Page 1 of 3

Top 10

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:17 pm
by Cane from the Bend
.

Okay, here is the CFP Committee's Top 10:

#1 Clemson [12-1]
#2 Oklahoma [12-1]
#3 Georgia [12-1]
#4 Alabama [11-1]
#5 Ohio State [11-2]
#6 Wisconsin [12-1]
#7 Auburn [10-3]
#8 USC [11-2]
#9 Penn State [10-2]
#10 Miami [10-2]

Not that it would matter much with regards to which bowls these teams have been selected to play in; seeing how the remaining New Year's 6 games, not attributed to the playoff tournament, are unrestricted with regards to how many teams from any particular Power 5 Conference may appear in these speculatively prestigious venues --- this, however is what I would have done differently.

USC having won their Conference Championship, I would have put them @ #7. Auburn, now with 3 losses, I would have dropped down to #8 --- I know that Auburn beat 2 of the teams in the top 4, and both teams were supposedly the #1 team at the time. But Auburn simply didn't have the ability to continue at that pace. Georgia flat out won the rematch, and I'm not so sure Auburn is even at 100%. Georgia stretched them. And the 3rd loss was ugly.

Next, I would not have Miami in the top 10 --- if you move down the list a couple of names, UCF is sitting there at #12. The Knights are undefeated @ 12-0, and Miami just lost for the second week in a row, this time by 35 points. No reason why these team sholdn't be switched around. And, yes, I believe UCF's unbeaten record warrants them a place in the top 10 --- Washington, now ranked #11, going into last week, was ranked #17, 2 places behind then #15 UCF. The Knights moved up 1 ranking after last week's win, whereas the Huskies leapfrogged them, by jumping 4 ranking up. Granted, the Apple Cup win vs Washington State looks better on paper than UCF's win over USF. But I would venture to say, that the consecutive wins over So Florida & Memphis would look just as impressive. On top of that, Washington sat idle this week, and still moved up 2 spots in the rankings.

That all said, I would still keep Washington @ #11 as I move UCF up to #10, while dropping Miami to #12 --- Washington may have been idle, but Miami got manhandled. And, not paying a game in the last week, to finish 10-2, looks better to me than losing 38-3 to finish 10-2.

Other than that, I am okayish with the rest of the top 10. I do not like seeing two teams from the same conference in the playoffs, and, with the way they ranked the teams last week, the only way we were going to not have two SEC school in there, was for Oklahoma & Wisconsin to have won --- it's the way the committee set this thing up --- so this is what we wound up with. [how fitting is it in this scenario to have a word that could either mean, to be a past tense of winding things up; or the past sense of an injury]

.
.
.

Re: Top 10

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:45 pm
by collegefbfan-8898
Mine came out like this. Final 2017 Computer Poll. Remember this is not a head-to-head poll. It calculates each team's entire season, wins, losses, strength of schedule, what types of teams each team beat, what types of teams each team lost to. I am not saying it is perfect, but just something I keep going.

1. Georgia 0.9997
2. Clemson 0.9799
3. Alabama 0.9613
4. Ohio State 0.9134
5. Wisconsin 0.9131
6. Miami 0.8847
7. Oklahoma 0.8827
8. Penn State 0.8787
9. Auburn 0.8749
10. Notre Dame 0.8731
11. Southern Cal 0.8729
12. Central Florida 0.8188
13. Michigan State 0.8125
14. Washington 0.8083
15. LSU 0.7954
16. Stanford 0.7897
17. Northwestern 0.7672
18. TCU 0.7651
19. Virginia Tech 0.7564
20. Washington State 0.7514
21. Michigan 0.7461
22. Oklahoma State 0.7453
23. Mississippi State 0.7380
24. NC State 0.7333
25. South Carolina 0.7268

Re: Top 10

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:57 pm
by donovan
Looks just a good as others. Consistent uses imputed data. The only reason I see for a Committee is for manipulation. Like doing my taxes...I want some input.

Re: Top 10

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:04 pm
by Spence
It is absolutely for manipulation. We are knew that when they created the committee. I’m just not sure they know any more than we do.

Re: Top 10

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:36 pm
by collegefbfan-8898
I feel that they had to ask and debate the same things we did. Alabama didn't win division, Ohio State had a bad loss, Auburn has three losses, Buckeyes won Big Ten, even after last night Wisconsin only had one loss, etc.

Will they put new parameters in place if the national title game is all SEC?

Re: Top 10

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:47 pm
by billybud
Congrove has the same final four CFP as the committee...

Oh...So does Massey's compilation rankings of 100 + rankings...

Oh...and the AP agrees...so does the Coaches Poll

This drivel about back room manipulation is what it is...the effluvia of disappointed people who just know that another team shoulda, coulda, woulda...

All of these rankings must call the Committee to get their marching orders...Jeez...I am rushing out to buy shares in Alcoa...those tin foil hats are booming...

Re: Top 10

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:57 pm
by billybud
Donovan sees corruption everywhere he looks...his tin foil hat is supplemented by his sin seeing glasses and further magnified when his Elmer Gantry personality takes residence.

Re: Top 10

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:59 pm
by collegefbfan-8898
Looking at Congroves numbers and stuff, I wonder why Notre Dame is so far down the list with the number one SOS, while Troy is above them with 124th ranked SOS. Notre Dame lost to Miami, Georgia, and Stanford two of those being away games. All of those teams played in their conference championships. Notre Dame defeated the PAC 12 champs.. by a lot. Not a bad loss on the Irish's slate. At Miami wasn't pretty, but Miami wasn't a 0.500 team either. Why so low?

Re: Top 10

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:57 pm
by Cane from the Bend
billybud wrote:Congrove has the same final four CFP as the committee...

Oh...So does Massey's compilation rankings of 100 + rankings...

Oh...and the AP agrees...so does the Coaches Poll

This drivel about back room manipulation is what it is...the effluvia of disappointed people who just know that another team shoulda, coulda, woulda...

All of these rankings must call the Committee to get their marching orders...Jeez...I am rushing out to buy shares in Alcoa...those tin foil hats are booming...



I'm glad you used those as reference points --- They both have UCF @ #10, Miami @ #11 and Washington @ #12 --- kinda supporting my initial post.

As for the shoulda, coulda, woulda babel; had the committee put someone other than who they did in the top 4, we'd get the same arguments from the one's left out.

However you want to slice it; call `em conspiracy nuts in an attempt to discredit a valid observation, doesn't change the undeniable fact, that the system is 100% designed to prevent smaller less influential programs from becoming bigger more renown programs, with greater recognition.

If you do not believe that is what is happening; then you also do not believe uf wanted to block FSU from joining the SEC ... or that Ohio St hasn't made maneuvers to hold Cincinnati down.

.
.
.

Re: Top 10

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:22 am
by donovan
billybud wrote:Donovan sees corruption everywhere he looks...his tin foil hat is supplemented by his sin seeing glasses and further magnified when his Elmer Gantry personality takes residence.


It's aluminum foil. Alcoa never made tin.

I think I have lost perspective. I don't give a darn about this playoff system. I think best I move on to something I do care and can do something about.

Re: Top 10

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:38 am
by billybud
ALCOA

Aluminum Company of America...

...of course, the term "tin foil" is a holdover from the late 19th century, of which Donovan has fond memories of unwrapping the lunch packed by his mother in his tin pail lunch box...my reference was to give him a familiar reference point.

Do you get the tintype?

Re: Top 10

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:47 am
by Cane from the Bend
.

:lol:

When I first saw the word unwrapping, I thought you were going to say, "fond memories of unwrapping his Christmas presents."

.
.
.

Re: Top 10

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:28 am
by donovan
That's right, my mother wrapped my sandwiches in "tin-foil" because she didn't want the electromagnetic forces sent out by the Bolsheviks to affect harm her little ward.

Re: Top 10

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:16 pm
by billybud
I see....

So your tendency towards socializing football is because your mother attempted to economize and wrapped your sandwiches in inferior foil. The darn radio rays kept beaming in through your teeth.

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows
You sell them and retire on the income

DEMOCRATS
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

WISCONSIN LIBS
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...

Re: Top 10

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:50 pm
by donovan
Something like that.

So here is where we differ. In your ultra-conservative approach, you use SOS to reward the very good, (rich) teams and cast aside those less fortunate that can not afford to pay their administrators and coaches mind-boggling amounts of filthy lucre. Like your new tax proposal...benefit the rich at the expense of the poor and put a spin on it that it is the opposite.

I, on the other hand in my new enlightened position, would use SOS to make football like golf or bowling and handicap the games. So the less fortunate that have not been able to do well because of the tyrannical policies of the NCAA, The Committee and the House on UnAmerican Activities, give them a break. I would use Massey handicap point spread, which means the "people" by their votes with dollars determine the handicap. So if a team does not cover the spread, they lose. Under my system, the National Championship could have Charlotte play Georgia Southern for the trophy. Keeps all the teams from the South which is so important. And of course, all would get participation ribbons.

PS You don't want Taggart.