CFB Selection Committee Rankings (Updated 11/11)

[Enhance]

Anyone else thought about trying to make the playoff again next year?? We have the same horrible schedule in conference. Out of conference isn't any better except Miami might get more respect next year and we play at their place. SMFH.

There's no better time to win than the here and now. Building for the future doesn't always work.

 

Trust me, I'm a Cubs fan.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Our local sports columnist had a good idea this morning. Scrap the Selection Committee and let a half-dozen Vegas oddsmakers choose the four best teams in the three best games to end the season.

 

Nobody else watches more teams more closely and with more on the line. Nobody else knows variables, injuries and past histories better. Nobody else is cold-blooded enough to jettison all loyalties, predjudices and personal agendas, because their job allows for zero sentiment. And most important, nobody knows better what draws the action in college football. Nobody really argues with Vegas, who simply invites you to prove them wrong.

 

And because the mere concept would horrify the NCAA, that proves it's a great idea.

 

 

 

I'd like to think Nebraska could beat many/some/all of the teams ranked ahead of us and I'm semi-outraged that a team with three losses is nipping at our heels.

 

But imagine the Huskers in a match-up against any of the Top 25 teams, and you're required to put a large sum of your own money on the game. Are you as sure of the outcome as you are on a message board?

[QMany]

But imagine the Huskers in a match-up against any of the Top 25 teams, and you're required to put a large sum of your own money on the game. Are you as sure of the outcome as you are on a message board?

Neutral site, there are a few teams ahead of us where I would gladly put down money (probably #10-15).

[admo]

We got a lot in front of us, including a shot at a Big Ten title. Who knows how it will all shake out but a win this weekend should be a great thing for Husker Nation regardless of what the committee decides to do with it. I think we've still got to appreciate this season for what it has been and still could be and not get too wrapped up in some of the things we can't control. Beating Wisconsin would be badass, especially in their house. I hope we lay it on thick.

 

I agree. Good post.

 

 

Yea as the season has progressed we've kind of continually raised the bar of expectations, which is fine, but we shouldn't at the same time lose the appreciation for what we have accomplished.

 

That Miami win at night was badass. Illinois got put down like a lightweight. A Northwestern team that usually gives us hell, didn't give us hell. We were down and out against a highly ranked MSU team until a freshman phenom at punt returner named Pierson-El put a spark in this team...AGAIN. Westerkamp has some highlight reel catches. We've had a RB in the Heisman conversation for a majority of the season. We have one loss and a very good chance at ending the regular season with that single loss. We have a good shot at contending for the title again this year.

 

Not saying dreams of a playoff spot are ridiculous, but it just might be out of reach this year. We got plenty to be happy about though. I hope Saturday goes really well for Nebraska and we don't all of a sudden forget some of the good things.

 

Absolutely agree again. Another real good post. You're on fire playa

[True2tRA]

Thanks.

[Landlord]

 

SMH, absolutely no justification for having basically a gauntlet of two loss teams jump us.. freakin nearly have a seriously over ranked 3 loss LSU team about ready to jump us..it's pathetic

 

 

There is plenty of justification for all of those teams being ahead of us. They've all beat good teams.

 

 

 

 

 

No, we probably aren't as good as those top 4-6 teams. But, I believe we could belong in the top ten. I say that because I really don't believe there are dominant teams anywhere in the country this year. All teams have something they struggle with.

 

GBR!!!!!!

 

 

 

And we will be, when it matters, if we deserve it.

[hskrpwr13]

Haven't read through the last few days but here are my thoughts on the drop.

 

 

I've been on this board for about 7 years, and every single year I hear (and voice my own) complaints about pre-season polls, how they are unfair, how they set up an innate benefit of the doubt for certain teams and should be done away with.

