I would just like to point out 3 things:
1) The ACC has the most teams ranked
2) How is LSU #10?
3) Its November and Georgia hasn't played a ranked team in conference, TCU and Tennessee have played 4 ranked teams in conference.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
It is weird how it's worked out for UGA, but that's a moot point after this Saturday. They did absolutely murder The Ducks.
What is annoying is the rankings are already set to have two SEC teams in again. Whoever loses between the hedges this weekend probably has a BETTER chance to make the playoffs, because they won't have to play Alabama (or LSU maybe?) in the SECCG
LSU is ranked so high to give Tennessee a crutch into the playoff. Having a big win over a "highly ranked" LSU team keeps them in the picture in case they lose this weekend to UGA. It also provides breathing room to keep them ranked higher than TCU.
I personally wouldn't rank them at #1 but I think they've done plenty to be 2/3
I'd agree. Not sure how you can be ranked #1 in the first poll while also being 8-point underdogs to the #3 team.
So that when you lose to that #3 team, it's justifiable to slide you to #4 instead of all the way out.
CFP polls before the final selection are nothing more than performative to drive engagement and conversation
It's definitely recency bias, UT walking it off against Saban and the death star is still very fresh in committee members minds while UGA absolutely dicking Oregon down feels like forever ago.
I'm also totally down with the conspiracy theory that ESPN wants 3 SEC teams in the CFP
Aren't they tied at 5 with the SEC? The SEC has 5 in the top 11 though vs our 5 in the top 22 lol
I think it makes sense, although maybe it is a little high. They only lost a close one to FSU and badly to Tennessee. FSU in turn has 3 losses against ranked teams but played them all pretty closely. I think they should have been closer to 13-14 than 10.
True, but Georgia is still undefeated and they also slaughtered Oregon. I think they're taking the "wait and see" approach with TCU for their upcoming games against Texas and Baylor and thinking things will sort themselves out.
I am not arguing with ranking (UGA is a very good team), but how in the "SEC means more" era does UGA have a schedule with no ranked SEC teams. They could easily end the season playing in 1 ranked conference game. It's just seems odd when you put them next to Tennessee playing 5 ranked SEC opponents. A lot has to do with timing of those games too, but it just seems very very wierd. Like Nebraska going 1-8 in conference with a positive points ratio
Okay not disagreeing, Tennessee's resume is way better. But some of those 5 "ranked SEC teams" are not ranked now. Kentucky NEVER should have been
Yeah which adds to the oddity that Tenn played them in an order to get them while ranked and UGA lucked out to play in the opposite order once they were unranked.
Oh okay I see what you're saying
It's taken me 8 years to get to this point, but I'm not going crazy over rankings until after Thanksgiving. Despite the inconsistent logic of the committee, they have (historically) always (1) reranked the teams from scratch each week, and (2) gotten the final four right.
I was with you all the way up to
I just disagree with you here. I know neither of us will convince the other so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I agree with you mostly, but for your second point I'd say that they got 2016 Ohio State completely wrong. They only had one loss but didn't even win their division much less their conference, yet still made it into the playoffs. Ohio State then proceeded to get rekt by Clemson 31-0 in the CFP semifinals. Good times.
yes, precisely
How did deserving 2015 Michigan State fare against Bama the year before that?
The big problem is that there often are not even 3 teams capable of winning a title in most years. I think this year there are 4. The problem in 2016 was that Bama and Clemson were a cut above the rest, same issue the year before. We would have been fine with the BCS.
Last year with the BCS we would have gotten a new title game (Bama-Michigan), instead of a rematch. 2019, we would have gotten the same title game, 2018 we would have gotten the same title game. The only different ones were 2014, 2017, and 2020*
*Which would have been undefeated Ohio State at two if not for them having played fewer games than Clemson, who had a loss.
Though, I will say, I am thankful for the playoff in 2017, because Clemson was very wrongfully ranked number 1. They should have been third imo. Of the three conference champs, they had by far the worst loss (Syracuse, who didn't win a game after they beat Clemson), and UGA avenged their only loss to top 10 Auburn in the SECCG (should have been number 1), and Oklahoma should have been 2nd. Thankfully, the playoff saved us from an undeserved national title appearance by Clemson when Bama smushed their faces in the ground in the semifinal.
They're really good at getting the two best teams in the playoffs and really good at showing how far and away 1/2 is from 3/4
I think this is more indicative of the problem college football has as a sport more than anything.
If the system works in such a way that there are only 2-3 teams that are actually good enough to win in the whole country, the sport will suffer. It already is, but the $$$ is still there so the people that make those decisions can overlook it to a point.
Look no further than the current World Series. The best team this season and the last team to get into the playoffs are having an entertaining as hell series, and nobody could argue that they both don't deserve to be there. It's the same reason nobody gets bent out of shape when a WC team wins the Super Bowl or a lower seed makes a run in March Madness. There is a reason professional leagues strive for parity, and it's not because they don't know what they are doing.
Here are two groups of teams that have basically only played each other, one group in the ACC, one in the SEC.
ACC group: Syracuse, Wake Forest, NC State, Florida State
SEC group: LSU, Ole Miss, Kentucky, Florida, Miss St, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas A&M
Both groups are pretty similar in that their wins and losses of note come from within their group. Also I think we can agree, none of the ACC schools should get a bump for losing to Clemson, and none of the SEC schools should get a bump for losing to Alabama, Georgia or Tennessee.
One key difference here is that all of the listed ACC schools have a decent to good nonconference win Syrcause: Purdue, NC State: Texas Tech, Florida State: LSU and even Wake's Liberty win is looking decent. The SEC schools listed have only two decent noncon wins Florida: Utah (week 1 at home in a different climate than Utah is from) and Arkansas: Cincinnati (which is not even as good as Wake's win over Liberty). The next best is Ole Miss over Troy. Not a lot to work with there.
Furthermore there is a clear #1 in the SEC group and that's LSU. There is a clear bottom in the ACC groups and that's Florida State. The only data point comparing the two groups is Florida State's win over LSU. I know it was close and week 1 BUT FSU was clearly the better team for anyone who watched the game, and LSU needed a late fumble on the goalline to crawl back into it.
That FSU LSU game is doing a lot of work here, I will agree, BUT it's also the reason we play the games and literally the only data comparison. The entire group of ACC teams should be ranked above LSU, there's just nothing on their or LSU's resume that says otherwise.
If you read my explanation above on why LSU should be lower. Here are the no bullshit resume only (dare I say perfect) week 10 rankings:
1. Tennessee
2. Ohio State
3. Clemson
4. Michigan
5. Georgia
6. TCU
7. Alabama
8. Oregon
9. UCLA
10. USC
11. Illinois
12. Penn State
13. Utah
14. Tulane
15. Kansas State
16. Oklahoma State
17. Oregon State
18. Syracuse
19. Wake Forest
20. NC State
21. Florida State
22. LSU
23. UNC
24. Ole Miss
25. Purdue
The Green Wave 14th?? Anything can happen in cfb
I think you've got Penn State too high.
Yes they beat Auburn (who has since fired their coach and stinks). But they've lost to the only two good teams they have played by double digits, as is James Franklin's wont
I definitely see the argument. I gave them Purdue and hanging Minnesota out to dry (who is at least solidly average). Utah definitely has better wins but a much worse loss vs Florida. Tbh this is probably and oversight and Utah should be ranked higher. I wouldn't move anyone else above them though