CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

Two spots below Michigan after being bull whipped by them this weekend. A prime example of why people should have nothing to do with ranking teams.

Spence wrote:Two spots below Michigan after being bull whipped by them this weekend. A prime example of why people should have nothing to do with ranking teams.

Which is why I like that the committee does not use the AP or Coaches polls as a factor in their decision making.

I just wish they'd be a little more transparent in their ranking selections. One thing I do not like about the committee, is that when membership changes, so does their rationale of subjectivity. It's like a fail safe for them. They can merely claim that each voter has his or her own method. Which means the voting criteria is always changing.

.
.
.

Cane from the Bend wrote:

Spence wrote:Two spots below Michigan after being bull whipped by them this weekend. A prime example of why people should have nothing to do with ranking teams.

Which is why I like that the committee does not use the AP or Coaches polls as a factor in their decision making.

I just wish they'd be a little more transparent in their ranking selections. One thing I do not like about the committee, is that when membership changes, so does their rationale of subjectivity. It's like a fail safe for them. They can merely claim that each voter has his or her own method. Which means the voting criteria is always changing.

.
.
.

They may claimed not to be influenced by the media, but they are influenced. There shouldn't be polls or a committee. if there is going to be a playoff it should be a tournament of champions or they should forget it and go back to the old way.

Spence wrote:

Cane from the Bend wrote:

Spence wrote:Two spots below Michigan after being bull whipped by them this weekend. A prime example of why people should have nothing to do with ranking teams.

Which is why I like that the committee does not use the AP or Coaches polls as a factor in their decision making.

I just wish they'd be a little more transparent in their ranking selections. One thing I do not like about the committee, is that when membership changes, so does their rationale of subjectivity. It's like a fail safe for them. They can merely claim that each voter has his or her own method. Which means the voting criteria is always changing.

.
.
.

They may claimed not to be influenced by the media, but they are influenced. There shouldn't be polls or a committee. if there is going to be a playoff it should be a tournament of champions or they should forget it and go back to the old way.

This is exactly how I feel. I was personally was much happier when unbiased computers were doing it than these popularity contests where a team like Notre Dame gets a boost because of who they are.....which no one seems to be able to explain what that is.

That was a signature win for Michigan.

And to think, those same folks demand sooooo much precision on the field of play from the players, sooooo much precision from the coaches in game planning and play calling, sooooo much from the game officials even to the level of ‘instant’ replay, and sooooo many rules to govern the game........ and then, using their own subjectivity and rules, rank teams.

Spence wrote:

Cane from the Bend wrote:

Spence wrote:Two spots below Michigan after being bull whipped by them this weekend. A prime example of why people should have nothing to do with ranking teams.

Which is why I like that the committee does not use the AP or Coaches polls as a factor in their decision making.

I just wish they'd be a little more transparent in their ranking selections. One thing I do not like about the committee, is that when membership changes, so does their rationale of subjectivity. It's like a fail safe for them. They can merely claim that each voter has his or her own method. Which means the voting criteria is always changing.

They may claimed not to be influenced by the media, but they are influenced. There shouldn't be polls or a committee. if there is going to be a playoff it should be a tournament of champions or they should forget it and go back to the old way.

Yes, as I have agreed with this sentiment every time it gets posted in a thread; that is what Should happen ... However

It is not what we have. And when the system changes; it will obviously be to an 8 team playoff; seeing as how the puppets are already feeding the masters word to the general viewer to accept it when it does finally happen --- It will just be more of the same. Because they are going to keep the Group of 5 out, by ranking the best of the group at 10 or below. Then we'll see 2 teams from the best conferences, with a spot available for Notre Dame.

Nothing is going to change, except for the number of schools getting more money.

That being said; even if the Committee is influenced, they have shown that their poll differs enough to that of the media, where they cry foul every year. And I like it when they do not get what they want.

.
.
.

They are never going to take it out of human control. They have 64 teams in the basketball tournament plus a play in and there is still humans controlling seeding and who gets in. It is because they want the brand schools in position to win because they make money. I happen to be a fan of a brand school, so most of the time it benefits the school I like, but that doesn't make it right. Minnesota is undefeated, but if they end up the only undefeated winner of the B1G a 1 loss Oklahoma would go in front of them. Even if they lost to a one loss team. Do I believe in Minnesota - no. But that isn't the point. We assume Alabama is good. So anyone who plays Alabama tight must be good. We assume because Clemson beat Alabama they must be really good. But it is all really based on assumptions. What if Bama wasn't that good, then everything we thought would be wrong. Ohio State, so far this year looks very good. I have seen every game, they look very, very good. But what if the reason for that is because everyone they play has been bad and we just don't really no it? There is not enough real evidence to compare teams. That is why the only fair way is to play champions. Does it make sure the best teams play? No. But it makes sure every team has a fair shot at the playoff.

Spence wrote:They are never going to take it out of human control. They have 64 teams in the basketball tournament plus a play in and there is still humans controlling seeding and who gets in. It is because they want the brand schools in position to win because they make money. I happen to be a fan of a brand school, so most of the time it benefits the school I like, but that doesn't make it right. Minnesota is undefeated, but if they end up the only undefeated winner of the B1G a 1 loss Oklahoma would go in front of them. Even if they lost to a one loss team. Do I believe in Minnesota - no. But that isn't the point. We assume Alabama is good. So anyone who plays Alabama tight must be good. We assume because Clemson beat Alabama they must be really good. But it is all really based on assumptions. What if Bama wasn't that good, then everything we thought would be wrong. Ohio State, so far this year looks very good. I have seen every game, they look very, very good. But what if the reason for that is because everyone they play has been bad and we just don't really no it? There is not enough real evidence to compare teams. That is why the only fair way is to play champions. Does it make sure the best teams play? No. But it makes sure every team has a fair shot at the playoff.

Yes, that is almost all true ... except the part of an Undefeated Minnesota getting jumped by a 1 loss Oklahoma. No Power5 team that goes Undefeated will miss the tournament, unless there are 5 Undefeated Power5 teams; 1 from each conference --- Minnesota will be playing the bulk end of their schedule very soon; and the talking Heads are already advocating their upcoming Schedule strength --- If they get by Penn State, Iowa & Wisconsin, then they'll have the B1G Championship game --- Don't be surprised if Ohio State is ranked 1 or 2 in the committee's poll, right along side of LSU. The only way Minnesota beating the Buckeyes becomes a Bad Win, is if OSU loses out. Ohio St would still be ranked somewhere in the top 15 if they just lose their last 2 games vs Penn St & Michigan. But losing the Maryland & Rutgers games would be schedule fatality. However, even should the Bucks lose to Penn St & Michigan, Minnesota would still have to Penn State or Ohio State for the B1G Title --- Oklahoma lost to unranked Kansas St. And Oklahoma's best Conference opponents also lost this past weekend (Texas & Iowa St) ... As it stands; Oklahoma would need Minnesota to lose at least 1, in order to be considered for the playoff.

That being said; I do believe the bias is strong enough that we could see 2 teams from the SEC get into the playoff. Oklahoma losing certainly opened the door wider for that likelihood to occur. Notre Dame losing in a trouncing didn't help matters much, either.

Essentially, you are right.

A Tournament of Champions is the only fair way to have an unbiased system. Again, though; that is not what we have, nor will it be. They will eventually expand the Playoff to 8 teams, and it will all remain subjective.

In the meantime, we still have 4 --- That much I can only expostulate the "who's in" conversation by de facto. And so far, the conversation over the last few years has been, rightfully or wrongfully, pretty consistent.

I will say this about Notre Dame.

As much as I do not like them; it's hard to have the 13th data point scrutiny stand up, when two years ago Alabama lost to Auburn, then Auburn lost to Georgia. We saw Alabama go on to win the National Championship, with only 12 data points for the season. While their SEC East Division opponents were 5-7 Vanderbilt & 4-8 Tennessee. Their Out of Conference opponents were 6-6 Florida State, a respectable 9-4 Fresno State, 7-5 Colorado State & 5-6 Mercer who finished 5-4 in FCS competition.

I know you do not advocate two teams from the same conference playing in the tournament. And I know you do not want to see non Conference Champions participating.

Unfortunately, that is how it is ... and teams like Alabama playing for the Title when they didn't even play for the conference championship, only having 12 data points going into tournament play, makes the argument against Notre Dame rendered moot.

Though, if they are not going to be in a conference, I'd personally like to see ND have to schedule a 13th regular season game [I mean, if Hawaii can do it, the Irish should be able to] --- but teams like Alabama being secondary conference runners up [behind runner up Auburn] make it unnecessary.

.
.
.

Yeah, I will never agree with teams not winning their conference being in the tournament. Not even if Ohio State makes it.

Spence wrote:Yeah, I will never agree with teams not winning their conference being in the tournament. Not even if Ohio State makes it.

That is exactly how I felt 2 years ago, right after the Miami/Notre Dame game.

The media talk was positioning Miami & Clemson to both have a shot to be in the playoff.

If Miami had won out, then made it a close game against Clemson, taking them to overtime and losing, then there was a chance.

If Miami had won out, and beat Clemson in the ACC Championship in a close game; they would both have almost certainly been in.

Neither of those scenarios sat well with me.

.
.
.

__________________________________

As for the Big XII --- I forgot about their wildcard team, still in play.

Baylor is undefeated, yet.

Their remaining schedule is:

Home vs West Virginia [Thursday Night, Halloween]
@ TCU
Home vs Oklahoma
Home vs Texas
@ Kansas

They may be the only hope left for the Conference. So, the Big XII could have as much of a chance at the playoff as Minnesota.

Though; my initial instinct says; SEC Champ, Ohio State, Clemson and SEC at large or Oregon/Utah.

If LSU & Auburn both beat Bama; then LSU wins the SEC title game, the SEC East representative will have two losses ... so it would come down to an unbeaten Baylor or the 1 loss winner of Oregon vs Utah for the Pac-12 Title.

.
.
.

I don't think there is any way Baylor beats Oklahoma twice.

____________________________

Honestly ...

I don't think Baylor beats them even once.

.
.
.

Cane from the Bend wrote:__________________________________

As for the Big XII --- I forgot about their wildcard team, still in play.

Baylor is undefeated, yet.

Their remaining schedule is:

Home vs West Virginia [Thursday Night, Halloween]
@ TCU
Home vs Oklahoma
Home vs Texas
@ Kansas

They may be the only hope left for the Conference. So, the Big XII could have as much of a chance at the playoff as Minnesota.

Though; my initial instinct says; SEC Champ, Ohio State, Clemson and SEC at large or Oregon/Utah.

.
.
.

I would think the B1G champ will be Penn State or Ohio State. Penn State has the best path to the playoff schedule wise. I like Ohio State this year. Not saying they don't have any warts, but I haven't seen them this year. Our secondary hasn't really been challenged yet. Ohio State hasn't been punched in the face for 4 quarters yet. Penn State and Michigan (lately) look like they can do that and we will see how they respond. (Too bad Donovan isn't here to see me not criticize Ohio State. He would fall over in his chair.)

Did someone mention BAYLOR????? The Mountaineers have them in Waco on Halloween Night....... sure hope those kiddies make their Trick or Treat rounds before kickoff or they’ll probably hear some things they’ll tell their grandchildren about.