forums

Gentlemen and Scholars, get in here

I don’t know if I’m a gentleman or a scholar…but I do have a question.

is it legal for us to run a full PR campaign, buy media, etc? Like, why shouldn’t we be making an ad that’s just a slow mo of the CJ Daniels catch against them that ends with “the games matter” or some **** and run it on Sunday Night Football?

(Also would be down for attack ads blaming Notre dame for inflation, the crimes of the Catholic Church, wealth inequality and whatever else we can think of).

Miami and the ACC should go Dutch on the ad buy.
 
Advertisement
the committee has laid out the metrics, they have walked back their “facts” every week. We have 2 out of 3 of the most important of their factors, and virtually even on the third. But, mark my words, they will diddle the numbers like they are Alter boys at the rectory after Mass. The Miami hate is palpable.
 
Canesrule230 said:
I posted this on another thread. If you look at the analytics and the on-field results this is a very easy decision to put Miami in.


1764521051477.png



From the CFP website:
The committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering:
  • Strength of schedule,
  • Head-to-head competition,
  • Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and,
  • Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

Soo based on SOS technically AL is the highest but they've been ranked below OU because OU owns the H2H which is completely reasonable. ND being ahead of AL is inconsistent though. The only argument they can make for having ND ahead of AL would be better GC and efficiency ratings. So if that's the case then Miami should also be ahead of AL since Miami is owns the gc and efficiency ratings against AL.

Let's continue to dig in:

Miami owns the H2H against ND and owns the common opponents comparison. ND has a slight edge on SOS/SOR. Here's another GIANT inconsistency. AL has the same slight edges on the sos/sor front against OU. But OU is ahead of AL because of the h2h (which is 100% reasonable). Miami has not gotten the same treatment with nd.

Bottomline - we should be ahead of nd. The committee has hard data points to review - no more hypotheticals. Miami beat ND, beat common opponents better than ND and is neck and neck to ND with analytics they touted as the reason for having nd far ahead of us.
Click to expand...
Exactly the argument I was making last night. If we're being consistent then miami and OU are together THEN ND and alabama are compared.

OU is ahead of bama because of H2H since they play comparable schedules in the same conference, but miami and ND basically play in the same conference as well. With the results of the common opponents there's zero argument at this time to put ND over miami. Only bias.
 
The committee...

MemberBackground / Role
Chris AultFormer head coach & athletics director (University of Nevada)
Troy DannenAthletics Director, University of Nebraska
Mark DantonioFormer head coach (e.g. Michigan State)
Mark HarlanAthletics Director, University of Utah (returned to committee for 2025)
Jeff LongFormer athletics director at multiple universities; long-time college athletics admin
Ivan MaiselVeteran college-football journalist / former ESPN + other outlets writer
Chris MassaroAthletics Director, Middle Tennessee State University
Mike RileyFormer college head-coach (Oregon State, Nebraska); at-large representative
David SaylerAthletics Director, Miami (Ohio) University
Wesley WallsFormer college player (All-American tight end at Ole Miss) — representing former-player perspective
Carla WilliamsAthletics Director, University of Virginia
Hunter Yurachek (Chair)Athletics Director, University of Arkansas; currently serves as chair of the committee for 2025–26.
Randall McDaniel (partial / in-rotation)College & Pro Football Hall of Famer, former All-American offensive lineman (Arizona State) — at-large/former-player seat.
 
TheATLCane said:
The committee...

MemberBackground / Role
Chris AultFormer head coach & athletics director (University of Nevada)
Troy DannenAthletics Director, University of Nebraska
Mark DantonioFormer head coach (e.g. Michigan State)
Mark HarlanAthletics Director, University of Utah (returned to committee for 2025)
Jeff LongFormer athletics director at multiple universities; long-time college athletics admin
Ivan MaiselVeteran college-football journalist / former ESPN + other outlets writer
Chris MassaroAthletics Director, Middle Tennessee State University
Mike RileyFormer college head-coach (Oregon State, Nebraska); at-large representative
David SaylerAthletics Director, Miami (Ohio) University
Wesley WallsFormer college player (All-American tight end at Ole Miss) — representing former-player perspective
Carla WilliamsAthletics Director, University of Virginia
Hunter Yurachek (Chair)Athletics Director, University of Arkansas; currently serves as chair of the committee for 2025–26.
Randall McDaniel (partial / in-rotation)College & Pro Football Hall of Famer, former All-American offensive lineman (Arizona State) — at-large/former-player seat.
Click to expand...
what happens if Yurachek is fired for ******** up their HC search between now and the next CFP ranking
 
