Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I'll never comprehend how I can receive so much vitriol for trying to explain what a separate entity (the committee) might be thinking or might do in the future.  It's utterly insane.

You may not have said that they were impressive but just a few posts back you were trying to argue that those first three were decent opponents.  Vis-a-vis #20 or #15 they might be reasonably decent but vis-a-vis a top-10 team, they aren't.  To an extent I agree.  I'd be willing to give Minnesota a pass on "only" beating Maryland by 42 compared to Ohio State and Penn State beating them by 59.  However, I disagree with the exact wording that you used.  You said it was silly especially when it gets to multiple touchdowns.  There is a major difference between beating a team by 14 and beating a team by 59.  A game decided by 14 was generally a pretty competitive game.  A game decided by 59 was generally a beatdown. 

I agree to the extent that comparing sizes of beatdowns generally doesn't provide much useful information.  When comparing beatdowns I generally think that looking at time rather than points is better.  Ie, at what point was the game effectively over and Minnesota gets credit for completely controlling the Maryland game.  They led 28-0 before halftime and after that it never got closer than 25 points, that is a beatdown.  Ah, that is a part of the point.  In this game how good your backups are frequently matters.  Injuries happen.  Targeting ejections happen.  Suspensions happen.  Injuries accrue over the course of the season so they tend to be a bigger issue at year end than at the beginning of the year.  The fact that Minnesota doesn't have a bunch of four and five star backups isn't an argument in favor of a high ranking for them.  Neither I nor anyone else has watched every CFB game played this year.  Thus, at some point we can't just use "eye test", we have to go by stats from what we missed.  I don't need to watch films of Minnesota's first four games to know that those are not anywhere close to top-10 level performances. 

• Top-10 teams don't need a late fourth quarter TD and two point conversion to beat FCS teams by a TD (SoDak St). 
• Top-10 teams don't need a late TD to get to OT against middling MWC teams (Fresno). 
• Top-10 teams don't need a TD in the last seconds to beat middling Sun Belt teams (GaSo). 
• Top-10 teams don't wait until the third quarter to put away bad B1G opponents then let them back in the game by allowing them two fourth quarter TD's (Purdue). 

Any one of those things could happen to any top-10 team.  Nobody plays their best game every time out.  Once in a while Georgia loses to USCe (this year) or Ohio State loses to Purdue (last year) but when you have four games that are clearly WAY below what is expected out of a top-10 team then you probably aren't a top-10 team.  Maybe Minnesota has improved so much that they are now and they'll get a chance to prove that with upcoming games against #20 Iowa, #14 Wisconsin, and (potentially) a highly ranked B1GCG opponent but they haven't done enough to erase those four VERY weak performances.  One one-score home win over a highly ranked opponent isn't enough in part because like I just said, "nobody plays their best game every time out."  That applies to Minnesota but it also applies to their opponents.  Maybe Minnesota is a legitimate top-10 team and they just had four really bad games to start the season.  Alternatively, maybe they aren't and Penn State just had a really bad game their last time out.  I don't know yet and you don't know yet either.

Oh...and I'd like to point out that you used these common opponent point differentials against lower tier opponents to determine outcomes before.

Take....shocking....the Minnesota/Penn State game thread.  You "analyzed" the box scores of their common opponents (Purdue and Maryland).  You came in with your hot takes.  Big numbers.

I said that the seven point Minnesota win wasn't nearly as close as it looked.  Morgan was 21/22 in that game....setting a Big Ten record for completion percentage.  We could have run up the score after getting a 21 point fourth quarter lead, but Fleck was playing conservative due to the first three games.

Either way....you used that for your 'in-depth' analysis...rather than say...watching the games and knowing the roster makeups.  Morgan and one of the best receiver groups in the nation vs. one of the least experienced defensive back groups in the nation.  (Minnesota vs. Penn State)

Ended up with you prediciting a 10-20 point Penn State win.  No worries.  You were only 16 points off from getting it within your ten point cushion.

I have to take up OAM’s cause on here.  Yes, he will argue his point to the death and I think he comes across as condescending sometimes. That being said, I think what he’s saying is being misconstrued as him being an SEC honk or having a rooting interest in SEC teams being represented.

