***OFFICIAL CFP Rankings Show Watch Thread***

[KidSilverhair]

Scheduling less than 10 P4 games can be considered by the Committee to be a less difficult schedule. And will be considered when ranking.

Or simply say one of the requirements for making the playoff is 10 P4 opponents. You only want to play 9, that’s fine, we’ll even rank you if we feel like it, but you’re not eligible for a playoff spot.

Seems pretty easy, but 1) the last thing the committee wants is clearly defined criteria, 2) people will start whining about the “official” definition of P4 (its true that none exists), 3) the G5/6 schools will complain about losing games, and 4) naturally the argument will be that “P2” games should count more, like 150% of a game vs the ACC or Big XII.

 

[Clark]

Also, the committee went further than I thought they would in not penalizing teams for losing in conference championship games. I think it's silly that PSU is ranked ahead of OSU after OSU beat them on their home field with a similar record but it's clear they were given a mandate to make sure to do whatever it takes to incentivize teams to show up and play the championship games.

 

[CycloneErik]

I am so freaking confused by all the rhetoric about the non-con scheduling by all the SEC types. None of the three teams that they think should have made the playoff lost a non-con game. What are they talking about?

They're just throwing crap against the wall.
Saban's thing about people expecting Alabama to play tougn noncon games was a lot of fun, since it's hard to remember them ever doing that.

But it's just crap they throw around knowing that a lot of people will nod like it's true and never look into it.

 

[NoCreativity]

They're just throwing crap against the wall.
Saban's thing about people expecting Alabama to play tougn noncon games was a lot of fun, since it's hard to remember them ever doing that.

But it's just crap they throw around knowing that a lot of people will nod like it's true and never look into it.

They did play Texas in a home and home series but thats the exception, not the rule.

They are notorious for scheduling name recognition programs like Michigan, Florida, Miami, and Wisconsin when they are having down years then trying pass that off as a tough opponent.

 

[werdnamanhill]

I actually have very little issues with the final bracket. I think I'd have seeded things a little differently, but this is probably the correct 12 teams. You could maybe convince me of BYU, but idk who they'd kick out.

Overall I think ND does not deserve to host and that Boise should be 4 instead of 3. But, pleasantly surprised for the most part.

Of course this means the SEC will burn it all down the first chance they get

 

[Kinch]

Today is Monday, December 9. National Troll Your Favorite SEC Day.

 

[SCNCY]

They did play Texas in a home and home series but thats the exception, not the rule.

They are notorious for scheduling name recognition programs like Michigan, Florida, Miami, and Wisconsin when they are having down years then trying pass that off as a tough opponent.

Unless I am mistaken, I'm pretty sure these games are scheduled years in advance, like 5-10 years in the future. Hard to know the quality of the team that far out, other than historical expectations of them being a good program.

 

[Die4Cy]

Unless I am mistaken, I'm pretty sure these games are scheduled years in advance, like 5-10 years in the future. Hard to know the quality of the team that far out, other than historical expectations of them being a good program.

That is something that a forward looking management of the sport could address.

 

[NYCYFan]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that SMU got in over the "establishment" but if you look at their overall resumes, Alabama clearly had a better resume. SMU beat no ranked teams and their strength of schedule was a joke compared to Alabama.
Even though Saban is a homer, he makes a lot of valid points in terms of strength of victories and schedule but the OOC schedule was weak and you can't get blasted by a mediocre Oklahoma late in the season for loss #3 and be included in a playoff.

It seems like the committee valued quality of losses over quality of wins. Penn State, Notre Dame, Indiana, SMU. Where are the quality wins? 1 ranked win between the 4 of those teams. Insane, but Notre Dame and Indiana only had 1 loss so they pretty much got in by default since they were only two of four teams with 1 or less losses
They also didn't value the Championship games too much. Clemson moves up one spot after beating the #8 team and SMU only slightly dropped, rightfully so mind you. I knew the moment Clemson only move up one spot that SMU was in.

The one thing they really got right was awarding Arizona State the bye. I don't think there's 5 teams if that that are playing better ball than them. Well deserved for them.

 

[NoCreativity]

Unless I am mistaken, I'm pretty sure these games are scheduled years in advance, like 5-10 years in the future. Hard to know the quality of the team that far out, other than historical expectations of them being a good program.

Correct, but they always seem to catch them when they are terrible then try to pass that off as a tough schedule. For instance, Wisconsin was probably 9-3 when they scheduled the game, then when the game is played Wisconsin is terrible and not even bowl eligible.

Then Saban is crying about Alabama playing a tough non-conf this year when in actuality it was extremely soft.

 

[NYCYFan]

Damn, Oregon gets ****** with that bracket pretty hard. Georgia gets a cakewalk.

Honestly you would rather be Texas or PSU then Oregon

Yeah, Oregon fans can't be happy with that outcome having to likely play Ohio State again. Pretty crappy bracket for Ohio State too, getting Tennesse then Oregon. Rough

Penn State and Texas made out like bandits which leads me to my other ranking beef. How is Penn State ranked over Ohio State? Ohio State beat them head to head and also beat Indiana, Penn State beat....Illinois? Same amount of losses.
Again, quality of losses valued over quality of wins. Not what I would have done as a committee member.

 

[12191987]

Aside from the Alabama/SMU debate, I’ll take the #18 spot. Bring on #13 Miami.

Beat Miami, Alabama loses to Michigan and surely the AP voters do the right thing and move the Cyclones over the Tide?

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that SMU got in over the "establishment" but if you look at their overall resumes, Alabama clearly had a better resume. SMU beat no ranked teams and their strength of schedule was a joke compared to Alabama.
Even though Saban is a homer, he makes a lot of valid points in terms of strength of victories and schedule.

It seems like the committee valued quality of losses over quality of wins. Penn State, Notre Dame, Indiana, SMU. Where are the quality wins? 1 ranked win between the 4 of those teams. Insane, but Notre Dame and Indiana only had 1 loss so they pretty much got in by default since they were only two of four teams with 1 or less losses
They also didn't value the Championship games too much. Clemson moves up one spot after beating the #8 team and SMU only slightly dropped, rightfully so mind you. I knew the moment Clemson only move up one spot that SMU was in.

The one thing they really got right was awarding Arizona State the bye. I don't think there's 5 teams if that that are playing better ball than them. Well deserved for them.

I don’t think Bama had a better resume than SMU. I think they’re comparable, but I like SMU’s resume personally.

Bama had 1 more loss than SMU and played 2 fewer P4 games than SMU did (would have been 3 fewer but Vandy bailed on SMU last minute), and also played one less game overall. Bama didn’t make their conference championship and 2 of their 3 losses came against 6-6 teams. SMU’s losses came in close games to top 25 opponents.

And I’m of the opinion, and the committee stated this as well, a loss in the conference championship shouldn’t hurt a team. Looking at it like that, SMU really only had one loss versus Bama’s 3.

 

[AlaCyclone]

I don’t think Bama had a better resume than SMU. I think they’re comparable, but I like SMU’s resume personally.

Bama had 1 more loss than SMU and played 2 fewer P4 games than SMU did (would have been 3 fewer but Vandy bailed on SMU last minute), and also played one less game overall. Bama didn’t make their conference championship and 2 of their 3 losses came against 6-6 teams. SMU’s losses came in close games to top 25 opponents.

And I’m of the opinion, and the committee stated this as well, a loss in the conference championship shouldn’t hurt a team. Looking at it like that, SMU really only had one pass versus Bama’s 3.

Well said. My first thought was that Alabama played a tougher schedule, but I see the validity of SMU's schedule. I flat out forgot that they played and beat TCU (8-4) and played more P4 games (11 to 9). Basically, the ONLY thing Alabama's schedule had over SMU's was the win over SEC Champion Georgia. I am totally cool with SMU being in over Alabama. I hope the Mustangs can win @ Penn State. Go Poines!

 

[Cloned4Life]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that SMU got in over the "establishment" but if you look at their overall resumes, Alabama clearly had a better resume. SMU beat no ranked teams and their strength of schedule was a joke compared to Alabama.
Even though Saban is a homer, he makes a lot of valid points in terms of strength of victories and schedule but the OOC schedule was weak and you can't get blasted by a mediocre Oklahoma late in the season for loss #3 and be included in a playoff.

It seems like the committee valued quality of losses over quality of wins. Penn State, Notre Dame, Indiana, SMU. Where are the quality wins? 1 ranked win between the 4 of those teams. Insane, but Notre Dame and Indiana only had 1 loss so they pretty much got in by default since they were only two of four teams with 1 or less losses
They also didn't value the Championship games too much. Clemson moves up one spot after beating the #8 team and SMU only slightly dropped, rightfully so mind you. I knew the moment Clemson only move up one spot that SMU was in.

The one thing they really got right was awarding Arizona State the bye. I don't think there's 5 teams if that that are playing better ball than them. Well deserved for them.

What is so special about Bama's schedule?

Auburn isn't good.
Missouri is laughably overrated.
LSU extremely overrated.
Wisconsin was flat out bad this year.
Oklahoma might have one of their worst teams in decades.
Vandy is not good. Them winning 6 games is because the scheduling (with SO many teams in a league) makes it easier to win more games.
Hell, this might be Georgia's worst team in 10 years.
I guess Tennessee is good? I don't know why we are assuming they are elite. Just cuz?
And not to mention, Bama then played 3 very easy buy-games.

