that. I really never even included all of those wins were at home or a neutral site. And he is basically stating that ND needs to win impressively. I have been saying that because we dont have a thirteenth game. Our 12 games need to be as impressive as a conference champion.

We'd have more impressive wins if we played against teams like Jacksonville State, Wyoming and Eastern Michigan. I find it hard to believe the committee actually compared ND's body of work with MSU's, unless they put great value on beating the brakes off of teams outside of the power five.

MSU played three games that were guaranteed wins. Think about it - 37% of MSU's season was spent preparing/playing teams that absolutely could not beat them. We played one team on that level. We played two common opponents and beat them by a wider margin. For what it's worth, we have the better loss. On it's face, the only edge MSU has over us is their one win against Nebraska at home and greater margins of victory against inferior opponents.

It's hard to argue with proponents of scheduling inferior opponents as much as I'd hate to strap it up against four MAC caliber teams each year. It's just easier to blow out inferior opponents than it is to grind out 12 wins against FBS opponents. Seems the committee disagrees and prefers the easier road.

 

[BGIF]

ND anit dead.. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Wishing everyone a safe & happy Halloween. Follow <a href="https://twitter.com/NDFootball">@NDFootball</a> to see our guys in costume over the years. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NDHalloween?src=hash">#NDHalloween</a> <a href="http://t.co/RgBo1NOUru">pic.twitter.com/RgBo1NOUru</a></p>— Brian Kelly (@CoachBrianKelly) <a href="https://twitter.com/CoachBrianKelly/status/528176199571619840">October 31, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

"(Stolen) From my cold, dead hands!"

Interesting, ain't it?