CFP Rankings--SEC, SEC!!! -No Washington in Top 4

[rutgersguy1]

This is completely backwards....
A conference championship game loser will never make it in. There is visas, we just learned which is better and late losses hurt a lot. Teams hey benefit of doubt they improved from early losses. Your only chance of making 2 teams in is having a 1 loss team not making championship and that loss being early season. UM / Ohio game being end of year sucks for BigTen in that regard.

I don't think so. If you have 2 strong undefeateds going into a conference champ game and it's a close loss I could see the loser getting in. They also say body of work over season and that they re-look at everything afresh as a clean slate week to week when doing the rankings. I didn't say it was feasible just I see that as more likely than a 1 loss team then didn't even make the conference championship. To me that's harder to justify. Both scenarios need some extenuating outside factors but getting to the playoff without even getting to the game seems a tougher road.

They talk about teams not even being a conference champion having a tough time but not even getting to the championship game? It's not just any conference champion loser I'm talking about, it would be 2 undefeateds playing a close game and the loser than having 1 loss in addition to the other teams making that kind of path feasible. That in itself is a very specific scenario. The specific scenario for a team that didn't even get to a champ game is even harder IMO.

 

[RUfinal4]

1 year you will have 3 undefeated power 5 champs and 2 to 3 1 loss teams that will help to force either conference semifinals or an 8 team playoff.

For this year this is what can happen:
- Clemson runs the table (13-0)
- Washington runs the table (13-0)
- Michigan runs the table (13-0) or Ohio St beats Michigan and wins the B10 championship game so you have Ohio st and Michigan with 1 loss.
- Florida beats Alabama in the SEC championship game and you have Florida, Bama, and TAMU with 1 loss.
- Western Michigan runs the table
- Baylor or West Va end with 1 loss

In these scenarios:
Clemson, Washington, and B10 champ are in the final 4.
The 4th spot would be between:
- 1 loss B12 champ
- Florida (1 loss)
- Bama or TAMU (1 loss)
- undefeated Western Michigan
- Michigan with 1 loss if Ohio St beats them

I would guess that Florida would get the nod at 12-1 and a win over Bama in the SEC championship game.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

1 year you will have 3 undefeated power 5 champs and 2 to 3 1 loss teams that will help to force either conference semifinals or an 8 team playoff.

For this year this is what can happen:
- Clemson runs the table (13-0)
- Washington runs the table (13-0)
- Michigan runs the table (13-0) or Ohio St beats Michigan and wins the B10 championship game so you have Ohio st and Michigan with 1 loss.
- Florida beats Alabama in the SEC championship game and you have Florida, Bama, and TAMU with 1 loss.
- Western Michigan runs the table
- Baylor or West Va end with 1 loss

In these scenarios:
Clemson, Washington, and B10 champ are in the final 4.
The 4th spot would be between:
- 1 loss B12 champ
- Florida (1 loss)
- Bama or TAMU (1 loss)
- undefeated Western Michigan
- Michigan with 1 loss if Ohio St beats them

I would guess that Florida would get the nod at 12-1 and a win over Bama in the SEC championship game.

an undefeated Western Michigan will never crack the top 5 much less the top 4. SOS is awful.

 

[Howie'81]

That's sounds much more accurate.

Sagarin doesn't matter for the playoff.

 

[Howie'81]

Wrong. 23rd per NCAA 29th per Sagarin. Both are "games played." RU is actually 12th (obviously only Sagarin lol...). Your SOR - "strength of record" - is 13th.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/playoffPicture

Hey thanks for the correction. Penn State is 13th in strength of record. I wish Rutgers would help bolster that, but alas........

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

At least they expanded to 4. If not Ohio State wouldn't have been allowed to thump Bama a couple of years ago. Washington should be at no. 4. Two SEC teams is a joke.

I agree completely about Ohio State winning the first playoff championship.... but you have to admit, Ohio State was responsible for Ohio State's under-ranking by most sources.. because they got beat in BCS bowl game after BCS bowl game for awhile there...

...don't know how Notre Dame kept getting over-ranked in preseason.. had to be about selling product in some way... magazines, clicks, eyeballs in early games...

Come to think of it.. maybe that is why A&M is so high.. and Auburn too.. the Iron Bowl is approaching.. ESPN/ABC will want to make the most of that. A&M has Miss State, Ole Miss and LSU coming up.. with Texas-San Antonio mixed in.

Ahhh.. all the SEC teams have those cupcake games coming up.. and that will hurt their SOS.... maybe that's why they have those games so late.. avoid a late season loss.. potentially.. and avoid going into week 4 with a crap SOS more indicative of their schedules.

 

[Dpgru]

The problem here is that Alabama and Texas A&M are both in the same division, and they've already played each other. If they both win out, Alabama goes to the conference championship game and A&M stays home. Does A&M still go to the playoffs then?

That is exactly my point. A&M stays home while Bama wins the sec, wash wins the PAC 12, Clemson takes the ACC, and Mich or OSU win the big, A &M is out . They were eliminated by Bama in season. Ranking them 4 now means nothing because as of now there are no conference champions, just teams with won/loss records. Remember what happened two years ago when the top 4 teams in the ranking all won on the last day but number four got jumped by OSU because OSU was the big ten champ and, I believe it was Baylor, was tied for the big 12 and they were bypassed because they were not the clear conference champ? It all comes down to the conference champions.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Here's the committee that makes these selections.. the date on the far right is when their term expires.. so while they could trade votes year to year... quid pro quo.. there are always new members coming in..


Kirby Hocutt (chairman)[14] Texas Tech athletic director; former Kansas State linebacker Big 12 February 2017
Barry Alvarez Wisconsin athletic director; former Wisconsin coach Big Ten February 2017
Jeff Bower (from Georgia, played there too) former Southern Miss head coach N/A February 2019
Herb Deromedi former Central Michigan head coach N/A February 2019
Tom Jernstedt (Oregon) Former NCAA executive vice president N/A February 2018
Bobby Johnson (from South Carolina, played at Clemson) Former Vanderbilt head coach N/A February 2017
Jeff Long (he's been all over) Arkansas athletic director SEC February 2018
Rob Mullens (WVU grad) Oregon athletic director Pac-12 February 2019
Dan Radakovich Clemson athletic director ACC February 2018
Condoleezza Rice (from Alabama) Former U.S. Secretary of State and Stanford provost N/A February 2017
Steve Wieberg (from Missouri) Former USA Today reporter N/A February 2018
Tyrone Willingham Former Stanford / Notre Dame / Washington head coach (MichState player) N/A February 2018

Of the 12 people, 6 could be said to have ties to the SEC or Texas A&M.. 7 if you include Jeff Long.. who has so many connections because he moved around so much. The SEC is well protected here. You have 3 with Pac12 area ties or BigTen area ties.

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

I'm not terribly surprised to see Texas A&M ahead of Washington right now. A&M's wins over Auburn, Arkansas and Tennessee are probably all "better" than Washington's best win (Utah). And A&M played UCLA in nonconference compared with Rutgers.

If both win out, Washington would almost certainly jump A&M, thanks to wins against an improving USC, Washington State, and probably Utah again in the Pac 12 title game. But as of November 1, it's hard to argue that Washington has a better resume.

 

[beaced]

That's sounds much more accurate.

I have watched TOSU for their last few games.Not at all impressed with their play. IMO Michigan is going to put a hurting on them.

 

[beaced]

I'm not terribly surprised to see Texas A&M ahead of Washington right now. A&M's wins over Auburn, Arkansas and Tennessee are probably all "better" than Washington's best win (Utah). And A&M played UCLA in nonconference compared with Rutgers.

If both win out, Washington would almost certainly jump A&M, thanks to wins against an improving USC, Washington State, and probably Utah again in the Pac 12 title game. But as of November 1, it's hard to argue that Washington has a better resume.

I like the Huskies. You can only play and beat teams that are on your schedule. To be a very good team in a conference down year doesn't help your image. BUT,IMO they are a very good team.

 

[RU205]

I have watched TOSU for their last few games.Not at all impressed with their play. IMO Michigan is going to put a hurting on them.

Games in Columbus.

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

I like the Huskies. You can only play and beat teams that are on your schedule. To be a very good team in a conference down year doesn't help your image. BUT,IMO they are a very good team.

They are very good. And the committee agrees, ranking them 5th in the country.

 

[RU#1fan]

Nate Silver, the political statistician, has Penn State ranked 20th. Washington is 4th, A&M is 7th.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-college-football-predictions/

This.
Washington would beat Texas A&M.

 

[brgRC90]

Bad year for the PAC 12 no matter how you look at it. Their traditional powers are in the crapper when their second highest ranked team is a Colorado that was almost kansas bad not too long ago and Washington State is in front of any of their marquis programs.

 

[RUinOhio]

surprised they didn't fall even with a win, OSU looked pretty bad, at home no less.

I have watched TOSU for their last few games.Not at all impressed with their play. IMO Michigan is going to put a hurting on them.

Games in Columbus.

 

[FanuSanu52]

I'm not terribly surprised to see Texas A&M ahead of Washington right now. A&M's wins over Auburn, Arkansas and Tennessee are probably all "better" than Washington's best win (Utah). And A&M played UCLA in nonconference compared with Rutgers.

If both win out, Washington would almost certainly jump A&M, thanks to wins against an improving USC, Washington State, and probably Utah again in the Pac 12 title game. But as of November 1, it's hard to argue that Washington has a better resume.

Not hard seeing that UW is undefeated and A&M has a loss. And just because Ark and Tennessee were overrated doesn't make them better wins than Utah. By that logic, Stanford was the best win of all. Stupid start to rankings.

 

[FanuSanu52]

Hey thanks for the correction. Penn State is 13th in strength of record. I wish Rutgers would help bolster that, but alas........ I'm a 60-year-old troll that isn't even funny, at all.

Finished your thought for you.

Weird how we've never even met but we're thinking the exact same thing.

 

[RU-ROCS]

I have watched TOSU for their last few games.Not at all impressed with their play. IMO Michigan is going to put a hurting on them.

I think you may be right about that!

 

[topdecktiger]

Totally agree. Alabama dominated and the game wasn't close. How does that make A&M better than an undefeated Washington?

That's not what the committee went by. Kirby Hocutt specifically said A&M got the nod because of the records of the teams they beat, specifically the ones that were .500 or better. You may not agree with that metric, but it's what the committee uses. Point being, you have to go by the metrics the committee uses. You can't bring in outside metrics that the committee isn't considering.

Wrong. 23rd per NCAA 29th per Sagarin. Both are "games played." RU is actually 12th (obviously only Sagarin lol...). Your SOR - "strength of record" - is 13th.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/playoffPicture

This is another thing. People keep bringing up Sagarin and other rankings. Sagarin doesn't matter. At all. The committee doesn't use his rankings. If you think Sagarin's ratings are better, that's fine, but the committee doesn't use Sagarin, so you can't use Sagarin to argue that a team should be ranked this or that.

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

Not hard seeing that UW is undefeated and A&M has a loss. And just because Ark and Tennessee were overrated doesn't make them better wins than Utah. By that logic, Stanford was the best win of all. Stupid start to rankings.

According to ESPN, the first metric I found when Googling, Texas A&M has played the seventh toughest schedule. Washington the 38th. The zero in the "L" column will be of monumental importance down the road; in terms of examining resumes TODAY, A&M's 7-1 record is just more impressive. Clearly, the committee has proven in its short existence that its evaluation goes far beyond W-L records.

 

[Rokodesh]

It should work itself out in the next 5 weeks:
- LSU plays Florida, Bama and TAMU. Auburn can also upset Bama. Florida has FSU still. You should get 1 team from the SEC.
- The Michigan / Ohio St winner should get in as long as they win the B10 championship.
- Clemson running the table should get in which would include a win over South Carolina.
- Washington running the table should get in.

If Bama and TAMU win out it may get interesting but think a P12 undefeated Washington will eclipse TAMU for the 4th spot.

The way things have gone in the past there are usually only 1 or 2 undefeated power 5 teams and expect upsets to occur for that to happen this season too. For all we know LSU can beat Florida, Bama, and TAMU.

this

 

[ivan brunetti]

According to ESPN, the first metric I found when Googling, Texas A&M has played the seventh toughest schedule. Washington the 38th. The zero in the "L" column will be of monumental importance down the road; in terms of examining resumes TODAY, A&M's 7-1 record is just more impressive. Clearly, the committee has proven in its short existence that its evaluation goes far beyond W-L records.

Those ESPN SOS numbers are crap. IMO Sagarin is a much better estimate (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/). Both teams play bad OOC schedules. Washington's average is marginally worse, but it is better in that it is only three teams to A&M's four.

On November 19th Washington plays a middling Arizona State while A&M feasts on another cupcake in Texas San Antonio. If the Huskies don't get a boost that week then the committee is bogus.

 

[studed]

The entire country let out a collective WTF at that #4! I mean ahahahahahaha No words!

washington has played maybe the worst schedule in the country. non conference rutgers, idaho, portland state. in conference arizona 2-6 0-5 in conference, oregon 3-5 1-4 in conference , oregon state 2-6 1-5 in conference, stanford 5-3 2-3 in conference, utah 6-2 3-2 in conference. utah is the only team in the top 25 they have played

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

Those ESPN SOS numbers are crap. IMO Sagarin is a much better estimate (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/). Both teams play bad OOC schedules. Washington's average is marginally worse, but it is better in that it is only three teams to A&M's four.

On November 19th Washington plays a middling Arizona State while A&M feasts on another cupcake in Texas San Antonio. If the Huskies don't get a boost that week then the committee is bogus.

Maybe I'm reading Sagarin's rankings wrong - and again, they're irrelevant as far as the committee is concerned - but it appears they have A&M's SOS at 23rd and Washington's at 69th. Washington just needs to keep winning, and these things have a tendency to take care of themselves, but right now it's far from a travesty that it is ranked fifth.

 

[RUTBAY]

What a crock.
Penn State at 12.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/texas-...irst-shock-of-the-cfp-rankings-232838716.html

This looks about right... I would put Notre Dame somewhere in there though.

 

[irishflu92]

Dude that's StarBlazers. That show was friggin awesome when we were kids. It was Japanese animation so the sound didn't match up with the characters talking but when your 7 who gives a sh*t.

I used to doodle that ship when I was bored in school. Loved that show.

 

[topdecktiger]

Those ESPN SOS numbers are crap. IMO Sagarin is a much better estimate (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/). Both teams play bad OOC schedules. Washington's average is marginally worse, but it is better in that it is only three teams to A&M's four.

On November 19th Washington plays a middling Arizona State while A&M feasts on another cupcake in Texas San Antonio. If the Huskies don't get a boost that week then the committee is bogus.

If you're pissed about the committee ranking A&M ahead of Washington, then you can't be too happy that almighty Sagarin has Auburn (with 2 losses) #6, or LSU (with 2 losses) at #8. And by the way, why don't you have any problem with Sagarin having Ohio St (with 1 loss) being in, but undefeated Washington STILL being out?

 

[ivan brunetti]

Maybe I'm reading Sagarin's rankings wrong - and again, they're irrelevant as far as the committee is concerned - but it appears they have A&M's SOS at 23rd and Washington's at 69th. Washington just needs to keep winning, and these things have a tendency to take care of themselves, but right now it's far from a travesty that it is ranked fifth.

No, you are reading them right. IMO, these SOS estimates (all SOS numbers are best guesses) are a hell of a lot closer than the others I have seen that don't take into account some of the crappy FCS teams played.

A&M is getting a boost in their scheduling numbers from playing #1 Alabama. A game that they LOST by three scores is giving them the leg up.

While I wouldn't call this a travesty and it is true Washington can still theoretically pull ahead, I think it is a mistake to give any one loss team the benefit of the doubt over the Huskies as of today.

 

[topdecktiger]

No, you are reading them right. IMO, these SOS estimates (all SOS numbers are best guesses) are a hell of a lot closer than the others I have seen that don't take into account some of the crappy FCS teams played.

A&M is getting a boost in their scheduling numbers from playing #1 Alabama. A game that they LOST by three scores is giving them the leg up.

While I wouldn't call this a travesty and it is true Washington can still theoretically pull ahead, I think it is a mistake to give any one loss team the benefit of the doubt over the Huskies as of today.

No, they aren't getting a boost from Alabama. They are getting a boost from the W-L records of the teams they played, vs. the teams that Washington played. If you would look at what the committee actually says, vs. what you think they said, it would become clearer.

 

[ivan brunetti]

If you're pissed about the committee ranking A&M ahead of Washington, then you can't be too happy that almighty Sagarin has Auburn (with 2 losses) #6, or LSU (with 2 losses) at #8. And by the way, why don't you have any problem with Sagarin having Ohio St (with 1 loss) being in, but undefeated Washington STILL being out?

Sagarin isn't using an "eye test" like the committee. He sets up his calculations pre-season and then simply plugs each week's results into his formula. I do think his SOS numbers are more accurate even if I don't agree with each and every individual rank.

 

[ivan brunetti]

No, they aren't getting a boost from Alabama. They are getting a boost from the W-L records of the teams they played, vs. the teams that Washington played. If you would look at what the committee actually says, vs. what you think they said, it would become clearer.

They are getting a boost from Alabama's record even though they lost. No need to get all salty.

 

[jason21psu]

Here's another tidbit of info from phil steele for discussion:

http://philsteele.com/Blogs/2016/Oct16/DBOct31.html

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

No, you are reading them right. IMO, these SOS estimates (all SOS numbers are best guesses) are a hell of a lot closer than the others I have seen that don't take into account some of the crappy FCS teams played.

A&M is getting a boost in their scheduling numbers from playing #1 Alabama. A game that they LOST by three scores is giving them the leg up.

While I wouldn't call this a travesty and it is true Washington can still theoretically pull ahead, I think it is a mistake to give any one loss team the benefit of the doubt over the Huskies as of today.

The committee clearly values quality wins. Look no further than Penn State at 12. A&M's victory over Auburn, and the overall strength of its wins in comparison with Washington's, is why it's ranked fourth right now, not a loss to Alabama (which happened to be a one-possession game late in the fourth quarter, FWIW).

Using the Sagarin rankings, only because they provide a fuller picture with the committee stopping at 25 teams, A&M's five best wins are against Auburn (6), Tennessee (22), UCLA (29), Arkansas (42), South Carolina (74). Washington's are: Stanford (19), Utah (31), Oregon (43), Arizona (75) and Oregon State (80).

 

[ivan brunetti]

The committee clearly values quality wins. Look no further than Penn State at 12. A&M's victory over Auburn, and the overall strength of its wins in comparison with Washington's, is why it's ranked fourth right now, not a loss to Alabama (which happened to be a one-possession game late in the fourth quarter, FWIW).

Using the Sagarin rankings, only because they provide a fuller picture with the committee stopping at 25 teams, A&M's five best wins are against Auburn (6), Tennessee (22), UCLA (29), Arkansas (42), South Carolina (74). Washington's are: Stanford (19), Utah (31), Oregon (43), Arizona (75) and Oregon State (80).

I agree that quality wins (all wins really) should count. But a loss should be a debit against that total. Not much of a debit if you lost by a slim margin to a good team (see Louisville vs Clemson). But some greater amount if you lost to a good team by three scores (see A&M vs Alabama). IMO.

 

[topdecktiger]

Sagarin isn't using an "eye test" like the committee. He sets up his calculations pre-season and then simply plugs each week's results into his formula. I do think his SOS numbers are more accurate even if I don't agree with each and every individual rank.

Well, Sagarin's SOS has A&M way ahead of Washington. It doesn't make sense for you to complain about the committee's SOS, when Sagarin's SOS produces basically the same result. If you are trying to make SOS the culprit for the committee's ranking, then using Sagarin's SOS wouldn't change anything.

They are getting a boost from Alabama's record even though they lost. No need to get all salty.

Kirby Hocutt addressed this specifically. He said A&M has played/beaten more teams with .500 or better records than Washington. That's not Alabama. That's the totality of the schedule. You just invent this narrative in contradiction of the facts.

 

[ivan brunetti]

Well, Sagarin's SOS has A&M way ahead of Washington. It doesn't make sense for you to complain about the committee's SOS, when Sagarin's SOS produces basically the same result. If you are trying to make SOS the culprit for the committee's ranking, then using Sagarin's SOS wouldn't change anything.



Kirby Hocutt addressed this specifically. He said A&M has played/beaten more teams with .500 or better records than Washington. That's not Alabama. That's the totality of the schedule. You just invent this narrative in contradiction of the facts.

"Playing more teams with .500 or better records" on one side, scheduling more P5 opponents on the other.

And how far down does A&M's SOS fall if you only include the teams beaten?

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

I agree that quality wins (all wins really) should count. But a loss should be a debit against that total. Not much of a debit if you lost by a slim margin to a good team (see Louisville vs Clemson). But some greater amount if you lost to a good team by three scores (see A&M vs Alabama). IMO.

The viewpoint that Washington should be ranked No. 4 is just as valid as the one that feels it's OK that Texas A&M is ahead of Washington as of November 1.

I'd just prefer people to come out and say, "Washington's in a power conference and undefeated, so I think they should be ahead of Texas A&M." For me, that's an outdated and simplistic way to think, but at least it's something. Trying to argue "resume" between the two teams is silly because A&M will come out ahead every time.

 

[topdecktiger]

"Playing more teams with .500 or better records" on one side, scheduling more P5 opponents on the other.

And how far down does A&M's SOS fall if you only include the teams beaten?

1) This AGAIN, goes back to a point I've made. The committee only ranks the teams based on games played to this point. So far, A&M and Washington have played the same number of P5 teams. Each school has played 6 P5 teams, 1 G5 team, and 1 FCS team. In fact, I think Sagarin does the same thing.

2) Not that much. Again, Kirby Hocutt made it clear that SOS was based on the records of teams played/beaten over .500, and A&M leads in that category.

I'll again point out. Sagarin still doesn't have Washington in the top 4 either. He has Ohio St in instead. You can't complain about A&M, but then be ok with Ohio St.

 

[ivan brunetti]

1) This AGAIN, goes back to a point I've made. The committee only ranks the teams based on games played to this point. So far, A&M and Washington have played the same number of P5 teams. Each school has played 6 P5 teams, 1 G5 team, and 1 FCS team. In fact, I think Sagarin does the same thing.

2) Not that much. Again, Kirby Hocutt made it clear that SOS was based on the records of teams played/beaten over .500, and A&M leads in that category.

I'll again point out. Sagarin still doesn't have Washington in the top 4 either. He has Ohio St in instead. You can't complain about A&M, but then be ok with Ohio St.

One outrage at a time.