CFP rankings at 7

[HarryCarayisGoat]

To make it simple for the many simpletons on here...if we beat ND and then beat the defending national champions and go 12-0, there is 0.0% chance we are not in the playoffs. In that scenario, we most likely are the #2 seed.

People all over the country are crowning ND at this point and beating them alone gets us to 4/5 by November 14th poll.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Also, if anybody thinks the committee or AP voters or coaches or pretty much every member of the national media actually watches every single game before making an informed decision, you're on crack. They check the scores and highlights and vote accordingly. They don't really see that Miami dominated Georgia Tech, all they see is that Miami needed a last second field goal and a 4th down desperation pass to win. Nevermind the fact that the only second half touchdown Tech scored was a BS onside kick returned for a touchdown. That is why style point DO matter, regardless of what the media and/or committee says.

Again, not disagreeing with you ON THOSE POINTS.

The real debate here is whether Miami "merely winning out" is doing enough to vault into the Top 4. Possibly no (if several teams ahead of us manage to power through the last month of the season) and possibly yes (but we will need help along the way).

If we continue to play to what the voters' "expectations" are (i.e., winning close games), they will not vault us higher just "because". We need convincing wins against VaTech and Notre Dame, and we need some things to fall our way.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

If Miami beats VaTech, at home, with a last second FG...and Wisconsin goes on the road and destroys Indiana...

Then the CFP Committee will keep Wisconsin ahead of us. Our win will just continue to prove the biased narrative, that Miami can't dominate anyone, that we are winning with luck. And Wisconsin has already been evaluated with 8 weak victories, so what is one more?

You're making an awful bold assumption that the committee would value a blowout win against a bad team over a close win against a ranked team. Especially since they've already put Georgia ahead of Alabama based solely on the fact that they value a nail biter victory over Notre Dame over any of Alabama's blowout wins against inferior teams.

Clearly, you don't understand. I didn't make any "bold assumptions".

Wisconsin is already ahead of us. The knock on Miami is that we have too many close victories/escapes.

So if Wisconsin does everything Wisconsin can do (i.e., win by a large margin on the road), and Miami does "what the CFP Committee thinks we do" (i.e., win by a small, lucky margin at home), then (a) Wisconsin has not given the committee a reason to drop them, and (b) Miami has not given the committee a reason to vault them.

See how that works? It's not a "one-week analysis" of Wisconsin's big margin of victory vs. another one of Miami's lucky escapes. It is more about how the bias as to the "body of work" is confirmed for each team by each of those outcomes.

This isn't difficult. Some heel-draggers are making it so.

A victory by any margin over Virginia Tech drastically changes Miami's "body of work". A victory over Notre Dame a week later even more so. You're placing the same exact value on every single game regardless of quality of opponent. Do you honestly believe that the committee values blowout wins against bad teams over close victories over good teams. They already proven that not to be the case (see Georgia over Alabama).

You're just saying things because you want them to be true. You don't have any proof of it, but you don't seem to care.

No, a 1-point victory over VaTech doesn't "drastically" change Miami's body of work, particularly if VaTech continues to lose. VaTech was a pre-season #21 in AP, and they might drop below that point if Miami beats them and then they lose to GaTech and/or Virginia. And a victory over Notre Dame might be our ONLY "impressive win" of the season.

Do I honestly believe that the committee values blowout wins against bad teams? Why yes, yes I do. And they PROVED it by putting Miami at #10 (not to mention the AP voters DROPPING us in the rankings) when we "only" beat a 1-7 team by less than a touchdown.

If Miami had won by 4 TDs, we would NOT have dropped in AP, we likely would have been AHEAD of Wisconsin, and we may even have been ahead of a couple more 1-loss teams.

So it doesn't matter what MY OPINION is, I am simply observing the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the AP voters and the CFP Committee. And both have proven that a "blowout win against a bad team" would have helped Miami, and a last-minute win against a bad team actually HURT Miami.

This actually happened. It's not a hypothesis.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I honestly believe if we beat VT, lose a close game to ND and the run the table including beating a top 3, 1- loss CLemson team then we get in the playoffs.

Bama
Big Ten winner
ND
Miami

Very possible. All of these mopes think that all nine teams in front of us are going undefeated.

There is so much football to be played. The fact that people get in an uproar when a poll comes out with 6 weeks to play always makes me want to vomit. That top 4 will continually change until the final week.

