(04-16-2012 06:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't see why the WC slot should exclude conference champions. That 4th slot should go to the highest-rated team after the first 3 slots are filled, whether that team is a conference champ or not.

That is how I see it working out. The top 3 slots are guaranteed conference champ. The number 4 is either a conference champ or the highest rated non champ.

(04-16-2012 05:24 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I think this method actually reduces the value of a conference championship. Imagine your team being in that top 3 category but having to play an extra game vs a divisional champ ranked #10 and losing. There goes your conference champ slot in the playoff. Big12 without a championship game would benefit the most.
Look at the Big East only entry with Cincy as #3 it would had put that BE entry at risk by having o play another game.

I think it will also encourage light nonconference scheduling even more. Why take a chance and put yourself at a disadvantage early in the season? Schedule some easy teams and go undefeated to guarantee one of the top four spots. Or even allow for one conference loss. That's the SEC formula (light nonconference with only rare away nonconference games).

With only 4 spots, that'll be true no matter how you slice it, but it adding the wild card will actually exacerbate that tendency to schedule light in nonconference as other leagues try to duplicate the SEC formula.

(04-17-2012 10:19 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  .... adding the wild card will actually exacerbate that tendency to schedule light in nonconference as other leagues try to duplicate the SEC formula.

SEC teams have played either the toughest or second-toughest average schedules among AQ conferences over the past 5 years. For example, this past season, according to Sagarin, the average SEC schedule was 21st toughest, second only to the Big 12, while the average Big East schedule was 60th toughest.

Anyone who thinks the SEC teams have skated into the national title games on soft schedules is ignorant or bitter.

(04-17-2012 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 10:19 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  .... adding the wild card will actually exacerbate that tendency to schedule light in nonconference as other leagues try to duplicate the SEC formula.

SEC teams have played either the toughest or second-toughest average schedules among AQ conferences over the past 5 years. For example, according to Sagarin, the average SEC schedule was 21st toughest, second only to the Big 12, while the average Big East schedule was 60th toughest.

Anyone who thinks the SEC teams have skated into the national title games on soft schedules is ignorant or bitter.

Or is intelligent enough to realize that the SEC gets more teams ranked highly PRE-season who then feast on cupcakes OOC (proving nothing) before entering 'the gauntlet' that is a bunch of other teams living off of preseason rankings and OOC cupcakes. Aka the SEC.

(04-16-2012 05:23 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 04:40 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  Top four conference champions ... or top three champions and highest independent if ranked above the fourth-best conference champion ... would be the fairest set-up.

I do not like the idea of a permanent Wild Card because it almost guarantees that a worthy conference champion will be excluded in favor of a Big Ten or SEC runner-up.

While I understand the point, can anyone in this thread say with a straight face that either Clemson (I laugh just typing that, and I'm an ACC fan) or Wisconsin was better than Alabama?

I don't think the "at-large" caters to ND as much as it caters to a runner-up in a loaded football conference (right now, the SEC, some day, maybe the B1G).

But, it allows ND to remain a football independent. This is probably goal number one for Notre Dame, likely even outranking the goal of actually winning a championship (which is too damn bad from my perspective).

ND staying independent in football is important for the school for a number of reasons which have nothing to do with football itself.

ND uses football, and especially football independence, as an important tool to promote itself as "the national Catholic university".

So, the "wild card" playoff scenario is pretty good from ND's viewpoint. It allows independence to continue.

(04-17-2012 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 10:19 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  .... adding the wild card will actually exacerbate that tendency to schedule light in nonconference as other leagues try to duplicate the SEC formula.

SEC teams have played either the toughest or second-toughest average schedules among AQ conferences over the past 5 years. For example, according to Sagarin, the average SEC schedule was 21st toughest, second only to the Big 12, while the average Big East schedule was 60th toughest.

Anyone who thinks the SEC teams have skated into the national title games on soft schedules is ignorant or bitter.

