Week 11 CFP Rankings: Michigan #3, Wisconsin #7, PSU #8, Colorado #10

Submitted by drawdown400 on


(And OSU #2)

Some (clemson fans, Louisville, Washington) will complain about Michigan's ranking despite the loss this weekend, but it's hard to argue for a drop in the rankings given Michigan's dominant wins over three top 10 teams. (Yeah, upon reflection, the win vs Wisconsin seems pretty dominant, despite the final score).

Bottom line..I like this week's edition of the CFP rankings.
MGoBoard
Football

FieldingBLUE

November 16th, 2016 at 10:33 AM ^

I will continue to pound this point home. No one (including Michigan) should be eligible for the playoff if they cannot win their own division. Why?

1. Skipping a chance/opportunity to play another top 10-15 opponent in a CCG. While that may improve top 4 standing, it also has the chance to be a loss and dropping you out. A team has an X% chance of losing if they win their division. If they are second in division, they have a 0% chance of losing the CCG and falling out of top 4.

2. Every team has a chance to win their division at the start of the year. If you cannot complete task one, you shouldn't get to skip task two (win conference) and go directly to task three (make playoff).

3. Is there a scenario where the 4th best team is clearly a non-division winner? Perhaps. But given the issues with #1, it's not assured that team would be in that spot should they have had to play another top team in a CCG.

Compare an 11-1 OSU team which finished 2nd in its division with an 11-2 PSU team that won its division and conference and beat OSU. Shouldn't the Nittany Lions get that shot over OSU? 

Or had we not lost to Iowa and we'd be 11-1 after a loss to OSU (for example), they'd be 11-1 going into the CCG and lost to Wisconsin. Who gets in? 11-1 Michigan or 11-2 Wisconsin? We beat them so we should go right? No way. We didn't have to face Wisconsin in the CCG.

Not sure if I'm making my point but I am adamant about this. Tell me how I'm wrong.

Joined: 08/28/2008

MGoPoints: 4514

loverbuck

November 16th, 2016 at 1:04 PM ^

Your wrong because:

 

Under your system the playoffs might look like this- this year:

 

Alabama

Oklahoma

Wisconsin

Virginia Tech

All conference winners, but other than Alabama, none considered amongst the very best teams this year.  The stated purpose of the CFP was to ensure that the 4 "best" teams made the playoffs and to prevent the unfairness of the BCS model where when you lost was more important than how good you were.

 

Under the new CFP model the goal is to look at empirical data, such as strength of schedule, record against top competition, how well or poorly the team controled the game whether in a loss or win, the eye test, losses, conference championships won, and injuries if significant.

 

Part of the reason for the new system was to create better competition in the playoffs- to avoid an Alabama playing at full strength against a Texas who lost their QB right before the championships, or where a team may have won their conference, but empirical evidence suggests their not the best team in their conference; ie: Bama losing to Tennessee in the SEC championship on some flukey plays where Bama beat them during the year 49-10.

The system was not set up to determine the best 4 conference champions in a 5 conference system but rather the 4 best teams, who may or may not have won their conference.  If it were a matter of just selecting the 4 best conference champs there would be no need for a committee, weekly rankings, and empirical differences between teams, computers instead would be able to accurately assess wich conference as a whole was the worst conference.

Interestingly, if it were just the conference champions from the 4 best conferecnes then Alabama may not be selected, even if undefeated, as they have arguably the least competitive of all conferences this year.

Dont let your hatred for Ohio State cloud your assessment of the goal of the committee.  Emotions and knee jerk reactions make for terrible rules and precedents.

Joined: 11/16/2016

MGoPoints: 21