CFP AP 25 COACHES POLL
1. Alabama 1. Alabama 1. Alabama
2. Clemson 2. Michigan 2. Michigan
3. Michigan 3. Clemson 3. Clemson
4. Texas A&M 4. Washington 4. Washington
5. Washington 5. Louisville 5. Louisville
6. Ohio State 6. Ohio State 6. Ohio State
7. Louisville 7. Texas A&M 7. Texas A&M
8. Wisconsin 8. Wisconsin 8. Wisconsin
9. Auburn 9. Nebraska 9. Florida
10. Nebraska 10. Florida 10. Nebraska
11. Florida 11. Auburn 11. Oklahoma
12. Penn State 12. Oklahoma 12. Auburn
13. LSU 13. Baylor 13. Baylor
14. Oklahoma 14. West Virginia 14. LSU
15. Colorado 15. LSU 15. West Virginia
16. Utah 16. Utah 16. Utah
17. Baylor 17. Western Michigan 17. North Carolina
18. Oklahoma State 18. North Carolina 18. Western Michigan
19. Virginia Tech 19. Florida State 19. Florida State
20. West Virginia 20. Penn State 20. Colorado
21. North Carolina 21. Colorado 21. Virginia Tech
22. Florida State 22. Oklahoma State 22. Oklahoma State
23. Western Michigan 23. Virginia Tech 23. Penn State
24. Boise State 24. Boise State 24. Boise State
25. Washington State 25. Washington State 25. Washington State
CFP also under rank G5 schools as well. They do this to Boise State every year, and when they get into an access bowl? They prove these people wrong.
They under rank them because of who they play..... It's not hard to figure out...
Quote:They under rank them because of who they play..... It's not hard to figure out...
If that's the case, I'm having a hard time with Penn State hanging out at the 12-spot.
I think the current system did what it could to keep the non-majors out. It's buffered more now than it ever was. And I'm counting on this current system seeing an extension done in the dark of night much in the same way the one BCS extension went down, even in the face of lower ratings, slighted fans, and critics aplenty (if it comes to that).
This system is what a cluster of 60-something major schools want for themselves. They've had time and experience to craft and frame it in a way where it looks more open and transparent, but nobody believes them.
It's a shame Houston wasn't undefeated when this first ranking came out. They wouldn't be top 5. Probably just within top 10. The system got a gift with that unhinging.
IMO, no matter what happens, a G5 school will never be in the top 4. They won't let that happen....In the top 8 sure, but never in the playoff.
(11-02-2016 07:24 AM)Otacon Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, no matter what happens, a G5 school will never be in the top 4. They won't let that happen....In the top 8 sure, but never in the playoff.
You'd need a Go5 that actually beat one of the schools they put in the Top 3 for there even to be a chance ... and even then, I'd reckon they'd "vision test" them down to #5.
CFP officials are a joke. Not a fair system at all, but that's not going to change.
(11-02-2016 08:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2016 07:24 AM)Otacon Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, no matter what happens, a G5 school will never be in the top 4. They won't let that happen....In the top 8 sure, but never in the playoff.
You'd need a Go5 that actually beat one of the schools they put in the Top 3 for there even to be a chance ... and even then, I'd reckon they'd "vision test" them down to #5.
Had UH gone undefeated and there weren't 4 undefeated champions from the P5, they'd go to the playoffs. Troy had they beaten Clemson....even they would be in the mix (about 50-50)
Here's the formula:
1) Beat a TOP team from the P5 (sorry WMU - Northwestern and Illinois aren't cutting it)
2) Go undefeated
3) Have 3 or less undefeated P5 teams
It can be done, and eventually someone will do it.
If UW goes undefeated, they'll go to the playoffs over TAMU.
----
The problem for the playoff committee is this...they'd lose their credibility and the credibility of the CFP if someone managed to beat a top P5, go undefeated, then win their access bowl game, while a 1 or even 2 loss team wins the playoff. The product would be irrevocably damaged. If they did that once, expect the coaches poll to rank the G5 number 1 at season end and the playoff to expand to 8 teams with 1 guaranteed slot for the G5.
---
Getting to the playoffs is hard, even for P5s. Its not surprising that a G5 would have even more trouble.
(11-02-2016 08:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2016 07:24 AM)Otacon Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, no matter what happens, a G5 school will never be in the top 4. They won't let that happen....In the top 8 sure, but never in the playoff.
You'd need a Go5 that actually beat one of the schools they put in the Top 3 for there even to be a chance ... and even then, I'd reckon they'd "vision test" them down to #5.
Yeah, and anything that tries to even legitimize the whole "vision test" thing is admitting they don't have a clue, or care to be told how to judge these programs. Kind of like those final selections for the NCAA tournament...
Thoughts:
- Alabama seems locked into #1 given it doesn't lose
- Clemson and Michigan seem locked into #2 and #3 given they don't lose
- it's absolutely irrelevant if Clemson is #2 or if Michigan is #2 -- they'd play each other in the semi either way and you can't prove it anyway ... so it's the same thing either way
- IF they can reasonably avoid it, I believe they will try to avoid a rematch for Alabama at the #4 spot. That means: sorry TA&M. The ranking now is a nice feather, but basically is meaningless.
Thus, I do believe that #4 will not be an SEC team -- which would have to be TA&M, given that Auburn, Florida, and LSU would all lose again if Alabama goes undefeated -- and instead will be either: 0/1-loss Washington or 1-loss Louisville.
Of course, if Alabama, Clemson, or Michigan lose ... then all bets are off.
Oh, and one other thing:
I absolutely can not wait for Michigan to
CRUSH Clemson into orange and purple goop. Shove those fried grits up your keister, Kap!
(11-02-2016 11:44 AM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Thoughts:
- Alabama seems locked into #1 given it doesn't lose
- Clemson and Michigan seem locked into #2 and #3 given they don't lose
- it's absolutely irrelevant if Clemson is #2 or if Michigan is #2 -- they'd play each other in the semi either way and you can't prove it anyway ... so it's the same thing either way
- IF they can reasonably avoid it, I believe they will try to avoid a rematch for Alabama at the #4 spot. That means: sorry TA&M. The ranking now is a nice feather, but basically is meaningless.
Thus, I do believe that #4 will not be an SEC team -- which would have to be TA&M, given that Auburn, Florida, and LSU would all lose again if Alabama goes undefeated -- and instead will be either: 0/1-loss Washington or 1-loss Louisville.
I disagree with your last couple statements. First, the CFP has been clear that it doesn't factor in a factor until it materializes. That is, right now, Washington is not getting credit for being PAC champ because they aren't yet PAC champ, but if they become PAC champ, that will suddenly be very relevant.
The upshot is: TAMU has no chance of finishing ahead of an unbeaten Washington, but it doesn't have anything to do with avoiding a rematch with Alabama, it's just that with the PAC title, Washington will clearly be the choice.
Also, if TAMU does run the table, there's little chance Louisville passes them. Right now, TAMU is #4 and UL is #7. Since TAMU's remaining schedule is tougher than UL's, it's hard to imagine UL passing them.
- The only team I think Washington would lose to is USC. Meaning, they'd be PAC champs at 0 or 1 losses, in that scenario.
- But let's say their only loss is WA St and then wither WSU or Colorado goes on to win the PAC. And then say TA&M and Louisville run their tables. That gives three 1-loss non-champions:
Washington
TA&M
Louisville
In that case, I'd be willing to put money that the committee will say something to the effect of "well, these three are basically neck-and-neck, and we don't want any rematches in the semi, so ..." It won't be made public, but that's how they'll do it. That's what I think, anyway.
(11-02-2016 06:45 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:They under rank them because of who they play..... It's not hard to figure out...
If that's the case, I'm having a hard time with Penn State hanging out at the 12-spot.
PSU stands out because they were unranked a couple of weeks ago, but if you compare them to the other two loss teams in the top 16, they hardly have the weakest resume. They actually have a top ten win. Oklahoma and LSU, for example, don't have any quality wins either, and are also ranked in the top 15.
UL has the best loss thus far. They would probably slip in given the weakness in the Pac 12 this year.
(11-02-2016 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]- The only team I think Washington would lose to is USC. Meaning, they'd be PAC champs at 0 or 1 losses, in that scenario.
- But let's say their only loss is WA St and then wither WSU or Colorado goes on to win the PAC. And then say TA&M and Louisville run their tables. That gives three 1-loss non-champions:
Washington
TA&M
Louisville
In that case, I'd be willing to put money that the committee will say something to the effect of "well, these three are basically neck-and-neck, and we don't want any rematches in the semi, so ..." It won't be made public, but that's how they'll do it. That's what I think, anyway.
I personally feel what will keep A&M out is if Alabama remains number one. Because there is no way you can put A&M at four in a rematch with a team that has beaten them a combined 92-13 the last two seasons. Probably also hard to put them in over a team that demolished them in a bowl game just last year. I know, last year is last year, but those things add up.
Agreed 100%.
Those types of things, that "aren't supposed to matter", absolutely do matter when you have two teams right next to each other. Yeah, the stakes of #4 vs #5 obviously warrant massive considerations ... but nonetheless ...
(11-02-2016 05:49 AM)Otacon Wrote: [ -> ]They under rank them because of who they play..... It's not hard to figure out...
Seems kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy eh? G5 schools get under ranked because they are G5 and don't have a P5 schedule.
(11-02-2016 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]- The only team I think Washington would lose to is USC. Meaning, they'd be PAC champs at 0 or 1 losses, in that scenario.
- But let's say their only loss is WA St and then wither WSU or Colorado goes on to win the PAC. And then say TA&M and Louisville run their tables. That gives three 1-loss non-champions:
Washington
TA&M
Louisville
In that case, I'd be willing to put money that the committee will say something to the effect of "well, these three are basically neck-and-neck, and we don't want any rematches in the semi, so ..." It won't be made public, but that's how they'll do it. That's what I think, anyway.
The problem is SOS. Washington would have all of 2 ranked opponents- going 1-1(maybe Stanford can sneak back in to give them 3). Texas A&M would have at least 3- going 2-1(with wins over Auburn and LSU)- and very possibly 4- with Tennessee winning out they will be ranked.. Louisville would have 2- going 1-1(and that's if FSU can remain ranked).
(11-02-2016 12:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2016 06:45 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:They under rank them because of who they play..... It's not hard to figure out...
If that's the case, I'm having a hard time with Penn State hanging out at the 12-spot.
PSU stands out because they were unranked a couple of weeks ago, but if you compare them to the other two loss teams in the top 16, they hardly have the weakest resume. They actually have a top ten win. Oklahoma and LSU, for example, don't have any quality wins either, and are also ranked in the top 15.
A win that size is something to get them into the polls, I agree. I don't think this is JUST Ohio State, though. I FEAR this is also besting Minnesota (a 2-loss team not even ranked) and Temple...there's not much to the bones there other than a decent record; good losses for them both, but not much going with good wins.
Penn State is 6-2 and its opponents' records amount for a combined 42-23. It's an impressive number, and better than the others at that 6-2 mark, but it's a messy metric.