Fran believes we should be ranked

[sufandu]

Let's talk about that team. The "more deserving team" you're so worried about is the 12th team picked to make the playoff. The clear powerhouses with the best records aren't at risk. You're talking about a team that might not have even made their conference championship game, let alone won it.

Why are you more concerned about doing right by them than you are the team that walked off the field with a W every time?

The Cinderellas are one of the funnest parts of the NCAA tourney. College football doesn't even entertain that possibility. That doesn't make for a better game.

I want to see the 12 best teams play each other. Your proposal doesn't establish that. The committee isn't perfect, but I think they do a better job than your proposal would even with conference bias that we all know exists.

 

[elimunelson]

what would be infinitely more annoying is the fact we'd be on the outside of the playoff if we only had 1 loss.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Let's talk about that team. The "more deserving team" you're so worried about is the 12th team picked to make the playoff. The clear powerhouses with the best records aren't at risk. You're talking about a team that might not have even made their conference championship game, let alone won it.

Why are you more concerned about doing right by them than you are the team that walked off the field with a W every time?

The Cinderellas are one of the funnest parts of the NCAA tourney. College football doesn't even entertain that possibility. That doesn't make for a better game.

That isn’t what you proposed though. Having 2-3 teams that do not belong in the playoff, cheapens the playoff. If you have a 12-1 Army as a two seed you just gave the 7 seed a bye into the semis. That 7 seed doesn’t belong. Then the 3 seed has a 7 seed to get to the final. That ruins things. No one is saying keep the 12-1 team out. They deserve the 12 seed which they would get anyway under the current system.

Back to my last post it had nothing to do with the CCG. It was about coaches not wanting to play anyone. If it were up to them they would play 4 FCS teams OOC. It is why the SEC only plays 8 conference games, to inflate records. If it is only about Ws and not who you beat, what is to stop Bama from playing 4 FCS games OOC? You reduce the risk of injury, you keep your starters fresh, you get to develop your bench. So why not play an FCS, SEC Home, SEC Away, FCS, SECH, SECA the entire year. You would also get to reset after every quarter of the season and work out any kinks.

I am with you on Ws being the most important metric. At the end of the day the W is the only thing that should matter in a game. It is one of the issues I have with the computer rankings. The actual game result isn't weighted enough. Being able to pull out the W when you aren't having a good day isn't statistically measurable. I am with you there.

I am also down for taking as much choice away from the committee as you can. I have advocated for that on the BBall side. So...

-To be eligible for an at large you should need to be at worst 9-3 overall.
-You should have won 75% or more of your conference games. So in 7 game conferences 6-1 or better, 8 game 6-2 or better, 9 game 7-2 or better.
-You shouldn't have played an FCS game.
-For P4 schools you need 10 P4 games (conference + OOC). So 8 game conference + 2 OOC or 9 game conference + 1 OOC.
-For G6 schools you need to play 2 P4 games OOC

If you have the above, then we can pretty much go for what you suggest: based on record. You are making it fair by decreasing variance of schedules. You are going from apples to oranges to honeycrisp to macintosh.


Going back to Penn State (not you), they are overrated. By no means should they be ahead of Indiana. And they probably shouldn't be ahead of Miami, Boise State, BYU. But at the same time they didn't choose their conference opponents. It is a little bit of bad luck that those teams stunk this year. They should though get credit for no FCS games (not their fault Kent State is so bad and worse than an FCS). And they also should get credit for 10 P4 games.

That is something that the SEC has never been held accountable for. The committee is doing a disservice not being critical that the SEC will play 8 +1 for their P4 games. They also all play an FCS game. Step up and be critical, that is the only way things change. The SEC shouldn't skate by on smaller in conference schedules and weaker OOC schedules. You can put the 5 teams in but seed them low to prove a point and send a message.

If you are in a G6 you already have a weaker conference schedule. So you need a strong OOC schedule. Looking at the ranked G6s...

