We're in the thick of the P5 aspect of the bowl season (save for the SEC) and some trends are emerging:

1) The PAC is a big dud:

Two ranked PAC teams, Washington State and Stanford, lost last night in the big Alamo and Holiday Bowls. That makes the PAC a dismal 1-5 in bowl season, with Utah beating WVU their lone win versus losses by Oregon, Arizona, Washington State, Stanford, and UCLA.

2) The ACC has hit a rough spot. After starting 2-0 thanks to FSU and Duke beating over-matched G5 teams, the ACC has lost three in a row, with BC losing a close one to Iowa while the two Virginia schools were beaten yesterday by Oklahoma State (respectable) and Navy (wipeout). The ACC went 9-3 in bowls last year, they are 2-3 right now.

3) The B1G is off to a great start, 3-0, thanks to wins by Iowa, Michigan State, and Purdue, all against P5 opponents.

4) The Big 12 started slow, 0-2 thanks to losses by WVU and Texas Tech, but is now on a 4-game win streak, with wins by Kansas State, Texas, TCU, and Oklahoma State all vs fellow P5. The Big 12 is now 4-2.

So going in to today's games (12/29), P5 bowl records are:

B1G ....... 3-0
Big 12 .... 4-2
ACC ....... 2-3
PAC ........ 1-5
SEC ........ 0-1

So far, the higher ranked team in the Sagarin ratings has won all but twice. #12 TCU beat #11 Stanford, and #36 Boise State beat #33 Oregon. So, not a lot of surprises at this point.

Sagarin would have all three remaining PAC teams as underdogs, which would leave them at a soul crushing 1-8 for the bowl season if they all lose.

Sagarin has all five remaining B1G teams ranked ahead of their opponents. If he's right, they would be 8-0 and we will never hear the end of it.

You could make a case that getting left out of the playoffs moved all B1G teams a notch lower in the bowl pecking order, so their stronger teams would play lesser opponents than usual. But, then, the PAC was in the same boat, playoff-wise, and it doesn't seem to be working out for them.

and the P6 AAC is 2-0 against P5 so far. 3-2 overall.

1-0 vs ACC
1-0 vs B12

(12-29-2017 09:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  So far, the higher ranked team in the Sagarin ratings has won all but twice. #12 TCU beat #11 Stanford, and #36 Boise State beat #33 Oregon. So, not a lot of surprises at this point.

Sagarin would have all three remaining PAC teams as underdogs, which would leave them at a soul crushing 1-8 for the bowl season if they all lose.

Sagarin has all five remaining B1G teams ranked ahead of their opponents. If he's right, they would be 8-0 and we will never hear the end of it.

You could make a case that getting left out of the playoffs moved all B1G teams a notch lower in the bowl pecking order, so their stronger teams would play lesser opponents than usual. But, then, the PAC was in the same boat, playoff-wise, and it doesn't seem to be working out for them.

Great point about Sagarin, I hadn't noticed that. And of the two games he's been wrong about, the TCU/Stanford game was extremely close. Only Boise/Oregon was a really bad results.

As for the playoffs, i think that is an important factor: The BIG and PAC do have an advantage over the ACC and Big 12 in bowl matchups thanks to not being in the playoffs, while the SEC, with two, is very handicapped in that regard. And regarding the SEC, that handicap is magnified because many of their bowl games are versus the B1G (e.g., Michigan will probably beat South Carolina by 25 points).

The fact that the PAC is losing anyway despite this edge makes their performance even worse.

(12-29-2017 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 09:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  So far, the higher ranked team in the Sagarin ratings has won all but twice. #12 TCU beat #11 Stanford, and #36 Boise State beat #33 Oregon. So, not a lot of surprises at this point.

Sagarin would have all three remaining PAC teams as underdogs, which would leave them at a soul crushing 1-8 for the bowl season if they all lose.

Sagarin has all five remaining B1G teams ranked ahead of their opponents. If he's right, they would be 8-0 and we will never hear the end of it.

