(10-11-2017 12:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 12:00 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 07:40 AM)Titans3775 Wrote:  Memphis (which UCF blasted) beat #25 UCLA. Just like in CBB, it is what they are ranked at the time you beat them and not what they become.

Completely wrong. The Memphis win over UCLA already means little, because UCLA has fallen from the rankings. It's where a team finishes that matters.

I mean, just thinking about it for a second will reveal the silliness of your position. Imagine in week two, UCLA is ranked #25, and USF beats them. They then finish 3-9. Imagine also in week two, Memphis beats unranked Texas Tech, and then Texas Tech finishes 10-2 and ranked #15 at the time of the CFP selection. Do you seriously think the CFP will credit USF with a win over a 'ranked team' but not Memphis? That's laughable, it will be the exact opposite.

Now back to reality: if UCLA rebounds, goes on a tear, and ends up back in the rankings, then Memphis's win over them will mean a lot again. But as it is now, it means very little.

Imagine the silliness of your position when you think about it.

UCLA was ranked #25 because they were the #25 team at that point in time whether deserved or not. The media, fans, and players on both teams all thought they were the playing for/against the #25 team. What they do after that game has no bearing on that game. I'm sure a 3-9 UCLA plays with a far different (defeated) mentality than a 2-0 #25 UCLA team even in the same season.

Or another scenario

If the Patriots are ranked number 1 and Memphis beats them, but the very next game they lose Tom Brady and lose the rest of the games that year finishing #130. Is there zero value in Memphis' win? In your scenario, Memphis beat a cupcake that should be DIII.

No one counts their wins against unranked UCLA as a ranked win if UCLA slips into the final poll of the year because they didn't beat a ranked team. Sure some wins can look better later, but the fact remains you can only play a team in their current state and not their future Alabama-self. Some teams suck at first and figure it out later.

But back to the point, Undefeated SDSU won't get in over a 1-Loss USF, UCF, Memphis, or Navy. The Mountain West has a SOS anchor that the AAC doesn't.

I think it depends on the actual circumstances of what caused the team to drop down in the rankings. You give some examples that support your case, but those aren't always the only examples. Sometimes a team doesn't lose any players, and was just plainly overrated early in the year.

Which is the case in UCLA's case? Overrated? Or did something happen, that legitimately caused the team to be less competitive than it was when they were ranked #25?


Perhaps you'd like to make the case that losses themselves can easily damage the fragile egos and self-confidences of college players, and easily turn into a determent to their physical abilities on gamedays. In my opinion, that type of argument does have merit ..... but it's a much tougher argument to prove. And it isn't well received.

If there was a team you could make that argument for, UCLA might be it or most teams with a coach on the hotseat. Although I think Tennessee is the poster child for this. haha

(10-11-2017 12:53 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 12:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 12:00 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 07:40 AM)Titans3775 Wrote:  Memphis (which UCF blasted) beat #25 UCLA. Just like in CBB, it is what they are ranked at the time you beat them and not what they become.

Completely wrong. The Memphis win over UCLA already means little, because UCLA has fallen from the rankings. It's where a team finishes that matters.

I mean, just thinking about it for a second will reveal the silliness of your position. Imagine in week two, UCLA is ranked #25, and USF beats them. They then finish 3-9. Imagine also in week two, Memphis beats unranked Texas Tech, and then Texas Tech finishes 10-2 and ranked #15 at the time of the CFP selection. Do you seriously think the CFP will credit USF with a win over a 'ranked team' but not Memphis? That's laughable, it will be the exact opposite.

Now back to reality: if UCLA rebounds, goes on a tear, and ends up back in the rankings, then Memphis's win over them will mean a lot again. But as it is now, it means very little.

Imagine the silliness of your position when you think about it.

UCLA was ranked #25 because they were the #25 team at that point in time whether deserved or not. The media, fans, and players on both teams all thought they were the playing for/against the #25 team. What they do after that game has no bearing on that game. I'm sure a 3-9 UCLA plays with a far different (defeated) mentality than a 2-0 #25 UCLA team even in the same season.

Or another scenario

If the Patriots are ranked number 1 and Memphis beats them, but the very next game they lose Tom Brady and lose the rest of the games that year finishing #130. Is there zero value in Memphis' win? In your scenario, Memphis beat a cupcake that should be DIII.

