Last week’s Bubble Watch included 13 teams. This week, we’re down to 11. There are five teams that control their own destiny, four on the bubble, and two that might have a chance with some chaos. Also, I will include the resume of LSU (the Tigers were already eliminated), just to compare and show why they’re eliminated.
How this works
Let’s give a quick review of how this works.
I include the rankings in yards per play of each team. On one hand, the resume focuses on which teams you have beaten, so I stick to only identifying the quality of wins and losses and show you each contender’s remaining games. On the other hand, the committee “watches teams play,” which is really not a quantifiable statistic, but something that we can at least try to get a bearing on. Still, it’s hard to find an offensive or defensive metric that accurately represents all teams and styles of play.
Some metrics will over-value “air raid” type offenses while some will prefer more consistent, but less explosive, gameplans. The rank in offensive and defensive yards per play gives a basic metric of how efficient and/or consistent a team is on both sides of the ball.
For the purposes of determining quality wins, things like Top 10 and Top 25 are arbitrary numbers that do more harm than good. There is no reason the gap between No. 25 and No. 26 is considered significantly larger than the gap between 24 and 25. Therefore, to counteract this, I am being very lenient as to who is considered Top 10 or Top 25. Any team in the Top 25 of one of the major polls (CFP, AP, or Coaches’), or in a significant number of the accepted computer rankings, will be considered in the Top 25 for resume purposes. This leads to the awkwardness of having more than 25 “Top 25″ teams, but it presents a more accurate picture of the overall resume.
The selection committee has consistently mentioned “wins over teams with winning records” as an important metric, so I’m going to show that to you. It is a less detailed way to view a win than looking at where each win is ranked, but the committee seems to care about it so we have to. I will not count a win over an FCS team as a +.500 win, regardless of record. Again, even though the metric is a stupid one–there are cupcakes with +.500 records (for example, Hawaii and Nevada)–the committee cares about it, so we have to.
The SOS range is taken from numerous computer rankings. Ranges can be quite large, but they do give a decent picture of the possibilities of how strong the schedule actually is.
BUBBLE WATCH
Controls their own destiny
| Team | vs 1-10 | vs 11-25 | vs 26-40 | vs 41-80 | vs 81+ | SOS Range | Wins over
+.500 |
Off YPP (rank) |
Def YPP
(rank) |
| Alabama | 1-0 | 3-0 | 0-0 | 3-0 | 3-0 | 5-35 | 5 | 7.7 (2) | 4.2 (5) |
First of all, the computers absolutely love the SEC. The conference has gone a whopping 38-5 in nonconference games. We’ll see how the SEC holds up overall after a few nonconference losses come in rivalry games (assuming that Clemson beats South Carolina, and maybe Texas A&M or Kentucky loses this week). If the SEC wins those games, the numbers will stay very high. Not that Alabama needs it, of course, but it will matter for other teams later on.
| Team | vs 1-10 | vs 11-25 | vs 26-40 | vs 41-80 | vs 81+ | SOS Range | Wins over +.500 |
Off YPP
(rank) |
Def YPP
(rank) |
| Clemson | 0-0 | 3-0 | 2-0 | 3-0 | 2-0 | 30-50 | 6 | 7.3 (3) | 3.7 (2) |
The Tigers also get the benefit of the computers’ love for Texas A&M, not that they need it either. What sets Alabama and Clemson apart from everyone else? Just look at these offensive and defensive numbers, and look at everyone else’s.
| Team | vs 1-10 | vs 11-25 | vs 26-40 | vs 41-80 | vs 81+ | SOS Range | Wins over
+.500 |
Off YPP
(rank) |
Def YPP
(rank) |
| Notre Dame | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 5-0 | 2-0 | 25-50 | 4 | 6.0 (34) | 4.4 (9) |
Notre Dame is in the most tenuous position of the undefeated teams. Both Clemson and Alabama essentially have a game lead on the field. Notre Dame does not. The lack of quality wins at the top means that a loss to, say, Syracuse, would leave Notre Dame with a rough resume to compare to other to teams. Also, unlike every other major contender this year, the Irish’s offense isn’t quite so potent.
| Team | vs 1-10 | vs 11-25 | vs 26-40 | vs 41-80 | vs 81+ | SOS Range | Wins over
+.500 |
Off YPP
(rank) |
Def YPP
(rank) |
| Michigan | 0-1 | 3-0 | 1-0 | 3-0 | 2-0 | 20-35 | 6 | 6.1 (29) | 3.6 (1) |
The loss to Notre Dame could cost Michigan a Playoff spot, but the Wolverines have been racking up good wins since. Add that to the best defense in the country and an SOS that might settle into the Top 15 after playing Ohio State and Northwestern, and this resume will be Playoff-worthy if Michigan wins out. Whether head-to-head will trump that (if it comes into play) is anyone’s guess.
| Team | vs 1-10 | vs 11-25 | vs 26-40 | vs 41-80 | vs 81+ | SOS Range | Wins over
+.500 |
Off YPP
(rank) |
Def YPP
(rank) |
| Georgia | 0-1 | 4-0 | 1-0 | 3-0 | 1-0 | 3-20 | 6 | 6.8 (11) | 4.8 (27) |
The computers love the SEC, which gives Georgia plenty of quality wins. That could come into play if Georgia loses to Georgia Tech, but beats Alabama. Of course, the SEC strengths of schedule will all plummet this week, so let’s wait a week before worrying too much about how the computers view the SEC.
