| 1 | Clemson | 15-0 | |
| 2 | Alabama | 14-1 | |
| 3 | Oklahoma | 12-2 | |
| 4 | Georgia | 11-3 | |
| 5 | Ohio State | 13-1 | |
| 6 | LSU (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/LSU/lsu-tigers/) | 10-3 | |
| 7 | Michigan (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/MICH/michigan-wolverines/) | 10-3 | |
| 8 | Florida (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/FLA/florida-gators/) | 10-3 | |
| 9 | Texas (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/TEXAS/texas-longhorns/) | 10-4 | |
| 10 | Notre Dame (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/ND/notre-dame-fighting-irish/) | 12-1 | |
| 11 | Washington (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/WASH/washington-huskies/) | 10-4 | |
| 12 | Oregon (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/OREG/oregon-ducks/) | 9-4 | |
| 13 | Utah (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/UTAH/utah-utes/) | 9-5 | |
| 14 | Texas A&M | 9-4 | |
| 15 | Auburn (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/AUBURN/auburn-tigers/) | 8-5 | |
| 16 | Iowa State (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/IOWAST/iowa-state-cyclones/) | 8-5 | |
| 17 | UCF | 12-1 | |
| 18 | Wisconsin | 8-5 | |
| 19 | Penn State (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/PSU/penn-state-nittany-lions/) | 9-4 | |
| 20 | Syracuse (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/CUSE/syracuse-orange/) | 10-3 | |
| 21 | Virginia | 8-5 | |
| 22 | Michigan State (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/MICHST/michigan-state-spartans/) | 7-6 | |
| 23 | Miami | 7-6 | |
| 24 | Nebraska | 4-8 | |
| 25 | Oklahoma State | 7-6 |
Looks pretty much as expected, I suppose. I'm glad to see ISU getting some respect at #24, Matt Campbell is doing some really good work there.Wasn't disappointed when tOSU tapped Ryan Day as HC.Thought for sure they'd go after MC with his Ohio background Toledo/B.Green/Mount Union/Massillon
(Which of course means a bigger name is bound to snatch him up soon)
We haven't seen much to support any ranking, but the good news is none of this matters, at all, now, except for musing.Oh, it matters.
There is usually one or two busts in the top ten. A&M at 11 might have a good team and end up 8-4 easily enough. Florida might be 8-4 also. Or not.
Oh, it matters.In the poll era, yeah, that meant something. In the playoff era I don’t really think it does. And I’ll proactively cut off any argument that the CFP just follows whatever the polls do. They definitively don’t.
It helps keep teams that perhaps shouldn't be there stay close to the top and prevent other schools who maybe have tougher schedules to stay out of the top 25.
Like conferences that have a bunch of teams listed in the top 25 who "play each other", and gives the illusion of strength of conference.
Preseason rankings are garbage.
Let's say Syracuse loses its first two games, but because they're in the ACC and there are no real relevant teams besides Clemson, they'll be back up there (top 25) if they win a couple more simply because they had the preseason hype.
With that said, anyone want to start a new strength of schedule thread?
My school is too high. We haven't seen anything to support that ranking.glad it's yours and not mine
Oh, it matters.They exist because a part of our lizard brains wants to consume them voraciously. The same reason we care how high Syracuse or Clemson is on a given week.
It helps keep teams that perhaps shouldn't be there stay close to the top and prevent other schools who maybe have tougher schedules to stay out of the top 25.
Like conferences that have a bunch of teams listed in the top 25 who "play each other", and gives the illusion of strength of conference.
Preseason rankings are garbage.
Let's say Syracuse loses its first two games, but because they're in the ACC and there are no real relevant teams besides Clemson, they'll be back up there (top 25) if they win a couple more simply because they had the preseason hype.
With that said, anyone want to start a new strength of schedule thread?
CFB51.com 130 team rankings: (https://www.cfb51-line.com/2019/07/01/cfb51-2019-pre-season-130-teams-ranked-countdown-style/)There, fixed it. Jeez.
