Cyclones up to No. 16, highest ranked Big 12 team in latest AP Poll

[AuH2O]

9-3 Big Ten teams are not going to be better than 10-2 or 11-2 Big 12 teams unless they have the absolutely toughest schedule you could craft, definitely not better than a 12-1 b12 ccg loser.

9-3 SEC could be easily. The SEC is far deeper than usual with only one team looking truly bad. The Big ten has a very weak middle and bottom as it always does which is why computers grade out big ten and big 12 pretty much identical this year but SEC quite a bit above both.

With all the unbalanced schedules I don't think you can even say a "9-3 Big 10 team vs. an 8-4 SEC team vs. a 10-2 Big 12 team" and so on. There have been unbalanced schedules for a while, but it's exaggerated now with the size of the conferences. It needs to be more of an NCAA tourney where teams are just evaluated overall on results and SOS. And I'm not even saying that from the frame of mind that the Big 12 is going to get screwed. I'm thinking even within the Big 10 or SEC you could see a 9-3 team being better and more deserving than a 10-2 based on who they played. So far I think the Big 12 looks like too much parity to make that type of case. But in the other two leagues it seems like there are some serious tiers with big gaps.

 

[BoomerClone]

who in this conference deserves to be above #12?

Iowa state

 

[HFCS]

With all the unbalanced schedules I don't think you can even say a "9-3 Big 10 team vs. an 8-4 SEC team vs. a 10-2 Big 12 team" and so on. There have been unbalanced schedules for a while, but it's exaggerated now with the size of the conferences. It needs to be more of an NCAA tourney where teams are just evaluated overall on results and SOS. And I'm not even saying that from the frame of mind that the Big 12 is going to get screwed. I'm thinking even within the Big 10 or SEC you could see a 9-3 team being better and more deserving than a 10-2 based on who they played. So far I think the Big 12 looks like too much parity to make that type of case. But in the other two leagues it seems like there are some serious tiers with big gaps.

Agree in general but SEC is unusually deep with teams like Vandy, Kentucky, Tennessee and South Carolina all being better than they've been the past decade.

The knock on SEC schedules is they only play 8 and while some load up the non-conf, some play 3-4 cupcakes. Through the entire time of the round robin Big 12 that's what kept SEC and Big 12 basically a wash on schedule strength.

It's almost impossible to have an "easy" 8 game SEC schedule this year, but it's still only 8 games.

 

[HFCS]

I hope you are right about the Big 10, but I'm still nervous about it. Lets say USC loses to Penn State and Notre Dame to go 9-3. Lets say Iowa State loses to Utah and KSU and goes 10-2 and no Big 12 championship game.

USC would have wins over LSU, Nebraska, Rutgers?
ISU would have wins over Iowa, West Virginia, UCF?

I think USC gets in over ISU in that scenario.

I was talking about reality and data. In terms of the committee we know it's always been stacked with Big Ten personnel and the only reason it even exists is to prop them up.

 

[BoomerClone]

Iowa's not going 10-2 they have no passing game. Again. They have about 4-5 tossup because they're 1 dimensional and won't sweep them. 8-4 is more like it

If pressured, I’d put money on Iowa going 10-2 before I’d put money on them going 8-4.

 

[HFCS]

Michigan is about only one that fits that bill but I think they end up with 4 or 5 losses. They play texas, Oregon, and Ohio State. In addition to getting in with 3 losses I don't think they can afford another blowout. With 12 teams now getting in I think style points are going to matter when you're sorting through the 10 to 15 spots

With the SEC still only playing 8 and the Big Ten beefing up in football, there's definitely a case that a Big Ten schedule and tough non conf can be the elite SOS now, especially with OSU/Mich a guaranteed rivalry for those two. Then you've got Rutgers schedule on the other end that'll probably finish around 70th at best.

Sagarin overall conf strength through non-conf and a couple weeks of conference. Big Ten has to be REALLY unbalanced to grade out below new Big 12. FWIW they've been eyelash different every single week, essentially tied.

