Tag: Minnesota Golden Gophers

What the CFP Selection Committee Taught Us: Blow teams out

What did we learn from the CFP selection committee’s second rankings? Let’s break down what it all means.

In what is a bit of a first from the CFP selection committee, it actually has a very predictable consistent methodology so far this year. However, it’s not a good methodology, and it’s a trend that’s not a good one. The committee isn’t particularly looking at resumes or strength of schedules. It’s not talking about quality wins or schedule strength. No, this year, the committee only seems to care about how much a team wins by.

Maybe this is a bit of an overreaction based on a small sample size. After all, it’s only the second ranking, and there are potentially somewhat reasonable explanations for all of the rankings. (Well, assuming that “Alabama always gets benefit of the doubt” constitutes a somewhat reasonable explanation.)

Let’s look at it, from bottom to top. SMU–the only team to win but drop out of the rankings–very clearly fell out due to a close win over a bad team. The Mustangs still have a considerably stronger schedule and resume than Appalachian State does. That didn’t seem to matter.

This is the only explanation for both Baylor and Oklahoma being so low. Baylor is one of five undefeated Power 5 teams, and is ranked all the way down at No. 13. Not only is Baylor ranked behind one-loss teams, it’s ranked behind two-loss teams. And, contrary to claims of Baylor having a bad resume (and I’m perfectly fine with the committee punishing Baylor for an atrocious nonconference schedule), the Bears have two ranked wins–more than some of the teams in front of them. Oklahoma also has two ranked wins (and a loss to a ranked team), yet is ranked behind both Utah and Oregon–who combine for zero ranked wins. Rob Mullens did again hint that Baylor was punished for its nonconference schedule, but this message appears clearer.

The committee doesn’t tell us much often. But, for now, at least, the committee seems to have determined that the eye test is king.

Making sense of Alabama, Minnesota, and Penn State

Last week, the committee somewhat contradicted itself with how it ranked Alabama, Penn State, and Clemson. Penn State’s “superior resume” supposedly put the Nittany Lions in front of Clemson, though now it seems far more likely that Clemson was just being punished for a close win over North Carolina. Penn State also has several close wins, but those were all against teams worse than North Carolina.

Alabama, meanwhile, seems to be skating through on the fact that it has blown everyone out. Of course, none of the teams Alabama blew out were particularly good. Alabama has no ranked wins–in fact, this is the first time that a one-loss team has been ranked as high as No. 5 this early in the season without a win over a committee-ranked team.

Minnesota is down at No. 8. The Golden Gophers have–other than LSU’s win over Alabama–the best win of any ranked team. The Golden Gophers are also undefeated, and yet behind four teams with a loss. I honestly have no idea how to explain the fact that Minnesota is behind Utah. Maybe this is just a bit of an oversight by the committee?

Other notes

I said yesterday to keep an eye on if the committee shifts things around, or if teams stay static from week to week. That will tell us if the voters are really re-evaluating from scratch each week, or just moving teams up or down based on who loses.

Well, this week, not a single team is in the same position it was in last week. You would think that’s an indicator that the committee is re-evaluating. Unfortunately, it’s not. 14 of the 25 teams that moved moved only one spot, and all of that was due to teams around them jumping or falling. Minnesota jumped eight spots for beating Penn State, so everyone above Minnesota fell a spot. Penn State dropped, so everyone behind Penn State rose. Wake Forest and Kansas State dropped with losses, so the teams behind them moved up.

No one stayed in the same place, but every team that didn’t lose or pick up a major win stayed in the same relative position. The committee didn’t do any re-evaluating this week. It just took what it had last week, other than teams that deserved major shifts.

Lastly, I should note that the committee is continuing a trend it has shown consistently since 2014. A team doesn’t drop for a close loss to a better team. The example this week is Iowa, which only slid three spots for its very close loss against Wisconsin. One of those spots was Texas, which jumped all the way into the rankings at No. 19 for its upset of Kansas State.

Maybe next week the committee will do more re-evaluating from scratch, and it’s really only the top four that matter anyway. Still, the little we have seen and heard from the selection committee so far this season is not encouraging, to say the least.

Wisconsin fixed problems against Iowa, but will that beat Minnesota?

Considering the Wisconsin Badgers’ situation relative to the Minnesota Golden Gophers after UW’s win over the Iowa Hawkeyes.

Had the Minnesota Golden Gophers not beaten Penn State and made themselves an even bigger target for the Wisconsin Badgers, we wouldn’t be devoting quite as much time or energy to the task of beating the Gophers on Nov. 30. Yet, one can’t work with events as one wishes they would be. One must deal with events as they actually are. It’s called living in the real world.

