CFP rankings at 7

[Katzenboyer]

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

I completely agree with you that 1.) two loss teams are CURRENTLY not in contention (as in, not in contention in the first playoff rankings) and 2.) all of this could change. But for right now, analyzing what could happen is pointless, because it WILL all change.

 

[westcoastcanes]

Almost all of the people who are okay with this first CFP ranking were on here at the beginning of the season saying 10 and 2 would be our high water mark, and now they can't even wait for us to lose a **** game before trying to find a way to say they were right. They were the people who gave us no chance vs. FSU and knew **** well we'd drop at least one more along the way, probably ND.

I got no time for this bull****, so I'll just call it what it is: Cowardice. Nobody in their right ****ing mind should be okay with us going into week 10 ranked #10 despite being only 1 of 4 P5 teams left undefeated. These are Al Golden cucks who have become accustomed to the media narrative that says some teams can get into the playoffs with a loss or two while others must run the table.

CLEMSON DOESN'T EVEN LEAD THEIR DIVISION!!!

They need help to even reach the ACCCG. If NC State wins out, Clemson's season ends in November. How the **** can anybody think it's okay that they asses is in the CFP top 4 while we're 10?

You made this post way too early. If we win the next two games, it is not necessary because we will rise. If we don't, well, it didn't matter anyway now did it. Reading through this thread there seems to be people that need to move closer to the middle of the reaction spectrum from both sides. We have beat all of our opponents, yes. We have not looked good doing it. There is still something to prove, and wouldn't you know it, there is still time to do just that.

Everyone relax. If we are 9-0 and behind 6 one loss teams go nuts all you **** well please. If we lose the next two games, there are going to be so many i-told-you-so posts it will be nauseating.

I didn't make the post too early. If the rankings, in your words, are to reflect what will happen in a few weeks, they made the ******* rankings too early.

How ******* hard is this to understand? The Rankings aren't meant to reflect what you think will happen. It's supposed to reflect what has happened, and two weeks ago Clemson and Oklahoma were reeling from embarrassing losses to unranked teams.

Where are these my words?

This is a beauty contest, that should be clear by there being no verbiage in the process that makes this something other than a judgement call "Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar". It doesn't say anywhere that unbeaten teams will automatically be placed ahead of teams with a loss. That should be clear by all the things you have pointed out in this thread. It should also be clear that to the committee, Miami and the 6 one loss teams above them don't "look similar". It is an opinion based system, in the hands of people.

Read the mission of the committee: 1. Mission. The committee’s task will be to select the best teams, rank the teams for inclusion in the
playoff and selected other bowl games and then assign the teams to sites.

This does not say "get a match up of undefeateds". Or a "match up of conference champions" even. Or even the most qualified. It is spelled out - who the committee deems the best - as clear as can be. All these factors people keep spouting out like conference championship and head to head are (again) only tie breakers between teams that look similar to the selectors.

The people making the decisions do not find us attractive enough in this beauty competition yet, but there is time to change that still with the most important games ahead of us

So let your blood pressure fall back down, stop making yourself feel like a victim in an incomplete picture prematurely. To date, we do not LOOK the part, which is what this whole process is. We can change that dramatically over the next 10 days.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

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?

Yes.

Yes, those should be the rankings. And then once you have one or more of those undefeated teams take a loss, we can get into an argument about "which 1-loss team is better than another 1-loss team".

Otherwise, if losses don't matter, if we are allowed to project who "should be better", then why don't we let all the 2-loss teams into the conversation as well. Iowa State should be in the Final Four, they have two quality victories.

AND TWO LOSSES.

 

[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.

LMAO. You really take this personally.

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

This is why everyone thinks you are ignorant.

It's not that I was "at the game". It's that I actually SAW the game, and I am not misled by the final score. Yes, Clemson won by 27. But they scored 13 of those points with less than 3 minutes left when they "should have" been running out the clock.

