CFP rankings at 7

[Katzenboyer]

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 you think Miami should be ahead of Clemson. Fair enough. Does that apply to all one loss teams, or is it just Clemson that bugs you?

Should the playoff rankings be Bama, Georgia, Miami, and Wisconsin?

 

[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.

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?

Just because something's been done before does not mean it is smart or right. Think about all of the dumb **** we as a species did for thousands of years that is no longer thought of as okay just because we've done it in the past.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Just because something's been done before does not mean it is smart or right. Think about all of the dumb **** we as a species did for thousands of years that is no longer thought of as okay just because we've done it in the past.

Now he's a scientist.

 

[Katzenboyer]

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?

Just because something's been done before does not mean it is smart or right. Think about all of the dumb **** we as a species did for thousands of years that is no longer thought of as okay just because we've done it in the past.

Just using it as an example for why we shouldn't get too worked up about this, and why it's not "anti-Miami bias" that has us ranked below some one loss teams.

This stuff will work itself out. No need to ruin your day over it.

 

[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.

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.

I've neither said nor implied that. That's what you want my argument to be because it's easier to attack. I've clearly stated repeatedly that if your criteria says that a 1 loss team can jump an undefeated team based on quality wins, then why can't a 2 loss team with very high quality wins jump the one loss teams, especially the one loss teams they beat heads up.

Your argument is that TCU, Oklahoma, and Clemson are one loss teams that deserve to be ranked ahead of Miami based on quality wins. My argument is that the quality of their losses, to unranked teams, should have them firmly in the 13-17 range muddled in with 2 loss teams with better quality wins.

I'm asking you to apply your standard that justifies TCU ahead of Miami unilaterally. By that standard, when applied across the board, Miami can be ranked no worse than 4th. We're 10th because the committee is using different standards and criteria on a subjective basis to achieve their predetermined and desired outcome. That is **** we should not be forced to overcome. Winning all your football games up to any point in the season should be enough.

 

[Katzenboyer]

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.

I've neither said nor implied that. That's what you want my argument to be because it's easier to attack. I've clearly stated repeatedly that if your criteria says that a 1 loss team can jump an undefeated team based on quality wins, then why can't a 2 loss team with very high quality wins jump the one loss teams, especially the one loss teams they beat heads up.

Your argument is that TCU, Oklahoma, and Clemson are one loss teams that deserve to be ranked ahead of Miami based on quality wins. My argument is that the quality of their losses, to unranked teams, should have them firmly in the 13-17 range muddled in with 2 loss teams with better quality wins.

I'm asking you to apply your standard that justifies TCU ahead of Miami unilaterally. By that standard, when applied across the board, Miami can be ranked no worse than 4th. We're 10th because the committee is using different standards and criteria on a subjective basis to achieve their predetermined and desired outcome. That is **** we should not be forced to overcome. Winning all your football games up to any point in the season should be enough.

You're not, though. The Playoff Committee has set the threshold for qualifying for the playoffs as 1 loss; teams with two losses are not in that consideration so long as there are 1-loss and undefeated P5 teams.

This is crystal clear by the rankings. There's the first group (1 loss and undefeateds) and there's the second group (any team with with two losses or more). There is no intermediate group between those two (1 loss and 2 loss teams). So the comparison is unnecessary, because the committee isn't even considering it.

 

[Katzenboyer]

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.

I've neither said nor implied that. That's what you want my argument to be because it's easier to attack. I've clearly stated repeatedly that if your criteria says that a 1 loss team can jump an undefeated team based on quality wins, then why can't a 2 loss team with very high quality wins jump the one loss teams, especially the one loss teams they beat heads up.

Your argument is that TCU, Oklahoma, and Clemson are one loss teams that deserve to be ranked ahead of Miami based on quality wins. My argument is that the quality of their losses, to unranked teams, should have them firmly in the 13-17 range muddled in with 2 loss teams with better quality wins.

I'm asking you to apply your standard that justifies TCU ahead of Miami unilaterally. By that standard, when applied across the board, Miami can be ranked no worse than 4th. We're 10th because the committee is using different standards and criteria on a subjective basis to achieve their predetermined and desired outcome. That is **** we should not be forced to overcome. Winning all your football games up to any point in the season should be enough.

So should the playoff rankings be some combination of Bama, Georgia, Wisconsin and Miami?

 

[Loose Cannon]

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.

Yes you are. I'm stating emphatically that Iowa State beat Oklahoma and TCU. Iowa State is the better team. You are the one bringing a third team into this equation and flailing around screeching, "But OHIO STATE!!" So? What about Ohio State? How does that factor?

You and your little buddy have been the ones consistently ignoring the x and y conversation by pointing to z. Don't accuse me of your foolishness.