 

Then we finally get a system where the rankings committee looks at each week as a brand new fresh slate, independent of previous rankings, and everyone gets pissed and loses it. It's slightly understandable, because I don't think we have trained ourselves to think of the rankings on their own terms yet (I've seen a few comments in the thread about "rising and falling", which implies progress from a previous position, and also about "starting off in a better spot next year", as if that early ranking means anything anymore. Personally I think this playoff committee is a breath of seriously fresh air.

 

Sure, it "hurts" Nebraska for one week (even though it doesn't, really), but it's the right way to do things. If we win this weekend, we will likely jump some of those 7 loss teams, because at that point we will have given more evidence that we are actually a good football team and not just the recipients of a schedule playing deaf and blind schools. Would we beat some of the teams ranked in front of us? Probably. But right now, in week 10, that's not what matters.

 

What matters is that every single one of those teams has put some kind of tangible visible evidence on the field of being a good football team by beating someone legitimate and we haven't. YET. We will get our shot and our spot in the rankings will reflect what we do with that shot.

 

Ohio State has beat Michigan State.

Auburn has beat Kansas State, LSU, and Ole Miss.

Ole Miss has beat Alabama.

UCLA has beat Arizona State and Arizona.

Michigan State has beat us.

Kansas State has beat Oklahoma.

Arizona has beat Oregon.

Georgia has beat Clemson.

 

 

We have beat Miami, who is not ranked, but after this weekend will be if they beat Florida State, and if we win that will be another ranked win, and our spot in the polls will take care of itself.

 

This is literally what we have been asking for for years you guys.

 

Landlord, the "problem" is that the critical thinking stops with the results you mentioned. As much as we hoped it would be different (and I'll admit the committee is probably better than the AP/coaches), the same fallacy exists: The committee is basing their rankings on pre-conceived ideas about team/conference strength (based on past years' performances and possibly recruiting rankings.

 

I also am getting the impression that quality wins matter disproportionally more than bad losses.

 

Using the results you posted:

Ohio State has beat Michigan State. (MSU has no major out of conference win)

Auburn has beat Kansas State, LSU, and Ole Miss. (These teams that Auburn beat have 2 decent out of conference wins between the 3..LSU over Wisconsin and Ole Miss over Boise St.)

Ole Miss has beat Alabama. (Alabama has no major out of conference win)

UCLA has beat Arizona State and Arizona. (ASU has a quality win over ND out of conference, Arizona doesnt.)

Michigan State has beat us. (Agree that they should be ranked ahead of us due to beating us and their losses are considered quality based on the number in front of those teams' names.)

Kansas State has beat Oklahoma. (OU has no major out of conference win)

Arizona has beat Oregon. (Oregon has quality win against MSU)

Georgia has beat Clemson. (Clemson has no quality win)

 

So in essence, other than the Big12 beating each other, there only "quality" win out of conference is against Minnesota. Are you able to explain to me what criteria is being used to determine why the Big12 strength is believed to be so much better than say the B1G and ACC?

 

Also, are we really going to consider the SEC West as a juggernaut off of wins over Kansas St (see Big12 argument), Boise St (quality win due BSU record and them beating 1-loss CSU), and Wisconsin (this could go either way in terms of how quality of win this is) ? That's not enough for me to consider Miss St and Alabama as better than most everyone else. And this doesn't even take into consideration any losses.

Georgia's the only SEC East team with what could be considered a quality win (Clemson), however, there 2 losses were "bad". Compare that to NU, who has a close in quality win as Clemson (Miami), but doesn't have "bad" losses on their resume. Not sure how Georgia is considered better than NU based on schedule results.

 

The ACC's major out of conference win? All I can think of is FSU over Notre Dame.

 

I'll gvie the Pac12 their due because of the collective quality of some their out of conference wins.

 

In a nutshell, this is why people like me aren't necessarily satisfied with the committee's output so far. It looks to be similarly based on the same types of things that we didn't like about the previous way of polling. Perhpas the end result will be considered good, but I do feel like that's generally the way many felt about the final, pre-bowl, BCS poll results.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Haven't read through the last few days but here are my thoughts on the drop.

 

 

I've been on this board for about 7 years, and every single year I hear (and voice my own) complaints about pre-season polls, how they are unfair, how they set up an innate benefit of the doubt for certain teams and should be done away with.

 

Then we finally get a system where the rankings committee looks at each week as a brand new fresh slate, independent of previous rankings, and everyone gets pissed and loses it. It's slightly understandable, because I don't think we have trained ourselves to think of the rankings on their own terms yet (I've seen a few comments in the thread about "rising and falling", which implies progress from a previous position, and also about "starting off in a better spot next year", as if that early ranking means anything anymore. Personally I think this playoff committee is a breath of seriously fresh air.

 

Sure, it "hurts" Nebraska for one week (even though it doesn't, really), but it's the right way to do things. If we win this weekend, we will likely jump some of those 7 loss teams, because at that point we will have given more evidence that we are actually a good football team and not just the recipients of a schedule playing deaf and blind schools. Would we beat some of the teams ranked in front of us? Probably. But right now, in week 10, that's not what matters.

 

What matters is that every single one of those teams has put some kind of tangible visible evidence on the field of being a good football team by beating someone legitimate and we haven't. YET. We will get our shot and our spot in the rankings will reflect what we do with that shot.

 

Ohio State has beat Michigan State.

Auburn has beat Kansas State, LSU, and Ole Miss.

Ole Miss has beat Alabama.

UCLA has beat Arizona State and Arizona.

Michigan State has beat us.

Kansas State has beat Oklahoma.

Arizona has beat Oregon.

Georgia has beat Clemson.

 

 

We have beat Miami, who is not ranked, but after this weekend will be if they beat Florida State, and if we win that will be another ranked win, and our spot in the polls will take care of itself.

 

This is literally what we have been asking for for years you guys.

 

Landlord, the "problem" is that the critical thinking stops with the results you mentioned. As much as we hoped it would be different (and I'll admit the committee is probably better than the AP/coaches), the same fallacy exists: The committee is basing their rankings on pre-conceived ideas about team/conference strength (based on past years' performances and possibly recruiting rankings.

 

I also am getting the impression that quality wins matter disproportionally more than bad losses.

 

Using the results you posted:

Ohio State has beat Michigan State. (MSU has no major out of conference win)

Auburn has beat Kansas State, LSU, and Ole Miss. (These teams that Auburn beat have 2 decent out of conference wins between the 3..LSU over Wisconsin and Ole Miss over Boise St.)

Ole Miss has beat Alabama. (Alabama has no major out of conference win)

UCLA has beat Arizona State and Arizona. (ASU has a quality win over ND out of conference, Arizona doesnt.)

Michigan State has beat us. (Agree that they should be ranked ahead of us due to beating us and their losses are considered quality based on the number in front of those teams' names.)

Kansas State has beat Oklahoma. (OU has no major out of conference win)

Arizona has beat Oregon. (Oregon has quality win against MSU)

Georgia has beat Clemson. (Clemson has no quality win)

 

So in essence, other than the Big12 beating each other, there only "quality" win out of conference is against Minnesota. Are you able to explain to me what criteria is being used to determine why the Big12 strength is believed to be so much better than say the B1G and ACC?

 

Also, are we really going to consider the SEC West as a juggernaut off of wins over Kansas St (see Big12 argument), Boise St (quality win due BSU record and them beating 1-loss CSU), and Wisconsin (this could go either way in terms of how quality of win this is) ? That's not enough for me to consider Miss St and Alabama as better than most everyone else. And this doesn't even take into consideration any losses.

Georgia's the only SEC East team with what could be considered a quality win (Clemson), however, there 2 losses were "bad". Compare that to NU, who has a close in quality win as Clemson (Miami), but doesn't have "bad" losses on their resume. Not sure how Georgia is considered better than NU based on schedule results.

 

The ACC's major out of conference win? All I can think of is FSU over Notre Dame.

 

I'll gvie the Pac12 their due because of the collective quality of some their out of conference wins.

 

In a nutshell, this is why people like me aren't necessarily satisfied with the committee's output so far. It looks to be similarly based on the same types of things that we didn't like about the previous way of polling. Perhpas the end result will be considered good, but I do feel like that's generally the way many felt about the final, pre-bowl, BCS poll results.

 

All very good points.

 

I have problem with the idea that some teams have "quality wins" so they are obviously placed better than teams that aren't perceived to have "quality wins" even though they have the same record.

 

These schedules are put in place years in advance. There is no way anyone can tell right now who is going to be considered a "quality win" 4-8 years from now when some of these games are announced. Programs change. Coaches change. Players change.

 

HOWEVER, if we are going to put so much weight on who has "quality wins" and who doesn't, there are some teams that have a way better chance of impressing everyone simply because of their schedule even before the season starts.

 

And, let's look how these "quality wins" are discussed. OK. we have a quality win over Miami. Does that mean we would be able to beat FSU which is probably the best team in their conference? Let's say instead of Miami, we played Georgia, South Carolina, Misouri...etc. If we beat them, does that mean we would be able to beat the top teams in their conferences?

 

Now, let's say we had Miami scheduled and all of a sudden last year, they fire their coach and go winless this year. Does that make us any worse than we are this year as a team?

 

Figure out who wins conferences, put those teams together in the playoffs and see who wins. This would lead to more conference pride and people rooting for their conferences.

[Stumpy1]

I don't think we get in the playoffs but will land one of the New Years Bowls and will play a top 10 team. What we do in that game will have an impact next year on the committee when it comes to ranking us and giving us the benefit of the doubt.

[admo]

 

Haven't read through the last few days but here are my thoughts on the drop.

 

 

I've been on this board for about 7 years, and every single year I hear (and voice my own) complaints about pre-season polls, how they are unfair, how they set up an innate benefit of the doubt for certain teams and should be done away with.

 

Then we finally get a system where the rankings committee looks at each week as a brand new fresh slate, independent of previous rankings, and everyone gets pissed and loses it. It's slightly understandable, because I don't think we have trained ourselves to think of the rankings on their own terms yet (I've seen a few comments in the thread about "rising and falling", which implies progress from a previous position, and also about "starting off in a better spot next year", as if that early ranking means anything anymore. Personally I think this playoff committee is a breath of seriously fresh air.

 

Sure, it "hurts" Nebraska for one week (even though it doesn't, really), but it's the right way to do things. If we win this weekend, we will likely jump some of those 7 loss teams, because at that point we will have given more evidence that we are actually a good football team and not just the recipients of a schedule playing deaf and blind schools. Would we beat some of the teams ranked in front of us? Probably. But right now, in week 10, that's not what matters.

 

What matters is that every single one of those teams has put some kind of tangible visible evidence on the field of being a good football team by beating someone legitimate and we haven't. YET. We will get our shot and our spot in the rankings will reflect what we do with that shot.

 

Ohio State has beat Michigan State.

Auburn has beat Kansas State, LSU, and Ole Miss.

Ole Miss has beat Alabama.

UCLA has beat Arizona State and Arizona.

Michigan State has beat us.

Kansas State has beat Oklahoma.

Arizona has beat Oregon.

Georgia has beat Clemson.

 

 

We have beat Miami, who is not ranked, but after this weekend will be if they beat Florida State, and if we win that will be another ranked win, and our spot in the polls will take care of itself.

 

This is literally what we have been asking for for years you guys.

 

Landlord, the "problem" is that the critical thinking stops with the results you mentioned. As much as we hoped it would be different (and I'll admit the committee is probably better than the AP/coaches), the same fallacy exists: The committee is basing their rankings on pre-conceived ideas about team/conference strength (based on past years' performances and possibly recruiting rankings.

 

I also am getting the impression that quality wins matter disproportionally more than bad losses.

