College Football 2021

[MJWalker45]

14 hours ago, dont care said:

Who has utsa played? And even with playing the bottom of the D1 teams they aren’t blowing most of them out but instead having a bunch of close games. If they play any ranked team they would be destroyed.

Illinois, who beat Penn State, who beat Auburn, who beat Mississippi. So by the power of transitive wins, UTSA is good enough to play in the SEC. Looking at the last five on that list, UTSA isn't beating any of them on a good day, it needs to be a "found a four leaf clover then won the lottery" kind of day for them to beat most teams on that list. 

[crashcarson15]

 

 

The issue with the structure of college football is that you can do this with almost any team. We just choose not to! Nobody actually beats anyone at the end of the day — collectively, the top 15 have all of five wins against each other — and you could make this exact same statement with Michigan State if you wanted to, whose "who else did they beat?" answer is 4-4 Miami and 3-6 Nebraska in overtime.

 

I mean, just look at the three-spot difference between Michigan at No. 7 and Notre Dame at No. 10. The two teams share the same best win (No. 21 Wisconsin), both have a loss to an undefeated team ranked ahead of them, and have both alternated between close calls and looking like a good football team. Yet doing the "they almost lost to Florida State, Toledo and Virginia Tech" game with Notre Dame lets them discount Cincinnati's key win, while ignoring the "they almost lost to Rutgers and Nebraska" thing with Michigan lets them prop up Michigan State, and eventually prop up Ohio State as well.

 

It's unfortunate because the committee has done a really nice job IMO in re-thinking how teams are ranked and getting away from the one-track poll mind of ordering teams more by their losses than their wins (e.g., you really shouldn't get punished for losing to a team you were expected to lose to), but the complete disregard for G5 schools at all points in time is just a straight-up problem for the sport. Notre Dame is in a place where it should be rooting for Cincinnati to lose twice, because they'd probably go up 3-4 spots in the ranking once the need to keep UC down goes away. It's weird, man.

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, crashcarson15 said:

 

 

The issue with the structure of college football is that you can do this with almost any team. We just choose not to! Nobody actually beats anyone at the end of the day — collectively, the top 15 have all of five wins against each other — and you could make this exact same statement with Michigan State if you wanted to, whose "who else did they beat?" answer is 4-4 Miami and 3-6 Nebraska in overtime.

 

I mean, just look at the three-spot difference between Michigan at No. 7 and Notre Dame at No. 10. The two teams share the same best win (No. 21 Wisconsin), both have a loss to an undefeated team ranked ahead of them, and have both alternated between close calls and looking like a good football team. Yet doing the "they almost lost to Florida State, Toledo and Virginia Tech" game with Notre Dame lets them discount Cincinnati's key win, while ignoring the "they almost lost to Rutgers and Nebraska" thing with Michigan lets them prop up Michigan State, and eventually prop up Ohio State as well.

 

It's unfortunate because the committee has done a really nice job IMO in re-thinking how teams are ranked and getting away from the one-track poll mind of ordering teams more by their losses than their wins (e.g., you really shouldn't get punished for losing to a team you were expected to lose to), but the complete disregard for G5 schools at all points in time is just a straight-up problem for the sport. Notre Dame is in a place where it should be rooting for Cincinnati to lose twice, because they'd probably go up 3-4 spots in the ranking once the need to keep UC down goes away. It's weird, man.

The only other team that they seem to applied this logic to was Oklahoma. I'm a Buckeye fan, but if they were giving Alabama a pass and placing them at two, Oklahoma should be above Oregon, who's lost to a poor Stanford team. Even Ohio State should be in front of Oregon, because they've only lost to a team with a winning record and Oregon didn't.  The first draft obviously isn't the last, but this list should just be labeled, "No Group of 5 allowed, ever". 

"We already almost allowed one"!!! CFP Committee

 

[the_grateful_ted]

What an absolute joke.

[Red Wolf]

On 11/2/2021 at 7:26 PM, dont care said:

Who has utsa played? And even with playing the bottom of the D1 teams they aren’t blowing most of them out but instead having a bunch of close games. If they play any ranked team they would be destroyed.

