ADVERTISEMENT

CFP Rankings

Washington has only played two teams with winning records. Four of their eight opponents are currently sitting at 2-6. Utah is the only quality win on their resume.
A&M got blown out by Alabama in their biggest game. Last time I checked Washington doesn't get to decide who they play in conference games. You shouldn't punish a team because their conference sucks.
 
A&M got blown out by Alabama in their biggest game. Last time I checked Washington doesn't get to decide who they play in conference games. You shouldn't punish a team because their conference sucks.
A&M didn't get blown out. Did you watch the game? They took a 14-13 lead briefly in the third quarter. This of course angered the mighty Crimson Tide and they proceeded to go on a 19-0 run to end the game.

Alabama is the best team in the country by a large margin, and A&M gave them the stiffest test they've faced all season. I have no problem with A&M at #4.

Also, please note that THESE RANKINGS DON'T MATTER NOR ARE THEY CUMULATIVE! Only the final rankings matter. All these teams have a chance to lose or win more games.
 
A&M didn't get blown out. Did you watch the game? They took a 14-13 lead briefly in the third quarter. This of course angered the mighty Crimson Tide and they proceeded to go on a 19-0 run to end the game.
So they didn't get blown out because they played good for three quarters? I guess you could call that a moral victory.

Also, please note that THESE RANKINGS DON'T MATTER NOR ARE THEY CUMULATIVE! Only the final rankings matter. All these teams have a chance to lose or win more games.
Obviously, but you've got to discuss something on this board. I figured you would like the traffic. You bitch when nobody comes over here and you bitch when someone does. You're just like a women. ;)
 
Not sure that's any worse. We'll agree to disagree on that one.
Washington's OOC opponents are a combined 8-16 (33%). aTm's are 11-13 (46%) using the teams you cited, 14-18 (44%) if you include UCLA. Washington's are objectively worse, not that it makes much difference.

I think we have already established that you can't pick your conference opponent.
Right. Washington can't help it that their opponents to date have sucked, nor can aTm help it that theirs have been much stronger. There is still no rationale for rewarding Washing for beating terrible competition while not rewarding aTm for beating good competition. The only mark on the Aggies' resume is a road loss to a team that is far-and-away the best team in college football. The committee obviously chose not to weight the loss very heavily.
 
What the committee probably asked themselves was "would Washington be 8-0 with A&Ms's schedule?" and while that's a huge hypothetical and probably not the best or most fair way to look at it, realistically the answer to that question is no probably not. So in their minds they basically invalidated Washingtons undefeatedness and said
we think Tex AM is better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raising Heel
There is still no rationale for rewarding Washing for beating terrible competition while not rewarding aTm for beating good competition.
That really wasn't my point. I was saying that neither one should be rewarded or punished for playing a game they were forced to play.
 
So let me get this straight. A&M gets blown out by Alabama, but they still jump an undefeated Washington team. No SEC bias there. It's nice to see the Heels ranked in the first week. Hopefully we can finish in the top 15.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/21/seasontype/2/year/2016/week/10
That is a good point, but here is another: the Pac sucks. It is soft football, and it is always propped up artificially because right after WW2 it agreed to take the bribe of the chief Whore, the Big Ten, to close the Rose Bowl.
 
That is a good point, but here is another: the Pac sucks. It is soft football, and it is always propped up artificially because right after WW2 it agreed to take the bribe of the chief Whore, the Big Ten, to close the Rose Bowl.
I agree that the PAC isn't very good, but I don't think a team should be punished or rewarded for something that's outside of their control.
 
Washington wins out, and they still get in because they would have a 13th game and win as well with a PAC title.....Same thing happened to Baylor and TCU as Ohio State passed them in the final polls after claiming the B1G title in impressive fashion over Wisconsin a couple years ago, so we've already seen this happen before.....

If that doesn't happen, we will see an 8-team playoff sooner rather than later because 2 P-5 Champions will be watching the Semifinals instead of participating in it?

It's common sense that we need an 8-team playoff format that gives the winner of the conference championship game, a spot in the playoffs, and validates that conference as a whole....

Right now we're discussing who sucks and who doesn't, and whose schedule is tougher than the other....Folks, it shouldn't matter because the champion of ANY of the P-5 conferences should be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs where they would rightly have the opportunity to prove whether their worthy or not as a Conference Champion....

I don't disagree with anything said above because I share some of the same views, but it's not for me, you or the Committee to decide whether a conference champion should be left out of the playoffs or not ...And that's why there should be 5 Champions with 1 Playoff representative from the Group of 5 schools and 2 Wildcards decided by the Committee to complete an 8-team playoff...Higher seeds play the first(quarterfinals) round at home with the Semifinals set up much like they are now with a rotation around the country....I've never liked the idea of a playoff that doesn't include all P-5 champions, and that view will never change...

