IU moves up to No. 11 in the CFP rankings

Indiana moved up one spot to No. 11 in the College Football Playoff committee’s rankings released Tuesday.

The Hoosiers (6-1) couldn’t seem to budge from their No. 12 slot in previous weeks, even following a win over then-No. 16 Wisconsin on the road. But following IU’s first off week off the season, the slightest advance was made.

Florida wasn’t overly punished for its loss to unranked LSU, falling from No. 6 to No. 7 in the CFP. But Miami (Fla.), which was slotted at No. 10 in last week’s ranking, dropped to No. 18.

That allowed Oklahoma, now No. 10, as well as IU, to make a one-spot improvement in the CFP rankings. Northwestern, at No. 14, remains behind IU and plays No. 4 Ohio State in this weekend’s Big Ten championship game. Iowa, at No. 16, also remains behind IU and is off this week because of COVID-19 issues at Michigan.

IU will be off again this week, as well, because the Hoosiers are still dealing with COVID-19 issues and Friday’s game against Purdue has been called off.

All the while, a “New Year’s Six” bowls — specifically the Fiesta — still appears in sight for the Hoosiers.

38 comments

  1. Gary Barta and his 13 member committee have actually made a case to get rid of the process. Their collective disrespect for IU,..and unnatural, unjustifiable love for the Big 12 and SEC is obvious. 5 teams with 2 losses ahead of the Hoosiers. Sickening.

  2. The committee is obsolete and I don’t know how it should be changed to reflect the current season or future season other than changing the people on it. For them to be so far off on where they rank teams is a disgrace and seems to be biased.

    Keep improving Hoosiers and show people how good you are.

  3. The committee is fine. Barta is very competent, and he’s not trying to screw us over. No one is. I get that fans want IU higher, but this is all subjective stuff. Find it funny that people are alleging all kinds of crazy stuff. Take a breath, relax, and let it play out.

    1. Are you Barta’s mistress or something? How does one justify two loss teams – especially when one of those teams is unranked LSU over a team with 1 loss and in an away game where the game was decided on the final play? Oh and a team with 3 top 25 wins. The gymnastics Barta has engaged in is wonder inducing. IU should be 7-8 based on any reasonable metric.

  4. The reason and about the only reason is because it has a particular team or university of interest in the mix…something that for example; the Boise State, Central Florida, Costal Carolina, Brigham Young, Mid Major basketball etc go through over many years. The fact is there are several teams beneath the elites (very top) that are pretty equal. Even win any kind of bowl games or tournaments are played sometimes the best overall team doesn’t actually win. There are many variables that play into it. However, IU football has improved substantially and is in the mix of teams other than the elites….meaning that subjectively about anywhere in the 7 to 15 ranking give or take a couple places one way or another…as others could make the same type claim

  5. And schools like I mentioned above are examples of programs that if they played in a top conference like BIG TEN or SEC would struggle to play or sustain above 500 records in most cases.

  6. The evidence of bias is obvious. Two-loss teams are ranked ahead of IU. Furthermore, none of those two-loss teams have defeated three top-ranked teams this season. IU’s only defeat was to the #3 ranked OSU, on their home field, by a total of 7 points. And yet IU remains ranked behind teams that lost more games and lost to unranked teams. What more evidence do you need? If, as you say, the process is “subjective,” it therefore, by definition, involves bias.

    1. None of those schools that IU defeated are in the top 25 now, an obvious sign that they were improperly ranked (over rated) when we beat them. When you consider that fact (x 3), our current ranking makes much more sense and shows the claims of bias don’t really have a leg to stand on.

      1. BD, when you have a conference only season it means half the games are won and half are lost.; therefore the distribution of wins will be changed. OSU, IU, NU, and Iowa win more games it leads to PSU and Michigan having poor years. The rational for Michigan and PSU having poor years is, they lost to teams they usually haven’t in the past – it is circular reasoning that suppose IU and others can never move to the upper levels of the B1G.

        IU went from playing the big boys tough to winning those games. Games we had a chance to win in the past were now wins and the teams that were down IE Michigan, IU won easily. The talent at Michigan and PSU is still there IU just played better than they did this year.

        1. Understand what you’re saying, but it’s not in dispute that those teams weren’t top 25 teams. It’s why the allegations of bias don’t have a leg to stand on.

        2. Don’t know about PSU, V13, but the talent level at Mich. is down. Which is one of the UM fans’ big puzzlements about Harbaugh. Detroit papers were calling him out for just that fact, calling IUFB “clearly the team with the most talent” (talk about music to Hoosier ears!). UM had 13 total yds. rushing v. IUFB this year. They were also missing both starting tackles from their OLine that week. Back in the day, Mich. second-stringers were hardly distinguishable from the starters. Not no more.

      2. But Barta talks out of both sides of his mouth on “ranked now” verses “ranked when played” and gives all sorts of credit to SEC teams for beating one team that used to be ranked. It is really indefensible but here you are.

        1. I think he’s acknowledging that the SEC is a deeper league, which I think everyone recognizes. How is that “talking out of both sides of his mouth”?

          I want IU to get the best bowl possible, assuming we get to play on one. Bit I haven’t seen proof of bias on anyone’s part, other than our collective bias for IU, which seems perfectly acceptable.

  7. Yes, subjectivity is extremely bias. And decision makers are often very flawed both, intentionally and unintentionally.

    1. But there’s no supporting evidence here, which is what you’d need for anyone to take the bias claims seriously, wouldn’t you agree? If you have evidence, great, but nobody does.

      1. the fact that teams that were in the top 25 are quality wins for SEC and Big 12 teams and not for Indiana is the proof of bias. You can’t deny this.

        1. No, it’s roof that the SEC is a tougher league that played more games and has better teams, top to bottom, than the Big Ten. What’s biased about acknowledging that?

  8. BD, please provide an example of the “supporting evidence” that you insist be provided. What evidence would satisfy you? Do you expect audio recordings of members of the committee talking on a conference call and openly stating, “hey, we’re going to screw IU FB by keeping them out of the top ten.” That’s ridiculous. It’s like you’re standing in a forest and feeling the heat, smelling the smoke and watching the animals flee in panic, but because you can’t see any flames you insist that there’s no proof of a fire! As for your argument that those top ranked teams are no longer ranked, that’s a ridiculous response. They were ranked when we beat them! And the fact is, only one other FBS school can make the same claim this season, and that’s Alabama. Perhaps you’re suggesting that because IU beat those teams, they could not have been any good in the first place. And that is exactly the evidence of bias you’re demanding.

    1. We are getting punished for stealing Penn State’s soul. And for playing in the stacked BIG East and beating blue bloods. That is all.

      1. Agree, Gymnast. And for all the ease in changing rules, the BigTen will never consider conference alignment changes? With such shortened and altered schedules as this year, a rule change should have been made to put aside consideration of divisional designation. If an exception to the minimum required games was made to put OSU in the championship, then an exception should have been allowed to put the second best team in the conference into the title game as well. Indiana is that team. If all of the conference feels it’s only fair to allow the best team to play for the title, then why isn’t there the same feeling to place the second best team in the title game. Did divisional alignment really matter when so many games were cancelled?

      2. The stacked BiG East had one outstanding team, one very good one, and five lousy ones. How are we being penalized with that as the baseline?

    2. It’s not up to me to provide proof, it’s up to you guys, and you haven’t supported your accusations. The burden of proof rests with you.

  9. BD, are you a lawyer? Are we in court? Maybe this is one of those philosophy classes where you challenge the students to prove that the chair they’re sitting on really exists and is not a figment of their imagination?

    We’ve provided all the evidence necessary. There’s a mountain of circumstantial evidence, which does count in courts of law.

    Let’s turn the tables. You need to prove to us that IU is NOT a victim of bias. Go ahead, prove it.

    1. The only people who say that are the ones who fail to make their cases. In court, your allegations would’ve been tossed in no time. A professor used to say, “If you have the facts, pound them. If you don’t have the facts, you’d best pound the table”. Po, your hands must ache and your table must be in pieces.

  10. My limited knowledge in this area, so my .01 cent worth –possible the loss of quarterback for the year? Got a new one who won the last game but that’s one game. If Penix was full speed I think IU’s position would be closer to what we all think it should be,,,, ?

    1. Your supposition may be true but don’t low rate Tuttle, I am a big fan of Penix, as he was rated one of the best QBs in the country as a HS senior. His performance in a limited game plan was very good. That leads to me thinking he will be very good in an expanded game plan. I understand people outside the program would think losing Penix would limit IU’s potential but I am not sure it does with Tuttle leading the Hoosiers while he is out.

  11. ^^^ Agree. I said the same about a week ago. Losing Penix took all the national ‘sex appeal’ away from the Hoosiers. QB’s attract a ton of media attention. Penix was just beginning to turn some heads.

  12. BD, don’t tell me you’re one of those people who think the Apollo moon landings were fake because nobody has proven to you that they were real. I can just see you demanding Buzz Aldrin prove to you that he walked on the moon. He’d refer to the photos and videos and you’d respond, “that’s not proof, they could have been faked in a big movie studio.” He’d point to the rock samples they brought back and you’d respond, “those rocks could have come from anywhere, they aren’t proof.” He’d point to the testimony of hundreds of people who participated in the mission and you’d still argue that “that’s not proof, they could all be part of the conspiracy.” It’s inane.

  13. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard complaints like this my entire life. There have always been teams that were on the outside looking in despite a good argument for why they should be in.

    I believe the system has been overhauled a couple of times to address such concerns. But there will always be a first team out that thinks they should’ve been in.

    If enough fans make enough fuss for enough years, the process will be reformed again, but the problem of the first team out will always remain.

    In the meantime, the IU football team can take command of the Big Ten and then they will not be ignored. A much more satisfying outcome. Don’t ask that the rules be changed so you can get in, just kick the damn door down.

  14. Jack Tuttle is the qb at IU. What I seen was high ability; mobile plus can run, physical (which IU needs to be a little smarter and JT struggling for extra yards with qb), Excellent and Accurate passer, smart, poised, can throw the long ball, looks to be pretty durable is what is going to be seen in his future at IU.

  15. Rich, it sounds good in theory, but in reality the OSUs of the world work very hard and spend a lot of money behind the scenes to make sure their team stays on top. It’s a big business to the people who run OSU. Just look at OSU’s 2021 recruiting class; it’s an example of how the rich just keep getting richer. So while I’d love to parrot your comment about kicking the door down, it’ll take millions and millions more dollar invested into IU FB before that will be possible. Right now, to his great credit, TA is doing a heck of a lot more with a heck of a lot less, but the College Football Playoff committee’s doesn’t want to recognize that. Hmmmm, it makes me wonder what’s motivating them? It’s certainly not the evidence that is right in front of their eyes.

Comments are closed.