4
Started By
Message
AP vs CFP Polls
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:21 pm to Landmass
CFP is taking SoS into acccount.
AP does not.
AP does not.
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:28 pm to 3down10
The biggest discrepancy is Notre Dame at 7 places, which I am all for.
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:30 pm to 3down10
quote:
CFP is taking SoS into acccount.
They take into account sometimes and not other times
There is no metric used that isn’t contradicted. There is no metric they use that is consistently applied
This post was edited on 11/4/26 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:31 pm to Landmass
quote:
The biggest discrepancy is Notre Dame at 7 places, which I am all for.
Yep that was good to see.
I'm pleasantly surprised at how much better the CFP was, and it's not just because of Alabama's ranking.
You can see it in the OP that teams with difficult SoS, mostly the SEC which have such, are ranked higher on average while teams with easier schedules are dropping.
The only one I don't understand is Utah, but I guess that's just because they are undefeated.
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:33 pm to ThePoo
It's based on thoughts and feelings instead of the AP which only uses feelings and emotions.
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:33 pm to 3down10
UCLA is also undefeated and has a better SOS than utah so..
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:34 pm to 3down10
quote:
The only one I don't understand is Utah, but I guess that's just because they are undefeated.
They beat the juggernaut that is Arkansas.
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:34 pm to ThePoo
quote:
They take into account sometimes and not other times
There is no metric used that isn’t contradicted. There is no metric they use that is consistent
It's not just one metric that is used. They only cite a certain metric when that metric was the difference and all else was generally equal.
And while I say SoS, it's also not just purely SoS, it's about winning those games as well. But generally teams with equal records the team with the tougher SoS should be ranked higher.
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:36 pm to ThePoo
quote:
UCLA is also undefeated and has a better SOS than utah so..
Yeah I don't really understand the Utah ranking, I would expect them to be lower and below UCLA.
But while UCLA has a tougher schedule, it's not by much.
It's going to change every week, I'm happy with the initial ranks.
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:39 pm to Landmass
The problem is we don’t know what it based on, there is know requirement of transparency, there is no metric formula
So we’re left to speculate and that makes the discrepancies even more noticeable because we are trying to figure out what we aren’t going to be told and every year some metric gets changed or added according to committee which clears nothing up. The fact that there is no distinct year to year backbone to the rankings is a problem because teams and coaches don’t know what is valued and it leaves the rankings to the arbitrary whim of a few selected people in a locked room
So we’re left to speculate and that makes the discrepancies even more noticeable because we are trying to figure out what we aren’t going to be told and every year some metric gets changed or added according to committee which clears nothing up. The fact that there is no distinct year to year backbone to the rankings is a problem because teams and coaches don’t know what is valued and it leaves the rankings to the arbitrary whim of a few selected people in a locked room
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:39 pm to 3down10
quote:
It's not just one metric that is used. They only cite a certain metric when that metric was the difference and all else was generally equal.
And while I say SoS, it's also not just purely SoS, it's about winning those games as well. But generally teams with equal records the team with the tougher SoS should be ranked higher.
So basically, they're just throwing shite against the wall and finding useful ways to explain the mistakes away.
Using ESPN's tool, Ole Miss has a better SOR and SOS than Alabama yet is ranked 5 spots behind them. Same record.
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:40 pm to 3down10
quote:
CFP is taking SoS into acccount
Then why is Utah 3rd
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:40 pm to 3down10
quote:they cite different metrics to justify different rankings, the metrics should be tiered, stated, and definitive
It's not just one metric that is used. They only cite a certain metric when that metric was the difference and all else was generally equal.
This post was edited on 11/4/26 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:43 pm to 3down10
quote:
CFP is taking SoS into acccount.
Then why is indiana 4th? They've played exactly one team that's worth something resembling a shite and lost to them. They've squeaked out 1-possession nail biters against *literally* every other team they've played besides Rutgers (not counting the Howards of the world).
Indiana has zero business being ranked anywhere close to 4.
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:48 pm to ThePoo
quote:
they cite different metrics to justify different rankings, the metrics should be tiered, stated, and definitive
Except they don't.
Again, if a metric is being cited it means all other things are seen as equal, or 1 factor is greater than another.
If records are even, then they obviously aren't going to cite records as a reason. Does that mean records no longer mattered? Of course not. Yet that's what you want to assume for some reason?
If the schedule strengths are equal, are they going to cite SoS? No. Does that mean SoS no longer matters in that comparison? Also no. And it would be dumb to pretend like it didn't matter.
Now you can debate on how much in each area should be considered. Again I think Utah ranking is too high and they didn't put enough SoS into account. But to say those things no longer matter and that only one metric is used is false, lazy and lame.
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:53 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Then why is indiana 4th? They've played exactly one team that's worth something resembling a shite and lost to them. They've squeaked out 1-possession nail biters against *literally* every other team they've played besides Rutgers (not counting the Howards of the world).
Indiana has zero business being ranked anywhere close to 4.
Indiana has the 29th most difficult schedule in college football this year.
They have 3 quality wins and 1 loss to what was a top team.
Just because many of you want to shite and call any non top5 teams as terrible doesn't make it the reality. Especially when schedules consist of a range of teams going all the way to the worse in FBS and even FCS schools.
Many of the teams you think are shitty and amount for nothing just isn't really true and you're merely asking for your own ignorance to be represented in the results.
Michigan for example - not a terrible team, actually above average. They have talent and what not. Sure they aren't national contenders, but they aren't a cake walk either.
I'd rank Indiana a little lower, but to say they've played an easy schedule is false.
Posted on 11/4/26 at 12:57 pm to 3down10
You don’t know, they don’t state all the metrics, they don’t order the metric by importance and that is by design
The metric you stated first, falls apart almost immediately. Can you tell me where SOS falls in the pecking order of metrics for the CFP, because you should be able to in a sane world
Everything about what we think on this is speculative and it has to be because they won’t tell us
The metric you stated first, falls apart almost immediately. Can you tell me where SOS falls in the pecking order of metrics for the CFP, because you should be able to in a sane world
Everything about what we think on this is speculative and it has to be because they won’t tell us
Posted on 11/4/26 at 1:02 pm to ThePoo
quote:
You don’t know, they don’t state all the metrics, they don’t order the metric by importance and that is by design
The metric you stated first, falls apart almost immediately. Can you tell me where SOS falls in the pecking order of metrics for the CFP, because you should be able to in a sane world
Everything about what we think on this is speculative and it has to be because they won’t tell us
I do know because I've written software to rank the teams and have put a lot of thought and effort into coming up with the process to identify what is important and so forth.
I started doing that back in 2007 because I wanted to find out if "BCS Busters" were legit or a product of schedule(this was the answer).
Meanwhile most of the people who complain about the rankings have spent 0 time doing such a thing, cherry pick a few teams they think should be different based on a cherry picked matchup and so forth to complain. They have no real clue or idea on what the philosophy and such should be when ranking them and have trouble seeing or judging team strength at all(and this is why I use power rankings, as I can't watch every game).
That's the reality.
Posted on 11/4/26 at 1:03 pm to 3down10
quote:
Many of the teams you think are shitty and amount for nothing just isn't really true and you're merely asking for your own ignorance to be represented in the results.
I use my eyes and watch them play.
quote:
Michigan for example - not a terrible team, actually above average
Read that again, and then think about the fact that you yourself called this a "quality win".
quote:
I'd rank Indiana a little lower, but to say they've played an easy schedule is false.
Would you trade schedules with them? I would in a heartbeat.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News