Let him finish, he's on a roll.
Mike Thomas is still on the team, right?
For the first time all year we look like a gimmick offense.
OU is a safe bet. They seem to be the only team in the Big12 that simultaneously has a QB and a defense. But the B12 might actually force a team in because somebody is only gonna have one loss.
This year is shaping up to possibly have the craziest debate of all playoff time. Imagine this, Stanford beats Notre Dame and then wins the Pac. There's a two-loss champion and two-loss ND. Alabama loses at Auburn, goes on to win the SEC. There's another two-loss champion. UNC loses to VaTech, but beats Clemson in the ACC championship game. There's a third two-loss champion. THEN GOD FORBID: Ohio State beats Sparty, loses to Michigan, and Michigan wins the B1G. That would make 4, two-loss champions.
Shortly thereafter the four horsemen would appear...
Beauty is in the eye or the beer-holder.
I'm just playing devil's advocate though. I wouldn't put money on UNC's chances of making the playoff because of the undeniable brand that Notre Dame is.
Unfortunately, I've been forced to watch a lot of ACC football because I live in Chapel Hill. ((Previously didn't want to mention that little bias.)) And that being said, UNC has been nothing short of dominant since Marquise Williams took full responsibility for that SCar loss. They are a different team now and I would put money on a neutral site Notre Dame-UNC matchup at UNC around -7.5. Just look at the first quarter scores of their last few games, it's unreal.
Last week, UNC had "We want Clemson" chants going around the stadium. And this fanbase is pretty well known around here for being unenthusiastic about football.
Edit: upvotes all around, this is a great thread.
Not so fast my friend!!! (In my best Lee Corso voice)
If both Clemson and UNC win out they would meet at a neutral site in Charlotte. And if UNC were to pull the upset, they would immediately have the most impressive win in the country. It really is just a matter of prioritized criteria, but why would the committee choose a ND team that already had it's chance to prove that it undoubtedly belonged in the top 4? Consistency only trumps firepower if the firepower hasn't proven that it can be maintained. If UNC wins out, that firepower will have been more than maintained. The only way that ND fits into the playoff picture is if Clemson is the undisputed #1 team. Because you simply can't allow that much margin for error - Notre Dame lost a game that should be treated as a regular season playoff.
So what you're essentially saying is that Notre Dame should get in over a team that it lost to while sporting the same record as a team that beat the team it lost to and did not get in. That seems extremely counter-intuitive, and a little lazy on the part of the committee.
And I'm telling you, if you haven't watched UNC this year, you need to give them a chance. I haven't seen an ACC team that hits on defense like this since the early 2000s Miami teams. It's not like Baylor, UNC plays on both sides of the ball.
Why not make things interesting?
What if UNC beats Clemson in the ACC championship game? Then Clemson and ND's rankings tragically spiral downwards together.
So as a member of the playoff committee you're supposed to forget about the individual performances of Mike Thomas, Zeke, Jalin Marshall, 4/5ths of the OL, Vonn Bell, Darron Lee and Joey Bosa in 2014? Whether the committee likes it or not, those players are household names and they are still on the team (along with 90% of that championship team). You're right, we are supposed to only consider what has happened this year, and the committee might be scared of transferring respect from the previous year because of FSU's embarrassing outing. But we have pro-rated individuals that are veterans who as underclassmen beat the best teams in the nation. That is a fact that can't be applied to every year's playoff picture, and it makes a #3-4 ranking look slightly disrespectful.
But go ahead committee, I would honestly rather have you sleep on this team.
But what's the fun in that???
And it's obvious.
The bear-rabbit comparison is hilariously valid.
Every time we've been forced to draw a line in the sand (especially on defense) we have straight dominated the opposition. And I wouldn't hesitate to take it a step further SM, this team is struggling to blow teams out because they've been playing void of emotion.
My favorite explanation of what is happening this year: Baylor sucks ass because they have to use every single base/restraint call in their playbook so that they can dominate inferior opposition and get ahead in the polls - which in turn shows their hand to similarly talented opposition. Whereas Urban Meyer has literally transformed into Jim Tressel - running the most basic version of his offense possible in conservation for MSU and TTUN. I don't think people are aware of what we're sacrificing in production by not showing the back end of our schedule every restraint to our base offense. Urban knows that he doesn't have to set up defensive tendencies, because the defense can't stop Zeke even when they know he's coming.
Those stats would be much more critical if their overall records were the same.
The real questions to ask are: "If you replace that Clemson loss with another mediocre win (as if to say they never played), would Notre Dame be ranked ahead of Ohio State? So then are they being penalized AT ALL for losing a game?"
I think the answer to that is a resounding no. And that's what bothers me the most. There are no ties for a reason, because there is supposed to be a winner and a loser. All you are doing by keeping Notre Dame at #4 is stealing the opportunity from another team to do what Notre Dame already had a chance to do. That's bullshit, they had their time on the big stage and lost. I will be boycotting a ND-Clemson rematch, should that happen.
Ahhh, but such is the beauty of the new format.
Consumer interest is at an all time high because every week we pretend like these rankings matter.
