1. GT had 2 early losses but improved down the stretch. Legit top 10.
2. The SEC west was a very strong division, but not bulletproof like espn told us
3. Ole Miss and MSU were solid but not great. Neither had been recruiting in the top 10, so it's not like their talent level was elite. They played some good games, some bad.
3. LSU was just mediocre given their talent level.
4. FSU's win over GT looks strong now.
5. Clemson had injuries and dismissals galore on offense and an enigmatic qb situation. Swinney managed it all remarkably well and finished strong.
5. Louisville was solid but struggled with injuries. Playing UGa Ina bowl with your 3rd string qb is a tough break.
6. Duke struggled to finish in the bowl again, but is nonetheless a solid team.
7. Ditto BC
8. UNC needs to pony up the bucks for a good staff of assistant coaches. $250k per assistant won't cut it.

Well said all the way down the list.

I wonder how the ACC would have been perceived now had GT beaten UNC, Duke had beaten VT, and Louisville had beaten UVA?

The ACC was on the cusp of a great season this year, regardless of what happens with FSU in the CFP.

On the other hand, had FSU lost any one of those close games and that perception would have been hurt by not getting its champion into the CFP, so I guess it balances out.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-01-2015 01:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I wonder how the ACC would have been perceived now had GT beaten UNC, Duke had beaten VT, and Louisville had beaten UVA?

The ACC was on the cusp of a great season this year, regardless of what happens with FSU in the CFP.

On the other hand, had FSU lost any one of those close games and that perception would have been hurt by not getting its champion into the CFP, so I guess it balances out.

Cheers,
Neil

Good points. I'd also add that perception would've been much better if

Syracuse beat Maryland
Pitt beat Iowa and Akron
BC beat Colorado State
Va Tech beat ECU

I believe the ACC was favored in all of those games.

(01-01-2015 02:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 01:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I wonder how the ACC would have been perceived now had GT beaten UNC, Duke had beaten VT, and Louisville had beaten UVA?

The ACC was on the cusp of a great season this year, regardless of what happens with FSU in the CFP.

On the other hand, had FSU lost any one of those close games and that perception would have been hurt by not getting its champion into the CFP, so I guess it balances out.

Cheers,
Neil

Good points. I'd also add that perception would've been much better if

Syracuse beat Maryland
Pitt beat Iowa and Akron
BC beat Colorado State
Va Tech beat ECU

I believe the ACC was favored in all of those games.

Agreed. OOC during the season helps with perception as well. I was focusing more on potentially finishing with 5 Top 25 teams instead of 3 or maybe 4 for going into next season.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-01-2015 02:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 01:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I wonder how the ACC would have been perceived now had GT beaten UNC, Duke had beaten VT, and Louisville had beaten UVA?

The ACC was on the cusp of a great season this year, regardless of what happens with FSU in the CFP.

On the other hand, had FSU lost any one of those close games and that perception would have been hurt by not getting its champion into the CFP, so I guess it balances out.

Cheers,
Neil

Good points. I'd also add that perception would've been much better if

Syracuse beat Maryland
Pitt beat Iowa and Akron
BC beat Colorado State
Va Tech beat ECU

I believe the ACC was favored in all of those games.

Agreed. OOC during the season helps with perception as well. I was focusing more on potentially finishing with 5 Top 25 teams instead of 3 or maybe 4 for going into next season.

Cheers,
Neil

What gets lost on most conferences (but not on the SEC) is that winning those early OOC games makes a win in conference that much more valuable. For example, Duke and Louisville are both going to finish outside the Top 25 most likely, but what if Syracuse and BC were both 1 win better when Louisville beat them? What if Pitt was 2 wins better when Duke played them?

It's like you accumulate money in OOC play, then you redistribute it in conference play. Of course you want a bigger piece of the pie, but mainly you just want more pie!

(01-01-2015 03:19 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 01:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I wonder how the ACC would have been perceived now had GT beaten UNC, Duke had beaten VT, and Louisville had beaten UVA?

The ACC was on the cusp of a great season this year, regardless of what happens with FSU in the CFP.

On the other hand, had FSU lost any one of those close games and that perception would have been hurt by not getting its champion into the CFP, so I guess it balances out.

Cheers,
Neil

Good points. I'd also add that perception would've been much better if

Syracuse beat Maryland
Pitt beat Iowa and Akron
BC beat Colorado State
Va Tech beat ECU

I believe the ACC was favored in all of those games.

