11/11 CFP Rankings...

Fuck Jim Delany

Moderators: 88BuckeyeGrad, Left Seater, buckeye_in_sc

Post Reply
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: 11/11 CFP Rankings...

Post by Dinsdale »

Rack the committee for punishing Baylor for not playing anyone OOC. One game against a decent P5 team would have them ahead of TCU, I'm sure, but they chose the pussy route.

Then again, their OOC slate is muderer's row compared to Miss St's.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
matteric
Elwood
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 1:58 am

Re: 11/11 CFP Rankings...

Post by matteric »

Dinsdale wrote:Rack the committee for punishing Baylor for not playing anyone OOC. One game against a decent P5 team would have them ahead of TCU, I'm sure, but they chose the pussy route.

Then again, their OOC slate is muderer's row compared to Miss St's.




Even if the college football playoff itself has issues (which it does), I think it is a huge upgrade if for no other reason than that strength of schedule is now a major factor in the rankings the committee is putting out.

The thing we in the PAC 12 have been complaining about forever... the entire SEC being ranked preseason, starting 4-0 with cupcakes, then not dropping when they lose within the conference (because they lost to a ranked team) and rising way too much when they win (because they beat a ranked team)... seems to be somewhat mitigated by the OOC schedules being the only real judge of true SOS. And the SEC is not so impressive OOC.

I really hope the result of this long term is fewer Alabama vs. Citadel games and more Oregon vs. Michigan State
User avatar
Roger_the_Shrubber
Back-o-Matic
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:29 am

Re: 11/11 CFP Rankings...

Post by Roger_the_Shrubber »

I don't really care about the placement of FSU as much as the 'reason' why. A voter said that IF they hadn't have had an injury, Oregon might have won against Arizona.

"Ifs" suck. And to base one's voting on that, sucks.
What were we just talking about?
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: 11/11 CFP Rankings...

Post by Dinsdale »

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:I don't really care about the placement of FSU as much as the 'reason' why. A voter said that IF they hadn't have had an injury, Oregon might have won against Arizona.

"Ifs" suck. And to base one's voting on that, sucks.
Two sides to the argument -- in fairness, the Anointed Ones said from the outset that they might consider injuries, and Oregon didn't have "an injury," they were sans 4 starting OLs.

On the other side of the coin... they lost the game, at home, albeit to a good opponent.

I agree that speculating-in-the-past-tense is a slippery slope. And everybody has injuries.

As far as FSU -- thus far, their schedule is shit, but against a quality opponent Saturday, a win should leapfrog them back to #2...

But the committee knows who they work for -- the NCAA and ESPN. The super-smart people on it know what they're doing, and they're doing an excellent job of trolling everyone. But it's odd they're such PACBSHs. Are they setting everyone up to put 2 SEC teams in the playoff, and giving themselves an out with all the PACBSHing?

Because the jumps in the rankings of the top PAC teams seemed a bit disproportionate. Don't get me wrong, I'm a PACBSH, but as a fan, I'm allowed, and I can still call a spade a spade (in an all white neighborhood, anyway) -- seems like the PAC is getting extra love, although I do believe it's the strongest conference this year (been waiting a whole lotta years to be able to say that).

Not sure how I feel about their scorn for the B1G. The eyeball test says the top teams aren't on par with those of other conferences, and much of their OOC was garbage, but you still have a couple of teams with one loss in a P5... gotta be worth something.

And WGARA -- lots of football left to be played. It'll all come out in the wash.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
matteric
Elwood
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 1:58 am

Re: 11/11 CFP Rankings...

Post by matteric »

This makes the most sense to me.


Let the "bookies" pick the teams.



http://www.sfgate.com/sports/ostler/art ... 889566.php
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: 11/11 CFP Rankings...

Post by Dinsdale »

Sudden Sam wrote:For the last several weeks (if not longer) Vegas oddsmakers have had Alabama the top choice to win the title.
Huh?

http://sports.bovada.lv/sports-betting/ ... utures.jsp

The books are pretty evenly split between Bama and Oregon, not really much difference, has been like that for weeks. Bovada is the biggest online site, and they've favored Oregon for the last few weeks.

The idea in the article is flawed, since oddsmakers aren't necessarily predicting the on-field result, they're predicting how people will bet, and are steering things towards even betting.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: 11/11 CFP Rankings...

Post by Dinsdale »

I think Bama's odds go way up if they win Saturday.

Of the likely playoff teams, seems like all of them would roll FSU on a neutral field (but let's go ahead and play the games anyway). The other matchups are very intriguing.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Post Reply