CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: ohio1317 on September 19, 2023, 12:16:17 AM
-
Teams with 1st Loss Week 3:
Wyoming
Western Kentucky
Michigan State
Tennessee
Mississippi State
Kansas State
Minnesota
Georgia Southern
Louisiana-Monroe
Cincinnati
Oklahoma State
Arkansas
Percent of Teams with 1st Loss of Season
Week 0/1: 37.6% (50 of 133)
Week 2: 38.6% (32 of 83)
Week 3: 23.5% (12 of 51)
Maximum number of Undefeated Teams at the End of the Regular Season:
10: Nine conference champs (all except the MAC) and Notre Dame
-We lost the possibility of two undefeated from the Sun Belt. James Madison is not eligible for Sun Belt Championship so could have had two before. Now only remaining undefeated teams in the Sun Belt are on their schedule.
Week 3 Thoughts:
-I added the winless column this week. We start with 7 remaining members. Only one of them is from a power 5 conference (Virginia). The Mountain West is the only conference with two (Colorado State and Nevada). Most likely all these teams get a win before the end of the season, although we occasionally end up with a winless team or two.
-These are the kind of weeks that will lose a little luster to me next year. I get that we might get greater excitement for people at the end of the season as more teams are playing for playoff spots in late November, but the cost of that for me is losing some excitement over weeks like this. I was glued to the end of the Boston College-Florida State game as the implications were very high. If Boston College had pulled off that upset, the ACC's playoff bowl chances, in my view, would probably drop by something like half. Meanwhile, Georgia losing at halftime to South Carolina could have meant big things. A loss there would mean Georgia couldn't go to the SEC Championship undefeated (and losing that as their only loss is the SEC's best chance at two teams in).
-Most our top team held, but we sure had some games this week.
-As far as playoff odds between the conferences, I don't think a lot changed this week. If one of those games going late had broken another way, a lot more would have, but all will be forgiven to the winners if they keep winning. The Big 12 probably saw the biggest drop in their odds with losing a decently ranked Kansas State (although the BYU win was a nice pickup), but Texas and Oklahoma remain unbeaten (even if the conference would rather see anyone else win it).
-In the SEC, Florida beating Tennessee, to me establishes that Florida will probably be the top remaining competitor to Georgia in the east. Georgia did look beatable this week for a half vs. South Carolina (that switched in the 2nd half though).
-The other happy party to Florida winning was probably Utah and the PAC-12. That win looks better now and the PAC-12 is looking very strong for a playoff spot for the first time in years (two if absolutely everything brakes right).
-Minnesota lost to North Carolina. This is relevant for both conferences. For the ACC, that keeps North Carolina as another ranked game. For the Big Ten, that leaves Iowa alone as an undefeated in the west. Unless Iowa wins out, the Big Ten really does not want an upset in the Big Ten Championship.
-What are the best scenarios after this week for a conference getting in two? So far we have seen the Big Ten do it once and the SEC a few times. The best recipe for it seems to be to have two of the other power conferences with 2 loss champions (effectively eliminating them as things tend to go), and have a huge stand out non-champ with a lot of talent who only lost a close game against the conference champ. If any conference wants to get two in this year, they probably need to hope for something similar. In that light, the SEC's best chance it to have Georgia as the 2nd team in my view with a loss to Florida (who wins out) or in the SEC Championship to an undefeated 1-loss team. In the Big Ten, you could have Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State do it, but Ohio State would definitely have the easiest time of it given they would have a win over one of the others and Notre Dame in this scenario. In the Big 12, your best scenario is probably something like one of Texas or Oklahoma winning the first game and then losing to the other in a rematch in the conference championship game (Texas would probably be the stronger non-champ because of the Alabama win). In the PAC-12, you currently have 8 undefeated. You want that going down to 2 who look overwhelmingly better. The strongest ones would probably be USC, Utah, and Oregon. Those three all play each other, so you probably want each of their losses to only be to the other in a split series. In the ACC, Florida State probably needs to dominate and then lose a close one to someone undefeated in the ACC Championship,
-Group of 5 NY6 Bowl Race: We are down to 7 undefeated teams in Group of 5 conferences. Wyoming and South Florida were going for monster wins this week, but couldn't pull them off. Wyoming might still be one to watch (they have a win over Texas Tech still). Regardless, my money is on a 1 or maybe 2 loss team taking the spot this year.
-The Sun Belt got a fairly good victory with South Alabama very convincingly beating Oklahoma State. South Alabama did lose to Tulane though (whom remains a large contender to go back to the NY6 this year).
-As we get closer to conference play, each of the Group of 5 conferences, needs a standout team or two to emerge. The conferences don't want everyone else to be doormats, but they also can't afford to beat up on each other much.
Week 4 Thoughts:
-By my count, we have 8 games between undefeated teams this week.
Undefeated Rutgers at Undefeated Michigan: Rutgers has started out pretty decently, but is a 24 point underdog here. Michigan is easily undefeated, but didn't exactly have a challenging non-conference schedule. This game could reveal a lot about both teams.
Undefeated Florida State at 1-loss Clemson: Despite Clemson's loss at Duke, this might be the game the Seminoles are least favored in this year. They struggled nightly vs. Boston College last week and will need to be up for this game. The ACC stands much better chance at the playoff with Florida State staying unbeaten. On the flip side, a loss here would be a 2nd conference loss for Clemson and they would not be guaranteed to get into the ACC Championship by winning out.
Undefeated Oklahoma at 1-loss Cincinnati: The Bearcats lost to rival Miami (OH) for the first time in a long time last week, but dominated statically and this game, their first Big 12 game, has been circled a long time. I don't lean to this being close, but it wouldn't shock me being closer than first brush suggests.
Undefeated Colorado at Undefeated Oregon: Dion Sanders had a huge upset for week 1. He will need that again to win this game.
Undefeated UCLA at Undefeated Utah: The defending PAC-12 champs are only a 4.5 point favorite in this game to my surprise. That win over Florida can pay dividends, which is why the conference would probably rather see the Utes win.
Undefeated Ole Miss at 1-loss Alabama and Undefeated Auburn at 1-Loss Texas A&M: The road teams are the last two undefeated in the SEC West and both are both are underdogs.
Undefeated BYU at Undefeated Kansas: BYU upset Arkansas last week and now has their first Big 12 conference game. The Jawhawks have started the year strong and are looking to establish themselves as more of a football power in the new Big 12. They are decently favored.
Undefeated Oregon State at Undefeated Washington State: The last two non-defectors from the PAC-12. Both are having great starts and both would love to make this a year to remember as everyone else leaves.
Winless Colorado State at Middle Tennessee: Colorado is only a 2 point underdog as they go for their first win. They are coming off a disappoint ending vs. rival Colorado though.
Undefeated Ohio State at Undefeated Notre Dame: The Buckeyes are a few point favorites. Lose this, and they cannot afford any Big Ten losses (and that might not still be enough). Notre Dame finished 11-1 two years ago (with a loss to an Ohio team) and didn't make the playoff bowls. They want this game.
Undefeated Iowa at Undefeated Penn State: Iowa is a heavy underdog, but has been a thorn in Penn State's side a few times. They are also the last remaining unbeaten in the west.
Undefeated Memphis at Undefeated Missouri: Memphis is the last unbeaten in the American. Winning this might well put them on top of the Group of 5 order for the time being. Missouri is coming off a win over ranked former conference mate Kansas State.
Undefeated UCF at 1-loss Kansas State: This is UCF's first conference game and it is against a team just coming off being ranked. Kansas State wants to recover and UCF wants to start with a splash.
Remaining Undefeated Teams: ACC: 7, American: 1, Big 12: 5, Big Ten: 6, Conference USA: 1, Mountain West: 2, PAC-12: 8, SEC: 5, Sun Belt: 3, independents: 1, total: 39
Florida State
Maryland
Wake Forest
Duke
Miami (FL)
North Carolina
Colorado
Kansas
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas
Louisville
Rutgers
Syracuse
Iowa
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Marshall
Memphis
Central Florida
Air Force
Brigham Young
Utah
Oregon
Oregon State
Southern California
UCLA
Washington
Washington State
Georgia
Kentucky
Auburn
Mississippi
Fresno State
Notre Dame
Georgia State
Liberty
(James Madison)
Remaining Winless Teams: ACC: 1, American: 1, Conference USA: 1, MAC: 1, Mountain West: 2, independents: 1, total: 7
Virginia
East Carolina
(Sam Houston)
Connecticut
Buffalo
Colorado State
Nevada
-
Which team is most likely to go winless?
-
This is really good stuff.
-
-These are the kind of weeks that will lose a little luster to me next year. I get that we might get greater excitement for people at the end of the season as more teams are playing for playoff spots in late November, but the cost of that for me is losing some excitement over weeks like this. I was glued to the end of the Boston College-Florida State game as the implications were very high. If Boston College had pulled off that upset, the ACC's playoff bowl chances, in my view, would probably drop by something like half. Meanwhile, Georgia losing at halftime to South Carolina could have meant big things. A loss there would mean Georgia couldn't go to the SEC Championship undefeated (and losing that as their only loss is the SEC's best chance at two teams in)
This, exactly.
I was score-checking FSU/BC and watched a good bit of UGA/USCe because losses by FSU/UGA would have been humongous.
@OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) , @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) , and I have a long running debate with @MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572) on another thread and what you said here is the crux of my point.
The intensity of CFB regular season games is dependent upon the results of those games being important. As the playoff expands the relevance of individual regular season games necessarily declines. This thread will also become meaningless.
-
This, exactly.
I was score-checking FSU/BC and watched a good bit of UGA/USCe because losses by FSU/UGA would have been humongous.
@OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) , @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) , and I have a long running debate with @MaximumSam (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1572) on another thread and what you said here is the crux of my point.
The intensity of CFB regular season games is dependent upon the results of those games being important. As the playoff expands the relevance of individual regular season games necessarily declines. This thread will also become meaningless.
On the plus side, maybe we will get more OSU-ND and less OSU-YSU
-
Not until people evolve and stop ranking teams by number of losses.
We put a man on the moon 50 years ago, but still rank teams by number of losses.
-
Not until people evolve and stop ranking teams by number of losses.
We put a man on the moon 50 years ago, but still rank teams by number of losses.
I agree. We should rank college football programs based on the number of people their schools have put on the moon.
-
Just my take but getting them back from the moon should count for something
-
All Four PAC teams headed to the BIG are undefeated
-
On the plus side, maybe we will get more OSU-ND and less OSU-YSU
LoL.
First, good luck with that. It doesn't seem to be happening.
Even if it did happen, why would anyone care about the future ND/tOSU games?
Look at this weekend's game but imagine it in different eras:
Pre-BCS era:
This weekend's tOSU/ND game is HUMONGOUS for both because the chances of the loser coming back to win the NC are very slim. It isn't impossible but it would require a LOT of help.
BCS (2-team playoff) era:
This weekend's tOSU/ND game is still a very big deal but there is a slightly better chance for the loser to ultimately win the NC because, so long as they get to the top-2, they can take out #1 themselves.
CFP (4-team playoff) era:
The game is still big because a single loss *MIGHT* keep either team out of the CFP* but it isn't as big as in the two prior eras because the loser has a decent chance if they can win the rest of their games.
12-team playoff with auto-bids for League Champions era:
Snore. The game is only about seeding.
*Getting in to the CFP with one loss. In the CFP era (2014-2022) tOSU and ND have finished the regular season with one loss on these occasions:
- 2014 tOSU 12-1, got to CFP
- 2015 tOSU 11-1 missed CFP
- 2016 tOSU 11-1 got to CFP
- 2018 tOSU 12-1, missed CFP
- 2022 tOSU 11-1 got to CFP
- 2020 ND 10-1 got to CFP
- 2021 ND 11-1 missed CFP
So Ohio State made the CFP three out of the five times that they finished with one loss and ND made it one out of two. Ie, this game roughly cuts CFP chances in half for the loser EVEN IF they win all the rest of their games.
