ADVERTISEMENT

If UNC beats Clemson, are they in?

For the 3 at-larges,

1. Iowa/MSU/OSU. 1 goes to CFP, 1 goes to Rose. 1 goes to Fiesta or Peach

Either FSU, ND, Baylor, or TCU. 2 of those 4.

If Clemson or Bama lose, those 2 get the at-larges. Basically, the ACC/ND is assured of 2 NY6 bowls with a good chance of 4.

Funny thing is, how would you like to earn a NY6 bowl and be awarded a game with freaking Temple?

Baylor is most likely going to the Sugar assuming they win this weekend and are the second highest ranked Big XII school.

I think the ACC will get 2 NY6 bowl games. It just depends if one is a playoff.
 
I think given that scenario.... the committee would give a slight edge to 11-2 Stanford over 12-1 UNC.

A. Both would be conference champs, making that a wash.
B. Stanford would have 11 FBS wins.... North Carolina would only have 10 FBS wins.
C. Stanford played the 16th hardest schedule in FBS this season to date, UNC played the 63rd hardest. Even with a win over Clemson... Stanford schedule strength would be 30+ spots higher than UNC's.
D. Stanford OOC schedule against P5 teams included Northwestern and Notre Dame. Two 10-win teams. UNC's OOC schedule against P5 teams included S. Carolina and Illinois. Two teams with 5 or less wins.

The fact that Stanford would have more FBS wins.... likely 5 wins against ranked teams compared to UNC's 1.... I think would barely trump UNC's win over Clemson.

In that scenario... I think Stanford ends up #4 and UNC ends up #5.

Ironically, Clemson would have a better case against Stanford than UNC....but would lose out on the whole "conference champion" preference thing.

I am sorry but that would be a travesty not only to UNC but to other 1 loss teams.Why would you give the nod to a 2 loss conference champ over a 1 loss conference champ who just beat the season long #1 team. Makes absolutely no sense. UNC is in with a win.
 
A. My answer to that is yes. Having watched almost every OSU game this year and having watched Stanford 4 or 5 times, I think Stanford would win that game on a neutral field.

B. It doesn't matter. I don't think Iowa could beat Clemson, Alabama, Oklahoma, OR Stanford on a neutral field.... but they will be in the playoff if they win this week. Making the playoff has everything to do with a team's resume - according to the committee - and nothing to do with a mythical "I think they're better" test.

Ohio State currently has the worst resume of any 1-loss P5 team. And it isn't close. 61st hardest schedule, only one win against a ranked team (Michigan).... only two GAMES against ranked teams (Michigan and MSU).

And "eye test" wise... Ohio State struggled to win a lot of their first 10 games against decidedly MUCH inferior competition.

In any blind resume test, Ohio State resume ranks around the same as UNC's right now.... and would be worse than UNC's if the Tarheels beat Clemson.

Doesn't B contradict A
 
I am sorry but that would be a travesty not only to UNC but to other 1 loss teams.Why would you give the nod to a 2 loss conference champ over a 1 loss conference champ who just beat the season long #1 team. Makes absolutely no sense. UNC is in with a win.

When the 1-loss conference champ only played ONE SINGLE game against a top-30 team, albeit a win, and only had 10 FBS wins..... their resume is worse than a 2-loss conference champ that played SIX games against the top-30 and had 11 FBS wins. If you threw all of UNC and Stanford's wins together... 6 of the top 7 wins would be held by Stanford, although the #1 win would be UNC's. Conversely, UNC's loss to a 3-9 team that lost to the Citadel is 10 times worse than Stanford's losses to two RANKED teams.

Stanford would have a better record with UNC's schedule than UNC would have with Stanford's schedule. That's the bottom line.

First priority goes to conference champs, according to the committee itself. Since both teams would be conference champs, the next thing the committee looks at is overall body of work.... and UNC's is nowhere near Stanford's - even with a Clemson win. It just isn't.

I think the decision would be a close one..... but Stanford would edge out UNC because of 11 FBS wins to 10... 5 Top 25 wins to 1.... and a much, much, much harder schedule.
 
People are just having a hard time adjusting to the new college football world.

It focuses more on SOS and a loss to a ranked team is worth more than a win against a poor team.

Just read quotes from the mouth of UNC's AD in the link below. Back in the BCS days, they scheduled just to win, and that is all anyone looked at. Now you have to schedule strong and win to have a chance, however a stronger schedule with a loss or two is viewed more favorably, and I agree.

It's not UNC's fault that Minnesota backed out late in the game and they got stuck with 2 FCS opponents, or that USCjr absolutely sucked this year. But that's life.

