How should they fix College Football Rankings and Playoffs?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

my suggestion:

Do away with pre-season ranks and the AP all together.

50% of the rank should be the COACHES poll, and 50% of the rank should be an objective ELO Chess rank which starts the season with ALL TEAMS BEING EQUAL. Teams are not ranked at all by the Computer until 6 games have been played. The top 16 teams after Conference Championships would go to the playoff, whether or not they end up being a conference champion. If your team is really top 16, the ELO Chess combined with Coaches Poll would show it. If not, don't complain. Play a tougher strength of schedule and win your games.

[Twalli]

AP doesn't actually matter. It doesn't determine the CFP; their rankings seem to be the same as the official rankings because they're good at their job. I don't really pay attention to preseason rankings or early rankings, unless it's a high-profile game. Texas (the preseason #1 team), didn't even make it into the CFP this year. I don't think anyone was saying Indiana would be in the CFP this year, they're the #1 seed. A 12-team playoff is good, as it allows teams that you might not see in huge megaconferences show their stuff. Texas was put through the ringer in their game against ASU last year and nearly lost. Nobody saw that coming.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I actually have an objective ranking system which is a little more complicated than ELO Chess, and it is actually good at predicting the winner of the National Title Game once Conference Championships have been played. I should program it into a computer and use it somehow.

It works like this:

Power = Win% * Scoring% * Yardage%

Final Rating = Power * Avg. Opponent Power

Whoever has the highest Final Rating is number 1, and whoever has the next highest is number 2 and so on.

I've used this system twice to predict the College Football Championship winner once Conference Championships were determined. One year, the system predicted the 2 loss LSU team would win the championship, and they did. Another year, it predicted unbeaten Ohio State would win and they did.

[Twalli]

You need 10+ years of well over 75% success to be accurate.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I've only actually done the calculations twice and got it right both times. I did the calculations by hand on note cards, because I didn't know how to load the data from school's websites back then.

[Twalli]

I'm not saying that it's not that accurate, just that two instances where it was correct isn't enough data to prove your calculations are a good measure.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

it wouldn't need to be completely perfect, just good enough to rank the top 16 teams. They still would have to play the games to win, right...

[OlderAndWiser]

There is no legal way to abolish the AP poll.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Maybe, because of 1st amendment, but just don't count it at all towards official ranking. The NCAA can just ignore the AP.

People can't seriously think Tulane is better than Vanderbilt or Notre Dame, nor can they seriously think James Madison can compete with the other 10 teams in this playoff.

This system as it stands is just garbage. Sure, it's better than the old system, because you pick 12 teams, but the 12 teams that deserve to get in didn't get in.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

3 teams i would not have put in:
Alabama (3 losses)
Tulane
James Madison

2 teams I would have put in:
Notre Dame
Vanderbilt

Not sure who my third team would have been in as a gut check, but it wouldn't have been Tulane or James Madison. Tulane got blew out by an unranked team earlier this year.

[OlderAndWiser]

Two years ago, my team - FSU - was UNDEFEATED and excluded from the poll. You are preaching to the choir.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

ELO Chess would have had them ranked No1 or close to number 1 based on the fact an actual undefeated team is unlikely to not be top 4 or 5 in the country.

I wouldn't use Jeff Sagarin's computer rankings, because his is biased somehow.

[Twalli]

ND not being in it is a serious point of contention, but since Tulane and James Madison won their conference championships, they got in. Plus, their lower rankings are because they aren't Power 4 teams.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Twalli And they are rated lower, despite their records, because of the quality of competition which led to that won-loss record.

[Twalli]

However, that doesn't mean they can't win at a higher level. ASU surprised everyone who watched their game against Texas last year. If ASU was slightly better, Texas would have lost. I'm not saying Tulane and James Madison have any chance at making it past the first round, but they might surprise us. Don't ignore them just because they're playing against a Power 5 in round 1. Teams ranked 1-4 aren't even playing in that round, so they're playing teams that lost during the regular season. If Tulane and James Madison can target their weakness (like Ole Miss did against OU), we might have them in the second round.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

@Twalli Tulane beating Ole Miss would be the biggest win in program history, even bigger than when they beat USC 2 years ago. That would be hilarious to watch though.

I don't give James Madison much chance of an upset. I doubt they score more than 7 to 10 points.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Twalli. And I remember Appalachian State beating Michigan in 2007, but those games are the exceptions. I’m just saying that the level of their competition must be taken into account.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I remember that too, but Appalachian State had won their Division Title 4 consecutive years. They weren't the "cream puffs" Michigan thought they were scheduling 5 years earlier.

[Twalli]

Which is why their overall ranking is lower, but they are conference champions in a 12-team playoff. It'd be boring in all we had was Power 4 teams, and we pretty much do outside of those two.

[Anonymous]

No real intrest in sportsball. Keeps my husband occupied and off me.

[AI Opinion]

Your suggestion is thought-provoking and addresses some of the common criticisms of the current system. Using the Coaches Poll and an ELO Chess ranking starting with equal teams could create a more balanced approach. Waiting until each team has played six games before starting computer rankings would ensure that evaluations are based on actual performance rather than preseason assumptions. Including the top 16 teams in the playoffs regardless of conference championships could provide more competitive matchups and give deserving teams a chance to prove themselves on the field. It's an interesting proposal to consider for enhancing fairness and clarity in college football rankings and playoffs. 🏈

[Anonymous]

I think Athletic Chloe explained it quite well.