Jump to content

2015 NCAA Football Thread


DarkJourney

Recommended Posts

Top 10 wins is just about the worst way to judge things, considering not even clemson or alabama have one (though i don't think alabama should be in the top 4 anyway).

Clemson doesn’t have one, you’re right.

It has two.

Both Notre Dame and Florida State are top-10 teams in the AP and Coaches polls and I’d be very surprised if they weren’t both there Tuesday.

6fQjS3M.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's not all about quality wins. It's also big into strength of schedule. They also factor the strength of your opponents' schedules. And also partly offensive/defensive efficiency.

Of the teams that still matter, here's what their current SOS rankings are:

Oklahoma 1

Alabama 2

Notre Dame 9

Stanford 16

Clemson 20

Michigan State 28

Florida 29

Ohio State 35

North Carolina 43

Iowa 60

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how anybody could not have Alabama in the top four at this point, especially given their strength of schedule. What's your reason, Viking?

As for Oklahoma, they have a very bad loss, but they've looked like the best team in the country since that loss. If it comes down to their resume against an unimpressive-until-last-week Ohio State or two-loss Stanford, it's a no-brainer.

Like I said, I think Ohio State should need Alabama and Clemson to lose to make it, but even then, I'm not sure how the committee could justify them over UNC (I have this bad feeling undeservingly OSU sneaks their way in with a Clemson loss, though. UNC can beat Clemson -- I don't think they will, though -- but with their QB situation, Florida isn't beating Alabama. No way, no how.

Because depending on the rankings on tuesday, they might not have a single win over a ranked team. Their best win is against Mississippi state, who got throttled by the team that beat bama. Frankly I'm not sure how you put bama ahead of Michigan State, who should be number 1 right now. No even comes close to their resume. If they beat Iowa they should be the number 1 seed, easily. Right now

1. Michigan State

2. Clemson

3. Iowa

4. Oklahoma

5. Alabama

6. Stanford

Alabama just doesn't have any great wins. They have plenty of good wins, but none that really stand out.

They'll probably have two -- LSU and Wisconsin. They've come out of the best division in the country, have the fifth best strength of schedule, and the best strength of record. Florida will be their 11th opponent with a winning record and they've clearly passed the eye test. Plus, there's only three other teams, I believe, that have a chance to be a conference champion with less than one loss, so there's only three teams you can really justify placing above them. Who would you place above them? One loss Ohio State who's not even playing for their conference title and who's strength of schedule is far less impressive? Two loss Stanford? Either MSU or Iowa will not be a conference champion.

That's because right now I wouldn't put them in the top 4. Right now, they're 5. If they beat florida, they're in, no question. But it's about the current state of affairs, and right now, and right now, alabama hasn't beaten a single team with 10 or more wins. In fact, they lost to the best team they played. That speaks volumes to me. Also the eye test is utter bull :censored:.

Top 10 wins is just about the worst way to judge things, considering not even clemson or alabama have one (though i don't think alabama should be in the top 4 anyway).

Clemson doesn’t have one, you’re right.

It has two.

Both Notre Dame and Florida State are top-10 teams in the AP and Coaches polls and I’d be very surprised if they weren’t both there Tuesday.

That's an if, but fair enough. That still leaves alabama out, which is my point.

It's not all about quality wins. It's also big into strength of schedule. They also factor the strength of your opponents' schedules. And also partly offensive/defensive efficiency.

Of the teams that still matter, here's what their current SOS rankings are:

Oklahoma 1

Alabama 2

Notre Dame 9

Stanford 16

Clemson 20

Michigan State 28

Florida 29

Ohio State 35

North Carolina 43

Iowa 60

See I actually disagree with that. To me, beating 3 10 win teams and then beating a bunch of mediocre opponents is a lot better than beating a bunch of 8 win teams. It's about who you've beaten, and right now, michigan state has beaten the most amount of teams in the country. How do you say a team that's beaten Michigan, and Ohio State on the road, and then beat oregon is not ahead of a team who's best win is either a barely top 25 team in wisconsin on a neutral site, or @ mississippi state? Quality wins > SOS.