Agreed. OOC during the season helps with perception as well. I was focusing more on potentially finishing with 5 Top 25 teams instead of 3 or maybe 4 for going into next season.

Cheers,
Neil

What gets lost on most conferences (but not on the SEC) is that winning those early OOC games makes a win in conference that much more valuable. For example, Duke and Louisville are both going to finish outside the Top 25 most likely, but what if Syracuse and BC were both 1 win better when Louisville beat them? What if Pitt was 2 wins better when Duke played them?

It's like you accumulate money in OOC play, then you redistribute it in conference play. Of course you want a bigger piece of the pie, but mainly you just want more pie!

Agree again. But I think wins overall mean much more then lower rated teams in conference having 1 more win when they get beat.

Neither Duke nor Louisville make the Top 25 just because of SU, BC, Pitt, and VT beating the teams you mention. They do get into the Top 25 with 1 more themselves.

It just so happens that Louisville and Duke did everything they could OOC, but they lost to teams in conference that they probably shouldn't have this year.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-01-2015 04:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 03:19 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 01:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I wonder how the ACC would have been perceived now had GT beaten UNC, Duke had beaten VT, and Louisville had beaten UVA?

The ACC was on the cusp of a great season this year, regardless of what happens with FSU in the CFP.

On the other hand, had FSU lost any one of those close games and that perception would have been hurt by not getting its champion into the CFP, so I guess it balances out.

Cheers,
Neil

Good points. I'd also add that perception would've been much better if

Syracuse beat Maryland
Pitt beat Iowa and Akron
BC beat Colorado State
Va Tech beat ECU

I believe the ACC was favored in all of those games.

Agreed. OOC during the season helps with perception as well. I was focusing more on potentially finishing with 5 Top 25 teams instead of 3 or maybe 4 for going into next season.

Cheers,
Neil

What gets lost on most conferences (but not on the SEC) is that winning those early OOC games makes a win in conference that much more valuable. For example, Duke and Louisville are both going to finish outside the Top 25 most likely, but what if Syracuse and BC were both 1 win better when Louisville beat them? What if Pitt was 2 wins better when Duke played them?

It's like you accumulate money in OOC play, then you redistribute it in conference play. Of course you want a bigger piece of the pie, but mainly you just want more pie!

Agree again. But I think wins overall mean much more then lower rated teams in conference having 1 more win when they get beat.

Neither Duke nor Louisville make the Top 25 just because of SU, BC, Pitt, and VT beating the teams you mention. They do get into the Top 25 with 1 more themselves.

It just so happens that Louisville and Duke did everything they could OOC, but they lost to teams in conference that they probably shouldn't have this year.

Cheers,
Neil

Good point. OK, let's just do BOTH then!

(01-01-2015 12:53 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  1. GT had 2 early losses but improved down the stretch. Legit top 10.
2. The SEC west was a very strong division, but not bulletproof like espn told us
3. Ole Miss and MSU were solid but not great. Neither had been recruiting in the top 10, so it's not like their talent level was elite. They played some good games, some bad.
3. LSU was just mediocre given their talent level.
4. FSU's win over GT looks strong now.
5. Clemson had injuries and dismissals galore on offense and an enigmatic qb situation. Swinney managed it all remarkably well and finished strong.
5. Louisville was solid but struggled with injuries. Playing UGa Ina bowl with your 3rd string qb is a tough break.
6. Duke struggled to finish in the bowl again, but is nonetheless a solid team.
7. Ditto BC
8. UNC needs to pony up the bucks for a good staff of assistant coaches. $250k per assistant won't cut it.

