TCU's resume is better than ND's and you know it. It's not even worth discussing. Just look at the opponents and the scores. Sparty I agree, but that's one team that everyone knows is too high. It has nothing to do with ND. All the other teams have that complaint.

Sparty should be down in your range as well...they are overrated

if anything notre dame is ranked too high

Notre Dame is the only 0-4 team in BCS history. No other team even has 3 losses without a win, and the only other winless teams with multiple losses are Illinios, Cincinnati, and Kansas St.

Yeah that's even less relevant than our last 3 games against Sparty.

It's a cool stat tho

It's entirely irrelevant of course, but it is hilarious

this is high quality trolling

>mfw Sparty and TCU have 'accomplished nothing'
>mfw when the implication is that ND has accomplished more
>mfw when TCU is a 'favorite son' that the system is biased for but Notre Dame isn't

ND has a long and illustrious history of getting into bowls based purely on reputation/TV rating potential and subsequently getting embarrassed on the field.

I look forward to this tradition continuing into the playoff era.

I'm still waiting on a ND fan to make the case why they should be above UGA, using either accomplishments or power ranking.

ND is currently overrated, not underrated.

The Committee rankings are pretty good.

ND at 10 is fine (anything 8 to 12 would not be worth arguing about).
ND can move up based on SOS

The only legitimate beef ND fans could have is that they are behind Michigan State. Other than that, I am not sure why all the polarization. They are mid pack in a bunch of the better 1 loss teams.

I'd say beating then #4 Oklahoma and curbstomping pretty much every other opponent is pretty good overall. I agree though that TCU's gonna let us know where they're at in the next two weeks.

Oklahoma's not the #4 team in the country though, so let's not give TCU extra credit just because the preseason rankings were bad.

Fair point, but I'm pretty sure they're better than polls have them. Losses are 37-33 at TCU and 31-30 v K-State with some real ridiculousness involved (lol kickers). We'll get a better idea how good they are next week v Baylor

Well first of all, it might just be that no one with dignity is willing to talk with you guys about this any more. Secondly, i don't think anyone is apologizing anyway--they are just pointing and laughing at you. They still know the call was correct, obvious and overwhelming, but you guys have made it perfectly clear that you are just going to inexplicably insist that up is down about this.

Amazingly, the degree Notre Dame nation is going full Tea Party about this may actually be harming their chances of getting into the playoff, even in the unlikely event they run the table through the rest of their schedule. That's not meant as an insult, practically everybody that matters is only 10-25% to do that from here. Why you don't look at your spot and realize that if you win out you have about a 1% chance, if that, that enough teams ranked ahead of you win out and auto-cockblock you even presuming you don't jump them after beating Arizona State and/or Stanford or improving UNC picking up some showpiece wins, is a bit befuddling. You are lower than I thought you would be (but higher than I think you deserve), but still positioned to get it--if you go on to assemble the potential 11-1 resume you have laid out in front of you. Even in that nightmare scenario, I expect the committee to give you the nod (or at least I did before this offputting behavior) and I wouldn't blame them.

You are popular, you bring in throngs of casual and normally non-fans who wouldn't be there otherwise (and I mean friggin' entire foreign countries probably), and yes, not playing any true, true Abelene Cheistians of the world, let alone 3 or 4 adds up over the season to a perfectly good strength of schedule. Generally your resume in perpetuity will be on par with a P5 school after a conference championship game, assuming the ccg opponent is top 10ish. Perhaps it is slightly lower this year due to the bedwetting you mentioned, but still totally fine, in the end. Clearly not a case of *trying* to pad with an easy schedule, anyway. You've even dropped Michigan in an effort to add another respectable game! My read is the committee is savvy enough to get that, so...relish it. Enjoy it. Take pride in it. You're good enough, you have shiny helmets with real gold flakes on them (and I seem to be the only person who finds that offensive), and dogone it, people like you!

But it is still *people* on that comittee, and generally people dislike groups of people who are being extremely annoying and blockheaded. Even if you think you're right, recognize the tactical benefit of shutting up about it and pretending to take the "criminal" call like a man. It appears you guys have even descended to openly asserting (and...I guess...believing?) that everyone else understands that the call was "incorrect". As a friendly acquaintance (actually I like you, DeadMoneyWalking, specifically and begrudgingly acknowledge/respect/admire some of Notre Dame's rightheadedness and principles), I can tell you this is not true--many people fully believe the call was the right call. Telling them to their face that they and no one else actually believes what they completely do believe (and, honestly, think you'd have to be insane to not see), is *not a good look*. People mind. Someone, likely everyone, on that comittee believes you got the right call and lost fair and square. What are they to expect when you lose a playoff game?