 

Using the results you posted:

Ohio State has beat Michigan State. (MSU has no major out of conference win)

Auburn has beat Kansas State, LSU, and Ole Miss. (These teams that Auburn beat have 2 decent out of conference wins between the 3..LSU over Wisconsin and Ole Miss over Boise St.)

Ole Miss has beat Alabama. (Alabama has no major out of conference win)

UCLA has beat Arizona State and Arizona. (ASU has a quality win over ND out of conference, Arizona doesnt.)

Michigan State has beat us. (Agree that they should be ranked ahead of us due to beating us and their losses are considered quality based on the number in front of those teams' names.)

Kansas State has beat Oklahoma. (OU has no major out of conference win)

Arizona has beat Oregon. (Oregon has quality win against MSU)

Georgia has beat Clemson. (Clemson has no quality win)

 

So in essence, other than the Big12 beating each other, there only "quality" win out of conference is against Minnesota. Are you able to explain to me what criteria is being used to determine why the Big12 strength is believed to be so much better than say the B1G and ACC?

 

Also, are we really going to consider the SEC West as a juggernaut off of wins over Kansas St (see Big12 argument), Boise St (quality win due BSU record and them beating 1-loss CSU), and Wisconsin (this could go either way in terms of how quality of win this is) ? That's not enough for me to consider Miss St and Alabama as better than most everyone else. And this doesn't even take into consideration any losses.

Georgia's the only SEC East team with what could be considered a quality win (Clemson), however, there 2 losses were "bad". Compare that to NU, who has a close in quality win as Clemson (Miami), but doesn't have "bad" losses on their resume. Not sure how Georgia is considered better than NU based on schedule results.

 

The ACC's major out of conference win? All I can think of is FSU over Notre Dame.

 

I'll gvie the Pac12 their due because of the collective quality of some their out of conference wins.

 

In a nutshell, this is why people like me aren't necessarily satisfied with the committee's output so far. It looks to be similarly based on the same types of things that we didn't like about the previous way of polling. Perhpas the end result will be considered good, but I do feel like that's generally the way many felt about the final, pre-bowl, BCS poll results.

 

I favor the committee process. The main reason I appreciate it is that it is no longer 1 vs 2 for the national championship, with a possible case being made that team number 3 got jipped out of the game. No one ever argues that the 4th or 5th ranked team in the country should play for a championship. But now we are looking at the four best teams decided by a committee to play for all the marbles and earn a championship. This is THE most important job the committee has to get right. And I believe the human element is able to take into consideration from tough game decisions by a coach, to how a team fights back without a key player against an opponent that is similar to them talent wise, or even unfortunate weather conditions. Computers in the past can plug in numbers without that, and I'm glad we have football people with football interest involved instead.

 

Arguments can always be made among teams 10-25 but that's missing the point. Spin it anyway to make an argument. But it's not the most important thing in comparison with who plays for a national championship. The top 6-7 teams right now are clearly the best today with a lot of football left to be played and the committee got it right. Watching a lot of football and how teams play is good enough to figure out the top 10 and go from there.

[HUSKERFOREVER38]

Should have kept BCS and top 4 BCS went to playoffs ! We don't need a committee

[Mavric]

Should have kept BCS and top 4 BCS went to playoffs ! We don't need a committee

 

Not sure exactly how the BCS would have it right now but looking at both human polls and Sagarin, Miss St., Florida State and Oregon would definitely be in the top 4 right now with Alabama and TCU battling for the last spot. That sounds pretty familiar.

[Branno]

Should have kept BCS and top 4 BCS went to playoffs ! We don't need a committee

 

[VA Husker Fan]

https://twitter.com/BCSKnowHow

 

Not totally accurate as they use the AP and that was removed from the last couple years of the BCS, but pretty close.

[HUSKERFOREVER38]

What would work best? The "committee" waits until Colorado handles Ucla until ucla has to battle to take out the world beater buffs by 3 in OT hmm