- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 43,024
I assume you're talking about Clemson? I think the committee is giving them more credit for beating Auburn than they are holding the Syracuse loss against them. Not sure I agree that a team that lost to Syracuse should be ranked in the top 4 but ask yourself this: Where do you think they would have Miami had they beaten Auburn instead of Bethune Cookman in week 1?
But, once again, you are making an unnecessary comparison (Clemson beating Auburn vs. Miami beating Auburn).
WE ALREADY HAVE THE EVIDENCE.
Clemson lost to Syracuse. One week later, Miami beat Syracuse. It is the ULTIMATE non-head-to-head comparison, i.e., common opponents.
Clemson is still ranked ahead of Miami.
So the CFP Committee is allowing Clemson's EIGHT POINT victory (sound familiar?) over Auburn to erase their loss to Syracuse, while completely ignoring that Miami beat the very same Syracuse team a week later.
Makes no sense at all.
The only sensible reason for ranking mighty Clemson ahead of Miami, is Clemson lost on the ROAD. Whereas Miami defeated Syracuse at home. hUh.
Who cares? You play half your games on the road, the other half at home. The goal is to win them all.
And maybe this would matter if (a) Syracuse had some sort of fearsome advantage at home, and (b) Miami had some sort of fearsome advantage at home. And neither of those are true.
In fact, during the Syracuse game, there was statistic after statistic about how bad Syracuse had been over an extended period of time, whether it was defending their home field, playing ranked teams, or simply winning ACC games. And it should go without saying that the recent Miami teams have not defended home field anywhere near the rate that we did from the 1980s to the early 2000s.
So, again, just saying "home" and "away" doesn't magically make the games any "better" or "worse" in comparison when the teams that won had no real statistical advantage simply based on where the game took place.
The simpler issue is that Syracuse beat Clemson in a game where Clemson was heavily favored and SHOULD HAVE won. One week later, Miami beat the same team by a larger margin. F the "home" and "away" aspect, now people are trying to qualify "common opponents" with "common field" as well? Ridiculous.
The point is the same as it was the first time I made it. The CFP Committee LITERALLY ignored that "data point" of the Syracuse common opponent and ranked Clemson SIX SPOTS higher than us. Because..."home" vs. "away"? Insanity.
Look at this guy deciding that the only data point that matters is "Record vs. Syracuse".
I did not say it was the only data point.
I said it was the simplest, most basic, and most relevant.
And you STILL have no argument for why Clemson's loss to Syracuse is worth SIX SPOTS higher than Miami's position, who beat Syracuse a week later.
Miami won when we needed to. Clemson lost when they needed to win. That should be simple enough for even the biggest idiot to understand.