Let the Committee have their biases in choosing the 2 Wildcards in the 8-team format, and a lot more folks like me would be happy!
 
I agree that the PAC isn't very good, but I don't think a team should be punished or rewarded for something that's outside of their control.
Then your argument is to completely disregard strength of schedule when determining rankings. Does that mean an undefeated Group of 5 team should get in the Playoffs over a 12-1 Power 5 team that won its conference championship?
 
Then your argument is to completely disregard strength of schedule when determining rankings. Does that mean an undefeated Group of 5 team should get in the Playoffs over a 12-1 Power 5 team that won its conference championship?
I don't think it should be completely disregarded. My orginal point was that there is a bias towards the SEC in the rankings.
 
I don't think it should be completely disregarded. My orginal point was that there is a bias towards the SEC in the rankings.
I disagree. They've unquestionably been the best conference by most objective metrics you want to use over the last decade. The same can be said this season. That's not bias. That's giving credit where credit is due.
Plus, @tarheel0910 you need to keep in mind that the rankings are only based on what has happened so far. The committee doesn't necessarily take into consideration that Washington leads their division while A&M doesn't because the season is incomplete.

If Washington wins their conference, they will almost assuredly be ranked ahead of A&M in the final poll because Washington will be a conference champion and A&M will not. Conference champion is a major portion of the committee's ranking system.
 
I disagree. They've unquestionably been the best conference by most objective metrics you want to use over the last decade. The same can be said this season. That's not bias. That's giving credit where credit is due.
I never said they weren't the best conference. They can be the best and get better treatment than they should. Same thing the ACC gets in basketball. Maybe I should have said they get the benefit of the doubt instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
Plus, @tarheel0910 you need to keep in mind that the rankings are only based on what has happened so far. The committee doesn't necessarily take into consideration that Washington leads their division while A&M doesn't because the season is incomplete.

If Washington wins their conference, they will almost assuredly be ranked ahead of A&M in the final poll because Washington will be a conference champion and A&M will not. Conference champion is a major portion of the committee's ranking system.
Obviously, but the final poll doesn't come out until the end of the season. It's hard to discuss it now since we haven't seen it.
 
I agree that an 8 team playoff format would be much more representative and thus more fair. I do not think it should be expanded beyond 8.
Eight is too many. College football has thrived ever since the introduction of the BCS system because every game is like a playoff. Basically every game is a must-win.

If you make it an 8-team playoff and just assign auto-spots to conference champions, a lot of the regular season becomes meaningless. OOC games become literally meaningless except for the 2-3 teams seeking an at-large bid. An 8-team playoff makes it like the NFL where any one particular regular season game doesn't matter.

That would be terrible for college football, IMO. The only expansion I favor is to 5 with the #1 seed getting a bye. That's the only expansion I'd ever agree with, and even that, I don't want. I think the 4-team playoff with the NY6 Bowls is a perfect setup. It preserves the foundation of the BCS bowl system and adds in the playoff component.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeelFan58
Penn State at number 12?

Really?

Does that mean they give Pitt credit for beating a number 12 team? Doubt it.
 
several headscratchers. If nebraska is #10, then Western Mich should be not far below if we're just crediting people for not losing.
 
Eight is too many. College football has thrived ever since the introduction of the BCS system because every game is like a playoff. Basically every game is a must-win.

If you make it an 8-team playoff and just assign auto-spots to conference champions, a lot of the regular season becomes meaningless. OOC games become literally meaningless except for the 2-3 teams seeking an at-large bid. An 8-team playoff makes it like the NFL where any one particular regular season game doesn't matter.

That would be terrible for college football, IMO. The only expansion I favor is to 5 with the #1 seed getting a bye. That's the only expansion I'd ever agree with, and even that, I don't want. I think the 4-team playoff with the NY6 Bowls is a perfect setup. It preserves the foundation of the BCS bowl system and adds in the playoff component.

I disagree....How does the regular season become meaningless if teams have to win their division just to make a conference championship game?

I think the biggest hesitation right now about going to an 8-team playoff is that you give Notre Dame no incentive to join a conference in the future, since 2 Wildcard spots would be available every year.....The longer we stay at a 4 team playoff, the better the chance of the Irish joining a conference sooner rather than later....Just my opinion!

I've never liked the idea that a person or a computer should select teams for the playoff based on their opinions....Qualifying for playoffs, shouldn't be based on what someone or something thinks or calculates, but rather what that team does on the field of play, and that's why I will never be satisfied with the current setup....If it's good enough for Youth Football, High School Football and the NFL to win on the field, and you team qualifies for the playoffs, then why shouldn't that setup be good enough for College Football?....I honestly never really cared about who the AP, UPI, Coaches or whatever poll selected as champion when I was growing up because I knew those Champions were not legitimate because they were created from opinions and not actual results from playoff games that had been contested....

Nobody knows for certainty at the beginning of the season who the conference champions for each respective P-5 conference will be, so I don't see how scheduling teams to improve strength of schedule would change...A committee would probably be needed to seed the P-5 conference champs along with the Group of 5 Champ, and to pick the 2 Wildcards, and that's the way it should be IMO.....Right now, it's laughable to believe there aren't any biases in that committee meeting room, and the first poll reveals that IMO....No way Texas A&M should be ranked in the top 4 ahead of Unbeaten Washington, but like I said above, the Huskies still control their own destiny, and all they have to do is win out, and win the PAC-12 title, and they'll be included just like OSU did a couple years ago...

Good discussions with different viewpoints are always a good thing!
 
First thing's first:
Good discussions with different viewpoints are always a good thing!
Totally agree!

Okay now back to the discussion:
I disagree....How does the regular season become meaningless if teams have to win their division just to make a conference championship game?
I said "a lot of the regular season becomes meaningless . . . OOC games become literally meaningless except for the 2-3 teams seeking an at-large bid."

Like I said in my post, and I just wanna reiterate it because I really do think it's true, college football is so popular for one reason (beyond the obvious that the fanbase is tied directly to their team because of being alumni) and that reason is that every single game matters in the regular season.

This is true for teams at the very top all the way down to teams toward the bottom. If you're a title-contender like Alabama, every game matters because you can only lose once at most. If you're a title-contender from a poorer conference on any given year (Big 12 this year, for instance), every game really really matters because you can't lose once if you want to make the playoff. Meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum, if you're a team like a Virginia or an NC State just trying to get bowl eligible, every game still matters. Obviously you're losing a decent amount of these games, but every game still matters because every win you can carve out is so precious toward that 7/6 game threshold. In this fashion, like 80% of the 128 D-1 schools have something to play for every single week of the regular season. They're all chasing something.

Now compare that to the NFL where basically every team is +/- 2 wins from an 8-8 record and, what, 12 of the 30 teams make the playoffs? It waters down the excitement because losses don't really hurt you that much unless you lose A LOT. College is much more intense week in and week out because you can't slip up once!

Now, considering they did go to an 8-team playoff, this would make OOC games completely meaningless. That surreal Ohio State home-and-home with your favorite school you've always dreamed of? Say your school's AD successfully arranges a home-and-home with tOSU...this is great!!! Except...no it isn't. It's lost its luster completely now because whoever wins or loses the game gains nothing from it except pride. You could be an ACC team and schedule an OOC of Alabama, USC, Texas, and Florida, and you could lose all four of those games, and still make the playoff, simply because you did well in your division and then stole one in the conference championship game. See the folly here in having auto-bids? I like the current system because there is no auto-bid. Being a conference champion certainly is a huge part of making the playoff in this 4-team system, but it isn't the only metric. So far, all conference champions in this playoff format have been really good record-wise, i.e. 12-1, 13-0, something like that. But I promise you if a team has a rough season yet makes it to the CCG and wins and is sitting there as conference champion at 9-4, the committee won't put them in the playoff.

That is why I like the current setup of 4 teams. It rewards good OOC scheduling and it accounts for years where a conference is just way down and won't pick a team from that conference to be in the playoff.

If they do go to 8, one of two things will happen with OOC scheduling:
1. literally no one will schedule good OOCs anymore since they're meaningless and it will just be cupcake after cupcake with no end in sight.
2. Teams will schedule really, really stiff home-and-homes OOC since the threat of losing is no longer an issue, but........the luster is really taken off the appeal of these matchups because they're nothing more than glorified training scrimmages (unless you're seeking an at-large bid).
 
This is true for teams at the very top all the way down to teams toward the bottom. If you're a title-contender like Alabama, every game matters because you can only lose once at most. If you're a title-contender from a poorer conference on any given year (Big 12 this year, for instance), every game really really matters because you can't lose once if you want to make the playoff. Meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum, if you're a team like a Virginia or an NC State just trying to get bowl eligible, every game still matters. Obviously you're losing a decent amount of these games, but every game still matters because every win you can carve out is so precious toward that 7/6 game threshold. In this fashion, like 80% of the 128 D-1 schools have something to play for every single week of the regular season. They're all chasing something.
The argument of playing for bowl eligibility for mid-tier teams doesn't really hold any water, since you could continue to have the essentially meaningless bowl games at the end of the season for everybody who isn't in the 8-team playoff. Nothing changes there, really.

What does change is removing the subjectivity of who gets to play for a championship. Want to be in the playoff? Win your conference. To me 8 is perfect. That's enough to capture everyone who has a realistic argument that they deserve a chance at a 'ship, either by winning their P5 conference or otherwise by having a stellar season. And it doesn't add so many games that it extends the season too much. I don't see how that would make the regular season less meaningful, as top teams are playing to either win their conference or have an almost-perfect record in order to make the playoff, and lower teams are playing for bowl eligibility just as they are now.
 