Maybe that should not matter, but then neither should your popularity or the TV ratings of the FSU game, yet I fully expect them to. So, good for you and let the haters hate on in futility!

I know you've been hurt, seeing that beautiful win and the scoreboard change get stripped away would be horrible for any fan, let alone a fanbase who ignores the part where Rudy went on to become a successfull ponzi schemer; moving from one group of rich ND fans to another, his legacy assuring his future. But, just go ahead and think of that playoff spot as yours to lose--that's not even delusional! Don't see "#10", see "#4".

Come back to earth, where everything I just said is true.


Bears; at this point, I'm not even sure if I'm trolling or not, either. It feels more like I'm conducting an intervention, actually.

According to Sagarin they are #4/#6 in power, #11 in YPP. They just had runbad.

Oklahoma is pretty good and better than ND, too. Not that that is saying much. It's not fair to Oklahoma to mention ND with them except I guess they are similar in that their best games were close losses.

It's not ND's fault that some of their opponents turned out to be frauds. It is NDs fault they didn't blow those opponents off the field.

I spent the TCU OU game thinking, wow TCU IS good, not LOLOU. That RB, I forget his name, beasted on a pretty good TCU run defense

Yeah, fair point on your side too, and I was calling out the "#4" thing more as an aside, than as an anti-TCU counterargument. Oklahoma could of course be worse than #4, and simultaneously better than the polls have them. I just want to make sure that when we're assessing TCU, and we look at their performance against Oklahoma, we make a considered assessment of how good Oklahoma ACTUALLy is, rather than blindly taking either their poll ranking now, or even worse their poll ranking at the time of the game.

Also same principle for every other game we look at any time the remainder of the season, for any team, of course.

#6 in Sagarin Predictor and #11 in (Old formula YPP), but #16 in (New formula YPP) and #14 in FEI. So they're almost certainly a little better than the #18 that the committee gave them credit for (I guess ignoring margin also means you can't give teams credit for close losses, along with not being able to reward dominant wins?), but probably no higher than 10th either. Definitely not much argument for #4

I've got pretty close to replicating what the committee is thinking with a formula.

I've got 1. Miss St, 2. FSU, 3. Ole miss. but then I have 6. Auburn. Ahead of them are 4. Bama and 5. TCU.

Right now my "committee formula" underrates relative to the committee: Arizona (by 5 spots), UCLA (5), Oregon (5), Auburn (3)

And overrates: Duke (5), Georgia (4), Utah (3) and Baylor (3).

The idea is to try and replicate the commitee's thinking mathematically (so as to predict future committee rankings obv) as much as possible without overfitting.

Does anyone see common themes among the teams that reveal something that's missing in the logical construction of the model. Remember we don't want to overfit and just say "OK Auburn gets a slight bump because" but rather the better question is "what are we missing that's causing the "error" with Auburn.

Current formula is:
-Resume (new achievement formula I like way better I"m working on for this week)
-Penalty for losses
-No Marshall, never Marshall.

I like looking at which teams truly control their own destiny? I don't see any scenario where SEC doesn't get at least 2 spots.

Thoughts on the below:

1 Mississippi State 7-0 - Win & In
2 Florida State 7-0 - Win & In
3 Auburn 6-1 - Win & In
4 Mississippi 7-1 - Win & In
5 Oregon 7-1 - Win & In
6 Alabama 7-1 - Win & In
7 TCU 6-1 - Win & In
8 Michigan State 7-1 - Win & Need at least 4 of KState, TCU, UGA, Oregon, FSU to lose again
9 Kansas State 6-1 - Win & TCU Lose
10 Notre Dame 6-1 - Win & Need at least 5 of KState, TCU, UGA, Oregon, FSU, Sparty to lose
11 Georgia 6-1 - Win & In

I think if Sparty wins out and does so convincingly, against tosu and in the b1g championship game against maryland or whoever, they get more in the conversation than any of us would be comfortable.

Still probably doesn't gurantee them a spot.

You have too many teams "Win and in" by definition.

Auburn, MSU, TCU, Oregon, and FSU are all listed as 'win and in'. Clearly they aren't because all five can win out.

Maybe you should review what "if they win they are in" means