As an aside, would this not mean that oklahoma would be ahead of alabama? Not the argument, but I'm just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USC Interim coach Clay Helton gets named permanent head coach by AD Pat Haden, per Twitter. Honestly I think this is a good decision. Helton beat UCLA, somehow won the South Division, and went 5-2 in his term. I wasn't sure this would happen with the news that Les Miles would probably be fired, but now that he's not an option I'm not surprised.

On the subject of the playoff, I think the committee has it easy. Clemson, Alabama, and Oklahoma, barring any upsets, are locks. The Big Ten champion makes it in. That's all there is to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the committee (and Alabama) are damn lucky that Arkansas converted that 4th and 25 in OT against Ole Miss, because otherwise Alabama would not have even won its division.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not all about quality wins. It's also big into strength of schedule. They also factor the strength of your opponents' schedules. And also partly offensive/defensive efficiency.

Of the teams that still matter, here's what their current SOS rankings are:

Oklahoma 1

Alabama 2

Notre Dame 9

Stanford 16

Clemson 20

Michigan State 28

Florida 29

Ohio State 35

North Carolina 43

Iowa 60

See I actually disagree with that. To me, beating 3 10 win teams and then beating a bunch of mediocre opponents is a lot better than beating a bunch of 8 win teams. It's about who you've beaten, and right now, michigan state has beaten the most amount of teams in the country. How do you say a team that's beaten Michigan, and Ohio State on the road, and then beat oregon is not ahead of a team who's best win is either a barely top 25 team in wisconsin on a neutral site, or @ mississippi state? Quality wins > SOS.

As an aside, would this not mean that oklahoma would be ahead of alabama? Not the argument, but I'm just curious.

See, this is why the BCS frustrated fans. Fans would get hung up in singular games or some of the games instead of all of the games played because it fits their argument. If you're willing to continue using the singular games method instead of the whole picture, that's your right. But apply it everywhere instead of just where you see fit. If you're willing to acknowledge that Michigan State beat three 10-win teams, you must also point out that Michigan State lost to a 5-7 Nebraska team whereas Alabama lost to 9-3 Mississippi and MSU should be given more of a demerit for their loss than Alabama gets for losing to Ole Miss. That seems only fair.

Why Strength of Schedule and Strength of Opponents' Schedule should matter is because it takes into account not only every game you played, but every game your opponents played. It gives a better idea of how strong your schedule actually was and how you performed throughout. It's much more fairer to all instead of picking out singular games. It's why I've pointed out before things like this: "Ok, MSU beat Oregon, now MSU needs Oregon to run the table."

Look at MSU's entire schedule: 7-5 Penn State (PSU losing to Temple hurts MSU), 6-6 Indiana, 3-9 Maryland, 4-8 Rutgers, 2-10 Purdue, and 5-7 Nebraska (and they beat MSU). Their Big Ten brethren lost too many games outside the conference. Even though MSU did some heavy lifting by beating Oregon and getting decent seasons from Western Michigan, Central Michigan and Air Force.....these other Big Ten schools dragged down MSU's accomplishments due to losing to Utah, Washington State, Bowling Green (twice), West Virginia, Temple, BYU, Marshall, Virginia Tech, Miami. The Big Ten didn't do enough work in non-conference to boost the entire conference's stature before conference play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Buckeye fan and the only way Ohio State should be in the playoffs is if:

Florida beats Alabama

Clemson loses to North Carolina

Michigan State beats Iowa

If Iowa beats Michigan State and the other scenarios occur, Michigan State should be in over Ohio State unless Iowa beats them 59-0.

