(12-09-2020 11:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 08:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 08:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 04:12 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 11:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Coastal has two wins over ranked teams, and no losses, and yet are 5 spots behind Cincy, who has none.

Go figure.

Quo,

To be fully accurate, your sentence should read thusly:

Undefeated Coastal has two wins over teams that are currently ranked and were ranked at the time and yet CCU is five spots behind Cincy, which has no wins over teams currently ranked but two wins vs. teams (Army and SMU) that were ranked at the time UC played them.

As I've said before, IMO mentioning wins over formerly-ranked teams is meaningless, as earlier rankings often reflect over-rating. The rankings evolve over time and the current rankings reflect the totality of cumulative performance, so they are what are worth noting.

Otherwise we can have e.g. Ohio State saying they have a win over a ranked Penn State team (Penn State was ranked when OSU beat them), etc.

"Meaningless"? Quo, you are better than that. How about "questionable" or "sometimes bordering on meaningless"?

Using your argument, let's say hypothetically that BYU gets pounded by 4-3 San Diego State this Saturday and then gets ripped in its bowl game. And folks say, "BYU fell apart at the end of the year and really wasn't that good when Coastal beat them, as we now know as we look back. This cheapens CCU's win over BYU."

My point: Late in the season, you can beat a ranked team that goes on to have a collapse, thus possibly limiting the impressiveness of that win. It can work both ways. As such "later rankings" (to counter your "earlier rankings" comment) can also be misleading. We'll know when CCU plays Troy and Louisiana and BYU plays SDSU. My feeling is that BYU is damn good and Coastal's win will strong when the season concludes. But you see my point.

You've seen my posts (at least three) about Cincy vs. Coastal. I'm with you. CCU is every bit as strong as UC and as deserving of the NY6 bid were the season to end today. I'm a Cincy fan but no fanboy.

Sometimes your occasional hyper-strong word choices — in this case "meaningless" — are poorly suited for a man of your wordsmithing and message board debating skills. Having said that, my pomposity needs to be reeled in at times.

Bill, I appreciate your POV, but I stand by "meaningless". I do not think wins over "ranked at the time" are worth mentioning, only wins over currently-ranked teams.

And of course that can change yet again - if BYU or ULL falls from the rankings before the CFP makes its decisions, then my statement about Coastal having beaten two "currently ranked" teams will no longer be accurate, and if a team Cincy has played moves in to the rankings, then it will be valid to mention that.

Bottom line for me is that the current rankings reflect the cumulative performance of the season. Prior rankings mean ...... nothing.

Agree overall but feel there should be some "nuance" factored into the equation. Therefore, using the extremely strict "meaningless" as a blanket term for this topic can be misleading.

The point is moot in that you and agree: Coastal is every bit as good as Cincinnati.

(12-10-2020 12:14 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 11:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  This thread would be really funny if we were talking about the NFL. Where a .500 team can host a playoff game vs. an 11-5 team.

Good point. In the NFL there is a clear path to the playoff where every team knows the bracket before the season starts. Every team has a shot at making the playoffs and knows what is needed to make it (win division, wild card, etc.). The CFP is not accessible to a majority of teams and there is no clear path to get there. It’s all decided by the “eye test.” And apparently this season you can have an 11-0 team matching up with a 6-0 team.

The great thing about systems like the NFL's (and NBA, MLB, NHL) is that they preclude debate about who belongs in the playoffs, and precisely for the reason you give - every team has a clear path to the playoffs and knows the rules and what they have to do to get in. There is no subjectivity to it.

But, precluding debate isn't always a good thing, because it can cause people to overlook flaws in the process. Just because a process is objective and clearly defined doesn't mean it is rational or good.

Bottom line is: A fan of say a 10-6 Cardinals team that misses the playoffs while a 7-9 Giants team makes the playoff SHOULD be pissed off about that. It is NOT right, not just, and just as silly as if say a 7-4 team makes the CFP playoffs while an 11-1 team misses out. But nobody will argue about it, because we've all been conditioned to accept "the system", even if it is dumb.

Can't compare NFL playoffs with so many common opponents and parity. That said, 4 SEC teams is overkill once again. What has UGa done this year to be there? They should not be given a shot. Coastal should get a shot. There are no tickets to sell this year by in large.

(12-10-2020 10:29 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Can't compare NFL playoffs with so many common opponents and parity. That said, 4 SEC teams is overkill once again. What has UGa done this year to be there? They should not be given a shot. Coastal should get a shot. There are no tickets to sell this year by in large.

Well, let's face it: If Coastal played Georgia next week and you had to bet your life on the winner, you'd bet on Georgia and so would I. They are almost surely better.

That said, I agree, it would be wonderful to see Coastal (and Indiana) in NY6 bowl games. I hope it happens.

(12-10-2020 10:29 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Can't compare NFL playoffs with so many common opponents and parity. That said, 4 SEC teams is overkill once again. What has UGa done this year to be there? They should not be given a shot. Coastal should get a shot. There are no tickets to sell this year by in large.

No tickets, but they want TV eyeballs. Georgia will bring more eyeballs than Coastal. Not that I agree with it, but I believe it is likely a determining factor.

(12-10-2020 12:14 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 11:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  This thread would be really funny if we were talking about the NFL. Where a .500 team can host a playoff game vs. an 11-5 team.

Good point. In the NFL there is a clear path to the playoff where every team knows the bracket before the season starts. Every team has a shot at making the playoffs and knows what is needed to make it (win division, wild card, etc.). The CFP is not accessible to a majority of teams and there is no clear path to get there. It’s all decided by the “eye test.” And apparently this season you can have an 11-0 team matching up with a 6-0 team.

And this is why I say men's basketball is better than football. Yes it's way better to be in the Big Ten when half (or more) of the conference gets in than in the Big West when only the conference champion gets in and the "top" teams from mid majors are usually seeded lower than "average" teams from the power conferences. But at least every team in Division 1 basketball has a chance at the beginning of the season. You can't say that about football.

(12-10-2020 10:39 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 12:14 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 11:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  This thread would be really funny if we were talking about the NFL. Where a .500 team can host a playoff game vs. an 11-5 team.

Good point. In the NFL there is a clear path to the playoff where every team knows the bracket before the season starts. Every team has a shot at making the playoffs and knows what is needed to make it (win division, wild card, etc.). The CFP is not accessible to a majority of teams and there is no clear path to get there. It’s all decided by the “eye test.” And apparently this season you can have an 11-0 team matching up with a 6-0 team.

And this is why I say men's basketball is better than football. Yes it's way better to be in the Big Ten when half (or more) of the conference gets in than in the Big West when only the conference champion gets in and the "top" teams from mid majors are usually seeded lower than "average" teams from the power conferences. But at least every team in Division 1 basketball has a chance at the beginning of the season. You can't say that about football.

There's a big difference between hoops and football - the public wants a big hoops tournament with lots of Kansas vs Delaware State and North Carolina vs UT - Permian Basin (or whatever) in the first round. Having 32 games played over two days creates an all-day frenzy and you can bounce back and forth among games as one underdog or another actually seems to be a three-pointer or two from springing an upset.

But football fans have no interest in Clemson vs The Citadel playoff matchups. Zero. By and large they just want to see the major teams play. We want Ohio State vs USC, Notre Dame vs Florida, stuff like that. No market for the other matchups in terms of playoffs.

(12-10-2020 10:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 10:39 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 12:14 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 11:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  This thread would be really funny if we were talking about the NFL. Where a .500 team can host a playoff game vs. an 11-5 team.

Good point. In the NFL there is a clear path to the playoff where every team knows the bracket before the season starts. Every team has a shot at making the playoffs and knows what is needed to make it (win division, wild card, etc.). The CFP is not accessible to a majority of teams and there is no clear path to get there. It’s all decided by the “eye test.” And apparently this season you can have an 11-0 team matching up with a 6-0 team.

And this is why I say men's basketball is better than football. Yes it's way better to be in the Big Ten when half (or more) of the conference gets in than in the Big West when only the conference champion gets in and the "top" teams from mid majors are usually seeded lower than "average" teams from the power conferences. But at least every team in Division 1 basketball has a chance at the beginning of the season. You can't say that about football.

There's a big difference between hoops and football - the public wants a big hoops tournament with lots of Kansas vs Delaware State and North Carolina vs UT - Permian Basin (or whatever) in the first round. Having 32 games played over two days creates an all-day frenzy and you can bounce back and forth among games as one underdog or another actually seems to be a three-pointer or two from springing an upset.

But football fans have no interest in Clemson vs The Citadel playoff matchups. Zero. By and large they just want to see the major teams play. We want Ohio State vs USC, Notre Dame vs Florida, stuff like that. No market for the other matchups in terms of playoffs.

I think you overrate Kansas vs. Delaware St. I usually don't even watch UK when they are playing a 15 or 16 seed. Blowouts aren't interesting.

Now the Western Kentuckys, Indiana St.s, UNC Charlottes and Butlers (to name a few past surprises in the final 4) can be interesting. But those were true "mid-majors," not "minors." We could lose 1/3 of the NCAA Division I conferences and ratings wouldn't drop a bit. Might even go up because the bottom 10 would be better teams than now.

Could probably lose half the conferences with no impact. Is FBS football hurt because Eastern Kentucky, Montana, Stephen F. Austin and the Citadel are in FCS?

(12-10-2020 10:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 10:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 10:39 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 12:14 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 11:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  This thread would be really funny if we were talking about the NFL. Where a .500 team can host a playoff game vs. an 11-5 team.

Good point. In the NFL there is a clear path to the playoff where every team knows the bracket before the season starts. Every team has a shot at making the playoffs and knows what is needed to make it (win division, wild card, etc.). The CFP is not accessible to a majority of teams and there is no clear path to get there. It’s all decided by the “eye test.” And apparently this season you can have an 11-0 team matching up with a 6-0 team.

And this is why I say men's basketball is better than football. Yes it's way better to be in the Big Ten when half (or more) of the conference gets in than in the Big West when only the conference champion gets in and the "top" teams from mid majors are usually seeded lower than "average" teams from the power conferences. But at least every team in Division 1 basketball has a chance at the beginning of the season. You can't say that about football.

There's a big difference between hoops and football - the public wants a big hoops tournament with lots of Kansas vs Delaware State and North Carolina vs UT - Permian Basin (or whatever) in the first round. Having 32 games played over two days creates an all-day frenzy and you can bounce back and forth among games as one underdog or another actually seems to be a three-pointer or two from springing an upset.

But football fans have no interest in Clemson vs The Citadel playoff matchups. Zero. By and large they just want to see the major teams play. We want Ohio State vs USC, Notre Dame vs Florida, stuff like that. No market for the other matchups in terms of playoffs.

I think you overrate Kansas vs. Delaware St. I usually don't even watch UK when they are playing a 15 or 16 seed. Blowouts aren't interesting.

Now the Western Kentuckys, Indiana St.s, UNC Charlottes and Butlers (to name a few past surprises in the final 4) can be interesting. But those were true "mid-majors," not "minors." We could lose 1/3 of the NCAA Division I conferences and ratings wouldn't drop a bit. Might even go up because the bottom 10 would be better teams than now.

Could probably lose half the conferences with no impact. Is FBS football hurt because Eastern Kentucky, Montana, Stephen F. Austin and the Citadel are in FCS?

IMO, what makes March Madness a big *public* event, something that goes beyond hard-core hoops fan, are those crazy matchups between the powers and the low-enders. Sure, nobody whose son isn't playing in the game sits down and watches all 40 minutes of Kansas vs Delaware State, but those games are part of an overall package, they create the vibe of the event.

A true hoops fan might know that Western Kentucky is a tough well-coached team that has flown under the radar will sit down to watch them play a high-seed Louisville team because they think WKU can give them a good game and maybe knock them off. But that's not what the tournament thrives on.

So to me, if you lop off that bottom third, the tournament would not capture the public imagination the same way anymore. And I think the P5 know that too.

(12-10-2020 10:04 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 11:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 08:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 08:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 04:12 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Quo,

To be fully accurate, your sentence should read thusly:

Undefeated Coastal has two wins over teams that are currently ranked and were ranked at the time and yet CCU is five spots behind Cincy, which has no wins over teams currently ranked but two wins vs. teams (Army and SMU) that were ranked at the time UC played them.

As I've said before, IMO mentioning wins over formerly-ranked teams is meaningless, as earlier rankings often reflect over-rating. The rankings evolve over time and the current rankings reflect the totality of cumulative performance, so they are what are worth noting.

Otherwise we can have e.g. Ohio State saying they have a win over a ranked Penn State team (Penn State was ranked when OSU beat them), etc.

"Meaningless"? Quo, you are better than that. How about "questionable" or "sometimes bordering on meaningless"?

Using your argument, let's say hypothetically that BYU gets pounded by 4-3 San Diego State this Saturday and then gets ripped in its bowl game. And folks say, "BYU fell apart at the end of the year and really wasn't that good when Coastal beat them, as we now know as we look back. This cheapens CCU's win over BYU."

My point: Late in the season, you can beat a ranked team that goes on to have a collapse, thus possibly limiting the impressiveness of that win. It can work both ways. As such "later rankings" (to counter your "earlier rankings" comment) can also be misleading. We'll know when CCU plays Troy and Louisiana and BYU plays SDSU. My feeling is that BYU is damn good and Coastal's win will strong when the season concludes. But you see my point.

You've seen my posts (at least three) about Cincy vs. Coastal. I'm with you. CCU is every bit as strong as UC and as deserving of the NY6 bid were the season to end today. I'm a Cincy fan but no fanboy.

Sometimes your occasional hyper-strong word choices — in this case "meaningless" — are poorly suited for a man of your wordsmithing and message board debating skills. Having said that, my pomposity needs to be reeled in at times.

Bill, I appreciate your POV, but I stand by "meaningless". I do not think wins over "ranked at the time" are worth mentioning, only wins over currently-ranked teams.

And of course that can change yet again - if BYU or ULL falls from the rankings before the CFP makes its decisions, then my statement about Coastal having beaten two "currently ranked" teams will no longer be accurate, and if a team Cincy has played moves in to the rankings, then it will be valid to mention that.

Bottom line for me is that the current rankings reflect the cumulative performance of the season. Prior rankings mean ...... nothing.

Agree overall but feel there should be some "nuance" factored into the equation. Therefore, using the extremely strict "meaningless" as a blanket term for this topic can be misleading.

The point is moot in that you and agree: Coastal is every bit as good as Cincinnati.

Q’s point about Ohio State saying they beat a ranked Penn State really drives the point home though. Maybe people should be more nuanced when they are claiming top-25 scalps? Saying Ohio State beat a ranked opponent is misleading considering that team they beat stinks and has one victory over another miserable team.

Polls fluctuate, and especially early season polls aren’t a good indicator of how good a team is. That said, a team decimated by injuries may have been stronger earlier in the season, etc. It’s all relative.

(12-10-2020 11:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 10:04 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 11:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 08:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 08:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  As I've said before, IMO mentioning wins over formerly-ranked teams is meaningless, as earlier rankings often reflect over-rating. The rankings evolve over time and the current rankings reflect the totality of cumulative performance, so they are what are worth noting.

Otherwise we can have e.g. Ohio State saying they have a win over a ranked Penn State team (Penn State was ranked when OSU beat them), etc.

"Meaningless"? Quo, you are better than that. How about "questionable" or "sometimes bordering on meaningless"?

Using your argument, let's say hypothetically that BYU gets pounded by 4-3 San Diego State this Saturday and then gets ripped in its bowl game. And folks say, "BYU fell apart at the end of the year and really wasn't that good when Coastal beat them, as we now know as we look back. This cheapens CCU's win over BYU."

My point: Late in the season, you can beat a ranked team that goes on to have a collapse, thus possibly limiting the impressiveness of that win. It can work both ways. As such "later rankings" (to counter your "earlier rankings" comment) can also be misleading. We'll know when CCU plays Troy and Louisiana and BYU plays SDSU. My feeling is that BYU is damn good and Coastal's win will strong when the season concludes. But you see my point.

You've seen my posts (at least three) about Cincy vs. Coastal. I'm with you. CCU is every bit as strong as UC and as deserving of the NY6 bid were the season to end today. I'm a Cincy fan but no fanboy.

Sometimes your occasional hyper-strong word choices — in this case "meaningless" — are poorly suited for a man of your wordsmithing and message board debating skills. Having said that, my pomposity needs to be reeled in at times.

Bill, I appreciate your POV, but I stand by "meaningless". I do not think wins over "ranked at the time" are worth mentioning, only wins over currently-ranked teams.

And of course that can change yet again - if BYU or ULL falls from the rankings before the CFP makes its decisions, then my statement about Coastal having beaten two "currently ranked" teams will no longer be accurate, and if a team Cincy has played moves in to the rankings, then it will be valid to mention that.

Bottom line for me is that the current rankings reflect the cumulative performance of the season. Prior rankings mean ...... nothing.

Agree overall but feel there should be some "nuance" factored into the equation. Therefore, using the extremely strict "meaningless" as a blanket term for this topic can be misleading.

The point is moot in that you and agree: Coastal is every bit as good as Cincinnati.

Q’s point about Ohio State saying they beat a ranked Penn State really drives the point home though. Maybe people should be more nuanced when they are claiming top-25 scalps? Saying Ohio State beat a ranked opponent is misleading considering that team they beat stinks and has one victory over another miserable team.

Polls fluctuate, and especially early season polls aren’t a good indicator of how good a team is. That said, a team decimated by injuries may have been stronger earlier in the season, etc. It’s all relative.

Very good points. I typically say, "Xxxx beat xxxx teams that are now unranked but were ranked at the time."

So for me to say, "Cincinnati has beaten two ranked teams" is inaccurate and incomplete. It suggest the Bearcats beat teams that are currently ranked, which is untrue.

For comparison: If a team wins the national title but is later stripped of that crown due to NCAA violations, ... I say: "XXXX won the national title in xxxx but later had that title vacated due to NCAA infractions."

In contrast, some fans will speak or write something (regarding the title stripping example) that suggests the team that had the title taken away never even played in the championship game, which I find odd.

(12-10-2020 01:38 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  For comparison: If a team wins the national title but is later stripped of that crown due to NCAA violations, ... I say: "XXXX won the national title in xxxx but later had that title vacated due to NCAA infractions."

In contrast, some fans will speak or write something (regarding the title stripping example) that suggests the team that had the title taken away never even played in the championship game, which I find odd.

Didn't UMass have their Final Four stripped for Marcus Camby accepting a "gift" from an agent, which I think was a gold chain. Man, that gold chain really propelled that team to make it to the Final Four. Good job NCAA!

(12-10-2020 02:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 01:38 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  For comparison: If a team wins the national title but is later stripped of that crown due to NCAA violations, ... I say: "XXXX won the national title in xxxx but later had that title vacated due to NCAA infractions."

In contrast, some fans will speak or write something (regarding the title stripping example) that suggests the team that had the title taken away never even played in the championship game, which I find odd.

Didn't UMass have their Final Four stripped for Marcus Camby accepting a "gift" from an agent, which I think was a gold chain. Man, that gold chain really propelled that team to make it to the Final Four. Good job NCAA!

Similar to USC in 2004, although I think they got more than gold chains. Georgia Tech got an ACC title stripped for one player getting $300 worth of clothes from an agent, which he later repaid.

NCAA doesn't seem to care much if you cheat unless its with an agent.