Final AP Poll

[Kak7304]

The AP Top 25 Poll | College Football

I have a big problem with 19-21 being USC,ND, ASU. All have nearly identical records and a clear hierarchy was set during head to head match ups. How does USC have a similar record to us and asu yet ranked higher despite losing to both, including a dismantling by ASU?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Yeah that's bullshit.

 

[Buster Bluth]

First time Notre Dame has finished ranked two seasons in a row since 2005/2006.

 

[Irishbounty28]

Michigan State should be ahead of Auburn. I understand that Auburn played in the National Championship and was the runner up, but imo Michigan State has proven by winning Multiple games in a row that they are deserving.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Michigan State should be ahead of Auburn. I understand that Auburn played in the National Championship and was the runner up, but imo Michigan State has proven by winning Multiple games in a row that they are deserving.

I agree. I wondered about that!

 

[woolybug25]

Michigan State should be ahead of Auburn. I understand that Auburn played in the National Championship and was the runner up, but imo Michigan State has proven by winning Multiple games in a row that they are deserving.

Auburn is a 2 loss team. Period.

No idea why playing in the title game gives them a pass for losing it. We dropped to #4 when we lost, and we only lost one game. MSU should be #2 and it's not even close.

 

[Irishbounty28]

Auburn is a 2 loss team. Period.

No idea why playing in the title game gives them a pass for losing it. We dropped to #4 when we lost, and we only lost one game. MSU should be #2 and it's not even close.

I completely agree with you, which is why brought it up. I will say that we should have dropped more than Auburn based on performances in the game. We were destroyed last year, and they were within seconds of beating the number 1 ranked team. None of that should matter though because Michigan State is the deserved team and should be ranked accordingly.

 

[Irish YJ]

Michigan State should be ahead of Auburn. I understand that Auburn played in the National Championship and was the runner up, but imo Michigan State has proven by winning Multiple games in a row that they are deserving.

Disagree. Auburn is in the NC, takes FSU to the brink (a little over a minute), and is the runner up. Isn't the runner up normally the runner up? Not always, but I'm fine with 2 given their performance. Had FSU beat them by 2 TDs, they yes, I'd say MSU. Also, absolutely no comparison in SOS. Compare record vs top 5, 10, 25 teams.... I'm an anti-SEC homer, but look at the body of work.

 

[Irish YJ]

I completely agree with you, which is why brought it up. I will say that we should have dropped more than Auburn based on performances in the game. We were destroyed last year, and they were within seconds of beating the number 1 ranked team. None of that should matter though because Michigan State is the deserved team and should be ranked accordingly.

 

[woolybug25]

Disagree. Auburn is in the NC, takes FSU to the brink (a little over a minute), and is the runner up. Isn't the runner up normally the runner up? Not always, but I'm fine with 2 given their performance. Had FSU beat them by 2 TDs, they yes, I'd say MSU. Also, absolutely no comparison in SOS. Compare record vs top 5, 10, 25 teams.... I'm an anti-SEC homer, but look at the body of work.

They still lost two games. Just because they played well against FSU doesn't mean they deserve the #2 spot. MSU only had one loss and won the Rose Bowl. Losing the title game does not entitle a team to having that distinction. Rankings are suppose to be a look at the entire body of work, not just one game.

Not sure what your monkey pic is either. You can disagree with bounty's comment, but I don't get why you are being a dick about it.

 

[Irish YJ]

They still lost two games. Just because they played well against FSU doesn't mean they deserve the #2 spot. MSU only had one loss and won the Rose Bowl. Losing the title game does not entitle a team to having that distinction. Rankings are suppose to be a look at the entire body of work, not just one game.

Not sure what your monkey pic is either. You can disagree with bounty's comment, but I don't get why you are being a dick about it.

Losing one game with a far inferior schedule does not automatically make you better than a two loss team with a far superior schedule. You argue in the 2014 Prediction thread the importance of SOS. Why does that not factor in here? I'd guess that Vegas would have Auburn as 2 TD favorites over MSU on a neutral field.

The monkey face was to show my surprise. Google surprise.. it comes up. Wasn't trying to be a dick. Wooly, have you had your coffee yet this AM? have money on Auburn?

BTW,, just discussed the MSU ranking topic on M&M

 

[BobD]

Michigan State 13 - 1

Looking at that just keeps reminding how close we were to a phenomenal season. Just one or two things.

