CFP rankings at 7

[Jaromir Jagr]

What team has better "good wins" than Iowa State? That's the bull**** I'm talking about. Go back and watch the Syracuse v. Clemson game. Listen to the announcers and the halftime analysts. They were ready to give Clemson a pass in the 2nd quarter. They were already pretending that game didn't matter. #2 Clemson lost to a 2-3 unranked Syracuse and only dropped 5 places to 7th. They should have ended up around 15-17.

[URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3]#3 [/URL] FSU lost to #1 Alabama and dropped to 11th.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Iowa State has two losses; I don't think anyone would argue with you if a 2-loss team somehow jumped an undefeated Miami squad.

It is not apples to oranges. It is subjective criteria being applied when there is ample objective data that should render it meaningless. So maybe a 2 loss team with really good wins won't jump an undefeated team, but certainly if a 1 loss team can jump a 0 loss team with good wins, then certainly you'd have no problem placing that 2 loss team with really good wins ahead of some 1 loss teams with not so impressive wins, especially the 2 one loss teams they beat head up.

There's where your logic breaks down. If quality wins can put Oklahoma ahead of Miami, then surely quality wins should put Iowa State ahead of Oklahoma.

It's really just simple logic. The teams ranked 1 through 13 are undefeated or have one loss. The teams that are behind them have at least two losses, with exception of non-P5 teams UCF and Memphis.

2 losses eliminate you from the playoff. If Clemson loses again, they don't go to the Playoff. Same for OSU. It's the reason why the Pac-12 won't have any chance at the playoff this year (I know UW has only one loss but their schedule is a joke).

The playoff committee applies a threshold, and right now the teams that have a chance are undefeated or have 1-loss. Miami still has a chance; Iowa State doesn't. The Committee isn't looking at comparing Miami's "good wins" v. ISU's, because ISU has two losses. Simple.

My argument is the exact same as your. You're just too **** dumb to apply your own standard with consistency.

2 loss teams are out because there are 1 loss and undefeated teams ahead of them. Why aren't 1 loss teams out of contention as long as undefeated teams remain? And please, do go back to the who they beat crap unless you want to legitimize Iowa States wins against #3 and #5 .

It's real simple logic actually. Either Iowa State is a better football team than the #3 and #5 teams, or the #3 and #5 teams were highly overrated. It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. That is the essence of your reasoning; that it is either both or neither.

Oh geez. He's trying to apply the transitive property to college football. No wonder he's so frustrated over all of this.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Based solely on criteria aside from actually being able to win football games.

So you've got UCF ahead of Notre Dame? Remember, you can't bring schedules or scores into this.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

If you're not going to read an argument, then don't ****ing respond to it, especially when you don't think it matters.

I'm not interested enough to read some biased dissertation as to why Miami's ranking REALLY MATTERS on November 1st. If he can't make his point in a paragraph, then I know he's way too emotional over all of this.

Your arguments are so ignorant, it has ceased to be funny.

There is a ton of research and writing about biases in ranking and statistics, as well as how hard it is to overcome things when you start off "lower-ranked" than other teams. Not only do you have to win, you must also overcome the biases that put you so low on the totem pole.

Nobody is saying that THIS RANKING will permanently enshrine us at #10 . We are simply observing the biases that allow people who hate UM to put us at NUMBER TEN when we are one of 4 Power 5 teams that are UNDEFEATED.

There are SIX teams that have failed to do what UM has done, but are being rewarded IN SPITE OF THEIR FAILURES. "Common opponent evidence" is being flat-out ignored (i.e., UM beat Syracuse one week after Syracuse beat Clemson). Heck, Miami is "not even as good" as Wisconsin, who has played a weaker strength of schedule. We get ZERO CREDIT for beating a team that EVERYBODY chose for the Final Four (yes, before the season began).

And we will have to overcome that bias...by winning (which we can control), and margin of victory (which we somewhat control), and then a hope that the teams we beat will CONTINUE to look good and not degenerate to F$U's level (which we cannot control).

This matters. It might not matter as much, today, as it will matter in a few weeks, but it matters.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Says who? How many teams would be undefeated having played our schedule?