-
LoL.
First, good luck with that. It doesn't seem to be happening.
Even if it did happen, why would anyone care about the future ND/tOSU games?
Look at this weekend's game but imagine it in different eras:
Pre-BCS era:
This weekend's tOSU/ND game is HUMONGOUS for both because the chances of the loser coming back to win the NC are very slim. It isn't impossible but it would require a LOT of help.
BCS (2-team playoff) era:
This weekend's tOSU/ND game is still a very big deal but there is a slightly better chance for the loser to ultimately win the NC because, so long as they get to the top-2, they can take out #1 themselves.
CFP (4-team playoff) era:
The game is still big because a single loss *MIGHT* keep either team out of the CFP* but it isn't as big as in the two prior eras because the loser has a decent chance if they can win the rest of their games.
12-team playoff with auto-bids for League Champions era:
Snore. The game is only about seeding.
*Getting in to the CFP with one loss. In the CFP era (2014-2022) tOSU and ND have finished the regular season with one loss on these occasions:
- 2014 tOSU 12-1, got to CFP
- 2015 tOSU 11-1 missed CFP
- 2016 tOSU 11-1 got to CFP
- 2018 tOSU 12-1, missed CFP
- 2022 tOSU 11-1 got to CFP
- 2020 ND 10-1 got to CFP
- 2021 ND 11-1 missed CFP
So Ohio State made the CFP three out of the five times that they finished with one loss and ND made it one out of two. Ie, this game roughly cuts CFP chances in half for the loser EVEN IF they win all the rest of their games.
I have never understood this argument. If you make the playoffs, you want to be there because you deserved it, right? You don't want to be a fraud. You want to prove that you deserved that spot. Who wants to make the playoffs because they played a chicken sh! t schedule. Who takes pride in that?
-
On the other hand, the option could be to play a tough schedule and to miss the playoffs (that would change next year, probably).
MAKING the playoffs is a bit of a thing today, I think, no matter how you did it.
-
Even if it did happen, why would anyone care about the future ND/tOSU games?
Colorado-Colorado State was the fifth most watched ESPN game ever. The idea that people will lose interest in college football because the games aren't dictating the national championship feels...less than compelling.
-
I have never understood this argument. If you make the playoffs, you want to be there because you deserved it, right? You don't want to be a fraud. You want to prove that you deserved that spot. Who wants to make the playoffs because they played a chicken sh! t schedule. Who takes pride in that?
$$$ > pride
-
Colorado-Colorado State was the fifth most watched ESPN game ever. The idea that people will lose interest in college football because the games aren't dictating the national championship feels...less than compelling.
Who said lose interest?
Medina's post was about competition...how every game used to be more meaningful.
You're citing CU vs CSU, a pop-culture clown show. Celebrities on the sidelines. ESPN pumping it up. All for a bunch of CU "fans" that couldn't find reverse on a Soviet tank, rushing the field after eeking out a win over a G5 team.
Meaningless.
Eyeballs.
Yet meaningless.
I see the sliding scale of competition vs entertainment as going way over to the entertainment end. Expanded playoffs is the same.
This isn't a good thing.
-
I have never understood this argument. If you make the playoffs, you want to be there because you deserved it, right? You don't want to be a fraud. You want to prove that you deserved that spot. Who wants to make the playoffs because they played a chicken sh! t schedule. Who takes pride in that?
I don't understand how this relates to the issue of the importance of individual regular season games.
-
Colorado-Colorado State was the fifth most watched ESPN game ever. The idea that people will lose interest in college football because the games aren't dictating the national championship feels...less than compelling.
Way to cherry 🍒 pick a ridiculous outlier
-
Way to cherry 🍒 pick a ridiculous outlier
What is the outlier? Colorado is popular. No one tuned into that game thinking the winner was advancing to the championship game. They tuned in for the fun. The argument that people are going to stop caring about college football because a loss won't be as meaningful is a pretty complete nonstarter, given the evidence that people absolutely love tuning into big games no matter what. Just look to the NFL for proof of that.
-
I see the sliding scale of competition vs entertainment as going way over to the entertainment end. Expanded playoffs is the same.
The problem has always been intractable. There aren't enough games in football to really have a meaningful "competition" without some sort of playoff. To me, it is whether you want to be entertained a crown a champ, or not be entertained a crown a champ. Never seen a very good argument that not having playoffs is "better."
Of course, if we want to go by advanced stats over results on the field I am claiming a championship for the 2019 Buckeyes.
-
Of course, if we want to go by advanced stats over results on the field I am claiming a championship for the 2019 Buckeyes.
You always seem to throw something like this in every post, when no one has mentioned it or has suggested it.
Losses can be costly, but not damning. And the not knowing is what gives it gravitas. And there are different qualities of losses. And different qualities of wins. And none of it is contradictory.
Each game provides an outcome, not a truth. Yes, a win is earned, but so was the previous one and so is the next. College schedules are so wildly uneven, that ranking teams by number of losses is stupid, shallow, and wrong.
-
You always seem to throw something like this in every post, when no one has mentioned it or has suggested it.
Losses can be costly, but not damning. And the not knowing is what gives it gravitas. And there are different qualities of losses. And different qualities of wins. And none of it is contradictory.
Each game provides an outcome, not a truth. Yes, a win is earned, but so was the previous one and so is the next. College schedules are so wildly uneven, that ranking teams by number of losses is stupid, shallow, and wrong.
I throw it in the be cheeky. The 2019 OSU Buckeyes were the best team by all the Fancy Stats. They just didn't prove it on the field, due to those pesky playoffs. Your argument says the Buckeyes were the champs. The results on the field awarded it to LSU. That is why we have the playoffs, to put stop arguing about numbers and let the teams prove it. Yes, the playoffs provide upsets, as we saw that year when Clemson got lots of fluke plays to upset the Buckeyes and prevent a heck of a title game. But I am still stumped by the idea that this is bad compared to the alternatives.
-
Please quote a post I've mentioned "fancy stats" or anything similar.
I've never said 2019 OSU was better than 2019 LSU. Do not put words in my mouth.
-
Please quote a post I've mentioned "fancy stats" or anything similar.
I've never said 2019 OSU was better than 2019 LSU. Do not put words in my mouth.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm stating facts.
There aren't enough head to head games in college football to definitely crown a champion. So, we could used advanced statistics, or we could have a playoff, or we could just do whatever feels good. So when you say we aren't thinking enough about competition, but instead thinking about entertainment, I am just pointing out that the 2019 Ohio State Buckeyes were statistically the best team and by "competition" deserved to have a championship. Instead, we went down the entertainment road and crowned LSU. If you feel LSU deserved the championship that season, then congrats, you have voted for entertainment being the better barometer.
-
You don't know what a fact is.
You don't seem to understand anything being said. I mean jesus christ. You're a vapid wall in this discussion.
My recollection of 2019 was everyone marveling at LSU's offense and everyone else being "other." Clemson, OSU, etc were reeeeally good, but LSU was special.
Perhaps we took in different opinions.
But even still, your stating OSU was the best team is bizarre. If that was the consensus, wouldn't they have been the 1 seed? I don't know how to reach you, because you don't just have odd opinions, but much of your 'facts' are demonstrably false. It's weird.
Ohio State losing to Clemson was, in fact, a data point. So was LSU's first half vs OU. If you valued OU anywhere close to Clemson, those games might have seemed quite revealing and even influential about your opinions on OSU and LSU.
You seem to think determining the best team is definitive for what I'm advocating for, but once again, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Our minds seem to work very differently. That's the nicest way I can put it.
-
I cant speak for anyone else, but to me, a lot will be lost. I will still follow Ohio State and the Big Ten and, to a degree, the national race, but the national race will be a lot less relevant to me.
I love March Madness, but make no extra effort to watch a #1 vs. #2 regular season basketball game as it doesn't seem that important, especially if an out of conference game. For that matter, I hardly follow any non-Big Ten regular season because it just doesn't seem that relevant to my rooting interests. Football won't go quiete that far, but when the other champs are in regardless and the Big Ten will get 2-4 teams most years, what happens across the country just wont mean as much to me.
