cfp rankings and espn craziness question.
November 2nd, 2016 at 3:50 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 5:17 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 12:32 PM ^
"If the season ended today" is the lamest way possible to make projections.
You just look at the rankings and slot teams into bowl games in order. Anybody can do that.
Show some stones man, and make a projection about who will play in all the bowls when they are actually played.
November 2nd, 2016 at 4:20 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 8:16 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 5:32 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 6:40 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 2nd, 2016 at 6:48 AM ^
Ok thats one, who else have they beat thats in the top 25? I would take OSU over A&M any day of the weak.
November 2nd, 2016 at 6:57 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 2nd, 2016 at 9:25 AM ^
I would not take OSU over RUTGERS!
November 2nd, 2016 at 1:38 PM ^
... OR over Penn State. /rimshot
November 2nd, 2016 at 10:50 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 11:15 AM ^
Should've gone with Coco the Monkey, IME.
November 2nd, 2016 at 8:09 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 8:40 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 9:19 AM ^
One spot higher?
November 2nd, 2016 at 9:37 AM ^
What do you mean? Only WI was in the top 15 when we played them.
/s
November 2nd, 2016 at 10:29 AM ^
PSU, Wisconsin, and Colorado are all in the Top 15 right now in the CFP playoff rankings, and Michigan beat all of them. We should be Number 2.
As for Texas AM, OK the Auburn win is nice. But Tennesee, Arkansas? These teams are garbage. And let's not act like a 20 point loss to Alabama was "close." You lose by 20, that is not a "quality loss." And why are we talking "quality losses" anyway? Washington is undefeated and just had a better win, at Utah, then A@M.
Also, the Committee already jammed itself on the first rankings. Ok, say Alabama loses to LSU this weekend, is the A&M loss to Alabama still "quality" or is it downgrated to merely "acceptable." Are TAM and Bama No. 3 and 4, respectively, even though Bama crushed TAM? Is a one loss Bama team still worthy of the Top 4 after losing to a mediocre LSU team? If not, how is TAM?
They got too clever, already. They had a clear Top 4 in front of them and botched it, because they want to prevent all discussion of a conference, not named the SEC, getting more than one team. Louisville should be in front of TAM, with one loss to Clemson. Ohio State should arguably be in front of TAM, with one loss to a Top 15 team and road wins at Wisconsin and Oklahoma. No way TAM should be in the Top 4. No way. It was clear bias, right out of the gate.
November 2nd, 2016 at 10:57 AM ^
What? How has the committee "jammed" itself? They have made it plainly clear from day 1 that they construct these "rankings" each week based on the data on-hand at the time, not how they predict the season will end. If Alabama loses this week, they will drop below Clemson and Michigan. They'll probably stay in the top 4, but A&M will drop as well.
They've already shown that this whole in-season ranking thing is pointless because it doesn't take into consideration a main foundation of their final rankings: conference championships. Two years ago, TCU was in the final 4 until the final rankings when they were dropped for no other reason than they didn't have a conference championship and OSU did.
Let the season play out before we declare the whole thing a sham. The rankings are meaningless at this point, and they aren't handled like the AP or coaches do theirs.
November 2nd, 2016 at 11:29 AM ^
I agree that these rankings are mostly meaningless, but I think, to the extent that the rankings reflect an honest attempt to rank the teams right now as most deserving to be in the playoffs, the A&M over Washington selection is quite troubling. Washington's best wins over Utah and Stanford equal A&M's best wins over Auburn and Tennessee. Yes, the rest of Washington's G5 opponents are collectively worse than A&M's, but are we really going to say that the value in wins over Arkansas, UCLA, and South Carolina vs. wins over Oregon, Oregon St., Arizona, and Rutgers, outweighs a 20 point loss to Alabama? That's effectively what the committee is saying and it's a bad reflection on the committee.
It would be one thing if Washington had scraped by a whole bunch of mediocre and bad teams and A&M lost a heartbreaker to one of the top two or three teams in the country. But that's not what happened. It doesn't mean Washington is screwed or that they wouldn't jump A&M if both teams win out (they almost certainly would), but it's just troubling that the committee at this point could look at those two teams and place A&M on top right now.