I didn't say they skated into national title games at all. I said they have easy nonconference schedules that reduces the risk of nonconference losses. Consider last year's slate:

LSU: vs. North Carolina, West Virginia, McNeese State, Louisiana-Monroe
Florida: Miami (Ohio), South Florida, Appalachian State, at Florida State
Georgia: Louisiana-Lafayette, at Colorado, Idaho State, Georgia Tech
Vanderbilt: Northwestern, at Connecticut, Eastern Michigan, Wake Forest
Alabama: San Jose State, Penn State, at Duke, Georgia State
Tennessee: Tennessee-Martin, Oregon, UAB, at Memphis
South Carolina: Southern Miss, Furman, Troy, at Clemson
Mississippi State: Memphis, Alcorn State, at Houston, UAB
Auburn: Arkansas State, Clemson, Louisiana-Monroe, Chattanooga
Arkansas: Tennessee Tech, Louisiana-Monroe, vs. Texas A&M, UTEP
Kentucky: at Louisville, Western Kentucky, Akron, Charleston Southern
Ole Miss: Jacksonville State, at Tulane, Fresno State, Louisiana-Lafayette

They had 9 true away games, 2 neutral and a whomping 37 home games (77%). Only 15 games against teams from AQ conferences, and Clemson and West Virginia were the only ranked nonconference gteams they played. No team played more than one away game and 3 teams had no true away games. Loads of Sunbelt/FCS/CUSA/MAC/WAC games at home.

Saying that they schedule favorably doesn't mean that they used smoke and mirrors- the SEC clearly has a ton of strong teams and deserves the reputation and success it has garnered. But not going on the road and keeping the tough nonconference games to a minimum is definitely a scheduling strategy the SEC teams employ year after year, since it really doesn't hurt them.

And I think that other leagues will move toward the SEC scheduling strategy even more with a four team postseason. With the premium placed on undefeated season to be one of those teams, why would schools risk early losses?

(04-17-2012 11:17 AM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 10:19 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  .... adding the wild card will actually exacerbate that tendency to schedule light in nonconference as other leagues try to duplicate the SEC formula.

SEC teams have played either the toughest or second-toughest average schedules among AQ conferences over the past 5 years. For example, according to Sagarin, the average SEC schedule was 21st toughest, second only to the Big 12, while the average Big East schedule was 60th toughest.

Anyone who thinks the SEC teams have skated into the national title games on soft schedules is ignorant or bitter.

Or is intelligent enough to realize that the SEC gets more teams ranked highly PRE-season who then feast on cupcakes OOC (proving nothing) before entering 'the gauntlet' that is a bunch of other teams living off of preseason rankings and OOC cupcakes. Aka the SEC.

Pre-season rankings have a season-long impact on rankings only among human pollsters, not the computers. And if the computers alone had been used to select the BCS title game participants, every SEC team that won the last six BCS titles would still have been in the title game, with the exception of Alabama this past season (Oklahoma State would have been the team facing LSU had the computers alone determined the title game participants).

So if you want to think that OK State would have beaten LSU, then you can say that 1 of the past 6 SEC national titles was the result of biased pollsters. But that would be it.

As for Boise, you guys have hardly been screwed by the pollsters. Looking at the past 6 years, here are Boise's actual overall BCS ranking, and their computer-alone ranking:

2011: 7 ....... 9
2010: 10 ..... T11
2009: 6 ...... T6
2008: 9 ...... 9
2007: 24 ..... 27
2006: 8 ....... 7

So we see that over the past six seasons, the computers would have ranked Boise lower than their actual rank three times, higher one time, and the same two times.

Overall, Boise has benefited from the "bias" of human pollsters ...

I'm fine with it, in theory. Since we have to get to 4 before we can get to where it should be, 8, can't be too upset. What there needs to be is a provision. A conf. champion ranked 5 shouldn't be out for a runner up ranked 4.

Something like this seems about right to me:
4 Top ranked champions from all D1a Conferences in the top 6/8/10
If not filled then at large(s)

(04-17-2012 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 11:17 AM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 10:19 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  .... adding the wild card will actually exacerbate that tendency to schedule light in nonconference as other leagues try to duplicate the SEC formula.

