Playoff rankings

[Longhorns90]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Yes.  At this point, I think Alabama has too much ground to make up.  And I don't think their struggles against Auburn helps their argument.  Unless Alabama manhandles Georgia, I think Georgia is safely in it.  And quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Florida State got kicked out of the playoffs if Alabama ended up winning.  Not saying it's right, but the committee has to weigh how good/bad this Florida State team is without Jordan Travis.

As the committee has shown in the past, they're generally more focused on later in the season and H2H wins early in the season weigh less than later in the year.  Does anyone truly believe that the Alabama team that faced Texas early in the year is the same team that finished this season?

At this point, all but 5 teams (Georgia, Michigan, Washington, Florida State, Sand Liberty) have 0 losses.  Liberty obviously won't be included, but how does 1 loss for any of those teams (outside of Florida State) really haunt them?  Does a loss for Georgia or Michigan put them below any of the other 1-loss teams?  They've consistently been top 3 teams the entire year.  They're staying in the playoff mix.

Michigan and Texas pretty much have similar resumes if we assume that Michigan loses to Iowa.  Both have 1 big win (Alabama for Texas, Ohio State for Michigan).  Michigan's win over Penn State trumps Texas' 2nd best win (Kansas).  And when you compare losses, I'd argue that Texas' loss to Oklahoma is probably valued similarly if Michigan loses to Iowa.  But I think that's where the Big 12 in a "down" year really hurts Texas.  The Big 10 has 3 teams inside the top 10.  The Big 12 has 1.

The problem is the committees already shown in the past that winning a conference championship isn't a requirement.  If that were the case, then we wouldn't have seen the 2021 Bulldogs make the playoffs after losing to Alabama.

At this point, I think Texas needs to be ahead of Ohio State tomorrow night.  If they're after Ohio State, I'd put it at 1% chance of them making the playoffs.

You're making a circular argument though. The reason they've been top 3 teams all year is... they haven't lost. Alabama lost week 2, Texas lost week 6, Oregon lost week 7. The rankings came out week 10. We've never compared same loss Georgia/Michigan/Ohio State vs. Texas/Oregon/Alabama because at no point has there been an equivalent comparison. Unless you want to put super high stock in early season rankings before we really know who everybody is.

And on the contrary, they've shown willingness to swap to H2H winners at the end of the season. In 2014, Baylor moved ahead of TCU in the last week because Baylor had won the head to head back in Week 5, despite TCU having been 3 and Baylor 6 the week prior. They may not be the same team, but the ranking is for the ENTIRE season and if you put Bama over Texas, you're basically saying from now on that September might as well not matter.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges in regards to conference championships. Of all the college football teams that have made the playoffs w/o being champions, we have 2016 Ohio State, 2017 Alabama, 2021 Georgia and 2022 TCU and Ohio State. 2016 Ohio State lost to Penn State, which got the B10 championship, but had two losses because they lost out of conference - there was no other 1 loss P5 conference champ. 2017 Alabama had lost the Iron Bowl and didn't attend the SEC championship game which put Auburn to 2 losses while Wisconsin lost to 2-loss Ohio State - again, no other 1 loss P5 conference champ. 2021 Georgia lost in the SEC championship game, but guess what - no other 1-loss P5 conference champ because Oklahoma State lost to 2-loss Baylor. Same drill with 2022 - because USC lost in the PAC championship... no other 1-loss P5 conference champ.

There is no precedent of a 1-loss non-champ getting in over a 1-loss champ. Basically the only precedent I can find is that 2 loss Georgia was ranked 5 over 1 loss champ Ohio State in 2018, but if you don't think that math changes if it's for a playoff spot, I've got a bridge to sell you.

(and before you throw at me "well why does the 5/6 swap in 2014 matter then," it's because that DID determine the B12's NY6 auto-bid allocation.)

Edited November 27, 2023 by Longhorns90

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, Longhorns90 said:

You're making a circular argument though. The reason they've been top 3 teams all year is... they haven't lost. Alabama lost week 2, Texas lost week 6, Oregon lost week 7. The rankings came out week 10. We've never compared same loss Georgia/Michigan/Ohio State vs. Texas/Oregon/Alabama because at no point has there been an equivalent comparison. Unless you want to put super high stock in early season rankings before we really know who everybody is.

It's not circular.  We have historical precedent of the committee opting to rank teams ahead of conference champions despite the same amount of losses.  Just last year, a 2 loss Alabama was ranked 5th while a 2-loss Clemson team was ranked 7th.  The year before, a 2-loss Ohio State non-champion was ranked over a 2-loss champion in Baylor.  They've already proven that conference championships are a nice touch, but not really a necessity.

9 minutes ago, Longhorns90 said:

And on the contrary, they've shown willingness to swap to H2H winners at the end of the season. In 2014, Baylor moved ahead of TCU in the last week because Baylor had won the head to head back in Week 5, despite TCU having been 3 and Baylor 6 the week prior. They may not be the same team, but the ranking is for the ENTIRE season and if you put Bama over Texas, you're basically saying from now on that September might as well not matter.

The flip of Baylor and TCU was a correction IMO.  Not to mention, I think the committee "penalized" the Big 12 for hedging their bets when they named TCU and Baylor co-champions. As for the H2H matchup, Texas scored 21 points in just 2:48 minutes of actually play time during the 4th quarter.  If Texas was thoroughly beating Alabama the entire game, I could see an argument.  And it's not that results in September don't matter, it's their weighted differently.  Recent results way more than further away events.  Texas absolutely deserves to be ranked ahead of Alabama right now.  Right now, Alabama's marquee win is a 2 loss Ole Miss or 3 loss LSU team.   Texas' marquee win is a 1-loss Alabama team, but beyond that their best win is a 5-loss Kansas State team.  Assuming Alabama beats Georgia, they'll have 3 wins over teams currently inside the top 15.  Texas has 1 win (Alabama) and 1 loss (Oklahoma) against teams inside the top 15.  IF Alabama beats Georgia, Texas' win over Alabama and Alabama's win over Georgia are probably offsetting.  So you get into that 2nd tier of wins, and Alabama has LSU and Ole Miss as signature wins while Texas does not.  Consistency matters, and Alabama going 3-0 against top 15 teams is going to weigh heavily when Texas is 1-1.  Right now, you want H2H matchup to outweigh the body of work.

28 minutes ago, Longhorns90 said:

There is no precedent of a 1-loss non-champ getting in over a 1-loss champ. Basically the only precedent I can find is that 2 loss Georgia was ranked 5 over 1 loss champ Ohio State in 2018, but if you don't think that math changes if it's for a playoff spot, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Go look at the rankings where a conference champion and a conference non-champion had the same amount of losses.  It's staggering to see that the conference championship wasn't the deciding factor.  Last year, a 2-loss Alabama and Tennessee finished ahead of a 2-loss Clemson who was their conference champion.  Go back a year before, a 2-loss Ohio State was ranked higher than a 2-loss Baylor team who won their conference.  2019, a 2-loss Georgia was ranked ahead of a 2-loss Oregon who won the Pac-12.  2018, a 2-loss Georgia was ranked higher than a 1-loss Ohio State team.  It seems pretty clear to me that the conference championship isn't a requirement when it comes to rankings.

33 minutes ago, Longhorns90 said:

(and before you throw at me "well why does the 5/6 swap in 2014 matter then," it's because that DID determine the B12's NY6 auto-bid allocation.)

I can't speak for others, but that reeked of the committee penalizing the Big 12 for hedging their bets.  Baylor should have been ahead of TCU well before that last set of rankings came out.  There's no explicable reason why TCU who beat Iowa State by 52 would have dropped to 6th after being ranked 3rd the week before.  IF you wanted to argue that Baylor's win over Kansas State was more impressive than TCU's win over Iowa State, I wouldn't fight you.  But rankings from Week 13 to 15 go like:

Baylor: 7th/6th/5th
TCU: 5th/3rd/6th
Ohio State: 6th/5th/4th

If you thought TCU was the better team for Weeks 13 and 14, what happened in Week 15 that suddenly changed their opinion?  The lack of a Big 12 Conference Championship probably ended up being the tiebreaker.  TCU was consistently ahead of Ohio State until that last weekend.  That was a pure cash grab by the committee.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

All this "is winning your conference important" goes away in a little bit with these Uber-conferences being a thing. 

[BigC421/]

32 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

All this "is winning your conference important" goes away in a little bit with these Uber-conferences being a thing. 

I doubt that. With 12 team playoff and 4 teams getting the bye’s I bet they break from the way they rank now and make winning your conference a unofficial requirement to get one of the bye’s.  There will likely be exceptions but with the pac12 gone it makes sense to just give each conference champ a bye regardless of actual rankings 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

4 hours ago, BigC421/ said:

I doubt that. With 12 team playoff and 4 teams getting the bye’s I bet they break from the way they rank now and make winning your conference a unofficial requirement to get one of the bye’s.  There will likely be exceptions but with the pac12 gone it makes sense to just give each conference champ a bye regardless of actual rankings 

Oh thats true I didnt factor in expansion

[JaguarCrazy2832]

I know ESPN can be a bit of a joke but this predictor thing is interesting...

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/cfbplayoffpredictor/cfb-playoff-predictor

[thrILL!]

If the 12 team playoff weren’t already on deck, this is the season that would’ve prompted it. There will be a few teams and fanbases that are going to be pissed off if they’re left out but we should have some impressive matchups in the major bowls with teams that are left out. 

[beekay414]

2 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

I know ESPN can be a bit of a joke but this predictor thing is interesting...

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/cfbplayoffpredictor/cfb-playoff-predictor

That predictor has Georgia out with a loss no matter what

[beekay414]

On 11/26/2023 at 3:20 PM, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

 ?

They play Oklahoma State, not Oklahoma. Oklahoma State is often referred to as Poke.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

1 hour ago, beekay414 said:

That predictor has Georgia out with a loss no matter what

Yea, i was surprised to see that. GA needs help if they lose according to ESPN but i dont trust it

[MWil23]

14 hours ago, thrILL! said:

If the 12 team playoff weren’t already on deck, this is the season that would’ve prompted it. There will be a few teams and fanbases that are going to be pissed off if they’re left out but we should have some impressive matchups in the major bowls with teams that are left out. 

Very 2015 vibes this year 

[Longhorns90]

On 11/26/2023 at 9:59 PM, CWood21 said:

It's not circular.  We have historical precedent of the committee opting to rank teams ahead of conference champions despite the same amount of losses.  Just last year, a 2 loss Alabama was ranked 5th while a 2-loss Clemson team was ranked 7th.  The year before, a 2-loss Ohio State non-champion was ranked over a 2-loss champion in Baylor.  They've already proven that conference championships are a nice touch, but not really a necessity.

The flip of Baylor and TCU was a correction IMO.  Not to mention, I think the committee "penalized" the Big 12 for hedging their bets when they named TCU and Baylor co-champions. As for the H2H matchup, Texas scored 21 points in just 2:48 minutes of actually play time during the 4th quarter.  If Texas was thoroughly beating Alabama the entire game, I could see an argument.  And it's not that results in September don't matter, it's their weighted differently.  Recent results way more than further away events.  Texas absolutely deserves to be ranked ahead of Alabama right now.  Right now, Alabama's marquee win is a 2 loss Ole Miss or 3 loss LSU team.   Texas' marquee win is a 1-loss Alabama team, but beyond that their best win is a 5-loss Kansas State team.  Assuming Alabama beats Georgia, they'll have 3 wins over teams currently inside the top 15.  Texas has 1 win (Alabama) and 1 loss (Oklahoma) against teams inside the top 15.  IF Alabama beats Georgia, Texas' win over Alabama and Alabama's win over Georgia are probably offsetting.  So you get into that 2nd tier of wins, and Alabama has LSU and Ole Miss as signature wins while Texas does not.  Consistency matters, and Alabama going 3-0 against top 15 teams is going to weigh heavily when Texas is 1-1.  Right now, you want H2H matchup to outweigh the body of work.

Go look at the rankings where a conference champion and a conference non-champion had the same amount of losses.  It's staggering to see that the conference championship wasn't the deciding factor.  Last year, a 2-loss Alabama and Tennessee finished ahead of a 2-loss Clemson who was their conference champion.  Go back a year before, a 2-loss Ohio State was ranked higher than a 2-loss Baylor team who won their conference.  2019, a 2-loss Georgia was ranked ahead of a 2-loss Oregon who won the Pac-12.  2018, a 2-loss Georgia was ranked higher than a 1-loss Ohio State team.  It seems pretty clear to me that the conference championship isn't a requirement when it comes to rankings.

