2014 NCAA Football Thread

[Still MIGHTY]

My Playoff Predictions:

1. Mississippi St. (13-0, SEC Champ)

2. Oregon (12-1, PAC-12 Champ)

3. Florida St. (13-0, ACC Champ)

4. Baylor (11-1, Big 12 Champ)

Outside looking In:

5. TCU (11-1)

6. Ohio State (12-1, Big Ten Champ)

"New Year's Day" Bowls

Rose: Arizona St (11-2) vs. Ohio State (12-1, Big Ten Champ)

Peach: Auburn (10-2) vs. Notre Dame (10-2)

Fiesta: TCU (11-1) vs. Marshall (13-0)

Orange: Clemson (10-2) vs. Michigan St. (10-2)

The Rose Bowl is a Semifinal. The other game New Year's game is the Cotton Bowl.

[Billy B]

We have a Top 25 win! (It's also a joke that Minnesota is ranked)

To the Baylor-TCU debate, I saw Crash retweet on twitter that if teams tie for a conference title and there's no championship game, both teams will be considered champions. So that could explain how TCU could make the playoffs if they both win out. I still think Baylor has a chance to jump them since they'll add another quality win if they beat K-State. Looking at some statistical rankings, they're pretty much even. F/+ has TCU at 7 and Baylor at 8. Sagarin has Baylor at 4 and TCU at 5.

[Burmy]

Marshall is not ranked at all in the CFB playoff polls...you know, as much as I didn't think I say it, I kinda miss the BCS now. At least they RANKED non-"power conference" teams...

[See Red]

Marshall is not ranked at all in the CFB playoff polls...you know, as much as I didn't think I say it, I kinda miss the BCS now. At least they RANKED non-"power conference" teams...

They have one of the worst strength's of schedule in college football. They've played one team with a winning record (Middle Tennessee, 5-4). The committee's job is to rate the 25 best teams and, undefeated or not, Marshall doesn't have a better resume than any of the teams that are ranked. Colorado State deserves to be in the top 25 before Marshall does, in my opinion.

I like that they don't place record above all else, which is the case at the top with FSU at #3 as well.

[Burmy]

Marshall is not ranked at all in the CFB playoff polls...you know, as much as I didn't think I say it, I kinda miss the BCS now. At least they RANKED non-"power conference" teams...

They have one of the worst strength's of schedule in college football. They've played one team with a winning record (Middle Tennessee, 5-4). The committee's job is to rate the 25 best teams and, undefeated or not, Marshall doesn't have a better resume than any of the teams that are ranked. Colorado State deserves to be in the top 25 before Marshall does, in my opinion.

I like that they don't place record above all else, which is the case at the top with FSU at #3 as well.

Personally, I think it should be simple...teams can't choose which conference they play in right before the season, so why punish them just for being loyal to their group?

If you're undefeated at this point, you certainly deserve to be ranked...you may not be in the Top 10, but I doubt there are 25 teams better than you!

[See Red]

Marshall is not ranked at all in the CFB playoff polls...you know, as much as I didn't think I say it, I kinda miss the BCS now. At least they RANKED non-"power conference" teams...

They have one of the worst strength's of schedule in college football. They've played one team with a winning record (Middle Tennessee, 5-4). The committee's job is to rate the 25 best teams and, undefeated or not, Marshall doesn't have a better resume than any of the teams that are ranked. Colorado State deserves to be in the top 25 before Marshall does, in my opinion.

I like that they don't place record above all else, which is the case at the top with FSU at #3 as well.

Personally, I think it should be simple...teams can't choose which conference they play in right before the season, so why punish them just for being loyal to their group?

If you're undefeated at this point, you certainly deserve to be ranked...you may not be in the Top 10, but I doubt there are 25 teams better than you!

No, but they can choose who they play outside of their conference. Granted, I have no doubt it is difficult for a team in a position like Marshall to schedule good opponents and they weren't helped by Louisville having to cancel their scheduled game this year, but being undefeated against a schedule that's lost 2/3 of it's combined games just isn't terribly impressive. Maybe they deserve to be in over Minnesota but aside from that, I don't see it. And like I said, Colorado State should crack the top 25 before them.

[dfwabel]

Marshall is not ranked at all in the CFB playoff polls...you know, as much as I didn't think I say it, I kinda miss the BCS now. At least they RANKED non-"power conference" teams...

They have one of the worst strength's of schedule in college football. They've played one team with a winning record (Middle Tennessee, 5-4). The committee's job is to rate the 25 best teams and, undefeated or not, Marshall doesn't have a better resume than any of the teams that are ranked. Colorado State deserves to be in the top 25 before Marshall does, in my opinion.

I like that they don't place record above all else, which is the case at the top with FSU at #3 as well.

Personally, I think it should be simple...teams can't choose which conference they play in right before the season, so why punish them just for being loyal to their group?

If you're undefeated at this point, you certainly deserve to be ranked...you may not be in the Top 10, but I doubt there are 25 teams better than you!

No, but they can choose who they play outside of their conference. Granted, I have no doubt it is difficult for a team in a position like Marshall to schedule good opponents and they weren't helped by Louisville having to cancel their scheduled game this year, but being undefeated against a schedule that's lost 2/3 of it's combined games just isn't terribly impressive. Maybe they deserve to be in over Minnesota but aside from that, I don't see it. And like I said, Colorado State should crack the top 25 before them.

While I do not think Marshall (or Duke) should be ranked, ln a somewhat small defense of Marshall, the fallout of last three years of realignment has really impacted a handful of schools still outside of the Power 5. Road games still have to be financially favorable to them, and their stadiums are not really big enough to pay a Power 5 team without ESPN (or in C-USA's case FOX Sports $$$). Giving signing a contract for a 3-for-1 with a Power 5 school, only to have the Power 5 team pay $500K to back out after the first game, still leaves the smaller school scrambling.

[Rockstar Matt]

Marshall is not ranked at all in the CFB playoff polls...you know, as much as I didn't think I say it, I kinda miss the BCS now. At least they RANKED non-"power conference" teams...

They have one of the worst strength's of schedule in college football. They've played one team with a winning record (Middle Tennessee, 5-4). The committee's job is to rate the 25 best teams and, undefeated or not, Marshall doesn't have a better resume than any of the teams that are ranked. Colorado State deserves to be in the top 25 before Marshall does, in my opinion.

I like that they don't place record above all else, which is the case at the top with FSU at #3 as well.

Personally, I think it should be simple...teams can't choose which conference they play in right before the season, so why punish them just for being loyal to their group?

If you're undefeated at this point, you certainly deserve to be ranked...you may not be in the Top 10, but I doubt there are 25 teams better than you!

Which is why I've been saying this four-team playoff is just a band-aid. The best solution is, and has been, a 16-team playoff. 10 conference champions with 6 at large bids.

Otherwise, what the point of having 5 other conferences if their champion doesn't have a realistic shot at national title?

Also, what the hell did UCLA do to warrant a #11 spot? I say that as a UCLA fan.

[pianoknight]

As a fan I'm ticked off that Nebraska rose three spots in both the Coaches and AP Polls, but FELL three in the Playoff Rankings. A difference of +/-6 is pretty strange.

Some people ask about Nebraska's resume, and apparently our lone loss to Michigan State hurts even though it was a 5 point MOV on the road to a highly ranked team. Beating Miami and strangling Northwestern to 29 total yards in the second half points to how strong the defense has been. At one point, I heard an announcer say we were forcing more 3 & Outs than any other team in the nation.

If you told everyone that team was Auburn or USC, they'd have no problem awarding them Top 10 status.

/rant over.

[DS729]

Nebraska's "signature" moment was a loss to Michigan State, the committee only screwed up your ranking 2 weeks ago. Now they've given you a much more, fair, accurate ranking. Behind Michigan St and in between all the other Big Ten teams.

[CLEstones]

Just a thought...