After all, isn't the "knock" on Miami that we are winning games close and late? Is that how we "convince" the CFP Committee? We should not have run out the clock on North Carolina? We should have scored a late TD to make our margin of victory "look better" to the people who don't watch the games or check the box scores?

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

This is why everyone thinks you are ignorant.

Just an FYI, the fact that people on this board think I'm ignorant is actually one of the biggest confidence boosters I've ever had. It's like not fitting in with a Wal-Mart crowd. You thinking I'm ignorant = me being borderline royalty.

It's not that I was "at the game". It's that I actually SAW the game, and I am not misled by the final score. Yes, Clemson won by 27. But they scored 13 of those points with less than 3 minutes left when they "should have" been running out the clock.

After all, isn't the "knock" on Miami that we are winning games close and late? Is that how we "convince" the CFP Committee? We should not have run out the clock on North Carolina? We should have scored a late TD to make our margin of victory "look better" to the people who don't watch the games or check the box scores?

You didn't know what you were watching when you SAW the game. So pardon us if we aren't on the edge of our seat waiting for your analysis.

Boston College has four losses, three of them coming to teams #3 , #4 , and #13 . But somehow they're the equivalent of a North Carolina team that doesn't have a win against an FBS opponent.

Like I said, thanks for the cutting edge analysis.

 

[section9]

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.

Exactly.

I’m not saying that our wins aren’t praiseworthy, but we aren’t Clemson, so nobody on the Committee trusts our record, even though some folks at ESPN are starting to say Richt should be COTY.

We’re being penalized for being Miami and for not beating Line. It is what it is.

Take care of business against VT and beat the Irish and the rankings will take care of themselves.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

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

WHAT? Michigan State did not, in fact, "win out" as you claim.

In 2015, Michigan State was ranked at #7 in the first CFP ranking with an 8-0 record. There were FOUR undefeated Power 5 teams ahead of them. There were only TWO teams with 1-loss (not SIX!!!) ahead of Michigan State. In addition, there were THREE undefeated Power 5 teams BEHIND Michigan State. So, all in all, a pretty fair ranking, considering that Bama's 1-loss was to Ole Miss (initial CFP rank of 18) and Notre Dame's 1-loss to Clemson (the freaking #1 team in the CFP).

But where your story begins to break down is this. IMMEDIATELY after the first poll, Michigan State LOST a game. Thus, at the SECOND ranking by the CFP, Michigan State had fallen to the #1 3 spot.

So now let's fast-forward to the final CFP poll. At this point, due to the losses of others, there was ONLY ONE undefeated team in the CFP rankings, Clemson (at #1 ). But there were FIVE teams with 1-loss, and THREE of them made the Final Four.

So let's review, shall we.

Unlike in our scenario (Miami goes undefeated and could be ranked as low as #7 in the final CFP rankings), you are trying to tell us that Michigan State solved all of its problems by "winning out", which they actually did not do.

Furthermore, the point that the SMART people on the board are making is very simple. Miami does not control its own destiny. We cannot just "win out". Miami needs a COMBINATION of an undefeated season AND multiple 1-loss teams ahead of us TO LOSE.

I'm not sure why people can't comprehend that.

Yes, obviously, we will move up SOMEWHAT if we win out. But I have presented a very plausible scenario whereby as many as SIX undefeated teams (2) and 1-loss teams (4) could finish ahead of an undefeated Miami.

Furthermore, people base the "we control our own destiny" on the concept that victories over VaTech and Notre Dame will still be as impressive 6 weeks from now. And that is no guarantee either.

Soooo...let's do the final exam now.

Miami needs:

(a) to go undefeated
(b) VaTech and Notre Dame to go undefeated after we beat them
(c) other 1-loss teams to lose
(d) all of the above

The answer is (d). THAT is why we do not "control our own destiny". THAT is why we need MORE than to "just win".

 

[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?