I can't speak for others, but that reeked of the committee penalizing the Big 12 for hedging their bets.  Baylor should have been ahead of TCU well before that last set of rankings came out.  There's no explicable reason why TCU who beat Iowa State by 52 would have dropped to 6th after being ranked 3rd the week before.  IF you wanted to argue that Baylor's win over Kansas State was more impressive than TCU's win over Iowa State, I wouldn't fight you.  But rankings from Week 13 to 15 go like:

Baylor: 7th/6th/5th
TCU: 5th/3rd/6th
Ohio State: 6th/5th/4th

If you thought TCU was the better team for Weeks 13 and 14, what happened in Week 15 that suddenly changed their opinion?  The lack of a Big 12 Conference Championship probably ended up being the tiebreaker.  TCU was consistently ahead of Ohio State until that last weekend.  That was a pure cash grab by the committee.

Thing is, you keep bringing up rankings from OUTSIDE the top 4. And let's be honest - the top 4 are the only ones that actually matter. All the P5 conferences have tie-ins with NY6 bowls - if they're not a part of the semifinals, where they're ranked is literally inconsequential. And so the committee can do whatever it likes - as the only part of the rankings that matter are who are the highest ranked non-champions. Incidents like 2014 Ohio State jump and 2021 Georgia only dropping to 3 so it didn't have to play Alabama twice in a row show that the committee *does* pay special attention to those top 4 slots. And for those top 4 slots, they have never failed to include a conference champ with equal wins over a non-conference champ.

As for body of work vs. head-to-head, you do realize that head-to-head is the first tiebreaker for... basically every American sports competition, right? Alabama had a chance to prove they were better than Texas - at home no less - with the same ingredients that they used to go on a streak towards the end of the season. And they failed. And if you don't respect that win, you basically undermine any point of scheduling tough out-of-conference opponents, ever. Which y'know, is already kind of hurting given that Texas, Ohio State and Alabama all have a stronger strength of schedule than Oregon but are still sitting behind them, but picking Alabama over Texas would be particularly egregious. It's what kept Cincinnati from falling out of the rankings back in '21, I don't think it's changed yet.

Re: the new rankings - I'm disappointed, but not shocked that Texas is still sitting at 7 - it reeks of 'we didn't want to punish Ohio State too much for a close loss against Michigan, and Texas still has one game to make it up.' Which is still terrible logic for rankings that should be evaluated in full every week, but I guess we'll see what everything looks like in the end. If we don't make it, have no one to blame more than us running the freaking prevent defense for the last minute in Dallas.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Longhorns90

[CWood21]

13 minutes ago, Longhorns90 said:

Thing is, you keep bringing up rankings from OUTSIDE the top 4. And let's be h. onest - the top 4 are the only ones that actually matter. All the P5 conferences have tie-ins with NY6 bowls - if they're not a part of the semifinals, where they're ranked is literally inconsequential. And so the committee can do whatever it likes - as the only part of the rankings that matter are who are the highest ranked non-champions. Incidents like 2014 Ohio State jump and 2021 Georgia only dropping to 3 so it didn't have to play Alabama twice in a row show that the committee *does* pay special attention to those top 4 slots. And for those top 4 slots, they have never failed to include a conference champ with equal wins over a non-conference champ.

You can't have one set of criteria for teams inside the top 4 and a completely different criteria outside the top 4.

13 minutes ago, Longhorns90 said:

Re: the new rankings - I'm disappointed, but not shocked that Texas is still sitting at 7 - it reeks of 'we didn't want to punish Ohio State too much for a close loss against Michigan, and Texas still has one game to make it up.' Which is still terrible logic for rankings that should be evaluated in full every week, but I guess we'll see what everything looks like in the end. If we don't make it, have no one to blame more than us running the freaking prevent defense for the last minute in Dallas.

It's pretty much what I anticipated if we're being honest.  I think you could have opted for Ohio State over Oregon, but I think at that point you're splitting hairs.  Both have their lone loss to undefeated teams.  I'd argue Ohio State (Youngstown State, Western Kentucky, and Notre Dame) is a better OOC schedule than Oregon (Portland State, Texas Tech, and Hawai'i).  Oregon lost by 3 on the road at Washington while Ohio State lost by 6 at Michigan.  Personally, I think Ohio State's win over Penn State is wildly overrated.  Penn State played a poor OOC schedule (West Virginia, Delaware, and UMass).  Penn State's best win is over Iowa, but otherwise didn't play anyone of note that they won.  Ultimately, I think conference rankings (SEC > Big 10 > Pac 12 > Big 12/ACC) probably ended up being the most obvious part.  You've got Tier 1 (1-5), Tier 2 (6-8), Tier 3 (9-13), Tier 4 (14+).

[Longhorns90]

50 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

You can't have one set of criteria for teams inside the top 4 and a completely different criteria outside the top 4.

It's pretty much what I anticipated if we're being honest.  I think you could have opted for Ohio State over Oregon, but I think at that point you're splitting hairs.  Both have their lone loss to undefeated teams.  I'd argue Ohio State (Youngstown State, Western Kentucky, and Notre Dame) is a better OOC schedule than Oregon (Portland State, Texas Tech, and Hawai'i).  Oregon lost by 3 on the road at Washington while Ohio State lost by 6 at Michigan.  Personally, I think Ohio State's win over Penn State is wildly overrated.  Penn State played a poor OOC schedule (West Virginia, Delaware, and UMass).  Penn State's best win is over Iowa, but otherwise didn't play anyone of note that they won.  Ultimately, I think conference rankings (SEC > Big 10 > Pac 12 > Big 12/ACC) probably ended up being the most obvious part.  You've got Tier 1 (1-5), Tier 2 (6-8), Tier 3 (9-13), Tier 4 (14+).

In a perfect world, but alas, the College Football Playoff committee is a bunch of fallible humans.

And yeah. The 1-loss rankings feel more of a "who did you lose to" rather than "who did you beat" - Oregon was a closer loss to Washington than Ohio State was to Michigan while Texas has the "worst" loss of the 3 in Oklahoma - but Alabama's loss is to Texas so they have to be behind them. Meanwhile in actual winning resumes, if we count teams with 8 wins or more - Texas has Alabama, Kansas State, Kansas and Wyoming; Alabama has Ole Miss, LSU and Tennessee; Ohio State has Penn State and Notre Dame while Oregon has Oregon State and Utah. If we include all bowl eligible teams, Texas and Alabama have 7 apiece, Ohio State has 6, Oregon only has 5. I think there's a solid argument that Oregon actually has the worst resume of the 1-loss teams, but people think they're actually better than Washington, so they're at the top.

[CWood21]

20 minutes ago, Longhorns90 said:

In a perfect world, but alas, the College Football Playoff committee is a bunch of fallible humans.

But you have to go with what they have done.  And not just selectively choose which one fits the argument best.

22 minutes ago, Longhorns90 said:

And yeah. The 1-loss rankings feel more of a "who did you lose to" rather than "who did you beat" - Oregon was a closer loss to Washington than Ohio State was to Michigan while Texas has the "worst" loss of the 3 in Oklahoma - but Alabama's loss is to Texas so they have to be behind them. Meanwhile in actual winning resumes, if we count teams with 8 wins or more - Texas has Alabama, Kansas State, Kansas and Wyoming; Alabama has Ole Miss, LSU and Tennessee; Ohio State has Penn State and Notre Dame while Oregon has Oregon State and Utah. If we include all bowl eligible teams, Texas and Alabama have 7 apiece, Ohio State has 6, Oregon only has 5. I think there's a solid argument that Oregon actually has the worst resume of the 1-loss teams, but people think they're actually better than Washington, so they're at the top.

I wouldn't even say it's the who has the "best loss".  Ohio State has the "best" loss at this point with Michigan at 2 followed by Oregon with Washington at 3 followed by Alabama.  If it were really about the "best" loss, Ohio State would be ahead of Oregon.  If we're going strictly based resumes, I think the "correct" order is Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, and then Oregon in that order.  But I think this is very clearly a situation in which the committee doesn't think very highly of the Big 12 conference.  The problem with Texas' schedule is they won against some good, albeit not great (except Alabama) teams.  As I mentioned, it seems pretty clear that it's SEC/Big 10 > Pac 12 >>> Big 12/ACC.