SEC teams have played either the toughest or second-toughest average schedules among AQ conferences over the past 5 years. For example, according to Sagarin, the average SEC schedule was 21st toughest, second only to the Big 12, while the average Big East schedule was 60th toughest.

Anyone who thinks the SEC teams have skated into the national title games on soft schedules is ignorant or bitter.

Or is intelligent enough to realize that the SEC gets more teams ranked highly PRE-season who then feast on cupcakes OOC (proving nothing) before entering 'the gauntlet' that is a bunch of other teams living off of preseason rankings and OOC cupcakes. Aka the SEC.

Pre-season rankings have a season-long impact on rankings only among human pollsters, not the computers. And if the computers alone had been used to select the BCS title game participants, every SEC team that won the last six BCS titles would still have been in the title game, with the exception of Alabama this past season (Oklahoma State would have been the team facing LSU had the computers alone determined the title game participants).

So if you want to think that OK State would have beaten LSU, then you can say that 1 of the past 6 SEC national titles was the result of biased pollsters. But that would be it.

As for Boise, you guys have hardly been screwed by the pollsters. Looking at the past 6 years, here are Boise's actual overall BCS ranking, and their computer-alone ranking:

2011: 7 ....... 9
2010: 10 ..... T11
2009: 6 ...... T6
2008: 9 ...... 9
2007: 24 ..... 27
2006: 8 ....... 7

So we see that over the past six seasons, the computers would have ranked Boise lower than their actual rank three times, higher one time, and the same two times.

Overall, Boise has benefited from the "bias" of human pollsters ...

No argument from me on that account. We've always been "screwed over" by in conference dead weight. Last year for example our OOC had our SOS inside the top 20. Then conference play happened.. Although the drain was less in the MWC than it was in the WAC, it would be really nice not to have it at all.

(04-17-2012 11:42 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 10:19 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  .... adding the wild card will actually exacerbate that tendency to schedule light in nonconference as other leagues try to duplicate the SEC formula.

SEC teams have played either the toughest or second-toughest average schedules among AQ conferences over the past 5 years. For example, according to Sagarin, the average SEC schedule was 21st toughest, second only to the Big 12, while the average Big East schedule was 60th toughest.

Anyone who thinks the SEC teams have skated into the national title games on soft schedules is ignorant or bitter.

I didn't say they skated into national title games at all. I said they have easy nonconference schedules that reduces the risk of nonconference losses. Consider last year's slate:

...........

And I think that other leagues will move toward the SEC scheduling strategy even more with a four team postseason. With the premium placed on undefeated season to be one of those teams, why would schools risk early losses?

Well, just at a glance, LSU played Western kentucky, Oregon, WVU, and Northwestern State last year so i am not sure the other schedules are accurate, but in any event ....

The point is that even if you are correct that SEC teams employ a strategy of scheduling soft OOC games, it is unlikely that other conferences will do the same, because the reason SEC teams can "get away" with it is because their conference schedule is so difficult such that their overall SOS is still very high.

For example, you might think the Big East had a better OOC schedule than the SEC last year. And yet, according to Sagarin, the SEC teams played schedules that were, on average, 40 ranking spots tougher, 21 to 60. So what would happen to Big East average SOS if Big East teams adopted the SEC strategy? Our average SOS would plunge down to the 80s, killing us in the computers and in the minds of schedule-conscious pollsters.

It would almost certainly backfire, at least as a strategy for getting into the top four national title tournament ...

(04-17-2012 12:28 PM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 11:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 11:17 AM)BroncoFan78 Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 10:19 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  .... adding the wild card will actually exacerbate that tendency to schedule light in nonconference as other leagues try to duplicate the SEC formula.

SEC teams have played either the toughest or second-toughest average schedules among AQ conferences over the past 5 years. For example, according to Sagarin, the average SEC schedule was 21st toughest, second only to the Big 12, while the average Big East schedule was 60th toughest.

