Jump to content

THE College Football Playoff Rankings Thread [MICH,WASH,TEX,ALA]


texifornia

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 minutes ago, Hank_Hill said:

Where did I root for Bama? It just doesn’t matter who wins the SEC if FSU loses. Don’t be dense. 

You don't see a possibility for the CFP committee to royally fuck us by putting both Georgia AND Bama in the playoffs along with Big10 and Pac12 champs? I sure as hell do... and that only happens with a Bama win. Don't be obtuse... 

family guy math GIF

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It isn't logical. You're rooting for a scenario that locks us in to a single possibility to advance. If all games were played simultaneously, maybe it makes sense. But since we will not know the outcomes at the same time, we will want each outcome to give us the highest number of chances to advance. This is simple game theory. 

 

is your degree in economics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ChickenNuggets said:

So why would you think it's better for Oregon to beat Washington?

Because there is zero chance of us beating out 13-0 washington for a spot.  It's unlikely at this point we jump 12-1 Oregon based on the committee love for them, but it's a greater than zero chance and an argument could be made.  Oregon winning increases our odds vs Washington winning.  It's pretty simple.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Of course - I agree.  But I started all this saying you want two things and it's 100% you're in.  FSU loss.  Georgia win.  Then you're in no matter what.  Someone else brought up the over Oregon path.  It gets no simpler than Georgia win and FSU loss.  But I got pushback on that hearing about some path with Oregon etc.  No, just those two things.  You wanna talk about simple?  What path is more simple than that?  

Add in a Michigan loss to Iowa (unlikely) and it becomes infinitely simpler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blutow said:

Because there is zero chance of us beating out 13-0 washington for a spot.  It's unlikely at this point we jump 12-1 Oregon based on the committee love for them, but it's a greater than zero chance and an argument could be made.  Oregon winning increases our odds vs Washington winning.  It's pretty simple.  

did you read what I wrote? Oregon will have 2 losses at that point, we will jump them if Washington beats them... there's no way 2 pac 12 teams go into the playoffs. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I think Oregon and Bama need to lose. I don't want to have to compete with one loss Georgia and a one loss Washington if FSU losses. Best to eliminate Oregon and Bama. The winner of the SEC and Pac 12 are almost certainly going anyway.

This is fine thinking if you just assume FSU loses. If FSU wins and Oregon and Bama lose, then we are absolutely out of it and no one complains. If those teams win, then at least there's discussion. Plus, what has been reiterated countless times in this thread about 1-loss conference champs vs 1-loss non conference champs.

 

If FSU, Washington, and Georgia all lose, congrats - Bama, Oregon, and Texas take their place. It's simple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ChickenNuggets said:

Can someone please explain to me why y'all insist it's good for Alabama to beat Georgia?

Simple game theory. 

Texas is in if FSU or Michigan lose. Either scenario means at most 4, 1 loss or better P5 conference champions. The committee has made very clear over the last decade that the order of analysis is overall record followed by conference champion. Basically, conference champion is used as a tie breaker among teams with the same record. 

if neither FSU or Michigan lose, we need another pathway. Based on the rule above, we aren't getting in over Washington if it wins. And we aren't getting in over Georgia if it wins. We have a chance if either Alabama or Oregon wins. And we have an even better chance if both win. Further, there is no reason to root for either Washington or Georgia since neither winning benefits us. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ChickenNuggets said:

You don't see a possibility for the CFP committee to royally fuck us by putting both Georgia AND Bama in the playoffs along with Big10 and Pac12 champs? I sure as hell do... and that only happens with a Bama win. Don't be obtuse... 

family guy math GIF

 

No. We aren’t getting left out with a conference championship to a conference runner up if FSU loses. Happy to put money on it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Simple game theory. 

Texas is in if FSU or Michigan lose. Either scenario means at most 4, 1 loss or better P5 conference champions. The committee has made very clear over the last decade that the order of analysis is overall record followed by conference champion. Basically, conference champion is used as a tie breaker among teams with the same record. 

if neither FSU or Michigan lose, we need another pathway. Based on the rule above, we aren't getting in over Washington if it wins. And we aren't getting in over Georgia if it wins. We have a chance if either Alabama or Oregon wins. And we have an even better chance if both win. Further, there is no reason to root for either Washington or Georgia since neither winning benefits us. 

I stopped at your second paragraph. there is no other path if FSU wins. that's where your beautiful mind breaks down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Simple game theory. 

Texas is in if FSU or Michigan lose. Either scenario means at most 4, 1 loss or better P5 conference champions. The committee has made very clear over the last decade that the order of analysis is overall record followed by conference champion. Basically, conference champion is used as a tie breaker among teams with the same record. 

if neither FSU or Michigan lose, we need another pathway. Based on the rule above, we aren't getting in over Washington if it wins. And we aren't getting in over Georgia if it wins. We have a chance if either Alabama or Oregon wins. And we have an even better chance if both win. Further, there is no reason to root for either Washington or Georgia since neither winning benefits us. 

