It's hard to mesh eye test with resume evenly, if that's even a goal for someone. There are sold and/or impressive wins, but there are also close wins vs weak teams. There are close losses to strong teams, even multiple games like that and more blowouts vs cupcakes than is comfortable.Yeah, I don’t disagree with any of that. It is hard to mesh the two which is why ranking teams is hard. If you put Baylor and Texas A&M on a neutral field I’d probably put my money on the Aggies but I can’t rank them that way and feel good about it.
I'm not criticizing anything, no one should without posting their own rankings. But for Baylor:
3 pretty solid wins
vs
close wins vs Rice, ISU, TxTech, WV
Back to the abstract - what's "better" - the 3 point win vs WV or the 3 point loss to an Oregon? The goal is to win the game, but with all of the variables and lack of cross-section data means we have to value this stuff on the same plane. Meh, I type all this and we all know it already.
| [th]Year[/th] [th]WK[/th] [th]RK[/th] [th]Team[/th] [th]W[/th] [th]L[/th] [th]Rating[/th] | ||||||
| 2019 | 10 | 1 | Ohio State | 8 | 0 | 119.106 |
| 2019 | 10 | 2 | LSU | 8 | 0 | 115.256 |
| 2019 | 10 | 3 | Clemson | 9 | 0 | 115.139 |
| 2019 | 10 | 4 | Penn State | 8 | 0 | 111.956 |
| 2019 | 10 | 5 | Alabama | 8 | 0 | 111.454 |
| 2019 | 10 | 6 | Auburn | 7 | 2 | 109.830 |
| 2019 | 10 | 7 | Oklahoma | 7 | 1 | 109.290 |
| 2019 | 10 | 8 | Oregon | 8 | 1 | 109.227 |
| 2019 | 10 | 9 | Utah | 8 | 1 | 108.998 |
| 2019 | 10 | 10 | Georgia | 7 | 1 | 108.816 |
| 2019 | 10 | 11 | Florida | 7 | 2 | 108.716 |
| 2019 | 10 | 12 | Michigan | 7 | 2 | 108.671 |
| 2019 | 10 | 13 | Notre Dame | 6 | 2 | 104.624 |
| 2019 | 10 | 14 | Iowa | 6 | 2 | 104.148 |
| 2019 | 10 | 15 | Washington | 5 | 4 | 103.704 |
| 2019 | 10 | 16 | Wisconsin | 6 | 2 | 103.629 |
| 2019 | 10 | 17 | Texas A&M | 6 | 3 | 103.623 |
| 2019 | 10 | 18 | Baylor | 8 | 0 | 102.809 |
| 2019 | 10 | 19 | Central Florida | 7 | 2 | 102.681 |
| 2019 | 10 | 20 | Southern Cal | 5 | 4 | 102.547 |
| 2019 | 10 | 21 | Cincinnati | 7 | 1 | 102.539 |
| 2019 | 10 | 22 | Minnesota | 8 | 0 | 102.384 |
| 2019 | 10 | 23 | Kansas State | 6 | 2 | 102.161 |
| 2019 | 10 | 24 | Texas | 5 | 3 | 101.356 |
| 2019 | 10 | 25 | Oklahoma State | 6 | 3 | 100.783 |
Why the square root of points differential?It gives credit for it while limiting a huge impact of blow outs.
Why the square root of points differential?The BCS eliminated MoV for two reasons:
i'll take a stab at itJust curious, why the love for OU over PSU? I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but that one seems odd.
my version:
- osu
- lsu
- bama
- clemson
- ou
- psu
- oregon
- utah
- uga
- baylor
- florida
- auburn
- wisconsin
- minnesota
- michigan
- notre dame
- iowa
- cincinnati
- memphis
- kansas st
- wake
- smu
- navy
- mizzou
- ok state
what i think cfp committee will do:
- lsu
- osu
- bama
- clemson
- psu
- baylor
- ou
- uga
- oregon
- utah
| [th]Rank[/th] [th]Team (FPV)[/th] [th]Conf[/th] [th]Rec[/th] [th]Pts[/th] [th]3WT (3 Week AP Ranking Trend)[/th] [th]CP (Coaches Poll - 1950 to present)[/th] [th]CFP (College Football Playoff Committee Rankings - 2014 to present)[/th] [th]Last Week[/th] | |||||||||
| 1 | < 1 | Alabama (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=25) (60) | SEC (Southeastern) | 9-0 | 1500 | 0 | *1 (63 FPV) | 1 | W 29-0 A #4 LSU |
| 2 | < 2 | Clemson (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=62) | ACC (Atlantic Coast) | 9-0 | 1435 | 0 | *2 (1 FPV) | 2 | W 77-16 H Louisville |
| 3 | < 3 | Notre Dame (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=7) | Ind (Independent) | 9-0 | 1381 | 0 | 3 | 3 | W 31-21 A Northwestern |
| 4 | < 5 | Michigan (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=48) | Big Ten | 8-1 | 1304 | +1 | 4 | 4 | W 42-7 H #14 Penn State |
| 5 | < 6 | Georgia (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=73) | SEC (Southeastern) | 8-1 | 1263 | +2 | 5 | 5 | W 34-17 A #11 Kentucky |
| 6 | < 7 | Oklahoma (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=50) | Big 12 | 8-1 | 1181 | +2 | 6 | 6 | W 51-46 A Texas Tech |
| 7 | < 12 | West Virginia (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=125) | Big 12 | 7-1 | 1065 | +6 | 8 | 9 | W 42-41 A #15 Texas |
| 8 | < 8 | Ohio State (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=31) | Big Ten | 8-1 | 1025 | +3 | 7 | 10 | W 36-31 H Nebraska |
| 9 | < 4 | LSU (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=13) | SEC (Southeastern) | 7-2 | 1020 | -5 | 10 | 7 | L 29-0 H #1 Alabama |
| 10 | < 10 | Washington State (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=26) | Pac-12 | 8-1 | 1010 | +4 | 9 | 8 | W 19-13 H California |
| 11 | < 9 | UCF (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=172) | AAC (American Athletic) | 8-0 | 1001 | -1 | 11 | 12 | W 52-40 H Temple |
| 12 | < 11 | Kentucky (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=58) | SEC (Southeastern) | 7-2 | 780 | 0 | 12 | 11 | L 34-17 H #6 Georgia |
| 13 | < 22 | Syracuse (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=37) | ACC (Atlantic Coast) | 7-2 | 624 | +13 | 13 | 13 | W 41-24 A Wake Forest |
| 14 | < 18 | Utah State (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=137) | MWC (Mountain West) | 8-1 | 586 | +12 | 16 | NR | W 56-17 A Hawaii |
| 15 | < 15 | Texas (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=66) | Big 12 | 6-3 | 559 | -9 | 19 | 19 | L 42-41 H #12 West Virginia |
| 16 | < 20 | Fresno State (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=77) | MWC (Mountain West) | 8-1 | 506 | +10 | 17 | 23 | W 48-3 A UNLV |
| 17 | < 24 | Boston College (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=65) | ACC (Atlantic Coast) | 7-2 | 490 | +9 | 14 | 17 | W 31-21 A Virginia Tech |
| 18 | < 21 | Mississippi State (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=69) | SEC (Southeastern) | 6-3 | 486 | +8 | 15 | 16 | W 45-3 H Louisiana Tech |
| 19 | < 13 | Florida (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=117) | SEC (Southeastern) | 6-3 | 400 | -10 | 21 | 15 | L 38-17 H Missouri |
| 20 | < NR | Washington (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=8) | Pac-12 | 7-3 | 342 | -5 | 18 | 25 | W 27-23 H Stanford |
| 21 | < 14 | Penn State (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=68) | Big Ten | 6-3 | 278 | -4 | 20 | 20 | L 42-7 A #5 Michigan |
| 22 | < NR | NC State (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=105) | ACC (Atlantic Coast) | 6-2 | 264 | 0 | 22 | 14 | W 47-28 H Florida State |
| 23 | < NR | Iowa State (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=51) | Big 12 | 5-3 | 230 | -- | 25 | 22 | W 27-3 A Kansas |
| 24 | < NR | Michigan State (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=113) | Big Ten | 6-3 | 215 | +2 | RV | 18 | W 24-3 A Maryland |
| 25 | < NR | Cincinnati (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=122) | AAC (American Athletic) | 8-1 | 141 | +1 | 23 | NR | W 42-0 H Navy |
| RV | < 16 | Utah (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=109) | Pac-12 | 6-3 | 110 | -3 | 24 | NR | L 38-20 A Arizona State |
| RV | < NR | Auburn (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=21) | SEC (Southeastern) | 6-3 | 93 | -2 | RV | 24 | W 28-24 H #25 Texas A&M |
| RV | < NR | Wisconsin (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=36) | Big Ten | 6-3 | 37 | -6 | RV | NR | W 31-17 H Rutgers |
| RV | < NR | Army (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=3) | Ind (Independent) | 7-2 | 32 | -- | RV | NR | W 17-14 H Air Force |
| RV | < NR | UAB (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=157) | C-USA (Conference USA) | 8-1 | 31 | -- | RV | NR | W 52-3 H UTSA |
| RV | < NR | Northwestern (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=4) | Big Ten | 5-4 | 28 | -- | RV | NR | L 31-21 H #3 Notre Dame |
| RV | < 19 | Iowa (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=61) | Big Ten | 6-3 | 17 | -8 | RV | 21 | L 38-36 A Purdue |
| RV | < NR | Boise State (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=154) | MWC (Mountain West) | 7-2 | 15 | -- | RV | NR | W 21-16 H BYU |
| RV | < NR | Purdue (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=5) | Big Ten | 5-4 | 14 | -- | RV | NR | W 38-36 H #19 Iowa |
| RV | < NR | Buffalo (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=191) | MAC (Mid-American) | 8-1 | 11 | -- | RV | NR | W 51-42 H Miami (OH) |
| RV | < NR | Oregon (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=54) | Pac-12 | 6-3 | 9 | -7 | RV | NR | W 42-21 H UCLA |
| RV | < NR | San Diego State (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/teams/by_season.cfm?seasonid=2018&teamid=143) | MWC (Mountain West) | 7-2 | 5 | -- | RV | NR | W 31-23 A New Mexico |
| RV | [font=Verdana, Arial |
Just curious, why the love for OU over PSU? I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but that one seems odd.i just think they're a better team. i could be wrong.
The BCS eliminated MoV for two reasons:I'm confused by the bolded part.
- So as not to reward teams for piling points on hapless opponents, and
- So as to prevent a team from compensating for a ridiculously weak schedule by blowing out their opponents
IMHO, the BCS's solution of completely eliminating MoV was a step too far. MoV DOES matter. However, I do agree with both of the motivations listed above so what I advocated was a modified MoV. Here is how I would calculate MoV if I ran a computer poll:
I would take the sum of the point differential at halftime, the point differential at the end of the third quarter, and the final point differential and award that as the MoV to the winning team (and MoD or Margin of Defeat) to the losing team with the following caveats:
- In any game in which the winning team has a negative MoV, they are awarded a 1 point MoV and the losing team gets a 1 point MoD
- In any game that goes to OT, the winning team is awarded a 1 point MoV and the losing team gets a 1 point MoD
I think this takes what the committee has typically referred to as "Game Control" into account and I think that matters. If you lead a team by at least three TD's at halftime, the end of the third quarter, and the end of the game, you dominated and you get a 63 point MoV but winning by more than that doesn't make it any better. The maximum MoV/MoD is 63/-63.
Anybody really think Baylor is better than Oklahoma? ~???Nope. But until they play Baylor absolutely deserves to be ranked ahead of them right now. Disappointed the CFP has BU #12. I knew they wouldn’t have them as high as I did but #12 surprises me.
Nope. But until they play Baylor absolutely deserves to be ranked ahead of them right now. Disappointed the CFP has BU #12. I knew they wouldn’t have them as high as I did but #12 surprises me.What does "deserves" mean in this context? Baylor is a horribly bad call from losing to Texas Tech. Baylor--as always--schedules nothing but pastries in OOC games. Do those facts go into who deserves what?
What does "deserves" mean in this context? Baylor is a horribly bad call from losing to Texas Tech. Baylor--as always--schedules nothing but pastries in OOC games. Do those facts go into who deserves what?Three wins over teams with winning records. Two of them being ranked wins. Handily beat the team that OU lost to. Undefeated. OU has one win over a team with a winning record and the CFP didn’t deem that team worthy of being ranked.
I'll admit, I've got a thing about Baylor. I think that they should have received the Death Penalty for what was going on there under Art Briles AND for the repeated cover-ups by the highers-up. People should have gone to prison. They still haven't had their come-to-Jesus moment. If the earth were to open and swallow Baylor University (without the people of course), I would consider it an event of metaphysical justice.
In any event, the CFP is trying to select the best teams, not the most deserving, whatever that means.
What does "deserves" mean in this context? Baylor is a horribly bad call from losing to Texas Tech. Baylor--as always--schedules nothing but pastries in OOC games. Do those facts go into who deserves what?In the context of these rankings not deserving too much attention or study?
I'll admit, I've got a thing about Baylor. I think that they should have received the Death Penalty for what was going on there under Art Briles AND for the repeated cover-ups by the highers-up. People should have gone to prison. They still haven't had their come-to-Jesus moment. If the earth were to open and swallow Baylor University (without the people of course), I would consider it an event of metaphysical justice.
In any event, the CFP is trying to select the best teams, not the most deserving, whatever that means.
Baylor being ranked where they are is the only thing preventing this poll from being a slave to W-L record. String of undefeateds followed by a string of 1-loss teams.........ick.I mean, Minnesota is buried. And the top five are by most any measure the top 5. Your two-loss teams worth a damn are UF, Auburn, Wisconsin and Michigan, none of which inspire me to argue they should jump anyone i particular.
Until you get to Baylor, the rankings are similar to how a 5 year-old would do them. This isn't hyperbole or insult, it's the truth. Losing is bad, losing more is worse than losing less, etc. Zero context.So these's this interesting aspect of show-you-work-ism here. Basically, a list is bad if it strongly reflects listing norms, but you're not going to suggest where that order is wrong.
Now yes, if something is obvious, then it's known by adults and small kids, but I doubt any of us would describe ranking the best college football teams as obvious. Silly maybe, but not obvious.
When I see a column of zeroes, then a column of ones, then twos....(say it with me) it's either laziness or simply the voters leaning too far towards resume. What's "too far" you ask? Well it's anytime the teams are ranked by number of losses, of course!
Technically, the best teams could all be undefeated and the next-best teams could all have one loss, but I give that a sub-1% chance...some non-zero number well below 1%.
I'm confused by the bolded part.I did a terrible job of explaining this and forgot to type the most important caveat. I have now added it.
It seems like the winning team would get rewarded more than if you just took the final point differential, whether it was a blowout or not.
Let's say Team A leads at halftime by 14, at the end of the 3rd quarter by 21, and at the end of the game by 28. You would take the sum of those and have a point differential of 63. And it would be impossible for the winning team to have a negative point differential.
Do you mean just the point differential for the 3rd quarter itself? And for the 4th quarter itself?
It will all mostly shake out, and we'll still have arguments about 4-5-6 in the final tally, and maybe even 7. No G5 is going undefeated, so we don't have that issue.In this scenario I don't think that you could have more than three P5 teams at 12-1:
OSU has some tough games remaining, PSU, UM, and the CG. If they lose to UM close, they probably get into the playoff. Bama plays at Auburn, never easy for them. If LSU beats Bama they are in good shape. PSU obviously has to beat OSU ( and vv). The Pac teams just need to win out and probably get in at 12-1 (either). If OU or Baylor win out, they are probably in. Clemson almost has to go 13-0 I think. Possible scenario:
Clemson 13-0
LSU 13-0
OSU 13-0
A gaggle at 12-1 and no real arbiter. Having three 13-0 doesn't happen often.
So, possibly five one loss teams to be considered for spot 4.That would certainly create an interesting argument but every year we get worked up about this type of scenario and usually it works itself out to where there are no more than 2-3 teams with a reasonable argument.
