College Football Playoff Top 25 (11-12-19)

[GrantNKY]

Which I think Minnesota will lose. I think Georgia will play one of it's better games this year and win by a decent margin.

Id lay money on the exact opposite scenario.

[Tones]

1) Ohio State

2) LSU

3) Clemson

4) Oregon

5) Alabama

6) Georgia

7) Utah

8) Oklahoma

9) Minnesota

10) Penn State

 

We need more consistency not week to week but year to year. I love the fluidity week to week, but when a bad loss matters one year but doesn’t the next is what gets me. How is Georgia who’s deficient on one side of the ball with a bad loss at home to a team that won’t make a bowl game at 4 when last year Ohio State entered the ranking at 10 because of the bad loss and being deficient one side of the ball. Using the committees criteria from last year Bama, Oregon, Utah, Minnesota, and Penn State should be ahead of Georgia. Call me out on my “anti-SEC/ pro Ohio State bias” all you want, but the lack of transparency from the committee is garbage and all fans of college football should demand more. I’m fine with 4 teams, I’m fine with humans making these decisions. I’m not cool with the inconsistency and neither should any fan of the sport. We have stats out there that can actually define eye test now. Use them. You can’t sit up there and talk about resume, SOS, top 25 wins, etc. and then put Minnesota at 8 behind 4 1 loss teams. I’m tired of the eye test being used as a get out of jail free card for the committee. Tell us what eye test means to you, because we as fans all have varying degrees of what eye test means and how much we weigh it in our opinions. You’re the 13 most powerful people in the sport of college football, we deserve to know what it means to you.

You put them at 9 behind 5 unranked teams.

[GrantNKY]

You put them at 9 behind 5 unranked teams.

Did you read what I said? I said if the committee is going to sit up there and keep using the criteria they are, then they can’t just abandon it when it comes to Minnesota. You can’t pick and choose which teams big wins matter for and which it doesn’t. 2 teams in the top 10 have a win over another top 10 team. LSU and Minnesota. I ranked Minnesota where I did because I don’t think they would beat any of the teams in front of them on my list.

[Tones]

Did you read what I said? I said if the committee is going to sit up there and keep using the criteria they are, then they can’t just abandon it when it comes to Minnesota. You can’t pick and choose which teams big wins matter for and which it doesn’t. 2 teams in the top 10 have a win over another top 10 team. LSU and Minnesota. I ranked Minnesota where I did because I don’t think they would beat any of the teams in front of them on my list.

 

IMHO the committee makes lazy decision to make their lives easier the closer we get to the final selection. What have Utah and Oregon done to ranked where they are? Beat Washington? They put Minnesota at 8 because for them to make the playoff they are going to have to win out which would inevitably move them up the rankings. A little different with Georgia being at 4. If they don't win out, then they are out. If they do win out against an undefeated LSU then the committee has positioned themselves to have 2 SEC teams in the playoffs. I don't think Georgia is ranked #4 as much for Georgia's sake as much as I believe they are ranked there for LSUs sake. Maybe I need to take off my tin foil hat, but I think they rank teams where they do in projection of how they think things are going to finish out to get the least amount of backlash.

[futurecoach]

I’m simply pointing out that despite their logic putting Georgia at 4, it’s completely incongruent with what they’ve done in the past specifically with Ohio State. I keep bringing up Ohio State because it’s an easy example. Something unique has happened to them every year of the playoff rankings whether it be positive or negative. But you say you believe Georgia is better than Oregon, Utah, Minnesota, and Penn State but wouldn’t Ohio State have been favored over Kentucky, Washington State, and Michigan who were all ahead of OSU in the initial rankings?

 

As much as you want to ignore it and not believe it. Them getting blown out by a .500 team is viewed as much worst than losing at home to a team that will finish one game below .500. It makes it very hard to put a team at the top, when they got blown out by a bad team. You seriously never see teams that are suppose to be one of the best get blown out by a team that barely was 500. You may not agree with it, but I think the majority of people including obviously the committee viewed that as much worst than a lost in overtime to a bad team. What happened to OSU was simply never seen before, so it does stand out more. If OSU simply lost a close game to those same teams they got blown out by, they probably would have been above UK, WSU, and Michigan last year. Just like how Georgia is above some of those teams this year. How they lost stands out a lot more, and makes it very hard for someone in that room to say man I still feel like this team is better than these other teams when they just got blown out by a .500 team.

[GrantNKY]

As much as you want to ignore it and not believe it. Them getting blown out by a .500 team is viewed as much worst than losing at home to a team that will finish one game below .500. It makes it very hard to put a team at the top, when they got blown out by a bad team. You seriously never see teams that are suppose to be one of the best get blown out by a team that barely was 500. You may not agree with it, but I think the majority of people including obviously the committee viewed that as much worst than a lost in overtime to a bad team. What happened to OSU was simply never seen before, so it does stand out more. If OSU simply lost a close game to those same teams they got blown out by, they probably would have been above UK, WSU, and Michigan last year. Just like how Georgia is above some of those teams this year. How they lost stands out a lot more, and makes it very hard for someone in that room to say man I still feel like this team is better than these other teams when they just got blown out by a .500 team.

Just completely and totally disagree fc. The margin of victory only matters if you think Purdue was better than Ohio State.

[futurecoach]

Just completely and totally disagree fc. The margin of victory only matters if you think Purdue was better than Ohio State.

 

Obviously the committee disagrees with you too. It is one thing to lose to a bad to average team in a close game that you have no business losing to. It's a whole other thing to not only lose but to get blown out by a bad to average team you have no business losing to.

