AP Poll

TxLawGrad said:
I know - I understand some, but not all, of the Oregon love. But why on earth are they favored by 9.5 against UW? Do the oddsmakers just think it will be that hard for UW to beat Oregon twice in one season?
Click to expand...
I think in general it's hard if both teams are evenly matched. You see it all the time. Team A beats team B first go around and then team B wins the second time.
 
Isn’t it great that we are even having this conversation. Look where the program was a couple years ago. Sark, the coaches, and players have done a get job and have gotten this program back on top and headed in the right direction. For me, let’s focus on beating ok. Lite and go from there. The sharper we look in this game will only help our cause. That’s what we can control.
 
mmsnake said:
Isn’t it great that we are even having this conversation. Look where the program was a couple years ago. Sark, the coaches, and players have done a get job and have gotten this program back on top and headed in the right direction. For me, let’s focus on beating ok. Lite and go from there. The sharper we look in this game will only help our cause. That’s what we can control.
Click to expand...
Probably good that FSU plays last in terms of Horns playing focused football.
 
Horns11 said:
So at that point, we're basically saying "hey committee, I know we had the worst loss among those teams, but because of the H2H with Bama and the CCG, gotta let it slide." And I don't think everyone agrees with that methodology. Including the 2008 pollsters. And everyone who watched us in the 2nd halves of the UH, KSU, and TCU games.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the most important point. Other than W-L record, the committee repeatedly emphasizes that winning a conference championship is the single biggest factor in the analysis. And their track record is 100% consistent with that statement.

2008 (which was pre-CFP, but the BCS committee used a similar analysis) presented an odd situation, but even that doesn't support your analysis. The Big XII tiebreaker rules sent Oklahoma to the CCG over Texas, even though Texas beat Oklahoma head to head. Oklahoma then won the CCG, making them conference champions. Thus, the committee chose Oklahoma over Texas -- which was 100% consistent with the primacy of conference championships.

Bottom line -- no 1-loss team who doesn't win their conference will get in over a 1-loss Texas team that wins the Big XII. Nothing that the committee has ever said or done supports an argument to the contrary.
 
Anyone who thinks that Michigan can’t lose to Iowa doesn’t know U-M football historically. Before they played TCU, I reassured all my TCU friends that playing was a godsend because they have a history of blowing the biggest games throughout history.
 
crizistre said:
Anyone who thinks that Michigan can’t lose to Iowa doesn’t know U-M football historically. Before they played TCU, I reassured all my TCU friends that playing was a godsend because they have a history of blowing the biggest games throughout history.
Click to expand...
In all seriousness, the only chance Iowa has of winning will be by a defensive score or special teams score. Michigan's defense is to much for Iowa's offense to handle.
 
mchammer said:
Probably good that FSU plays last in terms of Horns playing focused football.
Click to expand...
Yes. In terms of point spread, the Louisville-FSU game is considered to be the most 'upset-prone' but we'll see how that plays out. It would be nice to have a win from Washington or Bama on the chart before going into that final ACC Championship game, though.
 
TxLawGrad said:
I disagree. The best-case scenario for us is as follows:

(1) Washington beats Oregon in the Pac 12 CCG. Oregon has 2 losses. UW is in, Oregon is out.
(2) We win comfortably (i.e., cover the spread and then some) against OSU in the Big 12 CCG. This is obvious; we have no chance if we allow the Pokes to beat us.
(3) Georgia beats Alabama in the SEC CCG. Alabama has 2 losses. Georgia is in, Alabama is out.
(4) Michigan beats Iowa in the B1G CCG. Michigan is in, leaving no doubt about who should represent the B1G in the CFP.
(5) Louisville beats Florida St. in the ACC CCG (preferably by double-digits).

That leaves the committee to choose among Texas, Ohio State, and Florida State for the last spot. Texas has the best win among that group, and will have won its CCG. I don't see how the committee picks Florida State or Ohio State over a team that lost or didn't even play in its CCG.
Click to expand...
 
