[TreeFitty]

Still a lot of football to play, but if Stanford is able to win out, what is the simplest scenario where Stanford makes the top 4?

Last week's CFP rankings:

1 Clemson 8-0
2 LSU 7-0
3 Ohio State 8-0
4 Alabama 7-1
5 Notre Dame 7-1
6 Baylor 7-0
7 Michigan State 8-0
8 TCU 8-0
9 Iowa 8-0
10 Florida 7-1
11 Stanford 7-1
12 Utah 7-1

Assuming this week's losers move below Stanford, and OK St moves above Stanford:

1 Clemson (undefeated)
2 Ohio State (undefeated)
3 Alabama (1 loss)
4 Notre Dame (1 loss)
5 Baylor (undefeated)
6 OK State (undefeated)
7 Iowa (undefeated)
8 Florida (1 loss)
9 Stanford (1 loss)

Ohio State and Iowa play each other, and we can assume a 12-1 Stanford would jump the loser.
Alabama and Florida play each other, and we can assume a 12-1 Stanford would jump the loser.
Baylor and OK St. play each other, and we can assume a 12-1 Stanford would jump the loser.

If the winners of those match-ups win out, we could then perhaps expect:

1 Clemson (undefeated)
2 Ohio State/Iowa winner (undefeated)
3 Alabama/Florida winner (1 loss)
4 Baylor/OK State winner (undefeated)
5 Stanford (1 loss)

This suggests that the path for Stanford at this point includes, at it's simplest, for Stanford to win out (ideally beating a 1 loss Utah) and either the Big 10 or Big 12 champion having 1 loss. I'm thinking the committee picking Stanford over a 1-loss Big 12 team is a surer bet (would they pick Stanford over a 12-1 MSU or Iowa?).

Possible Helpful Scenarios:
Michigan or Michigan State beats Ohio State, who then beats Iowa. (Too many scenarios to list here, but the simplest is Michigan winning out from here on.)

Oklahoma beats Baylor, Baylor beats Oklahoma State. (or Oklahoma wins out. again, lots of scenarios)

Anyway, it seems like, as long as Stanford wins out and takes care of business, there are so many scenarios where the universe cooperates, which, while that still means that Stanford does not control its own destiny, we have the next best thing.

Thoughts?

[TreeFitty]

Still a lot of football to play, but if Stanford is able to win out, what is the simplest scenario where Stanford makes the top 4?

Last week's CFP rankings:

1 Clemson 8-0
2 LSU 7-0
3 Ohio State 8-0
4 Alabama 7-1
5 Notre Dame 7-1
6 Baylor 7-0
7 Michigan State 8-0
8 TCU 8-0
9 Iowa 8-0
10 Florida 7-1
11 Stanford 7-1
12 Utah 7-1

Assuming this week's losers move below Stanford, and OK St moves above Stanford:

1 Clemson (undefeated)
2 Ohio State (undefeated)
3 Alabama (1 loss)
4 Notre Dame (1 loss)
5 Baylor (undefeated)
6 OK State (undefeated)
7 Iowa (undefeated)
8 Florida (1 loss)
9 Stanford (1 loss)

Ohio State and Iowa play each other, and we can assume a 12-1 Stanford would jump the loser.
Alabama and Florida play each other, and we can assume a 12-1 Stanford would jump the loser.
Baylor and OK St. play each other, and we can assume a 12-1 Stanford would jump the loser.

If the winners of those match-ups win out, we could then perhaps expect:

1 Clemson (undefeated)
2 Ohio State/Iowa winner (undefeated)
3 Alabama/Florida winner (1 loss)
4 Baylor/OK State winner (undefeated)
5 Stanford (1 loss)

This suggests that the path for Stanford at this point includes, at it's simplest, for Stanford to win out (ideally beating a 1 loss Utah) and either the Big 10 or Big 12 champion having 1 loss. I'm thinking the committee picking Stanford over a 1-loss Big 12 team is a surer bet (would they pick Stanford over a 12-1 MSU or Iowa?).

Possible Helpful Scenarios:
Michigan or Michigan State beats Ohio State, who then beats Iowa. (Too many scenarios to list here, but the simplest is Michigan winning out from here on.)

Oklahoma beats Baylor, Baylor beats Oklahoma State. (or Oklahoma wins out. again, lots of scenarios)

Anyway, it seems like, as long as Stanford wins out and takes care of business, there are so many scenarios where the universe cooperates, which, while that still means that Stanford does not control its own destiny, we have the next best thing.

