The focal points of discussion among pundits are:
a) why is Notre Dame ranked ahead of Alabama?
b) why is Notre Dame ranked ahead of Miami?
It wasn't the question/discussion that is the issue: it's the attempt at defending these that has reached absurd levels of gymnastics.
Hunter Yurachek (whose name should be changed to Hunter "You're A Fool") is the Arkansas AD who heads the committee. (Is the reason these Arky ADs always seem to run the committee because nobody is worried about the Hawgs ever making the playoffs?)
Hunter engaged in some of the most mind-numbing garbage you will ever hear in your life. And YES - as I've said, the ratings now are mere myth. And MAYBE a reasonable argument can be made that says, "Notre Dame should be ahead of Alabama." I don't think the RANKING is worth getting worked up over. But the REASONING is the most specious I've heard in the entire history of this whole committee thing.
Oklahoma is number 8. And Hunter was asked about that and said this:
"Oklahoma, obviously, got the nod based on their two-point win at [Alabama]."
Solid argument.
Head-to-head is the first tiebreaker.
Reasonable.
But keep reading.
So since a head-to-head 2-point win is the clinching argument for teams with the same record, this means MIAMI is ranked ahead of NOTRE DAME, right? After all, they won by THREE.
Nope. Again, you CAN reasonably rank a foe who won the H2H contest higher with other factors, but it's what he says here that is mind-boggling, saying Miami and Notre Dame are not "within comparable range." (WTH is that?)
“So, if Miami and Notre Dame are in a comparable tier, comparable range, the head-to-head will be a significant data point that we will use.”
You see what he pulled here? Head to head only matters WHEN WE WANT IT TO MATTER!!!
Well, let's see:
a) Sagarin shows Miami with the 35 SOS and Notre Dame with 20
b) that doesn't remove the head-to-head by any stretch
c) they right now have one common opponent (NC State) and Miami won by 33 at home while Notre Dame won by 29 at home.
Miami is 1-2 against the top 30, N Dame is 2-2. Of course, MIAMI BEAT NOTRE DAME!!!
But as bad as that is, listen to Hunter - whose team hasn't beaten Alabama on a football field since before the invention of the I phone - and you get this justification for why ND is ahead of us:
“You go back and look at Alabama’s game against South Carolina, where they scored two touchdowns late to win that game, and then the next game against LSU, where they won both of those but didn’t rush the ball for 100 yards,” Yurachek said. “Then again, against Oklahoma (Alabama) was not able to move the ball on the ground. So, you look at the games that Alabama has struggled in, starting the season against Florida State, where they struggled with the ball.”
So according to Yurachek, it doesn't matter that Alabama beat South Carolina, it matters that they beat the Gamecocks LATE and (again, I can't believe this)......they don't rush the ball very well?????
Ok, now let's follow his reasoning:
a) Utah is the SECOND BEST rushing offense in the USA
b) they're #12...BEHIND Alabama
c) they have the exact same record
So......shouldn't UTAH be ahead of Alabama then using the "they can rush the ball" argument?
As if this isn't insane enough, go back and read that comment about Alabama vs South Carolina. And then read THIS COMMENT from the SAME GUY on the SAME DAY about South Carolina and another team that DID NOT fall in the rankings:
“I think the second half definitively neutralized the way they played in the first half,” Yurachek said, “especially when you find a way to win a game like that, when you are not very good and you’re not your typical self in that first half."
He's referring to the Aggies, who had to storm back from a 27-point deficit to nip a team Alabama was good enough to NOT fall 27 points behind.
For those wondering, the Aggies had ONLY 64 rushing yards (Alabama had 72).
Again - my problem isn't the ranking, it's the "let me make up some crap on the fly" that I can't stand.
a) why is Notre Dame ranked ahead of Alabama?
b) why is Notre Dame ranked ahead of Miami?
It wasn't the question/discussion that is the issue: it's the attempt at defending these that has reached absurd levels of gymnastics.
Hunter Yurachek (whose name should be changed to Hunter "You're A Fool") is the Arkansas AD who heads the committee. (Is the reason these Arky ADs always seem to run the committee because nobody is worried about the Hawgs ever making the playoffs?)
Hunter engaged in some of the most mind-numbing garbage you will ever hear in your life. And YES - as I've said, the ratings now are mere myth. And MAYBE a reasonable argument can be made that says, "Notre Dame should be ahead of Alabama." I don't think the RANKING is worth getting worked up over. But the REASONING is the most specious I've heard in the entire history of this whole committee thing.
Oklahoma is number 8. And Hunter was asked about that and said this:
"Oklahoma, obviously, got the nod based on their two-point win at [Alabama]."
Solid argument.
Head-to-head is the first tiebreaker.
Reasonable.
But keep reading.
So since a head-to-head 2-point win is the clinching argument for teams with the same record, this means MIAMI is ranked ahead of NOTRE DAME, right? After all, they won by THREE.
Nope. Again, you CAN reasonably rank a foe who won the H2H contest higher with other factors, but it's what he says here that is mind-boggling, saying Miami and Notre Dame are not "within comparable range." (WTH is that?)
“So, if Miami and Notre Dame are in a comparable tier, comparable range, the head-to-head will be a significant data point that we will use.”
You see what he pulled here? Head to head only matters WHEN WE WANT IT TO MATTER!!!
Well, let's see:
a) Sagarin shows Miami with the 35 SOS and Notre Dame with 20
b) that doesn't remove the head-to-head by any stretch
c) they right now have one common opponent (NC State) and Miami won by 33 at home while Notre Dame won by 29 at home.
Miami is 1-2 against the top 30, N Dame is 2-2. Of course, MIAMI BEAT NOTRE DAME!!!
But as bad as that is, listen to Hunter - whose team hasn't beaten Alabama on a football field since before the invention of the I phone - and you get this justification for why ND is ahead of us:
“You go back and look at Alabama’s game against South Carolina, where they scored two touchdowns late to win that game, and then the next game against LSU, where they won both of those but didn’t rush the ball for 100 yards,” Yurachek said. “Then again, against Oklahoma (Alabama) was not able to move the ball on the ground. So, you look at the games that Alabama has struggled in, starting the season against Florida State, where they struggled with the ball.”
So according to Yurachek, it doesn't matter that Alabama beat South Carolina, it matters that they beat the Gamecocks LATE and (again, I can't believe this)......they don't rush the ball very well?????
Ok, now let's follow his reasoning:
a) Utah is the SECOND BEST rushing offense in the USA
b) they're #12...BEHIND Alabama
c) they have the exact same record
So......shouldn't UTAH be ahead of Alabama then using the "they can rush the ball" argument?
As if this isn't insane enough, go back and read that comment about Alabama vs South Carolina. And then read THIS COMMENT from the SAME GUY on the SAME DAY about South Carolina and another team that DID NOT fall in the rankings:
“I think the second half definitively neutralized the way they played in the first half,” Yurachek said, “especially when you find a way to win a game like that, when you are not very good and you’re not your typical self in that first half."
He's referring to the Aggies, who had to storm back from a 27-point deficit to nip a team Alabama was good enough to NOT fall 27 points behind.
For those wondering, the Aggies had ONLY 64 rushing yards (Alabama had 72).
Again - my problem isn't the ranking, it's the "let me make up some crap on the fly" that I can't stand.