Clemson, put your hand down.

Clemson wouldn't beat Syracuse at home? Odd.

 

[Katzenboyer]

What team has better "good wins" than Iowa State? That's the bull**** I'm talking about. Go back and watch the Syracuse v. Clemson game. Listen to the announcers and the halftime analysts. They were ready to give Clemson a pass in the 2nd quarter. They were already pretending that game didn't matter. #2 Clemson lost to a 2-3 unranked Syracuse and only dropped 5 places to 7th. They should have ended up around 15-17.

[URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3]#3 [/URL] FSU lost to #1 Alabama and dropped to 11th.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Iowa State has two losses; I don't think anyone would argue with you if a 2-loss team somehow jumped an undefeated Miami squad.

It is not apples to oranges. It is subjective criteria being applied when there is ample objective data that should render it meaningless. So maybe a 2 loss team with really good wins won't jump an undefeated team, but certainly if a 1 loss team can jump a 0 loss team with good wins, then certainly you'd have no problem placing that 2 loss team with really good wins ahead of some 1 loss teams with not so impressive wins, especially the 2 one loss teams they beat head up.

There's where your logic breaks down. If quality wins can put Oklahoma ahead of Miami, then surely quality wins should put Iowa State ahead of Oklahoma.

It's really just simple logic. The teams ranked 1 through 13 are undefeated or have one loss. The teams that are behind them have at least two losses, with exception of non-P5 teams UCF and Memphis.

2 losses eliminate you from the playoff. If Clemson loses again, they don't go to the Playoff. Same for OSU. It's the reason why the Pac-12 won't have any chance at the playoff this year (I know UW has only one loss but their schedule is a joke).

The playoff committee applies a threshold, and right now the teams that have a chance are undefeated or have 1-loss. Miami still has a chance; Iowa State doesn't. The Committee isn't looking at comparing Miami's "good wins" v. ISU's, because ISU has two losses. Simple.

My argument is the exact same as your. You're just too **** dumb to apply your own standard with consistency.

2 loss teams are out because there are 1 loss and undefeated teams ahead of them. Why aren't 1 loss teams out of contention as long as undefeated teams remain? And please, do go back to the who they beat crap unless you want to legitimize Iowa States wins against #3 and #5 .

It's real simple logic actually. Either Iowa State is a better football team than the #3 and #5 teams, or the #3 and #5 teams were highly overrated. It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. That is the essence of your reasoning; that it is either both or neither.

Dude. No need to get personal; we're disagreeing about something that we really have no control over. Take it easy.

If you think that my arguments should mean that a 2-loss team should jump an undefeated team, nothing I'm going to say is going to dissuade you. The one loss teams ahead of us have played a better schedule and have better wins, and that's why they're ranked ahead of us. Pretty simple.

You disagree? Cool. Let's see how this shakes out. But take it easy with the personal ****, man. It's a friggin sports forum.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

If you're not going to read an argument, then don't ****ing respond to it, especially when you don't think it matters.

I'm not interested enough to read some biased dissertation as to why Miami's ranking REALLY MATTERS on November 1st. If he can't make his point in a paragraph, then I know he's way too emotional over all of this.

Your arguments are so ignorant, it has ceased to be funny.

There is a ton of research and writing about biases in ranking and statistics, as well as how hard it is to overcome things when you start off "lower-ranked" than other teams. Not only do you have to win, you must also overcome the biases that put you so low on the totem pole.

Nobody is saying that THIS RANKING will permanently enshrine us at #10 . We are simply observing the biases that allow people who hate UM to put us at NUMBER TEN when we are one of 4 Power 5 teams that are UNDEFEATED.

There are SIX teams that have failed to do what UM has done, but are being rewarded IN SPITE OF THEIR FAILURES. "Common opponent evidence" is being flat-out ignored (i.e., UM beat Syracuse one week after Syracuse beat Clemson). Heck, Miami is "not even as good" as Wisconsin, who has played a weaker strength of schedule. We get ZERO CREDIT for beating a team that EVERYBODY chose for the Final Four (yes, before the season began).