I actually thought you were directing that at me when I thought I had been making my case against the three 1 loss teams whose loss came against unranked opponents. Those are the teams I'm saying we should be ahead of. If you have a close loss to a top ranked opponent like ND, it merits consideration. Losing to unranked teams, I believe you have to go to the back of the line. You need all undefeated teams to drop before a team with a loss to an unranked is up for consideration. I watched the Clemson/Syracuse game. They were giving Clemson a pass by the 2nd quarter.

The CFP top 10 should be:

#1 Georgia - They may not beat Alabama, but I don't think they should be credited with that loss before it happens. UGA has been the most impressive team week in and week out, and every week it's becoming more and more impressive that they beat Notre Dame in South Bend breaking in a true freshman QB instead of making crybaby excuses like Clemson and FSU.

#2 Alabama - Nothing spectacular. They've done what's been expected of them. You could easily argue them at #1 , but I like UGA's body of work at this point a little better.

#3 Notre Dame - The Irish are the only one loss team that deserve to be ranked ahead of an undefeated P5 team because they are the only team with a "good loss." They didn't lose to 2-3 Syracuse or 3-2 Iowa State. They lost to the most impressive team in the country by one point.

#4 Miami - You don't have to like it. Yes we might lose next week or the week after. But don't think I'm about to wear that L until we earn one. The only team with a better Strength of Record than Miami is UGA, and it's been over a calendar year since we've tasted defeat. All of our wins may not have been pretty, but finding a way to win when other teams have succumbed to defeat has to matter. Getting tough wins has to matter. Bad losses have to matter.

#5 Wisconsin - Undefeated but if Miami hasn't played anybody, the Badgers REALLY haven't played anybody. Still, they've managed to get the victory every time.

#6 Oklahoma - Out of the one loss teams not named Notre Dame, Oklahoma at least kept it close, and the fact that Iowa State also handled top 5 TCU gives the appearance that their upset in Norman wasn't as much of a fluke as it first appeared.

#7 Ohio State - Blown out at home by the team above who also lost to Iowa State. Yes they just beat Penn State, but Penn State was overrated precisely so that when Ohio State eventually beat them it would seem like a big deal. They pull this same **** every year and people keep falling for it. They even tried it last year when Penn State beat OSU.

#8 Clemson - Lost to now 4-4 Syracuse. Yes they have a few quality wins, but that is a horrible loss. I watched the game. Clemson was on their heels from whistle to whistle. Clemson was **** lucky to even keep it close.

#9 Penn State - Like Alabama, nothing special, but they have pretty much taken care of what's on their schedule. The lone blemish is a last second loss to Ohio State.

#1 0 Virginia Tech - Honestly you could argue Oklahoma State or TCU here. Except that TCU lost to unranked Iowa State, and Oklahoma State lost to TCU. Meanwhile Virginia Tech's only blemish came against Clemson.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Furthermore, the point that the SMART people on the board are making is very simple. Miami does not control its own destiny. We cannot just "win out". Miami needs a COMBINATION of an undefeated season AND multiple 1-loss teams ahead of us TO LOSE.

This is just asinine. An undefeated, 12-0 ACC Champion is most likely the #2 seed in the whole thing, but easily in the final four. One of your many mistakes is believing that the CFP rankings are done just like the traditional polls, where you can only move up if someone loses.

 

[mackjones]

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

WHAT? Michigan State did not, in fact, "win out" as you claim.

In 2015, Michigan State was ranked at #7 in the first CFP ranking with an 8-0 record. There were FOUR undefeated Power 5 teams ahead of them. There were only TWO teams with 1-loss (not SIX!!!) ahead of Michigan State. In addition, there were THREE undefeated Power 5 teams BEHIND Michigan State. So, all in all, a pretty fair ranking, considering that Bama's 1-loss was to Ole Miss (initial CFP rank of 18) and Notre Dame's 1-loss to Clemson (the freaking #1 team in the CFP).

But where your story begins to break down is this. IMMEDIATELY after the first poll, Michigan State LOST a game. Thus, at the SECOND ranking by the CFP, Michigan State had fallen to the #1 3 spot.

So now let's fast-forward to the final CFP poll. At this point, due to the losses of others, there was ONLY ONE undefeated team in the CFP rankings, Clemson (at #1 ). But there were FIVE teams with 1-loss, and THREE of them made the Final Four.

So let's review, shall we.

Unlike in our scenario (Miami goes undefeated and could be ranked as low as #7 in the final CFP rankings), you are trying to tell us that Michigan State solved all of its problems by "winning out", which they actually did not do.

Furthermore, the point that the SMART people on the board are making is very simple. Miami does not control its own destiny. We cannot just "win out". Miami needs a COMBINATION of an undefeated season AND multiple 1-loss teams ahead of us TO LOSE.

I'm not sure why people can't comprehend that.

Yes, obviously, we will move up SOMEWHAT if we win out. But I have presented a very plausible scenario whereby as many as SIX undefeated teams (2) and 1-loss teams (4) could finish ahead of an undefeated Miami.

Furthermore, people base the "we control our own destiny" on the concept that victories over VaTech and Notre Dame will still be as impressive 6 weeks from now. And that is no guarantee either.

Soooo...let's do the final exam now.

Miami needs:

(a) to go undefeated
(b) VaTech and Notre Dame to go undefeated after we beat them
(c) other 1-loss teams to lose
(d) all of the above

The answer is (d). THAT is why we do not "control our own destiny". THAT is why we need MORE than to "just win".

Well, in your ASTUTE scenario. One of those ' one lost ' teams will be singing the blues Saturday evening- there's a nasty showdown happening in the Cow town of Stillwater this Saturday.

Oh, and one more notion. I dig your insightful take on the BIAS college football playoff. hUh.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Furthermore, the point that the SMART people on the board are making is very simple. Miami does not control its own destiny. We cannot just "win out". Miami needs a COMBINATION of an undefeated season AND multiple 1-loss teams ahead of us TO LOSE.

This is just asinine. An undefeated, 12-0 ACC Champion is most likely the #2 seed in the whole thing, but easily in the final four. One of your many mistakes is believing that the CFP rankings are done just like the traditional polls, where you can only move up if someone loses.

Then refute his argument. Explain how the 4 of the one loss teams and 2 of the undefeated teams currently ranked ahead of us don't have to have 2 losses for us jump them if both ND and VTech lose out and end up 8-4.Explain how we jump a 1 loss, Bama, UGA, OSU, Oklahoma, TCU, and Penn State, if our best wins manage to go 8-4. Now assume Clemson beats NC State, but loses to FSU, and NC State at 10-2 gets to the ACCCG. We beat them and our best win is a 10-3 team ranked mid teens?

We need to win out, have ND and VT win out, have Clemson beat NC State and FSU and not **** the bed against The Citadel like they did against Syracuse, beat Clemson, and have 2 of the teams ahead of us get to 2 losses.

All of these are likely, but not guaranteed. That's the problem with an undefeated P5 team opening the CFP rankings at 10. We absolutely should be able to run the table and be in without help, but that is not the case.

 

[Loose Cannon]

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

WHAT? Michigan State did not, in fact, "win out" as you claim.

In 2015, Michigan State was ranked at #7 in the first CFP ranking with an 8-0 record. There were FOUR undefeated Power 5 teams ahead of them. There were only TWO teams with 1-loss (not SIX!!!) ahead of Michigan State. In addition, there were THREE undefeated Power 5 teams BEHIND Michigan State. So, all in all, a pretty fair ranking, considering that Bama's 1-loss was to Ole Miss (initial CFP rank of 18) and Notre Dame's 1-loss to Clemson (the freaking #1 team in the CFP).

But where your story begins to break down is this. IMMEDIATELY after the first poll, Michigan State LOST a game. Thus, at the SECOND ranking by the CFP, Michigan State had fallen to the #1 3 spot.

So now let's fast-forward to the final CFP poll. At this point, due to the losses of others, there was ONLY ONE undefeated team in the CFP rankings, Clemson (at #1 ). But there were FIVE teams with 1-loss, and THREE of them made the Final Four.

So let's review, shall we.

Unlike in our scenario (Miami goes undefeated and could be ranked as low as #7 in the final CFP rankings), you are trying to tell us that Michigan State solved all of its problems by "winning out", which they actually did not do.

Furthermore, the point that the SMART people on the board are making is very simple. Miami does not control its own destiny. We cannot just "win out". Miami needs a COMBINATION of an undefeated season AND multiple 1-loss teams ahead of us TO LOSE.

I'm not sure why people can't comprehend that.

Yes, obviously, we will move up SOMEWHAT if we win out. But I have presented a very plausible scenario whereby as many as SIX undefeated teams (2) and 1-loss teams (4) could finish ahead of an undefeated Miami.

Furthermore, people base the "we control our own destiny" on the concept that victories over VaTech and Notre Dame will still be as impressive 6 weeks from now. And that is no guarantee either.

Soooo...let's do the final exam now.

Miami needs:

(a) to go undefeated
(b) VaTech and Notre Dame to go undefeated after we beat them
(c) other 1-loss teams to lose
(d) all of the above

The answer is (d). THAT is why we do not "control our own destiny". THAT is why we need MORE than to "just win".

Well, in your ASTUTE scenario. One of those ' one lost ' teams will be singing the blues Saturday evening- there's a nasty showdown happening in the Cow town of Stillwater this Saturday.

Oh, and one more notion. I dig your insightful take on the BIAS college football playoff. hUh.

His point was more to the fact that the winner would have yet another "quality win" making it even more unlikely that Miami would jump them without additional help.

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

I honestly believe if we beat VT, lose a close game to ND and the run the table including beating a top 3, 1- loss CLemson team then we get in the playoffs.

Bama
Big Ten winner
ND
Miami

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Then refute his argument. Explain how the 4 of the one loss teams and 2 of the undefeated teams currently ranked ahead of us don't have to have 2 losses for us jump them if both ND and VTech lose out and end up 8-4.Explain how we jump a 1 loss, Bama, UGA, OSU, Oklahoma, TCU, and Penn State, if our best wins manage to go 8-4. Now assume Clemson beats NC State, but loses to FSU, and NC State at 10-2 gets to the ACCCG. We beat them and our best win is a 10-3 team ranked mid teens?

We need to win out, have ND and VT win out, have Clemson beat NC State and FSU and not **** the bed against The Citadel like they did against Syracuse, beat Clemson, and have 2 of the teams ahead of us get to 2 losses.

All of these are likely, but not guaranteed. That's the problem with an undefeated P5 team opening the CFP rankings at 10. We absolutely should be able to run the table and be in without help, but that is not the case.

Refute his argument? Sure. If we beat #13 Virginia Tech, #3 Notre Dame, and #4 Clemson, we will move up to #2 with the most impressive final five weeks in the country.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Could you people possibly learn how to delete the 10 quotes above the one you are responding to?

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

I honestly believe if we beat VT, lose a close game to ND and the run the table including beating a top 3, 1- loss CLemson team then we get in the playoffs.

Bama
Big Ten winner
ND
Miami

Very possible. All of these mopes think that all nine teams in front of us are going undefeated.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Furthermore, the point that the SMART people on the board are making is very simple. Miami does not control its own destiny. We cannot just "win out". Miami needs a COMBINATION of an undefeated season AND multiple 1-loss teams ahead of us TO LOSE.

This is just asinine. An undefeated, 12-0 ACC Champion is most likely the #2 seed in the whole thing, but easily in the final four. One of your many mistakes is believing that the CFP rankings are done just like the traditional polls, where you can only move up if someone loses.

No, you continue to out-buffoon everyone.

I do not believe the CFP will only move us up when someone loses. I am simply pointing out a couple of things, which you need to wedge into your tiny brain to achieve partial comprehension.

