False. Sagrain SOS noted below.
BYU: 37
Iowa State: 38
Arizona State: 42
SMU: 59
Clemson: 60
Miami: 61
Notre Dame: 62
Indiana: 73
Boise State: 89
***OFFICIAL CFP Rankings Show Watch Thread***
- Thread starter ISUCyclones2015
- Start date
False. Sagrain SOS noted below.
BYU: 37
Iowa State: 38
Arizona State: 42
SMU: 59
Clemson: 60
Miami: 61
Notre Dame: 62
Indiana: 73
Boise State: 89
Our fans think this is “soft” because we averaged #11 sos for a solid decade, we know nothing other than elite difficult schedule. Our schedule was exact middle of P4 meaning half the teams had an easier schedule and almost none of them got to 10 wins even with that edge.
The Boise 'gripe' is literally a monumental gripe. It is the gripiest a gripe can get, and very real and legitimate. Yeah, we should all have a metric sh*t of angst about possibly not getting a BYE due to the committee giving a f*cking Mountain West a better grade than the Big 12. Not sure what is really hard to understand about that.
And they were ready to give two loss Tulane a better seed than ISU, BYU and Colorado going into last week.
I specifically said that several of those teams didn't have marquee wins either. I was comparing us to several of those teams on your list (which you seemed to cherry pick which teams to include).
But if you think we had a difficult schedule (0 games against current ranked teams) and are upset that we are #16 in the CFP rankings, which I said feels about right, I'm not sure you what to tell you.
Blow it all up. These at-large bids ruin it. It should be auto-bids only, you should have to win your conference to get into a playoff, like how most other sports are... not possible now of course that the SEC and Big Ten gobbled up all the big brands making conferences lopsided. They complain now when they get left out but are still cashing the check. They'll expand the playoff, add more auto bids for the SEC and we'll have the same issues.
Yeah, that’s the one I agree with. But 90# of the post are whining about the SEC or conference bias. Not the Boise screw up.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
Oh, it’s still technically possible, but the P2 conferences and the networks will never do it in a million years.
It’s almost like the sport could use an oversight management group with the authority to enforce their will, one that’s actually concerned with finding a qualified true champion instead of creating a profit-filled entertainment spectacle with the usual suspects involved every year.
I’m already prepared for this to be a repeat of 2014, with the Ohio State team that lost to Va Tech getting in over the far more deserving TCU, then winning the whole thing … I fully expect three-loss Alabama to get a pass into the field this year and then win the whole thing, so once again the blue blood B1G /SEC voices can crow, “See? We were right again! We did get the best teams in! Cry more, little brothers!”
Has any national or local media reporter acknowledged that a UNLV win on Friday and a Cyclone win on Saturday will result in us having a bye?
This is literally the first time in the history of Iowa State football that we have had any chance at playing in the college football playoff and being relevant in that way. Why do you want to blow that up after his first year when ISU has a legitimate shot at being in the playoffs?
The committee is grading Boise on the record and that they only lost by 3 to Oregon, but overlook their SOS, while other teams like Alabama they are saying their SOS is the most important factor, over having three loses.
This committee like the ones before it will make up any rule or judge teams differently from season to season. They understand their goal is to get as many SEC teams into the playoff on a yearly basis as possible. Next season they will use the strength of the roster as the most important factor and how many players the SEC team has that will be playing on Sunday's. Whatever they can sell to the media they will go with, and if it means screwing over the ACC or B12, they have no problem with that.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
The Miami that’s two officials’ decisions away from being 8-4? The Miami whose best win is Louisville? That Miami?
Boise State’s ranking is just unwarranted, but the committee falls in love with one-loss teams no matter what, while at the same time being able to disregard multiple losses as long as you’re in a certain conference. Miami is ranked too high, because the pollsters were in love with the idea of Miami returning as a national power early in the season. Clemson is ranked too high, because they’re Clemson.
The B1G and SEC teams aren’t ranked terribly, I guess - Penn State and Indiana didn’t play a tough schedule, but they’re still 11-1; the three-loss SEC teams I can kinda see sprinkled through some of the two-loss teams - but it’s still hard to wrap your head around a three-loss team basically already in the playoffs after losing to Vanderbilt and Oklahoma. Would Arkansas be there under those circumstances? Would Mississippi State? Kentucky? When a team gets special consideration just because of the name on the front of the jersey, that’s where this all falls apart.
Yes, that Miami. That’s why I said they were overrated. Of course, the argument you presented about their close wins also applies to many other teams - certainly to ISU.The Miami that’s two officials’ decisions away from being 8-4? The Miami whose best win is Louisville? That Miami?
Boise State’s ranking is just unwarranted, but the committee falls in love with one-loss teams no matter what, while at the same time being able to disregard multiple losses as long as you’re in a certain conference. Miami is ranked too high, because the pollsters were in love with the idea of Miami returning as a national power early in the season. Clemson is ranked too high, because they’re Clemson.
The B1G and SEC teams aren’t ranked terribly, I guess - Penn State and Indiana didn’t play a tough schedule, but they’re still 11-1; the three-loss SEC teams I can kinda see sprinkled through some of the two-loss teams - but it’s still hard to wrap your head around a three-loss team basically already in the playoffs after losing to Vanderbilt and Oklahoma. Would Arkansas be there under those circumstances? Would Mississippi State? Kentucky? When a team gets special consideration just because of the name on the front of the jersey, that’s where this all falls apart.
Alll this anger seems to be about a 3 loss Alabama team making the playoffs as a 12 seed. “All this falls apart when a team gets special consideration because of the name on their jersey…”. I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you, but that has been the case for college football. Forever. Under every system we’ve had. It’s nothing new. But hell, this year I do not even see another team who should clearly be ranked ahead of them. I dont buy the idea that SMU should be in if they lose the ACC championship.
If this was about seeking to objectively crown a champion, the FCS playoff model would have been copied, albeit with earlier and better neutral site locations. Instead, we have a popularity contest for the rich kids.
The committee last season left out a 14 and 0 FSU team to put in UT and Alabama. The only way the B12 is going to get 2 teams into any playoff is when they expand it to 14 teams. So unless we get a couple of undefeated teams going into the championship game we are screwed.The Miami that’s two officials’ decisions away from being 8-4? The Miami whose best win is Louisville? That Miami?
Boise State’s ranking is just unwarranted, but the committee falls in love with one-loss teams no matter what, while at the same time being able to disregard multiple losses as long as you’re in a certain conference. Miami is ranked too high, because the pollsters were in love with the idea of Miami returning as a national power early in the season. Clemson is ranked too high, because they’re Clemson.
The B1G and SEC teams aren’t ranked terribly, I guess - Penn State and Indiana didn’t play a tough schedule, but they’re still 11-1; the three-loss SEC teams I can kinda see sprinkled through some of the two-loss teams - but it’s still hard to wrap your head around a three-loss team basically already in the playoffs after losing to Vanderbilt and Oklahoma. Would Arkansas be there under those circumstances? Would Mississippi State? Kentucky? When a team gets special consideration just because of the name on the front of the jersey, that’s where this all falls apart.
Interesting.
Week 11:
Miami lost at Georgia Tech (who was 5-4 at the time) dropped 5 spots
Iowa State lost at Kansas (who was 2-6 at the time) dropped 9 spots
Week 12:
BYU lost to Kansas (who was 3-6 at the time) dropped 8 spots
Kansas State lost to Arizona State (who was 7-2 at the time) dropped 10 spots
Week 13:
BYU lost at Arizona State (who was 8-2 and ranked #21 at the time) dropped 5 spots
Colorado lost at Kansas (who was 4-6 at the time) dropped 9 spots
Mississippi lost at Florida (who was 5-5 at time) dropped 5 spots
Texas A&M lost at Auburn (who was 4-6 at the time) dropped 5 spots
Week 11:
Miami lost at Georgia Tech (who was 5-4 at the time) dropped 5 spots
Iowa State lost at Kansas (who was 2-6 at the time) dropped 9 spots
Week 12:
BYU lost to Kansas (who was 3-6 at the time) dropped 8 spots
Kansas State lost to Arizona State (who was 7-2 at the time) dropped 10 spots
Week 13:
BYU lost at Arizona State (who was 8-2 and ranked #21 at the time) dropped 5 spots
Colorado lost at Kansas (who was 4-6 at the time) dropped 9 spots
Mississippi lost at Florida (who was 5-5 at time) dropped 5 spots
Texas A&M lost at Auburn (who was 4-6 at the time) dropped 5 spots
Biggest riser in one week
Clemson: Up 5 spots beating The Citadel
Tulane: Up 5 spots winning at Navy
Army: Up 4 spots during a bye week.
Iowa State: Up 4 spots winning at Utah
Clemson: Up 5 spots beating The Citadel
Tulane: Up 5 spots winning at Navy
Army: Up 4 spots during a bye week.
Iowa State: Up 4 spots winning at Utah
Last edited:
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
You don’t have to tell me the system favors the big names, you’re preaching to the choir - but one of the justifications for expanding the playoffs was making it more “fair” and getting more ”deserving” teams in. So using the expanded playoffs as a way to get more SEC teams in - without having a clearly defined qualification criteria - rubs a lot of us the wrong way. I think if SMU loses to Clemson, it’s at least a valid question as to whether they or Alabama get that last spot. It shouldn’t be automatically Bama.
This is why I’ve been saying for years that there ought to be a clear, unquestionable criteria for making the playoff - and it ought to be winning your conference. The notion of “at large” selections just doesn’t feel right. I don’t care if you go 11-1 and somehow miss out on your conference championship … someone in your own conference proved they were better, what justification do you have to say you should get a shot at being called best in the nation? I’d blow everything up, start fresh with 12 regional conferences of no more than 12 members. The conference championship games become the de facto first round, with the 12 winners advancing to the Tournament of Champions. No one can ever say a team got in unfairly … the rules and the criteria are clear, and if you’re 12-0 and lose your CCG, that’s just too bad.
Opening up all these at-large spots just creates the opportunity for this to become a B1G/SEC invitational, which is kinda what we’re getting.
Which teams do you think should be ranked higher and replace the teams currently in the playoff field?
That sounds great but we don’t live in this perfect world where blowing up the current conference system, which is based on money, and replacing it with this fantasy system based on fairness, is even a realistic option. We are a capitalist nation and college football is a big money business. Thats fine if we want to complain about it but it sure makes for a boring discussion the week where ISU is playing for our first ever college playoff spot.
So, putting the fantasy aside and returning to reality - what teams do you believe are unfairly ranked and should be included in the field of 12?