Anyone who thinks the SEC teams have skated into the national title games on soft schedules is ignorant or bitter.

Or is intelligent enough to realize that the SEC gets more teams ranked highly PRE-season who then feast on cupcakes OOC (proving nothing) before entering 'the gauntlet' that is a bunch of other teams living off of preseason rankings and OOC cupcakes. Aka the SEC.

Pre-season rankings have a season-long impact on rankings only among human pollsters, not the computers. And if the computers alone had been used to select the BCS title game participants, every SEC team that won the last six BCS titles would still have been in the title game, with the exception of Alabama this past season (Oklahoma State would have been the team facing LSU had the computers alone determined the title game participants).

So if you want to think that OK State would have beaten LSU, then you can say that 1 of the past 6 SEC national titles was the result of biased pollsters. But that would be it.

As for Boise, you guys have hardly been screwed by the pollsters. Looking at the past 6 years, here are Boise's actual overall BCS ranking, and their computer-alone ranking:

2011: 7 ....... 9
2010: 10 ..... T11
2009: 6 ...... T6
2008: 9 ...... 9
2007: 24 ..... 27
2006: 8 ....... 7

So we see that over the past six seasons, the computers would have ranked Boise lower than their actual rank three times, higher one time, and the same two times.

Overall, Boise has benefited from the "bias" of human pollsters ...

No argument from me on that account. We've always been "screwed over" by in conference dead weight. Last year for example our OOC had our SOS inside the top 20. Then conference play happened.. Although the drain was less in the MWC than it was in the WAC, it would be really nice not to have it at all.

FWIW, i really do think some of these Boise teams the past 6 years have been the real-deal, and would have given the SEC champions a good game if you had been given the chance. Hopefully, with Big East membership and hence a better schedule, you will get the chance to prove it.

(04-17-2012 01:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 11:42 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 10:19 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  .... adding the wild card will actually exacerbate that tendency to schedule light in nonconference as other leagues try to duplicate the SEC formula.

SEC teams have played either the toughest or second-toughest average schedules among AQ conferences over the past 5 years. For example, according to Sagarin, the average SEC schedule was 21st toughest, second only to the Big 12, while the average Big East schedule was 60th toughest.

Anyone who thinks the SEC teams have skated into the national title games on soft schedules is ignorant or bitter.

I didn't say they skated into national title games at all. I said they have easy nonconference schedules that reduces the risk of nonconference losses. Consider last year's slate:

...........

And I think that other leagues will move toward the SEC scheduling strategy even more with a four team postseason. With the premium placed on undefeated season to be one of those teams, why would schools risk early losses?

Well, just at a glance, LSU played Western kentucky, Oregon, WVU, and Northwestern State last year so i am not sure the other schedules are accurate, but in any event ....

The point is that even if you are correct that SEC teams employ a strategy of scheduling soft OOC games, it is unlikely that other conferences will do the same, because the reason SEC teams can "get away" with it is because their conference schedule is so difficult such that their overall SOS is still very high.

For example, you might think the Big East had a better OOC schedule than the SEC last year. And yet, according to Sagarin, the SEC teams played schedules that were, on average, 40 ranking spots tougher, 21 to 60. So what would happen to Big East average SOS if Big East teams adopted the SEC strategy? Our average SOS would plunge down to the 80s, killing us in the computers and in the minds of schedule-conscious pollsters.

It would almost certainly backfire, at least as a strategy for getting into the top four national title tournament ...

I think that the thinking will be the same for the other conferences, at least for the Big 12, PAC-12 and Big 10. In the current system, while one loss will knock most teams out of the NC game (or at least damage the prospects significantly), the BCS aspirations will be intact even with a nonconference loss. So while a big nonconference win can really catapult you into the NC discussion, a loss really doesn't hurt. All they have to do is win the conference to get there. 2+ loss BCS teams were fairly common in the current system. The risk/reward ratio was actually pretty good for scheduling a tough nonconference game or two. Win and you make a case for the NC game. Lose and conference championship aspirations are intact.

