CFB Selection Committee Rankings (Updated 11/11)

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

I guarantee that we will jump at least 7 spots to #9 next Tuesday if we beat Wisconsin.

If we beat Wisconsin on a last second field goal would we jump to #9?

 

Why should beating the 22nd ranked team in a close game make you the 9th best team in the country?

 

Except if we beat Wisconsin they'll just be another unranked team on our resume...

 

UCLA jumped 9 spots by beating unranked Washington

Wisconsin jumped 5 spots by beating unranked Purdue

Georgia jumped 5 spots by beating Kentucky

 

I see no reason why Nebraska won't jump back ahead of 2 loss teams if they beat Wisconsin at Wisconsin, with or without our star RB

[True2tRA]

 

 

 

I guarantee that we will jump at least 7 spots to #9 next Tuesday if we beat Wisconsin.

 

If we beat Wisconsin on a last second field goal would we jump to #9?

Why should beating the 22nd ranked team in a close game make you the 9th best team in the country?

Except if we beat Wisconsin they'll just be another unranked team on our resume...

UCLA jumped 9 spots by beating unranked Washington

Wisconsin jumped 5 spots by beating unranked Purdue

Georgia jumped 5 spots by beating Kentucky

 

I see no reason why Nebraska won't jump back ahead of 2 loss teams if they beat Wisconsin at Wisconsin, with or without our star RB

UCLA jumped 9 spots after Arizona St. and their defense dominated a highly ranked Notre Dame team. An Arizona St. team that UCLA scored 62 points on in a rout.

 

This committee is not just a what have you done lately bunch I don't think. They are looking at the overall resume', but still, in Georgia's case, a well timed ass stomping of a weak team played out well when other ranked teams were either unimpressive or playing each other.

[kchusker_chris]

 

 

 

I guarantee that we will jump at least 7 spots to #9 next Tuesday if we beat Wisconsin.

If we beat Wisconsin on a last second field goal would we jump to #9?

 

Why should beating the 22nd ranked team in a close game make you the 9th best team in the country?

 

Except if we beat Wisconsin they'll just be another unranked team on our resume...

 

UCLA jumped 9 spots by beating unranked Washington

Wisconsin jumped 5 spots by beating unranked Purdue

Georgia jumped 5 spots by beating Kentucky

 

I see no reason why Nebraska won't jump back ahead of 2 loss teams if they beat Wisconsin at Wisconsin, with or without our star RB

 

I don't disagree entirely - all I'm saying is that at the end of the day - we'll still have likely only played a single ranked team - and lost. Minnesota has OSU, Nebraska and Wisconsin. Not going to finish ranked. Wisconsin has Iowa and Minnesota - could squeeze back in there but just barely. Our resume doesn't drastically improve by beating what at the end of the day could be another unranked team. It's not looking good for us. Others will lose, others will win. Looks like even best case scenario puts us in a logjam of a mess that will be the #8-#15 rankings.

[True2tRA]

Here the great thing about that UCLA 9 spot jump. It's a good sign for us too Husker fans because it tells us this. If the committee feels they did not give you proper respect they aren't afraid to look back at your overall history and give you your due.

 

So in our case, say we beat Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa, then destroy Ohio St. in the BTC, it could bode very well for us.

 

Of course, this seems like a huge task and it probably is, so I hope we just take it one game at a time and dominate Wisconsin Saturday. If we don't do that, none of this matters.

[True2tRA]

 

 

 

 

I guarantee that we will jump at least 7 spots to #9 next Tuesday if we beat Wisconsin.

 

If we beat Wisconsin on a last second field goal would we jump to #9?

Why should beating the 22nd ranked team in a close game make you the 9th best team in the country?

Except if we beat Wisconsin they'll just be another unranked team on our resume...

UCLA jumped 9 spots by beating unranked Washington

Wisconsin jumped 5 spots by beating unranked Purdue

Georgia jumped 5 spots by beating Kentucky

 

I see no reason why Nebraska won't jump back ahead of 2 loss teams if they beat Wisconsin at Wisconsin, with or without our star RB

I don't disagree entirely - all I'm saying is that at the end of the day - we'll still have likely only played a single ranked team - and lost. Minnesota has OSU, Nebraska and Wisconsin. Not going to finish ranked. Wisconsin has Iowa and Minnesota - could squeeze back in there but just barely. Our resume doesn't drastically improve by beating what at the end of the day could be another unranked team. It's not looking good for us. Others will lose, others will win. Looks like even best case scenario puts us in a logjam of a mess that will be the #8-#15 rankings.

Yea, in the end I think you're right. It's really an uphill battle.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

And 8 team playoff with each of the 5 power conference winners getting an auto bid and the committee selecting 3 at large teams would have kept this dumpster fire from ever happening.

although i also would prefer an 8 team playoff as you proposed, how is this a dumpster fire? these rankings have been utterly inconsequential thus far.

He thinks Nebraska should be #1.