You could make a case that getting left out of the playoffs moved all B1G teams a notch lower in the bowl pecking order, so their stronger teams would play lesser opponents than usual. But, then, the PAC was in the same boat, playoff-wise, and it doesn't seem to be working out for them.

Great point about Sagarin, I hadn't noticed that. And of the two games he's been wrong about, the TCU/Stanford game was extremely close. Only Boise/Oregon was a really bad results.

As for the playoffs, i think that is an important factor: The BIG and PAC do have an advantage over the ACC and Big 12 in bowl matchups thanks to not being in the playoffs, while the SEC, with two, is very handicapped in that regard. And regarding the SEC, that handicap is magnified because many of their bowl games are versus the B1G (e.g., Michigan will probably beat South Carolina by 25 points).

The fact that the PAC is losing anyway despite this edge makes their performance even worse.

In the end I think the Big 10 will prove to be the strongest through the middle tier of schools nationwide, but was weak at the top. I think the right 4 schools are in the CFP.

The PAC was suspect to me all season long because the first two weekends results were overrated. A&M blew a huge lead to UCLA and some of their wins were against schools with issues.

The Big 12 was similar to the Big 10 with the exception of Oklahoma. They were more competitive top to bottom with Kansas and Baylor padding their records.

The bottom half of the SEC was worse than normal. What we'll see by the end of January 1st is whether that impacted the top 3 schools. My suspicion is that Alabama is fine, and that Georgia may be but the weak East could have made their 12-1 record very deceptive. Auburn will be as good as Johnson is healthy. L.S.U. will be more talented than Notre Dame but the Irish will be better coached. Mississippi State / Louisville is the mismatch because of Mullen's departure and the season ending injury of Fitzgerald. Kentucky is punching up against Northwestern and South Carolina will be exposed if not by Michigan, then by next season in an improving SEC East. Muschamp has gotten a pass so far because of the disasters at Florida and Tennessee and the 3 faces of Eve at Missouri. Personally I don't believe him to be any better as a coach than he was at Florida.

But I agree that the rest of the SEC slate was bumped up a bit too far by having two in the CFP. I think we will have done well to go 4-5 or 5-4. More would be a surprise and less would be a disappointment.

(12-29-2017 09:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 09:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  So far, the higher ranked team in the Sagarin ratings has won all but twice. #12 TCU beat #11 Stanford, and #36 Boise State beat #33 Oregon. So, not a lot of surprises at this point.

Sagarin would have all three remaining PAC teams as underdogs, which would leave them at a soul crushing 1-8 for the bowl season if they all lose.

Sagarin has all five remaining B1G teams ranked ahead of their opponents. If he's right, they would be 8-0 and we will never hear the end of it.

You could make a case that getting left out of the playoffs moved all B1G teams a notch lower in the bowl pecking order, so their stronger teams would play lesser opponents than usual. But, then, the PAC was in the same boat, playoff-wise, and it doesn't seem to be working out for them.

Great point about Sagarin, I hadn't noticed that. And of the two games he's been wrong about, the TCU/Stanford game was extremely close. Only Boise/Oregon was a really bad results.

As for the playoffs, i think that is an important factor: The BIG and PAC do have an advantage over the ACC and Big 12 in bowl matchups thanks to not being in the playoffs, while the SEC, with two, is very handicapped in that regard. And regarding the SEC, that handicap is magnified because many of their bowl games are versus the B1G (e.g., Michigan will probably beat South Carolina by 25 points).

The fact that the PAC is losing anyway despite this edge makes their performance even worse.

In the end I think the Big 10 will prove to be the strongest through the middle tier of schools nationwide, but was weak at the top. I think the right 4 schools are in the CFP.

...the SEC slate was bumped up a bit too far by having two in the CFP. I think we will have done well to go 4-5 or 5-4. More would be a surprise and less would be a disappointment.

