2021 College Football Playoff Rankings

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
51,544
32,301
113
LA LA Land
Yawn a rematch of a blown out SEC championship game.
If we could have taken the smaller conferences of the 80s and early 90s and fed them into an 8 or 12 team playoff it would have been incredible. Would have still been some rematches but only things like ND/USC that were non-conf games early in the year, no instant rematches.
 

CloniesForLife

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 22, 2015
7,550
7,173
113
I'm really hoping Cincy and Michigan win. I think Michigan's D is good enough and Georgia's O is a little suspect that could be a close game. I hope Cincy can make it a game but could see that being a blowout
 

enisthemenace

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2009
9,117
3,441
113
Runnells, IA


So is margin of victory, given the largest factor is "every committee member makes their own ranking based on their expert college football knowledge"




But SOS is after the list after results/record. Losing to 7-5 ISU not as good as losing to Bama. Plus that gap is not big enough to offset the other factors. SOS is to eliminate the G5s, not P5 vs P5. Is that even the correct SOS comparison? There are SOS ratings that have it much closer.
I will try this again. Margin of victory is NOT a protocol. Plain and simple. It’s in writing, Man.

1. Conference championship (Neither has that, but I was comparing a situation where Okie State would have)
2. SOS: Okie State has the advantage by a country mile
3. Head to head (if it occurred, which it did not)
4. Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)


I’ll step away knowing we will not agree. I’d usually say “and that’s OK”, but I have a major issue with people letting this committee off the hook. I supplied the written, black and white” criteria. A one loss OSU would have graded out better that a one loss Georgia according to those “unanimously agreed upon protocols”.

Furthermore, I don’t have an issue with Georgia being in the final 4 as it is now. Okie State blew it. I’m just not on the “Georgia was in regardless” argument, which I feel was exactly what was going to happen anyway.
 
Last edited:

JUKEBOX

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2008
7,516
743
113
I will try this again. Margin of victory is NOT a protocol. Plain and simple. It’s in writing, Man.

1. Conference championship (Neither has that, but I was comparing a situation where Okie State would have)
2. SOS: Okie State has the advantage by a country mile
3. Head to head (if it occurred, which it did not)
4. Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)

"Ranking football teams is an art, not a science"

the first sentence is all you need to know that this thing is a joke

if the fbs wants a playoff, they need to do what any other real league does (or even fcs and high school football lol) and get a merit-based playoff

not a beauty contest
 

JUKEBOX

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2008
7,516
743
113
also based on their protocols, how does 2014 or 2020 ohio state get in?

2014
* tcu was a conference champion
* tcu had a higher strength of schedule
* no head to head
* tcu's only loss was controversial against an 11-2 baylor by 3 points on the road
* ohio state lost to 7-6 va tech at home
* margin of victory for ohio state in b1g championship supposedly not taken into consideration in their written document

based on their metrics I see no way ohio state gets in yet it happened

2020 ohio state played 6 games and got in
 

enisthemenace

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2009
9,117
3,441
113
Runnells, IA
also based on their protocols, how does 2014 or 2020 ohio state get in?

2014
* tcu was a conference champion
* tcu had a higher strength of schedule
* no head to head
* tcu's only loss was controversial against an 11-2 baylor by 3 points on the road
* ohio state lost to 7-6 va tech at home
* margin of victory for ohio state in b1g championship supposedly not taken into consideration in their written document

based on their metrics I see no way ohio state gets in yet it happened

2020 ohio state played 6 games and got in
Because there is no accountability
 
  • Like
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

jctisu

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2017
2,541
3,026
113
34
also based on their protocols, how does 2014 or 2020 ohio state get in?

2014
* tcu was a conference champion
* tcu had a higher strength of schedule
* no head to head
* tcu's only loss was controversial against an 11-2 baylor by 3 points on the road
* ohio state lost to 7-6 va tech at home
* margin of victory for ohio state in b1g championship supposedly not taken into consideration in their written document

based on their metrics I see no way ohio state gets in yet it happened

2020 ohio state played 6 games and got in
The bolded are not completely true. TCU was a CO-champion who lost to the other co-champion head to head and the Big 12 screwed the pooch by not declaring Baylor the actual Big 12 champion like they should have. Everyone remember that cringe-worthy "One. True. Champion!" crap all season that year. Yeah that backfired! Baylor finished 11-1 that year, which is what made the thing wonky. The committee was full of **** and should have stuck with the "four best" mantra and said, "I don't care that Baylor beat TCU head to head (super controversial too), TCU is the better team period."

Florida State really hurt that first playoff too because they were unbeaten, but everyone knew they were a joke. Just couldn't leave them out being the only unbeaten P5. That playoff should have been Alabama, Oregon, TCU and Ohio State. Easily the four best teams that year.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
51,544
32,301
113
LA LA Land
Until the playoff committee puts in place a rule requiring all teams play at least 10 P5 games during the regular season, we cannot compare the conferences.

Any system that rewards Alabama and other SEC and ACC teams, for playing fewer P5 schools than an Iowa State type school during the regular season is flawed and should be changed.
I always think back to the night we knocked out unbeaten OK State.

Alabama played an uninspired game against Georgia Southern at home the same night. They easily could have lost a conference road game that night with the same effort.

It's definitely the best conference, especially the top half, but they routinely do not play the hardest schedules. Almost nobody in the media can tell the difference between those two things or wants to tell the difference.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BigCyFan

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
51,544
32,301
113
LA LA Land
Michigan can beat Georgia. Their offense is a joke and their defense was exposed yesterday also when they actually played a team with a pulse.
Yeah, I would feel as comfortable with $ down on Michigan as either SEC team.

Cincy is more of an unknown in this format although definitely deserving given the comfortable road win @#5, they have played to the competition a bit all year (as much as a 13-0 team can) so I won't be shocked if they win or nearly win.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
51,544
32,301
113
LA LA Land
I'm really hoping Cincy and Michigan win. I think Michigan's D is good enough and Georgia's O is a little suspect that could be a close game. I hope Cincy can make it a game but could see that being a blowout
I don't understand the typical sports fan. Apparently the networks think Cincy doesn't bring viewers or so we're always told. I'm sure they're right.

Cincy is the only reason I'm going to watch. On a scale of 1-10 the teams that get me watching:
Cincy: 10
Mich: 4
Georgia: 2
Bama: 0

Same thing happens every March for me. Love those first two rounds, if it's a sweet 16 with no cinderellas (and no ISU) I've moved on to NBA basketball and ignore it.

Who are these casual fans who tune into Duke Basketball and Alabama Football? I tune into them in the final minutes exclusively when they might lose. I just don't get how everyone isn't that way.
 

jctisu

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2017
2,541
3,026
113
34
I don't understand the typical sports fan. Apparently the networks think Cincy doesn't bring viewers or so we're always told. I'm sure they're right.

Cincy is the only reason I'm going to watch. On a scale of 1-10 the teams that get me watching:
Cincy: 10
Mich: 4
Georgia: 2
Bama: 0

Same thing happens every March for me. Love those first two rounds, if it's a sweet 16 with no cinderellas (and no ISU) I've moved on to NBA basketball and ignore it.

Who are these casual fans who tune into Duke Basketball and Alabama Football? I tune into them in the final minutes exclusively when they might lose. I just don't get how everyone isn't that way.
They are basing it sole on the number of fans these schools have. It's not about the casuals really. They know Bama, Ohio State, Texas, Georgia, etc. etc. have massive fan bases and every single one of them will be watching their team play. It's a safe scenario for the networks. Maybe they lose the casuals who would want to see some different teams, but between just those massive fanbases and the college football junkies they will get their number.

Massive fanbases are chock full of casual/bandwagoners, so if a big brand is eliminated and not in there, the networks know that's a ton of people not tuning in because their team isn't in and they don't really care about college football.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
51,544
32,301
113
LA LA Land
The bolded are not completely true. TCU was a CO-champion who lost to the other co-champion head to head and the Big 12 screwed the pooch by not declaring Baylor the actual Big 12 champion like they should have. Everyone remember that cringe-worthy "One. True. Champion!" crap all season that year. Yeah that backfired! Baylor finished 11-1 that year, which is what made the thing wonky. The committee was full of **** and should have stuck with the "four best" mantra and said, "I don't care that Baylor beat TCU head to head (super controversial too), TCU is the better team period."

Florida State really hurt that first playoff too because they were unbeaten, but everyone knew they were a joke. Just couldn't leave them out being the only unbeaten P5. That playoff should have been Alabama, Oregon, TCU and Ohio State. Easily the four best teams that year.
TCU had a significantly better one loss than Ohio State. TCU barely lost on the road to an 11-2 top ten team and only because of blown calls. Ohio State got beat at home solidly by a 7-6 team.

TCU had a better SOS than Ohio State even after Ohio State played the B10CCG.

Ohio State's SOS didn't pass TCU's until after they got their playoff games in.

