UNC up to #17 in College Football Playoff rankings

[Bubspub88]

The more metrics that are used the more objective the committee can really be. They talk about all these different measuring sticks as so valuable but some can contradict one another. If only a couple of metrics were used there would not be a debate.

Ole Miss will stay in top 25 because Alabama's one loss has to be justified. Florida will continue to rise (if they win out) to make sure sec has a team if Bama loses in conf championship game. committee will make sure sec has a dog in the race. Sad part is that we hear how great the sec is right up until it is time to discuss UNC's only loss then it is how bad sc is.

With the love being shown the sec and big 12 I do not see a realistic scenario giving the Heels a shot. Best hope is to get good bowl game against one of those teams and come with something to prove.

 

[Raising Heel]

With the love being shown the sec and big 12 I do not see a realistic scenario giving the Heels a shot. Best hope is to get good bowl game against one of those teams and come with something to prove.

Actually, the Big 12 can play itself right out of the playoffs if things break right. The remaining schedules are:

#6 Oklahoma State (10-0): Baylor, Oklahoma
#7 Oklahoma (9-1): TCU, @ Oklahoma State
#10 Baylor (8-1): @Oklahoma State, @TCU, Texas
#18 TCU (9-1): @Oklahoma, Baylor

Worst case scenario is one or two of those teams win out. We need them to hand each other a loss.

 

[randman1]

Actually, the Big 12 can play itself right out of the playoffs if things break right. The remaining schedules are:

#6 Oklahoma State (10-0): Baylor, Oklahoma
#7 Oklahoma (9-1): TCU, @ Oklahoma State
#10 Baylor (8-1): @Oklahoma State, @TCU, Texas
#18 TCU (9-1): @Oklahoma, Baylor

Worst case scenario is one or two of those teams win out. We need them to hand each other a loss.

I think one of them will be in and so maybe best case for us is for OK State to win out, handing Baylor and Oklahoma another loss and keeping them from the discussion, but we'll see. Some good teams there.

The SEC looks like the most overrated conference to me this year. Alabama ranked 2 and yet who have they beaten? Their schedule is weak this year, and they lost to Ole Miss. It'd be great if Auburn beat them and UF lost to FL State, and LSU loses to Ole Miss. The committee would have to do some explaining to keep Bama and UF ranked so high or even in consideration at all for the playoffs.

 

[Raising Heel]

Alabama ranked 2 and yet who have they beaten? Their schedule is weak this year, and they lost to Ole Miss.

You can't be serious.

Oh. You're serious.

Alabama Strength of Schedule:
Sagarin #3
S&P #5
Congrove #2
Massey #1
GBE #3
ESPN #1

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many SOS methodologies that place Alabama outside the top 10.

 

[randman1]

You can't be serious.

Oh. You're serious.

Alabama Strength of Schedule:
Sagarin #3
S&P #5
Congrove #2
Massey #1
GBE #3
ESPN #1

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many SOS methodologies that place Alabama outside the top 10.

Why don't you actually look at the schedules instead of what someone else says about, working assumptions into that analysis, many of them from pre-season?

I am not saying metrics and analysis aren't good but honestly look at Alabama's schedule. Here it is.


Opponent* Result Record
Sept. 5, 2015 Wisconsin W 35-17 1-0
Sept. 12, 2015 Middle Tenn. W 37-10 2-0
Sept. 19, 2015 Ole Miss L 43-37 2-1 (0-1)
Sept. 26, 2015 ULM W 34-0 3-1
Oct. 3, 2015 at Georgia W 38-10 4-1 (1-1)
Oct. 10, 2015 Arkansas W 27-14 5-1 (2-1)
Oct. 17, 2015 at Texas A&M W 41-23 6-1 (3-1)
Oct. 24, 2015 Tennessee W 19-14 7-1 (4-1)
Nov. 7, 2015 LSU W 30-16 8-1 (5-1)
Nov. 14, 2015 at Miss. State W 31-6 9-1 (6-1)
Nov. 21, 2015 Charleston Southern 3:00 pm CT | Tickets
Nov. 28, 2015 at Auburn 2:30 pm CT | Tickets

Looked good pre-season but turns out some teams like Georgia and Auburn weren't that good this year. So of course, if one looks at strength of schedule assuming these teams are good, then it's a self-fulfilling ranking.

