So Predictable-Playoff Poll Ratings

[donovan]

Well, there were no surprises. The "Committee's" selection map




1 Alabama 8-0
2 Clemson 8-0
3 Michigan 8-0
4 Texas A&M 7-1
5 Washington 8-0
6 Ohio State 7-1
7 Louisville 7-1
8 Wisconsin 6-2
9 Auburn 6-2
10 Nebraska 7-1
11 Florida 6-1
12 Penn State 6-2
13 LSU 5-2
14 Oklahoma 6-2
15 Colorado 6-2
16 Utah 7-2
17 Baylor 6-1
18 Oklahoma State 6-2
19 Virginia Tech 6-2
20 West Virginia 6-1
21 North Carolina 6-2
22 Florida State 5-3
23 Western Michigan 8-0
24 Boise State 7-1
25 Washington State 6-2

[Spence]

Washington or Michigan should be 2 and 3, Clemson is getting props from last year as is Ohio State.

[Swamp Daddy]

The one I can't figure is Texas A&M. And the committee explanations also didn't make much sense.

Swamp Daddy

[highfly24]

Completely agree. It is baffling how A&M was put up there, however I've decided not to get worked up over the SEC bias. Lot of games left and it seems there is always some upsets just waiting to pop up. This past weekend was just the start. If Washington runs the table they will get in, Louisville needs some help but they've looked flat lately this could be the wake up call needed. Many losses still to come, just a matter of who and when.

[WoVeU]

It seems to me some folks went out of there way, around the barn, 2 dry counties, sanity and its shadow, to put A&M in the 4 slot.

If the goal was to chastise and/or rebuke Washington...Louisville would have been a much more defendable option. A&M has a really good win in the eyes of many...but the Auburn team of yore and that of today are not one and the same.

[billybud]

Re Washington's place in the AP

The Huskies look good...but they have not played a currently ranked team

The Aggies have played the current AP #1 and #11...


Clemson has played the current AP #5, #11, #19

[Duke1632]

Not that I care much, but yeah, Washington should be #4.

Of the four teams at 4-7, TAM should probably be dead last, not first, based on resume (not subjective 'who's better')

TAM - 1 win against a good team (#9 Aub), and TAM's loss was bad, by 3 scores vs #1
WASH - 1 win against a good team (#16 Utah), but NO losses, so better than TAM
LOU - 1 win against a good team (#22 FL ST), and they DOMINATED. Loss not bad (1 score vs. #2), so better than TAM
OSU - 2 wins against good teams (#8 Wis; #14 OU), and loss not very bad (1 score vs. #12), so better than TAM

The thing I heard to justify TAM's ranking was "they have beat 4 teams with winning records". One was FCS Prairie View, which we know gets NO weight and probably ought to punish, not reward, so that's really only 3. LOU only has 1, WASH has 2, and OSU has 3, the same as TAM (excluding FCS). So, actually, OSU clearly has the best resume among one-loss teams, which still isn't enough to jump WASH imo, and TAM appears to have the least impressive resume of the group.

[donovan]

...and the "committee" looks at "the quality of losses." I get Washington not being there, I do not get A&M being close, no matter how quality was their loss. All this spreadsheet, smoke and mirrors, chicanery, ambidextrousness, back-room green visor shade double-dealing are exclusive to allow a hand-picked, Disney loving, TV rating final game.

And as for teams that have not played a nationally ranked team, the teams are ranked after schedules are made.

So it has rained here for 15 days straight and the Sun has not cracked the overcast.

[Duke1632]

...and the "committee" looks at "the quality of losses." I get Washington not being there, I do not get A&M being close, no matter how quality was their loss.

My point was that TAM's loss was BAD. It was not a "quality loss". They lost by 3 scores. That's BAD. And besides all that, there is no legitimate rationale to value a "quality loss" above a "poor win". Unless one wants to do as you say next...

All this spreadsheet, smoke and mirrors, chicanery, ambidextrousness, back-room green visor shade double-dealing are exclusive to allow a hand-picked, Disney loving, TV rating final game.

And as for teams that have not played a nationally ranked team, the teams are ranked after schedules are made.

So it has rained here for 15 days straight and the Sun has not cracked the overcast.

Setting aside the question of whether you like the CFP as currently structured, and conceding the above as accurate....

in the past two years do you think the "committee" has met it's mission statement, that is, to select "the four best teams"? (And also ignoring that the mission itself is absurd on its face and counterproductive).

[WoVeU]

Ohio State should be higher ranked than A&M, rather readily IMO. I have leaned more and more towards the eye test. I think Louisville is the best "eye candy" out there. They got out-played by Clemson for a quarter and change if that game is played on a neutral site 5 times UofL wins 4 of them. The gross pressure Clemson brought had the Cards on the ropes....but then Clemson got the "rope-a-dope." Just a little too late.

A&M just doesn't look that good. In the end of all ends 2 through eternity probably does't matter. With Bama adding the RPO to the "brute them to death" "pro-style" offense the only chance of them getting beaten is Auburn showing increased improvement, catching lightning in a bottle, AND Bama having a not-so-good day.

[donovan]

in the past two years do you think the "committee" has met it's mission statement, that is, to select "the four best teams"? (And also ignoring that the mission itself is absurd on its face and counterproductive).

Yes, I do and they most likely will select the four best teams this year. And I find this position consistent with my thoughts on the Committee. The committee, as well as the structure, is designed so the highest revenue games will be in the top four. The system is a safety net to ensure this.

If you look at the complete list, with the highest respect to my friend, how can a 5-3 be on that list? What it shows is tantamount to holding a drawing where you sell 124 tickets and only put 35 in the bowl to be drawn. My prediction is if A & M loses no more games this year, they will NOT be in the final four.

[Spence]

...and the "committee" looks at "the quality of losses." I get Washington not being there, I do not get A&M being close, no matter how quality was their loss. All this spreadsheet, smoke and mirrors, chicanery, ambidextrousness, back-room green visor shade double-dealing are exclusive to allow a hand-picked, Disney loving, TV rating final game.

And as for teams that have not played a nationally ranked team, the teams are ranked after schedules are made.

So it has rained here for 15 days straight and the Sun has not cracked the overcast.

I wouldn't have A&M in the top 4. I would have Washington there. But the opening rankings really mean nothing because the committee is not afraid to break trends and elevate teams they think are better without a clear pattern that we can see. If they were they wouldn't have put Ohio State in the playoffs 2 years ago with a third team QB. I do believe that they consider the TV value of the matchups they create and I think that is wrong. This system isn't any more "fair" than the other system. It just pulls in more money - for now.