Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: College Football Playoff Rankings

  1. #1

    College Football Playoff Rankings

    The first official committee rankings came out tonight. They mean nothing at this point and lots of football remains before anything is decided. I really hate to see my Dawgs at number 1! This is can be a kiss of death. I hope that Clemson and Georgia can hold onto a Final Four spot! It would be next door neighbors in a National Championship fight! This is how they ranked them.... 1. UGA 2. Alabama 3. Notre Dame 4. Clemson

  2. #2
    Registered Users Snoop65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Deep left field
    Posts
    2,295
    Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama?

  3. #3
    CPT
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA (via Sunbury, Ohio)
    Posts
    2,570
    Let me preface this with some honesty (which is mostly non-existent in the debating world of "championships" decided by committees): Alabama SEEMS to have a better chance of beating Clemson than OSU; however, this is based on 'logic' that is clouded by the fact that 11-1 Al had a very weak schedule so no one really knows how much of their strength is just based on beating up on weak teams, and the committee no doubt punished THIS years OSU team for the past two Big Ten teams performance in the playoffs, which is not logical at ALL). In any case OSU had a very small chance (5%?) this year of winning the championship by beating Clemson and the Al-Georgia winner. But they still EARNED a chance at the championship and therefore the current system is not fair to not only OSU, but perhaps USC and (12-1!) Wisconsin and needs to EXPAND in scope!

    But all that said, I'm done with college football UNTIL they go to a 6 to 8 team playoff system (i.e., one that is mostly based on the team's play on the field and NOT on someone's OPINION). I put them in the same category as figure skating and cycling as all these "sports" are just popularity contests where "championships" are given and taken away based on someone's opinion of who is best. That's just masturbation and can never be REAL.

    And ponder this: would you ever accept ANY pro sports league determining who plays for the championship based on some "official" committee's determination? You would not. ALL pro sports use conference championships as automatic berths into their playoffs and then a few more "wildcards" to round out the playoff fields...but ALL these playoff spots are based on PLAY ON THE FIELD! Without that, it's just Figure Skating judges determining (based on pure popularity of the skater..) who is "best".

    So here's another system alternative: a 6 or 8 team playoff field with the five conference champs in with 1 to 3 "wildcard" teams that did not win their conference, but overall are better than one or two of the conference champs. This exactly mirrors how pro ball sports teams do it re who gets into their playoffs. (And if 6 team playoff than you would simply give the top 2 seeds a 1st round bye...again, exactly how the pro leagues do it!).
    "Now my freedom's bought and paid for -- it lights up my living room
    I got nothing more to prove; I've got no reason to move
    And when I'm tired of the program -- when its taken its toll
    I can press a button, change the channel by remote control." - Pat Macdonald, Timbuk3




  4. #4
    MG AgentOrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    10,891
    ^^^^Words of a sore looser and OHS alum.^^^^

    I feel your pain.

  5. #5
    CPT
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA (via Sunbury, Ohio)
    Posts
    2,570
    That's the point, AO: We WON on the field and lost "in committee"! Not sore loser; sore WINNER!

    Bring it back to the field of play and out of the hands of "the committee".

    Exercising my right and choice to "change the channel" and stick to sports that do this (like ALL pro ball sports..). You can keep "Figure Skating"; I'm only watching sports where the PLAYERS decide who is the best, not "the good ol boys".
    "Now my freedom's bought and paid for -- it lights up my living room
    I got nothing more to prove; I've got no reason to move
    And when I'm tired of the program -- when its taken its toll
    I can press a button, change the channel by remote control." - Pat Macdonald, Timbuk3




  6. #6
    MG AgentOrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    10,891
    In the last 3 years the Committee made 12 picks.
    I believe they got 11 right, the only miss was last year putting in OHS over Penn. 11 of 12 is an excellent record.

    You might be a sore looser, but I promise you Urban Meyer is relieved not to have gotten in and having to face CLEMSON again after the whupping he took last year.

  7. #7
    CPT
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA (via Sunbury, Ohio)
    Posts
    2,570
    Again you make my point, AO: "I BELIEVE they got 11 right...". Should never be based on what you or anyone else "believes".

