Surprised I haven't seen a thread about this yet, but the Hokies are #19, with UNC at 21 and FSU at 22. Finally.
Two surprises for me
Texas A&M is 4th (??) and Penn State being 12th
Next up is Duke! Can't wait to be at the game.
Full rankings
First Rankings: #CFBPlayoff Top 25 pic.twitter.com/W9tz3euNNL— CFBPlayoff (@CFBPlayoff) November 1, 2016
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Couldn't log on to TKP for about an hour for some reason.
Same. I accessed through mobile and it seemed to work fine...
All damn day I've been seeing your new photo and thinking "my goodness this new guy is very active" only to see your name beside it after some time.
These rankings are terrible. So basically, what they're saying is that if the top 5 were to completely win out, that these rankings would remain unchanged and they'd take A&M over a 13-0 Power 5 champion? That is ludicrous. Then the question is...if they were to change? WHY?
I don't think ATM is 4th, but I don't expect a lot of winning out anyway.
That's not at all what they are saying, they are saying based on everything they've seen up till now A&M is better than Washington. By the end of the season if Washington remains undefeated they will have an extra win, the PAC12 championship. The committee has said they prefer conference champions, so that would justify them jumping A&M if A&M wins out as well
I agree if Washington wins out they will make the playoffs.
But did A&M get any worse? What message are we sending to these schools right now? That you can drop in rankings after winning out? If A&M beat Ole Miss and LSU and drops because Washington beats Washington State and Colorado, they should rightly be pissed off if the committee thinks they are better now...because those are better wins than Washington can get going forward.
Actually looking at the remaining schedule for those 2 teams based off the committee's explanation that A&M played 5 teams above .500 and Washington only played 2 teams above .500 they can easily justify it.
A&M:
MSST (3-5)
Ole Miss (3-5)
UTSA (4-4) [arguably an FCS program]
LSU (5-2)
Washington:
Cal (4-4)
USC (5-3)
ASU (5-4)
WSU (6-2)
If Washington wins out they will justify it like this.
The rankings are doing the job of saying who has the best relative rankings based on their resume right now. When you get opportunities to get big wins like Washington will have in the conference championship game, it's fair to jump another team. Not letting teams jump others would be a constraining factor that would make the first ranking carry too much weight.
There is a lot of football to be played and at least 1 of the current top 4 will lose a game. Comparing A&M to Washington is not the likely comparison at season's end.
Totally agree and I think it's too early to start blowing up the committee about the rankings just yet.
FSU entered the 2014 rankings at #2, was the only undefeated team in the country at the end of the regular season, but entered championship weeked ranked at #4.
Regarding aTm, Ole Miss has become one of the worst teams in the SEC and wouldn't count as an impressive win anymore.
These rankings are only for us to enjoy and talk about, and allow us to see the process that they go through without being totally surprised on championship weekend. The only one they're really obligated to release is the final one in December.
If the season ended today, aTm appears to the committee to have the better on field resume and look like a better team. It's not "win out and you'll drop", it's "who is the best team?"
Future schedules are not an indicator of how a team has performed on the field to date. Edit to reiterate- the point is that each ranking is from scratch, previous weeks' rankings are thrown out.
Relax. It's just a snapshot on 11/1.
This is applying the old system to the new. OSU went from 16 to making the playoff, and then won the NC. This is no longer a you stay put so long as you win system; it is a complete resume system, and also takes into account if teams are improving or regressing. I love it.
If A&M wins out, doesn't that mean that Bama lost the SEC and therefore could be out of the playoff? What am I missing here?
a&m and bama are both in the west division of the sec and bama already beat them, if both bama and a& win out, bama goes to the sec championship game where theyd play (and likely beat) presumably florida. even if bama loses to lsu they still have the tie breaker over a&m, but then the division becomes a giant cluster
Understood. Thank you
Forget the old leapfrog game, the weekly rankings don't build on each other. Next week, the committee will start over. Fans are used to the ways the polls historically worked. The CFP rankings don't work like that.
Most importantly, only the last ranking uses ALL of the criteria. No one in the current ranking gets points for being conference champ, which is the most heavily weighted factor. A one loss non-champ will not finish ahead of a champ with 0, 1, or perhaps even 2 losses.
What has happened in the first 2 years of the CFP is that the polls tend to chase the CFP rank. I expect that in 2-3 weeks, the polls will be very close to the CFP.