3 Oregon played 7 Michigan State, at Autzen Stadium, Eugene, OR

Michigan State ends up losing on the road, after leading late into the 3rd quarter, after Michigan State has 2 unforced turnovers.

14 Ohio State played 8 Michigan State, at Spartan Stadium, East Lansing, MI

Michigan State ends up losing at home, despite forcing 2 turnovers.

Could one make a case that Ohio State could/should be ranked higher that Oregon?

No, that loss to Virginia Tech really hurt them.

Sure it does... but the best team in the PAC and best team in the B1G played a common opponent, and the B1G team had arguably a much more impressive win... dominating 3+ quarters opposed to Oregon's 1 quarter of dominance.

That being said, if you want to look at the Virginia Tech game... Ohio State was starting a TRUE freshman, in only his second collegiate game, with less than 2 weeks to prepare (Miller's injury wasn't announced until days before the Navy game), in prime time, in front of 115,000 people, with an offensive line that was completely overhauled from the year before.

Sorry, but I'm not putting my money on Oregon, Utah, Arizona State and Arizona over Ohio State, Michigan State, Nebraska, and Wisconsin.

Oregon has 2 more wins over ranked opponents, played a tougher schedule, and has a better loss than Ohio State, and played Michigan State on the same level as Ohio State has. Your "little engine that could" Big Ten has no hope for the playoff anymore.

After the rankings of come out, Ohio State is firmly in the mix for the BCS Playoffs. Some national guys even put the Buckeyes in the Top 4 (and many more in the Top 6) after seeing what Ohio State can really do, now that they are finally hitting their stride and their young players are starting to mature.

I am just trying to apply logic to trigger debate. Yes, the VT loss is a bad one, but you have to look at how the team is playing in week 12 instead of week 2. The VT loss had numerous circumstances that would have had even the strongest of SEC teams struggle.

Michigan State is the common opponent between Oregon and Ohio State. The Buckeyes dominated the Spartans more than the Ducks, and the Buckeyes did it on the road. I'm just trying to use logic to inspire debate.

[pianoknight]

Nebraska's "signature" moment was a loss to Michigan State, the committee only screwed up your ranking 2 weeks ago. Now they've given you a much more, fair, accurate ranking. Behind Michigan St and in between all the other Big Ten teams.

I'm not even disagreeing with this statement, but I thought the whole point of a committee was to have them actually review tape and more accurately forecast where teams are ranked than the BCS did. So far, in three weeks it seems like it's a case of "what have you done for me lately?"

Somebody mentioned the case for Marshall. If you're going to discount Marshall for having a terribly easy schedule and remaining undefeated, then surely you could apply the same standard to Texas A&M? The Aggies have been terrible this year against any halfway decent team (see: Arkansas overtime) yet they cling to a Top 25 ranking with 3 losses. Sure, they've played some stronger teams, but they've also collapsed under that competition.

I will concede that this is still just Week 3 and that by season's end, we should have a better picture of the real rankings, but it seems like there are a good number of questionable calls with these rankings. If a board full of internet weirdos like us can pick up on the outliers, why can't a room full of Athletic Directors, former coaches and supposedly educated people come to a better consensus?

[DS729]

Did you forget the part about A&M beating Auburn on the road? That's the only reason they're ranked.

[HedleyLamarr]

I am just trying to apply logic to trigger debate. Yes, the VT loss is a bad one, but you have to look at how the team is playing in week 12 instead of week 2. The VT loss had numerous circumstances that would have had even the strongest of SEC teams struggle.

Michigan State is the common opponent between Oregon and Ohio State. The Buckeyes dominated the Spartans more than the Ducks, and the Buckeyes did it on the road. I'm just trying to use logic to inspire debate.

You're not grasping the severity of just how bad Virginia Tech is.

They're 7th in their division (also known as "last place") and 11th in their conference. They're behind Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, and Virginia. That's two decent teams, a mediocre team, and three fuglies. Virginia Tech is 4-5, 1-4 in the ACC. They need to beat two of these three just to get bowl eligible: at Duke, at Wake Forest, home to Virginia.

Meanwhile, Oregon trails.....no one in the Pac-12.

You can't just pick your spots when it comes to using the transitive property in comparing teams. If you're willing to say "Ohio State is better than X-team" because of score difference, you're going to have to concede that Ohio State would be 4-5 and 1-4 in the ACC if they played Virginia Tech's schedule, and subtract 14 points from VT's scores to be accurate on what OSU would have done against them. As VT beat OSU by 14, transitive property dictates that Ohio State would have lost to East Carolina 28-7, beaten Western Michigan 21-17, lost to Pittsburgh 16-2, and lost to Miami 30-(-8).

Hell, the transitive property shows that Oregon beat Michigan State by 19 and Ohio State beat MSU by 12, so Oregon's 7 points better than Ohio State.

Ohio State may be competitive against whomever in the top-10, and they might even win a couple of those games. A lot of would's and could's and might's, though.

Besides, here's the logic: The committee is looking at the 11 completed weeks as their body of work...not just looking at the past three weeks. What we can use to judge which team is better than which and which conference is better is head-to-head meetings. What we do know is OSU crapped the bed....big time....in their one out-of-conference game against a Power 5 team, and that the Big Ten as a whole didn't win many of these out-of-conference games against Power 5 schools.

[Balu the Bare]

Nebraska's "signature" moment was a loss to Michigan State, the committee only screwed up your ranking 2 weeks ago. Now they've given you a much more, fair, accurate ranking. Behind Michigan St and in between all the other Big Ten teams.

I'm not even disagreeing with this statement, but I thought the whole point of a committee was to have them actually review tape and more accurately forecast where teams are ranked than the BCS did. So far, in three weeks it seems like it's a case of "what have you done for me lately?"

Somebody mentioned the case for Marshall. If you're going to discount Marshall for having a terribly easy schedule and remaining undefeated, then surely you could apply the same standard to Texas A&M? The Aggies have been terrible this year against any halfway decent team (see: Arkansas overtime) yet they cling to a Top 25 ranking with 3 losses. Sure, they've played some stronger teams, but they've also collapsed under that competition.

Ah yes, but you forget that A&M is in the SEC and the SEC is the best conference in the land without question so they will all be ranked if they manage to have a winning record (with apologies to Missouri). My issue with this current system has been something that I've heard very little about recently, and that's Mississippi State's out-of-conference schedule. I only bring it up because it seems to be the main talking point when it comes to putting teams ahead of one or two loss SEC teams. I mean sure, other people might be impressed with wins over the likes of Southern Miss, UAB, South Alabama, and Tennessee Martin, but I'd say those four together are not as impressive as Clemson, Oklahoma State, and Notre Dame with the Citadel being the only real "cupcake" on Florida State's schedule.

The things I've heard on the radio as to why FSU had been #2 before dropping to #3 is that the wins don't really matter because they don't pass the "eyeball test." I have a hard time wrapping my head around this concept. To me, the "eyeball test" should never be factored in when determining what teams are better than others. But then, I also don't think you can determine who a champion could be by putting it all on paper. I say conference champions should be the only qualified candidates to get into a four team playoff, but then you couldn't justify getting two (or more) SEC teams in and you can't have such a dominant conference have it's best teams get snubbed in favor of lesser conference teams who have lost games to sub-SEC competition.

Having said all of that...Hello Everyone.

[crashcarson15]

UCLA is #11? No.

Why not? They have a convincing road win over #6 and a win over #14. Let's take a look at teams 9-18 and their wins over ranked opponents...

Auburn: #9, #13, #17

Ole Miss: #5, #24

UCLA: #6, #14

Michigan State: #16

Kansas State: (None)

Arizona: #2 (but lost to UCLA)

Georgia: #19

Nebraska: (None but only one loss)

LSU: #10, #20 (but have three losses)

Notre Dame: (None)

If anything, I'd argue that you could rank UCLA at 10 rather than 11. But there's not a team lower than them that has a better resume than they do. Both of UCLA's losses are to ranked opponents and they have two top-15 wins — only Auburn can boast that amongst non-top eight teams.

