Ha. This was very predictable the minute they ditched the computer system, which most everyone hated. I'd have no problem letting computers pick the teams, but people would be criticizing that after one year.
I'll start......how are Alabama, Cincinnati and Oklahoma ahead of Michigan State?
Presumably, you like it better because you see Cincy at #2. That's the problem, that's all some people care about, that the "little guy" gets ranked as high as possible, no matter how many big schools get overlooked in the process.
I like it better because it has Ohio State outside the top 4.Ha. This was very predictable the minute they ditched the computer system, which most everyone hated. I'd have no problem letting computers pick the teams, but people would be criticizing that after one year.
I'll start......how are Alabama, Cincinnati and Oklahoma ahead of Michigan State?
Presumably, you like it better because you see Cincy at #2. That's the problem, that's all some people care about, that the "little guy" gets ranked as high as possible, no matter how many big schools get overlooked in the process.
Why is Oregon behind Ohio State? Why is Wake Forest not in there somewhere? They fixed the computers so Notre Dame wouldn't drop below #8!!Eight-team playoff would help (though the teams left out of that would gripe).
You understand the season isnt over today.Why is Oregon behind Ohio State? Why is Wake Forest not in there somewhere? They fixed the computers so Notre Dame wouldn't drop below #8!!
Yeah, that really wouldn't stop the bitching.
Name checks out.
For a 68-team tourney, a selection committee is fine, the room for error is more.
For football, its the dumbest thing about the sport besides the targeting penalty.
Bring back the computers I say.
I do. Same principle applies with your initial post though too, right? Everyone seems to be jumping the gun on Cincy not being a Top 4 team with 5 weeks left in the season.You understand the season isnt over today.
I do. Same principle applies with your initial post though too, right? Everyone seems to be jumping the gun on Cincy not being a Top 4 team with 5 weeks left in the season.
Well, nobody moves the goalposts more than the typical fan. Start with result you want, and then work back from that. Might be best win one year, might be best/worst loss another, might be strength of schedule, might be point margin in another year. Pick the data point that best supports your team and that's the one you're gonna say is most important.Yeah fair, its just the committee really moves the goal posts accordingly for the power 5. Whereas BCS would be "a little" more objective.
And a G5 team could end up #2 in the final poll having played only three games against teams from major conferences. That will very likely never happen again.I'll go a step further...let's just go back to pre-BCS when they told you up front it was nothing more than a beauty pageant that was decided by drunken sportswriters rather than by computers or a dubious committee.
At least going to a Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl or Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl or Cotton Bowl meant something huge to the non blue-blood programs.
When your team lost a game, the season wasn't over. You still had something meaningful to play for. And you could argue the entire off-season about why you think 13-0 TCU after winning a Cotton Bowl was better than 12-1 Alabama, who beat 10-3 Florida State in the Sugar Bowl.
I can't believe how easy it was to reel you in.And a G5 team could end up #2 in the final poll having played only three games against teams from major conferences. That will very likely never happen again.
Now the refrain is we can't compete with the Bama's and Ohio State's of the world unless we start landing some 5-star talent. I'm not sure we even had a 4-star kid on that Rose Bowl team, so what changed?
Yep, it's not that hard.I can't believe how easy it was to reel you in.
No - "everyone" is not saying that Oregon, who lost to an unranked Stanford, should be highly ranked. I'm certainly not. Not above Ohio State and certainly not above undefeated teams like Cincinnati or OU. Why do you think "everyone" is saying that? Similarly, in 2014, Baylor lost to West Virginia, who lost to TCU - TCU should have been ranked higher because their records weren't the same. No, I don't see what you mean - H2h is important but not necessarily dispositive.Well, nobody moves the goalposts more than the typical fan. Start with result you want, and then work back from that. Might be best win one year, might be best/worst loss another, might be strength of schedule, might be point margin in another year. Pick the data point that best supports your team and that's the one you're gonna say is most important.
Case in point, just look at the current rankings. Everyone says Oregon has to be ahead of Ohio State because they beat them. Same record, so there's just no way you can put Ohio State ahead of them, right? Just no way, no how. I mean, Oregon beat them. And that argument will be made from now until the end of the year as long as each of those teams has one loss. Fair enough, I don't have a problem with it. But 7 years ago, it was not only acceptable, but it was appropriate, that in the case of two teams that played each other and had the same record, for the losing team in that HTH matchup to be ranked ahead of the winner. See what I mean?