5 weeks left to play, not 6.

The top 2 teams do not play each other until the 5th weekend.

So, yeah, the "top 4" may not change much.

Teams have to play each other for a poll to change?

So now you are retracting your statement about "That top 4 will continually change until the final week."? Now you agree with me?

Don't blame me for your inability to make accurate statements.

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

Very possible. All of these mopes think that all nine teams in front of us are going undefeated.

There is so much football to be played. The fact that people get in an uproar when a poll comes out with 6 weeks to play always makes me want to vomit. That top 4 will continually change until the final week.

5 weeks left to play, not 6.

The top 2 teams do not play each other until the 5th weekend.

So, yeah, the "top 4" may not change much.

Teams have to play each other for a poll to change?

So now you are retracting your statement about "That top 4 will continually change until the final week."? Now you agree with me?

Don't blame me for your inability to make accurate statements.

You really suck at this. It's as if you're new to college football and you don't know how it works yet.

Bottom line whether you like it or not- If we win out, we finish #2 or possibly #3 at worst..regardless of what everyone else does.

 

[MiamiVice7]

If Miami beats VaTech, at home, with a last second FG...and Wisconsin goes on the road and destroys Indiana...

Then the CFP Committee will keep Wisconsin ahead of us. Our win will just continue to prove the biased narrative, that Miami can't dominate anyone, that we are winning with luck. And Wisconsin has already been evaluated with 8 weak victories, so what is one more?

You're making an awful bold assumption that the committee would value a blowout win against a bad team over a close win against a ranked team. Especially since they've already put Georgia ahead of Alabama based solely on the fact that they value a nail biter victory over Notre Dame over any of Alabama's blowout wins against inferior teams.

Clearly, you don't understand. I didn't make any "bold assumptions".

Wisconsin is already ahead of us. The knock on Miami is that we have too many close victories/escapes.

So if Wisconsin does everything Wisconsin can do (i.e., win by a large margin on the road), and Miami does "what the CFP Committee thinks we do" (i.e., win by a small, lucky margin at home), then (a) Wisconsin has not given the committee a reason to drop them, and (b) Miami has not given the committee a reason to vault them.

See how that works? It's not a "one-week analysis" of Wisconsin's big margin of victory vs. another one of Miami's lucky escapes. It is more about how the bias as to the "body of work" is confirmed for each team by each of those outcomes.

This isn't difficult. Some heel-draggers are making it so.

A victory by any margin over Virginia Tech drastically changes Miami's "body of work". A victory over Notre Dame a week later even more so. You're placing the same exact value on every single game regardless of quality of opponent. Do you honestly believe that the committee values blowout wins against bad teams over close victories over good teams. They already proven that not to be the case (see Georgia over Alabama).

You're just saying things because you want them to be true. You don't have any proof of it, but you don't seem to care.

No, a 1-point victory over VaTech doesn't "drastically" change Miami's body of work, particularly if VaTech continues to lose. VaTech was a pre-season #21 in AP, and they might drop below that point if Miami beats them and then they lose to GaTech and/or Virginia. And a victory over Notre Dame might be our ONLY "impressive win" of the season.

Do I honestly believe that the committee values blowout wins against bad teams? Why yes, yes I do. And they PROVED it by putting Miami at #10 (not to mention the AP voters DROPPING us in the rankings) when we "only" beat a 1-7 team by less than a touchdown.

If Miami had won by 4 TDs, we would NOT have dropped in AP, we likely would have been AHEAD of Wisconsin, and we may even have been ahead of a couple more 1-loss teams.

So it doesn't matter what MY OPINION is, I am simply observing the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the AP voters and the CFP Committee. And both have proven that a "blowout win against a bad team" would have helped Miami, and a last-minute win against a bad team actually HURT Miami.

This actually happened. It's not a hypothesis.

I get where you're coming from, but then again, the UNC game result and the voter reaction didn't happen in a vacuum. If, for example, we had already beat down a few ACC teams then, with that history, the UNC game seems more like an aberration in the context of our body of work. But we've been playing tight games, so the UNC game looks more indicative of "who we are" rather than "Miami just had a bad week/looked ahead" or some other benefit of the doubt.

I think we dropped in the AP and find ourselves behind Wisky and perhaps some others because we reinforced concerns against a 1-7 team, not simply because we didn't blow them out.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

They don't have to jump us. They're already ahead of us. I could easily see a UGA/Bama championship game coming down to 6 points or fewer where the loser only drops to 3rd or 4th. We could easily go 12-0 and be sitting at home watching:

Alabama v. Oklahoma
Ohio State v. UGA

We've got multiple teams ahead of us that will have to get to 2 losses before we get in.

So stupid.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

You're making an awful bold assumption that the committee would value a blowout win against a bad team over a close win against a ranked team. Especially since they've already put Georgia ahead of Alabama based solely on the fact that they value a nail biter victory over Notre Dame over any of Alabama's blowout wins against inferior teams.

They've already demonstrated that they value a close loss to a team over a win against that very same team. I don't think anything is much of a stretch after seeing that. It's clear that some teams have more leeway with the committee than others when is comes to wins, losses, and style points. It is also clear that, as it relates to the previous statement, Miami falls in the "others" category.

I assume you're talking about Clemson? I think the committee is giving them more credit for beating Auburn than they are holding the Syracuse loss against them. Not sure I agree that a team that lost to Syracuse should be ranked in the top 4 but ask yourself this: Where do you think they would have Miami had they beaten Auburn instead of Bethune Cookman in week 1?

But, once again, you are making an unnecessary comparison (Clemson beating Auburn vs. Miami beating Auburn).

WE ALREADY HAVE THE EVIDENCE.

Clemson lost to Syracuse. One week later, Miami beat Syracuse. It is the ULTIMATE non-head-to-head comparison, i.e., common opponents.

Clemson is still ranked ahead of Miami.

So the CFP Committee is allowing Clemson's EIGHT POINT victory (sound familiar?) over Auburn to erase their loss to Syracuse, while completely ignoring that Miami beat the very same Syracuse team a week later.

Makes no sense at all.

The only sensible reason for ranking mighty Clemson ahead of Miami, is Clemson lost on the ROAD. Whereas Miami defeated Syracuse at home. hUh.

Who cares? You play half your games on the road, the other half at home. The goal is to win them all.

And maybe this would matter if (a) Syracuse had some sort of fearsome advantage at home, and (b) Miami had some sort of fearsome advantage at home. And neither of those are true.

In fact, during the Syracuse game, there was statistic after statistic about how bad Syracuse had been over an extended period of time, whether it was defending their home field, playing ranked teams, or simply winning ACC games. And it should go without saying that the recent Miami teams have not defended home field anywhere near the rate that we did from the 1980s to the early 2000s.

So, again, just saying "home" and "away" doesn't magically make the games any "better" or "worse" in comparison when the teams that won had no real statistical advantage simply based on where the game took place.

The simpler issue is that Syracuse beat Clemson in a game where Clemson was heavily favored and SHOULD HAVE won. One week later, Miami beat the same team by a larger margin. F the "home" and "away" aspect, now people are trying to qualify "common opponents" with "common field" as well? Ridiculous.

The point is the same as it was the first time I made it. The CFP Committee LITERALLY ignored that "data point" of the Syracuse common opponent and ranked Clemson SIX SPOTS higher than us. Because..."home" vs. "away"? Insanity.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Again, Clemson is not the primary concern. Not sure why you haven't picked up on that.

The winner of Alabama-Georgia is a concern. One team in.

The loser of Alabama-Georgia is a concern.

An undefeated Wisconsin is a concern.

A 1-loss Big 10 team that does not go to the Big 10 championship game is a concern.

The Big 12 winner is a concern.

Washington is a concern.

That is 6 concerns without ever mentioning Clemson. We could finish undefeated and #7 in the country.

This ignores the entire history of college football. An undefeated major-conference champion has never, ever been in danger of not being in the top four. Ever. Ev-er.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Then refute his argument. Explain how the 4 of the one loss teams and 2 of the undefeated teams currently ranked ahead of us don't have to have 2 losses for us jump them if both ND and VTech lose out and end up 8-4.Explain how we jump a 1 loss, Bama, UGA, OSU, Oklahoma, TCU, and Penn State, if our best wins manage to go 8-4. Now assume Clemson beats NC State, but loses to FSU, and NC State at 10-2 gets to the ACCCG. We beat them and our best win is a 10-3 team ranked mid teens?

We need to win out, have ND and VT win out, have Clemson beat NC State and FSU and not **** the bed against The Citadel like they did against Syracuse, beat Clemson, and have 2 of the teams ahead of us get to 2 losses.

All of these are likely, but not guaranteed. That's the problem with an undefeated P5 team opening the CFP rankings at 10. We absolutely should be able to run the table and be in without help, but that is not the case.

Refute his argument? Sure. If we beat #13 Virginia Tech, #3 Notre Dame, and #4 Clemson, we will move up to #2 with the most impressive final five weeks in the country.

That's exactly right. If Miami runs the table and beats Clemson in the ACC championship, there's not a 1 loss team that will jump them in the final rankings. These guys are nuts if they think that's going to happen. I don't give a sht if Va Tech and ND lose one more after they play Miami, they aren't getting lower than a 2 seed.

They don't have to jump us. They're already ahead of us. I could easily see a UGA/Bama championship game coming down to 6 points or fewer where the loser only drops to 3rd or 4th. We could easily go 12-0 and be sitting at home watching:

Alabama v. Oklahoma
Ohio State v. UGA

We've got multiple teams ahead of us that will have to get to 2 losses before we get in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please stop posting on this subject

Refute the argument or shut up. It's pretty simple. I say the committee would not put us ahead of Ohio State or Oklahoma if both teams win out. I also think it's very possible that two SEC teams get in. I say this because this is the way the initial rankings were set up. You say otherwise. Your reasoning is...

 

[TheOriginalCane]

To make it simple for the many simpletons on here...if we beat ND and then beat the defending national champions and go 12-0, there is 0.0% chance we are not in the playoffs. In that scenario, we most likely are the #2 seed.

People all over the country are crowning ND at this point and beating them alone gets us to 4/5 by November 14th poll.

People all over the country were crowning F$U at one point too, and beating them alone didn't get us anything.

Again, you saying something that you WANT to happen doesn't actually make it happen.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

To make it simple for the many simpletons on here...if we beat ND and then beat the defending national champions and go 12-0, there is 0.0% chance we are not in the playoffs. In that scenario, we most likely are the [URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2 [/URL] seed.

People all over the country are crowning ND at this point and beating them alone gets us to 4/5 by November 14th poll.

Anyone who follows college football, even marginally, knows that a 12-0 ACC Champion is no worse than #2 , much less #6 , like these buffoons want us to believe.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

If Miami beats VaTech, at home, with a last second FG...and Wisconsin goes on the road and destroys Indiana...

Then the CFP Committee will keep Wisconsin ahead of us. Our win will just continue to prove the biased narrative, that Miami can't dominate anyone, that we are winning with luck. And Wisconsin has already been evaluated with 8 weak victories, so what is one more?

You're making an awful bold assumption that the committee would value a blowout win against a bad team over a close win against a ranked team. Especially since they've already put Georgia ahead of Alabama based solely on the fact that they value a nail biter victory over Notre Dame over any of Alabama's blowout wins against inferior teams.

Clearly, you don't understand. I didn't make any "bold assumptions".

Wisconsin is already ahead of us. The knock on Miami is that we have too many close victories/escapes.

So if Wisconsin does everything Wisconsin can do (i.e., win by a large margin on the road), and Miami does "what the CFP Committee thinks we do" (i.e., win by a small, lucky margin at home), then (a) Wisconsin has not given the committee a reason to drop them, and (b) Miami has not given the committee a reason to vault them.

See how that works? It's not a "one-week analysis" of Wisconsin's big margin of victory vs. another one of Miami's lucky escapes. It is more about how the bias as to the "body of work" is confirmed for each team by each of those outcomes.

This isn't difficult. Some heel-draggers are making it so.

A victory by any margin over Virginia Tech drastically changes Miami's "body of work". A victory over Notre Dame a week later even more so. You're placing the same exact value on every single game regardless of quality of opponent. Do you honestly believe that the committee values blowout wins against bad teams over close victories over good teams. They already proven that not to be the case (see Georgia over Alabama).

You're just saying things because you want them to be true. You don't have any proof of it, but you don't seem to care.

No, a 1-point victory over VaTech doesn't "drastically" change Miami's body of work, particularly if VaTech continues to lose. VaTech was a pre-season #21 in AP, and they might drop below that point if Miami beats them and then they lose to GaTech and/or Virginia. And a victory over Notre Dame might be our ONLY "impressive win" of the season.

