Started By
Message
Is the CFP Committee pushing an agenda?
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:28 pm
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:28 pm
quote:
1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Michigan
4. Clemson
5. Louisville
6. Washington
Seems like certain teams can lose with total immunity, it's almost like they've made up their minds already as to who they want in the playoffs.
The only team that deserves to be up there is Alabama and maaaaaaybe Michigan. I also believe that LSU would be the majority of teams in the top 6. Except Alabama of course and possibly Michigan. Sorry I'm bias towards the SEC
This post was edited on 11/15/16 at 11:29 pm
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:30 pm to BugaPainTrain7
quote:
I also believe that LSU would be the majority of teams in the top 6.
Sounds like you're pushing an agenda.
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:30 pm to BugaPainTrain7
No. It looks like they are not letting the fact that a team loses once deter them from the fact that they're still one of the best teams in the country.
This post was edited on 11/16/16 at 9:39 am
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:31 pm to MykTide
Myk, if LSU were to play like they did against Alabama do you really think any of those teams could beat LSU? Keep in mind we wouldn't be going against an Alabama caliber defense, the only team I could see us having trouble with is Michigan.
You of all people shouldn't be pointing fingers...
You of all people shouldn't be pointing fingers...
This post was edited on 11/15/16 at 11:34 pm
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:32 pm to RebelTheBear
No the teams that lose aren't even dropping out of the Top 4
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:34 pm to BugaPainTrain7
There is some serious Bama fatigue in this nation right now. They want teams that have the best chance to beat Bama. I don't blame them at all. I would like to see Lamar Jackson play against our defense though. There is some Big 10 favoritism going on for sure though.
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:35 pm to BugaPainTrain7
Sounds like your agenda is that LSU should be allowed to lose 3 games with immunity and therefore is somehow better than a couple of 1-loss teams who both beat one of the teams (Wisconsin) that LSU lost to. Those teams ranked in the top four have resumes that are substantially better than all teams ranked behind them. The committee has it right at this point. The top four will change some after Dec 3rd. But LSU will not be in the conversation.
This post was edited on 11/16/16 at 12:34 am
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:36 pm to BugaPainTrain7
quote:
Corndog Fan
quote:
Bias
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:38 pm to BugaPainTrain7
Those are the the 5 best records in football.
A loss is a loss, but at this point most teams have more than 1. You don't drop because you lose a game, you drop because your record is now worse than X number of teams.
IN Clemson and Michigan's case X is a very small number.
A loss is a loss, but at this point most teams have more than 1. You don't drop because you lose a game, you drop because your record is now worse than X number of teams.
IN Clemson and Michigan's case X is a very small number.
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:38 pm to TidalSurge1
I don't think LSU deserves to be in CFP, I'm just saying if we were to play those teams I believe we would beat them. LSU has lost 3 games by a combined 17 points, those coming to #1, #7 on the road and #15 on the road
Two of those games we had Les Miles as our coach.
Just pointing things out, it trying to push an agenda. Simmer down Nancy.
Two of those games we had Les Miles as our coach.
Just pointing things out, it trying to push an agenda. Simmer down Nancy.
This post was edited on 11/15/16 at 11:40 pm
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:44 pm to BugaPainTrain7
This season has been complete chaos. Some teams are punished severely for a loss while others don't get punished at all and I'm talking teams with the same records that have lost to better teams not just those at the very top. I don't think any of the polls know what the frick to do with this season and none of them have much of grasp of the top 25 but the CFP has come the closest to it while still being a bit flawed.
I don't think there's any agenda though, just a very chaotic year.
I don't think there's any agenda though, just a very chaotic year.
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:45 pm to BugaPainTrain7
Yes I think LSU would beat Ohio St, Michigan, and Clemson at a neutral site. I'd love to be able to see it. We Bama people don't hate you LSU people. We never have. Even in 2000-2007 we never hated y'all.
