I hate Florida State...lets just get that out there now. But come on, defending national champs, only undefeated team this year, what are your guy's thoughts on FSU's ranking? My reasoning is sort of the boxer's mentality, they're the champ, and until the champ loses they will remain the champ, so i think FSU should be #1 until they lose.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I think the committee is smoking crack or being paid off. The only undefeated team, they beat OSU on the road to open the season, they beat a top ten in ND, and have won the rest of their games. Ugly at times, but they have won.
Bama has had to come back against bad and good teams but is supported for their perseverance.
It's almost like they're never doing the right things. Last year some people said they were blowing people out too much, and now some are saying that their games are way too close.....just looking for excuses to make FSU look inferior to other schools like Alabama
I couldn't agree more. This committee system already seems hosed up. At least with the computers if you were the only undefeated p5 team you would be ranked number 1. I don't understand how FSU can be penalized like that.
OT: Excellent user name and signature. Leg for you.
I think there are a few factors at play here. One is the perceived SEC >>> ACC bias. I guess going 4-0 over them last weekend wasn't enough to show that the SEC isn't all that. Another factor is that I believe the committee is trying to punish FSU for Jameis's off field capers. However, that shouldn't be a factor at all.
If Alabama is so great that they deserve the #1 spot, why weren't they downgraded for having to come from behind (ala FSU) to beat Auburn? Also, why aren't they being held accountable for their defense (or lack thereof)?
Total BS if you ask me!
I heard the Alabama/Auburn game described as a blow out win for Alabama by someone on ESPN. They won by 11, in a shootout game with practically no defense. So, winning by 11 is a blowout when they were playing from behind most of the game? What the hell is that?
It's gotta be for seeding purposes. In which case FSU should be 1 and Bama 4.
If you think about it, in your scenario either way they play each other on a neutral site. I really think that the seeding should be FSU 1, Bama 2, Oregon 3 and TCU/Baylor 4 (depending on if Baylor beats KSU this weekend).
Seeding dictates where they play, which means Bama at #1 and FSU at #4 isn't any different than FSU at #1 and Bama at #4 (location of the game would be Sugar bowl regardless). Where FSU is really going to get hosed is if they end up at #3 against Oregon or they stay at #4 and Oregon jumps to #1. Then they have to travel all the way out west to play in the semifinal against what will be a largely pro-Oregon crowd.
Of course, for FSU to move up in the rankings they have to absolutely destroy GT and that is going to be hard to do.
Of course it blows my mind that TCU is ranked above Baylor. Dammit Baylor beat them head to head when it mattered.
The TCU thing doesn't really bother me much since TCU has the better loss and KSU will have a chance to prove something by how they play against a Top 10 KSU.
However, thank fucking god Mississippi State lost this weekend or you know FSU would be out of the top 4.
I feel like when your "better loss" is to the other team that you are arguing for, then the head to head trumps the quality of loss. Head to head should always be the most important tie-breaker, in my opinion.
TCU had a better OOC schedule and has won a little more convincingly in games. Now, if Baylor can stomp KSU this weekend they have a really good argument to leapfrog. Plus when you put in the conditions of the win against TCU and you start to split hairs that TCU happened to benefit from because the second biggest challenge of their season is coming up.
This is why they need to have a set criteria of how they choose who is in the playoffs. When considering two teams from the same conference have the same record there should be a list of tiebreakers, like they have for who gets in the conference championship games or for the NFL playoffs. Now, I guess you could argue out of conference schedule as the first tiebreaker, but for me, the idea of having playoffs over a selected National Championship Game is "settle it on the field." Head to head is the whole reason for having the playoffs.
It came out today that the Big12 has essentially changed how they will label their conference champion. If both teams end up with one loss than both will be recognized as Co-Champions so that neither will suffer in their committee review for not being a conference champion. Pretty ridiculous that a conference doesnt have to declare their method of determining champion before the season.
And the only reason they're doing that is because the committee has said they will put an emphasis on winning a conference and there's a decent chance TCU wouldn't have been crowned champions this weekend. It's a purposeful gaming of the system and it's absurd.
The Big12 already owns onetruechampion.org. I wonder if twotruechampions.org is still available.
This, by itself, should eliminate both teams from consideration. You get to hold only one team up to the selection committee for consideration.
If you have two champions, you have no champions. Get your sh!t together, Big 12.
With the Power 5 autonomy, they the Big12, could in theory, petition to hold a championship game this year. Technically they don't have have enough teams to qualify under NCAA guidelines with only 10 teams. But with the new "rules" they could hold one to actually crown a champion.
Won't happen, but it is a possibility. With the Big12 already having a team in the top 4, there's no reason to do so. But if they were 5 & 6, and the committee was wavering, wouldn't it be awesome to watch them scramble to have a game in 10 days to see if they could get a team into the top 4?
Don't you think it is silly to say a "better lose" when it was TO THE OTHER TEAM IN QUESTION?!?
Your logic is inscrutable.
sincerely,
ESPN/SEC
I can't say that I agree. If we could truly identify the #1 and #2 teams in the country, would #1 always beat #2? On any given Saturday.... esp when teams are close to even. I won't argue against head to head as the deciding point, but if one team lost to a middle of the road team and the other lost to the opponent in question, via a desperate comeback, I have no problem saying that the team that lost head to head is really the better team, based on the full "body of work" for the season. I also have no prob penalizing Baylor for the weak assed OOC schedule (they schedule 4 cupcakes, years ago and those teams are still cupcakes, today).
The point of competition is to declare a winner. The winner between TCU and Baylor was Baylor. I'm fine with saying head to head isn't always the deciding factor, but in this case between two teams in the same conference, it must mean the difference.
On a different topic, FSU has a little different argument. Yes they are undefeated, but so was Marshall not so long ago. There has to be some assumptions based on competition. However, putting FSU at 4 is a slap in the face of the whole ACC.
I don't think enough emphasis has been placed on seeding yet because its all new and shiny, and teams haven't been burned yet. But I expect seeding to become a hot topic next week.
There is zero comparison between F$U & Marshall. Marshall played a weak schedule, F$U has played in a Power 5 conference and goen undefeated. They've also played two OOC games against nationally recognized teams & won.
Yup, this. Important to note that FSU's OOC schedule was this:
Citadel
Oklahoma State
Florida
Notre Dame
Note: Notre Dame is obligated to play 5 ACC teams per year, but those games are not counted towards the conference schedule. FSU played 6 Atlantic division opponents, Miami, LOLUVA, and will play #11 GT in the ACCCG.
No one in the pecking order right now played an OOC schedule as hard as FSU, or at least no one tried to schedule anything remotely like the gauntlet of OkSt, ND, and UF. The fact that none of them are great this year happens to hurt FSU, but I think that's nonsense.
That was my point as well. I have heard people say that undefeated should unquestionably mean #1. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I do think this FSU team should be 1 or 2.
