THE College Football Playoff Rankings Thread [MICH,WASH,TEX,ALA]

[bullet 1596]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I'm not sure how to do it easily but it would be interesting to see how SOS looked for these teams and the 2 or 3 below them.

the committee does value conf championships because coaches value a trophy,  they value losses/wins because each game is like a little trophy.

what they have proven time and time again they don't value is SOS(computers) because coaches love to say you can only play who is on the schedule.  AD's on the committee don't punish cheesy OOC because they want to schedule auto wins.

Their reasoning varies week to week.  You can't justify some of their decisions.  Maybe they just outsource their decisions to 247.  Who has the best recruiting class, tempered by the number of wins and losses.

The #1 team is only 10-6 and that's just because UGA, LSU and Alabama have been so dominant lately.  #1 was 3-5 in the first 5 years.  They've only won 3 of the 9 years.  LSU in 2019 was the first #1 seed to win.

#2 started better, winning 3 of the first 5, but overall they are just 7-6.

#3 is 6-8 with Georgia being the only one who won it all.

#4 has won twice.  They are 4-7 and have lost the last 5 years in the first round.  Of course OU skews the stats.  #4s other than OU are 4-4.

[Dahobbs 17447]

8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I'm not sure how to do it easily but it would be interesting to see how SOS looked for these teams and the 2 or 3 below them.

the committee does value conf championships because coaches value a trophy,  they value losses/wins because each game is like a little trophy.

what they have proven time and time again they don't value is SOS(computers) because coaches love to say you can only play who is on the schedule.  AD's on the committee don't punish cheesy OOC because they want to schedule auto wins.

TCU was almost certainly kept out in 2014 because of SOS. It had by the lowest of the conference champs. 

[bullet 1596]

8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

yeah, I know all the excuses.  the score is the score.  They didn't roll a 6-5 Tech team.

Take the top 3 receivers off any other team and see what happens.

[Texasborn91 897]

5 minutes ago, Juicy said:

The reason Oregon would make it over Texas is that, IF they beat Washington their best win (Washington) will be better than Texas best win (Bama), and they will have avenged their only loss. Texas could get some help here if Bama ends up beating UGA. A 1 loss Washington team probably drops to 5-6, a 2 loss Bama is probably around 10. 

If Oklahoma would have won out and Texas would have had the same chance and Oklahoma was ranked in the top 5 it would be a closer discussion, but unless Bama wins Saturday Oregon would have the better resume.

Oklahoma state being ranked in the high teens hurts Texas's chances unfortunately. 

Why is Washington a better win than Alabama? Bama was #3 and we did it at their house. 

[Dahobbs 17447]

1 minute ago, bullet said:

Their reasoning varies week to week.  You can't justify some of their decisions.  Maybe they just outsource their decisions to 247.  Who has the best recruiting class, tempered by the number of wins and losses.

The #1 team is only 10-6 and that's just because UGA, LSU and Alabama have been so dominant lately.  #1 was 3-5 in the first 5 years.  They've only won 3 of the 9 years.  LSU in 2019 was the first #1 seed to win.

#2 started better, winning 3 of the first 5, but overall they are just 7-6.

#3 is 6-8 with Georgia being the only one who won it all.

#4 has won twice.  They are 4-7 and have lost the last 5 years in the first round.  Of course OU skews the stats.  #4s other than OU are 4-4.

I don't think you're reading your own post. Those records suggest that the seeding has been accurate. The overall winning percentage follows the seeding. 

Again, what decisions from the committee can't be justified?

[bullet 1596]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

TCU was almost certainly kept out in 2014 because of SOS. It had by the lowest of the conference champs. 

They were kept out because Ohio St. had name brand and Wisconsin forgot to show up for the Big 10 ccg.  TCU was sitting in 3rd, won 55-3 over Iowa St. and got jumped by both FSU and Ohio St.

[Texasborn91 897]

1 minute ago, bullet said:

Take the top 3 receivers off any other team and see what happens.

Injuries are part of it. Nobody gives 2 Fucks about that. 

