College Football Official Week 10 Thread

[tarcone]

Something is not right in Iowa City

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

LSU hanging tough. Looking forward to a good close game. I think I'm rooting for LSU to take AL down a peg. A 1 loss AL team will still likely be in the hunt.

I'm not sure a one-loss Bama -- let's say it's a 3-0 kind of loss -- isn't still #1.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not sure a one-loss Bama -- let's say it's a 3-0 kind of loss -- isn't still #1.

Id say Michigan jumps them. But they stay 2.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Id say Michigan jumps them. But they stay 2.

Yeah, this week. I was thinking more by the time we get down to the final four.

[hollmt]

good news for Tommy.

[Edward64]

I am also rooting for LSU to leave it all on the field ... so they will be wasted next week vs AR

[Edward64]

Uh oh. Here come AL. Great game for the first 3Q though.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Id say Michigan jumps them. But they stay 2.

You think Michigan jumps Clemson?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by hollmt

But you forgot scenario 3:
OSU wins out, meets Wisconsin again and slaps them around like they did 2 years ago in Indy. Then, lets use your logic/argument. Do you take a 1 loss Michigan team to the playoffs?

First up, I'll give you the last word but let me clarify some things. This case is not at all my logic/argument, since in this case OSU is the clear choice; that's why I didn't include it since I thought the answer was self-evident. They won the conference, have 1 loss(same as Michigan, who they beat) -- no discussion to be had IMO.

tough shit. Wisconsin won the conference and it is unfortunate that Michigan didn't make it. Beat OSU then and get your chance in the BIG title game. Those are the rules and it isn't absurd IMO.

This is where I sort of find it hard to figure out your perspective. This is worse in every respect(including key differences between the sports) compared to a wild-card World Series team in baseball. You don't like that, but you think this is ok. Boggles my mind.

You clearly are a fan (or at least rooting for) Louisville as sneaking in as a 1 loss team from the ACC. Are you seriously telling me that the ACC is better than the BIG or SEC from top to bottom (and I am not a fan of the SEC, I think they are constantly overrated)?

First sentence is incorrect other than to say I do think Louisville is the best(so far) of the teams who have lost a game. As far as conferences, I agree with you that the SEC is generally overrated, though there have been times that they've lived up to it. All I would say with confidence this year is that I think of the Power 5, the Big 12 and Pac-12 are clearly inferior to the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC. Forced to rank them, I'd go SEC-ACC-Big Ten-Pac12-Big12 this year. Again, so far. More to the point though, a close road early-season loss to undefeated Clemson is a far better blemish than anyone else has. FWIW most of the advanced metrics agree with me on this point, some putting them as high as third overall ahead of Clemson and Washington.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

You think Michigan jumps Clemson?

Since they already have in the AP poll it wouldn't be a huge reach for it to happen.

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

First up, I'll give you the last word but let me clarify some things. This case is not at all my logic/argument, since in this case OSU is the clear choice; that's why I didn't include it since I thought the answer was self-evident. They won the conference, have 1 loss(same as Michigan, who they beat) -- no discussion to be had IMO.



This is where I sort of find it hard to figure out your perspective. This is worse in every respect(including key differences between the sports) compared to a wild-card World Series team in baseball. You don't like that, but you think this is ok. Boggles my mind.



First sentence is incorrect other than to say I do think Louisville is the best(so far) of the teams who have lost a game. As far as conferences, I agree with you that the SEC is generally overrated, though there have been times that they've lived up to it. All I would say with confidence this year is that I think of the Power 5, the Big 12 and Pac-12 are clearly inferior to the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC. Forced to rank them, I'd go SEC-ACC-Big Ten-Pac12-Big12 this year. Again, so far. More to the point though, a close road early-season loss to undefeated Clemson is a far better blemish than anyone else has. FWIW most of the advanced metrics agree with me on this point, some putting them as high as third overall ahead of Clemson and Washington.