 

Who has NC State played? They're 6-2, with zero wins vs. the top 25, and their losses being against #17 Mississippi State and unranked Miami.

 

Who has Pitt played? They're 6-2 with losses to unranked Miami and G5 stepchild, Western Michigan. No wins vs. ranked opponents.

 

BYU has losses vs. #12 Baylor and unranked Boise State. Zero ranked wins.

 

Losing to unranked teams is apparently better than beating unranked teams. Mississippi State is ranked despite losses to unranked Memphis and LSU. Memphis lost to UTSA, by the way.

 

Oklahoma has zero ranked wins. They only beat Tulane by 5, had to make a historic comeback against Texas, barely survived 4-4 West Virginia, had difficulty vs. Nebraska, and struggled  mightily to beat Kansas, which is good enough for #8 in the country. But I guess UTSA isn't blowing out lesser competition enough to even be #25.

[dont care]

19 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

 

Who has NC State played? They're 6-2, with zero wins vs. the top 25, and their losses being against #17 Mississippi State and unranked Miami.

 

Who has Pitt played? They're 6-2 with losses to unranked Miami and G5 stepchild, Western Michigan. No wins vs. ranked opponents.

 

BYU has losses vs. #12 Baylor and unranked Boise State. Zero ranked wins.

 

Losing to unranked teams is apparently better than beating unranked teams. Mississippi State is ranked despite losses to unranked Memphis and LSU. Memphis lost to UTSA, by the way.

 

Oklahoma has zero ranked wins. They only beat Tulane by 5, had to make a historic comeback against Texas, barely survived 4-4 West Virginia, had difficulty vs. Nebraska, and struggled  mightily to beat Kansas, which is good enough for #8 in the country. But I guess UTSA isn't blowing out lesser competition enough to even be #25.

They’ve Atleast beat power 5 and traditional powerhouses. Once again who have utsa beaten that isn’t an FBS bottom feeder. This isn’t like coastal Carolina who was obliterating these teams, utsa is barely squeaking by these teams

[Red Wolf]

9 minutes ago, dont care said:

They’ve Atleast beat power 5 and traditional powerhouses. Once again who have utsa beaten that isn’t an FBS bottom feeder. This isn’t like coastal Carolina who was obliterating these teams, utsa is barely squeaking by these teams

 

You're right, the resume doesn't actually matter as long as you beat teams that people who kind of pay attention to football have heard of. UTSA has zero ranked wins which is the exact same amount of ranked wins that Oklahoma, Wake Forest, Pitt, NC State, Iowa, and BYU have. Maybe UTSA should have tried losing to Memphis, Western Michigan, Miami, or Purdue. That would have been way more impressive.

[MJWalker45]

14 hours ago, Red Wolf said:

Oklahoma has zero ranked wins. They only beat Tulane by 5, had to make a historic comeback against Texas, barely survived 4-4 West Virginia, had difficulty vs. Nebraska, and struggled  mightily to beat Kansas, which is good enough for #8 in the country. But I guess UTSA isn't blowing out lesser competition enough to even be #25.

I'm guessing that close game vs UNLV was the death knell for making it into the Top 25 (sarcasm). It's not like they've been barely scraping by most of their schedule. And the close games, except for UNLV, would be games I'd expect them to play close.  Oklahoma should only have had a close game with Texas, because it's a rivalry and it's rare that there's a blowout. 

14 hours ago, dont care said:

They’ve Atleast beat power 5 and traditional powerhouses. Once again who have utsa beaten that isn’t an FBS bottom feeder. This isn’t like coastal Carolina who was obliterating these teams, utsa is barely squeaking by these teams

This is the problem! Traditional! FBS football is the only sport where "Traditionally these guys are pretty good" is used as the first check mark when making these polls. 

 

UTSA games

at Illinois, 37-30

vs Lamar, 54-0

vs MTSU, 27-12

at Memphis, 31-28

vs UNLV, 24-17

at Western Kentucky, 52-46

vs Rice, 45-0

at La. Tech, 45-16

 

Beating the teams you're supposed to beat shouldn't be held against you. But did anyone think they'd beat Memphis,  Illinois and Middle Tennessee going into any of those games? 

 

 

[Red Wolf]

The mythical "eye test" is just checking the conference patch.

[PrimalCookie]

8 hours ago, Red Wolf said:

The mythical "eye test" is just checking the conference patch.

Part 2 is checking the logo (or lack thereof) on the helmet. If Clemson was undefeated with Wake Forest's schedule I guarantee they'd be #2.

[MJWalker45]

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/tennessee-football/tennessee-reportedly-makes-decision-on-bowl-game-after-concluding-internal-investigation/

"Hey guys, we looked at ourselves and we're not breaking any rules that might cost us money, so we'll be waiting to see what bowl will pick us". Was anyone expecting Tennessee to skip a bowl voluntarily after the SEC told them to pay for lunch and slap a few hands?

 

"Tennessee decided it wasn’t going to self-impose a bowl ban because many of the players involved in the alleged recruiting violations are no longer at the program and will be playing in bowl games for other schools, according to the report."

[dont care]

On 11/4/2021 at 12:01 PM, MJWalker45 said:

I'm guessing that close game vs UNLV was the death knell for making it into the Top 25 (sarcasm). It's not like they've been barely scraping by most of their schedule. And the close games, except for UNLV, would be games I'd expect them to play close.  Oklahoma should only have had a close game with Texas, because it's a rivalry and it's rare that there's a blowout. 

This is the problem! Traditional! FBS football is the only sport where "Traditionally these guys are pretty good" is used as the first check mark when making these polls. 

 

UTSA games

at Illinois, 37-30

vs Lamar, 54-0

vs MTSU, 27-12

at Memphis, 31-28

vs UNLV, 24-17

at Western Kentucky, 52-46

vs Rice, 45-0

at La. Tech, 45-16

 

Beating the teams you're supposed to beat shouldn't be held against you. But did anyone think they'd beat Memphis,  Illinois and Middle Tennessee going into any of those games? 

 

 

Ok well then let’s look at UTSA’s strength of schedule. They have the 125th of 130 for strength of schedule. If they arent a good team dude. They don’t deserve to be ranked when they beat no one, and they aren’t even blowing them out. They should be undefeated so long as they put a team out there that has a pulse.

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, dont care said:

Ok well then let’s look at UTSA’s strength of schedule. They have the 125th of 130 for strength of schedule. If they arent a good team dude. They don’t deserve to be ranked when they beat no one, and they aren’t even blowing them out. They should be undefeated so long as they put a team out there that has a pulse.

They are undefeated and teams with 3 losses are ranked ahead of them. That's the issue with this stuff. Do they deserve a chance at the playoffs? Nope! I'm not going to pretend that they do. But they deserve to be ranked ahead of teams with 3 losses, regardless of what their supposed strength of schedule says. Leaving Wisconsin in front of them is saying it's better to lose to Penn State than it is to beat Memphis, when I think right now Memphis could beat Penn State if they played this weekend. It's all based on past performance when that's not supposed to be the case, per the committee. 

[Red Comet]

18 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/tennessee-football/tennessee-reportedly-makes-decision-on-bowl-game-after-concluding-internal-investigation/

"Hey guys, we looked at ourselves and we're not breaking any rules that might cost us money, so we'll be waiting to see what bowl will pick us". Was anyone expecting Tennessee to skip a bowl voluntarily after the SEC told them to pay for lunch and slap a few hands?

 

"Tennessee decided it wasn’t going to self-impose a bowl ban because many of the players involved in the alleged recruiting violations are no longer at the program and will be playing in bowl games for other schools, according to the report."

Why would Tennessee self-impose a violation for what is now an impotent organization? I feel schools now smell blood in the water and are going to take advantage of this new order going forward. 
 

6 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

They are undefeated and teams with 3 losses are ranked ahead of them. That's the issue with this stuff. Do they deserve a chance at the playoffs? Nope! I'm not going to pretend that they do. But they deserve to be ranked ahead of teams with 3 losses, regardless of what their supposed strength of schedule says. Leaving Wisconsin in front of them is saying it's better to lose to Penn State than it is to beat Memphis, when I think right now Memphis could beat Penn State if they played this weekend. It's all based on past performance when that's not supposed to be the case, per the committee. 

