The CFP is not rigged. There simply is, and has been, no G5 team worthy enough of being placed in the top 4. If Houston ran the table, or even had just one loss, they would have a significant chance of getting one of those spots, but they lost not once, not twice, but three times. Navy has had a weak schedule, some due to it's own fault (Fordham), others not so much (Notre Dame being a terrible team this year hurt them). Navy has also played three teams in the AAC this year with 4 or fewer wins (Tulane, East Carolina and Connecticut), all of which had just one conference win.

Having said that, I love Navy, and would root hard for them to win the AAC/NY6 slot. I just don't see how it's feasible.

If Western Michigan wins the MAC, they, deservedly so, will get the Access Bowl slot. You can't put an AAC/Boise State two loss team in over another undefeated G5 team. THAT would be lacking in integrity.

Quote:The CFP is not rigged. There simply is, and has been, no G5 team worthy enough of being placed in the top 4.

I don't think it's rigged, but I don't think they're the most accurate. They have a higher bias toward the P5 than necessary VS most other polls (and there's TONS) done by humans & computers.

For instance, I DO think Penn State is really good RIGHT NOW. But I think they rated them too high. Sure, they were #7ish-worthy right now, but that doesn't mean they EARNED that spot. They will if they beat Wisconsin.

A G5 CAN be worthy of being placed in an objective Top 4. No, not this year, and almost all years, No.

They'd need to be Boise-like for a couple years to start out ranked, as any human poll will have weight on how they were before, unfortunately. Basically, if a G5 played 4 P5s OOC, and two of them were P5 Champions, and the other two were 8+ winning teams, while their conference was having a decent year hence having good/decent wins for Any P5 team from it -- I would say they'd be in.

(11-27-2016 02:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  By Sagarin, OU has played the #17 schedule, Navy has played the #70 schedule.

That's a BIG gap.

Isn't Sagarin the one that rewards and punishes teams based on previous years' performance? If so, that explains a lot.

Who cares what those numbers say, assuming I've got it right. Look at the schedules. OU's best win is West Virginia. Even after next week, it'll likely be Oklahoma State which is okay but nothing special (who is THEIR best win? Pitt? LOL).

Forget bogus numbers like that, just examine the resume. Navy's is at least as good as OU's. I'd imagine that playing teams like Fordham and ALL of the AAC bottom feeders makes their numbers lower than it should be but when it comes to losses and quality wins, OU and Navy are in a dead heat and if anything, Navy is ahead with more quality wins, including beating the teams' only common opponent (Houston).

I agree. Navy is being disrespected. The playoff committee hates America.

(11-28-2016 01:20 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-27-2016 02:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  By Sagarin, OU has played the #17 schedule, Navy has played the #70 schedule.

That's a BIG gap.

Isn't Sagarin the one that rewards and punishes teams based on previous years' performance? If so, that explains a lot.

Not this late in the season, so that wouldn't explain the SOS difference ... including previous year's performance is only early in the season when it is needed to get a complete network for the algorithm.

(... and, yes, the correct way to cope with that is to hold off the ranking until there are enough games played this year to run the algorithm, but OTOH, there's a newspaper that runs those rankings, so previous year fill-ins it is, until the network is completed ...)

It would be more that the mean Conference power rating of the Big12 is about 76 and the mean Conference power rating of the AAC East is about about 67, and the OOC schedules line up:
#40 (77) Notre Dame / #2 (100) OhSU
#68 (70) Air Force / #26 (81) Houston
#88 (64) Army / ... 9th Big12 Game, avg ~76
#163 (48) Fordham / #154 (49) ULM

If anything, the Sagarin rating ought to be a bit kind to the Navy SOS, since Sagarin seem to over-rate FCS schools a bit.

Even with that said, so what if it creates that kind of a gulf in the rankings. The Big 12 has 3 really good teams. And when I say really good, I'm being generous on WV. And if OU is one of those really good teams, that means they can only play 2 other really good teams. Navy plays as many good teams in conference as OU, if not more. Houston and-WV cancel each other out. Oklahoma State is only slightly better than South Florida but Navy has another good team, Temple, that they get to add to their resume and if they win that will mean they have more quality wins than OU. Tulsa and Memphis at worst are analogous to those mediocre middle of the pack teams like TCU and Baylor. Notre Dame as well because of how tough their schedule was.

And again, Navy won against the common opponent while OU was smashed by them. We should just cut the charade and admit Navy and OU are more or less equals at worst. The only advantage that OU has is that their second loss is significantly better than Navy's but you can only get so much mileage out of loss, especially if it wasn't close.

I found this stat interesting...

Top 25 wins

AAC West - 4

All Of The B12 - 3

Top 25 Win Percent

AAC West - 4 of 7 ( 57% )

All of the B12 - 3 of 21 ( 14%)

(11-28-2016 01:20 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-27-2016 02:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  By Sagarin, OU has played the #17 schedule, Navy has played the #70 schedule.

That's a BIG gap.

Isn't Sagarin the one that rewards and punishes teams based on previous years' performance? If so, that explains a lot.

Who cares what those numbers say, assuming I've got it right. Look at the schedules. OU's best win is West Virginia. Even after next week, it'll likely be Oklahoma State which is okay but nothing special (who is THEIR best win? Pitt? LOL).

Forget bogus numbers like that, just examine the resume. Navy's is at least as good as OU's. I'd imagine that playing teams like Fordham and ALL of the AAC bottom feeders makes their numbers lower than it should be but when it comes to losses and quality wins, OU and Navy are in a dead heat and if anything, Navy is ahead with more quality wins, including beating the teams' only common opponent (Houston).

No, Sagarin just does it for the first 5 or 6 weeks until they have sufficient current year data. Then they drop prior year numbers.

(11-28-2016 01:20 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-27-2016 02:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  By Sagarin, OU has played the #17 schedule, Navy has played the #70 schedule.

That's a BIG gap.

Isn't Sagarin the one that rewards and punishes teams based on previous years' performance? If so, that explains a lot.

Who cares what those numbers say, assuming I've got it right. Look at the schedules.

Sagarin rankings include data from last year, BUT only for the first five weeks of the current season, then that information is phased out and only data from this year is included. So the current rankings for this week include only this year's information.

What "the numbers" say is important, because well that's the totality of the season. All computers have Oklahoma ranked way ahead of Navy.

Navy plays a G5 schedule, and when you do that you need strong P5 OOC opponents. Navy's OOC opponents were Fordham (FCS), Notre Dame (4-8 record), and Air Force (5th place in the MWC). They barely scraped by a bad Irish team and got beat soundly by Air Force.

Oklahoma played a P5 conference schedule - and for all the talk about the AAC, all the computers have the Big 12 ranked ahead of the AAC - plus they played #2 Ohio State OOC. That's just a way tougher schedule and the numbers show it. And, they still have #10 Oklahoma State left to play.

Navy has Temple and Army. That's just not comparable.

That just isn't going to impress anyone.

Massey composite has OU at #10, Navy at #23. That's about right. Schedule wasn't quite as lopsided in favor of OU as I expected (comparable below until you get to the last two games), but OU has been more impressive in its wins.
OU Navy
#118 KU + 53 #119 UConn +4
#108 ULM +42 #104 ECU +35
#93 ISU +10 #98 Tulane +7
#77 TT +7 #82 SMU +44
#70 UT +5 #67 ND +1
#50 TCU +6 #47 AFA -14 loss
#44 KSU +21 #41 Mem +14
#28 UH -10 loss #28 UH +6
#17 WVU +28 #21 USF -7 loss
#2 OSU -21 loss #35 Tulsa +2
#64 BU +21 FCS Fordham +36

(11-28-2016 03:36 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  I found this stat interesting...

Top 25 wins

AAC West - 4

All Of The B12 - 3

Problem is, Navy and Temple, the two AAC title contenders, don't have any of those wins. Their OOC schedules were very weak to begin with, and both lost games OOC (Temple to Army, Navy to Air Force).

When all your claims to fame are wins against teams in your own conference, while you lose games against soft OOC competition, that suggests that from a national POV you aren't that good.

(11-28-2016 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 03:36 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  I found this stat interesting...

Top 25 wins

AAC West - 4

All Of The B12 - 3

Problem is, Navy and Temple, the two AAC title contenders, don't have any of those wins. Their OOC schedules were very weak to begin with, and both lost games OOC (Temple to Army, Navy to Air Force).

When all your claims to fame are wins against teams in your own conference, while you lose games against soft OOC competition, that suggests that from a national POV you aren't that good.

