The CFP Rankings are a Joke.

Submitted by Maizeblue11 on November 7th, 2017 at 9:55 PM




The CFP Committee has stated that strength of schedule is used to compare teams.

UCF is 8-0 and ranked #18, with a ridiculously easy schedule and only one quality win against Memphis, another team that hasn't played anybody. So clearly a good W/L record is more important in the CFP rankings than quality wins and strength of schedule, right?




The comittee ranks Iowa and Northwestern, both 3-loss teams, #20 and #25 because of their quality wins. So it is apparent that the committee thinks that a team with many losses can be ranked as long as they have enough quality wins, right?




NC State is #23 with two "quality losses", one bad loss, and no quality wins. LSU is #24 with two bad losses, one "quality loss", and one quality win. I've figured it out now. The rankings are just a clusterfuck of bias, hype, and "quality losses", right?





USF (8-1): One bad loss, zero quality wins

Arizona (6-3): Two bad losses, one "quality loss", one quality win, and 4-1 in last 5 games with their breakout QB Khalil Tate.

West Virginia (6-3): Three "quality losses", one quality win.

Toledo (8-1): One "quality loss", zero quality wins.

Boise State (7-2): One "quality loss", one bad loss, and one quality win.

Troy (7-2): One "quality loss", one bad loss, and one quality win (vs. LSU)

Michigan (7-2): One "quality loss", one bad loss, and zero quality wins.


It is ridiculous that this comittee follows such an inconsistent system for ranking teams. There should be a detailed step by step process in which a team is given a total amount of points, then the teams are ranked based on point totals. I also think the rankings would make more sense to everyone if the committee ranked teams without watching any games at all.








November 8th, 2017 at 1:05 AM ^

UCF is undefeated so compared to other undefeated teams, they're ranked way lower because of their SOS.  That seems like the committee is considering SOS as ONE of many factors, as they should.

They curb-stomped a pretty good Memphis team, won @Navy and @Houston which are moderately quality results.  Their metrics are outstanding because they've mostly murderated that weak schedule.  If anything they're underrated. So whatever point you're trying to make about them is invalid.

And yeah, NC State, LSU and Northwestern are all in a jumble of mediocrity but none of those teams you listed as having been left off can make a strong argument for being in ahead of those three, except maybe WVU.  It's splitting hairs down there as you get to the fat part of the distribution, so who cares?

They've done a pretty good job.  There are a lot of factors to consider such that this can't be boiled down to singular criteria like you're trying to do.  If you want a straightforward unbiased method pick any of a large number of formulaic ranking systems (FEI, S&P+, Sagarin, Colley, etc) and tell me those aren't worse at passing a smell test.


November 8th, 2017 at 8:02 AM ^

There are only 2 times rankings matter, the last ranking before the playoff and the one after it's over, I expect we will be on it when everything is said and done. 


Edit: I was a little annoyed we weren't ranked 25 or 24th, I mean we started at 11 got as high as 7, and we are being used as a "Quality win" for state, but we ourselves are not quality enough for ranking at 8-2 comming off a historic run offense night??? They have a lot to sort our it looks like, gear up for rather chaotic mess. I honestly wouldn't mind if the big ten was left out, get the conference better matchups and a dominant bowl run. But that's just me.


November 8th, 2017 at 9:54 AM ^

Until we prove that we can pass the ball we don't meet the eye test.     Our run game wasn't unstoppable against PSU or MSU.  A top 10 team with a quality O and D will beat us unless we can pass.    But to your point, it is only the final rankings that matter.  If we win out we will have proven that we should be ranked.  


November 8th, 2017 at 1:09 AM ^

notice how there isn't a single argument about/mention of the top 17 teams (!!!).

Last year when we were ranked in the top 10 all year, no one even noticed or cared to scrutinize 18-25.

Now this dude way overanalyzed 18-25 and teams that didn't make it, poorly I might add, and claims it has nothing to do with Michigan?

Good one.


November 7th, 2017 at 10:03 PM ^

I think i agree. This is a good post. At the end of the day the rankings are
done to keep people interested. I say just release after all games played just like march madness. Theres know way they actually think Ucf or northwestern are better than some of the unranked teams.

I Like Burgers

November 7th, 2017 at 11:49 PM ^

Most of the complaining in this post and in others is about teams outside of the top 10.  Which really....who cares?  There's still a lot of football left, things will sort themselves out, and if you finish the regular season ranked like 15-25 it kind of doesn't matter anyways.


November 7th, 2017 at 10:09 PM ^

The primary responsibility of the CPF committee is the establish the top four teams for the playoff, with a secondary objective of assigning the NY6 bowl matchups. They could save themselves a lot of hassle by not releasing a Top 25 at all. But, ratings...


November 8th, 2017 at 1:17 AM ^

they're ranking UCF so their viewership will double from barely anything to double that?  If this was about getting a team into the rankings to boost TV attractiveness, we would definitely be ranked.

The rankings show itself is absolutely about ratings and discussion and they have you going on crazy rants, so it worked.  If you think it's dumb/rigged, why are you so worked up about it?


November 7th, 2017 at 10:10 PM ^

They are. But so long as everybody receives a participation trophy I don't see why somebody your age would complain. Imagine being Gen X and having to compete against those older generations on THEIR terms. I know you can't manage but do try. It'll be a good exercise for you.