College Football’s Champions Aren’t in Top 4 of the Playoff Rankings. Why?

Why? Maybe because last year's results shouldn't have any impact in this year's rankings? Or because they have looked the worse of any of the top teams, winning by the narrowest of margins to a bad team when UNC failed on a 2 pt try? The only reason to put them in would be based on what last year's team did, not this year's.

Ratings, like a beauty contest, is in the eyes of the beholder. Still no playoffs. Waiting and waiting and waiting......

Perhaps it slipped your notice that Penn State also hammered Wisconsin, the #1 ranked defense in the country? Perhaps you think Clemson doesn't play a cream puff schedule in the ACC with no notable challengers or games? Simple reason for being put 5th? Overrated. That said, at least they didn't schedule a game with Wofford, like Alabama.

"..the toughest test should be Wake Forest.." Enough said.

While there is still Football to be played to even get to that point. I predict O vs U for the PAC-12 title. Utah wins 38-24. I also hope Ohio beats Pen State, and Auburn and LSU beat Alabama.

Rating teams takes in a bunch of factors. Record. Strength of schedule. Performance on the field. And a subjective sense of just how good each team is. As the season wears on, there are fewer and fewer unbeaten teams. And then the nature of any losses has to be factored in. At the very end, conference champions get a boost. People who criticize the BCS usually emphasize one or two factors over the rest. A big issue is the quality of the SEC. Another is the relative strength of the other conferences. I watch a lot of football and I come away with a subjective sense. Clemson is better than 5, but, as noted, that will work itself out. Georgia's loss to South Carolina was an aberration, and when other teams start losing, that loss should count less. Oregon eked by in a lot of its games until USC. They are favored to win out, but they need to play better to make the top 4. Oklahoma has a great offense, But its lapses on defense raise concerns. LSU and Ohio State have it all and have done it all. When you watch games you get a subjective sense. And you know that your sense is imprecise. The BCS, by the end of the season, is much the same. They have watched lots of games. They put out responsible rankings. And almost ever year the controversy comes down to 4 vs. 5. Still, they have always made defensible judgments. I've got no beef with them.

Speculating about which team -- among teams which do not play schedules against the same set of teams! -- is a fool's errand that only has significance for those interested in the profits from so-called "championship" bowl games. And, of course, for those of us who feel passionately about arguing about such things in bars. Players on teams that feel slighted should organize and unionize to get their fair share of professional college sports profits and should refuse to play in bowl games until they get recognition of their status as professional athletes and decent pay and working conditions commensurate with the profits they generate.

I get a bit snarky when it comes to what continues to be the mythical national championship in college football. Part of that is because I'm a Navy grad, and simply don't comprehend that conferences that have football teams like Vanderbilt and Rutgers and Georgia Tech are somehow "better." And part of that is because for all of my lifetime the whole rankings stuff is little more than an exercise in circular reasoning. Take Georgia, for example. The Bulldogs lost to South Carolina in Athens. South Carolina early in the season lost to North Carolina. Clemson squeaked by North Carolina. But Clemson seems to be punished for nearly losing to UNC, while Georgia did fall, but not down to the level of, say, an undefeated Minnesota. This circular reasoning is buoyed by aphorisms like "results matter," and "the eye test." Except sometimes results don't matter, as in Alabama making it to the final four while not winning it's own division in its own conference. We all know that the SEC is the "toughest conference in football." Just because, well, that's what everyone says. Based, I guess, on the "eye test." What kind of eye test does Vanderbilt pass, or Ole Miss? So it's fun to debate, and in the end games are played. But just remember, the "eye test" might say that the losing team on the scoreboard deserves a championship.

It's rightful place in the playoff??? After playing who? Wake Forest? Really, this auto-coronation of teams who play nobody needs to stop. I hope maybe the committee is starting to realize that with its initial placement of Clemson.

As a student attending school at the “other” big university in South Carolina, seeing Clemson at #5 makes me very happy. However, with Penn State and Ohio State set to play each other, and LSU and Alabama set to play each other, Clemson will ultimately be put in the playoffs, barring another big upset by “our” team. Go Gamecocks! (If I haven’t already given which school I go to away)

What Clemson has done in the past doesn't matter, Their incredible defensive line from last year graduated and they have to be judged based on their team this year. Clemson is lucky they are ranked fifth. If North Carolina hadn't decided to go for 2 points instead of kicking for the extra point at the end their game it is likely that the game would have gone into overtime and Clemson would have had a good chance of losing. And we are talking about North Carolina, not a team with winning record. Even though Clemson is in a weak conference, if they win out, which seems very likely, they will no doubt get into the playoff as an undefeated team. At some point I think Clemson will get a chance to show if they are good enough to be national champion again.

A much more viable College Football Championship would expand the 4 teams to 8 teams. All power 5 conference champions would get a spot and the "Committee" would pick 3 wild card teams and still get to seed the 8 teams. A much better package to sell to TV and a much bigger pie for the conferences to split.

Clemson doesn't not play a single Top 20 team, except Auburn. They played Woffard this weekend, (where is Woffard?). That's why they're not in the top four.

Go Tigers!

The SEC is the best conference in college football and LSU has played the tougher non conference schedule out of the CFP top 4. Why is Ohio State ranked above LSU in the initial rankings? We need to move to a top 8 playoff and let the teams battle it out for the championship.

What are the graduation stats for these four FB programs versus the overall average for each school and then for the average among Div 1 FB programs? There’s your measure of Student-athletes.

The committee is a marketing arm of the NCAA. As the writer suggests, it is simply trying to be "provocative" to generate interest (and articles like this). If the committee gave its honest opinion and ranked Alabama and Clemson 1-2 every week, it would be boring to fans. So they throw in a few new names every once in awhile to get people riled up and talking. It's all about the money.

If the committee is going to keep UCF out of the playoff consistently for not playing anyone, Clemson's ACC schedule should be similarly discounted.

Why doesn’t college football go to a Champions League style schedule rather than playing so many non-conference games against lightweights? That is, take say the top 20 teams. Put them into four groups of five. That would make for four competitive, non-conference games between top teams. The top four, six, or eight could play off for the championship.