***OFFICIAL CFP Rankings Show Watch Thread***

[FriendlySpartan]

Yoink.

I'm borrowing this for the next time a B1G team gets housed in a bowl game and a co-worker says it was just a bad performance when it was super obvious the team just wasn't that good and got their ass kicked and would 9/10 times vs. that opponent.

If it happens to a G5 team you should 100% give them all the grief possible.

G5 teams is the equipment of some random JV team having a great record and arguing they should be in the playoffs against the varsity squads based off a close scrimmage they had.

 

[madguy30]

If it happens to a G5 team you should 100% give them all the grief possible.

G5 teams is the equipment of some random JV team having a great record and arguing they should be in the playoffs against the varsity squads based off a close scrimmage they had.

What about teams like Cinci that were G5 just two years ago? Utah from the MWC when they were undefeated?

You gotta give them a chance just as much as someone from the B1G West would get one if that were still a thing in the current format.

And if they win, I'm perfectly fine with a massive upset just like the NCAA tourney (so long as it's not ISU haha).

 

[HFCS]

Woo!! B12 makes the playoff!!

You'd think so but putting Memphis in front of most of our teams makes just as much sense (maybe more) than Tulane and they had no problem saying Tulane > Big 12.

 

[alarson]

That has nothing to do with statement "no G5 team should be ranked"

I would disagree that 'no g5 team should be ranked' overall, but you could make the argument that most G5 teams that get ranked shouldnt be.

 

[HFCS]

What about teams like Cinci that were G5 just two years ago? Utah from the MWC when they were undefeated?

You gotta give them a chance just as much as someone from the B1G West would get one if that were still a thing in the current format.

And if they win, I'm perfectly fine with a massive upset just like the NCAA tourney (so long as it's not ISU haha).

I've been thinking about this. Boise State is the one G5 team that's consistently been as good as the average power conference team yet never got promoted.

On the average year, Boise State would have been above average compared to G5 for at least a decade but probably longer. Every other program like that (TCU, Utah, Cincy, UCF) has been promoted. Someone might argue Memphis or Tulane or a few others but BSU is the only really clear one.

You'd like to say "Oregon State was just power conference and can't be that different a year later" but they brought back exactly ONE starter after everybody transferred out with their demotion. I don't think it works in that direction and I'm very sad to say that for WSU/Ore St. It's a lot easier to say Texas and OU are effectively the same team as they were in the Big 12 when the majority of the team and coaches are all the same.

 

[HFCS]

I would disagree that 'no g5 team should be ranked' overall, but you could make the argument that most G5 teams that get ranked shouldnt be.

pouring over the metrics/computer rankings. Boise State and Tulane deserve to be top 25 most of the season, but typically not as high as they have been. Pretty much everybody else who jumped in and out really wasn't that good. A few teams ACC/BIg 12 teams like Louisville and KSU should have been ranked more weeks than they were too.

UNLV, navy and army are probably the teams that got ranked at points just because of really good record without really playing much of anybody. If UNLV wins out including CCG they'll be top 25 worthy but comparable to a 2 loss Big 12 team, the schedules just aren't on the same level.

 

[cyclonestunners]

You'd think so but putting Memphis in front of most of our teams makes just as much sense (maybe more) than Tulane and they had no problem saying Tulane > Big 12.

I looked at that... but it would
1) require a huge jump from outside t25
2) is harder because of which their losses are to.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

There will be no excuses if Georgia loses this game. NONE!

 

[Gunnerclone]

I've been thinking about this. Boise State is the one G5 team that's consistently been as good as the average power conference team yet never got promoted.

On the average year, Boise State would have been above average compared to G5 for at least a decade but probably longer. Every other program like that (TCU, Utah, Cincy, UCF) has been promoted. Someone might argue Memphis or Tulane or a few others but BSU is the only really clear one.

You'd like to say "Oregon State was just power conference and can't be that different a year later" but they brought back exactly ONE starter after everybody transferred out with their demotion. I don't think it works in that direction and I'm very sad to say that for WSU/Ore St. It's a lot easier to say Texas and OU are effectively the same team as they were in the Big 12 when the majority of the team and coaches are all the same.

Take heed. Realignment/relegation has nothing to do with how good a school is at football.

 

[CysRage]

If a 2 loss Big 12 team almost loses to a 7-4 team, they go down in the CFP rankings. Let's see what this "unbiased" committee does with Georgia after nearly losing to a mid out of conference opponent.

 

[MeowingCows]

Klieman is right here: https://www.heartlandcollegesports....-12-should-consider-serious-schedule-changes/

As long as schedules remain unbalanced, most other conferences only play 8 conference games, and losses do not equally hurt all teams based on their conference, then the B12 is setting itself up for failure by continuing to enforce tougher schedules on its teams. They are not being rewarded for doing so, they're being punished more.

A chart on this info I found:

ACC - 17 teams:

1. ⁠1/17 play 8 P4 games ~6%

2. ⁠5/17 play 9 P4 games ~29%

3. ⁠11/17 play 10 P4 games ~65%

4. ⁠0/17 play 11 P4 games 0%

Big Ten - 18 teams:

1. ⁠0/18 play 8 P4 games 0%

2. ⁠2/18 play 9 P4 games ~11%

3. ⁠14/18 play 10 P4 games ~78%

4. ⁠2/18 play 11 P4 games ~11%

Big 12 - 16 teams:

1. ⁠0/16 play 8 P4 games 0%

2. ⁠0/16 play 9 P4 games 0%

3. ⁠14/16 play 10 P4 games ~88%

4. ⁠2/16 play 11 P4 games ~12%

SEC - 16 teams:

1. ⁠0/16 play 8 P4 games 0%

2. ⁠13/16 play 9 P4 games ~81%

3. ⁠2/16 play 10 P4 games ~12%

4. ⁠1/16 play 11 P4 games ~6%

65% of ACC schools play 10+ P4 games

89% for Big Ten

100% for Big 12

19% for SEC

It does no good to play the tougher games. We're being handily overtaken by a conference with 8 conference games and an FCS game in November. When the win column is the only deciding factor, schedule more wins.

 

[CysRage]

Klieman is right here: https://www.heartlandcollegesports....-12-should-consider-serious-schedule-changes/

As long as schedules remain unbalanced, most other conferences only play 8 conference games, and losses do not equally hurt all teams based on their conference, then the B12 is setting itself up for failure by continuing to enforce tougher schedules on its teams. They are not being rewarded for doing so, they're being punished more.

A chart on this info I found:

It does no good to play the tougher games. We're being handily overtaken by a conference with 8 conference games and an FCS game in November. When the win column is the only deciding factor, schedule more wins.

That is the logical way of looking at it but as long as you have a biased committee selecting the CFP teams, they are going to twist the data and metrics (quantitative or qualitative) to get certain teams and conferences in.

I guarantee you if the Big 12 goes to 8 conference games, that will be the committee's new excuse why the Big 12 doesn't get any more than 1 team in the playoffs.

 

[IcSyU]

Klieman is right here: https://www.heartlandcollegesports....-12-should-consider-serious-schedule-changes/

As long as schedules remain unbalanced, most other conferences only play 8 conference games, and losses do not equally hurt all teams based on their conference, then the B12 is setting itself up for failure by continuing to enforce tougher schedules on its teams. They are not being rewarded for doing so, they're being punished more.

A chart on this info I found:

It does no good to play the tougher games. We're being handily overtaken by a conference with 8 conference games and an FCS game in November. When the win column is the only deciding factor, schedule more wins.

I assume Klieman is willing to take the pay cut that's predicated on the higher paying conference games?

I mean in theory you'd think doubling the number of games available for a weekend would help close that gap but apparently it doesn't or I'm guessing the B12 would be doing so now.

 

[MeowingCows]

That is the logical way of looking at it but as long as you have a biased committee selecting the CFP teams, they are going to twist the data and metrics (quantitative or qualitative) to get certain teams and conferences in.

I guarantee you if the Big 12 goes to 8 conference games, that will be the committee's new excuse why the Big 12 doesn't get any more than 1 team in the playoffs.

You have to win more games to combat that. The conference needs more teams in the 11-12 win zone to fight it out against 3-loss SEC and B1Gs. Putting more wins on the schedule will help with fighting that narrative, but the current requirements don't allow for that easily.

It's certainly not a perfect plan, but I don't see it being any worse than the current state. Mid/end-year tune up games would certainly have some benefits, too

 

[MeowingCows]

I assume Klieman is willing to take the pay cut that's predicated on the higher paying conference games?

I mean in theory you'd think doubling the number of games available for a weekend would help close that gap but apparently it doesn't or I'm guessing the B12 would be doing so now.

Change that pay difference into a bonus for making the CFP and send it. I think he'd be happy to take that trade.

 

[ISUCyclones2015]

Klieman is right here: https://www.heartlandcollegesports....-12-should-consider-serious-schedule-changes/

As long as schedules remain unbalanced, most other conferences only play 8 conference games, and losses do not equally hurt all teams based on their conference, then the B12 is setting itself up for failure by continuing to enforce tougher schedules on its teams. They are not being rewarded for doing so, they're being punished more.

A chart on this info I found:

It does no good to play the tougher games. We're being handily overtaken by a conference with 8 conference games and an FCS game in November. When the win column is the only deciding factor, schedule more wins.

It’s honestly what Briles (see you in hell) Baylor did for many years to start building a winning culture. Schedule dog **** FCS and G5 teams to start getting bowls and slowly get more talent

 

[cyclonestunners]

It’s honestly what Briles (see you in hell) Baylor did for many years to start building a winning culture. Schedule dog **** FCS and G5 teams to start getting bowls and slowly get more talent

That was how kstate made their first best bowl and claimed they were a winning program as well. Very smart.

 

[AlaCyclone]

At the moment, SEC vs. Big XII from top to bottom using National Ranking first, then Conference Ranking after that to fill in the opponents:

# 03 Texas (10-1) vs. # 16 Ariz. State (9-2)
# 07 Georgia (10-2) vs. #18 Iowa State (9-2)
# 08 Tennessee (9-2) vs. #19 B.Y.U. (9-2)
# 13 Alabama (8-3) vs. #24 Kansas State (8-3)
# 14 Ole Miss (9-3) vs. #25 Colorado (9-3)
# 15 South Carolina (8-3) vs. NR Baylor (7-4)
# 20 Texas A&M (8-3) vs. NR T.C.U. (7-4)
# 21 Mizzou (8-3) vs. NR Texas Tech (7-4)

Let's have Yormack call Slive with a Conference Challenge!

Looks like a fun slate of games to me.

Let's Go State!

 

[BigJCy]

 

[cyfan92]

What a freaking time to be alive!