I actually find the committee look very refreshing. I understand giving undefeated/conference champs benefit of the doubt at the end of the season, but I think too often there is a tendency to give them too much credit during the season (undefeated and whomever happens to be leading in a conference perception wise at a given time).

Texas A&M lost to the #1 team in the country and looked impressive in every other game against more good teams that Washington. Switch the schedules and I probably would expect similar results from the two.

I think for today, the ranking is OK (I still would have given Washington the nod, but that's just personal preference). Washington will beat the Aggies out if they are undefeated PAC-12 champs and Texas A&M is not and probably will with a loss. For today though, they are comparable teams and arguments work fine both ways.

(11-02-2016 09:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Louisville IMO is in pretty good shape....
why?
Nebraska loses this week to Ohio St. Nebraska won't finish ahead of Louisville.
LSU loses this week to Alabama. LSU won't finish ahead of Louisville
Texas A&M loses to LSU. Texas A&M won't finish ahead of Louisville
Ohio St loses to Michigan. Ohio St won't finish ahead of Louisville
Wisconsin loses again to Michigan. Wisconsin won't finish ahead of Louisville
Auburn loses to Alabama. Auburn won't finish ahead of Louisville
Florida loses to Alabama in SECCG. Florida won't finish ahead of Louisville

so then all it would take for Louisville to get in would be a Washington loss.

Lmao

I do agree that this might be the year we end up with a team who is not a conference champ. I think conference champs will get major preferences still, but I have difficulty imagining West Virginia or Baylor winning out which means we have a likely 2-loss winner of the Big 12 (possibly even 3 loss). Meanwhile I think there are enough things that could go wrong for one of the champs of the other 4 to also have 2 losses. Virginia Tech could well win the ACC, if USC makes the PAC-12 championship I would take them over Washington now, Wisconsin is good enough to beat any of the east teams on the right day, and Florida is starting to look better in the SEC East (although them winning still seems like a long shot).

If the Big 12 champ has 2 losses, it only takes one of those other 4 things happening (which ignores other upsets that could still happen even at that) to bring up the discussion of a 1-loss non-champ or a 2 loss conference champ. Depending on the teams in that discussion, I could see the arguments going either way. In the right circumstances, you might even be talking about a 3 loss conference champ or two which would make it a virtual guarantee to get a non-champ in.

(11-02-2016 10:36 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 09:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Louisville IMO is in pretty good shape....
why?
Nebraska loses this week to Ohio St. Nebraska won't finish ahead of Louisville.
LSU loses this week to Alabama. LSU won't finish ahead of Louisville
Texas A&M loses to LSU. Texas A&M won't finish ahead of Louisville
Ohio St loses to Michigan. Ohio St won't finish ahead of Louisville
Wisconsin loses again to Michigan. Wisconsin won't finish ahead of Louisville
Auburn loses to Alabama. Auburn won't finish ahead of Louisville
Florida loses to Alabama in SECCG. Florida won't finish ahead of Louisville

so then all it would take for Louisville to get in would be a Washington loss.

Lmao

The ONLY game on my list that would be an upset would be LSU/Texas A&M. And even there, A&M using the FPI is only a 52.8% chance of winning. Hardly an overwhelming upset.

(11-02-2016 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 09:31 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:51 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  ...looks jaw-droppingly stupid in their first rankings

I'm not sure how much crack you have to smoke to put Texas A&M above Washington, much less Louisville or Ohio State

Why wouldn't TAMU be ranked ahead of Louisville and Ohio State? They all have the same record, but TAMU has played the tougher schedule. And by tougher schedule, i mean by valid measures of SOS, like Sagarin, not the CFP's weird "record vs .500 teams" angle.

Ohio State's schedule has been pretty good, so that's a tougher call. Ohio State > TAMU isn't the best choice, but it is defensible.

But Louisville's has been clearly softer than TAMU's, so there's no way to justify them ahead of TAMU or Ohio State.