OTOH, in the new system, with no guarantee that a conference championship will get you into the "BCS" or whatever the 4 team tourney will be called, a nonconference loss really puts you behind the eight ball to get into the final four. You'd probably have no room for error, as it will be very hard for a 2 loss team to make one of the four spots. And the reward is less too, since in the new system you really don't have to get all the way to the top 2- top 4 is good enough. The risk/reward ratio is therefore much higher.

(04-16-2012 01:15 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 01:07 PM)Coog82 Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 12:49 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Sounds good to me. Win and you are in. Has an undefeated BCS team not finished in the top 4 recently?

I think the point here is that the Big East Champion would almost have to be undefeated where as a Big 12/Big 10/SEC champion likely would not, or at least a wild card runner up from that same conference.

I personally would much prefer the 4 conference champions. This would also force ND to pick a conference and BYU too for that matter.

Thats how it is now except even an undefeated big east champ would likely be left out.

Good point !! That wont change at all.

FB Strenght of Schedule Ranking from last season...

1 Kansas
2 LSU
3 Tennessee
4 Mississippi
5 Iowa State
6 Minnesota
7 Auburn
8 Alabama
9 Oklahoma State
10 Oklahoma

5 of the top ten are from the SEC

http://realtimerpi.com/football/ncaaf_Men.html

(04-17-2012 02:22 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 01:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 11:42 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 11:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 10:19 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  .... adding the wild card will actually exacerbate that tendency to schedule light in nonconference as other leagues try to duplicate the SEC formula.

SEC teams have played either the toughest or second-toughest average schedules among AQ conferences over the past 5 years. For example, according to Sagarin, the average SEC schedule was 21st toughest, second only to the Big 12, while the average Big East schedule was 60th toughest.

Anyone who thinks the SEC teams have skated into the national title games on soft schedules is ignorant or bitter.

I didn't say they skated into national title games at all. I said they have easy nonconference schedules that reduces the risk of nonconference losses. Consider last year's slate:

...........

And I think that other leagues will move toward the SEC scheduling strategy even more with a four team postseason. With the premium placed on undefeated season to be one of those teams, why would schools risk early losses?

Well, just at a glance, LSU played Western kentucky, Oregon, WVU, and Northwestern State last year so i am not sure the other schedules are accurate, but in any event ....

The point is that even if you are correct that SEC teams employ a strategy of scheduling soft OOC games, it is unlikely that other conferences will do the same, because the reason SEC teams can "get away" with it is because their conference schedule is so difficult such that their overall SOS is still very high.

For example, you might think the Big East had a better OOC schedule than the SEC last year. And yet, according to Sagarin, the SEC teams played schedules that were, on average, 40 ranking spots tougher, 21 to 60. So what would happen to Big East average SOS if Big East teams adopted the SEC strategy? Our average SOS would plunge down to the 80s, killing us in the computers and in the minds of schedule-conscious pollsters.

It would almost certainly backfire, at least as a strategy for getting into the top four national title tournament ...

I think that the thinking will be the same for the other conferences, at least for the Big 12, PAC-12 and Big 10. In the current system, while one loss will knock most teams out of the NC game (or at least damage the prospects significantly), the BCS aspirations will be intact even with a nonconference loss. So while a big nonconference win can really catapult you into the NC discussion, a loss really doesn't hurt. All they have to do is win the conference to get there.

Seems to me that OOC losses were more damaging under the current system, not less, than conference loss. E.g., in 2007, LSU made the title game with 2 losses, both were conference games. Likewise, this past season, Alabama made the national title game despite a conference loss.

In contrast, OOC losses are tougher to recover from because they are regarded as being more indicative of how a team stands up to national not regional competition. That will likely remain true under a 4-team system as well.

Bottom line: IMO, under both a 2-team and 4-team playoff, big OOC games have both greater upside and downside potential. A conference that is really strong is less likely to schedule them because the risk/reward ratio is heavily-weighted towards the risk (they don't need the big win as much as a big loss will hurt), but for teams from weaker conferences, the reverse is true, because their conference schedule will not impress anyone so they need the big splash of a big OOC win to make their case ...

(04-17-2012 03:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line: IMO, under both a 2-team and 4-team playoff, big OOC games have both greater upside and downside potential. A conference that is really strong is less likely to schedule them because the risk/reward ratio is heavily-weighted towards the risk (they don't need the big win as much as a big loss will hurt), but for teams from weaker conferences, the reverse is true, because their conference schedule will not impress anyone so they need the big splash of a big OOC win to make their case ...

Agree with the bottom line and is my point, although I think it becomes even more pronounced with the new system. Gonna be real iffy for a team with more than one loss to make the final four, and I think teams from strong conferences will schedule OOC accordingly.

Like the proposal. Win-out and we're in. It's a simple as that for the Big East. This still allows us a path to the NC, but also favors the big conferences like SEC/B1G since they'll be able to get a second team in most seasons. Any proposal with a chance of passing is going to have to be one that gives them a leg up. Honestly, you can't really deny that the SEC has earned that privelege though. The BE isn't at that level and probably never will be, but we still have a seat at the table with room to grow.

If there's any gripes about a major team being left out, well then it's their own fault for not winning all their games. Should get rid of a lot of the debates. Only potential controversy is if an undefeated team from the MAC or Sun Belt gets left out which kind of sucks, but still an overall improvement from the current system.

(04-18-2012 04:06 AM)Bleedin Blue Wrote:  If there's any gripes about a major team being left out, well then it's their own fault for not winning all their games. Should get rid of a lot of the debates. Only potential controversy is if an undefeated team from the MAC or Sun Belt gets left out which kind of sucks, but still an overall improvement from the current system.

The establishment of the BCS was a move in the right direction because for the first time it created a playoff to determine the IA champion. True, it is a very inadequate playoff because it only consists of two teams, but it was an improvement over the previous system.

Likewise, for all its flaws, these 4-team schemes are an improvement on the BCS, because they expand the field from 2 to 4. When the field is finally expanded to 8 or 16, we will be where we should be.

(04-18-2012 04:06 AM)Bleedin Blue Wrote:  If there's any gripes about a major team being left out, well then it's their own fault for not winning all their games. Should get rid of a lot of the debates. Only potential controversy is if an undefeated team from the MAC or Sun Belt gets left out which kind of sucks, but still an overall improvement from the current system.

Depending on how they draw up the criteria, most estimates the only team of the non-AQs that could make it using the top 4 criteria was us (TCU) out of a strong MWC.

Basically, I think the MAC, WAC (if it exists) and Sunbelt champ will basically have no chance, even if undefeated. A MWC/CUSA or alliance champ (if it exists) will need an undefeated season and a little luck (i.e. some degree of attrition at the top) to make it. A stong nonconference win would help. The BE/ACC will make it undefeated every year, will need a little luck (attrition) with one loss. The SEC/Big 12/PAc-12, Big 10 champ will likely be in the top 4 with one loss. They'd need a lot of luck with 2 losses.

(04-16-2012 05:23 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  While I understand the point, can anyone in this thread say with a straight face that either Clemson (I laugh just typing that, and I'm an ACC fan) or Wisconsin was better than Alabama?

I don't think the "at-large" caters to ND as much as it caters to a runner-up in a loaded football conference (right now, the SEC, some day, maybe the B1G).

I don't care what Alabama was ranked. If they want to be in a future playoff, beat LSU the first time, and don't subject the rest of the nation to a bunch of forcefed imsomnia inducing garbage. Screw the SEC and everyone who kisses their cheating butts!

How about you prove to me that West Virginia wouldn't have beaten both LSU and Alabama last year if a playoff had been in place? You laugh? Well all the so-called experts said the Mountaineers couldn't beat Clemson either. The rankings are full of baloney.