Being on TV a lot is still important. How many times has UTSA been on TV? I know that shouldn’t have any impact on rankings, but it does. It’s not like these ranking committees are composed of people strapped into chairs watching every college football like it’s the Ludovico Technique. 

[Sec19Row53]

10 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

They are undefeated and teams with 3 losses are ranked ahead of them. That's the issue with this stuff. Do they deserve a chance at the playoffs? Nope! I'm not going to pretend that they do. But they deserve to be ranked ahead of teams with 3 losses, regardless of what their supposed strength of schedule says. Leaving Wisconsin in front of them is saying it's better to lose to Penn State than it is to beat Memphis, when I think right now Memphis could beat Penn State if they played this weekend. It's all based on past performance when that's not supposed to be the case, per the committee. 

But you can't just cherry pick one game. In your example, who do you think would win in a meeting between unbeaten UTSA and three loss Wisconsin?

[Red Wolf]

4 hours ago, Red Comet said:

Being on TV a lot is still important. How many times has UTSA been on TV? I know that shouldn’t have any impact on rankings, but it does. It’s not like these ranking committees are composed of people strapped into chairs watching every college football like it’s the Ludovico Technique. 

 

Could be a reason. Conference USA has a notoriously terrible TV deal, which is part of why everybody wants out. Fun fact: the only teams to ever be unbeaten and not be ranked in the CFP have been C-USA members Marshall and now UTSA.

 

It would be nice if they got a selection committee together of people who actually watched games. There's no way athletic directors have the time to actually watch much of other teams playing. During their school's games they have to schmooze with the donors and outside of that they've got 15+ other sports full of students and coaches and scheduling to work on. It's like how nobody cares about the coaches poll because those guys aren't watching anything other than their own team and upcoming opponent's film.

[Red Wolf]

25 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

But you can't just cherry pick one game. In your example, who do you think would win in a meeting between unbeaten UTSA and three loss Wisconsin?

 

If we're just basing it on who people expect to win, then just have Alabama at #1. They could have two losses and most everybody would still expect them to beat virtually everybody. If it's supposed to be based on resume as we've been told, then having teams like Pitt with multiple unranked losses and zero ranked wins is a bit farcical.

[See Red]

1 hour ago, Red Wolf said:

 

If we're just basing it on who people expect to win, then just have Alabama at #1. They could have two losses and most everybody would still expect them to beat virtually everybody. If it's supposed to be based on resume as we've been told, then having teams like Pitt with multiple unranked losses and zero ranked wins is a bit farcical.

 

Shouldn't it factor in, though?  Per SP+, UTSA would be close to a 10 pt home underdog to Pitt. If it's just based on wins and losses, what's the incentive to play anybody good OOC?

[Red Wolf]

22 minutes ago, See Red said:

 

Shouldn't it factor in, though?  Per SP+, UTSA would be close to a 10 pt home underdog to Pitt. If it's just based on wins and losses, what's the incentive to play anybody good OOC?

Continuing with the Pitt example, shouldn’t the fact that they’ve lost to 4-4 Miami and 5-4 Western Michigan be used against them being ranked? Is WMU any better than UTSA? Pitt also hasn’t beaten anybody of note by the committee’s own mysterious standards. 

 

This is probably where the eye test comes into play but the committee is made up of people who mostly don’t watch games. So we can only assume the eye test is just whether they recognize the school or not. 

[Geoff]

You can't easily change your conference and OOC schedules are set years in advance. Saying "oh they haven't beaten anyone of note" is holding college kids accountable to the actions made by the administration at least years in advance. You can only beat who is in front of you. 

 

Last year proved we don't need to book games out over a decade in advance but old, (for the most part) white people are adverse to change. 

 

Saying something like "(insert undefeated G5 team here) wouldn't be undefeated if they were in the SEC," is just annoying. A good chunk of years, the SEC champion isn't undefeated. All that matters is that head to head meeting. If the G5 team can get hype and beat a P5 team, hypotheticals are just a "yeah but." Also, that argument disregards that the G5 team would have better coaching, facilities, talent, etc. if they had P5 resources.