That would leave:

1. Iowa

2. Oklahoma

3. Stanford

4. Michigan State

What I believe it will be:

1. Clemson

2. Alabama

3. Iowa/Michigan State

4. Oklahoma

km3S7lo.jpg

 

Zqy6osx.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how anybody could not have Alabama in the top four at this point, especially given their strength of schedule. What's your reason, Viking?

As for Oklahoma, they have a very bad loss, but they've looked like the best team in the country since that loss. If it comes down to their resume against an unimpressive-until-last-week Ohio State or two-loss Stanford, it's a no-brainer.

Like I said, I think Ohio State should need Alabama and Clemson to lose to make it, but even then, I'm not sure how the committee could justify them over UNC (I have this bad feeling undeservingly OSU sneaks their way in with a Clemson loss, though. UNC can beat Clemson -- I don't think they will, though -- but with their QB situation, Florida isn't beating Alabama. No way, no how.

Because depending on the rankings on tuesday, they might not have a single win over a ranked team. Their best win is against Mississippi state, who got throttled by the team that beat bama. Frankly I'm not sure how you put bama ahead of Michigan State, who should be number 1 right now. No even comes close to their resume. If they beat Iowa they should be the number 1 seed, easily. Right now

1. Michigan State

2. Clemson

3. Iowa

4. Oklahoma

5. Alabama

6. Stanford

Alabama just doesn't have any great wins. They have plenty of good wins, but none that really stand out.

They'll probably have two -- LSU and Wisconsin. They've come out of the best division in the country, have the fifth best strength of schedule, and the best strength of record. Florida will be their 11th opponent with a winning record and they've clearly passed the eye test. Plus, there's only three other teams, I believe, that have a chance to be a conference champion with less than one loss, so there's only three teams you can really justify placing above them. Who would you place above them? One loss Ohio State who's not even playing for their conference title and who's strength of schedule is far less impressive? Two loss Stanford? Either MSU or Iowa will not be a conference champion.

That's because right now I wouldn't put them in the top 4. Right now, they're 5. If they beat florida, they're in, no question. But it's about the current state of affairs, and right now, and right now, alabama hasn't beaten a single team with 10 or more wins. In fact, they lost to the best team they played. That speaks volumes to me. Also the eye test is utter bull :censored:.

Top 10 wins is just about the worst way to judge things, considering not even clemson or alabama have one (though i don't think alabama should be in the top 4 anyway).

Clemson doesn’t have one, you’re right.

It has two.

Both Notre Dame and Florida State are top-10 teams in the AP and Coaches polls and I’d be very surprised if they weren’t both there Tuesday.

That's an if, but fair enough. That still leaves alabama out, which is my point.

It's not all about quality wins. It's also big into strength of schedule. They also factor the strength of your opponents' schedules. And also partly offensive/defensive efficiency.

Of the teams that still matter, here's what their current SOS rankings are:

Oklahoma 1

Alabama 2

Notre Dame 9

Stanford 16

Clemson 20

Michigan State 28

Florida 29

Ohio State 35

North Carolina 43

Iowa 60

See I actually disagree with that. To me, beating 3 10 win teams and then beating a bunch of mediocre opponents is a lot better than beating a bunch of 8 win teams. It's about who you've beaten, and right now, michigan state has beaten the most amount of teams in the country. How do you say a team that's beaten Michigan, and Ohio State on the road, and then beat oregon is not ahead of a team who's best win is either a barely top 25 team in wisconsin on a neutral site, or @ mississippi state? Quality wins > SOS.

As an aside, would this not mean that oklahoma would be ahead of alabama? Not the argument, but I'm just curious.

You're calling the eye test bull :censored: which I guess makes sense since you're considering Michigan State's win over Michigan a quality win. That game, in my eyes, is pretty much a loss for them. They were pretty well outplayed that day and won entirely as a result of the flukiest of fluke plays.

There is a metric I mentioned, strength of record, which takes into consideration how impressive the record you have is for who you played and Alabama leads the nation in that.

IUe6Hvh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is why the BCS frustrated fans. Fans would get hung up in singular games or some of the games instead of all of the games played because it fits their argument. If you're willing to continue using the singular games method instead of the whole picture, that's your right. But apply it everywhere instead of just where you see fit. If you're willing to acknowledge that Michigan State beat three 10-win teams, you must also point out that Michigan State lost to a 5-7 Nebraska team whereas Alabama lost to 9-3 Mississippi and MSU should be given more of a demerit for their loss than Alabama gets for losing to Ole Miss. That seems only fair.

Why Strength of Schedule and Strength of Opponents' Schedule should matter is because it takes into account not only every game you played, but every game your opponents played. It gives a better idea of how strong your schedule actually was and how you performed throughout. It's much more fairer to all instead of picking out singular games. It's why I've pointed out before things like this: "Ok, MSU beat Oregon, now MSU needs Oregon to run the table."

Look at MSU's entire schedule: 7-5 Penn State (PSU losing to Temple hurts MSU), 6-6 Indiana, 3-9 Maryland, 4-8 Rutgers, 2-10 Purdue, and 5-7 Nebraska (and they beat MSU). Their Big Ten brethren lost too many games outside the conference. Even though MSU did some heavy lifting by beating Oregon and getting decent seasons from Western Michigan, Central Michigan and Air Force.....these other Big Ten schools dragged down MSU's accomplishments due to losing to Utah, Washington State, Bowling Green (twice), West Virginia, Temple, BYU, Marshall, Virginia Tech, Miami. The Big Ten didn't do enough work in non-conference to boost the entire conference's stature before conference play.

Because to me, bad losses only mean anything if it against a team with a similar resume, which is not the case between michigan state and alabama. Ohio State lost to Virgina Tech last year and won the title. Teams lose to teams they shouldn't sometimes. It's college football, :censored: happens. Alabama has not beaten a single high quality team all year, which to me is all that matters. Top 25 wins. Now, again, maybe this changes when the new rankings come out, but right now, alabama has one top 25 win (against mississippi state) while michigan state has three. This is why I don't like overall strength of schedule, because it puts a win over a 7-5 team much greater than a win over a 3-9 team. Now, technically speaking, that's what should happen, but in reality they're both totally irrelevant anyway, so why bother to differentiate between the two? Who actually cares that alabama beat arkansas? Does that actually mean any more than a win over rutgers? They're both irrelevant teams that nobody cares about. Let's keep it that way. It's about who you've beaten that's RELEVANT, not just random teams that aren't ranked. Alabama hasn't beaten a single elite team this year. They lost to the best team they played. That's a big deal. That means we don't know how they'll fair against actual elite teams. We don't know what their limit is. Because right now, it's mississippi state. That isn't a very high bar to cross.

Now I will say, if they beat florida, this is all moot and they go anyway. They still wouldn't have beaten an elite team this year, but who else are you going to put in? The rankings if bama, clemson, and msu win

1. Clemson

2. Michigan State

3. Oklahoma

4. Alabama

And as an aside, I really don't like punishing a team that did a lot of work on it's own, because the conference did bad. If MSU beat good teams, that's all that should matter. They challenged themselves, they get rewarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is why the BCS frustrated fans. Fans would get hung up in singular games or some of the games instead of all of the games played because it fits their argument. If you're willing to continue using the singular games method instead of the whole picture, that's your right. But apply it everywhere instead of just where you see fit. If you're willing to acknowledge that Michigan State beat three 10-win teams, you must also point out that Michigan State lost to a 5-7 Nebraska team whereas Alabama lost to 9-3 Mississippi and MSU should be given more of a demerit for their loss than Alabama gets for losing to Ole Miss. That seems only fair.

Why Strength of Schedule and Strength of Opponents' Schedule should matter is because it takes into account not only every game you played, but every game your opponents played. It gives a better idea of how strong your schedule actually was and how you performed throughout. It's much more fairer to all instead of picking out singular games. It's why I've pointed out before things like this: "Ok, MSU beat Oregon, now MSU needs Oregon to run the table."