Don't forget, College football is a product. You don't think that Notre Dame and Stanford are ranked higher than they should be to gather ratings during their big showdown? You think MSU and OSU are rightfully ranked? Probs not, but guess who has the telecast contract?
That teeny tiny little number in front of the two schools' names is directly correlated to the money that will be made during the game.
Starting to feel a little myopic all of a sudden...
Exactly. I don't want to see a team in the playoffs and not know what we're going to get from them.
The idea is to put the best 4 in at that current time slice, but if one team hasn't proven to be consistent how can you know they're going to show up on the biggest of stages? I'm all for putting a one loss team in because they have proven that over an extended period of time they are consistently playing at a high level. But you can't disregard a loss because a team "didn't show up one week." That loss is a part of who they are, the bottom threshold of their capabilities. And that has to be taken into account.
Heard on ESPN this last Sunday:
"Clemson races past Syracuse as Ohio State outlasts Illinois."
"Bama dominates defensively and Ohio State needs another stellar performance from Elliott to win"
"Notre Dame too much for Wake Forest, as Ohio State looks sluggish in defensive battle."
Don't worry, if I ever see Mark May in person I have a swift kick to the nut sack waiting for him. All warriors will rejoice while reading about my incarceration in a skull session.
Notable Losses: none
That is all.
No doubt. Which is why the committee is in a little bit of pickle.
The country knows that Ohio State is good because the country is familiar with the names on our team. It sounds homer-ific as hell, but you almost have to give Ohio State the pass because it is actually the same team as last year. Is that ethically right? Shit no! But you can't erase people's memories of Zeke going crazy in the last 3 games of last year and the defense shutting Oregon down. Normally, the "last year's team" argument wouldn't hold water, but it's like 90% the same team. You can't just willfully ignore what you know about Mike Thomas, what you know about Joey Bosa and Darron Lee and Vonn Bell. Say what you will about what we've looked like, but you've seen this exact same team dominate Bama. Curtis and Doran Grant weren't the difference makers in that game, however Evan Spencer and Devin Smith arguably were.
The point I'm trying to make though is that we are not 2014 Florida State. We aren't maintaining our ranking because of respect for the program, but out of respect for the players that the country knows about.
Unfortunately Ohio State created this problem.
If an undefeated team had won the Playoff last year we would probably see more stacking of undefeated teams and one loss teams being lower ranked. However, because we won, momentum has become such a highly prioritized criteria to the committee that you hear the "eye test" being mentioned more.
I agree though, at some point you have to prioritize consistency and penalize losses. Or else we would just have the three best teams from the SEC West play the best team from the SEC East and that would be the playoff.
Exactly what I meant by straw-man argument.
There's nothing to really prove either statement. I was just using a hypothetical situation to comment on the well-roundedness of each team.
We are a better team without Elliott than FSU is without Cook, and I don't think Mark May would even dispute that.
Ask and you shall receive.
- Strength of Record - 84.6 (20th)
- Offensive Efficiency - 73.33 (21st)
- Defensive Efficiency - 69.17 (26th)
- Notable Wins - @BC, @Wake, Miami (by an ugly 5 points - UNC hung 60), NC State
- Notable Losses - @GT, @ Clemson
No but seriously, this summary doesn't do Florida State's shitty resume shit justice.
Without Cook I honestly believe Florida State has another 1-2 losses. And I know that's a straw-man argument, but they are nowhere near a complete team. And their entire SOS ranking is based on Clemson being #1. I don't need to back up the statement that Florida State is overrated, because it's pretty much a forgone conclusion.
****I'm REALLY bored at work.
Well that was the idea, it's obvious who they are.
I was making the point that the sole distinguishing factor between the two is that one team is named Notre Dame and the other Oklahoma State.
I'm not here to be objective. I hate Notre Dame.
I'm just so confused about when the ACC began to receive the benefit of the doubt.
As much as I hate to use it, the transitive property says we were 61 points better than Florida State last year. How much could a conference have changed in one year??
Couldn't agree more Phi.
I think Illinois actually had a very underrated pass rush, and we finally got some film for the slobs against some big guys with athleticism. Up to this point the season has felt very business-like, where the team was really just trying to come out and get the job done. There were isolated moments where emotion became involved, but until this weekend we haven't needed to be completely motivated. Now you hear all this "do-or-die" talk and that's probably the best way to describe how the team needs to play. We won't be able to just line up and smash it down their throats, we need to execute in all facets of the game for 4 quarters. Anything less equals a loss. And ironically, I wouldn't be surprised to see a very clean, well-executed game; because this team has done nothing but kick ass in the spotlight.
Lack of execution thus far is a result of internal pressure, the pressure of needing to look a certain way against an obviously inferior opponent. Now that more of the focus is on the opponent and less on themselves, I expect a breakout game.
Can't wait to see this defense against a quality opponent. If Tommy can hold his own up front we are going to shut them down. Tyquan and Bosa may be the best pair of ends I can remember at OSU.
This defense is fast from sideline to sideline, very instinctive, and arrives at the ball with bad intentions. I almost prefer watching this team over last year's for the defense alone. Call me old school, but I would rather win 28-3 than 59-17. It just shows that you broke a team's will to not allow a TD.