College Football 2015

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

But they beat Temple!!!

Temple has looked pretty good. The whole AAC has looked a lot better, honestly.

Conveniently, this happened during the season that the team that was giving the conference its value decided to become the worst FBS team this season.

[Hewson]

Shocked at Alabama being ranked #4.

Thought for sure they'd be 1.



Assumed the top 10 would be:
1. Alabama
2. LSU
3. Florida
4. Missississississississississississississipi
5. Texas A&M
6. Missississississississississississississipi State
7. Georgia
8. Arkansas
9. Tennessee
10. Ohio State

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Temple has looked pretty good. The whole AAC has looked a lot better, honestly.

I mean, obviously they've improved. But as a marquee win for ND? Pfffffffftttt

Definitely the most overrated team in the top 10. Without question.

[Hewson]

At any rate, TCU controls their own destiny. If they win out, they'll knock off Baylor and jump them, LSU and Bama play Saturday, one will lose, that's another spot and tOSU will play MSU and that will be a loss for one of them. So lets say the top 3 win out, they are in, then the next 2 teams would be Notre Dame and TCU cause 4, 6 and 7 would all lose. Got to assume TCU would jump ND with 3 ranked opponents remaining on the schedule to ND's 1.

 

Who Am I kidding, if that scenario plays out exactly as above the 4 playoff teams would be undefeated Clemson, LSU, and tOSU plus 2 loss (maybe even 3 loss) Alabama

__________________

[deep]

The first four last year were Mississippi State, Florida State, Auburn and Mississippi.

Of the four, only Florida State ended up in the playoff.
Mississippi State, Auburn and Mississippi finished seventh, 19th and ninth.

[LemonMelon]

Clemson is going to get the 2014 FSU treatment if they win out because their road has been so easy. They have a playoff spot locked up if they win out, but I think they'll likely slip to #3 if tOSU, MSU or LSU win out. Early prediction, but:

1. 12-0 LSU
2. 13-0 tOSU OR 13-0 MSU
3. 13-0 Clemson
4. 12-0 TCU OR 12-0 Baylor

If Alabama wins out:

1. 13-0 tOSU OR 13-0 MSU
2. 13-0 Clemson
3. 12-1 Alabama
4. 12-0 TCU OR 12-0 Baylor

Where things get messy is if tOSU/MSU/Baylor/TCU all end up losing a game and Alabama runs the table. Then we get the ultimate sponsor scenario.

1. 13-0 Clemson
2. 12-1 Alabama
3. 12-1 tOSU
4. 11-1 Notre Dame

What a hellhole that would be.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Hewson

At any rate, TCU controls their own destiny. If they win out, they'll knock off Baylor and jump them, LSU and Bama play Saturday, one will lose, that's another spot and tOSU will play MSU and that will be a loss for one of them. So lets say the top 3 win out, they are in, then the next 2 teams would be Notre Dame and TCU cause 4, 6 and 7 would all lose. Got to assume TCU would jump ND with 3 ranked opponents remaining on the schedule to ND's 1.

 

Who Am I kidding, if that scenario plays out exactly as above the 4 playoff teams would be undefeated Clemson, LSU, and tOSU plus 2 loss (maybe even 3 loss) Alabama

Well that's the thing that feels so wrong about the whole setup to me. It seems like they did this EXACTLY to poise it to where a 2-loss Alabama could still get in. Like a little safety net. Cause if they lose to LSU this weekend, they still can beat them again in the title game, and you know that means they're auto-champions in that case.

ND is absolutely poised to run the table, so again, favorable positioning allows them to get into the top four when LSU inevitably loses one of the two games against BAMA.

And therefore, they have set up:

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

Then we get the ultimate sponsor scenario.

1. 13-0 Clemson
2. 12-1 Alabama
3. 12-1 tOSU
4. 11-1 Notre Dame

What a hellhole that would be.

[Hewson]

Notre Dame will lose at Stanford.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Hewson

Notre Dame will lose at Stanford.

Forgot about Stanford. We shall see. They're not as good this year as the last few, but then again...Notre Dame.

Again: My irritation/being upset isn't about TCU. It's about TCU, Baylor and MSU, not to mention Iowa. If one team in a power five is being given the benefit of the doubt by being undefeated, all teams should be treated as such. Why MSU, at the very least, isn't being treated the same as OSU is beyond me. Iowa, well... I get it, they're in the weaker side of the division, but still.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

I mean, obviously they've improved. But as a marquee win for ND? Pfffffffftttt



Definitely the most overrated team in the top 10. Without question.

But see, I think you're feeding into the problem there. By discrediting other teams that have equal record and whatnot, you're effectively buying right back into the system. Temple was undefeated. Defeating a 7-0 team is a big deal.

The bullshit is that teams like Alabama are 7-1 and still considered the best of the best, while 7-1 Temple loses a close match to a perceived top 10 team and they're hanging on for dear life to even be ranked.