(https://www.cfb51-line.com/2019/07/01/cfb51-2019-pre-season-130-teams-ranked-countdown-style/)
- (https://www.cfb51-line.com/2019/07/01/cfb51-2019-pre-season-130-teams-ranked-countdown-style/)Clemson
- HALF THE SEC
- Ohio State
There, fixed it. Jeez.So are you higher on ND? Texas? An A&M team that has a good chance to finish 7-5? Washington and Oregon?
Florida is too high across the board - replacing 4 OL starters rarely works out well.
So are you higher on ND? Texas? An A&M team that has a good chance to finish 7-5? Washington and Oregon?I don't know, I haven't looked closely at the other teams. What I do know is that I'd rather be replacing skill position players rather than 4/5 of an OL.
That 6-15 area is just a weird morass.
| [th]Rank[/th] [th]Record[/th] [th]PTS[/th] [th]1st[/th] [th]Prev[/th] [th]Chg[/th] [th]Hi/Lo[/th] | |||||||
| 1 | Clemson (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/clemson/) | 15-0 | 1600 | 64 | 2 | 1 | 1/4 |
| 2 | Alabama (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/alabama/) | 14-1 | 1536 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 1/2 |
| 3 | Ohio State (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/ohio-state/) | 13-1 | 1437 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 2/10 |
| 4 | Oklahoma (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/oklahoma/) | 12-2 | 1415 | 0 | 4 | — | 4/11 |
| 5 | Notre Dame (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/notre-dame/) | 12-1 | 1316 | 0 | 3 | -2 | 3/11 |
| 6 | Florida (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/florida/) | 10-3 | 1192 | 0 | 10 | 4 | 6/NR |
| 7 | Louisiana State (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/louisiana-state/) | 10-3 | 1186 | 0 | 11 | 4 | 4/24 |
| 8 | Georgia (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/georgia/) | 11-3 | 1147 | 0 | 6 | -2 | 2/8 |
| 9 | Texas (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/texas/) | 10-4 | 1093 | 0 | 14 | 5 | 7/NR |
| 10 | Washington State (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/washington-state/) | 11-2 | 1007 | 0 | 13 | 3 | 7/NR |
| 11 | Kentucky (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/kentucky/) | 10-3 | 945 | 0 | 15 | 4 | 11/NR |
| 12 | Central Florida (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/central-florida/) | 12-1 | 876 | 0 | 7 | -5 | 7/23 |
| 13 | Washington (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/washington/) | 10-4 | 807 | 0 | 9 | -4 | 6/19 |
| 14 | Michigan (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/michigan/) | 10-3 | 780 | 0 | 8 | -6 | 4/22 |
| 15 | Syracuse (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/syracuse/) | 10-3 | 720 | 0 | 17 | 2 | 12/NR |
| 16 | Texas A&M (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/texas-am/) | 9-4 | 625 | 0 | 20 | 4 | 16/NR |
| 17 | Penn State (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/penn-state/) | 9-4 | 581 | 0 | 12 | -5 | 8/20 |
| 18 | Fresno State (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/fresno-state/) | 12-2 | 497 | 0 | 21 | 3 | 17/NR |
| 19 | Northwestern (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/northwestern/) | 9-5 | 375 | 0 | 22 | 3 | 19/NR |
| 20 | Army (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/army/) | 11-2 | 333 | 0 | 25 | 5 | 20/NR |
| 21 | Utah State (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/utah-state/) | 11-2 | 252 | 0 | 23 | 2 | 13/NR |
| 22 | West Virginia (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/west-virginia/) | 8-4 | 235 | 0 | 16 | -6 | 6/22 |
| 23 | Cincinnati (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/cincinnati/) | 11-2 | 186 | 0 | 28 | 5 | 20/NR |
| 24 | Boise State (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/boise-state/) | 10-3 | 165 | 0 | 24 | — | 17/NR |
| 25 | Mississippi State (https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/mississippi-state/) | 0-0 | 107 | 0 | 18 | -7 | 14/NR |
We don't really know much about this either. Not until the season is over.
With that said, anyone want to start a new strength of schedule thread?
How much effort do you suppose a sportswriter applies to his ranking each week?Probably more than that, just because you have to corral all the scores, wrap your head around them, figure out the just outside the last top-25 group. I’m guessing the average newbie spends more time, but some veterans do and some do not.