 

[AuH2O]

Agree in general but SEC is unusually deep with teams like Vandy, Kentucky, Tennessee and South Carolina all being better than they've been the past decade.

The knock on SEC schedules is they only play 8 and while some load up the non-conf, some play 3-4 cupcakes. Through the entire time of the round robin Big 12 that's what kept SEC and Big 12 basically a wash on schedule strength.

It's almost impossible to have an "easy" 8 game SEC schedule this year, but it's still only 8 games.

Yeah, I don't think this year it is possible at all to have an easy SEC schedule. But with the size of the league and only 8 games you could have some WILDLY different SOS in their league schedules. So much so that I think it's possible that a team could and should be able to leap over another in the league standings to get in the playoff or be seeded higher.

It makes me sick a bit, but I'm fully buying the SEC hype this year, just because it's finally got what it's been missing in a given year, which is incredible depth. It's always given the illusion of a deep league because you had different teams take turns at the top of CFB, but in any given year it has still really been pretty top-heavy.

The league is super deep right now.

 

[HFCS]

Yeah, I don't think this year it is possible at all to have an easy SEC schedule. But with the size of the league and only 8 games you could have some WILDLY different SOS in their league schedules. So much so that I think it's possible that a team could and should be able to leap over another in the league standings to get in the playoff or be seeded higher.

It makes me sick a bit, but I'm fully buying the SEC hype this year, just because it's finally got what it's been missing in a given year, which is incredible depth. It's always given the illusion of a deep league because you had different teams take turns at the top of CFB, but in any given year it has still really been pretty top-heavy.

The league is super deep right now.

During the entire 4 team and now 12 team playoff era I've always been fine with SEC getting more teams than other leagues. It's just the best conference the same way the Big 12 has pretty easily been the best basketball conference for over a full decade.

Big Ten has to prove to me that they're significantly deeper than the top 3-4 teams. I've never seen it and every year the data grades it out. There were lots of years even the Big Ten East on its own graded out as weaker than 10 team Big 12, throwing in the west there wasn't a single year the past decade the Big Ten had better football.

 

[AuH2O]

With the SEC still only playing 8 and the Big Ten beefing up in football, there's definitely a case that a Big Ten schedule and tough non conf can be the elite SOS now, especially with OSU/Mich a guaranteed rivalry for those two. Then you've got Rutgers schedule on the other end that'll probably finish around 70th at best.

Sagarin overall conf strength through non-conf and a couple weeks of conference. Big Ten has to be REALLY unbalanced to grade out below new Big 12. FWIW they've been eyelash different every single week, essentially tied.
View attachment 135276

This is going to be driven by non-con results and how those opponents fared. I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded, but what happens in league play isn't going to move that league up or down. It should be irrelevant. In other words, ISU beating Houston or vice versa should have no impact on overall Big 12 strength, as it just dictates a shift in parity vs. top heaviness.

Where ISU vs. Houston would matter for example is moving up the Big 10 due to ISU being an opponent of a Big 10 team, while moving down the SEC with Houston playing OU. All of those would be marginal impacts, but they all add up.

But it is interesting, as I felt like the Big 12 did not have a very good non-con, or at least it did not meet my expectations. Yet it did well enough to separate from the ACC and be right there with the Big 10. It looks like much of that is the Big 12 non-con opponents tend to be performing well in their respective other non-con and league games.

 

[BoomerClone]

During the entire 4 team and now 12 team playoff era I've always been fine with SEC getting more teams than other leagues. It's just the best conference the same way the Big 12 has pretty easily been the best basketball conference for over a full decade.

Big Ten has to prove to me that they're significantly deeper than the top 3-4 teams. I've never seen it and every year the data grades it out. There were lots of years even the Big Ten East on its own graded out as weaker than 10 team Big 12, throwing in the west there wasn't a single year the past decade the Big Ten had better football.

Exactly. I’m perfectly fine with the SEC getting more teams in than any conference. The B1G is only strong on paper. I’d never be ok with more than 1 automatic bid per conference.