No one counts their wins against unranked UCLA as a ranked win if UCLA slips into the final poll of the year because they didn't beat a ranked team. Sure some wins can look better later, but the fact remains you can only play a team in their current state and not their future Alabama-self. Some teams suck at first and figure it out later.

But back to the point, Undefeated SDSU won't get in over a 1-Loss USF, UCF, Memphis, or Navy. The Mountain West has a SOS anchor that the AAC doesn't.

I think it depends on the actual circumstances of what caused the team to drop down in the rankings. You give some examples that support your case, but those aren't always the only examples. Sometimes a team doesn't lose any players, and was just plainly overrated early in the year.

Which is the case in UCLA's case? Overrated? Or did something happen, that legitimately caused the team to be less competitive than it was when they were ranked #25?


Perhaps you'd like to make the case that losses themselves can easily damage the fragile egos and self-confidences of college players, and easily turn into a determent to their physical abilities on gamedays. In my opinion, that type of argument does have merit ..... but it's a much tougher argument to prove. And it isn't well received.

If there was a team you could make that argument for, UCLA might be it or most teams with a coach on the hotseat. Although I think Tennessee is the poster child for this. haha

Regardless, it's note an argument that has mainstream acceptance. More than likely, voters will see the win as beating a team that was overrated early in the year.

(10-11-2017 01:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 12:53 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 12:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 12:00 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Completely wrong. The Memphis win over UCLA already means little, because UCLA has fallen from the rankings. It's where a team finishes that matters.

I mean, just thinking about it for a second will reveal the silliness of your position. Imagine in week two, UCLA is ranked #25, and USF beats them. They then finish 3-9. Imagine also in week two, Memphis beats unranked Texas Tech, and then Texas Tech finishes 10-2 and ranked #15 at the time of the CFP selection. Do you seriously think the CFP will credit USF with a win over a 'ranked team' but not Memphis? That's laughable, it will be the exact opposite.

Now back to reality: if UCLA rebounds, goes on a tear, and ends up back in the rankings, then Memphis's win over them will mean a lot again. But as it is now, it means very little.

Imagine the silliness of your position when you think about it.

UCLA was ranked #25 because they were the #25 team at that point in time whether deserved or not. The media, fans, and players on both teams all thought they were the playing for/against the #25 team. What they do after that game has no bearing on that game. I'm sure a 3-9 UCLA plays with a far different (defeated) mentality than a 2-0 #25 UCLA team even in the same season.

Or another scenario

If the Patriots are ranked number 1 and Memphis beats them, but the very next game they lose Tom Brady and lose the rest of the games that year finishing #130. Is there zero value in Memphis' win? In your scenario, Memphis beat a cupcake that should be DIII.

No one counts their wins against unranked UCLA as a ranked win if UCLA slips into the final poll of the year because they didn't beat a ranked team. Sure some wins can look better later, but the fact remains you can only play a team in their current state and not their future Alabama-self. Some teams suck at first and figure it out later.

But back to the point, Undefeated SDSU won't get in over a 1-Loss USF, UCF, Memphis, or Navy. The Mountain West has a SOS anchor that the AAC doesn't.

I think it depends on the actual circumstances of what caused the team to drop down in the rankings. You give some examples that support your case, but those aren't always the only examples. Sometimes a team doesn't lose any players, and was just plainly overrated early in the year.

Which is the case in UCLA's case? Overrated? Or did something happen, that legitimately caused the team to be less competitive than it was when they were ranked #25?


Perhaps you'd like to make the case that losses themselves can easily damage the fragile egos and self-confidences of college players, and easily turn into a determent to their physical abilities on gamedays. In my opinion, that type of argument does have merit ..... but it's a much tougher argument to prove. And it isn't well received.

If there was a team you could make that argument for, UCLA might be it or most teams with a coach on the hotseat. Although I think Tennessee is the poster child for this. haha

Regardless, it's note an argument that has mainstream acceptance. More than likely, voters will see the win as beating a team that was overrated early in the year.

It may have a more sway in football, but in basketball ranked wins determine seeding regardless of how the other teams do. I guess RPI is your adjuster that CFB just doesn't have.

(10-11-2017 01:05 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 01:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 12:53 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 12:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 12:00 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  Imagine the silliness of your position when you think about it.

