College Football Playoff Rankings TOP 6

[fordman84]

After reading several of your replies to my post I honestly don't give a sh1t what you think. You're probably the last Washington poster on any board that I'd ever ask for an opinion.

And probably the first UW poster that the rest of the hoop would ask what they think. Wiz is another. Quite a few actually now that I think about it.

 

[fordman84]

It's pretty ridiculous that they have A&M in the top 4.

You have 4 undefeated P5 teams, it should be cut and dry, but if they were going to use a 1 loss team, I'd take Louisville and Ohio State over A&M right now.

Pretty much A&M needs Bama to lose twice or get in some crazy tiebreaker situation if Bama loses to Auburn to have a shot to win the SEC, and that's a big long shot.

Plus if these were the final rankings, Bama and A&M would play in the first round, and did anyone see anything from that game that made you really want to see a rematch? A&M hung in for a while, but ultimately got outclassed big time in the second half.

Look at the losses. One is to the top team in the country, the other two aren't.

 

[fordman84]

Then why isn't Western Michigan higher?

Having a direction in your name is worth a -10 spots. Sorry WVU

 

[Chewbaccer]

Look at the losses. One is to the top team in the country, the other two aren't.

But Washington's losses are non existent at this point.

Ohio State has beat a very good Wisconsin team on the road and went to Norman and completely boat raced Oklahoma.

Louisville's loss is better than A&M's IMO in the fact that they were on the road at Clemson and lost a very close game that they had a chance to win as opposed to getting their shit pushed in the second half like A&M did against Bama.

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

That's just better coaching for that win, Petersen is better then the Dabo............



I'm out before @Edisto_Tiger blows in and has a meltdown.....

 

[The Oldtimer]

Then why isn't Western Michigan higher?

Who? Western Michigan, do they have a football program?

 

[Deep Creek]

Okay you hoop geniuses. Clarify something for me.

Hocutt referenced "wins over teams with >.500 records" several times last night as one of the reasons for rankings. Do they consider who those "teams with >.500 records" actually played?

Example: Prarie View A&M is one of the opponents that A&M got credit for as having a >.500 record at 5-3. Here is how they got there:

Texas Southern W 29-25
Texas A&M L- 0-67
Alabama A&M W 41-20
Miss Valley State W 56-21
Grambling State L 16-36
Alabama State W 24-17
Rice L 44-65
Jackson State W 28-14

I'm sure there are other teams similar to this on some of the other ranked teams schedules. I have no problem with A&M's ranking, but don't insult our intelligence by citing credit for beat a Prarie View A&M team that has a 5-3 record against that schedule. As bad as Oregon is this year, the schedule to got them to less than .500 is a hell of a lot better than the one that got Prarie View to 5-3.

That is supposed to be a room full of intelligent people. This type thing doesn't make them look good.

 

[seafandoghawk]

UCLA is miles better than any OCC team Washington has played. Especially since the PAC is weak this year and so you do have to play any top 10 teams whereas A&M has had Bama and Auburn (11th)

Not that I'm bothered that TAMU is #4 and UW is #5 right now (I'm not), but just to address this particular point, both UW and TAMU scheduled three very easy OOC opponents. TAMU's fourth OOC opponent happened to be one of the lesser PAC schools. Teams in the PAC play an extra conference game as compared to the SEC. Therefore, you have both teams with three easy OOC opponents, and both teams playing an extra PAC team to fill out it's schedule. It just worked out that way this year regarding TAMU & UW.

Having said that, the opponents that TAMU has played this year so far have a distinctly better W/L record than the opponents that UW has played so far. Plus, TAMU's only loss was against a team that seems in a class by itself this year in college football-- I'm not sure that TAMU deserves to be punished much if at all for that loss.

I think that one of the issues here is that several teams can make a reasonable argument for the current #4 slot (UW, TAMU, tOSU, Lousville). In my mind, none of these four resumes stand out as truly separating one team from the others. Fortunately, there's 4-5 more football games left for each team to play. Personally I believe that UW's weak OOC schedule means that they must run the table in order to to earn that 'stand out' resume. And maybe they will, and maybe they won't.

 

[Deep Creek]

Not that I'm bothered that TAMU is #4 and UW is #5 right now (I'm not), but just to address this particular point, both UW and TAMU scheduled three very easy OOC opponents. TAMU's fourth OOC opponent happened to be one of the lesser PAC schools. Teams in the PAC play an extra conference game as compared to the SEC. Therefore, you have both teams with three easy OOC opponents, and both teams playing an extra PAC team to fill out it's schedule. It just worked out that way this year regarding TAMU & UW.

Having said that, the opponents that TAMU has played this year so far have a distinctly better W/L record than the opponents that UW has played so far. Plus, TAMU's only loss was against a team that seems in a class by itself this year in college football-- I'm not sure that TAMU deserves to be punished much if at all for that loss.

I think that one of the issues here is that several teams can make a reasonable argument for the current #4 slot (UW, TAMU, tOSU, Lousville). In my mind, none of these four resumes stand out as truly separating one team from the others. Fortunately, there's 4-5 more football games left for each team to play. Personally I believe that UW's weak OOC schedule means that they must run the table in order to to earn that 'stand out' resume. And maybe they will, and maybe they won't.

Now that's just way too objective for the hoop.

But, well done.

 

[Eco]

Who? Western Michigan, do they have a football program?

Yes, the undefeated team that played a tougher OCC schedule than Washington.

 

[Eco]

Having a direction in your name is worth a -10 spots. Sorry WVU

How many do you get deducted for having 'Agriculture' in your name?

 

[AlaskaGuy]

And probably the first UW poster that the rest of the hoop would ask what they think. Wiz is another. Quite a few actually now that I think about it.

Then the hoop needs to get out more. I just skip past his post but he has a habit of quoting mine on just about every thread I post on here.

 

[seafandoghawk]

Now that's just way too objective for the hoop.

But, well done.

They say that even blind squirrels stumble across an acorn every once in a while ...

 

[4down20]

Their statement was made, and that was that you have to start scheduling better schools out of conference. Playing Rutgers, Idaho, Portland State is what is hurting them.

A&M played UCLA and then a bunch of nothings.

I don't think I agree with the ratings, but I think they are just trying to make a statement.

I don't think much of a statement was made to be honest. It's the same stuff they've been doing the entire time with multiple teams from the same conference.

As best I can tell it's because they do that stupid thing where they refuse to look ahead at all. Everyone knows if Washington goes undefeated and wins the Pac12 Championship they are in over any 2nd team from a conference.

It's common sense and it's why everyone else who is using it rather than trying to follow rules like they are shitty computers who can't even begin to properly process the data.

But the good news is this: In the end I don't think they matter very much even though they are the "committee". After the season is over it's pretty much obvious who deserves to be at the top.

 

[Deep Creek]

After the season is over it's pretty much obvious who deserves to be at the top.

It has been obvious the first two years. The committee hasn't really had to make a difficult decision...yet.

 

[WizardHawk]

Unless the deal was signed when Rice was the RB, I can't think of a time in my short life that Rutgers could step up to UCLA.

The year the agreement to play Rutgers was inked they finished 9-4 in the Big East. UW finished 7-5 under Sark that season. Rutgers lost their bowl that year 13-10 to VT. They appeared to be an up and coming team that was rumored to be headed to the B1G.

 

[Eco]

The year the agreement to play Rutgers was inked they finished 9-4 in the Big East. UW finished 7-5 under Sark that season. Rutgers lost their bowl that year 13-10 to VT. They appeared to be an up and coming team that was rumored to be headed to the B1G.

That's fair.

I don't think it'll mean anything by the year's end. Not to mention I think Louisville is much more of a #4 team than A&M.

 

[WizardHawk]

That's fair.

I don't think it'll mean anything by the year's end. Not to mention I think Louisville is much more of a #4 team than A&M.

The problem is it is easy for others to say UW just needs to schedule more higher ranked teams. When these deals were inked UW wasn't exactly a big draw themselves and they are literally the farthest point most teams can possibly travel to for a H&H deal. We shouldn't have problems getting teams now that we are being talked about again, but for a decade or more it was seriously hard to get quality teams to travel this far.

UW has @Rutgers next year as well before they get BYU and Michigan over the next 4.

There is nothing they can do about their SoS for next season. These things are scheduled out way too far ahead IMO.

 

[The Oldtimer]

Yes, the undefeated team that played a tougher OCC schedule than Washington.

Okay if you say so.

 

[Eco]

Okay if you say so.

If you don't think playing at Northwestern and at Illinois is more difficult than playing at home to Rutgers and Idaho, the joke is on you my friend.