Oh, Brian, we don't need the 'last word' added into this discussion and by who doesn't have it as being the better man. I thought it was a friendly discussion. I really dislike that 'last word' argument.

I get that you didn't add scenario 3 since it was an obvious one. It was just a joke on my end.

On point #2, I don't understand how you don't understand my point on conference champs deserving it over 2nd place teams. This isn't even remotely the same as a Wild Card in Baseball or Football. Said team won their conference championship game and by the rules, won their conference. It has NOTHING to do with overall record.

Apologies on the assumption that you were a fan of or rooting for Lousville. You made a comment in last weeks thread about them and at the time a 1 loss A&M team deserving and I figured you were still on that wagon. I disagree that they are the best of the 1 loss teams and I am sure you know that .

Glad we can agree on the SEC generally being overrated. I also agree that the Big 12 and Pac 10 are the inferior conferences. However, your advanced metrics point is flawed if some of them have Louisville ahead of Clemson. Clemson won that game. So, what's up with the metrics as that makes no sense? At all.

We agree on many things, but will just have to agree to disagree on the 2nd place argument. I truly do see your point, but it punishes the actual conference champion and again, yes, that conference championship game DOES hold more value than a regular season game. The argument could even be made and I am sure it will at some point that even an undefeated no Power 5 Conference Champ would deserve a shot in the Final 4 over a 2nd place conference team. It is going to happen. Hell, it has happened in previous seasons.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by hollmt

Oh, Brian, we don't need the 'last word' added into this discussion and by who doesn't have it as being the better man. I thought it was a friendly discussion. I really dislike that 'last word' argument.

Just posting to say that for my part, I still think it was a friendly discussion and would find it quite hilarious for someone to claim they were 'the better man' in a cordial debate about collegiate athletics.

[bronconick]

It's 11/6 and there is a plausible chance that there will be a 5-way tie for "first" in the SEC East.

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Just posting to say that for my part, I still think it was a friendly discussion and would find it quite hilarious for someone to claim they were 'the better man' in a cordial debate about collegiate athletics.

It would be hilarious. See, we agree on many things.

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by bronconick

It's 11/6 and there is a plausible chance that there will be a 5-way tie for "first" in the SEC East.

More proof that the SEC is garbage this year. Now, if a 3 or even 4 loss team from the SEC East wins the SEC Conference Game...I concede the argument to Brian, because none of them deserve to be in the Playoffs and they would need to look at another Power 5 conference, another conference altogether, or just choose OSU

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

On second read Id agree. Apologies Tarcone!

Pac-12 is a fun conference as far as points. Not often does a team come from that conference with a solid defense like Washington is this year.

Stanford has consistently had excellent defenses since Harbaugh got them going and USC has frequently had very good ones. UW's defense was terrific last year too.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Stanford has consistently had excellent defenses since Harbaugh got them going and USC has frequently had very good ones. UW's defense was terrific last year too.

UCLA and Colorado also both have very good defenses this year.

I can't really tout too much about UCLA this year so I'll take what I can get.

[MrBug708]

UCLA probably has the best defensive player in the PAC-12 and a terrible scheme.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

UCLA probably has the best defensive player in the PAC-12 and a terrible scheme.

I disagree. The scheme is fine. It could be more aggreasive but it's well suited to the personnel.

True, though, having Takk McKinley playing the way he is now certainly can make any scheme look good.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Such an embarrassing year for Notre Dame. They are going to need a Jim Harbaugh type to come in and fix the wrongs.

This is one of the most under reported stories this year.

[Thomkal]

Coastal Carolina had yet another QB go down to injury yesterday, and were actually down by 10 points or so at the half. They came roaring back to score about 30 unanswered points to beat Monmouth. Not sure yet what the extent of the injury is, but if he can't start next week against Bryant, this will be the 5th different starter this season. Kinda glad now that this is their "in limbo" season with all these injuries.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by hollmt

More proof that the SEC (L)east is garbage this year.

fixed that for you. I don't think anyone is going to argue about that part of it.

Nor that there's really Alabama and the 11 Dwarves in the conference at this point. (did anybody ever really think that game wasn't going to end like it did last night?)

Thing is, a few of the other Dwarves in the West are roughly the same height or taller than all but a handful of the other party guests. So a bit hard to call them short in that regard.

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

fixed that for you. I don't think anyone is going to argue about that part of it.

Nor that there's really Alabama and the 11 Dwarves in the conference at this point. (did anybody ever really think that game wasn't going to end like it did last night?)

Thing is, a few of the other Dwarves in the West are roughly the same height or taller than all but a handful of the other party guests. So a bit hard to call them short in that regard.

Truth. I went to bed last night and thought 'Jon, is going to comment on the SEC garbage post' and you did.

But you are right. SEC East is garbage. I stand corrected.

[hollmt]

Hey here is a question. Semi brought up on air during the Wash/Cal game.

Also, let's assume some things:
1)Clemson wins out. In
2)Washington wins out. In
3)OSU/Michigan win out. In.
4)Open

Alabama loses to Auburn head to head. Auburn then beats whatever the SEC East shits out and wins the SEC Championship.

Does the committee take Auburn, your conference champ or Alabama who didn't beat Auburn head to head or win the conference but was ranked #1 all season (until the Auburn loss) and is still probably considered one of the best 4 teams in the nation by most?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by hollmt

Hey here is a question. Semi brought up on air during the Wash/Cal game.

Also, let's assume some things:
1)Clemson wins out. In
2)Washington wins out. In
3)OSU/Michigan win out. In.
4)Open

Alabama loses to Auburn head to head. Auburn then beats whatever the SEC East shits out and wins the SEC Championship.

Does the committee take Auburn, your conference champ or Alabama who didn't beat Auburn head to head or win the conference but was ranked #1 all season (until the Auburn loss) and is still probably considered one of the best 4 teams in the nation by most?

Something similar happened last year with Michigan State/Ohio State when the committee took Michigan State.

This case is different in that Auburn has 2 losses. If that would happen a case could be made for Alabama/Louisville/Michigan(if they lose to OSU) being the 4th team. Opening the door back up for Auburn would bring a lot of other teams back in the equation at this point and create a lot of negativity towards the SEC and the 4 team playoff.

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Something similar happened last year with Michigan State/Ohio State when the committee took Michigan State.

This case is different in that Auburn has 2 losses. If that would happen a case could be made for Alabama/Louisville/Michigan(if they lose to OSU) being the 4th team. Opening the door back up for Auburn would bring a lot of other teams back in the equation at this point and create a lot of negativity towards the SEC and the 4 team playoff.

Look, we all know the SEC has to have a team in the playoffs or else ESPN might actually shut down operations. The outrage if Alabama got the nod over Auburn would be hilarious and quite honestly a travesty. Not only would Alabama had lost to Auburn head to head, they wouldn't even have won their conference, (two strikes) so you would be rewarding overall record instead of an earned championship and head to head. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that scenario happened and they removed Washington and put both Bama and Auburn in. And that friends, is a joke.

All hypothetical, I know. It will all work itself out in the end, I am sure.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by hollmt

Look, we all know the SEC has to have a team in the playoffs or else ESPN might actually shut down operations.

Alabama would be the most likely team out of the 3 even with a loss to Auburn. Auburn would not get in. Alabama being the best of the 1 loss teams if that were the situation. I dont think the committee gives two fucks about rewarding championships. They are trying to figure out the top 4 teams.

I cant see a scenario unless a bunch of teams lose where Auburn can get back in the picture.

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Alabama would be the most likely team out of the 3 even with a loss to Auburn. Auburn would not get in. Alabama being the best of the 1 loss teams if that were the situation. I dont think the committee gives two fucks about rewarding championships. They are trying to figure out the top 4 teams.

I cant see a scenario unless a bunch of teams lose where Auburn can get back in the picture.

