CFP seedings 1st edition 2025
- Thread starter rjtide
- Start date
This committee continues to show me nothing that would suggest we will get the BEST 12 teams in the playoffs....they seem to be a collection of useful idiots
They only provide any rankings at all because people who have been college football fans from say ages 25 to 75 HAVE TO HAVE them, it's one of those tradition things. And they know that each generation carries their perspective baggage on how they view the polls (seriously - Boomers and Gen X folks think we're back in 2004 with the BCS and Auburn as far as "but this team should be ranked here and if not, they're screwed" - which hasn't been true in years).
These polls exist solely and entirely to get people talking about the sport which, in fact, is the whole reason they were created in the first place. And nothing gets people talking about it more than a stick in the eye, where they rank a team above a team that has already beaten them.
Folks, never forget this:
OCTOBER 28, 2014 CFP POLL (FIRST EVER)
7) TCU - 3-point loss to Baylor on the road
13) Baylor - a later 14-point loss to WVA
Committee excuse: TCU has played a tougher schedule
TCU stays between 2 and 6 spots ahead of Baylor through the first six polls. In the final game of the season, TCU blasted Iowa State, 52-3, while Baylor beat a K-State team at home by 9 that TCU had beaten at home by 21. That seven touchdown win and TCU DROPPED 3 spots in the polls.
FINAL CFP POLL (DECEMBER 7, 2014)
5) Baylor
6) TCU
Committee excuse: well, Baylor beat TCU head-to-head.....(even though TCU played the tougher schedule)
I mean, Baylor beat TCU way back on October 11 and head-to-head didn't matter.
Then all of a sudden the season comes to an end and it does.
THAT is the problem I've had with the whole thing. I can completely understand a team that lost by 3 on the road (the usual home field advantage spread) being ranked ahead of the team that won IF either the game had something unusual (crucial injuries to key players, horrid referee decision, shortened due to weather, etc). But to spend nine weeks telling me that game didn't matter and then all of a sudden deciding at the last second it did?
Get out of here.
These polls exist solely and entirely to get people talking about the sport which, in fact, is the whole reason they were created in the first place. And nothing gets people talking about it more than a stick in the eye, where they rank a team above a team that has already beaten them.
Folks, never forget this:
OCTOBER 28, 2014 CFP POLL (FIRST EVER)
7) TCU - 3-point loss to Baylor on the road
13) Baylor - a later 14-point loss to WVA
Committee excuse: TCU has played a tougher schedule
TCU stays between 2 and 6 spots ahead of Baylor through the first six polls. In the final game of the season, TCU blasted Iowa State, 52-3, while Baylor beat a K-State team at home by 9 that TCU had beaten at home by 21. That seven touchdown win and TCU DROPPED 3 spots in the polls.
FINAL CFP POLL (DECEMBER 7, 2014)
5) Baylor
6) TCU
Committee excuse: well, Baylor beat TCU head-to-head.....(even though TCU played the tougher schedule)
I mean, Baylor beat TCU way back on October 11 and head-to-head didn't matter.
Then all of a sudden the season comes to an end and it does.
THAT is the problem I've had with the whole thing. I can completely understand a team that lost by 3 on the road (the usual home field advantage spread) being ranked ahead of the team that won IF either the game had something unusual (crucial injuries to key players, horrid referee decision, shortened due to weather, etc). But to spend nine weeks telling me that game didn't matter and then all of a sudden deciding at the last second it did?
Get out of here.
well we know darn well if TCU was Oklahoma then the committee would have no issue of getting them in there over Ohio St. But when they saw a massive payday between Alabama and Ohio St they jumped on it.
Oh, definitely. If TCU was named TEXAS or OKLAHOMA, SoS wouldn't matter and neither would head-to-head. And that's kinda what made it a sick joke even then.
Of course as I've said here many times - the Big 12 kinda opened themselves up to it with their cute little chicanery way of trying to crown BOTH Baylor and TCU conference champs in hopes of one of them making the playoff, too. This after an advertising campaign declaring "One True Champion." I've always thought that had nearly as much to do with the trickery as it did the names.
Btw - and not sure where they're getting their numbers - but here's Sagarin:
Ohio State - 24
Indiana - 50
Texas A/M - 10
Alabama - 4
Georgia - 8
Texas Tech - 68
Ole Miss - 40
Oregon - 26
Notre Dame - 22
Texas - 16
I tend to believe Sagarin more than the above (and not just because it helps Alabama look better). Because I don't for one second believe Indiana has played a tougher schedule than Ohio State has.
