Does anybody have a listing of the full rankings yet?

(11-28-2017 07:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:28 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Quo predicted this all along. While UCF fanboys and fans of other AAC teams who are dumb enough to think great things happening for UCF is good for their schools were cheering UCF after the War on I4 and talking about how the "classic" game meant UCF should surge up the polls, Quo said that barely squeaking by an unranked opponent at home while giving up 650 yards would hardly be impressive to the committee, nor should it be, and that UCF's ranking would essentially be unchanged.

If anything, I'm surprised they moved UCF past Notre Dame. I expected Notre Dame to be #14, just ahead of UCF, except the opposite happened, so the committee cut UCF some unwarranted slack.

This positions the PAC to get two teams in the NY6, and positions Notre Dame out of the NY6.

When did the College Football Playoff change its name to 'Quo'?

This CFP process has been a massively rude awakening for soft-headed sorts who have bought the "P6" hype promulgated by Aresco. These rankings should make it perfectly clear that no, the "P6 campaign" hasn't changed perceptions of the AAC one whit, at least not anywhere it matters.

No, we're not a quasi-invitee to the big boy dinner table, we're the hired minimum-wage help, no different from our G5 brethren.

Why are you such a rabid defender of the AAC's exclusion from the CFP? As an (alleged) USF fan you should be outraged that 'your school' is never in consideration for the National Championship.

I'd correct your ignorance on the hue and cry about UCF's and Memphis' current rankings, but you've made up your mind that being a mindless sheep is the way to go through life. So I won't.

(11-28-2017 07:33 PM)Kronke Wrote:  9-3 Stanford in front of UCF is just, wow.

fair-weather quo's dream?

Aside from Stanford, it's pretty easy to justify the teams ahead of UCF. I think they are right on par with Norte Dame.

(11-28-2017 07:35 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Does anybody have a listing of the full rankings yet?

http://collegefootballplayoff.com/rankings.aspx

(11-28-2017 07:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:28 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Quo predicted this all along. While UCF fanboys and fans of other AAC teams who are dumb enough to think great things happening for UCF is good for their schools were cheering UCF after the War on I4 and talking about how the "classic" game meant UCF should surge up the polls, Quo said that barely squeaking by an unranked opponent at home while giving up 650 yards would hardly be impressive to the committee, nor should it be, and that UCF's ranking would essentially be unchanged.

If anything, I'm surprised they moved UCF past Notre Dame. I expected Notre Dame to be #14, just ahead of UCF, except the opposite happened, so the committee cut UCF some unwarranted slack.

This positions the PAC to get two teams in the NY6, and positions Notre Dame out of the NY6.

When did the College Football Playoff change its name to 'Quo'?

This CFP process has been a massively rude awakening for soft-headed sorts who have bought the "P6" hype promulgated by Aresco. These rankings should make it perfectly clear that no, the "P6 campaign" hasn't changed perceptions of the AAC one whit, at least not anywhere it matters.

No, we're not a quasi-invitee to the big boy dinner table, we're the hired minimum-wage help sweeping up afterwards, no different from our G5 brethren.

I'd love to hear your action plan for the conference. I mean I'm with you that people were delusional to think the committee would do anything different, but I'm of the mind that the P6 campaign is about separating yourself from the G5, even if you sound a little crazy doing it. I'm not sure why you are so against it.

So I ask what you would do if you were leading the conference?

My biggest complaint about the committee is that losses do not matter to them. Strong SOS is one thing but losses should still matter.

There was talk last year about Syracuse basketball team making the tourney due to the strong schedule. However they didn't make it, to many people's surprise, because they lost too many games.

Why are the committee's philosophy’s so different in regards to losses?

(11-28-2017 07:37 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Aside from Stanford, it's pretty easy to justify the teams ahead of UCF. I think they are right on par with Norte Dame.

I actually agree with this. I don't have much of an issue with the others. The Stanford one is inexcusable. What are they looking at?

Edit: Maybe Washington too, but that is at least close.

