CFB final six rankings
- Thread starter unihorn
- Start date
It's very odd because if a Michigan would've beat Ohio State they would have got in over oklahoma has a one loss conference champion.
Ohio State's win over Michigan is better than any of Oklahoma's wins.
Oklahoma's defense cant stop anyone in the top four.
Two blowout semi finals Alabama vs Clemson for the championship.
Losing to a team that is 6-6 by over 30 points does not help your cause (Ohio State). Losing to a team that was at the time 6th in the nation by a slim margin, then playing them again when they are 14th and beating them does. Also compare the TCU games (common opponent), and OU beat them worse than Ohio State.
What is so impressive about Michigan's body of work? They lost to ND, beat Western Michigan and SMU at home in other non conference games, and a decent win against Penn St, as it was a down year for Wisconsin and Michigan State. So, maybe they were overrated when Ohio State played them.
As for OU scoring over 50 points in almost every game is pretty impressive, I don't care who you play. Beating an Iowa State team on the road is equivalent to Ohio States win against NW (who lost to Akron and Duke at home and beat nobody of consequence the whole year).
Ohio State beat Oregon State, Rutgers and Tulane, which are nobodies, and OU's win against common opponent TCU is more impressive. The only other good games are Penn St and MSU. I could say that West Virginia is equivalent for OU.
Lastly, OU, had a stronger strength of schedule, which is their overall body of work, as you base it on one game. You could do that with anyone.
All good points. However, before last week Michigan was in. Their resume is no more impressive than Ohio State's. Ohio State beat Michigan and Penn State on the road. Both are better wins than any on Oklahoma's resume.
I have no problem with oklahoma getting in. My only question is that the committee had ranked Michigan ahead of Oklahoma the entire season. Ohio state wins the big 10 with basically the same resume as Michigan and OU jumps ahead of the big ten champ I just find that odd.
Last edited:
Screw it all. UCF should be in as #4....yada yada yada to everything else.
What is odd? OU was in front of Ohio State after they were destroyed by Purdue, and was never behind them. Just because Ohio State beats Michigan, they shouldn't jump in front of OU. They jumped one place behind OU. OU did nothing to lose their position, and Ohio State won to better their position. Again, OU had a better strength of schedule and I will still say Texas and West Virginia are on par with Michigan and Penn St. Proof is that Georgia finished ahead of Ohio State as well. Would you have had a problem if Georgia was put in with 2 losses, and no conference championship?
The whole year, they rank 15 SEC schools in the top 20, so they can get as many into the playoffs at the end of the year. When one loses, they drop them one or two places so they can bring them right back up. You should have a problem with that.
The second problem you should have is that UCF was ranked in the same position week after week, and then Ohio State jumps in front of them. What does UCF have to do to get into the playoff? They finished undefeated last year, and beat Auburn at the end of the year, yet Auburn starts the year in the top 6, and UCF outside the top 20. How does that make sense? At the minimum, UCF should have been ranked ahead of Auburn and ranked so low, they had only a small chance to run the table and end up in the top 4.
Of the three teams up for the final spot I think Oklahoma 9s the weakest. Their defense is terrible. The big12 is weaker than the big 10 or SEC. My problem is that until the last week of the regular season Michigan is number 4. The committee ranked the presumed big 10 champ ahead of Oklahoma. Ohio State beats Michigan and wins the big ten yet Oklahoma is ranked ahead of them. Ohio State has an equal resume to that of Michigan. The committee had made it know Michigan was in as big ten champ. Ohio State wins the big 10 has a resume equal or greater than that of Michigan and gets jumped by Oklahoma. That's what I find odd.
Or perhaps they were ranking Michigan #4 because they felt they were the 4th best team in the country? After getting destroyed by Ohio State, it's fair to assume the voters looked at BOTH those teams and decided just maybe NEITHER are better than OU. It was argued that Georgia should be in because a lot of folks feel they are the 2nd best team (BS), but they do have 2 losses.
Exactly. Also Michigan at the time only had one loss, a close one to ND. Ohio State had been blown out by an unranked Purdue team by 30. They were not better than OU, nor was their strength of schedule.
A 2 loss Georgia team was still considered better than Ohio State, but not better than the Big 12 champion who only loss to the 6th ranked team when they played them and revenged that loss.
Similar threads
