CFP rankings at 7

[TheOriginalCane]

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".

I did not say it was the only data point.

I said it was the simplest, most basic, and most relevant.

And you STILL have no argument for why Clemson's loss to Syracuse is worth SIX SPOTS higher than Miami's position, who beat Syracuse a week later.

Miami won when we needed to. Clemson lost when they needed to win. That should be simple enough for even the biggest idiot to understand.

 

[Cribby]

If we win out there's absolutely no chance we aren't in final four , zero. I think we drop 1-2 games but if we remain undefeated to the end it's undeniable.

Even the haters on espn say we control our own destiny and Wis doesn't, because their schedule is so god awful.

 

[Loose Cannon]

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".

I did not say it was the only data point.

I said it was the simplest, most basic, and most relevant.

And you STILL have no argument for why Clemson's loss to Syracuse is worth SIX SPOTS higher than Miami's position, who beat Syracuse a week later.

Miami won when we needed to. Clemson lost when they needed to win. That should be simple enough for even the biggest idiot to understand.

It's the only tactic he has. He simplifies something to the point that it stupid and no longer makes sense, then points at you or me and says we don't make sense. I'm here like, don't pin that **** on me. You did that stupid ****. That **** is your's now buddy.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

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".

I did not say it was the only data point.

I said it was the simplest, most basic, and most relevant.

And you STILL have no argument for why Clemson's loss to Syracuse is worth SIX SPOTS higher than Miami's position, who beat Syracuse a week later.

Miami won when we needed to. Clemson lost when they needed to win. That should be simple enough for even the biggest idiot to understand.

It's the only tactic he has. He simplifies something to the point that it stupid and no longer makes sense, then points at you or me and says we don't make sense. I'm here like, don't pin that **** on me. You did that stupid ****. That **** is your's now buddy.

The idiot arguments are "in the entire history of college football" (when the CFP system has been around for 3 years) and "everybody knows that an undefeated conference champ won't be left out". Oh, and "upsets will happen, I promise you, because they always happen".

Not to mention their failure to comprehend that Miami DOES NOT control its own destiny and needs to rely on other teams losing and/or the voters changing their minds about Miami's "body of work" compared to that of the SIX 1-loss teams currently ahead of us.

It's shocking that ignorant people keep exposing their ignorance. But I guess that's just what they do. You can't blame the tiger for going tiger, and you can't blame the ****** for going full-******.

 

[Buck Teeth]

Kirby Hocutt said the committee did not look at polls. If that is the case, Bama should not be #2 . It is obvious that the committee is basing that ranking off of what they think of Bama as opposed to what Bama has done this year. Bama should be #8 and we are properly ranked at #10 . I have no problem with anyone that thinks we should be ranked ahead of Clemson. That is, we did beat the team that beat Clemson. I think that Kelly Bryant injury talk is BS. Injuries happen in football. Kelly Bryant played, injured or not, against Syracuse and Syracuse put him out the game.

I'm not a bama fan but you are mentally handicapped if you think Bama isn't one of the top teams. They will be favorites over every single team in the nation on a neutral field. They are by far the favorites to win it all. It doesn't take a genius to know this.

Fool, it's not about what "you think." it's about what a team has accomplished THIS SEASON. Despite how you or the committee feels about Bama, their 2017 "body of work" is weak compared to other teams...like ND, OU, O.State, etc.

Yes being the team that is power rated highest in the market is something you just write off.

Which is not supposed to be considered. IT'S BODY OF WORK!

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

If we win out there's absolutely no chance we aren't in final four , zero. I think we drop 1-2 games but if we remain undefeated to the end it's undeniable.

Even the haters on espn say we control our own destiny and Wis doesn't, because their schedule is so god awful.

The Original Cane disagrees because...uh...words.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

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.

That question is irrelevant. It means nothing. I didn't want to embarrass you, so I tried to let it slide. Week 10 polls have never been relevant in any year. You're so desperate to fight with people about anything that you made up some stupid argument to chase.

The fact is that a 12-0 major conference champion will not be left out of the playoffs.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

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.

And people tried to tell you on page one that it doesn't matter who you are behind with five weeks to go.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

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.

Of course, no one has ignored anything. Some of us just know that a 12-0 conference champion isn't going to go backwards to fall behind a one-loss P12 champion. It's such basic common sense that the only answer is a bad troll job on your part.

 

[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.

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

The team with the better record got in.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

I did not say it was the only data point.

I said it was the simplest, most basic, and most relevant.

And you STILL have no argument for why Clemson's loss to Syracuse is worth SIX SPOTS higher than Miami's position, who beat Syracuse a week later.

Miami won when we needed to. Clemson lost when they needed to win. That should be simple enough for even the biggest idiot to understand.

I don't have to give an answer for Clemson's loss, because that is neither the only nor the most important data point. They have wins over Auburn and Virginia Tech. We have a win over.......Toledo. Do you understand what kind of sht show you would start if you tried to compare every team's common opponents?

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

The idiot arguments are "in the entire history of college football" (when the CFP system has been around for 3 years) and "everybody knows that an undefeated conference champ won't be left out". Oh, and "upsets will happen, I promise you, because they always happen".

Not to mention their failure to comprehend that Miami DOES NOT control its own destiny and needs to rely on other teams losing and/or the voters changing their minds about Miami's "body of work" compared to that of the SIX 1-loss teams currently ahead of us.

It's shocking that ignorant people keep exposing their ignorance. But I guess that's just what they do. You can't blame the tiger for going tiger, and you can't blame the ****** for going full-******.

Of course, you have absolutely nothing to back up any claim that you've made. It's all conjecture. It has to be, because what you are suggesting has never happened. But it makes you feel more confident when you and some guy named "loose cannon" can trash someone else.

I have literally seen no one except you two and a couple of drive by trolls suggest that Miami needs help. Everyone who follows and covers the sport agrees that Miami gets in if we win out. It's not even close.

 

[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.

The team with the better record got in.

One team beat the other. That is THE indicator of who the better team is in the game of football. This is, once again, using a subjective metric, when ample objective data exists to render it useless. This is why losses have to matter. They say objective losses don't matter so that they can insert their subjective metric. There is no more effective metric to determine who the better football team is than the results on the field of play. It's people who start using the "eye test" and "body of work" and "strength of schedule" and "margin of victory" to discount wins and losses that turn people off about college football and why every other sport in every other division has gone to a full playoff system.

 

[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.

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

The team with the better record got in.

One team beat the other. That is THE indicator of who the better team is in the game of football. This is, once again, using a subjective metric, when ample objective data exists to render it useless. This is why losses have to matter. They say objective losses don't matter so that they can insert their subjective metric. There is no more effective metric to determine who the better football team is than the results on the field of play. It's people who start using the "eye test" and "body of work" and "strength of schedule" and "margin of victory" to discount wins and losses that turn people off about college football and why every other sport in every other division has gone to a full playoff system.

So Penn State was better than Ohio State. But Pitt, USC, and Michigan were all better than Penn State. And North Carolina, Miami, and Northwestern were better than Pitt. And Pitt was better than Clemson. And USC was better than Washington AND Penn State. But Utah was better than USC.

In other words, you have no idea who should have been in the playoffs.

Do you have any idea what kind of amateur brings up head to head in a college football discussion?

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

This is why losses have to matter.

They did matter. That's why Ohio State (1 loss) went to the playoffs and Penn State (2 losses) didn't. This isn't molecular physics.

 

[Loose Cannon]

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.

The team with the better record got in.

One team beat the other. That is THE indicator of who the better team is in the game of football. This is, once again, using a subjective metric, when ample objective data exists to render it useless. This is why losses have to matter. They say objective losses don't matter so that they can insert their subjective metric. There is no more effective metric to determine who the better football team is than the results on the field of play. It's people who start using the "eye test" and "body of work" and "strength of schedule" and "margin of victory" to discount wins and losses that turn people off about college football and why every other sport in every other division has gone to a full playoff system.

So Penn State was better than Ohio State. But Pitt, USC, and Michigan were all better than Penn State. And North Carolina, Miami, and Northwestern were better than Pitt. And Pitt was better than Clemson. And USC was better than Washington AND Penn State. But Utah was better than USC.

In other words, you have no idea who should have been in the playoffs.

Do you have any idea what kind of amateur brings up head to head in a college football discussion?

Nobody that I know of ever made the claim that Penn State should have gotten in. The claim was always that Ohio State did not win their conference. If the Conference champ does not merit inclusion, than that conference should be excluded in entirety. You're the amateur if you think head to head results don't matter. That is ALL that matters up to and until the polls. Conference championships are decided by very objective metrics that are approved by the NCAA. If the NCAA is going to approve the metrics used to establish the best team in each conference, the CFP should be barred from denying those sanctioned results. I don't like a 2 loss Penn State getting in. I don't like any non-conference champion getting in either unless the champ also gets in and we're discussing a 1 loss runner up vs a 2 or 3 loss champ.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Nobody that I know of ever made the claim that Penn State should have gotten in. The claim was always that Ohio State did not win their conference. If the Conference champ does not merit inclusion, than that conference should be excluded in entirety. You're the amateur if you think head to head results don't matter. That is ALL that matters up to and until the polls. Conference championships are decided by very objective metrics that are approved by the NCAA. If the NCAA is going to approve the metrics used to establish the best team in each conference, the CFP should be barred from denying those sanctioned results. I don't like a 2 loss Penn State getting in. I don't like any non-conference champion getting in either unless the champ also gets in and we're discussing a 1 loss runner up vs a 2 or 3 loss champ.

Head to head only matters if the records are even. If you think head to head is the most important aspect, please list your final four for 2016.

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

Nobody that I know of ever made the claim that Penn State should have gotten in. The claim was always that Ohio State did not win their conference. If the Conference champ does not merit inclusion, than that conference should be excluded in entirety. You're the amateur if you think head to head results don't matter. That is ALL that matters up to and until the polls. Conference championships are decided by very objective metrics that are approved by the NCAA. If the NCAA is going to approve the metrics used to establish the best team in each conference, the CFP should be barred from denying those sanctioned results. I don't like a 2 loss Penn State getting in. I don't like any non-conference champion getting in either unless the champ also gets in and we're discussing a 1 loss runner up vs a 2 or 3 loss champ.

Head to head only matters if the records are even. If you think head to head is the most important aspect, please list your final four for 2016.

It's like arguing with a wall

 

[Loose Cannon]

Nobody that I know of ever made the claim that Penn State should have gotten in. The claim was always that Ohio State did not win their conference. If the Conference champ does not merit inclusion, than that conference should be excluded in entirety. You're the amateur if you think head to head results don't matter. That is ALL that matters up to and until the polls. Conference championships are decided by very objective metrics that are approved by the NCAA. If the NCAA is going to approve the metrics used to establish the best team in each conference, the CFP should be barred from denying those sanctioned results. I don't like a 2 loss Penn State getting in. I don't like any non-conference champion getting in either unless the champ also gets in and we're discussing a 1 loss runner up vs a 2 or 3 loss champ.

Head to head only matters if the records are even. If you think head to head is the most important aspect, please list your final four for 2016.

I didn't say that. I said wins and losses is the most important aspect. But I'm also not trying to rank 25 teams. I'm specifically referring to the question of who is better. When you are ranking teams, and you have team A on the one hand, and team B on the other, the first question you should ask yourself is, "Did these two teams play a football game against each other?" and if so, "Who won?" Between those two teams, if you're trying to establish which of them is most deserving a particular ranking, who won the heads up is the most important aspect. Or else actually playing the games do not matter. We should just assign teams an arbitrary value based on entirely subjective criteria before the season begins and run a simulation.

We play the games for a reason, and that reason is to eliminate whatever it is you think you ******* know.

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

AHEM