Started By
Message
re: This is how you want a coach responding to bullshite committee rankings
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:16 pm to AGGIES
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:16 pm to AGGIES
quote:
So is location.
Most betting organizations say that a home game is worth 3 points. Georgia got beat by 3. Add 3 for being at home and we got beat by 6 points to #9 Alabama. A&M got beat by #13 by 10 minus 3 points for home field advantage and you lost by 7.
See the problem with your thinking yet?
0
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:20 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:
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
Someone has to be the lowest ranked 1 loss team and A&M drew the proverbial short straw. It’s all close enough that I don’t really take issue with it other than my team was the loser in it. Should have beaten Texas to avoid it.
Just a couple thoughts in general:
1.) saying that a teams starter was injured so that terrible loss doesn’t count is so stupid. So if Marcel reed stayed injured against Texas the loss wouldn’t have mattered now?
2.) obviously A&M benefits here but I do think that if things are super close, OOC schedule should be the tiebreaker. This would encourage teams to schedule tougher
ETA: the real problem here at the end of the day is auto bids. 6 seed plays north Texas and 7 seed plays Alabama?
This post was edited on 12/4/25 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:26 pm to Hugh McElroy
I believe the last two CFP rankings is more about setting up the playoff matchup than actual strength rank. The committee is anticipating the final games outcomes and leaving themselves some options for the bracket matchups.
They likely want to avoid rematch games and having inter conference teams matched up against each other in the 2nd round if possible. The SEC is obviously going to have 1 or two matchups this year though.
They likely want to avoid rematch games and having inter conference teams matched up against each other in the 2nd round if possible. The SEC is obviously going to have 1 or two matchups this year though.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:27 pm to MMB5DAP
quote:
1.) saying that a teams starter was injured so that terrible loss doesn’t count is so stupid. So if Marcel reed stayed injured against Texas the loss wouldn’t have mattered now?
I don't think anybody is saying it doesn't count so much as you have to take it into consideration.
You do think that losing your starting QB would hurt a team more than losing a RB, right? Most teams would find it difficult to win with a backup QB who, under normal circumstances would play very little in most games,than a 2nd string RB that probably gets 7-10 touches every single game.
quote:
2.) obviously A&M benefits here but I do think that if things are super close, OOC schedule should be the tiebreaker. This would encourage teams to schedule tougher
I agree, and I think it does as long as you win that tough OOC game. (As a whole) I mean, all things considered do you take the team that beat the #1 team in the country, or the team that beat Syracuse. If the first team loses to the #1 team in the country what did they prove? Playing a tough OOC game gives an opportunity to make a splash and get a benefit of the doubt. Lost to a tough OOC team and you can't give people style points for scheduling a tough OOC game and lose.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:28 pm to Hugh McElroy
quote:
Because the first round matchup for the 7 seed is significantly harder than the first round matchup for the 6 seed.
Yep. He would certainly rather play an automatic qualifier than Notre Dame (or Miami) again. I don't blame him. Unfortunately when you lose is often as important as who you lose to and who you beat. The recency effect is real.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:28 pm to Hugh McElroy
A&M at #7 is too high really. Getting rewarded for weak arse schedule and went 1-1 against the good opponents they played..
This post was edited on 12/4/25 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:28 pm to aggressor
quote:
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.
I totally disagree. Rankings are meaningless until at least halfway or 3/4 through the season. How good a team actually is > how good a team is supposed to be. Look at where TX started and finished.
I guess you beating them does play a role in their rank falling but that doesn’t move the needle. ND lost to AM and are still top 10. Other than that what teams did you beat that took an unfair hit to their ranking?
The fact is AM split between the two best teams they played with a loss late against a TX team the lost to UGA, FL (yuk) and got taken to OT against MsState and KY.
The difference between 6th and 7th is stupid anyway. Just be glad you’re in. Miami, Vandy and UVA (if they win) have a real reason to be pissed.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:30 pm to fwtex
quote:
believe the last two CFP rankings is more about setting up the playoff matchup than actual strength rank. The committee is anticipating the final games outcomes and leaving themselves some options for the bracket matchups.
This guy gets it. It’s all about good TV.
I promise you these rankings are massaged to give compelling matchups and limit repeat games.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:31 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I don't think anybody is saying it doesn't count so much as you have to take it into consideration. You do think that losing your starting QB would hurt a team more than losing a RB, right? Most teams would find it difficult to win with a backup QB who, under normal circumstances would play very little in most games,than a 2nd string RB that probably gets 7-10 touches every single game.
Marcel reed twisted his ankle against Texas in the 1st quarter. If he decided he couldn’t finish the game (out two weeks so not like FSU situation) does the loss get diminished like Texas techs loss to Arizona state?
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:35 pm to hookem2522
It's threads like this where yiu can really tell the serious football posters from the idiot aholes.
thanks for the clarity, y'all.
thanks for the clarity, y'all.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:37 pm to SquatchDawg
Absolutely.
This system has to change. It’s becoming a farce.
This system has to change. It’s becoming a farce.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:41 pm to MMB5DAP
quote:
ETA: the real problem here at the end of the day is auto bids. 6 seed plays north Texas and 7 seed plays Alabama?
Actually Alabama is ranked #9 right now. If everything stayed the exact same going into the playoffs A&M would play ND. (7 vs. 10).
#6 vs #11 would probably be Ole Miss vs. Virginia.
#5 vs. #12 would be Oregon vs. Tulane/N. Texas or whoever gets the G5 bid.
Peoplle are getting too tied up in knots over how the playoff looks like it will shake out. Chances are there will be an upset or two to shake everything up this weekend. My thoughts?
Alabama could beat Georgia (They own us of late)
BYU over Texas Tech
If BYU beats Texas Tech it will blow up the entire bracket as they look today.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:45 pm to MMB5DAP
quote:
1.) saying that a teams starter was injured so that terrible loss doesn’t count is so stupid. So if Marcel reed stayed injured against Texas the loss wouldn’t have mattered now?
the committee has said from the beginning of the 4 team payoff era began that injuries like that would be taken into account when evaluating teams.
whether we agree with it or not isn't relevant.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:46 pm to MMB5DAP
quote:
Marcel reed twisted his ankle against Texas in the 1st quarter. If he decided he couldn’t finish the game (out two weeks so not like FSU situation) does the loss get diminished like Texas techs loss to Arizona state?
If he could not finish the game i think it would to a certain extent. It should. But the thing that hurt A&M the most (imo) is the timing of the loss. Losses at the end of the year simply counts more than losses earlier in the year. Is it fair? Probably not in some ways. But, if a team loses a game early in the season, they have a chance to wipe it from the memories somewhat by playing better.
Try not to get too caught up right now....although I understand why you would. But the playoffs last season showed the higher ranked teams getting beat and the lower ranked teams flourishing.
#8 ended up playing #7 for the championship.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:48 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I agree, and I think it does as long as you win that tough OOC game. (As a whole) I mean, all things considered do you take the team that beat the #1 team in the country, or the team that beat Syracuse. If the first team loses to the #1 team in the country what did they prove? Playing a tough OOC game gives an opportunity to make a splash and get a benefit of the doubt. Lost to a tough OOC team and you can't give people style points for scheduling a tough OOC game and lose.
Gotta win the tough OOC agree. It’s a risk reward. I think it’s a big risk to go on the road against Ohio St, ND, etc.
If you schedule and win that game, you should get the nod if the resumes as a whole are close. Otherwise, if you’re SEC or big 10, why would you ever schedule a tough OOC game.
I will say that the Notre dame win for A&M is probably only thing keeping us from getting BYU treatment though so perhaps our win this year is baked in. But again I think in general you should reward teams who schedule and win tough games OOC
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:48 pm to Tex117
quote:
This system has to change. It’s becoming a farce.
Changing the system is what got us here in the first place.
Every year things happen that people don't like.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:52 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:
the committee has said from the beginning of the 4 team payoff era began that injuries like that would be taken into account when evaluating teams. whether we agree with it or not isn't relevant.
If I’m a coach then, put my starting QB as out due to undisclosed injury if I’m 11-0 next year to guarantee I don’t slip
Posted on 12/4/25 at 12:55 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Changing the system is what got us here in the first place.
Yep. And until this setup anyone not sitting in the top 4 would’ve been on the outside looking in regardless of your SoS, conference strength, etc.
Bitching about seeding is some weak sauce when in the past you’d be booking rooms for the Outback Bowl.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 1:01 pm to Hugh McElroy
Team rankings beginning at the six week mark of each season would help.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 1:02 pm to SquatchDawg
Personally, while Ole Miss is in no position to be picky about its spot in the playoffs, I prefer to be seeded 5-8 to get a home game. As someone else said, the difference between a #5-6 versus #7 opponent is massive!
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News