^^^ THIS ^^^
JR just explained why (1) the Big Ten will do well (no team in the CFP, pushes all B1G teams down 1 spot), and (2) the SEC won't do as well (2 teams in the CFP, pulls all SEC teams up 1 too many).

This was a rebuilding year for the ACC, but I'm still disappointed so far. BC and VT both lost what I would consider evenly-matched games; you'd like to win half of those. On paper I think Wake Forest should beat Texas A&M and NC State should beat Arizona St, so that gets the league back to .500 if chalk holds... but confidence is not high right now.

(12-29-2017 09:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  In the end I think the Big 10 will prove to be the strongest through the middle tier of schools nationwide, but was weak at the top. I think the right 4 schools are in the CFP.

The PAC was suspect to me all season long because the first two weekends results were overrated. A&M blew a huge lead to UCLA and some of their wins were against schools with issues.

The Big 12 was similar to the Big 10 with the exception of Oklahoma. They were more competitive top to bottom with Kansas and Baylor padding their records.

The bottom half of the SEC was worse than normal. What we'll see by the end of January 1st is whether that impacted the top 3 schools. My suspicion is that Alabama is fine, and that Georgia may be but the weak East could have made their 12-1 record very deceptive. Auburn will be as good as Johnson is healthy. L.S.U. will be more talented than Notre Dame but the Irish will be better coached. Mississippi State / Louisville is the mismatch because of Mullen's departure and the season ending injury of Fitzgerald. Kentucky is punching up against Northwestern and South Carolina will be exposed if not by Michigan, then by next season in an improving SEC East. Muschamp has gotten a pass so far because of the disasters at Florida and Tennessee and the 3 faces of Eve at Missouri. Personally I don't believe him to be any better as a coach than he was at Florida.

But I agree that the rest of the SEC slate was bumped up a bit too far by having two in the CFP. I think we will have done well to go 4-5 or 5-4. More would be a surprise and less would be a disappointment.

Outside the CFP, the SEC team is the higher ranked in only 2 of their 7 games - Auburn vs unbeaten UCF, and Mississippi State vs Louisville. I don't think the rankings of #1-4 are all that meaningful - any of those teams could win - but for the record the SEC team is favored in both. So I would agree with your assessment.

(12-29-2017 09:12 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  and the P6 AAC is 2-0 against P5 so far. 3-2 overall.

1-0 vs ACC
1-0 vs B12

LOL...way to go by beating the worse team of the ACC and B12.

For the record, no teams in thr CFP did not change the rest of the match-ups for the Big Ten, but the Orange Bowl spot for Wisconsin did. In or out of the playoff, the Big Ten was going to get 3 teams in the New Years 6 bowls. The one thing that did effect the other bowls though was Wisconsin getting the Orange Bowl bid (and its big payoff) which meant the ACC got the Citrus this year. That pushed everyone down one, which was fine by me as too often thr Big Ten teams seem to be playing up too much in their bowls (and with 3 in the New Years 6, its really not plyaing up for most teams anyway).

(12-29-2017 09:12 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  and the P6 AAC is 2-0 against P5 so far. 3-2 overall.

1-0 vs ACC
1-0 vs B12

So the #3 AAC team beat the #8 B12 team, and the AAC #5 beat the ACC #10 team. Pretty much what you woud expect.

Also, AAC #7 Temple beat CUSA #7 FIU, while ACC #4 Houston lost to MWC #3 Fresno and AAC #6 SMU lost to CUSA #4 Louisiana Tech. Again, about what you would expect.

I think we can say that the AAC is the strongest G5 conference right now.

(12-29-2017 10:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 09:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  In the end I think the Big 10 will prove to be the strongest through the middle tier of schools nationwide, but was weak at the top. I think the right 4 schools are in the CFP.

The PAC was suspect to me all season long because the first two weekends results were overrated. A&M blew a huge lead to UCLA and some of their wins were against schools with issues.

