Ok, Suspend disbelief/all of these teams go undefeated/who goes to the playoff ???

[LawDawg]

And it'll happen eventually

It's not happened before, likely won't before they change to 6 or 8 anyway. My guess is we will see it (1) when the contract expires, or (2) the next time 2 SEC teams get in, or (3) if the B1G gets left out one more time.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I agree, I just don't buy that they will keep ND out. I mean you could trade OSU and Oklahoma in that scenario...they would be the odd man out in that scenario

I could see it. I hope it wouldn't happen and I would be in full force against the "committee" if that were to happen (not that I matter or anything lol).

I don't "dislike" Notre Dame, but I am not a fan of them not joining a conference and I don't understand the hype to be honest. As I have laid out before how Michigan is a pretender blue blood, I think Notre Dame receives way to much credit every year. I am not saying that they aren't one of the top 5 best programs all time, but the talk surrounding their schedule most years is ridiculous.

I heard sports analysts saying that ND has a tough schedule this year. How? Because 6 teams are coming off of byes? Sure I will grant you that makes things slightly tougher, but 6 teams are also coming off of sub .500 season and with the way USC and Stanford are trending, their schedule is getting softer by the week.

Kind of just went on a rant lol, but yeah... sorry ND. OU and tOSU get in first.

 

[Ron G]

Get ready for ND to be in the playoff (if they run the table). How you ask? If Georgia runs the table at least five of the 8 teams in front of ND will have a loss, but HD's loss would be to Georgia by 6 points on the road It does take Georgia to win out.
Theoretically, Florida and either Penn St. or Iowa could run the table and jump ND as undefeateds. That would put four potential undefeateds (Clemson, Oklahoma, Florida and either Penn St /Iowa in the playoff).

 

[Ron G]

I could see it. I hope it wouldn't happen and I would be in full force against the "committee" if that were to happen (not that I matter or anything lol).

I don't "dislike" Notre Dame, but I am not a fan of them not joining a conference and I don't understand the hype to be honest. As I have laid out before how Michigan is a pretender blue blood, I think Notre Dame receives way to much credit every year. I am not saying that they aren't one of the top 5 best programs all time, but the talk surrounding their schedule most years is ridiculous.

I heard sports analysts saying that ND has a tough schedule this year. How? Because 6 teams are coming off of byes? Sure I will grant you that makes things slightly tougher, but 6 teams are also coming off of sub .500 season and with the way USC and Stanford are trending, their schedule is getting softer by the week.

Kind of just went on a rant lol, but yeah... sorry ND. OU and tOSU get in first.

So ND contracted Southern Cal, Stanford and Michigan four or five years ago because they knew this would be a bad year for those teams. They must have missed on their idea that this would be an off year for Georgia. They play 9 Power 5 teams this year. The next 4 years they are sure that Wisconsin twice and Ohio State twice will have off years so they were willing to schedule them. Going forward ND will face 10 P5 teams every year, and one of the Group 5 teams will be Navy.
Of course, no SEC team will play more than 10 P5s except for the two in the Championship Game. Of course most of SEC teams play at least 1 FCS team to round out their 12 game schedule. So stop with the downgrading of the schedule.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

So ND contracted Southern Cal, Stanford and Michigan four or five years ago because they knew this would be a bad year for those teams. They must have missed on their idea that this would be an off year for Georgia. They play 9 Power 5 teams this year. The next 4 years they are sure that Wisconsin twice and Ohio State twice will have off years so they were willing to schedule them. Going forward ND will face 10 P5 teams every year, and one of the Group 5 teams will be Navy.
Of course, no SEC team will play more than 10 P5s except for the two in the Championship Game. Of course most of SEC teams play at least 1 FCS team to round out their 12 game schedule. So stop with the downgrading of the schedule.

I don't know if you were trying to be sarcastic or not with the top portion of your post, or what the hell you were even trying to say...

Look...