Wisconsin probably will not be ranked soon.
Middle Tenn (a real powerhouse)
Ole Miss, actually ranked and pretty good team but Alabama lost
ULM (exactly who are they?)
Georgia (not ranked, lost to ULM and Tenn)
Arkansas (lost to Toledo, Texas Tech. Texas A&M)
Texas A&M (not too bad, lost to Auburn, unranked)
Tennessee, barely beat them, pretty good for a 6-4 team
LSU (has a lot of love from the committee but just lost to Arkansas, if Ole Miss beats them, should they even be ranked. If Ole Miss and A&M beat them, they won't be. They have one quality win over Florida, and Florida has one good win over Ole Miss. We're not talking normal SEC dominance this year.
Miss State: think they are unranked as well

So they will have likely beaten one ranked team by season's end. How is this a tough SOS?

 

[Raising Heel]

Why don't you actually look at the schedules instead of what someone else says about, working assumptions into that analysis, many of them from pre-season?

Because dozens of sites like the ones I listed have already gone to the trouble of creating sophisticated algorithms that determine the strength of a team's opponents, and their opponents' opponents, and so on (none of which currently includes pre-season rankings in their calculations, by the way). Strangely enough, despite their varying methodologies, they all agree with one another and contradict your interpretation.

Listing the losses of teams Alabama beat is hilarious. What do you think would happen if you did the same thing for every other team in the country? (Hint: They would almost all look worse than Alabama, which is why....wait for it....Alabama has one of the strongest SOS rankings in the country).

I'm done with this inane conversation.

 

[randman1]

Because dozens of sites like the ones I listed have already gone to the trouble of creating sophisticated algorithms that determine the strength of a team's opponents, and their opponents' opponents, and so on (none of which currently includes pre-season rankings in their calculations, by the way). Strangely enough, despite their varying methodologies, they all agree with one another and contradict your interpretation.

Listing the losses of teams Alabama beat is hilarious. What do you think would happen if you did the same thing for every other team in the country? (Hint: They would almost all look worse than Alabama, which is why....wait for it....Alabama has one of the strongest SOS rankings in the country).

I'm done with this inane conversation.

Come on. You can't see some circular logic. Take a look at UF that struggled with Vandy. At some point you gotta look at the team's play.

By that measure, Alabama looks pretty darn good. So do we, however. Not saying we should be ranked higher than Alabama but you switch jerseys with the same records, and they'd have the whole thing inverted.

 

[Bubspub88]

You can't be serious.

Oh. You're serious.

Alabama Strength of Schedule:
Sagarin #3
S&P #5
Congrove #2
Massey #1
GBE #3
ESPN #1

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many SOS methodologies that place Alabama outside the top 10.

The flaw comes in with all the sec teams being ranked too high early on. Last season the sec dominated the rankings all season and then the vaunted sec west laid an egg in the bowls. SEC teams all look good in August so they get ranked too high. When conference play starts the losses are not bad because it is often to a ranked team and they get good bumps by beating someone ranked. Other teams have to climb into the polls and they are fighting an uphill battle since there are fewer chances for good wins since there are fewer ranked teams in the conference. Until they stop releasing polls until a month into the season nothing will change.

 

[Tru Blu Tar Heel]

I do. Notre Dame is a good team. They should be in the top 10, somewhere between 8-10. They are not one of the top 4 teams in the country, not in the top 6 and probably not in the top 8.

Notre Dame is not better than an undefeated Oklahoma State, undefeated Iowa, or a 1 loss Oklahoma.

 

[Raising Heel]

The flaw comes in with all the sec teams being ranked too high early on.

For (hopefully) the last time, SOS ratings are not based on pre-season or early season rankings. They're based on actual performance during the year, and most are adjusted beyond just wins and losses to take into account the offensive and defensive efficiency of each team and its opponents.

 

[randman1]

Notre Dame is not better than an undefeated Oklahoma State, undefeated Iowa, or a 1 loss Oklahoma.

I agree. Hope the committee isn't just trying to promote who they want, but the other polls have them high as well.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Come on. You can't see some circular logic. Take a look at UF that struggled with Vandy. At some point you gotta look at the team's play.

By that measure, Alabama looks pretty darn good. So do we, however. Not saying we should be ranked higher than Alabama but you switch jerseys with the same records, and they'd have the whole thing inverted.

Dude please. This is painful. I love your passion as a fan but....lol come on! U wanna argue we should be ranked 4 or 5 spots higher? I'm right there with ya. But u wont find anyone obj to agree that our schedules are comparable or even CLOSE. For chrissake's they've got 6 wins over the top 35! We have one! And we lost to arguably the worst team in THEIR conference!

 

[randman1]

Dude please. This is painful. I love your passion as a fan but....lol come on! U wanna argue we should be ranked 4 or 5 spots higher? I'm right there with ya. But u wont find anyone obj to agree that our schedules are comparable or even CLOSE. For chrissake's they've got 6 wins over the top 35! We have one! And we lost to arguably the worst team in THEIR conference!

Wasn't arguing we should be ranked higher. Am saying some others should and just using them as an example on how these rankings are out of whack.

 

[Archer2]

One step in the right direction would be to wait until week four to release the first national rankings. It would take some of the subjectivity out of the equation.

It's pretty apparent that the rankings are skewed toward the power programs/conferences. Basketball rankings are as well. They have more cred so it's not really surprising at all.

The fact that we're even discussing it means that our team has some relevance this year. Continued good play will inevitably lead to more respect for our program but Rome wasn't built in a day.

I do love the fact that we have a team that is good enough to merit even possible inclusion in the final four playoff. That's a very good thing!

 

[JimmyinVA]

several worthy teams will be excluded from the playoffs. eventually we'll have an eight team playoff, but how many injustices and how long before the inevitable change is made?

 

[Archer2]

I favor an eight team playoff too Jimmy. Of course, several of the meaningless bowls should rightly be eliminated. There are over 30 bowls now IIRC, WAY too many.

 

[BeezerHeel]

I favor an eight team playoff too Jimmy. Of course, several of the meaningless bowls should rightly be eliminated. There are over 30 bowls now IIRC, WAY too many.

Yea, and there's talk of a few schools making a bowl with only five wins because they have to fill them.

 

[WoadBlue]

I favor an eight team playoff too Jimmy. Of course, several of the meaningless bowls should rightly be eliminated. There are over 30 bowls now IIRC, WAY too many.

If people go to the bowls and watch them on TV, they are far from meaningless. When they no longer draw fans, they have become meaningless.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Wasn't arguing we should be ranked higher. Am saying some others should and just using them as an example on how these rankings are out of whack.

No you're arguing our schedules are comparable. And thats just not the case. They deserve their ranking.

 

[HeelFan58]

Why don't you actually look at the schedules instead of what someone else says about, working assumptions into that analysis, many of them from pre-season?

I am not saying metrics and analysis aren't good but honestly look at Alabama's schedule. Here it is.


Opponent* Result Record
Sept. 5, 2015 Wisconsin W 35-17 1-0
Sept. 12, 2015 Middle Tenn. W 37-10 2-0
Sept. 19, 2015 Ole Miss L 43-37 2-1 (0-1)
Sept. 26, 2015 ULM W 34-0 3-1
Oct. 3, 2015 at Georgia W 38-10 4-1 (1-1)
Oct. 10, 2015 Arkansas W 27-14 5-1 (2-1)
Oct. 17, 2015 at Texas A&M W 41-23 6-1 (3-1)
Oct. 24, 2015 Tennessee W 19-14 7-1 (4-1)
Nov. 7, 2015 LSU W 30-16 8-1 (5-1)
Nov. 14, 2015 at Miss. State W 31-6 9-1 (6-1)
Nov. 21, 2015 Charleston Southern 3:00 pm CT | Tickets
Nov. 28, 2015 at Auburn 2:30 pm CT | Tickets

Looked good pre-season but turns out some teams like Georgia and Auburn weren't that good this year. So of course, if one looks at strength of schedule assuming these teams are good, then it's a self-fulfilling ranking.

Wisconsin probably will not be ranked soon.
Middle Tenn (a real powerhouse)
Ole Miss, actually ranked and pretty good team but Alabama lost
ULM (exactly who are they?)
Georgia (not ranked, lost to ULM and Tenn)
Arkansas (lost to Toledo, Texas Tech. Texas A&M)
Texas A&M (not too bad, lost to Auburn, unranked)
Tennessee, barely beat them, pretty good for a 6-4 team
LSU (has a lot of love from the committee but just lost to Arkansas, if Ole Miss beats them, should they even be ranked. If Ole Miss and A&M beat them, they won't be. They have one quality win over Florida, and Florida has one good win over Ole Miss. We're not talking normal SEC dominance this year.
Miss State: think they are unranked as well

So they will have likely beaten one ranked team by season's end. How is this a tough SOS?

In what alternate dimension did UGa lose to ULM? In this one they beat them 51-14. Georgia's only losses are to Bama , Florida and Tenn.

 

[HeelFan58]

If we had beaten any of the following Wisky , Ole Miss , UGa , Arkansas , T A&M , Tenn , LSU , Miss St or Auburn we would be crowing from the roof and rightly so.I don't care if these teams are ranked or not they are good.

