(10-29-2014 01:54 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 12:32 PM)PirateJP Wrote:  It's funny how Notre Dame moving to the ACC has hurt their football SOS. Now instead of scheduling traditional rivals they could play as an independent they have to play 5 ACC schools that are killing their SOS.

No complaints. Just win every game (this year and next).

Why worry about committee concocted rankings that one cannot control?

Frankly, I am just sitting back and enjoying Notre Dame's resurgence into national prominence under Brian Kelly.

ND is 27-6 since the beginning of the 2012 season (19-2 when Everett Golson started).

It is all good. Next year's team will have almost everyone back, plus 3 of the players suspended this year, plus is sitting on the #7 recruiting class right now.

I like where Kelly is taking the ND program. No worries about calls or rankings here, especially at the end of October.



To directly address your post, I guess it proves that ND should never, ever join any conference for football, right?

I'm not in the habit of defending Notre Dame, but they're underranked in the CFP rankings. Their only loss was to #2 FSU on the road with a controversial play and ND controlled the entire game. I was pretty surprised that ND was ranked lower than what they were in the AP poll (#6) and thought that they would be one of the teams that could largely control its own destiny going forward (as some of the SEC teams ahead of them are guaranteed to lose because they'll be playing each other). Out of the 1 loss teams, they clearly have the "best loss" and should have received more credit for that.

Note that I don't think it has anything to do with whether ND is in a conference or not. This year, we're just seeing an excessive media echo chamber about the dominance of the SEC (and specifically the SEC West) even more than usual, which is crowding out the top.

(10-29-2014 12:18 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Happy for ECU and I think their scheduling mentality is correct.

Wonder if this will make scheduling P5 games harder. Effectively this means the P5 can shut out the G5 simply by not scheduling games with us.

P5 teams will gladly play one-and-done home games with the G5. The challenge is getting the P5 to go on the road. ECU has good attendance and UCF is located in a key recruiting area, so they're a bit better situated to get at least some P5 teams to come visit compared to, say, New Mexico State.

Frank, I agree there is no proof or logic to suggest that ND is getting penalized for not being in a conference, but one of the selection committee's criteria is that precedence will be given to conference champs, so the bias has to exist, at least to some degree.

(10-29-2014 03:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 01:54 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 12:32 PM)PirateJP Wrote:  It's funny how Notre Dame moving to the ACC has hurt their football SOS. Now instead of scheduling traditional rivals they could play as an independent they have to play 5 ACC schools that are killing their SOS.

No complaints. Just win every game (this year and next).

Why worry about committee concocted rankings that one cannot control?

Frankly, I am just sitting back and enjoying Notre Dame's resurgence into national prominence under Brian Kelly.

ND is 27-6 since the beginning of the 2012 season (19-2 when Everett Golson started).

It is all good. Next year's team will have almost everyone back, plus 3 of the players suspended this year, plus is sitting on the #7 recruiting class right now.

I like where Kelly is taking the ND program. No worries about calls or rankings here, especially at the end of October.



To directly address your post, I guess it proves that ND should never, ever join any conference for football, right?

I'm not in the habit of defending Notre Dame, but they're underranked in the CFP rankings. Their only loss was to #2 FSU on the road with a controversial play and ND controlled the entire game. I was pretty surprised that ND was ranked lower than what they were in the AP poll (#6) and thought that they would be one of the teams that could largely control its own destiny going forward (as some of the SEC teams ahead of them are guaranteed to lose because they'll be playing each other). Out of the 1 loss teams, they clearly have the "best loss" and should have received more credit for that.

Note that I don't think it has anything to do with whether ND is in a conference or not. This year, we're just seeing an excessive media echo chamber about the dominance of the SEC (and specifically the SEC West) even more than usual, which is crowding out the top.

I'm not into defending FSU but.... controversial play my ass. Anybody that knows football knows that was the correct call. The timing sucked royally for ND but it WAS the correct call.

If you look at Notre Dame's schedule so far they are doing well but not top 4 well. They have no wins against ranked opponents.

(10-29-2014 03:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 01:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I don't know if we needed 4 cartel OOC games, but the NCCU game could have been replaced with a decent G5. (no Navy; Knee injuries) maybe a san Diego st or how about....Marshall?

Lord no. We should NEVER play Marshall again. That was Compher's first major F up as athletic director. I can't think of a single benefit to ever playing them again.

more of a joke BUT, if ever the year to schedule Marshall this would be the one...

(10-29-2014 03:31 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I'm not into defending FSU but.... controversial play my ass. Anybody that knows football knows that was the correct call. The timing sucked royally for ND but it WAS the correct call.

I don't disagree, but it was still perceived that the game was effectively a coin flip, which ought to give a road team loser much more of the benefit of the doubt. IMHO, ND should at least be #5 or #6.

(10-29-2014 04:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 03:31 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I'm not into defending FSU but.... controversial play my ass. Anybody that knows football knows that was the correct call. The timing sucked royally for ND but it WAS the correct call.

I don't disagree, but it was still perceived that the game was effectively a coin flip, which ought to give a road team loser much more of the benefit of the doubt. IMHO, ND should at least be #5 or #6.

I agree. No matter what happened at the end, they played FSU down to the wire. There's no way they should've dropped that much.

the problem is ND really has no good wins at all. I don't think the committee was all that impressed with FSU quite frankly- think they are in some trouble should they lose a game.

(10-29-2014 04:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 03:31 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I'm not into defending FSU but.... controversial play my ass. Anybody that knows football knows that was the correct call. The timing sucked royally for ND but it WAS the correct call.

