Conundrum:

There is no legitimate justification for considering (or is at least highly problematic to consider) a team that has lost a game to be the "best" team in college football (based simply on subjective rankings) if there are other top 12-ranked teams that have finished both the regular season and bowl season with zero defeats.

There is a way to deal with this conundrum:

Switch to a 8-, 12-, or 14-team FBS championship playoff system that would include all undefeated teams ranked in the final regular season poll:

8-team playoff proposal:

Based on the current AP top 25, these 8 teams would be in the 2020 playoffs:

Alabama
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Clemson
Texas A&M
Cincinnati (if undefeated)
BYU (if undefeated)
Oregon (if undefeated)

Round 1 (Quarterfinals; Top 4 NY6 Bowls):

Alabama-Oregon (winner advances and is #1 seed for Round 2)
Notre Dame-BYU (winner advances and is #2 seed for Round 2)
Ohio State-Cincinnati (winner advances and is #3 seed for Round 2)
Clemson-Texas A&M (winner advances and is #4 seed for Round 2)

Round 2 (Semifinals):

#1 vs. #4 seed
#2 vs. #3 seed

Round 3 (Championship Game):

Battle between semifinalists

ADVANTAGES:

*ONLY REQUIRES ADDING ONE (SEMIFINALS) ROUND

*INCLUDES ALL UNDEFEATED TOP 10-RANKED REG. SEASON TEAMS

*ADDS ANOTHER EXCITING WEEKEND OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL

*GENERATES MORE VIEWERSHIP REVENUE


.

12-team playoff proposals (option A and option B):

Based on the current AP top 25, these 12 teams would be in the 2020 playoffs:

Alabama
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Clemson
Texas A&M
Florida
Cincinnati (undefeated)
BYU (undefeated)
Oregon (undefeated)
Miami (FL)
Northwestern
Indiana

OPTION A (12 team playoff proposal):

Round 1 (to determine top 8 seeds) (NY6 Bowls):

#1 NY6 Bowl: Alabama-Notre Dame (to determine #1 & #2 seeds for Round 2)
#2 NY6 Bowl: Ohio State-Clemson (to determine #3 & #4 seeds for Round 2)
#3 NY6 Bowl: Texas A&M-Indiana (winner advances and is #5 seed for Round 2)
#4 NY6 Bowl: Florida-Northwestern (winner advances and is #6 seed for Round 2)
#5 NY6 Bowl: Cincinnati-Miami (FL) (winner advances and is #7 seed for Round 2)
#6 NY6 Bowl: BYU-Oregon (winner advances and is #8 seed for Round 2)

Round 2 (Quarterfinals):

#1 vs. #8 seed
#2 vs. #7 seed
#3 vs. #6 seed
#4 vs. #5 seed

Round 3 (Semifinals)

Semifinals Game 1: #1/#8 winner vs. #4/#5 winner
Semifinals Game 2: #2#7 winner vs. #3/#6 winner

Round 4 (Championship Game):

Battle between semifinalists


ADVANTAGES:

*INCLUDES ALL TOP 12-RANKED REGULAR SEASON TEAMS

*ADDS TWO MORE EXCITING WEEKENDS OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL

*GENERATES MORE VIEWERSHIP REVENUE

DISADVANTAGE:

*REQUIRES ADDING A QUARTERFINALS AND SEMIFINALS ROUND

.

OPTION B (12-team playoff proposal):

Round 1 (to determine 4 quarterfinalists) (NY6 Bowls):

#1 NY6 Bowl: Alabama-Indiana (earns #1 seed and Round 2 bye)
#2 NY6 Bowl: Notre Dame-Northwestern (earns #2 seed and Round 2 bye)
#3 NY6 Bowl: Ohio State-Miami(FL)(winner advances; is #3 seed for Round 2)
#4 NY6 Bowl: Clemson-Oregon (winner advances; is #4 seed for Round 2)
#5 NY6 Bowl: Texas A&M-BYU (winner advances; is #5 seed for Round 2)
#6 NY6 Bowl: Florida-Cincinnati (winner advances; is #6 seed for Round 2)

Round 2: To determine two of four semifinalists:

#3 vs. #6 seed
#4 vs. #5 seed

Semifinals:

Game I: #1 seed (Alabama) vs. winner of #3 vs. #6 seed game
Game II: #2 seed (Notre Dame) vs. winner of #4 vs. #5 seed game

Championship Game:

Battle between semifinalists (e.g., Alabama vs. Notre Dame)


ADVANTAGES:

*INCLUDES ALL TOP 12-RANKED REGULAR SEASON TEAMS

*ADDS TWO MORE EXCITING WEEKENDS OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL

*GENERATES MORE VIEWERSHIP REVENUE

DISADVANTAGE:

*REQUIRES ADDING A QUARTERFINALS AND SEMIFINALS ROUND


.

14-Team Playoff proposal:

NOTE: Alabama (#1 seed) and Notre Dame (#2 seed) would get first round byes

Round 1 matchups (NY6 Bowls) (to determine #2 through #6 seeds):

#1 NY6 Bowl: Ohio State-Oklahoma (winner advances and is #3 seed for Round 2)
#2 NY6 Bowl: Clemson-Georgia (winner advances; is #4 seed for Round 2)
#3 NY6 Bowl: Texas A&M-Indiana (winner advances; is #5 seed for Round 2)
#4 NY6 Bowl: Florida-Northwestern (winner advances and is #6 seed for Round 2)
#5 NY6 Bowl: Cincinnati-Miami (FL) (winner advances; is #7 seed for Round 2)
#6 NY6 Bowl: BYU-Oregon (winner advances and is #8 seed for Round 2)

Round 2 (Quarterfinals):

#1 vs. #8 seed (winner advances to semifinals game #1)
#2 vs. #7 seed (winner advances to semifinals game #2)
#3 vs. #6 seed (winner advances to semifinals game #2)
#4 vs. #5 seed (winner advances to semifinals game #1)

Round 3 (Semifinals):

Game I: Battle between winners of #1/#8 and #4/#5 games

Game II: Battle between winners of #2/#7 and #3/#6 games

Round 4 (Championship Game):

Victors of the two semifinal games (e.g., Alabama vs. Notre Dame)

ADVANTAGES:

*INCLUDES ALL TOP 14-RANKED REGULAR SEASON TEAMS

*ADDS TWO MORE EXCITING WEEKENDS OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL

*GENERATES MORE VIEWERSHIP REVENUE

DISADVANTAGE:

*REQUIRES ADDING A QUARTERFINALS AND SEMIFINALS ROUND

(11-24-2020 10:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 01:17 AM)colohank Wrote:  Yeah, 8-0 Cincinnati hasn't been able to pad its resume like the big boys do by playing Rutgers, Kansas, Oregon State, South Carolina, or Syracuse.

Cincy's SOS in Sagarin right now is #91, though SOS rankings, like all computer rankings, are dodgy at best this year particularly for P5 because of limited OOC play.

We will learn in about 10 hours what the CFP makes of all this.

I am not buying that SOS. Sagarin has these SOS rankings
Wisconsin 7
NW 8
IU 9
PSU 2 (really PSU has played the 2nd toughest schedule this year?)
Purdue 4
Nebraska 1 (OSU, NW, winless PSU, Illinois)
Arizona State 23 (they have played 1 game) and they are ranking schedules for the PAC teams some of which have played 2 games.

That's why you have to use a teams total offense and total defense rankings to offset the discrepancies you're finding with sos. It's not Cincinnati's fault that their sos is supposedly high this year, can't control that. They can control how they perform on the field though.
The committee has pointed this out in the past and if they are consistent, they will still factor this into their findings.
I have Cincinnati 4th, RIGHT NOW, with my calculation. I use, this year, number of games played as a factor too. PAC schools will start getting closer as more games are played, but it's going to be close at the end if Cincinnati can stay undefeated.

Of course there is always the conspiracy against G5 schools so who knows?

I'm almost certain they will not place Cincinnati 4th simply because they don't want to put them there now and then remove them later, even if they don't lose. It's not right imo, but they are laying out the future as we speak and it's so much easier to add them later.

I've said before, Cincinnati needs to keep winning and see where things fall.

(11-24-2020 11:17 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 11:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 10:47 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  Conundrum:

A team that has lost a game can hardly be considered the "best" team in college football if there are other top 12-ranked teams that have finished both the regular season and bowl season with zero defeats.

Of course they can, and it has happened many times in the past.

Let me state it differently.

There is no legitimate justification for considering (or is at least highly problematic to consider) a team that has lost a game to be the "best" team in college football (based simply on subjective rankings) if there are other top 12-ranked teams that have finished both the regular season and bowl season with zero defeats.

The problem I have with this is what's special about the top-12 as a cutoff line, especially when the whole notion of who is "top-12" and who is not is based on, well, rankings? If you think it unjust that a 12-0, number 9 Cincy is not included in the "best" conversation but OK if a 12-0, number 17 Coastal Carolina is not, then what's the basis for that, given that the only reason Cincy is #9 and Coastal is #17 is, well, the same kind of opinion that says that 11-1 Clemson is ranked #4, above both?

In the past, it sometimes happened that multiple P5 teams could end up unbeaten - 1994, 1997 and 2004 come immediately to mind. But with the CFP this is basically impossible, because any unbeaten P5 will make the playoffs.

So, this principle of yours seems to me to be a way to protect and elevate undefeated upper-G5, because it is upper-G5, namely AAC and MW teams that are likely to fall in to this category. An unbeaten Cincy or UCF or Boise will likely be top-12 whereas an unbeaten Coastal Carolina or Western Michigan or North Texas will not. So, I'm not buying it.

I like an 8 team playoff but I don’t like giving autobids based on being undefeated—it encourages schools to schedule weak, unwatchable OOC games and no one wants more of those.

I’m a fan of the 5-1-2 model. P5 champs, the best G5 champ, and 2 at large spots for the highest ranked teams who didn’t win a conference (or additional G5 champs).

Unless you have a conference with 4 teams with a legit argument for why they should be in the national title conversation I think it makes everyone happy.

(11-24-2020 11:30 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 10:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 01:17 AM)colohank Wrote:  Yeah, 8-0 Cincinnati hasn't been able to pad its resume like the big boys do by playing Rutgers, Kansas, Oregon State, South Carolina, or Syracuse.

Cincy's SOS in Sagarin right now is #91, though SOS rankings, like all computer rankings, are dodgy at best this year particularly for P5 because of limited OOC play.

We will learn in about 10 hours what the CFP makes of all this.

I am not buying that SOS. Sagarin has these SOS rankings
Wisconsin 7
NW 8
IU 9
PSU 2 (really PSU has played the 2nd toughest schedule this year?)
Purdue 4
Nebraska 1 (OSU, NW, winless PSU, Illinois)
Arizona State 23 (they have played 1 game) and they are ranking schedules for the PAC teams some of which have played 2 games.

That's why you have to use a teams total offense and total defense rankings to offset the discrepancies you're finding with sos. It's not Cincinnati's fault that their sos is supposedly high this year, can't control that. They can control how they perform on the field though.
The committee has pointed this out in the past and if they are consistent, they will still factor this into their findings.
I have Cincinnati 4th, RIGHT NOW, with my calculation. I use, this year, number of games played as a factor too. PAC schools will start getting closer as more games are played, but it's going to be close at the end if Cincinnati can stay undefeated.

Of course there is always the conspiracy against G5 schools so who knows?

I'm almost certain they will not place Cincinnati 4th simply because they don't want to put them there now and then remove them later, even if they don't lose. It's not right imo, but they are laying out the future as we speak and it's so much easier to add them later.

I've said before, Cincinnati needs to keep winning and see where things fall.

Appreciate your thoughts. I just don't with agree with these SOS's right now. There are years when the BIG is nasty when besides OSU... MSU, PSU, Whisky, Michigan or an Iowa are really good. Not seeing that this year (still late start this season) and ranking the PAC has to be based some past historical data, not this season.

Regarding selection committee conspiracy for the most part the committee has got the selections for the playoff right. However 3 years ago UCF was way to low at #12 heading into the bowl games at 12-0. They finished at #6 after beating Auburn, who of course beat both teams in the Championship game, Alabama and Georgia.

(11-24-2020 02:54 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 11:30 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 10:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 01:17 AM)colohank Wrote:  Yeah, 8-0 Cincinnati hasn't been able to pad its resume like the big boys do by playing Rutgers, Kansas, Oregon State, South Carolina, or Syracuse.

Cincy's SOS in Sagarin right now is #91, though SOS rankings, like all computer rankings, are dodgy at best this year particularly for P5 because of limited OOC play.

We will learn in about 10 hours what the CFP makes of all this.

I am not buying that SOS. Sagarin has these SOS rankings
Wisconsin 7
NW 8
IU 9
PSU 2 (really PSU has played the 2nd toughest schedule this year?)
Purdue 4
Nebraska 1 (OSU, NW, winless PSU, Illinois)
Arizona State 23 (they have played 1 game) and they are ranking schedules for the PAC teams some of which have played 2 games.

That's why you have to use a teams total offense and total defense rankings to offset the discrepancies you're finding with sos. It's not Cincinnati's fault that their sos is supposedly high this year, can't control that. They can control how they perform on the field though.
The committee has pointed this out in the past and if they are consistent, they will still factor this into their findings.
I have Cincinnati 4th, RIGHT NOW, with my calculation. I use, this year, number of games played as a factor too. PAC schools will start getting closer as more games are played, but it's going to be close at the end if Cincinnati can stay undefeated.

Of course there is always the conspiracy against G5 schools so who knows?

I'm almost certain they will not place Cincinnati 4th simply because they don't want to put them there now and then remove them later, even if they don't lose. It's not right imo, but they are laying out the future as we speak and it's so much easier to add them later.

I've said before, Cincinnati needs to keep winning and see where things fall.

Appreciate your thoughts. I just don't with agree with these SOS's right now. There are years when the BIG is nasty when besides OSU... MSU, PSU, Whisky, Michigan or an Iowa are really good. Not seeing that this year (still late start this season) and ranking the PAC has to be based some past historical data, not this season.

Regarding selection committee conspiracy for the most part the committee has got the selections for the playoff right. However 3 years ago UCF was way to low at #12 heading into the bowl games at 12-0. They finished at #6 after beating Auburn, who of course beat both teams in the Championship game, Alabama and Georgia.

Where will undefeated Cincinnati be ranked at in the first CFP ranking? Give me your honest opinion.
I'm thinking 7.

(11-24-2020 03:52 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 02:54 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 11:30 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 10:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Cincy's SOS in Sagarin right now is #91, though SOS rankings, like all computer rankings, are dodgy at best this year particularly for P5 because of limited OOC play.

We will learn in about 10 hours what the CFP makes of all this.

I am not buying that SOS. Sagarin has these SOS rankings
Wisconsin 7
NW 8
IU 9
PSU 2 (really PSU has played the 2nd toughest schedule this year?)
Purdue 4
Nebraska 1 (OSU, NW, winless PSU, Illinois)
Arizona State 23 (they have played 1 game) and they are ranking schedules for the PAC teams some of which have played 2 games.

That's why you have to use a teams total offense and total defense rankings to offset the discrepancies you're finding with sos. It's not Cincinnati's fault that their sos is supposedly high this year, can't control that. They can control how they perform on the field though.
The committee has pointed this out in the past and if they are consistent, they will still factor this into their findings.
I have Cincinnati 4th, RIGHT NOW, with my calculation. I use, this year, number of games played as a factor too. PAC schools will start getting closer as more games are played, but it's going to be close at the end if Cincinnati can stay undefeated.

Of course there is always the conspiracy against G5 schools so who knows?

I'm almost certain they will not place Cincinnati 4th simply because they don't want to put them there now and then remove them later, even if they don't lose. It's not right imo, but they are laying out the future as we speak and it's so much easier to add them later.

I've said before, Cincinnati needs to keep winning and see where things fall.

Appreciate your thoughts. I just don't with agree with these SOS's right now. There are years when the BIG is nasty when besides OSU... MSU, PSU, Whisky, Michigan or an Iowa are really good. Not seeing that this year (still late start this season) and ranking the PAC has to be based some past historical data, not this season.

Regarding selection committee conspiracy for the most part the committee has got the selections for the playoff right. However 3 years ago UCF was way to low at #12 heading into the bowl games at 12-0. They finished at #6 after beating Auburn, who of course beat both teams in the Championship game, Alabama and Georgia.

Where will undefeated Cincinnati be ranked at in the first CFP ranking? Give me your honest opinion.
I'm thinking 7.

7 or 8

(11-24-2020 03:55 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 03:52 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 02:54 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 11:30 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 10:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I am not buying that SOS. Sagarin has these SOS rankings
Wisconsin 7
NW 8
IU 9
PSU 2 (really PSU has played the 2nd toughest schedule this year?)
Purdue 4
Nebraska 1 (OSU, NW, winless PSU, Illinois)
Arizona State 23 (they have played 1 game) and they are ranking schedules for the PAC teams some of which have played 2 games.

That's why you have to use a teams total offense and total defense rankings to offset the discrepancies you're finding with sos. It's not Cincinnati's fault that their sos is supposedly high this year, can't control that. They can control how they perform on the field though.
The committee has pointed this out in the past and if they are consistent, they will still factor this into their findings.
I have Cincinnati 4th, RIGHT NOW, with my calculation. I use, this year, number of games played as a factor too. PAC schools will start getting closer as more games are played, but it's going to be close at the end if Cincinnati can stay undefeated.

Of course there is always the conspiracy against G5 schools so who knows?

I'm almost certain they will not place Cincinnati 4th simply because they don't want to put them there now and then remove them later, even if they don't lose. It's not right imo, but they are laying out the future as we speak and it's so much easier to add them later.

I've said before, Cincinnati needs to keep winning and see where things fall.

Appreciate your thoughts. I just don't with agree with these SOS's right now. There are years when the BIG is nasty when besides OSU... MSU, PSU, Whisky, Michigan or an Iowa are really good. Not seeing that this year (still late start this season) and ranking the PAC has to be based some past historical data, not this season.

Regarding selection committee conspiracy for the most part the committee has got the selections for the playoff right. However 3 years ago UCF was way to low at #12 heading into the bowl games at 12-0. They finished at #6 after beating Auburn, who of course beat both teams in the Championship game, Alabama and Georgia.

Where will undefeated Cincinnati be ranked at in the first CFP ranking? Give me your honest opinion.
I'm thinking 7.

7 or 8

Great minds think alike, lol! Must be an Ohio thing?

(11-24-2020 02:54 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 11:30 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 10:44 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 01:17 AM)colohank Wrote:  Yeah, 8-0 Cincinnati hasn't been able to pad its resume like the big boys do by playing Rutgers, Kansas, Oregon State, South Carolina, or Syracuse.

Cincy's SOS in Sagarin right now is #91, though SOS rankings, like all computer rankings, are dodgy at best this year particularly for P5 because of limited OOC play.

We will learn in about 10 hours what the CFP makes of all this.

I am not buying that SOS. Sagarin has these SOS rankings
Wisconsin 7
NW 8
IU 9
PSU 2 (really PSU has played the 2nd toughest schedule this year?)
Purdue 4
Nebraska 1 (OSU, NW, winless PSU, Illinois)
Arizona State 23 (they have played 1 game) and they are ranking schedules for the PAC teams some of which have played 2 games.

That's why you have to use a teams total offense and total defense rankings to offset the discrepancies you're finding with sos. It's not Cincinnati's fault that their sos is supposedly high this year, can't control that. They can control how they perform on the field though.
The committee has pointed this out in the past and if they are consistent, they will still factor this into their findings.
I have Cincinnati 4th, RIGHT NOW, with my calculation. I use, this year, number of games played as a factor too. PAC schools will start getting closer as more games are played, but it's going to be close at the end if Cincinnati can stay undefeated.

Of course there is always the conspiracy against G5 schools so who knows?

I'm almost certain they will not place Cincinnati 4th simply because they don't want to put them there now and then remove them later, even if they don't lose. It's not right imo, but they are laying out the future as we speak and it's so much easier to add them later.

I've said before, Cincinnati needs to keep winning and see where things fall.

Appreciate your thoughts. I just don't with agree with these SOS's right now. There are years when the BIG is nasty when besides OSU... MSU, PSU, Whisky, Michigan or an Iowa are really good. Not seeing that this year (still late start this season) and ranking the PAC has to be based some past historical data, not this season.

Regarding selection committee conspiracy for the most part the committee has got the selections for the playoff right. However 3 years ago UCF was way to low at #12 heading into the bowl games at 12-0. They finished at #6 after beating Auburn, who of course beat both teams in the Championship game, Alabama and Georgia.

So, how high up do you think UCF should have been in the final CFP rankings?

Remember, UCF had barely scraped by USF and Memphis in their last two AAC games, and neither USF or Memphis was very good.

The MC had UCF at #9 going in to the bowls. Granted, that is clearly higher than what the CFP had them at, but far short of the playoffs as well.

(11-24-2020 03:59 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 03:55 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 03:52 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 02:54 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 11:30 AM)cubucks Wrote:  That's why you have to use a teams total offense and total defense rankings to offset the discrepancies you're finding with sos. It's not Cincinnati's fault that their sos is supposedly high this year, can't control that. They can control how they perform on the field though.
The committee has pointed this out in the past and if they are consistent, they will still factor this into their findings.
I have Cincinnati 4th, RIGHT NOW, with my calculation. I use, this year, number of games played as a factor too. PAC schools will start getting closer as more games are played, but it's going to be close at the end if Cincinnati can stay undefeated.

Of course there is always the conspiracy against G5 schools so who knows?

I'm almost certain they will not place Cincinnati 4th simply because they don't want to put them there now and then remove them later, even if they don't lose. It's not right imo, but they are laying out the future as we speak and it's so much easier to add them later.

I've said before, Cincinnati needs to keep winning and see where things fall.

Appreciate your thoughts. I just don't with agree with these SOS's right now. There are years when the BIG is nasty when besides OSU... MSU, PSU, Whisky, Michigan or an Iowa are really good. Not seeing that this year (still late start this season) and ranking the PAC has to be based some past historical data, not this season.

Regarding selection committee conspiracy for the most part the committee has got the selections for the playoff right. However 3 years ago UCF was way to low at #12 heading into the bowl games at 12-0. They finished at #6 after beating Auburn, who of course beat both teams in the Championship game, Alabama and Georgia.

Where will undefeated Cincinnati be ranked at in the first CFP ranking? Give me your honest opinion.
I'm thinking 7.

7 or 8

Great minds think alike, lol! Must be an Ohio thing?

Just don't see the committee doing that. Polls usually are higher than the committee for P5. I would bet on #12 to #15. Don't count out USC being a LOT higher in committee ratings.

My predicted CFP top 10 tonight:

1) Notre Dame
2) Alabama
3) Ohio State
4) Clemson
5) TAMU
6) Florida
7) Cincy
8) Northwestern
9) BYU
10) Oregon

(11-24-2020 06:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 03:59 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 03:55 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 03:52 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 02:54 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Appreciate your thoughts. I just don't with agree with these SOS's right now. There are years when the BIG is nasty when besides OSU... MSU, PSU, Whisky, Michigan or an Iowa are really good. Not seeing that this year (still late start this season) and ranking the PAC has to be based some past historical data, not this season.

Regarding selection committee conspiracy for the most part the committee has got the selections for the playoff right. However 3 years ago UCF was way to low at #12 heading into the bowl games at 12-0. They finished at #6 after beating Auburn, who of course beat both teams in the Championship game, Alabama and Georgia.

Where will undefeated Cincinnati be ranked at in the first CFP ranking? Give me your honest opinion.
I'm thinking 7.

7 or 8

Great minds think alike, lol! Must be an Ohio thing?

Just don't see the committee doing that. Polls usually are higher than the committee for P5. I would bet on #12 to #15. Don't count out USC being a LOT higher in committee ratings.

Nothing ever surprises me, that being said if they have UC at 12-15 I think there would be a lot of outrage from not just Cincinnati, but across the landscape. There are a lot of college football writers and personalities that have pegged UC anywhere between 5-9. In fact I’d say most.

My money is on 7-8 for the Bearcats.

Official CFP:

Cincy ..... #7

BYU......... #14

I figured BYU and Cincinnati would both be knocked well down. They did it to BYU, but not to Cincinnati.

They, as expected, thought a lot of the Big 10. Iowa at 3-2 is ranked as is Wisconsin at 2-1. IU and NW are top 12. But I was surprised by Oregon being so low. I thought they probably would get that #7 slot. #1, #2 were obvious. Clemson/Ohio St. only question was who was #3. A&M/Florida same with who was #5.

Notable that 2 loss Oklahoma and 2 loss Iowa St. are ahead of Oregon and USC. And Washington isn't ranked at all.

So I guess my surprises were 1) Oregon so low; 2) Oklahoma so high at 11; 3) Cincinnati matching the polls.

They are setting Cincinnati up for a shot at the playoffs if they win out.

Alabama beats Florida as expected. Ohio St. beats NW as expected. They only need Clemson to lose badly to Notre Dame (or Notre Dame to lose to UNC, meaning the Clemson-ND loser has 2 losses) and Texas A&M to lose a game and they are probably in.

(11-24-2020 07:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  They are setting Cincinnati up for a shot at the playoffs if they win out.

Alabama beats Florida as expected. Ohio St. beats NW as expected. They only need Clemson to lose badly to Notre Dame (or Notre Dame to lose to UNC, meaning the Clemson-ND loser has 2 losses) and Texas A&M to lose a game and they are probably in.

I agree, Cincy is in a very decent position to make the CFP. Sad thing is, they don't have to play any of the tough games that the teams ahead of them do. That's kind of bogus.

I mean, Notre Dame probably has to beat Clemson *twice* to make the playoffs, while Cincy can possibly get in by beating Tulsa, UCF and SMU? SMH.

(11-24-2020 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-24-2020 07:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  They are setting Cincinnati up for a shot at the playoffs if they win out.

Alabama beats Florida as expected. Ohio St. beats NW as expected. They only need Clemson to lose badly to Notre Dame (or Notre Dame to lose to UNC, meaning the Clemson-ND loser has 2 losses) and Texas A&M to lose a game and they are probably in.

I agree, Cincy is in a very decent position to make the CFP. Sad thing is, they don't have to play any of the tough games that the teams ahead of them do. That's kind of bogus.

I mean, Notre Dame probably has to beat Clemson *twice* to make the playoffs, while Cincy can possibly get in by beating Tulsa, UCF and SMU? SMH.

As you guys have reminded fans of G5 schools before, this is the system you agreed to.

Kind of stinks when the shoe is on the other foot doesn’t it?