USC is very possibly a quality win come the end of November. They can win all of those games, they can lose all of them. My guess is they go 2-1 and finish 8-4.
where are we now?
- Thread starter perseverare
- Start date
Until the CFP Committee poll comes out, we don't really know anything. ND might be ranked 13th for all we know. They may be ranked 6th. Who knows how those knuckleheads think?
Umm no. If they played tomorrow Clemson pending on location would be anywhere from a 2-5 point favorite. Rightfully so. They have done nothing to warrant being a dog to a team that they did in fact beat...turnover gifts or not. They still closed the show.
Irrelevant. Everything and I mean everything will hinge on the game against the trees. Both squads. Root for Stanford to get ranked higher and higher. Then root for Notre Dame to win that game....then Stanford to turn right around and win that pac 12 title game. That is cementing yourself in the playoff.
NC is another 1 loss team. No one has mentioned them.
They might well finish at 11-1 going to the ACC champ. game. If FSU beats Clemson then NC beats FSU then Clemson at 11-1 is still a threat along with 12-1 NC!
They might well finish at 11-1 going to the ACC champ. game. If FSU beats Clemson then NC beats FSU then Clemson at 11-1 is still a threat along with 12-1 NC!
Last edited:
IMO, I don't think the committee is going to view a 3 loss team as quality. IMO, when the end of the season comes and you have a 1 loss OU or Baylor or TCU and they have beaten 2 1 loss Big 12 teams I think will count far more than beating a 3 loss PAC 12 team.
but those Pac12 teams you mention will NOT be conference champions if SC wins out!
see the post re NC above, they are being overlooked.
see the post re NC above, they are being overlooked.
More than likely Toledo will be MAC conf. champions are they a quality win if they lose 3 games. Assuming USC does win the conf. so what,its a terrible conference this year. Winning a Conf. Championship does not automatically mean you are a quality team.
Sorry, I can never see beating a 3 loss team as a great win. Again, winning the conference championship does not automatically mean you are a good team. Looking at the division USC is in, it's possible they could lose another game and still make it to the conf championship.
Also, I believe that Utah will have to lose another game for USC to get into championship.
^ If USC beats UCLA who as I expect will beat Utah then SC is sitting well! And with the waybthings are with the committee it is how you finish more so than how you start! SC will be a good W for ND.
I think we will have to agree to disagree. I just don't see a 3 loss USC being a better win than a 1 loss; Baylor, TCU, OU or OkSt.
Again, at least 3 of those teams will not be conference champions because they play in good conference (this year). USC may win it only because they play in a bad conference (this year)
we don't disagree, I was not rating the W/L's I am just saying SC is looking better as they go
Last edited:
The Big 12 may look great when they score 50-60 points on each other, but who have they beaten OOC?
That conference's best OOC win was OU over Tennessee. But that's pretty much the only good OOC win any of them have had (and Tennessee is 3-4, not exactly a juggernaut), unless you count TCU's 6-point win @ Minnesota.
Exactly. Who says the BIG 12 is any good. Thy have not looked good in any of their out of conference games. Across the board. Any way you look at it. Who they played, who those teams played, how many point those teams scored. Across the board. TCU barely beat Minnesota. Oklahoma was in a game with Tulsa till late. OKST beat Central Michigan by 10. We know how good Texas is, and they beat OK and almost beat OKST. SMU and KS scored 37 and 45 points against TCU. Baylor has not had any scares, but my god that schedule. SMU (have won one game, and loss to James Madison), Lamar (i have never heard of this school or half the teams they have lost too), Rice (manhandled by texas the week after the nd game.)
Anyone of these, or few of these, taken by themselves would not be telling. Hell ND barely beat UVA. But I cant hang my hat on one out of conference stat....with ANY of the Big 12 teams to help me determine; ok how good are these guys really? You literally cant find one meaningful reference point.
Big 12 is getting credit only because where they started in the rankings.
Is Tennessee better than its record? Their wins are against Bowlng Green, Western Mich., and GA. loss to Ark not great. Well see. You might be right. If they get credit for a Tennessee win we get credit for USC.
The only meaningful win in the PAC 12 was Utah beating UM. So I could use the same argument. Who says the PAC 12 is any good they haven't really beaten anybody good.
ND schedules what they hope to be attractive games each year but this year Texas & USC doesn't help them much. Also, a scheduling arrangement with what is considered the weakest P5 league by many doesn't help either.
I agree we really don't know what conference is really better than other conferences because there are too few games between the leagues, (which is why we need to get Division I football to 4 leagues and have playoffs start with 4 teams in each league to produce 4 conference champions) but the perception is generally the ACC is the weakest of the 4 and this year I would say the PAC 12 would be the 2nd weakest, remember Stanford lost to Northwestern. Then your two potentially biggest wins is a 3 loss USC team and IF you beat Stanford both coming from the PAC 12, and Utah could still win the PAC 12.
I think the bias of the committee will be taking the 4 highest conference champions, sometimes using the logic they want. ND doesn't have the representation on this committee the other conferences do and notice the B1G, SEC & PAC 12 have multiple members with ties to their leagues. In the early days bowl committees LOVED ND a playoff committee made up of competing conference affiliations, not so much.
I don't see how you get in over Clemson/ACC champ now with 1 loss or less, a 1 loss SEC/B1G or Big 12 champ. I think you need 2 leagues to end up with 2 losses to have a shot.
I agree we really don't know what conference is really better than other conferences because there are too few games between the leagues, (which is why we need to get Division I football to 4 leagues and have playoffs start with 4 teams in each league to produce 4 conference champions) but the perception is generally the ACC is the weakest of the 4 and this year I would say the PAC 12 would be the 2nd weakest, remember Stanford lost to Northwestern. Then your two potentially biggest wins is a 3 loss USC team and IF you beat Stanford both coming from the PAC 12, and Utah could still win the PAC 12.
I think the bias of the committee will be taking the 4 highest conference champions, sometimes using the logic they want. ND doesn't have the representation on this committee the other conferences do and notice the B1G, SEC & PAC 12 have multiple members with ties to their leagues. In the early days bowl committees LOVED ND a playoff committee made up of competing conference affiliations, not so much.
I don't see how you get in over Clemson/ACC champ now with 1 loss or less, a 1 loss SEC/B1G or Big 12 champ. I think you need 2 leagues to end up with 2 losses to have a shot.
I mean is it any surprise that in last years Bowls, the Big 12 was the worst performing conference at 2-5. Dead last out of 10 conferences and Independants.
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/01/conference_bowl_records_2014-1_2.html
Well I never said you couldn't. And I have the same questions. I just have them a little deeper with the Big 12. I also have them with every team in the Big 10 besides OSU, who gets some carryover from last year.
BUT at least we have that UTAH UM game. The fact that USC destroyed UTAH, helps me gauge how UM would fair against USC and even to some extent, although less, MSU. By no means is it a direct correlation, but it helps. The fact that MSU won unconvincingly over a young Oregon team, is another reference point I can use when comparing Big 10 v. Pac 12. Not an exact science, but a factor. These games would help when betting on say Stanford V MSU or USC v. UM. Id take Pac 12 in both.
I don't think the Pac 12 is very good, but they are far better than the one team ACC.
Clemson is the only top 25 caliber them in the ACC. Regardless of rankings FSU has not played a decent team, lost one and struggled throughout. Miami, UNC, Pitt, GT have all been exposed. The ACC should not be considered a Power 5 team when the AAC and the others are better from top to bottom.
Clemson is the only top 25 caliber them in the ACC. Regardless of rankings FSU has not played a decent team, lost one and struggled throughout. Miami, UNC, Pitt, GT have all been exposed. The ACC should not be considered a Power 5 team when the AAC and the others are better from top to bottom.
^Agree with this!
There are so many variables right now it's impossible to even know what's going to happen. For example say undefeated Iowa faces an undefeated O$U in the champ game and Iowa wins a tight game. I think there is a better than average chance they take Iowa and the defending, 1 loss Buckeyes.
There is also the same possibility in the SEC. If LSU beats Bama then loses to UF in the championship very possible 2 1-loss SEC get in.
There are still 2 undefeated ACC schools and it's going to be impossible to keep out an undefeated school from any of the 5 conferences.
I also think that if a Big 12 or Pac 12 team ends the season with 1 loss they are almost guaranteed a spot.
Then again these teams could all beat each other and we end up with no undefeated teams... still way too much football to even hazard a guess.
I'm just curious why everyone thinks USC is so good? They are one of the most penalized teams in CFB. Their defense is not good at all. Sure the stats look good but when you factor out the Ark St, Idaho and Wash games it's nothing special. They allowed; 41 to Stanford and 41 to ND. It's a decent defense but nothing special. While they have a lot of talent on offense it's nothing like some of the other offenses in CFB.
Outside of Utah they have impressive wins over Ark St., Idaho and ASU. I can only guess ND fans are trying to talk them up to strengthen ND playoff argument. I see a decent team but not one that is excellent on either side of the ball.
Outside of Utah they have impressive wins over Ark St., Idaho and ASU. I can only guess ND fans are trying to talk them up to strengthen ND playoff argument. I see a decent team but not one that is excellent on either side of the ball.
Tennessee also lost @Florida by 1 point, and @Alabama by 5. So they appear to be better than their record.
However, USC > Tennessee. We should definitely get credit for that one.
Well first off, there's the athletes they have on the field. They will have a shot in any game they are in because of this. Elite top 5 talent. Then while they have three losses - 2 of them are against teams that I think are playing the best ball in the country. And they did this all while having a head coach who was a drunk. And yes they destroyed the third team in the country. Yes, a highly overrated one, but still a good team.
I am not saying they deserve to be ranked high. But that team on the right day has the talent to beat anyone any day. And I am fairly confident they are going to run the table from here on out, up until the Pac 12 champ game if they get that far.
Sorry not sure i give a lot of points for near wins. Even ours against clemson. Use it when comparing losses. But it cant really come into a convo when talking about quality wins. Also worth noting, Bama had the ball on the three with time on the clock and decided to take the vitory formation. Easily could have been 12 point loss.
I have to admit I had never seen Temple before but I'm calling this a better team than USC and a quality win by ND. Their offense isn't great but their defense is as good as any team we have played.
Herbstreit said it at the end of the game that beating Temple was better than any of the Big 12 wins where these teams score 50 or 60 pts.
Hopefully the people on the committee have seen Temple play and give ND the credit due for beating them on the road.
Herbstreit said it at the end of the game that beating Temple was better than any of the Big 12 wins where these teams score 50 or 60 pts.
Hopefully the people on the committee have seen Temple play and give ND the credit due for beating them on the road.
lol.. its not like the people who are doing the voting can't see what I'm saying. USC has a roster full of talented players but not a great team. In their case, "The whole is less than the sum of their parts"java
you're not helping!
Read above... I love the Temple win. I think Temple would beat USC.
sometimes style matchups surprise, I think Temple's style is similar to SC. SC has more talent, so I would lean that way. AND SC should consider considering the Temple HC! He fits SC's game approach. (Matt Rhule)
Last edited:
Similar threads
