A Poll about the Polls

[SWC75]

#9 Auburn lost to #2 LSU 20-23. Should they be ranked any lower this week?

 

[Briancuse]

Id move them to 10.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

Polls look good to me. They are above 2 undefeated p5 programs with 0 losses in Baylor and Minny.


OU should be ahead of them MHK isn’t an easy place to play when KSU is good.

I just hope Pedo St/Ohio St loser isn’t ahead of a 1 loss PAC 12 champ if Oregon and Utah face off with 1 loss. That conference blows outside of those 2. We could be undefeated with Minnesotas schedule.

 

[gmoney44]

We could be undefeated with Minnesotas schedule.

Minnesota just waxed the same Maryland team that could have beat us by 100.

 

[tbonezone]

a loss should always knock you back at least two pins. granted that was close but take 2 steps backwards.

 

[SWC75]

They went to #`11 and #12. The teams they lost to are now ranked #1/#2 and #7/#8.

 

[sufandu]

If you have a close loss to a team that was expected to beat you, it shouldn't change your ranking. If you get blown out or lose to a team ranked lower, then yeah, you deserve to drop.

Stuff like this is why I like the committee approach to the playoff. They don't blindly go by stupid traditional unwritten rules.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

Minnesota just waxed the same Maryland team that could have beat us by 100.

That’s not the same Maryland team but I get your point.

 

[shantydaze]

If you have a close loss to a team that was expected to beat you, it shouldn't change your ranking. If you get blown out or lose to a team ranked lower, then yeah, you deserve to drop.

Stuff like this is why I like the committee approach to the playoff. They don't blindly go by stupid traditional unwritten rules.

One of the problems with this approach, however, is that it gives too much credence to the preseason rankings. Paper tigers could stay higher in the rankings because of a hype rank and teams not historically ranked would have a harder time moving up in the ranks during a magical season.

 

[sufandu]

One of the problems with this approach, however, is that it gives too much credence to the preseason rankings. Paper tigers could stay higher in the rankings because of a hype rank and teams not historically ranked would have a harder time moving up in the ranks during a magical season.

Not so. It's simply another of those stupid unwritten rules that undefeated teams can't be leapfrogged (it's not entirely true since Clemson has been leapfrogged 3 times this year). You watch those come out of nowhere teams and determine whether you think they're better than the others. Rankings shouldn't be detemined simply by whether or not you have lost.

 

[PhatOrange]

LSU and Ohio State are the best teams I've seen play. Alabama, Penn St, Clemson the next group.

People taking a wait and see approach on Minnesota but I suspect they're pretty good. They're last 4 they've been throttling teams.

Oklahoma was getting destroyed 41-23 before they caught up in the 4th Q to make it close b/c KState let up. It wasn't that close.

Wisky a brutal upset then a thumping by OSU 38-7. Between them and Oklahoma, even good teams with good coaches take lumps.

Clemson 59 Boston College 7

TCU 37 - #15 Texas 27 oops.

Iowa State lost to unranked OkState. Campbell drops to 5-3 and still has to play Oklahama, Kansas, Texas and Kansas St.

The other coaching darling Jeff Brohm is 2-6 at Purdue this year.

 

[SmilinBob]

The polls look like they are just trying to avoid Bama playing Clemson in the first game. I know it's a coincidence but it's kind of funny.

 

[Cuse69]

why do you think the committee waits so long to release it's first rankings, they don;t have preseason rankings, once the season this far you know who's legit and who's not.

 

[ForCuseSake]

Yes, they should be lower because they lost. How much lower should be a function of who else lost around their ranking and to whom those teams lost.

(Awesome thread title that could double for the name of a Chip/Millhouse biography.)

 

[sufandu]

The polls look like they are just trying to avoid Bama playing Clemson in the first game. I know it's a coincidence but it's kind of funny.

This isn't the BCS. The committee bases nothing on the polls. They've been different than the polls in the past, so the polls have no bearing on the playoff match ups.

 

[skurey]

LSU has way better wins than Alabama so far and they play in a week anyway so 1/2 doesn't matter.

 

[SmilinBob]

This isn't the BCS. The committee bases nothing on the polls. They've been different than the polls in the past, so the polls have no bearing on the playoff match ups.

They do play a part in the BCS equation.

 

[sufandu]

They do play a part in the BCS equation.

There is no BCS anymore. The polls have nothing to do with the playoff. That's all the committee.

 

[SmilinBob]

There is no BCS anymore. The polls have nothing to do with the playoff. That's all the committee.

Interesting, I thought they put the polls in as a part of the equation...so the committee outright decides? Clemson better not lose one game.

 

[sufandu]

Interesting, I thought they put the polls in as a part of the equation...so the committee outright decides? Clemson better not lose one game.

There's no equation anymore. That was the old BCS system. The committee decides the playoff now independent of any polls. They release their own ranking beginning in november.

Clemson has made the playoff twice despite losing a game. Largely because the committee assessed they were one of the top 4 teams at the end if the year, despite having a loss. It doesn't look like they could survive one this though.

That's what I like about the committee, though. They can see if a team has improved throughout year and may be better than another team that has remained static despite having a similar resume. Had this system existed in 2000, Miami likely plays the the NC. Instead a bunch of computers didn't account for the improvement they made after having a close away loss in their first game with a new qb on the opposite side of the country.