CFP seedings 1st edition 2025

[Cruloc]

Thanks!

So is there a link to this that you can share?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1990971778147999937

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1990971778147999937

Thanls, Cruloc!

I truly believe that the CFP (mostly unqualified) members use the old BCS Formula because they are either lazy or ignorant...

IMHO, they should simply revert back to the old BCS Formula...

 

[CoolBreeze]

I made that post BEFORE the loss to Oklahoma. I am most certainly NOT good with what this committee did in response to that game. I’ve posted elsewhere about my dissatisfaction with that group of morons.

They are not morons. They are getting paid.

 

[Cruloc]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1991514392442335476

 

[TideEngineer08]

They are not morons. They are getting paid.

My question is what does that say about the people who pay them?

 

[CoolBreeze]

My question is what does that say about the people who pay them?

Manipulators, that are getting paid even more. That is how mafia society works. College football isn't the product. We are.

 

[BearFoot]

I think maybe the brutal truth is this: college football fans over about the age of 25 or so have not yet come to grips with the brutal fact that the rankings - as @crimsonaudio eloquently has stated - are MEANINGLESS. Completely 100% meaningless.

But guess what would happen if "they" did away with the poll rankings?
The very same people who now complain about the rankings in the polls would whine BECAUSE THERE ARE NO POLLS!! But the brutal truth is - there aren't REALLY polls anymore in this anyway.

Ohio State......or Texas A/M......or Indiana.....any one of them right now could be ranked #1, and it would have the exact same meaning it does now: zilch. Name a team #1, and I can name you a strong argument as to why that team SHOULD NOT be #1.




============================

Ohio State - but who have they played? Their big win was against overrated Texas!

Texas A/M - okay, they beat Notre Dame.....but SEVEN other SEC teams are ranked and they haven't played ANY of them; they're only going to play ONE of them. Is a one-point win over ND REALLY better than a seven-point opening game win over Texas?

Indiana - they've literally had a two-game season, which is more than the two teams I mentioned above have. They massacred Illinois far worse than Ohio St did, and they beat Oregon handily on the road.

Alabama - there's a solid argument RIGHT NOW for Alabama to be #1 based on who they've beaten. The Tide has the BEST WIN (Georgia) of the four named but the WORST LOSS (FSU), too, since the others are undefeated. You can argue OSU/Indiana/aTm wouldn't beat UGA, but they probably wouldn't lose to FSU, either.

Georgia - a pair of good wins (Tenn/Ole Miss) but can you REALLY rank them above Alabama? Sure, it was a 3-point loss, but it was at home. If this game had been at BDS, you could make an argument for UGA.

Texas Tech - the worst schedule of any of these teams and they have a loss to a 6-3 team. Yeah, they killed Utah but how good is Utah anyway?

Ole Miss - not too bad of a loss against UGA (on the road) and one good road win. But how can you seriously rank them above UGA?

Oregon - they've scraped by twice in the Big Ten and lost at home to Indiana. And they didn't exactly blow out Wisconsin as Alabama and Ohio State did, either.

Notre Dame - played 3 teams currently ranked. Lost to two of them. "Good" losses, yes, but who exactly have they beaten? USC? Illinois beat USC.

I mean, in all honesty, you look at the above points, and Alabama PROBABLY has the best resume if Florida State is 6-3 instead of 4-5. But you can't overlook that loss, either, you just can't.

Trifecta Selma!!! The brutal reality of this post …..is that it’s brutally brutal

 

[Elefantman]

Having the committee drop us because we don't run the ball well is ridiculous.

Dropping us because we can't kick a field goal, that I can understand.

 

[22Musso22]

Too many conflicts of interest in the "Committee."

 

[Special K]

As others have said, what the committee chair said to defend some these rankings - especially ND vs Bama - are some of the most contradictory, nonsensical fantasies I’ve ever heard.

But I’m actually glad he said them out loud. If I’m CKD, I’ve got every single quote from that clown blown up life size and plastered all over the football facility alongside pictures of Brent Venables grinning like a Cheshire cat and Oklahoma players smoking cigars to utterly enrage every player on the team to the point they’re ready to beat Auburn like they stole something and then burn Toomer’s Drug Store to the ground on the way out of town.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

OK, folks, but let me remind everyone of something: the ONLY WAY to get rid of the COMMITTEE is to have AUTOMATIC QUALIFIERS. Period. You know, like in the NFL or MLB, when if you finish first in your division/conference/league/whatever, you're in the playoffs.

And that moves the discussion back one step to how one gets automatic qualifiers.
And that gets us to a 16-team playoff with multiple Group of 12 entrants.

And - not to be smarmy - but everyone saying "but the BCS," you need to remember that the BCS STILL reflected (2/3) HUMAN VOTERS as does the committee. Yes, it was somewhat offset by computer generated SOS/SOR and six different polls, but it was still essentially a larger committee. They were just always able to blame the 1/3 of the problem on the COMPUTERS so everyone was okay with it.

The toothpaste is out of the tube now, but this is why four was the absolute maximum.



I'm thinking we should be required to have these committee debates ON ESPN. You think fans wouldn't watch that so they could figure out which voters were complete and utter fools?


GOOD ARUMENTS
- they won head-to-head
- yes, they lost head-to-head on the road by a narrow margin but (other factors)
- is undefeated against an SOS above 20
- has a 4-1 record against the Top 30 that offsets a bad loss early

BAD ARGUMENTS
- they didn't have that many rushing yards
- I know they have six losses, but they're the best 6-loss team in the USA
- but Colt McCoy

 

[selmaborntidefan]

As others have said, what the committee chair said to defend some these rankings - especially ND vs Bama - are some of the most contradictory, nonsensical fantasies I’ve ever heard.

Let's cut it down to the core:

A head-to-head loss in September doesn't matter, but your rushing yards do even if you win.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Dropping six spots for losing by two points to the #8 team in the country is stupid.

Ultimately, it is what it is, but with this ranking the CFP committee proves themselves an absolute joke once again.

Especially when BYU dropped FIVE for a 22-point loss.

Texas dropped 7 spots for a 25-point loss to a team Alabama beat on the road.

So BYU dropped LESS for losing to a LESSER team....

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Has anyone else picked up on the fact Irish apologists are talking out of both sides of their mouths?

They want to say that Miami isn't good because "they lost to two unranked teams"......

And then they turn right around and cite their loss to NOT GOOD Miami as....wait for it..... a GOOD loss!!

 

[Con]

OK, folks, but let me remind everyone of something: the ONLY WAY to get rid of the COMMITTEE is to have AUTOMATIC QUALIFIERS. Period. You know, like in the NFL or MLB, when if you finish first in your division/conference/league/whatever, you're in the playoffs.

And that moves the discussion back one step to how one gets automatic qualifiers.
And that gets us to a 16-team playoff with multiple Group of 12 entrants.

And - not to be smarmy - but everyone saying "but the BCS," you need to remember that the BCS STILL reflected (2/3) HUMAN VOTERS as does the committee. Yes, it was somewhat offset by computer generated SOS/SOR and six different polls, but it was still essentially a larger committee. They were just always able to blame the 1/3 of the problem on the COMPUTERS so everyone was okay with it.

The toothpaste is out of the tube now, but this is why four was the absolute maximum.



I'm thinking we should be required to have these committee debates ON ESPN. You think fans wouldn't watch that so they could figure out which voters were complete and utter fools?


GOOD ARUMENTS
- they won head-to-head
- yes, they lost head-to-head on the road by a narrow margin but (other factors)
- is undefeated against an SOS above 20
- has a 4-1 record against the Top 30 that offsets a bad loss early

BAD ARGUMENTS
- they didn't have that many rushing yards
- I know they have six losses, but they're the best 6-loss team in the USA
- but Colt McCoy

Schedules would be so hard to compare because they are so unequal. The NFL schedules are pretty balanced because there are so few teams compared to college.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

OK, folks, but let me remind everyone of something: the ONLY WAY to get rid of the COMMITTEE is to have AUTOMATIC QUALIFIERS. Period. You know, like in the NFL or MLB, when if you finish first in your division/conference/league/whatever, you're in the playoffs.

And that moves the discussion back one step to how one gets automatic qualifiers.
And that gets us to a 16-team playoff with multiple Group of 12 entrants.

And - not to be smarmy - but everyone saying "but the BCS," you need to remember that the BCS STILL reflected (2/3) HUMAN VOTERS as does the committee. Yes, it was somewhat offset by computer generated SOS/SOR and six different polls, but it was still essentially a larger committee. They were just always able to blame the 1/3 of the problem on the COMPUTERS so everyone was okay with it.

The toothpaste is out of the tube now, but this is why four was the absolute maximum.



I'm thinking we should be required to have these committee debates ON ESPN. You think fans wouldn't watch that so they could figure out which voters were complete and utter fools?


GOOD ARUMENTS
- they won head-to-head
- yes, they lost head-to-head on the road by a narrow margin but (other factors)
- is undefeated against an SOS above 20
- has a 4-1 record against the Top 30 that offsets a bad loss early

BAD ARGUMENTS
- they didn't have that many rushing yards
- I know they have six losses, but they're the best 6-loss team in the USA
- but Colt McCoy

I definitely would watch the committee debate these picks. I think they should televise the basketball one too. Locking the doors and not allowing any cameras anywhere near the room makes it look dishonest and is ripe for conspiracy.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Schedules would be so hard to compare because they are so unequal. The NFL schedules are pretty balanced because there are so few teams compared to college.

That's all true.

It's also IRRELEVANT to the fact a CHOICE is going to be made:
a) you're either going to have SELECTIONS made by human beings
b) or you're going to have automatic qualifiers

I mean, this to me is where a lot of CFB fans (for all their passion) don't stop and think for two minutes.

"It's not fair for auto qualifiers because all conferences are not created equal." - True
"It's not fair to have committees because humans are biased." - True

Now......and this isn't directed at you but at everyone.

Now that your complaints are acknowledged GIVE ME THE SYSTEM that doesn't have either one of those.

And as a pre-emptive to anyone who says, "Computers," remember that (some) computers had Notre Dame winning the 2012 national championship AFTER the BCSNCG.

I AGREE with the criticisms.
So now someone give me the SYSTEM that will work.

Polls? That's humans.
BCS? That's humans but diluted.
Committee? That's humans
AQs? We get whining about schedules more so than ever before
Computers? They don't watch games.


So what system works?

I know that in 1985 (off the top of my head), the NFL gave us:
11-5 Denver (didn't make playoffs)
8-8 Cleveland (#3 seed in playoffs)

2010 gave us:
11-5 New Orleans Saints open on road in playoffs against 7-9 Seattle Seahawks, a team that had absolutely murdered in the regular season.


Yes, it's kinda unfair to compare college and pro sports on parity, I agree.


But what system works that doesn't have complaints?
My problem isn't even with the current system - it's the pile of nonsense used to rank teams. I never in my worst nightmare ever thought "well that team doesn't run the ball very well" would be a criterion, particularly since there's been a grand total of TWO running backs in the last 20 years win the Heisman Trophy (and both were Crimson Tide players).

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Think about it:

All we EVER had to do was a Plus One game after the bowls based on polling.

1 vs 2

If 1 and 2 met in the bowl game, 1 vs 3

Most of the bowls would have meant something.

1981
Cotton: Alabama vs Texas (Texas)
Sugar: UGA vs Pitt (Pitt)
Orange: Clemson vs Nebraska (Clemson)

If Nebraska had beaten Clemson, they would have met Texas for #1.

1982
Sugar: Penn State vs UGA
Cotton: SMU vs Pitt
Orange: Nebraska vs LSU

Penn State plays SMU, which was the controversy.

1983
Orange: Miami vs Nebraska
Sugar: Auburn vs Michigan
Cotton: Texas vs UGA
Rose: Illinois vs UCLA

Because Nebraska wound up #2, Miami plays Auburn for the national champion (which was the debate)

1984
BYU (oh boy)
Orange: Oklahoma vs Washington

This year would have been a stinker but at least BYU would have had to PLAY somebody.

1985
Orange: Oklahoma vs Penn State
Sugar: Miami vs Tennessee
Rose: Iowa vs UCLA
Cotton: aTm vs Auburn
Fiesta: Michigan vs Nebraska

Here's the year an AT LARGE team (#2 Michigan) gets in without winning their conference but the bowl game means a lot.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

At least in basketball we have Jay Bilas, who's opinion I respect, but for football the "expert" is Heather Dummy.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

At least in basketball we have Jay Bilas, who's opinion I respect, but for football the "expert" is Heather Dummy.

Well and in BASKETBALL it's pretty hard to take seriously an 18-14 "big conference" team should in the tournament as the #62 seed or whatever. That's a sport that allows the Patriot League (or whatever) to have a representative.