CFP top 25, week 11

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,042
907
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
It is obvious we need two different playoffs to settle the argument "they were in the top 25"

1. when we played them
2. after season is over.

This just shows how silly this whole argument is.

How silly? If it really matters where they were ranked AFTER you play them vs BEFORE then no polls or rankings should be allowed until all the bowl and playoff games are finished. Then vote.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,042
907
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
The B1G and the PAC 12 are a mess. There are any number of ways these two could go. The ACC is pretty simple: Clemson or Louisville. The SEC is Alabama or bust. The Big 12 depends on what happens with the PAC 12, I think.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
We're being fed - yet again - this line of crap about how it's about what they've done.

Proof it isn't?


#5 Louisville (SOS: 64th, 1-1 vs Top 30)
#9 Oklahoma (SOS: 27th, 1-1 vs Top 30, has beaten NOBODY of consequence)
#14 WVA (SOS: 38th, 1-1 vs Top 30)

How in the hell do you justify this level of discrepancy? Even the argument, "because they've played one more game" doesn't alter the fact it was NOT against a decent foe (since only the top 30 counts).

Oh, that's right.......OU ranks higher because, you know, they're OKLAHOMA...and for no other reason at all.

The question is NOT "will OU beat WVA this weekend," we're being told that's not what these are about.
 

RWBTide

1st Team
Dec 8, 2013
828
67
47
Blue Half of Glasgow Scotland
The rankings make me sad because I believe opinion (anyone's) should play no part in deciding who gets to play in the last game of the season but I appreciate that's an outsiders view.

For what it's worth, I think the Vegas countdown is closer to reality than the committee's.

tOSU v LSU I'd put my money on tOSU

Wolverines v LSU it would be on LSU


128 - numbers don't come much better than if you're looking for a system that removes all opinion, would require a game longer season though - we could expand rosters to address that.
 

bamacon

Hall of Fame
Apr 11, 2008
17,179
4,352
187
College Football's Mecca, Tuscaloosa
Well, I was close in my guess. I had the correct top 4, with UM and Clemson reversed. No real surprise, and plenty of time for this to be settled on the field.

I am tired of all the talk about Louisville. Their schedule is a joke.
And Michigan's isn't? Struggling against inferior competition and winning and losing against inferior competition is different. They've played 2 teams with a pulse, squeaked by one and loss to the other. Louisville destroyed FSU and would have beaten Clemson too with another minute. Both were ranked #2. How is that a joke? You have to be kidding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
And Michigan's isn't?
Michigan SOS: 49, 1-0 vs top ten, 3-0 vs top 30
Louisville SOS: 64, 0-1 vs top ten, 1-1 vs top 30

And Michigan still has a road game vs Ohio State and if they win that, UM plays Wisconsin again. Hard to say they wouldn't be worthy with one loss on that schedule.


Struggling against inferior competition and winning and losing against inferior competition is different.
1) 'are' different

2) one has played a tougher schedule than the other

They've played 2 teams with a pulse, squeaked by one and loss to the other.
They mauled Penn State (who is in line for a title shot)
They beat Wisky
And they lost to Iowa.

I don't how you count, but that's three where I come from.

Louisville destroyed FSU
Who was overrated and lost to UNC....

and would have beaten Clemson too with another minute.
Ole Miss would have beaten Alabama with another minute......

Both were ranked #2. How is that a joke? You have to be kidding.
We agree their ratings are a joke, but this isn't one of them.
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL
I don't think it is ever said but I think we will see some things weigh on the committee from externalities:

1. Commercial desire to avoid a rematch which could hurt ratings. Alabama-LSU BCSCG was a dud for ABC/ESPN.

2. Political desire to spread the wealth. This playoff exists because people didn't like that the BCS produced an SEC rematch in the national title. All the power conferences cannot get a seat at the table but I think they all expect their 1-loss champion to get a bid over a 2nd 2-loss team from a conference.

3. Commercial desire to maximize "cross-sectionality" to broaden national appeal. Really just a another facet to consider the second point: advertisers would rather see a West Coast, Southwest, Southern, and Midwest team if they had their druthers.
While I disagree with your conclusion, I'm not really going to argue with it. I do, though, have issues with two of your premises.

First, there were some mitigating circumstances on the ratings for the Bama-LSU BCS NC game. Ratings for all the BCS games were down that year. The game was also on ESPN and all of the BCS NC games on ESPN had lower ratings than the network-aired championship games. Also, the hubbub about the ratings began that night because it looked like it was going to be the lowest rated BCS NC game of all time, which it wasn't after all the market reports came in. While the ratings weren't great, they were basically middle-of-the-pack for ESPN's BCS NC games.

Second, the true impetus for the CFP wasn't the rematch NC game in 2011; it was the blowout NC game in 2012. Sure, after the Bama-LSU rematch a lot of talking heads - and many laypeople - were bemoaning the lack of a playoff but that was no different than pretty much every other year of the BCS. The actual powers-that-be, i.e. athletic directors and university presidents, didn't start picking up phones and legitimately talking about a four-team playoff until the dud of a game that A) embarrassed Notre Dame and B) first showed that a team could end up ranked #1 in the BCS when that team doesn't deserve to be in the same State as the NC game, much less playing in it.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
Interesting point about the 2011 season's BCS ratings. I think your timing is off with the CFP formulation process. Almost all the conferences expressed a willingness to come to the table and talk shop about BCS replacements in the wake of the 2011 BCS schedule. Yes, the official announcement took about a year to announce "hey, the BCS is over after the 2013 season" but it was fait accompli within a few months of the initial talks. The hold ups on the official announcement mostly had to do with contractual negotiations with Disney/ABC/ESPN.
 

TAKEPRIDE22

2nd Team
Jul 21, 2011
315
6
37
Birmingham, AL
Explain to me how Michigan stays #3 after a loss to a then 5/4 team in Iowawhile everyone else drops? You can't count "future matchups" or "this will fix itself."

The committee said these teams are based off the current teams wins and losses, not expectations.

Michigan lost in similar fashion to Clemson. Shouldn't they have stayed in the same spot, but was instead dropped 2.

This is what I'm trying to understand????
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bubbaloo

1st Team
Dec 8, 2015
464
163
67
36264
Interesting point about the 2011 season's BCS ratings. I think your timing is off with the CFP formulation process. Almost all the conferences expressed a willingness to come to the table and talk shop about BCS replacements in the wake of the 2011 BCS schedule. Yes, the official announcement took about a year to announce "hey, the BCS is over after the 2013 season" but it was fait accompli within a few months of the initial talks. The hold ups on the official announcement mostly had to do with contractual negotiations with Disney/ABC/ESPN.
Follow the money ! The human without bias has not been born yet. Until we do something akin to the BCS 4 which includes a large percentage of analysis by computer, it will be decided by the money.

Every opinion counts, but the one with the most monied opinion count most. Sound familiar ?
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
Yep, that's why I think we see as much cross-sectionality as possible because it enhances commercial performance and pleases political interests.
 
Michigan at #3 is obviously a "this will take care of itself" proposition. Either they're clearly done without their starting QB and it will be immediately apparent against Indiana OR OSU-UM decides it either way. The interesting thing is I don't see OSU dropping out after championship week seeing how they're not on the fringe at all. If they beat Michigan State and Michigan, they're practically a lock for the bracket. There is just no way that championship week means they're no longer top 2 right? It may mean that B1GCG sneaks into the field but not that OSU drops from #2 to #5 or lower without losing a game.

If everything went chalk at this point, I imagine the bracket will be:

Alabama v. Washington

Ohio State v. Clemson
That's what I am thinking. Washington though is the bigger unknown. They would have to win out.


Sent from my iPad Pro 12.9" using Tapatalk Roll Tide!
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
Oh definitely...they're catching a hot WSU team and if they win that then they catch Colorado/Utah in the P12CG.
 

CajunCrimson

Moderator (FB,BB) and Vinyl Enthusiast
Staff member
Mar 13, 2001
26,511
20,447
337
Breaux Bridge, La
Not sure why everyone is freaking out..,..(of those who are freaking out) --

Mich and tOSU play -- so one is out. Louisville gets in....if they win out.

The "FUN" part of this, is -- if PSU wins out and tOSU beats Mich -- and PSU wins the B1G CG -- then what? You keep the Champ out and leave tOSU in? OR -- do you have to put PSU in -- then who gets left out? tOSU? or Louisville/Clemson? -- THAT is what I'm pulling for --
 
Last edited:

BamaBuc

All-American
May 12, 2003
2,610
159
182
St. Pete Beach, FL
crimson-fan.neocities.org
CrimsonForce said:
Michigan has 3 wins vs the committee top 10 - Penn St, Wisconsin and Colorado. Louisville and Washington each have 1. Pretty big discrepancy there in favor of Michigan..
In all fairness, before Saturday Clemson was good enough to be ranked ahead of Michigan. Then both teams lose to similar teams in similar fashion.

And yes, those teams are now ranked in the top ten. At the time, Penn st wasn't in the top 25.
Clemson lost at home giving up 40+ pts.
Michigan lost on the road in a low scoring close game!

Remember the committee deals in the present week and not the past, at least that's what they say! Although I personally don't believe it.

Also Colorado & Penn St. weren't anywhere to be found at the time Michigan played them.
The Buf's didn't show in the polls until week #6...
Penn St. showed in the AP Poll in week #9 & the Coaches Poll in week #10...
Also Louisville & Washington have no wins vs the committee's new top 10...

All I know is Bama's #1 & as long as they win they'll stay there! ROLL~TIDE!!!
 

BamaBuc

All-American
May 12, 2003
2,610
159
182
St. Pete Beach, FL
crimson-fan.neocities.org
Am I only the one that really wants no part of Clemson this year? I haven't watched many of their games so they may not be anywhere as good as last year.
Agreed, I think the worst match-up for Bama is the purple & Orange Tigger's...! :)
I think they have favorable match-up's with everyone else, including Louisville!
Louisville is basically their QB and nothing else - in other words 'I SPY'...
Michigan just lost their starting QB, although they still have their 'D'...
Ohio State ditto Louisville...
Washington just no way...
Clemson has an extremely good QB & RB with a very good O-Line...Their overall weakness seems to be their 'D'...
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.