UCLA was ranked #25 because they were the #25 team at that point in time whether deserved or not. The media, fans, and players on both teams all thought they were the playing for/against the #25 team. What they do after that game has no bearing on that game. I'm sure a 3-9 UCLA plays with a far different (defeated) mentality than a 2-0 #25 UCLA team even in the same season.

Or another scenario

If the Patriots are ranked number 1 and Memphis beats them, but the very next game they lose Tom Brady and lose the rest of the games that year finishing #130. Is there zero value in Memphis' win? In your scenario, Memphis beat a cupcake that should be DIII.

No one counts their wins against unranked UCLA as a ranked win if UCLA slips into the final poll of the year because they didn't beat a ranked team. Sure some wins can look better later, but the fact remains you can only play a team in their current state and not their future Alabama-self. Some teams suck at first and figure it out later.

But back to the point, Undefeated SDSU won't get in over a 1-Loss USF, UCF, Memphis, or Navy. The Mountain West has a SOS anchor that the AAC doesn't.

I think it depends on the actual circumstances of what caused the team to drop down in the rankings. You give some examples that support your case, but those aren't always the only examples. Sometimes a team doesn't lose any players, and was just plainly overrated early in the year.

Which is the case in UCLA's case? Overrated? Or did something happen, that legitimately caused the team to be less competitive than it was when they were ranked #25?


Perhaps you'd like to make the case that losses themselves can easily damage the fragile egos and self-confidences of college players, and easily turn into a determent to their physical abilities on gamedays. In my opinion, that type of argument does have merit ..... but it's a much tougher argument to prove. And it isn't well received.

If there was a team you could make that argument for, UCLA might be it or most teams with a coach on the hotseat. Although I think Tennessee is the poster child for this. haha

Regardless, it's note an argument that has mainstream acceptance. More than likely, voters will see the win as beating a team that was overrated early in the year.

It may have a more sway in football, but in basketball ranked wins determine seeding regardless of how the other teams do. I guess RPI is your adjuster that CFB just doesn't have.

They are saying ranked wins count big for football rankings. The argument is what counts as a ranked team ... beating a team at some point in the season, that is ranked now ... or beating a team when it was ranked, but is no longer ranked?

In football, the more generally accepted view is the former. If you're saying basketball RPI uses the latter, so be it.

(10-11-2017 01:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 01:05 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 01:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 12:53 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 12:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I think it depends on the actual circumstances of what caused the team to drop down in the rankings. You give some examples that support your case, but those aren't always the only examples. Sometimes a team doesn't lose any players, and was just plainly overrated early in the year.

Which is the case in UCLA's case? Overrated? Or did something happen, that legitimately caused the team to be less competitive than it was when they were ranked #25?


Perhaps you'd like to make the case that losses themselves can easily damage the fragile egos and self-confidences of college players, and easily turn into a determent to their physical abilities on gamedays. In my opinion, that type of argument does have merit ..... but it's a much tougher argument to prove. And it isn't well received.

If there was a team you could make that argument for, UCLA might be it or most teams with a coach on the hotseat. Although I think Tennessee is the poster child for this. haha

Regardless, it's note an argument that has mainstream acceptance. More than likely, voters will see the win as beating a team that was overrated early in the year.

It may have a more sway in football, but in basketball ranked wins determine seeding regardless of how the other teams do. I guess RPI is your adjuster that CFB just doesn't have.

They are saying ranked wins count big for football rankings. The argument is what counts as a ranked team ... beating a team at some point in the season, that is ranked now ... or beating a team when it was ranked, but is no longer ranked?

In football, the more generally accepted view is the former. If you're saying basketball RPI uses the latter, so be it.

Yeah. You beat #1 Kentucky in January, but not the Kentucky that just lost to Robert Morris in March. Basically my argument in a nutshell.

Once again, this the Boise rule. A team does not get penalized for their conference. Do I think UCF is probably the strongest team of the G5. Yes, I do. However, losing the Ga Tech game hurt. You can't go on what you think or wish would happen. MD very well could end up with a losing record. Even if Stanford goes 6-6 or 7-5, there will still be a P5 bowl team. There record is down one because of the loss to SDSU. They have shown multiple times how the CFP committee does it votes. It is not like Coaches and AP, they do use some method to there madness. OOC strength of schedule and over-all SOS is huge. Finally, the G5 will not get the attention the top 4 get from the CFP. It is a side note, if no undefeated team. My guess, the team with stongest OOC goes if SOS record are even close. Right now, this is the AAC achilles heel. In addition, G5 is the Cinderella team. One thing with the P6 campaign, the AAC marketing says they are never the Cinderella. TV and PR love the Cinderella's. Not that the AAC shouldn't do the P6 campaign, but with everything, there is pros and cons.

Current SOS
SDSU 43 best possible record 13-0
Central Fl 61 best possible 12-0 (Lost their strongest G5 game that could make a statement. Ga Tech even offered to host and UCF said no. Right decision but you never know how CFP will view it privately.)
Troy 71 (Come on, who screams Cinderella even more than WMU with a win at LSU (4-2)
Navy 77 (Has a ranked ND. Serve Navy well but transistive properties don't work in football.)
Marshall 102 (Needs to be the only 1 loss team)
USF 129 (Can't lose or have another 1 losss Champ)

Finally, remember there is a prize for best G5 conference. They gets bonus money. IMHO, another reason the CFP views OOC over Conference wins.

(10-11-2017 01:23 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Once again, this the Boise rule. A team does not get penalized for their conference. Do I think UCF is probably the strongest team of the G5. Yes, I do. However, losing the Ga Tech game hurt. You can't go on what you think or wish would happen. MD very well could end up with a losing record. Even if Stanford goes 6-6 or 7-5, there will still be a P5 bowl team. There record is down one because of the loss to SDSU. They have shown multiple times how the CFP committee does it votes. It is not like Coaches and AP, they do use some method to there madness. OOC strength of schedule and over-all SOS is huge. Finally, the G5 will not get the attention the top 4 get from the CFP. It is a side note, if no undefeated team. My guess, the team with stongest OOC goes if SOS record are even close. Right now, this is the AAC achilles heel. In addition, G5 is the Cinderella team. One thing with the P6 campaign, the AAC marketing says they are never the Cinderella. TV and PR love the Cinderella's. Not that the AAC shouldn't do the P6 campaign, but with everything, there is pros and cons.

Current SOS
SDSU 43 best possible record 13-0
Central Fl 61 best possible 12-0 (Lost their strongest G5 game that could make a statement. Ga Tech even offered to host and UCF said no. Right decision but you never know how CFP will view it privately.)
Troy 71 (Come on, who screams Cinderella even more than WMU with a win at LSU (4-2)
Navy 77 (Has a ranked ND. Serve Navy well but transistive properties don't work in football.)
Marshall 102 (Needs to be the only 1 loss team)
USF 129 (Can't lose or have another 1 losss Champ)

Finally, remember there is a prize for best G5 conference. They gets bonus money. IMHO, another reason the CFP views OOC over Conference wins.

For the current SOS, does that include games not yet played? If it's only games played to date, SDSU's should go down (UCF's should as well, as the AAC East is pretty weak). USF's would probably go up.

(10-11-2017 01:23 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Once again, this the Boise rule. A team does not get penalized for their conference. Do I think UCF is probably the strongest team of the G5. Yes, I do. However, losing the Ga Tech game hurt. You can't go on what you think or wish would happen. MD very well could end up with a losing record. Even if Stanford goes 6-6 or 7-5, there will still be a P5 bowl team. There record is down one because of the loss to SDSU. They have shown multiple times how the CFP committee does it votes. It is not like Coaches and AP, they do use some method to there madness. OOC strength of schedule and over-all SOS is huge. Finally, the G5 will not get the attention the top 4 get from the CFP. It is a side note, if no undefeated team. My guess, the team with stongest OOC goes if SOS record are even close. Right now, this is the AAC achilles heel. In addition, G5 is the Cinderella team. One thing with the P6 campaign, the AAC marketing says they are never the Cinderella. TV and PR love the Cinderella's. Not that the AAC shouldn't do the P6 campaign, but with everything, there is pros and cons.

Current SOS
SDSU 43 best possible record 13-0
Central Fl 61 best possible 12-0 (Lost their strongest G5 game that could make a statement. Ga Tech even offered to host and UCF said no. Right decision but you never know how CFP will view it privately.)
Troy 71 (Come on, who screams Cinderella even more than WMU with a win at LSU (4-2)
Navy 77 (Has a ranked ND. Serve Navy well but transistive properties don't work in football.)
Marshall 102 (Needs to be the only 1 loss team)
USF 129 (Can't lose or have another 1 losss Champ)

Finally, remember there is a prize for best G5 conference. They gets bonus money. IMHO, another reason the CFP views OOC over Conference wins.

Current SOS is misleading. That number for SDSU is gonna dive bomb after they get through their conference. The CFP have one job and only one job to do. I would like to think that they take it seriously and look at all variables, not just simply who the played for two games OOC during the entire season. Their website actually lists selection criteria.

JUST TO VERIFY - THIS IS NOT SAYING THE AAC WILL NOT GET THE GOLDEN TICKET. IT IS NOT THE LOCK-IN THAT SOME ARE MAKING IT OUT TO BE.

Yes, but these are the majority due to OOC. It will not drop down to USF levels. USF should have a game with UCF and maybe in the Championship. USF/Navy/UCF will not dramatically rise there current levels. In addition, the teams AAC have beaten are not helping them rise either. You have to look at the whole picture. Navy appears to be the only team that appears to have a chance to dramatically improve their SOS.

UCF - Austin Peay, FIU and MD will not likely be improving there lot. MD will go from Top 25 to a likely losing record with #7 Wisc, #17 Mich, #21 MSU and #3 PSU. Indiana and NW probably are tossups. Rutgers probably likely win. FIU probably only gets one more victory against UMASS. Probably No OOC Bowl Teams.

Navy - AF needs to go 5-2 to get Bowl Eligible. FIU much like FAU, probably falls shot of bowl bid. Army looks decent and should get to 7 wins & Ranked ND both going to bowls.

USF - That's been documented.

On the bright side, it should be a much better bowl outcome for the AAC this year even if they don't get the Golden Ticket.

(10-11-2017 01:55 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  JUST TO VERIFY - THIS IS NOT SAYING THE AAC WILL NOT GET THE GOLDEN TICKET. IT IS NOT THE LOCK-IN THAT SOME ARE MAKING IT OUT TO BE.

Yes, but these are the majority due to OOC. It will not drop down to USF levels. USF should have a game with UCF and maybe in the Championship. USF/Navy/UCF will not dramatically rise there current levels. In addition, the teams AAC have beaten are not helping them rise either. You have to look at the whole picture. Navy appears to be the only team that appears to have a chance to dramatically improve their SOS.

UCF - Austin Peay, FIU and MD will not likely be improving there lot. MD will go from Top 25 to a likely losing record with #7 Wisc, #17 Mich, #21 MSU and #3 PSU. Indiana and NW probably are tossups. Rutgers probably likely win. FIU probably only gets one more victory against UMASS. Probably No OOC Bowl Teams.

Navy - AF needs to go 5-2 to get Bowl Eligible. FIU much like FAU, probably falls shot of bowl bid. Army looks decent and should get to 7 wins & Ranked ND both going to bowls.

USF - That's been documented.

On the bright side, it should be a much better bowl outcome for the AAC this year even if they don't get the Golden Ticket.

If Stanford had only one loss at this point, i would agree with you. But they already have 2 and they didn't get to the meat of their schedule. A team like UCF controls a lot more of their destiny than SDSU does at this point considering the likelihood of Stanford expectations.
UCFs SOS may get a little better with Navy, USF and a AAC CG. Meanwhile SDSU will be well sub 100 after all said and done. The SOS will be light years apart.

We could just wait until the end of the season and find out. At that point, the committee will decide who they think should get the golden ticket, and then they will present whichever of these equally valid arguments they think are necessary to support that choice.

Remember - decision first, reasons later. It's a human conceit to think we do it the other way around.

(10-11-2017 09:45 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:31 AM)Metropolis777 Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 07:29 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Stanford still has to play Or, Wash, Wash st, and ND. They will be lucky to finish 8-4, 7-5 is most likely. SDSU big win will not look very big by the end of the season.

UW & ND haven't won in Palo Alto in 10 years. Stanford has dominated both series recently and the UW game is on a short weel. Oregon is bad.

It is not out of the question that Stanford ends up 8-4 or 9-3. Either of those records will keep them in the top 25. If that happens, all SDSU has to do is win out.

So you're saying an undefeated SDSU team with a win over 8-4 Stanford would be guaranteed to get in over an undefeated Navy team with a wins over ranked Notre Dame, ranked UCF, possibly a ranked Houston squad, and a ranked East opponent in the AAC championship? Ok.

