NCAA Playoff Committee Rankings 2014 (Unranked)

[NDinTEXAS]

Another overranked team, by the committee...McNeese St (whoever the f_they are)? Stanford is better then them, by far...

Sorry for the late post, I'll catch up in a bit...

McNeese St is in Lake Charles Louisiana about 30mins from me and they can play good ball at times. McNeese isn't a Stanford by a long shot but a good football team.

 

[GowerND11]

McNeese St is in Lake Charles Louisiana about 30mins from me and they can play good ball at times. McNeese isn't a Stanford by a long shot but a good football team.

Shouldn't matter. They are FCS. There are what, 127 teams in the FBS??? There are plenty of teams in the FBS to schedule to not play an FCS.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Shouldn't matter. They are FCS. There are what, 127 teams in the FBS??? There are plenty of teams in the FBS to schedule to not play an FCS.

I agree and teams should be penalized for scheduling these sorts of lower tier programs when it comes time for selections. It's one of the main reasons I'm so pissed off about the B1G teams being ranked where they are. Nebraska and OSU have literally beat no one. Not one single team that's remotely decent. But somehow, because they only have one loss, and are a Power 5 team, they get the benefit of the doubt. Meanwhile, MSU gets crushed by the one elite team they've played before conference games start. The entire football world bags on the B1G and rightfully so. So tell me, why in the hell does MSU get credit for beating Nebraska? Because beating Nebraska is the ONLY reason they're in the top 10 right now. And that is ludicrous.

I will add that I'm not jockeying for ND to be ranked a lot higher. By my logic above, comparatively, ND hasn't beaten anyone either. However, they're SOS is so much better and their loss is so much better that it makes zero sense to have MSU ahead of them...especially two spots ahead. It's a joke.

And to think this whole thing is stemming from where the B1G schools got ranked. Biased much?

 

[irishfan]

I think the loser of Ole Miss/Auburn will be in free-fall mode. I'm talking down to 12-15 in the rankings. The committee seems hell-bent on rankings teams according the # of losses. LSU was behind every Power-5 one-loss team except for Duke.

It seems like a loss (ANY loss) is extremely detrimental to the rankings. I don't think we have to concern ourselves with any 2-loss team jumping us (the only exception IMO is an 11-2 SEC Champ).

And I know people will point out the Ole Miss loss, but the committee in theory values every week evenly. A loss last week is equal to a loss in Week 1. While maybe not deserving of the #4 spot, Ole Miss IMO was definitely deserving of anywhere in the 4-6 range.

Again, I'm expecting the Auburn-Ole Miss loser to be ranked #12 next week at the ABSOLUTE highest.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Why can't this committee establish a point system based on the criteria they've listed in which they'll use to rank teams?

Conference championships won,
Strength of schedule,
Head-to-head competition,
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and,
Other relevant factors such as key injuries that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

For example:

Conference Champ = 5 pts
Sagarin SOS:
Top 10 = 4 pts
11-25 = 3 pts
26-50 = 2 pts
51-100 = 1 pt
100+ + 0 pts
Head to Head Competition:
Once initial rankings are established, any team that wins:
Against Top 10 Team = 5 pts
Against #11-#25 Team = 3 pts
Against "unranked" = 1 pts
Once initial rankings are established, any team that loses:
Against Top 10 Team = -1 pts
Against #11-#25 Team = -3 pts
Against "unranked" = -5 pts
If a school plays a low tier FBS team = -1 pt (win against this team, total score = 0 pts)
If a school plays a FCS team = -2 pts (win against this team, total score = -1 pts)
Comparative Outcomes of Common Opponents
Margin of victory should matter
Likewise, margin of loss should matter
Home/Away win/loss should be considered


I'm not going to break this down any further. You get the point. Each week, the points would be reconfigured. Perhaps keeping a running total. Idk. Maybe this is the most F'd up way to present my idea. But I don't care. At this point, anything seems better.

Bottom line, teams should get rewarded for 1) scheduling tough opponents 2) beating tough opponents 3) beating them badly 4) winning their conference, etc. Teams should be punished for 1) scheduling cupcakes to increase number of victories 2) losing 3) losing badly, etc. It's never this black and white. But I personally don't feel the committee took very many things into consideration. And I'm mainly upset by the fact that they claimed to not be swayed by other polls, yet were somehow able to establish a "quality win" before they ever did a single ranking for themselves...doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[IndyIrishFan1]

Another overranked team, by the committee...McNeese St (whoever the f_they are)? Stanford is better then them, by far...

Sorry for the late post, I'll catch up in a bit...

Speaking of this game... did anyone else notice the very possible block in the back on the last-minute touchdown? Check out this video at the :15 second mark.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/n6N6xbv3Nsw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Wild Bill]

I think the loser of Ole Miss/Auburn will be in free-fall mode. I'm talking down to 12-15 in the rankings. The committee seems hell-bent on rankings teams according the # of losses. LSU was behind every Power-5 one-loss team except for Duke.

It seems like a loss (ANY loss) is extremely detrimental to the rankings. I don't think we have to concern ourselves with any 2-loss team jumping us (the only exception IMO is an 11-2 SEC Champ).

And I know people will point out the Ole Miss loss, but the committee in theory values every week evenly. A loss last week is equal to a loss in Week 1. While maybe not deserving of the #4 spot, Ole Miss IMO was definitely deserving of anywhere in the 4-6 range.

Again, I'm expecting the Auburn-Ole Miss loser to be ranked #12 next week at the ABSOLUTE highest.

IMO, a two loss Auburn team that doesn't win the SEC could get in under the right set of circumstances - Bama wins out and wins the SEC, Auburn wins out except for a close loss to Bama and MST loses to Ole Miss and catches a beat down from Bama.

Auburn would have wins against K State, LSU, Ole Miss and Georgia and two close losses to highly ranked teams. I think they could get the nod over a two loss MST, even though they lost head to head, b/c they would have two more wins against ranked opponents.

 

[Irish2155]

McNeese St is in Lake Charles Louisiana about 30mins from me and they can play good ball at times. McNeese isn't a Stanford by a long shot but a good football team.

Must be GREAT if they almost beat the #15 team in the country. I appreciate the insight but my point is more to do with Nebraska then McNeese, no disrespect intended.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

SIAP, but has anyone mentioned that TCU is ranked 6 spots higher than the Baylor team that beat them? Thought I saw head-to-head listed on that criteria sheet. Both lost to ranked opponents, TCU's loss was to Baylor, yet still ranked ahead of Baylor...hmmm

Also confused by Arizona's ranking. They beat Oregon, barely lose to USC, yet ranked 12th. (Anyone want to still say ND beating USC is a quality win...considering that's probably the reason AZ isn't ranked in the top 8...).

 

[phork]

Whiskey:

Sitting ADs are not allowed to vote for their team.

 

[Legacy]

College Football Playoff Ranking Mistakes

"The most acceptable loss by any one-loss team so far, theoretically, is Auburn’s loss against No. 1 Mississippi State. The second-most acceptable loss is Notre Dame’s loss at No. 2 Florida State, and the third-most acceptable loss is Kansas State’s over No. 3 Auburn. At the moment, if you’re really going to do this based on merit, Notre Dame – who was too low at No. 10 - has to be the No. 4 team and Kansas State No. 5 instead of No. 9."

 

[woolybug25]

Whiskey:

Sitting ADs are not allowed to vote for their team.

He's not recused for voting for the Pac12, which directly effects the SoS for USC.

How does this work, btw. How does he simply not vote in regards to USC? Isn't the rankings a collaborative effort, not a tally of votes?

 

[treefiddie]

Kelly was on with Jay Mohr today, and he says ¨we'll just have to do a better job with the remaning 5 games to get Jeff Long on our side¨. Sounds like the plan is to drive some teams in the ground, look for a pinball machine scoreboard going forward.

link: Brian Kelly is just preparing for Navy's triple option | Jay Mohr Sports on FOX Sports Radio

 

[ACamp1900]

Sounds like the plan is to drive some teams in the ground, look for a pinball machine scoreboard going forward.

Good luck with that... if you can't drive Purdue, UNC and Syracuse into the ground I don't know how you suddenly flip a switch and starting pounding teams like ASU, Louisville and USC...

but that's why they play them i guess.

 

[treefiddie]

Good luck with that... if you can't drive Purdue, UNC and Syracuse into the ground I don't know how you suddenly flip a switch and starting pounding teams like ASU, Louisville and USC...

but that's why they play them i guess.

Well I'm hoping the loss to FSU is the ¨switch¨.

 

[ickythump1225]

I've been a fan of ND for more than 40 years, and I cannot remember many seasons when the Irish did not have among the toughest schedules. This year, when teams that have traditionally been high quality teams -- like Michigan and more recently Stanford -- completely shit the bed. Even USC looks bad, and teams that have been on the rise like Louisville don't seem like real quality wins, so there isn't much relief in the rest of our schedule. Add to this that of all years for us not to play MSU it is this one. So after a lifetime of rooting for ND, and always being a little proud that they never took the easy route in scheduling -- this is a year that the schedule looks weak and this is the year that a committee of a dozen people decide that strength of schedule is the brass ring to grab on the way to the first-ever playoff. It is highly disappointing and does not seem all that fair. We played tough schedules all along, even when it was not the wisest path to glory. The stars do not appear to be aligning for this year's young Irish team. I guess my biggest question in all of this is how a team could control how others on their schedule perform in a given year. With the perception of the mighty SEC, isn't the stage set for them always remaining at the top of the heap? And, why could we not know at the beginning of the season what this committee was going to use as their criteria -- maybe we don't take our foot off the gas in games if we know that "quality wins" means TCU blowouts against the likes of Western Ky.

What frustrates me more than anything is we tried to schedule a tough slate. Some people thought we went overboard with a "Murderer's Row" type of schedule and now it doesn't pan out and we're getting punished for that. F**k that. Alabama went out of it's way to have an easy schedule. I mean I'm sure they imagined those games against FAU, Southern Miss, and Western Carolina were going to be real tough. Alabama's schedule just so happened to become daunting because Miss St. and Ole Miss decided to look like real football teams for almost the first time in their history.

 

[NorthDakota]

Take all of this out on Navy...CRUSH NAVY!

Normally I am all about showing the service academies respect and not running it up.... But that is not going to cut it this time. Destroy them.

Good luck with that... if you can't drive Purdue, UNC and Syracuse into the ground I don't know how you suddenly flip a switch and starting pounding teams like ASU, Louisville and USC...

but that's why they play them i guess.

Necessity is a powerful thing. Boys know they have their work cut out for them. Win out and I think ND sneaks in... And I'd love to have a shot at anyone. I don't see any team as truly amazing this year. Everyone can be beaten. Personally... I'd love a shot at MSU. I don't think Prescott would do anything special against our defense.

On another note... SEC needs to start challenging themselves OOC because this is ridiculous... They are all high ranked based exclusively on perception.

 

[ickythump1225]

ND in the SEC wouldn't work bc out our of conference schedule would include Stanford and USC every year...

Well to fit into the SEC mindset we could replace Stanford with Golden Gate University and USC with Southwestern College in Chula Vista.

 

[ACamp1900]

Well to fit into the SEC mindset we could replace Stanford with Golden Gate University and USC with Southwestern College in Chula Vista.

Nah, let's do the full Bama plan... schedule all those teams and NEVER have to play other power SEC teams like Georgia...

 

[Irish YJ]

Good luck with that... if you can't drive Purdue, UNC and Syracuse into the ground I don't know how you suddenly flip a switch and starting pounding teams like ASU, Louisville and USC...

but that's why they play them i guess.

Very true, but I do think we are improving week over week with the exception of EG's turnovers. So... shut your whore mouth (as one of other fine posters says), it's going to be pinball and basketball scores here on out. I keed

 

[Irish2155]

Kelly was on with Jay Mohr today, and he says ¨we'll just have to do a better job with the remaning 5 games to get Jeff Long on our side¨. Sounds like the plan is to drive some teams in the ground, look for a pinball machine scoreboard going forward.

link: Brian Kelly is just preparing for Navy's triple option | Jay Mohr Sports on FOX Sports Radio

I'm not real sure who this dude is but seems to have WAY too much power for a committee approach.

Got to win him over huh? Mafia had ways of doing that...

 

[Cali_domer]

Very true, but I do think we are improving week over week with the exception of EG's turnovers. So... shut your whore mouth (as one of other fine posters says), it's going to be pinball and basketball scores here on out. I keed

UNC game was a basketball score.. Don't want anymore of those.

 

[ickythump1225]

I mean... what in the hell is Ty Willingham bringing to the table?

Golf Expertise?

 

[Irish2155]

Golf Expertise?

Any committee that has...Um, wait three minutes to spit out 5 words to why we loss...I have little confidence in.

"ummm, ummm, let me think........I don't recruit because golf."

 

[koonja]

I don't understand why anyone want to be on the selection committee.

You're no longer able to be a fan of the game, can't tweet about it, can't enjoy football or ever root openly for a team. And they're not paid for it. The team's fans that are happy with your choices give you a passing wave, while the teams you leave out, nothing but harassment. I expect turnover for committee members to be very high. Certainly not how I'd spend my golden years as a CFB fan.

 

[phork]

I'm not real sure who this dude is but seems to have WAY too much power for a committee approach.

Got to win him over huh? Mafia had ways of doing that...

Maybe Carlos people can go have a chat a with him.

 

[Irish YJ]

UNC game was a basketball score.. Don't want anymore of those.

Speaking only about our scoring

 

[IrishFaninTX]

I really think SOS should only factor in for the teams who schedule a lot of FCS and really bad FBS schools. Teams like ND have their schedules set way in advance and we are always going to play a few schools that are not that good historically, like Navy and Purdue, but we play them when they are good and when they are bad. Same with USC and Stanford. Then we scheduled Texas when they were still decent and Georgia and OSU are doing good now but what about when we play them? We can't control that but we can control that we never ever play McNeese State or App St or teams in that category. We don't play SMU or UTEP, either. But what they can look at is how have we played against the weaker opponents and the answer is inconsistent. We played lights out vs Rice and scUM but struggled against Purdue, Syracuse, and UNC. Granted we won those games and eventually won by double digits vs Purdue and SU but that UNC game was not fun. And we struggled against Stanford and lost to the only team that was a quality opponent. So I don't have a problem with us being #10 but I do have a problem with the committee talking about how great MSU is and how we haven't played anyone. MSU scheduled teams that are never good and likely never going to be good consistently. We just had the bad luck of having 3 of our toughest opponents all having a down year and in most years those 3 opponents would be tougher than anyone else that MSU would play.

 

[WaveDomer]

We need some porn industry people on this committee.

 

[Crazy Balki]

Bingo.....Me thinks that Ole Miss would have been #2 in this poll if not for last week. After all, if they win that game, they would have wins over Bama, A&M & LSU compared to MSU with wins over LSU, A&M and Auburn. Flip of the coin really.

Also, if Bama is where they are, you almost have to have Ole Miss where they are. You going to put Oregon ahead of them?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Had Ole Miss won, they'd have wins over Bama A&M and LSU? I think Matt Foley put it best...WAELL LAA DE FREAKIN' DA!

Seriously, LSU is average at best. They got torched by Mississippi State (at home mind you) and absolutely embarrassed by Auburn. A&M is much worse than that as well. Both teams are Michigan level teams, and no I'm not joking, they're pretty damn bad.

Ole Miss has a win over Alabama, which is cool, but that loss to LSU cancels it out because LSU is bad. Let's not forget that Ole Miss's win over Alabama was at home, while ND played FSU on the road. That is a huge difference.