(11-14-2017 11:06 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:00 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:07 PM)fanhood Wrote:  I am surprised many of you are surprised. People have been pointing this out for a month. USF's best win is over Temple and they are 78th by Massey.

USF winning the AAC is a worst case scenario for the AAC.

No. They didn't rank USF because that would've set UCF up to claim another cfp top25 win. The point is to not add any credibility to the schedule of UCF so that it can be used as a reason for not properly ranking them. The problem most likely was that no other p5 teams could reasonably be put in that slot and it probably came down to USF or Boise. If USF were properly ranked this week and then Navy upset ND thereby giving the AAC 4 cfp ranked teams the public outcry against not ranking UCF at least right outside of the top4 would've been loud.

I agree that there is P5 vs G5 bias. I have been saying that the entire time, regarding schedules, rankings, bowl games, and yes....TV contracts. However, this is some tin foil hat stuff.

The committee does not value G5 vs G5 wins that much. So when USF beats Temple, or beats Tulane, they don't get credit for it. Conversely, when they lose to Houston, they get punished more than when say Michigan State does by losing to a Northwestern team that lost to Duke. It is what it is. Don't get mad at me for it.

Once again,NO. Every ranked AAC team received it's ranking after beating other AAC teams. So the AP pollsters and coaches polls are respecting our conference strength and I suspect that the cfp guys see it also. The problem is they are not trying to let the AAC upset the very lucrative false narratives that they are trying to shove down the publics throat

Alright, Navy forfeits the game.

(11-14-2017 10:04 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:02 PM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  How are there 7 two loss teams ahead of UCF?

...there are actually EIGHT.

Such a joke. So the eight 2-loss teams that are ranked ahead of UCF are there because they LOST to 2 good teams??

I fail to understand the logic of that argument. Do they think UCF can’t competently lose to a pair of good teams?? It takes zero talent to LOSE to good teams. Bad teams do it all the time. Dumbest argument ever—it’s an “emperors new clothes” level argument. Amazes me that they aren’t called out on the BS. If they keep it up there going to get sued. It’s just a matter of time.

Until the CFP committee is a 10 man one-conference one-vote configuration—you aren’t going to have a fair CFP ranking system. What we have now is a complete joke.

(11-14-2017 10:27 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  USF SOS is killing them. Much like Marshall in the first year of the CFP.

Yep. SC always says they emphasize SOS more than the regular polls.

Can anyone explain why MICHIGAN is ranked?

Yeah, the Wolverines are 8-2 but look at their wins;

3-6 Florida (Gators are literally a dumpster fire and have already fired a coach)
2-7 Cincinnati
3-6 Air Force
4-6 Purdue
3-6 Indiana
3-6 Rutgers
5-5 Minnesota
3-6 Maryland

(Records only include FBS wins)

Per Massey, here are current and pre-championship game SOS's.

9-0 UCF #84 #77
8-1 Memphis #75 #78
8-1 USF #110 #92
8-2 Boise St #71 #71
8-2 Toledo #80 #81
8-2 Ohio #107 #101

So from the CFP's perspective it's obvious that UCF should be the top G5 as the only 9-0 team.

For the second spot, it's also not a tricky conversation. Memphis has the same record as USF but a tougher schedule, so they get the nod vs USF. Compared to Boise State they have a similar schedule, but one fewer loss so they get the nod vs Boise State.

The third spot is where the CFP committee prioritized SOS over win/loss. They looked at the SOS differences between Boise State and USF and decided than 8-2 with the #71 SOS is better than 8-1 with the #110 SOS.

I'm not saying these decisions are correct, this is just a rudimentary look at their decision making process.

(11-14-2017 11:53 PM)CornellCoog Wrote:  Can anyone explain why MICHIGAN is ranked?

Yeah, the Wolverines are 8-2 but look at their wins;

3-6 Florida (Gators are literally a dumpster fire and have already fired a coach)
2-7 Cincinnati
3-6 Air Force
4-6 Purdue
3-6 Indiana
3-6 Rutgers
5-5 Minnesota
3-6 Maryland

(Records only include FBS wins)

I can't. That's not good. But is it any worse than USF's? I don't know, just asking. USF's best win is a 5-5 team, as well.

(11-15-2017 12:05 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  Per Massey, here are current and pre-championship game SOS's.

