2017 Wisconsin Football Thread

[bani1717]

Also, along with that, Barry Alvarez as a former committee member came right out and said that a loss is a loss and there is no such thing as a good loss. So I think every team's number of losses are weighed against their strength of victory.

 

Could have fooled me when Notre Dame lost by a point to Georgia and the committee seemed to treat it like a win and ranked Notre Dame as an elite for awhile despite not even being ranked pre-season.

 

First, the committee doesn’t care about the AP or coaches poll preseason rankings and quite frankly neither should most people. There are always big swings in rankings over the first couple weeks of the season. Those preseason and early season rankings are primarily a hype machine.

 

Second, I think the media held the Notre Dame one point loss in high regard, but that doesn’t mean the CFP selection committee did. Looking at Notre Dame’s resume at that point they had good wins over Michigan State, USC, and NC State. They deserved their high ranking in the first couple CFP rankings based on the quality of their wins to that point, even considering they had also lost a game at that point.

[bani1717]

My biggest concern about the rankings is that the members don’t just take this season into consideration. They’ll take recent history into consideration too. That’s why Clemson will be 1 and that’s why Alabama will be 5, in great position to get in if UW or Oklahoma loses.

 

That's why the system is still broken - SOS, eye test, perceived conference strength, etc. all are still a product of poorly constructed preseason top 25 rankings by the AP and Coaches Poll. If they want to keep the 4-team CFP system, I think the AP and Coaches polls shouldn't issue rankings until early November as well. To me, the CFP rankings start with the current top 25 as an initial benchmark, and evaluate everything else from there. The flaw in that line of thinking is that where teams start the season ranked sets the precedent for everything else. The SEC has no incentive adding a 9th conference game or scheduling quality OOC opponents from other power 5 conferences at true road game settings when the preseason AP poll had 6 of their teams ranked in the top 25, including Tennessee and Florida. All they need to do is have most of their teams hold serve against OOC cupcakes and they'll always have 2-3 teams within striking distance of the top 4 come conference championship saturday.

 

Teams lose so many players due to graduation and the NFL, and gain so much talent via true and redshirt freshmen coming in, that a preseason ranking is shortsighted - it basically amounts to which programs have had the best perceived recruiting classes and tends to reward previous year's success without considering who's still on the team.

 

I'd be really interested in how different the AP, Coaches, and CFP rankings would look if they were all initially issued the first tuesday in November. By then everyone would have understood that FSU and the SEC east were largely garbage this year, the SEC overall is down aside from the top 2-3 programs (lessening SOS's for those teams), Wisconsin's OOC slate this year actually wasn't that cupcake-y, and the Big 12 essentially can't play defense.

 

I think the committee actually does a pretty good job of disregarding the AP and coaches polls (including preseason rankings). In fact, their guiding principles specifically state that preseason polls need to be disregarded. Also, the CFP rankings have shown over time that they are not afraid to depart from the AP and coaches polls to stick to their stated guidelines. For example, if you look at the first CFP rankings this year vs the AP and coaches polls, you will see that the CFP rankings differed because they removed the bias associated with the early season AP and coaches polls. The AP and coaches polls in successive weeks actually changed to more closely mirror the CFP rankings.

 

The eye test is another issue but overall I think the committee actually does a pretty decent job at what they do despite the difficulty of the job, the high visibility nature of it, and the fact that many people will be upset by it.

 

As a general point of reference, I have found this info from the selection committee to be pretty informative, for anyone who hasn’t seen it before: http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/documents/2017/10/20//CFP_Selection_Committee_Protocol.pdf?id=23

[Fear The Chorizo]

For example, if you look at the first CFP rankings this year vs the AP and coaches polls, you will see that the CFP rankings differed because they removed the bias associated with the early season AP and coaches polls.The AP and coaches polls in successive weeks actually changed to more closely mirror the CFP rankings.

