The College Football Playoff rankings thread

[SoCalPat]

Very relevant to warrant its own post.

As we saw last year, the CFP rankings hardly mirrored what the polls had. That speaks well for a team like Utah, which has no FCS wins, a non-con win vs. a P5 and a road win vs. a G5. However, we're coming off two rather meh performances, especially on offense.

I'm predicting a top 4 of Ohio State, Clemson, LSU and TCU. (Baylor is 5th). We'll be no worse than 13th, but I think we could sneak into 12th. Okie State doesn't have the wins or SOS, even being undefeated, to warrant being above Utah just yet.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I can see us above Notre Dame as well. Their best wins are Temple, Navy, and USC. We counter with Michigan, Oregon, Cal, and ASU. In addition to no FCS games, FSU and OSU are our only game against a team with a sub .500 record.

[SoCalPat]

I can see us above Notre Dame as well. Their best wins are Temple, Navy, and USC. We counter with Michigan, Oregon, Cal, and ASU. In addition to no FCS games, FSU and OSU are our only game against a team with a sub .500 record.

Maybe. Notre Dame beat USC (albeit in South Bend), and its only loss a 2-pointer to Clemson in less-than-ideal playing conditions. Temple winning would've been massive for us (and Florida)

[SoCalPat]

Open for dispute and debate, cuz research here is off the cuff ...

1. Ohio State
2. Clemson
3. LSU
4. TCU
5. Iowa
6. Baylor (reversal of what I've said elsewhere -- taking into account QB replacement here, too)
7. Alabama
8. Stanford
9. Notre Dame
10. Oklahoma State
11. Utah
12. Michigan State
13. Florida
14. Memphis
15. Oklahoma
16. Florida State

[DrumNFeather]

Open for dispute and debate, cuz research here is off the cuff ...

1. Ohio State
2. Clemson
3. LSU
4. TCU
5. Iowa
6. Baylor (reversal of what I've said elsewhere -- taking into account QB replacement here, too)
7. Alabama
8. Stanford
9. Notre Dame
10. Oklahoma State
11. Utah
12. Michigan State
13. Florida
14. Memphis
15. Oklahoma
16. Florida State

Iowa seems a bit high - do they have very many noteworthy wins?

Bama/LSU is huge this week.

[SoCalPat]

Iowa seems a bit high - do they have very many noteworthy wins?

Bama/LSU is huge this week.

Three of Iowa's wins are against teams 6-2 or better. Their SOS per Sagarin is also higher than Ohio State's or Michigan State's. I would give them the benefit of the doubt by a spot or two just for being undefeated, because the rest of their schedule is horrible and they're going to have to beat (likely) Ohio State to get into the playoff. This is as absolutely as high as they can get now, even by winning out. They are DOA for the playoffs as a one-loss team, and I expect them to get passed by other one-loss teams in the coming weeks. Even if Bama beats LSU, the latter ain't falling behind Iowa.

[DrumNFeather]

Three of Iowa's wins are against teams 6-2 or better. Their SOS per Sagarin is also higher than Ohio State's or Michigan State's. I would give them the benefit of the doubt by a spot or two just for being undefeated, because the rest of their schedule is horrible and they're going to have to beat (likely) Ohio State to get into the playoff. This is as absolutely as high as they can get now, even by winning out. They are DOA for the playoffs as a one-loss team, and I expect them to get passed by other one-loss teams in the coming weeks. Even if Bama beats LSU, the latter ain't falling behind Iowa.

Makes sense. I see similarities between our programs/coaches. Iowa is one of those teams that is always going to be a tough out, but every so often will jump into the national conversation, but never, ever be terrible as long as Ferentz is there.

[Scratch]

Not sure where else to put this, so I'll put it here.

Who goes to the Rose Bowl if Utah and USC both finish 7-2 in conference and Stanford wins out (beating USC, obviously) to win the P12 title and play in the playoff? I would think Utah gets the spot even though USC won the division, since USC would finish at 9-4 and Utah would be 10-2.

I guess you could run the same hypothetical with UCLA winning out, so Utah and UCLA both finish the regular season at 10-2, with UCLA dropping to 10-3 with a loss to Stanford. I don't think that's very likely for many reasons, but if that did happen then I would be very nervous that UCLA would knock us out.

[Mormon Red Death]

Not sure where else to put this, so I'll put it here.

Who goes to the Rose Bowl if Utah and USC both finish 7-2 in conference and Stanford wins out (beating USC, obviously) to win the P12 title and play in the playoff? I would think Utah gets the spot even though USC won the division, since USC would finish at 9-4 and Utah would be 10-2.

I guess you could run the same hypothetical with UCLA winning out, so Utah and UCLA both finish the regular season at 10-2, with UCLA dropping to 10-3 with a loss to Stanford. I don't think that's very likely for many reasons, but if that did happen then I would be very nervous that UCLA would knock us out.

USC and it would be an easy choice. Besides it would be the playoff committee who decides and they would easily choose usc or ucla over utah

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[chrisrenrut]

USC and it would be an easy choice. Besides it would be the playoff committee who decides and they would easily choose usc or ucla over utah

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

From the Rose Bowl website:

The 102nd Rose Bowl Game will be held on January 1, 2016 at the Rose Bowl Stadium. The game will feature the champion of the Pac-12 and Big Ten Conference. If the Conference champion is selected to participate in the College Football Playoff Semifinal, the Rose Bowl Game will select the next best team in the conference.

"Next best team in the conference" is ambiguous. It doesn't say runner up, so I would imagine there is some flexibility there for them, if they felt the next best team was not the loser of the championship game.

[Redbird]

I saw this article yesterday:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...first-rankings

As one that was fretting about 12-1 Utah needing help, seeing the criteria from the committee makes me more optimistic, considering how competitive the Big XII will be over the next 4 weeks.

[SoCalPat]

From the Rose Bowl website:



"Next best team in the conference" is ambiguous. It doesn't say runner up, so I would imagine there is some flexibility there for them, if they felt the next best team was not the loser of the championship game.

I don't think it's that ambiguous. "Next best" would be the highest ranked team in the CFP rankings. Wouldn't that have to be a 10-2 Utah ahead of a 9-4 USC?

[SoCalPat]

I saw this article yesterday:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...first-rankings

As one that was fretting about 12-1 Utah needing help, seeing the criteria from the committee makes me more optimistic, considering how competitive the Big XII will be over the next 4 weeks.

Exactly. Unlike when we were climbing up the polls and the willy-nillys were encouraging baseless caution, we're in a scenario now where if we just win, a lot will sort itself out. There are many guaranteed built-in losses coming to teams ahead of us in the rankings.

[SeattleUte]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ttom-well&_r=0

[Scratch]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ttom-well&_r=0

That's a great way to look at it, but I doubt that a 1-loss B10 champ gets in over a 1-loss P12 champ.

[concerned]

That's a great way to look at it, but I doubt that a 1-loss B10 champ gets in over a 1-loss P12 champ.

A lot of that will depend on style points in the respective championship games.

[SoCalPat]

Depends on which big10 team had one loss. Ohio state would get in ahead of Utah, but Iowa probably would not.

Negatory. If OSU has one loss, it can only come in the Big 10 title game (meaning it won't win a conference title) or it will come in the regular season, likely to Michigan (whom we beat) or Michigan State (whom Michigan essentially beat). Again, that would likely shut OSU out of the league title game entirely, meaning no conference title and a vastly inferior resume to a Pac-12 champion Utah. We're late enough in the season where any loss by a Big 10 undefeated knocks them out of playoff consideration.

[mUUser]

Not specific to the selection committee, but there were enough skeptics out there when Utah was undefeated and ranked third. It's a difficult uphill battle, and winning out won't be enough IMO. USC was a miserable loss, and our best win this regular season is to a two loss Michigan. I think the loss overshadows the win here. To have a shot, I believe Stanford will have to win out, and win out convincingly, and USC has to win out convincingly. Otherwise, too many will remember how USC batted at us like a tiger playing with a mouse. Beating a highly regarded one loss Stanford in SFO is huge.

[Applejack]

Not specific to the selection committee, but there were enough skeptics out there when Utah was undefeated and ranked third. It's a difficult uphill battle, and winning out won't be enough IMO. USC was a miserable loss, and our best win this regular season is to a two loss Michigan. I think the loss overshadows the win here. To have a shot, I believe Stanford will have to win out, and win out convincingly, and USC has to win out convincingly. Otherwise, too many will remember how USC batted at us like a tiger playing with a mouse. Beating a highly regarded one loss Stanford in SFO is huge.