In that case, probably not, since both Navy and SDSU would have wins over ranked P5 schools. So then they would look at rest of the schedule.

So what happens if we do eventually have a undefeated SDSU while Stanford ends up getting 4-5 losses, panned up against an undefeated USF or UCF?
We are comparing:
SDSU: 2 run of the mill P5 wins, horrific conference SOS
USF: One horrific run of the mill P5 win, respectable conference SOS
UCF: One mediocre P5 win (assuming Maryland is mid pack Big 10), respectable conference SOS

If the committee chooses a Florida teams over SDSU, or even worse, they choose a Florida team with a LOSS over an undefeated SDSU:

This would confirm what others have been talking about in hypothetical terms in that the AAC has a leg up on the other G5 conferences.

In this scenario, do the strong MWC programs start approaching the AAC to reevaluate a larger Western footprint? Please spare me the reasons why you think that this scenario will or wont happen, lets pretend that it does, what happens next?

(10-11-2017 12:00 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 07:40 AM)Titans3775 Wrote:  Memphis (which UCF blasted) beat #25 UCLA. Just like in CBB, it is what they are ranked at the time you beat them and not what they become.

Completely wrong. The Memphis win over UCLA already means little, because UCLA has fallen from the rankings. It's where a team finishes that matters.

I mean, just thinking about it for a second will reveal the silliness of your position. Imagine in week two, UCLA is ranked #25, and USF beats them. They then finish 3-9. Imagine also in week two, Memphis beats unranked Texas Tech, and then Texas Tech finishes 10-2 and ranked #15 at the time of the CFP selection. Do you seriously think the CFP will credit USF with a win over a 'ranked team' but not Memphis? That's laughable, it will be the exact opposite.

Now back to reality: if UCLA rebounds, goes on a tear, and ends up back in the rankings, then Memphis's win over them will mean a lot again. But as it is now, it means very little.

Imagine the silliness of your position when you think about it.

UCLA was ranked #25 because they were the #25 team at that point in time whether deserved or not. The media, fans, and players on both teams all thought they were the playing for/against the #25 team. What they do after that game has no bearing on that game. I'm sure a 3-9 UCLA plays with a far different (defeated) mentality than a 2-0 #25 UCLA team even in the same season.

There's nothing silly about my position at all, but very much that is silly about yours. If UCLA ends up 3-9, everyone will regard them as falsely-ranked when they lost to Memphis when they were 2-0, and Memphis will, as i say, get no credit for beating a "ranked team". In fact, that effect is maximized when you beat someone very early in the season, because everyone understands that at that point rankings are very tentative, based on guesswork, because we don't have a lot of evidence in terms of games played.

If you really think that at the end of the year, Memphis will get any kind of credit for beating a UCLA that was #25 when you played them but 3-9 at the end of the year, you either are a blind fan, or you simply don't understand how people think about college football. And no, how things like this are thought of in college hoops or any other sport has no bearing on it.

The only way Memphis will get positive props for beating UCLA is if UCLA turns things around and ends up ranked again.

(10-11-2017 04:08 PM)otown Wrote:  So what happens if we do eventually have a undefeated SDSU while Stanford ends up getting 4-5 losses, panned up against an undefeated USF or UCF?

In that case, USF or UCF will get the nod, because their overall SOS will clearly be stronger than SDSU.

SDSU needs Stanford to be a ranked team at the end of the season so that they count as a signature P5 win. With 4-5 losses, they won't be that.

And no, there's zero chance that SDSU will somehow get in as a "wild card" as well. Even with five theoretical 'at large' bids, an unbeaten G5 that doesn't get the auto-NY6 will not beat out 9-2 P5 teams for those NY6 slots.

(10-11-2017 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 04:08 PM)otown Wrote:  So what happens if we do eventually have a undefeated SDSU while Stanford ends up getting 4-5 losses, panned up against an undefeated USF or UCF?

In that case, USF or UCF will get the nod, because their overall SOS will clearly be stronger than SDSU.

SDSU needs Stanford to be a ranked team at the end of the season so that they count as a signature P5 win. With 4-5 losses, they won't be that.

And no, there's zero chance that SDSU will somehow get in as a "wild card" as well. Even with five theoretical 'at large' bids, an unbeaten G5 that doesn't get the auto-NY6 will not beat out 9-2 P5 teams for those NY6 slots.