This week's exercise probably says more about the NY6 bowls than the playoff
SEC, SEC and SEC.
half-joking here but I expect to see Ole Miss make the CFP
I agree they're wrong to have A&M over Washington but I think if they all were to win out, they'd jump Washington over A&M when they won the Pac 12 championship and A&M was idle
I think it's because the big name schools in the PAC-12 aren't doing so hot this year. You got Oregon, Standford, and USC all struggling right now. And they showed Washington's SOS was way behind Ohio State and A&M. Their non-conference games were against Idaho, Rutgers, & Portland State. Match that up with all their normal in conference opponents who are normally dominate are struggling, and the fact that A&M only lost to Alabama. This is what you wind up with.
Nope. That's a common misconception about how they rank. They claim to redo them every single week and have shown in the past that they weigh a conference championship very heavily. If the top five were to win out, undoubtedly Washington would leap A&M. But for now, they look at UW and see a very weak schedule with their best win over Utah.
A&M has played a much tougher schedule and lost to the number #1 team with a win over a top 10 team. I think they could both make a claim for the fourth spot at this moment in time, but if all plays out like we think it will, they won't even win their division.
A much better ranking. Got rid of the UNC, WMU noise of the AP. Chance to slide up three spots this week with Neb, UF and LSU loses. Okie St better be careful in Manhattan too.
PSUs blocked punt means about 20 spots in the ranking for them.
UNC is still ranked.
Yes, but below us. WHERE THEY RIGHTFULLY SHOULD BE.
Hey UNC
The amount of hysteria/STILL blaming their loss on the weather over on InsideCarolina is pretty funny actually.
Click here for saltiness
You lost by 30 AT HOME. The better team my lose by a score or two on the road and/or in bad weather, but the better team NEVER loses by 4 TD's at home. Dude is a fucking idiot.
He's a Tar Heel football fan. Probably just started following the sport 2 years ago... cut him some slack
{leans into mic} Thirty-one.
If it was that big of a deal maaaaybe their coach should have game planned as such. By their logic their coach straight up gave up on the game as soon as he realized it wasn't sunshine and rainbows outside. give me a damn break. When the possibility of this was approaching and an amateur weather man like myself can see it coming, let alone the national weather service you should at least have a god damned plan B in case it does happen. YOUR TEAM WAS OUTCOACHED, OUTHUSTLED, OUTPLAYED, AND OUTMANNED by a better team END OF STORY
I want have this made into a card that I just hand to Tar Heels when they complain about the hurricane.
LEG
Watching them meltdown over our win is like winning that game over and over and over again. I love it.
I can't believe the ignorance of this statement.
What kind of irks me is "the better team didn't win" mantra they've had since losing to us.
That saying is usually used in close games, say...Ohio state-penn state a few weeks ago.
They got dragged through the mud AT HOME for 60 minutes. They were not the better team. They are not the better team.
Playoff committee may have missed the mark on other rankings, but having us over them is correct.
Totally agree. Not to mention, we played on the same damn field in the same damn weather. We just executed our game plan according to the situation we had. They didn't...end of story.
Coming up with excuses for losing just puts you further from the truth. If you wanna win, get better.
UNC football fans are so cute
Yeah a&m blew my socks off. Didn't expect that at allll. I know the PAC12 is down this year but holy moly. I guess they wanna see Washington run the table hard.
Sooooooo many teams ahead of us still have to play each other.... We take care of business, we're going to be right there at the end
Frankly, I'd just as soon enough other teams take care of business so I don't have to suffer the pain of seeing us end up 5th in the final standings, and regretting Syracuse anymore than I already do.
But I'm selfish that way.
Embrace the Chaos!!
via GIPHY
#8TEAMPLAYOFF
Did I do that right?
seriously. why can't they do this
because we can't be trusted with nice things...
8 teams. each conference Champion and 3 at large.
end meeting.
...why can't they make it this easy. lol
I think Virginia Tech, as a program going forward, would have a better chance of making an 8 team playoff. However, I think we have a better chance of winning it all under the current format.
A&M > Washington is a joke. UDub blew the doors off of Stanford and Oregon. Not their fault those teams are trending down.
It's not our fault that Miami went in the dumpster and UNC dropped Georgia, but good / bad things are going to happen to your SoS. UW wins against USC and they will jump A&M. They don't and it won't matter anyway.
If UW's upcoming schedule was at the beginning of the year they would be ranked by now. It's no one's fault someones schedule is weak, but you still have to account for it.
I've been trying to get on the site to discuss this but it seems to be running kinda slow.
but yo...
TAMU at 4th? Are you shitting me?? PLEASE tell me who they've beat this year, PLEASE. Or at least why they should be ahead of a no loss Washington...or Ohio State, or Louisville.
Those quality SEC losses.
QUALITY LOSS
U
A
L
I
T
Y
L
O
S
S
Who has Washington beat? They might be undefeated, but clearly there is more that goes into rankings than looking at the win loss column. Western Michigan isn't ever going to make the playoffs, even if they run the table because they have a weak SoS, and so does Washington at this point.