Look at MSU's entire schedule: 7-5 Penn State (PSU losing to Temple hurts MSU), 6-6 Indiana, 3-9 Maryland, 4-8 Rutgers, 2-10 Purdue, and 5-7 Nebraska (and they beat MSU). Their Big Ten brethren lost too many games outside the conference. Even though MSU did some heavy lifting by beating Oregon and getting decent seasons from Western Michigan, Central Michigan and Air Force.....these other Big Ten schools dragged down MSU's accomplishments due to losing to Utah, Washington State, Bowling Green (twice), West Virginia, Temple, BYU, Marshall, Virginia Tech, Miami. The Big Ten didn't do enough work in non-conference to boost the entire conference's stature before conference play.

Because to me, bad losses only mean anything if it against a team with a similar resume, which is not the case between michigan state and alabama. Ohio State lost to Virgina Tech last year and won the title. Teams lose to teams they shouldn't sometimes. It's college football, :censored: happens. Alabama has not beaten a single high quality team all year, which to me is all that matters. Top 25 wins. Now, again, maybe this changes when the new rankings come out, but right now, alabama has one top 25 win (against mississippi state) while michigan state has three. This is why I don't like overall strength of schedule, because it puts a win over a 7-5 team much greater than a win over a 3-9 team. Now, technically speaking, that's what should happen, but in reality they're both totally irrelevant anyway, so why bother to differentiate between the two? Who actually cares that alabama beat arkansas? Does that actually mean any more than a win over rutgers? They're both irrelevant teams that nobody cares about. Let's keep it that way. It's about who you've beaten that's RELEVANT, not just random teams that aren't ranked. Alabama hasn't beaten a single elite team this year. They lost to the best team they played. That's a big deal. That means we don't know how they'll fair against actual elite teams. We don't know what their limit is. Because right now, it's mississippi state. That isn't a very high bar to cross.

Now I will say, if they beat florida, this is all moot and they go anyway. They still wouldn't have beaten an elite team this year, but who else are you going to put in? The rankings if bama, clemson, and msu win

1. Clemson

2. Michigan State

3. Oklahoma

4. Alabama

And as an aside, I really don't like punishing a team that did a lot of work on it's own, because the conference did bad. If MSU beat good teams, that's all that should matter. They challenged themselves, they get rewarded.

So, you don't like strength of schedule, but you covet strength of opponent beaten? What sense does that make?

You keep harping that Michigan State has beaten an 11-win team and a couple other 9-3 teams but penalize Alabama from beating six Power 5 teams with 8-9 wins. You treat losing to Mississippi as this terrible loss but treat a loss to a 5-7, likely not going to a bowl game Big Ten opponent, team as no big deal. You're either clueless or you have a bias towards a particular school/conference. Your arguments MAKE. NO. SENSE.

I can only present logic and rationale when it comes to what the committee looks at when determining which four teams should make the playoffs. I honestly have no idea what your criteria is. It can't be strength of opponents. It obviously isn't quality of defeat. It isn't the "eye test". Only conclusion I can come up with is picking random games instead of the totality of your work....which is, frankly, dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fun thing about metrics like strength of schedule or strength of metric?

They each measure different things — for the same reason the BCS used six computer rankings, we should use multiple SoS rankings.

Let’s look at the possible contenders’ SoS as judged by the Sagarin ratings.

Alabama: 5

Stanford: 16

Oklahoma: 20

Florida: 46

Clemson: 47

Michigan State: 53

Ohio State: 61

Iowa: 62

North Carolina: 63

But look instead at their SoS ratings from S&P+

Michigan State: 13

Alabama: 17

Clemson: 29

Oklahoma: 32

Florida: 38

Stanford: 46

Ohio State: 50

Iowa: 104

North Carolina: 117

Sagarin loves Stanford’s body of work, but S&P+ ain’t a huge fan… at all. Michigan State has a top-15 SoS in the S&P+ rankings but is outside the top 50 in Sagarin.

