CFP Rankings

[Tommy Gavin]

This probably didn't need its own thread but I didn't know where to put it. As far as I'm concerned, at this point in the season with 9 (10 including Houston) still undefeated teams left, you AUTOMATICALLY give up your claim to the top 4 if you have a loss. The top 9 here all have a claim to the top 4 and can all be pretty much interchangeable at this point. They've all earned it with unblemished records.

Alabama and Notre Dame in the top 5 is completely ridiculous at this point. The committee seems to have completely ignored the single most important criteria (wins and losses) for those 2 teams. I know that it'll probably work itself out but I find the inclusion of those two teams in the top 5 mind-boggling.


Rank Name Record
1 Clemson 8-0
2 LSU 7-0
3 Ohio State 8-0
4 Michigan State 8-0
5 Iowa 8-0
6 TCU 8-0
7 Oklahoma State 8-0
8 Baylor 7-0
9 Memphis 8-0

10 Alabama 7-1
11 Notre Dame 7-1
12 Florida 7-1
13 Stanford 7-1
14 Utah 7-1
15 Oklahoma 7-1
16 Florida State 7-1

? Houston 8-0

 

[hawkfan37]

Toledo. Ha.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

If Iowa has a loss, they are probably out.

In no other sport (that I can think of) does a loss disqualify you from a championship.

I really wish ND was still playing Mich & Mich St every year. It would be easier to get a handle on them.

 

[mvhomerj]

"Alabama and Notre Dame in the top 5 is completely ridiculous at this point."
You serious Clark?

 

[Chuck C]

Uhhmmm, Toledo isn't undefeated.

 

[Tommy Gavin]

Uhhmmm, Toledo isn't undefeated.

Whoops, didn't realize they played last night.

 

[Tommy Gavin]

"Alabama and Notre Dame in the top 5 is completely ridiculous at this point."
You serious Clark?

Yes, completely serious. Way too many good teams with no losses. If those teams start taking losses then they can get back in the discussion.

 

[Hawk12345]

"Alabama and Notre Dame in the top 5 is completely ridiculous at this point."
You serious Clark?

Is including Alabama or Notre Dame in the top 4 or 5 ridiculous? Well, the answer to that depends upon the selection criteria.

Here is the question. Four teams make the playoffs. Should they be the best four teams? Or should they be the four teams that should they win out in the playoffs would have the best claim at truly being the best team in the country? Let me explain the difference.

In some year, it is certainly possible that the consensus opinion is that the two best teams (or even the four best teams) are in the same conference. Let's call the two best teams, Team A and Team B. Even though these are thought to be the two best teams in the country, Team A has pummeled Team B earlier in the season. (Or, perhaps Team A has narrowly defeated Team B twice, once early in the season and again in the conference championship game.) However, everyone still believes Team B is clearly the second best team in the country. Meanwhile, there are undefeated champions in three other major conferences; teams that have struggled and looked unimpressive at times, but have narrowly squeaked out wins in all of their games.

Does Team B, (who people think is the second best team in the country, but who has proven to not be better than Team A) get in the playoffs, bumping an undefeated conference champion from the playoffs? I would argue that the goal of the playoffs is to crown a legitimate national champion, not to reward who people think are probably the four best teams. It is already established that Team B is not deserving of the national championship because in a head to head match up, Team A has clearly shown that they are a better team than Team B. Team B does not have a legitimate claim to be the national champion. (Even if Team B were to beat Team A in the playoffs, folks would argue that since they split with Team A, they really aren't any better than Team A.) Not having lost a game, the conference champions in the other leagues all deserve spots ahead of Team B, the team that has already been proven not to be the best team in the country.

So, this may be making a mountain out of a molehill, but I don't think the criteria should be who people think are the four best teams going into the playoffs. It should be the four teams who if they beat Team A in the playoffs and win out would have the most legitimate claim of being the true champion. That means undefeated conference champions should be in no matter what over any "Team B."

PS And, yes, I believe we need to expand to 8 teams because some year there may be more than 4 undefeated champions (and/or more than 3 undefeated champions, plus an undefeated Notre Dame). All undefeated champions of major conferences should get to be in the playoffs.

 

[mvhomerj]

Yes, completely serious. Way too many good teams with no losses. If those teams start taking losses then they can get back in the discussion.

IF 'Bama beats LSU Saturday, what about next weeks poll? Fast forward, what if ND and 'Bama run the table?
Given their schedules, easily the two 1 loss teams, that should be considered over unbeatens, with weak SOS.
Won't know any of this until it plays out

 

[neversurrender]

Is including Alabama or Notre Dame in the top 4 or 5 ridiculous? Well, the answer to that depends upon the selection criteria.

Here is the question. Four teams make the playoffs. Should they be the best four teams? Or should they be the four teams that should they win out in the playoffs would have the best claim at truly being the best team in the country? Let me explain the difference.

In some year, it is certainly possible that the consensus opinion is that the two best teams (or even the four best teams) are in the same conference. Let's call the two best teams, Team A and Team B. Even though these are thought to be the two best teams in the country, Team A has pummeled Team B earlier in the season. (Or, perhaps Team A has narrowly defeated Team B twice, once early in the season and again in the conference championship game.) However, everyone still believes Team B is clearly the second best team in the country. Meanwhile, there are undefeated champions in three other major conferences; teams that have struggled and looked unimpressive at times, but have narrowly squeaked out wins in all of their games.

Does Team B, (who people think is the second best team in the country, but who has proven to not be better than Team A) get in the playoffs, bumping an undefeated conference champion from the playoffs? I would argue that the goal of the playoffs is to crown a legitimate national champion, not to reward who people think are probably the four best teams. It is already established that Team B is not deserving of the national championship because in a head to head match up, Team A has clearly shown that they are a better team than Team B. Team B does not have a legitimate claim to be the national champion. (Even if Team B were to beat Team A in the playoffs, folks would argue that since they split with Team A, they really aren't any better than Team A.) Not having lost a game, the conference champions in the other leagues all deserve spots ahead of Team B, the team that has already been proven not to be the best team in the country.

So, this may be making a mountain out of a molehill, but I don't think the criteria should be who people think are the four best teams going into the playoffs. It should be the four teams who if they beat Team A in the playoffs and win out would have the most legitimate claim of being the true champion. That means undefeated conference champions should be in no matter what over any "Team B."

PS And, yes, I believe we need to expand to 8 teams because some year there may be more than 4 undefeated champions (and/or more than 3 undefeated champions, plus an undefeated Notre Dame). All undefeated champions of major conferences should get to be in the playoffs.

So in your theory an undefeated team should get in over a team with a loss? So when ND played Bama for the title a couple years back you believe that ND should have been in that game if for no other reason than they had a 0 in the loss column? If all we are doing is seeing who has a good record to get in then why schedule tough out of conference opponents, better yet why would a team like ND who can set their schedule as they have no conference play anyone who is worth anything?

 

[mvhomerj]

So in your theory an undefeated team should get in over a team with a loss? So when ND played Bama for the title a couple years back you believe that ND should have been in that game if for no other reason than they had a 0 in the loss column? If all we are doing is seeing who has a good record to get in then why schedule tough out of conference opponents, better yet why would a team like ND who can set their schedule as they have no conference play anyone who is worth anything?

I remember that, the "unbeaten" Irish... got smoked!!!

 

[neversurrender]

I remember that, the "unbeaten" Irish... got smoked!!!

That's my point just because a team is unbeaten should not automatically put them in, last year those big bad unbeaten teams fell to a one loss team so I am just trying to say that if all we are doing is putting unbeaten teams into the playoffs then why play anyone tough because heck so long as we go unbeaten we are in the playoffs.

 

[Tommy Gavin]

IF 'Bama beats LSU Saturday, what about next weeks poll? Fast forward, what if ND and 'Bama run the table?
Given their schedules, easily the two 1 loss teams, that should be considered over unbeatens, with weak SOS.
Won't know any of this until it plays out

My point was that as of today they didn't belong anywhere near that high. However, most of it works itself out. If Bama runs the table, that takes LSU out, there will only be 1 of MSU, tOSU and Iowa standing and 1 of TCU, OSU, Baylor so they'd be well back within the range of discussion.

In that scenario (and assuming Clemson runs the table) you'd be looking at:

Clemson undefeated and in
Possibly a Big Ten team undefeated and in
Possibly a Big XIII team undefeated and in
And one more spot

In my opinion, a 1 loss Bama should not get in over an undefeated Clemson, Big ten team and Big XII team this season.

So much of this is going to get crazy and change over the next few weeks though

 

[SDHawkDoc]

A playoff series of some kind is how a champion is determined.
College football "champions" prior to any sort of playoff system has been all about who looked best, met the eye test, had the most impressive wins, etc. In other words, a lot of subjective interpretation.
Now that there is a playoff, at least things are on the right track to determine a champion objectively on the field.
It's now an argument over how many legitimate claimants deserve a spot in that playoff. Personally I'd prefer 16 as in the FCS, with the 1st round games hosted by the highest seeds.

 

[Hawk12345]

So in your theory an undefeated team should get in over a team with a loss? So when ND played Bama for the title a couple years back you believe that ND should have been in that game if for no other reason than they had a 0 in the loss column? If all we are doing is seeing who has a good record to get in then why schedule tough out of conference opponents, better yet why would a team like ND who can set their schedule as they have no conference play anyone who is worth anything?

Why do we have a playoff? Is it to reward the best four teams, sort of like you have a good season you get to go to a bowl game? OR, are we trying to determine the true national champion? If you are clearly not the best team in your conference. And, if there are unbeatens in other conferences, then in order to crown a true national champion it is much much more legitimate that the unbeatens should get into the playoffs over the team that has already proven not to even be the best in their own conference.

Let's you are right and I am wrong. In other words, we aren't going to let the four undefeated teams decide this on the playing field, rather we are just going to go on what the "experts" feel are the best four teams. If we do that, then why in the world can any one conference only have two teams? That isn't fair. If Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Mississippi are who ESPN feels are the best four teams, then why don't all four of them get to be in the playoffs? After all, according to your argument, it is all about putting in who the "experts" feel are the best teams, even if a couple of the four best teams have two or three losses since they have all played each other in conference.

 

[Jimbo21]

Let's just end all this nonsense. Dissolve the big 12, have 4 16 team conferences. Every conference is split into 2 8 team divisions. The winners of the divisions play in the conference title game, the winners of the conference title game go to the 4 team playoff.

 

[ANYCHawk]

Let's just end all this nonsense. Dissolve the big 12, have 4 16 team conferences. Every conference is split into 2 8 team divisions.

Stopped reading there. Either you never play a school from the other division (or at best one) or you don't have teams playing the same schedule which leaves you in the same boat we are currently in.

 

[2000hawk]

Stopped reading there. Either you never play a school from the other division (or at best one) or you don't have teams playing the same schedule which leaves you in the same boat we are currently in.

Not really. Wouldn't matter what your schedule was, as long as you won your division your in the play off. It wouldn't come down to SOS or pollsters. This wouldn't allow for independents like ND though. As long as there is a power 5 and 4 spots somebody is gonna have a bitch each year. 4 teams is better than 2, 8 is better than 4 and on and on. Realistically there are not many years when 6 or more teams are national title caliber.

 

[neversurrender]

So us

Why do we have a playoff? Is it to reward the best four teams, sort of like you have a good season you get to go to a bowl game? OR, are we trying to determine the true national champion? If you are clearly not the best team in your conference. And, if there are unbeatens in other conferences, then in order to crown a true national champion it is much much more legitimate that the unbeatens should get into the playoffs over the team that has already proven not to even be the best in their own conference.

Let's you are right and I am wrong. In other words, we aren't going to let the four undefeated teams decide this on the playing field, rather we are just going to go on what the "experts" feel are the best four teams. If we do that, then why in the world can any one conference only have two teams? That isn't fair. If Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Mississippi are who ESPN feels are the best four teams, then why don't all four of them get to be in the playoffs? After all, according to your argument, it is all about putting in who the "experts" feel are the best teams, even if a couple of the four best teams have two or three losses since they have all played each other in conference.

So by your logic, a basketball team who has lost a game during the year or didn't win their conference shouldn't have a chance to play in the NCAA tournament, The NFL should never allow who didn't win their division in, because obviously they can't be one the best teams because they lost. Teams have bad games I understand that yes the season should matter, but to just say a team is in because they are undefeated over a team with one loss is just foolish. If Iowa wins the big ten but has a loss they shouldn't get in if Clemson, LSU, TCU and Memphis are undefeated because well those teams haven't lost and Iowa has.

As for saying a conference getting 2 teams in isn't fair, I hate to be the one to have to tell you this but things aren't always fair in life. I never said a 2 or 3 loss team should be in but to just say only undefeateds get in is not the fix. Lets say 5 years from now Iowa is a top 5 team but loses in a close game in the B10 title game to OSU on a bad call, for the sake of argument lets say Iowa has beaten 3 or 4 ranked teams and has been said to be a top team all year. The committee though says well we have OSU, Baylor, LSU and Wyoming who while they are in a bad conference and have beaten no big teams they are undefeated so even though the Hawks lost on a questionable call and were one of the top teams according to the experts they have no right to be in the playoff over Wyoming?

 

[El Simbolo]

So us


So by your logic if Iowa wins the big ten but has a loss they shouldn't get in if Clemson, LSU, TCU and Memphis are undefeated because well those teams haven't lost and Iowa has.

That's not what he said. He said a second team from a conference should not get in over an undefeated team from another conference

 

[Jimbo21]

Stopped reading there. Either you never play a school from the other division (or at best one) or you don't have teams playing the same schedule which leaves you in the same boat we are currently in.

My method is objective. The current method is very subjective. I prefer an objective, defined method of crowning a champion, like in professional sports. Will their still be bitching when Michigan and OSU go into their final game 11-0 and everyone thinks they're the top 2 teams in the country? Sure. But whoever loses that game essentially loses in an earlier round of the playoff.

Heaven forbid Notre Dame have to join a conference in order to participate in the playoff. The system shouldn't have exceptions for outliers.

 

[ABYPFCS]

Everyone getting all worked up over the initial selection of the top 4 teams makes no sense. Realistically, the committee could release just one selection of the top 4 teams and that would be after the games are played. But the selection show and all the discussions created makes for good tv and ratings.

If you remember last year they had 3 SEC teams in the top 4, which again meant nothing, as they would all be playing each other and things would get sorted out.

If Baylor, TCU, Okla St were all in the top 4, who cares as they will be playing each other and only 1 at the most will be selected.

 

[Rifler]

Let's just end all this nonsense. Dissolve the big 12, have 4 16 team conferences. Every conference is split into 2 8 team divisions. The winners of the divisions play in the conference title game, the winners of the conference title game go to the 4 team playoff.

I like this approach... and Notre Dame can sit outside and watch....

 

[MeetTheFerentz]

If Iowa goes 13-0 and gets left out of the CFP in favor of Alabama and/or Notre Dame, there are two things you can assured of:

1) I, personally, would be very happy with a 14-0, Big Ten championship, Rose Bowl championship season, with talk about "what-if" going on for eternity, and...

2) Jim Delany and the Big Ten will see to it that the current CFP system implodes faster than Jeb Bush's presidential campaign.

 

[ANYCHawk]

My method is objective. The current method is very subjective. I prefer an objective, defined method of crowning a champion, like in professional sports. Will their still be bitching when Michigan and OSU go into their final game 11-0 and everyone thinks they're the top 2 teams in the country? Sure. But whoever loses that game essentially loses in an earlier round of the playoff.

Heaven forbid Notre Dame have to join a conference in order to participate in the playoff. The system shouldn't have exceptions for outliers.

No your method is not objective. You think it is but it isn't.