.

No I think we should be anywhere from #8 to #11 given all the teams ahead of us who lost or barely beat bad teams and think it's sad and messed up that 7 2 loss teams are ahead of us and a 3 loss team 1 slot behind us. Auburn lost to TAMU who lost to BAMA 59-0 but is ranked #9??? We fall 3 spots for beating Purdue by 21 but Wisconsin beats Purdue by only 18 AND moves up 5 spots???

 

The committee isn't going to please everyone, but, they seem to be taking into account the bigger picture overall. For example, yes, Auburn has two losses and just lost to a relatively bad TAMU team. But, they also will play six ranked teams this year. Six. And they've beaten three so far. Crazy things happen every week in college football, but, Auburn's body of work so far is significantly better than Nebraska's, even with two losses. Plus, there's no convincing me that Auburn isn't a better team than Nebraska. Losses alone shouldn't dictate ranking.

 

The Wisconsin thing is a bit perplexing, I will admit. But, overall, I think the committee is doing a good, fair job.

[kchusker_chris]

Yea, in the end I think you're right. It's really an uphill battle.

 

Nice to at least have an outside shot at this point. I think our goals should center around getting to one of the former BCS bowls at this point. With our schedule, we pretty well should have accepted by now that the loss to MSU negated any change we might have had at the playoff.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

 

 

 

I wouldn't care about the 3 at large if we don't win our own conference just let them pick who they want. I think maybe there should be 4 at large and boot ACC out because its not really a power conference.

Yeah that team that hasn't lost in two years sure doesn't deserve to be in there do they?

I thought we weren't using last year's games to talk about how good teams are this year.

They haven't done anything to disqualify themselves this year.......

 

That is not what you would say if this was a FSU board. I could see the argument, sure they haven't lost, but look at how poor and inconsistent their execution is in those wins. Good for them, you are a Husker fan.

[admo]

I think what matters most is the top final six teams and selecting the right four to battle it out. I hope the Huskers win out and have a shot. At the same time I just want to see three really good games. If one of the matchups turns into a 47-13 game, they selected incorrectly. Looking over the top 7 teams and possibly Auburn, I see a fairly strong separation/gap among top the top 7 and the rest of the ranked teams. Even a one loss Miss State that doesn't make the SEC CCG would still be battle tested to compete in the tournament. I don't know the possibility of that unless I investigate and do the math, but I'm just using that as an example.

 

Like others have pointed out already, if we take care of ourselves and win out we will most likely be considered among the discussion. Which I prefer over just computer coding to make that decision.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Yea, in the end I think you're right. It's really an uphill battle.

 

Nice to at least have an outside shot at this point. I think our goals should center around getting to one of the former BCS bowls at this point. With our schedule, we pretty well should have accepted by now that the loss to MSU negated any change we might have had at the playoff.

 

I have no problem with that. However, I also don't have a problem with figuring out if XY and Z happen, we have a shot.

[HTO]

Here's the million dollar question. If the B1G has a 12-1 conference champ left out of the playoffs, will Delany and the B1G do something about the conference schedule?

 

I don't understand why the B1G doesn't force:

1. Nebraska vs Ohio State, first week of October
2. Wisconsin vs Michigan State, second week of October
3. Nebraska vs Michigan State, third week of October
4. Wisconsin vs Ohio State, fourth week of October
5. Nebraska vs Wisconsin, second week of November
6. Michigan State vs Ohio State, second week of November

The above are the 4 teams that have consistently been ranked since we joined the B1G.

 

2014 regular season

Nebraska will face 2 ranked opponents, both B1G, at time of game (3 if Minnesota upsets OSU this weekend)

Wisconsin will face 2 ranked opponents, 1 OOC and 1 B1G, at time of game

Michigan State will face 3 ranked opponents, 1 OOC and 2 B1G, at time of game

Ohio State will face 2 ranked opponents, both B1G, at time of game

 

How anyone can look at the above, minus Michigan State, and find that acceptable needs to explain why. Nebraska is ranked #16 because we have no quality win in the eyes of the committee. Our only loss received a huge kick to the nuts with another double-digit loss to a ranked team. That "quality loss" isn't looking so good, and I wouldn't be surprised if MSU drops another in their last 3 games. Holy heck if that happens...

 

The committee is rewarding teams for playing ranked opponents. We have 1 more shot in the next 3 weeks and if we do beat Wisconsin, it has to be by more than LSU beat them.

