Started By
Message
re: This is how you want a coach responding to bullshite committee rankings
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:07 am to SquatchDawg
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:07 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
quote:
He wants someone to explain why we’re the lowest ranked one loss team when we have a higher SOS
The bigger question is how is that SOS 15th? Because ND is on it? TX? The other teams are either doormats or fired their coaches mid season.
That's simply untrue. Most of the teams A&M played may not be ranked in the Top 20 but they were at the time and are still ranked in the Top 30-50. The committee doesn't look at schedule in totality they only count certain games. A great example of how this is flawed was the Chair talked about how Vandy's win against Tennessee is no longer considered a good win because now UT isn't ranked, in large part because Vandy beat the brakes off of them. So they are literally being penalized for such a good win. A&M had the same issue by beating LSU and Mizzou by 3 scores, both were ranked at the time and both are still very talented teams that could almost certainly beat a lot of T25 teams.
Elko's point though is they say that SOS and SOR are supposed to be very important because those are the most comprehensive and objective measures. They both show the SEC as being by far the strongest conference for instance since SEC teams dominate both categories. Yet they are talking about offensive stats and playcalling. It's not like A&M couldn't have run up the score on a bunch of teams they played but they like to get up by 2 scores or more and just run the ball or put in reserves late. It doesn't make your team better because you are going bombs away against a team that is clearly overmatched when the game is already decided.
1
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:11 am to hookem2522
How's that off season couch? Comfy? Got your cheesiest cheez-its?
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:13 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Honest question...where do most A&M fans believe they should have been ranked?
5 or 6. You could make an argument Tech should be ranked much lower as well as that ASU loss was terrible being midseason and the Big 12 is basically a G5 now but is being treated like it's the SEC.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:13 am to hornfan46
Have to admit, I agree with the horn here.
Simple, just do the math.
Unfortunately, the committee will never do that.
Simple, just do the math.
Unfortunately, the committee will never do that.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:14 am to Hugh McElroy
I think he is referring to all the whiny arse LSU fans on here bitching about weak schedules having no idea what they are talking about other than parroting each other.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:27 am to Hugh McElroy
quote:
He wants someone to explain why we’re the lowest ranked one loss team
Simple
UGA's only loss is to a top 10 team
Texas Tech's only loss came in a game without their starting QB (major injuries is something the committee has always said would be taken into account)
Oregon's only loss is to the current #2 team
Ole Miss' only loss is to the current #3 team in the country
A&M's loss came when fully healthy to a team not in the playoffs
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:29 am to Buster83
quote:
Elko has the same frustration that most of the college football AD's and coach's have, there is not a clear set of rules as to how to analytically rank football teams. It seems to change weekly and is mostly just a matter of opinions that don't seem to use the same criteria for forming those opinions.
I get the frustration, but there is no way you can have a clear cut way to determine it. Too many variables factor into it. SOS, SOR, Timing of losses, who you lost to. How much was your loss by, who you beat, how badly did you beat highly ranked teams and on and on and on.
Many people say we should go back to the BCS computer rankings then take the top 12 teams, but I remember when people were complaining about how those came out. There simply is no way or formula that would please everybody. And...most A&M fans in this thread admitted they felt like #6 would be the correct ranking for A&M, and I tend to agree with them.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:31 am to Hugh McElroy
If SEC teams were smart, they would schedule the weakest ACC, Big10 and Big 12 teams instead of the cupcakes.
Teams like Ohio State and Tech couldn’t fault your schedule since you played the same teams they did, plus SEC teams.
Teams like Ohio State and Tech couldn’t fault your schedule since you played the same teams they did, plus SEC teams.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:36 am to aggressor
quote:
5 or 6. You could make an argument Tech should be ranked much lower as well as that ASU loss was terrible being midseason and the Big 12 is basically a G5 now but is being treated like it's the SEC.
My argument there would be you can't start ranking teams according to the perceived strength or weakness of a conference. The next year that perceived weaker conference may be stronger and people would complain about being inconsistent. Look at what happened with FSU/Alabama a couple of years ago when FSU's QB got injured....now we have Lane Kiffin leaving Ole Miss. Should Ole Miss be left out of the playoffs using the committees earlier reasoning?
I mean, I do agree that the BIG 12 and the ACC are hot garbage.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:37 am to Nutriaitch
quote:
A&M's loss came when fully healthy
Except, you know, our best running back.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:39 am to aggressor
quote:
5 or 6. You could make an argument Tech should be ranked much lower as well as that ASU loss was terrible being midseason and the Big 12 is basically a G5 now but is being treated like it's the SEC.
Should have put this in my post above...it could be argued that Texas Tech would be undefeated had their QB played in that ASU game, and they lost to a 4 loss team by ten, the same amount of points A&M lost to a 3 loss Texas team, with a healthy QB. Nothing against A&M at all....just making the same arguments they would rightfully and fairly make. What hurt A&M was the timing of their loss.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:51 am to Hugh McElroy
He has a point. Nothing about the seeding makes a bit of sense. Ags have a better SOS than tech, a better loss by far, and a tougher conference yet tech is ahead of them.
They need to make it clear what criteria they are using.
They need to make it clear what criteria they are using.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:57 am to Hugh McElroy
quote:
and a less bad loss,
Your loss is not a less bad loss than Georgia's.
You lost by 10 to the three loss #13 team. Georgia lost by 3 to the two loss #9 team.
It's not less bad than Oregon's. Oregon lost by 10 to the undefeated #2 team.
It's not less bad than Ole Miss's 8 point loss to the one loss #3 team.
To put it another way, the team you lost to lost as many games (3) as the combined three teams above you lost to (2, 0, and 1).
This post was edited on 12/4/25 at 11:03 am
Posted on 12/4/25 at 11:05 am to Hugh McElroy
quote:
No, that's why I said most one loss teams. Ole Miss loss is better than A&M's loss.
So is Georgia's.
So is Oregon's.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 11:07 am to Hugh McElroy
Yo dickbreath FPI thinks you are the #10 team so be happy not just fat
Posted on 12/4/25 at 11:11 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
So is Georgia's. So is Oregon's.
False. Losing a home game is worse because you have the home field advantage.
Georgia lost at home.
Oregon lost at home.
Ole Miss lost on the road.
This post was edited on 12/4/25 at 11:13 am
Posted on 12/4/25 at 11:28 am to AGGIES
quote:
False. Losing a home game is worse because you have the home field advantage.
Georgia lost at home.
Oregon lost at home.
Ole Miss lost on the road.
Are you just going to ignore the quality of opponent they lost to?
Posted on 12/4/25 at 11:31 am to Hugh McElroy
quote:
He wants someone to explain why we’re the lowest ranked one loss team when we have a higher SOS than the other one loss teams, and a better win, and a less bad loss, than almost all the other one loss teams. (Not including BYU).
I get it but that Texas loss means they get a bye this weekend. as it stands now, Alabama has the hardest path of any team to get to the National championship (which i seriously doubt happens)
Posted on 12/4/25 at 11:35 am to DawgsLife
Not ignoring the quality of the opponent entirely. It’s most relevant. So is location.
So the same could be asked - are you ignoring home vs road?
So the same could be asked - are you ignoring home vs road?
Posted on 12/4/25 at 11:54 am to SummerOfGeorge
Just the computer. Not the app and harris
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News