 

While that is true, the reason the AP and Coaches polls changed near the top in successive weeks was to conform more to the CFP rankings, not based on results on the field - which means they're still all trying to form a consensus to make it easier for questionable decisions made by the powers that be to look correct. IIRC, the BCS had the exact same effect on AP/Coaches polls once those rankings started coming out midseason. For example, Wisconsin cruising to a road victory at Indiana should not have led to them dropping several spots in the AP poll that week - only reason they dropped was for the AP poll to more closely match their CFP ranking. And I'd still argue that the starting point for evaluating all teams are the preseason polls, no matter what the CFP committee says. If both the AP and Coaches Polls weren't issued until early November, those voters would also have 2 months-worth of games to watch to establish an opinion of who's actually the best-looking teams during the current season - not just adjusting preseason rankings based on when teams lose games.

 

The committee has just enough rules and standards supposedly in place that they always have an excuse for propping up less deserving teams and keeping more deserving teams on the outside looking in - particularly when the almighty dollar drives them. Teams that have national followings simply have many more chances to be in the playoff conversation. 2-loss Auburn is in the conversation of being the top-ranked team because of home wins against Alabama and Georgia. Both those teams were ranked #1 at the time, yes, but how good were they considering their best win between them was a 1-point road victory at Notre Dame in week 1 - particularly since the Irish have been destroyed twice since then? I'd argue Alabama and Georgia were ranked #1 based on perception/SEC bias more than reality.

 

I still think moving to a 6-team playoff is the way to go - I don't like 8 or 16 teams, because it waters down the regular season, makes conference championships meaningless, and gives too many teams a shot at a national title that shouldn't be in the conversation. A 6 team playoff would give every power 5 conference a legitimate shot at getting a deserving team in the playoff (spots wouldn't be guaranteed for each conference champ, but at least there'd be room for everyone to get into the dance if they deserve it), plus non-power 5 conferences would know that there's at least a sliver of hope the 6th spot could go to a deserving team (central FL this year, boise state years ago). Additionally, conferences that are perceived to be very strong will have more chances to get multiple teams in. The top two teams would get a bye, with teams #3-6 playing each other the week of Christmas. Then the semifinal and championship rounds could be held the same dates they currently are. That setup gives the perceived two best teams the advantage (similar to an NFL conference playoff format), but gives a better selection of teams a shot at winning it all by winning playoff games.

[MrTPlush]

Adding more teams does nothing to help non power conferences. Unless you assure them one spot they will never get close to the college playoff. One of those teams would have to schedule a crazy non conference slate to get consideration. UCF is #15 in the CFP...that waaaay off #4 or #6. Not even on the map.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Notre Dame, Washington State, and Miss St will drop below UCF in tonight's CFP rankings, getting them closer to the top 10 heading into championship weekend. If UCF beats ranked Memphis again to finish undefeated, there are four conference title games pairing 8 teams currently ranked in front of UCF this weekend, meaning 4 of those teams will lose again - plus USC could lose against Stanford. Does that vault UCF all the way up to #6 by jumping over a pile of 3-loss or inactive teams? Probably not, but it'd get them right near that #6 ranking.

 

Currently there's zero chance for a non-power conference to make the 4 team playoff. Under a 6-team playoff scenario, I would like to view conference title games almost as play-in games most years - meaning that for a conference to field more than their conference champ, the 2nd or 3rd team would have been inactive during conference championship weekend (like Alabama or Penn State this year). During seasons where certain power conferences are way down and may only deserve 1 or even 0 teams in the playoff, a quality non-power conference team would have a very good shot at getting into the field of 6. An undefeated UCF will have victories over 3 ranked teams (2 vs Memphis, 1 vs S. Fla). It's unfortunate they had to cancel the GT game due to a hurricane, because that could've given their resume 2 wins against power 5 conference teams. During the BCS era, Boise State would've made a 6 team CFP playoff field a couple times.

[FVBrewerFan]

Of the remaining teams the Badgers could play, who scares you the most? Honestly, I still think Ohio State is a tougher game than any of the teams they could met in the playoffs.