The Big 12 was similar to the Big 10 with the exception of Oklahoma. They were more competitive top to bottom with Kansas and Baylor padding their records.

The bottom half of the SEC was worse than normal. What we'll see by the end of January 1st is whether that impacted the top 3 schools. My suspicion is that Alabama is fine, and that Georgia may be but the weak East could have made their 12-1 record very deceptive. Auburn will be as good as Johnson is healthy. L.S.U. will be more talented than Notre Dame but the Irish will be better coached. Mississippi State / Louisville is the mismatch because of Mullen's departure and the season ending injury of Fitzgerald. Kentucky is punching up against Northwestern and South Carolina will be exposed if not by Michigan, then by next season in an improving SEC East. Muschamp has gotten a pass so far because of the disasters at Florida and Tennessee and the 3 faces of Eve at Missouri. Personally I don't believe him to be any better as a coach than he was at Florida.

But I agree that the rest of the SEC slate was bumped up a bit too far by having two in the CFP. I think we will have done well to go 4-5 or 5-4. More would be a surprise and less would be a disappointment.

Outside the CFP, the SEC team is the higher ranked in only 2 of their 7 games - Auburn vs unbeaten UCF, and Mississippi State vs Louisville. I don't think the rankings of #1-4 are all that meaningful - any of those teams could win - but for the record the SEC team is favored in both. So I would agree with your assessment.

The SEC teams are favored in the playoffs but i am not sure why. The SEC teams are the lower ranked teams in both playoff games.

IMO it is far more likely that neither Bama or Georgia win than that both win.

(12-29-2017 10:57 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  For the record, no teams in thr CFP did not change the rest of the match-ups for the Big Ten, but the Orange Bowl spot for Wisconsin did. In or out of the playoff, the Big Ten was going to get 3 teams in the New Years 6 bowls. The one thing that did effect the other bowls though was Wisconsin getting the Orange Bowl bid (and its big payoff) which meant the ACC got the Citrus this year. That pushed everyone down one, which was fine by me as too often thr Big Ten teams seem to be playing up too much in their bowls (and with 3 in the New Years 6, its really not plyaing up for most teams anyway).

Not having a team in the playoffs means playing weaker NY6 opponents. E.g., instead of playing Clemson, Ohio State plays USC.

(12-29-2017 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 10:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 09:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  In the end I think the Big 10 will prove to be the strongest through the middle tier of schools nationwide, but was weak at the top. I think the right 4 schools are in the CFP.

The PAC was suspect to me all season long because the first two weekends results were overrated. A&M blew a huge lead to UCLA and some of their wins were against schools with issues.

The Big 12 was similar to the Big 10 with the exception of Oklahoma. They were more competitive top to bottom with Kansas and Baylor padding their records.

The bottom half of the SEC was worse than normal. What we'll see by the end of January 1st is whether that impacted the top 3 schools. My suspicion is that Alabama is fine, and that Georgia may be but the weak East could have made their 12-1 record very deceptive. Auburn will be as good as Johnson is healthy. L.S.U. will be more talented than Notre Dame but the Irish will be better coached. Mississippi State / Louisville is the mismatch because of Mullen's departure and the season ending injury of Fitzgerald. Kentucky is punching up against Northwestern and South Carolina will be exposed if not by Michigan, then by next season in an improving SEC East. Muschamp has gotten a pass so far because of the disasters at Florida and Tennessee and the 3 faces of Eve at Missouri. Personally I don't believe him to be any better as a coach than he was at Florida.

But I agree that the rest of the SEC slate was bumped up a bit too far by having two in the CFP. I think we will have done well to go 4-5 or 5-4. More would be a surprise and less would be a disappointment.

Outside the CFP, the SEC team is the higher ranked in only 2 of their 7 games - Auburn vs unbeaten UCF, and Mississippi State vs Louisville. I don't think the rankings of #1-4 are all that meaningful - any of those teams could win - but for the record the SEC team is favored in both. So I would agree with your assessment.

