(11-15-2017 06:57 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:21 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:14 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:06 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:00 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  No. They didn't rank USF because that would've set UCF up to claim another cfp top25 win. The point is to not add any credibility to the schedule of UCF so that it can be used as a reason for not properly ranking them. The problem most likely was that no other p5 teams could reasonably be put in that slot and it probably came down to USF or Boise. If USF were properly ranked this week and then Navy upset ND thereby giving the AAC 4 cfp ranked teams the public outcry against not ranking UCF at least right outside of the top4 would've been loud.

I agree that there is P5 vs G5 bias. I have been saying that the entire time, regarding schedules, rankings, bowl games, and yes....TV contracts. However, this is some tin foil hat stuff.

The committee does not value G5 vs G5 wins that much. So when USF beats Temple, or beats Tulane, they don't get credit for it. Conversely, when they lose to Houston, they get punished more than when say Michigan State does by losing to a Northwestern team that lost to Duke. It is what it is. Don't get mad at me for it.

Last year, the committee called Navy's wins over Houston, Memphis, and Tulsa "quality wins" in explaining why 2-loss Navy might overtake undefeated WMU. Here's the transcript yet again:
http://www.asapsports.com/show_conference.php?id=125775

You realize I said in previous posts that wins over Memphis and UCF would be seen as good right? Just read back a page. We don't disagree. Notice the qualifier "that much" and the examples I gave here. USF is a ****** schedule. They have not beaten anyone. It is not my fault. Furthermore, I simply find your over the top assertions, and absolutism to be laughable. Seeing a two loss Boise in front of USF should humble you a bit. Apparently it does not. Oh well.

I do realize that, but I'm getting a lot of cognitive dissonance from you claiming to acknowledge the quality of potential wins over UCF and Memphis but then not accepting the analysis (as opposed to absolutist assertion) that those wins leapfrog USF over a 2-loss Boise.
But perhaps you're right and I'm repetitive.

Let's flip the script: what is the case for 11-2 Boise over 11-1 USF? Checking the assumptions, wins over UCF and Memphis; UCF with a loss stays well ahead of #35 SDSU and Memphis' drop after a loss keeps them essentially even with #35. Boise gets zero bump from last two games or a repeat win over Fresno/SDSU in ccg

So what's the case for Boise?
Overall record? Nope, 11-2 < 11-1
Quality wins? Nope, advantage USF
Strength of schedule ? Nope, that will be a wash.
Related, strength of f losses? No, even if you write-off loss to WSU, loss to Virginia worse than loss to Houston.

Make the case for the Broncos

I don't know, I didn't put them there.

Maybe it is the win over an 8-2 SDSU (#35 Massey) team that has a win over Stanford. Maybe it is a win over Troy (#52 Massey), who is 8-2 with a road win over LSU. Maybe it is a win over Wyoming (#57 Massey), who is 6-3. Maybe the road win over Colorado State (#75 Massey), on the road. Maybe it is all of those wins, combined with watching the games.

Meanwhile, the only team that USF has beaten that does not have a losing record is Temple (#78 Massey) at 5-5, which is not as good of win as the four listed above.

Frankly, I have no idea. I did not rank them there. But when you compare USF and Boise, as I just did above, it is actually not even close.

Nobody is ranking USF or Boise or anyone else based on what they will do in two weeks. They are ranking them today. If Memphis, and UCF lose this week (I don't think they will), the whole argument falls apart. that is why we judge the present, not the future.

I am not sure why you get frustrated with me, when I am not the one that put Boise in front of USF.

Maybe Boise deserves to be ranked now. But a win over currently undefeated ucf is worth more than a win against 7-3 Fresno state (which I will add is no guarantee for boise)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

(11-15-2017 07:40 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 07:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 06:57 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Make the case for the Broncos

FWIW, Massey has USF at #29, Boise at #26.