On the bubble
| Team | vs 1-10 | vs 11-25 | vs 26-40 | vs 41-80 | vs 81+ | SOS Range | Wins over
+.500 |
Off YPP
(rank) |
Def YPP
(rank) |
| Oklahoma | 0-0 | 1-1 | 1-0 | 5-0 | 2-0 | 30-35 | 2 | 8.7 (1) | 5.4 (57) |
This is where the committee’s “wins over teams with winning records” stat is stupid. Fully half the Big 12 sits at 5-5 or 4-6 right now. There are some solid teams in that group–certainly better teams than any 6-4 Group of 5 team. But the committee will view things the way they will view things. The one question for them about Oklahoma is whether the offense is good enough to overcome that atrocious defense. Make sure to run it up against Kansas this week to not give anyone any doubts.
| Team | vs 1-10 | vs 11-25 | vs 26-40 | vs 41-80 | vs 81+ | SOS Range | Wins over
+.500 |
Off YPP
(rank) |
Def YPP
(rank) |
| West Virginia | 0-0 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 5-0 | 2-0 | 35-70 | 1 | 6.9 (7) | 5.1 (42) |
The Mountaineers lack quality wins (they don’t even have that Army win that makes Oklahoma’s resume look stronger). If they beat Oklahoma twice, that might not matter. Then again, if the committee sticks to its silly “wins over teams with winning records” stat, West Virginia might not have a chance anyway. The game against N.C. State being canceled could really hurt the Mountaineers.
| Team | vs 1-10 | vs 11-25 | vs 26-40 | vs 41-80 | vs 81+ | SOS Range | Wins over
+.500 |
Off YPP
(rank) |
Def YPP
(rank) |
| Ohio State | 0-0 | 2-0 | 0-1 | 4-0 | 3-0 | 40-65 | 2 | 6.4 (14) | 5.5 (59) |
Ohio State is also lacking in the “wins over teams with winning records” stat. The loss to Purdue was ugly. Also, Ohio State is helped by the fact that Purdue is barely a Top 40 team, and Tulane and Minnesota are barely Top 80 teams. This resume is on the hinge of looking a lot worse than it does right now. Beating Michigan convincingly is about Ohio State’s only real chance right now, unless total chaos leaves the Buckeyes as the only option, even with a close win.
| Team | vs 1-10 | vs 11-25 | vs 26-40 | vs 41-80 | vs 81+ | SOS Range | Wins over
+.500 |
Off YPP
(rank) |
Def YPP
(rank) |
| Washington State | 0-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 3-1 | 4-0 | 50-100 | 4 | 6.1 (27) | 4.8 (23) |
There is almost no meat on this resume, and a few more upsets in the Pac 12 could leave Washington State with one ranked win, if the Cougars are lucky. On the other hand, things breaking properly could mean four ranked wins by the end of the season. Also, Washington State has the worst loss (at least in terms of quality of the team lost to) of any contender. The other question is if and how the committee would punish Washington State for its nonconference schedule. It hasn’t yet–at least not explicitly–but if it’s close between Washington State and another team, will the committee really want to send a message that scheduling all cupcakes in nonconference play gets you into the Playoff?
Outside looking in
| Team | vs 1-10 | vs 11-25 | vs 26-40 | vs 41-80 | vs 81+ | SOS Range | Wins over
+.500 |
Off YPP
(rank) |
Def YPP
(rank) |
| Syracuse | 0-1 | 0-0 | 1-1 | 2-0 | 5-0 | 65-85 | 2 | 5.8 (49) | 5.8 (84) |
This resume has very little right now. Add a Top 10 and a Top 40 win to the mix, and who knows how good that will be then? The metrics are rough, but the SOS will rise. The committee will also remember that Syracuse almost beat Clemson. If we see enough chaos, a 10-2 Syracuse team is absolutely a viable option.
| Team | vs 1-10 | vs 11-25 | vs 26-40 | vs 41-80 | vs 81+ | SOS Range | Wins over
+.500 |
Off YPP
(rank) |
Def YPP
(rank) |
| UCF | 0-0 | 0-0 | 1-0 | 3-0 | 5-0 | 85-125 | 3 | 7.1 (5) | 5.4 (56) |
This resume has nothing, although UCF’s final three opponents will make it stronger. That’s irrelevant, though. The committee is clearly grading UCF on a curve due to last season. I have no idea how to compare UCF’s resume to anyone else’s. It very clearly doesn’t stack up, though the offensive numbers are elite. The committee has set itself up to let UCF in with a bit more chaos. We’ll see if that happens.
For comparison
| Team | vs 1-10 | vs 11-25 | vs 26-40 | vs 41-80 | vs 81+ | SOS Range | Wins over
+.500 |
Off YPP
(rank) |
Def YPP
(rank) |
| LSU | 1-1 | 2-1 | 0-0 | 2-0 | 3-0 | 2-10 | 4 | 4.9 (101) | 5.0 (40) |
Here is why LSU is eliminated. Yes, there are some ranked wins there because the computers love the SEC so much. Those SOS numbers will plummet when LSU plays Rice this weekend, and the final game against Texas A&M will help a little, but not much. This resume is comparable to the bubble teams above, which is why the committee has LSU at No. 7 right now. But LSU’s resume has peaked. It can only get weaker from here. The resumes of everyone (or at least enough teams) on the bubble will improve. I said that if we see total chaos, LSU could slide back in. However, that would take far more chaos than anyone has any right to predict or expect. LSU is out.