Pomspoms said:
well, there certainly is a real possibility that at least one of the fan bases will be crying foul.
Click to expand...
No doubt, lol. To expand on that:
  1. There will be teams that have a valid argument to get in, but don't.
  2. There will be people who make invalid arguments for why their team should have gotten in, but didn't.
 
steve0 said:
Ding ding ding. I think you nailed It with this scenario. I think Alabama and Georgia would both get in if Alabama wins, and we would be left out.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. I don't see any scenario in which a one-loss conference champion is passed over for a one-loss conference runner up.
 
Remember everyone has said the SEC is down this year. Maybe this is the year that no SEC teams go: Undefeated UW, UM, FSU, and one loss Texas that beat SEC champ Bama.
 
Bama was lucky beyond any expectations to beat Auburn. Milroe did put the ball in the corner which was impressive but that ending was pure luck - just saying.
 
nashhorn said:
Bama was lucky beyond any expectations to beat Auburn. Milroe did put the ball in the corner which was impressive but that ending was pure luck - just saying.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how much the committee will look at that. If Bama wins, they'll look more at the margin of victory and style points in that game rather than the Auburn escape. I can definitely see a different scenarios playing out if Bama blows out UGA vs. Bama beating them by a field goal.
 
NJlonghorn said:
You are ignoring the most important point. Other than W-L record, the committee repeatedly emphasizes that winning a conference championship is the single biggest factor in the analysis. And their track record is 100% consistent with that statement.

2008 (which was pre-CFP, but the BCS committee used a similar analysis) presented an odd situation, but even that doesn't support your analysis. The Big XII tiebreaker rules sent Oklahoma to the CCG over Texas, even though Texas beat Oklahoma head to head. Oklahoma then won the CCG, making them conference champions. Thus, the committee chose Oklahoma over Texas -- which was 100% consistent with the primacy of conference championships.

Bottom line -- no 1-loss team who doesn't win their conference will get in over a 1-loss Texas team that wins the Big XII. Nothing that the committee has ever said or done supports an argument to the contrary.
Click to expand...

When you say "other than W-L record," you're basically admitting that in all six of the aforementioned years and all 8 of the examples given, there was not a single time where a conference champ had the same/better record as someone they fell behind in the CFP rankings. That's obviously going to happen this year, so you can't unequivocally fall back on it as the method for the committee's thinking this year. I'd love for it to be true, but sometimes humans make decisions that don't jibe with that.

When I was talking about the pollsters in 2008, I was referring to poll voters keeping teams ahead of other teams (*cough*) pre-CCG. Without regard to H2H.

Again, if everyone on this board wants the absolute best odds at making the CFP, the little predictor app has all but confirmed that my way of thinking is the way that gives us a 96% chance of making the CFP. Anything else leaves too much room for doubt, and there will be committee members who see differently than every other year of the CFP due to the 1-loss shared by too many schools.
 
Horns11 said:
Again, if everyone on this board wants the absolute best odds at making the CFP, the little predictor app has all but confirmed that my way of thinking is the way that gives us a 96% chance of making the CFP. Anything else leaves too much room for doubt, and there will be committee members who see differently than every other year of the CFP due to the 1-loss shared by too many schools.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're incorrect. I'm not sure I'm disagreeing with you here, but to me, the most straightforward way for us to make the playoff is for us to win and FSU to lose. If that happens, we should be guaranteed a spot.

Unfortunately, Louisville-FSU is the last game on the slate of CCGs, so we'll have to take care of business and wait. If Iowa pulls off the upset against Michigan, we're in great shape. That, unfortunately, is less likely to happen than a Louisville upset.
 
Horns11 said:
When you say "other than W-L record," you're basically admitting that in all six of the aforementioned years and all 8 of the examples given, there was not a single time where a conference champ had the same/better record as someone they fell behind in the CFP rankings. That's obviously going to happen this year, so you can't unequivocally fall back on it as the method for the committee's thinking this year. I'd love for it to be true, but sometimes humans make decisions that don't jibe with that.

When I was talking about the pollsters in 2008, I was referring to poll voters keeping teams ahead of other teams (*cough*) pre-CCG. Without regard to H2H.