Thoughts?

[JeffInCorvallis]

My thoughts:

Fun exercise in speculation for fans and message boards.  The team needs to focus on smoking the Ducks this week.

[JeffInCorvallis]

My thoughts:

Fun exercise in speculation for fans and message boards.  The team needs to focus on smoking the Ducks this week.

[TreeFitty]

My thoughts:

Fun exercise in speculation for fans and message boards.  The team needs to focus on smoking the Ducks this week.

Alright, so let's hope that the team isn't posting on this here board.

Got anything to add other than that? Since this is a message board where fans can speculate what's at stake if the team doesn't beat the Ducks this week.

[TreeFitty]

My thoughts:

Fun exercise in speculation for fans and message boards.  The team needs to focus on smoking the Ducks this week.

Alright, so let's hope that the team isn't posting on this here board.

Got anything to add other than that? Since this is a message board where fans can speculate what's at stake if the team doesn't beat the Ducks this week.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford controls its own destiny.  That's all that matters for Stanford partisans.  As for your scenarios...

There is no guarantee Iowa plays Ohio State.  In fact, Wisconsin could still win the division.  Iowa plays a pretty good Minnesota team this week and finishes at Nebraska after a likely win over Purdue.

There is no guarantee Alabama is going to beat a very good Mississippi State team this week. Usually after playing LSU they play at home against Alcorn State.  This week they travel to Starkville to play a QB with 18 TDs and 1 INT, that lost on a last second FG miss to LSU.

There is a real chance - and I think likely one - that Oklahoma knocks off Baylor this week. 

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford controls its own destiny.  That's all that matters for Stanford partisans.  As for your scenarios...

There is no guarantee Iowa plays Ohio State.  In fact, Wisconsin could still win the division.  Iowa plays a pretty good Minnesota team this week and finishes at Nebraska after a likely win over Purdue.

There is no guarantee Alabama is going to beat a very good Mississippi State team this week. Usually after playing LSU they play at home against Alcorn State.  This week they travel to Starkville to play a QB with 18 TDs and 1 INT, that lost on a last second FG miss to LSU.

There is a real chance - and I think likely one - that Oklahoma knocks off Baylor this week. 

[winflop]

Stanford controls its own destiny.

I wish I could be confident that you are correct.  However, given the CFP's initial rankings show that all their talk about SOS is just a bunch of BS, I do not share your confidence.

[winflop]

Stanford controls its own destiny.

I wish I could be confident that you are correct.  However, given the CFP's initial rankings show that all their talk about SOS is just a bunch of BS, I do not share your confidence.

[stupac2]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=13568.msg140443#msg140443 date=1447023297]
Stanford controls its own destiny.

I wish I could be confident that you are correct.  However, given the CFP's initial rankings show that all their talk about SOS is just a bunch of BS, I do not share your confidence.
[/quote]

I still don't understand how people can say that the initial rankings meant anything when the team that won the whole damn thing last year started at #16. Literally the only precedent we have is that we're sitting in a good spot. Are there scenarios where we win out and miss out? Probably, I guess, but it can't be very high.

Look at the 538 predictions. If you add up the percentages for us, ND, and Utah (figuring there's no realistic scenario where more than 1 of that set gets in) you're get 72%. I'd have to think that the majority of the remaining 28% is the odds that someone in there drops another game (Utah especially since they have some tough games left), but they don't have individual games so I can't go through it all.

By far the least likely part of our path to the playoff is winning out. If we can pull that off, we'll be in really good shape.

[stupac2]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=13568.msg140443#msg140443 date=1447023297]
Stanford controls its own destiny.

I wish I could be confident that you are correct.  However, given the CFP's initial rankings show that all their talk about SOS is just a bunch of BS, I do not share your confidence.
[/quote]

I still don't understand how people can say that the initial rankings meant anything when the team that won the whole damn thing last year started at #16. Literally the only precedent we have is that we're sitting in a good spot. Are there scenarios where we win out and miss out? Probably, I guess, but it can't be very high.

Look at the 538 predictions. If you add up the percentages for us, ND, and Utah (figuring there's no realistic scenario where more than 1 of that set gets in) you're get 72%. I'd have to think that the majority of the remaining 28% is the odds that someone in there drops another game (Utah especially since they have some tough games left), but they don't have individual games so I can't go through it all.

By far the least likely part of our path to the playoff is winning out. If we can pull that off, we'll be in really good shape.

[winflop]

I still don't understand how people can say that the initial rankings meant anything when the team that won the whole damn thing last year started at #16.

Pretty simple.  The Committee is showing itself to be extraordinarily hypocritical.  They talk a lot about how strength of schedule is important, and then rank a whole bunch of undefeated teams who have played nothing but creampuffs at the top.

Hopefully they will change their stripes, but I don't have confidence.

[winflop]

I still don't understand how people can say that the initial rankings meant anything when the team that won the whole damn thing last year started at #16.

Pretty simple.  The Committee is showing itself to be extraordinarily hypocritical.  They talk a lot about how strength of schedule is important, and then rank a whole bunch of undefeated teams who have played nothing but creampuffs at the top.

Hopefully they will change their stripes, but I don't have confidence.

[Cardinal96]

I agree with the Original Poster.  I think we will beat out a one-loss Big Ten or Big XII team for a CFP spot.  Wins over Oregon, particularly Notre Dame and Utah would be pretty strong in that scenario.

The chances of us not winning out are much greater than the chances of us not making it in if we do win out.

[Cardinal96]

I agree with the Original Poster.  I think we will beat out a one-loss Big Ten or Big XII team for a CFP spot.  Wins over Oregon, particularly Notre Dame and Utah would be pretty strong in that scenario.

The chances of us not winning out are much greater than the chances of us not making it in if we do win out.

[FarmBoy]

I still don't understand how people can say that the initial rankings meant anything when the team that won the whole damn thing last year started at #16.

Only 1 of the 4 final four teams were in the top 4 in the first ranking (FSU). Oregon joined them in the 2nd week. It wasn't until the 4th rankings that 'Bama joined the top four and then the final ranking that OSU joined. There's clearly time for movement.

[FarmBoy]

I still don't understand how people can say that the initial rankings meant anything when the team that won the whole damn thing last year started at #16.

Only 1 of the 4 final four teams were in the top 4 in the first ranking (FSU). Oregon joined them in the 2nd week. It wasn't until the 4th rankings that 'Bama joined the top four and then the final ranking that OSU joined. There's clearly time for movement.

[CTcard]

Pretty simple.  The Committee is showing itself to be extraordinarily hypocritical.  They talk a lot about how strength of schedule is important, and then rank a whole bunch of undefeated teams who have played nothing but creampuffs at the top.

For the most part, the committee has not talked at all, much less talked a lot about how strength or schedule is important. Mostly, that has been the various talking heads who tend to rattle on about how SOS is important to the committee but then follow that up with various incompatible statements about other things they think are important to the committee.

I suspect that the committee doesn't take these early rankings overly seriously. Not that I know - but clearly they shuffled things around a lot last year, particularly in the final ranking, i.e. the one that counted.

In the end, in the one year of precedent that we have, while they didn't put anyone with more losses in over any one with fewer, they did rank order the one loss teams appropriately w.r.t. strength of schedule. I expect the same. No one loss team gets in over a Power 5 zero loss team, but with a loss the Big 12 teams are doomed (if there are multiple 1 loss champs).

[CTcard]

Pretty simple.  The Committee is showing itself to be extraordinarily hypocritical.  They talk a lot about how strength of schedule is important, and then rank a whole bunch of undefeated teams who have played nothing but creampuffs at the top.

For the most part, the committee has not talked at all, much less talked a lot about how strength or schedule is important. Mostly, that has been the various talking heads who tend to rattle on about how SOS is important to the committee but then follow that up with various incompatible statements about other things they think are important to the committee.

I suspect that the committee doesn't take these early rankings overly seriously. Not that I know - but clearly they shuffled things around a lot last year, particularly in the final ranking, i.e. the one that counted.

In the end, in the one year of precedent that we have, while they didn't put anyone with more losses in over any one with fewer, they did rank order the one loss teams appropriately w.r.t. strength of schedule. I expect the same. No one loss team gets in over a Power 5 zero loss team, but with a loss the Big 12 teams are doomed (if there are multiple 1 loss champs).

[OutsiderFan]

From the committee website:

The committee selects the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory) and other relevant factors that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

Selection committee members have flexibility to examine whatever data they believe is relevant to inform their decisions. They also review a significant amount of game video. Among the many factors the committee members consider are win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, comparison of results against common opponents and conference championships won. The playoff group has retained SportSource Analytics to provide the data platform for the committee’s use. This platforms allow the committee members to compare and contrast teams on every level possible. Each member evaluates the data at hand, and then the individuals will vote to produce a group decision.