Do I honestly believe that the committee values blowout wins against bad teams? Why yes, yes I do. And they PROVED it by putting Miami at #10 (not to mention the AP voters DROPPING us in the rankings) when we "only" beat a 1-7 team by less than a touchdown.

If Miami had won by 4 TDs, we would NOT have dropped in AP, we likely would have been AHEAD of Wisconsin, and we may even have been ahead of a couple more 1-loss teams.

So it doesn't matter what MY OPINION is, I am simply observing the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the AP voters and the CFP Committee. And both have proven that a "blowout win against a bad team" would have helped Miami, and a last-minute win against a bad team actually HURT Miami.

This actually happened. It's not a hypothesis.

If you observed actual behavior of pollsters, you would know that an undefeated major-conference champion has no worries of not being in the playoffs. Do you have a year that shows otherwise? Just one example. One year.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

They've already demonstrated that they value a close loss to a team over a win against that very same team. I don't think anything is much of a stretch after seeing that. It's clear that some teams have more leeway with the committee than others when is comes to wins, losses, and style points. It is also clear that, as it relates to the previous statement, Miami falls in the "others" category.

I assume you're talking about Clemson? I think the committee is giving them more credit for beating Auburn than they are holding the Syracuse loss against them. Not sure I agree that a team that lost to Syracuse should be ranked in the top 4 but ask yourself this: Where do you think they would have Miami had they beaten Auburn instead of Bethune Cookman in week 1?

But, once again, you are making an unnecessary comparison (Clemson beating Auburn vs. Miami beating Auburn).

WE ALREADY HAVE THE EVIDENCE.

Clemson lost to Syracuse. One week later, Miami beat Syracuse. It is the ULTIMATE non-head-to-head comparison, i.e., common opponents.

Clemson is still ranked ahead of Miami.

So the CFP Committee is allowing Clemson's EIGHT POINT victory (sound familiar?) over Auburn to erase their loss to Syracuse, while completely ignoring that Miami beat the very same Syracuse team a week later.

Makes no sense at all.

The only sensible reason for ranking mighty Clemson ahead of Miami, is Clemson lost on the ROAD. Whereas Miami defeated Syracuse at home. hUh.

Who cares? You play half your games on the road, the other half at home. The goal is to win them all.

And maybe this would matter if (a) Syracuse had some sort of fearsome advantage at home, and (b) Miami had some sort of fearsome advantage at home. And neither of those are true.

In fact, during the Syracuse game, there was statistic after statistic about how bad Syracuse had been over an extended period of time, whether it was defending their home field, playing ranked teams, or simply winning ACC games. And it should go without saying that the recent Miami teams have not defended home field anywhere near the rate that we did from the 1980s to the early 2000s.

So, again, just saying "home" and "away" doesn't magically make the games any "better" or "worse" in comparison when the teams that won had no real statistical advantage simply based on where the game took place.

The simpler issue is that Syracuse beat Clemson in a game where Clemson was heavily favored and SHOULD HAVE won. One week later, Miami beat the same team by a larger margin. F the "home" and "away" aspect, now people are trying to qualify "common opponents" with "common field" as well? Ridiculous.

The point is the same as it was the first time I made it. The CFP Committee LITERALLY ignored that "data point" of the Syracuse common opponent and ranked Clemson SIX SPOTS higher than us. Because..."home" vs. "away"? Insanity.

Look at this guy deciding that the only data point that matters is "Record vs. Syracuse".

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Refute the argument or shut up. It's pretty simple. I say the committee would not put us ahead of Ohio State or Oklahoma if both teams win out. I also think it's very possible that two SEC teams get in. I say this because this is the way the initial rankings were set up. You say otherwise. Your reasoning is...

Refute the argument? Okay. Not once in the history of college football has an undefeated major-conference champion finished #6 behind four one-loss teams. Never.

Now it's on you to prove that your theory WILL happen.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

You're making an awful bold assumption that the committee would value a blowout win against a bad team over a close win against a ranked team. Especially since they've already put Georgia ahead of Alabama based solely on the fact that they value a nail biter victory over Notre Dame over any of Alabama's blowout wins against inferior teams.

Clearly, you don't understand. I didn't make any "bold assumptions".

Wisconsin is already ahead of us. The knock on Miami is that we have too many close victories/escapes.

So if Wisconsin does everything Wisconsin can do (i.e., win by a large margin on the road), and Miami does "what the CFP Committee thinks we do" (i.e., win by a small, lucky margin at home), then (a) Wisconsin has not given the committee a reason to drop them, and (b) Miami has not given the committee a reason to vault them.

See how that works? It's not a "one-week analysis" of Wisconsin's big margin of victory vs. another one of Miami's lucky escapes. It is more about how the bias as to the "body of work" is confirmed for each team by each of those outcomes.

This isn't difficult. Some heel-draggers are making it so.

A victory by any margin over Virginia Tech drastically changes Miami's "body of work". A victory over Notre Dame a week later even more so. You're placing the same exact value on every single game regardless of quality of opponent. Do you honestly believe that the committee values blowout wins against bad teams over close victories over good teams. They already proven that not to be the case (see Georgia over Alabama).

You're just saying things because you want them to be true. You don't have any proof of it, but you don't seem to care.

No, a 1-point victory over VaTech doesn't "drastically" change Miami's body of work, particularly if VaTech continues to lose. VaTech was a pre-season #21 in AP, and they might drop below that point if Miami beats them and then they lose to GaTech and/or Virginia. And a victory over Notre Dame might be our ONLY "impressive win" of the season.

Do I honestly believe that the committee values blowout wins against bad teams? Why yes, yes I do. And they PROVED it by putting Miami at #10 (not to mention the AP voters DROPPING us in the rankings) when we "only" beat a 1-7 team by less than a touchdown.

If Miami had won by 4 TDs, we would NOT have dropped in AP, we likely would have been AHEAD of Wisconsin, and we may even have been ahead of a couple more 1-loss teams.

So it doesn't matter what MY OPINION is, I am simply observing the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the AP voters and the CFP Committee. And both have proven that a "blowout win against a bad team" would have helped Miami, and a last-minute win against a bad team actually HURT Miami.

This actually happened. It's not a hypothesis.

I get where you're coming from, but then again, the UNC game result and the voter reaction didn't happen in a vacuum. If, for example, we had already beat down a few ACC teams then, with that history, the UNC game seems more like an aberration in the context of our body of work. But we've been playing tight games, so the UNC game looks more indicative of "who we are" rather than "Miami just had a bad week/looked ahead" or some other benefit of the doubt.

I think we dropped in the AP and find ourselves behind Wisky and perhaps some others because we reinforced concerns against a 1-7 team, not simply because we didn't blow them out.

Ummm...OK...which part of my prior statements do you not understand?

I (technically I think) actually agree with you. Our North Carolina result FED INTO THE STEREOTYPE of our season, to the AP voters and to the CFP Committee. I never claimed that the UNC game "happened in a vacuum". In fact, I have repeatedly said that it matches the main "knock" on Miami, that we are much more lucky than good.

But the fact remains, we were DROPPED in the AP poll. We were DROPPED for winning in the same week that there are only four Power 5 undefeated teams remaining. I agree that UNC did not "happen in a vacuum", but it was the one event which DIRECTLY led to voters revising their ballots downward for Miami.

And, again, what if we beat UNC by 4 TDs. Now we present evidence that the prior "close games" were the aberration. So what happens if we POUND North Carolina on the same weekend where other undefeated teams lose? Do you think we would be dropped in the AP poll? Do you think the CFP Committee puts us behind SIX 1-loss teams? We are already missing a data point that could have helped us (assuming we pound Arkansas State), so yes, the UNC game becomes a disproportionate influence on our "body of work".

Fairly simple stuff.

 

[Loose Cannon]

I assume you're talking about Clemson? I think the committee is giving them more credit for beating Auburn than they are holding the Syracuse loss against them. Not sure I agree that a team that lost to Syracuse should be ranked in the top 4 but ask yourself this: Where do you think they would have Miami had they beaten Auburn instead of Bethune Cookman in week 1?

Doesn't matter. Give Clemson our schedule and they still have a loss. It's not entirely that they lost and are ahead of us. It was a bad loss. They were never in that game. In all of our games, I never felt like we were going to lose. Watching Clemson and Syracuse, you never thought Clemson had a chance to win. They were beat up that game by a team that still has to win two of BC, Louisville, FSU, and Wake Forest before they become bowl eligible.

It's not just looking at the final scores and saying, "Well Clemson played Syracuse close and came away with a tough loss, but Miami also played Syracuse close and barely scraped by."