 

[T Town Tommy]

If people have issues with Auburn being ahead of MSU, then next year they will probably be really disappointed. All too often, we as fans justify our team or our teams ranking based off record. It should be based off a number of things. The playoff committee will end up being worse for football than the BCS system. At the end of the day, a lot of fans will think their team belongs in the four team playoff when they have no business being there.

 

[Rhode Irish]

To Tommy's point, MSU wouldn't have been in the playoff (in all likelihood), and yet most of us feel they were the clear #2 at the end of the year.

I don't get the USC/ND/ASU thing either. To me, it is proof that AP voters don't pay attention and that the poll isn't worth a damn.

Don't agree that Auburn would be 2 TD favorites on a neutral field. I think they'd be installed at -4, and I'd be tempted to take MSU at that number.

 

[woolybug25]

To Tommy's point, MSU wouldn't have been in the playoff (in all likelihood), and yet most of us feel they were the clear #2 at the end of the year.

How do you figure? At best, that would be highly debateable. If you go off of the final BCS standing of the regular season, the playoff would have looked like:

1 Florida State vs. No. 4 Michigan State and No. 2 Auburn and No. 3 Alabama.

Ironically... FSU and MSU were the two teams that came out clean from the bowl season.

 

[T Town Tommy]

How do you figure? At best, that would be highly debateable. If you go off of the final BCS standing of the regular season, the playoff would have looked like:

1 Florida State vs. No. 4 Michigan State and No. 2 Auburn and No. 3 Alabama.

Ironically... FSU and MSU were the two teams that came out clean from the bowl season.

But keep in mind the committee will not use the same criteria to choose the final four. By using the BCS model, then yes, MSU would have been in. But I agree, if the committee were choosing this year, I think MSU would have made it - and should have made it.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm going to get mocked for this, but I wouldn't be too happy if I were UCF right now. 12-1 with wins over Baylor and Louisville and the only loss was by a field goal to South Carolina. That's only good enough for #10? I place a lot of weight on common opponents, and when you consider that a team like Oklahoma got whupped by Baylor, a team that UCF beat by 10, and they can still be ranked four spots ahead, there are some serious problems with this whole methodology. People think the playoff is going to solve so much but all it does is move the controversy a few spots down. Rather than fighthing for who gets the #2 spot, people will be fighting over who gets the #4 spot.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I think there is a good chance Stanford would have gotten the nod. Obviously nobody can know. But like Tommy said, they aren't going to use the BCS ranking formula. MSU's SOS would have hurt them, I think. If I was on the committee I wouldn't have put them in, but I would have been wrong in retrospect. That is obviously the problem with this format, though.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I think most "commentators" were saying that they would put in Stanford as the No.4, hypothetically.

 

[IrishLax]

There's a very, very good chance Stanford would've gotten the nod over MSU with their substantially better SOS even with a second loss. Especially when there are 3-4 Stanford employees/backers on that selection committee.

That really would've been a pretty epic debate, and it proves why a 4 team playoff isn't enough. As is you snubbed two other one loss teams for Auburn. At 4 teams, you're talking about taking 2 SEC teams and then potentially choosing between a Big Ten champ that only has a loss because they challenged themselves out of conference, and a Stanford team that has an additional loss but the best SOS. How do you choose who sits out there?

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm going to get mocked for this, but I wouldn't be too happy if I were UCF right now. 12-1 with wins over Baylor and Louisville and the only loss was by a field goal to South Carolina. That's only good enough for #10? I place a lot of weight on common opponents, and when you consider that a team like Oklahoma got whupped by Baylor, a team that UCF beat by 10, and they can still be ranked four spots ahead, there are some serious problems with this whole methodology. People think the playoff is going to solve so much but all it does is move the controversy a few spots down. Rather than fighthing for who gets the #2 spot, people will be fighting over who gets the #4 spot.

I definitely agree with this. Maybe the committee can sort some of this out in favor of competition and not so much in favor of luster.

 

[wizards8507]

There's a very, very good chance Stanford would've gotten the nod over MSU with their substantially better SOS even with a second loss. Especially when there are 3-4 Stanford employees/backers on that selection committee.

That really would've been a pretty epic debate, and it proves why a 4 team playoff isn't enough. As is you snubbed two other one loss teams for Auburn. At 4 teams, you're talking about taking 2 SEC teams and then potentially choosing between a Big Ten champ that only has a loss because they challenged themselves out of conference, and a Stanford team that has an additional loss but the best SOS. How do you choose who sits out there?

I'll tell you how.

Ladies and gentlemen, the end of "the argument"!

 

[RuntheBall]

You guys mentioned USC and ASU being just ahead of ND, but what about A&M? They are an interesting case IMO. They finished with the same record as ND, 9-4. But their four losses are all to good teams (or at least teams that are perceived to be good-- I'm looking at you LSU). They lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn and Missouri. But they beat Duke and... Ole Miss...?

Of course ND had one bad loss (Pitt) and three permissible losses (Stanford and Oklahoma for sure, UM is a bit borderline...) but they did have much better wins: MSU, ASU, USC.

It will be interesting to see how the selection committee handles situations like this (if the teams have 1-2 losses not 4). How will they weight good wins, bad losses, etc. Our schedule next year could/should be brutal... this point could be big for us if we are close.

 

[ndcoltsfan2010]

Glad to see us ranked in the top twenty. It's absolute garbage that USC is ranked higher. Ridiculous IMO! I also feel that MSU should be at #2 instead of Auburn. Overall I am happy with where we are at and as someone pointed out, we had a pretty good season given the cards we were dealt with EG, injuries etc. really looking forward to next season. I think we have a lot to be optimistic about.

 

[ACamp1900]

Rice is a Browns fan too??? Gosh I love that lady... Lol

 

[irishog77]

Rice is a Browns fan too??? Gosh I love that lady... Lol

Pics of Condi in the Gentlemen's Club

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I agree that eight teams is good, and four teams is bad.

Aside from picking them being a subjective choice, how will the final rankings go? Will the final four or eight be the playoff teams? Or will other teams be able to leapfrog them based upon some beauty or popularity contest?

 

[House16]

Not much to do over break, so I made a conference power rankings based on the final coaches poll. Gave the number 1 team 41 points, number 2 40, all the way down to the last team that got a vote got 1 point. Then I added up all the conferences and divided by the number of teams in the conference to penalize conferences for having teams that don't make it. Power rankings went like this:

SEC- 16.4
Pac12- 13.1
Big12- 12.2
B1G- 9.1
ACC- 7.4

Thought this was pretty interesting, and it turned out just about the way everyone agrees the conferences are stacked.

 

[eNDzone]

Name one other 2 lose team they would even consider ranking 2nd that is not in the SEC. Michigan State proceeded to beat the #2 team (Ohio State) and the #5 team (Stanford) in consecutive games and that does't move them into second over a 2 lose team?

 

[wizards8507]

I agree that eight teams is good, and four teams is bad.

What would that solve? With four teams, everyone 5 through 10 is pissed off. If it switched to eight teams, everyone 9-15 would be pissed off. There's no number large enough to say "every team included clearly deserves it, and every team left out clearly does not." You create the college basketball "bubble" except on a much larger stage. I think the only real solution would be to reallign division 1-A into 8 conferences based on geography. The 8 conference champions would be in the playoffs.

This, of course, will never happen.

Aside from picking them being a subjective choice, how will the final rankings go? Will the final four or eight be the playoff teams? Or will other teams be able to leapfrog them based upon some beauty or popularity contest?

That's exactly the problem. The selection committee doesn't appear to be bound by any rules or anything tied to rankings. Otherwise, they'd be unnecessary.

Not much to do over break, so I made a conference power rankings based on the final coaches poll. Gave the number 1 team 41 points, number 2 40, all the way down to the last team that got a vote got 1 point. Then I added up all the conferences and divided by the number of teams in the conference to penalize conferences for having teams that don't make it. Power rankings went like this:

SEC- 16.4
Pac12- 13.1
Big12- 12.2
B1G- 9.1
ACC- 7.4

Thought this was pretty interesting, and it turned out just about the way everyone agrees the conferences are stacked.

Interesting experiment, but your methodology is flawed. The rankings you used already include the voters' biases that favor the SEC, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. People think the SEC is far and away superior, so the SEC has more teams in the final rankings, so the power rankings favor the SEC by a wide margin, so people think the SEC is far and away superior. You'd need to use computer polls or metrics outside of "voter rankings" to strip the human bias out of it. Your math also favors small conferences. Based on your methodology, Notre Dame (conference of 1) would be far superior than the SEC.