[bullet 1596]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

I don't think you're reading your own post. Those records suggest that the seeding has been accurate. The overall winning percentage follows the seeding. 

Again, what decisions from the committee can't be justified?

I guess you don't do math.  The #1 has only won 3 out of 9 years and those were overwhelming teams.  The #4 has won 2 out of 9.  Seeding has been pretty poor.  When Alvarez and Osborne were on the committee, #1 seed never won.

[Dahobbs 17447]

Just now, bullet said:

They were kept out because Ohio St. had name brand and Wisconsin forgot to show up for the Big 10 ccg.  TCU was sitting in 3rd, won 55-3 over Iowa St. and got jumped by both FSU and Ohio St.

Again, if you look at the SOS, TCU's was in the 50s (Sagarin). The other champs that made it in were all in the 20s or higher. That's a pretty justifiable reason when comparing teams with the same record and each conference champs. Who cares what the polls had? Who cares what the playoff ratings were the week before? Why should those things matter?  

[bullet 1596]

2 minutes ago, Texasborn91 said:

Injuries are part of it. Nobody gives 2 Fucks about that. 

Except of course the committee talks about how it is a factor, whether you do or not.

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Again, if you look at the SOS, TCU's was in the 50s (Sagarin). The other champs that made it in were all in the 20s or higher. That's a pretty justifiable reason when comparing teams with the same record and each conference champs. Who cares what the polls had? Who cares what the playoff ratings were the week before? Why should those things matter?  

So the playoff ratings should be random from week to week?

[Dahobbs 17447]

Just now, bullet said:

I guess you don't do math.  The #1 has only won 3 out of 9 years and those were overwhelming teams.  The #4 has won 2 out of 9.  Seeding has been pretty poor.  When Alvarez and Osborne were on the committee, #1 seed never won.

I'm pretty sure you don't do statistics. 

#1 = 62.5% winning percentage

#2 = 53.8%

#3 = 42.8%

#4 = 36.3%

That's exactly what you'd expect to see if the seeding were fairly accurate. Measuring the results only by the overall champs over such a small sample is pointless. 

[Juicy 723]

7 minutes ago, Texasborn91 said:

Why is Washington a better win than Alabama? Bama was #3 and we did it at their house. 

Because Washington  is currently number 3 and Bama WAS #3.

Washington would also be 12-1 where as Bama would be 11-2.

[hornbri 1375]

13 minutes ago, Juicy said:

The reason Oregon would make it over Texas is that, IF they beat Washington their best win (Washington) will be better than Texas best win (Bama), and they will have avenged their only loss.

Why would a win over Washington at a neutral site be bigger than a win over Bama on the road? (Assuming they both have 12-1 records)

[Dahobbs 17447]

8 minutes ago, bullet said:

So the playoff ratings should be random from week to week?

Random, no. But there is no reason the ratings from one week should have an affect on the next. You're thinking like a pollster where there has to be "stickiness" to rankings. There shouldn't be.  And that's exactly why people worrying about the rankings from last week or this week are worried about something that doesn't matter. And something we have evidence doesn't matter. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Dahobbs

[dcar00 14035]

13 minutes ago, bullet said:

Take the top 3 receivers off any other team and see what happens.

sure that'd be fair if anyone would say take your QB1 off your team or your Heisman finalist RB and see what happens, but they don't.  so I'm not.

and it is should be way easier to replace WR's than QB's or Heisman level RB's

Edited November 28, 2023 by dcar00

[Juicy 723]

1 minute ago, hornbri said:

Why would a win over Washington at a neutral site be bigger than a win over Bama on the road? (Assuming they both have 12-1 records)

In my post I said if Bama Wins it is a different discussion. But  currently Washington is ranked higher than Bama which is why it would be a better win. 

[dcar00 14035]

4 minutes ago, hornbri said:

Why would a win over Washington at a neutral site be bigger than a win over Bama on the road? (Assuming they both have 12-1 records)

why EYE TEST! of course.