People keep saying this and it makes no sense. In a scenario in which FSU and Michigan win, we'd need Oregon AND Alabama to win to have any chance. Oregon has consistently been ranked ahead of Texas and their title game win would be much more impressive than ours.

Edited by MuellerHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChickenNuggets said:

did you read what I wrote? Oregon will have 2 losses at that point, we will jump them if Washington beats them... there's no way 2 pac 12 teams go into the playoffs. 

The only way your view makes any sense is if you believe that there is a higher probability of a 1 loss non-champ Washington jumping a 1 loss texas champ (basically zero chance) vs.  the probability of 1 loss Texas champ jumping a 1 loss Oregon champ (small, but greater than zero).  Everything is possible with people being involved, but that's a really bad take if that's what you are saying.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Nueces River Rat said:

Doesn’t matter.  The committee will decide the Big10 deserves a spot in the top four.     Kind of like all these years they stuck Norte Dame in there.    It didn’t matter they played a shit schedule, they were Norte Dame and the Big 10 schools like OSU and Michigan are treated the same.   
 

I looked at the bios of the members of this committee.   There isn’t one member on there who looks like they would be an ally for Texas when push comes to shove .   It’s skewed with members who have been involved either through their own education or careers in PAC 12, ACC and Big 10 country, particularly Ohio.     Biases matter.   

The Office Thank You GIF

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wood said:

What did he say? I wasn't able to watch. McElroy seems aight.

McElroy was basically making the point that it's never been about picking the best 4 teams and he used Ohio state (in a previous year) as an example.  It was beautiful and Galloway about lost his shit.  Best teams vs. deserving teams has always been a weird balancing act and has never been applied consistently.  FSU will likely make it in because they deserve it, but Oregon is getting a boost because they are perceived as a better team than Texas.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ChickenNuggets said:

I stopped at your second paragraph. there is no other path if FSU wins. that's where your beautiful mind breaks down.

Ok. If you think there is a near zero chance, that's cool. There is still no benefit to either Georgia or Washington winning. So you should still want Oregon and Alabama to win, even if it creates just the slightest of possibilities that Texas advanced. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

There is still no benefit to either Georgia or Washington winning.

It's hard to wrap my head around it, but there are still folks thinking a 1 loss non-champ is a threat to a 1 loss champ.  I don't know how to respond to that line of thinking other than hoping they aren't making the financial decisions for their families.    

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

Of course, ranking Oregon ahead of all of them is even more preposterous, given the Ducks' lack of résumé, but that problem will take care of itself in the Pac-12 title game.

Ohio State, meanwhile, is just sitting in the clubhouse, waiting for chaos, enjoying its place in the pecking order ahead of Texas and Alabama and certainly well aware that, at this point in the season, no team ranked worse than sixth has made the playoff.

It's certainly possible that, should Bama or Texas add the all-important "conference champion" label to its résumé, the committee will see to adjusting these standings. But it's also possible the committee sees a delicate issue of an Alabama-Texas debate (the Tide are red hot, the Horns hold the head-to-head win) and have decided to take a note from Iowa and punt on the issue altogether, as it did in 2014 when it ignored the thorny Baylor-or-TCU debate in favor of ... Ohio State!

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38999326/cfp-rankings-anger-index-conference-championship-week-2023

ERMAGHERD!  i guess all of you self-certain folks will just ignore the media mouthpiece most responsible for narrative creation, establishment and nourishment, and why?

because you have successfully written ten thousand words of confirmation bias in this very thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern is that the committee has filled in their brackets in with a Sharpie.

Georgia, Michigan, PAC Champion, and SEC Champion. 
 

Georgia has wins over Number 9 Mizzou and Number 11 Ole Miss. Pretty good resume. Plenty of precedent for SEC runner up/second best team to make the CFP. 
 

Bama would have the best win of the year if they beat Georgia, and they’d be the Sec Champs. 

In the committee’s opinion, Michigan has the best current win over Ohio State. I don’t think they’ll lose to Iowa, but I also think it might not matter except for seeding. 
 

I think the committee is praying for Michigan to win, Louisville to win, and especially praying for Georgia to beat Bama to avoid some difficult explanations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blutow said:

It's hard to wrap my head around it, but there are still folks thinking a 1 loss non-champ is a threat to a 1 loss champ.  I don't know how to respond to that line of thinking other than hoping they aren't making the financial decisions for their families.    

And folks are thinking we are going to leap over a 1 loss champ that is ahead of us or they are going to pick us over SEC champ Alabama. That's not happening.