 

Don't get me wrong, they won't be favored to win against any of the playoff teams- they would all be tough to win. I just think if OSU brings their best, it will be tough to win that game.

 

After that, Oklahoma scares me. Wisc hasn't had to play against a really good wide-open offense like that. Funny thing is, of all teams that could still make the playoffs Alabama worries me the least.

[lcbj68c]

And I'd still argue that the starting point for evaluating all teams are the preseason polls, no matter what the CFP committee says. If both the AP and Coaches Polls weren't issued until early November, those voters would also have 2 months-worth of games to watch to establish an opinion of who's actually the best-looking teams during the current season - not just adjusting preseason rankings based on when teams lose games.

 

And you'd argue correctly. My wife is a Florida State Alum. Every single person that I've heard vouch for Alabama continues to reference them beating FSU when FSU "was ranked". They all want to drink the kool-aid that FSU only started losing games because of their QB injury and thus, FSU was a really good football team when they beat them...why? Well, because FSU was ranked. There should be zero rankings prior to November. Anybody who says the CFP ignores pre-season polls has got more length on their schnoz than Pinocchio.

[lcbj68c]

Of the remaining teams the Badgers could play, who scares you the most? Honestly, I still think Ohio State is a tougher game than any of the teams they could met in the playoffs.

 

Don't get me wrong, they won't be favored to win against any of the playoff teams- they would all be tough to win. I just think if OSU brings their best, it will be tough to win that game.

 

After that, Oklahoma scares me. Wisc hasn't had to play against a really good wide-open offense like that. Funny thing is, of all teams that could still make the playoffs Alabama worries me the least.

 

 

Ohio State - Call it recent history or whatever, I have zero confidence watching them play Ohio State.

Alabama - I don't think Hornibrook could lead touchdown drives against that defense.

Auburn - Just too dynamic for our linebackers. Could see Auburn scoring 40+ on Wisconsin.

Clemson - They've been there. I think offensively they can be a juggernaut and have a solid defense as well.

Georgia - I don't think as dynamic as Auburn. I could see Wisconsin winning a game against them with a similar style and winning turnover game.

Miami - I don't think they are very good. They've trailed late and barely beat some really bad teams.

Oklahoma - They can't stop anybody on defense. Control time of possession and get some stops on defense and Wisconsin wins by double digits.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think teams that can throw the ball without needing to run and spread out WI's defense would be the most difficult for them to beat. Without blitzing, I don't think the Badgers' pass rush is that dynamic, and Oklahoma's offense has enough weapons that can kill blitzes. If healthy, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Georgia would probably be the Badgers' toughest opponents from a matchup standpoint. If a team can score against WI's D, the Badger's offense just isn't consistent enough to keep pace.

 

OSU is jekyl and hyde - they can be dynamic, but if Barrett is inaccurate passing the ball I can see them struggling to score points. WI's secondary is good enough to turn them over a few times, too. Aside from that 59-0 drubbing, Wisconsin has been very competitive against OSU, and they've lost games they should've won more recently than that 2014 conference championship game.

 

Of the teams vying for a CFP spot, I think Miami is the weakest by far - I would be surprised if they are competitive against Clemson this weekend. Auburn has injury issues in their backfield, and will have their hands full against a Georgia team looking for payback on a neutral field. I see Clemson, Georgia, and Oklahoma winning their respective conference title games - and the Big 10 title game to me is a toss-up.

[brewcrewdue80]

Man, just think if this team had Cichy, Peavy, and Cephus?

 

The above mentions to a passing team causing us troubles. Mayfield and Oklahoma would scare me. Hurtz of Alabama should the committee find a way putting them in. (Oklahoma loss, Clemson loss?)

 

But let's get there first before really dreaming up these scenarios. I really think the Badgers defense will cause Barrett to throw 2 ints under pressure. The Badgers are a different team this year especially in that they are so good in the 2nd half. Taylor will get his yards/TD. Our rushing Defense is #1, so I see Ohio state being in trouble down situations that won't be good for Barrett.

