CFP rankings at 7

[Jaromir Jagr]

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.

So you would have dropped Clemson from the top 10 last year?

 

[Dingaan1828]

Bottom line here is that the Playoff committee is comprised of individuals who by nature are subjective. If we play well enough, maybe their opinions will be that we are “pretty enough” to be included in the playoff. Stop looking for objective reasons for our inclusion. That’s not what the current system is.

It’s a beauty contest. That sucks big time, but that’s what it is. Just win out and make it hard for them to vote their pre-determined favorite in over us.

I hate this system. But, going to an 8 team playoff would help a little. It would still be subjective, but there is less chance of excluding the potential “best team”.

 

[Loose Cannon]

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.

Ever? You make it sound like that's a long time. The top four have only been relevant for 3 years. And one of those years a conference champion was passed over for a team that lost to said champion on the field. Don't act like this committee hasn't proven fully flexible enough to reach around and pull something out of their ***.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

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.

Because, for some reason, you're concerned about the polls in week 10. The rest of us know that there is only one that matters.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Ever? You make it sound like that's a long time. The top four have only been relevant for 3 years. And one of those years a conference champion was passed over for a team that lost to said champion on the field. Don't act like this committee hasn't proven fully flexible enough to reach around and pull something out of their ***.

There has been a top 4 for a long time. But you guys are talking about finishing #6 . There is no precedent for that happening.

We win, we're in. We lose, we're eliminated. I'm getting the feeling that you two are actually hoping that we run the table and get left out.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

And one of those years a conference champion was passed over for a team that lost to said champion on the field.

You mean the team with the better record was chosen? Thank you for adding to my ammunition.

 

[gabednconfused]

Teams that are automatically out of the picture if we go 12-0

Alabama-Georgia loser
Notre Dame
Clemson
Everyone who doesn't win the B10
Everyone who doesn't win the B12

The only teams who could even possibly remain ahead of us if we go 12-0:

SEC champ
B10 champ
B12 champ

There is literally no one left to worry about.

BINGO

 

[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.

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.

You're asking for someone to prove a statistical anomaly that is one possibly of literally thousands of possible results among 65 P5 and 65 G5 teams from a sample size of 3. And you're insisting that failure to do so proves what? With thousands of possible results, If I don't get a specific result in three rolls of the dice, the result doesn't exist? There are only two sides to a coin, but there is a reasonable probability of flipping it three times and getting the same result. Nobody is really arguing, I don't think, that your scenario isn't the most likely. We're arguing, at least I am, that it should be the only scenario, and it is only rendered less likely, even if only slightly so, by our starting position.

IMO 7th would have been reasonable. Put us ahead of the one loss teams that lost to unranked competition. Refusing to at least acknowledge that at the very least we've managed to beat our "nobodies" is a slap in the face.

 

[Canesfan101]

Honestly I think we could still get in to the playoffs if we are a one loss team. That loss could only be to nd though. Every team in front of us could lose another game on their schedule and most would need to have 2 losses.
UGA - could lose to Auburn, and bama
Bama- has auburn and uga
ND - we will beat them and stanford could also
clemson - ncst this weekend and possibly free shoes u
OK - okst, tcu and WV
OSU - mich st
PS - mich st
TCU - OK, TX, TTech
Wisconsin - probably lose big 10 championship

There is a very good chance we could get in with 1 loss if we win the ACC with a loss to ND. We definitley would need others to lose though.

 

[Loose Cannon]

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.

No it's not. I only have to prove that it can. My argument has never been that it can't, but that it should be absolutely impossible. That something hasn't happened is not a logical argument that it never will, especially when the history of it having happened or having not happened is not a criteria.

Or do you think the committee sits around going through the history books deciding where to rank teams based on how seasons have ended in the past?

 

[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.

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.

You're the buffoon that won't answer the question that has been posed to you multiple times.

Show us ONE TIME when an undefeated Power 5 team was ranked this low, this late in the season, and behind SIX 1-loss teams.

It has never happened. Ever. Ev-er.

So you can't tell us that "everything will be alright" when there is absolutely no precedent for this situation.