On the other hand Georgia is six spots ahead of us. Washington is four spots ahead of us. I don't know.

But none of this really matters. If FSU losses and we win we should be in. Or Iowa wins (LOL). I would rather not sweat a 1 loss Georgia is all.

Edited by Valmy77
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Ok. If you think there is a near zero chance, that's cool. There is still no benefit to either Georgia or Washington winning. So you should still want Oregon and Alabama to win, even if it creates just the slightest of possibilities that Texas advanced. 

My disagreement rests with the Oregon argument. I understand an undefeated UW is a 100% lock over Texas; but how is Oregon, as Pac-12 champion, not a lock over Texas? They've already been ranked ahead of Texas week after week and their title game win would be drastically better than Texas'.

Edited by MuellerHorn
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, blutow said:

It's hard to wrap my head around it, but there are still folks thinking a 1 loss non-champ is a threat to a 1 loss champ.  I don't know how to respond to that line of thinking other than hoping they aren't making the financial decisions for their families.    

Let me guess you are a financial planner? It's not very hard to understand. The one-loss teams that are above us embolden their resume by having another top tier win at the conference championship. The committee has shown this year that they may not drop an unbeaten team for a close loss against a very good team (see Oregon and OSU). Everything else is conjecture. 

Edited by UTEE97
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, blutow said:

McElroy was basically making the point that it's never been about picking the best 4 teams and he used Ohio state (in a previous year) as an example.  It was beautiful and Galloway about lost his shit.  Best teams vs. deserving teams has always been a weird balancing act and has never been applied consistently.  FSU will likely make it in because they deserve it, but Oregon is getting a boost because they are perceived as a better team than Texas.  

“Game control” and “eye test” are the reasons Oregon supporters have given for their ranking above Texas. Neither are real things. 

Edited by billfromlaketravis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Ok. If you think there is a near zero chance, that's cool. There is still no benefit to either Georgia or Washington winning. So you should still want Oregon and Alabama to win, even if it creates just the slightest of possibilities that Texas advanced. 

There is no benefit to Washington winning in any scenario. There is a benefit to Georgia winning if either Iowa or Louisville wins, because it eliminates the infintesimally small chance the SEC gets in 2 teams (a 12-1 conference champ Alabama and a 12-1 two time defending champ Georgia).  If FSU and and Michigan win then we want a narrow, ugly Bama win over Georgia and a narrow and ugly oregon win over Washington, while we buttfuck OSU and hope that the committee uses the shake up as a chance to judge all the 1 loss teams with a fresh set of eyes (narrators voice- they won't);

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 936horn said:

Exactly. No clue why everyone’s all wound up on Oregon. The winner of the PAC title game is in whether it’s Oregon or UW. An FSU loss and MAAAYBE a Bama win are the only scenarios we care about

Because Oregon as winner of PAC 12 with 1 loss shouldn't be in ahead of us as winner of Big 12 with 1 loss. Our resume beats theirs in every conceivable way including common opposition. The committee has made it clear they don't give a fuck about that even though that's supposedly in their rules. 

So if they don't give a fuck about following their own set rules for that then what other rules are they not going to give a fuck about? 

That's why I feel they may try to shoe horn in 2 SEC teams if Alabama edges out Georgia close. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MuellerHorn said:

My disagreement rests with the Oregon argument. I understand an undefeated UW is a 100% lock over Texas; but how is Oregon, as Pac-12 champion, not a lock over Texas? They've already been ranked ahead of Texas week after week and their title game win would be drastically better than Texas'.

Your problem is that you think the current rankings matter. They don't. There is no need for them to be sticky. Alabama beating Georgia changes the quality of that win. We'd be a playoff contending team with a win over a playoff team that is a conference champion. Oregon can easily be jumped in the scenario, especially if the game against Washington is close and we crush Okie State. I agree that it is unlikely that we jump Oregon without an Alabama win. I also don't think it is particularly likely we get in over Alabama. I think the SEC champ is in no matter what. And that's why we want both Alabama and Oregon to win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sgt Hulk said:

Guys with the rankings coming out tonight.  Does anyone know how Texas could get into the top 4?

We're 7th so that pretty much means that winning the Big 12 title game leaps us past idle Ohio State with our amazing 13th data point. Then FSU has to lose, putting us past them. Then we pass the loser of the PAC 12 title game.

There we are at #4.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, UTEE97 said:

Let me guess you are a financial planner? It's not very hard to understand. The teams that are above us emboldens their resume by having a top tier win. The committee has shown this year that they may not drop an unbeaten team for a close loss against a very good team (see Oregon and OSU). Everything else is conjecture. 

Um no...  The best case for a non-champ (georgia) has already be laid out well earlier in this thread and it's pretty clear there is no case or precedent that would put them in over a Texas, Oregon, Bama.  With a committee making decisions at their whim, I'm not one of the people saying it's not possible, just that the chance of that happening is much smaller than chance of us benefitting from Bama/Oregon winning.  It's been beat to death, but non-champs with same records as champs have never gotten a spot, even when the champ has a much worse resume (which would not be the case if comparing Texas to Georgia or Washington). 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

We're 7th so that pretty much means that winning the Big 12 title game leaps us past idle Ohio State with our amazing 13th data point. Then FSU has to lose, putting us past them. Then we pass the loser of the PAC 12 title game.

There we are at #4.

We're never going to make it to 60+ pages if you summarize it in 4 sentences like that.  You can beef up your posts by calling someone a stupid fuck and/or pointing out that had we wouldn't be having this conversation had we simply beaten OU.

Edited by Hondo
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Simple game theory. 

Texas is in if FSU or Michigan lose. Either scenario means at most 4, 1 loss or better P5 conference champions. The committee has made very clear over the last decade that the order of analysis is overall record followed by conference champion. Basically, conference champion is used as a tie breaker among teams with the same record. 

if neither FSU or Michigan lose, we need another pathway. Based on the rule above, we aren't getting in over Washington if it wins. And we aren't getting in over Georgia if it wins. We have a chance if either Alabama or Oregon wins. And we have an even better chance if both win. Further, there is no reason to root for either Washington or Georgia since neither winning benefits us. 

 

40 minutes ago, MuellerHorn said:

People keep saying this and it makes no sense. In a scenario in which FSU and Michigan win, we'd need Oregon AND Alabama to win to have any chance. Oregon has consistently been ranked ahead of Texas and their title game win would be much more impressive than ours.

 

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Your problem is that you think the current rankings matter. They don't. There is no need for them to be sticky. Alabama beating Georgia changes the quality of that win. We'd be a playoff contending team with a win over a playoff team that is a conference champion. Oregon can easily be jumped in the scenario, especially if the game against Washington is close and we crush Okie State. I agree that it is unlikely that we jump Oregon without an Alabama win. I also don't think it is particularly likely we get in over Alabama. I think the SEC champ is in no matter what. And that's why we want both Alabama and Oregon to win. 

Right, we'd need Oregon and Alabama to win. We're saying the same thing. Oregon winning and Bama losing doesn't help us. However, I agree, I think Bama would jump us in that scenario. The SEC champ is making the playoff.

I'm looking for an Iowa or FSU win. If those don't happen, I'm accepting fate.

Edited by MuellerHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blutow said:

Um no...  The best case for a non-champ (georgia) has already be laid out well earlier in this thread and it's pretty clear there is no case or precedent that would put them in over a Texas, Oregon, Bama.  With a committee making decisions at their whim, I'm not one of the people saying it's not possible, just that the chance of that happening is much smaller than chance of us benefitting from Bama/Oregon winning.  It's been beat to death, but non-champs with same records as champs have never gotten a spot, even when the champ has a much worse resume (which would not be the case if comparing Texas to Georgia or Washington). 

I am done arguing with you, dude. Believe what you want. We all want the same thing - Texas to get in.

Edited by UTEE97
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

There is no benefit to Washington winning in any scenario. There is a benefit to Georgia winning if either Iowa or Louisville wins, because it eliminates the infintesimally small chance the SEC gets in 2 teams (a 12-1 conference champ Alabama and a 12-1 two time defending champ Georgia).  If FSU and and Michigan win then we want a narrow, ugly Bama win over Georgia and a narrow and ugly oregon win over Washington, while we buttfuck OSU and hope that the committee uses the shake up as a chance to judge all the 1 loss teams with a fresh set of eyes (narrators voice- they won't);

Conference champions jump non-conference champions. It always happens. Eliminating the very small chance that it doesn't happen is not worth losing the much larger chance that we can get in over Oregon (and maybe Alabama). 

At any rate, if FSU and Michigan win, I'd think you'd actually want a dominating Alabama win over Georgia if you're actually concerned about anything. Our best win looks even better and will lay to rest any doubt that Georgia should get a second shot. And it will give us even better fodder that if Alabama is in, Texas has to be as well. Oregon gets left out becomes of shit schedule and performance against common opponents. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, UTEE97 said:

Let me guess you are a financial planner? It's not very hard to understand. The one-loss teams that are above us embolden their resume by having another top tier win at the conference championship. The committee has shown this year that they may not drop an unbeaten team for a close loss against a very good team (see Oregon and OSU). Everything else is conjecture. 

Reading is hard

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • immamac changed the title to THE College Football Playoff Rankings Thread [MICH,WASH,TEX,ALA]

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...