Fran believes we should be ranked

[Scooch]

We're actually saying the same thing about how it works out in the end (other than I'm not talking about applying this to the 4 team playoff, my rank within cohorts concept only applies to the 12 team playoff structure).

Teams prove it out in the end. But since we have the playoffs, and there are limited spots, I advocate for rewarding the teams that win the most and lose the least over rewarding teams we *think* are better. Give those teams the shot to work it out at the very end.

Eh, I don't think we're saying the same thing. I'm fine with a 2 or 3 loss team getting in over a 1 loss team and not pretending all wins are equal. They're not. Strength of schedule is a real thing. If humans are not great at always evaluating that perfectly I'm OK with it. It's better than pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[upperdeck]

Go down the top 25 and see what teams you think we should beat if we play well.

Ignore the any given day thing.

We don't know about Indy yet

I am not convinced on ND
I am not convinced on Miami

Ole Miss/Ga/Tenn would be really hard

Boise and UNLV are about equal

SMU is fast and BYU is physical.

but from about #15 on its a muddled mess.

We already have beaten two 20-25 type teams and I don't think either game was our best effort.

If we had 5 picks vs any team we have played we probably lose so Pitt is just a game that happens.

Col is #16 and they have no ranked wins but they don't have the awful Stan loss either.

 

[sufandu]

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.

Nah. Ga Tech has 3 other losses, solid win not impressive. UNLV is ranked again so they're solid too, but I don't think they've beaten a team with a winning record and they got beat by the only ranked team they've played. Not impressive but solid. Ohio has a good record but got blown out by a 4-6 Kentucky team and lacks wins over any great teams. Another solid win.

This is what most of the fanbase asked for. We wanted a manageable schedule. That's what we got this year. The trade off with that is that we don't have any impressive win but we have a lot of really solid wins. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not make it more than it is.

 

[sufandu]

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.

I like this. I would also want fewer comference games and more OOC games spread throughout the season, so a win or loss early in the season before some teams have figured things out wouldn't carry so much weight in the evaluation of the strength of the conferences.

 

[CNYGuy]

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.

His full answer was essentially the same thing he said then. People in the building don't care unless its #1. Quote was something like "I want it for our fans" - and given this thread - we clearly care.

 

[djcon57]

I keep bringing this up in other threads, and people keep telling me I'm wrong, but my cohort ranking concept solves for this.

If any of you posters haven't yet witnessed my genius, the cohort concept is very simple - teams cannot be ranked lower than a team that has more losses than they do, and teams are only ranked relative to teams that have an equal number of losses.* Also, if teams happen to play each other, that result matters a lot. Conference affiliation and pre-season ranking biases evaporate.

So let's look at the rankings and how they would work using the cohort ranking system:

1. Oregon - best undefeated resume, has the most wins
2. Indiana - better undefeated resume than Army, 1 more win than Army, 1 fewer than Oregon
3. Army - last remaining unbeaten to rank
4. Ohio St. - best loss among 1 loss teams with solid wins
5. Boise St. - shares best loss among 1 loss teams, has some quality wins
6. Texas - next best loss among 1 loss teams with solid wins
7. BYU - bad loss among 1 loss teams but has head to head over SMU
8. SMU - only loss is to BYU just ahead of them, mehish wins
9. Miami - bad loss, mehish wins
10. Notre Dame - slightly worse loss, mehish wins
11. Penn St. - respectable loss but wins are all crap, also I'll see all of these enablers of child abuse in Hell
12. Pick an 8-2 SEC team I guess, whatever

Now, without using a hypothetical or applying some unknown criteria to benefit a team that you aren't applying to another, or using something imaginary like a betting line, or drawing on something entirely subjective like pre-season ranking, or giving unearned weight to conference affiliation,tell me the how the above is wrong.

You cain't.

You cain't.

And I know people are crapping their pants saying Army is too high, but it. Does. Not. Matter. They've accomplished what only two other teams have, keeping a spotless record. That matters. And if they aren't all that, we'll find out before the season ends. And if they do run the table... they earned their spot.

Fight me.

*With the exception of conference championship games. Conference championships cannot count against a program, they only count in favor of a program. This is so teams don't get credit for avoiding a potential loss from a conference championship.

Got to put Montana State on there at #4 too then.

 

[Moontan]

This makes a good point
View attachment 246956

There was also a win over ranked GA Tech.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I counted 16. Some have an 8-2 record.

Pretty sure that was meant to be rhetorical. Well done by you.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I like this. I would also want fewer comference games and more OOC games spread throughout the season, so a win or loss early in the season before some teams have figured things out wouldn't carry so much weight in the evaluation of the strength of the conferences.

Going to 7 conference + 3 P4 OOC + 2 G6 OOC for the P4 sounds great on the surface, but it causes issues within conference. These conferences are too big. You don't want what is happening in the SEC this year. A lot easier to have a log jam tie at the top with fewer conference games. If the SEC would act like a big boy and play 9 conference games like the B1G and B12, it would ease the logjam.

 

[Moontan]

Win this weekend and we’ll be 24-26.
Beat Miami and we’ll be in that 15-18 range.

It's gonna be tough...

21	Arizona State	8-2	vs #14BYU (9-1)
22	Iowa State	8-2	@Utah (4-6)
23	UNLV	8-2	@San José State (6-4)
24	Illinois	7-3	@Rutgers (6-4)
25	Washington State	8-2	@Oregon State (4-6) [technically, the conference championship game]
26	Missouri	7-3	@Mississippi State (2-8)
27	Memphis	9-2	Bye
28	Kansas State	7-3	vs Cincinnati (5-5)

Beat Yukon and root for the Utes, BYU, San Jose, Rutgirls, Oregon State, MS State and Cincy.

Would likely need 4 of the 7 playing teams that are ranked above the Orange to lose

 

[sufandu]

I would rather see the conference champions of all 10 conferences (including the Pac) get an automatic bid. The conference strength/eye ball test would apply to seedings and which teams get a bye in the first round. It also leaves open two at large spots.

This would (1) allow teams to play more interesting and competitive OOC games, (2) put an emphasis on conference games, and (3) likely push Notre Dame into a conference. It would also return the majority of P4 schools back into the bowl system.

It will not happen because the networks will not let it happen as there is likely little national interest in watching Oregon destroy Jacksonville State. Because I am jaded, I also think it may have to do with gamblers being less likely to bet on games in which the line is 40 points, but as I am not a degenerate gambler, I have no idea.

I've always said 16 is the perfect size. Get all the conference champions and the balance are at larges.

 

[sufandu]

I had the same thought this morning. Let one month go bye and start rankings October 1.

That's why the committee waits. The other rankings are independent and for entertainment purposes. That's why they pretty much start the day after the NC game.

 

[Jcuse_44]

I had the same thought this morning. Let one month go bye and start rankings October 1.

Been wanting this since like 2005. Just makes sense. If FSU isn't the perfect example I don't know what is.

 

[sufandu]

Going to 7 conference + 3 P4 OOC + 2 G6 OOC for the P4 sounds great on the surface, but it causes issues within conference. These conferences are too big. You don't want what is happening in the SEC this year. A lot easier to have a log jam tie at the top with fewer conference games. If the SEC would act like a big boy and play 9 conference games like the B1G and B12, it would ease the logjam.

I'd be happy if conferences were abolished and everyone was independent.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

Right now, the ACC has a perception problem. It cost an undefeated FSU a bid last year. It is demonstrated by how lowly ranked Miami and SMU are this year. What it also does is provide mid-level B1G and SEC teams a recruiting advantage by pointing out that the ACC (or XII) are one-bid leagues, but if you go to Purdue or Vandy and have a special year, multiple bids for the B1G or SEC means there is a shot, even with a loss or two, to make the playoffs.

If there is going to be further consolidation and just one of the ACC or XII will survive as a power conference, the ACC needs to consistently be a multi-bid league (hopefully at the expense of the XII). While I would also like the ACC teams win or at least lose by a respectable margin, in the end, memories are short and I think being a multi-bid league whose teams get destroyed is less of an issue long term than being a single bid league.

There isn't a deserving ACC at large and if Miami doesn't run the table it's not even getting the bye. The top of the Big Ten and SEC took care of business. Big 12 and ACC didn't.

SMU shouldn't have lost to BYU they'd get an at large if they won't that one.

 

[David321]

There isn't a deserving ACC at large and if Miami doesn't run the table it's not even getting the bye. The top of the Big Ten and SEC took care of business. Big 12 and ACC didn't.

SMU shouldn't have lost to BYU they'd get an at large if they won't that one.

ACC refs will be out to screw us big time next week at home.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

okay, so i was giving you more credit then you deserved

Oh.

Well then.

Thank you. Thank you very little.

 

[David321]

Mark Packer just said on ACC Prime that he was surprised Syracuse didn't get more love as well.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Eh, I don't think we're saying the same thing. I'm fine with a 2 or 3 loss team getting in over a 1 loss team and not pretending all wins are equal. They're not. Strength of schedule is a real thing. If humans are not great at always evaluating that perfectly I'm OK with it. It's better than pretending it doesn't exist.

I meant more that in the end it shakes out.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Got to put Montana State on there at #4 too then.

I'm not sure why you interpreted my thoughts as inclusive if FCS programs.

 

[djcon57]

I'm not sure why you interpreted my thoughts as inclusive if FCS programs.

They beat New Mexico this year so could, in theory, be included

 

[upperdeck]

Nah. Ga Tech has 3 other losses, solid win not impressive. UNLV is ranked again so they're solid too, but I don't think they've beaten a team with a winning record and they got beat by the only ranked team they've played. Not impressive but solid. Ohio has a good record but got blown out by a 4-6 Kentucky team and lacks wins over any great teams. Another solid win.

This is what most of the fanbase asked for. We wanted a manageable schedule. That's what we got this year. The trade off with that is that we don't have any impressive win but we have a lot of really solid wins. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not make it more than it is.

I don't think Ohio without its QB and its two 2 RBs would be expected to do much vs any P5.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

They beat New Mexico this year so could, in theory, be included

No.

 

[djcon57]

No.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I'd be happy if conferences were abolished and everyone was independent.

IMO the B1G and SEC should come together and pool TV monies into one giant association, maybe call it the College Football Association or CFA for short. Then they could group schools into seven 10 team divisions based off of geography. Maybe something like...

Division 1
Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa, Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Come up with a catchy name like Big Ten.

Division 2
Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, UGA, Auburn, Florida, Ole Miss, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
Maybe name it the Southeastern Conference or SEC for short

Division 3
Nebraska, Oklahoma, BYU, Iowa State, Okie State, Mizzou, Utah, K State, Colorado, Kansas
I don't know call it the Big Eight Plus Two?

Division 4
Washington, USC, Oregon, Arizona State, UCLA, Zona, Cal, Stanford, Oregon State, WSU
How about Pacific Athletic Conference Ten or PAC 10 for short?

Division 5
Clemson, South Carolina, FSU, NC State, UNC, UVA, GA Tech, Maryland, Wake, Duke
hmmm Atlantic Coast Conference? ACC for short?

Division 6
Texas A&M, Texas, Arkansas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston, SMU, Rice, Tulane
Southwestern Conference sounds nice, or SWC for short.

Division 7
Penn State, Notre Dame, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Miami, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, SU, BC
I like the Big East for this

The above would cover all current P4 schools except UCF and Cincinnati. Added bonus, no UConn.

So what do you all think?