Washington? Who the hell have they beat? UW Ooc Fresno, Montana, Rutgers

(11-28-2017 07:36 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:28 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Quo predicted this all along. While UCF fanboys and fans of other AAC teams who are dumb enough to think great things happening for UCF is good for their schools were cheering UCF after the War on I4 and talking about how the "classic" game meant UCF should surge up the polls, Quo said that barely squeaking by an unranked opponent at home while giving up 650 yards would hardly be impressive to the committee, nor should it be, and that UCF's ranking would essentially be unchanged.

If anything, I'm surprised they moved UCF past Notre Dame. I expected Notre Dame to be #14, just ahead of UCF, except the opposite happened, so the committee cut UCF some unwarranted slack.

This positions the PAC to get two teams in the NY6, and positions Notre Dame out of the NY6.

When did the College Football Playoff change its name to 'Quo'?

This CFP process has been a massively rude awakening for soft-headed sorts who have bought the "P6" hype promulgated by Aresco. These rankings should make it perfectly clear that no, the "P6 campaign" hasn't changed perceptions of the AAC one whit, at least not anywhere it matters.

No, we're not a quasi-invitee to the big boy dinner table, we're the hired minimum-wage help, no different from our G5 brethren.

Why are you such a rabid defender of the AAC's exclusion from the CFP? As an (alleged) USF fan you should be outraged that 'your school' is never in consideration for the National Championship.

I'd correct your ignorance on the hue and cry about UCF's and Memphis' current rankings, but you've made up your mind that being a mindless sheep is the way to go through life. So I won't.

There is no "hue and cry" about Memphis and UCF ranking except from AAC fanboys and a few bloggers trying to get page hits by making strident comments. The entire college football world couldn't care less, they only care about where Alabama is ranked relative to Ohio State.

And i don't *defend* G5 exclusion from high rankings, i simply explain why it happens. Would i prefer if the AAC had a contract with an NY6 bowl and $30m a year in media money? Of course, but we don't so no use fantisizing.

(11-28-2017 07:39 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  My biggest complaint about the committee is that losses do not matter to them. Strong SOS is one thing but losses should still matter.

There was talk last year about Syracuse basketball team making the tourney due to the strong schedule. However they didn't make it, to many people's surprise, because they lost too many games.

Why are the committee's philosophy’s so different in regards to losses?

It comes down to the difference in the sports. The basketball system is designed to be inclusive and appeal to the entire nation, hence why you get so many people who don't even watch sports filling out brackets and reading sports articles.

The football system is designed to make the most money you can for the smallest amount of parties possible. That's it. Not that the basketball tournament isn't about money, but they go about making it in a very different way. I'd argue the basketball system is far more successful.

(11-28-2017 07:40 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:37 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Aside from Stanford, it's pretty easy to justify the teams ahead of UCF. I think they are right on par with Norte Dame.

I actually agree with this. I don't have much of an issue with the others. The Stanford one is inexcusable. What are they looking at?

I don't agree with Memphis getting c*ck-blocked in the 20's.

(11-28-2017 07:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:36 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:28 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Quo predicted this all along. While UCF fanboys and fans of other AAC teams who are dumb enough to think great things happening for UCF is good for their schools were cheering UCF after the War on I4 and talking about how the "classic" game meant UCF should surge up the polls, Quo said that barely squeaking by an unranked opponent at home while giving up 650 yards would hardly be impressive to the committee, nor should it be, and that UCF's ranking would essentially be unchanged.

If anything, I'm surprised they moved UCF past Notre Dame. I expected Notre Dame to be #14, just ahead of UCF, except the opposite happened, so the committee cut UCF some unwarranted slack.

This positions the PAC to get two teams in the NY6, and positions Notre Dame out of the NY6.

When did the College Football Playoff change its name to 'Quo'?

This CFP process has been a massively rude awakening for soft-headed sorts who have bought the "P6" hype promulgated by Aresco. These rankings should make it perfectly clear that no, the "P6 campaign" hasn't changed perceptions of the AAC one whit, at least not anywhere it matters.

No, we're not a quasi-invitee to the big boy dinner table, we're the hired minimum-wage help, no different from our G5 brethren.

Why are you such a rabid defender of the AAC's exclusion from the CFP? As an (alleged) USF fan you should be outraged that 'your school' is never in consideration for the National Championship.