If either Minnesota or Baylor loses even once, they're out, no matter when/where/how that loss is. Fair or not, it's the truth.I agree with the exception that either of them would at least be in the conversation at 12-1 WITH a conference title.
So these's this interesting aspect of show-you-work-ism here. Basically, a list is bad if it strongly reflects listing norms, but you're not going to suggest where that order is wrong.
We'll start with the zero-loss teams. There's a zero behind four 1s and two 2s, and a zero behind four 1s and six 2s. So that's not conforming. The five undefeated that are smushing P5 schedules are generally liked by the stats as well as traditional stuff.
Then the issue with the 1-loss teams is they're pretty uninspiring. You have:
UGA which is workmanlike, best wins are good not great ND and UF teams. Lost to SC and had a dogfight with a QB-less UK team
Utah, another low ceiling squad with a decent loss and best wins of two 5-4 teams
Oregon, which has a good loss and the same 5-4 thing
Oklahoma, with one good win, a loss to lesser talented K-State, a so-so defense and a QB that is literally the poster child for benching your guy for someone better.
It's a cluster of fine. There's also a lost one-loss team behind seven two-loss teams.
Now you might say, there must be a good two-loss team to fill in. Here's the options
UF - Beat Auburn, competed with LSU, trailed SC going into the fourth quarter and kinda good not great all over
Auburn - A nice half team with one good win, one good loss and an uninspiring last week
Wisconsin with it loss to Ill, beatdown vs OSU one or so good wins
Michigan - Beat ND and been shaky in spots
ND - Best win is UVA and not much dominance
K-State - One good win, not a ton of dominance
Iowa - Best win is 5-3 Iowa State by a point. Next best is Purdue or Miami Ohio
Basically, you have very few one-loss teams and a mess of two-loss teams and none has a great case to be much higher than they are.
A sentence in an article on CBSsports made me think to do this:As we've discussed before, at least some of the complaints about the SEC have to do with SEC teams playing only 8 conference games and for most of them, at most one P5 OOC game. Also a factor is that SEC teams play creampuff OOC games late in the season, like the week before conference rivalry games. They pick and choose which team plays in which bowl to the conference's best advantage. And they play those bowl games almost entirely within the conference footprint.
The SEC has 5 of the top 11 teams. They don't all play each other, but still, that's a tough road to hoe. So imagine a conference of similarly-ranked teams (using ESPN's FPI, because it ranks all the teams):
Ohio State, Clemson, Oklahoma, Oregon, Wisconsin, Washington, Texas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Indiana, SMU, UCLA, Temple, Ohio U
Would there be major complaints if 2 teams from the conference listed above got 2 teams in the playoff? Maybe without the SEC names, it's not as damning?
I did a terrible job of explaining this and forgot to type the most important caveat. I have now added it.Thanks, Medina.
The caveat that I left out is that the point differential at each check (halftime, end of third quarter, end of game) is capped at 21 points such that the maximum possible MoV/MoD is 63/-63.
In your example:
- Team A leads at halftime by 14
- Team A leads at the end of the third quarter by 21, sum of 35
- Team A wins by 28 but that is capped at 21, sum of 56.
- Thus, Team A would be awarded a 56 point MoV and Team B would get a -56.
Here is how a team could win but have a negative MoV:
- Team A leads 17-7 at halftime, 10 points.
- Team A leads 17-14 at the end of the third quarter, 3 points, sum of 13.
- Team B wins the game 21-17, a -4 for Team A, sum of 9.
- Team A has a 9 point MoV but they LOST the game so they get a -1 and the winner, Team B gets a +1.
Makes you wonder why those other conferences schedule the way they do, doesn't it? Instead of gnashing teeth thinking "it's not fair" or "they are pissing me off" why not simply do the same thing? No one made a conference play 9 games. No one made them schedule multiple, tough OOC games.But we don't control our conference's scheduling policies any more than you control the SEC's. They are what they are, and the SEC--the outlier conference--benefits from it.
I mean, you can lament having to walk uphill everyday to fetch a pail of water.....or you could just move to the top of the hill, no?
But we don't control our conference's scheduling policies any more than you control the SEC's. They are what they are, and the SEC--the outlier conference--benefits from it.Yes, but the Big Ten controls its scheduling policies. I'm not talking about you and me, but those involved. How many hours of bitching and griping (for good reason, sure) have Big Ten brass spent on this? They could fix it with one stroke of a pen.
When Notre Dame benefits from being an outlier, many fans get angry about it. You might even be one of those fans. If so, that might help you understand why many non-SEC fans resent the SEC.
But my point is not based on the specifics - you can cite any weekly poll of any season and you'll find the same thing. You're describing the 1-loss teams that I'd hypothetically think should be ranked ahead of an undefeated as uninspiring, but that's irrelevant, actually.So if I am reading this right, this poll is lazy, in large part because of the clustering of one-loss or undefeated teams, but the actual details of a given poll are not in fact relevant?
A different point is the case of Minnesota (and/or Baylor and/or other lowly helmets): their resume could be identical or better than a 'helmet' program, but they're not getting in, not getting the benefit of the doubt, not being held in equal esteem. And we all know that. Even among helmets, a recent successful helmet team gets the nod over an older one.
We could look at Clemson and UGA, just for an exercise.
UGA is the better helmet, historically and is recently strong, but Clemson has been peaking and is their best-ever the last 5 years. The Tigers get the nod because of that, despite nearly-equal resumes. Say both win out and Clemson gets in and UGA ends up 5th (don't care if the other pieces can fall into place for this scenario, let's just explore it).
Clemson's best win is probably their 2nd-closest - 14 pts over A&M. UGA's is Florida and they also beat ND. I wouldn't consider any of Clemson's other opponents newsworthy, and I think that's fair to say. Clemson did escape with a 1-point win vs UNC and UGA lost in 2 OT to USCe. Are we going to say Clemson gets into the playoff because of a failed 2-pt conversion by the Tar Heels over a UGA team that happened to miss an easy FG? Is that the margin of error here? Did Clemson have anything to do with Mack Brown deciding to go for 2 instead of taking it to OT?
God knows I'm not defending UGA here, but it's not even really about the teams. The larger point is the question - Would the undefeated Clemson be so clearly ranked ahead of 1-loss UGA? I think we all cite quality wins when it suits us. Conference champion when it suits us. Best loss. Helmet quality. Conference strength. Etc......
So if I am reading this right, this poll is lazy, in large part because of the clustering of one-loss or undefeated teams, but the actual details of a given poll are not in fact relevant?Apologies for all the certainty I'm claiming here, but the shoe fits. I think we mostly agree on things, lol.
That complaint in turn feels rather lazy. You give a cursory look, see somewhat of a pattern you disapprove of an read into it what you chose.
It's less lazy than it is a statistical certainty. There's almost a 0% chance all the undefeateds are better than the 1-loss teams and the 1-loss teams are better than the 2-loss teams. I guess you could claim that 2019 is on the very tip of the bell curve of this near-certainty, but in that case you're claiming an unlikelihood on top of an unlikelihood.
The Clemson-UGA part seems to come to the conclusion that ranking all teams is a sort of fool's errand (It's not really about the teams, Is that the margin of error here?). The point of rankings is to arbitrarily or systematically decide margins of error, and football is a low sample-size sport with different kinds of useful data that we can discuss.
This whole convo is most certainly a fool's errand, yet nevertheless fun. And logic and validity is still a part of the convo, while acknowledging its arbitrariness.
But if the Clemson-UGA thing is to a degree, unknowable (probably), it means the whole exercise is a frivolity (mostly), and that in turn means the charges of laziness don't hold much water because if something is pointless to begin with, working less hard on the pointless thing probably doesn't reflect much at all on the person doing it.
Anything worth doing's worth doing right.
So why is this one different from the last one?Results are more important than what I think.
I merely am expressing my thought that Bama is the better team and would beat LSU 65 times out of 100. They don't play 100 times, or even 10.That’s funny because I thought LSU was better before the game and watching the game just reinforced that even stronger in my mind.
Bama had a bad first half and could not recover (credit to LSU for not fading). I thought LSU was better before the game, now I'm not so sure.
Just going on what I think:
1. LSU
2. Ohio St
3. Clemson
4. Bama
5. UGA
6. Auburn
7. Oregon
8. Florida
9. Oklahoma
10. Penn St
11. Wisconsin
12. Michigan
13. ND
14. Utah
15. Minnesota
16. Texas
17. Texas A&M
18. Baylor
19. Ok St
20. K St
21. Memphis
22. Iowa
23. Cincinnati
24. Washington
25. USC
Glad you don't get to vote on anything that actually matters.....Lol. Please feel free to post yours.
Lol. Please feel free to post yours.1. LSU
1. LSUYou missed my real top 25 where I ranked teams based mostly on resume. The top 10 of that one was:
2. Ohio St
3. Minnesota
4. Clemson
5. Baylor
6. Georgia
7. Oregon
8. Alabama
9. Penn State
Etc..../who cares.
Top end should be about teams that have proved it on the field. You're clearly still valuing helmet teams. I.E.....Minnesota can't be good.....#15 seems right.
You're right, but....once you get down in the rankings, it really doesn't matter. Both things are true.
I’d encourage you to do a full top 25. People do the top 10 and then quit because it gets hard. They usually do what you do and just say something like:
11-25 “Who cares” or “Whatever” or “Doesn’t matter.” It’s kind of a cop out. Yeah, it’s hard. That’s kind of the point.
I think it worth noting when a team blows out everyone on their schedule even if the opponents range from so-so to bad.Yep.
1. LSUThis seems like lining up teams by number of losses and then adjusting internally a bit. Why is LSU ranked higher than Baylor? What is your reasoning?
2. Ohio St
3. Minnesota
4. Clemson
5. Baylor
6. Georgia
7. Oregon
8. Alabama
9. Penn State
Etc..../who cares.
Top end should be about teams that have proved it on the field. You're clearly still valuing helmet teams. I.E.....Minnesota can't be good.....#15 seems right.
You're right, but....once you get down in the rankings, it really doesn't matter. Both things are true.I don’t think that’s true though. One of the things the CFP looks at is ranked wins. If you aren’t doing a complete top 25 then you aren’t really replicating what the committee is doing. Now, maybe you aren’t trying to do that anyway but I am. One of the reasons I have Baylor higher than Clemson is I have Baylor with two top 25 wins and Clemson with none. And one of the reasons I have teams like K St and Ok St in the top 25 and not Texas A&M is because I’m taking time to look at their resumes too and not just cutting it off at the top 10.
I ranked the top 16 because I saw a natural gap there. And because it's easier to manipulate a 4x4 in your head than a 5x5.
I don’t think that’s true though. One of the things the CFP looks at is ranked wins. If you aren’t doing a complete top 25 then you aren’t really replicating what the committee is doing. Now, maybe you aren’t trying to do that anyway but I am. One of the reasons I have Baylor higher than Clemson is I have Baylor with two top 25 wins and Clemson with none. And one of the reasons I have teams like K St and Ok St in the top 25 and not Texas A&M is because I’m taking time to look at their resumes too and not just cutting it off at the top 10.I wish they would use some kind of numerical metric for ranked wins.
I think it matters.
Minnesota is a great story, I think, but doubts about their proficiency are merited IMHO. I'm pulling for them all the way, but I believe they will get beat this weekend. Still a great story and season. I hope I'm wrong.If you've checked the Hawkeye resume you might think the Gophers have a better than average chance. I'm guessing Vegas will favor the Gophers
You missed my real top 25 where I ranked teams based mostly on resume. The top 10 of that one was:
1. LSU
2. Ohio St
3. Minnesota
4. Baylor
5. UGA
6. Oregon
7. Clemson
8. Penn St
9. Utah
10. Bama
The one that you criticized was the one where I was saying if I just went on what I think without being worried actual results then this is how I would rank them. I’m definitely more of a resume ranker than a “here’s what I think” ranker.
I’d encourage you to do a full top 25. People do the top 10 and then quit because it gets hard. They usually do what you do and just say something like:
11-25 “Who cares” or “Whatever” or “Doesn’t matter.” It’s kind of a cop out. Yeah, it’s hard. That’s kind of the point.
We don't need to pretend Minnesota is some sort of juggernaut, either. They started the year with 4 one-score victories vs FCS South Dakota St, Fresno St (in 2 OT), GA Southern, and Purdue.
That's why they were 17th. There was a reason. And no, one win vs a highly-ranked team doesn't undo all of that, nor should it. Passing your first real obstacle is a big plus, but it was just one obstacle.
The good thing about all of this is that Minnesota will get to earn their way in. Games remaining vs Iowa, Wisconsin, and potentially Ohio St will provide the evidence of how good the Gophers actually are.
A lot of Hoosier love.I won’t kill anybody for putting them at the end of the top 25. When you get to about 22-25 you are choosing between teams with the smallest warts. I looked at them but just decided to take a pass.
What's their best win? Nebraska? Ball State?
I'm not trying to say that Minnesota is the best team in the nation, or is even a top five team. They had some early season scares and let those teams (which are not all that bad) hang around by gifting them points late in those games. But if you've paid attention...they've improved every week since. And some of these other teams have had bad games as well and it seems to not matter as much.Don't you have them ranked #3?
This seems like lining up teams by number of losses and then adjusting internally a bit. Why is LSU ranked higher than Baylor? What is your reasoning?
That same reasoning could also be used to rank undefeated teams below one loss teams. Alabama lost in a close game at home against your #1 team while Georgia at home (2 OTs) to a pretty mediocre team and yet you have Bama below UGA. I realize UGA has a couple nice wins. Penn State lost close on the road to your #3 team and you have them down at 9. Why is that?
Don't you have them ranked #3?
So, Minnesota is not a top five team, but you have them ranked #3.
I don't know who is arguing that wins and losses don't matter.
I rank teams based on my perceptions as to how good they are in reality, not just lining them up be won/loss record.
That's just my preference. If I believe Minnesota is NOT a top five team, I'm not going to rank them #3.
So, Minnesota is not a top five team, but you have them ranked #3.I will frequently rank teams in places I don’t necessarily “think” they belong based on resume. I have Minnesota #3 too. Do I think they are the third best team in the country? No, but they are undefeated and have a top 10 win.
I don't know who is arguing that wins and losses don't matter.
If they are not a top five team, I personally would not rank them at Number 3. It's just that simple.
What do your rankings mean if they don't provide your opinion as to which teams are better than other teams? If Ball State starts out 5-0 few of us would have them in the top ten with other undefeated teams. They MIGHT get to #20, maybe.
Obviously, a 9-3 team can be quite a bit better than some 12-0 teams.
What do your rankings mean if they don't provide your opinion as to which teams are better than other teams? If Ball State starts out 5-0 few of us would have them in the top ten with other undefeated teams. They MIGHT get to #20, maybe.I’ll use my opinion if the resumes of two teams are really close. If Texas A&M played Baylor or Minnesota on a neutral field right now I think A&M would have a really good shot at winning. But A&M has no good wins and has lost to every good team they have played. Baylor has a couple of top 25 wins and Minnesota has a top 10 win and both are undefeated. Their resumes aren’t close so I rank Minnesota and Baylor ahead of them.
Obviously, a 9-3 team can be quite a bit better than some 12-0 teams.
I was reviewing the highlights of the Bama game and can make an argument that Bama would beat LSU more often than not, even on a neutral field. Bama really made some uncharacteristic mistakes in the first half.
I’ll use my opinion if the resumes of two teams are really close. If Texas A&M played Baylor or Minnesota on a neutral field right now I think A&M would have a really good shot at winning. But A&M has no good wins and has lost to every good team they have played. Baylor has a couple of top 25 wins and Minnesota has a top 10 win and both are undefeated. Their resumes aren’t close so I rank Minnesota and Baylor ahead of them.
If actual results don’t matter and we just go on what we think let’s just go ahead and put Bama and Clemson and whoever else in the playoffs because we all “think” they’re better than everybody else anyway.
In my OPINION, Alabama should not get in over any one loss conference champion.
It is not like other years where you can say they proved it with their schedule.
If anyone comes out of the Big Ten, Big 12 or PAC 10 as a conference champ, with one loss, they should get in over Alabama if they are not even playing in their conference champ. Those would be the 4 best teams by proof.