Who knows what it all means.

[OutsiderFan]

From the committee website:

The committee selects the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory) and other relevant factors that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

Selection committee members have flexibility to examine whatever data they believe is relevant to inform their decisions. They also review a significant amount of game video. Among the many factors the committee members consider are win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, comparison of results against common opponents and conference championships won. The playoff group has retained SportSource Analytics to provide the data platform for the committee’s use. This platforms allow the committee members to compare and contrast teams on every level possible. Each member evaluates the data at hand, and then the individuals will vote to produce a group decision.


Who knows what it all means.

[stupac2]

From the committee website:

The committee selects the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory) and other relevant factors that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

Selection committee members have flexibility to examine whatever data they believe is relevant to inform their decisions. They also review a significant amount of game video. Among the many factors the committee members consider are win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, comparison of results against common opponents and conference championships won. The playoff group has retained SportSource Analytics to provide the data platform for the committee’s use. This platforms allow the committee members to compare and contrast teams on every level possible. Each member evaluates the data at hand, and then the individuals will vote to produce a group decision.


Who knows what it all means.

It means that those things are tiebreakers among teams with the same number of losses. I posted their criteria in a thread a while back, it's basically "order by number of losses, break ties with the criteria of 'won the SEC', 'won different conference', and 'strength of schedule', in that order."

That's how it worked last year and I see no reason for that to change.

[stupac2]

From the committee website:

The committee selects the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory) and other relevant factors that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

Selection committee members have flexibility to examine whatever data they believe is relevant to inform their decisions. They also review a significant amount of game video. Among the many factors the committee members consider are win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, comparison of results against common opponents and conference championships won. The playoff group has retained SportSource Analytics to provide the data platform for the committee’s use. This platforms allow the committee members to compare and contrast teams on every level possible. Each member evaluates the data at hand, and then the individuals will vote to produce a group decision.


Who knows what it all means.

It means that those things are tiebreakers among teams with the same number of losses. I posted their criteria in a thread a while back, it's basically "order by number of losses, break ties with the criteria of 'won the SEC', 'won different conference', and 'strength of schedule', in that order."

That's how it worked last year and I see no reason for that to change.

[PrinceLightfoot]

I have a feeling we will leap Florida in the commitee rankings this week. That was an atrocious performance versus a team that was shutout by Houston 34-0 the week before.

[PrinceLightfoot]

I have a feeling we will leap Florida in the commitee rankings this week. That was an atrocious performance versus a team that was shutout by Houston 34-0 the week before.

[winflop]

That's how it worked last year and I see no reason for that to change.

I do see a reason for it to change.  When the strength of schedule for every team in an entire conference - especially when it comes to OOC games - is so loaded with FCS and lower-division FBS creampuffs, I think the CFP Committee needs to discount any conference champion's record relative to conferences whose champions play competitive OOC games.

It is nearly impossible to compare a Big 12 champion to any other conference champion because there is no external point of reference other than one Oklahoma win over Tennessee who is a middle-of-the-road SEC team.  Other than that one game, the only "quality" games that OK, OKST, BAY,or TCU play are against each other.  How do we know whether they are the four best teams in the country or whether none of them even belongs in the Top 10 - regardless of their records?

The CFP needs to walk its talk regarding OOC scheduling and punish the entire Big 12.

[winflop]

That's how it worked last year and I see no reason for that to change.

I do see a reason for it to change.  When the strength of schedule for every team in an entire conference - especially when it comes to OOC games - is so loaded with FCS and lower-division FBS creampuffs, I think the CFP Committee needs to discount any conference champion's record relative to conferences whose champions play competitive OOC games.

It is nearly impossible to compare a Big 12 champion to any other conference champion because there is no external point of reference other than one Oklahoma win over Tennessee who is a middle-of-the-road SEC team.  Other than that one game, the only "quality" games that OK, OKST, BAY,or TCU play are against each other.  How do we know whether they are the four best teams in the country or whether none of them even belongs in the Top 10 - regardless of their records?

The CFP needs to walk its talk regarding OOC scheduling and punish the entire Big 12.

