The Confidential

The ACC Sports Blog

Archive for the tag “tiers”

Proposed Changes in Sports #2: Why FSU Should Be #1 By Rule

Everyone has some opinions on what they would like to see change–both in the sports world and outside of it.  For whatever its worth (and it probably is not worth much), there are plenty of changes throughout sports that this author would like to see.  Before we touched on the College Football Playoff reporting issues.  But the rankings needs work also…as Florida State should be #1.  As should ANY team that is the sole undefeated team from a Power 5 conference after 10 games.


OK, with the College Football Playoff Committee’s decision to have Alabama leap over FSU and Oregon based on beating Mississippi State, the Confidential cannot take it any longer.  The goal in football has always been to win 100% of your games.  Always.  Unless you are outside a major conference (see Brigham Young), going undefeated and being the SOLE undefeated team was usually the best way to win a title.  Indeed, if this season were to end under the BCS regime or its predecessors, an undefeated Florida State would be the national champion.

But, by the same token, if Tennessee or Wisconsin or Kansas State or Arizona State did the same thing, they too would be the national champion.  That is and has always been the way it is done.

In light of same, there is absolutely no reason why any one-loss team from a power conference–a dozen weeks into the season–should ever be behind a one-loss team.  None.  The system should reward perfection BEFORE it starts analyzing warts for size, shape, and color.

The rankings as of today should be: (1) Florida State; (2) Alabama; (3) Oregon; and (4) Mississippi State.  It is perplexing that the committee has undefeated Florida State #3.

The excuse is that Florida State has not played anyone.  But Florida State scheduled and beat Oklahoma State and Notre Dame out-of-conference.  What else can the Seminoles do?  They have also beaten Louisville, Clemson, and Miami within conference.  And Florida looms.  Again, what else can the Seminoles do?

In fairness, Alabama tested itself with West Virginia opening week.  The Mountaineers are 6-4 and Oklahoma State is 5-5, with WVU also having won the head-to-head matchup.  Oregon, too, tested itself… beating Michigan State.

The problem is that Oregon lost to Arizona at home.  This is the same Arizona team that lost to Southern Cal, which lost to Boston College.  Oregon walked onto a football field and walked off the loser.  That is something that Florida State has yet to do.

Similarly, Alabama walked off the field at Ole Miss a loser.  Not an embarrassing loss by any stretch.  But not so significant that a team with a perfect record should bow to it.

At this late juncture of the season, the sole undefeated team from a Power 5 conference should be the #1 team.  And this is a change that the Confidential would like to see.



Proposed Changes in Sports #1

Everyone has some opinions on what they would like to see change–both in the sports world and outside of it.  For whatever its worth (and it probably is not worth much), there are plenty of changes throughout sports that this author would like to see.  Here is the first:


Why are there ranked standings for this in November?  As we speak #FSUTWITTER is afire as to how Florida State has dropped from #2 to #3, just by winning its 25th straight game.  Admittedly, the drop makes NO sense.  The team jumping FSU is Oregon, whose signature win was Michigan State, who just lost to Ohio State, who lost to Virginia Tech–the worst team in the ACC Coastal that Florida State currently leads.  The transitive game is risky, but it has to mean something.

My proposed change is that the committee stop releasing actual rankings, and instead just release a top 4, next 6, middle 5, next 5, and last 5 for the first three weeks. To strike a balance between no disclosure and full disclosure, the tiered disclosures would (a) allow some transparency; (b) keep everyone interested, (c) stimulate discussion, (d) encourage speculation as to where teams fit within a tier, and (e) allow the committee to defer having to make actual ranking decisions until teams have played at least 10 games.  Thus, for this week, the committee would issue this alphabetical ranking:

Top 4: Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Oregon

Next 6: Arizona State, Auburn, Baylor, Ohio State, Ole Miss, TCU

Middle 5: Arizona, Georgia, Kansas State, MSU, UCLA

Next 5: Clemson, LSU, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Wisconsin

Last 5: Duke, Georgia Tech, Minnesota, Texas A&M, Utah

This way, the committee would only be indicating a general rank–giving teams a preliminary idea of where they stand.  The top tier would have an idea that the committee seems to like what they have done so far, but no certainty.  And the lack of certainty also adds hope for all teams and fan bases.  And does it really matter right now who is #1?  If #1 or #4 loses, they are in jeopardy.

These rankings mean very little right now because there are so many important games left to play.  In a 12-game season, where the first 4-5 weeks are primarily OOC games, there is little to go by.  Moreover, many top conferences games that fall short of being rivalries (i.e. the slate of games this past Saturday) are played towards the end of the season.

Also, what is the point of having a team at #7, if #7 can leapfrog #4 with a win even if #4 also wins.  And so on.  Why did Arizona State move up to #6  for beating Notre Dame, but Florida State moved down despite beating the same team?  Either beating Notre Dame is impressive or it is not.  That is the problem with rankings.  Each new standings only reveals the weakness in the prior rankings–as the committee seemed to miss the boat.  Only we all know that the committee can only work with what it has at the time.

In March, the committee makes its final decisions in the hours up until the bracket is announced.  The fact that there is any transparency is great.  And, at some point, the committee can and should show its full hand.  The Confidential proposes the third Tuesday of November.  At that point, every team would have at least 10 games played.  That is a fair time to finally put numbers on things.  But in these early weeks of providing guidance, the need for transparency is reduced and the need to know that the committee is only temporarily ranking teams is justified.

Not the most dramatic change ever, but one that this author thinks is appropriate.



Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: