CFP rankings at 7

[Loose Cannon]

National Quarterfinals


AKA the ACC title game


Miami vs CLemson

Let's go motha fuggas

Clemson needs help to get there. That's my whole point. Clemson's season ends this month if NC State doesn't lose another game. How the **** are they the 4th best team in the country when they're not even leading their division?

 

[Chard]

I don't like this narrative that we need to beat VT AND ND to be taken seriously and move way up in the rankings. If we beat VT this weekend we should move ahead of all the one loss teams. We'll have a better resume than teams like Ohio State who has beaten no one outside of Penn State.

You'd think so but I'm already seeing the VT game being pushed out of the narrative:

The Miami Hurricanes (7-0) round out the CFP top 10. While many have claimed "The U is back," the Canes still have work to do, but a Nov. 11 home game against Notre Dame would go a long way toward silencing any doubters.

Why would they leave out VT? Win on Saturday and that doesn't go a long way? VT hasn't played a very tough schedule either. They lost their one marque game against Clemson and the WVU win doesn't have the luster it used to. Maybe that's why a win against VT isn't in that paragraph but to me, a win against a 7-1 club is well worth a move up.

 

[Katzenboyer]

Everyone, RELAX. We have games upcoming against #13 VT, #3 ND and possibly #4 Clemson/whatever NC State is ranked if they win out (which will be high). This crap handles itself. If we lose to VT and ND these next two weeks, this hand wringing won't mean jack.

 

[Katzenboyer]

National Quarterfinals


AKA the ACC title game


Miami vs CLemson

Let's go motha fuggas

Clemson needs help to get there. That's my whole point. Clemson's season ends this month if NC State doesn't lose another game. How the **** are they the 4th best team in the country when they're not even leading their division?

Clemson does not need help. They play NC State Saturday. If the Tigers win out, they go to the playoffs as the ACC Champion. They control their own destiny, just like the Canes. That's enough for me at the moment.

 

[canes1977]

National Quarterfinals


AKA the ACC title game


Miami vs CLemson

Let's go motha fuggas

Clemson needs help to get there. That's my whole point. Clemson's season ends this month if NC State doesn't lose another game. How the **** are they the 4th best team in the country when they're not even leading their division?

Clemson doesnt need help to get there. Win out and they are in the ACCCG.

 

[Loose Cannon]

They have wins against good teams. Our big win is against Toledo.

So what? Do wins agains good teams erase losses to unranked teams? If so, you're going to have to explain to me why Iowa State isn't [URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're asking why 6-2 Iowa State isn't #1 ? You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you.

Don't dodge the question. If Clemson's win over at the time #17 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 #3 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.

The point is that the poll is not supposed to take into account what might happen later. Those teams ahead of us looked better? Did you not watch that Clemson v. Syracuse ****show? How about Iowa State pushing in Sooner **** in Norman? How the ****, EXACTLY, have those teams looked better than us?

 

[Loose Cannon]

BS. There's three teams ranked ahead of us who have losses to un-ranked teams, and another has a home blowout loss to one of those. I don't think Miami is guilty of any excess chest thumping by saying that TCU, Oklahoma, and Clemson do not deserve to be ranked ahead of us. I don't care if all we've beat is cupcakes. We beat our cupcakes. The **** is ridiculous and there is nothing wrong with saying so.

Quit being a drama queen. We've had to escape literally four straight weeks against unranked teams and don't have a single impressive win.

But we escaped. We found a way to win when Clemson, Oklahoma, and TCU couldn't.

You don't even think that's slightly ****ing ridiculous, that Clemson or OU could walk in with losses to unranked teams, but if we lose to ND, we can kiss our chances goodbye? What the **** is wrong with you? What do you not understand about this game? I we had gotten our asses handed to us by a 3-3 team nobody in their right mind would be talking about us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Winning doesn’t matter. Losing to perceived good teams matters more.

And beating the ever-loving sht out of bad teams means even more.

No it does not. The committee chairman is on record as specifically saying that margin of victory is not a factor.

 

[Katzenboyer]

So what? Do wins agains good teams erase losses to unranked teams? If so, you're going to have to explain to me why Iowa State isn't [URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're asking why 6-2 Iowa State isn't #1 ? You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you.

Don't dodge the question. If Clemson's win over at the time #17 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 #3 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.

The point is that the poll is not supposed to take into account what might happen later. Those teams ahead of us looked better? Did you not watch that Clemson v. Syracuse ****show? How about Iowa State pushing in Sooner **** in Norman? How the ****, EXACTLY, have those teams looked better than us?

Simple. Clemson has beaten Auburn and VT, two top 15 teams, and are currently 4-0 against Top 30 teams. Our best win is Toledo.