I believe Washington beat Utah on the road this weekend. Every other game they've beat their opponent by a wide margin. They're playing great football.
Yeah it seems like the committee is favoring the SEC and Big Ten so far. Penn State at 12 doesnt really make much sense if you look at their record as a whole but Texas A&M is a real good team, probably would put them at #5 but should sort itself out if Wash wins out.
Think #19 it about where we should be with potential to move up 2-3 spots a week depending on if we win of course, and hopefully in convincing fashion!
At this point the door is open. If we win out the path is there to sneak in through the back door, or at the very least make the decision incredibly difficult for the committee. We're the 3rd highest in the ACC, and with 4 more wins we very well could be top 10 before the ACC title game.
Game on
I agree. The path is there. It's very very very narrow but it could happen technically.
tOSU was #16 in the initial rankings in 2014. Just saying.
538 gives us a 3% chance to make the playoffs.
But you know what? I like having a 3% chance to the playoffs with a 2 losses MUCH better than I like the old system. I can remember when I was a kid, we got up to #3 in the BCS for like half the season. Now granted, that dreaded '05 miami game and then the ACC championship loss would have kept us out of the championship game anyway, but in '05, if we'd have won out, it wouldn't have mattered. USC and Texas were numbers 1 and 2 that year, and I remember begging for them to lose each week. The Bush push may have hurt for Notre Dame fans, but it was a killer to 6th grade me. I'd watch us dominate our opponent, then I'd beg for Reggie Bush and Vince Young to not dominate. It sucked. At that time, it felt like we had less than a 3% chance of going to the playoffs, and we were (to that point) undefeated and clowning on fools. This is much better.
I was at that Miami game and, too, remember watching that ND-SoCal game. ND hadn't cut their grass in weeks in preparation for that game lol but all in all, total devastation on my behalf.
who here expected us to have a 3% chance to make the playoff before the season started? certainly not me, but I'll take it with a big smile on my face. Oh...and F the Carrier Dome. No doubt our odds would be much better had that building never been built
It seems like yall think I said that to show how unlikely it is to happen...quite the opposite! I'm just as amazed as yall that we even have a chance!
didn't mean to infer that. Mine was a clumsy attempt to express the same sentiment you more accurately conveyed. cheers!
tOSU has the national Q rating that we lack. Traditional powerhouse teams get to skip rational thinking when ranking teams.
WVU coming in at 20 despite being 14 in the AP is interesting. I see that the people who vote are also infatuated with the SEC. Louisville's loss to Clemson was a much better loss than that of Texas A&M's loss to Alabama, and Washington was left out of the top 4 completely.
Yeah youre right about the SEC bias as normal but they certainly dont like the Big 12. And looking at Washington's schedule, their out of conference SOS is 91 (which should be lower, rutgers idaho and portland state are all garbage) compared to A&M's 48. But like people have said, if Wash wins last 4 tough games and Pac 12 champ game, they will be in at 4 or maybe 3
A&M has a top ten win though, compared to Louisville's win against FSU, and frankly, coupled with lackluster wins against bottom feeders Duke and UVA, it is easy to justify them being lower.
A&M's top-ten win just lost to a mediocre-to-bad Sakerlina though, a team that A&M itself only barely beat (relatively speaking).
I don't see how A&M's OT win over then-#9 Tennessee can be favored over Louisville's boat-racing of then-#2 Florida State. Especially considering FSU has no losses to currently unranked teams.
It seems you are forgetting TAMU beat Auburn...or you are looking at ranked wins as when they happened? That is not how a ranked win works. A ranked win is when you have beaten a team that is in the rankings currently. It is important to remember that at the end of the season, because then beating teams like Tenn who have fallen from grace isn't a big deal even if they were #9 at the time of defeat.
That's why Clemson is above Michigan, because they have a win over Auburn and Louisville, who are ranked in the top ten, even if Auburn wasn't to start the season. It is a good win now that we actually see that Auburn is a good team this year.
Auburn was close to dumpster fire status when Clemson beat them, so your argument doesn't hold. You can't say "well look how good auburn is now" and not also say how bad they were before. Clemson squeaked by the bad version of auburn, not the good one. It's like saying Wisconsin beating LSU is a quality win. No, LSU had to fire their coach to try and turn things around. They were bad, now they are better. But those two teams have been Jekyll and Hyde this season. Give them credit for playing better, but don't look past how mediocre they were.
Totally agree on this, Clemson fans beat their chest for the Auburn win, that team was a far cry from where it is now. I also think that Michigan's relative dominance in EVERY game should land them number 2 over Clemson who has eeked out a few wins where. 1) they were an NFL extra point away from being damn near eliminated from the CFP and 2) eeked out a home win over Louisville where most people left feeling like Louisville was the better team. (I was there and certainly felt this way)
This, this, this, so much this.
I know I've harped on it a bunch on this site already, but we do need to be cognizant of the fact that a team can be bad early and good late, and vice versa. I buy into the current ranking more the later we get into the season. Sample sizes get larger, backloaded schedules resolve themselves (WVU, SEC), and you get to see which teams have outliers against which other teams (Syracuse>VT, Dook>ND).
Michigan State was ranked early in the year based on the ND win but clearly is not good.
I'm mostly glad to see that this is a point to be made, because consistency matters much more than a single win or loss early in the year (OSU).
I think It is easy to say that Auburn was a dumpster fire, and you know why? Because the media was trumpeting it around that Gus was gonna get fired and what not. They might not be as good as they are now, teams change for sure, but it is clear to see that they were a better team than we originally thought. By your thought process preseason polls are of the utmost importance. They arent.
I'm not talking preseason rankings at all. Auburn was terrible on offense their first few games and good but not great on defense. That is the mark of mediocrity, not full on dumpster fire like I said above. But they did not play like a top 10 team at that time. They are playing very good now, and, while I would argue they are not top 10 quality yet, they are right on the fringe. You can't give Clemson credit for beating number 9 auburn when that auburn team was nowhere near playing like a top 25 team much less top 10.
Yep.
A ranked win is what fits ESPN's narrative best at the moment.
Damn, the ESPN hate gets annoying on this site, so predictable.
Except when its something good for us.
It's not ESPN hate, it's just a fact that's true of all of the broadcasters. They like to promote their big games as much as possible, so they spin them however they can. Just look at all of the qualifiers and obscure stats that get trotted out during games and on SportsCenter to try to make something sound super important or impressive.
You could even be watching a game on ESPN, then switch over to CBS, and they could both be talking about ranked wins, and be using different definitions, because it benefits the game they are broadcasting. Just like how CBS uses whichever poll gives them the highest rankings to use during the 3:30 game.
Nothing about the rankings seems really that wrong to me. The PAC 12 is probably the weakest conference. I would have struggled to put TAMU above Washington, but I totally get it. It makes some nice drama for us to talk about anyway.
Penn state at 12 is a joke, any team from 22 and down would be favored by Vegas head to head
Why? They have the same record as VT with a much better win and their other loss was a close one to Pitt, which we had a close win against. We also haven't played a top caliber team like they have. Honestly, I'm not sure why you would disagree so vehemently about them being ranked higher than us.
Yeah, they came out of nowhere with the Ohio State win but all of a sudden now when you look at their whole body of work they absolutely deserve their ranking. They have the same record as us with a much better win and much more forgive-able losses. Honestly now I feel they are under-ranked in the other polls.
At the same time they're not much of a threat to VT, they likely won't make the B1G Championship even if they win out so if we were to take care of business on our end we'd probably jump past them.
All the points the above commenters make are legit about PSU, I think. Losses to Michigan and Pitt aren't bad losses, and I think one could argue that they are both better losses than Tennessee and Syracuse (Syracuse being obviously worse but Tennessee could be a toss up when held against the Pitt loss)
The win over OSU is a quality win, better than any win we currently have, and destroying Purdue last weekend may suggest that PSU is currently rolling. LSU, with two losses to Wisconsin and Auburn, also does not suffer much from their losses and is currently rolling (albeit without any true quality wins).
The committee appears to be combining what they can measure (quality wins/quality losses/bad losses) against how the teams look (LSU wouldn't be in the mix if they were playing like they did in week 1, PSU didn't look great in week 1 either, but both appear to be hitting their stride now).
All in all, no major beefs with what I'm seeing here. The two-loss Big Ten and SEC teams that are ranked highly, well, I don't love. I do like that FSU is the only three loss team on the board, because I think their losses are to quality opponents. I also like that we are above WVU, which makes it look like the committee does take into account whether you got fat off bad teams (although this doesn't explain Nebraska at 10).
Seems about right. I know rankings don't always reflect what teams are actually better than each other, but I think we're somewhere around the 15-20th best team in the country this year. We may end up higher by virtue of coasting through the easier part of our schedule *knocks on wood* but right now we're getting exactly as much credit as we deserve IMO.
Here, have fun playing with this
Click click
First thing I noticed is if you make Tech win out, our chances of making the playoffs go up to 37%.
We win out and Bama beats LSU is up to 41%...
Pretty much shows that we're still very much in this thing
VT win-out plus UW loss to Cal puts us to 49%. Trying to get it above 50 but the engine is resisting.
Some interesting combos that seem to break the machine:
-VT wins out, Clemson loses to Syracuse.
-VT wins out, UNC wins out, WMU loses to Ball State.
-picking more than 2 of the top 4 CFP teams to lose their next game.
-Nebraska wins out and Alabama loses to LSU.
A bunch of combos break the machine...
Fortunately "break the machine" just means that stop letting you interact, not that it actually stops working. With a little DOM/CSS manipulation you can still use it.
I found a Scenario that has up at a >99% chance of making the playoffs.
According to this page the teams most likily to be in the playoffs in this scenario:
Every other team has a <1% chance.
It should be noted that this is a scenario that "broke the system" meaning that in the 10,000 simulations that were run it occurred less then 100 times.
I don't know I can believe that if that all happens we still make it. If Oklahoma wins out they'd probably get in over us. It doesn't take into consideration other teams winning out, just the chances of them winning out I guess.
Depends on what the algorithms used in the underlying system are. I didn't build it just found a work around that let me find a relatively reasonable set of circumstances that result in a Tech Playoff Appearance
If Louisville wins out, and Hokies win out: we will be snubbed by Cards from playoff (unless 'Bama wins out).
If Washington loses and we win out, our chances skyrocket to 51%
If we win out...Clemson loses and Cal beats Washington our % is fantastic.
LSU will beat Alabama on Saturday and turn this thing upside down. You heard it here first!
I actually heard it on College Football Daily earlier :)
me too. a couple times because they play it literally back to back. I was too busy cleaning to change the channel. haha
At least we're not #17!
At the risk of sounding stupid, what's the significance of #17?
The team ranked #17 lost like 7 weeks in a row. We were the third or fourth team to do it when we lost to Syracuse.
Plus, the last few times we were ranked #17 in the AP, things didn't go well, as I realized after the Syracuse game.
Also after Ohio State in 2014 we were ranked #17 then ECU happened.
It will be very different by December 4.
#beatduke
If Alabama loses they won't drop further than no 4. You hurd that shit here first. But LSU will shoot up to No 3. wanna place bets?
Yes. How much?
The fact that we're even on the board is a testament to the helluva job the coaching and training staffs have done. Before Fuente was announced as our next coach, I don't think any of us thought we'd be in this position less than 12 months after Beamer announced his retirement.
Even after Fuente was announced I don't think any of us thought we'd be in this position less than 12 months after Beamer announced his retirement.
I'm a Hokie optimist and thought 7-5, would be thrilled with 8-4, at season start. And the wins would be back loaded!
Yesterday actually marked the 1 year anniversary of Beamer sounding his retirement...
Who at that point thought that in exactly 1 year from then we'd be ranked in the Top 20 of the College Football Playoff Poll? I agree with you,i was expecting a 7 or 8 win season with us seeing massive struggles early on. This season has been a shock.
I thought we'd be 8-0 on our way to a 15-0 season, but I get your point. Very much excitement.
This is absolute truth....I don't know if we're a legit national title contender yet, but after the last 4 seasons it feels good to be in the conservation again.
I'm not on the playoff hype train, but this is pretty funny.
That's right, if we win out, we have a higher chance of making the playoffs than Clemson.
This....confuses me. lol
Notice that the "win out" box is clicked for VT but not for anyone else
That clarifies things. Thank you.
That's because once you click on VT and two other teams to win out, the machine breaks. Sometimes it breaks with only VT and another team.
But does clicking VT winning out affect the other percentages currently displayed? Is Clemson 26% with or without VT winning out?
Yes and with us winning out
Yes, it recalculates when a box is clicked. Before clicking the VT win out box Clemson is at 72% to make the playoffs
Thanks both of you, I tried myself but couldn't find the clickable matrix on my phone.
Most likely because winning out includes beating Clemson, I expect.
But if Clemson wins out they'd still be undefeated ACC champs. I do not understand
Winning out includes the conference title game. If you set that option, you'll notice Clemson's chances of winning the ACC drops to "--".
Another fun scenario -- if we win out and UNC loses to GT on Saturday, our chances go up to 50%
hilarious. I mean who would take a screen shot at 9% battery and on low power mode?
I think its pretty interesting that besides the current top 4 teams, there are only maybe 5 teams that winning out puts them in the 4th spot in the playoffs. VT is one of them with arguably one of the more manageable schedules remaining. Of course this requires upsetting Clemson, but we've had a good record with payback games this year so far. Hoping for one more this weekend.
ESPN thinks we can upset Clemson!
I been sayin' I like Trevor Matich. I been sayin' it for ten damn years, ain't I been sayin' it, Miguel?
I guess what bugs me about Texas A&M's ranking is that it seems to be rewarding A&M for playing a pretty week OOC slate of games:
UCLA (Pac 12)
PVAM (FCS)
NMSU (WAC)
UTSA (CUSA)
I mean geez, that is not a murderous row of OOC games.
UCLA, currently 3-5
PVAM, currently 5-3
NMSU, currently 2-6
UTSA, currently 4-4
I don't think you can punish a team for scheduling UCLA. They suck this year, who knew? Plus their conference schedule is tougher than Washington's. They have a very weak schedule by pretty much all strength of record metrics.
Yes you can. Luck is a big part of the whole deal - good and bad.
Well, regardless, their conference is much tougher, and the Pac12 is so bad this year. Besides, take a look at Washington's OOC schedule lmao. Rutgers, Idaho, and Portland state, that is even worse!
Nah, he was only around for the first year, but his replacement is the chairman of the committee now.
Fair enough about UCLA, but PVAM, NMSU and UTSA? Those three schools are not even at AAC level.
And to your point, UCLA may turn out to be as overrated as Ole Miss has been (are they still getting votes?).
Just cause I can..
Alabama
Total Offense: 17, Total Defense: 4
Clemson
Total Offense: 30, Total Defense: 14
Michigan
Total Offense: 31, Total Defense: 1
Texas A&M
Total Offense: 16, Total Defense: 83
Virginia Tech
Total Offense: 40, Total Defense: 15
Everyone on that list has a top 15ish O or D. But when you take the sum of both rankings, one team sticks out, in a bad way.
Bama = 21
UMich = 32
Clemson = 44
Hokies = 55
A&M = 99
Everyone but Clemson has at least one odd digit?
You cracked the code, Dan Brown.
32 - 21 = 11
11 + 44 = 55
44 + 55 = 99
Confirms the order is correct.
Illuminati.
Hall of Fame post nominee right here, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the tits...
Welp, Bama's screwed
OK I don't care about all the top teams...who cares at this point. I just want us to get to the acccg. That's all that matters and if Clemson plays from behind against us, maybe our defense will hold
I don't completely agree with the rankings, but I'd argue the committee isn't far off. I'd say that the top 25 can be clearly divided into 5 tiers, most of which they got right:
Tier 1: Bama & Clemson
Honestly, you could argue Clemson at #1; they've been three currently ranked teams, two of which the committee voted into the top 10. Bama's beaten 1 top 5 team.
Tier 2: Mich, A&M, Washington, OSU, Louisville
Again, I think you can order these anyway you want and have a legitimate argument. I think you put OSU lowest since their one loss is a head scratcher. Louisville and A&M both have losses to the 1 or 2 team.
Tier 3: Wisc, Auburn, Nebraska, UF, LSU
Committee has PSU here, the one thing I disagree with. I think they're over valuing a win against OSU.
Tier 4: PSU, OU, Colorado, Utah, Baylor, OkSt, VT, WVU, UNC, FSU
Tier 5: Boise, WashSt, Western Mich
I think Boise could be replaced by Tennessee or USC, but I'm pretty indifferent towards it.
I'm not sold in UF, Neb or Auburn being a tier above Tier 4 teams.
Auburn's defense is stingy AF, since barely beating LSU, they also haven't scored less than 38 points in a single game. MissSt, Ark and Ole Miss are hardly the class of the SEC, but anytime you put up that many points on a P5 team, it requires some recognition.
Nebraska lost by 6 on the road, in a night game to Wiscy - I don't want to boast 'quality loss', but I think it's fair to say that they should be within 5 spots of Wiscy
You may have a point with Florida, given that they don't have a single impressive win.
Auburn in week one was not a legit team. But since they stopped letting Malzahn play musical QB's and took away his play calling duties they are definitely a dangerous team. I think they are too one dimensional to beat Bama though.
Auburn in week one had a legit defense; not the well rounded team they have now.
I think right now there are 3 tiers of playoff candidates...
Tier 1: guaranteed in if season ended today...
Clemson, Alabama, Michigan
Tier 2: controls own destiny in conference title race
Washington, Oklahoma, Colorado, Florida, Baylor, Virginia Tech, Nebraska, Washington State, Utah
These teams all, except for a couple like Baylor and Utah, all have resume building games left and should they win out likely get in, especially with the boost of winning the conference, which the committee gives preference toward. These teams are still very much in the hunt.
Tier 3: teams that need help, as things have to fall right to sneak in:
Texas A&M, Ohio State, Louisville, Auburn, Wisconsin, LSU, West Virginia, Oklahoma State, North Carolina, Florida State
They aren't getting in unless they get help. Of course someone like Ohio State still has the Michigan game to help, but not controlling your own destiny for the conference title hurts these teams, possibly to the point of eliminating then from legitimate contention.