Louisville was 2-10 last year and definitely looks improved, but far from a great P5 team. Currently sitting at 2-2.

New Mexico.... is well, New Mexico.

UGA - solid opponent. No gripes.

Virginia - I think they are slightly overrated, but that might be because I think the ACC is pretty bad, but I will still call them solid.

Bowling Green - currently 1-3 and they were 3-9 last year (on pace)

USC - they were 5-7 last year and on par to do better this year, but they aren't a national power like they used to be. I think they may go bowling. But I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.

Michigan - currently 3-1, but lets not act like everyone isn't doubting them. Cause everyone is.

Va Tech - they are currently 2-2, but I get the vibe that they are trying to compete with the likes of Kansas and Oregon St. (Not Rutgers, Rutgers is in a league of their own suckage).

Duke - decent P5 opponent. Mid tier.

Navy - 2-1 right now, 3-10 last year. I mean, respect them cause they're Navy, but they aren't considered P5 for a reason.

BC - has not looked good.... hell, even Kansas beat them.

Stanford - also looks bad.


Think whatever you want about your teams schedule, UGA is a good loss in my opinion, but a loss nonetheless. There is really nothing left on the schedule worth bragging about unless Michigan and Duke set it up in a big way. I would also say USC, but that game is too close.

I just don't think it is a tough schedule. Don't get me wrong, I am not comparing them to Nebraska. Nebraska has a soft ass schedule too and is 3-2 at that. This isn't about pointing fingers, just being objective.

 

[Ron G]

I don't know if you were trying to be sarcastic or not with the top portion of your post, or what the hell you were even trying to say...

Look...

Louisville was 2-10 last year and definitely looks improved, but far from a great P5 team. Currently sitting at 2-2.

New Mexico.... is well, New Mexico.

UGA - solid opponent. No gripes.

Virginia - I think they are slightly overrated, but that might be because I think the ACC is pretty bad, but I will still call them solid.

Bowling Green - currently 1-3 and they were 3-9 last year (on pace)

USC - they were 5-7 last year and on par to do better this year, but they aren't a national power like they used to be. I think they may go bowling. But I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.

Michigan - currently 3-1, but lets not act like everyone isn't doubting them. Cause everyone is.

Va Tech - they are currently 2-2, but I get the vibe that they are trying to compete with the likes of Kansas and Oregon St. (Not Rutgers, Rutgers is in a league of their own suckage).

Duke - decent P5 opponent. Mid tier.

Navy - 2-1 right now, 3-10 last year. I mean, respect them cause they're Navy, but they aren't considered P5 for a reason.

BC - has not looked good.... hell, even Kansas beat them.

Stanford - also looks bad.


Think whatever you want about your teams schedule, UGA is a good loss in my opinion, but a loss nonetheless. There is really nothing left on the schedule worth bragging about unless Michigan and Duke set it up in a big way. I would also say USC, but that game is too close.

I just don't think it is a tough schedule. Don't get me wrong, I am not comparing them to Nebraska. Nebraska has a soft ass schedule too and is 3-2 at that. This isn't about pointing fingers, just being objective.

I am not saying that in any particular year the schedule not is weaker than other years (this year in particular) but many of the posters seem to imply that ND schedules weak teams year in and year out. That is just not true.

 

[rmilia1]

I am not saying that in any particular year the schedule not is weaker than other years (this year in particular) but many of the posters seem to imply that ND schedules weak teams year in and year out. That is just not true.

Part of the problem is ND has the ACC tie - in now and the ACC ( other than Clemson ) has been horseshit for 5 years. Add in USC being down ( by their standards ) for a decade and basically half their schedule is wayy shittier than you'd expect for some time now.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I am not saying that in any particular year the schedule not is weaker than other years (this year in particular) but many of the posters seem to imply that ND schedules weak teams year in and year out. That is just not true.

Of course not all the time, but typically I am not overly impressed with NDs schedule.

