(10-30-2018 02:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 12:41 AM)leofrog Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 12:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 08:36 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 02:18 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  What a travesty if a team goes undefeated for 2 seasons in a row without ONE shot at a playoff game.

What does being undefeated have anything to do with being one of the best? Plus, as far as I know, last year's record has no bearing on this year.

Well—being undefeated is certainly more indicative of being “the best” than “losing to good teams”. Please explain how losing to good teams means a team is the best. I’m remain confused as to logic on that one as even the very worst teams in the nation are more than capable of losing to a good team.

But, when the schedules are vastly different, you can’t just go with the undefeated team being the best if they play a somewhat inferior schedule.

That’s not incorrect. However, a team that’s that’s lost 2 or 3 times being ranked in front of an undefeated team is hard to defend. The reality is the Committee has largely chosen to simply dismiss the G5 out of hand rather than make any rational attempt to reasonably compare the top teams from the two groups.

Your comment implies a belief that the schedules between the unbeaten team A and the twice or thrice beaten team B are close in enough in quality for ranking B ahead of A to be hard to defend. But remember, it's possible that team B could be better than team A, but have a lot more losses than A if B is playing a much tougher schedule. And, it's not clear that the human bias is working against the best G5.

E.g., look at the current Massey rankings. Compared to the computers, the biased AP humans are smiling on UCF. The AP has UCF at #9, whereas the MC has UCF at #15, behind several teams with two losses, though none with three losses.

As i posted the other day, compared with computers, human voters (at least the AP and Coaches - we'll see about the CFP tonight) have tended to be biased *in favor* of the best G5 teams, not against them. G5 teams like Houston, UCF, and Utah State are ranked significantly higher in those human polls than they are in the MC. You don't see that nearly as much among the P5 teams.

I have three thoughts on the coming CFP rankings. The first is that the committee will rank any G5 teams in the poll several spots lower than their AP/Coaches rankings. They will do this in order to make it clear that a G5 team will not make it into the playoffs. We can debate whether thats right or wrong but ultimately its still going to happen. The 2nd thing is that a team that loses to Purdue should automatically be eliminated from the playoff race. The 3rd thing is that it doesn't matter who makes the playoff this year. Barring LSU beating Bama this weekend, no one else has even a remote shot at beating them. Their squad this year is arguably Saban's best team and maybe even the best team of all time. The rest of the country is playing for 2nd. Now with that said I also want to add that after the #1 spot, everyone can be had. The gap between #2 and #40 in the country is not all that great.

(10-30-2018 02:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 02:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 12:41 AM)leofrog Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 12:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 08:36 PM)leofrog Wrote:  What does being undefeated have anything to do with being one of the best? Plus, as far as I know, last year's record has no bearing on this year.

Well—being undefeated is certainly more indicative of being “the best” than “losing to good teams”. Please explain how losing to good teams means a team is the best. I’m remain confused as to logic on that one as even the very worst teams in the nation are more than capable of losing to a good team.

But, when the schedules are vastly different, you can’t just go with the undefeated team being the best if they play a somewhat inferior schedule.

That’s not incorrect. However, a team that’s that’s lost 2 or 3 times being ranked in front of an undefeated team is hard to defend. The reality is the Committee has largely chosen to simply dismiss the G5 out of hand rather than make any rational attempt to reasonably compare the top teams from the two groups.

Your comment implies a belief that the schedules between the unbeaten team A and the twice or thrice beaten team B are close in enough in quality for ranking B ahead of A to be hard to defend. But remember, it's possible that team B could be better than team A, but have a lot more losses than A if B is playing a much tougher schedule. And, it's not clear that the human bias is working against the best G5.

E.g., look at the current Massey rankings. Compared to the computers, the biased AP humans are smiling on UCF. The AP has UCF at #9, whereas the MC has UCF at #15, behind several teams with two losses, though none with three losses.

As i posted the other day, compared with computers, human voters (at least the AP and Coaches - we'll see about the CFP tonight) have tended to be biased *in favor* of the best G5 teams, not against them. G5 teams like Houston, UCF, and Utah State are ranked significantly higher in those human polls than they are in the MC. You don't see that nearly as much among the P5 teams.

No. I know the schedules are not the same. They never will be the same.

But we know that team #1 can be beaten and has been beaten multiple times. Undefeated team #2 has not been beaten should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Again, how is losing to a good team proof of being better? Whats the basis for placing a team with , two, or three losses above a team that hasnt lost? Is the logic that undefeated team #2 couldnt lose to the good teams just as well as 3-loss team #1 that is placed ahead of them? I mean--explain the rationale---because any attempt to do so will expose how utterly ludicrous the logic actually is.

What we know is 2-loss team #2 DID lose to these good teams. We DO NOT know if undefeated team #2 would lose to those team or not. How that is proof of a two or three loss team being better is beyond me.

(10-30-2018 04:40 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I have three thoughts on the coming CFP rankings. The first is that the committee will rank any G5 teams in the poll several spots lower than their AP/Coaches rankings. They will do this in order to make it clear that a G5 team will not make it into the playoffs. We can debate whether thats right or wrong but ultimately its still going to happen. The 2nd thing is that a team that loses to Purdue should automatically be eliminated from the playoff race. The 3rd thing is that it doesn't matter who makes the playoff this year. Barring LSU beating Bama this weekend, no one else has even a remote shot at beating them. Their squad this year is arguably Saban's best team and maybe even the best team of all time. The rest of the country is playing for 2nd. Now with that said I also want to add that after the #1 spot, everyone can be had. The gap between #2 and #40 in the country is not all that great.

Mississippi St., Auburn or Georgia could beat Alabama this year. Maybe even 2 out those 3 and LSU. I do think Bama loses one somewhere before the bowls. I don't think this is his best team. He's had better defenses.

The committee is overly impressed with the SEC this year. Alabama, LSU and Georgia ok. But 5 of the top 11? 7 of the top 20?

(10-30-2018 09:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 04:40 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I have three thoughts on the coming CFP rankings. The first is that the committee will rank any G5 teams in the poll several spots lower than their AP/Coaches rankings. They will do this in order to make it clear that a G5 team will not make it into the playoffs. We can debate whether thats right or wrong but ultimately its still going to happen. The 2nd thing is that a team that loses to Purdue should automatically be eliminated from the playoff race. The 3rd thing is that it doesn't matter who makes the playoff this year. Barring LSU beating Bama this weekend, no one else has even a remote shot at beating them. Their squad this year is arguably Saban's best team and maybe even the best team of all time. The rest of the country is playing for 2nd. Now with that said I also want to add that after the #1 spot, everyone can be had. The gap between #2 and #40 in the country is not all that great.

Mississippi St., Auburn or Georgia could beat Alabama this year. Maybe even 2 out those 3 and LSU. I do think Bama loses one somewhere before the bowls. I don't think this is his best team. He's had better defenses.

Bullet, this is the best Alabama team of my lifetime. I'm not saying they go undefeated, but I will say I'll be majorly surprised if they don't.

While it is true that this isn't Saban's best defense, it can easily be said that this is his best offense. And the defense while not top 3 at Alabama is still better than most other people's D. L.S.U. may be the only team they play until they meet Clemson who might have a D that is a shade better. But then Clemson and L.S.U.'s defense isn't as deep.

(10-30-2018 11:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 09:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 04:40 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I have three thoughts on the coming CFP rankings. The first is that the committee will rank any G5 teams in the poll several spots lower than their AP/Coaches rankings. They will do this in order to make it clear that a G5 team will not make it into the playoffs. We can debate whether thats right or wrong but ultimately its still going to happen. The 2nd thing is that a team that loses to Purdue should automatically be eliminated from the playoff race. The 3rd thing is that it doesn't matter who makes the playoff this year. Barring LSU beating Bama this weekend, no one else has even a remote shot at beating them. Their squad this year is arguably Saban's best team and maybe even the best team of all time. The rest of the country is playing for 2nd. Now with that said I also want to add that after the #1 spot, everyone can be had. The gap between #2 and #40 in the country is not all that great.

Mississippi St., Auburn or Georgia could beat Alabama this year. Maybe even 2 out those 3 and LSU. I do think Bama loses one somewhere before the bowls. I don't think this is his best team. He's had better defenses.

Bullet, this is the best Alabama team of my lifetime. I'm not saying they go undefeated, but I will say I'll be majorly surprised if they don't.

While it is true that this isn't Saban's best defense, it can easily be said that this is his best offense. And the defense while not top 3 at Alabama is still better than most other people's D. L.S.U. may be the only team they play until they meet Clemson who might have a D that is a shade better. But then Clemson and L.S.U.'s defense isn't as deep.

Yeah...this years Bama squad really does seem almost unstoppable. Hard to imagine anyone beating them.

(10-30-2018 06:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 02:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 02:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 12:41 AM)leofrog Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 12:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Well—being undefeated is certainly more indicative of being “the best” than “losing to good teams”. Please explain how losing to good teams means a team is the best. I’m remain confused as to logic on that one as even the very worst teams in the nation are more than capable of losing to a good team.

But, when the schedules are vastly different, you can’t just go with the undefeated team being the best if they play a somewhat inferior schedule.

That’s not incorrect. However, a team that’s that’s lost 2 or 3 times being ranked in front of an undefeated team is hard to defend. The reality is the Committee has largely chosen to simply dismiss the G5 out of hand rather than make any rational attempt to reasonably compare the top teams from the two groups.

Your comment implies a belief that the schedules between the unbeaten team A and the twice or thrice beaten team B are close in enough in quality for ranking B ahead of A to be hard to defend. But remember, it's possible that team B could be better than team A, but have a lot more losses than A if B is playing a much tougher schedule. And, it's not clear that the human bias is working against the best G5.

E.g., look at the current Massey rankings. Compared to the computers, the biased AP humans are smiling on UCF. The AP has UCF at #9, whereas the MC has UCF at #15, behind several teams with two losses, though none with three losses.

As i posted the other day, compared with computers, human voters (at least the AP and Coaches - we'll see about the CFP tonight) have tended to be biased *in favor* of the best G5 teams, not against them. G5 teams like Houston, UCF, and Utah State are ranked significantly higher in those human polls than they are in the MC. You don't see that nearly as much among the P5 teams.

No. I know the schedules are not the same. They never will be the same.

But we know that team #1 can be beaten and has been beaten multiple times. Undefeated team #2 has not been beaten should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Again, how is losing to a good team proof of being better? Whats the basis for placing a team with , two, or three losses above a team that hasnt lost? Is the logic that undefeated team #2 couldnt lose to the good teams just as well as 3-loss team #1 that is placed ahead of them? I mean--explain the rationale---because any attempt to do so will expose how utterly ludicrous the logic actually is.

What we know is 2-loss team #2 DID lose to these good teams. We DO NOT know if undefeated team #2 would lose to those team or not. How that is proof of a two or three loss team being better is beyond me.

Losing to a team isn't proof of being better (and let's qualify that nothing involving college football rankings really qualifies as 'proof' in a scientific sense). But why do you think the Massey computers have 6-3 Washington well ahead of 7-1 Georgia Southern?

Maybe it's because wins and losses are only part of the story, and SOS, including not just who you lost to but who you have beaten, is as well?

Remember, "undefeated", which you toss around like a holy grail, means nothing independent of an assessment of who was beaten. I'd be FAR more impressed with a team that went 4-4 vs Alabama playing them 8 times than a team that was 8-0 with UCF's current roster of victims. And you would be, too.

(10-30-2018 11:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 09:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 04:40 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I have three thoughts on the coming CFP rankings. The first is that the committee will rank any G5 teams in the poll several spots lower than their AP/Coaches rankings. They will do this in order to make it clear that a G5 team will not make it into the playoffs. We can debate whether thats right or wrong but ultimately its still going to happen. The 2nd thing is that a team that loses to Purdue should automatically be eliminated from the playoff race. The 3rd thing is that it doesn't matter who makes the playoff this year. Barring LSU beating Bama this weekend, no one else has even a remote shot at beating them. Their squad this year is arguably Saban's best team and maybe even the best team of all time. The rest of the country is playing for 2nd. Now with that said I also want to add that after the #1 spot, everyone can be had. The gap between #2 and #40 in the country is not all that great.

Mississippi St., Auburn or Georgia could beat Alabama this year. Maybe even 2 out those 3 and LSU. I do think Bama loses one somewhere before the bowls. I don't think this is his best team. He's had better defenses.

Bullet, this is the best Alabama team of my lifetime. I'm not saying they go undefeated, but I will say I'll be majorly surprised if they don't.

While it is true that this isn't Saban's best defense, it can easily be said that this is his best offense. And the defense while not top 3 at Alabama is still better than most other people's D. L.S.U. may be the only team they play until they meet Clemson who might have a D that is a shade better. But then Clemson and L.S.U.'s defense isn't as deep.

Don't know about LSU but I beg to differ on Clemson.