jjbrr Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 and when bama indeed drops to like 7th and you think to yourself "lol bama is better than half the teams in the top 6" this will be a perfect example of a team that suffers a loss early on and climbs back up the rankings with solid play the rest of the year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 Auburn at Miss St this week! I wonder how far the loser will drop in the rankings if the game is close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Baylor 61 TCU 58. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 man, ole miss and miss state are legit. its hard to imagine that bama or auburn aren't even a top three team in their conference, let alone the country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 its hard to imagine that bama or auburn aren't even a top three team in their conference, let alone the countryOr in their division within their conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Or in their division within their conference. yeah, the east is a dumpster fire. lol@gurleylol@the ncaalol@treon harris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 yeah, the east is a dumpster fire. lol@gurleylol@the ncaalol@treon harrislol Alabama 14 Arkansas 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 lol Alabama 14 Arkansas 13 i support any and all lol bamas, but an sec win is an sec win. im actually shocked miss st moved to #1 on a week fsu also won, so i assume awm's mind is completely blown. i don't expect miss st to hang on the whole season. and Godgers looked like Godgers at the end of the game today. Fun weekend of football Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Auburn at Miss St this week! I wonder how far the loser will drop in the rankings if the game is close.I'm glad to see that Auburn is top-ranked among one-loss teams. im actually shocked miss st moved to #1 on a week fsu also won, so i assume awm's mind is completely blown. i don't expect miss st to hang on the whole season.I'm surprised this actually happened, but I think it's completely right. MsSt has beaten #8, #6 and #2 by a total of 37 points; FSU needed OT to beat #22 and hasn't played anyone else noteworthy. Unless they trounce ND this coming week, they don't deserve any #1 votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flem72 Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Strength of schedule rankings are notoriously variable, but I have seen Florida St ranked at 30 and at 60. How much does it take to dominate the ACC? The Domers could do everyone a big favor this weekend. EDIT: For games as of Oct 11, now 29 and 68. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) Do Baylor and Notre Dame fall below Auburn and Alabama, leaving SEC (West) as 4 of the top 5? Edited October 19, 2014 by Bbradley62 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 love to see ND and Fs on a neutral field.... No one understands football rules see that last play where ND win called back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 No one understands football rules see that last play where ND win called back.The rule is not really complicated. Receivers are not allowed to block DBs before the pass is caught. Enforcement is trickier. Were the receivers blocking, or were the DBs chucking the receivers? Basically, a judgement call as to who initiated the contact. Looking at the replay, I agreed with the call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 “The thing about Mississippi State is, that game with Alabama, while we would say Alabama controlled that game and won, it did end up a five-point game and you never felt like Mississippi State was out of that game,” Long said. “So while Alabama controlled it, Mississippi State was within striking distance in that game.” A quick glace at the boxscore would tell you that the touchdown to make it a five-point game came with 15 seconds remaining when the game was well in hand. Long is the Playoff Committee chairman. Rankings still rigged; not enough focus on OOC schedule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 What's the relevance of OOC schedule? Strength of Schedule is the relevant factor; it doesn't matter whether facing a particular opponent is mandated or voluntary. If your list of mandated opponents is unimpressive, you have to go out of your way to schedule impressive voluntary opponents, otherwise you cannot be included in the national playoff conversation (see: Marshall). If your conference schedule includes five Top 10 caliber opponents, you shouldn't be expected to add major opponents for your voluntary schedule. Please explain in what way you think the rankings are rigged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Can anyone explain to me why the SEC teams are all rated so high? They don't seem to really play anyone of significance outside their conference. In fact last week while the PAC-12 teams had a number of big matchups the SEC all seemed to have scheduled "patsies" who weren't even in the top division! Yet coming into today, SEC teams held positions 4-8 in the polls. With #1 and #2 losing, it appears that if USC beats Notre Dame next week (no guarantee, but certainly possible) we will be headed for our second straight SEC vs. SEC national championship game. And once again, one of the teams in this game will not even have had a good enough record to play for the SEC championship (presumably the national championship will pit the SEC winner against some one-loss SEC team, and the SEC championship loser will have two losses). Really seems to me that to play in the national championship, you should have to win your conference... Anyway it will be good to see a playoff system next year! What's the relevance of OOC schedule? Strength of Schedule is the relevant factor; it doesn't matter whether facing a particular opponent is mandated or voluntary. If your list of mandated opponents is unimpressive, you have to go out of your way to schedule impressive voluntary opponents, otherwise you cannot be included in the national playoff conversation (see: Marshall). If your conference schedule includes five Top 10 caliber opponents, you shouldn't be expected to add major opponents for your voluntary schedule. Please explain in what way you think the rankings are rigged. Excellent two year anniversary response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Excellent