-Props to UNLV and they should be ranked higher since they played Houston, Kansas, and SU OOC. Teams like Utah Tech probably need to go in the future.
-Tulane gets a star for playing K State and Oklahoma OOC. Even Louisiana is a decent game. But SE Louisiana needs to go. Still under the current system this is a good OOC.
-Army playing Notre Dame, Air Force, Navy is more than fine. That Lehigh game though. You cannot be in the AAC and expect to be ranked high with that OOC.
-For Boise State it is great that the played Oregon. Georgia Southern is fine. But they cannot play a MWC schedule and Portland State.

Back to your point, I think you are overstating the chances of 0 or 1 loss G6s not making the playoff. Go back and look at past years. Those teams wouldn't get left out. The issue I have is those teams should be 12 seeds and not 2 seeds.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

what would be infinitely more annoying is the fact we'd be on the outside of the playoff if we only had 1 loss.

1. I think in that case we are in the ACC CG.
2. Even if we were not, I think we still make the playoff.

 

[Scooch]

It's really not worth getting worked up about rankings until the final one before the playoffs. Most of this stuff resolves itself on the field.

Indiana is "overranked" because they haven't beaten anyone? Here's an Ohio State game for them.

One loss SMU should be in the top 12 over 2 loss Tennessee? Here's an ACC champ game SMU, have at it.

Ultimately I'd much rather be Outraged (tm) about some 2 loss team not getting the #12 seed than a 1 loss team not making the final 4 in the previous incarnation of the Playoff, or even worse, an undefeated team not making the final 2, in the version before that.

 

[Cuse181]

Under a 12 team playoff structure tell me why that would have been a problem.

that would be under the 4 team scenario. By your logic It should’ve been Liberty, FSU, Michigan, Washington

 

[elimunelson]

1. I think in that case we are in the ACC CG.
2. Even if we were not, I think we still make the playoff.

it would be razor close and prob would be dependent on the one loss.

I'm glad we're trending upward and having this discussion. Those late 80s Syracuse teams were always in the ranking discussions. i want to get back to that timeframe.

 

[elimunelson]

It's really not worth getting worked up about rankings until the final one before the playoffs. Most of this stuff resolves itself on the field.

Indiana is "overranked" because they haven't beaten anyone? Here's an Ohio State game for them.

One loss SMU should be in the top 12 over 2 loss Tennessee? Here's an ACC champ game SMU, have at it.

Ultimately I'd much rather be Outraged (tm) about some 2 loss team not getting the #12 seed than a 1 loss team not making the final 4 in the previous incarnation of the Playoff, or even worse, an undefeated team not making the final 2, in the version before that.

this stuff is much more fun when we're discussing 2 loss vs 1 loss teams on the back end and will prob lose in round 1 anyway.

I just want to see how the "other" non playoff teams reconcile their bowl games and importance. I want an NIT like tournament for them. Why not

 

[MikeSU02]

He's lobbying. That's what he should be doing. Voters are human and they react to stuff like this.

We're going to beat UConn, we'll get ranked and then that Miami game against us is going to be huge.

He is doing what he should. That's all. Can do all the forensic analysis you want, it's just to ensure we've got the best chance to be ranked after beating UConn.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

it would be razor close and prob would be dependent on the one loss.

I'm glad we're trending upward and having this discussion. Those late 80s Syracuse teams were always in the ranking discussions. i want to get back to that timeframe.

I don't think it would be close. Like Scooch said it all works itself out. Look at the non P2 schools right now...

Miami cannot go 11-1, they will either be 12-1 or 11-2. Same for Boise State, SMU, and BYU.

The chances of SU going 11-1 and not being in the ACC CG are extremely thin. And if that were to happen, chances are we would be ranked around 10th and in as one of the last at larges.

If SU this year was 11-0 and lost to Miami (meaning we miss out on the ACC CG), do you really think we drop outside of the Top 10? Keep in mind that 3-4 teams in the current Top 10 are also likely to lose a game either this week or next.

 

[ImperialOrange]

We have solid wins. I wouldn't call any of them impressive. Impressive would be beating a team that has been solidly ranked all year and/or blowing teams out. We haven't done either.

That's circular logic. UNLV, GA Tech and possibly Ohio all were/are/stay ranked IF you replace their losses to us with Wins... so we hurt our perceived strength of schedule by winning.

 

[upperdeck]

I don't think it would be close. Like Scooch said it all works itself out. Look at the non P2 schools right now...

Miami cannot go 11-1, they will either be 12-1 or 11-2. Same for Boise State, SMU, and BYU.

The chances of SU going 11-1 and not being in the ACC CG are extremely thin. And if that were to happen, chances are we would be ranked around 10th and in as one of the last at larges.

If SU this year was 11-0 and lost to Miami (meaning we miss out on the ACC CG), do you really think we drop outside of the Top 10? Keep in mind that 3-4 teams in the current Top 10 are also likely to lose a game either this week or next.

I dont know that 11-0 SU even gets into the top 10. Would like to think it would be so.

 

[orange79]

Sorry but he’s a hypocrite.

He said weeks ago it doesn’t matter and that he doesn’t want to be the 25th best he wants to be the best.

Now he wants to be ranked?

I bet he was told by a few recruits no because they aren’t ranked.

This may be one of the silliest posts on this board.

Ever.

 

[AAM62]

Had you beaten the Boston Clowns or Stanford, you might be.

they DEF would be. Would be well into the teens.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I dont know that 11-0 SU even gets into the top 10. Would like to think it would be so.

BYU was 6th at 9-0. Heck Army might be Top 10 if they are 11-0.

 

[Cuse181]

That's what happens due to common practice and everyone bending the knee to assumed SEC superiority, not because it's "all you can do."

I mean sports fans, take a second and consider when you're arguing against what I'm proposing, you're arguing in favor of what actually happens on the field being less important than whatever people "think" about teams. THAT COMPLETELY UNDERMINES THE ETHOS OF COMPETITIVE SPORTS.

So what if you have 13 undefeated teams? What happens then? Is it likely, no but what if it happens? How do you differentiate?

 

[SUFaninNJ]

Forget the rankings and the 12 team playoff system. I say put all of the D1 football mascots into a stadium, gladiator style and whomever is the last one standing, crown them champions. It'll be fun to see how scrappy a bouncy ball of citrus can be and how the Scarlet Knight will inevitably screw things up.

 

[orange79]

So what if you have 13 undefeated teams? What happens then? Is it likely, no but what if it happens? How do you differentiate?

Pretty sure you ask the mayo/Miracle Whip question...

 

[HRE Otto IV]

OttoinGrotto, I want to agree with you. Ideally we should go on Ws. However, there is way too much variance in schedules. But we can fix that.

I think the P4 conferences should come together and all agree to play 10 P4 games total. This would somewhat decrease the variance in schedules between the 4 conferences. Yes not all 10 games will be equal, but at least everyone is playing 10 vs having some play 8.

The B1G and B12 for the most part already do play 10 games. The change would be with the SEC and ACC. The SEC would either have to play 9 conference games or agree to an SEC-ACC challenge. I think they pick the latter since an ACC game is easier in most cases than a 9th SEC game, and many SEC teams already play ACC teams yearly.


Step two would be to ban FCS games. This IMO is the number issue with OOC schedules. Eliminating these games will greatly reduce the variance in schedules between the P4 and G6, and also somewhat reduce between each of the P4s.

Some P4s play zero FCS games, so they will have a slightly harder schedules than other P4s. If you ban FCS games then the P4 will need 2 G6 OOC games. Which means most G6 teams will play 2 P4 teams. A lot easier to respect a 11-1 G6 team if they have played 2 P4s and no FCSs to get to those 11 Ws. That would likely mean they are 10-0 vs the G6, 1-1 vs the P4, and 0-0 vs the FCS.

There are currently 68 P4 teams. The G6 also has 68 teams. Of those 68 G6 teams, I would say close to 60 will end up playing 2 P4 teams, maybe 5-6 will have 3 games and another 5-6 with only 1 game.

Just enacting these simple two things would make me agree with you that we need to go off of record. You are in the right place, but we need to fix the scheduling first before going there. Otherwise you will have the P4 go down to 8 conference games, zero P4 OOC games, and one FCS game. That way they inflate their own records. Which would be a disservice to the regular season.

 

[Chip]

It's really not worth getting worked up about rankings until the final one before the playoffs. Most of this stuff resolves itself on the field.

Indiana is "overranked" because they haven't beaten anyone? Here's an Ohio State game for them.

One loss SMU should be in the top 12 over 2 loss Tennessee? Here's an ACC champ game SMU, have at it.

Ultimately I'd much rather be Outraged (tm) about some 2 loss team not getting the #12 seed than a 1 loss team not making the final 4 in the previous incarnation of the Playoff, or even worse, an undefeated team not making the final 2, in the version before that.

So much is going to change, and then there's going to be a new set of criteria for everyone after the CG games.

That said, I'll reiterate that ND being as far ahead of SMU as they are right now is crap. Texas A&M win, looks way better now, but Texas A&M took a few weeks to get rolling. Northern Illinois loss, looks even more horrific as it did at the time as Northern Illinois is even worse than people thought.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

So much is going to change, and then there's going to be a new set of criteria for everyone after the CG games.

That said, I'll reiterate that ND being as far ahead of SMU as they are right now is crap. Texas A&M win, looks way better now, but Texas A&M took a few weeks to get rolling. Northern Illinois loss, looks even more horrific as it did at the time as Northern Illinois is even worse than people thought.

Not sure how good A&M even is. They beat LSU, who is not looking so hot. And then? They got killed by South Carolina, and have close games vs Bowling Green, Arkansas, Miss State. I could see them losing this week to Auburn.

 

[SUFaninNJ]

Pretty sure you ask the mayo/Miracle Whip question...

 

[Eric15]

teams cannot be ranked lower than a team that has more losses than they do

OIG, I love you platonically as a poster, but that makes zero sense. In a sport like MLB/NBA/NHL where there isn't a massive difference between the best and worst teams and there is a large sample size of games, ranking teams by pure W/L makes sense. But it just doesn't work that way with college football. There are only 12 games, and massive variance in the strength of schedules. There needs to be some subjective ranking based on schedule strength, who you beat, who you lose to, etc. Bama and Georgia being ranked below Army just isn't rational.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

So what if you have 13 undefeated teams? What happens then? Is it likely, no but what if it happens? How do you differentiate?

You seem to be completely missing that I'm saying rank WITHIN the cohort.

If by some statistical oddity you end up with 13 undefeated teams for 12 playoff spots, you'd use whatever evaluation you want to differentiate them.

You just wouldn't make a case that any of the 1 loss teams deserve to be in over the undefeated teams.

People keep trying to poke holes in this in ways that don't apply to the proposal.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

OIG, I love you platonically as a poster, but that makes zero sense. In a sport like MLB/NBA/NHL where there isn't a massive difference between the best and worst teams and there is a large sample size of games, ranking teams by pure W/L makes sense. But it just doesn't work that way with college football. There are only 12 games, and massive variance in the strength of schedules. There needs to be some subjective ranking based on schedule strength, who you beat, who you lose to, etc. Bama and Georgia being ranked below Army just isn't rational.

It's not rational because you *think* they're better and *believe* they would beat Army, which is unknowable about any future single game outcome, so it is extremely irrational.

We're just used to accepting that irrationality.

I'm saying, we've over weighted on subjective criteria when we have *some* objective criteria, and a 12 team playoff and how it resolves the champion provides room for more acceptance of the objective criteria we do have. The concept of identifying the 12 *best* teams to include in the playoffs is the wrong standard because it's subjective. The concept of identifying the 12 *most deserving* teams based on their ability to win games is more objective. And the beauty of the playoff is that the winner objectively deserves to be named the champion.