Seems pretty hard to argue against.

[waltere]

Nebraska's "signature" moment was a loss to Michigan State, the committee only screwed up your ranking 2 weeks ago. Now they've given you a much more, fair, accurate ranking. Behind Michigan St and in between all the other Big Ten teams.

I'm not even disagreeing with this statement, but I thought the whole point of a committee was to have them actually review tape and more accurately forecast where teams are ranked than the BCS did. So far, in three weeks it seems like it's a case of "what have you done for me lately?"

Somebody mentioned the case for Marshall. If you're going to discount Marshall for having a terribly easy schedule and remaining undefeated, then surely you could apply the same standard to Texas A&M? The Aggies have been terrible this year against any halfway decent team (see: Arkansas overtime) yet they cling to a Top 25 ranking with 3 losses. Sure, they've played some stronger teams, but they've also collapsed under that competition.

Ah yes, but you forget that A&M is in the SEC and the SEC is the best conference in the land without question so they will all be ranked if they manage to have a winning record (with apologies to Missouri). My issue with this current system has been something that I've heard very little about recently, and that's Mississippi State's out-of-conference schedule. I only bring it up because it seems to be the main talking point when it comes to putting teams ahead of one or two loss SEC teams. I mean sure, other people might be impressed with wins over the likes of Southern Miss, UAB, South Alabama, and Tennessee Martin, but I'd say those four together are not as impressive as Clemson, Oklahoma State, and Notre Dame with the Citadel being the only real "cupcake" on Florida State's schedule.

.

It's all very well having a go at Mississippi State's non-conf schedule compared to Florida State's, but that ignores the fact that in their actual conference schedule FSU play the kinda ho-hum ACC whereas MSU have to play not just the SEC, but the SEC West, which all sarcastic disparaging aside is far and away the strongest division in the country.

[crashcarson15]

Nebraska's "signature" moment was a loss to Michigan State, the committee only screwed up your ranking 2 weeks ago. Now they've given you a much more, fair, accurate ranking. Behind Michigan St and in between all the other Big Ten teams.

I'm not even disagreeing with this statement, but I thought the whole point of a committee was to have them actually review tape and more accurately forecast where teams are ranked than the BCS did. So far, in three weeks it seems like it's a case of "what have you done for me lately?"

Somebody mentioned the case for Marshall. If you're going to discount Marshall for having a terribly easy schedule and remaining undefeated, then surely you could apply the same standard to Texas A&M? The Aggies have been terrible this year against any halfway decent team (see: Arkansas overtime) yet they cling to a Top 25 ranking with 3 losses. Sure, they've played some stronger teams, but they've also collapsed under that competition.

Ah yes, but you forget that A&M is in the SEC and the SEC is the best conference in the land without question so they will all be ranked if they manage to have a winning record (with apologies to Missouri). My issue with this current system has been something that I've heard very little about recently, and that's Mississippi State's out-of-conference schedule. I only bring it up because it seems to be the main talking point when it comes to putting teams ahead of one or two loss SEC teams. I mean sure, other people might be impressed with wins over the likes of Southern Miss, UAB, South Alabama, and Tennessee Martin, but I'd say those four together are not as impressive as Clemson, Oklahoma State, and Notre Dame with the Citadel being the only real "cupcake" on Florida State's schedule.

.

It's all very well having a go at Mississippi State's non-conf schedule compared to Florida State's, but that ignores the fact that in their actual conference schedule FSU play the kinda ho-hum ACC whereas MSU have to play not just the SEC, but the SEC West, which all sarcastic disparaging aside is far and away the strongest division in the country.

Yup.

Florida State's two top-25 wins are over #18 Notre Dame and #19 Clemson. Neither of whom have — or will have — a top-25 win.

Mississippi State's beat #9 Auburn (who has three top-25 wins), #17 LSU (who has two top-25 wins), and #24 Texas A&M (who has one top-25 win).

Seems pretty cut and dry to me as to why MSU's ranked higher than FSU.

EDIT: Also, let's not pretend that Oklahoma State was anything that resembled a good win for the Noles. That team has fallen hard. They're as bad as we thought they would be at the start of the season before they beat up on a lot of worse teams.

[Still MIGHTY]

UCLA is #11? No.

Why not? They have a convincing road win over #6 and a win over #14. Let's take a look at teams 9-18 and their wins over ranked opponents...

Auburn: #9, #13, #17

Ole Miss: #5, #24

UCLA: #6, #14

Michigan State: #16

Kansas State: (None)

Arizona: #2 (but lost to UCLA)

Georgia: #19

Nebraska: (None but only one loss)

LSU: #10, #20 (but have three losses)

Notre Dame: (None)

If anything, I'd argue that you could rank UCLA at 10 rather than 11. But there's not a team lower than them that has a better resume than they do. Both of UCLA's losses are to ranked opponents and they have two top-15 wins — only Auburn can boast that amongst non-top eight teams.

Seems pretty hard to argue against.

I don't think UCLA is #11 because I've seen them play. Resume be damned, they aren't the 11th best team in the country. Let's go through their schedule.

Non-conference:

28-20 W @ Virginia

42-35 W vs Memphis

20-17 W vs Texas @ Cowboys Stadium

Not a murderer's row, and none of them impressive at all. They either pulled it out in the end or barely hung on in all three wins.

Pac-12:

62-27 W @ Arizona State

30-28 L vs Utah

42-30 L vs Oregon

36-34 W @ Cal

40-37 2OT W @ Colorado

17-7 W vs Arizona

44-30 W @ Washington

Arizona State is easily their most impressive win, especially because of how ASU has rebounded to where they are. This was also ASU's first game with their backup QB (who would've started 0-2 without the "Jael Mary" vs USC the following week or without the defense rounding into form since then.) Combo of a better-than-average UCLA game and a bad-as-possible game from ASU. Utah was unranked at the time, and has three losses now (like I said, I'm surprised at their staying power in these rankings). It did come down to a missed field goal (twice), at home. Oregon is a home loss to the now #2 team in the country. Sure Cal can pass, but they have noooooooooo defense. Should've been a blowout. Colorado is horrid, and they scored 37 points on UCLA and went to 2OT. Arizona was a great defensive performance, and good effort from Brett Hundley (320 total yards). Again, probably could've had more points. And honestly, Washington is the only game I have nothing to say about. Good effort all around from the Bruins. UW scored some second half points, but was never actually close.

Simply, yes, the Bruins two losses are two ranked teams, but in back to back weeks at home. Their signature win vs ASU is a good one, but I put a little shade on that one. (I may have some bias, obviously, but I think if they played that game this week, it'd be very different.) Their other big win vs Arizona, frankly, could have been better. And pretty much the rest of their schedule is barely winning against subpar competition. They could have easily lost at least 3 or 4 of those other games and be nowhere to be found.

And I'd definitely contest your thinking of them being #10 instead over Ole Miss. Ole Miss's two losses are a three-point loss on the road to LSU #17 and a four-point home loss to #9 Auburn that they probably win if that guy doesn't fumble whilst breaking his leg going into the end zone. I mean, I guess UCLA is #11 as a matter of circumstance, but if you line up these teams on the field, UCLA isn't close to #11.

[pianoknight]

Benjamin Franklin said that only death and taxes are certain... and maybe bracket creep.

I'm not in favor of expanding playoffs for the sake of expansion alone, but an 8-team model does offer the advantage of guaranteeing each Power 5 Champ a seat at the table, plus you could reasonably guarantee a spot for the best team from the Mid-Majors (Marshall, ECU, etc) as well. Either way, you're still left with 2 (or 3) at-large spots so the SEC can still feel superior.

It's a bit of a shame that you have to (absolutely) leave at least one major conference champ out every year, and (possibly) be leaving out teams like Notre Dame or some of the better-performing Cinderella teams like a Boise State, Northern Illinois or Arkansas State.