Assuming Clemson and Wisconsin win...
1 - Clemson
2 - Wisconsin
3 - Georgia
4 - Alabama
5 - TCU
6 - USC
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CFP Ranking
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
1 - Clemson
2 - Wisconsin
3 - Georgia
4 - Alabama
5 - TCU
6 - USC
oh, apparently you didn't know that for purposes of this discussion that the rankings from 1 to 4 are equivalent to the seeding those teams will get in the playoffs. apologies for not realizing you needed those dots to be connected.
and Wisconsin won all but one game by more than one score, and the one score game was an 8 point victory
Last edited:
Here I asked if seeding mattered.
Here you said your complaint was about something else, not mentioning seeding.
Here you decide to bring up seeding, but with the reason that it matters to boosters and old school fans that you want to play in the Rose Bowl...that seems to be an odd reason anyway. Wouldn't a better reason be that the Rose Bowl would feel less like a road game than the Sugar?
8 points ain't exactly a whooping, but I suppose the Big 10 might think so.
1. you still don't understand that seeding and ranking are equivalent when discussing the top 4 in CFP? sad.
2. yes, Rose Bowl feels like home to Badger fans, and playing in the Sugar against a probable SEC opponent would be more like a road game, but you're ignoring the #1 point I had around seeding, which is how it impacts a teams probability of advancing in the playoffs.
peace, dude.
Why you gotta be causin a Ruckus in here??
personal amusement
I do understand seeding and ranking is the same. Sucks to be 4th. Peace.
thanks to @Ruckus for the great conversation earlier this week, it spurred me to contemplate and research a few tangential topics.
Wisconsin absolutely deserves blame for their weak schedule.
1. B1G has a rule that requires each school to scheudle one game vs a P5 opponent each year, however, allows exceptions for Notre Dame, BYU and the military academies to count. UW decided to use the BYU loophole and that's on Barry. UW was scheduled to play Virginia Tech this year but pushed the home-and-home series back(for the second time) to 2019/2020 four years ago.
2. related to the above, UW should've been able to see that the 2017 schedule was weak years in advance: no OSU or PSU at all and with Michigan and Iowa as home games.
3. fair that they didn't know the league would be as weak as it turned out to be, but there were warning signs.
The selection committee is required to consider four criteria overall, including Strength of Schedule
1. SoS is one of three criteria required to be applied when as a tie-breaker between similar teams
2. SoV and SoR are not mentioned at all.
3. Won-Loss record is not mentioned as a criteria at all, nor is the team's Won-Loss record a factor in any conventional SoS metric, which only consider the opponent's won-loss and the opponent's opponent's w-l.
4. The exact SoS metrics used by the committee are not disclosed. in fact, the guiding document eschews the use of "nuanced mathematical formulas"
5. The committee is allowed to consider a (unspecified) "wide variety of data and information", so this allows for W-L record, SoV or SoR to be considered by the committee, noting that none of those are among the criteria required to be considered.
what does that all that mean? it means that under the current criteria required to be considered, Wisconsin should be ranked low, as losses aren't required to be a factor considered by the committee unless they come against another team in playoff contention or against a common opponent with another playoff team. Since Clemson's loss came against Syracuse, a team not played by another CFP contenders (except Miami), it is essentially disregarded by the committee. Alabama's loss to Auburn really hurts the Tide because two other contenders beat AU; perversely, if Alabama had lost to CSU instead of Auburn, by the current required criteria, it wouldn't have hurt them as bad. Likewise, this explains why Oklahoma's loss to Iowa State isn't hurting them.
This is a completely separate issue from whether the current criteria are the correct criteria.
Wisconsin absolutely deserves blame for their weak schedule.
1. B1G has a rule that requires each school to scheudle one game vs a P5 opponent each year, however, allows exceptions for Notre Dame, BYU and the military academies to count. UW decided to use the BYU loophole and that's on Barry. UW was scheduled to play Virginia Tech this year but pushed the home-and-home series back(for the second time) to 2019/2020 four years ago.
2. related to the above, UW should've been able to see that the 2017 schedule was weak years in advance: no OSU or PSU at all and with Michigan and Iowa as home games.
3. fair that they didn't know the league would be as weak as it turned out to be, but there were warning signs.
The selection committee is required to consider four criteria overall, including Strength of Schedule
1. SoS is one of three criteria required to be applied when as a tie-breaker between similar teams
2. SoV and SoR are not mentioned at all.
3. Won-Loss record is not mentioned as a criteria at all, nor is the team's Won-Loss record a factor in any conventional SoS metric, which only consider the opponent's won-loss and the opponent's opponent's w-l.
4. The exact SoS metrics used by the committee are not disclosed. in fact, the guiding document eschews the use of "nuanced mathematical formulas"
5. The committee is allowed to consider a (unspecified) "wide variety of data and information", so this allows for W-L record, SoV or SoR to be considered by the committee, noting that none of those are among the criteria required to be considered.
what does that all that mean? it means that under the current criteria required to be considered, Wisconsin should be ranked low, as losses aren't required to be a factor considered by the committee unless they come against another team in playoff contention or against a common opponent with another playoff team. Since Clemson's loss came against Syracuse, a team not played by another CFP contenders (except Miami), it is essentially disregarded by the committee. Alabama's loss to Auburn really hurts the Tide because two other contenders beat AU; perversely, if Alabama had lost to CSU instead of Auburn, by the current required criteria, it wouldn't have hurt them as bad. Likewise, this explains why Oklahoma's loss to Iowa State isn't hurting them.
This is a completely separate issue from whether the current criteria are the correct criteria.
USC needs to roll tonight. If it does, while they've had the stage to themselves, they'll have firmly planted the seed as the CFB sleeps on things and gets ready for tomorrow's games.
They need a lot of dominoes to fall, but I think if Georgia, TCU and Ohio State win while USC puts on the most impressive performance then we'll see USC in the playoff.
They need a lot of dominoes to fall, but I think if Georgia, TCU and Ohio State win while USC puts on the most impressive performance then we'll see USC in the playoff.
Then you'd have UGA, ACC winner, Bama, and Ohio State. USC currently only has 1 win against a top 25 team, they're not getting in.