 

[cytor]

Yeah, I don't think this year it is possible at all to have an easy SEC schedule. But with the size of the league and only 8 games you could have some WILDLY different SOS in their league schedules. So much so that I think it's possible that a team could and should be able to leap over another in the league standings to get in the playoff or be seeded higher.

It makes me sick a bit, but I'm fully buying the SEC hype this year, just because it's finally got what it's been missing in a given year, which is incredible depth. It's always given the illusion of a deep league because you had different teams take turns at the top of CFB, but in any given year it has still really been pretty top-heavy.

The league is super deep right now.

Ole' Miss non con schedule was pathetic. They finally played a quality team on Saturday and lost. I stand by what I said earlier.... play a 9 game conference schedule like everyone else, then let's see what we have. I still think the SEC is the top conference, but would like to see them compete against each other... you know there would be more upsets and unexpected outcomes if they did do the 9 conference games.

 

[AuH2O]

During the entire 4 team and now 12 team playoff era I've always been fine with SEC getting more teams than other leagues. It's just the best conference the same way the Big 12 has pretty easily been the best basketball conference for over a full decade.

Big Ten has to prove to me that they're significantly deeper than the top 3-4 teams. I've never seen it and every year the data grades it out. There were lots of years even the Big Ten East on its own graded out as weaker than 10 team Big 12, throwing in the west there wasn't a single year the past decade the Big Ten had better football.

The hard part is that in terms of a playoff, that depth of the league is great, but you're way better off being an OK league with a few teams that are way above the rest rather than a great league that's all mucked up. Even if the SEC is clearly better than the other leagues, and might justify getting 5 teams in based on overall strength and thinking that's the right proportion of the playoff, if the 5th best team is only 7-5 because, say Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Tennessee all win 9+ reg season games, then they probably are only getting 4.

To me there is also an important approach to the playoff that I think needs to be used. To me the idea of the playoff is not to get the 12 best teams in. It's to make absolute sure you are getting the best 8 or so teams in. The reason that is different is with unbalanced schedules we really can't say with certainty if some 13-0 G5 is the best team or 15th best team. But we can say that if you finished 4th in your league, you aren't the best team in the country. You might get hot in a playoff and win, but you aren't the best team.

So make sure you get the best 4, 5, or 8 teams in. But after that, if you aren't sure err on the side of accounting for unknowns and uneven schedules.

 

[AuH2O]

Ole' Miss non con schedule was pathetic. They finally played a quality team on Saturday and lost. I stand by what I said earlier.... play a 9 game conference schedule like everyone else, then let's see what we have. I still think the SEC is the top conference, but would like to see them compete against each other... you know there would be more upsets and unexpected outcomes if they did do the 9 conference games.

You'll notice I left Ole Miss out and think they are a complete pretender in my other post. Either play 9 conference games or make sure everyone has a respectable non-con.

 

[HFCS]

This is going to be driven by non-con results and how those opponents fared. I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded, but what happens in league play isn't going to move that league up or down. It should be irrelevant. In other words, ISU beating Houston or vice versa should have no impact on overall Big 12 strength, as it just dictates a shift in parity vs. top heaviness.

Where ISU vs. Houston would matter for example is moving up the Big 10 due to ISU being an opponent of a Big 10 team, while moving down the SEC with Houston playing OU. All of those would be marginal impacts, but they all add up.

But it is interesting, as I felt like the Big 12 did not have a very good non-con, or at least it did not meet my expectations. Yet it did well enough to separate from the ACC and be right there with the Big 10. It looks like much of that is the Big 12 non-con opponents tend to be performing well in their respective other non-con and league games.

Just using data, a big ten schedule needs to be extremely loaded to be any more difficult than the average Big 12 schedule. 5 weeks in computer models show them identical overall strength.

It just shows how absurd and insecure they were claiming to need 3-4 auto bids. It’d be no different than Big 12 basketball demanding 8-10 auto ncaa tournament bids and frankly big 12 basketball has far more data and evidence to make such a demand.

 

[GoHawks]

With the SEC still only playing 8 and the Big Ten beefing up in football, there's definitely a case that a Big Ten schedule and tough non conf can be the elite SOS now, especially with OSU/Mich a guaranteed rivalry for those two. Then you've got Rutgers schedule on the other end that'll probably finish around 70th at best.

Sagarin overall conf strength through non-conf and a couple weeks of conference. Big Ten has to be REALLY unbalanced to grade out below new Big 12. FWIW they've been eyelash different every single week, essentially tied.
View attachment 135276

Problem with Sargin imo is that it doesn't give much weight to the top. It's a useful tool don't get me wrong but shouldn't be the only one. Utah is a good quality team for example and probably the toughest Iowa State will play since it's on the road I give it the edge over Kansas State but Iowa State could win both of those games. I don't think Iowa or Iowa State would have much of a shot playing at Ohio State. You'll see the former play out this weekend. Michigan will also have to play at Ohio State. Those are essentially automatic losses. Iowa doesnt play any of the other top teams so they dont have much of an argument but a team like Michigan might if its 3 losses are essentially 3 top 10 teams. If you aren't grading the top as much as the middle then I can't completely buy into the formula.

 

[cyclones500]

CBS power ranking. ISU not quite as high as ESPN's, but same range.

College Football Power Rankings: Clemson, Missouri join top 10 amid shakeup after wild Week 5 slate

Notable losses across the board caused some shuffling in this week's Power Rankings

www.cbssports.com

 

[GoHawks]

If pressured, I’d put money on Iowa going 10-2 before I’d put money on them going 8-4.

I'd be very suprised. Schedule was weaker last year and they won about every close game except Minnesota to just get there. They'll need some breaks for sure

 

[HFCS]

Problem with Sargin imo is that it doesn't give much weight to the top. It's a useful tool don't get me wrong but shouldn't be the only one. Utah is a good quality team for example and probably the toughest Iowa State will play since it's on the road I give it the edge over Kansas State but Iowa State could win both of those games. I don't think Iowa or Iowa State would have much of a shot playing at Ohio State. You'll see the former play out this weekend. Michigan will also have to play at Ohio State. Those are essentially automatic losses. Iowa doesnt play any of the other top teams so they dont have much of an argument but a team like Michigan might if its 3 losses are essentially 3 top 10 teams. If you aren't grading the top as much as the middle then I can't completely buy into the formula.

What computer model do you use?

Sagarin has had ISU exact same ranking as AP all five weeks and you can quickly look at all FBS teams rather than just 35ish, to me it's infinitely more useful than looking at AP poll if I'm trying to judge top to bottom strength of all conferences.

The Big 12 is now just a conference of a lot of good but not great teams, with a few bad teams. I think computer models can be really useful pointing out that Ohio State is only 1/18th of the Big Ten and the rest of the conference really isn't any better than the Big 12, in fact the middle and bottom are likely worse which is why they've been exactly tied in Sagarin all season.

 

[mj4cy]

i doubt michigan is part of the CFB. Love it that OU will be probably be out looking in.

I'm fascinated by the OU experiment in all of this. They'll have the money and the SEC brand but will their fans care after awhile? I just can't see them keeping up with Bama, Georgia, Texas, LSU ect.

 

[Kinch]

I'm fascinated by the OU experiment in all of this. They'll have the money and the SEC brand but will their fans care after awhile? I just can't see them keeping up with Bama, Georgia, Texas, LSU ect.

I can’t either. Auburn is a very weak team and OU almost got beat by them. OU might give Texas a run since it’s a rivalry game, but I really don’t see them being favored the rest of their conference games. And next season they have at least five teams they will probably lose to. OU could reasonably be looking at a 14-12, 15-11 record the first two years in the SEC and no chance of reaching the playoffs.
OU’s AD said the Sooners will not lose their pipeline to Texas high school players like Nebby did. I’m not sure abou that.
Think about this unlikely scenario when Texas bolted. OU stays, convinces Nebby, Mizzou to rejoin and somehow convinces Arky to leave the SEC. The TV money would be on par (close) with the SEC and the path for the CFP would be a lot easier. I realize that’s pretty far fetched. But in 10 years, OU may look back and ask “what if”?