And we will have to overcome that bias...by winning (which we can control), and margin of victory (which we somewhat control), and then a hope that the teams we beat will CONTINUE to look good and not degenerate to F$U's level (which we cannot control).

This matters. It might not matter as much, today, as it will matter in a few weeks, but it matters.

Show me the UNDEFEATED team that remained BELOW a bunch of ONE loss teams AT the END of the season. We CONTROL our OWN destiny.

(Did I do enough all-caps?)

 

[Loose Cannon]

They looked better except for WHEN THEY LOST. Because of bias, some teams can lose and get the "yeah, but have you seen them have slugfests with other mediocre teams that we have overrated because of our own biases?".

Yeah, poor Miami. No one ever gives us any credit.

December 8, 1992

1. Miami (61)
2. Alabama (1)

This dude's hitting me with 1992. LOL

Or I can show you the 13 straight weeks of being [URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] in 2001. And again in 2002. But tell me about that anti-Miami bias.

So the greatest team in NCAA history won 34 consecutive games and were considered the #1 team 13 of those 34 weeks. This is YOUR argument?

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

You disagree? Cool. Let's see how this shakes out. But take it easy with the personal ****, man. It's a friggin sports forum.

Unfortunately this is how it is allowed to be on this forum. Anonymous internet warriors rule this place.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Amen!

 

[Katzenboyer]

What team has better "good wins" than Iowa State? That's the bull**** I'm talking about. Go back and watch the Syracuse v. Clemson game. Listen to the announcers and the halftime analysts. They were ready to give Clemson a pass in the 2nd quarter. They were already pretending that game didn't matter. #2 Clemson lost to a 2-3 unranked Syracuse and only dropped 5 places to 7th. They should have ended up around 15-17.

[URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3]#3 [/URL] FSU lost to #1 Alabama and dropped to 11th.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Iowa State has two losses; I don't think anyone would argue with you if a 2-loss team somehow jumped an undefeated Miami squad.

It is not apples to oranges. It is subjective criteria being applied when there is ample objective data that should render it meaningless. So maybe a 2 loss team with really good wins won't jump an undefeated team, but certainly if a 1 loss team can jump a 0 loss team with good wins, then certainly you'd have no problem placing that 2 loss team with really good wins ahead of some 1 loss teams with not so impressive wins, especially the 2 one loss teams they beat head up.

There's where your logic breaks down. If quality wins can put Oklahoma ahead of Miami, then surely quality wins should put Iowa State ahead of Oklahoma.

It's really just simple logic. The teams ranked 1 through 13 are undefeated or have one loss. The teams that are behind them have at least two losses, with exception of non-P5 teams UCF and Memphis.

2 losses eliminate you from the playoff. If Clemson loses again, they don't go to the Playoff. Same for OSU. It's the reason why the Pac-12 won't have any chance at the playoff this year (I know UW has only one loss but their schedule is a joke).

The playoff committee applies a threshold, and right now the teams that have a chance are undefeated or have 1-loss. Miami still has a chance; Iowa State doesn't. The Committee isn't looking at comparing Miami's "good wins" v. ISU's, because ISU has two losses. Simple.

My argument is the exact same as your. You're just too **** dumb to apply your own standard with consistency.

2 loss teams are out because there are 1 loss and undefeated teams ahead of them. Why aren't 1 loss teams out of contention as long as undefeated teams remain? And please, do go back to the who they beat crap unless you want to legitimize Iowa States wins against #3 and #5 .

It's real simple logic actually. Either Iowa State is a better football team than the #3 and #5 teams, or the #3 and #5 teams were highly overrated. It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. That is the essence of your reasoning; that it is either both or neither.

Also, it's not like this has never happened before.

In 2015, 7-1 Alabama and 7-1 ND were ranked ahead of undefeated Baylor, Mich St., Iowa, TCU and Ok. State when the first rankings came out.

In 2016, 7-1 A&M was ranked ahead of undefeated Washington when the first rankings were released.

It happens. And it worked itself out. There's no anti-Miami bias, otherwise those teams could make the same arguments, right?

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

So the greatest team in NCAA history won 34 consecutive games and were considered the #1 team 13 of those 34 weeks. This is YOUR argument?