 

[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 [URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 0[/URL] . 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?)

You obviously don't understand the definition of "all-caps". Now we comprehend your intellectual capacity.

Time may be a flat circle, but that doesn't mean that you can compare all events in history and make equivalent conclusions. There are many factors that will allow for multiple teams to go undefeated and/or finish with 1 loss, including the fact that there are fewer OOC games today than there once were.

There are currently 13 Power 5 teams that are either undefeated or have 1 loss. It is entirely possible that either Alabama or Georgia will finish at 13-0 with an SEC title. It is entirely possible that Wisconsin will finish at 13-0 with a Big 10 title. All of those teams are currently ranked ahead of us, so let's just assume that they stay ahead of us.

OK, so at this point, the best that a 12-0 ACC champ UM team can finish is #3 .

But, we currently have 6 Power 5 teams ahead of us with 1 loss, and 3 Power 5 teams behind us with 1 loss (for simplicity, I am ignoring an undefeated UCF in all of this). While it is true that a 12-0 Miami team would have to beat a 1-loss team ahead of us (Notre Dame), and a 1-loss team behind us (VaTech), to finish undefeated, there are still other variables. Fair enough. And we would either have to beat a 1-loss team ahead of us (Clemson) or else a 2-loss team behind us (NC State, assuming they knock off Clemson). If we beat NC State in the ACC-CG, we will not get nearly as much credit as if we beat a 1-loss Clemson team.

Now, of the teams ahead of us (besides the 2 undefeated), let's analyze.

3a. UGa - currently #1 in the hearts and minds of the CFP Committee. "Spirited discussion" and all. Let's say Alabama beats UGa by a TD or less in the SEC-CG. The CFP Committee already has SIX 1-loss teams ahead of Miami. Why would we think that UGa, sitting in the pole position currently, would be dropped below Miami? Would an UGa loss to Alabama be any "worse" than the six losses suffered by the six 1-loss teams that are CURRENTLY ahead of Miami?

3b. Alabama - same argument as above, if Alabama lost to UGa by a TD or less. No way that Alabama would drop below Miami.

So now we have a second SEC team that likely occupies the third slot, assuming they both win out before the SEC-CG.

4a. Oklahoma
4b. TCU
4c. Oklahoma State

Let's assume one of these 1-loss teams win out. TWO are currently ranked ahead of us, and either OU or TCU would clearly benefit from beating the other, in terms of "quality wins". Even Oklahoma State (ONE spot behind us) could vault us be beating Oklahoma and avenging their prior loss to TCU in the Big 12 championship game, which would represent 2 quality victories.

So it is likely that a Big 12 team would take the 4th spot, assuming that one of them wins out to get to 12-1.

5. Washington - Washington is two spots behind us (and could be one spot behind us if Oklahoma State falters), but could win out and go 12-1. Two of their final four regular season games are against CFP Top 25 teams, and the Pac 12 championship game opponent is likely to be one of two "south" teams that are each in the CFP Top 25 at this time.

So that makes a FIFTH team that could finish ahead of us with either an undefeated record or a 1-loss record. And there could be a SIXTH team ahead of us, if Penn State wins out. And FIVE of those teams are CURRENTLY ahead of us.

So what, EXACTLY, makes you think that "winning out" will put us in the Final Four? Particularly if VaTech and Notre Dame do not look "as impressive" after we beat them?

 

[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****.

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?

Now you're taking a generally accepted theme and applying it to all extremes, even after I hedged that out. Being a member of a P5 conference is designed to safeguard teams against the polls and the committee calling your schedule "a bunch of nobodies." Our schedule hasn't been full of world beaters, but there was a Champ destroyer on there.

 

[Katzenboyer]

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 [URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 0[/URL] . 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?)

You obviously don't understand the definition of "all-caps". Now we comprehend your intellectual capacity.

Time may be a flat circle, but that doesn't mean that you can compare all events in history and make equivalent conclusions. There are many factors that will allow for multiple teams to go undefeated and/or finish with 1 loss, including the fact that there are fewer OOC games today than there once were.

There are currently 13 Power 5 teams that are either undefeated or have 1 loss. It is entirely possible that either Alabama or Georgia will finish at 13-0 with an SEC title. It is entirely possible that Wisconsin will finish at 13-0 with a Big 10 title. All of those teams are currently ranked ahead of us, so let's just assume that they stay ahead of us.

OK, so at this point, the best that a 12-0 ACC champ UM team can finish is #3 .

