College Football "Official" Rankings
I would probably wait 2 weeks before starting the playoff rankings but I get it from a media hype perspective. Here is the first week's list:
- Miss State
- FSU
- Auburn
- Ole Miss
- Oregon
- Alabama
- TCU 6-1
- MSU 7-1
- Kansas State 6-1
- Notre Dame 6-1
- Georgia 6-1
- Arizona 6-1
- Baylor 6-1
- Arizona State 6-1
- Nebraska 7-1
- Ohio State 6-1
- Utah 6-1
- Oklahoma 5-2
- LSU 7-2
- West virginia 6-2
- Clemson 6-2
- UCLA 6-2
- East Carolina 6-1
- Dyuke 6-1
- Louisville 6-2
- Michigan ;) :P
Biggest surprise is ND at #10 with only loss on road to #1/#2ish FSU , in a game they could have won. MSU got blown out vs Oregon for their loss and is ranked higher than ND - ND also beat Purdue and UM by wider margins than MSU so it tells me games vs common opponents dont matter much to the committee.
Ole Miss in over Bama is interesting - says head to head really matters. OSU so low is fun (and behind Nebraska) - they have a bad loss and have not played anyone in the top 25, so SOS does matter which I like.
Of course this will all change in a few weeks esp as the SEC west ravages each other.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:52 PM ^
October 28th, 2014 at 7:54 PM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 1:09 AM ^
are better than the chances of running the table.
In fact, any one-loss Power 5 conference team will have a pretty good shot.
There's a lot of cannibalism involving the PAC-12, which could include Notre Dame with the Irish playing @ASU (& @USC plus home vs Louisville).
In the Big 12, KSU and its opponents will suffer the most cannibalism as it has @TCU and @Baylor on the slate (plus @WVU, @TX), Baylor plays at home vs KSU (plus @OU), while TCU has perhaps the easiest path at home vs KSU (plus @WVU).
Finally, there's a fairly good chance that the SEC will have less than two one-loss or better teams. Would a one-loss OSU get in before a two-loss SEC team? Hmmmn.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:56 PM ^
Ole Miss literally just lost. That is a joke.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:57 PM ^
That's a bias I'm happy that is gone from the older system... Losses later in the season should not mean more than losses earlier in the season. This system equates them and Ole Miss beat Bama head to head thus is ahead. Makes sense to me.
October 28th, 2014 at 8:21 PM ^
I guess but I think Arizona is better than LSU.
October 28th, 2014 at 9:21 PM ^
Progession and regression in a year mean a whole lot. A team can be much better or much worse at the beginning of the year than they turn out to be in the end; seems to me that weighting the later-season games more heavily was one aspect they got right.
October 28th, 2014 at 8:23 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 28th, 2014 at 8:00 PM ^
These rankings are awful.
October 28th, 2014 at 8:10 PM ^
Why not just crown the SEC champion the national champion and be done with it, and return to the old bowl system for everyone else?
Oh, and Arizona #12. RR has to be laughing his ass off at Brandon/Hoke/Michigan.
October 28th, 2014 at 8:20 PM ^
Committe probably saw the Oregon MSU game. Much closer than score would indicate.
October 28th, 2014 at 8:26 PM ^
Considering there is a ton of SEC games to still be played (Bama vs LSU, Ole Miss vs Miss St., Bama vs Auburn, etc) I'm not understanding why people are upset about these rankings. They're based on what has happened so far and so far these rankings are about right (talking about the top 4). I would probably swap Oregon for Ole Miss, but that's it. Teams will move up once SEC teams start to eat each other alive.
October 28th, 2014 at 8:27 PM ^
Hey hey hey heeeeey...So you're saying we've got...No chance???
October 28th, 2014 at 8:34 PM ^
October 28th, 2014 at 8:43 PM ^
I think they did a pretty good job of not buying the hype/pre-season polls. Based on my quick look, they balanced "good losses" with "good wins"
Ole Miss is in over Bama not just head to head but because Bama's best win is over a 6-2 WV team and I'm glad to see they didn't reflexively put Bama in at 4.
Bama, ND and MSU all have similar losses and you could argue that MSU should be over Bama as their best win is over 1-loss and number 15 ranked Nebraska whereas Bama's best win is over 2-loss and 20th ranked WV.
ND is below them all as their best win is over a 3 loss Stanford team.
October 29th, 2014 at 10:33 PM ^
I guess I don't get why they are using "best win" instead of "strength of schedule". Mich State's best win is Nebraska, whereas ND's is Stanford, so I guess kudos to State there. But who is their 2nd best win? Purdue?
ND's SoS is around #20, Mich State's is around #60. As for Alabama, it's top 10.
October 28th, 2014 at 9:11 PM ^
about Herbie "sounding off" on the rankings and that he "was surprised by ND's low ranking." Then you read the article and he agrees with a lot of the rankings, and has ND down because of a lack of good wins.
October 28th, 2014 at 9:19 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 28th, 2014 at 9:31 PM ^
Your point being? You think head-to-head is the sole measuring stick? Maybe Arizona shouldn't have lost to a bad USC team. If Arizona was ranked higher due solely to head to head, the ranking would be a joke.
Oregon - Good out of conference schedule (based on one team but still). best win 1-loss MSU, 2nd best win 2-loss UCLA. only loss was to 1-loss Arizona
Arizona - terrible out of conference schedule. best win at 1-loss Oregon, 2nd best win Cal? only loss was to 3 -loss USC at home.
Resumes aren't remotely close
October 28th, 2014 at 9:54 PM ^
Great rankings, just not sure about FSU at 2. Dont like them and never will! They are 6 on my board, K- state is easily better then FSU. K-state is my sleeper team!
October 28th, 2014 at 9:54 PM ^
October 28th, 2014 at 10:19 PM ^
Certainly an interesting ranking for the top four, but of course I am curious as to how exactly they weight the data they use as well as what data they emphasize. I wouldn't mind for them to be transparent about it, although I don't think they are obligated in anyway to tell us. If it is me, I wouldn't bitch abou t the top four all that much, but the first five or six after that are interesting to me.
October 28th, 2014 at 10:37 PM ^
I know it's early, but I really hope they value conference championships in the final ranking
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 28th, 2014 at 10:56 PM ^
October 29th, 2014 at 1:39 AM ^
Shoulda been:
1 Miss St
2 FSU
3 Auburn
4 Oregon
5 Ole Miss
6 TCU
7 Kansas State
8 Notre Dame
9 Alabama
10 Michigan State
October 29th, 2014 at 5:51 AM ^
Just food for thought - Best wins for each team up thru 1 loss teams. Based on this I think the ranking is pretty solid. Explains Bama behind Oregon and Notre Dame so low. But seems to punish Zona. (that said Zona has not played anyone of value outside of Oregon and USC) Utah should be ranked higher based on this as well; much better wins that Nebraska and OSU.
- Miss State ---- Auburn, LSU
- FSU ----- ND, Clemson
- Auburn ---- Kansas State, LSU
- Ole Miss ---- Alabama
- Oregon ---- MSU, UCLA
- Alabama ---- West Virginia
- TCU 6-1 ---- Oklahoma
- MSU 7-1 ----- Nebraska
- Kansas State 6-1 --- Oklahoma
- Notre Dame 6-1 --- Stanford
- Georgia 6-1 --- Clemson
- Arizona 6-1 --- Oregon
- Baylor 6-1 --- TCU
- Arizona State 6-1 -- Stanford, USC
- Nebraska 7-1 ----- ummm, Miami FL
- Ohio State 6-1 ---- ummm, Navy?
- Utah 6-1 --- USC, UCLA
October 29th, 2014 at 7:33 AM ^
want MSU to beat the Buckeyes in a couple weeks, gotta admit i'll snicker at year's end when assclown Dantonio is left off the final four list.