I will say this though: the system is still broken if Marshall could have ran the table and still not make the playoff. Which is basically me saying I want an 8 team playoff, because they definitely shouldn't have been top 4.
Good point. If that's going to be the criteria, then the conference should declare the conference champ. Clearly, the B12 is attempting to game the system, by declaring both as conference champ. If the conf won't do it, then the selection committee shouldn't have to. In fact, if the conference won't declare a winner, then neither team should get credit for being "conference champ".
Yup. With all the bs polls, not nearly enough attention is paid to conference champs. Each conference plays such a different brand of ball, there should be a system where at least every p5 champion gets into the playoff. Big 12 is taking the cowardly way this year, have nuts and declare a winner....Baylor, unless they lose this week.
Head to head game was at Baylor though. Even Vegas typically gives the home team an extra 3 points in terms of predicting the spread. Baylor is notorious lately for playing well at home, but struggling anywhere away from home. Put them on a neutral field and it's just as much of a tossup as the first game was.
So should we just start basing win and loss on whether you beat the spread or not?
Clearly missed the point. Home field advantage is something that exists in college football, and in the game in which Baylor beat TCU by 2 points, that home field could have been the difference. Hard to think that Baylor would have come back from 21 down without a home crowd behind them.
People go to games and scream their heads off to provide that home field advantage. If we ignore the result because of it, what's the point. Saying a team is better than another team because they lost by less than the home field point differential is irresponsible and defeats the point of playing sports to begin with.....that point being to win or lose regardless of venue.
Yup. Home field advantage is such a big deal. Not exactly on your topic, but I'd like to see Whit bring back the freshman orientation for VT sports.
Don't think I had that...what did it cover?
We discussed that on another thread back when Whit was hired in more detail, but there was a football primer at freshman orientation (I was a freshman in 2000). In one of the big halls in Squires, some students showed the freshmen how to cheer correctly for football, including the fight song, the cheers, and, yes, what a key play is and how to do it.
I too was 2000 freshman. I remember learning tech triumph but not the more detailed things. I think its a great idea. The hokie fans are some of the smartest stadium fans I have seen, and we need to keep that reputation going.
I guess wins against SEC teams are only good if you're also in the SEC.
Remember, Florida doesn't count according to ESPN since they aren't in the SEC West.
Remember when they said an undefeated ACC team would never be left out? Yeah about that...
The deck is completely stacked against Virginia Tech right now. If FSU is getting this kind of disrespect, the rest of this conference doesn't stand a chance.
This is a great point and this ranking comes after the ACC's best weekend against the SEC in a long long time. What more can the ACC do to prove that it can compete with the SEC.
Maybe if they win all their games against the SEC.....oh wait......
georgia did beat clemson easily
...and then lost Georgia Tech...
Its funny, the ACC gets punished early for UGa beating up on Clemson, but when Georgia Tech returns the favor at the end of the year, it doesn't matter because "well, they're just the SEC East".
Punished for your losses, and your wins are excused away as inconsequential. Thats the ACC treatment by ESPN.
I'm just saying I think some people here think the ACC swept this year. Do people here really think the sec and the acc are comparable conferences?
Honestly, it's like comparing apples and pears. Similar, only not...
This is what can truly be compared, across a broad spectrum.
Nonconf vs. P5
Pac-12 8-3
ACC 10-7
SEC 5-6
Big 12 4-6
Big Ten 6-11
That's a good start but I think there needs to be a little further of a breakdown. I mean does the ACC #4 beating the SEC # 12 at home prove anything? I'd be interested to see how teams fared relative to each conferences standings but that becomes hard to prove anything with such small sample sizes
Exactly. Pears-Apples.
As has been said in here, is the #4 team in week 4 really the #4 team? (Fwiw, it was Oklahoma!!!)
Does the #4 team in the ACC beating the #12 team in the SEC NOT mean anything? If they had lost, it would have been a huge #SECBias fest on ESPN and in the media. They won a game, they were supposed to win, on a day that 3 others did the same thing. Congrats! They took care of business. And the media noticed.
Teams can only play the games that are on the schedule. They can't control where the other team is in the standings. A win is a win. Without qualifiers. With that, the SEC was 5-6 out of conference. Doesn't matter if it was all top dwellers or bottom feeders. And the ACC was 10-7.
(First off, the SEC should stop with the traditional weak off in November. Schedule some OOC games, instead of only 11 games among 14 teams!!!!! THAT's truly pathetic. And then to have a losing record at that!!!)
As far as ranking at the time vs current ranking goes, I'm amazed to see how many people are defending ranking at the time. That's the kind of thinking that enables preseason bias (A&M, SCAR, ND), instead of looking at a team with a large enough sample size to truly judge them
When we beat Clemson in 2006, should we remember that as a win over the #11 team in the country, or should it have been viewed upon as a win over an unranked who gives a crap team after they fell out of the rankings with a loss the week after that game?
How about that 2009 Miami game? Should we remember it as a win over the #9 team they came in as, or as the barely hanging on to a ranking team they devolved into by the end of the year?
Or how about that 2004 WVU team that came into Lane as the #7 team in the country before losing to us? Was that a big win for us, or was that another who gives a crap moment because they devolved to unranked by the end of the year?
Consequently, I don't see many people going over how the 2005 win over WVU was one of the most impressive in school history. They were unranked when we spanked them, but finished the year #5. Does that mean we get to count that as a Top 5 win, even though they were unranked when we played and we were #3?
Winning over ranked teams is nice for memories but that's it.
In the course of evaluating resumes for end of season results, how is it beneficial to give credit for teams that were clearly over rated due to lack of games to evaluate them. Do you really think South Carolina was the 9th best team in the country when A&M beat them? Do you think that Miss St. has beat 3 genuine top 10 teams? Should ECU boast about their win over us?
Do we count as a top 25 loss this year for ECU? Not in my opinion. And if you think it is, does that mean we are a top 25 loss for every other team that beat us too?
When ECU beat us, they beat a ranked team and should get the credit for it. We were a hot team at that point, coming off a win against OSU at OSU and gave ECU a fight at the end.
As for the rest of the losses? Nope, we weren't ranked.
Would you care to address ranked situations like SCAR A&M?
But teams shouldn't be rewarded for beating a 'hot' team, they should be rewarded on their body of work. What if teams weren't ranked until right before bowl season started? That's how the rankings should be treated IMO.
I agree, rankings shouldn't be applied until about halfway through the season. But you can't do that! What are all of the sports guys going to talk about for hours on end? Not as much fun or draw early in the season without rankings.
Or.... and here's a super crazy thought....
Eliminate the polls. Bam, get rid of 'em. No more beauty contest. You want to play for the football title? Win your conference.
Yes, this would require there being only 4 football conferences, with each one having 2 divisions. Don't care. Do what I said below - set it up like the NHL. You play everyone in your division with a couple crossover games in your conference. The 2 teams with the best record at the end of the year in each division play each other at the home of the top regular season finisher. Winners advance to the conference championship at a neutral site. Winners of those games move on to the Final 4, at neutral sites, with matchups being predetermined in a rotation. National Championship game matches up the winners in the F4.