    I guess I "believed" you when you ranted on about how "strength of schedule" was SO important. Based on Al. getting in (while sitting on the side lines while other teams left it all on the field in WINNING their conferences), and with their large number of "The Citadel" like weak opponents in their non-winning conference season, obviously strength of schedule means nothing to "the committee". They take the easy way out every time and just basically tally up a teams win/lose record and those teams with the best records pretty much get in.... Teams like Clemson and Al. that stack there schedules with weak teams (like "The Citadel", whoever they are...) have the right strategy. Teams like OSU that schedule (and expend a lot of blood and sweat BEATING) a #2, a #4, numerous other top 25 ranked teams don't. They only will when 'play on the field' determines whose best; not "the committee".

    add: don't you, Tony, and Snoop all have 3 correct with yours the earliest?
    "Now my freedom's bought and paid for -- it lights up my living room
    I got nothing more to prove; I've got no reason to move
    And when I'm tired of the program -- when its taken its toll
    I can press a button, change the channel by remote control." - Pat Macdonald, Timbuk3




  8. #8
    MG AgentOrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    10,891
    Quote Originally Posted by elgrau View Post
    Again you make my point, AO: "I BELIEVE they got 11 right...".
    This is best done by men not machines.
    I suspect you read on another thread as to my thoughts on software.
    Even then, men write the software.

    Yes, I can only post what I believe. Many (most) believe as I.

    I personally rank Strength of Schedule high. Some rank other things higher.

    Clemson and Alabama did not "stack" schedules. In fact, no one plowed through a schedule as tough as CLEMSON, certainly not OHS who was blown out in their only tough game to Oklahoma. had CLEMSON lost to Miami in a close game, a valid argument could be made to still place them above a 2 loss Auburn or OHS. I would not agree.
    I believe OHS winning the Big Ten is a big deal, but it was a close game over Wisconsin who had no SOS. OHS had the ugly loss to Iowa. They lost to Oklahoma, but most people have. I would have put OHS in, but most people would not.

    Alabama did not know Florida State was going to tank, when they scheduled them. Their wins are not as good as would be in a normal year in that division of the SEC. I could see OHS or Auburn, even USC going in ahead of them.
    "I Believe" Alabama is the best team. I have watched them every week. When "people" judge, the eye test does come into play. They only lost on the road to an excellent Auburn team.

    I would have put in OHS, but that may be because I hate CLEMSON now has to face Alabama.
    "I Believe" Vegas will have Alabama the fav in all games. If that is the case, it is another mark that the Committee made the right call. Their mandate is to put in the best 4.

  9. #9
    CPT
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA (via Sunbury, Ohio)
    Posts
    2,570
    AO wrote ""I Believe" Vegas will have Alabama the fav in all games. If that is the case, it is another mark that the Committee made the right call."

    Then you don't understand how Vegas works, Bill. Their point spreads are NOT based on an analysis of which team is stronger, but is totally based on how the betting public PERCEIVES the relative strength of the two teams. All Vegas favoring Al. means is that they have determined that the PUBLIC believes Al. to be the better team (based on the history of the "Crimson Tide", etc., etc., and other emotional reasons). Has nothing to do with what the reality of the situation is. That's why professional gamblers so like sports betting 'cause they can at least make themselves believe that they are smarter than the public at large and thus can make money by wagering on the team that they have determined (by analysis or their perceived to be better than average bettors knowledge of the two teams TRUE relative strengths) the ACTUAL relative strengths of the two teams.

    The Vegas "pro's" have folks who do actually use insider info and analysis to handicap the games, but they keep this info to themselves and these "pro's" are separate from the "pro's" who set the betting lines that are as stated based on reading the public perception of the two teams and adjusting the spread accordingly so that an equal amount will be more or less bet on each team so that they can risk free just collect their 5% vig on the total betting action...which is in the billions so is sizeable risk free income for them. And if they do err in setting these betting lines, they simply "lay-off" their imbalances with another legal gambling house; but the less they err the less they need to "lay-off" and thus the more risk free $'s they make on the rest.

    One last fact that points out the flaws in using committees: Can you not see the logical fallacy in that if Wisconsin would have won this close game and being 13-0 would have taken the #4 spot over Al. ('cause they already possessed a playoff spot and how do you DROP them after they win??), but when OSU actually BEATS this same team, they are deemed not worthy of being in the playoffs and Al. gets the #4 spot. So OSU for having beaten said team is perceived to be WEAKER than the team they just beat! That's BS any way you slice it.