The SEC teams are favored in the playoffs but i am not sure why. The SEC teams are the lower ranked teams in both playoff games.

IMO it is far more likely that neither Bama or Georgia win than that both win.

I think you could make a case for ranking the playoff teams in just about any order. IMO, the committee opted not to have two SEC teams play each other in the semis, and they liked the theater of having a rubber match between Clemson and Alabama.

The point spreads are so close in both semis that they really are pretty much tossups anyway.

Being 2017, shouldn't the thread title read "B12 claps back"?

I think I would like to see all players entering the NFL draft to have to declare their status at the close of championship Saturday and state at that time whether they will be playing in their school's bowl game should they be awarded one. Then when the bowl selection committee meets on Sunday those situations, as well as coaching changes, should be factored into the pairings.

Washington State played Michigan State without 5 starters who for various reasons sat out the game. On paper that should have been a good ball game but it turned out to be a stinker. When you're down your starting QB, your two best wide receivers, and your safety you simply aren't the school that your 9-3 record indicates.

Last year Auburn with a banged up QB should not have been in the Sugar Bowl playing Oklahoma.

We have several other upcoming bowls that will be affected by those leaving early for the draft refusing to play.

If viewership is indeed up this year it's because the rest of TV stinks and going to the movies now costs you and your honey $40. For the most part the games this year haven't really been that good. We've had about 4 good ones so far and last nights T.C.U. / Stanford game was one of them. I hope we finish strong, but feel that handicapping the schools losing coaches or talent should now be a part of the selection process for the sake of the pairings.

(12-29-2017 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think I would like to see all players entering the NFL draft to have to declare their status at the close of championship Saturday and state at that time whether they will be playing in their school's bowl game should they be awarded one. Then when the bowl selection committee meets on Sunday those situations, as well as coaching changes, should be factored into the pairings.

Washington State played Michigan State without 5 starters who for various reasons sat out the game. On paper that should have been a good ball game but it turned out to be a stinker. When you're down your starting QB, your two best wide receivers, and your safety you simply aren't the school that your 9-3 record indicates.

Last year Auburn with a banged up QB should not have been in the Sugar Bowl playing Oklahoma.

We have several other upcoming bowls that will be affected by those leaving early for the draft refusing to play.

If viewership is indeed up this year it's because the rest of TV stinks and going to the movies now costs you and your honey $40. For the most part the games this year haven't really been that good. We've had about 4 good ones so far and last nights T.C.U. / Stanford game was one of them. I hope we finish strong, but feel that handicapping the schools losing coaches or talent should now be a part of the selection process for the sake of the pairings.

Texas survived it despite losing 5 starters and 4 (at least) other regulars. They had their two starting safeties, one a unanimous All-American and a starting tackle who was All American last year (out with injury for the 2nd through 10th games this year) declare for the NFL. They were also missing 2 other defensive starters to injury, so really 4 of their 5 defensive stars. They also lost a starting WR and 2 others who get playing time to suspension, one other to a transfer and one other to injury. They were down to 2 RBs and 1 TE on the squad as well as being pretty thin all over the defense.

Losing players is just part of the game. And other than the playoffs, these aren't important games. With so many bowls, its getting back to where it was in the 60s when they were mostly treated as exhibitions.

(12-29-2017 12:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think I would like to see all players entering the NFL draft to have to declare their status at the close of championship Saturday and state at that time whether they will be playing in their school's bowl game should they be awarded one. Then when the bowl selection committee meets on Sunday those situations, as well as coaching changes, should be factored into the pairings.

Washington State played Michigan State without 5 starters who for various reasons sat out the game. On paper that should have been a good ball game but it turned out to be a stinker. When you're down your starting QB, your two best wide receivers, and your safety you simply aren't the school that your 9-3 record indicates.

Last year Auburn with a banged up QB should not have been in the Sugar Bowl playing Oklahoma.

We have several other upcoming bowls that will be affected by those leaving early for the draft refusing to play.