You have to watch the games and measure the performance. Only then would you know that Clemson was never in that game and only miraculously managed to keep it respectable, while Miami was 4 drops away from hanging 50 on Syracuse. We beat the dog**** out of Syracuse but had misfires on at least 4 scoring opportunities.

There's no need to worry about Clemson being in front of us. We will either play them or they will have lost to NC State. Clemson is a non-factor in this discussion. It is literally impossible for us to go 12-0 and remain behind Clemson.

Again, Clemson is not the primary concern. Not sure why you haven't picked up on that.

The winner of Alabama-Georgia is a concern.

The loser of Alabama-Georgia is a concern.

An undefeated Wisconsin is a concern.

A 1-loss Big 10 team that does not go to the Big 10 championship game is a concern.

The Big 12 winner is a concern.

Washington is a concern.

That is 6 concerns without ever mentioning Clemson. We could finish undefeated and #7 in the country.

Hey Pal go ahead and take a break for a bit. You could not be any more wrong than you are on this subject.

Hey Pal, nobody gives a flying piece of monkey **** what you think just because it managed to fall out of your mouth. Your options are:

a. Back up your argument
b. Refute one of the other arguments
c. **** Off

Pick one.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

so yes, the UNC game becomes a disproportionate influence on our "body of work".

Yeah, sleepwalking through a tight game against a 1-8 team that just lost by 50 will do that to you. But, yeah, we really look like a top 4 team. Bring on 'Bama.

 

[Loose Cannon]

You're making an awful bold assumption that the committee would value a blowout win against a bad team over a close win against a ranked team. Especially since they've already put Georgia ahead of Alabama based solely on the fact that they value a nail biter victory over Notre Dame over any of Alabama's blowout wins against inferior teams.

They've already demonstrated that they value a close loss to a team over a win against that very same team. I don't think anything is much of a stretch after seeing that. It's clear that some teams have more leeway with the committee than others when is comes to wins, losses, and style points. It is also clear that, as it relates to the previous statement, Miami falls in the "others" category.

I assume you're talking about Clemson? I think the committee is giving them more credit for beating Auburn than they are holding the Syracuse loss against them. Not sure I agree that a team that lost to Syracuse should be ranked in the top 4 but ask yourself this: Where do you think they would have Miami had they beaten Auburn instead of Bethune Cookman in week 1?

But, once again, you are making an unnecessary comparison (Clemson beating Auburn vs. Miami beating Auburn).

WE ALREADY HAVE THE EVIDENCE.

Clemson lost to Syracuse. One week later, Miami beat Syracuse. It is the ULTIMATE non-head-to-head comparison, i.e., common opponents.

Clemson is still ranked ahead of Miami.

So the CFP Committee is allowing Clemson's EIGHT POINT victory (sound familiar?) over Auburn to erase their loss to Syracuse, while completely ignoring that Miami beat the very same Syracuse team a week later.

Makes no sense at all.

The only sensible reason for ranking mighty Clemson ahead of Miami, is Clemson lost on the ROAD. Whereas Miami defeated Syracuse at home. hUh.

There is no sensible reason for ranking Clemson anywhere near the top 10 after a loss to a team that is now 4-4 and struggling with bowl eligibility until ALL of the undefeated teams fall. None. Zero. Clemson has the worst loss of any team in the top 15 by a wide margin.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Again, Clemson is not the primary concern. Not sure why you haven't picked up on that.

The winner of Alabama-Georgia is a concern. One team in.

The loser of Alabama-Georgia is a concern.

An undefeated Wisconsin is a concern.

A 1-loss Big 10 team that does not go to the Big 10 championship game is a concern.

The Big 12 winner is a concern.

Washington is a concern.

That is 6 concerns without ever mentioning Clemson. We could finish undefeated and #7 in the country.

This ignores the entire history of college football. An undefeated major-conference champion has never, ever been in danger of not being in the top four. Ever. Ev-er.

Again, a buffoonish and desperate attempt to use "the entire history of college football". You have repeatedly failed to produce information where an undefeated Power 5 team at the 2/3 point of the season is ranked behind SIX 1-loss Power 5 teams.

Should I write this in another language that you can comprehend? We are already in an unprecedented situation. Using "the entire history of college football" doesn't make an unprecedented situation any better.

Stuff is currently happening that has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. Ever. Ev-er.