I generally agree but have some thoughts as I review the ACC season. Obviously Fla St, GT, Clem, and UL were legitimately a step above the rest of the ACC (although UL played only 6 bowl teams compared to the other 3 teams that played 8 bowl teams each). But with the next 8 teams it is a bit deceiving to go by simply total wins. When you analyze who they played it looks a bit different than the mere conference standings. What follows is how I would rank the rest of the teams (ignoring Wake and Syra who clearly were at the bottom) this past year based on their regular-season schedule and if they won their bowl game (note: everyone had one FCS win and one nonp5 win that I ignore since it is equal for everyone, but I have noted if a team played two or more nonP5 teams to pad their win total):
Being a UVa fan I hate to admit it but the best of the rest was VTech who played 9 bowl teams and won 4 plus won their bowl game to improve their resume. They also beat a highly ranked team in Ohio State. Miami actually won more games against bowl teams than anyone of the 8. They played 10 bowl teams and won 5 but the problem is that none were against a ranked team and they needed 2 non P5 wins to help them get into a bowl.
The next two best teams were UNC and UVa who both played 9 bowl teams and both won 3. Both won against one of the ACC’s best (UNC over GTech and UVa over UofL). But UNC beat UVa head to head by 1 point. Virtually on the same level as them was BC who played 8 bowl teams and won 3 (including a win against USC).
Pitt played 7 bowl teams and won 2 (yet to know if they win their bowl). With them I place Duke because they played only 5 bowl teams and won only 2 (and they padded their wins against 2 non P5 teams).
Just behind them I put NCST who played 6 bowl teams and won only 1 in the regular season but helped their resume by winning their bowl game. But their 3 non p5 wins distort their record; Just think if UVa had played two nonp5 instead of two of their 10 bowl teams!

My analysis of the year is that after you separate out the top four elite teams and the bottom 2 teams, that the other 8 teams were not that much different from each other. It makes sense why UVa and Miami coaches were not fired because, considering their schedules, they performed as good or better than the other six in the group of 8. It seems to me that any of that group of 8 could move up or down next season and not be that surprising.

(01-01-2015 08:05 PM)cavman Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 12:53 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  1. GT had 2 early losses but improved down the stretch. Legit top 10.
2. The SEC west was a very strong division, but not bulletproof like espn told us
3. Ole Miss and MSU were solid but not great. Neither had been recruiting in the top 10, so it's not like their talent level was elite. They played some good games, some bad.
3. LSU was just mediocre given their talent level.
4. FSU's win over GT looks strong now.
5. Clemson had injuries and dismissals galore on offense and an enigmatic qb situation. Swinney managed it all remarkably well and finished strong.
5. Louisville was solid but struggled with injuries. Playing UGa Ina bowl with your 3rd string qb is a tough break.
6. Duke struggled to finish in the bowl again, but is nonetheless a solid team.
7. Ditto BC
8. UNC needs to pony up the bucks for a good staff of assistant coaches. $250k per assistant won't cut it.

I generally agree but have some thoughts as I review the ACC season. Obviously Fla St, GT, Clem, and UL were legitimately a step above the rest of the ACC (although UL played only 6 bowl teams compared to the other 3 teams that played 8 bowl teams each). But with the next 8 teams it is a bit deceiving to go by simply total wins. When you analyze who they played it looks a bit different than the mere conference standings. What follows is how I would rank the rest of the teams (ignoring Wake and Syra who clearly were at the bottom) this past year based on their regular-season schedule and if they won their bowl game (note: everyone had one FCS win and one nonp5 win that I ignore since it is equal for everyone, but I have noted if a team played two or more nonP5 teams to pad their win total):
Being a UVa fan I hate to admit it but the best of the rest was VTech who played 9 bowl teams and won 4 plus won their bowl game to improve their resume. They also beat a highly ranked team in Ohio State. Miami actually won more games against bowl teams than anyone of the 8. They played 10 bowl teams and won 5 but the problem is that none were against a ranked team and they needed 2 non P5 wins to help them get into a bowl.
The next two best teams were UNC and UVa who both played 9 bowl teams and both won 3. Both won against one of the ACC’s best (UNC over GTech and UVa over UofL). But UNC beat UVa head to head by 1 point. Virtually on the same level as them was BC who played 8 bowl teams and won 3 (including a win against USC).
Pitt played 7 bowl teams and won 2 (yet to know if they win their bowl). With them I place Duke because they played only 5 bowl teams and won only 2 (and they padded their wins against 2 non P5 teams).
Just behind them I put NCST who played 6 bowl teams and won only 1 in the regular season but helped their resume by winning their bowl game. But their 3 non p5 wins distort their record; Just think if UVa had played two nonp5 instead of two of their 10 bowl teams!

My analysis of the year is that after you separate out the top four elite teams and the bottom 2 teams, that the other 8 teams were not that much different from each other. It makes sense why UVa and Miami coaches were not fired because, considering their schedules, they performed as good or better than the other six in the group of 8. It seems to me that any of that group of 8 could move up or down next season and not be that surprising.

I think disregarding G5 wins is a mistake. The top G5 teams have proven to be more than equal to mid-level P5 teams. Putting a higher priority on a win over Wake Forrest or Syracuse than one over Boise State or ECU doesn't make sense.

Ranking Chapel Hill above any of the others you mention totally doesn't make sense. Their defense was awful, they were on the verge of mutiny, and were sad to watch.

There are what, 38 bowls this year? Being a bowl team alone doesn't really mean much more than you won at least as many as you lost. State lost all but one of the bowl teams that they played but look what bowl teams we are talking about, GT, FSU, Clemson aren't the same as teams that appeared in lower level bowls.

(01-01-2015 08:21 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 08:05 PM)cavman Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 12:53 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  1. GT had 2 early losses but improved down the stretch. Legit top 10.
2. The SEC west was a very strong division, but not bulletproof like espn told us
3. Ole Miss and MSU were solid but not great. Neither had been recruiting in the top 10, so it's not like their talent level was elite. They played some good games, some bad.
3. LSU was just mediocre given their talent level.
4. FSU's win over GT looks strong now.
5. Clemson had injuries and dismissals galore on offense and an enigmatic qb situation. Swinney managed it all remarkably well and finished strong.
5. Louisville was solid but struggled with injuries. Playing UGa Ina bowl with your 3rd string qb is a tough break.
6. Duke struggled to finish in the bowl again, but is nonetheless a solid team.
7. Ditto BC
8. UNC needs to pony up the bucks for a good staff of assistant coaches. $250k per assistant won't cut it.

I generally agree but have some thoughts as I review the ACC season. Obviously Fla St, GT, Clem, and UL were legitimately a step above the rest of the ACC (although UL played only 6 bowl teams compared to the other 3 teams that played 8 bowl teams each). But with the next 8 teams it is a bit deceiving to go by simply total wins. When you analyze who they played it looks a bit different than the mere conference standings. What follows is how I would rank the rest of the teams (ignoring Wake and Syra who clearly were at the bottom) this past year based on their regular-season schedule and if they won their bowl game (note: everyone had one FCS win and one nonp5 win that I ignore since it is equal for everyone, but I have noted if a team played two or more nonP5 teams to pad their win total):
Being a UVa fan I hate to admit it but the best of the rest was VTech who played 9 bowl teams and won 4 plus won their bowl game to improve their resume. They also beat a highly ranked team in Ohio State. Miami actually won more games against bowl teams than anyone of the 8. They played 10 bowl teams and won 5 but the problem is that none were against a ranked team and they needed 2 non P5 wins to help them get into a bowl.
The next two best teams were UNC and UVa who both played 9 bowl teams and both won 3. Both won against one of the ACC’s best (UNC over GTech and UVa over UofL). But UNC beat UVa head to head by 1 point. Virtually on the same level as them was BC who played 8 bowl teams and won 3 (including a win against USC).
Pitt played 7 bowl teams and won 2 (yet to know if they win their bowl). With them I place Duke because they played only 5 bowl teams and won only 2 (and they padded their wins against 2 non P5 teams).
Just behind them I put NCST who played 6 bowl teams and won only 1 in the regular season but helped their resume by winning their bowl game. But their 3 non p5 wins distort their record; Just think if UVa had played two nonp5 instead of two of their 10 bowl teams!

My analysis of the year is that after you separate out the top four elite teams and the bottom 2 teams, that the other 8 teams were not that much different from each other. It makes sense why UVa and Miami coaches were not fired because, considering their schedules, they performed as good or better than the other six in the group of 8. It seems to me that any of that group of 8 could move up or down next season and not be that surprising.

I think disregarding G5 wins is a mistake. The top G5 teams have proven to be more than equal to mid-level P5 teams. Putting a higher priority on a win over Wake Forrest or Syracuse than one over Boise State or ECU doesn't make sense.

Ranking Chapel Hill above any of the others you mention totally doesn't make sense. Their defense was awful, they were on the verge of mutiny, and were sad to watch.

There are what, 38 bowls this year? Being a bowl team alone doesn't really mean much more than you won at least as many as you lost. State lost all but one of the bowl teams that they played but look what bowl teams we are talking about, GT, FSU, Clemson aren't the same as teams that appeared in lower level bowls.

I counted G5 (or nonp5) if those schools ended up in bowls themselves, so it made a difference in the strength of schedule that I was using in my analysis. VT and UNC lost to ECU and that hurt them in terms of losses but helped them in terms of showing a much tougher schedule (than Duke's for example) since ECU ended up as a bowl team.