I don't disagree, but it was still perceived that the game was effectively a coin flip, which ought to give a road team loser much more of the benefit of the doubt. IMHO, ND should at least be #5 or #6.

Not when beating UNC by only 7 at home when ECU beat them 70-41. ECU score 20 more points the ND and allowed 2 less. Those games play a factor when rating teams with equal records.

I don't see the message as to play a hard schedule. Looking at ECU, VPI and UNC are minor bowl teams.
The message is playing P5 teams; it's obviously biased toward P5
Tulane's schedule was good in that regard - good, not great, P5s - we just didn't have the team yet.

(10-29-2014 04:51 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 04:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 03:31 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I'm not into defending FSU but.... controversial play my ass. Anybody that knows football knows that was the correct call. The timing sucked royally for ND but it WAS the correct call.

I don't disagree, but it was still perceived that the game was effectively a coin flip, which ought to give a road team loser much more of the benefit of the doubt. IMHO, ND should at least be #5 or #6.

I agree. No matter what happened at the end, they played FSU down to the wire. There's no way they should've dropped that much.

But they didn't really "drop," b/c the committee doesn't use the other polls. They obviously just have a different evaluation than do the regular pollsters.

(10-29-2014 05:22 PM)DrBox Wrote:  I don't see the message as to play a hard schedule. Looking at ECU, VPI and UNC are minor bowl teams.
The message is playing P5 teams; it's obviously biased toward P5
Tulane's schedule was good in that regard - good, not great, P5s - we just didn't have the team yet.

The head of the committee was asked about Marshall. His response was that they were given consideration but their overall body of work did not warrant a place in the 25. Doesn't sound like a team right on the edge. Wonder how the committee will like receiving material from the Marshall PR firm?

I believe his response was they did not warrant a place . . . at this time.

(10-29-2014 09:00 PM)herdftblfan1 Wrote:  I believe his response was they did not warrant a place . . . at this time.

We looked at their schedule against others, did not think it was worthy of being placed in Top 25 at this time," Long said, according to Mandel

(10-29-2014 09:00 PM)herdftblfan1 Wrote:  I believe his response was they did not warrant a place . . . at this time.

the problem is that nothing Marshall has left is enough to counter if ECU wins out and dominates. Nothing. For Marshall to have a chance they need ECU to quite frankly lose, or at least have a real close call vs Tulsa or Tulane. And even then, if ECU falters, there's still Boise and Colorado St(not to mention UCF quite frankly).

(10-29-2014 10:06 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The big ? for ECU is that all the teams they played have no winning records currently.

and? There are only a few wins a year vs bowl eligible P5 teams from the G5. I guess you don't understand how incredibly rare those kind of wins are and how many middle of the road ACC/P5 type teams usually still beat respectable G5's.

Clearly respect is earned by playing and beating the P5. Even losing to them respectably is excused more than playing no one.

(10-29-2014 09:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 09:00 PM)herdftblfan1 Wrote:  I believe his response was they did not warrant a place . . . at this time.

the problem is that nothing Marshall has left is enough to counter if ECU wins out and dominates. Nothing. For Marshall to have a chance they need ECU to quite frankly lose, or at least have a real close call vs Tulsa or Tulane. And even then, if ECU falters, there's still Boise and Colorado St(not to mention UCF quite frankly).

No one from the MWC or American has to "dominate". Everyone is getting caught up with style points...it's not about style points, its about whether you win or lose and who you decided to play in that regard.

The committee is saying this....but the everyday fan and most of the media is not listening. Alabama beat T A&M 59-0...that's lots of style points, but they are ranked #6 in the CFP poll. Many of the media put them in the Top 4 because of that win. They are #3 in both human polls...why the drop? Because they lost to Ole Miss, and their best OOC game is against WVU at home, which isnt bad, but its not the same as Auburn beating K State on the road.

(10-29-2014 09:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 09:00 PM)herdftblfan1 Wrote:  I believe his response was they did not warrant a place . . . at this time.

the problem is that nothing Marshall has left is enough to counter if ECU wins out and dominates. Nothing. For Marshall to have a chance they need ECU to quite frankly lose, or at least have a real close call vs Tulsa or Tulane. And even then, if ECU falters, there's still Boise and Colorado St(not to mention UCF quite frankly).

You are assuming this but you do not know. None of us knows which is why we all have to be careful not to jump to conclusions.

ECU is at 23. How do we know they don't view Marshall as 26? We don't? Maybe they view CSU at 26, or Boice, or UCF? We simply do not know.

Maybe they have said, "Marshall is 8-0 but if they can get to 10-0 or 11-0 then in that's enough to move them over ECU." We don't know that and I am certainly not saying that is the case.

I think it is important that NONE of us assume anything at all about what is going on behind those closed doors. All we have is conjecture.

The only thing they have said is there MAY be a lot of movement (unlike traditional polls) and they will look at wins, SOS and the results of who played who.

I would love it we G5 schools could stop the infighting and assumptions. We need to be a cohesive group.

You are correct, we don't know...and neither do they. They were not charged with ranking "after" the Top 25, only the Top 25. So no one knows.

They only said that ECU deserved to be in the Top 25 and Marshall did not.

Most are deducing that ECU has a tougher schedule left than Marshall, with games @Cincy, @Temple and UCF...so that would be the reason Marshall would not jump them.

Marshall's toughest game left may be La Tech in the CUSA champ game.