(10-17-2017 10:23 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote: (10-17-2017 06:38 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: (10-17-2017 06:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (10-17-2017 05:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: We have the data we have. No other G5 school is even ranked. Three AAC schools are. The CFP committee rankings arent going to differ enough to take a completely unranked team and place it ahead of 3 currently ranked teams---one of which is sitting in the lower teens. The only G5's that have a decent opportunity for quality wins are in the AAC. Like I said, the G5 access bowl conference is no longer in question---only the team is.
I hope we don't ever have to see, but I think it quite likely that should say Memphis win the AAC and SDSU win the MWC both with a single loss, and if Stanford were to win the PAC, then SDSU would get the CFP bid over Memphis.
The committee has never shown a propensity to stick rigidly to rankings one week to the next, as new information comes in, it has been willing to move teams around. Stanford winning the PAC would be a game-changer, if the AAC champ also has a loss.
Who will SDSU be playing again in the CCG? A ranked team? Bwahahahaha.
A single team does not an SOS make. Memphis' will be better, period. That will give them an edge over any crappy SOS team with a single good win. (A win that as of now is marginal, and in for weeks could be laughable.)
If SDSU loses on Saturday, its all over for them. Period. Completely locked out.
Exactly, and to offer proof, just look at what they (poll voters) did to Clemson after loosing to an unranked Syracuse. They dropped them only 6 positions. That's how much they discount the importance of only one game within the context of whole season. They care much more about the resume'. How many quality (read ranked* ** opponents) have you faced vs. your overall record. We (Memphis) have now faced 3 ranked teams, and will likely face a 4th if we are good/lucky enough to reach the CCG.
I'm not saying this is the most realistic accounting of what has transpired - I'm saying I believe this is how t
To state the obvious: for crissakes, Memphis isn't Clemson. Clemson is the defending national champ, played for the national championship the year before, and are two-time defending ACC champs. They have built up a huge reservoir of good will with pollsters. And yes, they are P5, and voters are biased in favor of P5. Memphis is ... Memphis.
If you want proof of the difference, consider that Memphis and Clemson are both 5-1, and Clemson has a much worse loss, and yet Clemson is #8 in both polls while Memphis is #25 by the skin of its teeth in one poll and unranked in the other.
FWIW, the CFP isn't going regard a win over a 3-3 UCLA team as a win vs a "ranked" team. You will only get credit for that as a ranked win if UCLA ends up ranked. Right now, they aren't. On the other hand, because UCF is ranked, you do have 'credit' for losing to a ranked team, meaning that's a 'good' loss, as losses go.
IMO you are vastly overrating the "stickiness" of AAC rankings. Rankings tend to be sticky, meaning a team doesn't drop far with a loss, when it has quality wins. But, UCF and USF are ranked not because they have beaten anyone, neither has, but because they are undefeated, and everyone respects "undefeated" at a certain level, even if against bad competition. But as soon as an unbeaten team with a bad SOS loses, they drop like a stone. If Memphis beats #11 UCF in the AAC title game, they won't get credit for beating #11, because as soon as UCF loses to Memphis, they will drop to #21, and the win won't look so good any more. You just found that out with Navy: Navy was undefeated and ranked, and as soon as you beat them, voila, not ranked anymore.
In contrast, if Stanford keeps winning, that will be a huge win for SDSU. So it will behoove Memphis if Stanford loses. Root against Stanford, seriously.