CFP Likely Rankings Tonight

[Big Orange Bo]

1. Oregon
2. OSU
3. Texas
4. Indiana
5. Penn St.
6. Notre Dame
7. Alabama
8. Georgia
9. Ole Miss
10. Miami
11. Tennessee
12. SMU
13. BYU
14. A&M
15. Colorado/Clemson

 

[Rush2112Sooner]

1. Oregon
2. OSU
3. Texas
4. Indiana
5. Penn St.
6. Notre Dame
7. Alabama
8. Georgia
9. Ole Miss
10. Miami
11. Tennessee
12. SMU
13. BYU
14. A&M
15. Colorado/Clemson

Any prediction that doesn’t follow the proper seeds can’t be taken seriously. (Top 4 the P4 conference champs)

 

[Big Orange Bo]

Any prediction that doesn’t follow the proper seeds can’t be taken seriously. (Top 4 the P4 conference champs)

You forgot to say, "in my opinion". OP plainly states Ranking, not seeding. Thanks for playing. GBO

 

[Rush2112Sooner]

You forgot to say, "in my opinion". OP plainly states Ranking, not seeding. Thanks for playing. GBO

The CFP Playoff uses seedings though. So why not mirror it?

 

[_DC]

Man this some BIG10 biased lol

 

[james_govols]

Man this some BIG10 biased lol

Media wants to reverse the past 25 years and start trying to hype the B1G up.

 

[_DC]

Media wants to reverse the past 25 years and start trying to hype the B1G up.

Isn’t the commissioner the Michigan AD?

 

[KirbAppeal]

These rankings are insane. May as well schedule cake OOC. There’s no point in taking the risk bc the committee cares about how many losses. They don’t care to who unless it’s a H2H. They don’t care who you beat.

 

[Bigwilly64]

These rankings are insane. May as well schedule cake OOC. There’s no point in taking the risk bc the committee cares about how many losses. They don’t care to who unless it’s a H2H. They don’t care who you beat.

At least they got the SEC order right.

 

[Chuck Nasty]

These rankings are insane. May as well schedule cake OOC. There’s no point in taking the risk bc the committee cares about how many losses. They don’t care to who unless it’s a H2H. They don’t care who you beat.

Yup need to go with an objective standard like opponent based efficiency model. Having a committee explain away constantly contradicting logic is never not going to stop being a bad look.

 

[KirbAppeal]

Yup need to go with an objective standard like opponent based efficiency model. Having a committee explain away constantly contradicting logic is never not going to stop being a bad look.

There’s got to be actual metrics that people can look at.. but if they do that there’s no reason for a committee so it’s never going to be done like that.

 

[Chuck Nasty]

There’s got to be actual metrics that people can look at.. but if they do that there’s no reason for a committee so it’s never going to be done like that.

Nothing is going to be perfect but I'd prefer to just have a system where we don't have to hear these idiots spin. As far as efficiency models go, I've always liked this one. Sort of illustrates how challenging this year is though.

 

[james_govols]

Nothing is going to be perfect but I'd prefer to just have a system where we don't have to hear these idiots spin. As far as efficiency models go, I've always liked this one. Sort of illustrates how challenging this year is though.

View attachment 695542