Playoff rankings Miami #7

[Jaromir Jagr]

So, in stating that TCU & Oklahoma have had more impressive seasons than Miami, you are affirming that you do believe that their losses to Iowa State are somehow more impressive than Miami losing to no one.

Let that sink in.

"Let that sink in" is one of those lines that shows your age. Come back from 2003.

You really just need to come out and say that you believe the rankings should be auto-sorted by record. The 0-loss teams are automatically first, then the 1-loss teams are automatically next. There's nothing wrong with having a crazy opinion like that. Just own it.

The rest of us agree that the totality of a season may have a 1-loss team ahead of a 0-loss team. Notre Dame is better than Wisconsin and has had a better season than Wisconsin. That's why Notre Dame is #3 with one loss and Wisconsin is #8 with zero losses. The committee believes that the total seasons of OU and TCU are more impressive than what Miami and Wisconsin have done. They are right.

No, that's not my opinion of the situation, so I won't own it.

You said you believe TCU & Oklahoma have had more impressive seasons than Miami has had to this point. That means that, in your opinion, their losses to a 3-loss mediocre Iowa State are more impressive than Miami losing to no one.

Sure, it's a ridiculous opinion, but as you put it, "Just own it."

I've said it about 40 times, so I've owned it already. TCU and Oklahoma, with a loss, have had more impressive seasons than Miami. The same way Clemson has had a more impressive season than Wisconsin. How clear can I make it?

 

[mackjones]

Really blows my mind that **** teams like clemson, TCU, and oklahoma are still ahead of us. Especially Clemson seeing as we beat the team they lost to and beat their best win bigger than they did.

Somebody mentioned ' confirmation bias ' against Miami and all that. Also, I dig how a lot of college football pundits are giving Clemson a ' break ' regarding their lost to Syracuse. Yet at the same time, those same pundits are opining that Miami BARELY defeated Syracuse. hUh. Talk about bloviating out both sides of their ' W-HOLES! ' Or is that talking out of both sides of one's mouth. dUh.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

"Miami and Notre Dame control their own destiny". - ESPN round table

Well dUh, I think every team ranked No. 8 to No. 1 controls their own destiny!

Yeah, but we still have people here who think we could be left out even if we are undefeated, hence the quote.

 

[GenericYesMan]

"Miami and Notre Dame control their own destiny". - ESPN round table

Well dUh, I think every team ranked No. 8 to No. 1 controls their own destiny!

I don't think that Clemson or Wisconsin controls their own destinies.

If Clemson and Oklahoma win out I think Oklahoma might jump them and I can absolutely see an undefeated Wisconsin being left out.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Really blows my mind that **** teams like clemson, TCU, and oklahoma are still ahead of us. Especially Clemson seeing as we beat the team they lost to and beat their best win bigger than they did.

Somebody mentioned ' confirmation bias ' against Miami and all that. Also, I dig how a lot of college football pundits are giving Clemson a ' break ' regarding their lost to Syracuse. Yet at the same time, those same pundits are opining that Miami BARELY defeated Syracuse. hUh. Talk about bloviating out both sides of their ' W-HOLES! ' Or is that talking out of both sides of one's mouth. dUh.

I don't think anyone is saying anything about the Syracuse game. Dungey is impressive and we did well against him. It's more about the facemask bounce to convert a 4th down against GT and watching UNC cross the 50 with a chance to win the game.

 

[mackjones]

Have you guys ever considered that both sides CAN be right?

Should we be objectively ranked ahead of TCU & Oklahoma UP TO THIS POINT? Probably. Good arguments here. There is even an argument to be made that we should be ahead of Clemson. Is there a possibility that we could JUMP a one loss TCU or Oklahoma by the end of the season....even if we lost this weekend? Possibly but unlikely. TCU really hasn't beaten anyone of note outside of OKST. I think objectively speaking Oklahoma has an even more suspect resume. Numerous one score wins against sub-par opponents. Difference being, their road win @OSU. The committee is giving a **** of a lot of weight to that win atm. The committee is obviously weighing Clemsons wins VS. Auburn, VT & NCSU much more than their loss to Syracuse (committee said it devalued that loss, based on injured QB).

Have we been completely underwhelming in almost EVERY game this year OUTSIDE of the VT game last week? Yep. We haven't done the best job convincing the rest of the country that we are "BACK" or for real. ****, read our message boards after each game this year (even Bethune). We haven't put together a complete game yet (VT close - turnovers).

The thing we can take from this whole scenario up till this point is:

1.) How you win matters. The eye test matters. Feelings/emotion matter.

2.) The committee values good wins a lot more than losses. (Even though it's tough to justify TCU's ranking)

3.) The committee hasn't been afraid to shake things up on a weekly basis based on the totality of season. It's fluid. They did it last year during the last rankings w/TCU. If we start playing cleaner and more impressively, I would assume it would reflect in our rankings.

I personally don't think it's an anti-Miami bias. I highly doubt we will have this constant issue w/ the committee just because we are Miami. Once we start proving consistently we are BACK and playing clean/dominant football we'll get the respect.

I do believe that there is a pro-SEC bias, obviously, but that is a separate issue.

I beg to disagree. For instance, there's an ANTI-MIAMI thing among the VAST MAJORITY, but not all, of the college football media-nexus ( telly, radio and print )! hUh. And believe it or not. That anti-Miami PROCLIVITY is probably seeded among more than a handful of the selectors! dUh. In other words, it's called the FLAWED human element and what not.

Never-the-less, I'll go with the following scenario. Once Miami defeats mighty ND Saturday night , and No.1, No.2, No. 4 and No. 5 win on Saturday. I absolutely GUARANTEE Miami will be ranked ' No. 5! ' next Tuesday evening. When they should be ranked either No. 3 or No. 4 following their soon to be win over mighty ND. hUh.

 

[ddann]

So, in stating that TCU & Oklahoma have had more impressive seasons than Miami, you are affirming that you do believe that their losses to Iowa State are somehow more impressive than Miami losing to no one.

Let that sink in.

"Let that sink in" is one of those lines that shows your age. Come back from 2003.

You really just need to come out and say that you believe the rankings should be auto-sorted by record. The 0-loss teams are automatically first, then the 1-loss teams are automatically next. There's nothing wrong with having a crazy opinion like that. Just own it.

The rest of us agree that the totality of a season may have a 1-loss team ahead of a 0-loss team. Notre Dame is better than Wisconsin and has had a better season than Wisconsin. That's why Notre Dame is #3 with one loss and Wisconsin is #8 with zero losses. The committee believes that the total seasons of OU and TCU are more impressive than what Miami and Wisconsin have done. They are right.

No, that's not my opinion of the situation, so I won't own it.

You said you believe TCU & Oklahoma have had more impressive seasons than Miami has had to this point. That means that, in your opinion, their losses to a 3-loss mediocre Iowa State are more impressive than Miami losing to no one.

Sure, it's a ridiculous opinion, but as you put it, "Just own it."

I've said it about 40 times, so I've owned it already. TCU and Oklahoma, with a loss, have had more impressive seasons than Miami. The same way Clemson has had a more impressive season than Wisconsin. How clear can I make it?

It's not that you haven't made your opinion clear. It's that your opinion is nonsensical.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

It's not that you haven't made your opinion clear. It's that your opinion is nonsensical.

Oh, I couldn't care less that you think my opinion, which is shared by everyone outside of Coral Gables, is nonsensical. I apologize if I implied that I wanted your approval.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Have you guys ever considered that both sides CAN be right?

Should we be objectively ranked ahead of TCU & Oklahoma UP TO THIS POINT? Probably. Good arguments here. There is even an argument to be made that we should be ahead of Clemson. Is there a possibility that we could JUMP a one loss TCU or Oklahoma by the end of the season....even if we lost this weekend? Possibly but unlikely. TCU really hasn't beaten anyone of note outside of OKST. I think objectively speaking Oklahoma has an even more suspect resume. Numerous one score wins against sub-par opponents. Difference being, their road win @OSU. The committee is giving a **** of a lot of weight to that win atm. The committee is obviously weighing Clemsons wins VS. Auburn, VT & NCSU much more than their loss to Syracuse (committee said it devalued that loss, based on injured QB).

Have we been completely underwhelming in almost EVERY game this year OUTSIDE of the VT game last week? Yep. We haven't done the best job convincing the rest of the country that we are "BACK" or for real. ****, read our message boards after each game this year (even Bethune). We haven't put together a complete game yet (VT close - turnovers).

The thing we can take from this whole scenario up till this point is:

1.) How you win matters. The eye test matters. Feelings/emotion matter.

2.) The committee values good wins a lot more than losses. (Even though it's tough to justify TCU's ranking)

3.) The committee hasn't been afraid to shake things up on a weekly basis based on the totality of season. It's fluid. They did it last year during the last rankings w/TCU. If we start playing cleaner and more impressively, I would assume it would reflect in our rankings.

I personally don't think it's an anti-Miami bias. I highly doubt we will have this constant issue w/ the committee just because we are Miami. Once we start proving consistently we are BACK and playing clean/dominant football we'll get the respect.

I do believe that there is a pro-SEC bias, obviously, but that is a separate issue.

I beg to disagree. For instance, there's an ANTI-MIAMI thing among the VAST MAJORITY, but not all, of the college football media-nexus ( telly, radio and print )! hUh. And believe it or not. That anti-Miami PROCLIVITY is probably seeded among more than a handful of the selectors! dUh. In other words, it's called the FLAWED human element and what not.

Never-the-less, I'll go with the following scenario. Once Miami defeats mighty ND Saturday night , and No.1, No.2, No. 4 and No. 5 win on Saturday. I absolutely GUARANTEE Miami will be ranked ' No. 5! ' next Tuesday evening. When they should be ranked either No. 3 or No. 4 following their soon to be win over mighty ND. hUh.

Who cares? We have another game coming up against #3 .

 

[ddann]

It's not that you haven't made your opinion clear. It's that your opinion is nonsensical.

Oh, I couldn't care less that you think my opinion, which is shared by everyone outside of Coral Gables, is nonsensical. I apologize if I implied that I wanted your approval.

I know you don't care and there is no apology needed.

And FWIW, I'm not in Coral Gables, so there.

 

[TheEye]

Still early to care about these but whatever. #7 is ok but i still don’t think we should be behind Clemson, Oklahoma, or TCU.

We will get to prove who is better after we play ND and Clemson. I don't GAF at this point. I am happy future opponents are ranked ahead of us. It helps the SOS.

 

[Loose Cannon]

You are, literally, the worst arguer on this board.

Nobody said that those people "hate" Wisconsin. Wisconsin just moved up 1 spot.

You have never, over the last week, ever rebutted a single one of my arguments. You keep losing arguments, and then you keep trying to change the subject ("oh, people hate Wisconsin now").

You are a clown show.

Undefeated Miami is #7 : "They hate us and this is how it's going to be every year."

Undefeated Wisconsin is #8 : "Uh......they moved up a spot. No one hates them."

This is tee-ball. Too easy.

His argument has never been that we're ranked where we are because they hate us. That's the argument you want him to have because that's the only argument you think you can win.

He has repeatedly brought up confirmation bias. That's not necessarily a committee bias against Miami, but rather a bias towards their preconceptions. The voters; coaches, AP, committee, all of them have shared the narrative that Miami is a fraud and that we've only managed to remain undefeated based on luck. His argument has been that something outside of us simply winning must happen in order for the committee to overcome that notion that we are lucky to be where we are. The teams that the committee and the poll voters have already predetermined are better than us MUST DO SOMETHING to prove that the poll voters and the committee are wrong, I.E. suffer an historically bad upset to unranked Iowa.

Let me give you two examples of confirmation bias. The first, Miami. The voters think we're frauds and that we've been lucky to make it this far. Yeah we finally beat a ranked opponent, but we really struggled in games against awful teams like FSU and UNC. The Hurricanes are pretenders, not contenders.

Number two, Oklahoma. Oklahoma is one of the best teams in the country and has a Heisman candidate under center. Yeah they struggled on the road to beat 1-8 Baylor 49-41, and yeah unranked Iowa State came to Norman and upset the Sooners, but the college season is long and the road is sometimes bumpy. Good teams find a way to win...except when they don't.

That is confirmation bias. The voters and the committee are biased towards their own opinion that Miami is a fraud, and not much has been able to change that. Not gutsy road victories, rivalry wins, or wins against top 15 competition. But a game against UNC can confirm their bias. On the other hand, the committee and the voters are biased towards their opinion that OU is an elite contender, and not much has been able to change that. Not struggling with 1-8 Baylor or being upset by an unranked opponent. But a 62-52 **** show against Oklahoma State is enough to confirm their bias.

Ignoring any evidence that should challenge your opinion while accepting any evidence that confirms it is called confirmation bias. We all suffer from it, and it usually takes something beyond our control to make us realize it. These teams that the committee has already deemed are better than us must prove that they are not. There are only two teams ranked above us where we directly control the narrative, ND and Clemson. If the rest don't lose, it is unlikely that the committee is going to just change their mind about how good they are.

Your argument has been that those teams ahead of us would lose, to which we have responded, "Yes. Probably. But that is not us controlling our destiny. That is us relying on outside factors." A high probability that those things that help us will happen is not at all the same as us being in control of those things.

 

[mackjones]

U forgot to mention mighty OU struggled on the road against Kansas St.- Final score, 42-35. Then the narrow win in OVER TIME against bitter rival Texas.:sanford: Nevertheless, I understand the gest of your perspective and all that.

 

[mackjones]

An example of confirmation bias by U know who... ABC/ESPN college football. hUh. For instance, a majority, but not all, of ESPN college football pundits BELIEVE that Miami is NOT BACK, and Miami is a PRETENDER. Enter evidence No. 1- Miami is on upset alert against Duke; evidence No. 2- Miami, again, is on upset alert against FSU; evidence No. 3- Miami, for the third consecutive week, is on upset alert against GA. Tech; and finally evidence No. 4. - Miami is on upset alert in their home game against Syracuse. A game which Syracuse is coming off a stunning upset win against mighty Clemson.

 

[Loose Cannon]

"Miami and Notre Dame control their own destiny". - ESPN round table

Well dUh, I think every team ranked No. 8 to No. 1 controls their own destiny!

I think you and [MENTION=13137]Jaromir Jagr[/MENTION] completely misunderstand the term "Control their own destiny." We only control the games we play. At the time the original argument was made last week, there were 6 one loss teams ahead of us and 3 undefeated teams. We only HAD to play one of them, and only three others HAD to lose due to playing each other. Given that scenario, the argument was presented that, although highly improbable, but entirely plausible, Miami could go undefeated and rise no higher than 7th. This was entirely based on certain teams winning out, and other teams losing out. For example, Miami defeats VaTech, and VaTech goes on to lose to GaTech, Pitt, and Virginia. Then Miami defeats ND, but they go on to lose to Navy and Stanford. Then Clemson loses to NC State, FSU, and SCar. In that scenario, Miami has really no impressive wins, and face an average NC State team in the ACCCG. It was proposed that in that case, Ohio State and Oklahoma might win out with both UGA and Bama taking up the remaining spots in the CFP.

It was never proposed that the above scenario was likely; just that it was possible, and as long as it is possible, we do not CONTROL our own destiny. Mr. Jagr want's to come in and beat his chest after Ohio State and Penn State both bit the pillow this weekend as if he saw it coming and it is proof of his position, when in all actuality, it is proof of mine. We had zero control of those games, and had they gone the other way, we'd be 9th or maybe still 10th.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

I think you and [MENTION=13137]Jaromir Jagr[/MENTION] completely misunderstand the term "Control their own destiny."

Jagr misunderstands nothing. Jagr is amused at the way the argument changes with each new post. If Miami finishes 12-0, Miami will be in the playoffs. That is controlling your own destiny. If we lose a game, we also lose control of what happens to us.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Mr. Jagr want's to come in and beat his chest after Ohio State and Penn State both bit the pillow this weekend as if he saw it coming and it is proof of his position, when in all actuality, it is proof of mine. We had zero control of those games, and had they gone the other way, we'd be 9th or maybe still 10th.

This explains it in a nutshell. Jagr knew all along that the Big 10 would devour themselves. They have a conference championship. They HAVE to devour themselves by default. Same with the Big 12. All but one has to lose. Jagr didn't predict the demise of OSU and PSU in a specific week, but Jagr knew it was a mathematical certainty that the Big 10 would eventually whittle itself down to one. Meanwhile, you guys are shocked that top ten teams lost in November.

This comes from experience. While you guys are running the scenarios in which every team ahead of us wins out, the veterans know that going undefeated guarantees you a top 3 spot.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Given that scenario, the argument was presented that, although highly improbable, but entirely plausible, Miami could go undefeated and rise no higher than 7th.

This is an absolute bastardization of facts. There did not exist a scenario in which Miami went undefeated and finished #7 . The people who claimed it then and stick by it now don't understand what they are watching.

 

[jhtheking]

If we win out, there is 0.0 chance that we don't make the playoffs..

You're late to this thread. The debate isn't whether we win out, but why a 1 loss Miami will likely never have a shot at the CFB playoffs.

The committee, as expected, has a love affair w the SEC, despite this being one of the worst years for that conference. LSU still ranked? (to inflate Bama's **** schedule). LSU got boat raced at home by Troy. Were down 17 at one point I believe.

And Auburn the highest 2 loss? Gtfoh. Auburn's best win is over #18 Miss St. Mark my word - they will lose to UGA and Bama and still be ranked in top 15-20. I mean they are #10 at this point lol. Their coach is on the hot seat too. If he loses both of those games he might be fired.

****, I would put a 3 loss Iowa St over Auburn at this point. 2 top 6 wins.
Michigan St also has a better resume, etc etc.

The SEC has 2 teams - UGA and Bama. The rest are fvckin garbage. How many coaches are getting fired in that league? It's a **** conference at the moment and should be treated that way.

And TCU ahead of Miami is an absolute travesty. You could also argue that Clemson and OU shouldn't be ahead of us either. But TCU is the obvious one.

The guy I and the guy you quoted were replying to was talking about winning out. So we were on topic. The topic of this thread is playoff ranking if we want to be pedants.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Mr. Jagr want's to come in and beat his chest after Ohio State and Penn State both bit the pillow this weekend as if he saw it coming and it is proof of his position, when in all actuality, it is proof of mine. We had zero control of those games, and had they gone the other way, we'd be 9th or maybe still 10th.

This explains it in a nutshell. Jagr knew all along that the Big 10 would devour themselves. They have a conference championship. They HAVE to devour themselves by default. Same with the Big 12. All but one has to lose. Jagr didn't predict the demise of OSU and PSU in a specific week, but Jagr knew it was a mathematical certainty that the Big 10 would eventually whittle itself down to one. Meanwhile, you guys are shocked that top ten teams lost in November.

This comes from experience. While you guys are running the scenarios in which every team ahead of us wins out, the veterans know that going undefeated guarantees you a top 3 spot.

Nobody is shocked about ****. You are the most dense ************ on the planet. Nobody ever once suggested that all of the teams above us would win out. Nobody ever suggested the absolutely ridiculous premise that teams that play each other would somehow end with nobody losing. You are arguing against an absurdity that nobody is claiming but you, and you're thumping your chest about how absurd it is.

You just made my point for me, ya stupid ****. The Big 12 will whittle itself down to 1. Their two best teams are ahead of us right now and there is no reason, ******* ZERO, to expect that the winner will fall below us. Lat week when the argument was made, all three of the top B1G teams were ahead of us and there was no reason to expect that we'd jump ahead of Ohio State unless it was them that lost. We didn't control that game, you ******* rube. We don't control the outcome of the Big 12. We don't control the committee's desire to see two SEC teams in the playoffs. We don't control anything except the games we play, and you don't know ****. You're betting in favor of the higher probability and claiming that it's the only possibility. You are absolutely, mathematically, 100% wrong, and the outcome does not change that what so ever.

Your argument is the equivalent of a moron saying that Mike Tyson had no shot against Buster Douglas, and claiming you were right based on the outcome. Outcomes do not effect probability.