4 team playoff is acceptable to me since the whole idea originally was to pick the top 2 teams but there was some debate and controversy on who they were.

Picking the top 4 means it is likely the top 2 are among them. The 3rd and 4th best teams are there to make sure no legit top 2 team is left out is the way I see it. If the committee messes that up some but there is no controversy over at least having the top 2 teams, then maybe we should live with that?
 
You can't be surprised at the SEC bias at this point. Yes, they're the best conference, but they don't deserve to be treated like an NFL division.

Maybe the Heels should just schedule all their OOC games as SEC opponents. Even if they lose all of them they'll get credit for playing such a hard schedule and will do better in the polls. It's a genius system they've worked out. Rank half the conference in the top 25 so no matter who wins, the conference is racking up top 25 wins.
 
You can't be surprised at the SEC bias at this point. Yes, they're the best conference, but they don't deserve to be treated like an NFL division.

Maybe the Heels should just schedule all their OOC games as SEC opponents. Even if they lose all of them they'll get credit for playing such a hard schedule and will do better in the polls. It's a genius system they've worked out. Rank half the conference in the top 25 so no matter who wins, the conference is racking up top 25 wins.

Very good point and wish we would do that even if we got hosed by the refs against GA. Should have won anyway. We just weren't really prepared as most thought we'd be for the opening game.

Had we won, the ACC would have swept the SEC with wins against Ole Miss, Auburn and GA.

Not sure if we can get SEC schools to schedule games against us but hope we try.
 
The argument of playing for bowl eligibility for mid-tier teams doesn't really hold any water, since you could continue to have the essentially meaningless bowl games at the end of the season for everybody who isn't in the 8-team playoff. Nothing changes there, really.

What does change is removing the subjectivity of who gets to play for a championship. Want to be in the playoff? Win your conference. To me 8 is perfect. That's enough to capture everyone who has a realistic argument that they deserve a chance at a 'ship, either by winning their P5 conference or otherwise by having a stellar season. And it doesn't add so many games that it extends the season too much. I don't see how that would make the regular season less meaningful, as top teams are playing to either win their conference or have an almost-perfect record in order to make the playoff, and lower teams are playing for bowl eligibility just as they are now.
Having auto-qualifiers for an 8-game playoff, i.e., conference champions, would make the season only about the playoffs, thus reducing the importance / appeal of the regular season. If you want that, watch the NFL.

Plus, think of the chaos if it became an auto-qualifier playoff system. Do you think divisions like the B1G East, SEC West, ACC Atlantic would be happy? There would be massive amounts of lobbying for divisional realignment or for the scrapping of all OOC games so that we could move to a 12-game conference schedule and make it nearly a complete conference schedule.
 
The committee has made it clear that they do not in any way care why you play the teams you do whether you chose them or are forced to play them. You are weighted based on who you played end of story.

Washington at 5 is deserved and if UL had played better last week and FSU had beaten UNC, UL would have probably been 5 and Washington 6.
 
I actually preferred the chaos of the bowl system. I preferred having multiple teams thinking they may have a chance for the NC and even having a split vote in the polls.
 
Washington wins out, and they still get in because they would have a 13th game and win as well with a PAC title.....Same thing happened to Baylor and TCU as Ohio State passed them in the final polls after claiming the B1G title in impressive fashion over Wisconsin a couple years ago, so we've already seen this happen before.....

If that doesn't happen, we will see an 8-team playoff sooner rather than later because 2 P-5 Champions will be watching the Semifinals instead of participating in it?

It's common sense that we need an 8-team playoff format that gives the winner of the conference championship game, a spot in the playoffs, and validates that conference as a whole....

Right now we're discussing who sucks and who doesn't, and whose schedule is tougher than the other....Folks, it shouldn't matter because the champion of ANY of the P-5 conferences should be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs where they would rightly have the opportunity to prove whether their worthy or not as a Conference Champion....

I don't disagree with anything said above because I share some of the same views, but it's not for me, you or the Committee to decide whether a conference champion should be left out of the playoffs or not ...And that's why there should be 5 Champions with 1 Playoff representative from the Group of 5 schools and 2 Wildcards decided by the Committee to complete an 8-team playoff...Higher seeds play the first(quarterfinals) round at home with the Semifinals set up much like they are now with a rotation around the country....I've never liked the idea of a playoff that doesn't include all P-5 champions, and that view will never change...

Let the Committee have their biases in choosing the 2 Wildcards in the 8-team format, and a lot more folks like me would be happy!

Love that idea. All 5 "Power 5 Conference" Champions are guaranteed a spot, then you give 2 at large bids and 1 bid for the highest finisher of the non-Power 5 conferences. Teams are seeded based on their CFP ranking.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT