It seems very clear that, at least for this week, the Committee will justify ranking Notre Dame above Miami for two main reasons:
1. Notre Dame looks better.
2. Miami has worse losses.
Leave H2H out of this for the moment. Both of these takes are at least arguable. We look better now than we did a few weeks ago, but Notre Dame has looked dominant, albeit against lesser competition. We'd probably be an underdog on a neutral field today. Miami's losses aren't bad (and might get better if the winner of SMU/Louisville gets ranked next week), but they are objectively worse than Notre Dame's. We all know the Miami argument here, so no need to rehash, but allow me to go down a rabbit hole for the moment.
The eye test is bull**** for a ton of different reasons, not the least of which is that somehow university athletic directors are still on the committee, but also because I refuse to believe that all these old white rich football coaches are sitting around watching ball all day and night.
There is a ZERO percent chance that 79-year-old Chris ******* Ault is spending his weekends watching Jordan Lyle slam into the A gap 15 times.
The reason I say this is, and this will sound like excuses, but after Week 1, Mack Rhoades legitimately talked about how Notre Dame's CENTER got hurt in the USC game as part of the team's resiliency or whatever. Fine. Context matters. So can we talk about how Akheem Mesidor missed part of the Louisville game and played hurt in the SMU game? Are we allowed to point out that CJ Daniels and OJ Frederique both missed the SMU game or that Mark Fletcher missed the 4th quarter of the SMU game? Daniels will definitely be back (I think) and hopefully the other guys soon too. Everyone keeps saying "Miami got worse" without even PRETENDING to add any context to those losses. Meanwhile ND's loss to Miami gets qualified up and down and around again.
I get it, those guys are just All-Conference caliber players at key positions. They aren't Notre Dame's Center. But if you want to talk about Miami "getting worse", you sure as **** better be prepared to talk about them "getting better" as they return to full strength.
Maybe Notre Dame would win in a rematch, they are good. But don't ******* tell me that Notre Dame "looks better" when the team that swallowed that vaunted running game whole wasn't even playing at full strength in those losses. I simply will not hear that. If the choice is between some subjective nonsense prediction and an actual game that was played and happened on the field, we've already lost the plot. And I swear I would feel the same way if the roles were reversed.
But nothing irks me more than knowing deep in my soul that my guy Chris Ault accidentally fell asleep during the Marquise Lightfoot unnecessary roughness penalty and because of that, he and this other octogenarians think that the SMU game was a "bad loss".
I understand that opening this door means that Notre Dame can (rightfully) talk about their ***** job against A&M where there was a blatant hold on the winning touchdown. But bad calls affect games every week. I am not even arguing the call against Lightfoot was a bad call. I am arguing that it was a complete and total fluke. How many times have you seen that penalty happen? Once? Never? One could easily argue that Miami didn't lose that game because of bad officiating, they lost because of a once-in-a-generation fluke dead ball penalty on 4th and 9.
I am so sick of hearing about the SMU game as a "bad loss". Did Miami play poorly? Yes. Is the Lightfoot penalty or the refereeing the reason that Miami lost? No, it isn't. But it is contextual. And despite Miami playing one of its worst games all season without THREE key starters in the fourth quarter, SMU still needed a fluky dead ball penalty to win. I think that at least deserves some kind of mention, no?
The problem is that when you start pointing out specific plays in games, the slope gets very slippery very quickly. I didn't watch the entirety of the ND/A&M game, but I am sure ND fans could point to a few plays that should have gone their way.
But that is my whole ******* point. This sport has uneven conferences and uneven schedules, so there is no tried and true way to compare with 100% certainty two teams that didn't play each other. Pointing to penalties and injuries and weather and circumstances and early season v. late season is all relevant, but it is also all completely subjective and not directly influential on anything if the two teams played again.
With all of that in mind, head to head is the truest possible way to settle a debate filled with injuries and strength of record and bad losses and good wins. It is the most distilled and purest way to determine which team is "better". And I am extremely concerned that we are headed towards a path where old *** athletic directors and Condolezza Rice are using their own amateur film breakdowns to judge teams subjectively and as everyone has pointed out, that would mean the death of Top 10 non-conference games, which is a loss for everybody.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
I still think we should play Zaquan Patterson more at safety and don't understand why he can't get more reps.
![Kn[]_[]ckles3o5](https://data.canesinsight.com/avatars/m/6/6575.jpg?1518149361){kind=avatar}
YOU OR DON'T BE SURPRISED WHEN THEY DO.