In the long run, though, the soft OOC scheduling will help Temple -- win and build momentum, recruit well and if possible deflect some attention away from PSU and Pitt. Schedule up if possible over the next few years.

(11-27-2016 04:45 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Air Force also has two really bad losses, plus Wyoming is only average. Navy doesn't have a bad loss, though their best wins are Tulsa and Houston.

Navy is clicking on all cylinders right now and their resume is at least as decent as the mediocre teams ahead of them.

Doesn't that sort of contradict your point. You point out Air Force's two bad losses, then say they are a good loss for Navy?

(11-28-2016 11:11 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-27-2016 04:45 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Air Force also has two really bad losses, plus Wyoming is only average. Navy doesn't have a bad loss, though their best wins are Tulsa and Houston.

Navy is clicking on all cylinders right now and their resume is at least as decent as the mediocre teams ahead of them.

Doesn't that sort of contradict your point. You point out Air Force's two bad losses, then say they are a good loss for Navy?

Having bad losses doesn't preclude you from being a good opponent, see Houston, who has one really bad loss and a loss to (statistically speaking) a mediocre Memphis team.

And the stock of Navy's loss to Air Force has skyrocketed in recent weeks from a bad loss to a, statistically speaking, average loss thanks to them winning out, especially over Boise.

(11-28-2016 09:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  Massey composite has OU at #10, Navy at #23. That's about right. Schedule wasn't quite as lopsided in favor of OU as I expected (comparable below until you get to the last two games), but OU has been more impressive in its wins.
OU Navy
#118 KU + 53 #119 UConn +4
#108 ULM +42 #104 ECU +35
#93 ISU +10 #98 Tulane +7
#77 TT +7 #82 SMU +44
#70 UT +5 #67 ND +1
#50 TCU +6 #47 AFA -14 loss
#44 KSU +21 #41 Mem +14
#28 UH -10 loss #28 UH +6
#17 WVU +28 #21 USF -7 loss
#2 OSU -21 loss #35 Tulsa +2
#64 BU +21 FCS Fordham +36

I'm just not seeing it. I see the numbers but in reality, I just don't see it. Looking at who they beat and who they lost to, there's no justifiable reason to rank Navy so much lower than OU.

Someone made a comment about Navy having no significant wins OOC and just in the AAC...well, so? That's exactly the BS mentality we always have to deal with. Why is OU's wins in conference any better, because they're in the Big 12? The Big 12 barely has a team worth a damn this year. Their second best team is guaranteed to have 3 losses and if it's OU, they get to hang their hat on the fact they have no bad losses as opposed to any good wins. If they lose in Bedlam and their best win will be over West Virginia...LOL (it's shaping up that their best wins will be BYU and KSU, good but not great). Kansas State did nothing OOC and though the stats won't bear it out, easily could have lost to Texas and Iowa State.

So come on, regardless of the numbers, OU has done little of consequence this year, nothing OOC and at best wins over West Virginia and Oklahoma State. If OU beats the latter, it will mean that a win over Houston is no worse, as UH has 2 good wins while OSU will have 1 and a matching bad loss.

(11-28-2016 03:17 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 09:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  Massey composite has OU at #10, Navy at #23. That's about right. Schedule wasn't quite as lopsided in favor of OU as I expected (comparable below until you get to the last two games), but OU has been more impressive in its wins.
OU Navy
#118 KU + 53 #119 UConn +4
#108 ULM +42 #104 ECU +35
#93 ISU +10 #98 Tulane +7
#77 TT +7 #82 SMU +44
#70 UT +5 #67 ND +1
#50 TCU +6 #47 AFA -14 loss
#44 KSU +21 #41 Mem +14
#28 UH -10 loss #28 UH +6
#17 WVU +28 #21 USF -7 loss
#2 OSU -21 loss #35 Tulsa +2
#64 BU +21 FCS Fordham +36

I'm just not seeing it. I see the numbers but in reality, I just don't see it. Looking at who they beat and who they lost to, there's no justifiable reason to rank Navy so much lower than OU.