Yeah, I disagree with the committee not giving 2 fucks/shits about conference championships. Ask the Big 12 how not having one worked out for them 2 years ago when OSU jumped in and snagged the 4th spot because of the conference championship game that was played and the ass whooping OSU gave Wisconsin in said game.

They are important and mean something and to take away from it is wrong.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by hollmt

Yeah, I disagree with the committee not giving 2 fucks/shits about conference championships. Ask the Big 12 how not having one worked out for them 2 years ago when OSU jumped in and snagged the 4th spot because of the conference championship game that was played and the ass whooping OSU gave Wisconsin in said game.

They are important and mean something and to take away from it is wrong.

It was down to Ohio State, TCU, and Baylor as the 4th team(1 loss teams). Who would you have taken as the 4th team? If Ohio State had 2 losses they wouldnt have jumped them two teams despite the beatdown on Wisky. Wisconsin would not have jumped over either of them two by beating Ohio State either.

Sure the conference Championship helps as a tiebreaker scenario but it isnt going to be enough to jump Auburn over teams with 1 loss should it happen like Alabama, Louisville, Michigan)?).

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

It was down to Ohio State, TCU, and Baylor as the 4th team(1 loss teams). Who would you have taken as the 4th team? If Ohio State had 2 losses they wouldnt have jumped them two teams despite the beatdown on Wisky.

That is right, it was between all 1 loss teams. But you are wrong that the committee doesn't weigh heavily the fact that OSU played in and won the conf champ game. They do. The Big 12 was penalized because they did not have an outright champ and tried to play both sides and declare co-champs that season. It hurt them in the end. Had OSU had 2 losses, well, it is likely that other loss would have been in conference and that they wouldn't have even made the championship game. I don't know. Can't rewrite the past. But to answer your specific question, had OSU lost, I would have been fine with TCU/Baylor going as 'co-champ' from the Big 12.

Now, what is the breaking point for conference champions and total losses? We haven't been told that. Is it 2 losses? I don't think, in the grand scheme of things that 11-1 is that much better than 10-2, especially if that 10-2 team beat the 11-1 team AND won the next week in the championship, even if it was against a bad SEC East team.

In my discussion with Brian with this, he has a good point I agree with. There does have to be a breaking point in losses though. Lets say Auburn beats Bama and then Auburn loses to whatever scrub comes out of the East. No, the SEC champ does not deserve to be in the Final 4 as it is pretty obvious they backed in.

I don't have the answers, even if my posts seems like I act like I do

I do think that 4 teams sparks debate and that is what the end goal really is. It gets people talking/debating. But I also think that 8 teams is better than 4. Each of your Power 5 champs and 3 at large from wherever. Re-seed them accordingly and play 3 games. It is only 1 extra game for 4 teams and an additional game for 2 teams.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by hollmt

Now, what is the breaking point for conference champions and total losses? We haven't been told that. Is it 2 losses? I don't think, in the grand scheme of things that 11-1 is that much better than 10-2, especially if that 10-2 team beat the 11-1 team AND won the next week in the championship, even if it was against a bad SEC East team.

Im not sure if there is/should be a breaking point. The reason I stand in the camp of the 1 loss teams being in over Auburn is the pure dominance of Alabama/Michigan/Louisville(close loss at Clemson). If they were looking at all lackluster I would certainly reconsider but these 3 teams all strike me as Championship material right now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by hollmt

They are important and mean something and to take away from it is wrong.

Not really, except maybe on a sport-by-sport basis.

And no, it isn't.

Blame expansion for some of that, gone are the days where there was some big deal about conferences. They're loose alliances of organizations with shared financial interests.

In basketball, yeah, an ACC title means something. Ditto the (old) Big East in that regard. The football title? Please. Reverse that and you have the SEC.

If we're going to be stuck with this playoff foolishness then give me the four best teams, based on a combination of eye test & W/L performance, with some consideration to who they've played mixed in.

Conferences? Schmonferences.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Im not sure if there is/should be a breaking point. The reason I stand in the camp of the 1 loss teams being in over Auburn is the pure dominance of Alabama/Michigan/Louisville(close loss at Clemson). If they were looking at all lackluster I would certainly reconsider but these 3 teams all strike me as Championship material right now.

I'll give you two of the three. But Louisville? Their UVA win, and to some extent the Duke win, are worse than several teams losses.

*No, I'm not advocating for Auburn being in simply for winning a conference title game. I just honestly don't get all the L'ville love. A better version of Houston is all I see there honestly.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll give you two of the three. But Louisville? Their UVA win, and to some extent the Duke win, are worse than several teams losses.

*No, I'm not advocating for Auburn being in simply for winning a conference title game. I just honestly don't get all the L'ville love. A better version of Houston is all I see there honestly.

Well they did have the 1 "bad" win but playing as well as they did in Clemson really impressed me. They had dominate performances against Florida State and NC State. Just to be clear Id rank them after Ohio State at the moment as the 6th team.

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not really, except maybe on a sport-by-sport basis.

And no, it isn't.

Blame expansion for some of that, gone are the days where there was some big deal about conferences. They're loose alliances of organizations with shared financial interests.

In basketball, yeah, an ACC title means something. Ditto the (old) Big East in that regard. The football title? Please. Reverse that and you have the SEC.

If we're going to be stuck with this playoff foolishness then give me the four best teams, based on a combination of eye test & W/L performance, with some consideration to who they've played mixed in.

Conferences? Schmonferences.

Then again, I fall back to why does the committee weigh it so heavily (and they do) when you win your conference and the records are similar? TCU/Baylor were co Big 12 champs, OSU was outright BIG champ, and they got the nod with equal records. 2 years so far and in both years it has been Conference Champs (albeit, good records with 0 or 1 loss, point taken).

If the Conference Championship means nothing, then why bother having them, playing them and risking further injury or even a bad loss.

I would also argue that even 2 years ago, many thought more SEC teams should have been in the final 4. So why not just say 'fuck it' and put Bama, and pull 3 SEC teams out of the hat every year since it is the best conference every year. (said with full sarcasm).

I know I am in the minority, (actually the analysts last night mentioned it and mentioned the south would riot if Auburn was overlooked and I am not an Auburn fan btw), but 11-2 is just as good as 11-1 if Auburn wins and played the champ game.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by hollmt

If the Conference Championship means nothing, then why bother having them, playing them and risking further injury or even a bad loss.

$$$$$$$$$$$$

[hollmt]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

$$$$$$$$$$$$

Spot on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by hollmt

Then again, I fall back to why does the committee weigh it so heavily (and they do) when you win your conference and the records are similar? TCU/Baylor were co Big 12 champs, OSU was outright BIG champ, and they got the nod with equal records. 2 years so far and in both years it has been Conference Champs (albeit, good records with 0 or 1 loss, point taken).

The records/resumes come first, the conference titles are frequently by-products of that.

If the Conference Championship means nothing, then why bother having them, playing them and risking further injury or even a bad loss.

It's the money. Plain & simple. Something to sell tickets & TV commercials (and event signage, and TV exposure recruiting benefits, and ... etc)

but 11-2 is just as good as 11-1 if Auburn wins and played the champ game.

The way they've played down the stretch (prior to yesterday's near disaster at least), that's a good argument for Auburn. But that has a lot more weight than presence in the title game. Otherwise, we're talking about Florida as a playoff contender.

[hollmt]

Nah, I'm already in agreement with you all on a team that backs in to the conference title game and somehow wins it not deserving a shot at the final 4, so that rules out the Florida or even *cough* Kentucky *cough* discussion.

I know it is money, just wanted to see it mentioned.

I will continue to disagree though, that when it comes to equal resumes/eyeball tests, that the title game doesn't mean anything. This 4 team playoff has already proven my point on that 2 years ago.

I could give 2 shits if Auburn makes it/wins it. I just thought it was an interesting discussion that was brought up during the game last night and brought it up.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Since they already have in the AP poll it wouldn't be a huge reach for it to happen.

Michigan was ahead of Clemson last week in the AP as well. In fact Clemson closed the gap this week. The committee of course says AP ranking has no bearing but also said #2 was closer to #1 than to #3 that and #1 was clear cut.

I see ZERO chance that Michigan jumps Clemson, after Clemson holds yet another opponent to their season low offensive output and this time scored 50+.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The way they've played down the stretch (prior to yesterday's near disaster at least), that's a good argument for Auburn.

18-13 (home) win vs LSU, followed by wins against Louisiana-Monroe, MS St (2-3 conf), Arky (2-3 conf), Ole Miss (1-4 conf), Vanderbilt (1-4 conf).

I mean, they're doing what they need to do, and they put up some big points in some of those. But again, they're still benefiting from the assumption that the underbelly of the SEC is better than the underbelly of other conferences.

Penn State has had a pretty good stretch -- and beat the then #2 -- and I think you'd (rightfully) get laughed out of the room if it was suggested they belong in any conversation. (Obviously, a Pitt loss is worse than a Clemson loss.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

18-13 (home) win vs LSU, followed by wins against Louisiana-Monroe, MS St (2-3 conf), Arky (2-3 conf), Ole Miss (1-4 conf), Vanderbilt (1-4 conf).

I mean, they're doing what they need to do, and they put up some big points in some of those. But again, they're still benefiting from the assumption that the underbelly of the SEC is better than the underbelly of other conferences.

Where Auburn gets hurt, honestly, is yesterday. They looked about as good as I've seen on the ground in a good while for a 2-3 week stretch. Had me thinking, at least briefly, that maybe that + rivalry game, they could make life interesting for Bama in the Iron Bowl. Yesterday kinda puts that to rest, aside from the rivalry issues.

as for comparing underbellies, that was kind of a discussion/consideration I had already this weekend. I think the SEC West is 1-2 games better if it's in the (L)east. I think on the whole the West teams are +1 conference win in any other conference overall. +1.5 against some, +0.5 against others, and depending upon how the schedule fell. The (L)east probably fares similarly this year in the SEC or any other conference IMO.

[cuervo72]

I think they're probably better on the whole too, but it's just hard to know without having to rely on intuition or an eyeball test or preconceived notions. Such is how it is in a closed system with so few games. A&M is still third in the west. They that good? Darned if I know. I guess they did beat Auburn. Sure didn't look like more than an also-ran against Bama.

(Was talking about the eyeball test as it relates to our HS team and their opponents. They are beyond bad -- to the point where everybody puts up at least 40 on them, most 60. Sometimes by half. It's hard to tell which opponents are actually any good when they all just run down the field untouched on half the plays.)

[cuervo72]

Dola - some of this is just how exalted Alabama has become. Ole Miss plays them to within 5; does this mean the Rebs are that strong, or is it Bama having an off game, or given the past couple of years, an unfavorable matchup? Same goes with LSU. They played them tough, as they just about always do. This doesn't serve to knock Bama down at all, but it floats LSU. Close games are written off where they might not be with other teams (like Auburn...though yeah, Vandy.) Even a loss doesn't really ever hurt the Tide - it just "proves" that the rest of the division is just that good.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Dola - some of this is just how exalted Alabama has become. Ole Miss plays them to within 5; does this mean the Rebs are that strong, or is it Bama having an off game, or given the past couple of years, an unfavorable matchup? Same goes with LSU. They played them tough, as they just about always do. This doesn't serve to knock Bama down at all, but it floats LSU. Close games are written off where they might not be with other teams (like Auburn...though yeah, Vandy.) Even a loss doesn't really ever hurt the Tide - it just "proves" that the rest of the division is just that good.

Nah, Ole Miss was just being Ole Miss to lose that one. It's who they are this year basically.

