Thought it might be fun given the amount of chaos yesterday to rank what the playoff committee will rank the top 10 on tuesday
Ill start
Bama
Ohio state
Clemson
Louisville
Michigan
Wisconsin
Washington
Oklahoma
Penn state
Colorado
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
As tweeted by ESPN:
NEW AP Top 10
1. Alabama
2. Ohio St
3. Louisville
4. Michigan
5. Clemson
6. Wisconsin
7. Washington
8. Oklahoma
9. Penn St
10. West Virginia
Eh thats the ap their opinion is absolutely worthless haha
I don't see how you can have clemson still ranked 3rd.
I just cant fathom them falling below teams with 2 losses. Likewise they beat louisville and deserve credit for it much like penn state is getting credit for beating osu
I just can't believe we are at a point where we can only drop a team one or two spots for losing to a 5-4 team at home. That seems so freaking ridiculous to me. That was a season ruiner not long ago. Not to mention by the eye test they haven't been impressive Florida State has played close with several bad teams and that Auburn win, which I've always thought was being overvalued is now looking real bad after their 13-7 loss to UGA. Plus, they escaped through sheer luck having two terrible home losses because of that poor NC State kicker.
It's a parity year in college football, a lot of good not great teams so a lot of 1/2 loss good teams out there.
Ranking Clemson 3 after a home loss to an unranked 5-4 Pitt makes me want to throw up. Literally nauseous.
If Penn State finds its way into the playoffs, I'll literally be nauseous.
Clemson is 5 though, yes?
IMO:
1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Louisville
4. Wisconsin
5. Oklahoma
6. Penn State
7. WVU
8. Washington
9. Clemson
10. Utah
You lose to unranked teams, you get punished. Ranked team loss is a little better.
Bama
Ohio state
Michigan
Wisconsin
Clemson
Southern Cal
LSU
Washington
Louisville
Utah
11 wash st
12 penn st
13 wvu
14 Oklahoma
15 Colorado
LSU?!
Defense, running game.
Held Bama to.....what....10?
Clearly 2nd best sec team right now
I agree with that, but that doesn't make them a top 10 team, especially with 3 losses.
I don't care about the loses at this point in the season. It's who would beat each other on a neutral field tomorrow. I'll value head/head if teams are close, but I value more the current capabilities of the team. USC, for instance, could be as high as 3rd for me. They look a lot like 2014 OSU.
LSU's loses were as literally with another team as anyone's.
Dont understand the hate for Clemson around here. They raise the profile of the conference, have knowledgable fans, and a respectable coach. Hell, we owe them for Brewer.
Clemson:
Key Wins: Louisville, Auburn, Florida State
Loss: Pitt (last second field goal)
Close games: NCState
Ohio State:
Key Wins: Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wisconsin
Loss: Penn State
Close games: Northwestern
I think Clemson has the edge in key wins and quality of loss.
while pitt has the head to head with penn state they are a 4 loss squad whereas penn state is a 2 loss, Gotta give it to anOSU there but I do think louisville is better than whisky or Oklahoma likewise auburn is probably comparable. It'll work itself out after the Michigan game though at the end of the season
You forgot 30-24 win over Troy for close game.
Bama
OSU
Clemson
L'ville
Michigan
Washington
Penn St
Wisconsin
WVU
Oklahoma
Clemson can't be below Louisville, and the rest of the 1-loss teams are far and away better than the 2 loss teams.
Why not? Clemson beat Louisville in a super close contest at home. If that game is at Louisville the outcome is likely different. I would rank Louisville ahead for now, but if Clemson wins out, then I might have Clemson move ahead of Louisville due to the added win over a quality VT team in the ACC Championship game. 12-1 beats 11-1.
I just think head-to-head is the straight up tiebreaker
1 - Alabama
2-10 - Who cares, its not VT, and whoever is 2-4 gets slaughtered by Bama in the playoff
welp, we're done here. Just give them the lipstick and let's be done with the whole season /s
I mean its either this week or next when we see the annual "Can Alabama beat the Cleveland Browns" articles on ESPN and others.
Screw the Browns, make it a fair fight and pit Bama vs. the Super Bowl champ.
I hate those arguments. The Browns would beat Alabama by 100 points.
Ask and yea shall receive
Linky link
But really though. As the entire country was getting upset by someone perceivably worse to far, far worse, Bama was beating a half decent opponent by 48. Michigan is MAYBE the only other team that can even hope to sniff the level that Bama is at, and even then, it would take a perfect game from Big Blue to
compete with Bamabe within one score of Bama at the end of a gameEdited to remove some of the hyperbole
Bama has weaknesses. Ole Miss, Ark and LSU all did fairly well at something against Bama.
And aTm, for a half.
They each did something well against them for a few quarters and they each proceeded to lose anyway. Ole Miss was up by 3 scores and Bama still found a way to win. Arkansas was down 3 scores going into halftime and then lost by 3 scores so I'm not sure what they did that impressed. Bama/LSU was LSU's biggest game of the year yet they still managed ZERO points.
Whatever weaknesses these teams may or may not be exposing are either being corrected ASAP (at halftime usually) or no one has been able to learn from any of them. Only two teams have scored more than 14 against them all season long. I don't see much of a challenge out there for them.
How can you guys possibly think it's okay for Clemson to lose at home to a 5-4 team and only drop them ONE SPOT, but treat any loss we have like the end of the world and "we don't deserve to be ranked" what the hell? double standard much?
Because there aren't many undefeated teams that they are dropping behind with this one loss. We however have a dozen teams that we no longer have the same record and need to drop behind.
Sure, but I don't think there is any rationalization for teams dropping one spot for a unranked home loss, this essentially not punishing a team for a bad loss. I don't want college football to become the NFL where you can lose 7 games and make the playoffs. I want every game to count like it always has. That's one of the best things about college football, the stakes are enormously high. We pretty much are saying "If we want you in the playoff, it's okay to lose to an unranked team at home, don't worry, you won't even drop out of the top 4"
You are thinking of things way to much in terms of dropping a number of spots. Thats a very coaches poll way to think of it. Think of it more like they are now dropped into the one loss tier of teams. Then reassess where they should be within that tier. If they barely drop overall its because they had a large cushion for being undefeated.
I think the new way of thinking about it is incredibly stupid and getting away from what makes college football great. You pay for your bad losses, potentially by it ruining your entire season. Losing at home to an unranked team should not put you in essentially the exact same spot you were in before you lost.
Too much emphasis is being placed on conference championships and it's probably going to keep us from watching one of the country's best and exciting teams, Louisville, from playing in the playoff.
Additionally, why should Clemson have a large cushion for being undefeated? They haven't looked dominant like Bama at all. I think over half their games were decided by one score or less and they were pure luck on a chip shot field goal away from having two bad home losses. They aren't passing the eye test, and Auburn's total joke performance against Georgia should hurt their strength of record. I've been harping all along that Auburn isn't a great team, they had one good game against Arkansas and have been middling at best outside of that.
This is literally like someone saying, "Clemson can lose to whoever they want, we want them in the playoff so they will be."
When Pitt beat West Virginia late in the season in 2007 it ruined WVU's shot at a national title. When unranked Pitt beat Clemson at home in 2016, half of you guys have them playing in THE SAME PLAYOFF GAME they were before the loss. You guys didn't even drop them out of the 2-3 game. That is a joke.
Holy shit this is not at all what I am saying. The point of this new way of thinking is that teams entire seasons are taken into account and everyone's wins and losses are reevaluated each week as other teams prove to be good or bad. I'm not saying they shouldn't drop, but you obsessing about the number of spots they should be punished for their first loss is not looking at the picture of the whole season.
I think their whole season has been a tight rope that without favorable officiating and luck, would be a 3 loss team. That's what I see when I've watched every Clemson game this year. Didn't catch the Syracuse game and only saw about half of the Pitt game because VT was playing.
Also I wasn't saying specifically you said that, but that is essentially what the committee (people in general on here ranking them 3) is/are saying if they only drop them one spot for an unranked home loss.
Except this is exactly why the playoff committee was created, to have this exact impact on the process. They made an emphasis on saying they don't care about rankings and will assign spots as they see fit. The reason why we went away from the BCS was because it took a blind look at everything and didn't take preconceived notions into account when determining rankings.
And they've already proven that they've messed this up. Did anyone honestly think Michigan State was better than Ohio State last year? Michigan State fluke won that game after Ohio State abandoned the run game because Zeke was injured.
Now you want the committee to analyze on that level? Forget the fact that Michigan State won the B1G east and the conference and beat OSU h2h on the road, lets put OSU in because "if" they had better coaching they "should" have won? Thats a stretch
So the best four teams in the country played in the playoff last year? Michigan State losing 38-0 to Alabama was an example of the committee getting the four best teams?
Yes
If Ohio State was that good and wanted to play in the Playoff, they should have won the Big Ten. In fact, they couldn't even make the Big Ten Championship Game.
If we're going to just assign teams by how we feel they can play rather than their actual ability to play and win games, then we might as well blow up the entire season and just assign 4 teams to the playoff in the preseason.
I can't believe you honestly believe Michigan State was one of the four best teams in the country. That is an observably ludicrous statement.
And a very similar bad loss last year to Nebraska that should have eliminated them from serious contention. Unfortunately, we got a total dud for a playoff game instead.
I can't even believe this is a debate
#5 Michigan State beat #4 Iowa in the Big Ten Championship Game. If that doesn't matter and we should just put in Ohio State or some other program who didn't play in or win a conference title, then what the fuck is worth playing the games anymore? I really don't give a shit what the stat line of the MSU-Bama playoff game was, MSU was more than deserving of their spot in the playoff by what they accomplished on the field of play that year.
Your mindset would permanently exclude teams like Virginia Tech from ever making the playoff regardless of their wins, because their 'wow' factor and will never be up to snuff when compared with an Alabama, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, etc, and that's a very bad thing for the sport.
I want the best four teams to play, point blank period. Michigan State was obviously not one.
So when Florida State lost 59-20 to Oregon in 2015 (a bigger margin than the MSU loss to Bama!), does that mean they didn't belong? I really don't understand these hindsight-biased assessments. Sometimes even good or great teams lay an egg, or sometimes a team you think might be a little better proves they want it more. Sometimes one team is just a matchup nightmare for the other. Doesn't mean they didn't earn a shot, it just means the seeding can really influence the outcome.
Well, obviously, Ohio State wasn't one if they lost to a team that got shut out in the playoff.
Remember when we beat anOSU and became Co-National Champs? Me too!. Good times.
Sounds like you want to punish the losses of teams you think are good and neglect the losses of the teams you think are great. The championship games are a great differentiator in my opinion. If you get left out of the playoff because you didn't make it to the conference championship,consider it the same as a great team squandering it's opportunity by losing the first round of the playoff in the nfl.
Edit: I don't have a problem with a non conference champion getting in, but only if it is very obvious. Otherwise, the ranking should favor conference champs.
My personal opinion... If you can't win your conference you shouldn't play for the National Championship. If you can't take care of business enough to come out on top of the one competition you can control, you shouldn't have a shot nationally.
of course the flip side of this is growth as a team. Early conference losses can knock you out of contention for that conference championship game even if by the time the game rolls around, you are the most likely to win the game. This isn't the NFL where players have had years to bond and function well and, for better or for worse, teams tend play the same year to year. Year to year, the character of these teams change like crazy and a lot of that can even be tracked from the beginning of the season to the end.
Unpopular example, but I bet you that by the end of the season, LOLUVa would probably be able to beat Richmond.
In a black and white world I agree. But, I Like having the ability to use some common sense if the team left out is obviously a powerhouse with a legitimate claim. But, like I said, the rankings should lean in favor of the conference champs.
Or the converse, that conf champs deserve a shot. Thus....the 8-team playoff with 5 automatic berths.
I think if you can't beat a 5-4 team at home you shouldn't have a shot nationally. Is that not the same line of thinking?
We beat Ohio state at home and they ended up flying through the playoff. It would be hard to say they didn't deserve the shot they got.
A fair point, but I think the early/late losses should be taken into account. Ohio State looked like a much different team later in the year. Clemson probably isn't going to change much this late in the season and they lost to a 5-4 team at home in November. It was meant as a rebuttal, and I probably should have added "in November" to my response to him for emphasis.
Did they still win a Power conference? Yes? Well then yes, they absolutely should have a shot at the national championship
Alright, we clearly don't want the same thing from the playoff. If we're only gonna have four spots, I hope they damn well are the four best teams in the country.
Perhaps it would help if you considered more than just one team's action last week. There are now FIVE ridiculously good teams with one loss. You could make justifications for any one of them being between 2-6 and have sound reasoning to do so. A loss still is huge, it just so happens that every team was equally punished this week.
How can you say "a loss is still huge" if Clemson is ranked 3rd this week, functionally, it's as if the game never happened. They will still be in the playoff, and still in the 2/3 game of the playoff. To me, that isn't college football. A November loss to a bad team should have some consequence. In this season, this loss may have absolutely none.
Again, 3 undefeated teams lost in one week. We now have 5 teams with 1 loss who can be ranked any number of ways, all have their merits and detractions. If you can't accept that, then you're just being an anti-homer.
And it did cost them. Had they won they would be the clear cut number 2 team with the possibility of still making the playoffs even with a loss between now and the ACC championship. Now they are jumbled up with 5 quality teams who could put them anywhere from 2-6 and have literally no margin of error going forward.
Sure, they could be anywhere from 2-6, but these points were made in response to the number of people and projections I'm seeing put them at 3.
Which isn't crazy, it's all about what you value in a resume. Clemson hasn't been consistently dominant, but they have the best set of wins. Shouldn't Michigan be punished for losing to an unranked Iowa who lost to an fcs team, as well as a schedule with EIGHT home games? Shouldn't Washington and Louisville be punished for lacking wins against top flight competition? And...Ohio State actually seems pretty solid now, but they lost to a Penn State that was unranked at the time. Fact is when you punish everybody the effect isn't obvious, but it's still there.
Hypothetical situation... Let's say we have a weekend where all teams in the Top 25 are playing unranked opponents, and in this given weekend football Armageddon happens and all 25 teams lose. By your criteria, the 26th ranked team should vault to #1, as no team who loses to an unranked opponent should be ranked that high.
Do you agree with this?
Amen to that. How is Wisconsin not number 4 here in pretty much everyone's top 4? They lose to Michigan and Ohio State, each one score games, yet we're trying to convince ourselves that Clemson's loss to a very average Pitt team is better? What kind of logic is that? Are we just going to negate the fact that Watson threw for nearly 600 yards, yet Clemson's "elite" defense still allowed Pitt to hang 43 on them? I don't get it at all.
Maybe because Wisconsin best win is over a terrible Les Miles led LSU. They have two losses and two ranked wins. Clemson has 1 one loss and three ranked wins. How could Wisconsin be above Clemson.
I agree with kff17. Wisconsin is impressive, should be the highest ranked two-loss team and ranked ahead of several one-loss teams, but not ahead of Clemson.
What I've learned in the last two days is that from a functional perspective, Clemson didn't even lose to unranked Pitt at home this week. It has affected their season absolutely none. They might as well have not even played the game.
What 3 teams would you put in above them this week? Your Clemson hate is blinding you bud.
Listen, I know I don't like Clemson but look at the point I'm trying to make. They lost at home to an unranked team and as many on here, and projections I'm seeing are suggesting, they aren't going to pay for it in any functional way at all. Most of you have them in the same playoff game, the 2-3 matchup. In essence the game doesn't even matter.
You're clearly more concerned about "justice and punishment" than analyzing everyone's resume
I'm more concerned about college football becoming the NFL where regular season games stop mattering as much. That is one of the most unique and greatest things about College Football. At this point, I really wish I knew what was going through your heads.
I am talking about Clemson's resume. They are lucky not to have two terrible home losses. They received very favorable officiating against both Louisville and FSU and going into this past week, led the nation in penalties called against their opponents. They have more one score games than not. My only guess is that the Louisville game is propping them up significantly, because Auburn has not been impressive. They looked good in one game against Arkansas, the rest have been close games with Vandy, beating LSU because they redacted their game winning TD, and now a bad loss to UGA. Plus FSU playing Clemson close isn't impressive, FSU needed a game winning drive to beat NC State the week after NC State lost to BC. I think their "good wins" are being horribly overvalued outside of Louisville. I am looking at the big picture here.
I'm confused here. Each regular season game matters more in the NFL than basically any other sport. In the NFL you get 10 teams into the playoffs in a 30 team league, and you only get 16 games to position yourself to being one of those 10. The margin of error is razor thin, so thin that this year, the team that represented the NFC in the Super Bowl last year, and went 15-1 on the season is already out of the playoff hunt 9 weeks in.
Yes except you can go 9-7 some seasons and have a chance to win the Super Bowl. I don't think there is any argument that College Football losses aren't the most significant of any sport. There are 128(? always changing) FBS teams and a 4 team playoff. NFL is 12 playoff spots and 32 teams.
FTFY :)
Another difference with the NFL is that there's absolutely no poll or committee or computer determining if you get in or not, barring strength of schedule calculations for tiebreakers. You earn your way in and are seeded based on your record or winning your conference/division, much like most every other NCAA sport (at-large bids notwithstanding).
This is your worst anti-clemson argument yet. Two other undefeated teams lost, there are now 5 one-loss teams with differing but similar resumes. And besides, they are being punished, they would be the clear-cut number 2 and huge favorites to win-out. Now they are in a 5-team scramble with a final rank of 4 (an undesirable matchup with bama) and 5 (obviously disastrous) very much on the table.
How is thinking that a bad loss at home should affect Clemson, anti-Clemson? Either way. I don't want to get into this whole thing again. I've made my position clear.
But your position defies basic common sense.
That an unranked home loss in November to a 5-4 team should drop you more than one spot? That defies common sense?
When there are 4 other teams that had something similar happen to them, yes.
Gotcha, I'll check myself into the asylum for thinking a home loss to a 5-4 team in November should drop a #2 ranked team farther than #3.
It's not about punishment, it's about reassessing the total picture every single week. Let's lay it out. We have 5 one loss teams.
Michigan - lost to a 5-4 team in November (who lost to an fcs at home) while playing an unusually accommodating 8 game home schedule (9 in their home state)
Washington - lack quality wins against highly ranked opponents
Clemson - lost at home to 5-4 team in November
Louisville - lack quality wins against highly ranked opponents
Ohio State - only loss an away night game against quality opponent
Clemson should probably fall below Ohio State. Which leaves Louisville (who they beat), Washington, and Michigan. Some people value quality losses and dominating play. That would probably push them below Louisville and Washington, in a tie with Michigan. Others value wins against quality opponents, that would probably push them ahead of everyone but Ohio State (and roughly even with the Buckeyes). Some might go for pure quality using the eye test (not so good for Clemson) or advanced stats (very kind to Clemson). It's basically a tossup between a bunch of teams with similar resumes and you would be hard pressed to pick out 3-4 teams they should be behind.
Me
Also Me.
This is my point. Just because I think these matter doesn't mean I'm not using common sense. I think you should be punished for bad losses and I think the eye test should play a bigger role. I think if you look at these, you avoid the MSU dud of a playoff game (bad loss to Nebraska, Ohio State better by eye test) and you successfully put Ohio State into the playoff in 2014 (eye test, dominating play against everyone down the stretch) and I do think when you lose is important. Ohio State's loss to us so early in the year was a loss for sure, but they looked so dominant by the end of the year, I think everyone would agree they become a better and more complete team by the end. I think Clemson losing to Pitt in November is more telling. This team has had 10 games to break out of this playing everyone close, turnover filled rut, but they haven't and it finally bit them in the ass. Now, I don't like the idea that they potentially will be totally unaffected by it.
Either way, I respect and enjoy TKP'ing with all you guys I've argued with on here, so my apologies for being a sarcastic jerk at times.
For the record I always enjoy your input, you seem to know your stuff.
And I don't necessarily disagree with you about Clemson. I think that's a perfectly valid stance. My contention is the implication that others (primarily the committee) seeing it from a different angle is somehow not well thought out or (much worse) biased.
Sadly though, I think until the committee actually lays out their criteria for "best" (fat chance) we'll be having these discussions basically every year.
I think that's a totally fair assessment and I agree. It's unlikely anything will happen remove these discussions for better or worse.
Whole point of this thread is for these debates! No matter what happens though i think somebodys going to be pissed. Everyone has a claim which is going to make this disheartening for someone
they would have dropped more if 2 other teams right behind them didn't lose as well. You aren't looking at this rationally.
I mean if it's any consolation it may mean that Clemson goes into the playoff at #4 and as a result gets crushed by Alabama in their first playoff game as opposed to potentially getting crushed by them in the natty.
While I would greatly enjoy that, I don't even want them to make it. Here's to hoping we beat UVA and put together our best effort and knock them off in the ACCCG.
So playoff top 6 is as follows:
Bama
anOSU
Michigan
Clemson
Louisville
Washington
We dropped completely out.
Clemson and Michigan have to be examples of the least teams have ever suffered from losses to 5-4 teams in November in the history of college football. I've made my opinions known, but it's hard for me to buy that this new system is better with stuff like this happening. Things will get real dumb if PSU gets in with two losses for winning the Big 14 and loses to Bama by 40.
All of this while Louisville likely watches from home.
arkansas over LSU says otherwise in 2007 (?) when LSU won the championship
Worth noting 2007 is the craziest year in cfb history (see: Team Chaos), Arkansas had 7 wins at that point and had Dmac, Felix Jones, Peyton Hillis and 3(?) NFL wide receivers. Plus Lsu dropped more for that loss and benefitted from a crazy final week that saw both Missouri and WVU lose the next week to help them get in. I see the correlation but don't think it's an apples to apples comparison. Michigan lost to a 5-4 team on the road and didn't drop, Clemson lost to a 5-4 team at home and dropped two spots, knowing OSU and Mich still had to play, ensuring a #3 spot at least if Clemson wins out. But either way, this is what we have this year, just gotta take it I guess. Hopefully we beat UVA and play our best game of the season against Clemson to maybe help Louisville slip in.
Who would you have put in their place?