That's a big problem Louisville faces: Their schedule is mediocre right now, and that's after having played Clemson and FSU, easily the best teams on it. And it's just going to keep getting softer and softer. The advantage of that is they are unlikely to lose again while other teams play tough games. But the disadvantage is that they will keep getting ranked behind teams with the same record.

I would put Ohio St over A&M simply because they are a better team. Ohio State two best wins @Oklahoma & @Wisconsin are better than A&M best wins against UCLA, @Auburn & Arkansas. Plus they lost to Bama by 19 & weren't all that competitive.

I don't have any complaints about Louisville being #7 with only 1 quality win. I wouldn't say that UL SOS will get "softer & softer" though with #26 Houston coming up. UK will be another win vs a team.500 or better, they could possibly be 8-3.

I guess we can track UL's SOS rating over the next few weeks, looking ahead it would seem to me it will get softer.

UL may very well make the playoffs, but it will have to be by attrition, as higher-ranked teams playing much tougher schedules down the stretch get knocked off.

I mean, look at Ohio State. Already, Ohio State has played a tougher schedule than Louisville, and they still have games against #10 Nebraska, #2 Michigan, and if they win those, a B1G title game against another ranked team.

I think your anti-ACC bias is showing

(11-02-2016 10:45 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 09:31 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:51 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  ...looks jaw-droppingly stupid in their first rankings

I'm not sure how much crack you have to smoke to put Texas A&M above Washington, much less Louisville or Ohio State

Why wouldn't TAMU be ranked ahead of Louisville and Ohio State? They all have the same record, but TAMU has played the tougher schedule. And by tougher schedule, i mean by valid measures of SOS, like Sagarin, not the CFP's weird "record vs .500 teams" angle.

Ohio State's schedule has been pretty good, so that's a tougher call. Ohio State > TAMU isn't the best choice, but it is defensible.

But Louisville's has been clearly softer than TAMU's, so there's no way to justify them ahead of TAMU or Ohio State.

That's a big problem Louisville faces: Their schedule is mediocre right now, and that's after having played Clemson and FSU, easily the best teams on it. And it's just going to keep getting softer and softer. The advantage of that is they are unlikely to lose again while other teams play tough games. But the disadvantage is that they will keep getting ranked behind teams with the same record.

I would put Ohio St over A&M simply because they are a better team. Ohio State two best wins @Oklahoma & @Wisconsin are better than A&M best wins against UCLA, @Auburn & Arkansas. Plus they lost to Bama by 19 & weren't all that competitive.

I don't have any complaints about Louisville being #7 with only 1 quality win. I wouldn't say that UL SOS will get "softer & softer" though with #26 Houston coming up. UK will be another win vs a team.500 or better, they could possibly be 8-3.

I guess we can track UL's SOS rating over the next few weeks, looking ahead it would seem to me it will get softer.

UL may very well make the playoffs, but it will have to be by attrition, as higher-ranked teams playing much tougher schedules down the stretch get knocked off.

I mean, look at Ohio State. Already, Ohio State has played a tougher schedule than Louisville, and they still have games against #10 Nebraska, #2 Michigan, and if they win those, a B1G title game against another ranked team.

I think your anti-ACC bias is showing

Not sure why you think that - maybe it's your pro-ACC bias?

Two of UL's remaining four games are against non-ACC opponents. The issue is, ACC or not ACC, none of them are ranked.

No problem with what anyone is saying here.

Only thing I'll add in: are we for sure that Louisville won't slip up in it's last three games? Only reason I say three instead of two is that WF has played some good teams tough.

(11-02-2016 10:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not sure why you think that - maybe it's your pro-ACC bias?

Two of UL's remaining four games are against non-ACC opponents. The issue is, ACC or not ACC, none of them are ranked.

I can't take anything for granted, I've learned not to but Houston will likely be ranked and possibly in the top 20 when they play Louisville. They have a bye coming up and play Tulane at home before the game. Given they were shellacked by SMU on the road, I won't pen it in as a win but they should be 8-2 and in the range of 18-22 by game time with Louisville.

I have had a couple of discussions about Louisville and the fans of Louisville know that the schedule is weak. They will not get in over several teams with that resmue' 1 top 25 win and a 50-60 SOS. That's not what the Louisville fans are talking about though.

What Len is referring to is this.

Houston comes in at 8-2.
Kentucky comes in at 8-3.

That would give Louisville possibly 2 more top 25 wins.

So at the end of the season (With help) Louisville could end the season at 11-1 with 3 top 25 wins, have plenty of style points and have the front runner for the Heisman. Would they have played the toughest schedule? No, but they would have played a tough enough schedule at that point to validate putting them in. They would meet all of the criteria easily.

Yes, I agree a lot has to happen, but Louisville is far from out of this thing.

(11-02-2016 09:20 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  The committee should never have decided to release interim rankings. Just do it at the end like basketball.

Agreed!

(11-02-2016 10:18 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Louisville REALLY needs Kentucky to win the SEC East.

(but will Cardinal fans be able to pull for the Wildcats?)

That week 1 comeback by Southern Miss stings. UK could be in the top 25 right now.

(11-02-2016 12:31 PM)AubTiger16 Wrote:  I have had a couple of discussions about Louisville and the fans of Louisville know that the schedule is weak. They will not get in over several teams with that resmue' 1 top 25 win and a 50-60 SOS. That's not what the Louisville fans are talking about though.

What Len is referring to is this.

Houston comes in at 8-2.
Kentucky comes in at 8-3.

That would give Louisville possibly 2 more top 25 wins.

So at the end of the season (With help) Louisville could end the season at 11-1 with 3 top 25 wins, have plenty of style points and have the front runner for the Heisman. Would they have played the toughest schedule? No, but they would have played a tough enough schedule at that point to validate putting them in. They would meet all of the criteria easily.

Yes, I agree a lot has to happen, but Louisville is far from out of this thing.

I agree that UL is far from out of this, but I don't think a Houston-Kentucky exacta can help them. That's because neither of them will be "top 25" once they lose to UL. If either is top 25 when UL plays them, they will be clinging to the lowest reaches and will fall out, so in the end, that won't help them.

IMO, UL will need TAMU, Ohio State, and Washington all to lose from here on out, then they are probably next up for the #4 slot.

Look at how the committee is valuing the B1G and SEC: both of them have five of the top 13 teams.

UL needs the PAC to fall out of it, and that probably means losing twice if Washington wins the PAC with a single loss, and they need the SEC and B1G runner-ups (not necessarily the CCG losers, but whoever is ranked highest) to have two losses.

If UH finishes the season 10-3 with a close loss to Louisville at the end of the year, that would help Louisville regardless of a ranking or not. It'd mean UH was AAC champs.

(11-02-2016 09:30 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:51 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  ...looks jaw-droppingly stupid in their first rankings

I'm not sure how much crack you have to smoke to put Texas A&M above Washington, much less Louisville or Ohio State

Why wouldn't TAMU be ranked ahead of Louisville and Ohio State? They all have the same record, but TAMU has played the tougher schedule. And by tougher schedule, i mean by valid measures of SOS, like Sagarin, not the CFP's weird "record vs .500 teams" angle.

Ohio State's schedule has been pretty good, so that's a tougher call. Ohio State > TAMU isn't the best choice, but it is defensible.

But Louisville's has been clearly softer than TAMU's, so there's no way to justify them ahead of TAMU or Ohio State.

That's a big problem Louisville faces: Their schedule is mediocre right now, and that's after having played Clemson and FSU, easily the best teams on it. And it's just going to keep getting softer and softer. The advantage of that is they are unlikely to lose again while other teams play tough games. But the disadvantage is that they will keep getting ranked behind teams with the same record.

so what about Washington?

Aggies just whooped NM State
Huskies just beat ranked Utah on the road

Lets look at their records.

Washington State - beat Rutgers, Idaho, @ Arizona, Stanford, @Oregon, Oregon State and @Utah.

TAMU - beat UCLA, @Auburn, Arkansas (n), @South Carolina, Tennessee, and NMSU. Has a loss to Alabama.

Lets put the games together.

Auburn is probably a better win than Utah. Same record, and Auburn is ranked higher. Auburn has no bad losses and Utah has one bad loss.

