Pre-Season AP Poll

[Scratchtown]

The beauty of the comittee over a computer system is the advantage of the eye test. They don't have to stick to one guideline every year. They watch the top teams, they know. And as long as it stays pure it is a far better way than a computer statistic.

Really the only handcuffing I can think of are these:

SEC champ is a lock to get in.

Defending national champ gets in with perfect record.

If there is a dispute between 4 and 5, which one lost worse and when did the loss happen? If you lost early it will be forgiven more than a late loss.

SEC Champ is not a lock. Say a 9-3 Tennessee beats a 12-0 Alabama. In that case, Alabama has a better chance of making it in than the SEC Champ Tennessee.

In that case, Tennessee should get in. With the reasoning that Redux is using. I mean, they had an huge win on a big time stage. Losses don't matter

 

[DomiNUs]

The beauty of the comittee over a computer system is the advantage of the eye test. They don't have to stick to one guideline every year. They watch the top teams, they know. And as long as it stays pure it is a far better way than a computer statistic.

Really the only handcuffing I can think of are these:SEC champ is a lock to get in.

Defending national champ gets in with perfect record.

If there is a dispute between 4 and 5, which one lost worse and when did the loss happen? If you lost early it will be forgiven more than a late loss.

SEC Champ is not a lock. Say a 9-3 Tennessee beats a 12-0 Alabama. In that case, Alabama has a better chance of making it in than the SEC Champ Tennessee.

No in your scenario ESPN would start lobbying for both to be put in.

Just like last year, where they were lobbying for two midway through the season.

 

[The Dude]

I talk a lot of football with a lot of Texas A&M fans on Facebook, man, I had a lot of fun with that vaunted SEC West last year.

 

[Redux]

The beauty of the comittee over a computer system is the advantage of the eye test. They don't have to stick to one guideline every year. They watch the top teams, they know. And as long as it stays pure it is a far better way than a computer statistic.

Really the only handcuffing I can think of are these:SEC champ is a lock to get in.

Defending national champ gets in with perfect record.

If there is a dispute between 4 and 5, which one lost worse and when did the loss happen? If you lost early it will be forgiven more than a late loss.

SEC Champ is not a lock. Say a 9-3 Tennessee beats a 12-0 Alabama. In that case, Alabama has a better chance of making it in than the SEC Champ Tennessee.

In that case, Tennessee should get in. With the reasoning that Redux is using. I mean, they had an huge win on a big time stage. Losses don't matter

You really aren't letting this go are ya?

Losses matter. But I think you are ignoring a big part of what actually gets taken into account when using losses to compare resumes.

It isn't just who Team A lost to. It's when did they lose to them, was it early or late in the year?

Where did they lose to them, was it neutral, home or away?

What was that opponents record and were they a better team at the time? (Did an injury plague the rest of their season)

What was the final score of the game? Did Team A olay the opponent tough but come up short or did they come in unprepared and look bad?

You are so hooked on the who had a better loss ideal that you are completely ignoring the fact that losses are not taken into account before the following statistics:

W/L Record

Common Opponents

Conference Champion?

Conference Record

Resume against ranked opponents

Then they probably look at who had the better loss if W/L record and championships can't settle it.

You continually approach this like we are still using a computer system that only uses numbers to determine who ranks where. The committee has eyes, they watch the games. Guess what? They saw that Ohio State was worthy of a playoff spot. What happened? They won the freaking playoff! Theres really no argument here. If Ohio State wasn't better than your supposed #1 FSU, how did they beat up #2 Bama, then beat up the team that beat your "#1", Oregon?

But TCU blah blah blah. Conference Co Champion with a smaller win record and a worse comference record. TCU got screwed by the Big 12. End of story.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

So there is really no improvement over the AP

The beauty of the comittee over a computer system is the advantage of the eye test. They don't have to stick to one guideline every year. They watch the top teams, they know. And as long as it stays pure it is a far better way than a computer statistic.
Really the only handcuffing I can think of are these:SEC champ is a lock to get in.
Defending national champ gets in with perfect record.
If there is a dispute between 4 and 5, which one lost worse and when did the loss happen? If you lost early it will be forgiven more than a late loss.

SEC Champ is not a lock. Say a 9-3 Tennessee beats a 12-0 Alabama. In that case, Alabama has a better chance of making it in than the SEC Champ Tennessee.

In that case, Tennessee should get in. With the reasoning that Redux is using. I mean, they had an huge win on a big time stage. Losses don't matter

You really aren't letting this go are ya?

Losses matter. But I think you are ignoring a big part of what actually gets taken into account when using losses to compare resumes.

It isn't just who Team A lost to. It's when did they lose to them, was it early or late in the year?

Where did they lose to them, was it neutral, home or away?

What was that opponents record and were they a better team at the time? (Did an injury plague the rest of their season)

What was the final score of the game? Did Team A olay the opponent tough but come up short or did they come in unprepared and look bad?

You are so hooked on the who had a better loss ideal that you are completely ignoring the fact that losses are not taken into account before the following statistics:

W/L Record
Common Opponents
Conference Champion?
Conference Record
Resume against ranked opponents

Then they probably look at who had the better loss if W/L record and championships can't settle it.

You continually approach this like we are still using a computer system that only uses numbers to determine who ranks where. The committee has eyes, they watch the games. Guess what? They saw that Ohio State was worthy of a playoff spot. What happened? They won the freaking playoff! Theres really no argument here. If Ohio State wasn't better than your supposed #1 FSU, how did they beat up #2 Bama, then beat up the team that beat your "#1", Oregon?

But TCU blah blah blah. Conference Co Champion with a smaller win record and a worse comference record. TCU got screwed by the Big 12. End of story.

So there is really no improvement over the AP Poll.

 

[Scratchtown]

The beauty of the comittee over a computer system is the advantage of the eye test. They don't have to stick to one guideline every year. They watch the top teams, they know. And as long as it stays pure it is a far better way than a computer statistic.

Really the only handcuffing I can think of are these:SEC champ is a lock to get in.

Defending national champ gets in with perfect record.

If there is a dispute between 4 and 5, which one lost worse and when did the loss happen? If you lost early it will be forgiven more than a late loss.

SEC Champ is not a lock. Say a 9-3 Tennessee beats a 12-0 Alabama. In that case, Alabama has a better chance of making it in than the SEC Champ Tennessee.

In that case, Tennessee should get in. With the reasoning that Redux is using. I mean, they had an huge win on a big time stage. Losses don't matter

You really aren't letting this go are ya?

Losses matter. But I think you are ignoring a big part of what actually gets taken into account when using losses to compare resumes.

It isn't just who Team A lost to. It's when did they lose to them, was it early or late in the year?

Where did they lose to them, was it neutral, home or away?

What was that opponents record and were they a better team at the time? (Did an injury plague the rest of their season)

What was the final score of the game? Did Team A olay the opponent tough but come up short or did they come in unprepared and look bad?

You are so hooked on the who had a better loss ideal that you are completely ignoring the fact that losses are not taken into account before the following statistics:

W/L Record

Common Opponents

Conference Champion?

Conference Record

Resume against ranked opponents

Then they probably look at who had the better loss if W/L record and championships can't settle it.

You continually approach this like we are still using a computer system that only uses numbers to determine who ranks where. The committee has eyes, they watch the games. Guess what? They saw that Ohio State was worthy of a playoff spot. What happened? They won the freaking playoff! Theres really no argument here. If Ohio State wasn't better than your supposed #1 FSU, how did they beat up #2 Bama, then beat up the team that beat your "#1", Oregon?

But TCU blah blah blah. Conference Co Champion with a smaller win record and a worse comference record. TCU got screwed by the Big 12. End of story.

I'm not arguing for TCU. Baylor won the head to head.

 

[Redux]

So there is really no improvement over the AP

The beauty of the comittee over a computer system is the advantage of the eye test. They don't have to stick to one guideline every year. They watch the top teams, they know. And as long as it stays pure it is a far better way than a computer statistic.

Really the only handcuffing I can think of are these:SEC champ is a lock to get in.

Defending national champ gets in with perfect record.

If there is a dispute between 4 and 5, which one lost worse and when did the loss happen? If you lost early it will be forgiven more than a late loss.

SEC Champ is not a lock. Say a 9-3 Tennessee beats a 12-0 Alabama. In that case, Alabama has a better chance of making it in than the SEC Champ Tennessee.

In that case, Tennessee should get in. With the reasoning that Redux is using. I mean, they had an huge win on a big time stage. Losses don't matter

You really aren't letting this go are ya?

Losses matter. But I think you are ignoring a big part of what actually gets taken into account when using losses to compare resumes.

It isn't just who Team A lost to. It's when did they lose to them, was it early or late in the year?

Where did they lose to them, was it neutral, home or away?

What was that opponents record and were they a better team at the time? (Did an injury plague the rest of their season)

What was the final score of the game? Did Team A olay the opponent tough but come up short or did they come in unprepared and look bad?

You are so hooked on the who had a better loss ideal that you are completely ignoring the fact that losses are not taken into account before the following statistics:

W/L Record

Common Opponents

Conference Champion?

Conference Record

Resume against ranked opponents

Then they probably look at who had the better loss if W/L record and championships can't settle it.

You continually approach this like we are still using a computer system that only uses numbers to determine who ranks where. The committee has eyes, they watch the games. Guess what? They saw that Ohio State was worthy of a playoff spot. What happened? They won the freaking playoff! Theres really no argument here. If Ohio State wasn't better than your supposed #1 FSU, how did they beat up #2 Bama, then beat up the team that beat your "#1", Oregon?

But TCU blah blah blah. Conference Co Champion with a smaller win record and a worse comference record. TCU got screwed by the Big 12. End of story.

So there is really no improvement over the AP Poll.

The regular season matters. Wirht the AP it was a popularity contest and everyone win a trophy. This allows the best 4 to settle it on the field. Is it perfect? Not at all, but it is leaps and bounds better than the Polls and the BCS computer crap.

 

[Redux]

The beauty of the comittee over a computer system is the advantage of the eye test. They don't have to stick to one guideline every year. They watch the top teams, they know. And as long as it stays pure it is a far better way than a computer statistic.

Really the only handcuffing I can think of are these:SEC champ is a lock to get in.

Defending national champ gets in with perfect record.

If there is a dispute between 4 and 5, which one lost worse and when did the loss happen? If you lost early it will be forgiven more than a late loss.

SEC Champ is not a lock. Say a 9-3 Tennessee beats a 12-0 Alabama. In that case, Alabama has a better chance of making it in than the SEC Champ Tennessee.

In that case, Tennessee should get in. With the reasoning that Redux is using. I mean, they had an huge win on a big time stage. Losses don't matter

You really aren't letting this go are ya?Losses matter. But I think you are ignoring a big part of what actually gets taken into account when using losses to compare resumes.

It isn't just who Team A lost to. It's when did they lose to them, was it early or late in the year?

Where did they lose to them, was it neutral, home or away?

What was that opponents record and were they a better team at the time? (Did an injury plague the rest of their season)

What was the final score of the game? Did Team A olay the opponent tough but come up short or did they come in unprepared and look bad?

You are so hooked on the who had a better loss ideal that you are completely ignoring the fact that losses are not taken into account before the following statistics:

W/L Record

Common Opponents

Conference Champion?

Conference Record

Resume against ranked opponents

Then they probably look at who had the better loss if W/L record and championships can't settle it.

You continually approach this like we are still using a computer system that only uses numbers to determine who ranks where. The committee has eyes, they watch the games. Guess what? They saw that Ohio State was worthy of a playoff spot. What happened? They won the freaking playoff! Theres really no argument here. If Ohio State wasn't better than your supposed #1 FSU, how did they beat up #2 Bama, then beat up the team that beat your "#1", Oregon?

But TCU blah blah blah. Conference Co Champion with a smaller win record and a worse comference record. TCU got screwed by the Big 12. End of story.

I'm not arguing for TCU. Baylor won the head to head.

Yes they did. But instead of growing a set of stones and claiming Baylor the champion, they noticed TCU was more likely to get in. So they thought they would double their chances and call them BOTH champion. Essentially throwing their own motto of "One True Champion" in the garbage they sacrificed their shot at a playoff berth. Easily remedied, add 2 teams. Host a title game. Until then, anything short of an undefeated one true champion from the Big 12 is at a disadvantage.

 

[Verin]

You guys act like top 25 means world beaters. End of the year the bottom tiers of top 25 will be 7-5/8-4. I'm with you though, in some areas. Still getting used to teams from Mississippi having winning records.

 

[Redux]

Only number that matters is #1

 

[cornographic]

#34??? that sucks. What sucks even more is that we're out our best player(DPE) for several weeks. That really breaks my heart.

Anyway, some say we're fav to win the West, which implies we'll be somewhere in the top 25 mix.