November 2nd, 2016 at 11:10 AM ^
Chill out man. Your logic and defensiveness is all over the place. I don't agree that Texas A&M should be #4, but the sky isn't falling and this isn't some SEC bias conspiracy. The only reason they release ratings before the end are to have some level of transparency as to where teams stand and to drum up this type of interest/debate/controversy because this is very subjective.
It is not to avoid "jamming themselves up". These are supposed to be more fluid than the polls as resumes can change quickly in college football. The LSU upset of Bama you mentioned WOULD cause major changes. And thats OK. Why is it an issue to drop teams whose resume has detereorated? The notion that teams should only move up and down based on that week's result is a relic from the poll era.
November 2nd, 2016 at 11:30 AM ^
not like "super freaking out" about this or anything, just because I wrote a lot. I just think it is really illogical. And there is clear bias, as it planted the seed for two SEC teams in the CFP when the season, thus far, has not indicated that would or should be the case.
The inclusion of TAM in the Top 4 right now does pose logistical problems for Michigan getting in with a loss to OSU. It may have been a stretch to begin with, but not that much of one this year based on the lack of a quality non-Power 5 option and the lack of ND. Based on SOS and how the season has played out, it looked to me that Louisville would be the primary spoiler of that scenario and not a very concerning one. A&M on the other hand, they don't look particularly likely to lose and having them in the Top 4 already would shut the door on a second BIG team. What these rankings do indicate, as of right now, is that in the Committee's mind, if any team is getting two it is the SEC.
Ask yourself this, what is the possible rationale for TAM to be in the Top 4, two spots ahead of OSU, when OSU has two Top 15 wins and only one fluke loss to a Top 15 team on the road? What has TAM done to warrant that treatment? If any team were to hop an undefeated Washington, it should have been OSU.
This is all just fodder for speculation, I get that, and I am not like hyper-pissed about, but there is innuendo there to be found, for sure.
November 2nd, 2016 at 11:37 AM ^
The CFP ratings have been very fluid over the last 2 years. Teams move up & down all of the time, not just after losses. It isn't the "ritualized" thing that AP does, where you only move down after a loss.
Notice how last year's CFP tries to be contrarian towards the early part of November, and settles on the exact same ranking as the AP by the end. The same thing happened in 2014, and the same thing is happening now. It's just that most Michigan fans weren't paying as much attention over the last couple of years as they are now.
Week 9, 2015
AP: 1-OSU, 2-Baylor, 3-Clemson, 4-LSU
CFP: 1-Clemson, 2-LSU, 3-OSU, 4-Alabama
Week 10, 2015
AP: 1-Clemson, 2-OSU, 3-Alabama, 4-Baylor
CFP: 1-Clemson, 2-Alabama, 3-OSU, 4-ND
Week 11, 2015
AP: 1-Clemson, 2-OSU, 3-Alabama, 4-Ok St
CFP: 1-Clemson, 2-Alabama, 3-OSU, 4-ND
Week 12, 2015
AP: 1-Clemson, 2-Alabama, 3-Iowa, 4-ND
CFP: 1-Clemson, 2-Alabama, 3-Oklahoma, 4-Iowa
Week 13, 2015
AP: 1-Clemson, 2-Alabama, 3-MSU, 4-Oklahoma
CFP: 1-Clemson, 2-Alabama, 3-Oklahoma, 4-Iowa
Pre-bowl, 2015
AP: 1-Clemson, 2-Alabama, 3-MSU, 4-Oklahoma
CFP: 1-Clemson, 2-Alabama, 3-MSU, 4-Oklahoma
November 2nd, 2016 at 12:06 PM ^
get that they are fluid, but I don't think you can really deny that A&M at 4 is funny business. They lost to Alabama by twenty points, I understand that it was close for a while, but that is a 3 score loss. All that has been determined about Texas A&M is that Alabama is way better than them. That's it. This artificially props up both Bama and A&M, in the sense that Bama will automatically stay in the Top 4 with a loss because of their "huge win" over A&M. I also disagree that it is a given that an unbeaten Washington would jump them, because Washington really cannot do anything from here on out that would heighten their resume over that of a one less A&M team given the Committee's initial determination.