That completely eliminates any and all human element to the sport. It eliminates preferential treatment, and the sport evolves into being about purely deciding it on the field. But of course, this kind of process makes too much sense, so it'll never happen.
I would personally like this, and I think this will happen if we go to 16 team conferences. However, I don't think that will happen. I feel like it's a potential lawsuit if teams outside of these 64 schools are blocked from the playoff.
Personally, I prefer a 12 team tournament. All 10 conference champions get in and there are 2 at-large. That should guarantee that every conference is represented and at least the top 2 teams are in. After that, the teams are seeded. Top 4 teams get a bye, bottom 8 have a play-in game. 5v12, 6v11, 7v10, 8v9. After that, 8 team tournament for the champion.
Although things are moving towards a separation between the Power 5 and Group of 5, even if the powers that be don't want to publicly admit that yet. We could end up with three different levels of Division I, which we sort of have already.
You're being ridiculous. That process makes no sense. Wanna know why that works for the NHL? They have 30 teams, they play 82 games. College football has neither of those. All conferences and schedules are not created equal in college fooball and there is not enough games to make things perfect
I just want to point out that one of those SEC OOC losses was courtesy of Mizzou losing to Indiana.
Yes, a team in the SEC title game against the Duke of the Big Ten. (Of course, referring to Duke pre-2012.)
I'm sorry, but the constant acting like a victim has grown tiresome. To get respect, you must earn it. History is not in our favor in terms of earning it. Early in the season, yes, Clemson fell flat against a really good UGA. At the end of the season, GT beat UGA. Nobody is undercutting GT's win. The statement that is being undercut is that the ACC went 4-0 against the SEC. Yes, but they went 4-0 against the SEC East, arguably one of the worst power 5 divisions. All credit that is due was given to GT, but congrats on beating 5-7 Kentucky, 6-5 Florida, and 6-6 South Carolina. Real world beaters right there.
No one compalained when AM beat SC, when BAMA had to come back to beat UF, when LSU beat UK. it showed how dominate the West was and how SEC teams play tough week in and week out games. Denying the fact that they play weak OOC and don't really play too many back to back tough interSEC opponents. Despite the hype, Ark, Auburn, LSU and AM are average to below average teams.
You mean like going 4-0 in one weekend against God's gift to football? Or having the defending national champion who happens to be the lone undefeated team in football who happens to have a few highly ranked wins on the year? And its not like they have been running ruckshot through the conference, as they've been getting pushed to the limit constantly by teams that are showing they might actually be better than advertised?
I'm sorry, if the SEC had the kind of season we had this year, Clemson and Louisville are both Top 10/15 teams right now, GT is Top 10, the Atlantic is viewed upon as one of the toughest divisions in football, and the Coastal is viewed as a division that just beats each other up.
There isn't much more that the ACC could have done to earn it this year. Ohio State's last 2 losses? Both to the ACC. We went 2-0 in the BCS last year, and we continued winning those tough OOC games this year. And yet we're still getting the shaft. People are focusing on the lone losses rather than the glut of wins. We ARE the victim right now. We've done more than enough to deserve respect as a conference, and we're getting shat on. Any other conference would be lauded with the resume the ACC has been building, and yet people are looking for excuses to talk us down. Its tiresome, and its obvious.
So did GT. Seems that negates any counter argument, using UGA's win over Clemson.
Considering how most of FSU's wins have been by the skin of their teeth, I say that's fair.
A win is a win is a win
How many teams don't have a loss right now? Right, only FSU. They've played highly ranked teams, right? Then I don't give a damn how they are winning the games, they haven't been beaten. That SHOULD count for something, and you bet your sweet ass if ANY SEC team had that exact resume they're unanimous #1 in all polls right now.
They've played SOME highly ranked teams, I'll give them that, but there were some games against mediocre teams that they deserved to lose.
I just don't get this:
The thing is, they didn't lose. By this logic, I could say that we deserved to win all of our games except for da U, and we should be ranked in the top 5-10 right now.
I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying that I feel like there's a better team for the no. 4 spot.
If Alabama is winning by the skin of their teeth, they are being praised for their ability to find ways to win games. I would agree, FSU looks sloppy sometimes and might lose Alabama and Oregon and TCU, but guess what, you don't know what would happen. That's why they play the games. And out of the games FSU has played, they won every single one of them. And they've done that for 28 straight games.
I totally disagree with this. You are saying a 1-loss team is better than an undefeated team because the undefeated team didn't blow everybody out???
See: Alabama's 1 point win over 6-5 Arkansas
See: Alabama's loss to 3 loss Ole Miss (who Arkansas shut out 30-0)
See: Alabama's 4th quarter comeback win against 4 loss Auburn
See: Alabama's OT win over 3 loss LSU
but but at the time those SEC teams were ranked so since its the SEC they count. But FSU's win vs ND is erased because ND has lost since then./sarcastica
SECBIAS is alive and well and will continue to be alive as long as they have 10 teams on the top 15.
IMO there should be no rankings other than top 4, because at the end of the day that's what matters.
Much ado about nothing. Manufactured drama. If FSU beats GT by one point at the last second, there is zero chance they fail to make the playoffs. Excluding them would cause the playoffs to implode after one year.
Being seeded as the #4 team if you're the only unbeaten and haven't been beaten in over 2 years is absurd. Potentially pitting them against bama in game #1 as the visiting team is a slap in the face to every ACC program and we all should be rightfully furious over this. Any hope we have as VT fans of being treated fairly when it's our turn in the playoffs is looking pretty grim right now.
Its more than manufactured drama because the rankings inside the top 4 matter for the playoff games. Its not fair for FSU to have a harder road than a one loss team to the title game. In the NCAA men's bball tourney it would be nuts for all the number one seeds to play the number 2 seeds in the first round. I understand the football playoff is a little different because there are only 4 teams but it still applies.
No, right now it is precisely manufactured drama, and it's accomplishing exactly what the selection committee wants it to accomplish: driving conversation and creating a compelling storyline. The penultimate week of rankings has successfully built the drama of the new playoff system to a crescendo while actually having zero effect on the seeding we'll actually get after championship Saturday. My guess is should FSU handle GT, the Noles will miraculously jump one or two spots, sparing them Bama in round one.
I understand what you are saying but I don't like how this committee has the power to create drama like that. If this is true then the committee is more of a media thing than a sound way to rank college football teams.
Oh, I don't like it either. It feels like a soap opera. But it's the way they're handling the PR for the inaugural playoffs. And it will continue as long as there are so few spots on the bracket. The fact that one of the P5 conferences is mathematically guaranteed to be excluded from the playoffs, coupled with the completely human selection process, makes for a lot of melodrama. When they expand to a field of 8 (where I think we'll wind up and where I believe we should stay) then it'll get a little better.
8 team playoff can't get here fast enough. I hate to see it come because the SEC doesn't get a team in the playoff this year though.
Shit if the sec wants to disown the SEC east the ACC will take Florida, Georgia, SC and kick out Wake Forest, Syracuse (for football) and Maryland (OH WAIT THEY... lol jk I knew they were gone just a joke) but seriously the third option would have to be NC State I guess, what do yall think?? Im sure the ACC would still be #4 in conference power rankings even then too.. disappointed by the medias direct misconception of a conference as a whole.
You've gotta take the human element out of it. They are too bias and subjective. Plus they're making up the rules as they go.
Kills me to say this, but computers are the only fair unbiased way to go.
A Power 5 team who has won all of their games should be ranked higher. There is absolutely no argument against that. If it was a Marshall, then I could validate it. I don't care if it is Maryland, Iowa, Alabama, Minnesota, or even a LOLUVA. If a power 5 team is undefeated, they are ranked higher. It's that simple. They played their schedule and won every single game on it. No one else did that.
Voter logic on close games:
Non-SEC team- It shouldn't have been close, they should be winning games by large margins
SEC Team- This team really knows how to pull out the close games and showed perseverance.
Your logic is undeniable!
i think they are actually doing FSU a favor. if Alabama is #1 (i think they have a fair argument to be #1 over FSU if they beat Mizzou), Alabama would get the Sugar Bowl Spot putting FSU in Pasadena vs Oregon if those 2 are 2/3 (in any order). If I'm FSU, i prefer playing bama in New Orleans. just a thought, but maybe the committee is thinking about that, and are trying not to screw FSU while still giving their #1 team the bowl preference. to win the title, you have to win 2 games anyway, so would FSU prefer Bama then Oregon in New Orleans and then Arlington, or Oregon then Bama in Pasaena then Arlington? i think the former...
That's pretty much what I was hinting at...except they can have the same results with #1 FSU vs. #4 Alabama.
but what if the committee truly believes bama is #1? they aren't supposed to pick the 4 most deserving teams, they are supposed to pick the 4 best teams (not their choice, that is what they were tasked with in their defined mission from the presidents who set this all up). Then i think you put bama #1 and then shuffle the next 3 to account for what i was discussing.
Then the committee is wrong.
that's awfully subjective. for all we know, they could sit in that room, and put the top 10 teams up against each other on neutral sites, decide who beats who, and the records of that discussion determine the rankings. eyeball/gut is a huge part of subjectivity. them saying bama would beat FSU on a neutral site is not more right or wrong than you saying FSU would beat bama on a neutral site. and what better way to solve the debate than to let bama and FSU play each other on a neutral site!?
If FSU wins they will have a chance to play for the national championship. That's the important thing. I'm not much for arguing over seeding. This is a huge improvement over the BCS so that's what I'm going to focus on. Without the new system we would be in a huge mess. The national champion will have to beat two good teams, so if Jimbo is smart that is the mindset he will be instilling in his players (if they beat GT), not some perceived slight based on ranking.
As an aside though it would be really nice to get to a more objective, and likely expanded playoff system. I don't know how that would be possible (or more profitable for ESPN since they wouldn't be able to debate it ad nauseum) but having a system more like every professional sport would be nice.
A friend of mine is at Baylor right now and he is salty.
I wasn't a huge fan of using a subjective committee before and now I'm thoroughly convinced it's dumb. Expand the playoffs to 8 teams and either bring back the computers or take the Power 5 conference champs +3 at large bids.
computers!? please, god, no! have you seen the computers? Sagarin has FSU #17, 3 SEC teams in the top 4. Massey has FSU 5th. it's possible the committee IS referencing the computers.
8 teams will be an even bigger mess. The whole concept of trying to equate schedules and results in a league of essentially 65 teams is inherently flawed regardless of the number of teams.
The way I see it the only problem would be the three at large teams (in a 8 game playoff). The P5 conference champions would all get in (no controversy there) and let the selection committee worry about the other three.
Edited to clarify P5 conference champions.
Meanwhile, conference champions wouldn't have to worry about not making it.
Plus, the conference championship games would be a de facto round 1 of playoffs.
The other three should be fairly easy to select. One team from the highest ranking Other 5 conferences, and two teams selected from at large. No conference can have more than 2 entries to the playoff. Notre Dame is not eligible for a spot until they join a damn conference.
that's great until a 4 loss unranked team wins their division and pulls an upset in their CCG. there is no "perfect" post season format when you have 120 teams playing 12-13 games each. the only thing for certain was that the old bowl system (pre-alliance/BCS) was the worst of the formats we've seen. at the end of the day, we want one game to decide the champion, how we get there is something we can (and will) always debate.
Well, thems the breaks. Just like when 7-9 Seattle made the playoffs.
Or when *insert NFC South team here* makes the playoffs this year.
Seems a Cinderella story like that works just fine in March Madness. If a 8-4 team upset a 12-0 team in a conference championship game, what's to say that now 12-1 team won't be one of the at-large bids?
You win your conference, you deserve a shot at the title.
Don't care if its a 4 loss unranked team that wins the conference. We allow all conference champions at every level of every other sport to contend for the title, we should do the same in college football. The eye test is meaningless if you don't win the games when they matter most.
The Conference title games should be the de facto round 1 of the playoffs. In fact, I'll go further. Copy the NHL model for the football playoff. 4 super conferences form a 16 team playoff. The first 2 rounds are to determine the Conference Champions - the top finisher in each division plays host to the 2nd place finisher in its own division for the right to play in the conference title game. The title game is at a neutral site, like we have now. Winners of the conferences go into the overall Final 4, all at neutral sites, and have a standard rotating pattern on who faces who in the first of those rounds.
Thats a 4 week playoff, that could be started and ended in December. If you want to have lesser tournaments for those who aren't in the big one, have at it.
And yes, this means we blow up the Big 12 and redistribute those teams among the 4 remaining conferences.
THAT just makes EVERY game matter. Especially the ones after the regular season!
Then that 4 loss team takes the 8th seed and plays #1 to start the playoff.
That's part of the reason I personally tend to lean towards a "5 highest ranked conference champions" +3 at large bids model. If a non P5 team happens to steal an autobid from a P5 team, the P5 conference can still get an at large team in if they have a deserving team. You could possibly go with "6 highest ranked conference champions" to guarantee that a non P5 team would get in each year, though in that case I would prefer having the "6th conference champion rule" only come into effect if there are 6 or more conference champions in the top 10/top 15/whatever arbitrary number you want to set, to allow for more at large bids in years when there aren't really any standout non P5 teams. As far as which rankings to use, I would go with some combination of human and computer polls similar to the old BCS rankings. I would give At Large Bids to the highest ranked teams, with each conference only allowed 2 total playoff slots (1 champion and 1 at large or 2 at large).