I'd correct your ignorance on the hue and cry about UCF's and Memphis' current rankings, but you've made up your mind that being a mindless sheep is the way to go through life. So I won't.

There is no "hue and cry" about Memphis and UCF ranking except from AAC fanboys and a few bloggers trying to get page hits by making strident comments. The entire college football world couldn't care less, they only care about where Alabama is ranked relative to Ohio State.

And i don't *defend* G5 exclusion from high rankings, i simply explain why it happens. Would i prefer if the AAC had a contract with an NY6 bowl and $30m a year in media money? Of course, but we don't so no use fantisizing.

The CFP show hosts just said UCF should be higher when they revealed the Top 15. LOL.

(11-28-2017 07:38 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:28 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Quo predicted this all along. While UCF fanboys and fans of other AAC teams who are dumb enough to think great things happening for UCF is good for their schools were cheering UCF after the War on I4 and talking about how the "classic" game meant UCF should surge up the polls, Quo said that barely squeaking by an unranked opponent at home while giving up 650 yards would hardly be impressive to the committee, nor should it be, and that UCF's ranking would essentially be unchanged.

If anything, I'm surprised they moved UCF past Notre Dame. I expected Notre Dame to be #14, just ahead of UCF, except the opposite happened, so the committee cut UCF some unwarranted slack.

This positions the PAC to get two teams in the NY6, and positions Notre Dame out of the NY6.

When did the College Football Playoff change its name to 'Quo'?

This CFP process has been a massively rude awakening for soft-headed sorts who have bought the "P6" hype promulgated by Aresco. These rankings should make it perfectly clear that no, the "P6 campaign" hasn't changed perceptions of the AAC one whit, at least not anywhere it matters.

No, we're not a quasi-invitee to the big boy dinner table, we're the hired minimum-wage help sweeping up afterwards, no different from our G5 brethren.

I'd love to hear your action plan for the conference. I mean I'm with you that people were delusional to think the committee would do anything different, but I'm of the mind that the P6 campaign is about separating yourself from the G5, even if you sound a little crazy doing it. I'm not sure why you are so against it.

So I ask what you would do if you were leading the conference?

My action plan for the conference is to sign a better TV deal and bowl deals when those come up in a few years. I think i could manage that, and for at least $1m less a year than Aresco is making.

As for the P6 campaign, i regard it as essentially harmless, with marginal costs and benefits either way.

But that's not the issue, the issue is the carping of those who think it's genius marketing and really is separating us from the G5. It's not.

(11-28-2017 07:38 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:28 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Quo predicted this all along. While UCF fanboys and fans of other AAC teams who are dumb enough to think great things happening for UCF is good for their schools were cheering UCF after the War on I4 and talking about how the "classic" game meant UCF should surge up the polls, Quo said that barely squeaking by an unranked opponent at home while giving up 650 yards would hardly be impressive to the committee, nor should it be, and that UCF's ranking would essentially be unchanged.

If anything, I'm surprised they moved UCF past Notre Dame. I expected Notre Dame to be #14, just ahead of UCF, except the opposite happened, so the committee cut UCF some unwarranted slack.

This positions the PAC to get two teams in the NY6, and positions Notre Dame out of the NY6.

When did the College Football Playoff change its name to 'Quo'?

This CFP process has been a massively rude awakening for soft-headed sorts who have bought the "P6" hype promulgated by Aresco. These rankings should make it perfectly clear that no, the "P6 campaign" hasn't changed perceptions of the AAC one whit, at least not anywhere it matters.

No, we're not a quasi-invitee to the big boy dinner table, we're the hired minimum-wage help sweeping up afterwards, no different from our G5 brethren.

I'd love to hear your action plan for the conference. I mean I'm with you that people were delusional to think the committee would do anything different, but I'm of the mind that the P6 campaign is about separating yourself from the G5, even if you sound a little crazy doing it. I'm not sure why you are so against it.

So I ask what you would do if you were leading the conference?

Hells bells I've asked this dude this numerous times and gotten nothing but shite answers. Quo's answer is USF getting into "P5" conference. Best of luck with that. Until then it's just dump on the AAC and any fight it has in it to advance as a conference. The AAC is supposed to roll over and die like a coward. **** that.

This is still 100 times better than the BCS system. At least we are almost guaranteed a big bowl game every season vs a name-brand P5 (barring a MAC or MWC school runs the table).

(11-28-2017 07:44 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:39 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  My biggest complaint about the committee is that losses do not matter to them. Strong SOS is one thing but losses should still matter.

There was talk last year about Syracuse basketball team making the tourney due to the strong schedule. However they didn't make it, to many people's surprise, because they lost too many games.

Why are the committee's philosophy’s so different in regards to losses?

It comes down to the difference in the sports. The basketball system is designed to be inclusive and appeal to the entire nation, hence why you get so many people who don't even watch sports filling out brackets and reading sports articles.

The football system is designed to make the most money you can for the smallest amount of parties possible. That's it. Not that the basketball tournament isn't about money, but they go about making it in a very different way. I'd argue the basketball system is far more successful.

+2 - Sad but absolutely true! The only downside to the theory is that two of the nation bigger cities (Houston and Philly) may not be happy about it.

Im amazed that people actually thought a secret committee would be a good way to rank teams. We are becoming the dumbest country on planet earth.

What a sham.

(11-28-2017 07:39 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  My biggest complaint about the committee is that losses do not matter to them. Strong SOS is one thing but losses should still matter.

There was talk last year about Syracuse basketball team making the tourney due to the strong schedule. However they didn't make it, to many people's surprise, because they lost too many games.

Why are the committee's philosophy’s so different in regards to losses?

This doesn't make sense. The one factor that obviously matters more than anything is losses. In the top 5, we have 1 team with 2 losses, none with 3 losses. From 6-10 we have 3 teams with 2 losses, none with 3 losses. From 11-15, its 4 teams with at least 2 losses, and for the first time, two with 3 losses; from 16-20 we have four teams with 3 losses, and from 21-25 all the teams have at least three losses and two have four losses.

So there is a clear-as-a-bell gradation of losses throughout the rankings. Is it 100% perfect? No, but the pattern shows that losses are easily the #1 factor in a team's ranking.

If it was all SOS and no concern for losses, then Notre Dame would be #3, not #15, and UCF and Memphis would be unranked.

(11-28-2017 07:48 PM)PuddlePirate Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:38 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:28 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 07:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Quo predicted this all along. While UCF fanboys and fans of other AAC teams who are dumb enough to think great things happening for UCF is good for their schools were cheering UCF after the War on I4 and talking about how the "classic" game meant UCF should surge up the polls, Quo said that barely squeaking by an unranked opponent at home while giving up 650 yards would hardly be impressive to the committee, nor should it be, and that UCF's ranking would essentially be unchanged.

If anything, I'm surprised they moved UCF past Notre Dame. I expected Notre Dame to be #14, just ahead of UCF, except the opposite happened, so the committee cut UCF some unwarranted slack.

This positions the PAC to get two teams in the NY6, and positions Notre Dame out of the NY6.

When did the College Football Playoff change its name to 'Quo'?

This CFP process has been a massively rude awakening for soft-headed sorts who have bought the "P6" hype promulgated by Aresco. These rankings should make it perfectly clear that no, the "P6 campaign" hasn't changed perceptions of the AAC one whit, at least not anywhere it matters.

No, we're not a quasi-invitee to the big boy dinner table, we're the hired minimum-wage help sweeping up afterwards, no different from our G5 brethren.

I'd love to hear your action plan for the conference. I mean I'm with you that people were delusional to think the committee would do anything different, but I'm of the mind that the P6 campaign is about separating yourself from the G5, even if you sound a little crazy doing it. I'm not sure why you are so against it.

So I ask what you would do if you were leading the conference?

Hells bells I've asked this dude this numerous times and gotten nothing but shite answers. Quo's answer is USF getting into "P5" conference. Best of luck with that. Until then it's just dump on the AAC and any fight it has in it to advance as a conference. The AAC is supposed to roll over and die like a coward. **** that.

Quo's anti-AAC, pro LSU/SEC/P5 act got old years ago. And he says the same crap over and over and over.

If everybody ignored him, it might become a little more tolerable here.