And obviously, Michigan State is a weird case. They’ve played three really good teams — Oregon, Michigan and Ohio State — but a lot of bad conference opponents otherwise. How do we rank that against Alabama, who’s only played (and lost to) one really good team — Ole Miss — but has beat a lot of solid conference opponents.

At the end of the day, that’s why I don’t have an issue with Alabama being where they are. Their collective slate has been much tougher than Oklahoma, Clemson and Michigan State, all of whom have played a series of cupcakes during the year. Of Alabama’s 13 opponents this season, 11 of them will go to bowl games. Contrast that to Oklahoma (8/9 of 12), Clemson (7 of 13) and Michigan State (9 of 13).

Of course, Clemson and Oklahoma would have three wins better than any single ‘Bama win and Michigan State would have four if we go chalk this weekend.

But it’s tough to talk about “strength of schedule” because it isn’t a specifically-defined metric in and of itself. We use a lot of different estimators for it, so we shouldn’t talk in absolutes of, “This team has the #1 SoS.”

6fQjS3M.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is why the BCS frustrated fans. Fans would get hung up in singular games or some of the games instead of all of the games played because it fits their argument. If you're willing to continue using the singular games method instead of the whole picture, that's your right. But apply it everywhere instead of just where you see fit. If you're willing to acknowledge that Michigan State beat three 10-win teams, you must also point out that Michigan State lost to a 5-7 Nebraska team whereas Alabama lost to 9-3 Mississippi and MSU should be given more of a demerit for their loss than Alabama gets for losing to Ole Miss. That seems only fair.

Why Strength of Schedule and Strength of Opponents' Schedule should matter is because it takes into account not only every game you played, but every game your opponents played. It gives a better idea of how strong your schedule actually was and how you performed throughout. It's much more fairer to all instead of picking out singular games. It's why I've pointed out before things like this: "Ok, MSU beat Oregon, now MSU needs Oregon to run the table."

Look at MSU's entire schedule: 7-5 Penn State (PSU losing to Temple hurts MSU), 6-6 Indiana, 3-9 Maryland, 4-8 Rutgers, 2-10 Purdue, and 5-7 Nebraska (and they beat MSU). Their Big Ten brethren lost too many games outside the conference. Even though MSU did some heavy lifting by beating Oregon and getting decent seasons from Western Michigan, Central Michigan and Air Force.....these other Big Ten schools dragged down MSU's accomplishments due to losing to Utah, Washington State, Bowling Green (twice), West Virginia, Temple, BYU, Marshall, Virginia Tech, Miami. The Big Ten didn't do enough work in non-conference to boost the entire conference's stature before conference play.

Because to me, bad losses only mean anything if it against a team with a similar resume, which is not the case between michigan state and alabama. Ohio State lost to Virgina Tech last year and won the title. Teams lose to teams they shouldn't sometimes. It's college football, :censored: happens. Alabama has not beaten a single high quality team all year, which to me is all that matters. Top 25 wins. Now, again, maybe this changes when the new rankings come out, but right now, alabama has one top 25 win (against mississippi state) while michigan state has three. This is why I don't like overall strength of schedule, because it puts a win over a 7-5 team much greater than a win over a 3-9 team. Now, technically speaking, that's what should happen, but in reality they're both totally irrelevant anyway, so why bother to differentiate between the two? Who actually cares that alabama beat arkansas? Does that actually mean any more than a win over rutgers? They're both irrelevant teams that nobody cares about. Let's keep it that way. It's about who you've beaten that's RELEVANT, not just random teams that aren't ranked. Alabama hasn't beaten a single elite team this year. They lost to the best team they played. That's a big deal. That means we don't know how they'll fair against actual elite teams. We don't know what their limit is. Because right now, it's mississippi state. That isn't a very high bar to cross.