Part of the problem is ND has the ACC tie - in now and the ACC ( other than Clemson ) has been horseshit for 5 years. Add in USC being down ( by their standards ) for a decade and basically half their schedule is wayy shittier than you'd expect for some time now.

My point exactly.

 

[thunderc]

What if UCF doesn’t lose? Oh wait.

 

[Ron G]

Part of the problem is ND has the ACC tie - in now and the ACC ( other than Clemson ) has been horseshit for 5 years. Add in USC being down ( by their standards ) for a decade and basically half their schedule is wayy shittier than you'd expect for some time now.

So are you saying that the ACC should no longer be considered a power 5 conference.
Using that line of logic, then Clemson (even though they won) should be considered in the same vein as UCF for not having a competitive schedule and even though they have had great teams should not have earned the right to be in the playoff.

 

[rmilia1]

So are you saying that the ACC should no longer be considered a power 5 conference.
Using that line of logic, then Clemson (even though they won) should be considered in the same vein as UCF for not having a competitive schedule and even though they have had great teams should not have earned the right to be in the playoff.

No because even with as bad as the ACC has been it's still far better than the AAC . BUT I don't think Clemson should fall into the "you get a free loss as long as you win your conference " category like SEC teams do either .

 

[78Cyclones]

So ND contracted Southern Cal, Stanford and Michigan four or five years ago because they knew this would be a bad year for those teams. They must have missed on their idea that this would be an off year for Georgia. They play 9 Power 5 teams this year. The next 4 years they are sure that Wisconsin twice and Ohio State twice will have off years so they were willing to schedule them. Going forward ND will face 10 P5 teams every year, and one of the Group 5 teams will be Navy.
Of course, no SEC team will play more than 10 P5s except for the two in the Championship Game. Of course most of SEC teams play at least 1 FCS team to round out their 12 game schedule. So stop with the downgrading of the schedule.

I have no issue with Notre Dame or their schedule. Specifically, I like the fact that the Irish NEVER schedule FCS teams. Much respect for that.

That being said, during the Saban Era, Alabama has played 6 of Notre Dame's 2019 Regular Season opponents in the Regular Season with an overall record of (9-1) and a current 9 game winning streak (all by double digits):

2007 Georgia (L 23-26 OT)
2008 @ Georgia (W 41-30)
2009 Virginia Tech @ Atlanta (W 34-24)
2010 @ Duke (W 62-13)
2012 Michigan @ Arlington (W 41-14)
2013 Virginia Tech @ Atlanta (W 35-10)
2015 @ Georgia (W 38-10)
2016 Southern California @ Arlington (W 52-06)
2018 Louisville @ Orlando (W 51-14)
2019 Duke @ Atlanta (W 42-03)

My point is that it looks scarier than it actually is. Notre Dame should go (11-1) vs. their 2019 schedule this or any year. Just a bunch of names - of which Notre Dame has as good or better talent most years.

FWIW, I hope ND wins out, finishes (11-1) and makes the CFB Playoff.

 

[Ron G]

No because even with as bad as the ACC has been it's still far better than the AAC . BUT I don't think Clemson should fall into the "you get a free loss as long as you win your conference " category like SEC teams do either .

Agreed, but it does depend on to whom they lose. If it is to one of the two top teams in any P5 conference or ND (in a 1 loss year for ND) than it might be the free loss to which you refer.
I still believe that undefeated conference champion should not get credit for 13 wins as opposed to NDs 12 (if undefeated) wins if one of the wins is against an FCS.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Agreed, but it does depend on to whom they lose. If it is to one of the two top teams in any P5 conference or ND (in a 1 loss year for ND) than it might be the free loss to which you refer.
I still believe that undefeated conference champion should not get credit for 13 wins as opposed to NDs 12 (if undefeated) wins if one of the wins is against an FCS.

Interesting point. Typically I would agree, but there are some damn good FCS programs that routinely beat P5 competition. While it is still FCS... I don't think losing to North Dakota St is necessarily worse than losing to a P5 team that is struggling to meet bowl eligibility.