Very different take from mine. I like it. Although I'm pretty sure OSU controls their destiny. Auburn may too, depending on SEC West tie break scenarios.
Yea technically PSU creates a 3 way tie if they win out too. However OSU would win the tie breaker with PSU on overall record and then Michigan head to head. So OSU just needs to win out
EDIT:what he said regarding osu^, idk the tie breaker rules for sec, but auburn would likely need a&m to lose, because of head to head
Only Alabama controls their destiny. Their first tiebreaker will be cross divisional opponent records and if everyone wins out it's a three way tie between Alabama, A&M, and Auburn, Alabama wins in this scenario.
Yeah, in all likelihood, you're absolutely right, but I still put them at Tier 3 because they don't fully control their destiny. Of course, the path for someone like Ohio State or Auburn probably puts them right on the edge of the Tier 2/Tier 3 bubble, and if they win out, they're all but assured in. The difference is that if the teams in Tier 2 win out, there is a 100% chance they win their conference, and given the penchant of the committee to heavily weigh conference titles, they'll most likely have done enough to get in. Tier 3 needs to win out and still hope the cards fall right to win their conference.
And I almost thought of just lumping Tier 1 into Tier 2, but those 3 have completely separated themselves from the pack. Those teams don't necessarily have to win out to still win their conference.
I go over all of it here.
But, aTm beat Auburn, so if those two win out, it's a three way tie. Since we have to start going down the list of tiebreakers, we're out of the realm of controlling their destiny. aTm needs Alabama to lose 2 games to take control, and Auburn needs aTm to lose one game.
Same thing in the Big Ten. OSU needs PSU to drop one, and PSU needs Michigan to drop two to gain control.
OSU doesn't need PSU to drop one. They win out, they win the east.
Assuming that PSU and OSU both win out, and Michigan only loses to OSU, then all three of those teams will have one loss, and be 1-1 against each other. At that point, we're looking at three teams with the same conference records, the same divisional records, and they would all have the same records against all of the other teams.
And...I just figured out that this tiebreaker:
means overall record. Stupid legalese. Although, to be honest, I start glazing over around the 4th tiebreaker anyway.
As an Auburn alum, I have looked into the tie breakers for the SEC. Basically, it comes down to this:
1) If aTm and Auburn win out, and Bama only drops the Auburn game, aTm, Auburn, and Bama are in a 3-way tie, which Alabama would win based on cross-division opponent conference record. This effectively makes the Iron Bowl a formality if aTm wins out.
2) If aTm drops a game to Ole Miss or LSU, and Auburn wins out, Auburn wins the head to head tiebreaker with Alabama.
3) if Bama drops LSU and Auburn games (unlikely), Auburn would be in a tiebreaker with the winner of the LSU/aTm game. If it's LSU, Auburn goes. If it's aTm, aTm goes.
Personally, I am rooting for aTm to drop a game. I think they drop to either LSU or Ole Miss and Bama beats LSU. This would make the Iron Bowl a play-in game for the SECCG, where the winner would likely steamroll Florida, Tennessee, or Kentucky (seriously, look at the rankings...).
The most important thing the committee got right was sliding us in front of UNC.
Personally, I think SEC Bias is HILARIOUS. Look, I care about my Hokies and that's it. I kid you not, if Texas A&M makes it over conference champion Washington I will laugh until my stomach hurts.
Because some people just like watching the world burn...
Obligatory
I love this team and what we have done and the growth from a lot of our players, many of which are coming back next year.
But damn, what might have been had we not stumbled in Syracuse. This is not quite the feeling of ending up 3rd in the BCS after the debacle to LSU and the loss at home to BC (Fuck Matt Ryan), but I still feel like this is a team that Clemson is hoping to avoid and one that could bring the new fans in L-Ville back to reality if we played them.
Is it too early to ask for an 8 team playoff?
If not for the game in Syracuse, I'm not sure we beat Pitt. Syracuse was a tough learning lesson for this team, but it was one the team needed in order to grow up. Its a lesson that should be remembered not only this year but in the years to come. In a way, we're a better team now than we were then because of what we learned that night about ourselves.
This is what gets me excited in particular. I think Fuente, being such a good motivator, will point to this game in the future and the players will respond with the necessary energy.
I listen to SiriusXM College Sports Nation, and I know a few others here do, too. The "bumper" audio for Mark Packer's early evening show for the last week or so is a very moving, exciting post game locker room speech. I just today realized it was Dino Baber's speech from our game at Syracuse.
Let that sink in. The victory speech from our worst loss plays on national radio Monday through Friday, 6 times a day (3 times during rush hour), every week. Now we are #19 in the first CFP ranking.
It is my hope and desire that this team continues to play with focus for the rest of the season, and makes that loss just a blip on an otherwise remarkable resume. Wherever we end up, be it Playoff, NY6, or wherever, this team is and can be great if they continue to put in the work and truly do it one game at a time. Let's make that the day Syracuse beat the ACC champs and a top ten team.
Funny you should mention that. FWIW, they are playing the post game locker room celebration of Syracuse after they beat us on tvs in our locker room this week. Saw it on a players snapchat yesterday.
We have 5 power conferences. 5 conference champions. There are few scenarios where I see 2 teams from the same conference be included in the CFP with adequate justification. If you don't win your conference, you had the luxury of playing (and winning) one less game. That's enough for me to justify why they should be left out...period.
Also, anyone who says "well, should a team be penalized for playing in a tougher conference", the answer is: your added TV revenue makes up for it.
I'd rather see a non-conference champion than a mediocre big 12 team with a cupcake schedule. Washington just really got shafted when all the great teams skipped mediocrity on their way to being flat out bad and will likely only have 2 or 3 quality wins (usc, utah, maybe wazzu (who lost to an fcs team))
So a member of a Power 5 conference that wins all their games shouldn't expect to make the playoff? That's absurd. I see your reasoning, but thats absurd.
Beyond that, everything else is speculation. "Well, they lost a game, but it was a quality loss". While some evaluation and the "eye test" is necessary, I think winning your conference is NOT an unreasonable requirement to play to win the whole damn thing.
There's no undefeated Big 12 team, so there's no argument here.
Talking about Washington
No one here is arguing that Washington should be left out. Except, apparently, the committee. mogwaiaredangerous was making two separate points.
The first list was probably right in that Texas A&M has been tested more than Washington to this point. As they say, lose early and it can be forgiven.
That said, if Washington wins out they will jump Texas A&M as they have most of their hard games left.
It's a crime that Washington was pushed to 5 and if they go undefeated and get left out I'll be downright disillusioned. I was (rather clumsily, looking back at it) making two separate points.
Big 12 doesnt have the extra game.
i thought they do b/c they got the exemption for a 12 team requirement to have a championship game
Next season.
touche
Here's the thing.
Washington is the only Pac-12 team with fewer than 2 losses. So, if they don't win the conference, the Pac-12 champ will have a minimum of 2 losses.
In the Big 12, if the winner of Baylor/WVU isn't the conference champ (assuming both teams win out until then), then we have another conference champ with 2 or more losses.
all I'm hoping for is that the team finishes strong, gets a nice top 10ish ranking at the end of the season....
this then makes our players hungry for next season and prevents our top talent from leaving for the pros to try to win a 'ship
Would love to see Ford and Hodges come back.
Maybe Rogers can force the NCAA to give him an extra year of eligibility if he threatens to destroy the moon with his bare hands.
with Ford and Hodges.....if Evan's plays like he has this year... I firmly believe we have a shot at it.
Cam too. I believe he was the MVP of the Pitt game with what he added in the run game
I don't know if anyone else listened to Mike and Mike this morning, but Paul Finebaum was on briefly, and even HE said that the committee got it wrong in placing Texas A&M at #4.
I bet somebody in Bristol sent him a strongly worded email after his appearance.
We'll always have questions about who makes it into the playoffs and who gets left out.
I think after a few more years of this system they'll go to a 6 or 8 team playoff with play-in/first round games played the week after championship week. Then it would almost be guaranteed that all P5 conf champs make playoff. I guess the main issue with that is interfering with exams for the student-athletes, so maybe skip a week in there.
I think they should do an 8 team playoff. All they'd need to do is start the season one week earlier, play the first round during the current conference championship week. Also, I know this is a pipe dream, but I think it'd be dope if the top 4 seeds got to host that first round game on campus.
Agree with almost everything you said.
Bowl season starts 2 weeks after conference champion week. They could play the first round during bowl season without a problem. So they don't necessarily have to change the start date of the regular season in order to accommodate four more games.
The home crowds would be absolutely raucous.
I think it would be even better if first two rounds were on campus. As it is, expecting fanbases to travel cross country in consecutive weeks is insane and probably not sustainable. By putting the first two rounds on campus you get (1)better attendance, (2)return the top tier bowl games to their former glory instead of being afterthought semi-finals, (3) ensure that rankings still matter immensely as they are used to decide homefield advantage
To add on to my previous explanation, the CFP decision is not like the polls where the members say "here's my top 25" and that's the end of it. The members vote multiple times, making their cases, eliminating teams each iteration until a consensus is reached. Then the results are released. Next week, they'll throw it all out and start again.
If someone comes in with an agenda, that person will have to prove it to the rest of the committee.