First, the CFP already believes that SIX 1-loss teams are ahead of us. We have 4 regular season games left, 2 of which are impressive and 2 of which are not. And the "impressive" games could always become LESS IMPRESSIVE if those teams then lose more games, as F$U did.

Second, the SIX 1-loss teams ahead of us (and even OK State and Washington behind us) do not exactly play "bad teams" the rest of the way. Most of the EIGHT 1-loss teams around us (and I'm ignoring VaTech for now) have at least 2 impressive games left. So, unlike your ridiculous assessment of what you THOUGHT I was saying, what I am actually saying is this: the other teams that are ranked ahead of us, and just behind us, have the EXACT SAME ability to improve their resumes that Miami has, thus if even a couple of those EIGHT teams put together the wins, then Miami's "wins against VaTech and Notre Dame" are not any more or less impressive than what most of those teams can argue.

Third, the knock against Miami is that we are "barely" beating teams. Thus, what if we beat VaTech by 6 and Notre Dame by 3, both wins coming in the final minutes. Will we have changed ANYTHING that the CFP Committee has already seen? And going back to my second point, what if the remaining quality victories racked up by any of the approximately 10 teams around us are MORE IMPRESSIVE than our "lucky escapes" against VaTech and Notre Dame.

Again, I realize your brain doesn't have the bandwidth to juggle so many complex issues, and you should probably wait until December to even start thinking about any of this, we don't want you to injure yourself.

The points here, and before, are so simple.

Just because Miami "wins" against VaTech and Notre Dame...is not a guarantee of ANYTHING. Our wins might be "unimpressive" or "lucky". Other teams might post more impressive wins against comparable competition. Other teams (several) might win out.

The thought that the CFP Committee will, each week, rip up ALL OF THEIR ASSUMPTIONS and start all over with their rankings is simply insane. They already have a pecking order, and mere single-digit wins against VaTech and Notre Dame will not miraculously vault us over 6 or 8 other teams. The CFP Committee is made up of 13 people, some of whom don't like UM for their own personal reasons. They have already written off 2/3 of our season as "only worthy of the #10 spot". If the teams ahead of us win the games they should win, we could finish as low as #7 , even with an undefeated record. That's a fact.

You act as if the CFP Committee will SUDDENLY be more impressed with an undefeated team over a 1-loss team in a month, when they already feel the opposite right now.

Keep huffing those fumes, though.

 

[The Owl]

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

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

 

[Loose Cannon]

Could you people possibly learn how to delete the 10 quotes above the one you are responding to?

I know how, but I refuse to as long as extra words on a screen cause you pain.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Furthermore, the point that the SMART people on the board are making is very simple. Miami does not control its own destiny. We cannot just "win out". Miami needs a COMBINATION of an undefeated season AND multiple 1-loss teams ahead of us TO LOSE.

This is just asinine. An undefeated, 12-0 ACC Champion is most likely the #2 seed in the whole thing, but easily in the final four. One of your many mistakes is believing that the CFP rankings are done just like the traditional polls, where you can only move up if someone loses.

Then refute his argument. Explain how the 4 of the one loss teams and 2 of the undefeated teams currently ranked ahead of us don't have to have 2 losses for us jump them if both ND and VTech lose out and end up 8-4.Explain how we jump a 1 loss, Bama, UGA, OSU, Oklahoma, TCU, and Penn State, if our best wins manage to go 8-4. Now assume Clemson beats NC State, but loses to FSU, and NC State at 10-2 gets to the ACCCG. We beat them and our best win is a 10-3 team ranked mid teens?

We need to win out, have ND and VT win out, have Clemson beat NC State and FSU and not **** the bed against The Citadel like they did against Syracuse, beat Clemson, and have 2 of the teams ahead of us get to 2 losses.

All of these are likely, but not guaranteed. That's the problem with an undefeated P5 team opening the CFP rankings at 10. We absolutely should be able to run the table and be in without help, but that is not the case.

Very smart post.

This guy gets it. Jagr is lost.