 

[rmilia1]

Interesting point. Typically I would agree, but there are some damn good FCS programs that routinely beat P5 competition. While it is still FCS... I don't think losing to North Dakota St is necessarily worse than losing to a P5 team that is struggling to meet bowl eligibility.

Honestly that's an easy fix though . You just make a rule where no win over a FCS team counts unless they're in the top 5 or 10 of the FCS rankings at the time of the committee poll.

 

[Ron G]

Honestly that's an easy fix though . You just make a rule where no win over a FCS team counts unless they're in the top 5 or 10 of the FCS rankings at the time of the committee poll.

I always liked a point system for the playoff: 10 points for beating a top ten P5 or G5 team; 5 points for beating a top 25 P5 or G5: 4 points for beating a non ranked P5: 2 Points for beating a non ranked G5 or top 5 ranked FCS; 0 points for beating an FCS; -10 points for losing to any FCS (after all you scheduled them for sure victory).
Four teams with most points go to the playoff. Tie breaker would be the rank of the top ten or top 25 P5 that was defeated.
This would eliminate all arguments about strength of schedule. Ranking determined after the last game of the season so as not to be determine by the bias of the preseason ranks.

 

[78Cyclones]

I always liked a point system for the playoff: 10 points for beating a top ten P5 or G5 team; 5 points for beating a top 25 P5 or G5: 4 points for beating a non ranked P5: 2 Points for beating a non ranked G5 or top 5 ranked FCS; 0 points for beating an FCS; -10 points for losing to any FCS (after all you scheduled them for sure victory).
Four teams with most points go to the playoff. Tie breaker would be the rank of the top ten or top 25 P5 that was defeated.
This would eliminate all arguments about strength of schedule. Ranking determined after the last game of the season so as not to be determine by the bias of the preseason ranks.

That would be like a dog chasing its own tail. I know what you mean, but you cannot have one ranking to determine the points to be accrued to have another ranking. It sounds good at first, but it is a miserable exercise.

However, I do agree with teams that have tougher schedules (however that is determined) should be chosen over teams with weaker schedules - when comparing certain teams.

 

[Ron G]

That would be like a dog chasing its own tail. I know what you mean, but you cannot have one ranking to determine the points to be accrued to have another ranking. It sounds good at first, but it is a miserable exercise.

However, I do agree with teams that have tougher schedules (however that is determined) should be chosen over teams with weaker schedules - when comparing certain teams.

This would not be used to determine the final ranking. It would be used to determine the teams in the playoff. It would be possible to have a team ranked high by a subjective vote but not be in the playoff due to a weaker schedule. No team is likely to have beaten two teams still ranked in the top 10 in the final poll, this would be true in conference play the two losers would likely have to play each other leaving one with two losses and out of the top ten.
Even though I like ND, after some thought based on your point, it would give ND an advantage as few of their opponents(other than ACC ones) play each other (Stanford and USC, Michigan and another Big Ten).

 

[78Cyclones]

This would not be used to determine the final ranking. It would be used to determine the teams in the playoff. It would be possible to have a team ranked high by a subjective vote but not be in the playoff due to a weaker schedule. No team is likely to have beaten two teams still ranked in the top 10 in the final poll, this would be true in conference play the two losers would likely have to play each other leaving one with two losses and out of the top ten.
Even though I like ND, after some thought based on your point, it would give ND an advantage as few of their opponents(other than ACC ones) play each other (Stanford and USC, Michigan and another Big Ten).

Do you mean like use the AP ranking and then determine the point based ranking of quality wins and using that for a final playoff determination? If so, that makes sense. If not, can you give me an example. Not sure what point I made that you agree with, but I can run with that!

 

[Ron G]

Do you mean like use the AP ranking and then determine the point based ranking of quality wins and using that for a final playoff determination? If so, that makes sense. If not, can you give me an example. Not sure what point I made that you agree with, but I can run with that!

In a word the answer is yes.