Arkansas is probably the same kind of win as Stanford. Arkansas has a middling OOC P5 win. So does Stanford. Call it a push.

Beyond that. Washington has 3 wins over dreadful Pac 12 programs. And one was in OT. Between the 3 teams, they have a combined 2 PAC 12 wins. They have a win over a decent FCS team and a blowout win over a 4-4 Sun Belt team. They're basically hanging their hat on winning a road game at the 16th ranked team in the country, a win over a 5-3 team at home, a 4-4 Sun Belt team at home, 3 conference bottom feeders and a FCS team.

Texas A&M. Its remaining resume isn't that impressive either (for CFP standards). UCLA is meh, NMSU is terrible, but Tennessee and South Carolina have slightly better resumes. TAMU is hanging its hat on a road win at the 12th ranked team, a win over a conference bottom feeder in the PAC12, two 5-3 SEC teams, a 4-4 SEC team, a terrible Sun Belt team, and a FCS team

Kind of a wash.

---

I ask this. If Memphis or UCF had beaten the 16th ranked team in the country, a 5-3 Pac 12 team at home, a couple of 6-2 win G5 teams (substituting 6-2 win G5 teams for 2-6 P5 teams) and a 4-4 Sun Belt school....would they be in the running for a CFP berth? Probably not a lock.

---

That being said, is TAMU's record that worthy either? Not really. They need Auburn to beat Alabama to get in the playoff. Because if Auburn loses, they'll have 3 losses. They might be in 4th now, but its really out of their hands at this point. UW wins out, they'll probably go. That being said, they'll need Utah to win out to confirm that place though. Although its not as strong of a issue for UW as it is for TAMU.

The top 3 teams unquestionably belong in the playoff (Alabama, Clemson, and Michigan). No one else has done enough to demand entrance at this point. UW is close, and has a better chance of getting there in the end.

If Ohio State, UL, TAMU, etc., get in, it will be due to luck of the draw.

---

By the way, there MIGHT be some SEC bias going on. But a SEC team was the biggest victim of getting robbed in the entire BCS era. 2004 Auburn. It also got the biggest 'gift' in the BCS era. LSU 2007.

(11-02-2016 02:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 09:30 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:51 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  ...looks jaw-droppingly stupid in their first rankings

I'm not sure how much crack you have to smoke to put Texas A&M above Washington, much less Louisville or Ohio State

Why wouldn't TAMU be ranked ahead of Louisville and Ohio State? They all have the same record, but TAMU has played the tougher schedule. And by tougher schedule, i mean by valid measures of SOS, like Sagarin, not the CFP's weird "record vs .500 teams" angle.

Ohio State's schedule has been pretty good, so that's a tougher call. Ohio State > TAMU isn't the best choice, but it is defensible.

But Louisville's has been clearly softer than TAMU's, so there's no way to justify them ahead of TAMU or Ohio State.

That's a big problem Louisville faces: Their schedule is mediocre right now, and that's after having played Clemson and FSU, easily the best teams on it. And it's just going to keep getting softer and softer. The advantage of that is they are unlikely to lose again while other teams play tough games. But the disadvantage is that they will keep getting ranked behind teams with the same record.

so what about Washington?

Aggies just whooped NM State
Huskies just beat ranked Utah on the road

Lets look at their records.

Washington State - beat Rutgers, Idaho, @ Arizona, Stanford, @Oregon, Oregon State and @Utah.

TAMU - beat UCLA, @Auburn, Arkansas (n), @South Carolina, Tennessee, and NMSU. Has a loss to Alabama.

Lets put the games together.

Auburn is probably a better win than Utah. Same record, and Auburn is ranked higher. Auburn has no bad losses and Utah has one bad loss.

Arkansas is probably the same kind of win as Stanford. Arkansas has a middling OOC P5 win. So does Stanford. Call it a push.

Beyond that. Washington has 3 wins over dreadful Pac 12 programs. And one was in OT. Between the 3 teams, they have a combined 2 PAC 12 wins. They have a win over a decent FCS team and a blowout win over a 4-4 Sun Belt team. They're basically hanging their hat on winning a road game at the 16th ranked team in the country, a win over a 5-3 team at home, a 4-4 Sun Belt team at home, 3 conference bottom feeders and a FCS team.

Texas A&M. Its remaining resume isn't that impressive either (for CFP standards). UCLA is meh, NMSU is terrible, but Tennessee and South Carolina have slightly better resumes. TAMU is hanging its hat on a road win at the 12th ranked team, a win over a conference bottom feeder in the PAC12, two 5-3 SEC teams, a 4-4 SEC team, a terrible Sun Belt team, and a FCS team

Kind of a wash.

---

I ask this. If Memphis or UCF had beaten the 16th ranked team in the country, a 5-3 Pac 12 team at home, a couple of 6-2 win G5 teams (substituting 6-2 win G5 teams for 2-6 P5 teams) and a 4-4 Sun Belt school....would they be in the running for a CFP berth? Probably not a lock.

---

That being said, is TAMU's record that worthy either? Not really. They need Auburn to beat Alabama to get in the playoff. Because if Auburn loses, they'll have 3 losses. They might be in 4th now, but its really out of their hands at this point. UW wins out, they'll probably go. That being said, they'll need Utah to win out to confirm that place though. Although its not as strong of a issue for UW as it is for TAMU.

---

By the way, there MIGHT be some SEC bias going on. But a SEC team was the biggest victim of getting robbed in the entire BCS era. 2004 Auburn.

:(

(11-02-2016 02:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 09:30 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:51 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  ...looks jaw-droppingly stupid in their first rankings

I'm not sure how much crack you have to smoke to put Texas A&M above Washington, much less Louisville or Ohio State

Why wouldn't TAMU be ranked ahead of Louisville and Ohio State? They all have the same record, but TAMU has played the tougher schedule. And by tougher schedule, i mean by valid measures of SOS, like Sagarin, not the CFP's weird "record vs .500 teams" angle.

Ohio State's schedule has been pretty good, so that's a tougher call. Ohio State > TAMU isn't the best choice, but it is defensible.

But Louisville's has been clearly softer than TAMU's, so there's no way to justify them ahead of TAMU or Ohio State.

That's a big problem Louisville faces: Their schedule is mediocre right now, and that's after having played Clemson and FSU, easily the best teams on it. And it's just going to keep getting softer and softer. The advantage of that is they are unlikely to lose again while other teams play tough games. But the disadvantage is that they will keep getting ranked behind teams with the same record.

so what about Washington?

Aggies just whooped NM State
Huskies just beat ranked Utah on the road

Lets look at their records.

Washington State - beat Rutgers, Idaho, @ Arizona, Stanford, @Oregon, Oregon State and @Utah.

TAMU - beat UCLA, @Auburn, Arkansas (n), @South Carolina, Tennessee, and NMSU. Has a loss to Alabama.

Lets put the games together.

Auburn is probably a better win than Utah. Same record, and Auburn is ranked higher. Auburn has no bad losses and Utah has one bad loss.

Arkansas is probably the same kind of win as Stanford. Arkansas has a middling OOC P5 win. So does Stanford. Call it a push.

Beyond that. Washington has 3 wins over dreadful Pac 12 programs. And one was in OT. Between the 3 teams, they have a combined 2 PAC 12 wins. They have a win over a decent FCS team and a blowout win over a 4-4 Sun Belt team. They're basically hanging their hat on winning a road game at the 16th ranked team in the country, a win over a 5-3 team at home, a 4-4 Sun Belt team at home, 3 conference bottom feeders and a FCS team.

Texas A&M. Its remaining resume isn't that impressive either (for CFP standards). UCLA is meh, NMSU is terrible, but Tennessee and South Carolina have slightly better resumes. TAMU is hanging its hat on a road win at the 12th ranked team, a win over a conference bottom feeder in the PAC12, two 5-3 SEC teams, a 4-4 SEC team, a terrible Sun Belt team, and a FCS team

Kind of a wash.

---

I ask this. If Memphis or UCF had beaten the 16th ranked team in the country, a 5-3 Pac 12 team at home, a couple of 6-2 win G5 teams (substituting 6-2 win G5 teams for 2-6 P5 teams) and a 4-4 Sun Belt school....would they be in the running for a CFP berth? Probably not a lock.

---

That being said, is TAMU's record that worthy either? Not really. They need Auburn to beat Alabama to get in the playoff. Because if Auburn loses, they'll have 3 losses. They might be in 4th now, but its really out of their hands at this point. UW wins out, they'll probably go. That being said, they'll need Utah to win out to confirm that place though. Although its not as strong of a issue for UW as it is for TAMU.

The top 3 teams unquestionably belong in the playoff (Alabama, Clemson, and Michigan). No one else has done enough to demand entrance at this point. UW is close, and has a better chance of getting there in the end.

If Ohio State, UL, TAMU, etc., get in, it will be due to luck of the draw.

---

By the way, there MIGHT be some SEC bias going on. But a SEC team was the biggest victim of getting robbed in the entire BCS era. 2004 Auburn. It also got the biggest 'gift' in the BCS era. LSU 2007.

Auburn's season didn't compare to OU or USC that year.

Plus they cheated to get there.

(11-02-2016 03:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 02:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 09:30 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:51 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  ...looks jaw-droppingly stupid in their first rankings

I'm not sure how much crack you have to smoke to put Texas A&M above Washington, much less Louisville or Ohio State

Why wouldn't TAMU be ranked ahead of Louisville and Ohio State? They all have the same record, but TAMU has played the tougher schedule. And by tougher schedule, i mean by valid measures of SOS, like Sagarin, not the CFP's weird "record vs .500 teams" angle.

Ohio State's schedule has been pretty good, so that's a tougher call. Ohio State > TAMU isn't the best choice, but it is defensible.

But Louisville's has been clearly softer than TAMU's, so there's no way to justify them ahead of TAMU or Ohio State.

That's a big problem Louisville faces: Their schedule is mediocre right now, and that's after having played Clemson and FSU, easily the best teams on it. And it's just going to keep getting softer and softer. The advantage of that is they are unlikely to lose again while other teams play tough games. But the disadvantage is that they will keep getting ranked behind teams with the same record.

so what about Washington?

Aggies just whooped NM State
Huskies just beat ranked Utah on the road

Lets look at their records.

Washington State - beat Rutgers, Idaho, @ Arizona, Stanford, @Oregon, Oregon State and @Utah.

TAMU - beat UCLA, @Auburn, Arkansas (n), @South Carolina, Tennessee, and NMSU. Has a loss to Alabama.

Lets put the games together.

Auburn is probably a better win than Utah. Same record, and Auburn is ranked higher. Auburn has no bad losses and Utah has one bad loss.

Arkansas is probably the same kind of win as Stanford. Arkansas has a middling OOC P5 win. So does Stanford. Call it a push.

Beyond that. Washington has 3 wins over dreadful Pac 12 programs. And one was in OT. Between the 3 teams, they have a combined 2 PAC 12 wins. They have a win over a decent FCS team and a blowout win over a 4-4 Sun Belt team. They're basically hanging their hat on winning a road game at the 16th ranked team in the country, a win over a 5-3 team at home, a 4-4 Sun Belt team at home, 3 conference bottom feeders and a FCS team.

Texas A&M. Its remaining resume isn't that impressive either (for CFP standards). UCLA is meh, NMSU is terrible, but Tennessee and South Carolina have slightly better resumes. TAMU is hanging its hat on a road win at the 12th ranked team, a win over a conference bottom feeder in the PAC12, two 5-3 SEC teams, a 4-4 SEC team, a terrible Sun Belt team, and a FCS team

Kind of a wash.

---

I ask this. If Memphis or UCF had beaten the 16th ranked team in the country, a 5-3 Pac 12 team at home, a couple of 6-2 win G5 teams (substituting 6-2 win G5 teams for 2-6 P5 teams) and a 4-4 Sun Belt school....would they be in the running for a CFP berth? Probably not a lock.

---

That being said, is TAMU's record that worthy either? Not really. They need Auburn to beat Alabama to get in the playoff. Because if Auburn loses, they'll have 3 losses. They might be in 4th now, but its really out of their hands at this point. UW wins out, they'll probably go. That being said, they'll need Utah to win out to confirm that place though. Although its not as strong of a issue for UW as it is for TAMU.

The top 3 teams unquestionably belong in the playoff (Alabama, Clemson, and Michigan). No one else has done enough to demand entrance at this point. UW is close, and has a better chance of getting there in the end.

If Ohio State, UL, TAMU, etc., get in, it will be due to luck of the draw.

---

By the way, there MIGHT be some SEC bias going on. But a SEC team was the biggest victim of getting robbed in the entire BCS era. 2004 Auburn. It also got the biggest 'gift' in the BCS era. LSU 2007.

Auburn's season didn't compare to OU or USC that year.

Plus they cheated to get there.

Actually it was USC that cheated. They had to vacate their national championship. OU also got blown out in a game they shouldn't have been in to begin with. OU beat a good UT team...and pretty much no one else. Auburn beat 2 teams ranked in the top 10, and four in the top 20. OU beat 1 top ten team, and the 18th ranked team in the country.

Auburn's OOC did suck that year..but guess what? So did OU's. The only difference was that 2 years before the 2004 season, OU decided to pay Bowling Green a ton of money to play them in Norman. BGSU asked the BCS team they were playing that year and they agreed to move the game. BGSU ended up winning 9 games that year and that was the difference in the BCS computers as to whether OU or AU went to the BCS. And that BCS team that agreed to move that game to another year?

You guessed it. Auburn.

The computers got it wrong in 2004. Badly. And that decision was confirmed when the only bowl game matching common opponents that year was Georgia absolutely destroying Texas A&M.

The 2004 Auburn team was the best team in the friggin SEC in the entire 2000's. Three top 9 draft pics. 4 first rounders. Unprecedented.

Don't even pretend that OU deserved to be in that game. Or that Auburn was the 'cheater' that year (it was USC).

---

Now back to the discussion as to why TAMU, Washington, Ohio State or Louisville is the best undeserving team in the playoffs.

It's better to say Auburn deserved to be in the game more than OU. 3 undefeateds, something had to give, someone had to get the shaft.

This poll looked really bad in my opinion. For instance ranking Texas A&M over Washington but not Louisville or Ohio State.

Texas A&M has not beaten a single team that is still ranked right now and for it to be the middle of the season when your team is at it's prime they were not impressive against Alabama. Ohio State has beaten a very good Oklahoma team and a very good Wisconsin team.

Then something else is how they grouped together the teams they obviously had not clue about. Pac-12 teams #15 Colorado & #16 Utah, come on! #21UNC & #22FSU.....#23WMU &#24BSU.

Goodness, this poll is a train wreck they we should just use the AP poll until the last three weeks of the season.

(11-02-2016 03:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 03:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 02:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 09:30 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why wouldn't TAMU be ranked ahead of Louisville and Ohio State? They all have the same record, but TAMU has played the tougher schedule. And by tougher schedule, i mean by valid measures of SOS, like Sagarin, not the CFP's weird "record vs .500 teams" angle.

Ohio State's schedule has been pretty good, so that's a tougher call. Ohio State > TAMU isn't the best choice, but it is defensible.

But Louisville's has been clearly softer than TAMU's, so there's no way to justify them ahead of TAMU or Ohio State.

That's a big problem Louisville faces: Their schedule is mediocre right now, and that's after having played Clemson and FSU, easily the best teams on it. And it's just going to keep getting softer and softer. The advantage of that is they are unlikely to lose again while other teams play tough games. But the disadvantage is that they will keep getting ranked behind teams with the same record.

so what about Washington?

Aggies just whooped NM State
Huskies just beat ranked Utah on the road

Lets look at their records.

Washington State - beat Rutgers, Idaho, @ Arizona, Stanford, @Oregon, Oregon State and @Utah.

TAMU - beat UCLA, @Auburn, Arkansas (n), @South Carolina, Tennessee, and NMSU. Has a loss to Alabama.

Lets put the games together.

Auburn is probably a better win than Utah. Same record, and Auburn is ranked higher. Auburn has no bad losses and Utah has one bad loss.

Arkansas is probably the same kind of win as Stanford. Arkansas has a middling OOC P5 win. So does Stanford. Call it a push.

Beyond that. Washington has 3 wins over dreadful Pac 12 programs. And one was in OT. Between the 3 teams, they have a combined 2 PAC 12 wins. They have a win over a decent FCS team and a blowout win over a 4-4 Sun Belt team. They're basically hanging their hat on winning a road game at the 16th ranked team in the country, a win over a 5-3 team at home, a 4-4 Sun Belt team at home, 3 conference bottom feeders and a FCS team.

Texas A&M. Its remaining resume isn't that impressive either (for CFP standards). UCLA is meh, NMSU is terrible, but Tennessee and South Carolina have slightly better resumes. TAMU is hanging its hat on a road win at the 12th ranked team, a win over a conference bottom feeder in the PAC12, two 5-3 SEC teams, a 4-4 SEC team, a terrible Sun Belt team, and a FCS team

Kind of a wash.

---

I ask this. If Memphis or UCF had beaten the 16th ranked team in the country, a 5-3 Pac 12 team at home, a couple of 6-2 win G5 teams (substituting 6-2 win G5 teams for 2-6 P5 teams) and a 4-4 Sun Belt school....would they be in the running for a CFP berth? Probably not a lock.

---

That being said, is TAMU's record that worthy either? Not really. They need Auburn to beat Alabama to get in the playoff. Because if Auburn loses, they'll have 3 losses. They might be in 4th now, but its really out of their hands at this point. UW wins out, they'll probably go. That being said, they'll need Utah to win out to confirm that place though. Although its not as strong of a issue for UW as it is for TAMU.

The top 3 teams unquestionably belong in the playoff (Alabama, Clemson, and Michigan). No one else has done enough to demand entrance at this point. UW is close, and has a better chance of getting there in the end.

If Ohio State, UL, TAMU, etc., get in, it will be due to luck of the draw.

---

By the way, there MIGHT be some SEC bias going on. But a SEC team was the biggest victim of getting robbed in the entire BCS era. 2004 Auburn. It also got the biggest 'gift' in the BCS era. LSU 2007.

Auburn's season didn't compare to OU or USC that year.

Plus they cheated to get there.

Actually it was USC that cheated. They had to vacate their national championship. OU also got blown out in a game they shouldn't have been in to begin with. OU beat a good UT team...and pretty much no one else. Auburn beat 2 teams ranked in the top 10, and four in the top 20. OU beat 1 top ten team, and the 18th ranked team in the country.

Auburn's OOC did suck that year..but guess what? So did OU's. The only difference was that 2 years before the 2004 season, OU decided to pay Bowling Green a ton of money to play them in Norman. BGSU asked the BCS team they were playing that year and they agreed to move the game. BGSU ended up winning 9 games that year and that was the difference in the BCS computers as to whether OU or AU went to the BCS. And that BCS team that agreed to move that game to another year?

You guessed it. Auburn.

The computers got it wrong in 2004. Badly. And that decision was confirmed when the only bowl game matching common opponents that year was Georgia absolutely destroying Texas A&M.

The 2004 Auburn team was the best team in the friggin SEC in the entire 2000's. Three top 9 draft pics. 4 first rounders. Unprecedented.

Don't even pretend that OU deserved to be in that game. Or that Auburn was the 'cheater' that year (it was USC).

---

Now back to the discussion as to why TAMU, Washington, Ohio State or Louisville is the best undeserving team in the playoffs.

I was thinking of Auburn's 1993 unbeaten team. That was the one on probation. The SEC was not good in 2004. It was a down year. There were only 3 other decent teams. OU and USC were just much more impressive during the season.

Auburn may have been better than OU, but nobody outside Alabama believed it before OU laid an egg vs. USC.