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/...cunningham-talks-about-the-tar-heels-schedule
 
When the 1-loss conference champ only played ONE SINGLE game against a top-30 team, albeit a win, and only had 10 FBS wins..... their resume is worse than a 2-loss conference champ that played SIX games against the top-30 and had 11 FBS wins. If you threw all of UNC and Stanford's wins together... 6 of the top 7 wins would be held by Stanford, although the #1 win would be UNC's. Conversely, UNC's loss to a 3-9 team that lost to the Citadel is 10 times worse than Stanford's losses to two RANKED teams.

Stanford would have a better record with UNC's schedule than UNC would have with Stanford's schedule. That's the bottom line.

First priority goes to conference champs, according to the committee itself. Since both teams would be conference champs, the next thing the committee looks at is overall body of work.... and UNC's is nowhere near Stanford's - even with a Clemson win. It just isn't.

I think the decision would be a close one..... but Stanford would edge out UNC because of 11 FBS wins to 10... 5 Top 25 wins to 1.... and a much, much, much harder schedule.

You can make a good case for Stanford but the 11 1A wins compared to 10 is irrelevant. If UNC beat the worst 1A team instead of the extra 1AA team, it wouldn't matter.
 
I Hate the Buckeyes, but they are far from out of it. If Michigan State wins, they could get in over Stanford or a won loss Clemson. The committee will look at how they manhandled Michigan. Remember, their resume was weak last year and they jumped Baylor and TCU. TCU should have been in the playoffs and looked like men among boys against Ole Miss. I hope I am wrong, but the committee loves OSU.

Hail to Pitt!

Dave
 
You can make a good case for Stanford but the 11 1A wins compared to 10 is irrelevant. If UNC beat the worst 1A team instead of the extra 1AA team, it wouldn't matter.

The five wins against ranked teams compared to one WOULD matter, though. A lot.
 
I Hate the Buckeyes, but they are far from out of it. If Michigan State wins, they could get in over Stanford or a won loss Clemson. The committee will look at how they manhandled Michigan. Remember, their resume was weak last year and they jumped Baylor and TCU. TCU should have been in the playoffs and looked like men among boys against Ole Miss. I hope I am wrong, but the committee loves OSU.

Hail to Pitt!

Dave

The only way I see tOSU getting in this year is if Clemson, Stanford and Bama all lose.

I don't know how you can say TCU deserved it when tOSU beat both Bama and Oregon.
 
The five wins against ranked teams compared to one WOULD matter, though. A lot.

This is the only thing I disagree with you about, to me, only top 25 at the end of the year should count. And that is the way the committee looks at it as well.

Stanford will most likely have 2 top 25 wins after the newest polls, (I expect Washington St and UCLA to drop out) compared to UNC's 0.

Stanford - ND and Oregon
UNC - none
 
I Hate the Buckeyes, but they are far from out of it. If Michigan State wins, they could get in over Stanford or a won loss Clemson. The committee will look at how they manhandled Michigan. Remember, their resume was weak last year and they jumped Baylor and TCU. TCU should have been in the playoffs and looked like men among boys against Ole Miss. I hope I am wrong, but the committee loves OSU.

Hail to Pitt!

Dave

OSU resume last year wasn't nearly as weak as it is this year. They had 4 top 25 wins last year... only 1 this year. They won their conference last year over a ranked Wisconsin team, 59-0. This year, they won't even play for the conference title.

OSU had a solid case last year to make it at 12-1 as Big Ten champs. They don't have a solid case this year. Their schedule this year was MUCH weaker, and they didn't do as well against it as they did last year against a more difficult schedule.

The committee has said.... over and over and over and over again.... that they place a high premium on conference champions. And that the only way they would put a NON-conference champion in over a conference champion is if the evidence is overwhelming that the NON-conference champion is better. Comparing OSU to Stanford or OSU to UNC doesn't give the committee that option.

OSU is deader than a doornail... and needs several very unlikely events to all occur before they even have a sniff.
 
The only way I see tOSU getting in this year is if Clemson, Stanford and Bama all lose.

I don't know how you can say TCU deserved it when tOSU beat both Bama and Oregon.

Well.. at the time the committee selected Ohio State, they hadn't defeated Bama and Oregon.... so you can't use that argument. The committee aren't time travelers who can see the future.

The fact that they won it all doesn't mean that they had the resume to be in the tournament BEFORE the games were played. TCU also blew out Mississippi in their bowl game last year.