November 2nd, 2016 at 12:14 PM ^
Committee has said on multiple occasions that they value a championship. Washington can get one (plus a strength of schedule boost from game #13), whereas A&M cannot. It's a pretty safe bet that Washingon (or Ohio State *shudder*) would jump A&M by winning out.
November 2nd, 2016 at 12:28 PM ^
get what you are saying, but there is no "propping" going on here. It's just a single week.
"Washington cannot do anything that would heighten their resume over that of a one loss A&M team given the committee's initial determination." You are still making the mistake of thinking AP-style ritual rather than CFP-style re-rankings every week. Please, please, please drop any thought of "Initial determinations."
Last season, undefeated Baylor was #2 in the AP and #6 in the initial CFP. I'm sure they were thinking the same thing as Washington. Two seasons ago, Alabama was #3 in the AP and #6 in the initial CFP. It's meaningless.
Washington goes undefeated, they pass Texas A&M in the CFP rankings. Period. It will happen, even if just on the last week. This week's poll is irrelevant, as will be next week's poll and the week after that and the week after that and the week after that.
November 2nd, 2016 at 12:36 PM ^
If you take your team on a field trip to Tuscaloosa just to look around, that bumps you up 3 or 4 ranking spots just because you spent time in the magnificent aura of Alabama.
To be in the same stadium as them during a actual game? Guranteed Top 10.
November 2nd, 2016 at 8:56 AM ^
Their resume looks good because they beat the then numbers 16, 17, and 9 but those were obviously highly overrated. Only Auburn, then unrated, is a good win for them.
I don't think it matters much because Washington has a CCG and WSU still on the schedule and A&M has LSU that may or may not be ranked as they still have Alabama, Arkansas, and Florida.
If A&M sneaks in over and undefeated Washington, then I think the calls for an 8 team playoff will get louder.
November 2nd, 2016 at 10:29 AM ^
If we are counting the rank when they played, then their win against Auburn is a useless win. A&M at 4 simply doesn't compute.
November 2nd, 2016 at 10:36 AM ^
at all.
I said it above, it was to shoot down any discussion of any other conference than the SEC getting more than one team. They set the tone for the rest of their rankings. Again, the SEC will be treated as superior even though the play of the conference as a whole does not indicate that it is.
But watch out if LSU beats Alabama, because the nonsensical ranking of TAM will jam the Committee up already. They can't possibly have two SEC teams with a loss in the Top 4 at this point in the season with an undefeated, and very impressive, Washington team left out. So, who would they drop? Bama? Can't - they beat the Aggies. Do you drop TAM? Then why were they in there in the first place?!
They blew a layup, Mark Donnal style, on their first rankings. Unreal.
November 2nd, 2016 at 10:33 AM ^
Looking at 3 different places for SOS (fei, ncaa, sagarin) and they all have A&M with a much higher SOS than Washington.
November 2nd, 2016 at 5:44 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 3:20 PM ^
Exactly, and the committee has long held that they care more about who you beat than who you lose to. Just about everyone is going to lose a game this season; the committee has shown that they will overlook a loss if the rest of your resume is strong; Texas A&M's is stronger than Washington at the moment, even with the loss to the #1 team in the country.
Think of it this way: if Texas A&M's schedule had fallen differently so that they hadn't played Alabama yet, and instead beat up on South Carolina that weekend with Alabama still upcoming, would you be upset about them being #4? They would have one more meaningless win and be undefeated. Would they be a better team?
November 2nd, 2016 at 6:00 AM ^
So long as they don't project the B1G to bump some other conference's autobid place at one of those bowls, I think this is allowed.
The only "rule" is that these bowls need to generate as much money as humanly possible--and that means slotting Nebraska in an at-large NY6 spot if there is any way to justify it.
November 2nd, 2016 at 8:26 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 2nd, 2016 at 6:32 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 6:39 AM ^
But then you have the east whose best team is Florida(?) and they are maybe as good as Nebraska at best. Then it's a bunch of hot garbage with Georgia being the only other decent team, especially now that Tennessee is falling apart. It's just weird.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 2nd, 2016 at 9:16 AM ^
Almost lost to Nicholls State and Mizzou (2-6), lost to Ole Miss (3-5), Vandy (4-4), Tennessee (5-3) and Florida (6-1). Their only quality win is versus a very up and down UNC team. They suck too.
