• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

College Football Playoff (2015-16 Season)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
There was only 1 undefeated last year.
Most years there's only 1 or 2 undefeateds... and 0 more often than 3 IIRC.

- Any undefeated P5 is automatic
- Does BXII get a pity make-up call for getting left out last year? Especially in light of all their incessant moaning and tantrums?
- Does SEC still automatically get to be 1st in line for the 1loss? AP and Coaches seem to think so. 2014's CFP's polls would suggest that as well. Yet they really haven't lived up anywhere close to the hype the last couple years.
- ACC is first to get left out if they have no undefeated teams. See undefeated defending champ FSU ranked #4 at times last year behind three 1-loss teams.
- Do two 1-loss teams from the same conf make it in before an undefeated G5 conf champ? Committee ranked G5s very low last year... in fact I think it was only in the final 1 or 2 sets that they included a G5 at all, and seemingly obligatory (highest one goes bowling... so they had to pick somebody)
- I have a feeling Stanford has a better shot than Utah. Getting blown out in late October is a lot harder to gloss over than losing close in early weeks.
- It'd honestly just be easier if Baylor wins out. Otherwise we enter territory of having to possibly include 2 1-loss BXII teams. Or they could go wheel of destiny (OSlite beats TCU beats Baylor beats OSlite) and nobody goes again.
 
Upvote 0
http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...608/ncaa-football-rankings-clemson-ohio-state

Clemson and Ohio State are college football's only complete teams
By Bill Connelly

Everybody stinks! It's total chaos! It's another 2007 just waiting to happen!

We tell ourselves these things every year, in part because chaos is awesome, and college football pretty reliably produces it.

To be sure, we've got evidence on our side this time. In two weeks, one unbeaten team has remained that way despite the unlikeliest of "bad punt snap, fumble return TD" combinations, and another was knocked from the list of undefeateds by a blocked field goal return score as time expired. College football is a haunted house, and you never know when the lights are going off.

But while the "another 2007!" thing is probably wishful -- there are far too many unbeaten teams for us to be envisioning a sea of two-loss teams -- there's might be a point to the "everybody stinks!" thing. Everybody doesn't stink, but the lack of separation at the top of the computer ratings is stark. Take a look at the top of this week's F/+ ratings and compare them to last year. Not only have this year's No. 2 and 3 teams (Michigan and Alabama) already combined for three losses, neither would have fit into last year's top four. No. 4 LSU wouldn't have been in last year's top eight.

Now, part of that is that teams have had only eight weeks to separate themselves. There are six more to go. I would be stunned if No. 1 Clemson were the only true elite at season's end. Somebody will rise.

Cont'd ...
 
Upvote 0
I get that SI's new Campus Rush "digital vertical" format has forced their top CFB writer, Andy Staples, to trend more trollish this year, but I just don't get this statement:

The safest bet is even though the Buckeyes looked great in a 49–7 win at Rutgers on Saturday, the committee likely won't agree with the polls on placing them at No. 1.
Click to expand...

That's the "safest bet" in projecting the initial CFP rankings? Fortunately Andy provides no further basis for his tout, so... buttons.
 
Upvote 0
BayBuck said:
I get that SI's new Campus Rush "digital vertical" format has forced their top CFB writer, Andy Staples, to trend more trollish this year, but I just don't get this statement:



That's the "safest bet" in projecting the initial CFP rankings? Fortunately Andy provides no further basis for his tout, so... buttons.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's trolling FWIW. Rather, I think writers have been so thrown off by the fact that the committee wasn't in lockstep with the AP poll last year that they're overcorrecting when trying to predict what they'll do this year.
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705 said:
I don't think he's trolling FWIW. Rather, I think writers have been so thrown off by the fact that the committee wasn't in lockstep with the AP poll last year that they're overcorrecting when trying to predict what they'll do this year.
Click to expand...

Staples was one of the biggest Utah jock-sniffers up until their inevitable blowout loss this year: I'm pretty sure he "projects" each week the playoff outcome which would give him the most to talk about on his fancy new site. It's the natural result of growing up and out into a freestanding "vertical" in today's media landscape. It's too bad; I have generally liked him (when he's not moralizing about the NCAA, ugh), but the schtick feels forced this year.

Thank goodness for BP.
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705 said:
I don't think he's trolling FWIW. Rather, I think writers have been so thrown off by the fact that the committee wasn't in lockstep with the AP poll last year that they're overcorrecting when trying to predict what they'll do this year.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's trolling or over-correcting.
If you look at how the committee dealt with just TCU and Baylor in 2014... it was pretty clear that they only took current wins into account. No projecting wins.
They practically stated outright that once Baylor played KSU -- assuming they won -- they'd jump based on head-to-head. But since TCU had already played KState (then on the fringe of the top10 IIRC), they had a better looking resume in the eyes of the committee and head-to-head wasn't a factor yet.

That is to say, we're not going to get credit for playing MSU before we play them - something you see a lot in the polls. Another thing you see a lot in polls is ranking 2 teams with an upcoming matchup jointly high with the understanding that only the winner will keep that spot.
The committee doesn't appear to do that either.

It wouldn't surprise me if we're not only not #1... but we're not even the highest ranked team in conference. Oregon isn't looking great anymore, but they're still looking better than VTech. scUM might be the best opponent either has faced yet (at least on paper - which is what the committee will be working with, paper tigers)
 
Upvote 0
kujirakira said:
It wouldn't surprise me if we're not only not #1... but we're not even the highest ranked team in conference. Oregon isn't looking great anymore, but they're still looking better than VTech. scUM might be the best opponent either has faced yet (at least on paper - which is what the committee will be working with, paper tigers)
Click to expand...
I gotta disagree. Their Oregon win isn't looking all that great at all. Their best win is the fluke, should've been a loss, win at scUM. Ours is likely a dominating 38-10 win against a then 5-1 Penn State. We win by an average of 38-15 (23-point margin). Sparty is winning by an average score of 33-22 (11-point margin). We have three common opponents so far:

Western Michigan (OSU 38-17, MSU 37-24)
Indiana (OSU 34-27, MSU 52-36)
Rutgers (OSU 49-7, MSU 31-24)

Since games against WMU were early in the year and relatively close in score and competitiveness, I consider it essentially a wash. Although the final score in their Indiana game would suggest that MSU was more impressive against Indiana than us, Sparty was only up 28-26 at the end of the 3rd quarter and 31-26 when they started a 3-TD explosion with 5:02 left in the game. Then, there's absolutely no comparison in our Rutgers games.

I just don't see MSU being ranked ahead of us in the first playoff rankings.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top