Gotta top this season off! Let's go Badgers!

[JackNicholson1974]

The debate will always be there until we see 4 super conferences....16 teams each....two 8-team divisions...4 conference champions battle for the title. Conference matchups in the semifinals rotate each year: Year 1 Big Ten vs SEC and Pac-10 vs ACC, Year 2, ACC vs Big Ten and SEC vs PAC-10, etc.

 

Big 12 splits to fill out Pac 10/Big 10 and Notre Dame finds a home in the ACC although it should be in Big 10.

 

 

I have been a proponent of this, however, there are two issues. 1) Too many "power" conference teams to go into 4 sixteen team conferences evenly. Some Big 12 schools would get kicked to mid majors. 2) mid majors are completely shut out of all possibility of playing in the playoff. Even if they are all but shut out now, there is always a chance for a Utah or Boise to make it.

 

Today's completely fun and complete waste of time - I Limited FBS to 128 teams (there are currently 130). Made eight 16 team conferences. Each conference has two 8 team divisions. Each regular season schedule consists of 11 games. The 7 teams in your division and 4 cross division games. If you finish in the top 4 of your division in a given year, you play each of the top 4 teams in the cross division next year, bottom 4 you play bottom 4. Conference championship game becomes first round of what is now a 16 team playoff. 8 conference champions then get seeded.

 

An example Wisconsin schedule:

 

Division games (7) Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern, (and then team such as) No. Ill, Ball St. Toledo, Bowling Green. Cross Division games 4) Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Western Michigan.

 

Your 8 conference champions could look like this: Clemson (over Miami) Auburn (Over LSU), Wisconsin (Over Notre Dame), Washington (over Iowa St), Ohio State (Over Penn State), USC (over Stanford), Oklahoma (over TCU), Virgina Tech (over Missouri)

[pacopete4]

Looking at the Sargarin Rating for college football, how is it that Alabama even has a case over a 1-loss Wisconsin team?

 

Wisconsin's rating after playing OSU this weekend will be 57.5 while Bama's will be 59.

 

Alabama beat LSU 24 - 10, struggled with Mississippi State 31 - 24, and lost to Auburn 26 - 14. Alabama also only beat Texas A&M 27 - 19. Alabama played Texas A&M, Arkansas, Tennessee that all fired their coaches at the end of the season and Mississippi State who lost their coach to Florida.

 

Wisconsin beat Northwestern 33 - 24, Michigan 24 - 10, and Iowa 38 - 14.

 

So, how is Alabama more deserving than an undefeated Wisconsin team? How is Alabama more deserving over a one-loss Wisconsin team, if there were to lose to Ohio State?

[madbad2000]

"I have been a proponent of this, however, there are two issues. 1) Too many "power" conference teams to go into 4 sixteen team conferences evenly. Some Big 12 schools would get kicked to mid majors. 2) mid majors are completely shut out of all possibility of playing in the playoff. Even if they are all but shut out now, there is always a chance for a Utah or Boise to make it."

 

Can't make an omelete without cracking a few eggs. I'm not as worried about Mid Majors as they are essentially shut out anyways. I would be worried about lowering the brand of each conference by spreading it out over 8 conferences. By my count the ACC/Big 10/SEC each need 2 teams and the Pac 12 need 4. The Big 12 has 10 teams...plus a Notre Dame team that will not be shut out. So that leaves one team outside looking in if you do a straight swap. There is more to it than just football with other sports and academics sometimes sprinkled in. Politics also plays a part. Oklahoma and Okie State are tied together as are Kansas and Kansas State.

 

ACC - need 2

Notre Dame - Atlantic Division

UCF - Coastal Division

 

Big 10 - need 2

Iowa State - West

West Virginia - East

 

SEC - need 2

Texas - West

Houston - West (Arkansas moves into the SEC East)

 

PAC 12 - need 4

Oklahoma - South

OK St - South

Kansas - South

Kansas St - South (Colorado and Utah move to North)

 

Left out, Texas Tech and Baylor due to randomly throwing in Houston and UCF

 

Texas Tech, Baylor and Army into the AAC to give that conference 14 teams..Tech/Baylor in the West, Army in the East. That wasn't so hard.