Usc isn't that bad of a loss. They are vaulting up the rankings and should be ranked next week. The computers think very highly of them (top ten). Plus, that two loss Michigan only has two losses because of a once in a lifetime screw up by their punter and because they had the misfortune of playing Utah. If you are arguing how ​we lost to usc was bad, that I have no argument for.

[Redbird]

Not specific to the selection committee, but there were enough skeptics out there when Utah was undefeated and ranked third. It's a difficult uphill battle, and winning out won't be enough IMO. USC was a miserable loss, and our best win this regular season is to a two loss Michigan. I think the loss overshadows the win here. To have a shot, I believe Stanford will have to win out, and win out convincingly, and USC has to win out convincingly. Otherwise, too many will remember how USC batted at us like a tiger playing with a mouse. Beating a highly regarded one loss Stanford in SFO is huge.

Stanford going into the title game 11-1 and USC winning out would be huge, absolutely. Michigan winning the B1G would be even more huge. But the committee proved to us last year that wins mean more than losses. Alabama's wins got them to #1 at the end of the year. Ohio St's wins (and SOS) got them in over Baylor and TCU despite an early, ugly loss to VaTech.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Utah checks in at #12 in the initial ranking

[DrumNFeather]

Utah checks in at #12 in the initial ranking

Stanford in at #11. A little lower than I thought.

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

[Redbird]

Top 6: Clemson, LSU, Ohio St, Alabama, Notre Dame, Baylor.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...first-rankings

[SoCalPat]

Open for dispute and debate, cuz research here is off the cuff ...

1. Ohio State
2. Clemson
3. LSU
4. TCU
5. Iowa
6. Baylor (reversal of what I've said elsewhere -- taking into account QB replacement here, too)
7. Alabama
8. Stanford
9. Notre Dame
10. Oklahoma State
11. Utah
12. Michigan State
13. Florida
14. Memphis
15. Oklahoma
16. Florida State

Lots of misses here, and by misses, I mean being off by 3 or more spots. My top 3 and bottom 3 are pretty much dead on, but very little consensus in between, save for Baylor and Utah. At first glance, my biggest issue with with Michigan State-Michigan. I think wins delivered from the heavens should be viewed with the same skepticism as routs over unmanned foes -- how are either showing any kind of strength whatsoever? But I really think FSU's loss to Georgia Tech muddles things -- if you're going to peg Michigan State for an extremely unlikely win, don't you have to boost Florida State for suffering an incredibly unlikely loss?

[SoCalPat]

Kind of a fine line. To maintain any credibility, you have to count a win as a win and a loss as a loss.

I think the first ranking is more or less what should be expected from a bunch of football old timers.

Nightmare TV execs CFP Final Four: Utah, Iowa, Baylor, Ole Miss.

[Redbird]

538 gives us an 18% chance of winning the P12 (Stanford 46%, USC 31%) and a 6% chance of finishing in the top 4 (roughly 15th-best odds).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...dictions-work/

[LA Ute]

538 gives us an 18% chance of winning the P12 (Stanford 46%, USC 31%) and a 6% chance of finishing in the top 4 (roughly 15th-best odds).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...dictions-work/

I can live with Stanford winning the PAC-12. USC winning would be painful.

[LA Ute]

Win or lose, USC will beat us for in state recruits. But we can start to win back some of our Stanford losses if they can just manage to lose some more. I had such high hopes after their game against Northwestern.

You're being rational. I am being emotional.

What I'd love most to see is Utah as the PAC-12 champ and those two as also-rans. That's an outcome that appeals to me both rationally and emotionally.

[LA Ute]

I'll sign up for that. Also, when it happens, we embarrass Stanford in the championship game and Shaw has a huge emotional breakdown on the sidelines, going from yelling at refs to yelling at players to shoving an assistant coach and finally leaving in tears at the end without shaking hands with anyone. Is that too much to ask for?

I'd add this: All the Stanford players from Utah tweet that they made a mistake going to Stanford and wish they'd chosen Utah.

[mUUser]

....But we can start to win back some of our Stanford losses if they can just manage to lose some more.....

I think Stanford recruits from a completely different angle. Come play football in the Pac 12, and, in the process, get an education from one of the most prestigious institutions in the world. If the parent is anything like me, I'm telling my kid to get a free ride at Stanford, whether its for football or tiddlywinks.