In deciding the playoff teams, the committee has to compare the resumes on December 7th. And this year's OSU has a much weaker resume than even last year's OSU had. They're out - unless miraculous things occur for them this weekend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dave97
A. My answer to that is yes. Having watched almost every OSU game this year and having watched Stanford 4 or 5 times, I think Stanford would win that game on a neutral field.

B. It doesn't matter. I don't think Iowa could beat Clemson, Alabama, Oklahoma, OR Stanford on a neutral field.... but they will be in the playoff if they win this week. Making the playoff has everything to do with a team's resume - according to the committee - and nothing to do with a mythical "I think they're better" test.

Ohio State currently has the worst resume of any 1-loss P5 team. And it isn't close. 61st hardest schedule, only one win against a ranked team (Michigan).... only two GAMES against ranked teams (Michigan and MSU).

And "eye test" wise... Ohio State struggled to win a lot of their first 10 games against decidedly MUCH inferior competition.

In any blind resume test, Ohio State resume ranks around the same as UNC's right now.... and would be worse than UNC's if the Tarheels beat Clemson.
then if you were on the committee that is how you would vote...however, this new system was supposed to chose the best four teams and resume, notwithstanding, should not be the determining factor...If Iowa is undefeated and not considered to be one of the four best then the committee should not select them...the big 12 teams got hosed for this very reason last year....
 
The only way I see tOSU getting in this year is if Clemson, Stanford and Bama all lose.

I don't know how you can say TCU deserved it when tOSU beat both Bama and Oregon.

I hope you are right. Obviously, OSU proved they belonged when they not only beat Bama and Oregon, they whopped them. I am just saying TCU was ranked #3 won their last game like 41-7 and dropped. OSU lost their only decent nonconference game to a BAD VA Tech team and TCU beat up Minnesota from the Big Ten.

This is why I love college football. What other sport can you seriously argue about as most championships are won purely on the field/court/ice.

Hail to Pitt!

Dave
 
This is the only thing I disagree with you about, to me, only top 25 at the end of the year should count. And that is the way the committee looks at it as well.

Stanford will most likely have 2 top 25 wins after the newest polls, (I expect Washington St and UCLA to drop out) compared to UNC's 0.

Stanford - ND and Oregon
UNC - none

Not if you use computer rankings, which the committee does. USC and WSU are both Top 25 and UCLA is close. USC is actually Top 10 in Sagarin.

But even if you use AP Rankings.... Wins over both ND and Oregon would trump a close win over Clemson. Now, a BLOWOUT win over Clemson is a different animal. If UNC does to Clemson what Ohio State did to Wisconsin last year in the CCG, then that's a whole 'nother matter.
 
Well.. at the time the committee selected Ohio State, they hadn't defeated Bama and Oregon.... so you can't use that argument. The committee aren't time travelers who can see the future.

The fact that they won it all doesn't mean that they had the resume to be in the tournament BEFORE the games were played. TCU also blew out Mississippi in their bowl game last year.

In deciding the playoff teams, the committee has to compare the resumes on December 7th. And this year's OSU has a much weaker resume than even last year's OSU had. They're out - unless miraculous things occur for them this weekend.

I was responding to the poster saying TCU deserved it because they looked like a man among boys and beat Ole Miss in their bowl game last year.
 
Why would we want UNC over Clemson.
Lets say UNC has a great " fluke" game against Clemson and manages to win. I think Clemson is a stronger team overall, with better coaching and has the best chance of an ACC team winning the National Championship.
Isn't that the goal for our conference the ACC to win the National Championship?
 
Not if you use computer rankings, which the committee does. USC and WSU are both Top 25 and UCLA is close. USC is actually Top 10 in Sagarin.

But even if you use AP Rankings.... Wins over both ND and Oregon would trump a close win over Clemson. Now, a BLOWOUT win over Clemson is a different animal. If UNC does to Clemson what Ohio State did to Wisconsin last year in the CCG, then that's a whole 'nother matter.

I'm just looking at the committee rankings.

But I do agree, Stanford has a better resume even if those two do drop out. I'm not arguing that. I just don't think 5 ranked teams vs 1 is a fair representation because some will not be ranked at the end of the year.
 
Why would we want UNC over Clemson.
Lets say UNC has a great " fluke" game against Clemson and manages to win. I think Clemson is a stronger team overall, with better coaching and has the best chance of an ACC team winning the National Championship.
Isn't that the goal for our conference the ACC to win the National Championship?

I don't think anyone in this discussion "wants" any team. (I'm rooting for Clemson big time for the reasons you state).

