#20 CFP Rankings
- Thread starter DunderMifflinHk
- Start date
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
SOS ranks 5th toughest in college football. Plus all our non conference opponents are already bowl eligible with a 18-9 overall record.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
Add to that fact the close losses, virtually the last play with Penn State.
Iowa is the first 3 loss team listed in the ranking.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
I think the point is, the protocol used to rank the teams...not necessarily that anyone below 7 or 8 is a real playoff contender.
BigD
Well-Known Member
BigD
Well-Known Member
It’s full of bias and partiality. It used to be even worse before the four team playoff as it was based on supposition and conjecture. Let’s finally found out at the end of the year which football program is really the best AT THE END OF THE YEAR. For example let’s say that the Iowa win over Ohio State isn’t just a fluke and a young QB and OC have came of age. Due to early losses Iowa has no chance at the playoff system as it and yet in theory Iowa could be among the best football teams in the country and left sitting on the sidelines watching. If we give Wisconsin a thumping like we did Ohio State and then win out we would easily fall under a sixteen team playoff system. Will never happen as things currently stand.
VTHawk
Well-Known Member
Well said. But I believe (or more accurately hope) an 8 team playoff may be in the cards for the CFP system in the next 5 to 10 years. (I am not sure thats really going out on a limb though
as it has been talked about by media and the like)
Fryowa
Administrator
Until they get to a system that uses math instead of a bunch of people's subjective opinions they're all bullpuckey. The AP, Coaches, CFP...they're all based 100% on people's opinion of who's better than who, and it's evident by how different the polls always are that no matter what the ranking is, it's always crap.
We'll never get to a scientific system because 1) no one will agree on the method, and 2) humans aren't capable of creating a system that won't give absurd resluts like the BCS.
It's like figure skating and gymnastics. The only thing you can prove is what a bunch of judges thought.
The only way to solve the question definitively is to have at least an 8 team playoff with the winners of the P5's + 3 at large spots with criteria spelled out before the season. There's no other way.
Last edited:
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
It adds to the drama of losing teams falling while winning teams staying put or possibly advancing towards a playoff game.
Fryowa
Administrator
Then come out with a "ranking" of the 4 teams that'd make it to the hypothetical playoff if it were held that particular week.
You're never going to see a team debut at #24 in week 2 and slowly work their way up to #3 and make the playoffs.
Adding another useless poll just adds to the garbage that the Cowherds and Finebaums vomit about every week.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Would you change your mind if Iowa were to beat Wisky and vault to, let's say, 10th in the poll?
Fryowa
Administrator
Nope. Because I know that Iowa has zero chance of making the CFP. It’s a fart in the wind.
Iowa is unranked in the Coaches, 20th in the CFP, and 24th in the AP. They’re all just a popularity contest with no objectivity.
VTHawk
Well-Known Member
In fairness to this argument, the Hawks almost did just that in 2015. If memory serves me right, we were outside the top 25 to begin that season and slowly made our way to #3 or #4 (my memory slightly hazy) and one play with thirty some odd seconds left in the game away from making the playoff that year. (so damn close).
But I would like to see the CFP expanded to 8 teams like you said. The excitement will still be there as teams try to jockey their way for the last three spots.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
The problem with all the polls is that they begin with pure speculation or credit for last year. Teams are placed based on where voters think they should be before they ever show what they have on the field. And while it's slowly balanced out by real wins and losses...some degree of that speculative bias is always reflected in the rankings.
I like the idea of a pure algorithm to rank teams, but there's always going to be some degree of bias as the criteria and methods will be selected by a human.
I like the idea of a pure algorithm to rank teams, but there's always going to be some degree of bias as the criteria and methods will be selected by a human.
Last edited:
theboat
Well-Known Member
2014 OSU was ranked 16th in first CFP rankings. Finished 4th
2015 Oklahoma was ranked 15th in first CFP.
Finished 4th.
It matters. If you don’t want to listen to the discussions, then don’t.
theboat
Well-Known Member
Why does that make you angry?