Do you get what I'm saying? I'm not saying ND deserves to be where they are. I'm saying don't knock on Temple in the process of making your point. Because the difference between ND and Temple is an equal record 4 points, but the difference in rank is tremendous.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

But see, I think you're feeding into the problem there. By discrediting other teams that have equal record and whatnot, you're effectively buying right back into the system. Temple was undefeated. Defeating a 7-0 team is a big deal.

The bullshit is that teams like Alabama are 7-1 and still considered the best of the best, while 7-1 Temple loses a close match to a perceived top 10 team and they're hanging on for dear life to even be ranked.

Do you get what I'm saying? I'm not saying ND deserves to be where they are. I'm saying don't knock on Temple in the process of making your point. Because the difference between ND and Temple is an equal record 4 points, but the difference in rank is tremendous.

Caliber of opponent absolutely matters. In the same way that TCU was overlooked for years because they were going undefeated against the MWC. Temple went 7-0 against good but not great teams, and lost the first time they were legitimately challenged. I'm not taking away from Notre Dame beating them, it's a good win for ND, but it's not as impressive as, say, Alabama beating LSU.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Caliber of opponent absolutely matters. In the same way that TCU was overlooked for years because they were going undefeated against the MWC. Temple went 7-0 against good but not great teams, and lost the first time they were legitimately challenged. I'm not taking away from Notre Dame beating them, it's a good win for ND, but it's not as impressive as, say, Alabama beating LSU.

Okay, and guess what this boils down to? Mathematically speaking, you're relying on an initial condition. A "boundary condition." Since your logic is seemingly continuous, if Temple doesn't play good teams, but wins, they can *never be good.* they don't play *perceived* challenging opponents. Coincidentally, no matter what Alabama does, they will *always* be good.

You're effectively describing the problem, but then you're complaining about it. By saying LSU and Alabama are "high caliber" opponents, you're granting them to be high in the boundary condition. And if you believe that, you support the current standings as is.

[bono_212]

It's one of the MANY conditions they look at in order to make the top ten. What you seem to be suggesting is that Temple should be rated as highly as Alabama. In order to make that be the case, you have to factor in more than w/l record.

There's more than one factor at play in the rankings. If Temple goes undefeated, obviously an undefeated team is better than a team with a loss on paper. If a team's loss is to a top 5 opponent, though, yeah, I think that probably makes a team with a stronger strength of schedule better than a team with a weaker strength of schedule that went undefeated.

If you think for one second that I don't have an intense hatred for the system, hate paper champions, and don't factor in as many different criteria as possible for the way I rank teams, then you haven't been reading my posts in these threads for the last 9 years.

[LemonMelon]

I mean, the simple fact of the matter is that Temple hasn't proven they can punch above their weight. They're a good team, but teams that have proven they can get it done in January always get the benefit of the doubt. It isn't really fair, but the idea is to 1) rack up advertising $$$, 2) prevent dud games. There is absolutely reason to question a team that swept seven unranked opponents following a middling 6-6 season outside of a power 5.

Ask yourself: would Temple equal or better a 3-1 record vs. Georgia, Ole Miss, Texas A&M and Wisconsin? If not, there's no logical reason to rank them above Alabama.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by bono_212

It's one of the MANY conditions they look at in order to make the top ten. What you seem to be suggesting is that Temple should be rated as highly as Alabama. In order to make that be the case, you have to factor in more than w/l record.

No, it's NOT. The ranking system is a power rank, based upon previous seed. If a #10 beats a #5, they earn the power forward of beating such a team. If they lose to an unranked team, they're shamed. Sure, "total offense" and the sort are "factored in." But it purely boils down to the boundary condition. What the initial seed was.

And I NEVER suggested that Temple should be ranked as highly as Alabama. I'm suggesting they should be ranked NEAR each other. One needs to go up and the other needs to go down.

Originally Posted by bono_212

There's more than one factor at play in the rankings. If Temple goes undefeated, obviously an undefeated team is better than a team with a loss on paper. If a team's loss is to a top 5 opponent, though, yeah, I think that probably makes a team with a stronger strength of schedule better than a team with a weaker strength of schedule that went undefeated.

And a loss to a top 5 who is a top 5 opponent only because they were placed highly as such, due to initial BIAS. That's not an inflammatory word. Bias. Statistical term. The data is influenced by a boundary condition. If one team loses to a top 5 opponent in week 1, that team was only top 5 because someone SAID they were top 5. What if that team was unranked to start the season. Would they be top 5, 3 weeks in? Probably not. Not unless they beat a top 5 team. Consequence? Only the teams who face initial seed teams have opportunity to move up early. And as every week passes on, that opportunity diminishes.

Originally Posted by bono_212

If you think for one second that I don't have an intense hatred for the system, hate paper champions, and don't factor in as many different criteria as possible for the way I rank teams, then you haven't been reading my posts in these threads for the last 9 years.

I know you hate it. I was trying to make a point. This isn't really worth arguing. It's almost like you're trying to argue that math isn't real. Sure, there's "voting" that takes place, but the psychology behind it is largely driven by a power ranking mentality.