Oh my. He missed the "2002" part. Read slowly, pumpkin.

There were other undefeated teams and everyone hates Miami. Did I do that right? The voters are always looking for ways to discredit Miami.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Says who? How many teams would be undefeated having played our schedule?

Clemson, put your hand down.

Clemson wouldn't beat Syracuse at home? Odd.

You are a buffoon. I was at Death Valley earlier this year when Clemson battled MIGHTY BOSTON COLLEGE to a 7-7 score part of the way through the fourth quarter.

Yes, Clemson's superior talent EVENTUALLY overcame Boston College late in the game, but let's not act like Clemson is unbeatable at home. I was surrounded by a TON of angry Clemson fans that day, and Clemson looked like garbage for 3+ quarters.

Again, you just choose to traffic in vague generalities and a misguided sense of your correctness.

Clemson has not played well on a consistent basis THIS YEAR. And AT HOME. So stop basing your arguments on nonsense generalizations.

 

[Loose Cannon]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Iowa State has two losses; I don't think anyone would argue with you if a 2-loss team somehow jumped an undefeated Miami squad.

It is not apples to oranges. It is subjective criteria being applied when there is ample objective data that should render it meaningless. So maybe a 2 loss team with really good wins won't jump an undefeated team, but certainly if a 1 loss team can jump a 0 loss team with good wins, then certainly you'd have no problem placing that 2 loss team with really good wins ahead of some 1 loss teams with not so impressive wins, especially the 2 one loss teams they beat head up.

There's where your logic breaks down. If quality wins can put Oklahoma ahead of Miami, then surely quality wins should put Iowa State ahead of Oklahoma.

It's really just simple logic. The teams ranked 1 through 13 are undefeated or have one loss. The teams that are behind them have at least two losses, with exception of non-P5 teams UCF and Memphis.

2 losses eliminate you from the playoff. If Clemson loses again, they don't go to the Playoff. Same for OSU. It's the reason why the Pac-12 won't have any chance at the playoff this year (I know UW has only one loss but their schedule is a joke).

The playoff committee applies a threshold, and right now the teams that have a chance are undefeated or have 1-loss. Miami still has a chance; Iowa State doesn't. The Committee isn't looking at comparing Miami's "good wins" v. ISU's, because ISU has two losses. Simple.

My argument is the exact same as your. You're just too **** dumb to apply your own standard with consistency.

2 loss teams are out because there are 1 loss and undefeated teams ahead of them. Why aren't 1 loss teams out of contention as long as undefeated teams remain? And please, do go back to the who they beat crap unless you want to legitimize Iowa States wins against #3 and #5 .

It's real simple logic actually. Either Iowa State is a better football team than the #3 and #5 teams, or the #3 and #5 teams were highly overrated. It cannot be both, and it cannot be neither. That is the essence of your reasoning; that it is either both or neither.

Oh geez. He's trying to apply the transitive property to college football. No wonder he's so frustrated over all of this.

No I'm not. You are idiot. I'm applying this wild concept that teams that beat other teams in the game of football on a football field are better at playing football. It is solely through your use of the transitive property that you can say that this is not the case. Only via the transitive property can you say that both TCU and Oklahoma are better than Iowa State and deserve to be ranked higher.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Says who? How many teams would be undefeated having played our schedule?

Clemson, put your hand down.

Clemson wouldn't beat Syracuse at home? Odd.

You are a buffoon. I was at Death Valley earlier this year when Clemson battled MIGHTY BOSTON COLLEGE to a 7-7 score part of the way through the fourth quarter.

Yes, Clemson's superior talent EVENTUALLY overcame Boston College late in the game, but let's not act like Clemson is unbeatable at home. I was surrounded by a TON of angry Clemson fans that day, and Clemson looked like garbage for 3+ quarters.

Again, you just choose to traffic in vague generalities and a misguided sense of your correctness.

Clemson has not played well on a consistent basis THIS YEAR. And AT HOME. So stop basing your arguments on nonsense generalizations.

LMAO. You really take this personally.

But you saw one game. Congratulations. Would you like a seat on the committee?

