Notre Dame

Dano564

Fleck Superfan
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
10,135
Reaction score
2,906
Points
113
I found it interesting during the CFP selection show they talked briefly about Notre Dame, and someone mentioned they had solid wins with victories over Michigan and Northwestern.

They beat Michigan by 7 and Northwestern by 10.

That's hard to top. Good thing there weren't any other candidates who beat those two teams.
 

I found it interesting during the CFP selection show they talked briefly about Notre Dame, and someone mentioned they had solid wins with victories over Michigan and Northwestern.

They beat Michigan by 7 and Northwestern by 10.

That's hard to top. Good thing there weren't any other candidates who beat those two teams.

None that didn't get smashed by Purdue.

I get that it's cool to hate Notre Dame, but there really isn't a rationale argument that Ohio State should be in ahead of them.
 

None that didn't get smashed by Purdue.

I get that it's cool to hate Notre Dame, but there really isn't a rationale argument that Ohio State should be in ahead of them.

If you play more tough games, it's more likely you will get beat.


The 9 game schedule kills the Big Ten in rankings because teams with 8 wins score 16-20 spots higher in rankings than teams with 7 wins.
With a typical 8 game conference schedule, a .500 record in conference with 4 non-conf wins would put you at 8 wins and an average ranking around 20-22nd.
But due to the extra game, we have one less non-conference game and the average ranking for a 7 win team is about 40th in rankings and polls.

So all of those upper middle Big Ten teams all show in to be close to 40th ranked than 20th ranked.
 

If you play more tough games, it's more likely you will get beat.


The 9 game schedule kills the Big Ten in rankings because teams with 8 wins score 16-20 spots higher in rankings than teams with 7 wins.
With a typical 8 game conference schedule, a .500 record in conference with 4 non-conf wins would put you at 8 wins and an average ranking around 20-22nd.
But due to the extra game, we have one less non-conference game and the average ranking for a 7 win team is about 40th in rankings and polls.

So all of those upper middle Big Ten teams all show in to be close to 40th ranked than 20th ranked.

What's your point? OSU and Notre Dame's strength of schedules are almost identical no matter which advanced metric system you choose.

If we're talking "more tough games," the team who really got snubbed is Georgia. I think they're probably the 2nd-best team in the country, but unfortunately for them they lost twice. The theoretical arguments about strength of schedule and saying things like "should've won" are fun to discuss, but in the end the point is winning football games. Georgia lost twice, so they're out. Notre Dame and OSU played comparable schedules, and Notre Dame didn't lose. They win that tiebreaker.

One could argue the merits of Oklahoma vs. OSU. They're both 12-1, and Oklahoma actually had an easier schedule still. What it all seems to boil down to is that OSU has (easily) the worst loss of any of the top 6 teams - so they're out there too.

What you're attempting to do (suggest that OSU should be in at the expense of Notre Dame) is silly. It's not particularly close. The more reasonable argument is OSU vs. Oklahoma, and it seems Oklahoma won out because of the "worst loss" factor - not to mention that they later defeated the one team they lost to.
 

What's your point? OSU and Notre Dame's strength of schedules are almost identical no matter which advanced metric system you choose.

If we're talking "more tough games," the team who really got snubbed is Georgia. I think they're probably the 2nd-best team in the country, but unfortunately for them they lost twice. The theoretical arguments about strength of schedule and saying things like "should've won" are fun to discuss, but in the end the point is winning football games. Georgia lost twice, so they're out. Notre Dame and OSU played comparable schedules, and Notre Dame didn't lose. They win that tiebreaker.

One could argue the merits of Oklahoma vs. OSU. They're both 12-1, and Oklahoma actually had an easier schedule still. What it all seems to boil down to is that OSU has (easily) the worst loss of any of the top 6 teams - so they're out there too.

What you're attempting to do (suggest that OSU should be in at the expense of Notre Dame) is silly. It's not particularly close. The more reasonable argument is OSU vs. Oklahoma, and it seems Oklahoma won out because of the "worst loss" factor - not to mention that they later defeated the one team they lost to.