The idea that Bama had to face some unimaginable gauntlet is just a positive-feedback loop of SEC bias. It's a fine schedule. Nothing special this year. And they lost freaking 3 games, 2 of them absolutely awful losses. "Ranked wins" is just so stupid when teams like Missouri have no business being ranked so highly so consistently.

And this is not to say that SMU played some crazy underrated schedule either. But they were 11-1 and were 3 seconds away from a P4 conference title. The fact that Bama was SO close to getting the nod over them is unreal - and shows how much bias there is in favor of the SEC.

 

[StLouisClone]

They got the 12 teams right, but ASU (11-2) should have moved ahead of both Bama (9-3) and SMU (11-2) in the CFP rankings. At least the AP voters got that one right.

 

[NYCYFan]

I don’t think Bama had a better resume than SMU. I think they’re comparable, but I like SMU’s resume personally.

Bama had 1 more loss than SMU and played 2 fewer P4 games than SMU did (would have been 3 fewer but Vandy bailed on SMU last minute), and also played one less game overall. Bama didn’t make their conference championship and 2 of their 3 losses came against 6-6 teams. SMU’s losses came in close games to top 25 opponents.

And I’m of the opinion, and the committee stated this as well, a loss in the conference championship shouldn’t hurt a team. Looking at it like that, SMU really only had one loss versus Bama’s 3.

I value quality wins above all so you compare wins like Georgia and South Carolina especially, Missouri (overrated but still a ranked team by the committee) and hell even a very talented but underachieving LSU team to Louisville and Duke, SMU comes up short for me buuuut that Oklahoma loss is a hard think to shake. You can't get whipped by a team that was struggling all year that late in the season when you have 2 losses and expect to get in a playoff even a weak field like the one this year.
It's just hard for me to get behind a team that beat no high quality opponents. Honestly speaking, SMU has more than 2 losses if they're playing in the SEC.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

I value quality wins above all so you compare wins like Georgia and South Carolina especially, Missouri (overrated but still a ranked team by the committee) and hell even a very talented but underachieving LSU team to Louisville and Duke, SMU comes up short for me buuuut that Oklahoma loss is a hard think to shake. You can't get whipped by a team that was struggling all year that late in the season when you have 2 losses and expect to get in a playoff even a weak field like the one this year.
It's just hard for me to get behind a team that beat no high quality opponents. Honestly speaking, SMU has more than 2 losses if they're playing in the SEC.

I get your first points. However, I don’t, and the committee shouldn’t, work in hypotheticals.

This is the SEC narrative now, and to me isn’t relevant since it’s not a reality. It’s about as relevant as the number of NFL draft picks argument.

 

[HFCS]

They got the 12 teams right, but ASU (11-2) should have moved ahead of both Bama (9-3) and SMU (11-2) in the CFP rankings. At least the AP voters got that one right.

Yeah I'm kind of shocked they did a decent job. SMU is the one team they're still a little overly high on. It's not a crime SMU is in, but you could argue a lot of teams over them (Alabama, Miami, BYU, SC, and ASU could be ahead in ranking as you mentioned). It'll always be like that for the last one or two spots. The improvement is that first team out will never have a National Championship argument and in the past we've had some #3 and even #5 teams who did after bowls.

I have mixed thoughts about the 12 team format with byes, but I do like that the teams that got in who dodged a CCG are forced to play an extra game to even that out. For CCG losers it's kind of like a second chance, but if we had a no bye format then we'd effectively be giving CCG dodgers an extra week of rest and preparation which would not be fair.

I'm not sure there could be a more fair system when some teams have to play an extra game late in the year against a ranked team and some don't.

A minor criticism against both the CFP and AP...it's unrealistic that no 8-4 teams are top 25. At the end of every year it just ends up with win and loss counting more than it should. Louisville, LSU, KSU, A&M....these teams really are just as good as a lot of the teams 15-25. Illinois isn't just automatically better than those teams.

 

[NYCYFan]

I get your first points. However, I don’t, and the committee shouldn’t, work in hypotheticals.

This is the SEC narrative now, and to me isn’t relevant since it’s not a reality. It’s about as relevant as the number of NFL draft picks argument.

That's fair but what isn't arguable is that the ACC was a creampuff conference this year especially an ACC in which SMU didn't play the top 2 teams. One can say that the SEC is overrated as well but it's a much different level of compete in an SEC game than an ACC game, talent, venues, intensity. It's just different in the SEC.
I sort of feel like this with Indiana too, The one real team they played plastered them, they didn't beat anybody. Hell, SMU probably deserves a case over Indiana tbh, at least their losses were close losses and they beat better teams, Louisville, Duke and TCU than Indiana did at least by record.

Notre Dame is the real elephant in the room here.
Their best win was against 4 loss Texas A&M or Army who had the softest schedule of any ranked team, very soft schedule and lost to Northern Illinois. Where's the meat on that resume outside of the eye test?