I don’t think he’s like that in any way, shape, or form.  He’s arguing a different way of looking at how teams are being ranked.  You could substitute other helmet teams in place of Bama and I think he’d be arguing the same point.

He hasn’t said where the CFP is ranking Bama is correct or that their rationale is necessarily correct.  He is stating a case as to why they might be thinking like that.  From what I’ve seen that is really all he’s doing.  He’s playing devil’s advocate to people like myself who lean very heavily on resume.  I think Bama is way too high too but I understand the points he is making as to why the CFP has Bama up at 5.  I vehemently disagree with where they are but I understand the other side of the argument.

agreed, I feel Bama is too high, Minnesoota is too low, but it's only the final poll that counts.

In the final poll the committee always goes by number of losses.

If this week's poll was the final poll, Minnesota would be in the top 5, either above or below Baylor.  Probably above, due to resume (win over PSU)

In 2017, if Auburn had beaten UGA in the SEC Championship game they were absolutely going to go the playoffs with 2 losses over 1 loss teams.

I don’t think he’s like that in any way, shape, or form.  He’s arguing a different way of looking at how teams are being ranked.  You could substitute other helmet teams in place of Bama and I think he’d be arguing the same point.

He corrects people all the time whole threads even I've seen him do it - on opinions.He definitely is pimping the SEC.Which is fine when warranted but while a case has been made against Bama a weaker case has been made for Georgia.The system will never be perfect because IMO more games and deeper into the season would be the answer.The short of that is the NFL bound kids will just opt out so we'll have a feaux Champion becasue X amount of kids will sit

Oh...and I'd like to point out that you used these common opponent point differentials against lower tier opponents to determine outcomes before.

Take....shocking....the Minnesota/Penn State game thread.  You "analyzed" the box scores of their common opponents (Purdue and Maryland).  You came in with your hot takes.  Big numbers.

I said that the seven point Minnesota win wasn't nearly as close as it looked.  Morgan was 21/22 in that game....setting a Big Ten record for completion percentage.  We could have run up the score after getting a 21 point fourth quarter lead, but Fleck was playing conservative due to the first three games.

Either way....you used that for your 'in-depth' analysis...rather than say...watching the games and knowing the roster makeups.  Morgan and one of the best receiver groups in the nation vs. one of the least experienced defensive back groups in the nation.  (Minnesota vs. Penn State)

Ended up with you prediciting a 10-20 point Penn State win.  No worries.  You were only 16 points off from getting it within your ten point cushion.

I still think PSU is a better team.  

Bottom line, Minnesota has exactly one quality win.  It isn't their fault necessarily, but their schedule is heavily back-loaded.  They have played one good team and they beat them by one score at home.  Penn State has played three and went 2-1 with a road win, a home win, and a road loss all by one score.  

Maybe Minnesota is as good as you think.  I disagree but my bigger point is that I don't know and YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER.  Once again, Minnesota's resume so far is this:

• Four too-close for a top-10 team wins over bad opponents
• Four comfortable wins over mediocre to bad opponents
• One quality win at home by one score.  

That one quality win doesn't make a season.  I don't grade this as "bad", I grade it as "incomplete".  There isn't enough information.  

I have to take up OAM’s cause on here.  Yes, he will argue his point to the death and I think he comes across as condescending sometimes. That being said, I think what he’s saying is being misconstrued as him being an SEC honk or having a rooting interest in SEC teams being represented.

I don’t think he’s like that in any way, shape, or form.  He’s arguing a different way of looking at how teams are being ranked.  You could substitute other helmet teams in place of Bama and I think he’d be arguing the same point.

He hasn’t said where the CFP is ranking Bama is correct or that their rationale is necessarily correct.  He is stating a case as to why they might be thinking like that.  From what I’ve seen that is really all he’s doing.  He’s playing devil’s advocate to people like myself who lean very heavily on resume.  I think Bama is way too high too but I understand the points he is making as to why the CFP has Bama up at 5.  I vehemently disagree with where they are but I understand the other side of the argument.

Yeah, his schtick is to be condescending as Hell, and then play the victim if he gets any push back. Classic case of a poster who can dish it, but can't take it.
Of course if we all ignored him he would get bored and go away. But people just can't help themselves for whatever reason; like trying not to itch a mesquito bite. So they argue endlessly with Florida's version of Buck I Guy or the Neutron Man.