CFB Four Comes Out Tonight

[GWarner27]

A message about scheduling Rutgers, Idaho, Portland State as your entire non-conference schedule? Probably.

100%

That last part bugs me. When the talking heads all start saying "well that win looks a lot better now." Does it? Or did that team just start playing worse teams? I'll use AU as an example, so grain of salt and everything, but they were a hot mess in September. They were a bad offensive football team. A lot of teams would have beat them. And probably beat them bad. Then they play some lesser teams to get their record better, and now they are top 10. I'm not saying they haven't gotten better, but Clemson and aTm didn't beat the current AU team. If Ole Miss played them in September, they probably win the game. Alabama didn't beat a good USC team. They got better when they changed QBs and started playing the bottom half of the Pac 12. To me it's equivalent to beating a good team without their all-conference QB. Yeah they have a good record and are a quality team, but you didn't beat them when they had their full capability

since the rankings don't count for much right now i think it's all based on the complete resume of your opponents so TAMU is very fortunate to catch an AU team in complete disarray who they'll root for the rest of the year because it makes TAMU look stronger when we all know it was basically a .500 team not a 10-2 team

The current rankings are enough evidence to completely mothball the system or at least remove every dumb ass on that committee

no chance they watch all these games, which is why i consider this format silly

The problem is games are scheduled so many years in advance. This years Nebraska vs Oregon was scheduled in 2013, yet Nebraska get penalised for Oregon falling off a cliff

the message is for scheduling in the future so even if it's not something you can do right away it's still gonna be a point driven home...

I also don't think it's that tough to drop Portland State and negotiate a better game if you think your squad is gonna be a playoff contender

 

[GWarner27]

Most people will be ok with it because most people selfishly want to see the "Big time" matchups of power teams. I think we rob ourselves of the great story in college football by never having a cinderella. We cannot get a "Cubs story" because in our system, the cubs would have been disqualified from competing because they haven't won anything in 100 years. We never get a Villanova or an NCState or a NYGiants or any number of hockey teams over the last decade and a half. We have a tiny little pool of the haves to choose from. It's stupid and unfair to the kids at the other schools who are working just as hard to win each week.

while it may not be fair for crowning a champion, they are trying to make the most money possible with ticket sales and television ad revenue so the cinderella will never make it until they have to. But with that said, does an 8-8 team like that NYG champion even deserve to be in the playoffs? Putting two teams on the field gives each team a 50% chance to win no matter how big of a talent discrepancy there is, so of course the inferior team will win sometimes just because you give them the chance that they really don't deserve

 

[KJ]

Why is Portland State even being brought up? Bring up Rutgers (a power 5 no matter how shitty) and Idaho.

Most everyone else plays a 1-AA team (or whatever they call it now) too, why is Portland State the issue? At least UW played them at the beginning of the season instead of the end.

Shake the hands of USC, UCLA and Notre Dame if you really want to, they never schedule those kinds of programs...and shake NDSU hands as well for making that division relevant.

 

[GWarner27]

Texas never plays FCS

 

[KJ]

Throw them in too, you get the gist...don't know if Stanford or Cal do either, can't recall

 

[GWarner27]

Rutgers hurts but that's scheduled far in advance, also seems like a smart team to schedule cuz you don't get criticized for straying from FBS and you have a nearly automatic victory based on the current team.

The SEC gets a pass on their annual SoCon weekend unfortunately, but as a viewer i'm hoping teams stop doing that cuz the committee steps in and punishes them. That's the one thing they can do

 

[Carolina Guy]

1st sentence - a champion should be decided objectively, not subjectively

2nd sentence - no, they are not

1st sentence - I didn't give an opinion on how it should be done. I gave a fact ito how an individual human being feels.

2nd sentence - unless something changed over night - you are wrong. I'd love an elaboration on why you believe so.

 

[Alan Tongue]

1st sentence - I didn't give an opinion on how it should be done. I gave a fact ito how an individual human being feels.

2nd sentence - unless something changed over night - you are wrong. I'd love an elaboration on why you believe so.

I'm not wrong. It's my job, I know how it works

 

[twinkie13]

I'm not wrong. It's my job, I know how it works

huh?

 

[twinkie13]

is Ohio St gonna jump Wash?

No way huh?

 

[s--k]

I just tried to do my own top 25 rankings. Because it is easy to say "this team shouldn't be here" or "that team is way too low" or whatever. But when you sit down and write it out, it is incredibly hard. I couldn't get past 6 teams. Everyone else has an ugly loss or too few big wins or something. Try and do it if you have time. I'd be interested to see what everyone comes up with. I was thinking well, is Wisconsin #7? That seems wrong in some way to me. Is Auburn #7...I don't know. Utah...the loss at Cal...eh. Penn St? No way. Western Michigan? It's pretty hard to put together a ranking that you can defend every spot and why you put one team where.

1. Alabama 9-0 (beat 7 teams with winning records).


2. Clemson 9-0 (beat 5 teams with winning records in at Auburn, Troy, at GT, LV, at FSU)


3. Michigan 9-0 (beat 4 teams with winning records in Colorado, UCF, Penn St, Wisconsin)


4. Washington 9-0 (beat 3 teams with winning records in Idaho, Stanford, at Utah)


5. Ohio St 8-1 (loss to 7-2 PSU, beat 5 teams with winning records in Tulsa, at OU, Ind, at Wis, Neb)


6. Louisville 8-1 (loss to 9-0 Clemson, beat 1 team with a winning record...5-3 FSU)

I will hold the loss at Penn St against Ohio St more than I would Washington's "weaker" schedule against them. Everyone is entitled to a mulligan close ugly win in my eyes. UW went to OT with Zona. OK. Ohio St won close with Northwestern. OK. Other than the Zona game and a ho-hum 41-17 win over Ore St, UW pounds the people they are supposed to pound. They appear to be a complete team. Ohio St is a complete team as well...but I'm not quick to be in love with wins over Wisconsin or Nebraska as some sort of big deal compared to who Washington has played. Wisconsin = to Stanford? Nebraska = to Oregon (that game was pretty even)? Indiana = to Cal (not in style, but I'm not sure which team would win more if they played 10 times)? Oklahoma = to Utah?

Ohio St has more wins vs teams with winning records, but really I don't think Ohio St has played that much of a tougher schedule and Buckeye's have a loss to a 2 loss team.

Some people might say, Clemson shouldn't be #2 because NC St had that game won. But they didn't. You could say Virginia had that LV game won. Wisconsin had the Ohio St game won. We can evaluate how the games played out, but you have to respect the final outcome. Rick Nuehisal is big on that..."Clemson basically lost to NC St". No they didn't.

I think Clemson, while not looking as good as maybe we would like on a weekly basis, pulling out the FSU and LV wins are incredibly impressive to me.

Michigan's schedule isn't much better than Washington...but Michigan has crushed everyone. Even their closest game vs Wisconsin...wasn't that close in watching it. Badger D did well vs them, but the Wisconsin O had nothing vs that D. Would've like to see how the Colorado game played out if QB didn't get hurt.