College Football Playoff Rankings

Donate To GopherHole
TexasAggie11

TexasAggie11

Active member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
876
Reaction score
61
Points
28
http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/content/ranking/2016

RANK TEAM RECORD
1 Alabama 8-0
2 Clemson 8-0
3 Michigan 8-0
4 Texas A&M 7-1
5 Washington 8-0
6 Ohio State 7-1
7 Louisville 7-1
8 Wisconsin 6-2
9 Auburn 6-2
10 Nebraska 7-1
11 Florida 6-1
12 Penn State 6-2
13 Louisiana State 5-2
14 Oklahoma 6-2
15 Colorado 6-2
16 Utah 7-2
17 Baylor 6-1
18 Oklahoma State 6-2
19 Virginia Tech 6-2
20 West Virginia 6-1
21 North Carolina 6-2
22 Florida State 5-3
23 Western Michigan 8-0
24 Boise State 7-1
25 Washington State

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Must be a typo. I don't see Minnesota on the list.

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.
 

That Penn State game... ?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 




A&M over Washington, that's some sort of stupid joke right?
 

And with the 4th ranking, this list loses all credibility
 

Should be Alabama, Michigan, Washington, Clemson, in that order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

A&M at 4 over Washington is a total joke. All the proof anyone ever needed that ESPN is 100% in bed with the SEC.
 



I've never subjected myself to watching the CFP spokesperson hem and haw about how they horse trade these thing into existence. Including Iowa in the top 5 last year told me everything I needed to know.

What's the deal with the selection process? Are they looking at wins over top 25 teams? "Bad" losses? Advanced stats such as FEI or S&P? If it is just a rankings game, ie TAMU has more wins over top 24t than Washington well that's just garbage. Any intelligent adult understands these rankings are almost totally made up, and compounding errors down the line into the CFP calculations is just stupid.

The advanced stats profiles are probably better, especially if you look at something like F+ that is more comprehensive, but is still not totally satisfactory because it doesn't take injuries, weather, freak plays, how we'll teams are playing into account.

The only satisfactory solution will be a tourney of conference champs.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I've never subjected myself to watching the CFP spokesperson hem and haw about how they horse trade these thing into existence. Including Iowa in the top 5 last year told me everything I needed to know.

What's the deal with the selection process? Are they looking at wins over top 25 teams? "Bad" losses? Advanced stats such as FEI or S&P? If it is just a rankings game, ie TAMU has more wins over top 24t than Washington well that's just garbage. Any intelligent adult understands these rankings are almost totally made up, and compounding errors down the line into the CFP calculations is just stupid.

The advanced stats profiles are probably better, especially if you look at something like F+ that is more comprehensive, but is still not totally satisfactory because it doesn't take injuries, weather, freak plays, how we'll teams are playing into account.

The only satisfactory solution will be a tourney of conference champs.
Click to expand...

apparently they are all using different criteria and come to a mutual decision. I'd bet some use the "eye test" and some get into the metrics.
 

Just for fun, where do you think MN would be ranked if they'd hung on against PSU? I say 25.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 




If we win out and beat an undefeated Michigan team, we could possibly make the playoffs.

Just saying...
 


This early in the season these rankings are literally only there to drive eyeballs on television sets and banter in online forums. If the committee wasn't concerned with that aspect, they wouldn't release a poll until after the conference championships.

That said, I wouldn't get too worked up about it. There's no way this remains the way it is, no way that, even if they win out, A&M will be in the top 4 without a division title (let alone a conference title).
 


Penn State 12th? Laughing.
 

I think the rankings currently reflect what each team has actually done on the field during September and October (and not what they are projected to do in November). When the end of the season rolls around and Washington has (potentially) a conference championship and A&M has none, we can discuss what each team has actually done at that point - and likely the rankings will change.

I think the committee is also sending a message that strength of schedule is important. Washington is playing the fourth-easiest schedule in P5 conferences while A&M is in the top ten most difficult. This is also why Baylor will never make the playoffs with their joke of a schedule. This is also why they have, and may continue to, allow multiple teams from the same conference - they are not going to punish a team for playing in a tough division nor reward a team for winning a weak or "down" conference. They are trying to select the four best/toughest teams in CFB.