I did find it funny when people were using the argument that Oklahoma avenged the one loss they had. Would anyone expect OSU to not thump Purdue if they played again? That’s not trying to downplay their loss, but I just saw espn running that theme real hard
 


I did find it funny when people were using the argument that Oklahoma avenged the one loss they had. Would anyone expect OSU to not thump Purdue if they played again? That’s not trying to downplay their loss, but I just saw espn running that theme real hard

I expect they would, but the only way it would happen is if Purdue made the Big Ten championship game. They couldn't even do that coming out of one of the worst Power 5 divisions, further reinforcing how bad the loss was.
 

This is why automatic bids are needed.

Bama had nothing to play for.
Notre Dame didn't play
tOSU to me is a team that plays to the level of opponent
Do we really know the top four if they don't have the pressures of Championship games?
Georgia lost to a team that didn't have anything to play for and allowed the back-up QB to win the game.

I want a 6 team playoff with 5 automatic bids and Notre Dame or highest G5 team. beyond 6 teams really does nothing for me.
 

What's your point? OSU and Notre Dame's strength of schedules are almost identical no matter which advanced metric system you choose.

If we're talking "more tough games," the team who really got snubbed is Georgia. I think they're probably the 2nd-best team in the country, but unfortunately for them they lost twice. The theoretical arguments about strength of schedule and saying things like "should've won" are fun to discuss, but in the end the point is winning football games. Georgia lost twice, so they're out. Notre Dame and OSU played comparable schedules, and Notre Dame didn't lose. They win that tiebreaker.

One could argue the merits of Oklahoma vs. OSU. They're both 12-1, and Oklahoma actually had an easier schedule still. What it all seems to boil down to is that OSU has (easily) the worst loss of any of the top 6 teams - so they're out there too.

What you're attempting to do (suggest that OSU should be in at the expense of Notre Dame) is silly. It's not particularly close. The more reasonable argument is OSU vs. Oklahoma, and it seems Oklahoma won out because of the "worst loss" factor - not to mention that they later defeated the one team they lost to.

My point is this.

Big Ten plays 9 conference games. This lowers the average record of Big Ten teams by a half game.
So therefore the average ranking of Big ten teams top to bottom, 1-14 is about 10-20 points lower on most metrics because of this.
If the Big Ten had each team play one less conference game, and replace it with Austin Peay or Mercer, the conference would look like the top conference in football.
Instead with 9 games in-conference, it further brings all of the Big Ten schedules a step closer to mediocrity.

ACC doesn't play 9 conference games, and either does, so wins against ACC teams (which Notre Dame has several) seem inflated over the wins that OSU has.

Pac 12 plays 9 conference games and their rankings suffer like Big Ten's does.
 

I expect they would, but the only way it would happen is if Purdue made the Big Ten championship game. They couldn't even do that coming out of one of the worst Power 5 divisions, further reinforcing how bad the loss was.

How do you know the Big Ten West is one of the worst Power 5 divisions?
 



My point is this.

Big Ten plays 9 conference games. This lowers the average record of Big Ten teams by a half game.
So therefore the average ranking of Big ten teams top to bottom, 1-14 is about 10-20 points lower on most metrics because of this.
If the Big Ten had each team play one less conference game, and replace it with Austin Peay or Mercer, the conference would look like the top conference in football.
Instead with 9 games in-conference, it further brings all of the Big Ten schedules a step closer to mediocrity.

ACC doesn't play 9 conference games, and either does, so wins against ACC teams (which Notre Dame has several) seem inflated over the wins that OSU has.

Pac 12 plays 9 conference games and their rankings suffer like Big Ten's does.

Ok, so why don't you make the argument that OSU should be in over Clemson? Clemson's schedule was far easier than either OSU or Notre Dame.

How do you know the Big Ten West is one of the worst Power 5 divisions?

Common sense for one, but advanced statistics also back me up. Using Sagarin, the Big Ten West is 7th out of the 9 Power 5 divisions. The Pac 12 South has a worse rating this year because USC had an abnormally bad year, and the ACC Coastal is usually a pretty mediocre division regardless of season.
 

My point is this.

Big Ten plays 9 conference games. This lowers the average record of Big Ten teams by a half game.
So therefore the average ranking of Big ten teams top to bottom, 1-14 is about 10-20 points lower on most metrics because of this.
If the Big Ten had each team play one less conference game, and replace it with Austin Peay or Mercer, the conference would look like the top conference in football.
Instead with 9 games in-conference, it further brings all of the Big Ten schedules a step closer to mediocrity.

ACC doesn't play 9 conference games, and either does, so wins against ACC teams (which Notre Dame has several) seem inflated over the wins that OSU has.

Pac 12 plays 9 conference games and their rankings suffer like Big Ten's does.

Big 12 also plays 9 conference games and all teams play each other every year.
 

I expect they would, but the only way it would happen is if Purdue made the Big Ten championship game. They couldn't even do that coming out of one of the worst Power 5 divisions, further reinforcing how bad the loss was.

Not disagreeing with you, but Texas lost to MD (convincingly) who lost to OSU. Simply no one knows and that’s why it ends being a debate because no one can ever be purely objective and let’s the eye test come and their own personal bias let them make the argument the way they want. I think Oklahoma was the correct choice (see my post in The Who should be the 4th team thread) based on the how the committee states they would pick teams that are similar. That being said, I think OSU would beat Oklahoma
 

Ok, so why don't you make the argument that OSU should be in over Clemson? Clemson's schedule was far easier than either OSU or Notre Dame.



Common sense for one, but advanced statistics also back me up. Using Sagarin, the Big Ten West is 7th out of the 9 Power 5 divisions. The Pac 12 South has a worse rating this year because USC had an abnormally bad year, and the ACC Coastal is usually a pretty mediocre division regardless of season.

I'm cool with Sagarin until you factor in the fact that all Big Ten Teams play 9 conference games. So by that measure, they as a whole are going to be a game closer to 0.500 collectively which will bring their average ranking closer to average. (Two big ten teams playing each other yields a 0.500 result). So when you look at Sagarain, a measure of whether a team is good or not is (obviously Wins and Losses). If you are guaranteeing that 9 (instead of 8) games across your schedule of all Big Ten games (75% instead of 66%) will end up with a 0.500 record, as whole your results will look weaker than a power 5 conference who plays only 8 conference games.

When across your conferences schedule, 75% of games your teams play will be a 0.500 record, you water down your leagues collective winning percentage.
With this happening, you have more teams in conference ranking around middle of Sag ratings 50-100 where ACC and SEC have more ranked about 10 points higher collectively.
 



Not disagreeing with you, but Texas lost to MD (convincingly) who lost to OSU. Simply no one knows and that’s why it ends being a debate because no one can ever be purely objective and let’s the eye test come and their own personal bias let them make the argument the way they want. I think Oklahoma was the correct choice (see my post in The Who should be the 4th team thread) based on the how the committee states they would pick teams that are similar. That being said, I think OSU would beat Oklahoma

This sort of reasoning only works when you are trying to get to a particular conclusion.

Purdue had a significantly worse season than Texas.
Purdue lost to us and we got killed by Illinois.
Purdue lost to Eastern Michigan.

It's unfortunate for Ohio State that TCU had a down season and that Texas had a decent season (thus making Oklahoma's games with them better).
 

If you play more tough games, it's more likely you will get beat.


The 9 game schedule kills the Big Ten in rankings because teams with 8 wins score 16-20 spots higher in rankings than teams with 7 wins.
With a typical 8 game conference schedule, a .500 record in conference with 4 non-conf wins would put you at 8 wins and an average ranking around 20-22nd.
But due to the extra game, we have one less non-conference game and the average ranking for a 7 win team is about 40th in rankings and polls.

