ExcitingAds! bowl-championship-series « WordPress.com Tag Feed
Former BCS computers put Washington at No. 3 entering Pac-12 final,
Washington linebacker Keishawn Bierria (7) and defensive lineman Damion Turpin (66) celebrate a sack against Washington State during the first half Friday in Pullman, Wash.
Washington entered Week 13 of the college football season with the weakest strength of schedule of any Power Five team ranked in the College Football Playoff’s top 25.
It also entered the season’s final stretch with the chance to do something about it, based on the fact its final two opponents before bowl season would be Playoff top 25 teams and thus offered opportunities for quality wins.
That is reflected in this week’s College Football Computer Composite (CFCC) rankings. After beating the CFCC’s then-No. 19 Washington State 45-17 on Friday and partly due to Michigan’s loss Saturday at Ohio State, Washington has reached a season-high No. 3 ranking in the combined formulas of the former Bowl Championship Series computers.
And it was a strong week for the Pac-12 at large, too. Though the Big Ten continues to have four teams in the CFCC top 10, the Pac-12 now has four teams in the top 14.
USC continued its rise from a season-low No. 39 to sit at a season-high No. 7 position, while Colorado also hit a season-high at No. 8 and Stanford rose two spots to No. 14.
Alabama, meanwhile, is a unanimous No. 1 for the fourth consecutive week and Ohio State is a unanimous No. 2 for the second week in a row. In terms of teams contending for Playoff berths, the geometric mean gap between No. 3 Washington and No. 6 Wisconsin is roughly equivalent to the gap between Wisconsin and USC. That suggests that in the computers’ view, the Playoff should be a six-team race for four spots.
Washington is about attention to detail, not attention
The College Football Computer Composite combines five of the computer formulas used in the former BCS standings to remove the human element from college football rankings. It is compiled by taking the geometric mean of rankings formulated by Richard Billingsley, Wes Colley, Ken Massey, Peter Wolfe and Jeff Sagarin.
Among the metrics feeding the CFCC are wins and losses, strength of schedule, home-field advantage, recency of game and, in Massey and Sagarin’s case, margin of victory.
Mississippi State made the biggest overall jump this week after beating Mississippi in the Egg Bowl, rising 14 spots to No. 58. Arkansas State, which lost its first Sun Belt game of the season when it fell 24-19 to Louisiana Lafayette, is the week’s biggest decliner, dropping 15 spots to No. 78.
Updated CFCC rankings are published each week during the season on FootballFour.com and below. Week-by-week rankings for this season can be found here.
(Ask BUCKEYE TUT-HUT-NUT-MUTT pictured ABOVE.)
Four teams, the top four ranked by committee polling at the end of the regular season and conference championship games, will be the only participants in the college football playoffs, a new system to choose a national champion inaugurated in 2014.
The former Bowl Championship Series used to determine a national champion was bitten by controversy year after year until it was abandoned for the CFP.
However, I don’t think they have it right yet!
(Ask Buckeye TUT-HUT-NUT-MUTT, pictured ABOVE.)
Why not take a bigger plunge and use the Top Ten teams for a playoff series? We all love a “Top Ten” in any competition, or subject, for that matter.
It will take more weeks to achieve a ten-team playoff arrangement, since footballers play just once a week due to the grueling demands of the sport. Right now, though, many teams must wait five, or even six, weeks before they play in a bowl game after the regular season, and the newest system hasn’t done anything to change that dilemma. Teams get a little out of snyc waiting weeks on end to play again after their regular season and conference championship games are completed by the first week in December.
In a Top Ten playoff, the first game could be played the following week, keeping teams in rhythm, and the play down could continue for another three weeks, so the championship game would be played at the same time it is currently — the second week in January.
*****
Credit:
Photo from the personal and copyrighted collection of Barbara Anne Helberg.
Jeremy McNichols has been key to Boise State’s ascent to the No. 10 spot in the College Football Computer Composite. ORG XMIT: USATSI-270454 ORIG FILE ID: 20161015_ads_sn7_334.JPG
No one would suggest that teams from the Group of Five conferences would win the Southeastern, Atlantic Coast or Big Ten conferences. But Group of Five teams occupy as many top 10 slots in the updated College Football Computer Composite rankings as each of those three power leagues.
Western Michigan is No. 8 for the second consecutive week and Boise State rose four spots to No. 10 in the latest combined ranking of the former Bowl Championship Series computers.
Western Michigan is 8-0 with a 2-0 record vs. Big Ten opposition. Boise State is 7-0 with a 3-0 record vs. the Pac-12 and BYU. One of those wins game against No. 21 Washington State. Western Michigan and Boise State remain rated better than two other unbeatens: No. 11 West Virginia and No. 16 Baylor.
Three teams remain rated better than any others in the 128-team list, and it’s not very close. Alabama is a unanimous No. 1 for the second consecutive week, and No. 2 Clemson and No. 3 Michigan’s geometric mean ratings are twice as good as No. 4 Texas A&M.
This week’s biggest riser and faller were the result of the same game: SMU rose 23 spots to No. 81 after beating Houston, and Houston fell 18 spots to No. 31.
The College Football Computer Composite combines five of the computer formulas used in the former Bowl Championship Series standings to remove the human element from college football rankings. It is compiled by taking the geometric mean of rankings formulated by Colley, Sagarin, Richard Billingsley, Ken Massey and Peter Wolfe.
Among the metrics feeding the CFCC are wins and losses, strength of schedule, home-field advantage, recency of game and, in Massey and Sagarin’s case, margin of victory.
Updated CFCC rankings are published each week during the season on FootballFour.com and below..
This fourth-quarter touchdown by Tennessee WR Josh Malone put the Vols up by 10 points Saturday.
When the people who make up the College Football Playoff selection committee rank the best in the sport, they a team’s body of work. Computers do the same thing, they just don’t have to talk about it on television.
Bodies of work are why Tennessee, Texas A&M and Wisconsin each jumped at least three spots into the top 10 of this week’s College Football Computer Composite rankings. Tennessee rose three spots to No. 5 after beating Florida on Saturday, Texas A&M rose five to No. 6 after beating Arkansas, and Wisconsin rose four to No. 8 after winning at Michigan State.
All three of Tennessee, A&M and Wisconsin’s Week 4 victims remain among the top 22 teams in this week’s CFCC. Combined, the Vols, Aggies and Badgers have seven wins this season vs. the CFCC top 35.
Firings, rumblings, revivals and what’s next by Football Four
The makeup of the four teams above Tennessee remained unchanged this week, though Stanford edged ahead of Clemson into the No. 3 spot on the strength of its road win vs. UCLA. UCLA is the computers’ highest-ranked two-loss team that does not play in the Southeastern Conference. Two-loss Mississippi, LSU and Auburn all rank among the top 27.
The College Football Computer Composite combines five of the computer formulas used in the former BCS standings to remove the human element from college football rankings. It is compiled by taking the geometric mean of rankings formulated by Richard Billingsley, Wes Colley, Ken Massey, Peter Wolfe and Jeff Sagarin.
Among the metrics feeding the CFCC are wins and losses, strength of schedule, home-field advantage, recency of game and, in Massey and Sagarin’s case, margin of victory.
Updated CFCC rankings are published each week during the season on FootballFour.com and below. Week-by-week rankings for this season can be found here.
Gannett-cdn