[Rally]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13568.msg140550#msg140550 date=1447085818]
That's how it worked last year and I see no reason for that to change.

I do see a reason for it to change.  When the strength of schedule for every team in an entire conference - especially when it comes to OOC games - is so loaded with FCS and lower-division FBS creampuffs, I think the CFP Committee needs to discount any conference champion's record relative to conferences whose champions play competitive OOC games.

It is nearly impossible to compare a Big 12 champion to any other conference champion because there is no external point of reference other than one Oklahoma win over Tennessee who is a middle-of-the-road SEC team.  Other than that one game, the only "quality" games that OK, OKST, BAY,or TCU play are against each other.  How do we know whether they are the four best teams in the country or whether none of them even belongs in the Top 10 - regardless of their records?

The CFP needs to walk its talk regarding OOC scheduling and punish the entire Big 12.
[/quote]

Exactly.  Okie State gets credit for a quality win over TCU.  WHY IS THAT CONSIDERED A QUALITY WIN.  Only because they were rewarded for beating nobody with a high ranking.  Circular reason at its finest.

[Rally]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13568.msg140550#msg140550 date=1447085818]
That's how it worked last year and I see no reason for that to change.

I do see a reason for it to change.  When the strength of schedule for every team in an entire conference - especially when it comes to OOC games - is so loaded with FCS and lower-division FBS creampuffs, I think the CFP Committee needs to discount any conference champion's record relative to conferences whose champions play competitive OOC games.

It is nearly impossible to compare a Big 12 champion to any other conference champion because there is no external point of reference other than one Oklahoma win over Tennessee who is a middle-of-the-road SEC team.  Other than that one game, the only "quality" games that OK, OKST, BAY,or TCU play are against each other.  How do we know whether they are the four best teams in the country or whether none of them even belongs in the Top 10 - regardless of their records?

The CFP needs to walk its talk regarding OOC scheduling and punish the entire Big 12.
[/quote]

Exactly.  Okie State gets credit for a quality win over TCU.  WHY IS THAT CONSIDERED A QUALITY WIN.  Only because they were rewarded for beating nobody with a high ranking.  Circular reason at its finest.

[fullmetal]

Boy I hope Auburn eats their Wheaties and beats Bama in the Iron Bowl.  Not really going to happen, but still...

[fullmetal]

Boy I hope Auburn eats their Wheaties and beats Bama in the Iron Bowl.  Not really going to happen, but still...

[CTcard]

It is nearly impossible to compare a Big 12 champion to any other conference champion because there is no external point of reference other than one Oklahoma win over Tennessee who is a middle-of-the-road SEC team. 

While the top of the Big 12 has had particularly weak OOC scheduling, the bulk of the conference isn't so bad - particularly considering that most everyone schedules weak OOC opponents.

Big 12, Power 5 OOC games
TCU @ Minnesota
Oklahoma @ Tennessee
Texas vs und
Texas vs c.a.l.
ISU vs Iowa
Texas Tech vs Arkansas
WVU vs UMD
Kansas @ Rutgers

That's an average of 0.8 Power 5 OOC opponents per team

Pac 12, Power 5 OOC games
Stanford @ Northwestern
Stanford vs und
$C vs und
UCLA vs UVa
Utah vs Michigan
ASU vs Texas AM
OSU @ Michigan
c.a.l. @ Texas
Oregon @ MSU
WSU @ Rutgers

That's 0.83 Power 5 OOC games per team.

[CTcard]

It is nearly impossible to compare a Big 12 champion to any other conference champion because there is no external point of reference other than one Oklahoma win over Tennessee who is a middle-of-the-road SEC team. 

While the top of the Big 12 has had particularly weak OOC scheduling, the bulk of the conference isn't so bad - particularly considering that most everyone schedules weak OOC opponents.

Big 12, Power 5 OOC games
TCU @ Minnesota
Oklahoma @ Tennessee
Texas vs und
Texas vs c.a.l.
ISU vs Iowa
Texas Tech vs Arkansas
WVU vs UMD
Kansas @ Rutgers

That's an average of 0.8 Power 5 OOC opponents per team

Pac 12, Power 5 OOC games
Stanford @ Northwestern
Stanford vs und
$C vs und
UCLA vs UVa
Utah vs Michigan
ASU vs Texas AM
OSU @ Michigan
c.a.l. @ Texas
Oregon @ MSU
WSU @ Rutgers

That's 0.83 Power 5 OOC games per team.