But, we currently have 6 Power 5 teams ahead of us with 1 loss, and 3 Power 5 teams behind us with 1 loss (for simplicity, I am ignoring an undefeated UCF in all of this). While it is true that a 12-0 Miami team would have to beat a 1-loss team ahead of us (Notre Dame), and a 1-loss team behind us (VaTech), to finish undefeated, there are still other variables. Fair enough. And we would either have to beat a 1-loss team ahead of us (Clemson) or else a 2-loss team behind us (NC State, assuming they knock off Clemson). If we beat NC State in the ACC-CG, we will not get nearly as much credit as if we beat a 1-loss Clemson team.

Now, of the teams ahead of us (besides the 2 undefeated), let's analyze.

3a. UGa - currently #1 in the hearts and minds of the CFP Committee. "Spirited discussion" and all. Let's say Alabama beats UGa by a TD or less in the SEC-CG. The CFP Committee already has SIX 1-loss teams ahead of Miami. Why would we think that UGa, sitting in the pole position currently, would be dropped below Miami? Would an UGa loss to Alabama be any "worse" than the six losses suffered by the six 1-loss teams that are CURRENTLY ahead of Miami?

3b. Alabama - same argument as above, if Alabama lost to UGa by a TD or less. No way that Alabama would drop below Miami.

So now we have a second SEC team that likely occupies the third slot, assuming they both win out before the SEC-CG.

4a. Oklahoma
4b. TCU
4c. Oklahoma State

Let's assume one of these 1-loss teams win out. TWO are currently ranked ahead of us, and either OU or TCU would clearly benefit from beating the other, in terms of "quality wins". Even Oklahoma State (ONE spot behind us) could vault us be beating Oklahoma and avenging their prior loss to TCU in the Big 12 championship game, which would represent 2 quality victories.

So it is likely that a Big 12 team would take the 4th spot, assuming that one of them wins out to get to 12-1.

5. Washington - Washington is two spots behind us (and could be one spot behind us if Oklahoma State falters), but could win out and go 12-1. Two of their final four regular season games are against CFP Top 25 teams, and the Pac 12 championship game opponent is likely to be one of two "south" teams that are each in the CFP Top 25 at this time.

So that makes a FIFTH team that could finish ahead of us with either an undefeated record or a 1-loss record. And FOUR of those teams are CURRENTLY ahead of us.

So what, EXACTLY, makes you think that "winning out" will put us in the Final Four? Particularly if VaTech and Notre Dame do not look "as impressive" after we beat them?

Solid post. Reps.

I'd say that you're making a huge assumption that the rankings will remain exactly the same based on the above hypothetical. But things change. For example, in 2015, an undefeated MSU team that: 1. was ranked behind one loss teams in the initial CFP rankings, and 2. won out the rest of the season, ended up making the playoffs.

If Miami wins out, they easily could vault one-loss teams ranked ahead of them. Especially Notre Dame and Clemson (assuming they win out), who the Canes would beat in your hypothetical.

 

[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.

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.

Being down 5 starters and losing another in the 2nd quarter, yet still securing a win against a 5-1 Georgia Tech team whose only other loss was by 1 in OT in a game where they never trailed for a second of regulation? Luck.

Not being able to rally the troops and secure the W against a 2-3 squad and blaming it on one player being injured who was legitimately knocked the **** out by the opposing defense? Nothing to see here.

 

[Katzenboyer]

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.

Being down 5 starters and losing another in the 2nd quarter, yet still securing a win against a 5-1 Georgia Tech team whose only other loss was by 1 in OT in a game where they never trailed for a second of regulation? Luck.

Not being able to rally the troops and secure the W against a 2-3 squad and blaming it on one player being injured who was legitimately knocked the **** out by the opposing defense? Nothing to see here.

Georgia Tech is 4-3, and were 3-1 at the time they played Miami.

 

[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****.

So you think Miami should be ahead of Clemson. Fair enough. Does that apply to all one loss teams, or is it just Clemson that bugs you?

Should the playoff rankings be Bama, Georgia, Miami, and Wisconsin?

Notre Dame is the only 1 loss team that should be ranked ahead of Miami and Wiskey. A loss to an unranked 3-2 team is not a good loss (Oklahoma). A loss against a 4-2 unranked team is not a good loss (Clemson). A loss against a 2-3 team is not a good loss (Syracuse). Being blown out at home is not a good loss (Ohio State).

Losing by one point on the last play of regulation to the #1 team? That's a little different.

 

[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.

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.

It was 7-7 in the 4th quarter.

Clemson scored an offensive TD with 11:59 left. Clemson scored on a 50 yard run with 5:41 left. After a 56 yard punt return, Clemson scored again with 2:50 left. After an interception, Clemson scored again with 0:52 on the clock.

Most teams would be running out the clock on those final 2 drives. Clemson was passing, because they looked like garbage for the preceding 3+ quarters.