Assuming no championship game chaos, this year results in a relatively simple #s 1-8 getting into the playoffs:
1. Alabama (Presumptive SEC Champ, highest ranked champ)
2. Florida State (Presumptive ACC Champ, AP & Coaches 2nd/CFPR 3rd highest ranked champ)
3. Oregon (Presumptive Pac 12 Champ, AP & Coaches 3rd/CFPR 2nd highest ranked champ)
4. Baylor (Big 12 Champ, 4th highest ranked champ)
5. Ohio State (Presumptive Big 10 champ, 5th highest ranked champ)
6. TCU (At Large, Highest ranked non champ AP & Coaches #4/ CFPR #3)
7. Michigan State (At Large, 2nd highest ranked non champ AP & Coaches #7/CFPR #8)
8. Arizona (At Large, 3rd highest ranked non champ AP & Coaches #8/CFPR #7)
Notable Teams Left out:
Every other team has at least 2 losses, so no real complaints
In a more chaotic year like 2007, the results get a little more interesting but again the selection process is straight forward and the teams in the playoff are filled within the top 9 (final BCS) ranked teams:
1. OSU (Big 10 Champ, highest ranked Champ, BCS #1)
2. LSU (SEC Champ, 2nd highest ranked champ, BCS #2)
3. Virginia Tech (ACC Champ, 3rd highest ranked champ, BCS #3)
4. Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ, 4th highest ranked champ, BCS #4)
5. USC (PAC 10 Champ, 5th highest ranked Champ, BCS #7)
6. West Virginia (Big East Co-Champ, 6th highest rated champ, BCS #9 triggers 6th champ rule)
7. Georgia (BCS #5, SEC at Large)
8. Missouri (BCS #6, Big 12 at Large)
Notable Teams Left Out:
#8 Kansas (one of only two 1 loss teams, ineligible for at large because Missouri took Big 12's second slot, only loss was to Missouri who lost to Oklahoma in both the regular season and championship game)
#10 Hawaii (Unbeaten in regular season, WAC Champ, West Virginia keeps them out by locking up 6th championship slot in year with 7 champions in Top 10)
*note: numbering only indicates order in which teams would gain playoff slot, does not necessarily indicate seeding
I Like the 8 team model, always have. I don't even mind the unranked conference winners getting in, just let it be reflected in seeding.
I would want to see a top 12 "Group of 5" conf champ get a spot, even if it meant the #3 team in the country lost out (since they wouldn't be a conf champ and 2 other higher ranked non-conf champs got in ahead of them).
What would FSU be ranked by the BCS?
I'd day easily #1. They would be #1 in both polls and 1 or 2 in the computers. Losses counted for a lot in that system.
They're #2 in the Coach's Poll and would be in the Harris. That's 2/3rds of the score that Bammer has locked at #1. If the computers had them #1 they'd still be #2.
#2 according to this guys calcs...
http://www.colleyrankings.com/curBcsLike.html
#2 with current numbers. But I heard brad Edwards say today that he didn't think the AP would have lowered them without the committee doing it first. So he thought they would be #1 in the BCS system.
I have brought the solution:
8 Team Playoff
5 teams- Power 5 Conference Winners
1 team- At Large Conference Winner (Boise States of the world, Marshall if they went undefeated this year)
2 teams- At Large Bid
Do you really think that will make people any happier?
It'll make fans of teams in power 5 conferences happier which we are, so ya. Nowadays, subjectivity is in the eye of the winner.
FSU would be #1 or #2 in the BCS...I do agree they need to eliminate the committee or at least eliminate the people on the committee who are associated with Universities or Conferences who could potentially play in the playoff...
Having FSU as the #4 seed is batshit crazy...but this is why we have conference championship games...I'd like to see what happens if Bama were to lose and all the other teams won...we would have no SEC Teams in the Top 4.
I really think if Bama were to lose that either Bama or Mizzou would wind up as the #4 seed. The committee has shown obvious bias so far and will make sure at least one SEC team goes.
No chance they would go from #16 to #4...with all those teams in between playing conference championships and such...I would even go as far to say that if they were to beat Bama, Bama would still be ranked higher.
If Bama loses a close, hard fought #SEC game, I could see Bama only falling to #4.
If Mizzou pulls a stunner and wins by 2 TD+ (hey, remember last years Sugar Bowl?), I wouldn't be shocked to hear some chatter from the talking heads about how the SEC Champ has to be at the final 4 table - no matter how ridiculous that jump would be.
The committee is trying to teach F$U a lesson or send them a message.
But that's not their job. They are ONLY supposed to select the best 4 teams and rank them 1-4.
Leave the parenting for someone else.
I hate FSU as well, but I think the playoff is an absolute joke. If Alabama is number 1 and loses this weekend, do they drop out of the top four with 2 losses? They had better or no one will trust this system going forward!
if bama loses, then yes, they will drop out unless almost everyone else in the top 6 loses, too.
I'm pretty 50/50 on the whole FSU thing and can understand both sides of the argument, but TCU jumping the Noles, Baylor, and OSU makes no sense to me at all. Unless OSU and FSU both lose, I would argue that the Big 12 not having a title game should punish their teams more than anyone else. FSU is undefeated and assuming OSU are B1G champs, those two belong ahead of both Big 12 teams. If the Big 12 continues to refuse to have a championship, their "winner" should be undefeated for them to have a chance at the final 4 spots. Otherwise, get out. Seriously, this would eliminate so much unnecessary debate. I'm no Buckeye fan and am kinda sick of their butthurt fans, but if they win the B1G there is no question in my mind they belong ahead of TCU. Once the Big 12 gets a title game, then we can debate who's better than who. But a one-loss conference winner (OSU) belongs in the playoff, no questions asked.
With all that being said, I strongly believe FSU and OSU are BOTH taking Ls this weekend.
If they could have a championship game they would.
The Big 12 doesn't have a championship game because the NCAA wont let them again since the SEC and B1G raided them a few years ago. They appealed a few times to get around the 12 team requirement, but never won.
They also can't just add an 11th team because it would completely screw up scheduling with a 10 conference game slate and there aren't too many appealing teams that can be picked up due to the new media rights contracts and how Boise joined the Big East in football like idiots.
The Big 12 only plays 9 conference games (since you can't play yourself). Expanding back to 12 teams will not screw up the scheduling...as seen by the Pac-12, who also plays 9 conference games.
The Big 12 could get back to 12 teams if they wanted to. It won't be pretty, because there probably aren't two Power 5 ready teams out there, but it's not like the other conferences don't already have bottom feeders.
And I'm not following you on the Boise joining the Big East bit. Yeah, they were committed for a while, and that was a stupid move on the parts of both parties, but then they whiffed and went back to the Mountain West.
What does a 12 team conference have anything to do with an 11 team conference? They can't have 11 teams because they couldn't have divisions and they'd need to play 10 conference games and thus only two OOC games, therefore screwing up scheduling. They need two viable teams to expand to 12 and get a championship game, which has not been possible since expansion occurred.
The Boise thing was because they jumped to the failing Big East during realignment while the Big 12 thought they were getting 12 teams, but had some jump ship. This took them off the board as a possible grab since they were hot at the time and the Big 12 could grab a mediocre mid major to fill in since they weren't going to get a power conference team.
They would also lose some contract bargaining power if they grabbed two mid major teams to fill in to get their championship game and risk having teams make less from the TV contract per team than they do now since the times they would get have little to no marketability.
When you were talking about a Big 12 expansion, I assumed you were referring about them going all the way to 12. 11 is a stupid number for a conference to be at in this day and age, and if the Big 12 is going to expand to 11, they're going to get to 12.
I understand the history of Boise's attempts to reach a BCS conference, but I don't think that has any real bearing right now.
But even adding two mid-majors to the Big 12 (which is the only option, because why is any Power 5 team going to move to the Big 12?), while it might slightly decrease the money per school slightly, they would increase their total revenue by having that championship game, and potentially more bowl teams. Plus, it would likely increase their chances of making the CFP.
Why does the Big12 need a championship game when every team already plays every other team in that conference due to their round robin schedule? They have already "settled it on the field" during the regular season. The Pac12 used to do the same when it was the Pac10. Conference championship games are a combination of money grabs + settling it on the field, since with larger conferences there are good chances that the two division winners may have not played one another during the regular season.
How is it a money grab? The games certainly mean something more than just more profit for the conference. All 4 conference championships this week will determine the fate of the 4 currently in the playoff. If they lose, they're toast and if they win, it shows they deserve the spot they are in. We don't really know that about the Big 12, other than the fact that they have two good teams. Since the conference championships are played on a neutral field, it helps show who the better team is. Thus, if TCU played Baylor again in their conference championship, the winner deserves a shot. But they don't and TCU already lost to Baylor, so them jumping OSU (assuming they win the B1G) and Baylor makes no sense whatsoever. I guess you could argue that losing to Baylor is a better loss than Baylor losing to WVU, but since both teams only have one loss and no definite champion, it makes no sense to include one without the other. Or establish that TCU is the better team.
what exactly did that round robin schedule decide? they are submitting 2 conference champions to the playoff committee Saturday night assuming Baylor and TCU both win...
Levels the field with the other conferences, giving them a 13th game.
But not all conferences are level. See every other conference that has divisions and don't have to play everyone in conference, like the Big12.
if it was last years system it would be FSU vs Bama because you know the BCS had to have an SEC team in the title every year remember?
It's seems pretty clear that the committee wants to pave the way for Alabammer to get to the championship game to be as smooth as possible. F$U has won ugly this season, and often. But they are undefeated, and their schedule is not filled with cupcakes any more than any other team. They deserve far better than they're being shown. I hate that circumstances are making me pull for them, because I do truly hate F$U. But I hate the SEC bias more.
wait, if the committee is giving bama the easiest path, and FSU is better than they are ranked, how is playing FSU in round 1 the easiest path?
Because F$U will move to #3 after beating GaTech. That will be their 'reward' for winning the ACC. Alabammer will get TCU, and Oregon & F$U will play. If Oregon loses to Arizona, then Ohio State with their backup QB will be #4, and TCU & F$U will each slide up one spot.
There's still a chance that it all works out like the bowls would hope for.
Pac12 champ vs Big 10 champ in Pasedena to give them the Rose Bowl they have always, and will continue to, want.
SEC champ will fill the Sugar Bowl against anyone, so either FSU or Big 12 champ.
I'd rather see four of the five best teams in approximately equivalent matchups while minimizing the travel distance for the fans.
people, the rankings aren't important outside of determining who and where the games are played. the committee is doing something a poll or computer can't do. it's ensuring they give the best teams the best scenarios for themselves. if FSU is #2 (which they would be in the BCS), they would have to go to Pasadena to host Oregon. how is that better than playing bama in New Orleans where FSU fans can make it a truly neutral site? getting the top 4 right is important, and giving #1 first preference of location is important, but beyond that, i'm fine with the committee shuffling the order around to give us better/more fair matchups. i really don't think FSU is upset that they will get to go to New Orleans instead of Pasadena.
Buggzy that is an excellent point...NO would be much easier for FSU to get to than Pasadena...but that would basically be saying that every year they made the playoffs they would have to lead off versus the Bamas and Auburns of the world.
well, i think that depends. i think it's a subjective thing the committee could weigh each year based on the teams and how closely they rate them. if FSU and Bama are continued the 2 best teams in a year where Peach and Cotton are hosts, they can both be split up without much issue. or in a year where it's Orange and Fiesta, maybe the #2 team goes to Fiesta but gets to play Michigan St out there or something. while a committee isn't perfect, this is one of the reasons i like having them. even if we went to 8 with 5 auto bids, i would like to have a committee lining up the playoff so they could weigh these factors.
Raise your hands if you saw this sort of issue coming as soon as they announced that rankings would be determined by a committee.
Plus, every year there was a big fuss about someone being left out of the BCS Championship game, I new it'd just expand to someone being left out of the 4 teams at the top. Hell, people are outraged by missing March Madness on a yearly basis. I don't think there's any escaping it.
This though, this is too far.
i'm lost, what is too far? have they named 4 playoff teams yet? if FSU wins, they will be in. seeding doesn't matter when you have to beat 2 top 5 teams on a neutral field 2 weeks in a row. if FSU is legit, they will go 2-0, if they're not, they won't. getting in is the important thing, where you play the first game might be second most important, who you play is third most important IMO. all 4 teams should be pretty close to equal most years.
To me, undefeated, defending national champions should be #1. I don't care "how" they won.
and to me, the committee's job is not to consider the outcome of 2013. FSU is indeed undefeated, but i don't think their championship last year should have ANY bearing. FSU is clearly a top 4 team, and will remain so if they beat GT. therefore, they will control their own destiny on the field to win a championship. that's all i can ask for.
i also don't care "how" a team wins in the sense that a W is a W, but the "objectivity" of computers has just as many flaws as the subjectivity of humans. objectivity in quotes because it's still a subjective formula written by a human. the committee was tasked with putting the top 4 teams in 2014 into 2 semi final games. so far, i don't have much problem with how it's playing out, but let's see what happens this weekend. if a 13-0 FSU gets left out, i will have a major issue, but we both know that's not happening.
Here's the thing though. FSU has won all these games and moved down in the rankings. At this rate, I wouldn't put it past the committee to jump a B1G champ tOSU over them.
Seriously. If they win 3 more games, they'll be lucky to still be in the top 10.
Heck, if they win their first playoff game by less than 28 points I wouldn't be surprised if they get replaced by OSU in the championship game.
there really isn't but in order to avoid potentially turning college football into NFL 2.0 where the regular season doesn't matter because you have a 12 team playoff or 16 team playoff or something is crazy I think 8 is a really fair number, it puts a great reward on winning your Conference which should be extremely important, however, it also allows 2 at large bids and a Non Power 5 Conference Champion with the highest ranking or the one they see as being the best however they want to do it. I just think that would be the best option personally to still create the excitement of a playoff but still leaving importance on the regular season as well
NFL regular season doesn't matter?
