clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

College Football Playoff rankings open thread

New, 168 comments

It looks to be a status quo 1-4, but drama will unfold in the bottom of the Top 10.

NCAA Football: CFP National Championship-Alabama vs Clemson Mark J. Rebilas-USA TODAY Sports

Let’s be honest: there is no way undefeated teams from the Pac 12, Big Ten, ACC and SEC are going to be snubbed here in Round One. So, let’s focus on the ones most likely to benefit in the case those teams slip: Teams 5-8: Louisville, Ohio State, Texas A&M, and Nebraska

The Mothership has some hype for OSU for No. 5, and given the wins over Oklahoma and Wisconsin, that’s not a bad resume. But, A&M has a stronger SOS, and has looked better against the median teams on its schedule. It just lacks a single marquee win. Louisville’s eye-popping offense has been incredibly, but somewhat stuttered in conference play (including that awful game against Virginia last week,) but as far as eyeballs go, they are a strong contender. Nebraska, meanwhile, almost certainly needs to beat an undefeated Michigan in the B1GCG to make it.

So, while I’d put it the Aggies, Luhvl, Ohio State, Nebraska in that order, the committee is far more likely to bury the Aggies behind Urban Meyer’s no-name youngsters and Petrino’s scoring machine, but ahead of a Nebraska team with the weakest resume.

Here’s the process, in case you forgot (or you’re new to college football and the playoff format/process.) As always, feel free to chime in below in the comments and make your case:

In case you need a refresh: it works a little differently than the AP Poll. Teams don't just slot up or down based on who lost. The whole board is reset each week. Members look at record vs. other ranked teams, record vs. .500-plus teams, and other metrics anew each week, along with The Eyeball Test and whatever else. Teams make jumps that would look random in an overnight poll, but in the context of reevaluating each team's entire schedule, have usually made fair sense.

It's also different from the BCS. There are no computers, other than the ones that serve committee members non-advanced (but still seemingly decent) stats. This is all done by human hand, though the actual process is no more transparent.