Today.
This discussion assumes wins over UCF and Memphis

Didn't know there was such a discussion, thought it obvious that if USF wins out, we wil surely pass Boise in the CFP rankings.

(11-15-2017 08:29 AM)bullsbucsfan426 Wrote:  Maybe Boise deserves to be ranked now. But a win over currently undefeated ucf is worth more than a win against 7-3 Fresno state (which I will add is no guarantee for boise)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Fresno has to play Wyoming in the snow. If Josh Allen plays, I think Fresno loses that game. Will be interesting.

(11-15-2017 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 07:40 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 07:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 06:57 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Make the case for the Broncos

FWIW, Massey has USF at #29, Boise at #26.

Today.
This discussion assumes wins over UCF and Memphis

Didn't know there was such a discussion, thought it obvious that if USF wins out, we wil surely pass Boise in the CFP rankings.

Yea, I thought it was over weeks ago. Funny how that works.

(11-15-2017 07:53 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 06:57 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:21 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:14 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:06 PM)fanhood Wrote:  I agree that there is P5 vs G5 bias. I have been saying that the entire time, regarding schedules, rankings, bowl games, and yes....TV contracts. However, this is some tin foil hat stuff.

The committee does not value G5 vs G5 wins that much. So when USF beats Temple, or beats Tulane, they don't get credit for it. Conversely, when they lose to Houston, they get punished more than when say Michigan State does by losing to a Northwestern team that lost to Duke. It is what it is. Don't get mad at me for it.

Last year, the committee called Navy's wins over Houston, Memphis, and Tulsa "quality wins" in explaining why 2-loss Navy might overtake undefeated WMU. Here's the transcript yet again:
http://www.asapsports.com/show_conference.php?id=125775

You realize I said in previous posts that wins over Memphis and UCF would be seen as good right? Just read back a page. We don't disagree. Notice the qualifier "that much" and the examples I gave here. USF is a ****** schedule. They have not beaten anyone. It is not my fault. Furthermore, I simply find your over the top assertions, and absolutism to be laughable. Seeing a two loss Boise in front of USF should humble you a bit. Apparently it does not. Oh well.

I do realize that, but I'm getting a lot of cognitive dissonance from you claiming to acknowledge the quality of potential wins over UCF and Memphis but then not accepting the analysis (as opposed to absolutist assertion) that those wins leapfrog USF over a 2-loss Boise.
But perhaps you're right and I'm repetitive.

Let's flip the script: what is the case for 11-2 Boise over 11-1 USF? Checking the assumptions, wins over UCF and Memphis; UCF with a loss stays well ahead of #35 SDSU and Memphis' drop after a loss keeps them essentially even with #35. Boise gets zero bump from last two games or a repeat win over Fresno/SDSU in ccg

So what's the case for Boise?
Overall record? Nope, 11-2 < 11-1
Quality wins? Nope, advantage USF
Strength of schedule ? Nope, that will be a wash.
Related, strength of f losses? No, even if you write-off loss to WSU, loss to Virginia worse than loss to Houston.

Make the case for the Broncos

I don't know, I didn't put them there.

Maybe it is the win over an 8-2 SDSU (#35 Massey) team that has a win over Stanford. Maybe it is a win over Troy (#52 Massey), who is 8-2 with a road win over LSU. Maybe it is a win over Wyoming (#57 Massey), who is 6-3. Maybe the road win over Colorado State (#75 Massey), on the road. Maybe it is all of those wins, combined with watching the games.

Meanwhile, the only team that USF has beaten that does not have a losing record is Temple (#78 Massey) at 5-5, which is not as good of win as the four listed above.

Frankly, I have no idea. I did not rank them there. But when you compare USF and Boise, as I just did above, it is actually not even close.

Nobody is ranking USF or Boise or anyone else based on what they will do in two weeks. They are ranking them today. If Memphis, and UCF lose this week (I don't think they will), the whole argument falls apart. that is why we judge the present, not the future.

I am not sure why you get frustrated with me, when I am not the one that put Boise in front of USF.

I'm not talking about this week's CFP ranking. I haven't been.
I'm honestly not fussed by it, because the committee is very firm that rankings are a current snapshot based on body of work to date, and claims that every week is a clean slate. My team is well out of it so I don't have any emotional investment in these mid-process rankings.
Looking back through the thread, I am indirectly attacking one assertion of yours (post #16): "This ranking actually counters much of the narrative that has been spun here for a while." This ranking actually doesn't address at all what I for one have been saying.

Throughout this discussion, I have been talking about the hypothetical YOU set up that AAC fans should be worried about USF as champ losing the NY6 bid to Boise. That's why the bolded portions, that's why I said (not in the direct quotes above): "USF as a one loss AAC champ is less strong than undefeated UCF or one loss Memphis, but is easily ahead of ANY of the G4 teams contending for their conference championships."

I've made that case, and made it by looking at the factors by which the committee would compare the two, not as an absolutist assertion.

Defend the case you've made -- that 11-2 Boise should get in over an 11-1 USF which improves its position with wins over UCF and Memphis. Or tell me that wasn't what you meant when you said "USF winning the AAC is a worst case scenario for the AAC...[winning over UCF and Memphis] does not guarantee they jump an 11-2 Boise."

(11-15-2017 08:55 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 07:53 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 06:57 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:21 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:14 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Last year, the committee called Navy's wins over Houston, Memphis, and Tulsa "quality wins" in explaining why 2-loss Navy might overtake undefeated WMU. Here's the transcript yet again:
http://www.asapsports.com/show_conference.php?id=125775

You realize I said in previous posts that wins over Memphis and UCF would be seen as good right? Just read back a page. We don't disagree. Notice the qualifier "that much" and the examples I gave here. USF is a ****** schedule. They have not beaten anyone. It is not my fault. Furthermore, I simply find your over the top assertions, and absolutism to be laughable. Seeing a two loss Boise in front of USF should humble you a bit. Apparently it does not. Oh well.

I do realize that, but I'm getting a lot of cognitive dissonance from you claiming to acknowledge the quality of potential wins over UCF and Memphis but then not accepting the analysis (as opposed to absolutist assertion) that those wins leapfrog USF over a 2-loss Boise.
But perhaps you're right and I'm repetitive.

Let's flip the script: what is the case for 11-2 Boise over 11-1 USF? Checking the assumptions, wins over UCF and Memphis; UCF with a loss stays well ahead of #35 SDSU and Memphis' drop after a loss keeps them essentially even with #35. Boise gets zero bump from last two games or a repeat win over Fresno/SDSU in ccg

So what's the case for Boise?
Overall record? Nope, 11-2 < 11-1
Quality wins? Nope, advantage USF
Strength of schedule ? Nope, that will be a wash.
Related, strength of f losses? No, even if you write-off loss to WSU, loss to Virginia worse than loss to Houston.

Make the case for the Broncos

I don't know, I didn't put them there.

Maybe it is the win over an 8-2 SDSU (#35 Massey) team that has a win over Stanford. Maybe it is a win over Troy (#52 Massey), who is 8-2 with a road win over LSU. Maybe it is a win over Wyoming (#57 Massey), who is 6-3. Maybe the road win over Colorado State (#75 Massey), on the road. Maybe it is all of those wins, combined with watching the games.

Meanwhile, the only team that USF has beaten that does not have a losing record is Temple (#78 Massey) at 5-5, which is not as good of win as the four listed above.

Frankly, I have no idea. I did not rank them there. But when you compare USF and Boise, as I just did above, it is actually not even close.

Nobody is ranking USF or Boise or anyone else based on what they will do in two weeks. They are ranking them today. If Memphis, and UCF lose this week (I don't think they will), the whole argument falls apart. that is why we judge the present, not the future.

I am not sure why you get frustrated with me, when I am not the one that put Boise in front of USF.

I'm not talking about this week's CFP ranking. I haven't been.
I'm honestly not fussed by it, because the committee is very firm that rankings are a current snapshot based on body of work to date, and claims that every week is a clean slate. My team is well out of it so I don't have any emotional investment in these mid-process rankings.
Looking back through the thread, I am indirectly attacking one assertion of yours (post #16): "This ranking actually counters much of the narrative that has been spun here for a while." This ranking actually doesn't address at all what I for one have been saying.

Throughout this discussion, I have been talking about the hypothetical YOU set up that AAC fans should be worried about USF as champ losing the NY6 bid to Boise. That's why the bolded portions, that's why I said (not in the direct quotes above): "USF as a one loss AAC champ is less strong than undefeated UCF or one loss Memphis, but is easily ahead of ANY of the G4 teams contending for their conference championships."

I've made that case, and made it by looking at the factors by which the committee would compare the two, not as an absolutist assertion.

Defend the case you've made -- that 11-2 Boise should get in over an 11-1 USF which improves its position with wins over UCF and Memphis. Or tell me that wasn't what you meant when you said "USF winning the AAC is a worst case scenario for the AAC...[winning over UCF and Memphis] does not guarantee they jump an 11-2 Boise."

I don't know, does USF win this week? Does Memphis? Does UCF? Does Boise play SDSU or Fresno in the championship game? Too many variables. That is why the rankings reflect today. Nonetheless, you said they are "easily ahead of ANY other G5 teams." Clearly not necessarily the case. Another absolutist statement.

Why would I argue that something does not guarantee something, when clearly, it is not guaranteed? How do I argue against an absolutist statement, when all objective measures say it is not guaranteed? It is like arguing the sky is not blue. You don't even know where to start.

Absolutist statement, analysis of a hypothetical with clearly stated assumptions and data driven consideration of the variables.
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

Or not.

Once you realize that CFP committee rankings for the G5 are just token gestures it makes sense that they put Boise State in above USF.

By tossing MWC a bone with Boise, they keep them off their back. That's all the CFP committee cares about in regards to the G5, avoiding lawsuits.

(11-14-2017 09:41 PM)Acres Wrote:  Ok, this is silly. USF not ranked Week three. What’s going on here

Un-freaking-believable.

(11-14-2017 09:51 PM)otown Wrote:  This is crazy. Is it just a ploy to make sure UCF doesn't have the chance to get another top 25 win? As pathetic as my question is.....I am serious.

That's absolutely what it is. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

(11-14-2017 10:06 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 09:55 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 09:44 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  Boise st is in though and has one more loss?

P6

Because the committee is crapping the bed? Lol as it looks now Usf will be a top 20 team in both traditional polls, Boise won't be ranked. But the cfp will get it ass backwards, Boise got blown out at home by Virginia. Who have they beat?

Spare me. They know exactly what they're doing.

(11-14-2017 11:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:04 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:02 PM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  How are there 7 two loss teams ahead of UCF?

...there are actually EIGHT.

Such a joke. So the eight 2-loss teams that are ranked ahead of UCF are there because they LOST to 2 good teams??

I fail to understand the logic of that argument. Do they think UCF can’t competently lose to a pair of good teams?? It takes zero talent to LOSE to good teams. Bad teams do it all the time. Dumbest argument ever—it’s an “emperors new clothes” level argument. Amazes me that they aren’t called out on the BS. If they keep it up there going to get sued. It’s just a matter of time.

Until the CFP committee is a 10 man one-conference one-vote configuration—you aren’t going to have a fair CFP ranking system. What we have now is a complete joke.

This is a big part of the problem. All those not associated with the Group of 5 teams are in the tank together. ESPN would never want to see a team from the AAC or MWC in the playoffs. All they care about is ratings and they would rather see a 2 loss team from the SEC or BIG over an undefeated team from a Group of 5 school. The talking heads feel the same way so who is going to call them out on it?

I really wish we would see the playoffs expand to 8 teams. Have the conference champion from each P5 conference earn an automatic bid. Have the highest G5 school earn an automatic bid and then have 2 at large teams. Of course if it went to 8, I still think we would be squeezed out with the rational that the G5 teams just aren't good enough.

(11-15-2017 09:56 AM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 09:51 PM)otown Wrote:  This is crazy. Is it just a ploy to make sure UCF doesn't have the chance to get another top 25 win? As pathetic as my question is.....I am serious.

That's absolutely what it is. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

ABC/ESPN is invested in black friday now. So they might have a sit down with the CFP committee about needing both teams to have a number next to them.
I can see it happening next week. By then, with 2 games left, the pool of possible top 4 teams shrinks to about 8 teams. So they can afford to move UCF up to 13ish and bring USF in at ~24.

(11-15-2017 10:03 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 09:56 AM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 09:51 PM)otown Wrote:  This is crazy. Is it just a ploy to make sure UCF doesn't have the chance to get another top 25 win? As pathetic as my question is.....I am serious.

That's absolutely what it is. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

ABC/ESPN is invested in black friday now. So they might have a sit down with the CFP committee about needing both teams to have a number next to them.
I can see it happening next week. By then, with 2 games left, the pool of possible top 4 teams shrinks to about 8 teams. So they can afford to move UCF up to 13ish and bring USF in at ~24.

Do you actually believe this?

(11-15-2017 10:01 AM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:04 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:02 PM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  How are there 7 two loss teams ahead of UCF?

...there are actually EIGHT.

Such a joke. So the eight 2-loss teams that are ranked ahead of UCF are there because they LOST to 2 good teams??

I fail to understand the logic of that argument. Do they think UCF can’t competently lose to a pair of good teams?? It takes zero talent to LOSE to good teams. Bad teams do it all the time. Dumbest argument ever—it’s an “emperors new clothes” level argument. Amazes me that they aren’t called out on the BS. If they keep it up there going to get sued. It’s just a matter of time.

Until the CFP committee is a 10 man one-conference one-vote configuration—you aren’t going to have a fair CFP ranking system. What we have now is a complete joke.

This is a big part of the problem. All those not associated with the Group of 5 teams are in the tank together. ESPN would never want to see a team from the AAC or MWC in the playoffs. All they care about is ratings and they would rather see a 2 loss team from the SEC or BIG over an undefeated team from a Group of 5 school. The talking heads feel the same way so who is going to call them out on it?

I really wish we would see the playoffs expand to 8 teams. Have the conference champion from each P5 conference earn an automatic bid. Have the highest G5 school earn an automatic bid and then have 2 at large teams. Of course if it went to 8, I still think we would be squeezed out with the rational that the G5 teams just aren't good enough.

Does the G5 exist, or not?

(11-15-2017 10:09 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 10:03 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 09:56 AM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 09:51 PM)otown Wrote:  This is crazy. Is it just a ploy to make sure UCF doesn't have the chance to get another top 25 win? As pathetic as my question is.....I am serious.

That's absolutely what it is. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

ABC/ESPN is invested in black friday now. So they might have a sit down with the CFP committee about needing both teams to have a number next to them.
I can see it happening next week. By then, with 2 games left, the pool of possible top 4 teams shrinks to about 8 teams. So they can afford to move UCF up to 13ish and bring USF in at ~24.

Do you actually believe this?

Which part?
That the playoff committee reports to ESPN? Yes
That ESPN knows that ranked vs ranked games have a quantitatively higher rating? Yes

I'm actually not sure which part you think is not true.

(11-15-2017 10:10 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 10:01 AM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:04 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:02 PM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  How are there 7 two loss teams ahead of UCF?

...there are actually EIGHT.

Such a joke. So the eight 2-loss teams that are ranked ahead of UCF are there because they LOST to 2 good teams??

I fail to understand the logic of that argument. Do they think UCF can’t competently lose to a pair of good teams?? It takes zero talent to LOSE to good teams. Bad teams do it all the time. Dumbest argument ever—it’s an “emperors new clothes” level argument. Amazes me that they aren’t called out on the BS. If they keep it up there going to get sued. It’s just a matter of time.

Until the CFP committee is a 10 man one-conference one-vote configuration—you aren’t going to have a fair CFP ranking system. What we have now is a complete joke.

This is a big part of the problem. All those not associated with the Group of 5 teams are in the tank together. ESPN would never want to see a team from the AAC or MWC in the playoffs. All they care about is ratings and they would rather see a 2 loss team from the SEC or BIG over an undefeated team from a Group of 5 school. The talking heads feel the same way so who is going to call them out on it?

I really wish we would see the playoffs expand to 8 teams. Have the conference champion from each P5 conference earn an automatic bid. Have the highest G5 school earn an automatic bid and then have 2 at large teams. Of course if it went to 8, I still think we would be squeezed out with the rational that the G5 teams just aren't good enough.

Does the G5 exist, or not?

Of course it exits, despite our commissioner's attempts to rewrite the narrative.

(11-15-2017 10:10 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 10:01 AM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:04 PM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:02 PM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  How are there 7 two loss teams ahead of UCF?

...there are actually EIGHT.

Such a joke. So the eight 2-loss teams that are ranked ahead of UCF are there because they LOST to 2 good teams??

I fail to understand the logic of that argument. Do they think UCF can’t competently lose to a pair of good teams?? It takes zero talent to LOSE to good teams. Bad teams do it all the time. Dumbest argument ever—it’s an “emperors new clothes” level argument. Amazes me that they aren’t called out on the BS. If they keep it up there going to get sued. It’s just a matter of time.

Until the CFP committee is a 10 man one-conference one-vote configuration—you aren’t going to have a fair CFP ranking system. What we have now is a complete joke.

This is a big part of the problem. All those not associated with the Group of 5 teams are in the tank together. ESPN would never want to see a team from the AAC or MWC in the playoffs. All they care about is ratings and they would rather see a 2 loss team from the SEC or BIG over an undefeated team from a Group of 5 school. The talking heads feel the same way so who is going to call them out on it?

I really wish we would see the playoffs expand to 8 teams. Have the conference champion from each P5 conference earn an automatic bid. Have the highest G5 school earn an automatic bid and then have 2 at large teams. Of course if it went to 8, I still think we would be squeezed out with the rational that the G5 teams just aren't good enough.

Does the G5 exist, or not?

G5 is a flexible term around here.
When talking about the politics of college football, G5 is a thing. We don't have an AD on the playoff committee. We don't have a contract with an NY6 bowl.
When it comes to on the field performance, P6 is definitely a thing.

(11-15-2017 10:11 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 10:09 AM)fanhood Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 10:03 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 09:56 AM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 09:51 PM)otown Wrote:  This is crazy. Is it just a ploy to make sure UCF doesn't have the chance to get another top 25 win? As pathetic as my question is.....I am serious.

That's absolutely what it is. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

ABC/ESPN is invested in black friday now. So they might have a sit down with the CFP committee about needing both teams to have a number next to them.
I can see it happening next week. By then, with 2 games left, the pool of possible top 4 teams shrinks to about 8 teams. So they can afford to move UCF up to 13ish and bring USF in at ~24.

Do you actually believe this?

Which part?
That the playoff committee reports to ESPN? Yes
That ESPN knows that ranked vs ranked games have a quantitatively higher rating? Yes

I'm actually not sure which part you think is not true.

Do you have evidence that the committee reports to ESPN? This would be a "Clinton Cash" level scandal in CFB if true.

It is certainly possible, but do you have evidence to suggest this?