Agree with it or not, I think this philosophy is great for the sport overall, and especially for the fans. No one wants to watch Baylor beat up on Incarnate Word or the East Texas School for Deaf Girls. They want to watch top teams compete against each other. One team has to lose, but if they play them well (like A&M leading Bama halfway through the 3rd quarter before making some costly mistakes), they can remain in it. I hope this raises the bar for the matchups we get to watch as fans.
 

Gopher07 said:
This early in the season these rankings are literally only there to drive eyeballs on television sets and banter in online forums. If the committee wasn't concerned with that aspect, they wouldn't release a poll until after the conference championships.

That said, I wouldn't get too worked up about it. There's no way this remains the way it is, no way that, even if they win out, A&M will be in the top 4 without a division title (let alone a conference title).
Click to expand...

My understanding is the committee didn't even want to do these early projections..... folks like ESPN insisted.
 

TexasAggie11 said:
I think the rankings currently reflect what each team has actually done on the field during September and October (and not what they are projected to do in November). When the end of the season rolls around and Washington has (potentially) a conference championship and A&M has none, we can discuss what each team has actually done at that point - and likely the rankings will change.

I think the committee is also sending a message that strength of schedule is important. Washington is playing the fourth-easiest schedule in P5 conferences while A&M is in the top ten most difficult. This is also why Baylor will never make the playoffs with their joke of a schedule. This is also why they have, and may continue to, allow multiple teams from the same conference - they are not going to punish a team for playing in a tough division nor reward a team for winning a weak or "down" conference. They are trying to select the four best/toughest teams in CFB.

Agree with it or not, I think this philosophy is great for the sport overall, and especially for the fans. No one wants to watch Baylor beat up on Incarnate Word or the East Texas School for Deaf Girls. They want to watch top teams compete against each other. One team has to lose, but if they play them well (like A&M leading Bama halfway through the 3rd quarter before making some costly mistakes), they can remain in it. I hope this raises the bar for the matchups we get to watch as fans.
Click to expand...

Agreed- to date Wash has beat up on what is largely a very mediocre group of opponents. If they continue on to win the PAC-12 championship and remain undefeated I have no doubt they'll be rewarded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



So if Washington was in the SEC and had already played Bama on the road, would they be 8-0? I don't think that this is so crazy.
 

TexasAggie11 said:
I think the rankings currently reflect what each team has actually done on the field during September and October (and not what they are projected to do in November). When the end of the season rolls around and Washington has (potentially) a conference championship and A&M has none, we can discuss what each team has actually done at that point - and likely the rankings will change.

I think the committee is also sending a message that strength of schedule is important. Washington is playing the fourth-easiest schedule in P5 conferences while A&M is in the top ten most difficult. This is also why Baylor will never make the playoffs with their joke of a schedule. This is also why they have, and may continue to, allow multiple teams from the same conference - they are not going to punish a team for playing in a tough division nor reward a team for winning a weak or "down" conference. They are trying to select the four best/toughest teams in CFB.

Agree with it or not, I think this philosophy is great for the sport overall, and especially for the fans. No one wants to watch Baylor beat up on Incarnate Word or the East Texas School for Deaf Girls. They want to watch top teams compete against each other. One team has to lose, but if they play them well (like A&M leading Bama halfway through the 3rd quarter before making some costly mistakes), they can remain in it. I hope this raises the bar for the matchups we get to watch as fans.
Click to expand...

A&M's 'top 10' scheduled is boosted by playing an overrated UCLA team, an overrated Arkansas team, and an overrated Tennessee team. And they needed OT to get by UCLA, and 2 OTs to get by Tennessee.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
A&M's 'top 10' scheduled is boosted by playing an overrated UCLA team, an overrated Arkansas team, and an overrated Tennessee team. And they needed OT to get by UCLA, and 2 OTs to get by Tennessee.
Click to expand...

That's being pretty mean to a guest. :)
 

Just find a way to get to 4 power conferences and it is settled. Conference championship is the playoff to get into the final four. Win your division to make the playoffs. Blow up the Big 12 football.
 


Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0 said:
How is ESPN involved in selecting this?
Click to expand...

one could argue the overhyping of the SEC leading to a early season over-rankings leading to AM looking better on paper than what they actually are due to the teams they've beat and by being in the SEC. Or simply, the media controls at least part of our perceptions.
 

upnorthkid said:
one could argue the overhyping of the SEC leading to a early season over-rankings leading to AM looking better on paper than what they actually are due to the teams they've beat and by being in the SEC. Or simply, the media controls at least part of our perceptions.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're talking about a "rigged system".... don.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom