Jump to content

Second Playoff Committee Rankings


naptownskinsfan

Recommended Posts

1. Alabama (9-0)
2. Clemson (9-0)
3. Notre Dame (9-0)
4. Michigan (8-1)
5. Georgia (8-1)
6. Oklahoma (8-1)
7. LSU (7-2)
8. Washington State (8-1)
9. West Virginia (7-1)
10. Ohio State (8-1)
11. Kentucky (7-2)
12. UCF (8-0)
13. Syracuse (7-2)
14. NC State (6-2)
15. Florida (6-3)
16. Mississippi State (6-3)
17. Boston College (7-2)
18. Michigan State (6-3)
19. Texas (6-3)
20. Penn State (6-3)
21. Iowa (6-3)
22. Iowa State (5-3)
23. Fresno State (8-1)
24. Auburn (6-3)
25. Washington (7-3)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really at a loss for this.  LSU gets dominated and shut out at home, and they only drop four spots?  Kentucky loses big at home to Georgia and only drops two?  Florida is perplexing as well. Texas sticking around makes sense, they played a good game with WVU, and I'm also a bit surprised WVU also didn't go over Washington State.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, naptownskinsfan said:

I'm really at a loss for this.  LSU gets dominated and shut out at home, and they only drop four spots?  Kentucky loses big at home to Georgia and only drops two?  Florida is perplexing as well. Texas sticking around makes sense, they played a good game with WVU, and I'm also a bit surprised WVU also didn't go over Washington State.   

It's the SEC, man. Any loss in SEC play, especially to a team like Alabama, is a quality loss. It was really only half of a loss. 

Yes, that's sarcastic, but it's also true. The SEC has this "aura" where teams that lose don't really get dinged very much because they lose to one another, and people think that it's a step above all other conferences. If you rank a bunch of SEC teams in the Top 25 before the season starts, losses don't really hurt them much because they're losses to "Top 25" teams, so they all just constantly stay in the same bubble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LSU still being in the top 10 is lame. If another team got embarrassed at home like that they would have dropped like a stone. Also they have 2 losses. #11 would be generous. This, however, is bias and only used to make Bama look good. News flash... they DON"T NEED THE HELP. BTW i can't stand bama. 

That is all

Mastercheddaar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mastercheddaar said:

LSU still being in the top 10 is lame. If another team got embarrassed at home like that they would have dropped like a stone. Also they have 2 losses. #11 would be generous. This, however, is bias and only used to make Bama look good. News flash... they DON"T NEED THE HELP. BTW i can't stand bama. 

That is all

Mastercheddaar

The playoff committee has also shown in the past that they won't put a two-loss team in the playoffs. What's the point of LSU being #7 then? 

I would honestly rather go back to the BCS rankings. The selection committee is literally just a group of dudes who do whatever they want. At least with the BCS there was a structured process, whether you liked it or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You lay your teams out as to who you think has to best odds of beating whats behind them. Not by losing to who they should lose against to begin with. Keep allowing teams  to pansy up their schedules to make the playoffs. And you continue to have the mess weve seen with only 2 of 8 playoff games being within 17 points.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the knee jerk reaction to LSU after what they did against Bama but it's like people are forgetting what had happened before that. They beat Georgia pretty convincingly which I think is the best win in the country so far (I do have Michigan over Georgia but Michigan wasn't as good when ND beat them in week 1 as they are now). They've beat 3 team ranked in this 25 and both losses are to teams in the top 15. Alabama has also shown to be a tier above everyone else and while their offense was abysmal they gave Bama's offense far more problems than any other team so far.

Personally I'd have them at 8 and West Virginia at 7. Washington State and Ohio St haven't been impressive to me whether by schedule or plain poor play and LSU clearly has the best resume of the 2 loss teams. So their ranking is hardly absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mse326 said:

I get the knee jerk reaction to LSU after what they did against Bama but it's like people are forgetting what had happened before that. They beat Georgia pretty convincingly which I think is the best win in the country so far (I do have Michigan over Georgia but Michigan wasn't as good when ND beat them in week 1 as they are now). They've beat 3 team ranked in this 25 and both losses are to teams in the top 15. Alabama has also shown to be a tier above everyone else and while their offense was abysmal they gave Bama's offense far more problems than any other team so far.

Personally I'd have them at 8 and West Virginia at 7. Washington State and Ohio St haven't been impressive to me whether by schedule or plain poor play and LSU clearly has the best resume of the 2 loss teams. So their ranking is hardly absurd.

All very valid points, great post......you might have won me over on that one a little bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PARROTHEAD said:

You lay your teams out as to who you think has to best odds of beating whats behind them. Not by losing to who they should lose against to begin with. Keep allowing teams  to pansy up their schedules to make the playoffs. And you continue to have the mess weve seen with only 2 of 8 playoff games being within 17 points.

 

Teams pansied up their schedule long before the college playoffs though.  They did it for the style points, which is also a potential criteria for the playoffs.  The problem is that these games are booked years in advance, so there isn't much the teams can do now to change it.  In the future, I think a lot of teams who have playoff potential year in and out should book strong out of conference games instead of D-AA schools, but it's also a two-way street.  Other Power Five programs have to agree to that line of thinking and be available for games.  And then, who wants to willingly sign up for Alabama?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lions017 said:

It's the SEC, man. Any loss in SEC play, especially to a team like Alabama, is a quality loss. It was really only half of a loss. 

Yes, that's sarcastic, but it's also true. The SEC has this "aura" where teams that lose don't really get dinged very much because they lose to one another, and people think that it's a step above all other conferences. If you rank a bunch of SEC teams in the Top 25 before the season starts, losses don't really hurt them much because they're losses to "Top 25" teams, so they all just constantly stay in the same bubble. 

I'm a Georgia/SEC fan, so I get the bias and sometimes I believe in it depending on the year.  

My perfect playoff picture would be 8 teams.  The championship winners from each Power Five conference, a Group of Five representative selected by the committee and two at-large teams selected by the committee, all ranked by the committee.  The problem is, how do we do that many playoff games?  These are kids, after all.  

If we have two SEC teams in the playoffs and Notre Dame, we may get serious enough push from the Power Five conferences that are left out for expanding the playoffs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, naptownskinsfan said:

Teams pansied up their schedule long before the college playoffs though.  They did it for the style points, which is also a potential criteria for the playoffs.  The problem is that these games are booked years in advance, so there isn't much the teams can do now to change it.  In the future, I think a lot of teams who have playoff potential year in and out should book strong out of conference games instead of D-AA schools, but it's also a two-way street.  Other Power Five programs have to agree to that line of thinking and be available for games.  And then, who wants to willingly sign up for Alabama?  

There's absolutely no reason to schedule a strong OOC schedule. The only thing that the committee has shown is that they won't put a two-loss team in the playoffs. Set up your schedule so you win 11 or 12 games, play in a P5 conference, and you're in. That's how this works, for the most part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lions017 said:

There's absolutely no reason to schedule a strong OOC schedule. The only thing that the committee has shown is that they won't put a two-loss team in the playoffs. 

Unless, of course, you're Auburn, had they won their SEC Title game.

I'll say this for Auburn though...they were probably the best 4 loss team in the nation (LOL) and both beat and lost to the 2017 national champs.

I don't care if they exclude 2 loss teams and am in favor of having some actual criteria...but to argue otherwise is simply inconsistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...