 

Where it gets hard is if conferences have motives such as new markets or AAU membership. Then the Big Ten could still look at Iowa State (AAU) or try to poach someone like Syracuse, Texas, Missouri, Pitt for AAU credentials.

[pacopete4]

The Big Ten doesn't want an Iowa State as it doesn't really provide another TV market to them. Adding a team like Notre Dame would make sense for the Big10 if they ever would want to.

[madbad2000]

I agree it doesn't add too much value in terms of new markets, but it adds another AAU college that can be a natural rival to Iowa and Nebraska in the West. Syracuse is an interesting option in NY. Notre Dame makes a lot of sense for a nationwide brand improvement and quality add, but ND does not seem to want any part of it. Lets go all in and get Texas and Texas A&M for football and as AAU. Colorado? Vanderbilt? Ignore AAU and move further East with Connecticut and Boston College?

[young guns]

Also, skeptics continue to point out the drubbing wisky took in 2014

Even worse, I think it was the first or second week of the rankings and one of the ESPN heads was using Ohio st and michigan sts blow out loses the previous two years as reasons for keeping Wisconsin out this year.

[owbc]

Uggh, please no more expansion. The Big Ten should have stayed at 12.

[stalton]

4th it is. Obviously win and in, but any scenario we can sneak in if we lose? I'm thinking no.

[owbc]

4th it is. Obviously win and in, but any scenario we can sneak in if we lose? I'm thinking no.

 

No. The qualifications to be in are:

 

1. SEC (e.g. Alabama)

2. Strength of schedule (e.g. beating Alabama)

3. Being Alabama

[MadThinker88]

4th it is. Obviously win and in, but any scenario we can sneak in if we lose? I'm thinking no.

 

Loser of Big10 title game is toast.

Buckeyes with 3 loses or Badgers with lack of resume..

 

I'm taking nothing for granted regarding the game winner.. Hoping the committee puts in the Big10 champ regardless of who it is..

 

I don't believe there has ever been a no change in top 4 between the FINAL 2 weeks.. Committee always seems to tinker (either due to a loss or ripple effect of another game)...

[nate82]

4th it is. Obviously win and in, but any scenario we can sneak in if we lose? I'm thinking no.

 

Loser of Big10 title game is toast.

Buckeyes with 3 loses or Badgers with lack of resume..

 

I'm taking nothing for granted regarding the game winner.. Hoping the committee puts in the Big10 champ regardless of who it is..

 

I don't believe there has ever been a no change in top 4 between the FINAL 2 weeks.. Committee always seems to tinker (either due to a loss or ripple effect of another game)...

 

I think the committee will do what they did last year and reward a 1-loss team like Alabama over Ohio State. I don't believe Ohio State has a chance at making the playoffs anymore maybe if TCU wins over Oklahoma they could get in as the Big Ten Champs but I still doubt that. I think Ohio State is going to get the Penn State treatment from last year and miss the playoffs if they win the Big Ten championship game.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Alabama is 5th, but in reality the only way they should have a chance at making the playoff is if Oklahoma loses. If Miami beats clemson, they should go in over bama. If osu beats wi, they should go in also. If ga beats auburn, Georgia leapfrogs bama.

 

Then again, it is the.crimson tide...I'm sure there are boosters offering committee members an island as I type this to nudge them up a notch next week

[homer]

UW's 1 loss resume would be better than Alabama's....won't help though. Gotta win.

[young guns]

While I agree on Wisconsin and Alabama's resumes, the committee won't because, miss st miraculously stayed ranked and Fresno st received the "you're bamas third best win" free ranking at 25. I think our only chance to make it with a loss is if hornibrook gets hurt, since losing your qb is as good as winning the game, at least according to the committee.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Yeah, how is 4 loss, qb-less and coachless miss state still in the top 25? Because Alabama, I guess.