...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

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...more-stuff

Here's the explanation (there are a series of articles, one of which is scathingly critical of that).

(not letting me cut and paste, but read the explanation of why Clemson is ahead of Michigan-same applies-things like ignoring margin of victory and looking at record vs. teams over .500).

(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.

By the end of the year, everything balances out. These playoff rankings today mean absolutely nothing until the end of the regular season.

(11-02-2016 08:58 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  By the end of the year, everything balances out. These playoff rankings today mean absolutely nothing until the end of the regular season.

I agree that the playoff rankings are meaningless until the last one. But it doesn't balance out at the end of the year. It's 99% as arbitrary then as it is now.

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.

The committee should never have decided to release interim rankings. Just do it at the end like basketball. This is whole process is pointless yet flawed.

People are putting too much into this first ranking.

Yes I love all the delicious salty tears this has caused among our Big 12 friends but we know perfectly well that A&M does not control it's own fate and that the odds of us being in the final 4 for real is nonexistent if we don't end up winning the SEC.

Right now I would say Clemson is the only sure lock as I don't see them losing any of their remaining games (but this IS CFB)

The winner of the B1G and SEC are locks but who those are is not 100% yet.

And of course UW will be in if they win out. The only knock against them right now is that their schedule (like Ohio State's) is very back loaded this year

(11-02-2016 09:23 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  People are putting too much into this first ranking.

Yes I love all the delicious salty tears this has caused among our Big 12 friends but we know perfectly well that A&M does not control it's own fate and that the odds of us being in the final 4 for real is nonexistent if we don't end up winning the SEC.

Right now I would say Clemson is the only sure lock as I don't see them losing any of their remaining games (but this IS CFB)

The winner of the B1G and SEC are locks but who those are is not 100% yet.

And of course UW will be in if they win out. The only knock against them right now is that their schedule (like Ohio State's) is very back loaded this year

I disagree with you saying that A&M's only shot is to win the SEC. Big 12 is pretty close to toast, and with Washington having 2 games that they lose and they can't be Pac 12 champs(Washington St, CCG)- it's very easy. The odds this year of a non conference champion making the playoff are extremely high.

(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

(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.

(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

The rankings are for the entire season, not just last week.

(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

I disagree with Washington behind TAMU. They would be my #4. But this doesn't bother me, because I'm 99% certain that if Washington wins out, they will make the playoffs, so their ranking right now doesn't matter.

(11-02-2016 09:33 AM)stever20 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

The rankings are for the entire season, not just last week.

Washington is in great shape, if they win out they are in. 1 loss would make it interesting. They have a worse SOS problem than Louisville.

Exactly

UW wins out , they are in no question. But their SOS means they cannot afford a loss.

1 loss and Washington is in deep trouble. And the 1 loss will be fatal if it's vs Washington St or CCG. 1 loss Washington won't finish ahead of 1 loss Louisville guaranteed if both aren't conference champs.

(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.

(11-02-2016 09:41 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Exactly

UW wins out , they are in no question. But their SOS means they cannot afford a loss.

Not sure about that. If UW and A&M both win out, A&M could be the choice.

Would be interesting to see if both the PAC 12 and Big 12 champs are left out, how that might affect the evolution of the CFP.

I think it's at least 50/50, if not higher- that we have a non conference champion in the playoffs this year.

I mean right now, Washington according to the FPI only has a 52% chance to win the Pac 12(and that would include a scenario where they lose a game but still win the conference). If they don't win the Pac 12, the odds are extremely high that we have a non conference champion in the playoff.

Louisville REALLY needs Kentucky to win the SEC East.

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