@gros-louis What I’ve been complaining about for years is that you have to look at the losses too. In the Cig era, we have zero bad losses. Georgia, for example lost to a bad Auburn team.
Show me where the CFP uses AP or Coach's rankings in their evaluation of wins and losses.@gros-louis - All of the rankings are based purely on personal belief, that's the point. Why do the pundits believe those teams are better? Clearly, it's not because the B1G has continually showed them they aren't better over the last 3 years. It's the same song and dance. The SEC is over hyped all season, then they fall flat. At some point, the over hyping of that middle to bottom half of the SEC teams, needs to stop. When you rank 10 teams in a conference, you are going to see a ton of ranked wins and perpetually inflate other bad teams to replace them in the rankings and overinflate the top half of the teams. It's a never-ending cycle that creates what looks like a robust SOS, when really, it's just their own bias "eye test" that makes it that way.
To put it another way, if the B1G were given 9 or 10 ranked teams to start the season, we would still have 9 or 10 ranked teams, and our SOS would be much better. We look at the SEC as we did a decade ago and think, they look faster. Then we play them and beat the snot out of them. That's because it's always a mirage all season, propped up by the pundits. You just happen to take them at their word.
The whole reason they don't release their rankings until November is so that they can evaluate teams through the better part of the season before ranking them and nowhere in the data they use is AP rankings or Coach's poll rankings used.
The B1G had a hell of a lot better argument over being the best conference the past 3 years than they have this year. You might not believe this, but I would have supported your argument in those years. The SEC does have a tendency to be overrated by the AP and Coach's (which don't matter), but this is a different year and the B1G isn't very good. Not better at the top. Not better in the middle. Possibly better at the bottom.
AP or coach's rankings? I said Mizzou isn't ranked or honorable mention in the coaches poll yet are ranked 22nd in the CFP.
Again, its the pundits that are the issue. That bleeds into everything, AP, coaches and CFP. It's purely based on the stale notion that the SEC is better. You say you would've had a different opinion last year but thats easy to say in hindsight.
How about this, the B1G is clearly going to be at a severe disadvantage because we will only get 1-3 teams in at most while the SEC is bound to get 4-5 teams (just like last years 5).....but if the B1G beats them again, are you going to start agreeing that there is a big issue with how the national perception is handling the SEC vs other conferences? I mean, that would be 2 seasons of a large advantage over every conference yet nothing to show for it. The committee wasn't swayed as much in 2024 where the SEC only got 3 teams just like the B1G. But lord knows the pundits were trying hard to push out a 1 loss IU for a 3 loss Bama.
@gros-louis What I’ve been complaining about for years is that you have to look at the losses too. In the Cig era, we have zero bad losses. Georgia, for example lost to a bad Auburn team.
I am with you. A bad loss should essentially remove a good win. The loss to Auburn should eliminate the win vs Bama. Yet Georgia is somehow clearly the #1 team in the country based on......a win vs Ole Miss?
Here's where its gonna get really, really, really frustrating.
Say IU's offense finds its stride, and we beat USC comfortably on Saturday. That should solve the "eye test" issue, the not beating any good teams issue... yeah? They should jump back up close to top 5 territory, right? The committee has sure seemed comfortable with big jumps, and big falls thus far...
Georgia is going to beat Mizzou. Bama is going to win at Vandy. UCLA is going to beat Illinois. ND is going to beat BC. Miami is going to beat Duke. Tennessee is going to beat A&M. Texas might lose to LSU, and IU would probably jump them if so. But even if Utah loses at a ranked Arizona, I doubt they drop them the required 6 or so spots it would take to put IU ahead of them. So IU, even if they play great, and answer a lot of these questions, likely only moves up to 8.
And then... if who you beat truly matters as much more than who you lose to... does it even matter if Georgia loses to Mizzou, if Bama loses to Vandy, etc... I could see a 3 loss Bama team still be ranked higher than a 1 loss IU team. USC might fall out of the rankings with a loss to IU after all.
The committee, by virtue of how they've ranked the first two weeks, has lost control of this process.
https://twitter.com/JoelKlattShow/status/2120515014423646260?a=GBkhPCcGCg6fi53pIPA&s=20
"It doesn't matter who you lost to" 🤣 🤣
"SEC feedback loop engaged!"
Losing to Auburn this year is a bad loss. So who would you have ranked ahead of Georgia, when combining their bad loss with the wins that they have at this point? And why?@gros-louis What I’ve been complaining about for years is that you have to look at the losses too. In the Cig era, we have zero bad losses. Georgia, for example lost to a bad Auburn team.
I'll answer. MAYBE Utah??? Who else?
So I'll ask you too, who would you have ranked ahead of them? And why?@gros-louis What I’ve been complaining about for years is that you have to look at the losses too. In the Cig era, we have zero bad losses. Georgia, for example lost to a bad Auburn team.
I am with you. A bad loss should essentially remove a good win. The loss to Auburn should eliminate the win vs Bama. Yet Georgia is somehow clearly the #1 team in the country based on......a win vs Ole Miss?
You're normally a very level-headed poster, but I think this is an absurd thought.I could see a 3 loss Bama team still be ranked higher than a 1 loss IU team.
@gros-louis I think it is too... Just like Bama being 5 spots ahead of a Tennessee team that beat their ass. When both teams have 2 losses. It was hyperbole to call out everyone saying who you lose to, doesn't matter. Its who you beat that matters.
The committee is painting themselves in a corner. Its actually becoming way too similar to the "blind rankings" exercises that Brandon Walker does on his podcast.
I'm honestly of the unpopular opinion that sometimes head to head is given too much weight, although it is tough when the number of losses is the same. The head to head thing is going to back them into a corner when you have the parity that we have this year.@gros-louis I think it is too... Just like Bama being 5 spots ahead of a Tennessee team that beat their ass. When both teams have 2 losses. It was hyperbole to call out everyone saying who you lose to, doesn't matter. Its who you beat that matters.
The committee is painting themselves in a corner. Its actually becoming way too similar to the "blind rankings" exercises that Brandon Walker does on his podcast.
It's not who you beat that matters. It's not who you lose to that matters. It's a balance of the two, imo.
The head to head stuff always bugs me. It's not more important a metric than any other... but is always used as a 'tiebreaker' even when the team winning the tiebreaker has lost more games to everybody else.Just like Bama being 5 spots ahead of a Tennessee team that beat their ass. When both teams have 2 losses.
Alabama has lost only once to the rest of their schedule, while Tennessee has lost twice to the rest of their schedule. So, Alabama is better unless they play head to head. If wins and losses count?
Not that I buy my above argument of course.
Just that head to head only means on the day the matchup favored one team over the other. The other games and other metrics, and eye test, and current form, count too. "HEAD TO HEAD!" gets ridiculously overused as a be-all-end-all.
...
And, SUMMARY, if Indiana gets left out with two losses while ANY team gets in with three, I estimate a 95% chance that means we got royally screwed. Because a 'name' team winning close with great defenses always get credit. That we seem to not be getting.
Hopefully will not come down to two losses, but just saying.
@gros-louis - Just to make sure we are staying on task, the issue here is the idea that Georgia is considered the clear #1 team. Georgia had an awful loss to Auburn which essentially negates their Bama win. That means they have a "ranked" win vs Ole Miss. I would put Utah, UCLA and ND ahead of them. ND has a good loss to BYU and a good win over undefeated Miami. I would put Georgia ahead of Miami because if you negate the good Georgia win because of the loss, you would also negate that loss because of the good win. Therefore, Miami has 1 loss (albeit a good one vs ND) and Georgia would have none.
IU, if we're all being honest with ourselves, is probably ranked about where it should be. Heck, they might even be overrated a little bit, versus how good they've actually played. The team we've seen the last month or so, isn't a top 10 team. It has some top ten components, for sure... but overall, they just haven't been all that good.
100%.
Our offense has been mostly comatose since the first Saturday of October at Rutgers. The D has been stellar but overall team performance has not been impressive in beating middling teams.
We blew our one chance at beating a team (Ohio State) that's currently in the top 25. We have a second chance this Saturday. We need a statement win. LET'S F*CKING GO!!
There are wins outside of 'ranked wins' that count as well. Thank god, otherwise, Indiana wouldn't have anything to stand on. You can also beat good/decent teams (Nebraska, Northwestern, Michigan (questionable now) Florida, Oklahoma, etc) and get credit for those with the committee. All of those teams I just listed are better than anyone on ND's schedule, outside of BYU and Miami. So giving Georgia credit for playing and beating more teams with a pulse than ND did is fair, imo. All of those teams are better than all of UCLA's opponents, outside of maybe Oregon.@gros-louis - Just to make sure we are staying on task, the issue here is the idea that Georgia is considered the clear #1 team. Georgia had an awful loss to Auburn which essentially negates their Bama win. That means they have a "ranked" win vs Ole Miss. I would put Utah, UCLA and ND ahead of them. ND has a good loss to BYU and a good win over undefeated Miami. I would put Georgia ahead of Miami because if you negate the good Georgia win because of the loss, you would also negate that loss because of the good win. Therefore, Miami has 1 loss (albeit a good one vs ND) and Georgia would have none.