If viewership is indeed up this year it's because the rest of TV stinks and going to the movies now costs you and your honey $40. For the most part the games this year haven't really been that good. We've had about 4 good ones so far and last nights T.C.U. / Stanford game was one of them. I hope we finish strong, but feel that handicapping the schools losing coaches or talent should now be a part of the selection process for the sake of the pairings.

Texas survived it despite losing 5 starters and 4 (at least) other regulars. They had their two starting safeties, one a unanimous All-American and a starting tackle who was All American last year (out with injury for the 2nd through 10th games this year) declare for the NFL. They were also missing 2 other defensive starters to injury, so really 4 of their 5 defensive stars. They also lost a starting WR and 2 others who get playing time to suspension, one other to a transfer and one other to injury. They were down to 2 RBs and 1 TE on the squad as well as being pretty thin all over the defense.

Losing players is just part of the game. And other than the playoffs, these aren't important games. With so many bowls, its getting back to where it was in the 60s when they were mostly treated as exhibitions.

I can't say it helped Texas. Missouri gave the game away more than Texas won it. 23 of the Longhorn points were either directly attributed to Missouri miscues or were very conveniently set up by them. Missouri actually moved the ball well at times, when they weren't dropping it or throwing it to Texas.

Kind of silly keeping “Bowl Records” now with so many of the NFL Eligibles now sitting out of these glorified exhibition games-(Josh Rosen, Royce Freeman, Malik Jefferson, Bradley Chubb, Denzel Ward etc...etc) and others playing not to get injured...

(12-29-2017 02:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 12:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think I would like to see all players entering the NFL draft to have to declare their status at the close of championship Saturday and state at that time whether they will be playing in their school's bowl game should they be awarded one. Then when the bowl selection committee meets on Sunday those situations, as well as coaching changes, should be factored into the pairings.

Washington State played Michigan State without 5 starters who for various reasons sat out the game. On paper that should have been a good ball game but it turned out to be a stinker. When you're down your starting QB, your two best wide receivers, and your safety you simply aren't the school that your 9-3 record indicates.

Last year Auburn with a banged up QB should not have been in the Sugar Bowl playing Oklahoma.

We have several other upcoming bowls that will be affected by those leaving early for the draft refusing to play.

If viewership is indeed up this year it's because the rest of TV stinks and going to the movies now costs you and your honey $40. For the most part the games this year haven't really been that good. We've had about 4 good ones so far and last nights T.C.U. / Stanford game was one of them. I hope we finish strong, but feel that handicapping the schools losing coaches or talent should now be a part of the selection process for the sake of the pairings.

Texas survived it despite losing 5 starters and 4 (at least) other regulars. They had their two starting safeties, one a unanimous All-American and a starting tackle who was All American last year (out with injury for the 2nd through 10th games this year) declare for the NFL. They were also missing 2 other defensive starters to injury, so really 4 of their 5 defensive stars. They also lost a starting WR and 2 others who get playing time to suspension, one other to a transfer and one other to injury. They were down to 2 RBs and 1 TE on the squad as well as being pretty thin all over the defense.

Losing players is just part of the game. And other than the playoffs, these aren't important games. With so many bowls, its getting back to where it was in the 60s when they were mostly treated as exhibitions.

I can't say it helped Texas. Missouri gave the game away more than Texas won it. 23 of the Longhorn points were either directly attributed to Missouri miscues or were very conveniently set up by them. Missouri actually moved the ball well at times, when they weren't dropping it or throwing it to Texas.

It didn't help, but they worked around it, which is the point. Missouri almost always got stopped. Their two TDS came on one big play and a drive that had been stopped prior to a late hit by Texas. They didn't "drop" the fumbles (although they did drop some passes). All 3 were strips. And it was a great interception. They got 16 points when they had scored over 45 for 6 straight games. Admittedly, that was mostly against the SEC East.

Another Pac loss and on the way to another with Ohio St dominating USC.