Don't dodge the question. If Clemson's win over at the time
[URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 7[/URL] Virginia Tech is enough to erase their loss to 3-3 Syracuse, why isn't Iowa State's win over
#5 Oklahoma enough to erase their loss to Iowa? Why isn't their win over
[URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3]#3 [/URL] TCU enough to erase their loss to Texas?
I'm simply asking that you apply the same standard, that a team with a loss to an unranked team can be ranked ahead of undefeated teams by having a quality win, across the board. And the reason it sounds insane when applied to Iowa State is because it is insane. You've just contorted your mind to accept it in the case of Clemson, Oklahoma, and TCU.
When a team loses to an unranked team that is still struggling to get into a bowl game, their wins alone are not supposed to be enough to propel them ahead of P5 teams who have not yet lost. These rankings by the committee clearly indicate that we, nor Wisconsin, are being judged based on what we have done, but by what they expect to happen in the future. They expect Clemson and Ohio state to run the table while us and Wisconsin drop a few games.
That's the sham you are falling for. We're not being treated as an undefeated P5 team because the committee expects us to lose in the future, and there are plenty of porsters on this board who share that opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who said anything about "erasing" losses? All of the teams ahead of us have looked better than us. Every objective person agrees with that.
The big question, though, is who the *&% cares? If we are 9-0 in 2.5 weeks, we will control our destiny. If we are 7-2 or 8-1, then the poll was correct. None of this matters.
No, this is where you are flat-out wrong.
The polls...and the CFP rankings...IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO THEM ON A WEEKLY BASIS...should be reflective of what has happened up to that point. No "projection". No arguments based on things that are outside the control of a team, such as "schedule" and "postponed games".
The issue that the people who actually SUPPORT UM have is very simple. The "criteria" are very subjective and they shift like the desert sands. I'll give you TWO examples.
The first is "who you played". Now, nobody can control when and where a team collapses and gives up on the season. When Alabama PLAYED F$U (or even better, when Alabama SCHEDULED F$U) they were given a ton of credit. Alabama can't control whether F$U collapses later in the season in a pile of ego and poor effort. Effectively, you are STEALING Alabama's accomplishment each week that F$U continues to lose. And, hey, let's even be more inconsistent...nobody points out that F$U's collapse began when their QB was injured...but suddenly, Clemson is being "forgiven" for its loss to Syracuse when...their QB was injured.
Heck, let's even take this in the other direction. RIGHT NOW, some porsters are sitting around patting themselves on their backs because we have the chance to beat two Top 15 teams over the next 10 days. But...let's say that after we beat VaTech (and maybe we injure THEIR QB), VaTech then loses to GaTech, Pitt, and UVa (entirely possible). That would make them 7-5. And let's say, that after we beat Notre Dame (and maybe we injure THEIR QB), they lose to Navy and Stanford (entirely possible). That would make them 8-4.
So here's the question...will we still get "credit" for beating those teams? We have already seen that Alabama has been stripped of their credit for beating a
#3 F$U team, while Georgia is being given "extra credit" for beating Notre Dame (ND was unranked at the time). After all, nearly every single coach and writer who votes has consistently ranked Alabama ahead of Georgia, but now a committee of 13 pinheads led by the king pinhead Kirby Hocutt suddenly know more than everyone else who has been watching the whole season, and they give Georgia the edge because the ND win (in retrospect) looks soooo much better than the F$U win?
That is just nutty.
The second example of how ridiculous this system is (and cannot be rectified simply by "winning") is the selective way that the committee views "wins" and "losses" (you know, in a way separate than coaches, players, and fans do, which is that WINNING IS EVERYTHING). So, instead of giving credit to Miami for, you know, DOING WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY THERE TO DO, WHICH IS WIN GAMES, we are now being told that our seven victories (five of which are conference victories) are not "good enough", while other schools are getting credit for the "quality" of their LOSSES. And even when you have the EASIEST and most OBVIOUS ability to compare (you know, how Clemson lost to Syracuse and then ONE WEEK LATER we beat Syracuse), that comparison is not even used.
So, instead, you have our current system. Where Kirby Hocutt goes into an interview and tells how SPIRITED the debate was. For WHAT? For the FIRST CFP ranking of the year? Are you ******* kidding me? Those guys spent TIME debating whether Georgia should be
#1 over Alabama WHEN THEY ARE GOING TO PLAY EACH OTHER? This is beyond ridiculous.
So those CFP losers spent valuable time debating why they should put 2 undefeated teams at 9 and 10, and put SIX TEAMS that have actually LOST a game ahead of us?
I don't give a flying fvck whether Miami has had enough "impressive wins" or any other ridiculous variable. We have won. When we lose, knock us down to
#25 if you want to. But FOR NOW, we have done what we have needed to do. WIN. F everything else.
Right now, the Top 4 should be Alabama, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Miami. Once you get a winner between Bama and Georgia, and Wisconsin and Miami play their championship games, THEN you can have a million "spirited arguments" over which 1 or 2 loss team is "more deserving".
But for now, we have played over half of our season (should be 2/3 if not for a hurricane) and we HAVE NOT LOST. We have earned Top 4 consideration, even if we lose it later.
F the AP voters, and F the CFP. THIRTEEN people (one of which is our FORMER AD, and one of which we routinely beat when he was coaching at VaTech, and THREE of which come from non-Power-Five institutions) are now telling us that we are
#1 0, and that SIX teams that have lost would make the Final Four ahead of us?
I laugh at the dimwits who think that if we win the next two weeks, everything will be fine. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But the one thing that I know for sure is that if VaTech and Notre Dame have collapses after they lose to Miami, we will be stripped of the credit for beating them. Just as we have been stripped of the credit for beating F$U.
