UNC is ranked 14 in the CFP rankings while Houston, a 3 point loser at UConn on Saturday, is unranked.

Looking at the resumes, can you honestly give me a reason why UNC is so much better? Maybe they're slightly better but 14 vs. unranked?

Must be a layover in opinion from the 1982 Final Four.

When you lose matters.

UNC's loss is to a team that just lost to the Citadel and has two other wins total. Houston lost to a team that's bowl eligible.

(11-25-2015 07:32 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  UNC is ranked 14 in the CFP rankings while Houston, a 3 point loser at UConn on Saturday, is unranked.

Looking at the resumes, can you honestly give me a reason why UNC is so much better? Maybe they're slightly better but 14 vs. unranked?

Must be a layover in opinion from the 1982 Final Four.

They didn't get left behind by their conference mates in 1996.

(11-25-2015 07:53 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  UNC's loss is to a team that just lost to the Citadel and has two other wins total. Houston lost to a team that's bowl eligible.

It was the first game of the season. Ever played football?

P5 ? Houston should be ranked , I agree.

A writer was making the same comparison between Northwestern and Stanford. Northwestern had a stronger schedule, better top wins and had beaten Stanford head to head, but was nearly 10 spots lower. Stanford has beaten the comittees #20 and #23 but lost to their #16 and #17 while being ranked #9.

UNC lost to South Carolina first game of the season.
Houston lost to UConn last Saturday.

Being Carolina.

^

And Houston is in the AAC, just on the wrong side of the ViP rope and not on the list.

(11-25-2015 08:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 07:53 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  UNC's loss is to a team that just lost to the Citadel and has two other wins total. Houston lost to a team that's bowl eligible.

It was the first game of the season. Ever played football?

What's your point? The committee stresses body of work and strength of schedule. I personally believe UNC is better but its not about the eye test, at least not alone. It's supposed to be about overall body of work or I guess in reality whoever is in a better conference (and just barely, is the ACC really all that much better than the AAC?).

Let me guess, you think it's better for a team to get hot and make the Final Four as an 11-seed than have a great regular season and earn a high seed?

25 years of fake classes for athletes?

Meanwhile, Washington State is also ranked with 3 losses, including one to Portland State (they're good for their leve but come on).

(11-25-2015 08:21 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  25 years of fake classes for athletes?

(11-25-2015 08:18 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  ^

And Houston is in the AAC, just on the wrong side of the ViP rope and not on the list.

(11-25-2015 08:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-25-2015 07:53 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  UNC's loss is to a team that just lost to the Citadel and has two other wins total. Houston lost to a team that's bowl eligible.

It was the first game of the season. Ever played football?

What's your point? The committee stresses body of work and strength of schedule. I personally believe UNC is better but its not about the eye test, at least not alone. It's supposed to be about overall body of work or I guess in reality whoever is in a better conference (and just barely, is the ACC really all that much better than the AAC?).

Let me guess, you think it's better for a team to get hot and make the Final Four as an 11-seed than have a great regular season and earn a high seed?

Not better. Just more entertaining

Everyone knows the committee is bias and their is no rhyme or reason on how they do things, the process is very opaque. There needs to be a more transparent process like having some news media in the room. Public needs to see the process on how the sausage is made. Until that happens the CFB fan will have little confidence or trust in the process

Oh look, the committee is just like the BCS.

Shocker.

I have said this from day one.

(11-25-2015 07:32 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  UNC is ranked 14 in the CFP rankings while Houston, a 3 point loser at UConn on Saturday, is unranked.

Looking at the resumes, can you honestly give me a reason why UNC is so much better? Maybe they're slightly better but 14 vs. unranked?

Must be a layover in opinion from the 1982 Final Four.

UNC-Chapel Hill has definitely cheated better than Houston.

(11-25-2015 07:32 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  UNC is ranked 14 in the CFP rankings while Houston, a 3 point loser at UConn on Saturday, is unranked.

Looking at the resumes, can you honestly give me a reason why UNC is so much better? Maybe they're slightly better but 14 vs. unranked?

Must be a layover in opinion from the 1982 Final Four.

Houston is a mid-major, UNC a P5.

(11-25-2015 07:32 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  UNC is ranked 14 in the CFP rankings while Houston, a 3 point loser at UConn on Saturday, is unranked.

Exist in the ACC?