Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Failing 2 easy tests or Failing 3 hard tests???

Pick your poison 

Only because too many SEC teams failed 3 tests

Thanks to an expanded, 12-team playoff, this is the type of idiotic debate we're having now. 

Fun. 

Thanks to the College Football Playoff Committee, your debate doesn't matter. 

The smartest people in the sport handle who goes or doesn't go. 

And they're the folks who gave us this, as you point out:



Of course, for someone who says "context matters", interesting that you left out some context:



Hmm, what's that? A bunch of 10-2 teams from the SEC/B1G ranked above 11-1 teams from the ACC/MWC and an obvious fraud from the B1G? 9-3 teams from the SEC ranked above 10-2 teams from the B12? 

Seems that they don't "just rank by # of losses". Maybe they're not as lazy and stupid as you think?

Thanks to the College Football Playoff Committee, your debate doesn't matter.

The smartest people in the sport handle who goes or doesn't go.

And they're the folks who gave us this, as you point out:



Of course, for someone who says "context matters", interesting that you left out some context:



Hmm, what's that? A bunch of 10-2 teams from the SEC/B1G ranked above 11-1 teams from the ACC/MWC and an obvious fraud from the B1G? 9-3 teams from the SEC ranked above 10-2 teams from the B12?

Seems that they don't "just rank by # of losses". Maybe they're not as lazy and stupid as you think?

I guess we could have this conversation.  I don't see why we have to, but sure, why not?

All of the times they rank a team with fewer losses behind one with more losses, there's a reason (excuse) that we all know of already. 
SMU and Boise are shifted down due to being from a lesser conference.  Whether it's considering the ACC as lesser now or recognizing that SMU was in a G5 conference up to yesterday, it matters not.
IU, as you said, is a cellar-dweller program that has literally zero track record of success.  It's consistent to rank them behind 2-loss teams you've heard of before.
The only possible exception comes next, in Bama/Miami.  I suppose this is a combination of the helmetocity of Bama + the ACC as being seen as less-than, as well as Miami's defense being hot garbage all season.  If you'd like to chalk this up to the voters being smart, feel free.  THAT'S ONE.
The next group is SEC ranked over newcomers/weaker conference teams.  And/or something as simple as "well these teams weren't supposed to be good this year."  Pick your reason.
.
The reason I cut it off where I did wasn't to avoid this discussion, but that none of these teams is going to win the NC.  They're afterthoughts and voters treat them as such.  No one is going to get blasted on social media for who they rank 15th vs who they rank 19th.  The top matters.
The other reason I didn't bother with it is that the voters have been quite consistent with setting back teams from lesser conferences a level of ranking (ie - a fewer loss, but behind P5/4 programs)....which is why Mizzou being behind BYU is fairly stunning to me.  Hell, that's an example of voters being inconsistent, lol.
.
And I do apologize if this hasn't been evident to everyone else over the years.  I tend to assume certain things are common knowledge when they are not.

Let me pick a random year's end-of-regular-season rankings:
2018



This is basically how it works and it's pretty consistent.  I think you could argue there are now "name" G5-level programs that maybe get a 1-game penalty rather than the 2-games you see here with UCF and Boise. 

But if you look at the top, it's child's play (thinking).  All the way down to 12, with a mid-major thrown in there because of the fancy 0 in the L column, despite a high school schedule (85th, only ranked opp was fellow AAC team). 

I can't be the only one who's noticed this pattern.....can I?

Generally, yes. There's a reason. They don't think they're as good.

Sometimes there's a pattern of ranking teams with more losses below teams with fewer losses, because the losses might indicate a team isn't as good. In other cases, they rank teams with more losses ahead of teams with fewer losses, because they think despite the number of losses that the team is better.

If an exhaustive study were conducted, I believe you'd simply find teams with fewer losses ranked behind teams with more losses at being in 2 camps:
weaker conference (P5 vs G5)
and
weak or no history of success (IU this year)
*It's possible what I've said here aligns with what you posted, but when not aligned, I feel the teams themselves almost don't matter (as per the above in my post)
.
2014 FSU was so noteworthy because they were the exception, not the rule. 

I'd say that when we're talking about traditional polls, I completely buy the "lazy and/or stupid" rationale. Especially the Coaches Poll. We all know that FBS coaches don't have the time or interest level to care, so they probably push their poll down to some staffer... I share your disdain for "the masses"... Even if in this case "the masses" are disinterested CFB coaches or AP voters.

But for the CFP ranking, we're dealing with people (the committee) who have seriously invested their time into this one specific task. People who have been in/around this sport for decades. People who should be legitimately considered relevant authorities in this task.

To me it sounds like you're saying that we simply can't trust "the experts" to do this right. Because if the CFP committee can't get it right, who would you possible put in charge of this?

Something objective, lol.

Idk, the average age of the committee is 61, and with that comes certain probable traditional thinking.  I doubt, as a collective, they're that statistically inclined.  The former coaches and players are likely to be especially subjective and traditional, touting toughness and such, as pros for a team in question.

They may be experts, but I worry they're experts of outdated thinking.  Are people who grew up on Woody vs Bo 3 yards and a cloud of dust, student body right, etc the best group to be ranking teams in 2024?

Something objective, lol.

Idk, the average age of the committee is 61, and with that comes certain probable traditional thinking.  I doubt, as a collective, they're that statistically inclined.  The former coaches and players are likely to be especially subjective and traditional, touting toughness and such, as pros for a team in question.

They may be experts, but I worry they're experts of outdated thinking.  Are people who grew up on Woody vs Bo 3 yards and a cloud of dust, student body right, etc the best group to be ranking teams in 2024?

Computer models are objective. I know you don't like those.