Again, if everyone on this board wants the absolute best odds at making the CFP, the little predictor app has all but confirmed that my way of thinking is the way that gives us a 96% chance of making the CFP. Anything else leaves too much room for doubt, and there will be committee members who see differently than every other year of the CFP due to the 1-loss shared by too many schools.
Click to expand...

The situation you are positing is the flip side of the coin of what I addressed in my prior post. But the data on the other side of the coin is equally consistent with my position.

The committee has had plenty of chances to rank a 1-loss team that didn't win its conference ahead of a 1-loss team that did win its conference. The committee has passed on that opportunity every time:

Teams that were excluded:
  • 2015: 1-loss Bama, MSU, and OU (conference champs) were selected over 1-loss Iowa (not a conference champ)
  • 2017: 1-loss Clemson, OU, and UGa (conference champs) were selected over 1-loss Wisconsin (not a conference champ)
  • 2020: 1-loss Clemson (conference champ) was selected over 1-loss A&M (not a conference champ)
  • 2021: 1-loss Bama, UM, and UGa (conference champs) were selected over 1-loss Notre Dame (not a conference champ)
Teams that were included, but with a higher seed:
  • 2017: 1-loss Clemson, OU, and UGa (conference champs) were seeded 1-3 while 1-loss Bama (not a conference champ) was seeded 4
  • 2020: 1-loss Clemson (conference champ) was seeded 2 while 1-loss ND (not a conference champ) was seeded 4
And then there's the strange case of 2014, where half of a conference championship was deemed to be less than a full conference championship:
  • 2014: 1-loss Bama, Oregon, and Ohio St. (conference champs) over 1-loss Baylor and TCU (conference co-champs)
 
NJlonghorn said:
The situation you are positing is the flip side of the coin of what I addressed in my prior post. But the data on the other side of the coin is equally consistent with my position.

The committee has had plenty of chances to rank a 1-loss team that didn't win its conference ahead of a 1-loss team that did win its conference. The committee has passed on that opportunity every time:

Teams that were excluded:
  • 2015: 1-loss Bama, MSU, and OU (conference champs) were selected over 1-loss Iowa (not a conference champ)
  • 2017: 1-loss Clemson, OU, and UGa (conference champs) were selected over 1-loss Wisconsin (not a conference champ)
  • 2020: 1-loss Clemson (conference champ) was selected over 1-loss A&M (not a conference champ)
  • 2021: 1-loss Bama, UM, and UGa (conference champs) were selected over 1-loss Notre Dame (not a conference champ)
Teams that were included, but with a higher seed:
  • 2017: 1-loss Clemson, OU, and UGa (conference champs) were seeded 1-3 while 1-loss Bama (not a conference champ) was seeded 4
  • 2020: 1-loss Clemson (conference champ) was seeded 2 while 1-loss ND (not a conference champ) was seeded 4
And then there's the strange case of 2014, where half of a conference championship was deemed to be less than a full conference championship:
  • 2014: 1-loss Bama, Oregon, and Ohio St. (conference champs) over 1-loss Baylor and TCU (conference co-champs)
Click to expand...
Your 2021 example did you mean Cincinnati instead of Georgia for conference champs?
 
militaryhorn said:
Your 2021 example did you mean Cincinnati instead of Georgia for conference champs?
Click to expand...

Oops, thanks for catching that. I described 2021 wrong, but the overall pattern holds.

Cinci was an undefeated conference champ, so that doesn’t really fit into the analysts one way or the other. UGa was a one-loss non-champion. They got in, but seeded behind the 2 one-loss conference champions, Bama and Michigan.
 
Bayerithe said:
I don't know how much weight to put in it, but some of the big mouth pundits out there screaming how Alabama goes ahead of Texas if they beat Georgia, because a win over #1 Georgia is better than head to head :brickwall::puke:
Click to expand...

This is correct unfortunately. Good news is if we are good enough next year we can use this to our advantage, being in the sec facing top 5 teams in a ccg as opposed to playing #19. The b12 offers nothing in the pursuit of getting into the cfp
 
Texas Nation remembers 2008 all to well. The CFP Committee cannot be trusted to apply their "rules" as written (already see Texas behind Oregon).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top