two year anniversary response.Sorry for not being more clear -- I was replying to your post from 9 hours earlier, the one directly above mine, the one with the terms "OOC" and "rigged". PS: I do actually have some sympathy for AWM's statement that you should have to win your conference to be eligible for the national championship; I think it would be good to have a rule change saying that the four teams chosen for the national playoffs will be chosen from among the various conference champions, possibly treating "independents" as a conference for this purpose. But that's not what the rules currently are. Given that the rules are that the "four best teams" are to be chosen for the playoffs, I don't see any bias in the current rankings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Sorry for not being more clear -- I was replying to your post from 9 hours earlier, the one directly above mine, the one with the terms "OOC" and "rigged". PS: I do actually have some sympathy for AWM's statement that you should have to win your conference to be eligible for the national championship; I think it would be good to have a rule change saying that the four teams chosen for the national playoffs will be chosen from among the various conference champions, possibly treating "independents" as a conference for this purpose. But that's not what the rules currently are. Given that the rules are that the "four best teams" are to be chosen for the playoffs, I don't see any bias in the current rankings. I'm not sure why you're so confused. I was mocking the OP because the things he complained about two years ago are still true today, and as you pointed out in your response, were totally silly to begin with. It's obviously wrong to base NC or playoff eligibility on conference success when conference success ignores a school's whole body of work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 It's obviously wrong to base NC or playoff eligibility on conference success when conference success ignores a school's whole body of work.That's fair. Losing one (conference championship) game shouldn't necessarily disqualify a team from national championship playoff consideration (see: Florida State). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 There are practical considerations as well. The NCAA wants this inaugural playoff to be a smashing success. It probably will be. One way it might not be, is if it lacks national appeal due to being perceived as a rehash of the SEC season/championship. Three SEC teams in the four team field would almost certainly promote widespread indifference due to redundancy. Basically, the attitude of "didn't we already do this?" With two SEC teams, there might still be some of this, especially if they meet in the title game. These scenarios would interfere with the financial and promotional success of the whole scheme. Anyone who wants to is free to consider the SEC championship as more important than the 4-team national playoff. I expect many people will. However, an ostensibly national event should be just that. We already have an SEC championship, we don't need another one. Because of all this, I strongly support a one-team-per-conference rule in the 4-team format. This rule does not exist in writing, but the committee might use it in practice. If the SEC is really so superior, it won't matter anyway, because their team will still win. An 8-team format would be much simpler, with one automatic bid for each major conference, plus at large bids. In this format, I would support a max 2-team per conference rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Anyone who wants to is free to consider the SEC championship as more important than the 4-team national playoff. I expect many people will. However, an ostensibly national event should be just that. We already have an SEC championship, we don't need another one. You are aware that the two best teams in the SEC are both in the western division, right? I would probably agree with a lot of what you're saying if the conference championships games made any attempt to have the two best teams in a conference play in the game, but that's simply not how the conference championship games work. If the season ended today, Missouri, who lost to Indiana and Georgia, would play against Bama. Missouri's "quality" wins are against South Carolina and TAMU. Georgia has wins against Clemson, USC, Missouri, and Auburn. So not only would the two best teams in the SEC not meet in the championship game, the best team in the east division wouldn't even play in the game, which is not an uncommon thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 You are aware that the two best teams in the SEC are both in the western division, right? I would probably agree with a lot of what you're saying if the conference championships games made any attempt to have the two best teams in a conference play in the game, but that's simply not how the conference championship games work. If the season ended today, Missouri, who lost to Indiana and Georgia, would play against Bama. Missouri's "quality" wins are against South Carolina and TAMU. Georgia has wins against Clemson, USC, Missouri, and Auburn. So not only would the two best teams in the SEC not meet in the championship game, the best team in the east division wouldn't even play in the game, which is not an uncommon thing.Sure, it can happen, but it doesn't really bother me. That second best team in the west already finished second. By virtue of a head to head game, for that matter. So that is already settled IMO. (assuming both teams win out) Yes, I do think that Baylor belongs above TCU for this same reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Nevermind. I simply don't agree with either adding randomness to the selection process or rewarding shitty conferences for being shitty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Nevermind. I simply don't agree with either adding randomness to the selection process or rewarding shitty conferences for being shitty.And of course, "shitty conferences" means any that is not the SEC, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 No, I meant the objectively bad conferences like the ACC and Big Ten this year as opposed to the objectively good conferences like the Big 12, PAC 12, and SEC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.