Posted on 11/15/16 at 11:56 pm to BugaPainTrain7
I agree that LSU is a better team than now than they were when they lost to Wisc and AU. I also think the improved LSU would beat AU and might beat Wisconsin (who has also improved on offense). Unfortunately, LSU lost a couple of games it probably wouldn't have, if Les hadn't been too dam stubborn to make the changes he was warned he needed to make. But it is what it is. Those losses happened. Can't be undone. However, If LSU wins out and beats OU in the Sugar Bowl they'll finish highly ranked. Hopefully, LSU will hire a good HC that'll enable LSU to be as successful as we both know they can be going forward. I hope they do.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 12:02 am to TidalSurge1
quote:
and might beat Wisconsin
Ironically, LSU would have beat Wisconsin the first time if Les Miles had run the ball in field goal range on the final drive instead of letting Brandon Harris throw the game sealing interception (go figure)
Posted on 11/16/16 at 12:04 am to BugaPainTrain7
You should've studied for your mid term instead of posting here all the time.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 12:07 am to Prof
Teams aren't punished when they lose nor do they necessarily have to drop some prescribed number of spots. Sometimes a team wins and drops in the rankings. It's not that they were punished for winning. It's simply that one or more other teams got wins that warranted those teams leapfrogging past them. A team can lose and not drop if there's no other team(s) with resume(s) better than theirs. Why is that so friggin hard for so many fans, and even some professional analysts, to understand?
The AP poll tends to overreact sometimes when a team loses. Then the team works its way back as it wins and the loss ages. The CFP Rankings committe does a much better job of ranking teams, based on their resumes.
The AP poll tends to overreact sometimes when a team loses. Then the team works its way back as it wins and the loss ages. The CFP Rankings committe does a much better job of ranking teams, based on their resumes.
This post was edited on 11/16/16 at 12:19 am
Posted on 11/16/16 at 12:10 am to BugaPainTrain7
quote:
Seems like certain teams can lose with total immunity, it's almost like they've made up their minds already as to who they want in the playoffs.
The only team that deserves to be up there is Alabama and maaaaaaybe Michigan. I also believe that LSU would be the majority of teams in the top 6. Except Alabama of course and possibly Michigan. Sorry I'm bias towards the SEC
I'm honestly not sure why so many people are in an uproar about this. While the CFP committee could stand to be a little more nuanced, these rankings are pretty much what you'd get with the old system of rankings, and the top 6 are pretty close to what the AP and Coaches polls currently have (with Wisky exchanged for Washington.) What they have in common isn't exactly complicated -- the top 6 are all in major conferences and have the best records in CFB. Most of them didn't drop far after losing because, 1) they still have the best records; and 2) they were lucky enough to lose during a slaughterhouse weekend for top-ranked teams. They didn't lose with total impunity ("immunity" works too, I guess) because their losses had to be taken in context when talking about rankings. A team doesn't just drop 10 spots in a void...those 10 spots have to be filled with other teams.
As I said before, the CFP committee could be a bit more nuanced, but there's really no irrefutable argument for ranking most of the teams below the top 6 above them. You're looking at 6 of the most successful non-directional schools in the country. And, as the CFB playoff committee has made a point of demonstrating in the past, the rankings will sort themselves out week-to-week. One of OSU and UM will be eliminated shortly. Clemson and UL don't play again, if I'm recalling correctly, but there's no reason why the final rankings can't move a Pac-12 winner UDub (assuming they win out) over a team that doesn't have that extra game (UL in this case.) And so forth. I just don't get why people are treating the top 6 as being massively controversial rather than generically rewarding W/L records. Deserving or no, it's not exactly hard to see what's happening with these rankings, and why.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 12:17 am to SammyTiger
quote:
Those are the the 5 best records in football.
If we choose to ignore western michigan.
Posted on 11/16/16 at 12:21 am to randomways
Yep. But it's not just W/L record. It's who you beat and who you lost to. Resume is a better term to use than record. It's about ranking the teams based on their resumes. And that's how it should be. It will work itself out by the end and the four teams with the best resumes will get in, giving consideration to tiebreakers such as, head-to-head, CGs, etc. as needed.
This post was edited on 11/16/16 at 12:30 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News