LOOKING AHEAD... NEXT WEEK

[collegefbfan-8898]

I will admit. I have not seen Iowa play a single down this season. I have not a single clue what could happen in the Big 10 Champs Game.
I feel that the ACC Champs Game could be really good.
Let me see how the Gators look tonight. I feel that Alabama will take care of business against Florida. What Florida almost did last week scares me.

[billybud]

Florida has problems with someone who can stop their running game. Play their receivers reasonably tight, and their passing game isn't up to it over the night.

Their offense was shut out against FSU at the Swamp and Bama ought to do the same in the CCG.

[Eric]

I stupidly went with Florida. I wasn't doubting FSU there, Billybud, I just assumed Florida would play good defense and somehow squeak out a lucky win. My heart said FSU, so I went the other way. Their offense is absolutely terrible right now. I know Grier is out, but they weren't great with Grier in there anyway outside of the Ole Miss game. I think FSU wins that no matter what. As has been documented, you can usually tell which teams are lucky and playing over their head by looking at turnover margin. Unsurprisingly, Iowa, Oklahoma State, and Florida are way up there on the list, all three of these teams I see as being extremely overrated.

FSU has a good shot at getting a New Year's Six game. It'll be interesting to see what the committee does with them and North Carolina. Assuming UNC gets beat by Clemson, they'll be 11-2 and FSU will be 10-2. FSU would be a much better draw traditionally, but UNC hasn't been here in a loooong time.

[billybud]

UNC is pretty good now....I wonder what happens if they beat Clemson. Could a one loss UNC make the playoff? I kind of doubt it because of how far back they are.

But a 12-1 P5 Champ who wins their CCG over a top 5 team should, in my humble opinion, get in over 11-1 Oklahoma

[Eric]

The issue with UNC is the loss to South Carolina, playing two FCS teams, and then the fact that their best win to date is against Pittsburgh. They do look like a much better team after week 1 though. Williams never got settled down in that game. That was a shocker in August when it happened.

As for Oklahoma, I can't shake the feeling that they really lucked out by not facing Seth Russell and Trevone Boykin. If those guys are healthy, OU isn't in the mix right now. Oklahoma has the wins, but they do have that mark against Texas, who is slightly better than South Carolina.

[donovan]

Scheduling is the new justification to put into bowls subjectively the perceived money makers. A cinderella underdog with no blemishes might make it if there is enough money wanting to see the game in the TV audience, but other than that, not happening. My prediction, Clemson will not be in the final four. No one cares.

[collegefbfan-8898]

Do you mean an undefeated Clemson won't be in the final four?

[Spence]

I believe he thinks North Carolina will beat them. I think one or the other will be in.

I hold hard and fast to the belief that with only 4 spots no conference should have two teams go. It is just too hard to evaluate the conference strength of any team. If you aren't a conference champ I don't think you have a dog in the fight.

[billybud]

Do you mean an undefeated Clemson won't be in the final four?

No...I think that UNC has the best chance of stopping Clemson of any ACC team. And I wondered whether, if that happened, UNC would make the play off.

Otherwise, if Clemson loses...that one late loss and not being the champ would put them out and not put UNC in. A loss for the ACC.

I'll be cheering for Clemson.

[Eric]

The Armageddon scenario for the playoff this year is if UNC and Florida somehow win. Now you have a fight between North Carolina, Clemson, Florida, Ohio State, and Stanford. If Iowa beats MSU, how could they justify Ohio State over MSU who beat Ohio State? MSU would get punished for playing an extra game in this scenario. You can't put in 2-loss Florida with their QB situation, two losses, and with two near-wins in overtime against Florida Atlantic and late against Vanderbilt. Clemson might still factor in, but how could you put Clemson in over UNC?

Hypotheticals are fun . Odds are Bama and Clemson take care of business.

[Eric]

I get the feeling that UNC is still a little shaky on the defensive side of the ball, but their scheme and coaching has improved by leaps and bounds. Gene Chizik has got that defense going finally. They were atrocious as much as one year ago and now they are legitimately decent. Not quite good, but decent. They can defend the run a little bit and they don't have the amount of busted assignments that they did last year. They also looked slow and flat footed most of the time. It's an entirely different unit in 2015, which would explain the improvement in the record. The offense is as good as it has been with almost all of their weapons being returning starters and upperclassmen.

I would like to see North Carolina in the New Year's games, but if FSU got selected, it wouldn't be a travesty.

[Spence]

The Armageddon scenario for the playoff this year is if UNC and Florida somehow win. Now you have a fight between North Carolina, Clemson, Florida, Ohio State, and Stanford. If Iowa beats MSU, how could they justify Ohio State over MSU who beat Ohio State? MSU would get punished for playing an extra game in this scenario. You can't put in 2-loss Florida with their QB situation, two losses, and with two near-wins in overtime against Florida Atlantic and late against Vanderbilt. Clemson might still factor in, but how could you put Clemson in over UNC?

Hypotheticals are fun . Odds are Bama and Clemson take care of business.

I don't think any team who doesn't win their conference should be in the playoff. There are too many conferences and teams to accurately determine who the best 4 teams are and they shouldn't put in a team who has proven that they can't win their conference. This was my opinion in 2006 when people were talking about it. It was my opinion in 2010, and it is my opinion now.

[donovan]

Exactly. And conference champions should play in designated bowls. And we can decide who is the national best in our minds and then get ready for Spring Training. But no, now we are having discussions that we need 5-7 teams to go to a bowl and so we are going to use Grade Point as the criterion. Are we all nuts. That would be like sitting around and talking about climate change when terrorists are killing millions. Nobody would do that.

[Spence]

Yes, I would rather there not be a playoff, but to have someone who isn't a conference champion or to have two teams from the same conference in such a small sampling of teams is ridiculous. When Alabama beat LSU all they proved was they were the best team in their conference.

[Cane from the Bend]

---Exactly. And conference champions should play in designated bowls. And we can decide who is the national best in our minds and then get ready for Spring Training. But no, now we are having discussions that we need 5-7 teams to go to a bowl---

Here is something which details exactly this point of yours:

— Texas’ chances of qualifying for a 2015 bowl invitation finally have made the transition from far-fetched to nonexistent.

The Longhorns are presently sitting there with a 4-7 record. With the need for at least two and as many as five schools with losing records to fill the 80 postseason spots this year, some had wondered if the Longhorns might be able to snag a bowl trip by beating Baylor and finishing 5-7.

But the NCAA announced Monday that 5-7 teams will be selected for bowls based on their multiyear Academic Progress Rates.

According to the most recent data, which runs through 2013-’14, UT has a multiyear APR of 958. At least seven teams currently sitting on five victories — a list that includes Nebraska, Kansas State, Missouri, San Jose State, Minnesota, Illinois and Rice — own higher APR scores than the Longhorns.

So even if UT finds a way to pull off a stunning upset in Waco, and even with some 5-7 teams being needed to fill the bowls, the Longhorns wouldn’t be in line for one of those spots-

.
.
.