Inconsistency with CFP rankings (Mainly how the 4 loss teams are ranked)

Stop trying to make sense of the rankings. You can't.

$$$

quote:

---

Florida loses 2 straight games to end the season and falls 2 spots.

---

And Florida got absolutely worked by FSU. Didn't even score an offensive touchdown.

Tenn should not be ranked.

They fricking suck.

quote:

---

Sometimes a win doesn't count much with the voters as we saw with OSU/PSU.

---

Why is there not a double standard for bad wins? OSU gets the benefit of the doubt against PSU, but OSU doesn't get penalized for playing bad teams close. You can't have it both ways. That is where the "eye test" and subjective reasoning comes into play and generally only benefits the "blue bloods" and media favorites.

You need to get the notion of falling X spots out of your head. It's not the AP poll. They rank teams from scratch every single week.

I'm usually ok with the way the committee has ranked the top 4 or so teams. . .
(You can certainly argue details but it's also not that they rank the Top 4 that differently than the BCS and probably the vast majority of fans.)


However, I completely agree about how inconsistently they rank every team outside the potential playoff contenders.

It seems as though they are very keen to "do more" than the old polls in considering actual quality wins, strength of schedule etc etc when ranking to playoff contenders but just kind of throw that out the window and do about like the AP poll etc once they get past those top few teams.

Pittsburgh is a perfect example and there have been similar examples from every poll they've made so far.


An added irony is that when they rank the top teams based on resume where wins against Top25 foes is so important, it can potentially "filter up" when you don't do such a thorough job on the bottom of the Top25. It's already arbitrary enough that beating team #25 at home seems better than beating #26 on the road.

quote:

---

how the 4 loss teams are ranked

---

why would anyone gives the slightest frick about how the 4-loss teams are ranked?

quote:

---

Sagarin says Pitt's other opponents were not very good. He has Pitt at #29

---

To make my point he also has Tennessee ranked 37th.

Tennessee lost to (2) 6-6 and 1 8-4 unranked teams and both of Pitts unranked losses were to 8-4 teams one which was Miami which Sagarin has ranked 20th.

quote:

---

How in the world is Pitt the lowest ranked 4 loss team?

---

Seriously? The higher Pitt is ranked, the better PSU looks. The higher Pitt is ranked, the less people can scream, "BUT THEY LOST TO PITT ON THE ROAD IN A RIVALRY GAME IN WEEK WHATEVER BY 3!"

No way the committee was going to do anything to make PSU look better.

quote:

---

No way the committee was going to do anything to make PSU look better.

---

I don't believe the conspiracy theories and don't necessarily think Penn St should have been in the playoff.

However, the committee's ranking of some of their opponents is certainly low.

It's already been mentioned how much better Pittsburgh's resume looks compared to the other 4 loss teams.


I would add that Iowa is ranked in both the AP --absurdly above Pitt as well -- and Coaches' Poll.


Not sure how the committee really weighs all the schedules.

However, for the 10,000 times I saw the schedules of Ohio St or Washington vs Penn St posted on this board last week, I'm haven't seen nearly as much about how Penn St actually played six Top25 opponents -- if Iowa is in the Top25 like the AP and Coaches have it -- whereas Ohio St and Washington only played four.