The CardBoard
New CFB rankings - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: New CFB rankings (/thread-13110.html)


New CFB rankings - TreesAndBirds - 11-22-2016

http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/21/seasontype/2/year/2016/week/13

Couple observations.....

Big Ten has 4  of top 7
If UW beats WSU and Colorado beats Utah we will be #4 in Pac12, and Pac12 in good position for 2  teams in CFB/New Years games.

Re: New CFB rankings - bbm233 - 11-22-2016

The Committee really loves the Big 10, which is interesting, because Sagarin rates the SEC East, the Pac 12 North and the Pac 12 South as better than either Big 10 division.

Re: New CFB rankings - Spiny_Norman - 11-22-2016

Between Auburn, Florida State and Stanford (all of which have the same record, 8-3), which is the only team to have defeated another team currently in the top 25?  Correct, Stanford.

Yet Auburn is 13, FSU is 14, Stanford is 24. I hope that this anomaly can be corrected by the Committee in the final rankings.

Re: New CFB rankings - 2006alum - 11-22-2016

(11-22-2016, 06:51 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Between Auburn, Florida State and Stanford (all of which have the same record, 8-3), which is the only team to have defeated another team currently in the top 25?  Correct, Stanford.

Yet Auburn is 13, FSU is 14, Stanford is 24. I hope that this anomaly can be corrected by the Committee in the final rankings.

My guess is the committee recognizes that Stanford beat USC before the quarterback switch. That was an entirely different team. I'm not as familiar with Auburn and FSU's schedules, but we got lucky this year facing USC so early.

Re: New CFB rankings - fullmetal - 11-22-2016

I think FSU is better than Auburn, and I think Auburn is typical $EC mediocrity incarnate.  Stanford is also a different team after getting healthy and switching QBs, sigh.

Re: New CFB rankings - martyup - 11-22-2016

Who would have thought that Colorado would be the highest ranked team from the Pac-12 at this point?  Amazing.

Re: New CFB rankings - TreesAndBirds - 11-22-2016

(11-22-2016, 07:47 PM)martyup link Wrote:Who would have thought that Colorado would be the highest ranked team from the Pac-12 at this point?  Amazing.

Washington?

Re: New CFB rankings - French Rage - 11-22-2016

(11-22-2016, 06:57 PM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16167.msg180333#msg180333 date=1479865874]
Between Auburn, Florida State and Stanford (all of which have the same record, 8-3), which is the only team to have defeated another team currently in the top 25?  Correct, Stanford.

Yet Auburn is 13, FSU is 14, Stanford is 24. I hope that this anomaly can be corrected by the Committee in the final rankings.

My guess is the committee recognizes that Stanford beat Under Stanford Control (again) before the quarterback switch. That was an entirely different team. I'm not as familiar with Auburn and FSU's schedules, but we got lucky this year facing Under Stanford Control (again) so early.
[/quote]

We get to ignore losses before a QB switch?  Sweet, time to book my tickets for the Peach/Cotton Bowls!

Re: New CFB rankings - OutsiderFan - 11-22-2016

If anyone saw Auburn play Georgia, they couldn't possibly have them ranked in the Top 25.  It is the biggest travesty of the entire poll that they are #13. Auburn will get demolished by Alabama, not just because Alabama is great, but because Auburn is hapless on offense.

Consider they got a lot of credit for beating up - running all over - Arkansas.  Well, believe it or not, Arkansas now allows the most yards per carry in FBS.  Yes, they are even worse than Cal on that measure.  Cal yields 6.3 YPC and Arkansas 6.32 YPC.  Shocking, but true apparently.

I loved me some Greg McElroy on ESPN tonight when the studio heads were ball washing U$C: "We're suppose to forget September happened?"  They were 1-3 at one point.  In college football, the whole season matters. 

I am heartened by the fact Oklahoma is only #8. Though it bothers me to see four Big Ten teams in the Top 7, no way does Oklahoma deserve to be even in the running for a playoff berth at this point.  The Big 12 was horrible OOC as I have said on other threads.

Re: New CFB rankings - StanfordMatt - 11-22-2016

(11-22-2016, 09:17 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I am heartened by the fact Oklahoma is only #8. Though it bothers me to see four Big Ten teams in the Top 7, no way does Oklahoma deserve to be even in the running for a playoff berth at this point.  The Big 12 was horrible OOC as I have said on other threads.

As a Stanford fan, I have found myself making the SOS argument many times in recent years against fans of teams that may have had fewer losses but also easier schedules. With this in mind, it's easy for me to put myself in the shoes of a Sooner fan and be irate that the Huskies are #5. Yes, OU has one more loss than UW but the Sooners played both Houston and Ohio State out of conference - just about as tough an OOC schedule as a team can have. Meanwhile, the Huskies feasted on the likes of Rutgers, Idaho and Portland State.

Re: New CFB rankings - Ratmandoo - 11-23-2016

(11-22-2016, 10:32 PM)StanfordMatt link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16167.msg180343#msg180343 date=1479874664]
I am heartened by the fact Oklahoma is only #8. Though it bothers me to see four Big Ten teams in the Top 7, no way does Oklahoma deserve to be even in the running for a playoff berth at this point.  The Big 12 was horrible OOC as I have said on other threads.

As a Stanford fan, I have found myself making the SOS argument many times in recent years against fans of teams that may have had fewer losses but also easier schedules. With this in mind, it's easy for me to put myself in the shoes of a Sooner fan and be irate that the Huskies are #5. Yes, OU has one more loss than UW but the Sooners played both Houston and Ohio State out of conference - just about as tough an OOC schedule as a team can have. Meanwhile, the Huskies feasted on the likes of Rutgers, Idaho and Portland State.
[/quote]

The problem with Oklahoma is they may have scheduled tough but they didn't beat any of those tough teams. Unlike Stanford last year, we beat Notre Dame. You can schedule tough but if you don't beat them (and in the Sooners' case, they weren't competitive in either). Really, Houston has more of a beef to be ranked that much lower than Oklahoma with the same number of losses along with dominating wins over the Sooners AND Louisville. The rest of Houston's schedule isn't as strong as Oklahoma's but it's not nearly as bad as some might think. Of course, their loss to SMU is really really bad.

It will always be hard to figure out who the top teams are in college football because there is no uniformity in the schedules - 8 vs. 9 conference games, how many home games a team can play (I think Michigan will only leave their state three times over 12 games), if you play an FCS team (or two), etc. Plus the "eye test" is extremely biased to the traditional teams. None of the various metrics / models can agree either .... Sagarin vs. FPI, FEI vs. S&P. This is all part of the fun and one of the reasons I like the sport. Plus I "win" a lot of arguments by pulling a bunch of random information out of my ass because I've been following so closely over the years. 

Re: New CFB rankings - Hulk01 - 11-23-2016

You want to see unpretty football, watch two mid-level Big Ten teams battle.  It's at a sped-up jog.

Re: New CFB rankings - Mick - 11-23-2016

(11-22-2016, 06:57 PM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16167.msg180333#msg180333 date=1479865874]
Between Auburn, Florida State and Stanford (all of which have the same record, 8-3), which is the only team to have defeated another team currently in the top 25?  Correct, Stanford.

Yet Auburn is 13, FSU is 14, Stanford is 24. I hope that this anomaly can be corrected by the Committee in the final rankings.

My guess is the committee recognizes that Stanford beat Under Stanford Control (again) before the quarterback switch. That was an entirely different team. I'm not as familiar with Auburn and FSU's schedules, but we got lucky this year facing Under Stanford Control (again) so early.
[/quote]

Their quarterback switch, or our quarterback switch?

Re: New CFB rankings - CTcard - 11-23-2016

Not sure just what the committee is thinking because they don't say a whole lot and what they do doesn't address the lower seeded teams. But, more generally there is a lot of discussion out there complaining that Team X only beat 1/2/3 teams with winning records (or something like that). But that is meaningless without comparison. Further, given the top 6/bottom 6 split in the Pac 12 it's basically a result built into the schedule.

Number of wins over teams with winning records:
UW - 2*     
Colo - 2*   
U$C - 2
WSU - 1*
Stanford - 2
Utah - 2

I doubt much of the top 25 would look much better.
So, let's ignore anyone who takes the record of one team and says something like "X is not really very good, they only have 2 wins versus teams with winning records".


* Okay, I cheated a little bit. WSU and UW both have wins over 6-4 Idaho. Colorado has a win over 6-5, but probably soon to be 6-6, CSU. I don't think either of those count.



Re: New CFB rankings - Spiny_Norman - 11-23-2016

(11-22-2016, 06:57 PM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=16167.msg180333#msg180333 date=1479865874]
Between Auburn, Florida State and Stanford (all of which have the same record, 8-3), which is the only team to have defeated another team currently in the top 25?  Correct, Stanford.

Yet Auburn is 13, FSU is 14, Stanford is 24. I hope that this anomaly can be corrected by the Committee in the final rankings.

My guess is the committee recognizes that Stanford beat Under Stanford Control (again) before the quarterback switch. That was an entirely different team. I'm not as familiar with Auburn and FSU's schedules, but we got lucky this year facing Under Stanford Control (again) so early.
[/quote]

Stanford had 300 yards rushing vs. U.SC.  The QB switch would not have changed that success. If Week 14 Stanford played Week 14 U.SC, I still think Stanford would win.  I can understand U.SC being ranked higher than Stanford since their best win is more impressive than Stanford's best win. But I don't understand the 12 place gap between 12 and 24.

Re: New CFB rankings - OutsiderFan - 11-23-2016

If Stanford had a 7-game win streak and in that streak beat undefeated #7 Washington and 1-loss #21 Colorado, Stanford would be #12 too.

As it was, Stanford got crushed by that Washington team and lost to Colorado.  I don't have a problem with the disparity because U$C has beaten two ranked team and Stanford hasn't beaten any, though U$C now is.

The thing is for both U$C and Stanford, their only losses were to teams then and now ranked in the Top 25, though that could change for both U$C and Stanford if Washington State and Utah both lose as most expect.



Re: New CFB rankings - BostonCard - 11-23-2016

FWLIW, Sagarin really likes the Pac-12

#5 UW
#10 USC
#11 Colorado
#14 WSU
#16 Stanford

Utah is #31
Kansas State is #33

BC



Re: New CFB rankings - pcgoode - 11-23-2016

I would not want to play Under Stanford Control (again) right now. They are really firing on all cylinders since Darnold took over as QB.

As much as I generally don't like to elevate Literature's Most Famous Losers in any way, part of me would like them get into a NY6 bowl and steamroll a BIG10 or SEC team for the sake of improving the perception of the PAC12 as a conference.

Re: New CFB rankings - ColoradoTree - 11-23-2016

Agreed.  We won't be the standard-bearers for the conference this year, so the best we can hope for is improved overall perception by winning two of the NY6 games. 

That's what my head says to do.  My heart is still bitter that UW looks primed to go to the playoff with a relatively easy schedule when in our prime recent years, we had to face an absolute gauntlet to get to the Rose/Orange/Fiesta.  I'm not saying they don't deserve it, and closing the season with wins over Wazzu and CU would be a solid resume boost.  I'm just saying that I wish Oregon had been a dumpster fire in 2010, 2011, or last year.  Getting to the playoff the first year you're good again just isn't fair!  ;)