Baylor had the horrific SOS that year, TCU played a tougher schedule than Ohio State with better results. When looking at those 3 teams it was fair to eliminate Baylor because of their horrible non-conf, at least Ohio State scheduled the ACC team that spanked them at home. The media/committee stressed Baylor's actual weak SOS and spun a lie that TCU didn't have SOS advantage on Ohio State.

The "criteria of the week" 13th data point was the only thing they could dream up...then a few years later it's fine to have 6 data points when everybody else has 11.
 

jctisu

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2017
2,541
3,026
113
34
TCU had a significantly better one loss than Ohio State. TCU barely lost on the road to an 11-2 top ten team and only because of blown calls. Ohio State got beat at home solidly by a 7-6 team.

TCU had a better SOS than Ohio State even after Ohio State played the B10CCG.

Ohio State's SOS didn't pass TCU's until after they got their playoff games in.

Baylor had the horrific SOS that year, TCU played a tougher schedule than Ohio State with better results. When looking at those 3 teams it was fair to eliminate Baylor because of their horrible non-conf, at least Ohio State scheduled the ACC team that spanked them at home. The media/committee stressed Baylor's actual weak SOS and spun a lie that TCU didn't have SOS advantage on Ohio State.

The "criteria of the week" 13th data point was the only thing they could dream up...then a few years later it's fine to have 6 data points when everybody else has 11.
Look I agree and have said the first iteration of the selection was a complete joke. I am strictly pointing out other things that allowed that to happen. And no people were NOT using Baylor's SOS to bring down TCU's. TCU's biggest issue was they lost to Baylor who finished with the exact same record that year as TCU, so how the hell can you put in TCU when Baylor beat them? People are revising history because that first year the whole who is best v. who is deserving was not really a thing. It became a thing because of what happened with Ohio State getting in despite the worst loss of the three teams in question.

We also all blindly assumed the rankings were like the AP does theirs. If you are ranked #3 (TCU) and get a dominating win in the final week, you aren't dropping no matter what else happens. Well the committee sent us a shock wave and did something we weren't used to seeing. A team being dropped despite winning big in the previous game. We've now been accustomed to it, so it's not such a shock to the system when it's done now.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
51,544
32,301
113
LA LA Land
"Ranking football teams is an art, not a science"

the first sentence is all you need to know that this thing is a joke

if the fbs wants a playoff, they need to do what any other real league does (or even fcs and high school football lol) and get a merit-based playoff

not a beauty contest
They had it pretty close to a science with the BCS ranking. I'd have argued if they got rid of the Harris poll and kept the Coaches/AP as 2/3 and the computer average as 1/3 it was pretty scientific.

Hundreds of experts and dozens of computer models...vs a few Big Ten homers in a room.

The only problem with BCS ranking vs this committee is they were feeding a 2 team playoff.

The small committee is the worst option. Go back to BCS formula with many 100s of opinions and data models, or base it on mostly conference champions playing in.
 

jctisu

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2017
2,541
3,026
113
34
They had it pretty close to a science with the BCS ranking. I'd have argued if they got rid of the Harris poll and kept the Coaches/AP as 2/3 and the computer average as 1/3 it was pretty scientific.

Hundreds of experts and dozens of computer models...vs a few Big Ten homers in a room.

The only problem with BCS ranking vs this committee is they were feeding a 2 team playoff.

The small committee is the worst option. Go back to BCS formula with many 100s of opinions and data models, or base it on mostly conference champions playing in.
This is what we all wanted. You are spot on. The BCS formula wasn't really the issue, it was just the top-2 only thing. Just add two more teams to the BCS way of doing it and most everyone would have been totally cool imo. The committee thing is a joke, and you cannot say they don't have bias. They do and that's not a knock. We are all human and are going to be biased in some things no matter what. It's hilarious anyone ever claims they leave their bias at the door. They can't as that's not possible in human nature.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
51,544
32,301
113
LA LA Land
This is what we all wanted. You are spot on. The BCS formula wasn't really the issue, it was just the top-2 only thing. Just add two more teams to the BCS way of doing it and most everyone would have been totally cool imo. The committee thing is a joke, and you cannot say they don't have bias. They do and that's not a knock. We are all human and are going to be biased in some things no matter what. It's hilarious anyone ever claims they leave their bias at the door. They can't as that's not possible in human nature.
They went from hundreds of transparent human inputs and 1/3 computer averages with open sources...to a few dudes in a room where about 1/3 of them are always Big Ten homers.

There was no way some other conference was going to compete its way into dominating this selection process. The SEC has been so strong it was going to be fine no matter what. B10 is looking good lately but they weren't that strong when we went to the small committee format.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: jctisu