Lokest said:
Exactly the argument I was making last night. If we're being consistent then miami and OU are together THEN ND and alabama are compared.

OU is ahead of bama because of H2H since they play comparable schedules in the same conference, but miami and ND basically play in the same conference as well. With the results of the common opponents there's zero argument at this time to put ND over miami. Only bias.
Click to expand...
100% agreed - with all the results being in there’s no legitimate argument to have nd in over Miami.

1. H2H result - ✅ for miami
2. Common opponent results - ✅ for miami
3. Analytics (SOR/SOS/GC) - almost identical

Why is this even a debate? The only reason for this even being contested is because the committee has a bias and is actively trying to create a narrative/excuse to put nd in.
 
Advertisement
Canesrule230 said:
100% agreed - with all the results being in there’s no legitimate argument to have nd in over Miami.

1. H2H result - ✅ for miami
2. Common opponent results - ✅ for miami
3. Analytics (SOR/SOS/GC) - almost identical

Why is this even a debate? The only reason for this even being contested is because the committee has a bias and is actively trying to create a narrative/excuse to put nd in.
Click to expand...
At this point I think it's mostly sunk cost fallacy. They've built ND up so much that if they admit they were wrong a lot of their arguments may fall apart for other teams
 
Lokest said:
At this point I think it's mostly sunk cost fallacy. They've built ND up so much that if they admit they were wrong a lot of their arguments may fall apart for other teams
Click to expand...
I agree and part of the problem with this process is the rankings show. The put a puppet out there to defend dynamic rankings and now they feel like they can’t take back their mistake.

What the committee should do is state “we ranked Miami at 18 in our first ranking because we thought that they would drop more games - now that we’ve been proven wrong we’re going to rectify that and place them correctly per the aforementioned criteria”

They won’t do that though because they don’t want to look like they made a mistake.
 
Aside from everything else thats been said, We beat a top 10, two top 20 and one top 25.

ND (6)
USF (18)
FSU (18)
Pitt (22)

ND beat a top 20 and top 25 team

USC (20)
Pitt (22)

3 of their P4 victories are against teams who finished 2-10 and only one of those teams had a P4 victory with 2 of them losing 10 straight.
 
cowboycane said:
I don’t know if I’m a gentleman or a scholar…but I do have a question.

is it legal for us to run a full PR campaign, buy media, etc? Like, why shouldn’t we be making an ad that’s just a slow mo of the CJ Daniels catch against them that ends with “the games matter” or some **** and run it on Sunday Night Football?

(Also would be down for attack ads blaming Notre dame for inflation, the crimes of the Catholic Church, wealth inequality and whatever else we can think of).

Miami and the ACC should go Dutch on the ad buy.
Click to expand...
This Is The Way GIF
 
We gave the committee an excuse to think if we played ND again they would beat us based on our losses to Ville and SMU

Our offense was a mess

We fixed it

They can no longer say to themselves that week 1 was a fluke

If we played ND this weekend we would beat them again and anyone on the committee that watched us Saturday should agree

The fact we beat them Head to Head is the only thing that matters now that we proved we made changes to the offense if “eye test” is what matters
 
Going forward the committee needs to re-rank and re-evaluate the entire field when the regular season and conference championships conclude instead of basing the last and most important ranking of all based on prior week to week in season rankings.

It’s that simple. This way you avoid the “punishing” a team nonsense for making a conf championship game when the conferences are a farce these days anyway because of how they are organized.

Should just get rid of conf championships too.
 
Advertisement
MiamiVice7 said:
I want to carve out a space for our best and brightest to make the case for Miami in the CFP. It’s scattered in a million places, let’s put it in one spot.

First, I think we should steelman the ND over Miami argument. In my profession, it’s wise to contemplate the other side’s best position and deal with it head on. Don’t hide the bad stuff. It works against you when your opposition points it out. Hit it first and show why you win anyway. For example, don’t show our common opponent scores and leave Cuse out. It’s there, deal with it.

Then, we need to crystallize our best arguments over ND (and others, I suppose), make it tight, get all our stats/metrics together, and put together quick hitters we and others can blast all over social media. Hold that **** up to the light until it’s blinding.

You might think it’s an exercise in futility, but I disagree. We might as well give it a shot.

There are people inclined to argue in our favor, from us regular folks and local media to country stars and national media. It’s not crazy to think we, as diehards, can put together some of the best arguments which end up getting disseminated on a large stage. Let’s help those who are trying to help us.

We have both the time and ability to influence, that’s the world we live in. And the decision makers can’t help but hear it if the noise is loud enough. We’ve seen it before.

It’s a project worth doing. We should be as good at it as anyone. And why tf not?
Click to expand...
 
TheATLCane said:
The committee...

MemberBackground / Role
Chris AultFormer head coach & athletics director (University of Nevada)
Troy DannenAthletics Director, University of Nebraska
Mark DantonioFormer head coach (e.g. Michigan State)
Mark HarlanAthletics Director, University of Utah (returned to committee for 2025)
Jeff LongFormer athletics director at multiple universities; long-time college athletics admin
Ivan MaiselVeteran college-football journalist / former ESPN + other outlets writer
Chris MassaroAthletics Director, Middle Tennessee State University
Mike RileyFormer college head-coach (Oregon State, Nebraska); at-large representative
David SaylerAthletics Director, Miami (Ohio) University
Wesley WallsFormer college player (All-American tight end at Ole Miss) — representing former-player perspective
Carla WilliamsAthletics Director, University of Virginia
Hunter Yurachek (Chair)Athletics Director, University of Arkansas; currently serves as chair of the committee for 2025–26.
Randall McDaniel (partial / in-rotation)College & Pro Football Hall of Famer, former All-American offensive lineman (Arizona State) — at-large/former-player seat.
Click to expand...
Sad, sorry a** group. Athletic Director = Administrator = Bureaucrat = chickensh*t, keep your head down defender of the status quo. Need more ex coaches and players.
 
MiamiVice7 said:
I want to carve out a space for our best and brightest to make the case for Miami in the CFP. It’s scattered in a million places, let’s put it in one spot.

First, I think we should steelman the ND over Miami argument. In my profession, it’s wise to contemplate the other side’s best position and deal with it head on. Don’t hide the bad stuff. It works against you when your opposition points it out. Hit it first and show why you win anyway. For example, don’t show our common opponent scores and leave Cuse out. It’s there, deal with it.

Then, we need to crystallize our best arguments over ND (and others, I suppose), make it tight, get all our stats/metrics together, and put together quick hitters we and others can blast all over social media. Hold that **** up to the light until it’s blinding.

You might think it’s an exercise in futility, but I disagree. We might as well give it a shot.

There are people inclined to argue in our favor, from us regular folks and local media to country stars and national media. It’s not crazy to think we, as diehards, can put together some of the best arguments which end up getting disseminated on a large stage. Let’s help those who are trying to help us.

We have both the time and ability to influence, that’s the world we live in. And the decision makers can’t help but hear it if the noise is loud enough. We’ve seen it before.

It’s a project worth doing. We should be as good at it as anyone. And why tf not?
Click to expand...
An argument the committee has is ND likely won’t embarrass them. They got in last year after a horrible in-season loss to Northern Illinois or whoever & advanced to the championship game. So, they’ve earned creditability based on their showing a year ago. On the other hand, Miami lacks the committee’s confidence. We’ve been hyped off & on the last two decades & unfortunately have proven a paper tiger. Nice run to finish the season, but ND enjoyed an even longer run.
Don’t knock the messenger, just offering insight to how the committee might see it.
 
Back
Top