The loss against Syracuse is meaningless until Clemson loses again, unfortunately. OSU won the national championship the year they lost to a 7-6 VT team. Good wins trump a bad loss in the committee's mind; you just need to get used to that.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Your break down is terrible as usual... We broke FSUs spirit they quit after that game just like we usually do after losing to them. But it fits your narrative to act like you were born yesterday when it comes to talking cfb. You think they were a 2 win team before the season started? Do projected 2 win teams get national championship hype before the season??

We broke their spirit? We were their third loss.

A win like that could've turned their season around.... a potentual 10 win season would've still been a possibility I they beat us. The media would've got back on their nuts if they beat us.

Right. 2-5 FSU could have been right back in the mix if not fo' da U.

When we beat them, their shot at the ACC was out the window, you ******* moron. Had they beaten us, they controlled their destiny in the ACC. They still would have had a 1v1 against Clemson and NC State. When we beat them, they're season ended. All of their goals were rendered unattainable.

God **** they're's some dense fools on this board.

 

[Buck Teeth]

We earned that #10 ranking with poor offensive play. Therefore, I have no problem with it. If we play a somewhat complete game and beat VT, we will move up. We will know based on the first 2 plays MR dials up. If we see 2 inside/outside runs into a stacked box, prepare for UNC Part 2!

If we get UNC Part 2, the Canes will be playing in the effing Sun Bowl again. Richt needs more crossing routes.

But he knows this.

As Stubborn as Golden was being with sticking with his 2 gap Defense, Richt is being just as Stubborn with his Watered Down RPO...no misdirection, no motion, no re-sets....no nothing. The route tree is also lacking...barely calls slants, crosses, TE seam routes, etc. Plain Jane Offense. It is very hard to execute when the Defense is yelling out the plays at Pre-Snap. I'd take Jed Fisch as OC in a heart beat.

Honestly, MR is hurting the team as the play-caller. If we had a true play-calling OC and he was stinking up the joint, MR would definitely reprimand/hold him accountable. Who does MR hold accountable when our current play-caller stinks up the joint?

 

[Katzenboyer]

Your break down is terrible as usual... We broke FSUs spirit they quit after that game just like we usually do after losing to them. But it fits your narrative to act like you were born yesterday when it comes to talking cfb. You think they were a 2 win team before the season started? Do projected 2 win teams get national championship hype before the season??

We broke their spirit? We were their third loss.

A win like that could've turned their season around.... a potentual 10 win season would've still been a possibility I they beat us. The media would've got back on their nuts if they beat us.

Right. 2-5 FSU could have been right back in the mix if not fo' da U.

When we beat them, their shot at the ACC was out the window, you ****ing moron. Had they beaten us, they controlled their destiny in the ACC. They still would have had a 1v1 against Clemson and NC State. When we beat them, they're season ended. All of their goals were rendered unattainable.

God **** they're's some dense fools on this board.

Dude, how can you see it doesn't matter? FSU is 2-5 and got steamrolled by a completely average BC team last week. How is it not clear to you that beating the Seminoles doesn't qualify as a good win this season?

 

[Loose Cannon]

So what? Do wins agains good teams erase losses to unranked teams? If so, you're going to have to explain to me why Iowa State isn't [URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're asking why 6-2 Iowa State isn't #1 ? You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you.

Don't dodge the question. If Clemson's win over at the time #17 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.

Jagr is absolutely spot-on here.

It doesn’t matter what WE think, nor what our record is. Had the optics on our wins over Syracuse and UNC looked more convincing to the Committee (say, a scoreline in the low forties for each game), we’d be ranked higher.

ND is ranked third because they trashed USC and they convincingly beat NCState.

People on the Committee respect Mark Richt but they don’t respect the Team or the talent yet.

Beat VATech and our reputation gets added luster. We move higher. But to get to the Playoffs, WE MUST BEAT NOTRE DAME!

This will be a playoff game for us against VaTech, and if we win that game (which I think we will), then to go anywhere significant in the Postseason, we have to throw the Irish out of their #3 perch.

The Irish will know this.

We are where we deserve to be. Where we end up is entirely up to us.

How about the optics of Clemson's win over Syracuse? Oh wait...we should have beaten them by 40, but Clemson fully deserves getting a pass for not even winning.

 

[canes1977]

You're asking why 6-2 Iowa State isn't #1 ? You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you.

Don't dodge the question. If Clemson's win over at the time #17 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 #3 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.

The point is that the poll is not supposed to take into account what might happen later. Those teams ahead of us looked better? Did you not watch that Clemson v. Syracuse ****show? How about Iowa State pushing in Sooner **** in Norman? How the ****, EXACTLY, have those teams looked better than us?

Simple. Clemson has beaten Auburn and VT, two top 15 teams, and are currently 4-0 against Top 30 teams. Our best win is Toledo.

The loss against Syracuse is meaningless until Clemson loses again, unfortunately. OSU won the national championship the year they lost to a 7-6 VT team. Good wins trump a bad loss in the committee's mind; you just need to get used to that.

Then how is PSU ranked ahead of Miami?

 

[Buck Teeth]

You're asking why 6-2 Iowa State isn't #1 ? You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you.

Don't dodge the question. If Clemson's win over at the time #17 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 #3 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.

The point is that the poll is not supposed to take into account what might happen later. Those teams ahead of us looked better? Did you not watch that Clemson v. Syracuse ****show? How about Iowa State pushing in Sooner **** in Norman? How the ****, EXACTLY, have those teams looked better than us?

Simple. Clemson has beaten Auburn and VT, two top 15 teams, and are currently 4-0 against Top 30 teams. Our best win is Toledo.

The loss against Syracuse is meaningless until Clemson loses again, unfortunately. OSU won the national championship the year they lost to a 7-6 VT team. Good wins trump a bad loss in the committee's mind; you just need to get used to that.

A loss should NEVER be Meaningless. The CFP is a joke.

 

[Katzenboyer]

Don't dodge the question. If Clemson's win over at the time #17 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 #3 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.

The point is that the poll is not supposed to take into account what might happen later. Those teams ahead of us looked better? Did you not watch that Clemson v. Syracuse ****show? How about Iowa State pushing in Sooner **** in Norman? How the ****, EXACTLY, have those teams looked better than us?

Simple. Clemson has beaten Auburn and VT, two top 15 teams, and are currently 4-0 against Top 30 teams. Our best win is Toledo.

The loss against Syracuse is meaningless until Clemson loses again, unfortunately. OSU won the national championship the year they lost to a 7-6 VT team. Good wins trump a bad loss in the committee's mind; you just need to get used to that.

Then how is PSU ranked ahead of Miami?

Because they're 3-1 against Top 30 teams and lost by 1 on the road to the team ranked #6 .

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

The point is that the poll is not supposed to take into account what might happen later. Those teams ahead of us looked better? Did you not watch that Clemson v. Syracuse ****show? How about Iowa State pushing in Sooner **** in Norman? How the ****, EXACTLY, have those teams looked better than us?

They haven't had a lucky bounce off a facemask on 4th down and a lucky fumble against a 1-8 team to avoid two losses.

 

[Katzenboyer]

Don't dodge the question. If Clemson's win over at the time #17 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 #3 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.

The point is that the poll is not supposed to take into account what might happen later. Those teams ahead of us looked better? Did you not watch that Clemson v. Syracuse ****show? How about Iowa State pushing in Sooner **** in Norman? How the ****, EXACTLY, have those teams looked better than us?

Simple. Clemson has beaten Auburn and VT, two top 15 teams, and are currently 4-0 against Top 30 teams. Our best win is Toledo.

The loss against Syracuse is meaningless until Clemson loses again, unfortunately. OSU won the national championship the year they lost to a 7-6 VT team. Good wins trump a bad loss in the committee's mind; you just need to get used to that.

A loss should NEVER be Meaningless. The CFP is a joke.

Doesn't the 2014 OSU team completely eviscerate this argument?

Lost on the road to 7-6 VT, won the national championship as the #4 seed.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

No it does not. The committee chairman is on record as specifically saying that margin of victory is not a factor.

But it is a factor, no matter what they say publicly.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

God **** they're's some dense fools on this board.

What, exactly, is that bolded word?

 

[The Franchise]

BS. There's three teams ranked ahead of us who have losses to un-ranked teams, and another has a home blowout loss to one of those. I don't think Miami is guilty of any excess chest thumping by saying that TCU, Oklahoma, and Clemson do not deserve to be ranked ahead of us. I don't care if all we've beat is cupcakes. We beat our cupcakes. The **** is ridiculous and there is nothing wrong with saying so.

Quit being a drama queen. We've had to escape literally four straight weeks against unranked teams and don't have a single impressive win.

But we escaped. We found a way to win when Clemson, Oklahoma, and TCU couldn't.

You don't even think that's slightly ****ing ridiculous, that Clemson or OU could walk in with losses to unranked teams, but if we lose to ND, we can kiss our chances goodbye? What the **** is wrong with you? What do you not understand about this game? I we had gotten our asses handed to us by a 3-3 team nobody in their right mind would be talking about us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Winning doesn’t matter. Losing to perceived good teams matters more.

And beating the ever-loving sht out of bad teams means even more.

Is that what Wisconsin and TCU have done? We've had 20 point margins of victory in a few games. Is that not good enough?