 

At time of game, number of ranked opponents

Mississippi State, 5 (6 if they make SECCG)

Oregon, 3, all wins (4 if they make PACCG)

Florida State, 3, all wins (4 is possible if they make ACCCG)

TCU, 4, 3-1 record (maxed out)

Alabama, 5 (6 if they make SECCG)

Arizona State, 6 (7 if they make PACCG)

Baylor, 3 (maxed out)

Ohio State, 2 (3 if they make B1GCG)

Auburn, 6 (7 if they somehow make SECCG)

Ole Miss, 5 (6 if they somehow make SECCG)

UCLA, 3 (4 if they make PACCG)

Michigan State, 3, 1-2 record (maxed out)

Kansas State, 4 (maxed out)

Arizona, 4 (5 if they make PACCG)

Georgia, 4 (5 if they make SECCG)

Nebraska, 2 (3 if Minnesota beats Ohio State and 3 or 4 if the before happens and make B1GCG)

 

How anyone can look at the above and say Nebraska should be higher at this point in time isn't looking at things objectively. We haven't done anything however, that can change with a Miami upset of Florida State, or a Husker win over Wisconsin and a victory over likely over (assumed) top 10 Ohio State.

 

I still stand by a 12-1 B1G champion making the playoffs. Could be wrong, and in a selfish way I hope I am unless it's NU at 12-1 left in the cold. The only reason I would want it to happen is for the B1G to adjust the future schedules and strengthen the top teams. If a 12-1 B1G champ makes the playoffs, I assume Delany will see it as no reason to change things up. Leave a team out and it may just be enough to force change...

 

Thoughts on the above rant?

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

And 8 team playoff with each of the 5 power conference winners getting an auto bid and the committee selecting 3 at large teams would have kept this dumpster fire from ever happening.

although i also would prefer an 8 team playoff as you proposed, how is this a dumpster fire? these rankings have been utterly inconsequential thus far.

He thinks Nebraska should be #1.

.

No I think we should be anywhere from #8 to #11 given all the teams ahead of us who lost or barely beat bad teams and think it's sad and messed up that 7 2 loss teams are ahead of us and a 3 loss team 1 slot behind us. Auburn lost to TAMU who lost to BAMA 59-0 but is ranked #9??? We fall 3 spots for beating Purdue by 21 but Wisconsin beats Purdue by only 18 AND moves up 5 spots???

 

The committee isn't going to please everyone, but, they seem to be taking into account the bigger picture overall. For example, yes, Auburn has two losses and just lost to a relatively bad TAMU team. But, they also will play six ranked teams this year. Six. And they've beaten three so far. Crazy things happen every week in college football, but, Auburn's body of work so far is significantly better than Nebraska's, even with two losses. Plus, there's no convincing me that Auburn isn't a better team than Nebraska. Losses alone shouldn't dictate ranking.

 

The Wisconsin thing is a bit perplexing, I will admit. But, overall, I think the committee is doing a good, fair job.

 

 

This. The committee appears to be studying the teams and games in a way pollsters rarely have time or bandwidth to do.

 

Wisconsin is ranked below Nebraska, but I think a win at Camp Randall is what the committee is waiting for. Some kind of sign that this is a different Bo Pelini team.

 

We will have all of 7 days to do it all over again against Minnesota, which becomes a huge trap game if we're celebrating a Wisconsin win.

 

There may even be backlash against SEC favoritism. I'm sensing a lot of NCAA and broadcast pressure to get the right teams in the Final Four, if not exactly the best teams. They would love it if a Big 10 team made it easier to pick a Big 10 team.

[sd'sker]

This. The committee appears to be studying the teams and games in a way pollsters rarely have time or bandwidth to do.

great points by both of you.

 

but this is one i think should not be lost. we all complained about how much we hated the old poll system because it was just a scale based on the preseason polls.

 

now we have a ranking system that is fluid, seems to start over every week, and considers more than just who you, or the teams around you, most recently beat or lost to, and we are even more upset.

 

through these first 3 weeks, i am actually pretty pleased in the committee and very confident that only teams that earned it will get into the final four, but everyone will have a fair shot (except marshall, which is neither her nor there).

 

i have been pleased with the rankings so far.

[HTO]

 

Wisconsin is ranked below Nebraska, but I think a win at Camp Randall is what the committee is waiting for. Some kind of sign that this is a different Bo Pelini team.

 

Why would the committee hold Nebraska to that standard but not reward Florida State, winners of 25 straight games? I think you may be on to something which may further show the committee isn't holding each team in the same standards which is a bit of a disappointment...

[BigRedBuster]

 

This. The committee appears to be studying the teams and games in a way pollsters rarely have time or bandwidth to do.

great points by both of you.

 

but this is one i think should not be lost. we all complained about how much we hated the old poll system because it was just a scale based on the preseason polls.

 

now we have a ranking system that is fluid, seems to start over every week, and considers more than just who you or the teams around you most recently beat or lost to, and we are even more upset.

 

through these first 3 weeks, i am actually pretty pleased in the committee and very confident that only teams that earned it will get into the final four, but everyone will have a fair shot (except marshall, which is neither her nor there).

 

i have been pleased with the rankings so far.

 

I can go with that. One thing that I keep thinking about, the ONLY purpose for this poll is to get the top 4 teams. Once they have those decided after the season is over, from 5 on down doesn't mean squat.