They hung close because they were able -- somehow -- to exploit Bama's biggest weakness, their secondary. All you have to do to have a chance against Bama is give your pretty good or better QB time to throw. Few teams have managed to do that, Ole Miss did and they made it a game because of it. At the time (since exceeded), that game was Kelly's career best passing yardage game AND he didn't throw a pick.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I see ZERO chance that Michigan jumps Clemson, after Clemson holds yet another opponent to their season low offensive output and this time scored 50+.

Michigan did the same thing against Maryland, but ultimately I don't think this kind of thing matters all that much. There have been stories about players using it for motivation if they are below or above such-and-such a team, but ultimately Alabama, Clemson, and Michigan are all going to be there in some order if they win the rest of their games. Highly likely that Clemson v. Michigan would be one of the national semifinals, in which case everybody can stop debating who is better and just go find out . And if they lose, and everyone's had games where they had a decent chance at least of doing that so far, Clemson especially, then it's a moot point anyway.

Personally I find the debates about who makes that last spot if someone loses a lot more interesting, and I seriously doubt all four are going to make it easy on the committee. More than likely a couple of them don't get there unscathed.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

This is one of the most under reported stories this year.

I think they've slid under the radar because so many of their opponents have also been wildly disappointing. You see "ND loses by 7 to Michigan State/Stanford" across the ticker and it doesn't stand out like a blowout loss to a good team unless you realize how much they suck too. Texas was the last game that had big pregame hype & it was still when hope springs eternal and the focus was on "Texas is back!!! Charlie Strong is a great coach!"

I think Kelly will be fired and most of the fan base is fine with it, under the "you can't be a raging asshole unless you're winning" precedent set with Charlie Weis, but there isn't an obvious candidate, and I suppose to be fair we are playing a ton of freshmen & all the losses have been by one score, so I could see him back in 2017. Tom Herman's resume suddenly looks very similar to Kelly's at Cincinnati. Chip Kelly is the big name NFL fish, and I'm not sure he'd either like ND's academic standards or we want to go for an offensive "guru" again. I guess Paul Chryst is the new midwest/blue collar type darling, but his resume is still much worse than Kelly's. Doubt ND would ever slum it by hiring a PJ Fleck straight out of the MAC though I'd love it. Same with a coordinator. Mike MacIntire has inherited two terrible programs, but still, 2 winning seasons in 7. Larry Fedora? Justin Fuente?

[tarcone]

PsU drops 41 on Iowa. Michigan next. Uh-oh.

[bob]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I think they've slid under the radar because so many of their opponents have also been wildly disappointing. You see "ND loses by 7 to Michigan State/Stanford" across the ticker and it doesn't stand out like a blowout loss to a good team unless you realize how much they suck too. Texas was the last game that had big pregame hype & it was still when hope springs eternal and the focus was on "Texas is back!!! Charlie Strong is a great coach!"

I think Kelly will be fired and most of the fan base is fine with it, under the "you can't be a raging asshole unless you're winning" precedent set with Charlie Weis, but there isn't an obvious candidate, and I suppose to be fair we are playing a ton of freshmen & all the losses have been by one score, so I could see him back in 2017. Tom Herman's resume suddenly looks very similar to Kelly's at Cincinnati. Chip Kelly is the big name NFL fish, and I'm not sure he'd either like ND's academic standards or we want to go for an offensive "guru" again. I guess Paul Chryst is the new midwest/blue collar type darling, but his resume is still much worse than Kelly's. Doubt ND would ever slum it by hiring a PJ Fleck straight out of the MAC though I'd love it. Same with a coordinator. Mike MacIntire has inherited two terrible programs, but still, 2 winning seasons in 7. Larry Fedora? Justin Fuente?

I expect him to be back because he still is owed a ton of money and as far as I know, there is no obvious choice as a replacement.

[tarcone]

Would Tom Herman got to Notre Dame? Or is Texas his dream job?