Never say never, last year only had eight 1 or 2 loss P5 teams going into bowl season. 2014 had only 8 as well. Last year simply didn't have enough G5 candidates that had good resumes. So maybe we would see more than one in there.

Also, do you think the best from MWC approach AAC for a re-do if it becomes obvious that the committee favors the AAC? It's one thing to think it can happen, its another to actually see it happen in broad daylight for all to see.

No one is saying an AAC may not deserve the bid. I think some are saying it is not as automatic for the AAC is some try to portray it. Navy and SDSU finish undefeated, it will wait a week until after the Army/Navy game. It does appear Stanford/ND could have huge implication on the G5 champ. Here's a question, let's say LSU rebounds and finishes 9-3. Then how do you keep Troy out? They could end up with the biggest win and be SB G5 Champ. You can't limit these arguements to just one team. CFP could say, going on the road to Boise was not a bad loss. I do think all of us on the board will give it more thought than the CFP will, since their primary job is the top 4. No one will argue what G5 champ is more deserving except than the fans of the Conference that gets in and the one left out. The vast majority of FBS fans really could care less about that controversy or team. Many P5 fans see it as a necessary welfare slot for a team that would not likely get in if it was based on the CFP poll. A payoff learned from the mistakes of the BCS.

(10-11-2017 04:23 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  No one is saying an AAC may not deserve the bid. I think some are saying it is not as automatic for the AAC is some try to portray it. Navy and SDSU finish undefeated, it will wait a week until after the Army/Navy game. It does appear Stanford/ND could have huge implication on the G5 champ. Here's a question, let's say LSU rebounds and finishes 9-3. Then how do you keep Troy out? They could end up with the biggest win and be SB G5 Champ. You can't limit these arguements to just one team. CFP could say, going on the road to Boise was not a bad loss. I do think all of us on the board will give it more thought than the CFP will, since their primary job is the top 4. No one will argue what G5 champ is more deserving except than the fans of the Conference that gets in and the one left out. The vast majority of FBS fans really could care less about that controversy or team. Many P5 fans see it as a necessary welfare slot for a team that would not likely get in if it was based on the CFP poll. A payoff learned from the mistakes of the BCS.

Well one thing is certain, the committee has consistently been bailed out on their decision for the G5 slot. Will be interesting if they for once have to put thought behind it.

(10-11-2017 04:23 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  No one is saying an AAC may not deserve the bid. I think some are saying it is not as automatic for the AAC is some try to portray it. Navy and SDSU finish undefeated, it will wait a week until after the Army/Navy game. It does appear Stanford/ND could have huge implication on the G5 champ. Here's a question, let's say LSU rebounds and finishes 9-3. Then how do you keep Troy out? They could end up with the biggest win and be SB G5 Champ. You can't limit these arguements to just one team. CFP could say, going on the road to Boise was not a bad loss. I do think all of us on the board will give it more thought than the CFP will, since their primary job is the top 4. No one will argue what G5 champ is more deserving except than the fans of the Conference that gets in and the one left out. The vast majority of FBS fans really could care less about that controversy or team. Many P5 fans see it as a necessary welfare slot for a team that would not likely get in if it was based on the CFP poll. A payoff learned from the mistakes of the BCS.

Troy would still have the loss to Boise, a team an undefeated SDSU would have beaten once or twice.

(10-11-2017 04:23 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  No one is saying an AAC may not deserve the bid. I think some are saying it is not as automatic for the AAC is some try to portray it. Navy and SDSU finish undefeated, it will wait a week until after the Army/Navy game. It does appear Stanford/ND could have huge implication on the G5 champ. Here's a question, let's say LSU rebounds and finishes 9-3. Then how do you keep Troy out? They could end up with the biggest win and be SB G5 Champ. You can't limit these arguements to just one team. CFP could say, going on the road to Boise was not a bad loss. I do think all of us on the board will give it more thought than the CFP will, since their primary job is the top 4. No one will argue what G5 champ is more deserving except than the fans of the Conference that gets in and the one left out. The vast majority of FBS fans really could care less about that controversy or team. Many P5 fans see it as a necessary welfare slot for a team that would not likely get in if it was based on the CFP poll. A payoff learned from the mistakes of the BCS.

I think you are discounting the amount of people that will care and do talk about this in P5 circles. I can tell you from my Gator tailgating group, we all talk about the G5 games and quite a few fans of UCF in my circle.