It might turn out OK. It might not. We don't know, and we need a lot of help. "Merely winning" will not put us in the Final 4. Other things outside of our control need to happen.

We will not be in the Final Four simply because of "past history". We already have an unprecedented situation that has ACTUALLY happened, but you won't admit it or address it.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Bottom line here is that the Playoff committee is comprised of individuals who by nature are subjective. If we play well enough, maybe their opinions will be that we are “pretty enough” to be included in the playoff. Stop looking for objective reasons for our inclusion. That’s not what the current system is.

It’s a beauty contest. That sucks big time, but that’s what it is. Just win out and make it hard for them to vote their pre-determined favorite in over us.

I hate this system. But, going to an 8 team playoff would help a little. It would still be subjective, but there is less chance of excluding the potential “best team”.

Exactly. Particularly if five of the eight teams are conference champs. If that happened, we wouldn't even need to have this conversation, because WE WOULD ACTUALLY control our own destiny.

Right now, though, we do not.

 

[Loose Cannon]

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.

Again, nobody is making the argument you're **** bent on having. We're arguing that we should be ahead of teams that have lost to unranked teams. That is all.

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

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...

Common sense. My reasoning is common sense.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Teams that are automatically out of the picture if we go 12-0

Alabama-Georgia loser
Notre Dame
Clemson
Everyone who doesn't win the B10
Everyone who doesn't win the B12

The only teams who could even possibly remain ahead of us if we go 12-0:

SEC champ
B10 champ
B12 champ

There is literally no one left to worry about.

BINGO

You'd better check your Bingo card.

You have ignored the fact that a Big 10 team CURRENTLY AHEAD OF US will not make the Big 10 championship game.

You have ignored the fact that there is no guarantee that the SEC-CG loser will drop below us.

You have ignored the Pac 12 (particularly Washington).

A bit of premature ejaculation on your part. More like a dribble.

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

This argument/debate is beyond sad. I swear to God Original Canes Can has never watched a full season of College Football.


The current poll means absolutely nothing.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

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.

Again, nobody is making the argument you're **** bent on having. We're arguing that we should be ahead of teams that have lost to unranked teams. That is all.

Winning is the most important thing. End of discussion.

Not "winning big". Not "quality losses". Not "strength of schedule". Not "home" vs. "away".

All of those things are relevant when you are trying to rank a bunch of 1-loss teams or a bunch of 2-loss teams.

But the REASON you play the game is to win. Miami has won every game. It should not matter if it is by 1 point or 100. Clemson chose not to run out the clock against Boston College to snow the voters. Miami runs out the clock against North Carolina and we get punished.

Winning. It's the reason you play the games. The top 4 teams should be Alabama, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Miami. If we lose, we drop. If not, STFU.

 

[Loose Cannon]

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.

So you would have dropped Clemson from the top 10 last year?

Possibly. Pitt was at least bowl eligible and 2 games over .500 at the time. That's a little different than losing to a team that is 1 game below .500. Not markedly so, but I'm also not going back to look at everybody's record and ranking at the time to prove something that I was never trying to prove to start with. If I remember correctly, Pitt was the only team to beat TWO power 5 conference champions last year, though.

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

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.

Again, nobody is making the argument you're **** bent on having. We're arguing that we should be ahead of teams that have lost to unranked teams. That is all.

Winning is the most important thing. End of discussion.

Not "winning big". Not "quality losses". Not "strength of schedule". Not "home" vs. "away".

All of those things are relevant when you are trying to rank a bunch of 1-loss teams or a bunch of 2-loss teams.

But the REASON you play the game is to win. Miami has won every game. It should not matter if it is by 1 point or 100. Clemson chose not to run out the clock against Boston College to snow the voters. Miami runs out the clock against North Carolina and we get punished.

Winning. It's the reason you play the games. The top 4 teams should be Alabama, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Miami. If we lose, we drop. If not, STFU.

Getting worse by the post

 

[Loose Cannon]

And one of those years a conference champion was passed over for a team that lost to said champion on the field.

You mean the team with the better record was chosen? Thank you for adding to my ammunition.

Um...no. That a P5 conference champ was passed over for a team they beat heads up because the committee wanted that team in.