    The answer is to have a playoff system that by passes any committees. Check out the one I outlined above that mirrors how the pro teams base everything on the results on the field and none on "committees" (with possible exception of year to year match up scheduling which is a second order effect as pro teams are much more evenly matched..). IF (e.g.) the college playoffs used conference championship games as "ins" (100% based on results of play on the field during the "regular season") AND then added a few "wildcard" teams to bring the 5 from conference champs up to 6 or 8 total teams (which could be from the top current top 25 ranked teams that did not win their conferences...thus "wildcards"), you'd have a playoff system almost exactly like the pros and not dependent on any committee... I like this better than ONLY taking the four conference champs with the best record in a 4 team playoff as this would exclude some very good non-conference winners from tough divisions... Again, just as they have "wildcard" teams in the pros (baseball, football, basketball, hockey).
    "Now my freedom's bought and paid for -- it lights up my living room
    I got nothing more to prove; I've got no reason to move
    And when I'm tired of the program -- when its taken its toll
    I can press a button, change the channel by remote control." - Pat Macdonald, Timbuk3




  10. #10
    MG AgentOrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    10,891
    I again disagree.
    I do understand (in a simple way) as to Vegas betting.
    The deal is money.
    Public knowledge, whims, favorites, witch craft, etc wins most times. Money talks and does it with a voice so loud any of the ESPN experts (and you) could make a bundle if you could top the results -> even slightly.

    More will bet Alabama over Yale, and the odds adjust constantly.

    At the end of the day (with lay offs and WTF) Vegas is a good indicator of who will win a game. It is just one of many, but maybe the best. Maybe you do not understand how to interpret it all? I surely do not, but history shows they do a better job than -- you pick.

  11. #11
    MG AgentOrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    10,891
    Quote Originally Posted by elgrau View Post
    One last fact that points out the flaws in using committees: Can you not see the logical fallacy in that if Wisconsin would have won this close game and being 13-0 would have taken the #4 spot over Al. ('cause they already possessed a playoff spot and how do you DROP them after they win??), but when OSU actually BEATS this same team, they are deemed not worthy of being in the playoffs and Al. gets the #4 spot. So OSU for having beaten said team is perceived to be WEAKER than the team they just beat! That's BS any way you slice it.
    That is the way you slice it Ed (not "any way").
    I have posted I would have put OHS in over Alabama after they won the conference Championship. I have no problem putting Alabama in as I believe they are by far the better team. The goal for the Committee is to put the best 4 teams in. They have been given parameters and mandates by the Power Five conferences as to how to accomplish that.
    It is a given some (this year, but not last year) you.

    The Committe starts "fresh every week, or so they say.
    The deal is not done on week one. Auburn and Wisconsin played their way out. That did not give a free ride to OHS or Georgia to be in.
    All teams and etc were again piled into the mix.

    I have zero problem again this year and hope nothing changes in years going forward.

  12. #12
    MG AgentOrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    10,891
    Quote Originally Posted by elgrau View Post

    But all that said, I'm done with college football
    It is just entertaiment, not real life like our Military face.
    Ease up Ed ~

    Here is an "expert" from ESPN. I am much more an expert, but I get no $$$.





    Ultimately, the selection committee let us know in decisive fashion that Ohio State and Alabama really were not that comparable, rendering the arguments that ensued over the past 48 hours moot. The members let us know in no uncertain terms that Alabama was indeed unequivocally better than Ohio State.

    OHS made the playoff last year as a one-loss nonconference champion. So the precedent had already been set. But what the committee announced with this vote Sunday is that "unequivocally better" means that conference affiliation has no bearing on that definition.


    "The selection committee just favored Alabama's full body of work over Ohio State, and it was consistent over the course of the year, as we saw Alabama play week in and week out," committee chairman Kirby Hocutt told Rece Davis after the semifinals were announced. "Our rankings showed each and every week the selection committee believed Alabama was the better football team."

    Alabama was ranked ahead of Ohio State in every single playoff ranking this season, going back to the first one revealed Halloween night. So there is consistency in that explanation. Alabama also did not lose by 31 points to Iowa. That loss by itself was enough to sink Ohio State's chances, at least in the committee's view.
    Ohio State's 31-point loss to Iowa was enough for the College Football Playoff selection committee to overlook its conference title.

    Whether the committee got it right is subject to your own interpretation about what should be most important. Here is why I believe the committee got it right: Based on performance alone, Alabama consistently looked like a top-four team. Ohio State did not.

    In all honesty, Ohio State should have been disqualified from consideration for that dreadful 55-24 loss against Iowa. Had that been the Buckeyes' only loss this season, the committee would in all likelihood have been willing to overlook it. Clemson has a bad loss, too, but the Tigers have so many quality wins and an ACC championship that it hardly mattered. If Ohio State had only one loss, I firmly believe the Buckeyes would be in today.

    But there is no scrubbing away the performance we saw from a supposed top-four team at Iowa. This is not remotely similar to Alabama's loss. Ohio State had its full complement of players and got boat raced. The committee had every right to hold that against the Buckeyes.