So all of those upper middle Big Ten teams all show in to be close to 40th ranked than 20th ranked.

This might be true, but it almost has nothing to do with the premise of the thread.

If you wanted to argue Ohio State should have gotten in over Oklahoma, you can go down this rabbit hole.

This thread seems to be arguing that Ohio State should have gotten in over Notre Dame.
 

This might be true, but it almost has nothing to do with the premise of the thread.

If you wanted to argue Ohio State should have gotten in over Oklahoma, you can go down this rabbit hole.

This thread seems to be arguing that Ohio State should have gotten in over Notre Dame.

Going back to the premise of the thread, I don't have a problem with Notre Dame getting a bid because they are one of three unbeaten.
I'm cool with them being in.
But at the same point people are ragging on OSU for not having big enough wins compared to Oklahoma, but they beat two common opponents that ND had by more than ND beat them by.

It's a circular argument at best.
 

This sort of reasoning only works when you are trying to get to a particular conclusion.

Purdue had a significantly worse season than Texas.
Purdue lost to us and we got killed by Illinois.
Purdue lost to Eastern Michigan.

It's unfortunate for Ohio State that TCU had a down season and that Texas had a decent season (thus making Oklahoma's games with them better).

Which is exactly why I said that people let the games make the argument they want based on the way their POV sees it in the first place. It’s just confirmation bias at its finest
 

I'm cool with Sagarin until you factor in the fact that all Big Ten Teams play 9 conference games. So by that measure, they as a whole are going to be a game closer to 0.500 collectively which will bring their average ranking closer to average. (Two big ten teams playing each other yields a 0.500 result). So when you look at Sagarain, a measure of whether a team is good or not is (obviously Wins and Losses). If you are guaranteeing that 9 (instead of 8) games across your schedule of all Big Ten games (75% instead of 66%) will end up with a 0.500 record, as whole your results will look weaker than a power 5 conference who plays only 8 conference games.

When across your conferences schedule, 75% of games your teams play will be a 0.500 record, you water down your leagues collective winning percentage.
With this happening, you have more teams in conference ranking around middle of Sag ratings 50-100 where ACC and SEC have more ranked about 10 points higher collectively.

The Pac 12 and Big 12 play 9 games as well, and yet the Pac 12 North is #4 and the Big 12 is #5.

I understand exactly what you're saying, but for this particular argument it makes no sense because Oklahoma also plays 9 conference games, and Notre Dame isn't even in a conference (though they played 10 Power 5 teams this year). I'll ask again - why are you fixated on Notre Dame when the data you're presenting is making an argument for OSU to be included over Clemson? Why aren't you making that argument?
 

The Pac 12 and Big 12 play 9 games as well, and yet the Pac 12 North is #4 and the Big 12 is #5.

I understand exactly what you're saying, but for this particular argument it makes no sense because Oklahoma also plays 9 conference games, and Notre Dame isn't even in a conference (though they played 10 Power 5 teams this year). I'll ask again - why are you fixated on Notre Dame when the data you're presenting is making an argument for OSU to be included over Clemson? Why aren't you making that argument?

I don't have a horse in the race.
Clemson might not be any better than OSU, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, etc.

I only brought up Notre Dame in comparison to OSU because they both played Michigan and NW and OSU appeared to have better results.

Notre Dame didn't lose. OSU did though so that seems to matter.
 

Notre dame sucks and I hope they get blown out and embarrassed.

OK back to your pissing match about strength of schedule and mutual opponents.
 

This is why automatic bids are needed.

Bama had nothing to play for.
Notre Dame didn't play
tOSU to me is a team that plays to the level of opponent
Do we really know the top four if they don't have the pressures of Championship games?
Georgia lost to a team that didn't have anything to play for and allowed the back-up QB to win the game.

I want a 6 team playoff with 5 automatic bids and Notre Dame or highest G5 team. beyond 6 teams really does nothing for me.

Creating a system where Utah was one or two plays away from being in would be absolutely stupid.
 

8 teams:
5 P5 (conf. chip champion)
1 G5 (highest ranked)
2 at large

This year:
Bama, tOSU, Clemson, Washington, Oklahoma
Notre Dame and ? (most likely Georgia)
UCF
 

8 teams:
5 P5 (conf. chip champion)
1 G5 (highest ranked)
2 at large

This year:
Bama, tOSU, Clemson, Washington, Oklahoma
Notre Dame and ? (most likely Georgia)
UCF

This has been my wish for a couple of years now. Seeding would be by final rankings and first round games could be played 12/15 at the higher seed's home field.

What fan of college football wouldn't love the following games:

Washington at Alabama
UCF at Clemson
Ohio State at Notre Dame
Georgia at Oklahoma

If you want to throw the losers of those games a bone, you could have them already slotted to play in high profile bowl games. Although, I don't know if they would be too interested in getting that consolation prize after being bumped from championship contention.
 

Creating a system where Utah was one or two plays away from being in would be absolutely stupid.

So conference championships don't mean anything? I get what you are saying, but to tell a conference champion that you didn't win enough of your other games is a bit odd.
 

So conference championships don't mean anything? I get what you are saying, but to tell a conference champion that you didn't win enough of your other games is a bit odd.

In an 8 game system, we wouldn't care if Utah blew up Washington's chances because they had a chance to play to get in. And yes, maybe a week Utah team gets in, but they likely get blown up in the next couple rounds.
If not, they won 3-4 in a row and deserve it.
 


So conference championships don't mean anything? I get what you are saying, but to tell a conference champion that you didn't win enough of your other games is a bit odd.

The pac 12 champ lost to the 5th place team in the SEC west this year


That’s why there’ll be no auto bids. I’m not saying it’s what I want, I’m saying it’ll never happen.


I’m actually in favor of a 12 team playoff with 11 conference champs and 1 at large
 

In an 8 game system, we wouldn't care if Utah blew up Washington's chances because they had a chance to play to get in. And yes, maybe a week Utah team gets in, but they likely get blown up in the next couple rounds.
If not, they won 3-4 in a row and deserve it.

Every team has a chance to play to get in. If you lose a game, you blew your chance and have to take whatever fate befalls you. An undefeated Power 5 team has never missed the CFP. Undefeated teams did occasionally miss out on the BCS, which was one of the reasons it needed to be replaced by a new system.
 

This has been my wish for a couple of years now. Seeding would be by final rankings and first round games could be played 12/15 at the higher seed's home field.

What fan of college football wouldn't love the following games:

Washington at Alabama
UCF at Clemson
Ohio State at Notre Dame
Georgia at Oklahoma

If you want to throw the losers of those games a bone, you could have them already slotted to play in high profile bowl games. Although, I don't know if they would be too interested in getting that consolation prize after being bumped from championship contention.

2017:
2017
Clemson, Georgia, tOSU, USC, Oklahoma (no title game but made it w/o)
Bama (for sure) Wisconsin, Auburn, or Penn St (according to where they finished in the final playoff rankings)
UCF

Potential matchups in round 1
UCF v. Clemson
WI, Auburn, or PSU v. Georgia
USC/tOSU v. Bama
tOSU/USC v. Oklahoma
 

It was funny Saturday when Dave Wannstedt was arguing Notre Dame shouldn't be in the top four because they were idle. The other announcers looked at him like he was a moron. He could have had a point if he was trying to say they had one less opportunity for a loss, but he didn't make an intelligent argument, he just said "out of sight, out of mind"...

I know it will never happen, but there is only one subdivision of one NCAA team sport that the champion of a conference with 6 or more teams does not get an automatic bid to the playoffs.

I'd like to see a twelve to sixteen team playoff, where all conference champs get in and two to six at-large.
 




Top Bottom