Not happy my Huskies got dumped like that. A&M lost by 30 points. We beat a 6th ranked Stanford and destroyed Oregon and beat a very underrated Utah. Although, I'm not totally surprised. It's a total political snub. For nearly a decade while at Boise State, Chris Peterson made it very clear every year his displeasure at how his team's were routinely overlooked by the NCAA bowl committee. So this is their way of paying him back for criticizing them.
While this is obviously a moot point now that A&M lost, couple of caveats to make to this:
1) Stanford was 6th ranked very early in the season, when rankings basically don't matter. Stanford has since been revealed to not be particularly good, and is now properly unranked.
2) Oregon is pretty bad this year.
3) The current College Football Playoff committee has absolutely zip to do with the old BCS rankings and bowl selection. The idea that this is some type of revenge ploy against Chris Peterson makes absolutely no sense since this is a totally different group of people.
I myself had Texas A&M ahead of Washington at #4 two weeks ago, before Washington played Utah.
I do a fresh set of rankings every week, paying no regard to the previous week and not having a system of "move up" or "move down." Like the CFP committee, I look at resume and total body of work. Two weeks ago (Oct. 23), Washington did not have a very impressive total body of work. Their best win was over a pretty mediocre Stanford team. I ranked them at #9, behind then-undefeated Boise State and Baylor, both of which had better wins at the time (WSU and OSU, respectively), and then-one-loss Texas A&M, Louisville and Ohio State, which all had losses to quality teams and markedly better wins than Washington. In the case of Texas A&M, at that time they had beaten Tennessee, which was #12 for me that week, and Auburn (#11) and Arkansas (unranked, but closer to being ranked than Stanford). That's a better total body of work than what Washington's was at that time.
When Washington beat Utah, suddenly they had a top 25 win and that was enough, combined with the premium of being unbeaten, to make them #4 for me. It amused me when, that same week, the committee made the move that I had just unmade. But I understood it. I really respect this committee for looking at total body of work and not letting teams skate by on garbage schedules just for being undefeated (like when they correctly denied 2014 FSU the top two spots despite their being the only unbeaten). Now, I think Washington will move into the fourth slot. OSU, unlike TAMU, did not lose to a top four team. And Louisville does not have a signature win. If they committee works similarly to how I do, which I think they do, Washington is a very likely choice for the #4 ranking.
Topic: 2016 NCAA Football! (Read 24006 times)
