College Playoff Rankings

[jeffgt14]

If we beat FSU in the ACCCG, wouldn't we automatically go to the Orange Bowl? The replacement rule only comes into play when the top team from the ACC is chosen for the CFP. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong...

You're correct.

 

[ybeenormal]

Oh man do I feel stupid lol. Winner of the acccg goes to the OB unless they're in the playoffs....... my bad

 

[GTJason]

@Hiram_Jacket is correct, it's ACC champion or highest ranked if the champ is playing in the playoff. So FSU could still be ranked above us and not play in the orange, though I would bet on them getting invited to another new years 6 bowl

Worst scenario for us is we win out, Duke wins ACC champ, FSU goes to pinstripe, and we fall down the line as a top 15 team... I wonder if there is any chance of the other new years 6 bowls taking us. There hasn't been any discussion about it but some don't have direct tie ins right?

 

[Squints]

Arizona State did not beat Oregon. Arizona did and Utah plays them this weekend. The only teams they’ve beaten are an overrated UCLA team and an overrated USC team by a combined 5 points. Here’s the thing that pisses me off about this; if you look at every conference and compare to the ACC, they’re essentially all the same as far as having top tier teams, bottom teams, and mediocre teams yet we get judged by our crappy teams. Look at it this way:

ACC Top Tier:
FSU (10-0)
PAC12 Top Tier:
Oregon (9-1)

ACC 2nd Tier:
GT (9-2)
Duke (8-2)
Clemson (7-3)
Louisville (7-3)
Miami (6-4)
PAC12 2nd Tier:
UCLA (8-2)
Arizona St (8-2)
Arizona (8-2)
Utah (7-3)
USC (7-3)

ACC Mediocre:
BC (6-4)
UNC (5-5)
VT (5-5)
NCST (6-5)
PAC12 Mediocre:
Washington (6-5)
Stanford (5-5)
Cal (5-5)

ACC Bottomfeeders:
Pitt (4-6)
UVA (4-6)
Syracuse (3-7)
Wake (2-8)
PAC12 Bottomfeeders:
OSU (5-5)
WSU (3-7)
Colorado (2-8)

I don’t see any differences here and I can’t be the only one who remembers our “Mediocre” Boston College team beating the #1 team in the PAC12 South.

Whoops my bad I thought Utah had played and beat UoA already. But I still think you could make a feasible case there. I don't agree with it but it's not the biggest problem with the rankings. I'm behind you 100% on the conference tier argument you're making though. I've said it multiple times that some conferences are unfairly judged by the bottom rung of teams while others are judged by the top rung.

There needs to be a rule if you're an active member (coach, AD, board member, etc.) of an NCAA institution, you shouldn't be part of a committee that decides participation of event like the playoffs. There way too many qualified people that you don't need to give anyone reason to question ulterior motives, or give the appearance of impropriety.

Agree 100%.

 

[jeffgt14]

Whoops my bad I thought Utah had played and beat UoA already. But I still think you could make a feasible case there. I don't agree with it but it's not the biggest problem with the rankings. I'm behind you 100% on the conference tier argument you're making though. I've said it multiple times that some conferences are unfairly judged by the bottom rung of teams while others are judged by the top rung.



Agree 100%.

See I don’t see a single case whatsoever for Utah to be ranked higher than us. We have comparable wins and losses and we have 2 more wins and 1 less loss than them. In what realm of space does that make sense? Utah is being rewarded because that 1 EXTRA loss that they have on us was a complete blowout loss to Oregon.

 

[Minawreck]

See I don’t see a single case whatsoever for Utah to be ranked higher than us. We have comparable wins and losses and we have 2 more wins and 1 less loss than them. In what realm of space does that make sense? Utah is being rewarded because that 1 EXTRA loss that they have on us was a complete blowout loss to Oregon.

well yeah, but who knows what happens if that kid brings the ball into the endzone. They could've won the game! Heck why aren't they above Oregon!?!?

 

[jeffgt14]

See I don’t see a single case whatsoever for Utah to be ranked higher than us. We have comparable wins and losses and we have 2 more wins and 1 less loss than them. In what realm of space does that make sense? Utah is being rewarded because that 1 EXTRA loss that they have on us was a complete blowout loss to Oregon.