Now I will say, if they beat florida, this is all moot and they go anyway. They still wouldn't have beaten an elite team this year, but who else are you going to put in? The rankings if bama, clemson, and msu win

1. Clemson

2. Michigan State

3. Oklahoma

4. Alabama

And as an aside, I really don't like punishing a team that did a lot of work on it's own, because the conference did bad. If MSU beat good teams, that's all that should matter. They challenged themselves, they get rewarded.

So, you don't like strength of schedule, but you covet strength of opponent beaten? What sense does that make?

You keep harping that Michigan State has beaten an 11-win team and a couple other 9-3 teams but penalize Alabama from beating six Power 5 teams with 8-9 wins. You treat losing to Mississippi as this terrible loss but treat a loss to a 5-7, likely not going to a bowl game Big Ten opponent, team as no big deal. You're either clueless or you have a bias towards a particular school/conference. Your arguments MAKE. NO. SENSE.

I can only present logic and rationale when it comes to what the committee looks at when determining which four teams should make the playoffs. I honestly have no idea what your criteria is. It can't be strength of opponents. It obviously isn't quality of defeat. It isn't the "eye test". Only conclusion I can come up with is picking random games instead of the totality of your work....which is, frankly, dumb.

My criteria is really simple: Top 25 wins. The more you have, the better your resume is. I figure the best measure of a team is the best opponents they've beaten. I don't distinguish between a 3 win team and a 7 win team because I don't care about those teams. To me both should be blasted just about equally. They're irrelevent.

Of course, now that LSU and Tennessee are ranked, bama actually has a good resume, so this argument is moot anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, now that LSU and Tennessee are ranked, bama actually has a good resume, so this argument is moot anyway.

Yeahhhhh, that Tennessee ranking props up Alabama AND Oklahoma.

It also makes me slightly suspicious of the committee for that reason, but whatever. I don't really have any complaints about the four. I'd like to see Stanford in front of Ohio State, but if they beat USC, they probably will be ahead and in position to take advantage of any potential chaos.

And so in your eyes, prior to 7 p.m. EST, Alabama didn't have a good resume, but immediate after, they suddenly had a good resume? Your thoughts on Tennessee changed in that instant because there's a number in front of their name now? OK.

5963ddf2a9031_dkO1LMUcopy.jpg.0fe00e17f953af170a32cde8b7be6bc7.jpg

| ANA | LAA | LAR | LAL | ASU | CSULBUSMNT | USWNTLAFC | OCSCMAN UTD |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in your view there is no difference between beating say, Georgia, who are first team out in both the AP and Coaches' polls, and, say Kansas.

Okay....

Considering Georgia hasn't beaten a single team with a winning record, not incredibly so. I mean if a team played only teams like kansas, and the other play only teams like georgia I might consider it significant. But in the context of an entire season? I wouldn't argue that is the difference between two teams.

And so in your eyes, prior to 7 p.m. EST, Alabama didn't have a good resume, but immediate after, they suddenly had a good resume? Your thoughts on Tennessee changed in that instant because there's a number in front of their name now? OK.

yep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in your view there is no difference between beating say, Georgia, who are first team out in both the AP and Coaches' polls, and, say Kansas.

Okay....

Considering Georgia hasn't beaten a single team with a winning record, not incredibly so. I mean if a team played only teams like kansas, and the other play only teams like georgia I might consider it significant. But in the context of an entire season? I wouldn't argue that is the difference between two teams.

And so in your eyes, prior to 7 p.m. EST, Alabama didn't have a good resume, but immediate after, they suddenly had a good resume? Your thoughts on Tennessee changed in that instant because there's a number in front of their name now? OK.

yep

You understand that's insane, right? Tennessee isn't a better team just because they're 25th instead of being the first team out of the poll.

IUe6Hvh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.