Only 12 teams make the playoffs and the teams with the best records are guaranteed a spot in the final 8 as the host teams. Those are significant advantages that work in their favor more times than not, and it puts a huge emphasis on winning games.
I will say this though...
Maybe if FSU gets the royal screw job this year it'll be the 2004 Auburn moment for the ACC where everyone comes to our aid and it leads to a groundswell of hype by various outlets so that we have people looking out for us going forward?
A man can dream, no?
There is absolutely no way Florida State will be left out if they beat GT, they have arguably the toughest Conference championship game this week, wouldn't surprise me to maybe even see Florida State at 2 if they win.
You bring up a good point that is being overlooked here. Of the four that are in right now, FSU has the toughest opponent left on their schedule. Somehow this is flying under the radar, but the ACC is supposed to suck, remember? Maybe not so much. And it's refreshing to see so.
If the BCS had produced that ranking, it would have been scrapped in favor of a playoff.
But what if lets say...FSU wins by a field goal in the last second, and OSU and/or Baylor ends up blowing out by 3-4 touchdowns whoever they're playing. The way this committee seems to be leaning they might try to reason that OSU or Baylor deserve to be in the playoffs and not FSU...which would be absolute lunacy but at this point I wouldn't put it past them
they need to revise the committee after this season, I believe it should be only people formerly dealing with non D-1 schools creating the rankings, this way you help to eliminate some of the bias. for instance USC-w #24 give me a break.. two words. Pat Hayden. Its just not fair to all the D-1 schools that don't have someone representing their school... Fix this, then you will truly see the best teams ranked every week
Going to laugh hysterically if Bama loses in the SEC CCG after all of this.
That is my most fervent wish for this weekend - Alabammer loses on a last second play.
Of course, they would only drop down to #4 in the playoff ratings, then.
I like the idea of the playoff.
I don't like the committee.
I think they looked at everything that the BCS was, and actually got rid of the wrong parts. I didn't have a problem with the computers. They were a nice balance to the human element, which is largely influenced by ESPN.
I just don't see how you can have an undefeated Power 5 team that's not #1 when they're the only undefeated team in the country. If the committee wants to game the system to even out the matchups and keep things logical geographically, there's plenty of ways they can do it with #2-4.
Just wait until next year, when it's the Orange and Cotton Bowls for the semis. There's no telling where they'll want to send the teams then.
And I know that I was supporting the placement of Miss St as #1 when they were also undefeated. But as soon as they lost, then FSU should have taken back the #1 spot.
Just for fun, what if FSU wins by a close margin to GT. Baylor wins big against highly ranked Kstate and OSU wins big over ranked Wisconsin. Bama, Oregon, and TCU also win. Does FSU drop out?
They are absolutely getting hosed by the committee, if they beat GT by 1 point on a last second field goal and Winston throws 3 interceptions, they will probably get jumped by OSU.
Same committee of "experts" that has 9-3 UCLA, who's looked far worse than their record, ahead of 10-2 Missouri.
its all a match-up scheme now... If you have two east coast teams in BAMA play FSU the ratings will be nuts and it will sell out asap...same goes for putting Oregon vs TCU.. sell out and the first to 80 will win.
Then college football can settle who is better the pro style offense or the Run N' Gun offense.
At this point as long as I'm in the top 4 IDGAF who I play as long as its for the big lipstick trophy!!!!
Yeah I don't think a four team bracket is large enough to really give much credence to the notion that one team has a significantly easier path to the championship than another. There's the question of disrespecting a team by ranking them too low, but honestly, the #4 team is not at a significant disadvantage to the #1 team as far as actually having to play the games.
I would agree with this. It's not like the NCAAB tournament where there is a large gap between talent (1 seed vs 16 seed). This is jumping straight to the final 4 where every one is good. If I'm one of the best 4 teams in the country I'm saying, "I don't care what team you put across from us, we're going to beat them." That's the kind of attitude winning teams have.
Two phrases no Hokie fan thought they would say prior to this season:
1) I miss Stiney as OC
2) I miss the BCS
This is bad bad news. I've always been a proponent of "Win your games". the goal is to win every game, and Florida State has done that. Now an emphasis is getting put on style points, as well as "how bad did you beat them". Schedules are done 5-10 years in advance, why penalize a team for that?
Due to the nature of our play style.... I don't see us running the table and beating teams by 21+ every year, which is what it seems to be trending towards to be a Playoff team. This could be bad news for the playoff going forward
So I have a theory, sorry if this has already been brought up. FSU vs Bama in the Sugar bowl makes the most financial sense. Where's having PAC and BIG 10 or Big 12 play in Cali makes most financial sense. Because looking at rankings released Tues ( got this part off Mike and Mike) TCU jumped FSU, IF Miss St had won would TCU still not have jumped FSU leaving FSU at 5th and out of playoffs altogether.
Then rank FSU as #1 and drop Bama to #4.
Its absurd that the only undefeated team in college football (who also happens to have multiple wins over ranked teams, including one over a Top 10 at the time team, while also being the defending national champion) is getting this treatment solely because they don't happen to reside in God's gift to football, the SEC. Is there any way in hell that a team with FSU's resume in the SEC would not be unanimous #1 right now?
That's what doesn't pass the smell test for me.
If FSU was instead UF, it would be an automatic genuflect from half the football world and Bama would be #2.
Yup... Flip the script. If FSU had the same resume as Alabama (1 loss but with a bunch of big wins) right now and Alabama had the same resume as FSU (undefeated defending champion with a few close wins) do you really think there is any way that Alabama isn't unanimous #1 in the country?
People would be talking them up as one of the greatest teams of all time because of their ability to find ways to win. They would be lauding Saban as this coaching wizard who wills his teams to wins. They would be praising the QB play for putting the team on his shoulders time after time.
But with FSU? Well, they were just playing an ACC slate, and the fact they aren't winning all games by 50 points shows just how weak they are.
Its a BS premise and deserves to be ridiculed. FSU is winning. Pure and simple, they are winning games, and somehow that just isn't good enough. And the reason for it is that they're not fortunate enough to be in the SEC.
Drop a team from the SEC to 4th with on,y one loss! Blasphemy!
I'm looking for the holy land of playoffs this year. Mizz beats BAMA NO SEC TEAMS IN FIRST EVER FBS PLAYOFFS!!!!
I'm curious where FSU would be ranked if we were still using the BCS system.
I personally think last year doesn't matter. I also think that the only valid ranking is the most current. Beating ND when they were top 10 means nothing now.
FSU has beaten two currently ranked teams - #18 Clemson, #21 Louisville.
Bama has beaten #10 Miss St, #19 Auburn and Lost to #11 Ole Miss
TCU has beaten #9 Kansas St, #20 Oklahoma and Lost to #6 Baylor
Oregon has beaten #8 Michigan State, #15 UCLA, #23 Utah and Lost to #7 Arizona
Baylor has beaten #3 TCU and #20 Oklahoma but lost to unranked WVU
IMO Oregon should be #1, and FSU #2. After that it gets murky...
Thats the same crap we heard so often about us in the past, and its complete horse manure. FSU deserves credit for beating a Top 10 team because they were a top 10 team when they played. Its not FSU's fault that ND fell off the map after that game, they were a Top 10 team at the time, and they deserve the credit for it.
That's not horse manure, it's perfectly logical. It's not like suddenly ND decided to be a different team after that week. It means that over the course of the season, ND proved the ranking at that moment in time was wrong. It's all biased by the preseason polls, which make assumptions about this year's teams based on last year's results. It's like the A&M-USCe game to open the year - clash of the titans if you asked the pollsters and A&M rocketed up the polls when they won. Now, we know that, viewed through the lens of the remainder of the season, both teams were pretty much average, A&M 7-5 and USCe 6-6.
Preseason and early season polls have always been meaningless, and they are becoming even more meaningless in the new system. It's a way to foster forum and barroom conversation until the actual meaningful games are played. That's yet another reason FSU at #4 registers with me at about the same urgency as a mouse fart, because this poll DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. The only poll that matters comes out Sunday, and then IMO it only matters for the teams ranked #5 and below. The field is so darn small, #1 has no discernible advantage over #4. When you're guaranteed to face 2/3 of the other teams that make the playoffs, seeding is pretty much irrelevant.
But you assume teams are static week after week and they are not.
Were we the same team after Maddy got hurt? How about when RB#1 got hurt? RB#2? Chase Williams?
I do not know about ND's injury history but I do know that guys get hurt a little and and can't play 100%. It is quite possible that ND was a #10 team then and some psychological thing took hold, some guys got hurt enough to make a difference or, they did not learn fast enough to keep up with their opponents learning curve but most likely a combination.
But to say they weren't a #10 team then because they aren't now doesn't compute.
I can understand that in the context of major injuries, suspensions, and whatnot. I think that's the only area that human intervention can keep this process somewhat sane. The computers don't know if a key guy, or many, was/were lost over the course of the year for whatever reason. So we leave it to people to interpret. I'll have to dig into ND's season, but I don't recall hearing about any impact players being out for long. But I admit I don't follow ND closely. Very few top teams lack depth. That's part of what makes them so good.
By your argument, a win over a team that is top 10 week one and then goes 6-6 for the season or worse should be considered a quality win because they were top 10 at the time. Was Notre Dame actually a top 10 team or was the ranking inflated based upon competition, national perception and reputation, and schedule?
Completely agree. The ranking when you beat the team is what counts.
For example: we beat them #8 OSU. Say everyone loses this weekend, they climb to #1. Did we beat the #1 team. No.
Also, they are trying to hurt OSU for TJ being hurt because it "could" effect them. That's a double standard.
I disagree here. The preseason rankings are just guesses. Later in the season you start to see who actually deserved rankings.
We beat anOSU while they weren't ranked #8 in the country, however it was very early in the season when nobody knows anything about any team. In reality anOSU has won the rest of their games and VT fans can say, "Hey, we beat a top 10 team." But what if anOSU ended up going 6-6? People are saying, "We beat a team that didn't deserve that ranking, it doesn't really mean much."
Well, if OSU does qualify for the playoff, and they win it, yes, I will say that in 2014 VT had a win over the year end #1 team in college football.
4 losses is 4 losses. Why should it matter when in the season they come?
if the BCS still existed would 2 3 loss SEC teams (both lost to Arkansas) and 2 4 loss SEC team still be in top 25..
I think not... they were smart and decided we know the BCS is broken so lets make it more corrupt and act as if its something new.
Even with BCS it still relied on humans to write the programs, junk in junk out. There were plenty of examples of WTF moments in BCS rankings.
Last year week 15 of the BCS had 2 4 loss sec teams and 1 3 loss team
There's only one solution to this mess - 128 team playoff!!!!!!!
I'm kind of hoping some of them lose in their conference championship games just to screw with the inaugural playoff. would be funny
I would love to see Mizzou upset Bama just to watch the ESPN brain trust implode.
Wouldn't have to worry with the TCU/Baylor debate then. Rank em 2 & 3 and let them play it out!
Wonder how much credence they would actually give to a loss this weekend??? I can see the spin now:
-FSU-Well, just proves they weren't that strong and have been lucky for the entire year.
-Bamma-Well, they were strong all year and deserve to be in. The game wasn't even on the schedule, and they've played a tough 12 leading up to this...they get a pass.
-Oregon-Who knows...just put Zona in so we don't have to deal with the west coast.
-TCU- Oh crap! Hurry, get Baylor on the phone.
You lost me at:
So Miss, FAU and WCU are "tough?" I guess that you might say WCU was because they had several injuries, but from an opponent perspective, not so much.
I won't say that I would ding Bama for their schedule, but they definitely didn't play 12 tough games.
read it in the committee's voice....
not my point of views, said I can see them saying this.
Nothing would make me happier than Wisconsin, Arizona, Missouri, TCU, Baylor, and GT winning this weekend.
If that happened, that would eclipse anything that ever happened under the BCS. If I had to guess, you would see TCU, Baylor, Arizona, and Alabama in the final 4 I think
Swap TCU and Baylor for ISU and KSU and we're on the same page.
Yeah you are right that would be the ultimate
Just saying this man has a point:
VT deserves a playoff bid
Sorry for bringing up bad memories, but remember when three teams went undefeated and the uproar was only two could get in? How did we end up at a point when there is a four team playoff, and one undefeated team is on the bubble? Roughest schedule? Absolutely not. Deserving of #4 seed? Guess we will see. I really hope they beat Alabama and will end this until next yea...Spring Training (being optimistic).
Bring back the BCS! Seriously, there were obviously biases built into each model for the various computer polls but at least it was objective and consistent. There isn't any seeming consistent criteria for the committee to be ranking the teams currently.
Bama is #1 because of the eye test
Oregon is #2 because of their performance/results on the field (if it were all performance based then Oregon would be #1)
TCU is #3 because apparently head-to-head results don't matter
FSU is #4 because they haven't won with style points and those trump actual record on the field
I'm not sure if it is intentional or if it is just a product of the committee looking too deeply into the numbers but it seems like they are really focused on how good they think everyone looks. However, at the same time they dismiss results like TCU almost losing to an awful Kansas team or Bama barely squeaking by an Arkansas team that hadn't won an SEC game in 2 years.
The crazy world of playoff football happened today: lived in Ohio for last 7 years have plenty of anOSU friends, he knew every VT player injuried since they beat anOSU and used that to tell me about why anOSU should still be in top 4 since "obviously VT would have done better without all those injuries".