Just to rethink my logic… perhaps if we were to play FSU in the ACCCG and get blown out by undefeated FSU our strength of schedule would increase dramatically because FSU beat us so badly so they are obviously really good we should move up at least 5 spots in the rankings.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I had high hopes for the selection committee initially. Thought fewer individuals would be a bonus. One reason the Heisman is a joke now is becuase of the insane number of people voting on it. My initial high hopes have been pretty much dashed.

I'm not sure what the answer is. The BCS sucked too. Going to 8 team playoff will help. But the problem is still the selection committee. AD's should not be in. People with zero real knowledge of football should be our...sorry General and Condi. The best I can come up with is retired coaches only. I think Bill Curry and Bobby Ross would be great for this. I think Vince Dooley and Lou Holz would be horrid.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

CPJ probably has it even better. Go to 8 teams, conference winners are automatically in. Then add three wildcards to highest ranked.

 

[kg01]

So on Around the Horn the uh lady says there's clearly SEC bias on the committee but that it's "fair bias" because the SEC teams are the best ...

 

[Squints]

See I don’t see a single case whatsoever for Utah to be ranked higher than us. We have comparable wins and losses and we have 2 more wins and 1 less loss than them. In what realm of space does that make sense? Utah is being rewarded because that 1 EXTRA loss that they have on us was a complete blowout loss to Oregon.

Well I think you could argue they have two wins better than any of ours. But like I said I don't necessarily agree with that argument. I think when you're talking about a single number difference in ranking in the high teens you're almost splitting hairs that that point.

People with zero real knowledge of football should be our...sorry General and Condi.

What do you define as "real knowledge of football?" Why is it assumed that those two are ignorant when it comes to the sport?

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

What qualifies as a good win or a bad loss. To me every win is good and every loss is bad. I don't think there is a single team out there that goes in wanting a good loss today.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Drad will screw tech...clemson is hanging around...tech loses to UGA, he will ensure they jump us to go to the orange bowl on the heels of a USCe win...even though we beat them head to head and have better wins.

the committee is a f-in joke and the system needs to change....

My understanding is that a member of the board cannot vote for his/her own team. Maybe Drad is just a member...

 

[dressedcheeseside]

CPJ probably has it even better. Go to 8 teams, conference winners are automatically in. Then add three wildcards to highest ranked.

This makes so much sense but it kills SECSPN's bottom line.

 

[33jacket]

My understanding is that a member of the board cannot vote for his/her own team. Maybe Drad is just a member...

correct, but its about influencing and negotiation....more than just a vote...

 

[kg01]

My understanding is that a member of the board cannot vote for his/her own team. Maybe Drad is just a member...

Yeah that's what I read too. However, why are we to assume that they don't impact the vote by their mere presence? The only sane thing I ever heard Vitale say was when he posed that question to an AD who was on the NCAA tournament selection committee. He intimated that people with that kind of power tend to take care of each other's interests even when they're supposed to be impartial.

There's so many things wrong with this process it's ridiculous.

 

[Faulkner475]

My understanding is that a member of the board cannot vote for his/her own team. Maybe Drad is just a member...

This is correct, but a member can lobby for or against other teams that will positively affect their team. If a Clemson member was precluded from voting on Clemson, they can still vote and vigorously debate against other teams beneath them in the rankings so Clemson stays in. I'm not sure if he has to recuse himself from discussing Tech, but if he doesn't, his lobbying efforts for or against Tech can affect Clemson's bowl outcome just as much as if he could advocate for Clemson.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

This is correct, but a member can lobby for or against other teams that will positively affect their team. If a Clemson member was precluded from voting on Clemson, they can still vote and vigorously debate against other teams beneath them in the rankings so Clemson stays in. I'm not sure if he has to recuse himself from discussing Tech, but if he doesn't, his lobbying efforts for or against Tech can affect Clemson's bowl outcome just as much as if he could advocate for Clemson.

Who in the world thought it was a good idea to have current AD's on the panel?

 

[33jacket]

Who in the world thought it was a good idea to have current AD's on the panel?

its amazing isn't it? pure conflict of interest regardless of the window dressing that they don't get a vote LOL

 

[AE 87]

Clemson ranked helps us, fwiw.