My guess is not much at all. Maybe the Newbie just invited spends 15 minutes on it, but my GUESS is the regular writers do it in 5 minutes whilst watching ESPN or checking scores. I don't know why I'd spend more time on it myself, take last week's poll and drop whoever lost and push up the rest.
I was musing about weaknesses or unknowns with some of the top teams:
1. Clemson - none known
2. Alabama - none known
3. Georgia - replacing every wide receiver from last year and a good bit on defense
4. Oklahoma - defense
5. Ohio State - new QB with minimal PT, none in system
6. LSU - the HC?
7. Michigan - the Hump
8. Florida - replacing 4 of 5 on OL
9. Notre Dame - I don't know
10. Texas - I don't know
All of them have a decent to excellent QB returning except Ohio State. All of them have recruited well. Notre Dame plays AT #3 and #7, plus some other worthies. Florida plays #3 and #6. UGA plays #8 and #9.
All of them have a decent to excellent QB returning except Ohio State. All of them have recruited well. Notre Dame plays AT #3 and #7, plus some other worthies. Florida plays #3 and #6. UGA plays #8 and #9.
Texas plays #4 and #6. Major weakness is replacing 7-8 starters on defense.I was looking at what Cincy and Utee noted about schedules and I thought I'd add that a big potential advantage (or disadvantage) for Clemson and Notre Dame is that they are unlikely to face a high-end opponent in a potential CCG. For the rest that isn't true:
Texas and Oklahoma could play each other three times in a season. They are not unique in that respect.The fact that Texas and Oklahoma could play each other three times in a season and that this is not unique to them is one reason that I wasn't in favor of playoff expansion from two (BCS) to now four and inevitably soon more teams.
The CG is a double edged sword, but I view it as the first round of the playoff in effect. I didn't think UGA should have gotten a "do over" last year after losing the CG.From your perspective as an SEC fan I think it is fair to view the CG as a NC quarter-final. At least so far, no SECCG winner has missed the CFP. Their CFP rankings entering the SECCG:
Interesting about the dearth of CG upsets.The other thing, at least with last year, is that there were not a lot of teams with a plausible chance at a CFP bid heading into CCG weekend:
Interesting about the dearth of CG upsets.It's that thing where big-boy teams are playing with their goals in front of them and tending to show up. But I'm absurd.
Florida plays #3 and #6.Pffffft, #3 and #6 have to play US.
It's that thing where big-boy teams are playing with their goals in front of them and tending to show up. But I'm absurd.To an extent I agree and I think that is one of the reasons we haven't seen a REALLY big upset like Pitt over Clemson or NU over tOSU last year or Mizzou over Bama in 2014 would have been.
To an extent I agree and I think that is one of the reasons we haven't seen a REALLY big upset like Pitt over Clemson or NU over tOSU last year or Mizzou over Bama in 2014 would have been.The lower ranked team won 4 of the first 8 Big XII CCGs. Since Kansas State beat #1 Oklahoma in 2003, the lower ranked team is 1-8, with the lone "upset" being #9 Oklahoma over a fluky #1 Missouri in 2008.
That said, a lot of these games have involved top-4 teams vs top-10 teams and the lower ranked team aught to win that at least once in three or four tries and we just haven't seen it at all yet.
a Big 12 contender would benefit from this
a west champ knocking off the East champ in the B1G
semi-open the door for the Sooners or the Horns to get in the playoff
Not sure what you mean here? The Sooners have had no problems getting into the playoff. If Texas ever gets back to the 0-loss or 1-loss world, the Horns will get in, too. Other B12 teams likely need help here and there, but that's true of non-helmets from all the other conferences as well. Except maybe the SEC, their helmet-halo is strong.In the CFP era:
yes, Notre Dame could have caused the Sooners a spot
the Big 12 has been left out 2 of 5 seasons, the Sooners have been in the other 3 seasons, but have been the #4 seed twice
There were a few that thought the Sooner's lack of defense might leave them outside last season (OrangeAfro)
I'm not really knocking the Big 12, the same could happen to the PAC, the B1G or the ACC if Clemson slips
I was merely replying to a Sooner (Big 12)
there are 4 spots, 5 conferences and ND
if the Big Ten East champ gets upset, that could open the door for a team that otherwise might not get in over a 0 or 1 loss Big Ten champ from the East.
I still don't understand the B1G-specific nature of your point. If Texas or OU gets upset, then that could also open the door for a team that otherwise might not get in over a 0-loss or 1-loss Texas or OU.I still disagree with what you are implying here. As I've said when we've had this argument before, I have two points:
You're effectively saying, if a B1G non-helmet upsets a B1G helmet (from the East) then that leaves the door open. The same is true for ALL conferences. Except maybe the SEC.
You really need to come out of your shell and express yourself :043:
- I think you are wrong,
I still disagree with what you are implying here. As I've said when we've had this argument before, I have two points:
- I think you are wrong, there is no helmet bias in the CFP selections, and
- Even if there is a helmet bias in the CFP selections, there is no evidence of such a bias to date. Unless and until there is evidence of such bias, it should not be assumed to exist.
As noted in my earlier post, so far there have been five 2-loss P5 Champions in the CFP era and none have made the CFP. Four of the five (specifically PSU, OU, tOSU, and USC) are MAJOR helmets. That didn't get them in.
Also as noted above, 1-loss P5 Champions have made the CFP on 12 of 15 chances. The 12 that did make it include non-helmets Oregon, Michigan State, and Washington while the three that did not include helmet Ohio State.
I fail to see any evidence of helmet bias. Baylor and TCU missed out for four main reasons:
- That year there were a total of six undefeated (FSU) or 1-loss (Bama, Oregon, tOSU, Baylor, TCU) P5 Champions. By definition two of them had to get left out, and
- Baylor and TCU were the only two of the six not to defeat a high-end opponent in a CG, and
- Baylor and TCU had the weakest SoS of the 1-loss P5 Champs, and
- Ultimately it came down to tOSU/TCU/Baylor and Ohio State slaughtered a highly ranked Wisconsin team on the day before the committee's decision.
Then, of course, there were two occasions when a 1-loss non-Champion got in but both of those were effectively Helmet vs Helmet competitions so there is still no evidence of helmet-bias:
In 2016 1-loss non-Champion Ohio State got in. The first team out was 2-loss B1G Champion Penn State. My first observation is that while PSU's helmet might not be as large as Ohio State's, they are still a helmet team. Secondly, PSU missed because they had two losses and their losses were terrible. They lost to a 5-loss Pitt team and they got slaughtered by Michigan.
In 2017 1-loss non-Champion Bama got in. The first team out was 2-loss B1G Champion Ohio State. My first observation is that while Bama's helmet is humongous, Ohio State is one of the very few teams that is at least close to their equal. This wasn't about a helmet getting in over a non-helmet it was an inter-helmet dispute. Secondly, tOSU missed because they had two losses, one was horrible and the other wasn't all that "good". They lost to a very good Oklahoma team that did make the CFP but the loss was at home and by 15 points and they lost badly to a 5-loss Iowa team.
There is no reason to assume or even allege helmet-bias in the absence of evidence for this bias and there is NO evidence of helmet bias in the committee's selections thus far.
and I thought I was effective at stirring up Texans ;)
blah blah blah blahWhen you have evidence of bias let us know.
I think you're wrong, too.
That was easy.
When you have evidence of bias let us know.I'm not worried about convincing you. You see what you choose to see, same as it ever was.
You are, he's not. His posts are so long and boring and wrong, they're easy to ignore. :)Like Beer Snobs trying to explain the subtle nuances of IPA's
Well, yeah, I don’t think anyone is really going to disagree with any of that. But the nature of your posts seem to be “It doesn’t really matter, so why bother with the effort?” And that’s fine, too. Whenever we’ve ever done polls on here it’s not like they count for anything but when I do polls I do try my best to rank them the best I can. Of course it’s just an opinion and people are free to disagree with it but I’m putting forth an effort.This is the 15-25 ranking in the coaches poll. I imagine most of us would reorder this a bit, and probably add some 26-30 teams to replace these, but why bother?
- Utah 0-0
- Auburn 0-0
- Wisconsin 0-0
- UCF 0-0
- Iowa 0-0
- Michigan State 0-0
- Washington State 0-0
- Syracuse 0-0
- Stanford 0-0
- Iowa State 0-0
- Northwestern 0-0
For one thing, it's one vote out of 60 or so. For another, it doesn't matter is Nebraska should be 22nd instead of Syracuse. Meh.
I'm not worried about convincing you. You see what you choose to see, same as it ever was.I'll take this as your continuing admission that you lack anything even resembling evidence of helmet bias in cfp selections. Thank you for clearing that up.
Like Beer Snobs trying to explain the subtle nuances of IPA's
Fearless wouldn't do that deliberately :DLOL. Fair enough. Wouldn’t it have benefitted Ohio St for Oklahoma to get upset in the CCG last year though?
hah, it also wasn't necessary for the Sooner to point out: The door is semi-open for the Huskers.Sorry. I guess the bear poking went over my head. LOL.
But, that's just how the Sooners and Huskers enjoy each other's company
it's all in good clean fun
LOL. Fair enough. Wouldn’t it have benefitted Ohio St for Oklahoma to get upset in the CCG last year though?Not with that Buckeyes Defense
I get what Utee is saying. Fearless specifically pointed out a Big 12 contender could benefit from a Big Ten West team upsetting a Big Ten East team in the CCG. Any upset in any CCG would benefit another CFP contender from any conference.Fearless said that in the context of my comment--responding to his point that the B1G put all the weak teams in the West--that the B1G West was therefore open for a Husker resurgence.
It just seemed unnecessary to point out the Big 12 could benefit from a Big Ten CCG upset.
Fearless said that in the context of my comment--responding to his point that the B1G put all the weak teams in the West--that the B1G West was therefore open for a Husker resurgence.
That, as I took it, is why he mentioned a hypothetical B1G West team winning the CCG and a hypothetical Big 12 champ that would need help making the CFP.
it's all funny until some "know it all" Buckeyes jump into the fray!It's just that your former conference mates warned us about some entities known the Husker Prick Squad.Those emojis are creepy as hell
then it's HILARIOUS
(Just so you know, despite what Fearless might believe about his own unique set of skills, the pot-stirring goes both ways, C0dubb ;) ):iagree:
| 1 | Clemson | 15-0 | |
| 2 | Alabama | 14-1 | |
| 3 | Oklahoma | 12-2 | |
| 4 | Georgia | 11-3 | |
| 5 | Ohio State | 13-1 | |
| 6 | LSU (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/LSU/lsu-tigers/) | 10-3 | |
| 7 | Michigan (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/MICH/michigan-wolverines/) | 10-3 | |
| 8 | Florida (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/FLA/florida-gators/) | 10-3 | |
| 9 | Texas (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/TEXAS/texas-longhorns/) | 10-4 | |
| 10 | Notre Dame (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/ND/notre-dame-fighting-irish/) | 12-1 | |
| 11 | Washington (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/WASH/washington-huskies/) | 10-4 | |
| 12 | Oregon (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/OREG/oregon-ducks/) | 9-4 | |
| 13 | Utah (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/UTAH/utah-utes/) | 9-5 | |
| 14 | Texas A&M | 9-4 | |
| 15 | Auburn (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/AUBURN/auburn-tigers/) | 8-5 | |
| 16 | Iowa State (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/IOWAST/iowa-state-cyclones/) | 8-5 | |
| 17 | UCF | 12-1 | |
| 18 | Wisconsin | 8-5 | |
| 19 | Penn State (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/PSU/penn-state-nittany-lions/) | 9-4 | |
| 20 | Syracuse (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/CUSE/syracuse-orange/) | 10-3 | |
| 21 | Virginia | 8-5 | |
| 22 | Michigan State (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/MICHST/michigan-state-spartans/) | 7-6 | |
| 23 | Miami | 7-6 | |
| 24 | Nebraska | 4-8 | |
| 25 | Oklahoma State | 7-6 |
The other day I saw a composite preseason ranking across 25-30 polls (athlon, SI, coaches, yadda, yadda). I wish I had saved it to share here, because now I'm struggling to summon it by google. Of course ... it wasn't much more revelatory than the constituent polls we've already pasted here. Just neat to see the average is all.An LSU fan used to track one on his personal fannsite
A computer poll preseason is bizarre to me. What are the inputs? Number of starters returning?I know Bill Connelly's three inputs are recent success, returning production and recruiting rankings.
I guess they could take last year's finish and do something with starters returning, but or number of starts returning at each position, or something.
Quija board?
if there's a new coaching staff does the computer factor the previous season at the other school?I don't think so most of the time, primarily because coaching changes are so random. For every new staff of coordinator who saves the day, there's probably more who are just duds.
A computer poll preseason is bizarre to me. What are the inputs? Number of starters returning?Richard Billingsley--whose computer rankings were part of the BCS formula--explains it like this.
I guess they could take last year's finish and do something with starters returning, but or number of starts returning at each position, or something.
Quija board?
Starting Position- This is one of the most hotly debated subjects in rankings. Starting position DOES have an impact in rankings, but what I’ve done is create a system where the pre-season ranking is corrected early on (through strength of schedule and head to head results) so there is no undue advantage from the pre-season poll that remains past about the third week of September. I respect many different points of view here, ranging from creating a pre-season poll based on returning starters and media hype (as in the AP/Coaches), starting everyone equal (as in some computer polls), or having a starting position based on an average of 3-5 previous seasons (also in some computer models). I believe having a starting position is best, but starting everyone equal is not logical to me. We know through observation of past seasons that some teams are stronger than others. No disrespect to the Vandals, but in 2007 Idaho was not as strong a team as Texas. If we know this in advance, to a high degree of accuracy, then ranking Texas and Idaho equal is not only illogical, it is unfair to Texas and completely (in my mind) skews any hope of an accurate strength of schedule. In the past I kept teams in their earned rank positions from the end of one season to the beginning of the next. If a team finished #10 in 2007, they started #10 in 2008. For decades I felt it was the fairest way to establish a starting position. However, beginning in 2014 I began creating a pre-season ranking based on returning starters and coaching changes. It’s not so much that I changed my mind as it is the fact that enormous amounts of information are now available to me now through the internet, and being semi-retired, I have the time to devote to that process. I still adjust a team’s RATING to a standard point value that brings teams closer together, preventing an unfair advantage in points from one season to the next. Each year the #1 team starts at 270 points; #2, 269.250 points; #3, 268.500 points and so forth all the way to #128 starting at 174.150 points.
https://enc.cfrc.com/archives/ISO_08.htm (https://enc.cfrc.com/archives/ISO_08.htm)
I have no doubt that preseason starting position was an influencer (modest or more) in the BCS era. But Cincy has persuaded me that the effect has been lost in the CoFoPO era. I guess that's a function of their independence and their discipline in delaying their first ranking until the season is more than half completed. If they are any amount affected by the preseason polls, it's so much smaller than the BCS era phenomenon as to not register on our measuring stick.I agree entirely.
I like the idear of starting everyone equal and not releasing a poll until mid NovemberAre fairness and correctness the same thing?
it would be more fair imo but, that wouldn't be as much fun
Are fairness and correctness the same thing?I know that at least some (and I assume all) of the computer polls are set up such that preseason ranking diminishes as a factor each week until it is deleted entirely usually around or before mid-season.
If they're not, I'd go with the system that ends up with the best team ranked #1.
In the passage from Billingsley's website I posted above, he makes the hypothetical case about Idaho and Texas. We know with a high degree of certainty that Texas is better than Idaho, so what's the point of starting them ranked the same?
Are fairness and correctness the same thing?fairness and correctness may or might not be the same thing, probably not.
If they're not, I'd go with the system that ends up with the best team ranked #1.
In the passage from Billingsley's website I posted above, he makes the hypothetical case about Idaho and Texas. We know with a high degree of certainty that Texas is better than Idaho, so what's the point of starting them ranked the same?
I know that at least some (and I assume all) of the computer polls are set up such that preseason ranking diminishes as a factor each week until it is deleted entirely usually around or before mid-season.I think that's roughly how Billingsley does it.
I agree with Billingsley's contention that we can predict with a high degree of certainty that Texas is better than Idaho and that consequently it is illogical to rank them as equals to start.
That said, even though we can predict this with a "high degree of certainty" it doesn't always turn out to be true. In a normal year there will be at least one team that started out pretty highly ranked that just flat out sucks and at least one team that started out unranked that turns out to be pretty good.
If I ran a computer poll, here is what I would do:Thus, by mid-October the preseason bias would be eliminated.
- Preseason poll: 100% based on prior year's rankings, recruiting rankings, returning starters, etc.
- Week 1 poll: 80% preseason, 20% results this season.
- Week 2 poll: 60% preseason, 40% results this season.
- Week 3 poll: 40% preseason, 60% results this season.
- Week 4 poll: 20% preseason, 80% results this season.
- Week 5 (and beyond) poll: 100% results this season.
Do the computers conduct their polling over the internet? Or are they embedded in some sort of humanoid robot body, to blend in better?(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5hqNi2S4rlM/maxresdefault.jpg)
Is there any way to tell the humanoid robot computer pollsters from ordinary humans? Are they out to destroy us? Did Billingsley unwittingly create the first edition of SkyNet?
The committee does not issue a "final poll", but the AP and Coaches do. It is still possible to have a split championship. That would be remarkable of course.
It's always been my opinion that the only poll that matters is the final poll.
The committee does not issue a "final poll", but the AP and Coaches do. It is still possible to have a split championship. That would be remarkable of course.The BCS era lasted 16 years (1998-2013) and it only happened once (USC/LSU in 2003). Even that took an extremely unusual case in which #1 in the pre-bowl AP Poll was neither #1 nor #2 in the final BCS rankings AND that AP #1 had a strong bowl opponent (AP #4 Michigan).
The committee does not issue a "final poll", but the AP and Coaches do. It is still possible to have a split championship. That would be remarkable of course.this is because the only reason for the committee is to chose the 4 teams for the playoff
I'm hard pressed to figure a plausible scenario with a split championship for reasons noted, but it is possible. I'd guess the committee would have to somehow overlook two teams that everyone thought were really good but had two losses, perhaps early in the year to formidable foes, and the four selected were viewed as weak, perhaps 2 loss conference champs or somesuch. I dunno, nothing comes to mind really.I doubt it would ever happen but in a crazy enough scenario I suppose it could. Maybe in a year in which you had a slew of 2-loss P5 Champs and one of them got in and won it while two others got left out as #5 and #6 and played each other. Even then, the CFP winner would have those back-to-back wins over really high-end teams to trump the non-CFP team's one win over a high end team.
this is because the only reason for the committee is to chose the 4 teams for the playoffAnd yet they release a poll each week for some reason
And yet they release a poll each week for some reasonTo drive conversation, controversy, and... ideally... ratings for the sport.
And yet they release a poll each week for some reasonI figure the committee releases its weekly polls for transparency. Their role in CFBverse relies to some extent on the NC outrage quotient being lower now than it was in the BCS era. If their Top 4 were ever substantially different than the Coaches'/AP's and never announced until it were final, that ... would be bad for those teams, the sport, the committee. It feels terrible just thinking up that scenario.
A better question in my mind is why does the committee's poll extend out to 25 teams? Why isn't it just a Top 10? Or 4/6/8?To drive conversation, controversy, and... ideally... ratings for the sport.
To let the fringe teams know their position -- but even then, why extend it this far?
Convention?
To give us a better sense of what they weigh in their evaluations?
What if you had a 2-loss playoff champion and a team banned from the post season that destroyed everybody against the toughest schedule? It would be out of the ordinary, but is there anything preventing the AP voters from voting the team on suspension its MNC? (Maybe there is, I don't know.)Historically, AP voters are free to vote for teams on probation. OU's '74 AP NC was while on probation.
Historically, AP voters are free to vote for teams on probation. OU's '74 AP NC was while on probation.Yup, the AP has always deliberately-- willfully even-- left itself open to do what it likes. The coaches' poll, for some obvious reasons, elected not to rank teams on probation. But the AP chose to leave itself free to rank as they saw fit, in an effort to avoid conflict of interest and remain as fair and unbiased as possible.
To drive conversation, controversy, and... ideally... ratings for the sport.So ... convention then 😎
A better question in my mind is why does the committee's poll extend out to 25 teams? Why isn't it just a Top 10? Or 4/6/8?Well, one of the criteria for where a team is ranked is top 25 wins. In 2014, Minnesota snuck into the committee’s final top 25 and Oklahoma fell out. So, all of a sudden Baylor and TCU lost a top 25 win and Ohio St gained one (it ended up being a push for TCU because they had beaten Minny too but that isn’t the point). So in that regard it matters. It also has a bearing on which G5 team gets a NY6 bowl since the highest ranked gets the nod.
To let the fringe teams know their position -- but even then, why extend it this far?
Convention?
To give us a better sense of what they weigh in their evaluations?
Well, one of the criteria for where a team is ranked is top 25 wins. In 2014, Minnesota snuck into the committee’s final top 25 and Oklahoma fell out. So, all of a sudden Baylor and TCU lost a top 25 win and Ohio St gained one (it ended up being a push for TCU because they had beaten Minny too but that isn’t the point). So in that regard it matters. It also has a bearing on which G5 team gets a NY6 bowl since the highest ranked gets the nod.You're right. I was ignoring that they might insist on their own standard for that.
But, yeah, controversy, ratings, and all that stuff play a part too.
Wouldn't the most likely (yet severely unlikely) spit NC now simply be each P5 conference producing an undefeated champion? One of them gets left out, spanks someone in their bowl, and finishes the year 14-0 with a big-boy schedule.Yes, that also is possible, though if they were 13-0 and won a P5 conference with a Big Boy schedule, it's hard to see how they are left out.
Wouldn't the most likely (yet severely unlikely) spit NC now simply be each P5 conference producing an undefeated champion? One of them gets left out, spanks someone in their bowl, and finishes the year 14-0 with a big-boy schedule.I think five 1-loss P5 Champs is a lot more likely than five undefeated P5 Champs. I also think that one or two undefeated P5 Champs (who then lose in their CFP semi-finals) and the rest with 1-loss is more likely.
Well, one of the criteria for where a team is ranked is top 25 wins. In 2014, Minnesota snuck into the committee’s final top 25 and Oklahoma fell out. So, all of a sudden Baylor and TCU lost a top 25 win and Ohio St gained one (it ended up being a push for TCU because they had beaten Minny too but that isn’t the point). So in that regard it matters. It also has a bearing on which G5 team gets a NY6 bowl since the highest ranked gets the nod.even if the committee has stated that top 25 wins is one of their important criteria, doesn't mean they need to let us know their top 25. And we all know that their stated criteria goes out the window in the final vote.
But, yeah, controversy, ratings, and all that stuff play a part too.
even if the committee has stated that top 25 wins is one of their important criteria, doesn't mean they need to let us know their top 25. And we all know that their stated criteria goes out the window in the final vote.Yeah, they don’t have to tell us their whole top 25 but I think there would be an outcry for it if they didn’t. Especially if they talk about TEAM A having more top 25 wins or quality wins than TEAM B. I think there would be a natural inclination to want to know the rest of the top 25.
Such as conference champ
Using the committee to decide the NY6 bowls seems silly to me. But, I guess allowing the bowls to decide seems possibly unfair and biased.
Wouldn't the most likely (yet severely unlikely) spit NC now simply be each P5 conference producing an undefeated champion? One of them gets left out, spanks someone in their bowl, and finishes the year 14-0 with a big-boy schedule.I think the difference is that any team deemed "weakest" at 13-0 to be just on the outside looking in is already at a disadvantage.
Yeah, they don’t have to tell us their whole top 25 but I think there would be an outcry for it if they didn’t. Especially if they talk about TEAM A having more top 25 wins or quality wins than TEAM B. I think there would be a natural inclination to want to know the rest of the top 25.I agree with everything you typed. I didn't say conference champ was a requirement either. But, they have put non-champs in over champs with very similar resumes.
I also disagree that they throw their criteria out the window. The committee has never said that being a conference champion was a requirement. They’ve only said they would get extra consideration.