In my OPINION, Alabama should not get in over any one loss conference champion.I think Bama is in trouble. Or I should say I think they should be in trouble. We’ll see what the committee does with them tomorrow night I guess. They won’t be a conference champion and, at best, they will have two ranked wins if Texas A&M sneaks in there at some point. They could very well end up with their best win being a 4 loss Auburn team that ends up somewhere between 16-20. Everyone knows they are good but there isn’t a lot of meat on that schedule.
It is not like other years where you can say they proved it with their schedule.
If anyone comes out of the Big Ten, Big 12 or PAC 10 as a conference champ, with one loss, they should get in over Alabama if they are not even playing in their conference champ. Those would be the 4 best teams by proof.
Pffft.Except this is 2019. They have proven little to nothing.
They didn't prove it in 2011 with their schedule. Oklahoma State had better wins and were conference champs, and every one of the BCS computers favored OSU, but the voters decided to focus on the singular resume bullet point of "best loss."
Alabama is the only team in the post WWII era to win an NC without winning their conference, and they've done it twice.
Pffft.Yep. In 2011 Bama should have never been in there.
They didn't prove it in 2011 with their schedule. Oklahoma State had better wins and were conference champs, and every one of the BCS computers favored OSU, but the voters decided to focus on the singular resume bullet point of "best loss."
Alabama is the only team in the post WWII era to win an NC without winning their conference, and they've done it twice.
Pffft.
They didn't prove it in 2011 with their schedule. Oklahoma State had better wins and were conference champs, and every one of the BCS computers favored OSU, but the voters decided to focus on the singular resume bullet point of "best loss."
Alabama is the only team in the post WWII era to win an NC without winning their conference, and they've done it twice.
So you think that special rules should exist for Alabama? Or maybe we just give them preferential treatment until they lose as a one loss non-champion four seed?I think you are taking what he said 180 degrees from what he intended.
So you think that special rules should exist for Alabama? Or maybe we just give them preferential treatment until they lose as a one loss non-champion four seed?Ya he didn't mean it that way just pointing out what appears to favoritism.Being a Bayou Bengal I doubt he's seeking Bama getting any breaks
I think you are taking what he said 180 degrees from what he intended.
I don't have a problem with where the Gophers were ranked last week. resume, didn't include a reason to put them in the top 10.This!
This week is different. The win over PSU is impressive.
This!Ed Zachery, the only poll that should matter is the final poll
I was not sold on the Gophers until this weekend. I believed they were a pretty good team that was improving every week. However, I didn't think they belonged all the way down at 17. I personally would have had them around 12 or so. Now I believe they should be at min in the top 10.
But the beauty of it is that they get a chance over the next 3 weeks to make believers out of people or confirm what they already thought. If they beat Iowa and Wisconsin, they will be worthy of top 5 consideration.
I'm pretty sure that he's saying that Alabama was rightfully placed in the playoffs despite not being in the championship game. And the fact that they won the National Championship justifies their inclusion despite the weaker resume.I would guess that you are wrong. I believe that he was repeating what many of us have been saying that Bama gets breaks that no other team seems to benefit from. At least that is how I took it.
But maybe I had it wrong.
Ed Zachery, the only poll that should matter is the final pollEd Zachery, the only poll that should matter is the final pollOk, I've been seeing Ed Zachery referenced for years. I must be missing some inside joke.
I'm pretty sure that he's saying that Alabama was rightfully placed in the playoffs despite not being in the championship game. And the fact that they won the National Championship justifies their inclusion despite the weaker resume.He’s saying that Bama should have never been in the 2011 BCS game but was placed there anyway so don’t hold your breath on them being in trouble this year just yet.
But maybe I had it wrong.
Ok, I've been seeing Ed Zachery referenced for years. I must be missing some inside joke.Never mind, I looked it up. I guess I'm too old to see the obvious sometimes.
I'm pretty sure that he's saying that Alabama was rightfully placed in the playoffs despite not being in the championship game. And the fact that they won the National Championship justifies their inclusion despite the weaker resume.Yeah, you're wrong. And trust me... MDT HATES Bama. You can see it in his eyes.
But maybe I had it wrong.
He’s saying that Bama should have never been in the 2011 BCS game but was placed there anyway so don’t hold your breath on them being in trouble this year just yet.
Gotcha.If the CFP does what they are supposed to do and what they say they do then they shouldn’t worry about vaulting Minnesota ahead of anyone.
And back to the Gophers ranking of #17 this past week. Obviously it doesn't much matter any longer....but I wonder what the committee was thinking. There was absolutely no risk to rank them higher. Then they could have moved the Gophers down after losing to Penn State like they clearly assumed would happen. As Tim Brando mentioned....now you have them behind a bunch of teams that also won and you have to move them down? Now that wasn't very smart.
Yeah, you're wrong. And trust me... MDT HATES Bama. You can see it in his eyes.
Never mind, I looked it up. I guess I'm too old to see the obvious sometimes.It's really not very clever, but.......... habit
Alabama would need several 11-2 CG winners this season which is increasingly less likely. Imagine UGA upsets LSU and they are both 12-1, Alabama is hosed for sure.
None of us can expect Clemson to lose. Ohio State could end up 12-1 winning the CG, they also could do worse of course, I don't expect it. The Pac seems fairly likely to have a 12-1 champ.
Bama's OOC win of course is Duke, yay. They would have wins over Auburn and A&M, OK I guess, and a decent loss.
Auburn and Ole Miss, eh?
Huh.
I'm just not sure that there's any way to predict what the CFPC will do. They're accountable to no-one and can make up whatever criteria they want and weight it however they want. Since they've been in charge in 2014, it sure seems like they start with whatever teams they want and then work their way backwards from there to justify them. I mean, as opposed to setting down a criteria beforehand and then stacking up teams to see who meets it.That is the impression that I am usually left with.
This reminds me of 92 when nobody respected Bama and fans and the intellegensia wanted to revoke Corky Simpson's AP vote. Not suggesting this is an exact parallel but that people change shoes. Not saying Minnesota is 92 Bama, or 19 Bama is 92 Miami, just that we all have a hard time retiring our biases.
Hard to believe but OU in 2000 had the same stink until the 4th quarter of that Orange Bowl vs Fsu.
It was yeah but all season long.
I still think Minn D is vulnerable but they deserve every opportunity they get over anybody else if they keep winning.
That is the impression that I am usually left with.well, when the top 4 change's quite drastically the final week........ that's the impression
well, when the top 4 change's quite drastically the final week........ that's the impressionI didn't say I was right, but that was the impression I've had in years past. Hopefully, this year will show us different. We'll see
Imagine some scenario where the #4 selection is down to a 13-0 team that "played nobody" and a 12-1 team that had 3-4 impressive wins and one close loss to a great team.12-1 team. I don’t think you would get many dissenting opinions on here about that
Do you want the "best team" or the "best record"?
well, when the top 4 change's quite drastically the final week........ that's the impressionSome of those changes can logically be explained. They weren’t as out of nowhere as they may have seemed
Ed Zachery, the only poll that should matter is the final pollEd Zachery, the only poll that should matter is the final pollThe only poll that does matter is the final one.
Gotcha.I assume they were thinking Minnesota lacked any quality wins and had not been dominant enough to overcome that.
And back to the Gophers ranking of #17 this past week. Obviously it doesn't much matter any longer....but I wonder what the committee was thinking. There was absolutely no risk to rank them higher. Then they could have moved the Gophers down after losing to Penn State like they clearly assumed would happen. As Tim Brando mentioned....now you have them behind a bunch of teams that also won and you have to move them down? Now that wasn't very smart.
I'm not sure that's true. OU's OOC slate was pretty weak that year, but by the end of the season including the B12 CCG they had 4 wins over teams that finished in the Top 12. Nebraska, KSU twice, and then of course the Debacle in Dallas Part 1. So they had wins over 10-2, 11-3,11-3, 9-3.I should've been a little more specific in describing the 'stink.' OU began ranked around #20, justifiably so, and little by little made their way up the poll. Getting to #1 in early Nov after beating Nebraska. It's not that people said they shouldn't be in the BCS game, only that nobody was buying OU, I did, but they were an 11 point dog to FSU, and a lot of folks just assumed, FSU would flip a switch in the second half, until they didn't. That's FSU having defending MNC benefit of doubt, and people thinking Gibbs/Schnellenberger/Blake were still coaching Stoops' OU team.
Imagine some scenario where the #4 selection is down to a 13-0 team that "played nobody" and a 12-1 team that had 3-4 impressive wins and one close loss to a great team.That’s where it gets difficult. Best record is easy, definitive and not debatable. Best team is nothing more than an opinion. Any team in a power 5 that goes 13-0 should be non debatable.
Do you want the "best team" or the "best record"?
I assume they were thinking Minnesota lacked any quality wins and had not been dominant enough to overcome that.
and they’ll move them around because when push comes to shove, the focus on movement around one-game swings is a somewhat illogical focus.
Imagine some scenario where the #4 selection is down to a 13-0 team that "played nobody" and a 12-1 team that had 3-4 impressive wins and one close loss to a great team.
Do you want the "best team" or the "best record"?
That’s where it gets difficult. Best record is easy, definitive and not debatable. Best team is nothing more than an opinion. Any team in a power 5 that goes 13-0 should be non debatable.
The problem is....except for in extreme cases (ACC this year?....maybe the PAC-12?)…..any team playing in a Power 5 conference is going to rack up enough quality wins where it would be impossible to say that they've "played nobody". Especially with the conference championship.So, this "extreme scenario" as you call may be extant on two occasions this year.
Once Minnesota got past their tough OOC slate and started playing Big Ten pastries they did look a lot better.Some teams get a little better throughout the year, and some regress a little (like mine).
So, this "extreme scenario" as you call may be extant on two occasions this year.
Maybe it's not that extreme after all.
The ACC is historically bad this year. I cannot imagine that they'll remain without one or two other top 15 teams in the future. Even so....I never said that I would leave an undefeated Power 5 team out. Clemson may not end up playing any high end teams this year....but that isn't exactly their fault. If they take care of business, they'll belong in.It's Clemson's fault they scheduled Wofford and Charlotte
In my OPINION, Alabama should not get in over any one loss conference champion.This is logically false. It presupposes all conferences are equal. It presupposes the conference champions are the actual best teams from their conferences.
It is not like other years where you can say they proved it with their schedule.
If anyone comes out of the Big Ten, Big 12 or PAC 10 as a conference champ, with one loss, they should get in over Alabama if they are not even playing in their conference champ. Those would be the 4 best teams by proof.
That's your prerogative. But if Minnesota continues to win, trying to leave them out in favor of a one loss team would be a joke.No, supporting a system that ignores context is a joke.
This thread is pretty revealing.Because of bias. Anything left to opinion will be widely disputed.
It's not just resume. It's not just eye test. Why do so many people have trouble taking both into account? It's just 2 variables!
This is logically false. It presupposes all conferences are equal. It presupposes the conference champions are the actual best teams from their conferences.I hear what your saying OAF. It does presuppose those things. But going the subjective route presupposes an almost infinite number of things.
The committee's self-described task is to pick the 4 best teams. Not the 4 best resumes. Not the fairest method. Not the most widely-approved selections. The 4 best teams.
the problem is the way they pick "best 4 teams" is so stupid. It's all based on opinion. It's all subjective. It's all open to interpretation.Amen brother.
They should do it like the NFL. If you want to get into the playoff, earn it. You have to win your conference and earn your way in. Simple as that. No bullshit. Why even have Conferences and conference championship games if they don't mean anything? Let the 5 Power Conference winners get auto-bids and then let the committee vote on whoever the hell they think the prettiest looking 6th team is.
(https://www.printyourbrackets.com/thumbs/6-Team-Single-Seeded.gif)
No, supporting a system that ignores context is a joke.
In the 3 weeks prior to playing Minnesota, PSU played at Iowa, home against Michigan and at MSU. All grinders (MSU is not as bad as it looks).
Minnesota played at ________, home against Maryland and then idle. Not exactly grinders.
Something to think about.
Why even have Conferences and conference championship games if they don't mean anything?This is obviously not the case. Just because they don't mean everything doesn't mean they don't mean anything. You're living on the extremes, friend.
Supporting a system that awards accomplishments on the field is a joke? Of course not, who said this?Any voter who blindly supposes an SEC team is better than a non-SEC team obviously shouldn't be a voter. All teams should be rated and ranked based on what they've done individually.
Alabama lost to LSU on their own field. If their are undefeated Power 5 teams....how can you possibly say that Alabama should get another shot at them over a team that hasn't lost a game, plays in a conference that has quality teams, and hasn't gotten a shot at the "best" team in the nation?
The keyword you used here is "should". It's absolutely not about if Alabama SHOULD get another chance or a different team SHOULD get their first chance. These are irrelevant aspects of the discussion.
Now THAT would be a joke.
And again....your context is filtered through a flawed system to begin with. One that constantly assumes that SEC teams are better than everyone else. Preseason bias is a b1tch....and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to treat other Power 5 teams like second class to the SEC teams. Like I said.....Texas A&M is a perfect example of this. Top 15 team to start the season. Scraped by a horrible Arkansas team by four points and Ole Miss by seven. Is that good? They have five very good teams on their schedule. So far they've proven that SEC bias by losing all three that they've played so far.
This thread is pretty revealing.unfortunately, the committee uses these two variables AFTER counting number of losses
It's not just resume. It's not just eye test. Why do so many people have trouble taking both into account? It's just 2 variables!
As for the discussion overall - name another team outside Columbus, OH that would stay within 5 points of LSU.how about Texas??? - down 6 with 3:59 to play after settling for a FG
Any voter who blindly supposes an SEC team is better than a non-SEC team obviously shouldn't be a voter. All teams should be rated and ranked based on what they've done individually.
As for the discussion overall - name another team outside Columbus, OH that would stay within 5 points of LSU. Oh wait, Auburn lost to them by 3. Florida was only down 7 late. But those are SEC teams, and you don't want to hear about that. Just as voters should not show blind favoritism to SEC teams, nor should you show them blind disgust.
And I'll keep typing this until my fingers fall off - crowning the national champion should be an exclusive exercise, not an inclusive one. We had just the top 2, but then it had too much SEC in it in 2011, so we go to 4. But now we have too much SEC in it, so we'll go to 8. Guess what will happen?!?!?!?! The "bias" isn't going to stop - there will be "too much SEC" when there's 8 teams, so we'll go to 16. Then eventually, we'll crown a 3 or 4-loss "national champion" and become as irrelevant as the college basketball regular season.
Cheers!
I wish they would use some kind of numerical metric for ranked wins.I'm not taking exception to anything you've posted there. Just using your post as a take-off point.
Like, why should I rely on the same blend of resume and a test to determine opponents quality when I could just use numbers that are predictive and forward-looking and would probably indicate the quality of opponent? Those predictive numbers recognize strength, which is what we’re really looking for in the first place.
The main downside is we are particularly bad in using rankings rather than whatever strength comes behind those rankings. The number 25 and 30 teams might be basically the same in terms of quality, but we tend to treat them very differently.
because SEC > ACCbecause Everyone > ACC
And the four best teams are whoever they say they are because their definition of "best," meaningless as it is, is the one that counts. It's logically sound.
The committee's self-described task is to pick the 4 best teams. Not the 4 best resumes. Not the fairest method. Not the most widely-approved selections. The 4 best teams.
Clemson doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, even though it has won two of the last four NCs and even though it beat Bama handily in last year's NC game. Bama's helmet is apparently more powerful than Clemson's johnny-come-lately helmet, and Nick Saban is apparently more powerful than Dabo Swinney.Ya but Bama's strongest resume builder is a loss at home with 2 weeks to prepare to a team that has allowed 38pts or more 3 times in 9 tries.Can't keep running the SEC mantra up the flag pole specially if Clemson,tOSU,LSU,Oregon,Oklahoma win out
On Texas vs Florida:
Texas lost to 4-5 TCU and has no wins over top 15 teams. Florida's (one fewer) losses are to top 6 teams. I don't see any issue with where the two are ranked.
On Clemson vs Alabama:
Alabama was 3rd and Clemson 5th, with Clemson having the only close call (1-point win vs UNC). The Tide also fared better vs their only common opponent (A&M). Again, with those 2 truths, I don't see a problem with the 2-position discrepancy. If anyone gets similar treatment to Bama, it's Clemson.
And the LSU-Texas result fact, while true, doesn't negate my point: who would be within a 5-point underdog to LSU today besides OSU?
What's odd is Alabama still looked to have an edge on both LOS. Not dominantly so as in the past couple years, so not a KO, but more in a winner-by-decision manner. Usually I'd favor a team that wins the LOS and say if they lose, you could be looking for fluky stuff.I was not a playoff advocate. I only prefer the 4-team playoff because the alternative is one with 8 teams, which would lead in time to 16.
I'm not at all sure that's what this was. Alabama could play a cleaner game and they made some uncharacteristic mistakes. But for every one you can name of theirs, I can give you at least one for LSU, so that's a wash imo.*
So putting aside the mistakes unlikely to be repeated by both teams, you have the LOS, which I thought Alabama "won." Then you have Burrow and CEH, who didn't care. Nothing about their seasons or performance Saturday suggested "fluke" and they were the biggest reasons LSU won. So I don't know. I tend to favor a team with better lines in general, but on the other hand the difference wasn't so much that some stellar skill player performance couldn't overcome it, and nothing about said performances was fluky.
* things that probably don't happen again:
--Tua coughing the ball up unforced after a good drive, cost them 3-7 points, insert joke about Bama FG kicker here
--Stingley doesn't realize a play has started, gets burnt for long TD. Yeah, that's not happening again
--Bama punter drops a well snapped ball for no reason
--LSU gives up a punt return TD for the first time in 12 years. Waddle is a great returner, but that's not happening again
--LSU goes silent in the 3rd quarter as Burrow, not under pressure, misses open WRs on a couple plays. I'm not so much saying Burrow can definitely do better than 31/39, but I am saying that's the first time all year I've seen Burrow have time, see his open guys, and flat miss on the throws, and I don't expect to see it again
--Kary Vincent gets hurt twice and after the second time, LSU really misses him in the slot. Alabama wasn't doing much on offense in the first half, and later found success where Vincent was not. Injuries happen, so is this repeatable? I don't know.
--Still not sure what was with the call on Bama's final TD, but Stingley definitely fell down. Not sure how I feel about the chances of something like that happening again. Alabama is good at quick, long strikes. Stingley, while not perfect, is also good at not getting beat in that particular manner.
Who knows. I'm sure we'll find out as Alabama sits at home yet again while another team goes to do the dirty work against the East champion and the Tide goes to the playoffs anyway. Assuming LSU can take care of business from here on out, of course.
I understand that. But Minnesota was going to be playing Penn State that very week. It just seems like an easier sell to have them higher to begin and move them down when they lose....rather than have to justify leaping them over other teams that won....effectively dropping them. If the committee would have had both them and Baylor ranked above all the two loss teams, nobody would have batted an eyelash. Now it seems likely that the Gophers will make the largest one week jump into the top ten in the CFP rankings relatively short history.The first graph assumes the committee is building the rankings with an eye toward contingencies. That requires some galaxy brain stuff because they'd have to do it for everyone, and even if they did, most folks would still flip out. That's how rankings work. People flip out. The flip out when the undefeateds are too low, and they get salty like OAM when the No. 2 team doesn't have two losses and a few undefeateds aren't outside the top 20.
But really....be consistent with the rankings. Again....I still think the schedule thing is overblown and perception plays too big a factor. Look at Wisconsin at #13. They've got two losses. Their best win is over a good but not great Michigan team. And they have a loss to Illinois.....a team that Minnesota dismantled.
And not dominant enough? Anybody who's been paying any attention has recognized that Minnesota has been getting better and better as the season has gone on. In the prior four games to the Penn State game, the Gophers outscored their opponents 168 to 41. Their first string defense scored more touchdowns than they allowed over those four games. Nebraska scored their only touchdown against the second string. And Illinois's two touchdowns came on defense.
Technically, it is the penultimate poll that "matters" in terms of who makes the CFP.I mean, that's the final CFP poll.
This false radicalization of extremes keeps popping up among numerous topics here. But it doesn't belong.We'll find out tommorow nite from the sources that count
I was not a playoff advocate. I only prefer the 4-team playoff because the alternative is one with 8 teams, which would lead in time to 16.Well it sort of is,because IMO that's as long as NFL bound kids will play - and I don't blame them
But one of the big pro-playoff arguments was that with a playoff, who's better is settled on the field. Except, it's not.
Hmmm..
If Alabama should be omitted from the CFP for losing to LSU, then why should a 1-loss B10 or XII champ get in? Whoever they lost to should get that spot, no?
By this 'interesting' logic, Alabama is extra-penalized for losing to a great team. Meanwhile, if they had lost to Texas A&M and won the SEC, everyone here would include them with joy. That's weird.
Hmmm..For one as noted - at home with 2 weeks to prepare.They got waxed in last years Play Off so no press play of invincibility,and they will not have won conference as the other squads presented would have won out.They're pretty good but have used up their allocations on mulligans - just win,Baby
If Alabama should be omitted from the CFP for losing to LSU, then why should a 1-loss B10 or XII champ get in?
For one as noted - at home with 2 weeks to prepare.They got waxed in last years Play Off so no press play of invincibility,and they will not have won conference as the other squads presented would have won out.They're pretty good but have used up their allocations on mulligans - just win,BabyOkay, let's do a 1-question quiz:
I'm not pro-Alabama, I'm explaining that it makes sense for them to be included at 11-1 when the committee's goal is the 4 best teams. This isn't complicated, despite the pages and pages of posts. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter.
Sorry....but the playoffs don't need Alabama. They already lost to LSU on their home turf. That was their playoff. They aren't one of the best four teams. Sorry....but the playoffs don't need Alabama. Time for other teams that proved themselves on the field to take a shot. We don't need Alabama getting mopped up by Clemson again anyways.Yeeeesh. Not touching this one.
I'm not pro-Alabama, I'm explaining that it makes sense for them to be included at 11-1 when the committee's goal is the 4 best teams. This isn't complicated, despite the pages and pages of posts. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter.What's wrong are your assumptions.We have a narrow sample sizes,they had had their chance they blew it.Since they don't play the other schedules we including you don't know.Pages and pages don't neccessarily agree with you,Bama can wait for others to lose.Ohio State in 2015 were defending National Champs and undefeated but lost at home to number 9 MSU.Bama wasn't defending NC - so you see justice rears it's ugly head
Per strength of record, it is more impressive. Hell, having 2 losses with Florida's schedule is more impressive.if you are going to simplify it down to W/LI was hoping we were more 3-dimensional than this.
Per strength of record, it is more impressive. Hell, having 2 losses with Florida's schedule is more impressive.if you are going to simplify it down to W/LWhat Bama's strong loss resume builder?
Yeeeesh. Not touching this one.
What's wrong are your assumptions.We have a narrow sample sizes,they had had their chance they blew it.Since they don't play the other schedules we including you don't know.Pages and pages don't neccessarily agree with you,Bama can wait for others to lose.Ohio State in 2015 were defending National Champs and undefeated but lost at home to number 9 MSU.Bama wasn't defending NC - so you see justice rears it's ugly headWords like "should" and yours - "justice".......this is what I disagree with. When a team is ranked 5th in the final rankings, whether a conference champ or not, it won't be an injustice....it'll be a certainty.
I was hoping we were more 3-dimensional than this.You asked a simple question about simply a record. The numbers say Alabama's 1 loss record is not impressive at this point.
Too much truth in there? Can't possibly envision a world where SEC Alabama isn't the best one loss team?No.
The SEC and their fans truly have a ridiculous sense of entitlement. It's almost like we have the Group of Five, the Power Four, and the SEC.
You asked a simple question about simply a record. The numbers say Alabama's 1 loss record is not impressive at this point.Record and conference and year. You know, context.
Words like "should" and yours - "justice".......this is what I disagree with. When a team is ranked 5th in the final rankings, whether a conference champ or not, it won't be an injustice....it'll be a certainty.Now you're jumping around about final 5 rankings - not sure where that came from.Bama isn't/doesn't belong that is a fact(right now) but that can change.We can't transport our beliefs into the play offs,they win - they're in.Because Bama played LSU close doesn't give them the same resume' or the right to ride those coat tails into a play off
No.
Didn't want to touch it because this isn't just about Alabama or the SEC. Replace Alabama with Georgia. With Minnesota. With Ohio State. With Penn State. The point is the same.
A 1-loss non-champ can be better than a conference champ AND warrant a spot in the playoff. Regardless of conference affiliation. I'll never understand the problem with this statement.
Record and conference and year. You know, context.You mean all of the things your question omitted?
Now you're jumping around about final 5 rankings - not sure where that came from.Bama isn't/doesn't belong that is a fact(right now) but that can change.We can't transport our beliefs into the play offs,they win - they're in.Because Bama played LSU close doesn't give them the same resume' or the right to ride those coat tails into a play offthe committee has played, best loss, in the past
Record and conference and year. You know, context.Here's some context Bama lost...at home....with 2 weeks to prepare....and got waxed in last years Play Off.That doesn't smack of either preference or entitlement until some other programs lose,the illusion of belonging will remain just that
the committee has played, best loss, in the pastOhio State,Clemson,Oregon and Oklahoma would have to lose for that to take affect for Bama
Baloney, fool. You specifically mentioned Alabama and them being better than any one loss conference champion. That the committee should worry about picking the "best" teams based upon???(sec bias)??? You can go back a page or two and read your own posts, right?HA!Others see it just not him.Hang around he does it nightly.Even ELA is gently pointing things out
You mean all of the things your question omitted?All of those things were included in the question. Now you're just messing with me.
Baloney, fool. You specifically mentioned Alabama and them being better than any one loss conference champion. That the committee should worry about picking the "best" teams based upon???(sec bias)??? You can go back a page or two and read your own posts, right?Please quote where I said Alabama is better than any 1-loss champion.
Now you're jumping around about final 5 rankings - not sure where that came from.Bama isn't/doesn't belong that is a fact(right now) but that can change.We can't transport our beliefs into the play offs,they win - they're in.Because Bama played LSU close doesn't give them the same resume' or the right to ride those coat tails into a play offI've been talking big-picture this whole time. Tomorrow's poll is virtually meaningless.
You keep circling back to this narrative perhaps you don't see it from getting dizzy.There is more but you are implying thru the tea leafs that bama belongs by confronting those with an opposite take almost immediately
But the real point is that there can be SEC bias AND the SEC can have more strong teams than the other conferences.
I've been talking big-picture this whole time. Tomorrow's poll is virtually meaningless.You'd start an argument in an empty elevator you've confronted at least 3 different people just tonite nothing's silly but your slanted misguided reasoning.I'm watching the transformation from Dr Jekyll to Gary Danielson.Tommorow's poll has a ripple effect moving forward that is a fact that agitates you.The Best anyone not named LSU can do in the SEC is hope other conference leaders get tripped up.And context means your point of view to be taken seriously.Explain to the rest of us - in your galaxy how is "context" measured
And your last sentence is silly. Yes, who you play and how you perform matters. Holy hell, the Big Ten knows this - the committee has proven getting blown out by a crap team is a big no-no.
All of this resume-only, ignore context talk is scary.
Please quote where I said Alabama is better than any 1-loss champion.
I'm not pro-Alabama, I'm explaining that it makes sense for them to be included at 11-1 when the committee's goal is the 4 best teams. This isn't complicated, despite the pages and pages of posts. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter.
You'd start an argument in an empty elevator you've confronted at least 3 different people just tonite nothing's silly but your slanted misguided reasoning.I'm watching the transformation from Dr Jekyll to Gary Danielson.Tommorow's poll has a ripple effect moving forward that is a fact that agitates you.The Best anyone not named LSU can do in the SEC is hope other conference leaders get tripped up.And context means your point of view to be taken seriously.Explain to the rest of us - in your galaxy how is "context" measuredTomorrow's poll only matters if you don't believe the committee will be swayed by future results in a different way than the AP and Coaches' polls are (blindly moving everyone up when someone loses).
Why do you keep backtracking?How are explaining what the committee may do vs the suggestion that Alabama is better than conference champs is the same thing. I was simply saying it wasn't some horrible, outrageous thing.
Reply #204
How are explaining what the committee may do vs the suggestion that Alabama is better than conference champs is the same thing. I was simply saying it wasn't some horrible, outrageous thing.
And to make it Alabama specific - it is fair to say with their roster and if they go 11-1, a group of people considering them one of the 4 best teams is prudent. No one can say it's right, but it's reasonable.
I don't care about Alabama, but the way everyone is hung up on them must make their fans chuckle.
PSU was idle the week before Minnesota too. So it was home against Michigan, at MSU (not good this year), and then idle.I stand corrected.
Alabama failed on their home field in one of their few attempts to pick up a big win. Their resume at the end of the year won't matchup to the rest of the 13-1 conference champs. For the same reasons that Baylor and Minnesota were ranked low on the CFP rankings, Alabama should have to deal with the same consequences. They simply won't have the wins to justify placement. Maybe a nice Sugar or Orange Bowl for Alabama this year.That's perfectly acceptable, except for the fact that the committee has never said they're picking the 4 teams with the best resumes, they've specified the 4 "best" teams. And that means whatever they want it to mean.
That's perfectly acceptable, except for the fact that the committee has never said they're picking the 4 teams with the best resumes, they've specified the 4 "best" teams. And that means whatever they want it to mean.
All of those things were included in the question. Now you're just messing with me.You said "Winning the ACC with no losses is _______ compared to going 11-1 in the SEC in 2019?"
Sure. And Alabama is going to have wins that pale in comparison to other one loss teams. There's your proof. Alabama had a shot to prove that they deserved to be in and they didn't do it. They only fared two points better than Texas.I'm trying to make larger points, and all you're responding with is "SEC BAD!" like Frankenstein's monster.
Pretty safe to say that it's definitely not clear that Alabama is going to be the best one loss team. In fact, it's likely that they won't be.
And....as some of us said.....using their (home) loss against LSU as reason why they should still be included is a joke. Questioning whether another team other than OSU could keep it within five? When Texas kept it within a touchdown.
Check yourself. The SEC isn't entitled to special treatment. It's too bad that last year's National Championship didn't put a cap on some of that hot air coming out of the SEC.
I really do believe that if Alabama had lost to Texas A&M and eventually wound up winning the SEC West, they'd get more credit for it than losing a close game to LSU and not winning their division.
Odd. That's rewarding outcomes of games Alabama has no hand in (hypothetically).
I'm trying to make larger points, and all you're responding with is "SEC BAD!" like Frankenstein's monster.
I think the issue with Alabama, specifically, is that we're all aware of recruiting info. We know they have the most 5* kids. We know they have backups that would be starting elsewhere. That's why they, specifically, get the benefit of the doubt. It's less about being in the SEC and more about being so talented (on paper).
And again - it's not that their loss to and SEC team keeps them alive for the playoff, it's that their loss was by 1 score to what is likely going to be the #1 team. That's quite logically the best loss a team can have. Still a loss, yes, but the most quality loss possible. Why is it so outrageous to cite that?
I'm trying to make larger points, and all you're responding with is "SEC BAD!" like Frankenstein's monster.
I think the issue with Alabama, specifically, is that we're all aware of recruiting info. We know they have the most 5* kids. We know they have backups that would be starting elsewhere. That's why they, specifically, get the benefit of the doubt. It's less about being in the SEC and more about being so talented (on paper).
And again - it's not that their loss to and SEC team keeps them alive for the playoff, it's that their loss was by 1 score to what is likely going to be the #1 team. That's quite logically the best loss a team can have. Still a loss, yes, but the most quality loss possible. Why is it so outrageous to cite that?
You weren't trying to make larger points. You came in hot with "Alabama would be the best one loss team". I'm paraphrasing, but you said it. And recruiting info doesn't matter either. I can't understand how you think that should be a determining factor at all.
Best loss isn't going to be the factor for who makes the last spot or two. It's going to come down to who these teams beat. And Alabama is going to have basically no good wins. They had LSU in Tuscaloosa and they couldn't pull it off. Tough break. If OSU loses to Penn State and misses out on the Big Ten Championship....you're unlikely to hear cries about how they deserve the fourth spot. There was a really good shot that PSU and OSU were both going to be undefeated going into that game....and a good shot that it could happen again next year.
Texas also lost by one score. Alabama didn't do the unthinkable. Like I said....Sugar or Orange Bowl for them.
First I want to say that I generally agree with @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) in this thread.
Second, in response to @RestingB!tchFace (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1756) , I want to point something out: Voters and pundits aren't just picking on Minnesota. To read some of your posts here, it seems you think that they are. It isn't that. It is about level of expectation and who you are being compared to.
When you think about Minnesota compared to the expectation for this year, they look great.
When you think about Minnesota compared to Rutgers they look great.
When you think about Minnesota compared to Ohio State, they look pretty good I guess, but not great.
To try to put this another way: If Ohio State had Minnesota's exact schedule/results from so far this year, people wouldn't be talking about how great the Buckeyes are, they'd be asking what the heck is wrong with the Buckeyes.
Minnesota's overall resume, even with the PSU win, still isn't that great. They have a bunch of too-close wins over mediocre-to-bad opposition some pretty good wins, and one quality win by one score at home.
That doesn't mean that Minnesota sucks. They obviously don't suck. It also doesn't meant that they shouldn't be in the CFP. It does mean, however, that Minnesota's total resume isn't enough right now. That said, they'll have the opportunity. In their next three (or four) games they will play a ranked Iowa team on the road, a ranked Wisconsin team at home, and (possibly) a highly ranked opponent at a neutral site in the B1GCG.
If Minnesota beats Iowa and Wisconsin and wins the B1GCG then their great start was legitimate. If they lose to Iowa and Wisconsin then their great start was mostly just a backloaded schedule. We'll find out.
The discussion is about the final poll, no? Why on earth would tomorrow's poll matter in the slightest???so, tell me how the top 15 teams in today's poll finish the season and then we'll talk
I just wouldn't be so sure about that. The CFPC does what the CFPC wants to do, and they're not that different from the Coach's and Harris Poll voters who also did whatever they wanted to do. Voters have already proven in 2011 they're willing to make a single "best loss" more important than number of quality wins and conference championships....when it's Alabama, on their own field, losing to LSU.
More relevant, the CFPC committee itself has already put Alabama and Ohio State in as non-conference winners and cited quality losses as a reason why. This won't be an exact parallel, since at least those years Alabama and Ohio State had other arguments in their favor including good wins, but the point is when it comes to Alabama, they're like a horror movie villain. You can't just kill them once. You have to keep doing it, and the the voters are the ones making sure they keep getting resurrected.
and most of you know, I'm NOT a fan of a 4-team playoff.
Really? See....I'd like to see it expand to eight and stop there. Mostly to give Group of Five undefeated teams a shot. UCF from a few years back could have competed. I think they proved that with a win over Auburn in the Peach Bowl.I think that the playoff WILL expand to eight teams and I think that the top G5 Champion will get a shot once it does, but I don't think that UCF could have competed a few years ago and I don't think they will be able to once they get an auto-bid.
In 2016, there were no other one loss teams. So Ohio State made it in. In 2017, the only other one loss team was Wisconsin.....and they weren't a conference champion. They lost to Ohio State in the Championship. And their best two wins were over #19 Iowa & #25 Michigan....both at home. Alabama had #18 LSU, @#19 Miss State, and a win over #3 FSU to open the season.
This year we are going to see at least one undefeated team....probably (Clemson). LSU has a good shot as well. Georgia could beat the in the championship game which would put them in. The winner of the Big Ten championship will unlikely to have more than one loss. Same goes for the PAC-12 and possibly the BIG-12.
I'd say that there's a decent shot that even a 13-1 conference champion will be left out. That wouldn't even take into account what would occur if LSU had their one loss in the SEC championship. Possibly two one loss conference champions left out? All I'm saying is that.....with Alabama's resume at year end.....they are going to need to hope that things go downhill for quite a few teams. Because it's not 2016 or 2017.
I think that the playoff WILL expand to eight teams and I think that the top G5 Champion will get a shot once it does, but I don't think that UCF could have competed a few years ago and I don't think they will be able to once they get an auto-bid.
I think that after they expand to eight teams the #1 seed will get the G5 Champion almost every year and it will be a tune-up game for them.
This year, for example, Cincinnati is in the lead right now to be the top G5 Champion and Ohio State beat them 42-0. Ohio State may not end up #1 and Cincinnati may not end up as the top G5 Champion but I think that 42-0 result roughly represents the massive gap between the very best teams in the P5 and the very best G5 teams.
Auburn wasn't a top-4 team that year and that game frankly meant a lot more to UCF's players and coaches than it did to Auburn's players and coaches. Nobody goes to Auburn for a chance to beat UCF. Nobody at Auburn cares about UCF. That was just a goofy opponent in a meaningless bowl game for them. For UCF it was their one-and-only opportunity to "prove" themselves on a national stage.
# of losses not being the ONLY criteria, as discussed here, I think Penn St. had an argument in 2016. I'm not saying I fully supported them, but I'm saying they had a case. And I'm also saying the CFPC basically "helmeted" them. They talked a lot about how they valued conference championships, and I get PSU had more losses, but they spent a LOT of time talking about Ohio State's "best loss." When they got done bloviating, it all just sounded like "Ohio State has a shinier helmet than PSU."
Lest I piss off the 2,463 Buckeye fans here, let me be clear about this: I'm not saying OSU definitely shouldn't have been in. I'm saying that the case the CFPC made for them ignored their actual selling points while the committee and pundits harped on "best loss" and ignored their previous assertions about how important conference championships were to them.
In this year, I'm looking mainly at Oregon, Utah, and Oklahoma, and that's because I freely admit I don't expect Minnesota or Baylor to go undefeated, and with a loss those two are out. Palatable or not, that's how it is. Oklahoma....I'm not even sure they're done losing. And if they do win their remaining games, watch and see if losing to KSU and nearly whiffing against Iowa St. isn't used against them when comparing them to Alabama. "Yeah but Alabama lost to #1/#2 LSU and OU lost to lowly KSU and nearly lost to ISU." That crap has already started in the media. I'm not projecting, this is a real thing, right now.
Utah is in trouble simply by virtue of the fact they are Utah instead of some big helmet name. If they win out I don't trust the committee at all to give them a fair shake after a loss to an okay SC team. Oregon has a bigger name and stands a better shot if they win out, but that loss to Auburn is going to be an easy out for the CFPC committee to use transitively to say two things, 1) that Alabama will have beaten that same AU team Oregon lost to, and 2) losing to undefeated LSU is better than losing to what would then be a 3 or 4 loss Auburn team.
I'm not arguing that any of this is right. I am saying I don't think Alabama being out of it even if these other teams keep winning is as clear cut as you seem to think. I wouldn't like it if they got in, but I don't get a vote.
I certainly remember the scrum about PSU and OSU that year. Just saying that most teams that end 13-1 with a conference title will have their one loss to a good team. And they will all have better wins (and two more wins) than Alabama. That would not include Clemson. I don't think Clemson could drop a game....but they really shouldn't.
I'm not arguing that any of this is right. I am saying I don't think Alabama being out of it even if these other teams keep winning is as clear cut as you seem to think. I wouldn't like it if they got in, but I don't get a vote.In previous years they were coming off of a NC and always got the benefit of the doubt.Last year that Dusey got sandblasted.No more gift wrapped mulligans.If LSU wins out, the Tide will not be a participant in the title game in Atlanta.The CFP committee will have a hard time justifying Bama in as a 1 loss non conference champion over other conference champions.We already know the Tide is not as good as LSU.We can't say that about other programs - it's why they play the games - just win Baby
It could be.
Just as an LSU fan I remember very well the circumstances of Alabama vs. Oklahoma State in 2011. Both ended the regular season 11-1. OSU had more wins vs. ranked teams than Alabama. OSU was the Big 12 Conference Champion, Alabama did not win the SEC. (All six BCS computers favored OSU as well, but we're talking about voters here, so never mind that.) Also, Alabama had already lost to the team that was definitely in, LSU. OSU, if nothing else, had not demonstrated they could lose to LSU on their own field.
But of course, all we heard was Alabama had a better loss. Losing to LSU, at home, close, was deemed better than losing to Iowa St., on the road, close. They ignored conference crowns and they ignored SOS and quality wins and went with the singular data point of each team's loss (which I do admit Alabama's loss was better, but it's also worth remembering for posterity's sake that OSU team had just suffered the tragedy with their basketball team and that entire campus was hurting, let alone the guys on the football team who eat, lift weights, and hang out with guys from the other sports teams).
So I'm not so sure that "better wins" counts for as much as it should, or we want it to.
I don't know that Alabama will make it in if everybody wins out.....but I certainly wouldn't be surprised.
If everyone wins out from here:Ehhhh.....have you been paying attention that last 10 years?
Clemson 13-0
LSU 13-0
OSU-Minnesota 13-0
We all agree those would be locks.
Utah/Oregon 12-1
Baylor 13-0
Alabama 11-1
Alabama would have zero shot if this happened.
You weren't trying to make larger points. You came in hot with "Alabama would be the best one loss team". I'm paraphrasing, but you said it. And recruiting info doesn't matter either. I can't understand how you think that should be a determining factor at all.Yeah, this is how I know we're polar opposites. First, you misconstrue my every post. I never said recruiting info SHOULD be a determining factor, but that it plays into giving the most talented teams the benefit of the doubt (a la Alabama). I'm describing what the committee has shown it's likely to do, and you're dwelling on this or that "should" or should not happen.
If everyone wins out from here:
Clemson 13-0
LSU 13-0
OSU-Minnesota 13-0
We all agree those would be locks.
Utah/Oregon 12-1
Baylor 13-0
Alabama 11-1
Alabama would have zero shot if this happened.
5 years ago Ohio State with a 3rd string quarterback beat the Tide,6 years ago The Sooners beat the Tide - both in the post season.both as Dogs.The false narrative being foisted on the rooting public must stop.Bama got a chance and blew it - they can go watch the playoffs with the rest of America - provided the conference leaders win outComments like this make people like me (no love for Bama) have to step in and defend them. Let's let the season play out. Say it's LSU, Clemson, and OSU at 13-0, then we have 13-0 Baylor and 11-1 Alabama.
We can say LSU beat Alabama (a fact), but we cannot say LSU is better than Alabama (because it's an opinion).Um,No the rest of the Country usually goes by the scoreboard - hence the better TEAM,pretty simple stuff
If everyone wins out from here:You could throw out the PAC-12 champ in this scenario: Alabama would have beaten the team that beat Oregon (Auburn) and Utah lost to a bad USC team. Fair or not, just call it a prediction.
Clemson 13-0
LSU 13-0
OSU-Minnesota 13-0
We all agree those would be locks.
Utah/Oregon 12-1
Baylor 13-0
Alabama 11-1
Alabama would have zero shot if this happened.
Um,No the rest of the Country usually goes by the scoreboard - hence the better TEAM,pretty simple stuffFantastic, thanks for settling it for us. Upsets don't exist.
No more do-overs Bama got waxed last January and lost convincingly last week.In Baton Rouge that's at least a 10 pt win - K - Gary Danielson.You do know what the words win & lose mean right?That's context,sometimes I feel I'm speaking Latin to a ZuluYeah, you shouldn't be in charge of deciding any of this. How does a game from the 2018 season matter in the slightest? And the "what if" the venue was different game......sheesh.
Fantastic, thanks for setting it for us. Upsets don't exist.Put the crack pipe down and back away from the keyboard.You simply want 2 SEC teams in to pimp your obvious polluted views that automatically continues the SEC PR TSunami
KSU is better than OU.
The Citadel is better than GA Tech.
Illinois is better than Wisconsin.
Georgia State is better than Tennessee.
South Carolina is better than Georgia.
Yeah, this is how I know we're polar opposites. First, you misconstrue my every post. I never said recruiting info SHOULD be a determining factor, but that it plays into giving the most talented teams the benefit of the doubt (a la Alabama). I'm describing what the committee has shown it's likely to do, and you're dwelling on this or that "should" or should not happen.
You seem to think this is all about resume only and it's reeeeeeally not. Right or wrong, helmets matter. We could argue that conference affiliation matters (I'm sure it does) and whether that's fair or not (from season to season, it's not). But you're not being realistic here. The committee doesn't view Alabama's loss to LSU as "they got their shot". They view it as a data point. Another way I know we're polar opposites is when you say things like "LSU is better than Alabama" based on that one game. If that was factually true, then upsets never happen. Kansas State is better than OU. South Carolina is better than Georgia. It's flawed logic. We can say LSU beat Alabama (a fact), but we cannot say LSU is better than Alabama (because it's an opinion).
I'm glad we're debating here and I appreciate your willingness to keep at it. We can both think the other is nuts and continue debating.
Put the crack pipe down and back away from the keyboard.You simply want 2 SEC teams in to pimp your obvious polluted views that automatically continues the SEC PR TSunamiAm I on the committee? You're treating me as if I am. I have no desire for Alabama to get in. That's what you're both missing..badly.
Any OSU fans want to address this one? lol
Best wins are more important than best loss.
Put the crack pipe down and back away from the keyboard.You simply want 2 SEC teams in to pimp your obvious polluted views that automatically continues the SEC PR TSunamiI illustrate the substantial flaw in your previous point and you progress to crack pipe jokes. All done here.
Yeah, you shouldn't be in charge of deciding any of this. How does a game from the 2018 season matter in the slightest? And the "what if" the venue was different game......sheesh.You are exactly the little kid kicking and screaming in his sandbox until mommy(The Committee) gives her little darling his way.They lost get over it you can't understand the parameters of pass/fail.It's a damn fine thing you've never had a military command - lord have mercy
Am I on the committee? You're treating me as if I am. I have no desire for Alabama to get in. That's what you're both missing..badly.No it's the the SEC bias that has permeated it
Where have I suggested I wanted Alabama to wind up in the playoff? I'll hang up and listen...
I do think Bama is better than LSU with a healthy Tua. I did not think that before they played the game.
I am a bit weird though, and I do NOT think Bama should make the playoff barring real weirdness.
If everyone wins out from here:What "everyone" mean, Kemosabe?
Clemson 13-0
LSU 13-0
OSU-Minnesota 13-0
We all agree those would be locks.
Utah/Oregon 12-1
Baylor 13-0
Alabama 11-1
Alabama would have zero shot if this happened.
On November 23, Georgia plays Texas A&M.Interesting that you mention Georgia, as Georgia is now the #4 team in the CFP rankings.
It sounds like all of you better tune in and pull for Georgia, just to avoid giving the committee a reason to side with Alabama. It's incredible how Alabama fatigue is causing so many people to freak out over prudent and sound reasoning.
Because the committee is just dying to get a 2nd SEC team in the playoff. :smiley_confused1:
Georgia went out and played ND OOC. Why doesn't Minnesota get crapped on for its joke of an OOC schedule? Oh, they have 9 conference games? Yeah, one of those is Rutgers, friends.
But I don't think it's about 9 conference games....no one has crapped on Minnesota's OOC schedule because it's "just" Minnesota. We don't expect the annual also-rans to schedule tough...they need to schedule wins in order to make an obscure bowl game.
But OOPS, the Gophers are good this year and so they get a free pass. It's an interesting dynamic. To be clear, I'm not counting it as a strike against Minnesota, but I just find it a unique situation.
Because the committee is just dying to get a 2nd SEC team in the playoff. :smiley_confused1:
Georgia went out and played ND OOC. Why doesn't Minnesota get crapped on for its joke of an OOC schedule? Oh, they have 9 conference games? Yeah, one of those is Rutgers, friends.
But I don't think it's about 9 conference games....no one has crapped on Minnesota's OOC schedule because it's "just" Minnesota. We don't expect the annual also-rans to schedule tough...they need to schedule wins in order to make an obscure bowl game.