I'm not sure where you get that Clemson "beat the bag" out of BC. Clearly, you just look at final scores and assume you know what happened. I was there and the game was in doubt until very late. Without 2 50-yard plays and an interception, the 4th quarter would have looked a lot like the preceding three quarters.

The point is, a not-very-good BC team was challenging for a win in Death Valley. Furthermore, Clemson beat Auburn by 8 points in Death Valley, they beat Wake by 14 at home, and they beat GaTech by 14 at home. To conclude that Clemson is so unbeatable at home THIS YEAR is just silly.

 

[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.

It was 7-7 in the 4th quarter.

Clemson scored an offensive TD with 11:59 left. Clemson scored on a 50 yard run with 5:41 left. After a 56 yard punt return, Clemson scored again with 2:50 left. After an interception, Clemson scored again with 0:52 on the clock.

Most teams would be running out the clock on those final 2 drives. Clemson was passing, because they looked like garbage for the preceding 3+ quarters.

I'm not sure where you get that Clemson "beat the bag" out of BC. Clearly, you just look at final scores and assume you know what happened. I was there and the game was in doubt until very late. Without 2 50-yard plays and an interception, the 4th quarter would have looked a lot like the preceding three quarters.

The point is, a not-very-good BC team was challenging for a win in Death Valley. Furthermore, Clemson beat Auburn by 8 points in Death Valley, they beat Wake by 14 at home, and they beat GaTech by 14 at home. To conclude that Clemson is so unbeatable at home THIS YEAR is just silly.

Clemson won by 27! It doesn't matter if it was close in the fourth quarter; they won by more than three scores. That's running away with it.

Don't know what you're getting at with the "Clemson being unbeatable at home," since I've never once said anything of the sort.

And finally, if we're going to look at things so closely, why don't we get buried because of a last second win against a 2-5 FSU team that we struggled against all game? BC is clearly superior to FSU, seeing as they just ran FSU out of the building last week. Why should one matter but not the other?

 

[TheOriginalCane]

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. [URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2 [/URL] 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 [URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] 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.

Since Jagr is so desperate to go back in time, let's look at the 1989 season.

Miami won the national championship with an 11-1 record.

BUT BUT BUT, we lost to F$U when our QB was injured.

BUT BUT BUT, we beat final #2 Notre Dame, who finished with 1-loss.

BUT BUT BUT, F$U was the final #3 with TWO LOSSES, one of which was to Auburn (the final #6 team) and one of which was to SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI (yes, led by Brett Favre, but nobody knew who he was back then).

And F$U was trying to argue that they should be #1 , based on head-to-head.

So let's not pretend that voters can't play favorites. A 2-loss F$U team was ranked ahead of TWO 1-loss Power 5 teams, even though F$U lost to SOUTHERN MISS.

Give me a break. "Quality wins" should not overcome LOSSES in order to move up a team that has more LOSSES.

 

[Katzenboyer]

Give me a break. "Quality wins" should not overcome LOSSES in order to move up a team that has more LOSSES.

But they do. The Committee harps on this constantly.

 

[Katzenboyer]

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.

Since Jagr is so desperate to go back in time, let's look at the 1989 season.

Miami won the national championship with an 11-1 record.

BUT BUT BUT, we lost to F$U when our QB was injured.

BUT BUT BUT, we beat final #2 Notre Dame, who finished with 1-loss.

BUT BUT BUT, F$U was the final #3 with TWO LOSSES, one of which was to Auburn (the final #6 team) and one of which was to SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI (yes, led by Brett Favre, but nobody knew who he was back then).

And F$U was trying to argue that they should be #1 , based on head-to-head.

So let's not pretend that voters can't play favorites. A 2-loss F$U team was ranked ahead of TWO 1-loss Power 5 teams, even though F$U lost to SOUTHERN MISS.

Give me a break. "Quality wins" should not overcome LOSSES in order to move up a team that has more LOSSES.

I've asked this a few times, but still haven't gotten an answer: by your logic, should 1-4 be some combination of Bama, UGA, Wisconsin and the Canes?

 

[Loose Cannon]

2 loss teams are not eliminated based on any sort of written criteria that the committee is bound to abide by. Otherwise the CFP rankings would only be 1-13.

2 loss teams are not currently in contention based solely on the volume of undefeated and 1 loss P5 teams remaining. This could all change, though. It might seem unlikely, but suppose Auburn, who has only lost to two teams and both currently ranked, beats UGA in two weeks, Alabama in 4, then UGA again for the SEC ship. Now suppose we lose to ND, but win out a defeat Clemson. Oklahoma State beats Oklahoma, and Oklahoma beats TCU. Michigan beats Wiskey, and OSU, and Wiskey beats Penn State.

Rank Auburn and Miami in that entirely possible scenario.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk