Support NeoGAF

[bucknuticus]

@joshnewberg247 27m27 minutes ago
Source tells me Oregon State has made contact with Brady Hoke about their head coaching job.



OH MAN!!!! Oregon St plays at Michigan next season too! Please be true!!

 

[Meier]

GL to your Noles fellow Doyer!!

Thanks buddy!

Holy shit.

Those are Kingsbury levels of desperation right there.

Unbelievable. Prior to this season, Jimbo wasn't even making $3m a year (he was on $2.75m) and that was in his 4th season as HC. Some of these schools.. they're just plain ridiculous. Make a guy earn it with years of success. Who is going to poach Butch Jones after a 5-7 and a 6-6 year? Ridiculous. He should be forced to take a pay cut with those results.

 

[JCX]

How does a school let Ken Starr be their janitor, let alone president?

@joshnewberg247 27m27 minutes ago
Source tells me Oregon State has made contact with Brady Hoke about their head coaching job.



OH MAN!!!! Oregon St plays at Michigan next season too! Please be true!!

2015 Pac-12 Coach of the Year

 

[BertramCooper]

@joshnewberg247 27m27 minutes ago
Source tells me Oregon State has made contact with Brady Hoke about their head coaching job.



OH MAN!!!! Oregon St plays at Michigan next season too! Please be true!!

Oh sweet baby jesus, please let this happen.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

2016 Pac-12 champion, write it down.

 

[andycapps]

You are basically asking for Mark Richt not to be Mark Richt.

Yes and no, he has his moments of being gutsy like the fake punt this year, and moments where he tries to be conservative for the sake of it and not sticking with what's working. When the team plays like they have nothing to lose so they're going for it, we have great results. He called a few of these plays this year, some 4th downs when we went for it (paid off almost every time). When they play not to lose, we lose. I.E. squib kick in the Tech game. In a year where our kickoff coverage has been great (huge improvements in the offseason here), a squib kick is called which sets up a short field. Then a long pass is completed which sets up a field goal to send us to overtime. Never should have happened. Should have kicked the ball through the back of the end zone. Make them drive the length of the field in 18 seconds.

Holy shit.

Those are Kingsbury levels of desperation right there.

Mark Richt is going to be the lowest paid coach in the conference. :jnc

 

[Lonestar]

Holy shit.

Those are Kingsbury levels of desperation right there.

That's apparently more than Richt makes a year.

Adam Rittenberg ‏@ESPNRittenberg 44m44 minutes ago
National championship odds from @BovadaLV: Alabama 11/10; Oregon 7/4; Florida State 13/2; Ohio State 7/1

Clay Travis ‏@ClayTravisBGID 5m5 minutes ago
Bowl lines: Vols -4.5 vs. Iowa, Mizzou -6.5 vs. MN, LSU -7 vs ND, UGa -7 vs L'ville, Arkansas -4.5 vs. Texas, Cocks -1.5 vs Miami

Clay Travis ‏@ClayTravisBGID 4m4 minutes ago
SEC is favored in 10 of 12 bowl games. TCU is -3 vs. Ole Miss, WVU -4 vs. A&M

So which of you gambling addicts can tell me what this means.

 

[Balphon]

Unbelievable. Prior to this season, Jimbo wasn't even making $3m a year (he was on $2.75m) and that was in his 4th season as HC. Some of these schools.. they're just plain ridiculous. Make a guy earn it with years of success. Who is going to poach Butch Jones after a 5-7 and a 6-6 year? Ridiculous. He should be forced to take a pay cut with those results.

Oregon State.

Duh.

 

[Lonestar]

Chase Goodbread ‏@ChaseGoodbread 26m26 minutes ago
Bowlsby tells @dpshow he'd have voted for TCU over Baylor not on resume, but because they'd have had a better shot at making playoff field.

 

[jagowar]

IMO, honestly, even with the same 3 teams involved I think a Big 12 team (read: Baylor) could have gotten in over Ohio State if the conference hadn't pulled the ridiculous co-champions thing. If the conference had put all its weight behind Baylor as the champ I think they could have gotten a boost and made it in (though I can't say they 100% would have jumped Ohio State, of course).

Big 12 administration devalued their own championship by hedging their bets with the co-championship while ignoring the oldest tie-breaker in the book, Baylor devalued themselves with the marketing firm and essentially throwing a tantrum, the TCU "co-championship" is smoke and mirrors due to a head to head loss, and the rest is history.

I'm not as convinced as others that Ohio State wouldn't have jumped Texas if it was the exact same situation but the team names were switched, though; you'd still have Texas + whoever beat them squabbling amongst themselves and Ohio State would still be a blue-blood team that all the marketers would love to have. Where it may have made a bigger difference IMO is if Texas were switched with Baylor, as I don't think it's as likely the conference would have done the co-champions thing in the first place if it were Texas on the delivering end of the head to head win.

Agreed... The big12 has nobody to blame but themselves. By not having a true champion they devalued both teams. This is going to happen each time there is a debate who should be the big12 winner because the other conferences will pit their best two against each other in that final week.

tcu was hurt by the luck of the draw in playing iowa state when everybody else was playing ranked teams.

Also glad baylor was left out.... I think the committee was sending out a message to all schools about scheduling such a weak non conference schedule. You don't need to go all out but you should have at least one "good" non conference game each year.

Will be interesting to see how the big12 as a conference responds.

 

[Lonestar]

Agreed... The big12 has nobody to blame but themselves. By not having a true champion they devalued both teams. This is going to happen each time there is a debate who should be the big12 winner because the other conferences will pit their best two against each other in that final week.

tcu was hurt by the luck of the draw in playing iowa state when everybody else was playing ranked teams.

Also glad baylor was left out.... I think the committee was sending out a message to all schools about scheduling such a weak non conference schedule. You don't need to go all out but you should have at least one "good" non conference game each year.

Will be interesting to see how the big12 as a conference responds.

Got to do something, because Baylor doesn't have a quality OOC game for another 2, 3 years.

Spoiler

Really, they don't have one for the next 5+ years, don't want to hurt Truly101's feelings

 

[mre]

So which of you gambling addicts can tell me what this means.

Clay Travis explains it in his tweet. SEC is favored in every bowl game except Mississippi v. TCU and TAMU v. WVU.

 

[Jarnet87]

Playoff committee just as strange/corrupt/whatever you want to call it as the BCS. The same people who voted TCU as the third best team in the country 2 weeks ago or whatever it is now think they are the 6th best team. They didn't lose, they didn't struggle, they blew out 2 opponents but somehow dropped 3 spots out of nowhere. FSU the team that voters loved to hate and drop somehow mysteriously move up to make room for OSU.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Clay Travis explains it in his tweet. SEC is favored in every bowl game except Mississippi v. TCU and TAMU v. WVU.

And the teams on the left are favored by the (negative) amount, so LSU is favored by a touchdown over Notre Dame. In gambling terms, if you bet LSU, they have to win by 8. If you bet Notre Dame, they can lose by no more than 6. You're betting the spread, not the W/L.

Regarding the top odds, Alabama is basically even to win the championship at 11/10 (also means you make less money betting them if they win), with Florida State and Ohio State being long shots with big payoffs.

 

[Karl2177]

Everyone criticisizing TCU for playing ISU in the final week needs to realize that the NCAA doesn't allow the round-robin Big 12 to have a championship game. Also remember, the conference schedule is made a year in advance, so unless you want to go back time and change it, it's a pretty moot point. And the non-conference schedule is made even further in advance. Baylor's shit OOC schedule is from when Baylor started getting good.

 

[Balphon]

11/10 odds means you will get 110% of your bet back if Alabama wins the title. It's the same as a +110 moneyline if you're more familiar with that.

Conversely, Ohio State's 7/1 means you'd get 700% of the amount you bet.

What it means is that Alabama is a bad bet, since the risk does not justify the minimal potential return.

 

[mre]

Everyone criticisizing TCU for playing ISU in the final week needs to realize that the NCAA doesn't allow the round-robin Big 12 to have a championship game. Also remember, the conference schedule is made a year in advance, so unless you want to go back time and change it, it's a pretty moot point. And the non-conference schedule is made even further in advance. Baylor's shit OOC schedule is from when Baylor started getting good.

I don't think anyone here is criticizing TCU for playing ISU. We're pointing out that the committee knew who TCU was playing when they moved them to #3, so punishing them for doing what they were supposed to (destroy ISU) is asinine and illogical when it's the last week of the season. Based upon the committee's moves yesterday, they never viewed TCU as the #3 team and shouldn't have ranked them there.

 

[Monroeski]

Baylor's shit OOC schedule is from when Baylor started getting good.

That's not any kind of good excuse. Even Kansas had a power 5 OOC opponent on their schedule (Duke). Purdue played Notre Dame, Indiana played Missouri, Washington State played Rutgers, etc. Nobody is asking Baylor to schedule Alabama, Oregon, and Ohio State, but they've got to do better than what they have been trotting out.

Baylor is no longer "getting good," they ARE good, and their 2019 OOC is currently a team that has only played football since 2009 (Incarnate Word), a team that has only played football since 2011 (UTSA), and a team that is just historically bad (Rice). Baylor is now a two time consecutive conference champion and the juggernaut of what they're scheduling right now is RICE.

 

[Karl2177]

I don't think anyone here is criticizing TCU for playing ISU. We're pointing out that the committee knew who TCU was playing when they moved them to #3, so punishing them for doing what they were supposed to (destroy ISU) is asinine and illogical when it's the last week of the season. Based upon the committee's moves yesterday, they never viewed TCU as the #3 team and shouldn't have ranked them there.

An OSU fan is.

Like I said: if you don't like it, that's your problem. Don't blame the teams for doing what they're supposed to do to get in. TCU knows the rules.



"TCU knows the rules"



"Like I said: if you don't like it, that's your problem. Don't blame the teams for doing what they're supposed to do to get in. TCU knows the rules."

(edit: and before you make some crazy post about what "the rule" is, let me be clear: it's playing a conference championship game)

Saturday afternoon:



HeySeuss knows the rules.

That's not any kind of good excuse. Even Kansas had a power 5 OOC opponent on their schedule (Duke).

Baylor is no longer "getting good," they ARE good, and their 2019 OOC is currently a team that has only played football since 2009 (Incarnate Word), a team that has only played football since 2011 (UTSA), and a team that is just historically bad (Rice). Baylor is now a two time consecutive conference champion and the juggernaut of what they're scheduling right now is RICE.

Now it's no longer an excuse. But in 2010, when they realized they weren't cellar dwellers any more? It's slightly more acceptable.

 

[StoOgE]

I don't think anyone here is criticizing TCU for playing ISU. We're pointing out that the committee knew who TCU was playing when they moved them to #3, so punishing them for doing what they were supposed to (destroy ISU) is asinine and illogical when it's the last week of the season. Based upon the committee's moves yesterday, they never viewed TCU as the #3 team and shouldn't have ranked them there.

This is my only issue.

You can't rank a team 3 and then bust them for blowing out an inferior opponent.

They basically told the world "ignore our rankings because they have zero to do with our end of year rankings.

Moving tOSU over them I can see an argument for. A 3rd string QB went out and did something unexpected in shellacking an opponent. But Baylor and FSU did pretty much exactly what was expected of them given their current rankings.

Was the ranking from 5 days earlier supposed to be a snapshot ranking as though the next week didn't exist at all and it was a shock to find out who the teams were playing the next week? Did they just discover the Big 12 didn't have a CCG? Did they just figure out that Baylor beat TCU?

It just creates a situation of zero stability to the polls and more or less strips them of meaning throughout the season. They may as well go the NCAA Bball route of just picking 4 teams at the end with zero ratings as we go, at least that would be more exciting and have the same end result.

I think TCU is better than tOSU probably (but, who really knows).. but I don't have an issue with Ohio State being ranked higher.. but how did Florida St, Ohio State and Baylor suddenly become better than TCU?

Baylor however scheduled two 1-AA teams. So, I don't feel bad for them. Plus their HC did the same thing to us in 08 so no sympathy.

 

[Piggus]

I don't think anyone here is criticizing TCU for playing ISU. We're pointing out that the committee knew who TCU was playing when they moved them to #3, so punishing them for doing what they were supposed to (destroy ISU) is asinine and illogical when it's the last week of the season. Based upon the committee's moves yesterday, they never viewed TCU as the #3 team and shouldn't have ranked them there.

The committee isn't supposed to project forward. After week 14, TCU was number 3 based on their wins and schedule. After week 15, yes TCU did what they were asked to do but so did the team that beat them and so did the team that everyone thought was going to lose due to its missing QB. FSU looked better, OSU silenced the doubters, and Baylor got the head to head that it deserved after taking care of K-State. None of that had happened yet in week 14. It's a blank slate every week. They were number 3 because the committee was ignoring all potential outcomes in the final week.

When you KNOW how the committee works then it was obvious TCU wasn't getting in with either Baylor winning or OSU winning big. Both those things happened.

Was the ranking from 5 days earlier supposed to be a snapshot ranking as though the next week didn't exist

Yes. The committee has said many times that they do not project forward. They start from a blank slate each week.

 

[Lonestar]

Now it's no longer an excuse. But in 2010, when they realized they weren't cellar dwellers any more? It's slightly more acceptable.

Trying to understand this statement. Do you mean, in 2010, When Baylor started to feel itself becoming a decent team, it was acceptable to continue scheduling the SMU's, Lamar's and Rice's of the world, rather than adding a single "Boston College/Kentucky/Colorado" team?

Kind of think they should have already started scheduling a better OOC then.

 

[BertramCooper]

Pawwwwwwl starts at 3 EST, correct?

I normally avoid him and his awful show like the plague, but I can't possibly resist the urge to hear Phyllis & Co. trash Ohio State.

 

[Battlezone]

CONGRATS TO BATTLEZONE, CHAMPION OF THE GAF PICK'EM 2014!
Give him the crystal football!

Last ever GAF Pick 'Em Champion? CHAMPION OF THE FOREVER

 

[andycapps]

I don't think anyone here is criticizing TCU for playing ISU. We're pointing out that the committee knew who TCU was playing when they moved them to #3, so punishing them for doing what they were supposed to (destroy ISU) is asinine and illogical when it's the last week of the season. Based upon the committee's moves yesterday, they never viewed TCU as the #3 team and shouldn't have ranked them there.

You're talking like rankings actually mean anything during the season to begin with. It is pretty hilarious to look at the midseason rankings and remember what the pundits were saying back then.

 

[Karl2177]

Trying to understand this statement. Do you mean, in 2010, When Baylor started to feel itself becoming a decent team, it was acceptable to continue scheduling the SMU's, Lamar's and Rice's of the world, rather than adding a single "Boston College/Kentucky/Colorado" team?

Kind of think they should have already started scheduling a better OOC then.

Yeah, they should have scheduled at least 1 team like that. But it's hard to see whether the rise was going to be a 1 year thing or if it would sustain at all.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

The committee isn't supposed to project forward. After week 14, TCU was number 3 based on their wins and schedule. After week 15, yes TCU did what they were asked to do but so did the team that beat them and so did the team that everyone thought was going to lose due to its missing QB. FSU looked better, OSU silenced the doubters, and Baylor got the head to head that it deserved after taking care of K-State. None of that had happened yet in week 14. It's a blank slate every week. They were number 3 because the committee was ignoring all potential outcomes in the final week.

That's illogical.

People type this as if the committee are computers. Yes, a computer would say Florida State beating Georgia Tech is a better win than TCU beating Iowa State, same for Baylor over Kansas State and Ohio State over Wisconsin, and it might spit out a different order because of it. A committee should be able to ask "did Florida State really show us anything this week? Did Baylor? We've been looking at these teams all year, we know who they are. What specifically did either do to make us second guess where we have TCU?" You could say Ohio State did exactly that, they thumped a ranked opponent in a quite unpredictable fashion. Florida State didn't, Baylor didn't.

The fact is very clear. The committee thought Ohio State is more impressive than TCU after what they did to Wisconsin, and I can't argue against it. The committee also said there's no way on earth they're leaving out an undefeated Florida State team regardless of if they actually thought they were likely to beat TCU. Last week, the committee said they weren't (TCU 3, FSU 4). This week, they said they were (FSU 3, TCU 6). Why? What about Saturday's games makes them think that? The only explanation is Florida State is an undefeated power 5 school, further aided by being the defending champion, and TCU isn't. That was the case this week, it was also the case last week. Everybody in that room knew that Florida State was getting in over TCU if it came down to it, so there was no point in moving TCU up.

 

[Chris R]

31st in the pickem? I don't even know if that makes me bowl eligible

At least I had that one week where I didn't totally suck and ran the table.

This weekend sucks, bowls are sooooo far away

 

[Piggus]

That's illogical.

People type this as if the committee are computers. Yes, a computer would say Florida State beating Georgia Tech is a better win than TCU beating Iowa State, same for Baylor over Kansas State and Ohio State over Wisconsin, and it might spit out a different order because of it. A committee should be able to ask "did Florida State really show us anything this week? Did Baylor? We've been looking at these teams all year, we know who they are. What specifically did either do to make us second guess where we have TCU?" You could say Ohio State did exactly that, they thumped a ranked opponent in a quite unpredictable fashion. Florida State didn't, Baylor didn't.

The fact is very clear. The committee thought Ohio State is more impressive than TCU after what they did to Wisconsin, and I can't argue against it. The committee also said there's no way on earth they're leaving out an undefeated Florida State team regardless of if they actually thought they were likely to beat TCU. Last week, the committee said they weren't (TCU 3, FSU 4). This week, they said they were (FSU 3, TCU 6). Why? What about Saturday's games makes them think that? The only explanation is Florida State is an undefeated power 5 school, further aided by being the defending champion, and TCU isn't. That was the case this week, it was also the case last week. Everybody in that room knew that Florida State was getting in over TCU if it came down to it, so there was no point in moving TCU up.

You're still asking them to project forward when they clearly said they wouldn't. They re-evaluate each team every week. I don't see the issue with that. Yeah it's frustrating if you get cock-teased like TCU fans did but people should know by now that future games have no impact on the committee's decisions regardless of how clear the future might look.

 

[perfectchaos007]

31st in the pickem? I don't even know if that makes me bowl eligible

At least I had that one week where I didn't totally suck and ran the table.

This weekend sucks, bowls are sooooo far away

Army/Navy and the FCS quarter finals are this weekend.

 

[mre]

The committee isn't supposed to project forward. After week 14, TCU was number 3 based on their wins and schedule. After week 15, yes TCU did what they were asked to do but so did the team that beat them and so did the team that everyone thought was going to lose due to its missing QB. FSU looked better, OSU silenced the doubters, and Baylor got the head to head that it deserved after taking care of K-State. None of that had happened yet in week 14. It's a blank slate every week. They were number 3 because the committee was ignoring all potential outcomes in the final week.

Then there is absolutely no reason to have rankings before the last week. It does a disservice to not only the fans who follow the sport, but the kids who play it.

I can applaud the committee for not being beholden to the previous week's rankings when determining the next week's rankings, and for not letting teams stagnate in their rankings simply because they didn't lose. However, if the rankings aren't going to provide any sort of context, structure or guideposts for how the committee is going to rank the teams from one week to the next, then they need to go.

The TCU-FSU 3rd-4th ranking is the perfect microcosm of this concept. There is literally nothing more that TCU could have done against ISU than what they did, but they still tumbled three spots from 3rd to sixth. The committee needs to have some sort of consistency in their week-to-week rankings, or only have a final ranking that is released publicly. Shit, why even meet prior to the last week? Save everybody some time and just spend 4 days at the end of the season discussing it and release the rankings on Wednesday.

You're talking like rankings actually mean anything during the season to begin with. It is pretty hilarious to look at the midseason rankings and remember what the pundits were saying back then.

I'm talking specifically about the last two weeks when there is clarity as to who the top teams are and you know who each of those teams plays to finish the season.

 

[cashman]

 

[Branduil]

The Big 12 getting a CCG would only put a bandaid on the problem. You're still going to end up with at least one Power 5 champion missing the playoff every year as long as there are only 4 teams.

 

[andycapps]

Then there is absolutely no reason to have rankings before the last week. It does a disservice to not only the fans who follow the sport, but the kids who play it.

I can applaud the committee for not being beholden to the previous week's rankings when determining the next week's rankings, and for not letting teams stagnate in their rankings simply because they didn't lose. However, if the rankings aren't going to provide any sort of context, structure or guideposts for how the committee is going to rank the teams from one week to the next, then they need to go.

The TCU-FSU 3rd-4th ranking is the perfect microcosm of this concept. There is literally nothing more that TCU could have done against ISU than what they did, but they still tumbled three spots from 3rd to sixth. The committee needs to have some sort of consistency in their week-to-week rankings, or only have a final ranking that is released publicly. Shit, why even meet prior to the last week? Save everybody some time and just spend 4 days at the end of the season discussing it and release the rankings on Wednesday.

I'm talking specifically about the last two weeks when there is clarity as to who the top teams are and you know who each of those teams plays to finish the season.

I think it works best if you think of every ranking prior to this one as being warmups. They're going to keep doing them, ESPN has a weekly show dedicated to them. And do you think those shows will stop now that new rankings won't be coming out for a few weeks? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that they're going to keep releasing them every week whether we like it or not. I'd be okay with one ranking a year. The ranking at the end of the year.

I'm talking specifically about the last two weeks when there is clarity as to who the top teams are and you know who each of those teams plays to finish the season.

I get what you're saying, but nobody knew what MCU was going to do to Wisconsin this last week. I always thought it was dumb that they had TCU ranked ahead of Baylor. The problem is that you're looking for logic where there is none. These are humans doing the voting and they're swayed by the adage "what have you done for me lately?" MCU dominated, Baylor played a more impressive opponent, and TCU finished out their schedule with Iowa State.

 

[Purple Cheeto]

The Big 12 getting a CCG would only put a bandaid on the problem. You're still going to end up with at least one Power 5 champion missing the playoff every year as long as there are only 4 teams.

It also doesn't address the real problem of OOC scheduling inequality. Personally I'd like to see teams get penalized more for not playing games in different time zones and not playing at least 1 Power 5 OOC as well as 0 FCS opponents.

 

[Lonestar]

It also doesn't address the real problem of OOC scheduling inequality. Personally I'd like to see teams get penalized more for not playing games in different time zones and not playing at least 1 Power 5 OOC as well as 0 FCS opponents.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

You're still asking them to project forward when they clearly said they wouldn't. They re-evaluate each team every week. I don't see the issue with that. Yeah it's frustrating if you get cock-teased like TCU fans did but people should know by now that future games have no impact on the committee's decisions regardless of how clear the future might look.

It's not a blank slate every week no matter what they tell you. If it was, then losses truly wouldn't matter as long as they weren't last weekend. Clearly, the entire season factors in.

But again, even with the reevaluation every week, what did they know about Florida State this week that they did not last week? What did they know about Baylor? What did they know about TCU? It cannot only be the quality of the opponent. Baylor has beaten people all year, they were expected to beat Kansas State, and they did. What new information was learned? Florida State has beaten everybody they've played, not always looking impressive when doing it. They beat another good team this week, again not always looking impressive while doing it. What new information was learned? TCU destroyed a team they were supposed to destroy. They're somehow not as good as Florida State now? Not as good as Baylor?

Again, there's no issue with the top 4. I'm not arguing for TCU to be in. I am absolutely saying that they cannot put TCU 3 last week above a team that there's no possiblity they'll actually leave out. "A blank slate" is a bunch of malarkey, and frankly they have to project forward a small bit. TCU's position was the most tenuous, considering Florida State's status, TCU was least likely to be in no matter who they played or how they played them, so they had to be 4th last week. That's all anyone is arguing. The actual top 4 right now? No arguments, really, at least not from me.

 

[andycapps]

It also doesn't address the real problem of OOC scheduling inequality. Personally I'd like to see teams get penalized more for not playing games in different time zones and not playing at least 1 Power 5 OOC as well as 0 FCS opponents.

Hey now, if we can't get Florida to play a game outside of the southeast what makes you think we can get them to play one in another time zone?

Spoiler

Missouri is in another time zone and not in the southeast

 

[thefro]

I think it works best if you think of every ranking prior to this one as being warmups. They're going to keep doing them, ESPN has a weekly show dedicated to them. And do you think those shows will stop now that new rankings won't be coming out for a few weeks? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that they're going to keep releasing them every week whether we like it or not. I'd be okay with one ranking a year. The ranking at the end of the year.

Yeah, the equivalent is basically if the NCAA would do a Bracketology show for basketball with a fake field every week.

I'm glad they're using different rules than the stupid AP poll voting which has never made much sense to me.

 

[mre]

I think it works best if you think of every ranking prior to this one as being warmups. They're going to keep doing them, ESPN has a weekly show dedicated to them. And do you think those shows will stop now that new rankings won't be coming out for a few weeks? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that they're going to keep releasing them every week whether we like it or not. I'd be okay with one ranking a year. The ranking at the end of the year.

I understand that they're going to keep doing the midseason polls, and I'm okay with that. Suggesting we do away with midseason polls was a hyperbolic solution to the problem created by the committee's claims that they walk into the room and completely erasing the previous weeks rankings and go "now what"?

As I said before, I applaud the committee's ability not to remain beholden to the previous week's ranking and not rewarding a highly ranked team simply for not losing. They released, what, 7 weeks of rankings? There should be massive shake-ups from their initial rankings to their final rankings as everybody gets a better understanding of who the teams are. However, if they're doing it right, then there should be fewer and fewer reorderings of winning teams as the weeks progress. The notion that they start with a fresh slate each week is asinine and, frankly, bullshit.

There's no way that a committee who re-evaluates everything on week-to-week basis leaves Alabama at #1 above Oregon. We took an 8 point lead into the fourth quarter against Missouri, a team who is no longer even ranked. Oregon woodshedded Arizona by 38 points. An Arizona team that is still ranked #10. So I do not buy this concept that the committee starts fresh each week, no matter what they say.

I get what you're saying, but nobody knew what MCU was going to do to Wisconsin this last week. I always thought it was dumb that they had TCU ranked ahead of Baylor. The problem is that you're looking for logic where there is none. These are humans doing the voting and they're swayed by the adage "what have you done for me lately?" MCU dominated, Baylor played a more impressive opponent, and TCU finished out their schedule with Iowa State.

If you're suggesting that humans can't act logically in this process I don't know what to say.

Again, there's no issue with the top 4. I'm not arguing for TCU to be in. I am absolutely saying that they cannot put TCU 3 last week above a team that there's no possiblity they'll actually leave out. "A blank slate" is a bunch of malarkey, and frankly they have to project forward a small bit. TCU's position was the most tenuous, considering Florida State's status, TCU was least likely to be in no matter who they played or how they played them, so they had to be 4th last week. That's all anyone is arguing. The actual top 4 right now? No arguments, really, at least not from me.

Yep.

 

[StoOgE]

It's not a blank slate every week no matter what they tell you. If it was, then losses truly wouldn't matter as long as they weren't last weekend. Clearly, the entire season factors in.

But again, even with the reevaluation every week, what did they know about Florida State this week that they did not last week? What did they know about Baylor? What did they know about TCU? It cannot only be the quality of the opponent. Baylor has beaten people all year, they were expected to beat Kansas State, and they did. What new information was learned? Florida State has beaten everybody they've played, not always looking impressive when doing it. They beat another good team this week, again not always looking impressive while doing it. What new information was learned? TCU destroyed a team they were supposed to destroy. They're somehow not as good as Florida State now? Not as good as Baylor?

Again, there's no issue with the top 4. I'm not arguing for TCU to be in. I am absolutely saying that they cannot put TCU 3 last week above a team that there's no possiblity they'll actually leave out. "A blank slate" is a bunch of malarkey, and frankly they have to project forward a small bit. TCU's position was the most tenuous, considering Florida State's status, TCU was least likely to be in no matter who they played or how they played them, so they had to be 4th last week. That's all anyone is arguing. The actual top 4 right now? No arguments, really, at least not from me.

You are absolutely right on.

The final results aren't the issue. It's that the previous rankings we were seeing were pointless and unfair to TCU.

They were basically told that they were the number 3 team in the country, took care of business and were knocked out of the playoff for their trouble.

The reality is this:
1) tOSU was super impressive and very unexpectedly so. They felt tOSU showed more through the season than TCU despite a 3rd string QB. I have an issue with the logic, but fine.

2) Florida State was always playing if they won. No one thinks they would beat TCU, but it is what it is.

3) They probably figured after TCU wasn't getting into the tournament anyway they may as well move Baylor above them to shut Art Briles up.

Had TCU been 4th heading into the week and they they moved tOSU up ahead of them most people would probably say "well, someone has to lose out" and move on, especially with tOSU taking care of business.

Instead we have this insanity.

 

[mre]

You are absolutely right on.

The final results aren't the issue. It's that the previous rankings we were seeing were pointless and unfair to TCU.

They were basically told that they were the number 3 team in the country, took care of business and were knocked out of the playoff for their trouble.

The reality is this:
1) tOSU was super impressive and very unexpectedly so. They felt tOSU showed more through the season than TCU despite a 3rd string QB. I have an issue with the logic, but fine.

2) Florida State was always playing if they won. No one thinks they would beat TCU, but it is what it is.

3) They probably figured after TCU wasn't getting into the tournament anyway they may as well move Baylor above them to shut Art Briles up.

Also yep.

 

[andycapps]

There's no way that a committee who re-evaluates everything on week-to-week basis leaves Alabama at #1 above Oregon. We took an 8 point lead into the fourth quarter against Missouri, a team who is no longer even ranked. Oregon woodshedded Arizona by 38 points. An Arizona team that is still ranked #10. So I do not buy this concept that the committee starts fresh each week, no matter what they say.

Completely agree with this. Based on what happened this week it should have been Oregon, Bama, Ohio State, FSU. Ha, the matchups would have been the same in my scenario.

And they clearly don't re-evaluate everything on a week to week basis. What they should probably say is that we don't start from scratch but we do take opponents, point differential in win, and program history into account in rankings.

 

[Lonestar]

Was thinking the Committee purposefully left some teams higher in the rankings, to help the top teams (Minnesota, Arizona, Mississippi State) but then I see, there are only two real 2 loss teams left, and about 15 3 loss teams.

But Arizona really should have fallen farther, and GT shouldn't have fallen (if it did).

 

[cdyhybrid]

I'm just disappointed we didn't get the southern schools matchup and the traditional Rose Bowl matchup.

 

[Piggus]

The rankings were pointless, but they were not unfair to TCU that week. That's the ranking they deserved up until that week. I think you guys are having a hard time dealing with the fact that the committee doesn't care about potential future outcomes and is only evaluating the teams based on what they've done up to that point. The committee NEVER indicated that TCU or any other team would be in if they took care of business. It was always dependent on both TCU and the success of Baylor and OSU.

Again, when you know how the committee works it's really obvious TCU wasn't getting in with Baylor and OSU's results.

 

[Lonestar]

So, what's the thought, if Baylor had lost to Kansas State, leaving TCU as the sole XII champion, does that change anything?

 

[truly101]

Oh wow. :jnc


You came to the right place.

1. Annoying fans who can't remember further back than 2010.
2. Steeples on parking garages.
3. RGIII is a whiny punk who got a statue in spite of never accomplishing anything as a team while he was there.
4. Ken Starr.
5. Paid (probably) millions to a PR firm so they could finish just outside the playoff.
6. Was an asshair away from being in Conference USA when the Big 12 was dissolving.
7. Will go back to sucking as soon as Briles retires.

You forgot that Scott Drew is arguably the biggest cheat in basketball.

 

[Piggus]

So, what's the thought, if Baylor had lost to Kansas State, leaving TCU as the sole XII champion, does that change anything?

TCU would be 5 instead of 6.

 

[StoOgE]

The rankings were pointless, but they were not unfair to TCU that week. That's the ranking they deserved up until that week. I think you guys are having a hard time dealing with the fact that the committee doesn't care about potential future outcomes and is only evaluating the teams based on what they've done up to that point. The committee NEVER indicated that TCU or any other team would be in if they took care of business. It was always dependent on both TCU and the success of Baylor and OSU.

Again, when you know how the committee works it's really obvious TCU wasn't getting in with Baylor and OSU's results.

But that is absolutely idiotic.

The point of the poll is to determine who is playing in the playoff. That's the entire use-value of the poll.

No one asked Condie Rice to come up with a week 10 poll of who they think is best based on results to that point while totally ignoring what is to come. We are looking for a sneak peak of the committee's thought process and feelings as we head towards a final poll. If they aren't giving us a look at their forward thought-process then why is there a poll?

Obviously new information can come in and shake things up (tOSU winning big is new information, someone losing, someone struggling against a weaker opponent), but Florida State beating Georgia Tech and Baylor beating Kansas State was not "new information". Those were expected results, and should be baked in to the rankings from the prior week.

This would be like a stock analyst changing their target price daily. "Well, the iphone 6 came out unexpectedly, you should probably grab this stock!"