But OOPS, the Gophers are good this year and so they get a free pass. It's an interesting dynamic. To be clear, I'm not counting it as a strike against Minnesota, but I just find it a unique situation.
You laid it our nicely. I though Bama in the second half looked better, and I was thinking Tua was a bit off his game, lack of practice, weak ankle, etc.
What in that game changed your mind? Genuinely curious, no shade.
UGA at #4 is irrelevant obviously. If they go 12-1, they would be in the playoff even if they were at #8. Similarly, if Minnesota is 13-0, they get in as well, at 12-1 they probably get in. I'm not sure why these preliminary rankings are even a thing.This.
Thanks, Crunch.
And lol.....Florida has really got a grinder of an OOC schedule. Miami and Florida State are really tough this year. Good thing you squeaked by the Canes by four. The mighty ACC juggernauts!!! And don't forget about UT Martin and Towson! Sneaky good.
Maybe the Committee has already decided to ditch Alabama, and Georgia is now the favored 2nd SEC team for the CFP.That cannot be, because UGA has to win out to make the CFP under any rational scenario. That means LSU would be the 2nd SEC team possible after a CG loss, which is unlikely. UGA at 12-1 would make the playoff whether they are now #4 or #8.
Thanks, Crunch.Says his clone
So, while I don't think any of this matters beyond trying to understand "how they think", I will compare Alabama #5 and Minnesota #8. The latter of course is undefeated with a solid win over #9. Alabama has zero wins over ranked teams and a "competitive loss" at home to #1.
Minny does have some sketchy wins early in the year over substandard competition, but 4 of their last 5 wins were "convincing".
I'll note the other polls have them similarly spaced, so this isn't unique to the committee. They are #4 and #7 in the other two polls as well. This isn't some conspiracy thing by the committee, it's how human's collectively view helmets and schedules and preseason expectations and recruiting etc.
And to be fair, Alabama would be a 10 point favorite over Minnesota in a NS game, at least. "We" are influenced by reputation and past history.
I think Minnesota is fine at 8 for now. 17 was a joke and I think the committee fixed that.
Minnesota will still have chances to prove where they belong.
A win this week will get even more looks as I read now that because we win at home it disqualifies the win and that if say a "team like Illinois would beat the Gophers on a neutral site"
one week at a time by the end of the year it will work itself out
By the way everyone looks at the first three non conference games as easy teams. just for fun go and look at what they were just last year record wise I think they combined for a record of 32 wins and 8 losses. Compare LSU non conference record last year and those teams were 25-13
I've been reading these posts this morning trying to catch up to what people are saying.What exactly is the root of this feeling? That they jumped 12-1 UW in 2017? That they are high in the rankings that don't count?
I believe there is a big disconnect between what the CFPC will do and what we believe they SHOULD do. After reading more of OAM's posts, I understand what he is saying. I think we all are pretty much in agreement that the CFPC has a bias and favors helmets with Alabama being the most Helmet of them all of late. I would agree that the committee will do everything it can to find a way to get Alabama into the group of 4.
And the first three games were a mystery. All three of those teams won ten games the year before....but that shouldn't matter too much this year. Especially with lower level teams....where high end talent is more difficult to come by. Those teams have not been great this year. I could say that they pretty much spent the offseason planning for the Gophers game specifically....but that would be a lie. I don't think any are bad teams. Fresno is basically the one recent team to battle with Boise for the MWC. SDSU is one of the best D1-AA teams. And Georgia Southern is the only team to beat App State this year.The problem with this whole paragraph is that it would be true, if we were talking about whether Minnesota should be #15 or #20 but it simply is NOT true when we are talking about whether Minnesota should be #10 or #5.
Those three are mediocre teams at best. A top team should be penalized if any of them stayed close even once.I think this is true and points to an interesting split. If you argue bad scheduling intent, that can be debated, as all three have some recent good history as lower level teams.
What exactly is the root of this feeling? That they jumped 12-1 UW in 2017? That they are high in the rankings that don't count?I think there's a lot of Alabama fatigue in the college football world right now, which is understandable. But the truth is that they've been very good for a decade now and are reeling off an unprecedented string of NCs in the modern era of football.
If the helmet is what matters, does Bama jump 12-1 LSU if it loses to UGA? Does OSU jump LSU in that case if the Buckeyes get popped by PSU?
My assumption in all of this is a sense that someone somewhere is doing something untoward and in favor of a team we don't like, and I'm just not sure how solid it is.
I think there's a lot of Alabama fatigue in the college football world right now, which is understandable. But the truth is that they've been very good for a decade now and are reeling off an unprecedented string of NCs in the modern era of football.This season there is no reason/rationale for them to be given the benefit of the doubt IMO.They are not returning national champs they got thumped like tOSU 3 yrs back.Therefore you must show your work.2 weeks to prepare and at Home and losing is not meeting that criteria.In the last 6 post seasons Bama has lost 4 times to Ohio State & Oklahoma once apiece and Clemson twice.If that was the Sooners we'd here Choklahoma or the the Buckeyes we'd here Slowhio from the Southern realms.The Chuckie doll that is Gary Danielson and his demented take needs to be boxed and put back in the attic.Don't lose or don't bitch 1 loss bama has not demonstrated over those 6 years they are the proper pick every year.Last Saturday just made that point
What exactly is the root of this feeling? That they jumped 12-1 UW in 2017? That they are high in the rankings that don't count?This is where I am. If there appears to be evidence of helmet bias or some other kind of bias then we'll argue about it then.
If the helmet is what matters, does Bama jump 12-1 LSU if it loses to UGA? Does OSU jump LSU in that case if the Buckeyes get popped by PSU?
My assumption in all of this is a sense that someone somewhere is doing something untoward and in favor of a team we don't like, and I'm just not sure how solid it is.
What exactly is the root of this feeling? That they jumped 12-1 UW in 2017? That they are high in the rankings that don't count?Experience! We've all seen it happen. And it is not only Bama, Ohio State was the benefit of Helmet status once also.
If the helmet is what matters, does Bama jump 12-1 LSU if it loses to UGA? Does OSU jump LSU in that case if the Buckeyes get popped by PSU?
My assumption in all of this is a sense that someone somewhere is doing something untoward and in favor of a team we don't like, and I'm just not sure how solid it is.
# of losses not being the ONLY criteria, as discussed here, I think Penn St. had an argument in 2016. I'm not saying I fully supported them, but I'm saying they had a case. And I'm also saying the CFPC basically "helmeted" them. They talked a lot about how they valued conference championships, and I get PSU had more losses, but they spent a LOT of time talking about Ohio State's "best loss." When they got done bloviating, it all just sounded like "Ohio State has a shinier helmet than PSU." I think there's a lot of Alabama fatigue in the college football world right now, which is understandable. But the truth is that they've been very good for a decade now and are reeling off an unprecedented string of NCs in the modern era of football.Possible undefeated and 1-loss P5 Conference Champions:
I'm in the "not gonna worry about it til it happens camp." But this year, Alabama's schedule certainly isn't lining up for them to claim some juggernaut-type status. If they win out but don't go to the SECCG, then I'd certainly be disappointed in seeing them selected to the CFP at 11-1 and as a non-champ, over any undefeated or 1-loss P5 champ. But like I said, I'm not gonna worry about it unless it happens. Lots of football still to be played.
Those three are mediocre teams at best. A top team should be penalized if any of them stayed close even once.
OK then.Go back to not worrying :bedtime2:
Everyone above #19 Texas loses out, Horns win out, and Texas wins the B12 and goes to the CFP at 10-3.
Boom.
The problem with this whole paragraph is that it would be true, if we were talking about whether Minnesota should be #15 or #20 but it simply is NOT true when we are talking about whether Minnesota should be #10 or #5.
As you climb up the ladder you get compared to better and better teams. Earlier this season when I was comparing Minnesota to Nebraska, Maryland, and Northwestern their TD win over Purdue would have been great. Nebraska (lost by 4), Maryland (lost by 26), and Northwestern (lost by 2) all did worse. If you are comparing Minnesota to Iowa then their TD win over Purdue is ok, but not great. Iowa beat Purdue by 6 but Iowa's game was at home while Minnesota's was on the road so Minnesota's is better but not substantially better. If you want Minnesota to be compared to Penn State, their TD win over Purdue isn't good. Penn State beat them by 28.
The same is true of Minnesota's 42 point win over Maryland:
- Looks great compared to RU (lost by 41)
- Looks good compared to PU (won by 26) and Michigan (won by 31)
- Looks bad compared to tOSU and PSU (won by 59 each)
You can say that an opponent is one of the best D1-AA teams when you are talking about being ranked 15th or 20th but that frankly sounds silly when you are talking about a top-10 team. Top-10 teams don't struggle with FCS teams at all. Nobody cares if the FCS team was a "good" FCS team, they are still an FCS team and a top-10 team should mop the floor with them.
Fresno may have battled Boise for the MWC in the past but this year they aren't anywhere close. They are 2-3 in the MWC and also sub .500 overall.
Georgia Southern did upset Appalachian State but they also lost to Louisiana, Troy, and Louisiana State. This is another team that a legitimate top-10 team should mop the floor with. Oh, a legitimate top-10 team named Louisiana State DID mop the floor with them in a 55-3 romp. That is what a top-10 team does to Georgia Southern, not escape with a 35-32 win on a TD in the final seconds of the game after trailing 7-0, 10-7, and 32-28.
You were better off just admitting that Minnesota's early games were not impressive and arguing that Minnesota had improved because trying to justify Minnesota's close wins over crap opposition is not getting you anywhere.
Go back to not worrying :bedtime2:
Have I EVER said that their first three games were impressive?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.
And comparing wins by point spreads....especially when it gets to multiple touchdowns is a silly activity. I mean....Fleck doesn't on-sides kick against a far inferior opponents that they are already beating by two touchdowns in the first quarter.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.
And when Minnesota puts in their second string....it's not a bunch of four and five star backups.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.
Comparing win spreads against the bottom of the league is a fools errand. Box score analysts like you make laugh. For a second....you almost tricked me into thinking that you actually WATCHED all those games!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.
Now you see my point??? :)Still waiting on that Live Oak Pils (https://www.cfb51.com/Smileys/fantasticsmileys/party0036.gif)
Still waiting on that Live Oak Pils (https://www.cfb51.com/Smileys/fantasticsmileys/party0036.gif)gotta get boots on the ground in Texas
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.
gotta get boots on the ground in TexasSend it thru the Pony Express,course it'd be shaken up pretty good
gotta get boots on the ground in Texas
Send it thru the Pony Express,course it'd be shaken up pretty goodYou're gonna have to get down here on your own. Once you do, I can supply the Live Oak Pilz, or Hefeweizen, or Vienna-style lager, or Oktoberfest, or Weizenbock, or smoked Polish Grodziskie, or....
I don't think the opponents are as bad as you make them out to be...but I in no way said that they were good or said that they were impressive wins. Every Gopher fan was extremely worried after those three games. And again...when trying to knock Minnesota down a notch....you are forced to go back to the first few games of the season. Can't seem to bring yourself to admit that teams can come out the gate slow. Hell....Northwestern started last season 1-3 with losses including Duke and Akron. They won the West.Per SP+, they're No. 83 (4.7 points below average), No. 66 (half point below average) and a good FCS.
It gets below 80 for a solid 8-12 days each year. You'd love it!Got down into the low 20's for the 1st time the last two nights.And of course the furnace quits.Good thing it was only a reset switch....so far.Failed to light then auto kicks out.Also have a fire place and heat pump and some George Dickel 12.And the Buckeyes warming up to curb stomp M & PSU after the exhibition with a New Jersey High School Squad.Hell maybe the Browns can shake the bogies vs the Squeelers
Kidding of course, we've had freezes overnight the past 2 nights and today at my house it never got above about 43.
You're right he trolls in a different direction - at othersSorry I don't just go along with old, lazy opinions with zero support. I'll just respond to your posts with a, "yeah, I guess". You're obviously not a fan of actual conversation, challenge, or dialogue.
Got down into the low 20's for the 1st time the last two nights.And of course the furnace quits.Good thing it was only a reset switch....so far.Failed to light then auto kicks out.Also have a fire place and heat pump and some George Dickel 12.And the Buckeyes warming up to curb stomp M & PSU after the exhibition with a New Jersey High School Squad.Hell maybe the Browns can shake the bogies vs the SqueelersWe had a record (for the date) low of 15 yesterday morning. Actually, it tied a record set in (or around, maybe) 1911. I think the wind chill was 4.
Per SP+, they're No. 83 (4.7 points below average), No. 66 (half point below average) and a good FCS.
It strikes me that everyone is basically right. In one light, Minnesota could be a top-5 team. In another, they're not. And there isn't much that makes one side right or wrong.
(Also, NW last year was not all that good a team and seems a pretty poor comparison to make)
Sorry I don't just go along with old, lazy opinions with zero support. I'll just respond to your posts with a, "yeah, I guess". You're obviously not a fan of actual conversation, challenge, or dialogue.Zero support?Don't let me disturb your wonderings in the land of make believe.Bama lost at home with 2 weeks rest and and according to the bats in your Belfry LSU isn't necessarily better.Well hell let's just use the scoreboards to land Airplanes or Holiday displays.Why bother playing the games or keeping score Obi Wan?Dialogue with the dragons marching around on your medula.In the last 6 post seasons Bama has lost 4 times to Ohio State & Oklahoma once apiece and Clemson twice.Somebody else gets the mulligan if they win out
What makes Georgia's loss to 4-6 South Carolina demonstratively better than OSU's 2015 loss to a once beaten Michigan State team?
We had a record (for the date) low of 15 yesterday morning. Actually, it tied a record set in (or around, maybe) 1911. I think the wind chill was 4.I was wrong evidently it got down to 13 degrees this morning.A new record for this date
South Carolina picked up a bunch of good losses in the SEC.Didn't know Appalachian State was in the SEC
Zero support?Don't let me disturb your wonderings in the land of make believe.Bama lost at home with 2 weeks rest and and according to the bats in your Belfry LSU isn't necessarily better.Well hell let's just use the scoreboards to land Airplanes or Holiday displays.Why bother playing the games or keeping score Obi Wan?Dialogue with the dragons marching around on your medula.In the last 6 post seasons Bama has lost 4 times to Ohio State & Oklahoma once apiece and Clemson twice.Somebody else gets the mulligan if they win outYou're citing irrelevancies......2 weeks rest. Losses in previous seasons. You're no longer part of the conversation.
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.
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.well, you're trying to explain something that has no explanation
agreed, I feel Bama is too high, Minnesoota is too low, but it's only the final poll that counts.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.
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)
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.
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
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.
well, you're trying to explain something that has no explanationWINNER :cheer: Lock The Thread
Oh...and I'd like to point out that you used these common opponent point differentials against lower tier opponents to determine outcomes before.I still think PSU is a better team.
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.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.
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.
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: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.
- 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.
I suspect Minnesota loses at Iowa and this discussion becomes moot. I hope they win. My predictions thus far have been 100% wrong.and even if the Gophers were to go into Kinnick and get a 10 point win compared to PSU's 5 point win there, some folks would cornsider PSU a better team than Minnesoota.
So there is that. They are well coached at minimum. The better team does not always win obviously. It takes a season to make an impression.
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.
and even if the Gophers were to go into Kinnick and get a 10 point win compared to PSU's 5 point win there, some folks would cornsider PSU a better team than Minnesoota.
And it's possible they would be correct.
Maybe....but is Oregon no longer a "helmet" team? Travelling across the country to play Auburn on their home turf in the first game of the year? 21-13 lead going into the fourth quarter?The game was not played on Auburn's home turf.
Maybe....but is Oregon no longer a "helmet" team? Travelling across the country to play Auburn on their home turf in the first game of the year? 21-13 lead going into the fourth quarter?Never were a helmet team.
That’s a good number, but the Winston comparison seems a tad much. The Minnesota offense has been pretty awesome, but he’s more cog than top of the spear.
Do you know how many quarterbacks in the history of the FBS have had two games of 90% completion percentage or better in a single season? Two. Tanner Morgan this year....and Jameis Winston in 2013...when he won the Heisman trophy and led the Seminoles to the National Championship. And he didn't do it against a Penn State defense.
Maybe....but is Oregon no longer a "helmet" team? Travelling across the country to play Auburn on their home turf in the first game of the year? 21-13 lead going into the fourth quarter?Good points didn't know The Ducks game was that close - they have a case if they win out
Auburn won that game on a 26 yard TD pass with nine seconds remaining. If that's not as "good" a loss as being handled for the entirety of a game on your own field against LSU, what is?
We'll have to see how Alabama fares against Auburn I suppose.
Maybe....but is Oregon no longer a "helmet" team? Travelling across the country to play Auburn on their home turf in the first game of the year? 21-13 lead going into the fourth quarter?I agree if Oregon wins out they should be in the top 4. Or, at least be in ahead of Bama. That said, Oregon isn’t a helmet. Bama does seem to be getting the benefit of the doubt because of the last 10 years. I hate that, but I do think that is playing a part in it. Oregon had a really good stretch but then sort of fell off. They won’t get Bama treatment.
Auburn won that game on a 26 yard TD pass with nine seconds remaining. If that's not as "good" a loss as being handled for the entirety of a game on your own field against LSU, what is?
We'll have to see how Alabama fares against Auburn I suppose. But even so...with a conference championship and stronger wins....imo Oregon would be the fourth team in. Including Alabama because of who they are....along with their hideous wins....it would set a very BAD precedent. Not that the SEC hasn't already been given benefits....but that would be really bad imo.
The loser of the Alabama/LSU game would basically absorb no damage in the eyes of the committee....other than in the seeding.
Never were a helmet team.Ding ding.
That’s a good number, but the Winston comparison seems a tad much. The Minnesota offense has been pretty awesome, but he’s more cog than top of the spear.
it’s also interesting to assign context to PSU. On one hand, Gophers led by two scores for 28 of the final 37 minutes, on the other with 1:44 left in a 5-pint game, PSU had 1st and goal on the 11. It was somehow close but not close.
I'm just trying to enjoy* our last few weeks of college football, it's not going to be around much longer.Well you should be looking at CWS/MDT because at least they have scoreboard on the Horns and nice balmy above 35 deg weather.But I am impressed you think I've graduated from idgit to yahoo
*When I say "enjoy" I'm talking about watching some of YOUR teams that actually play good football, not my own which is pretty miserable to watch. Just figured I'd clear that up before one of you yahoos decided to make a snide comment about my pitiful Longhorns. I'm looking at YOU, Mr. N!
"We" do tend to "whine" in a way when the season ends. Even the partial hiatus after the CGs seems like a desert of sporting events of note. Then "we" find ourselves watching the East Idaho State Potatoes playing the Northern Maine Lobsters in the Pohlan Weedeater Northwestern Mutual Life Bowl in, of all places, Stillwater, OK.I like the Spuds in this situation and think they will mash Northern Maine.The Lobsters are in a pinch with their QB situation and if they get behind can't see them clawing back.That offense has gone to pot and I'd be steamed if i was one of their fans
But I think the starch has gone out of the EIS offense of late, and they could well get skinned in this one. Both teams like to be buttered up with accolades.Coach Russet said the Red & Gold of Idaho wil be ready so I'll root for them.Look for them to pound it between the Hash marks.They've been running those Wedges since they were Tots
I'm just trying to enjoy* our last few weeks of college football, it's not going to be around much longer.
*When I say "enjoy" I'm talking about watching some of YOUR teams that actually play good football, not my own which is pretty miserable to watch. Just figured I'd clear that up before one of you yahoos decided to make a snide comment about my pitiful Longhorns. I'm looking at YOU, Mr. N!
Well you should be looking at CWS/MDT because at least they have scoreboard on the Horns and nice balmy above 35 deg weather.But I am impressed you think I've graduated from idgit to yahooSince both of their teams were lucky to scrape out a win against this frighteningly miserable Texas team, they probably shouldn't point out anything about our suckitude-- it reflects pretty poorly on their own teams.
In just about any year other than this...Minnesota would be very happy with the season that Texas is having. Good shot for 9-3 and a good bowl game? We'd call that a success.I understand the sentiment but I'd be pretty shocked if Texas went 9-3 this year. I think losses are likely in Ames this weekend, and in Waco next weekend. We should be able to beat Tech at home on T+1 though. I'll be at that game.
I know that expectations can tar and feather actual outcomes....but that's no reason to ditch on a good season otherwise.
And *last few weekends* of college football!!?!?! Nonsense. I know some people get upset with how many bowl games there are....but not me. I love college football and if they want to play, I'll probably watch it.
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.I can't take push back that's based on almost zero support or evidence. I get pissy when I provide such things and it's combated with a virtual "nuh uh, traditional thinking says otherwise" - which is horse crap.
Maybe....but is Oregon no longer a "helmet" team? Travelling across the country to play Auburn on their home turf in the first game of the year? 21-13 lead going into the fourth quarter?One could argue USC is the only helmet team west of the Rockies.
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.
I can't take push back that's based on almost zero support or evidence. I get pissy when I provide such things and it's combated with a virtual "nuh uh, traditional thinking says otherwise" - which is horse crap.Your reasoning isn't any more spot on than his you frequantly present opinion as fact or correct.If it's usually combated with a combined "nuh uh" well that says something.Validty is rare because you say it is,right.And we know your views are not to be misconstrued with the misguided proletariat rabble represented here.As Fearless said " you're trying to explain something that has no explanation" or just opinion
Validity is rare here. I try to provide it and it's just tossed aside because....reasons.
I understand the sentiment but I'd be pretty shocked if Texas went 9-3 this year. I think losses are likely in Ames this weekend, and in Waco next weekend. We should be able to beat Tech at home on T+1 though. I'll be at that game.I think how we judge whether or not good football is being played is based on what our expectations of the team were before the season. You mentioned you’ve seen previous Texas teams with similar records that you enjoyed watching but this year’s version is tough. I’d bet those previous Texas teams weren’t preseason top 10.
Gophs are having a great season, enjoy it, and don't worry about the postseason. The whole point is to watch the games themselves and be entertained by the on-field action. You're getting plenty of that this season.
Texas, on the other hand, is a real beating to watch this season. Horrible defense and even worse special teams. There are Texas teams with similar records I've enjoyed watching, but this team really just plays bad football most of the time. Ah well, fingers crossed for better fortunes next year.
One could argue USC is the only helmet team west of the Rockies.i will argue that point
Your reasoning isn't any more spot on than his you frequantly present opinion as fact or correct.If it's usually combated with a combined "nuh uh" well that says something.Validty is rare because you say it is,right.And we know your views are not to be misconstrued with the misguided proletariat rabble represented here.As Fearless said " you're trying to explain something that has no explanation" or just opinionI honestly think your distaste for me simply has to do with how I type my opinions here. None of us need to start a sentence with "I think" because we're posting under our names/aliases....so we know what you post is what you think. So I post what I think without prefacing it as such, because that would be redundant.
One could argue USC is the only helmet team west of the Rockies.They are, and not just the only one West of the Rockies, but the only one West of a roughly N-S line running from Lincoln, Nebraska south to Norman, Oklahoma then on to Austin, Texas.
I think how we judge whether or not good football is being played is based on what our expectations of the team were before the season. You mentioned you’ve seen previous Texas teams with similar records that you enjoyed watching but this year’s version is tough. I’d bet those previous Texas teams weren’t preseason top 10.Probably not, not sure we've started Top 10 since 2010, but that doesn't change at all the product on the field. There's only so much Keystone Cops you can view on defense and special teams before the skit gets old and un-funny. ;)
Validity is rare here. I try to provide it and it's just tossed aside because....reasons.Validity is also rare within the AP Poll, the Coaches Poll, and the Committee's Poll
Back to the subject at hand, which was . . . ah . . . .The counter to Utah/OU is that Utah right now has 4 wins over teams with winning records and OU has two and Utah’s wins over those teams have been more convincing than OU’s. I see the case you’re making and it has some validity. OU probably does have the best singular win and it’s loss is probably a little better right now, too. It’s kind of splitting hairs right now with those two. I personally have Utah over OU.
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/ (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.
Yeah, a lot of ppl on here seem to be resume-only guys....it may be what they wish was true, but it's not. All of the scoffing and absurdities are born of that.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?
I view it similar to the Big Ten crowd bitching about how many conference games the SEC has. What good is it banging your head against the wall when there's no rationale for change to occur?
My posts in this thread should be perceived as mostly benign, but because the reality of it doesn't jive with their wants, it's WWIII.
Meh.
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?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.
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.
I understand the sentiment but I'd be pretty shocked if Texas went 9-3 this year. I think losses are likely in Ames this weekend, and in Waco next weekend. We should be able to beat Tech at home on T+1 though. I'll be at that game.
Gophs are having a great season, enjoy it, and don't worry about the postseason. The whole point is to watch the games themselves and be entertained by the on-field action. You're getting plenty of that this season.
Texas, on the other hand, is a real beating to watch this season. Horrible defense and even worse special teams. There are Texas teams with similar records I've enjoyed watching, but this team really just plays bad football most of the time. Ah well, fingers crossed for better fortunes next year.
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.I agree. So, we can all bitch about that kind of stuff even if it’s fruitless to do so.
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.
And they still project losses based upon their placement behind one loss teams. Certainly possible. For the Gophers..... @Iowa and with Wisconsin at home....both are games that could go the wrong way. Vegas already set Iowa as the favorite 🙄. Get your bets in.I took the Gophers and the points
And I'm no sports psychologist, but anecdotally I buy that reasoning.Well a 12 pack,fire place and 2 people - you have philosophy,anyhoo gonna need that EggNog recipe - the season is coming
On Utah vs OU....You left out vs. WVU, a 52-14 win.
Utah didn't have any close wins before this past weekend. OU beat Texas by 7, the loss, and ISU by 1 point. Whether it should matter or not, I think it does. That's 3 uninspiring results out of their last 4 games, so the timing sort of makes sense.
I don't know if it's "press clippings" so much as sheer psychological fatigue. Many college athletes have said it's only possible to get sky high-- and mentally sharp-- for a couple games per season. It's just human nature, you can't be "UP" for every single game. Most humans don't work that way.Oh, I totally buy into this 100%. Back in 2012, WVU went to Austin to play Texas. Both teams were undefeated. WVU was number 8 and Texas was number 11 I believe. It was Fox’s prime time game and one of the more anticipated games of the weekend. It turned out to be a great game that WVU won 48-45. After the game all of the WVU players were really celebrating the win on the sideline. You could tell it was really a huge win for the them and they had put a lot of emotion into it.
So simple human nature could dictate they play down to the mean, not because they're full of themselves, but simply because it's too difficult and exhausting to keep getting UP over and over again.Eventiually it''' catch up to you and you'll have a DOWN day. Will that be this weekend? Stay tuned... :)
And I'm no sports psychologist, but anecdotally I buy that reasoning.
Oh, I totally buy into this 100%. Back in 2012, WVU went to Austin to play Texas. Both teams were undefeated. WVU was number 8 and Texas was number 11 I believe. It was Fox’s prime time game and one of the more anticipated games of the weekend. It turned out to be a great game that WVU won 48-45. After the game all of the WVU players were really celebrating the win on the sideline. You could tell it was really a huge win for the them and they had put a lot of emotion into it.I will be for the reasons that you listed and also because it will give them two quality wins. Right now they have one but anytime we are talking about one game I always have in the back of my mind that the one game we are talking about could have just been an unusually good game for the winner or an unusually bad game for the winner, those things happen.
I can distinctly remember seeing how happy they were and how much it meant to them and I had a very sobering thought. “We’re gonna get beat at Texas Tech next weekend.” I knew there was no way they would be able to come down from that high and put the game in the past to focus on TT and another road game. In fact, Tech would be the team more focused on that game given WVU’s big win and move up in the polls. Tech rolled them 49-14 the next Saturday.
Now, obviously this isn’t something you can bank on all the time. For instance, I’m not expecting on LSU losing to Ole Miss this weekend (although I wouldn’t be surprised if they look sloppy). But this Iowa-Minnesota game just feels like a game that the Minnesota kids are still going to be reliving PSU on Tuesday while Iowa is laser focused on the the Gophers. I love Iowa in this spot. In fact, if Minnesota wins this I might be more impressed with that than the PSU win.
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.I disagree with your assumption that Baylor can't get to the CFP.
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.Another mistake that I think we and the committee sometimes make is to try to make bright line distinctions by viewing teams as things like:
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.
I don't know if it's "press clippings" so much as sheer psychological fatigue. Many college athletes have said it's only possible to get sky high-- and mentally sharp-- for a couple games per season. It's just human nature, you can't be "UP" for every single game. Most humans don't work that way.I agree and I think it is harder when you are trying to do it back-to-back and even harder when it is three or more games in a row. This is why I think it was insane of the B1G to force their traditionally best team to (possibly) play back-to-back-to-back games against two typically stout border rivals and the B1G-W Champion leading into potentially playing back-to-back games against two CFP qualifiers. If Ohio State has to do all of that it will certainly be the toughest five game stretch that any team has ever faced in CFB.
So simple human nature could dictate they play down to the mean, not because they're full of themselves, but simply because it's too difficult and exhausting to keep getting UP over and over again.Eventiually it''' catch up to you and you'll have a DOWN day. Will that be this weekend? Stay tuned... :)
And I'm no sports psychologist, but anecdotally I buy that reasoning.
Well a 12 pack,fire place and 2 people - you have philosophy,anyhoo gonna need that EggNog recipe - the season is coming
I disagree with your assumption that Baylor can't get to the CFP.Great points, Medina.
They are currently 9-0 and 13th. There are very good reasons for them to only be 13th:
- Their OOC was pathetic. Stephen F. Austin is an FCS team and a bad one at that. UTSA is a midling CUSA team and Rice is winless and fighting it out with Akron for #1 in the Bottom 10.
- Their nine wins include multiple close calls against mediocre teams: They beat 5-4 ISU by two at home, they beat woeful Rice by only 8, they beat sub .500 TxTech by only a FG at home, they beat 3-6 WVU by just a FG at home, and they beat sub .500 TCU by one score as well.
All of that said, last week Minnesota got their first quality win and vaulted up nine spots to 8th from 17th. If Baylor beats #10 Oklahoma this weekend I expect them to jump over at least Oklahoma, Auburn, and Florida. That alone would get them to #10 without any upsets. Then the next week they host #19 Texas while #9 PSU travels to #2 Ohio State. If they back up the hypothetical OU win with a hypothetical TX win they'll likely jump the tOSU/PSU loser which would put them even with the two 12-1 PAC teams (Oregon and Utah).
Note, I'm assuming here that by that time (after the 11/23 games) Minnesota will either be 11-0 and ahead of the two PAC teams or not 11-0 and no longer a problem for Baylor.
Then in the final weekend Baylor has woeful Kansas but there are a whole lot of opportunities for upsets ahead of them:
- #1 LSU has aTm
- #2 tOSU has #15 Michigan on the road
- #3 Clemson . . . nevermind
- #4 Georgia's best opportunity for an upset is this weekend
- #5 Bama has Auburn on the road
- #6 Oregon has a rivalry game against OrSU
- #7 Utah has Colorado
- #8 Minnesota has #14 Wisconsin
Then on CG weekend, the Bears (at 12-0) would most likely get another shot at Oklahoma. If it isn't Oklahoma it will be a B12 team that wins out from here and is pretty highly ranked. Meanwhile:
- Either #1 LSU or #4 UGA will lose (if they haven't already), and
- Either #2 tOSU or #8 Minnesota will lose (if they haven't already), and
- Either #6 Oregon or #7 Utah will lose (if they haven't already).
- #5 Bama will not have an opportunity to impress the committee with a game against a highly ranked opponent while Baylor will.
If Baylor wins out I confidently predict not only that they will make the CFP, but that they will be seeded no worse than behind these three potential higher seeds:
- LSU, if they win out
- Clemson, if they win out
- tOSU/MN if one of them wins out
They will be ahead of the potential 12-1 PAC Champion and ahead of a potential 11-1 Bama. At 13-0 Baylor is in.
You left out vs. WVU, a 52-14 win.I said that's 3 uninspiring outcomes out of their last 4 games......so yes, the other game not listed was 'inspiring'....
Great points, Medina.I like that site and I like their predictor (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-college-football-predictions/). Here are the odds they give for the top teams to make the playoff if they win out:
And 538 agrees with you. It gives Baylor an 88% chance of making the CFP if they win out.
Why Ohio State football has broken the College Football PlayoffGood article.
https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2019/11/why-ohio-state-football-has-broken-the-college-football-playoff-but-can-make-it-easy-this-year.html (https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2019/11/why-ohio-state-football-has-broken-the-college-football-playoff-but-can-make-it-easy-this-year.html)
Congrats on the win yesterday, Kris!Oh man, we needed it. Brown started Bowling Green transfer Jarrett Doege at QB and he played well. Doege didn’t get here until May so Brown is going to RS him this year (I think, if we rally to make a bowl things could get interesting). So now the fanbase is all of a sudden a lot more optimistic about next year b/c Austin Kendall has just been uninspiring this year. There have been whispers that Doege was the best QB all along but Brown wanted him to get a full year learning the system and then have 2 years of eligibility left.
Doege...that name sounds familiar. Didn't Texas Tech have a Doege? Checked - his brother, Seth, was TTU's starting QB in '11 and '12.That’s how WVU landed him. Seth was the QB when Brown was the OC there.
If LSU stays at #1 for the next two weeks, they'd be the 3rd different #1 team Texas A&M has played (Bama, Clemson) in 2019.
Maybe that's why they're not gung-ho for a 9th conference game....
Why Ohio State football has broken the College Football PlayoffThat’s interesting.
https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2019/11/why-ohio-state-football-has-broken-the-college-football-playoff-but-can-make-it-easy-this-year.html (https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2019/11/why-ohio-state-football-has-broken-the-college-football-playoff-but-can-make-it-easy-this-year.html)
Apropos of nothing at all, Ohio State leads FBS in total defense.Andy Staples was saying on his podcast this week that at this point LSU is just a Big XII team, but because they play in the SEC, nobody is saying it. Their flaws are the exact same flaws that Oklahoma has had in recent years.
Clemson is #2, Utah #3, Wisconsin #4, Michigan #5, Georgia #6.
Iowa is #12, Florida #13, Oregon #14.
Penn State is #17.
Auburn is #24, Texas A&M #25, TCU #26, Alabama #27.
Michigan State is #31, Northwestern #33.
Oklahoma is #36, Baylor #40, Iowa State #41, Kansas State #43.
LSU is #47. Probably auditioning for membership in the Big 12, where nobody knows how to play defense the way SEC teams play it.
https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/22?scrlybrkr=8a809eab (https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/22?scrlybrkr=8a809eab)
Andy Staples was saying on his podcast this week that at this point LSU is just a Big XII team, but because they play in the SEC, nobody is saying it. Their flaws are the exact same flaws that Oklahoma has had in recent years.Staples is right, to a point. Not much talk about LSU's bad defense because SEC! SEC! SEC!
Apropos of nothing at all, Ohio State leads FBS in total defense.Although the LSU point somewhat stands, total defense is a bad stat.
Clemson is #2, Utah #3, Wisconsin #4, Michigan #5, Georgia #6.
Iowa is #12, Florida #13, Oregon #14.
Penn State is #17.
Auburn is #24, Texas A&M #25, TCU #26, Alabama #27.
Michigan State is #31, Northwestern #33.
Oklahoma is #36, Baylor #40, Iowa State #41, Kansas State #43.
LSU is #47. Probably auditioning for membership in the Big 12, where nobody knows how to play defense the way SEC teams play it.
https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/22?scrlybrkr=8a809eab (https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/22?scrlybrkr=8a809eab)
One thing about defense is how long the offense runs clock. Look at UGA, nice statistical defense, but often the offense is running 8 minutes drives.I mean, UGA is fifth in yards per play allowed. OU is 50th.
Oklahoma also had a quick strike offense. They seem to go hand in hand.
It's not a "bad stat", it's an incomplete stat (which I think is what you mean). LSU has faced more "good teams" than most in the top ten.It’s mostly a bad stat because of the range of tempos, like you said. We can improve it by simply using yards per play with no drawback.
Well they can play Oklahoma/Utah/Oregon - ya better not chance it go with Virginia.I'm hoping you didn't miss the point....
I'm hoping you didn't miss the point....It would bother me to no end if I ever misinterpreted and missed your point.Try enjoying the games whether you deem the programs worthy or not
cfr's SRS ratings:
1. Ohio St 10-0
2. Alabama 9-1
3. LSU 10-0
4. Clemson 11-0
5. Utah 9-1
6. Georgia 9-1
7. Penn St 9-1
8. Michigan 8-2
9. Wisconsin 8-2
10. Oklahoma 9-1
11. Auburn 7-3
12. Oregon 9-1
13. Notre Dame 8-2
14. Iowa 7-3
15. Florida 9-2
16. Memphis 9-1
17. Minnesota 9-1
18. Cincinnati 9-1
19. Baylor 9-1
20. Washington 6-4
21. SMU 9-1
22. Navy 7-2
23. Iowa St 6-4
24. Appalachian St 9-1
25. Texas A&M 7-3
This just takes into account MOV and SOS. Nothing specifically about wins and losses or injuries or eye test. It's objective. I'm not sure most people can handle true objectivity, lol.
.
For me, this would be a good starting-out point. I'd move teams up or down from here based on injuries (Tua), quality of defense (G5 teams), and yes - eye test. But the SOS and MOV are already done for us, so if you want a top 25 to nitpick and adjust, how about this one?
The Badgers were banished to Dallas to play Western Michigan a few years ago. That sucked, but at least they won.Yeah, that's the biggest letdown ever.
The Badgers were banished to Dallas to play Western Michigan a few years ago. That sucked, but at least they won.IF ONLY they'd been allowed to play 7-4 LSU or 8-4 Florida or even the mighty privilege of 8-4 Auburn, i.e. the next batch of teams.
Sorry if it's arrogant or elitist or whatever, but I don't think any P5 program wants to play a G5 opponent in a big-time bowl. It's not fun and a no-win situation - no credit for winning, laughing stock for losing.Fun is what you make of it, lesson I learned as a kid. Granted, the complaining is some of the fun.
And yes, a possible lack of motivation. :57:
Although I do love Mullen's phrasing on such an issue: they're keeping score? Well, let's go kick their ass!
IF ONLY they'd been allowed to play 7-4 LSU or 8-4 Florida or even the mighty privilege of 8-4 Auburn, i.e. the next batch of teams.Meh. UW's got scoreboard on LSU and Auburn. Florida would have been great.
Then again, they earned their way in but blowing a 21-point lead. You get what you get.
Yeah, there's a lot of filler when it comes to college football coverage.People speak with their choices. Both to the producers and to themselves.
Personally, I'd like it to include more deep-dive stuff from the past, maybe tying it in to a player or team from the current season, something like that. But the endless bowl predictions and other drivel must get clicks (I assume), otherwise they wouldn't do it.
It's more a lost opportunity than anything. Is there anything more useless than a website's own rankings? The AP and Coaches polls are already irrelevant, but ESPN and CBS et al think we need their try at it? Is it a race to the most irrelevant?
I understand us doing it - we're not doing it for mass consumption, but for each other.
What do you think an 8-team playoff does? It rewards (relative) mediocrity.Agreed and to expand is a fool's errand .As stated before if that unfolds more Sunday bound kids will just sit it out
Committee explains why Ohio State jumped LSU for No. 1(CBS)Absolutely love this!
"That's the key piece," said CFP Selection Committee chairman Rob Mullens. "They're a balanced team. Strong on offense and defense. Obviously LSU has a very strong offense, but to date their defense isn't as strong as Ohio State's."
LSU's wins to date of note are:As far as I'm concerned, neither Texas nor LSU deserve to be called DBU.
Texas - Looked a lot better earlier in the year, now, not so much, and the points allowed is interesting.
Auburn - Close win, fewest points scored by LSU at 23-20.
Florida - Good win over solid team, but at home, 42-28.
Alabama - Great win on the road 46-41.'
A&M - TBD, let's assume a win of say 38-28, solid win over pretty good team.
The points allowed here is what makes OSU top dog at the moment, I think. OSU has very good looking wins over Cincy, Wisconsin, Penn State, all in C-bus, and nobody else has been close except perhaps MSU initially.
Many of the same people calling for an 8-team playoff scoff at the "everyone gets a trophy" ideology. What do you think an 8-team playoff does? It rewards (relative) mediocrity.People scoff at everyone gets a trophy because is a metaphor that can essentially mean anything is bad. It can be stretched and twisted and used weirdly and just about nobody is on its side. In fact, the only people who do think everyone should get a trophy or a certain sect of over excited and unbalanced parents. You know, the kind to write into the newspaper to ask their child‘s “world champion” U12 baseball team that played in a tournament of teams within 100 mile radius get recognized.
Many of the same people calling for an 8-team playoff scoff at the "everyone gets a trophy" ideology. What do you think an 8-team playoff does? It rewards (relative) mediocrity.To me saying "you couldn't win your conference trophy, oh, not even your Division trophy? Well, how bout a third try, because deep down we just think you are really special!" is pretty "everybody gets a trophy"
People scoff at everyone gets a trophy because is a metaphor that can essentially mean anything is bad. It can be stretched and twisted and used weirdly and just about nobody is on its side. In fact, the only people who do think everyone should get a trophy or a certain sect of over excited and unbalanced parents. You know, the kind to write into the newspaper to ask their child‘s “world champion” U12 baseball team that played in a tournament of teams within 100 mile radius get recognized.
Anyway, to stop rewarding mediocrity, a good first step would be saying that if you can’t finish in first place in a pod of seven teams, certainly shouldn’t have a chance to play for the title of best team in the country. We’re taking some subjectivity out of picking the “best” teams.
I assume we can all back that, not giving second-place teams big ole trophies.
To me saying "you couldn't win your conference trophy, oh, not even your Division trophy? Well, how bout a third try, because deep down we just think you are really special!" is pretty "everybody gets a trophy"Again, if conference schedules were all the same or even similar, you'd have a point. But they're reeeeally not.
You're equating a team getting a trophy for winning the Birmingham Bowl with a potential national championship trophy. Mmmmkay.
I have no idea how someone can attempt to extend the "everyone gets a trophy" mentality to the evolution of the college football postseason, when in fact it is literally and unequivocally a move in the opposite direction from that.
. . . in the old bowl system, there would generally be 2-3 teams with a real chance at the national championship. They didn't necessarily play each other, and it was 'mythical' because of that.I think you're thinking of the "Bowl Alliance." The Rose Bowl didn't want to play because it would have lost its guaranteed Big Ten-Pac-10 matchup.
Then we had the BCS (sans the B10 and PAC, because they were spay-shul), which pitted the top 2 teams. Exactly 2.
Now we have a 4-team playoff, which expand those with NC hopes x2.Oh, come on--you know the answer to that! It's so the SEC can get 4 teams into the playoff. How would it do that? Simple--the top two from each division.
We're going to multiply that by 2 again because........why?
Any and every expansion is to have more fanbases enjoying a chance at a NC - making the activity of crowning a champ tilted far towards entertainment and further away from competition.I agree with this and, actually, with the rest of your post as well.
Every expansion of the playoff gets further away from an earnest attempt at identifying the best team.
I guess I see the strides they've made in baseball with sabermetrics and, you know, intelligence and don't understand why it hasn't crept into college football.I get it, but there is no “correct” way to do it. Any ranking anyone could come up with for whatever reasons they cited could be picked apart.
Although they still have decision-makers with antiquated thinking as well - take for instance the HOF voter who's only checking Derek Jeter's box because.....well, just because. Because it's his vote to abuse.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not genuinely outraged by any of this, I'm just tired of the lazy stupids continually having a seat at the table. The "because I said so" crowd.
I guess I see the strides they've made in baseball with sabermetrics and, you know, intelligence and don't understand why it hasn't crept into college football.OAM, much respect, but the bolded is nonsense. You know how they decide the postseason in baseball? Wins and losses. Nothing to do with sabermetrics. And you know what they did with their playoffs? They expanded them, despite the fact their postseason is somehow more random than football's despite having series.
Although they still have decision-makers with antiquated thinking as well - take for instance the HOF voter who's only checking Derek Jeter's box because.....well, just because. Because it's his vote to abuse.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not genuinely outraged by any of this, I'm just tired of the lazy stupids continually having a seat at the table. The "because I said so" crowd.
Once you get to 8 teams, you produce a "playoff champion", nothing more than that. The odds are that the "best team" is not going to win such a playoff.So this is interesting because we have a playoff champion now, but once it gets to eight teams, it feels different somehow. Like, lets look at SRS, which is a mildly blunter tool to decide best, but more nuanced than record.
Who knew the SWC was simply before its time?
players are to be paid above board soon
I think it reasonable to start with the P5 teams rank ordered by number of losses and then see if any need to be adjusted. At times, no adjustment might be needed.If there was ever, in the history of sport, ever a time no adjustment would be needed, I'll eat my hat. There's a near-certainty (100%) adjustments need to be made, ESPECIALLY in college football, because the scheduling is so all-over-the-place.
OAM, much respect, but the bolded is nonsense. You know how they decide the postseason in baseball? Wins and losses. Nothing to do with sabermetrics. And you know what they did with their playoffs? They expanded them, despite the fact their postseason is somehow more random than football's despite having series. You're right, the decision-makers haven't evolved, but at least the (knowledgeable) fans know how and by how much those people are woefully wrong. College football fans wanting to expand the playoff are just burying their head int he sand.
We get it, the folks picking the playoff need to be more subjective in their choice. Why should they do this? Is it because there's a real good subjective way to do it? No it is not. It's because the mere appearance of a flattened, objective standing upsets you because it's not special enough. It's not interesting and different enough. We can't even ask who's most deserving, because we need to have more subjective rankings of who is "best," and these are the rankings that don't even count. I honestly don't see the difficulty in ranking teams by a combination of resume and eye test, but most of you here act like it's some sort of impossibility. Ohhh, it's hard, it takes more than 5 seconds, let me throw my hands up in angst.
SI's Ross Dellinger had an interesting thought experiment. He suggested you just go six teams, five P5 conference champs, one G5 picked by the committee and committee sets seedings. It's near as hard and fast objective as one can be. It doesn't give a trophy to someone who can't earn a trophy by objective means (perhaps we could amend it to have only division games count in standings). And people lashed out at the idea, because getting highly subjective is one of the great facets of this sport for better or worse. If this happened, if they were smart, every helmet program would/should beg the ACC to admit them and ditch the SEC or Big Ten immediately.
LSU's wins to date of note are:
Texas - Looked a lot better earlier in the year, now, not so much, and the points allowed is interesting.
Auburn - Close win, fewest points scored by LSU at 23-20.
Florida - Good win over solid team, but at home, 42-28.
Alabama - Great win on the road 46-41.'
A&M - TBD, let's assume a win of say 38-28, solid win over pretty good team.
The points allowed here is what makes OSU top dog at the moment, I think. OSU has very good looking wins over Cincy, Wisconsin, Penn State, all in C-bus, and nobody else has been close except perhaps MSU initially.
Yeah, A&M needs a win over someone like Louisiana Tech...Well, I guess we agree because A&M could use a win over ANYONE with a winning record. But like I stated, sadly, they don't have that. Despite playing woeful teams in their OOC like UTSA, Texas State, and FCS Lamar (who are a combined 11-23).
Yeah, the only tie-ins among the NY6 are:Navy is out, as they can't win their conference. Best G5 champ. If Cincy were to win, maybe Boise or App sneaks in by virtue of the win arrangement.
Rose - B10 & PAC
Sugar - SEC & XII
Orange - ACC
The rest get whoever, with one spot saved for the best G5 team (Memphis/Cinci/Navy/whoever).
I don't know if there's a rule against a ton of teams from one conference inundating the Fiesta, Cotton, and Peach, though.