-
Exactly.
-
You seem to think determining the best team is definitive for what I'm advocating for, but once again, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Our minds seem to work very differently. That's the nicest way I can put it.
Pinning down exactly what you are saying is always the biggest challenge. My recollection is that you said ranking teams by the number of losses is a dumb idea. This is true! College football has wildly disparate schedules and not many games, so it is very easy for a superior team to have more losses than another team.
But then you have to turn to the next problem, which is how to rank teams. Do we go by feels? LSU was #1 by the feels. Do we go by statistics? OSU kicked butt there. Do we do some sort of half and half thing like the BCS? Do we have them play in the playoff? How do we choose the teams? These are all questions everyone has grappled with forever; they all have upsides and downsides.
My contention is that an expanded playoff, if done properly, will mean more meaningful games during the regular season, and a more fair playoff. Plus it will make number of losses less meaningful, so that should make you happy anyway.
-
I cant speak for anyone else, but to me, a lot will be lost. I will still follow Ohio State and the Big Ten and, to a degree, the national race, but the national race will be a lot less relevant to me.
I love March Madness, but make no extra effort to watch a #1 vs. #2 regular season basketball game as it doesn't seem that important, especially if an out of conference game. For that matter, I hardly follow any non-Big Ten regular season because it just doesn't seem that relevant to my rooting interests. Football won't go quiete that far, but when the other champs are in regardless and the Big Ten will get 2-4 teams most years, what happens across the country just wont mean as much to me.
This is exactly my position.
-
My contention is that an expanded playoff, if done properly, will mean more meaningful games during the regular season, and a more fair playoff. Plus it will make number of losses less meaningful, so that should make you happy anyway.
Meaningful games meaning.....what? More teams grappling for one of the 12 spots? Sure, you're right. And about half of those will have grappled for a very public flogging once they're in the playoff.
And I could do a poll on this if you want, but NO, making the playoff only to be given a giant wedgie on national TV isn't all that fabulous for a given fanbase.
Best-case scenario is you're a TCU, pull an upset, and THEN get wet-willied in front of millions of people.
You see, a less-talented team has to pull a major upset in order to win a playoff game. And each major upset makes a subsequent major upset less likely (for several reasons).
Maybe in your mind, getting into the playoff is the peak of certain programs and that replaces winning their conference. I'm not really sure.
But letting in more teams past the checkpoint of an expanded playoff harms their chances for something more.
And again, all of this seems to stem from a program working their way up taking "too much time" in your eyes. Who made you the time-keeper?
-
Using the same formula I do for creating a college basketball playoff (2/3 SOR and 1/3
KenPom SP+)
#1 Ohio State vs. #4 Oklahoma
#2 Texas vs. #3 Florida State
-
Using the same formula I do for creating a college basketball playoff (2/3 SOR and 1/3 KenPom SP+)
#1 Ohio State vs. #4 Oklahoma
#2 Texas vs. #3 Florida State
B12 B12 B12!!!
-
B12 B12 B12!!!
S - E - C will claim it
-
You see, a less-talented team has to pull a major upset in order to win a playoff game. And each major upset makes a subsequent major upset less likely (for several reasons).
This is akin to saying that if you flip a coin ten times and it comes up heads each time, the odds are it will be tails on the next flip. The odds of course won't change.
And yes, it would mean their opponent would be less likely to overlook them, but it's an NC game.
-
S - E - C will claim it
SEC can claim it when they're cutting us checks.
It would be pretty funny if Texas or OU (or both?) made it to the CFP and represented the B12, in a year when the B12 commissioner is making open, public, disparaging remarks about both.
-
SEC can claim it when they're cutting us checks.
It would be pretty funny if Texas or OU (or both?) made it to the CFP and represented the B12, in a year when the B12 commissioner is making open, public, disparaging remarks about both.
I think it would be lovely if Texas, Oklahoma, USC and Washington made it