Someone made a comment about Navy having no significant wins OOC and just in the AAC...well, so? That's exactly the BS mentality we always have to deal with. Why is OU's wins in conference any better, because they're in the Big 12? The Big 12 barely has a team worth a damn this year. Their second best team is guaranteed to have 3 losses and if it's OU, they get to hang their hat on the fact they have no bad losses as opposed to any good wins. If they lose in Bedlam and their best win will be over West Virginia...LOL (it's shaping up that their best wins will be BYU and KSU, good but not great). Kansas State did nothing OOC and though the stats won't bear it out, easily could have lost to Texas and Iowa State.

So come on, regardless of the numbers, OU has done little of consequence this year, nothing OOC and at best wins over West Virginia and Oklahoma State. If OU beats the latter, it will mean that a win over Houston is no worse, as UH has 2 good wins while OSU will have 1 and a matching bad loss.

And unless there is major carnage Saturday, (and even with it's doubtful) why Oklahoma won't make the CFP.

The Big 12 went 19-11 OOC this season.

Good wins (which may stretch the definition): BYU, Pitt

Good losses: Stanford, Ohio State, Houston, Arkansas (possible stretch), Iowa

Bad losses: Ohio, Northern Iowa, Arizona State, Cal, Central Michigan


So there you have it, the Big 12 had 2 good wins OOC, which were good but not great. They have to have teams brag more about losing to good teams as opposed to their good wins. Houston alone had as many good wins (and of better quality) as the entire Big 12 this season. And...what's that? You want me to say it again? Navy beat Houston, OU was smashed by them. Way more bad losses than good wins.

I don't care what thee numbers say, OU has nothing to lay its hat on except its reputation.

(11-27-2016 10:08 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Western Michigan IMO is being kept artificially lower than they should be to avoid a controversy. They should be in over any team not named Alabama, Clemson, Washington, or Ohio St.

To be fair, 10 out of the 12 teams they've played are .500 or below besides one FCS team.

But who is really excelling this year to the point that they are clearly better and more accomplished (*both*) than Western? Alabama, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Clemson and that's about it. Everyone else has flaws and multiple losses. Even if they have a weak schedule, they've taken care of business, which is better than everyone except Alabama.

I've gone over it ad nauseam but it's clear the committee is propping up this big conference mentality. Except for the playoff contenders, no one is even that good this year. You've got teams like Oklahoma living off their reputation and who they lost to as opposed to pretty much any win they've had. Is West Virginia really that much better than Toledo? Eye test, not some cooked up numbers in favor of the majors.

(11-28-2016 03:17 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 09:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  Massey composite has OU at #10, Navy at #23. That's about right. Schedule wasn't quite as lopsided in favor of OU as I expected (comparable below until you get to the last two games), but OU has been more impressive in its wins.
OU Navy
#118 KU + 53 #119 UConn +4
#108 ULM +42 #104 ECU +35
#93 ISU +10 #98 Tulane +7
#77 TT +7 #82 SMU +44
#70 UT +5 #67 ND +1
#50 TCU +6 #47 AFA -14 loss
#44 KSU +21 #41 Mem +14
#28 UH -10 loss #28 UH +6
#17 WVU +28 #21 USF -7 loss
#2 OSU -21 loss #35 Tulsa +2
#64 BU +21 FCS Fordham +36

I'm just not seeing it. I see the numbers but in reality, I just don't see it. Looking at who they beat and who they lost to, there's no justifiable reason to rank Navy so much lower than OU.

Someone made a comment about Navy having no significant wins OOC and just in the AAC...well, so? That's exactly the BS mentality we always have to deal with. Why is OU's wins in conference any better, because they're in the Big 12? The Big 12 barely has a team worth a damn this year. Their second best team is guaranteed to have 3 losses and if it's OU, they get to hang their hat on the fact they have no bad losses as opposed to any good wins. If they lose in Bedlam and their best win will be over West Virginia...LOL (it's shaping up that their best wins will be BYU and KSU, good but not great). Kansas State did nothing OOC and though the stats won't bear it out, easily could have lost to Texas and Iowa State.

So come on, regardless of the numbers, OU has done little of consequence this year, nothing OOC and at best wins over West Virginia and Oklahoma State. If OU beats the latter, it will mean that a win over Houston is no worse, as UH has 2 good wins while OSU will have 1 and a matching bad loss.

I can't help it that you bias blinds you. OU lost to Ohio St. and Houston. Navy lost to Air Force and South Florida. Ohio St.<> Air Force. Navy's biggest win is Houston.