 

[BeezerHeel]

No you're arguing our schedules are comparable. And thats just not the case. They deserve their ranking.

Rightly or wrongly randman1 is saying all those name schools in the sec aren't nearly as good as they have been in past years. And to that point, he's correct because they aren't. In other words, rand is saying those schools (not Bama) are unnecessarily ranked too high making the Bams SOS inflated.

What can't be argued are UNC and Bams opponents records where we, I believe, have only beaten two schools with records above .500. Bams have beaten at least six schools with records above .500.

So, yea, we aren't in their neighborhood of SOS talk. We prolly need to move on from this topic.

 

[randman1]

Rightly or wrongly randman1 is saying all those name schools in the sec aren't nearly as good as they have been in past years. And to that point, he's correct because they aren't. In other words, rand is saying those schools (not Bama) are unnecessarily ranked too high making the Bams SOS inflated.

What can't be argued are UNC and Bams opponents records where we, I believe, have only beaten two schools with records above .500. Bams have beaten at least six schools with records above .500.

So, yea, we aren't in their neighborhood of SOS talk. We prolly need to move on from this topic.

Thanks for seeing what I am talking about. Right now, of course, they should be ranked ahead of us but they are considered perhaps the best team in the nation with the best or one of the best SOS, and it's not terribly different than some ranked much lower, and by end of the season, who knows as far as our SOS?

Btw, we've beaten 3 teams with records above .500 and pretty good or at least possibly dangerous teams actually in Pitt, Duke and Miami and controlled the game. Most likely VA Tech and State will finish above .500 as well, and Clemson of course should we play them. Also, Illinois might as well or tie. Obviously that doesn't compare to Alabama's schedule but there's a ton of teams ranked higher than us than Alabama. I am using them as an illustration of worst case difference.

And here's the primary reason I bring this up. Once we play those games, especially facing the number one team in the nation and 2 more bowl eligible teams (most likely), will our SOS improve, and more importantly would it even matter? I think the football world might still be talking about a weak schedule despite playing and beating 6 bowl eligible teams, and perhaps if Pitt wins, one top 25 team and the number one team in the nation.

In other words, the excuse now is the weak SOS but it's already been thrown out there as an excuse should we win out when our SOS should be much higher. But would beating 6 bowl eligible teams, the number one team in the nation and another in the top 20-30 really be much of a weaker schedule than the top-rated SOS in the nation with Alabama who will possibly not have even played a top 10 team?

Might not have said this as well but hope people get where I am going. I doubt a flip on the SOS would make much difference to the committee at this juncture. Flip our SOS with Alabama's, and bet the committee would still have them ranked higher, and it's not just Alabama but teams they favor. Obviously, Bama is one of the better/best teams in the nation.

We may be as well.

 

[randman1]

Short version: the discussion is end of the season and if we win out. There is still talk we could be excluded from the play-offs based on a weak schedule but by then we would have beaten 6 and possibly 7 bowl eligible teams and the number one team in the nation, probably a ranked Pitt team as well.

 

[Archer2]

If people go to the bowls and watch them on TV, they are far from meaningless. When they no longer draw fans, they have become meaningless.

A question then: are you in favor of the current system? I would prefer eliminating three weeks worth of minor bowls for a more inclusive playoff lasting three weeks.

 

[BeezerHeel]

A question then: are you in favor of the current system? I would prefer eliminating three weeks worth of minor bowls for a more inclusive playoff lasting three weeks.

I'm for all Bowls because me and my buddy's gamble lightly on all of them.

 

[WoadBlue]

A question then: are you in favor of the current system? I would prefer eliminating three weeks worth of minor bowls for a more inclusive playoff lasting three weeks.

Minor bowls allow teams that are trying to build up their programs to have a post-season. And that is good for the sport. It helps keep some semblance of parity. 8 teams in the playoff and several bowls is the best course.

 

[WoadBlue]

I'm for all Bowls because me and my buddy's gamble lightly on all of them.

Some of the most fun bets are on the really minor bowls.

 

[JimmyinVA]

If people go to the bowls and watch them on TV, they are far from meaningless. When they no longer draw fans, they have become meaningless.

i have no problem with lower tier bowls giving fans of those schools something to look forward too and boosting local economies. however, i have a problem philosophically with teams getting a bowl invite with a 6-6 record. only winning records should earn a bowl game. are there enough teams with winning records to fill the current bowl games?