Ohio State's OOC - Texas, Ohio, Grambling
Indiana's OOC - Old Dominion, Kennesaw State, Indiana State
Those are NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same.
Their common opponents at this point are Illinois and Penn State, and each blew one out although PSU was closer to beating Indiana than Illinois was to beating Ohio St.
Neither one is playing a powerhouse schedule, but Indiana sure is getting a lot of mileage out of "they beat Oregon" at this point.
That tells me the committee intends to reward blue-bloods who play a weak schedule. There is no point in scheduling Bama vs Michigan or Georgia vs Clemson. Better to schedule Colorado State (or worse) week in and week out.
Notre Dame being included here is a bad joke.
I saw an article on CBS sports that had the if the playoffs were today scenario. It had miami as the ACC team in the playoffs. Miami has not one, not two, not three, but six teams ahead of them in their own conference.
This has always been my issue with "but they didn't play nobody." It's not that it may not be true, it's that it's selectively applied. You probably remember this far better than I, but in 1979, Alabama was #1 in the AP poll every week from October 15 to the next-to-last regular season poll. Ohio State moved ahead of us after they beat #13 Michigan, 18-15, and we were punished for a "struggle win" of 'only' a TD over #14 Auburn.
And the printed press of the time took off after Alabama, disparaging our schedule which - admittedly - wasn't really all that tough. But what made it egregious is that EIGHT AP poll voters didn't even have Alabama IN THEIR TOP THREE. Frank Broyles had a lot to say about that, saying, "Anybody who doesn't think Alabama is one of the three best teams in the country has no business ranking football teams." The other guy who took up for us was Nebraska AD Bob Devaney, who said that while it was true Alabama didn't have a tough schedule, the same could be said for almost any other team in the Top Ten - including HIS OWN SCHOOL!
The first instance I can find of any prominent coach disparaging the schedule of a rival in order to make a claim for the national championship is Woody Hayes in 1957 slamming Auburn's slate. (I did not say it never happened - I said I haven't found it if they did). But Auburn played 3 of the 4 "next best" teams in the SEC and only gave up 7 points in those 3 games. Hayes was trying to distract from the brutal fact OHIO STATE LOST AT HOME to 5-4-1 TCU. Again - this to me is a guy trying to have it both ways. He says the reason his team has a loss and Auburn doesn't is he played a tougher schedule - but not only did he not face THE SECOND BEST team in the B1G that year (Sparty), his team LOST AT HOME to the second worst team in the SWC.
Blue blood teams have always been able to get away with facing a slate of cupcakes. The same folks who rip BYU for their 1984 schedule (which looked tougher when it was made than it turned out to be) always gloss over the fact that the team they thought was "the best" (Oklahoma) lost to a mid-level Kansas team in a game they trailed 28-3 with two minutes left. You see, we're supposed to look past "blue blood" teams who somehow lose to also rans - but we're also supposed to disparage the BYUs and Boise States and TCUs of the world who run that slate.
Rarely is any consistency applied. I mean, Ohio State DID lose out in 2017 because of the Iowa rout, but it rarely occurs that cleanly.
You shouldn't be in the top 10 playing a 30+ SOS.
Preach it brother.
After last year, the Committee said they would take strength of schedule into account (because ESPN loved the Texas vs Ohio State and Georgis vs Clemson games). I think that is good for the sport. Better than Bama vs Eastern Illinois, but when it gets down to it, the committee rewards Bama vs. Eastern Illinois and punishes the loser of Texas vs. Ohio State.
I guess the good thing is that whoever draws the Irish in the playoffs will be getting a fairly easy playoff win.
Well...it depends.
Indiana's case is tied to the fact they haven't lost yet - and they did beat Oregon. In essence, they're following the BYU route to the playoff: beat the one good team on your schedule and go undefeated. Of course, BYU won it all because there was no playoff, but they surely would have made one had it existed then.
My beef with Indiana isn't the nine games that they're given, those balance out over the years. It's the fact they're not even TRYING to schedule anyone out of conference worth a rip. And because the committee can get away with "well, even if they got here with a soft schedule, they'll have to prove their worth in a playoff," they can get either a bye or a home playoff game by pulling this trick.
But let an SEC team try this same trick (what I've long called "Arkansas scheduling" - seriously, go look) and the same people boosting Indiana would criticize Alabama for the same methodology.
The problem with Indiana is they didn't play but one good team last year (and lost), and they'll only play one good team this year before the B1G title game - and get away with it.
This is all about the "eye test"......which is just dumb.
Indiana is undefeated....beat Oregon on the road.
Ohio State is undefeated....beat Texas at home.
Texas A&M is undefeated....beat Notre Dame on the road (which should end the debate entirely according to the committee ranking ND)...beat LSU and Missouri on the road....and has Texas on the road at the end.
I'd say Strength of Record is a better metric.....but then the latest ranking for that has BYU at 8 and Texas Texas at 9.....right after Tech beat them by 3 scores.
I don't think Oregon should be as high as they are. They are getting credit for beating a #3 Penn State team that is now 3-6. Of course the Sagarin rankings still have PSU at #16. But then that means Ole Miss is too high as well since they've got a worst SOS and a worse remaining SOS. Only real difference between Oregon and Ole Miss.....Oregon lost at home to #2, Ole Miss lost on the road to #5.
Indiana is undefeated....beat Oregon on the road.
Ohio State is undefeated....beat Texas at home.
Texas A&M is undefeated....beat Notre Dame on the road (which should end the debate entirely according to the committee ranking ND)...beat LSU and Missouri on the road....and has Texas on the road at the end.
I'd say Strength of Record is a better metric.....but then the latest ranking for that has BYU at 8 and Texas Texas at 9.....right after Tech beat them by 3 scores.
I don't think Oregon should be as high as they are. They are getting credit for beating a #3 Penn State team that is now 3-6. Of course the Sagarin rankings still have PSU at #16. But then that means Ole Miss is too high as well since they've got a worst SOS and a worse remaining SOS. Only real difference between Oregon and Ole Miss.....Oregon lost at home to #2, Ole Miss lost on the road to #5.
How will the power conference standings play out?
ACC:
Georgia Tech (5-1)
Virginia (5-1)
Pitt (5-1)
SMU (5-1)
Duke (4-1)
Louisville (4-2)
Miami (3-2)
Georgia Tech has Boston College and a home game vs Pitt.
Virginia has a road game vs Duke and then home vs VTech
Pitt has at Georgia Tech then home vs Miami
SMU has Louisville, then at Cal
Duke has Virginia, at North Carolina, home vs WF
Louisville has Clemson and at SMU
Miami has NC State, at VTech, and at Pitt
I think it would be hysterical if Duke wins out (favored by -6.5 over Virginia) / 78% chance of beating NC / 76% chance to beat Wake....and then your ACCCG is Georgia Tech vs Duke....and then Duke wins, making the playoff as an 9-4 team.
ACC:
Georgia Tech (5-1)
Virginia (5-1)
Pitt (5-1)
SMU (5-1)
Duke (4-1)
Louisville (4-2)
Miami (3-2)
Georgia Tech has Boston College and a home game vs Pitt.
Virginia has a road game vs Duke and then home vs VTech
Pitt has at Georgia Tech then home vs Miami
SMU has Louisville, then at Cal
Duke has Virginia, at North Carolina, home vs WF
Louisville has Clemson and at SMU
Miami has NC State, at VTech, and at Pitt
I think it would be hysterical if Duke wins out (favored by -6.5 over Virginia) / 78% chance of beating NC / 76% chance to beat Wake....and then your ACCCG is Georgia Tech vs Duke....and then Duke wins, making the playoff as an 9-4 team.
It’s a joke. Last year the “bye” teams got the hardest games and the play-in teams had the easy ones, basically a scrimmage to work out their kinks.
If both keep winning (or USF keeps winning and knocks off UNT) and thus win their conference and stay ranked... there is a scenario where the ACC champ is unranked, and thus falls out of the playoff altogether ... it's the five highest-ranked conference champs
I said Tech would win the ACC at the beginning of the year and I am sticking with that. Tech will also beat uga so they will be ranked.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Black Knights' uniform for 2025 Army-Navy game pays homage to the Army's 250 years- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
The #1 Country Music Song Is AI-Generated- Started by Its On A Slab
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
ESPN: Reranking all 68 Power 4 QBs: Who rose and who fell after two months
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Inside Ty Simpson's journey from Bama benchwarmer to Heisman hopeful
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0