College Playoff Rankings

[WreckinGT]

And there is no way in hell Texas a&m should be ranked. If you get beat by 52 points at any point in the season you should be removed from the rankings lol

This is the biggest head scratcher for me. Here are their last 5 games: Double digit loss, Double digit loss, 59 point loss, 5 point victory over La Monroe, and the upset over Auburn. That is a pretty horrible 5 game stretch, but I guess the win over Auburn is the only game that mattered. That should have been looked at as a horrible loss for Auburn but horrible losses are impossible in the SEC.

 

[Animal02]

And why is ND ranked so high? The only teams they beat with winning records are Rice and a average Stanford at 5-4. They were blown out by Arizona State

 

[jeffgt14]

And why is ND ranked so high? The only teams they beat with winning records are Rice and a average Stanford at 5-4. They were blown out by Arizona State

Because Notre Dame isn’t bad. Arizona State is just “really, really, really good” like the rest of the average excellent PAC-12.

 

[TomOReilly]

As I had stated before, the playoff should be 16 teams where 10 are fixed by the Power 5 conference championships games. The other 6 spots are played the same weekend from the at large pool. This way every power 5 conference gets 2 teams. And the at-large teams must also play that weekend.

To me, this sounds ideal. In effect, having championship weekend be the 16 to elite 8.

 

[Eli]

As I had stated before, the playoff should be 16 teams where 10 are fixed by the Power 5 conference championships games. The other 6 spots are played the same weekend from the at large pool. This way every power 5 conference gets 2 teams. And the at-large teams must also play that weekend.

To me, this sounds ideal. In effect, having championship weekend be the 16 to elite 8.

Too many teams makes it like the NFL. Having 5 confrence champions and 3 at larges is perfect. There "should be" no room for bitching at that point.

 

[GTRX7]

This discussion reminds me of this old video:

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I really don't understand why everyone is so amped up about the rankings. We win our next three (or four) and we'll get great rankings. We lose one or two or three and we'll end up between 15th and 40th.......

Till then, we've lost two - one to 4-5 UNC and to Fluke (which most people recognize is living on a weak SOS and luck (Pitt missing a chip shot at the end of the game)). Our only two wins over teams with a winning record are GSU (8-2 and a damn good team) and Miami (6-3).

Once you get of ranking the top couple, it gets so subjective.

But your comments regarding who Tech has beat suggest that somehow the Tech win or loss is not a part of why that other team goes on to win or lose in future contests.

VT a bad team this year? Or having a bad season? Well I for one think Tech can take a lot of credit for that. VT had beat OSU on the road, a great win, then had a let down at home (largely the first quarter) and couldn't get it done to beat ECU. then we come in there and actually found a way to rip their hearts out from their chests and give them their second straight loss at home. It had to be absolutely deflating and demoralizing for them. They had no business getting beat again at home right after the first loss nor given their lucky breaks in the game against Tech. But they did.

Hence, if VT has magically become a "bad team" then Tech gets a lot of the credit for this becoming the case in my thinking. Also, whatever VT does after playing Tech has no impact on whether or not that win was a great and quality win. It was a fantastic victory. Such determinations have to be made at the actual time of the game and no future outcomes can change that evaluation. Otherwise no evaluations can ever be made of any games as none would be the least bit reliable.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

And why is ND ranked so high? The only teams they beat with winning records are Rice and a average Stanford at 5-4. They were blown out by Arizona State

ND is chronically over rated which is why they own the longest bowl losing streak in CFB; they are always over rated and get real opponents vice serviced academies.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

But your comments regarding who Tech has beat suggest that somehow the Tech win or loss is not a part of why that other team goes on to win or lose in future contests.

VT a bad team this year? Or having a bad season? Well I for one think Tech can take a lot of credit for that. VT had beat OSU on the road, a great win, then had a let down at home (largely the first quarter) and couldn't get it done to beat ECU. then we come in there and actually found a way to rip their hearts out from their chests and give them their second straight loss at home. It had to be absolutely deflating and demoralizing for them. They had no business getting beat again at home right after the first loss nor given their lucky breaks in the game against Tech. But they did.

Hence, if VT has magically become a "bad team" then Tech gets a lot of the credit for this becoming the case in my thinking. Also, whatever VT does after playing Tech has no impact on whether or not that win was a great and quality win. It was a fantastic victory. Such determinations have to be made at the actual time of the game and no future outcomes can change that evaluation. Otherwise no evaluations can ever be made of any games as none would be the least bit reliable.

VT is having a "bad" season in relation to past seasons. Whether they have become a bad "team" remains to be seen. VT came into the season with a pre-season power ranking of .677 based on their past year's success. Currently they are .575 because they aren't as good as last year. http://www.jhowell.net/cf/cf2014.htm

Why aren't they as good? Dunno. Part of it is injuries, part is their STs aren't as good, part is they don't have a reliable QB, part is bad luck, part is ..........

 

[Bruce Wayne]

VT is having a "bad" season in relation to past seasons. Whether they have become a bad "team" remains to be seen. VT came into the season with a pre-season power ranking of .677 based on their past year's success. Currently they are .575 because they aren't as good as last year. http://www.jhowell.net/cf/cf2014.htm

Why aren't they as good? Dunno. Part of it is injuries, part is their STs aren't as good, part is they don't have a reliable QB, part is bad luck, part is ..........

Part is our ripping their guts out with rusty hedge clippers.

One of my points is that statistics simply fail to capture the psychological intangibles of teams consisting in around one hundred 18-22 years olds (or 18-30 year olds at BYU), especially when things like actually being a student as well as an athlete gets factored in. The fact one doesn't have to factor that in for many factory teams, especially in the SEC, and can recognize that Saban operates a semi-pro team with little connection to collegiate or amateur athletics is the only reasonable basis I see for beginning with an assumption of such like teams superiority.

This sport is possibly the most difficult one in which to adequately gauge and judge the relative strength or weakness of its participating teams. I think that every other sport has a game format and structure (particularly as regards a postseason) far more conducive to bolder claims in ranking teams. I think one has to try and factor in as much as one can and then just make a lasting determination at the time of a game about the value of that win or loss.

All of this has an awful lot to do with why I am a Tech football fan but only barely a "college football fan." Tech is able to demonstrate what is admirable about collegiate athletics and when I find or sense that in some other teams or in some specific games (like rooting for an underdog against semi-pro factories) then I can enjoy the sport more broadly.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

In the

Just make it the 8 highest ranked teams of the 10 conferences. Or have two play-in games for the lowest four.

Bad idea, this relies on polls which are inherently biased.

 

[Animal02]

Bad idea, this relies on polls which are inherently biased.

Oops...meant to say 8 highest ranked of the 10 conference champions.....or have a play in round for the lowest four of the 10 conference champs to give you 8 teams. You have to seed the brackets somehow....so the polling would come into play....but the entry ticket is winning your conference.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Oops...meant to say 8 highest ranked of the 10 conference champions.....or have a play in round for the lowest four of the 10 conference champs to give you 8 teams. You have to seed the brackets somehow....so the polling would come into play....but the entry ticket is winning your conference.

Polls for seeding I'm ok with.

 

[Boomergump]

Oops...meant to say 8 highest ranked of the 10 conference champions.....or have a play in round for the lowest four of the 10 conference champs to give you 8 teams. You have to seed the brackets somehow....so the polling would come into play....but the entry ticket is winning your conference.

Right. With a limited field, as it is now, how could any team who fails to win their conference stake a claim at a national title shot? Give me evey conference champ with a "play in" to get to 8.

 

[AE 87]

Right. With a limited field, as it is now, how could any team who fails to win their conference stake a claim at a national title shot? Give me evey conference champ with a "play in" to get to 8.

It's happened before, with only 2 teams iirc

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's happened before, with only 2 teams iirc

And was bogus when it happened, especially Alabama getting a rematch. Total joke.

 

[DTGT]

And was bogus when it happened, especially Alabama getting a rematch. Total joke.

I believe Saban requested a mulligan from ESPN.