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

Back to the subject at hand, which was . . .  ah . . . .

Anyway, CBS' Tom Fornelli says that #4 Georgia is overrated, #10 Oklahoma is underrated, #14 Wisconsin is overrated, and #20 Iowa is overrated.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-rankings-reactions-georgia-overrated-oklahoma-underrated/

Of course, one might ask WTH Tom Fornelli's opinion is worth.

My only complaint about where Oklahoma is ranked is that the Sooners should be ahead of Utah.  Utah has no good wins and a loss at home to a USC team that is probably no better than--if even as good as--the K-State that beat OU in Manhattan.  Oregon has a better loss than OU does, but no better wins.  So one could make a case either way for how those two should be ranked, but there shouldn't be any way that Utah should be ahead of either one of them.

(IMO, Minnesota should be ranked ahead of Utah too.)

I can't say that the Committee is devaluing the Big 12, as there are currently 5 Big 12 teams (half the misnamed conference) in the rankings.  But one could make a case that Baylor is ranked too low at #13, right behind 2-loss Auburn.  But I think a better comparison is Baylor and 1-loss Alabama.  Bama has no particularly good wins--the one over 3-loss Texas A&M is the best.  Baylor has no particularly good wins either, but it has two decent ones, at 3-loss fOSU and at 3-loss K-State.  But what it doesn't have is a loss to LSU.

If Baylor wins out, it will have two victories over OU and a win over Texas in addition to what it's got now.  And it will have virtually no way of getting into the CFP because there are too many teams ahead of it who perhaps are ranked higher than they should be.

The counterargument is that Baylor could and maybe should have some losses already.  Only gross official malfeasance saved the Bears from a loss to Texas Tech.  Baylor had to kick a 38-yard FG with 21 seconds left in the game to beat Iowa State, and blocked a late FG to beat WVU.

It's possible that Baylor and Alabama could meet in the Sugar Bowl.  Of course, if Baylor happened to win it might be because Bama wasn't interested in the game.  I would bet on Bama to beat Baylor straight-up by quite a bit on a neutral field, but the games don't always turn out the way people bet.

You’re right.  I do wish the CFP relied on resume more than they do but if I can’t bitch on forums like this where can I bitch?  You bitch all the time about people ranking teams by number of losses.  You might not like it but that’s the way it is for a lot of voters.  So, what’s the difference in you bitching about something like that and some of us bitching about the CFP not looking at resumes more?

And you are totally right about the number of conference games.  The SEC has no reason to change it and the Big 10 could change it tomorrow if they wanted to.  That being said, my biggest gripe is people voting don’t do enough to punish the SEC/ACC for that or reward the other conferences for the 9 game schedule.  I think at the end of the season wins over 6-6 teams from the Big 12, Pac 12, and Big 10 should basically be viewed in the same light as wins over 7-5 teams from the ACC and SEC.  But I really don’t think that is being done.  Sure, the other conferences can change their scheduling but in the meantime the committee can be smart enough to change how they evaluate those conferences based on scheduling differences too.

Validity is also rare within the AP Poll, the Coaches Poll, and the Committee's Poll

if this was the final poll, all those polls would be much different
unfortunately, the voters all "think" they know Minnesota and Baylor will lose in the coming weeks

projected losses are part of the resume for them

but, educated fans such as the folks here simply argue past wins and losses

Well the highlighted parts are related, lol.  The reason why ranking teams by number of losses is a bad idea is context & statistical validity.  Thank you for supporting it with your 2nd highlighted comment, which is the whole point. 



People aren't good at thoroughly measuring proper context.  When we debate teams, we often just talk about best wins, best losses, weakest best win, and/or worst loss.  The extremes.  Part of it is related to how we remember the first and last numbers of a list and the first and last sounds of a word.  The middle gets jumbled in our brains.  We're unlikely to differentiate the wins over 7-5 teams vs 4-8 teams, somewhat because it requires more effort and somewhat because we think it all evens out in the wash. 

But it doesn't, necessarily.