An undefeated ND is in - period.
Michigan will not jump us, no matter what pretty boy or anyone else says. Their remaining schedule does not contain any opponents that would move the needle. Their game against #10 tOSU is essentially a wash when compared to our game against #13 Syracuse. Nobody that they could play in a Big Ten conf championship game - Wisconsin, Iowa or Northwestern - is going to propel them higher than us.
In addition to our head-head win, we have a (marginally) better win against a common opponent - Northwestern. Michigan trailed that entire game and won by 3. We never trailed and won by 10.
Relax, brothers.
GO IRISH
Link: Chill
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
is wrong. There have been so many discussions about the scenarios under which ND at 12-0, or even 11-1, can be included or excluded from the playoffs, but his like most -- if not all -- fail to take into account that the Playoff Committee is obligated to favor conference champions. (The Committee has the "flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country." ND is probably better than team X is not good enough if team X is a conference champion.) Nor do these discussions seem to take into account that the preliminary playoff rankings, like last night's, are not influenced by conference championships because none have been determined. "[Y]ou look at the protocol, through week 10 head-to-head still matters," as Mullens says but, Mr. Farmer, conference championships don't. They will.
Given ND's failure to dominate its opponents to the point that nobody would seriously question that it is one of the four best teams in the country and given the onerous "unequivocal" burden, I see little chance a 12-0 ND is included unless: Alabama loses a game before or Alabama defeats Georgia in the SEC title game and at least one of the ACC, B12 and B10 champions has at least 2 losses. (There is so little respect for the PAC12 that even a 12-1 WSU would likely suffer the same fate as Oklahoma in 2016 when it was displaced by conference non-champion Ohio State.) If a 1 loss Georgia beats an undefeated Alabama in the SEC championship game, an undefeated ND will need 2 of the ACC, B12 and B10 champions to have at least 2 losses.
Only twice has a team that was not a conference champion been included in the playoff. Ohio State in 2016 and Alabama last year. Last year the PAC12 and B10 champions had multiple losses and Alabama's inclusion was non-controversial. In 2016 the B10 Champion, Penn State had multiple losses and Oklahoma was left out as a 11-1 B12 champion in favor of Ohio State because the B12 was viewed as weak (strength of schedule) and Ohio State looked the part (the eye test) with a pair of 60-point blowouts prior to beating Michigan State and Michigan to end the season. (The big talking point about Oklahoma's exclusion was that the B12 champion needed the 13th "data point" and the B12 subsequently added its championship game.)
The notion that a 12-0 ND is automatically in the playoffs is either ignorant of the Protocol governing the Committee or must assume the Committee will ignore its mandate. ND may be ranked 3rd in the penultimate playoff rankings after (hypothetically) beating USC to finish 12-0 and be left out of the final 4 in the final rankings after the conference championships are decided and the prejudice in favor of conference champions kicks in.
(no message)
(no message)
I'm aware of the CFP selection protocol. The Committee mandate is to pick the four best teams. Where you and I differ is on the weight the committee assigns to conference champions. I think the fact that in two of the four years, that the committee has bypassed multiple conference champions in a single season, only enforces my stance. The protocol calls for the committee to select the 'best' teams, and when teams con 'comparable', to consider the following:
"When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:
• Championships won
• Strength of schedule
• Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
• Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)"
At another location in the protocol document, it lists the same criteria, but in a different order:
'Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar'
Nowhere in the protocol does is state the relative importance of these criteria with respect to one another.
If we finish 12-0, we will force their hand, as it will be first time ND has been a viable playoff candidate at season's end.
I still maintain that a 12-0 ND needs no help from anyone to make the playoffs.
and expressed it in the past, in particular with respect to Gary Danielson's insistence on CBS broadcasts of the SEC in 2015 that, effectively, only conference champions were intended to be in the playoffs. But last week when visiting with a former law prof of mine he made your point, "Nowhere in the protocol does is state the relative importance of these criteria with respect to one another." The only guidance the Committee has weighting the criteria is the preamble's emphasis on limiting the Committee's "flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent" to "unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country." He also pointed out, there is an inherent ambiguity, if not contradiction, between comparable and unequivocal. If, for example, ND and putative B10 champion Michigan are comparable so that the would-be tie-breakers apply, how could ND be unequivocally better? A is comparable to B and A is unequivocally better than B seem contradictory.
In any case, at least you are now considering the conference championship criterion and its current absence from the rankings, which is more than you can say for Mr. Farmer.
‘Cuse could be too 10 when we play them if things break right!
And you may ask yourself "How did I get here?"...