[Texasborn91 897]

3 minutes ago, Juicy said:

Because Washington  is currently number 3 and Bama WAS #3.

Washington would also be 12-1 where as Bama would be 11-2.

If ranking when played isn’t under consideration then Oregon’s best win is an unranked Utah and should have never been behind them. 

[dcar00 14035]

1 minute ago, Juicy said:

In my post I said if Bama Wins it is a different discussion. But  currently Washington is ranked higher than Bama which is why it would be a better win. 

but their SOS is worse than Bama.

[C-Man 27052]

17 minutes ago, Juicy said:

The reason Oregon would make it over Texas is that, IF they beat Washington their best win (Washington) will be better than Texas best win (Bama), and they will have avenged their only loss. Texas could get some help here if Bama ends up beating UGA. A 1 loss Washington team probably drops to 5-6, a 2 loss Bama is probably around 10. 

If Oklahoma would have won out and Texas would have had the same chance and Oklahoma was ranked in the top 5 it would be a closer discussion, but unless Bama wins Saturday Oregon would have the better resume.

Oklahoma state being ranked in the high teens hurts Texas's chances unfortunately. 

Oregon and Texas, both at 12-1 have similar resumes. The only thing that puts the Ducks ahead of Texas in this scenario is because they've been inaccurately ahead of Texas in the CFP, probably because we squeaked by a couple opponents with QB1 injured.

 

11 minutes ago, Texasborn91 said:

Why is Washington a better win than Alabama? Bama was #3 and we did it at their house. 

It's not. And shouldn't be thought of that way. Washington could easily have two or three losses.

 

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think you're reading your own post. Those records suggest that the seeding has been accurate. The overall winning percentage follows the seeding. 

Again, what decisions from the committee can't be justified?

I would expect things to be pretty close since we're talking about the four best teams in the country (allegedly) meeting in neutral site venues. And you backed it up with the actual winning percentages and it's probably what you'd expect.

[chainsaw 9838]

The way I see it, we have two pairs of teams bootstrapping each other's SOS:

1. Michigan and Ohio State

2. Washington and Oregon

"Michigan must be great, after all, they beat the great Ohio State!" meanwhile "Ohio State must be great, they almost beat the great Michigan!"

"Washington must be great, after all, they beat the great Oregon!" meanwhile "Oregon must be great, they almost beat the great Washington!"

I agree sometimes it's not fair to drag them because of their respective conferences, but their resumes outside those "quality wins/losses" are not particularly good.

[Red Five 40661]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

why EYE TEST! of course.

For those that aren't familiar, the eye test of of the most importance when it doesn't favor Texas. If it does, then the resume on paper is what matters. If that also favors Texas, well then we move to "what have you done for me lately". 

[Juicy 723]

3 minutes ago, Texasborn91 said:

If ranking when played isn’t under consideration then Oregon’s best win is an unranked Utah and should have never been behind them. 

You can't seriously want to take ranking when played into consideration. Colorado, USC and A&M were all ranked based on preseason expectations. The current rankings have the most data, why would you make a decision off incomplete data?

[dcar00 14035]

21 minutes ago, Texasborn91 said:

Why is Washington a better win than Alabama? Bama was #3 and we did it at their house. 

This.  A washington neutral site win is still not better than our Bama win on the road.

[Juicy 723]

4 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

 

 

It's not. And shouldn't be thought of that way. Washington could easily have two or three losses.

 

So could Texas. KSU went for it in OT instead of kicking the FG. So Texas could have 2 losses as easily as Washington could. The difference is that Washington currently has no losses. 

[dcar00 14035]

7 minutes ago, Juicy said:

You can't seriously want to take ranking when played into consideration. Colorado, USC and A&M were all ranked based on preseason expectations. The current rankings have the most data, why would you make a decision off incomplete data?

uh, what? you might want to reread his post.