November 2nd, 2016 at 10:23 AM ^
Georgia threw the game winning touchdown on 4th & 15 from their own 25 with a minute left in the game to win 28-27. They are a total fraud of a team. This was known in September.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 2nd, 2016 at 6:40 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 2nd, 2016 at 7:18 AM ^
But since I'm bored at work, why not. Why is LSU resergent under Orgeron? Who have they beaten? Southern Miss. That is the only team they have beaten with a winning record. Western would kill Southern Miss. Ole Miss, and Missouri suck. The SEC sucks. Alabama is the only good team in the conference and it will all come out in the wash. Maybe Auburn, but if you look at them, their best win is arguably LSU. I'm not impressed.
November 2nd, 2016 at 7:50 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 9:25 AM ^
But just a friendly discourse, and to support my claim that the conference sucks.
Outside of Alabama, they really don't have a quality team, that can claim a quality out of conference victory.
Auburn lost their only quality out of conference game 19 - 13 to Clemson
LSU lost 16 - 14 to Wisconsin
Ole Miss lost to a (not as good as suspected) Florida St 45 - 24
Tennessee is a dumpster fire who should have lost to App St, and the only quality victory is over Va Tech 45 - 24
Texas A&M's best out of conference win is against a (3 - 5) UCLA.
Even Alabama's victory was over a bad USC team. I'm not impressed or scared of any SEC team.
November 2nd, 2016 at 8:50 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 8:57 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 11:06 AM ^
I'm not really ready to concede either of those points concerning Auburn and LSU (and they are also a bit contradictory). It's contradictory in that if Auburn is legit good, then LSU has only lost to two good teams, both essentially on the road, and beaten everyone else. LSU wouldn't be in a resurgance because they were never that down.
But in reality, all reasoning as to how good any of these SEC teams are (other than Bama) relies on thinking other SEC teams they beat were good. It's pretty easy to feed into that when one SEC win gets a team ranked in the top 15. The only thing we really have to go on is what happened out of conference. Best I can tell, these are the notable non-conference wins/loses for the SEC.
Wins: UNC (Georgia), Virginia Tech (Tennessee), 5-3 USC (Alabama), 4-4 TCU (Arkansas), 3-5 UCLA (A&M)
Losses: Wisconsin (LSU), Clemson (Auburn - not as close as score indicated), Florida State (Ole Miss), West Virginia (Missouri), Georgia Tech. (Vandy), MTSU (Missouri), Southern Miss. (UK), South Alabama (Miss. St.)
I don't find that to be very impressive, and indicates to me that the rating of A&M, Auburn, etc. so high is merely a reflection of past performance. My eyes (and Alabama's destruction of all comers) tell me the conference isn't as impressive as it has been.
November 2nd, 2016 at 6:49 AM ^
My thoughts exactly.
November 2nd, 2016 at 7:07 AM ^
Aside from the playoffs, which are a separate deal, I think you're really only limited by the number of tie-ins that you have to actual bowl games really and / or the number of teams in your conference that are in fact eligible to go to bowls, so if it happens to be the case that four representatives from one conference play on New Year's weekend, then that's how it is really.
November 2nd, 2016 at 8:14 AM ^
November 2nd, 2016 at 10:24 AM ^
Since the Sugar Bowl now has tie-ins with both the SEC and the Big 12, the only way a Big Ten team could play in the Sugar Bowl is the years that it is a semifinal site. So this year, the Sugar Bowl is guaranteed to have an SEC team against a Big 12 team, the same way the Rose Bowl is guaranteed to have a P12 team against a B1G team.
So that leaves the Orange Bowl, which will have an ACC team against a SEC or B1G team, plus the Cotton Bowl, which will have a G5 team (quite possibly Western Michigan) against the highest ranked remaining team.
So the Big Ten could conceivably get a Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl and Cotton Bowl bid in addition to the playoff team(s). Assuming only 1 Big Ten team in the playoffs, that's a maximum of 4. The only way to get more would be to get more than 1 team into the playoffs.