I appreciate the fact you're still with us.
I'd have probably wrecked my car driving it directly into a phone pole from laughing had I heard that.
CFP poll week 2 (Nov 9) prediction, results...
- Thread starter crimsonaudio
- Start date
I'd have probably wrecked my car driving it directly into a phone pole from laughing had I heard that.
1) Georgia - fine
2) Alabama - fine
3) Oregon - so a struggle win over a team that lost to Montana moves you up a spot?
4) Ohio State - below Oregon is fine since they lost head-to-head
5) Cincinnati - not the fifth best team in the USA but I'm okay with this
6) Michigan - well just as long as they're below Sparty and.....
7) Michigan St - WHAT THE HELL???????? How the hell???????
8) Oklahoma - why would you have them below these other teams? But fine.
9) Notre Dame - shouldn't they be AHEAD of Cincinnati?????
10) OK State - fine
The rest, who cares?
Honestly I think they are just giving controversial rankings right now to keep people talking/ paying attention. They have created a controversy with Michigan and Michigan St. But tOSU will probably take care of that for them. If Alabama beats UGA in the SECCG then they look like geniuses for puting us in at number 2. If we lose then they have room for Oklahoma if they win out or Cinci if Oklahoma drops one. These ranking are just so Klatt and Stephen A. Smith can get on ESPN and fake outrage.
Hoping this doesn't qualify as hijacking the thread, but could y'all settle something for me?
What good are these early playoff committee rankings? What differentiates them from any other available poll? They don't appear to be using any special criteria to choose the teams beyond "eye test" and gut feeling. They seem to ignore the future schedule and the potential impact of conference championship games. They even seem to ignore head-to-head.
Case in point, I firmly believe that Bama doesn't make the playoff unless we win out, yet the playoff poll has us at 2. Listening to the talking heads out there, this is treated like you're projected to end up in the playoff, yet did they do the due diligence of analyzing our percentage chance of winning out?
Further, I'd wager that if TA&M hadn't dropped those early games, they'd be in the top four too and we all know three teams from one conference getting a playoff invite could never happen. So, again I ask, what is the useful function of these preliminary playoff rankings? They're not even attempting to predict the final four.
Y'know what would actually be interesting and require manly fortitude? Instead of a lame copycat poll, they should instead release a weekly prediction of the final four, as it currently stands. Just think if instead of this junk, they put out Georgia, OU, Cincinnati, Oregon and that was it. They'd never do something like that because it would require guts and actual work, but it would sure fire up fanbases and conversation nationally.
Instead, like a student putting off doing their homework, they wait until the last minute to do the actual hard work of determining the final four, toss it out there and are suddenly nowhere to be found. They're not committed to any of their previous rankings whatsoever.
What good are these early playoff committee rankings? What differentiates them from any other available poll? They don't appear to be using any special criteria to choose the teams beyond "eye test" and gut feeling. They seem to ignore the future schedule and the potential impact of conference championship games. They even seem to ignore head-to-head.
Case in point, I firmly believe that Bama doesn't make the playoff unless we win out, yet the playoff poll has us at 2. Listening to the talking heads out there, this is treated like you're projected to end up in the playoff, yet did they do the due diligence of analyzing our percentage chance of winning out?
Further, I'd wager that if TA&M hadn't dropped those early games, they'd be in the top four too and we all know three teams from one conference getting a playoff invite could never happen. So, again I ask, what is the useful function of these preliminary playoff rankings? They're not even attempting to predict the final four.
Y'know what would actually be interesting and require manly fortitude? Instead of a lame copycat poll, they should instead release a weekly prediction of the final four, as it currently stands. Just think if instead of this junk, they put out Georgia, OU, Cincinnati, Oregon and that was it. They'd never do something like that because it would require guts and actual work, but it would sure fire up fanbases and conversation nationally.
Instead, like a student putting off doing their homework, they wait until the last minute to do the actual hard work of determining the final four, toss it out there and are suddenly nowhere to be found. They're not committed to any of their previous rankings whatsoever.
I don't have a big problem with them switching Michigan-Michigan State. They felt Michigan was the better team even though State won that game. It wasn't so much that State outplayed them in that game as it was Michigan self destructed. Michigan won the game statistically, had the big lead and then committed turnovers. Sometimes the best team just doesn't win. After Michigan beat lowly Indiana by 22 last Saturday, a team that MSU only beat by 5 they decided to make the switch.
Ok, so just to be clear....
"Beating Another Team by More Points miraculously translates your loss head-to-head into a win."
Correct?
(Hell, using THIS argument, you have to tell me why Michigan St was ever rated higher in the first place).
Shhh.....don't tell anyone but they're 100% meaningless......
Not really, the CFP is GENERALLY very good.
They SHOULD ignore future games because they haven't occurred yet.
I wouldn't say they "ignore" head-to-head so much as put it in context.
My problem with the UM-Mich St result is that one week didn't miraculously change anything.
Talking heads often are not accompanied by functioning brains.
Yeah, they said that about "two" in 2012, too - this place was rife with "they're only getting a committee to make sure 2011 never happens again."
They allow fans years later to recall "when we knocked off #3 whoever."
So they should replace a "this is a snapshot in time" poll with "what we think will happen on selection Sunday" poll. If you do that then why even publish another one after the first one?
I think your assessment is 180 degrees removed from the fact the committee doesn't just make predictions, they actually rank teams right now based on "the whole body of work," which is far more work than just saying "this is what we predict."
Furthermore - are you seriously suggesting the group that CHOOSES the Final Four should PREDICT it weekly?
Do you not realize what a public relations disaster that would be?
@selmaborntidefan
Well, the obvious answer is that I'm wishing for a world where they change from a useless and boring poll to a useful and interesting one. I'm well aware it will never happen because they couldn't take the heat of actually making tough weekly predictions based on *both* current resume' and likely future outcomes.
Well, the obvious answer is that I'm wishing for a world where they change from a useless and boring poll to a useful and interesting one. I'm well aware it will never happen because they couldn't take the heat of actually making tough weekly predictions based on *both* current resume' and likely future outcomes.
It appears to me that the committee tries to position teams in the rankings so the best teams will be in if they win out. That would mean looking down the road and assessing the rest of each team in the top 10's schedule and likelihood of winning out. At this point in the season any team with 1 loss that loses again is out, and undefeated but flawed teams have the opportunity to move up. IMO the early CFP rankings are all about including as many good teams as possible and positioning them to have a shot. That said, I don't think Cincinnati will advance unless they win out and Oklahoma, Alabama, and Oregon both lose.
No, not always. It depends how a team wins a game. Do they dominate or get a bit lucky? How do they do against common opponents? If head-to-head is all that should matter then we're very fortunate TAMU has 2 losses otherwise our season would be over now.
I think in one of Kirk Herbstreit's recent interviews, he mentioned that when the CFP committee first got together, they talked about only releasing the rankings during the last week of the regular season (for the first ranking), but that the committee eventually decided to start ranking earlier for ratings/to give people interest and something to discuss. So, I think they do this on purpose each week just to get ratings.
Sometimes their rankings are strange, but the thing is, the committee can do whatever they want to each week and somehow justify it. This year there are 8 new members, which is the most turnover so far. The final rankings will be interesting, especially with all the 1 loss teams and Cincy (who I hope loses). I just hope Bama makes it in the top 4 somehow. Even if Bama can't beat UGA, I think they could beat the other teams in the top 4. It would still be a very good season and help with recruiting, considering the rebuild year. To me, this is truly a rebuild year, not a reload.... and that includes players and coaches. RTR!
Sometimes their rankings are strange, but the thing is, the committee can do whatever they want to each week and somehow justify it. This year there are 8 new members, which is the most turnover so far. The final rankings will be interesting, especially with all the 1 loss teams and Cincy (who I hope loses). I just hope Bama makes it in the top 4 somehow. Even if Bama can't beat UGA, I think they could beat the other teams in the top 4. It would still be a very good season and help with recruiting, considering the rebuild year. To me, this is truly a rebuild year, not a reload.... and that includes players and coaches. RTR!
With each week the uga fans and radio guys are getting worse. I might have to cheer for fifteenessee this weekend and the thought of that fills me with rage.
Believe it or not I will be pulling for UT. I have lived in Ga all my life, except for the years I was in the Air Force, and I have always hated UGA. I couldn't stand Vince Dooley or the wife he rode in on.
Except your comparison is flawed because Michigan and Sparty have the SAME NUMBER of losses.
I'm not arguing head-to-head IN AND OF ITSELF is a valid argument.
But same record and head-to-head win?
Big difference.
It's 71 and counting for me, d-man.
That "lack of understanding" comment sounds just like something Uncle Joe said recently.
There are valid points on both sides of the debate. That's why the committee discussed these two teams for a half hour. It will turn out the way you think it should if they both win out since Sparty would win the division on the tie break. Perhaps the committee was looking ahead a bit and feeling if Sparty can't win @ Purdue then they won't win @ Ohio State.
Try telling that to some of your fellow Sooners over on Dirtburglars.It's 71 and counting for me, d-man.
That "lack of understanding" comment sounds just like something Uncle Joe said recently.
Lots of what I'm talking about going on over there. You OTHO seem to be much better informed and we like having you over here. There is a national media campaign to present Alabama in a negative light because there is a growing fear that we could possibly get in with two losses. I know it sounds absurd but I have heard several pundits on podcasts discussing this topic!
New Posts
-
-
-
-
No. 18 Alabama Erases Five-Run Deficit, Wins 7-5 over Missouri on Thursday
- Latest: BhamToTexas
-
-
Amazon Deals for TideFans!
Purchases may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.
Latest threads
-
-
-
No. 18 Alabama Erases Five-Run Deficit, Wins 7-5 over Missouri on Thursday- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 1
-
-
Alabama’s Ozmer Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