Minnesota has made itself more of a problem for Wisconsin. It’s not what UW fans wanted, but it is the reality the Badgers must confront. That will be a very hard game to win. Therefore, it is worth spending some of these November days focusing not just on Nebraska and then Purdue, but on P.J. Fleck and his folks. How will the Badgers go into Minneapolis and come away with Paul Bunyan’s Axe?

Based on Wisconsin’s win over the Iowa Hawkeyes this past Saturday, a number of interesting questions and attached tension points have emerged. The question I will explore in this particular piece is as follows: Can Wisconsin win this game simply by eradicating mistakes, or will the Badgers need to push themselves far beyond their limits?

Yes, the best answer is “both,” but let’s be clear before we continue with this brief piece: Against Ohio State (or, to use a non-Big Ten example, LSU or Clemson), it is obvious that Wisconsin and other second-tier teams in the United States have to play way over their heads and make “value-added” plays to have a real chance to win. Is Minnesota that kind of opponent? I am inclined to say “no,” but my opinion doesn’t matter that much. A reasonable middle ground on this question is that while Minnesota certainly isn’t in Ohio State’s league, the Gophers made Penn State look bad for much of this past Saturday’s game and — had they not fumbled when leading by two scores in the third quarter — could have blown the doors off the Nittany Lions.

Minnesota went from being “a team which beats up on the bottom of the Big Ten” to “a team that is for real” against Penn State. Do we know yet if the Gophers are not merely “for real” and “a team to be taken seriously,” but genuinely ELITE? I don’t think so.

The tricky part for Wisconsin: The Badgers can’t use that lack of knowledge to assume they can win merely by avoiding mistakes against the Gophers. This leads us into the heart of this piece, and one of the most fascinating tension points of the game on Nov. 30 in TCF Bank Stadium:

The Badgers’ offense improved when the dumb penalties ceased. Wisconsin’s offense got out of its own way. Its running game flourished when the Badgers weren’t behind schedule. Two plus two equals four.

However, after the offense got out of its own way, the defense allowed a 75-yard touchdown and endured another one of its fourth-quarter swoons, the previous one being against Illinois. We wrote about the problems in the secondary which have allowed that alarming detail to remain part of this team’s identity in the second half of the season.

Imagine, then, if both the offense and the defense spend a full game not making huge mistakes, with the level of performance we saw from Jack Coan (tolerable, but not spectacular). Is that going to be enough against the Gophers? It’s an interesting query. One could go back and forth on that topic.

The strength of the argument rests with the offensive line. If there aren’t any false-start penalties and Jonathan Taylor gets four or more yards per carry, the Badgers could pound Minnesota’s defensive front and turn this game into the trench warfare battle they want. A game based on the elimination of mistakes could be all Wisconsin needs.

The weakness of this argument is based on the awareness of how much speed Minnesota has, not only in relationship to Iowa but to a Wisconsin team which was outflanked at times by Illinois. Keep in mind that if Jack Coan throws the ball against Minnesota the way he did against Iowa, the Gophers’ closing speed in the secondary might turn Wisconsin catches into incompletions on successful pass breakups. Eliminating bad mistakes from the ledger sheet will put Wisconsin in position to win, but that might not be enough to put UW over the top.

Yes, Wisconsin’s offense fixed its problems versus Iowa, and the team in general took a clear step forward from the previous two games. Yet, will that be enough to beat Minnesota? You don’t have to answer that question right away… and that’s part of the point. Wisconsin will have to wrestle with that question over the next few weeks. This is the reality facing the Badgers, now that the Gophers have made themselves such an obstacle, at least in 2019.

What to look for in the CFP selection committee’s second rankings

With the College Football Playoff selection committee about to release their second rankings of the year, here’s what to look out for.

Before I look at what we should be focusing on in the committee’s second rankings, let me start with what not to worry about, even though it will be the most-discussed topic by many pundits.

It doesn’t matter whether LSU or Ohio State is No. 1.

One of those two will be the top-ranked team. Each of them has a valid argument. Ohio State is exemplifying dominance in a way that college football hasn’t seen since the 2013 Florida State team. The Buckeyes have historically high advanced metrics. Ohio State is the best team in college football so far this year, without question.

LSU, also without question, has the best resume. Starting with the win over Alabama as a capstone, the Tigers also have wins over Top 10-15 Florida and Auburn, plus a win over a ranked Texas team. Even LSU’s cupcakes, like Georgia Southern and Utah State, aren’t complete pushovers. LSU has an incredible strength of schedule and the most quality wins of anyone in the country.

Which of those two the committee chooses to put at No. 1 will give us a bit of evidence as to whether the voters care more about metrics or resume, but not much. It’s usually some form of synthesis between the two, and with two teams so far ahead of the rest of the pack like Ohio State and LSU, it really doesn’t matter which they pick.

What the committee says about its decision might mean something. If Rob Mullens said the vote wasn’t particularly close, that would give us some real insight into the committee’s thought process and what it values this year. Unless we get that information, though, don’t focus too much into which team is No. 1 and which is No. 2. Each team is a Playoff lock if it wins out, or even if it loses a game but wins the conference. The top seed only matters for geography and matchup purposes, and with Clemson currently a heavy favorite to finish No. 3, it doesn’t look like anyone could be stuck with the nuisance of facing Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Other than that one, very minor, geographic concern, it really doesn’t matter who is No. 1.

So, what does matter this week? There’s plenty, so let’s break it down.

Poll mentality or not?

The first thing I always focus on in the committee’s rankings is how many teams shift, and by how much. And I don’t mean the teams that win big games or lose games. I mean every team.

The committee claims to start with a blank slate every week. The voters don’t use who they had ranked last week as a starting point. The very best way to tell if this is true or not is by seeing if teams that didn’t do anything noteworthy have their ranking change. Can a team slide up or down after a boring but easy win over a mediocre team? If we’re being honest, that should happen a lot. Every team has played at least eight games by now, so resumes can shift wildly each week.

For example, Ohio State’s previous opponents went a combined 4-2 last week, and Indiana will possibly slide into the rankings during its bye week. That means that, even though a blowout win over Maryland might be meaningless, Ohio State’s resume still improved this past week, and by a decent margin. Now, that’s not going to affect Ohio State’s ranking much because the Buckeyes are obviously either No. 1 or No. 2, but if Ohio State was stuck somewhere in the middle of the rankings, that should lead to new considerations.

The first few years of the selection committee, we actually saw a fair amount of this. Teams would shift on their own, which is a great indicator that resumes were actually being re-judged each week. The past year or two, however, we have not yet really seen much shifting. The committee would make its initial rankings, then stick with a poll mentality unless something changed it. Keep an eye on everyone in this week’s rankings, because it will show if the committee is actually re-evaluating teams.

Next… Where is Alabama

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3

The secondary is primary for Wisconsin if it wants to beat Minnesota

A look at the Wisconsin Badgers’ secondary heading into the final stretch of the regular season.

There is a difference between playing poorly and playing “not well enough.” This reality is a good framework to use when assessing the Wisconsin Badgers’ secondary the past few weeks.

Solid and competent through two and a half or three quarters, the Wisconsin secondary has let down its guard in the fourth quarters of recent games against Illinois in October and then this past Saturday against Iowa. The similarities between the two games are very obvious, and they inform how the Badgers need to improve before the clash against the Minnesota Golden Gophers later this month. Beating Minnesota will enable this season to be remembered with a sense of satisfaction. If the Badgers are to build themselves to a point where they can withstand all of P.J. Fleck’s arrows and spears, the secondary — which hasn’t been bad — needs to be a lot better.

If a team or position unit does its job for two and a half or three quarters, it doesn’t deserve extremely low grades, but if that unit has enough lapses in the final 15 to 20 minutes of a game, no one will care how good the first two and a half quarters were. Such was the reality for Wisconsin after the Illinois game. That scenario very nearly unfolded again versus Iowa, but Chris Orr’s tackle on the 2-point conversion spared the Badgers an overtime period and a possible crisis.

Wisconsin led Illinois 20-7 deep into the third quarter. Illinois scored 17 points in the final 16 minutes to win. Wisconsin led Iowa 21-6 after three quarters. Iowa scored 16 points in the final 15 minutes to very nearly forge a tie. The Badgers’ secondary is like LeBron James in his disastrous 2011 NBA Finals series against the Dallas Mavericks: He wasn’t worth a dollar because he always came a quarter short.

LeBron couldn’t solve the fourth quarter in that series, as a member of the Miami Heat. The Mavs raised their game, and LeBron froze instead of becoming sharper in the cauldron of pressure. Something akin to that has happened with the Wisconsin secondary against Illinois and now Iowa. The Badgers gave hardly anything away and put an opposing offense on lockdown for nearly 45 minutes, and then lost the plot in the final 15.

Iowa’s Tyrone Tracy got free on an intermediate/deep-intermediate pass and outraced the Wisconsin defense the rest of the way for a 75-yard touchdown which changed the tone and trajectory of Saturday’s fourth quarter in Camp Randall Stadium. Illinois produced pass plays of 48 and 29 yards against Wisconsin to fuel its comeback. The Illini also got a 43-yard touchdown run in their late rally.

The big pass plays which have struck Wisconsin’s secondary have not been long bombs, either. These are not cases of quarterbacks throwing 50-yard heaves and the receivers outleap Badger cornerbacks. These are intermediate or deep-intermediate throws which involve a long run after the catch is made. Angles, reactions, positioning, and responsibility all enter into these shortcomings. They keep recurring, and they have to be nipped in the bud.

Wisconsin has a 75-cent defense right now. Finding that fourth and final quarter of quality is primary for the Badgers and their secondary.