 

[Loose Cannon]

Based solely on criteria aside from actually being able to win football games.

So you've got UCF ahead of Notre Dame? Remember, you can't bring schedules or scores into this.

My argument explicitly stated P5 teams because, well that's why we call it the Power Five and everyone else the Group of Five. We have all come to agreement that teams in these 5 conferences play real conference schedules against real opponents, and these other five conferences consist mainly of nobodies with the occasional overachiever scattered here and there.

That is precisely my argument. Miami is being treated like we're in a G5 conference playing a G5 schedule chock full of nobodies and barely scraping by. It's bull****.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

No I'm not. You are idiot. I'm applying this wild concept that teams that beat other teams in the game of football on a football field are better at playing football. It is solely through your use of the transitive property that you can say that this is not the case. Only via the transitive property can you say that both TCU and Oklahoma are better than Iowa State and deserve to be ranked higher.

"You are idiot". I can't tell if you don't know how to use commas or if you're speaking Tarzan.

I'm not making up pretend scenarios and saying "if X played Y who beat Z....." That's kindergarten stuff.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Based solely on criteria aside from actually being able to win football games.

So you've got UCF ahead of Notre Dame? Remember, you can't bring schedules or scores into this.

My argument explicitly stated P5 teams because, well that's why we call it the Power Five and everyone else the Group of Five. We have all come to agreement that teams in these 5 conferences play real conference schedules against real opponents, and these other five conferences consist mainly of nobodies with the occasional overachiever scattered here and there.

That is precisely my argument. Miami is being treated like we're in a G5 conference playing a G5 schedule chock full of nobodies and barely scraping by. It's bull****.

So everyone in a Power 5 conference is a legit opponent, but no one outside the Power 5 is legit.

What is our biggest win, again?

 

[Loose Cannon]

Says who? How many teams would be undefeated having played our schedule?

Clemson, put your hand down.

Clemson wouldn't beat Syracuse at home? Odd.

Clemson had a chance to prove they were a better team on the football team as well as on paper. They lost the football field argument, but idiots like yourself ignore that and maintain the paper results.

 

[Katzenboyer]

Says who? How many teams would be undefeated having played our schedule?

Clemson, put your hand down.

Clemson wouldn't beat Syracuse at home? Odd.

You are a buffoon. I was at Death Valley earlier this year when Clemson battled MIGHTY BOSTON COLLEGE to a 7-7 score part of the way through the fourth quarter.

Yes, Clemson's superior talent EVENTUALLY overcame Boston College late in the game, but let's not act like Clemson is unbeatable at home. I was surrounded by a TON of angry Clemson fans that day, and Clemson looked like garbage for 3+ quarters.

Again, you just choose to traffic in vague generalities and a misguided sense of your correctness.

Clemson has not played well on a consistent basis THIS YEAR. And AT HOME. So stop basing your arguments on nonsense generalizations.

Clemson won that game by 27, bud. The Tigers beat the bag out of the BC team that just jailsexed FSU -- the same FSU team that people on this thread are saying should count as a quality win for the Canes.

Come on now.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Says who? How many teams would be undefeated having played our schedule?

Clemson, put your hand down.

Clemson wouldn't beat Syracuse at home? Odd.

You are a buffoon. I was at Death Valley earlier this year when Clemson battled MIGHTY BOSTON COLLEGE to a 7-7 score part of the way through the fourth quarter.

Yes, Clemson's superior talent EVENTUALLY overcame Boston College late in the game, but let's not act like Clemson is unbeatable at home. I was surrounded by a TON of angry Clemson fans that day, and Clemson looked like garbage for 3+ quarters.

Again, you just choose to traffic in vague generalities and a misguided sense of your correctness.

Clemson has not played well on a consistent basis THIS YEAR. And AT HOME. So stop basing your arguments on nonsense generalizations.

Clemson won that game by 27, bud. The Tigers beat the bag out of the BC team that just jailsexed FSU -- the same FSU team that people on this thread are saying should count as a quality win for the Canes.

Come on now.

Clemson is no good because they were tied with BC in the 4th quarter, but needing a facemask bounce at home against unranked Georgia Tech? Nothing to see here.