9-0 UCF #84 #77
8-1 Memphis #75 #78
8-1 USF #110 #92
8-2 Boise St #71 #71
8-2 Toledo #80 #81
8-2 Ohio #107 #101

So from the CFP's perspective it's obvious that UCF should be the top G5 as the only 9-0 team.

For the second spot, it's also not a tricky conversation. Memphis has the same record as USF but a tougher schedule, so they get the nod vs USF. Compared to Boise State they have a similar schedule, but one fewer loss so they get the nod vs Boise State.

The third spot is where the CFP committee prioritized SOS over win/loss. They looked at the SOS differences between Boise State and USF and decided than 8-2 with the #71 SOS is better than 8-1 with the #110 SOS.

I'm not saying these decisions are correct, this is just a rudimentary look at their decision making process.

Thanks. Yeah, rudimentary, but makes me a little less mad about Boise getting in over USF.

(11-14-2017 11:53 PM)CornellCoog Wrote:  Can anyone explain why MICHIGAN is ranked?

Yeah, the Wolverines are 8-2 but look at their wins;

3-6 Florida (Gators are literally a dumpster fire and have already fired a coach)
2-7 Cincinnati
3-6 Air Force
4-6 Purdue
3-6 Indiana
3-6 Rutgers
5-5 Minnesota
3-6 Maryland

(Records only include FBS wins)

I don’t believe the gators are literally a dumpster fire.

(11-15-2017 12:21 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:53 PM)CornellCoog Wrote:  Can anyone explain why MICHIGAN is ranked?

Yeah, the Wolverines are 8-2 but look at their wins;

3-6 Florida (Gators are literally a dumpster fire and have already fired a coach)
2-7 Cincinnati
3-6 Air Force
4-6 Purdue
3-6 Indiana
3-6 Rutgers
5-5 Minnesota
3-6 Maryland

(Records only include FBS wins)

I don’t believe the gators are literally a dumpster fire.

I don't know. I live in South Alabama, and I'm pretty sure I see smoke on the horizon south of me.

(11-14-2017 10:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 09:41 PM)Acres Wrote:  Ok, this is silly. USF not ranked Week three. What’s going on here

FWIW, I didn't expect us to be ranked. We didn't beat anyone this week to merit moving in.

Once we slap UCF around their erector set, we'll be in.

maybe das kommitee knows what they are doing after all

(11-15-2017 12:21 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:53 PM)CornellCoog Wrote:  Can anyone explain why MICHIGAN is ranked?

Yeah, the Wolverines are 8-2 but look at their wins;

3-6 Florida (Gators are literally a dumpster fire and have already fired a coach)
2-7 Cincinnati
3-6 Air Force
4-6 Purdue
3-6 Indiana
3-6 Rutgers
5-5 Minnesota
3-6 Maryland

(Records only include FBS wins)

I don’t believe the gators are literally a dumpster fire.

dumpster fire doesnt quite cover it

(11-14-2017 09:41 PM)Acres Wrote:  Ok, this is silly. USF not ranked Week three. What’s going on here

No surprise USF will only be ranked if they beat Tulsa and UCF. No worries USF wins out they will be fine. The NY6 bowl still belongs to UCF, Memphis or USF unless they all lose

(11-14-2017 11:21 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:14 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:06 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:00 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:07 PM)fanhood Wrote:  I am surprised many of you are surprised. People have been pointing this out for a month. USF's best win is over Temple and they are 78th by Massey.

USF winning the AAC is a worst case scenario for the AAC.

No. They didn't rank USF because that would've set UCF up to claim another cfp top25 win. The point is to not add any credibility to the schedule of UCF so that it can be used as a reason for not properly ranking them. The problem most likely was that no other p5 teams could reasonably be put in that slot and it probably came down to USF or Boise. If USF were properly ranked this week and then Navy upset ND thereby giving the AAC 4 cfp ranked teams the public outcry against not ranking UCF at least right outside of the top4 would've been loud.

I agree that there is P5 vs G5 bias. I have been saying that the entire time, regarding schedules, rankings, bowl games, and yes....TV contracts. However, this is some tin foil hat stuff.

The committee does not value G5 vs G5 wins that much. So when USF beats Temple, or beats Tulane, they don't get credit for it. Conversely, when they lose to Houston, they get punished more than when say Michigan State does by losing to a Northwestern team that lost to Duke. It is what it is. Don't get mad at me for it.

Last year, the committee called Navy's wins over Houston, Memphis, and Tulsa "quality wins" in explaining why 2-loss Navy might overtake undefeated WMU. Here's the transcript yet again:
http://www.asapsports.com/show_conference.php?id=125775

You realize I said in previous posts that wins over Memphis and UCF would be seen as good right? Just read back a page. We don't disagree. Notice the qualifier "that much" and the examples I gave here. USF is a ****** schedule. They have not beaten anyone. It is not my fault. Furthermore, I simply find your over the top assertions, and absolutism to be laughable. Seeing a two loss Boise in front of USF should humble you a bit. Apparently it does not. Oh well.

I do realize that, but I'm getting a lot of cognitive dissonance from you claiming to acknowledge the quality of potential wins over UCF and Memphis but then not accepting the analysis (as opposed to absolutist assertion) that those wins leapfrog USF over a 2-loss Boise.
But perhaps you're right and I'm repetitive.

Let's flip the script: what is the case for 11-2 Boise over 11-1 USF? Checking the assumptions, wins over UCF and Memphis; UCF with a loss stays well ahead of #35 SDSU and Memphis' drop after a loss keeps them essentially even with #35. Boise gets zero bump from last two games or a repeat win over Fresno/SDSU in ccg

So what's the case for Boise?
Overall record? Nope, 11-2 < 11-1
Quality wins? Nope, advantage USF
Strength of schedule ? Nope, that will be a wash.
Related, strength of f losses? No, even if you write-off loss to WSU, loss to Virginia worse than loss to Houston.

Make the case for the Broncos

“Central Florida rose in the rankings because they earned it,” Hocutt said of the ranking, which was the highest by a Group of Five teams since Western Michigan was No. 15 in the final rankings in 2016. “As we study their total body of work, they have the one win against a top-25 team in Memphis. It's the schedule, as we talked about last week. The selection committee continues to like this team. We continue to spend a lot of time talking about Central Florida. You know, and we went through their schedule from top to bottom this week in our evaluation of Central Florida. They've earned that 15 spot where they are this week through their play, and the selection committee continues to be very impressed with Central Florida.”

How many of you really believe that they talk about UCF that much in their meetings? Me neither we earned it against UCONN at home......but not last week at SMU when we stayed stagnant at 18? Amazing inconsistencies on their part. At least make it believable when doing the interview.

(11-14-2017 11:00 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:07 PM)fanhood Wrote:  I am surprised many of you are surprised. People have been pointing this out for a month. USF's best win is over Temple and they are 78th by Massey.

USF winning the AAC is a worst case scenario for the AAC.

No. They didn't rank USF because that would've set UCF up to claim another cfp top25 win. The point is to not add any credibility to the schedule of UCF so that it can be used as a reason for not properly ranking them. The problem most likely was that no other p5 teams could reasonably be put in that slot and it probably came down to USF or Boise. If USF were properly ranked this week and then Navy upset ND thereby giving the AAC 4 cfp ranked teams the public outcry against not ranking UCF at least right outside of the top4 would've been loud.

Makes no sense, because the committee only cares about wins over currently-ranked teams. If USF was ranked, we'd be what, #23 or #24? If we then lost to UCF we would no longer be ranked, so UCF would not get 'credit' for beating a ranked team.

So not ranking USF can't have anything to do with UCF's ranking.

(11-14-2017 10:07 PM)fanhood Wrote:  I am surprised many of you are surprised. People have been pointing this out for a month. USF's best win is over Temple and they are 78th by Massey.

USF winning the AAC is a worst case scenario for the AAC.

Ban this clown

(11-15-2017 06:57 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Make the case for the Broncos

FWIW, Massey has USF at #29, Boise at #26.

(11-14-2017 10:15 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:06 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 09:55 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 09:44 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  Boise st is in though and has one more loss?

P6

Because the committee is crapping the bed? Lol as it looks now USD will be a top 20 team in both traditional polls, Boise won't be ranked. But the cfp will get it ass backwards, Boise got blown out at home by Virginia. Who have they beat?

Well they did beat New Mexico so there is that. BSU will always get the benefit of the doubt over other G5 teams.

Ha BSU is a rankings joke.

(11-15-2017 07:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 06:57 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Make the case for the Broncos

FWIW, Massey has USF at #29, Boise at #26.

Today.
This discussion assumes wins over UCF and Memphis