[ZB'Tejas 593]

Does the committee adhere to any specific SOS method? The most recent ESPN article states that Texas has the lowest SOS of any other Power 5 predicted champions but that's probably because they are using the ESPN FPI versus Saragin or any others for that matter

[The_Great_Hornsby 3328]

2 minutes ago, ZB'Tejas said:

Does the committee adhere to any specific SOS method? The most recent ESPN article states that Texas has the lowest SOS of any other Power 5 predicted champions but that's probably because they are using the ESPN FPI versus Saragin or any others for that matter

I think they said we have the lowest SOR which is different from SOS. They are cherrypicking stats to build their case against us. 

[Juicy 723]

3 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

uh, what? you might want to reread his post.

I am not saying that Oregon CURRENTLY should be ranked higher than Texas, they probably shouldn't. I AM saying Oregon beating Washington this weekend is not going to make them drop behind Texas. Beating a top 20 team isn't going to jump a team over another team that would be beating a top 3 team.

Washington being number 3 right now is more impressive than a team being number 3 in week 2 of the season. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Juicy

[utee94 15745]

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

This.  A washington neutral site win is still not better than our Bama win on the road.

Yup.  The things I think about are

1) All other things being equal, a road win is better than a neutral site win

2) If Oregon beats Washington and Alabama beats Georgia, then Alabama will jump ahead of Washington in all rankings and therefore at season's end the Texas win over Alabama is better than Oregon's win over Washington

3) Texas beat Alabama in one try and has a 100% win rate against the Tide, whereas Oregon required a mulligan game to get their win and has a 50% win rate against Washington
 

Therefore if Texas, Alabama, and Oregon all win, Texas should be ranked ahead of Oregon.  Very simple.

Obviously, it's possible the committee won't see it my way.

[Dark Horse 2263]

2 minutes ago, Juicy said:

I am not saying that Oregon CURRENTLY should be ranked higher than Texas, they probably shouldn't. I AM saying Oregon beating Washington this weekend is not going to make them drop behind Texas. Beating a top 20 team isn't going to jump a team over another team that would be beating a top 3 team.

Washington being number 3 right now is more impressive than a team being number 3 in week 2 of the season. 

You just said you can’t consider rankings at the time you play the game. 
 

Assuming Bama beats Georgia, and Oregon beats Washington, who will be ranked higher after both games, Washington or Bama?

 

 

[Dahobbs 17447]

2 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

I think they said we have the lowest SOR which is different from SOS. They are cherrypicking stats to build their case against us. 

Correct:

 

Notably, we actually have a stronger SOR than Oregon, and a stronger SOS (based upon ESPN) of everyone other than Ohio State. Per ESPN, Strength of record - "Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would have team's record or better, given the schedule." 

[The_Great_Hornsby 3328]

5 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Yup.  The things I think about are

1) All other things being equal, a road win is better than a neutral site win

2) If Oregon beats Washington and Alabama beats Georgia, then Alabama will jump ahead of Washington in all rankings and therefore at season's end the Texas win over Alabama is better than Oregon's win over Washington

3) Texas beat Alabama in one try and has a 100% win rate against the Tide, whereas Oregon required a mulligan game to get their win and has a 50% win rate against Washington
 

Therefore if Texas, Alabama, and Oregon all win, Texas should be ranked ahead of Oregon.  Very simple.

Obviously, it's possible the committee won't see it my way.

Yeah, I think if the Louisville or Iowa (LOL) do not win for us, this is our next best path into the playoff. Piggyback off Bama and Oregon gets shut out. 

[Juicy 723]

3 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Yup.  The things I think about are

1) All other things being equal, a road win is better than a neutral site win

2) If Oregon beats Washington and Alabama beats Georgia, then Alabama will jump ahead of Washington in all rankings and therefore at season's end the Texas win over Alabama is better than Oregon's win over Washington

3) Texas beat Alabama in one try and has a 100% win rate against the Tide, whereas Oregon required a mulligan game to get their win and has a 50% win rate against Washington
 

Therefore if Texas, Alabama, and Oregon all win, Texas should be ranked ahead of Oregon.  Very simple.

Obviously, it's possible the committee won't see it my way.

I agree with this. I just don't see Bama beating UGA. 

If Bama wins it makes things a lot more messy. 

As a Michigan Fan I want Oregon, UGA and Florida State to win (sorry Texas) because I think Michigan would crush FSU, especially with no Travis, and I think the only way Michigan gets that Matchup is if UGA/UM/FSU and Oregon all win. 

I think Louisville has a good shot of beating FSU, probably a toss up. If they do, Texas wins and they are in. Without FSU losing I really don't see a way Texas jumps in. *unless Michigan loses. 

 

[Dahobbs 17447]

1 minute ago, Dark Horse said:

You just said you can’t consider rankings at the time you play the game. 

Assuming Bama beats Georgia, and Oregon beats Washington, who will be ranked higher after both games, Washington or Bama?

See below, you're talking about a different scenario:

23 minutes ago, Juicy said:

In my post I said if Bama Wins it is a different discussion. But  currently Washington is ranked higher than Bama which is why it would be a better win. 

 

[dcar00 14035]

3 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Yup.  The things I think about are

1) All other things being equal, a road win is better than a neutral site win

2) If Oregon beats Washington and Alabama beats Georgia, then Alabama will jump ahead of Washington in all rankings and therefore at season's end the Texas win over Alabama is better than Oregon's win over Washington

3) Texas beat Alabama in one try and has a 100% win rate against the Tide, whereas Oregon required a mulligan game to get their win and has a 50% win rate against Washington
 

Therefore if Texas, Alabama, and Oregon all win, Texas should be ranked ahead of Oregon.  Very simple.

Obviously, it's possible the committee won't see it my way.

if Ore wins then the only way the justify it is the "loss" beauty pageant, and they ignore SOS, which is easy for them to do due to the "you can only play who is on the schedule" theory as well as "computers, pfft" attitude.  they can throw in some eye test with our close wins with QB2, which they won't mention.

We need FSU to lose and I really thin Louisville can do it if they can run the ball at all.

[Juicy 723]

1 minute ago, Dark Horse said:

You just said you can’t consider rankings at the time you play the game. 
 

Assuming Bama beats Georgia, and Oregon beats Washington, who will be ranked higher after both games, Washington or Bama?

 

 

Bama. I explained that 5 posts ago. My assumption is that Bama is NOT going to beat UGA. Which is why I said a win over 12-1 Washington is better than a win over 11-2 Bama.

[The_Great_Hornsby 3328]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Correct:

 

Notably, we actually have a stronger SOR than Oregon, and a stronger SOS (based upon ESPN) of everyone other than Ohio State. Per ESPN, Strength of record - "Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would have team's record or better, given the schedule." 

What a stupid fucking measurement and clearly it is achieving the desired effect because it tricked one of our board members. Fuck ESPN. 

[Horndog 2218]

6 minutes ago, utee94 said:

 

2) If Oregon beats Washington and Alabama beats Georgia, then Alabama will jump ahead of Washington in all rankings and therefore at season's end the Texas win over Alabama is better than Oregon's win over Washington

 

This cannot be overstated. A 3 way knot favors Bama and Texas over UO.

[C-Man 27052]

21 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The way I see it, we have two pairs of teams bootstrapping each other's SOS:

1. Michigan and Ohio State

2. Washington and Oregon

"Michigan must be great, after all, they beat the great Ohio State!" meanwhile "Ohio State must be great, they almost beat the great Michigan!"

"Washington must be great, after all, they beat the great Oregon!" meanwhile "Oregon must be great, they almost beat the great Washington!"

I agree sometimes it's not fair to drag them because of their respective conferences, but their resumes outside those "quality wins/losses" are not particularly good.

The computers love Penn State for some reason and both Ohio State and Michigan have wins over Penn State, which blasted Iowa 31-0.

 

18 minutes ago, Juicy said:

You can't seriously want to take ranking when played into consideration. Colorado, USC and A&M were all ranked based on preseason expectations. The current rankings have the most data, why would you make a decision off incomplete data?

And if Oregon beats Washington on Friday, the Huskies will no longer be the #3 team. IF Bama beats Georgia, the Tide will 100% be ranked higher than Washington thereby mitigating Oregon's best win.

[The_Great_Hornsby 3328]

3 minutes ago, Juicy said:

I agree with this. I just don't see Bama beating UGA. 

If Bama wins it makes things a lot more messy. 

As a Michigan Fan I want Oregon, UGA and Florida State to win (sorry Texas) because I think Michigan would crush FSU, especially with no Travis, and I think the only way Michigan gets that Matchup is if UGA/UM/FSU and Oregon all win. 

I think Louisville has a good shot of beating FSU, probably a toss up. If they do, Texas wins and they are in. Without FSU losing I really don't see a way Texas jumps in. *unless Michigan loses. 

 

You are kidding yourself if you think the committee is gonna put FSU at 3 with Michigan at 2. Georgia will 100% be given FSU if the opportunity is there and they will twist the ranking any which they need to, to make sure that happens. If that means Oregon at 3, then they will jump them over FSU. 

[dcar00 14035]

I just want to say again these douchenozzles should have been at 8 teams(or at least 6) 25 years ago.

[dcar00 14035]

8 minutes ago, Juicy said:

Bama. I explained that 5 posts ago. My assumption is that Bama is NOT going to beat UGA. Which is why I said a win over 12-1 Washington is better than a win over 11-2 Bama.

I could be wrong but I think the assumption we are making, to have the discussion, is that Bama beats Ga.

[C-Man 27052]

FSU is basically a bye week if they get into the CFP barring some blowout of Louisville this weekend (and Louisville just lost to Kentucky, so how good are they?). It feels shitty to leave an undefeated conference P5 champ out but they ain't the same team without Travis.

[dcar00 14035]

Just now, C-Man said:

FSU is basically a bye week if they get into the CFP barring some blowout of Louisville this weekend (and Louisville just lost to Kentucky, so how good are they?). It feels shitty to leave an undefeated conference P5 champ out but they ain't the same team without Travis.

they won't do it.  they are coaches/AD's and in their mind, injuries are just shitty luck and should not punish teams.  They do it for seeding in NCAA but never to have a team in or out.

FSU is #4 no matter what anyway because ACC sucks.

[Juicy 723]

9 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

You are kidding yourself if you think the committee is gonna put FSU at 3 with Michigan at 2. Georgia will 100% be given FSU if the opportunity is there and they will twist the ranking any which they need to, to make sure that happens. If that means Oregon at 3, then they will jump them over FSU. 

What possible reasoning could they give to have Michigan jump UGA for number 1 when UGA plays Bama and Michigan plays Iowa? 

Same for putting a team with 1 loss over an undefeated team.

I am not saying the committee won't do it, but last year they could have given UGA the "easy" game with TCU and didn't

[NoctambulantBrobdingnagian 530]

1 hour ago, TexEx15 said:

 

I pettily exstatic that A&M is being referenced as an example of a bad team that Alabama should've pummeled.

[dcar00 14035]

2 minutes ago, Juicy said:

What possible reasoning could they give to have Michigan jump UGA for number 1 when UGA plays Bama and Michigan plays Iowa? 

Same for putting a team with 1 loss over an undefeated team.

I am not saying the committee won't do it, but last year they could have given UGA the "easy" game with TCU and didn't

they didn't want the direct rematch with Mich/tOSU in the semi so they made tOSU try to earn the rematch by having them play Georgia.  TCU should have been 4 and tOSU 3.

[dcar00 14035]

26 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Correct:

 

Notably, we actually have a stronger SOR than Oregon, and a stronger SOS (based upon ESPN) of everyone other than Ohio State. Per ESPN, Strength of record - "Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would have team's record or better, given the schedule." 

In theory our SOR should go above tOSU if we beat OSU. 13th data point.

[dieucla98 2936]

What makes the NCAA basketball tournament fun? Rooting for chaos in a lineup of one and done games (not including Texas, no chaos there please). That's exactly what we're rooting for this weekend but college football. I'm pretty damn giddy about it.