We are discussing what would happen IF UNC wins.
 
then if you were on the committee that is how you would vote...however, this new system was supposed to chose the best four teams and resume, notwithstanding, should not be the determining factor...If Iowa is undefeated and not considered to be one of the four best then the committee should not select them...the big 12 teams got hosed for this very reason last year....

The Big 12 teams did NOT get "hosed for this reason last year". Last year there was one undefeated team (FSU) and six one-loss teams (Alabama, Oregon, Ohio State, TCU, and Baylor). The committee's charter is to put extra weight on conference champions when all else is equal or close. Alabama and Oregon were in, because their resumes were the strongest. The choice came down to OSU, TCU, and Baylor for the final spot. All had 1-loss. OSU had 12 wins compared to TCU and Baylor's 11. TCU was problematic because it technically wasn't the B12 champ, Baylor was. Baylor was problematic because its schedule strength was WAY worse than OSU's.

In the end, it came down to which conference champ.... OSU or Baylor.... had the better resume. And OSU won out. TCU fell to 6th because it was the only 1-loss team that was NOT the conference champion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThePanthers
I don't think anyone in this discussion "wants" any team. (I'm rooting for Clemson big time for the reasons you state).

We are discussing what would happen IF UNC wins.
Thanks for the clarification I sometimes miss the point of the thread with a lot of posts!
Go Clemson!

Merry Christmas to all!
 
Why is there a magic line between the bottom of FBS and the better FCS teams? If UNC had played New Mexico State instead of Delaware, that would have been better? 99% chance either way.

If you want to ding them for playing a bad team, fine. But I don't think FBS/FCS should be the determinate.
 
UNC's gotta be in if they beat #1 Clemson. Assuming UNC wins and the rest is chalk, it'd be pretty straightforward. Bama / MSU / Oklahoma / UNC, in that order. OSU's only hope is if USC beats Stanford and Florida beats Bama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaptainSidneyReilly
The only way I see tOSU getting in this year is if Clemson, Stanford and Bama all lose.

I don't know how you can say TCU deserved it when tOSU beat both Bama and Oregon.

What if MSU also loses in your scenario? OSU cant get in over MSU. Thats impossible. MSU's resume blows away the Buckeyes.

OSU probably cant get in over a 1 loss Clemson team who has wins over FSU and ND....or even 2 loss Bama.

I dont see any way, any scenario where OSU makes it. Their schedule and resume are just too weak.
 
Why is there a magic line between the bottom of FBS and the better FCS teams? If UNC had played New Mexico State instead of Delaware, that would have been better? 99% chance either way.

If you want to ding them for playing a bad team, fine. But I don't think FBS/FCS should be the determinate.

I actually agree with this, but unfortunately I think that perception is there.
 
OU is in
Iowa/MSU is in
Lets assume Bama takes care of the Gators

If UNC beats Clemson, they would be the 9-0 ACC champ with a 12 game winning streak. However, Clemson would be their only Top 25 win. Their only other decent wins were over Pitt, Miami, Duke and NCSU, teams that would rank in the 30s or 40s. Is that enough?

If Stanford beats USC, they'd be 11-2 with better wins.

OSU would be 11-1 but, like UNC a weak schedule with only one good win.

I personally think UNC is in with a win. I dont see how you can take a 2 loss Stanford over them even though they had the tougher schedule or OSU, a team with a similar resume who didnt win their division.
I think the 4 teams should be the 4 best teams with at least comparable (because some years a 9-3 SEC team may be much better than this year's Iowa, but can't go that low) resumes. So I would rank the next few teams up:

Ohio State
Stanford
UNC
Clemson

Ohio State is just the next best team and even though their schedule wasn't great, neither was UNC or Clemson and you shouldn't be overly penalized for your only loss being to your conference champion. Clemson is tough because they shouldn't be penalized just because they lost their last game, but they also don't have a darling resume outside of that and aren't unbeatable as some have suggested on here.

Why does a one loss Alabama team get in over UNC? Look at Alabama's schedule. The "vaunted" SEC?
L. O. L.
 
I'm already losing faith in the CFP as quickly as I did with the BCS. We can argue all we want about Carolina, Ohio State, Stanford, etc. But for god's sake... Florida State ahead of Carolina?!?!? That is seriously so funny I'm expecting to wake up tomorrow and hear it was a prank. I really wonder if these people watch football or just look at pieces of paper. Florida State is nowhere near as explosive offensively as UNC. Honestly they looked better at times when Golson wasn't even in the lineup. If Clemson and Alabama are not upset on Saturday there should be no problems, if one of them is though, it will be interesting if the committee actually stands by their theory of wanting conference champions in, which I actually think is a really good idea.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT