One of 21 such teams remaining. The committee claimed before they care about that so...ok hope they meant it.
Currently Pitt has no losses outside quad 1
- Thread starter MarshallGoldberg
- Start date
We have a really weird resume and can hopefully present the weird resume to the committee in march.
Would love to have no Q2-3-4 losses for the season. But ultimately you need to win a few Q1 games and we just don’t have many left
Would love to have no Q2-3-4 losses for the season. But ultimately you need to win a few Q1 games and we just don’t have many left
We could be 20-11/11-9. 0 Q3/4 losses but only 1 Q1 win. It would be a really unique resume.
More likely Pitt has 3 Q2 losses right now.
Ohio State - 29: needs to stay within top 40 to remain a Q1A win. Needs to stay within top 75 for a Q1. Nearly assured of the latter.
Stanford - 69. Needs to stay with top 75 to be Q2 win.
Lville - 25: Possible they stay a Q1 loss, though won’t take much to fall below 30 and into Q2.
Clemson - 30. Very likely to be a Q2 loss as they only need to drop one spot.
FSU - 75. Only needs to drop one spot for it to count as Q2.
WVU 43 - would need some pretty big wins to crack top 30 again.
LSU 67 - would need a few nice wins to hit top 50 for Q1.
Sure, but the truth is that borderline games in any one of the quads are looked at pretty similarly. The committee isn’t going to view the Louisville or Clemson losses any differently if they’re on the Q1 side of the borderline versus the Q2 side. Same goes for the rest.
IMO, the most important result would be for Ohio State to stay in the top 40. The difference between a signature Q1A win and a solid Q1 win is more meaningful than the Q1/Q2 borderline games.
Ohio state with a good home win last night. One other way to cut data is win/losses vs projected field. All 6 losses are to teams likely to be in, so 2-6 right now, with no bad losses.
I'm not sure I have as much faith in this as you do. "Quads" have always been such a weird cutoff to me. Why four? Why not 8?... 10?... 12? Never mind the inexact science in defining what constitutes a Quad X win/loss. But are they really examining every teams' quads wins and saying, "Well, this is Quad 3, but it's pretty close to Quad 2...?"
Obviously this is all reflected in a team's NET anyway, but I really think the Quad thing is kind of generic and stupid.