 

You asked how that could happen where a one lost OSU gets put all the back back at 10th and a Georgia gets at 4th. I am telling you how and why that happened, even if you don't like the answer.

[GrantNKY]

Obviously the committee disagrees with you too. It is one thing to lose to a bad to average team in a close game that you have no business losing to. It's a whole other thing to not only lose but to get blown out by a bad to average team you have no business losing to.

 

You asked how that could happen where a one lost OSU gets put all the back back at 10th and a Georgia gets at 4th. I am telling you how and why that happened, even if you don't like the answer.

Yes I understand what the committee is saying. All I’m saying is why they’re wrong using their own logic against them.

[futurecoach]

Yes I understand what the committee is saying. All I’m saying is why they’re wrong using their own logic against them.

 

They are not wrong. Getting curb stomped by a bad team is worst than barely losing to a bad team. I feel like you would find very few people besides other OSU fans that would feel that it is equal. Which is where the difference lies. OSU barely loses those games and then they get ranked similarly to how Georgis got ranked.

[Jumper_Dad]

Did you read what I said? I said if the committee is going to sit up there and keep using the criteria they are, then they can’t just abandon it when it comes to Minnesota. You can’t pick and choose which teams big wins matter for and which it doesn’t. 2 teams in the top 10 have a win over another top 10 team. LSU and Minnesota. I ranked Minnesota where I did because I don’t think they would beat any of the teams in front of them on my list.

That is what the committee is supposed to do also. Rank them best to 25th based on who they think is better...who would beat who.

 

Even then it's subjective, but even you don't think Minnesota is better that those in front of them.

[Jumper_Dad]

You can't just compare one team one year to another this year without looking at the entire ranking. There may have been stronger teams ahead of one team and weaker in front of the other when they won or lost. You have to look at both years in totality.

[GrantNKY]

That is what the committee is supposed to do also. Rank them best to 25th based on who they think is better...who would beat who.

 

Even then it's subjective, but even you don't think Minnesota is better that those in front of them.

Yeah I agree that’s what they are attempting to do. I just disagree with how they go about it as far as how much emphasis they place on things like, “eye test.” Eye test is just code for bias. With any walk of life even outside of sports two people can look at the exact same thing and see two different outcomes. It really stood out to me while at the Florida/ Georgia game. As true of a 50/50 split as you will find anywhere. There were several close calls that got reviewed during the game. Whenever they would show the replays on the video board both sides would cheer every time after watching the same exact replay. Both sides were completely convinced the outcome should work in their favor. I try to confirm in some way what my eyes are telling me and try to judge each team on the same criteria to attempt confirm my opinions. Often times it feels like team A is judged by different criteria than team B or that the weight with which certain criteria matters changes from team to team.

[GrantNKY]

They are not wrong. Getting curb stomped by a bad team is worst than barely losing to a bad team. I feel like you would find very few people besides other OSU fans that would feel that it is equal. Which is where the difference lies. OSU barely loses those games and then they get ranked similarly to how Georgis got ranked.

No it’s not. Again the margin of the loss only matters if you believe Purdue and South Carolina were the better team. When everything else the team has done the rest of the year proves that the outcome on that one day was an outlier, it proves inconsistency nothing else.

[futurecoach]

No it’s not. Again the margin of the loss only matters if you believe Purdue and South Carolina were the better team. When everything else the team has done the rest of the year proves that the outcome on that one day was an outlier, it proves inconsistency nothing else.

 

Once again I feel like you would be in the minority on that opinion. In fact the only ones who may share that opinion is other OSU fans. The fact is it does matter, and the committee proved it did matter. So that is not being inconsistent in that case. If OSU simply lost to Purdue at the end in overtime, they most likely would have been ranked higher like Georgia because of how good they looked all the other games. However, when you do get curb stomped by a .500 team it does stand out more and matters more. Because like it or not you never see a top team get blown out like that by a barely .500 team. It simply really never happens, but it happened to OSU and you get punished more for that. That is not being inconsistent by the committee.

 

Now if another top team gets destroyed by a .500 team like OSU did, and then they still rank that team in the top 5. Then you would have an argument on them being inconsistent. The committee did show if you get blown out by a bad team, it will matter more and rightfully so. A top team is allowed a bad day, but usually for a top team a bad day means barely losing still to a bad team, not getting blown out. You never see that happen, so there is more consequences for that. That is not being inconsistent, that is showing if you get blown out by a bad team you will be punished more it is that simple.

[GrantNKY]

Once again I feel like you would be in the minority on that opinion. In fact the only ones who may share that opinion is other OSU fans. The fact is it does matter, and the committee proved it did matter. So that is not being inconsistent in that case. If OSU simply lost to Purdue at the end in overtime, they most likely would have been ranked higher like Georgia because of how good they looked all the other games. However, when you do get curb stomped by a .500 team it does stand out more and matters more. Because like it or not you never see a top team get blown out like that by a barely .500 team. It simply really never happens, but it happened to OSU and you get punished more for that. That is not being inconsistent by the committee.

 

Now if another top team gets destroyed by a .500 team like OSU did, and then they still rank that team in the top 5. Then you would have an argument on them being inconsistent. The committee did show if you get blown out by a bad team, it will matter more and rightfully so. A top team is allowed a bad day, but usually for a top team a bad day means barely losing still to a bad team, not getting blown out. You never see that happen, so there is more consequences for that. That is not being inconsistent, that is showing if you get blown out by a bad team you will be punished more it is that simple.

It’s not that simple unless you believe Purdue is better. A bad day is a bad day. All you keep saying is we never see it happen so it has to be worse. No it doesn’t.