    Placed in a vacuum, without names or conferences attached to these schools, Alabama had the better strength of record. According to ESPN Stats & Information, the average Top 25 team would have only a 9 percent chance of going 11-1 against Alabama's schedule. Accordingly, the average Top 25 team would have a 14 percent chance to go 11-2 against Ohio State's schedule.

    Alabama also beat its opponents more decisively and spent all season ranked in the top two until its final loss to Auburn.

    "I would say our charge is very simple," Hocutt said. "Our charge is, the selection committee has to identify the four very best teams in the country. When there are close separations between the teams, we're instructed to look at certain criteria. In this case, the margins weren't close enough to look at those."

    Given that explanation and the way the committee ranked Alabama all season, what happened Sunday shouldn't come as a massive shock. In hindsight, it should have been completely expected. Couple that with the decision to put Ohio State in last season, and the committee has proved in consecutive years now that it will choose the four teams it deems to be the best.

    Now that December's here, that idea hasn't changed.

    Ed, I am not saying you should disagree or agree, just that you might be wrong.

  13. #13
    Registered Users Snoop65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Deep left field
    Posts
    2,295
    As much as I didn't want to see Alabama in it this year based on what I've read I think the committee got it right. I wanted Ohio State but I couldn't see them leap frogging Bama.

  14. #14
    One more take on the CFP. I was watching ESPN this morning and the analysts were very split on the OSU - Alabama positions. Then they said what if we just scrap the committee and go back to the BCS computer system that we had before. They plugged the data into the old system and the results came in as 1.Clem, 2.Georgia, 3.Oklahoma, 4.Alabama

    If we go to 6 or 8 teams we will have the same arguments only it will be between 6-7 or 8-9. Just look at college basketball where there is always a big argument about which teams got shafted out of the 68th position.

  15. #15
    CPT
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA (via Sunbury, Ohio)
    Posts
    2,570
    AO wrote: "I surely do not, but history shows they do a better job than -- you pick."

    That's SO funny and ironic, Bill. They do a better job at picking than I do? Guess you forgot that I simply used the Vegas pre-season top 4 to make the playoffs as MY picks! So you praising them as being such good pickers (re Al.) belies the fact that THEY only got 1 of 4 right...not me! This season was just an 'experiment' by me to see IF believing the "experts" knew anything was a good strategy. Clearly, they don't. However, I will say that several of their picks were coming on strong at the end (USC, OSU) and Alabama did make it in (incorrectly, but true).

    I mean, go back and tell me how many times does a team move UP and into the playoffs without WINNING?? Or put another way, Al. was NOT ranked in the top 4 prior to the final week of games. Was this evaluation incorrect, and if not what did they do to justify moving them up after the final week games (that they did not play in due to....wait for it: NOT being good enough to make it into their conference final!). Does NOT playing somehow make you a better team and able to move UP in the standings and into a playoff spot that prior to NOT playing they were evaluated as a team ranked out of the top 4?

    Basically, OSU was made their bitch (by this flawed crappy playoff system/popularity contest) by knocking off the team (ranked #4!) that was in the playoffs and GIVING that spot to a lower ranked team that did NOTHING that week! I always suspected most here are closet libs that when push comes to shove, favor socialist ways when it SUITS them! And this is clear socialism as idle Alabama was awarded the fruits of OSU's TOUGH and gutsy win over NOT a weak team (like Al. and Clemson feast on...like "The Citadel" ) but a team IN the playoffs if THEY had won and at 13-0 and ranked #4 in the nation! So is OSU rewarded for their hard labor at defeating said team? NO, another whining entitlement minded team that did NOTHING that week is "rewarded" these fruits, not the team that did the heavy lifting to make this possible! Pure socialism that has now bled into college sports by the commies that run these colleges! You all can embrace this blatant socialism; I'll have nothing further to do with it (being I guess the only true Ayn Rand pure capitalist on YC)!


    Add: AO wrote: "Auburn and Wisconsin played their way out. That did not give a free ride to OHS or Georgia to be in."

    Again, so funny, Bill! "Free ride"?? OSU PLAYED their way INTO the playoffs by knocking out the #4 team! ALABAMA got the "free ride" from doing NOTHING to beat any of the top 4 teams and EARN their spot! Yes; you PLAY your way out of the top 4 (like Al. and Auburn and Wisconsin did) and you must PLAY your way back into a playoff spot, NOT be given a free ride back into that spot!
    "Now my freedom's bought and paid for -- it lights up my living room
    I got nothing more to prove; I've got no reason to move
    And when I'm tired of the program -- when its taken its toll
    I can press a button, change the channel by remote control." - Pat Macdonald, Timbuk3




Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •