2018 College Football Playoff Rankings

[EZ$ 2,102]

I guess we need more quality losses!  How far does aggy jump up after their quality loss to LSU??

[A’Dam Psycho 1,469]

- 8 teams

- 3 At Larges

- No more than 2 per conference 

- Power five Conf champs get in automatically 

- Playoff teams get ranked 1 - 8

- Top 4 teams play first game at home

This could easily be done tbh

[Zavala 1,384]

36 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I just looked at their schedule. I have no idea in God's green earth how anyone thinks they are the 11th best team in the country. Their best win is Miss St. They haven't beaten anyone.

They beat a very overrated LSU, it's helped them immensely. 

I'm glad they are winning, but the sooner the Franks era ends the better. He is complete trash. Lol against South Carolina he ran a touchdown in and told the swamp to shush because they were boo ing him previously. He's a brainless little bitch.

 

[A’Dam Psycho 1,469]

Just based off current rankings:

1. Alabama (SEC Champ)

vs

8. UCF (At Large)

 

4. Michigan (Big 10 Champ)

vs

5. UGA (At Large)

 

 

3. Notre Dame (At Large)

vs

6. Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ)

 

2. Clemson (ACC Champ)

vs

7. Wash St (PAC 12 Champ)

 

[ztejas 43,262]

5 minutes ago, A’Dam Psycho said:

Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ)

I'm not letting this horseshit stand

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

Collapse the P5 to P4. The four P4 champions are the top 4 seeds and get a first-round bye. The next eight can be whatever we want. Those eight play four games hosted by the higher-seeded teams, then advance to play the 2nd round at the campus of the P4 champs. Semis and championship round at bowl sites.

I like the idea of making winning your conference REALLY valuable.

[jinx 2,635]

28 minutes ago, A’Dam Psycho said:

- 8 teams

- 3 At Larges

- No more than 2 per conference 

- Power five Conf champs get in automatically 

- Playoff teams get ranked 1 - 8

- Top 4 teams play first game at home

This could easily be done tbh

This is exactly the scenario I want.  I'm good with getting the 8 seed as the Big 12 Champ, but give me a way in that doesn't involve judges. 

[rickyspub 801]

4 hours ago, A’Dam Psycho said:

- 8 teams

- 3 At Larges

- No more than 2 per conference 

- Power five Conf champs get in automatically 

- Playoff teams get ranked 1 - 8

- Top 4 teams play first game at home

This could easily be done tbh

I would take this straight up, but if I were allowed one tweak, I would return to some form of BCS formula for the seeding and fuck off with the ESPN-shill committee we currently have.

[Gaelic 63]

Return to the original BCS formula with SOS and margin of victory factored in 

[chase25 2,048]

I know, I know, "transitive properties doesn't mean anything, BUT....

Penn State 20-7 Rutgers

Kansas 55-14 Rutgers

[ztejas 43,262]

18 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

I would take this straight up, but if I were allowed one tweak, I would return to some form of BCS formula for the seeding and fuck off with the ESPN-shill committee we currently have.

Aside from the "national title" game that featured (redacted) against (redacted) and left the Pokes out - did the BCS ever get the matchup wrong? You could argue 2008 but that was more of a CCG issue.

 

[ztejas 43,262]

8 minutes ago, Texas25 said:

I know, I know, "transitive properties doesn't mean anything, BUT....

Penn State 20-7 Rutgers

Kansas 55-14 Rutgers

1. Wrong thread

2. Penn State isn't good. That has already been a topic of discussion. I think UT or WVU would kick their teeth down the back of their throat.

[chase25 2,048]

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

1. Wrong thread

2. Penn State isn't good. That has already been a topic of discussion. I think UT or WVU would kick their teeth down the back of their throat.

1. Nope, just pointing out how overrated Penn State is, pretty relevant to this thread.

[Gaelic 63]

19 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Aside from the "national title" game that featured (redacted) against (redacted) and left the Pokes out - did the BCS ever get the matchup wrong? You could argue 2008 but that was more of a CCG issue.

 

In 2004 they left out undefeated Auburn 

[ztejas 43,262]

25 minutes ago, Texas25 said:

1. Nope, just pointing out how overrated Penn State is, pretty relevant to this thread.

Fair enough. Thought you were insinuating something about the game on Friday.

Fuck Pedo State

[ztejas 43,262]

12 minutes ago, Gaelic said:

In 2004 they left out undefeated Auburn 

Because there were 3 undefeated P5* teams that season... that wasn't an issue with the rankings that was an issue with not having play in games. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by ztejas
because I know some cunt will correct me

[Gaelic 63]

12 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Because there were 3 undefeated P5* teams that season... that wasn't an issue with the rankings that was an issue with not having play in games. 

That was most of it, and seeing OU get blown out only showed they had the wrong two teams in it and how much of a joke it was.  Should have been a split title.

[ztejas 43,262]

1 minute ago, Gaelic said:

That was most of it, and seeing OU get blown out only showed they had the wrong two teams in it and how much of a joke it was.  Should have been a split title.

Personally I don't think it would have mattered. Tigers may have given them a better game but that SC team was really, really fucking good. 

[Gaelic 63]

Personally I don't think it would have mattered. Tigers may have given them a better game but that SC team was really, really fucking good. 

Who knows. It was arbitrary and Auburn played a much tougher schedule. Would have been a much better game with Auburn winning a close one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cfpisrigged 4]

LSU, Florida, and Kentucky way overrated. I don't think the SEC can hide them this year. Bowl season should expose them.

[rickyspub 801]

2 minutes ago, Gaelic said:

That was most of it, and seeing OU get blown out only showed they had the wrong two teams in it and how much of a joke it was.  Should have been a split title.

Auburn played a pretty weak schedule that year and then barely beat 10-2 VT in their bowl game. Interestingly, VT lost to USC in the first game of season by 11. That USC team was actually quite a bit less dominant than the one we beat the next year.

[Gaelic 63]

1 minute ago, rickyspub said:

Auburn played a pretty weak schedule that year and then barely beat 10-2 VT in their bowl game. Interestingly, VT lost to USC in the first game of season by 11. That USC team was actually quite a bit less dominant than the one we beat the next year.

The 2004 USC was a better team than the 2005 version.  The 2005 team took two steps back defensively.   If anything, that 2004 team was more dominant and more balanced. 

[satyanash 14,280]

28 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Aside from the "national title" game that featured (redacted) against (redacted) and left the Pokes out - did the BCS ever get the matchup wrong? You could argue 2008 but that was more of a CCG issue.

- 1998: Undefeated Tulane didn't even get a BCS bowl spot, let alone a shot at the national title.

- 1999: Undefeated Marshall got the same treatment

- 2000: One-loss FSU made the NC game over one-loss Miami, who they lost to, and one-loss Washington, who Miami lost to.

- 2001: Nebraska got fucking destroyed by CU in their last game, didn't even win the Big 12 North, but made the national title game over Colorado and Oregon anyway.

- 2003: Lol

- 2004: Undefeated Auburn and undefeated Utah got left out. Probably the right choice but still.

- 2006: One-loss Florida gets in and beats Ohio State, while one-loss Wisky and Louisville are left out in the cold.

- 2008: blOU gaming the system to backdoor into the national title game despite 45-35.

- 2011: LOL

[ztejas 43,262]

Just now, Gaelic said:

The 2004 USC was a better team than the 2005 version.  The 2005 team took two steps back defensively.   If anything, that 2004 team was more dominant and more balanced. 

I think so too.

[Gaelic 63]

I think so too.

Just compare their defensive lines. Like night and day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ztejas 43,262]

5 minutes ago, satyanash said:

- 1998: Undefeated Tulane didn't even get a BCS bowl spot, let alone a shot at the national title.

- 1999: Undefeated Marshall got the same treatment

- 2000: One-loss FSU made the NC game over one-loss Miami, who they lost to, and one-loss Washington, who Miami lost to.

- 2001: Nebraska got fucking destroyed by CU in their last game, didn't even win the Big 12 North, but made the national title game over Colorado and Oregon anyway.

- 2003: Lol

- 2004: Undefeated Auburn and undefeated Utah got left out. Probably the right choice but still.

- 2006: One-loss Florida gets in and beats Ohio State, while one-loss Wisky and Louisville are left out in the cold.

- 2008: blOU gaming the system to backdoor into the national title game despite 45-35.

- 2011: LOL

2003 is an example of needing a playoff - not of the ranking not working. 

I'm not weeping for Tulane or Marshall. 

2001 I'll give you. 

The others are mostly just fan bases upset that their team didn't get in, which, again, is an issue with not having a playoff.

2011 - as much as I would like to not discuss the shitshow that occured - was the nail in the coffin. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by ztejas

[rickyspub 801]

3 minutes ago, Gaelic said:

The 2004 USC was a better team than the 2005 version.  The 2005 team took two steps back defensively.   If anything, that 2004 team was more dominant and more balanced. 

The 2004 team has 3 games where they won by less than a touchdown and 5 games that were within two touchdowns. The 2005 team only had one game that was within 7 and a total of 3 that were within two touchdowns. If the 2005 D took two steps back, their O took 4 steps forward. That team cracked 50 pts 7 times! The 2004 team didn't do that once. 34 points was their lowest output in 2005. The 2004 team didn't crack 30 in 3 games.

[Gaelic 63]

The 2004 team has 3 games where they won by less than a touchdown and 5 games that were within two touchdowns. The 2005 team only had one game that was within 7 and a total of 3 that were within two touchdowns. If the 2005 D took two steps back, their O took 4 steps forward. That team cracked 50 pts 7 times! The 2004 team didn't do that once. 34 points was their lowest output in 2005. The 2004 team didn't crack 30 in 3 games.

But the defense made that 2004 much better. You didn’t really fear the 2005 defense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rickyspub 801]

1 minute ago, Gaelic said:

But the defense made that 2004 much better. You didn’t really fear the 2005 defense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh? Then in that case the 2004 team had an offense that you really didn't fear. The 2005 team was more dominant on the scoreboard, so I guess all those teams that got beat worse in 2005 vs. 2004 just got cocky because they didn't fear the 2005 team's D?

[chase25 2,048]

Just now, Gaelic said:

But the defense made that 2004 much better. You didn’t really fear the 2005 defense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2004 USC: 38.2 PPG - 12.5 PPG allowed, differential of 25.7 PPG

2005 USC: 49.1 PPG - 21.3 PPG allowed, differential of 27.8 PPG

They traded defense for offense and beat their opponents by an average of 2.1 PPG more than the previous year. Pretty far stretch saying the 2004 team was more dominant simply because you prefer defense over offense.

[Gaelic 63]

3 minutes ago, Texas25 said:

2004 USC: 38.2 PPG - 12.5 PPG allowed, differential of 25.7 PPG

2005 USC: 49.1 PPG - 21.3 PPG allowed, differential of 27.8 PPG

They traded defense for offense and beat their opponents by an average of 2.1 PPG more than the previous year. Pretty far stretch saying the 2004 team was more dominant simply because you prefer defense over offense.

Ask yourself this.? Does Vince run over that 2004 defense like he did the 2005 defense?  

[chase25 2,048]

Just now, Gaelic said:

Ask yourself this.? Does Vince run over that 2004 defense like he did the 2005 defense?  

Ask yourself this. Does Matt Leinart and the 2004 USC offense run over the 2005 Texas defense that was only allowing 14.6 PPG?

[utee94 15,744]

Just now, Gaelic said:

Ask yourself this.? Does Vince run over that 2004 defense like he did the 2005 defense?  

Vince Young is the greatest player in college football history.  I believe he'd do everything necessary to win that game.  And since the 2004 USC offense wasn't very remarkable, he wouldn't have had to do as much as he did in 2005.

[C-Man 27,029]

32 minutes ago, Gaelic said:

Who knows. It was arbitrary and Auburn played a much tougher schedule. Would have been a much better game with Auburn winning a close one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not according to the numbers at College Football Reference. They had USC's schedule rated at 8.22, OU's at 6.85 and Auburn's at 1.94. Auburn is 5th on the Simple Rating System there behind USC, Utah, Cal and OU.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2004-ratings.html

[C-Man 27,029]

Back to CFR's numbers.

2004 USC: 11.18 OffSRS/14.88 DefSRS = 26.06 TotSRS

2005 USC: 17.06 OffSRS/7.51 DefSRS = 24.98 TotSRS

[rickyspub 801]

14 minutes ago, Texas25 said:

2004 USC: 38.2 PPG - 12.5 PPG allowed, differential of 25.7 PPG

2005 USC: 49.1 PPG - 21.3 PPG allowed, differential of 27.8 PPG

They traded defense for offense and beat their opponents by an average of 2.1 PPG more than the previous year. Pretty far stretch saying the 2004 team was more dominant simply because you prefer defense over offense.

What was the difference in their SOS? In 2004 they started with what turned out to be a very game VT, but ND was down. In 2005, both ND and Fresno State were tough. The Pac wasn't great shakes either year, but I thought the 2005 group was a bit tougher than in 2004.

[chase25 2,048]

6 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

What was the difference in their SOS? In 2004 they started with what turned out to be a very game VT, but ND was down. In 2005, both ND and Fresno State were tough. The Pac wasn't great shakes either year, but I thought the 2005 group was a bit tougher than in 2004.

It was slightly better in 2004. I'll let you look at it for yourself so you can read about the metric. It is SOS and SRS

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/southern-california/2004.html

[ztejas 43,262]

5 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Back to CFR's numbers.

2004 USC: 11.18 OffSRS/14.88 DefSRS = 26.06 TotSRS

2005 USC: 17.06 OffSRS/7.51 DefSRS = 24.98 TotSRS

Was about to look it up because I was curious. Thanks. 

The thing is - you don't need to score 50 points to win most games. SC probably should have lost to the domers in 05 and then did lose to Texas. Once you are playing for all the marbles I will take an explosive D over and explosive O any day of the week. Just ask OU how any of their national title game appearances have gone (hint - they failed to score 20 points in all of them)

[utee94 15,744]

8 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Auburn’s OOC schedule that year was Louisiana Tech, Louisiana Monroe, and the Citadel.

Nice.

That's exactly why people doubted them.  And back then they weren't getting the additional 4-8 spot SECSECSEC poll bump that teams in that conference now enjoy.

 

[C-Man 27,029]

10 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

What was the difference in their SOS? In 2004 they started with what turned out to be a very game VT, but ND was down. In 2005, both ND and Fresno State were tough. The Pac wasn't great shakes either year, but I thought the 2005 group was a bit tougher than in 2004.

USC's SOS was 8.22 in 2004; 6.80 in 2005.

Edited November 21, 2018 by C-Man

[rickyspub 801]

6 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Was about to look it up because I was curious. Thanks. 

The thing is - you don't need to score 50 points to win most games. SC probably should have lost to the domers in 05 and then did lose to Texas. Once you are playing for all the marbles I will take an explosive D over and explosive O any day of the week. Just ask OU how any of their national title game appearances have gone (hint - they failed to score 20 points in all of them)

They had several close games in 2004 as well, against teams nowhere near as good at the 2005 domers. It is also possible that the 2005 D just wasn't as tight in the later part of games where they were already up by huge margins. 

 

 

[ztejas 43,262]

2 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

They had several close games in 2004 as well, against teams nowhere near as good at the 2005 domers. It is also possible that the 2005 D just wasn't as tight in the later part of games where they were already up by huge margins. 

 

 

All I know is one of them had their title vacated and one of them died at the hands of my avatar. 

Fuck USC. 

[bigcigar 1,161]

1 hour ago, Gaelic said:

Ask yourself this.? Does Vince run over that 2004 defense like he did the 2005 defense?  

Yes. He’s Vincent Fucking Young.

[Phoenix 65]

Dilly Dilly!

Vince was going to stomp over any college defense you put in front of him. He was unstoppable at the collegiate level.

[UTDD 362]

It almost depresses me to think of what could have been for Young and even a guy like McNair if not for Fisher.  Seriously.  Ugh.

[Gaelic 63]

2 minutes ago, UTDD said:

It almost depresses me to think of what could have been for Young and even a guy like McNair if not for Fisher.  Seriously.  Ugh.

Or had he stayed for his Sr year 

[JustBecause 112]

52 minutes ago, UTDD said:

It almost depresses me to think of what could have been for Young and even a guy like McNair if not for Fisher.  Seriously.  Ugh.

You got that right!   I watched a NFL coach first hand plot and execute a plan to destroy a NFL caliber QB.  It was fucking disgusting. Fisher is and was a POS.  The little shit.    

Edited November 22, 2018 by JustBecause
Fucking spell check

[Valmy77 13,093]

5 hours ago, Phoenix said:

Dilly Dilly!

Vince was going to stomp over any college defense you put in front of him. He was unstoppable at the collegiate level.

He wasn't bad at the NFL level either. I mean when he got to play that is.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

8 hours ago, Gaelic said:

Ask yourself this.? Does Vince run over that 2004 defense like he did the 2005 defense?  

No defense in the history of college football was gonna stop Vince that day.  In 2004 and in 2005, USC played zero QBs that could truly prepare them for VY.  Either were going to get torched the first time they faced him.  Its possible that they would fare better in the second game if they played him twice.

The 85 Bears would have stopped Vince in the Rose Bowl.  Probably.  Maybe.

[C-Man 27,029]

54 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

He wasn't bad at the NFL level either. I mean when he got to play that is.

He was pretty good at the beginning. Fisher fucked him no doubt, he probably needed better ancillary folks handling his finances. Just sayin'. (VY can do no wrong IMO.)