Just to be clear

[Poultry King]

UGA loses to #10 and plummets like a rock.

Tater Tek loses to pathetic Syracuse and get a mulligan bc qb got hurt. Despite the fact that Syracuse was beating them w qb.

 

[stnbooth]

UGA loses to #10 and plummets like a rock.

Tater Tek loses to pathetic Syracuse and get a mulligan bc qb got hurt. Despite the fact that Syracuse was beating them w qb.

Clemson did drop from 2 to 7 the week it happened so just 1 spot less than UGA did. Also, bad team or not, they didn't get absolutely embarrassed like UGA did.

That said, no way Clemson should be ahead of Miami or Oklahoma at this point, and Wisconsin is debatable as well.

 

[carolinamyke]

Georgia got “ embarrassed “ by a good team. Taters lost to a mediocre team. So it’s just as embarrassing

 

[stnbooth]

Georgia got “ embarrassed “ by a good team. Taters lost to a mediocre team. So it’s just as embarrassing

To us. Margin of victory plays a much larger role than who you lost to in a case where it's this lopsided a loss, to everyone outside of us anyway.

 

[Ken M.]

Clemson did drop from 2 to 7 the week it happened so just 1 spot less than UGA did. Also, bad team or not, they didn't get absolutely embarrassed like UGA did.

That said, no way Clemson should be ahead of Miami or Oklahoma at this point, and Wisconsin is debatable as well.

I don’t see any problem with UM being ranked above Clemson. I’d prefer it, actually. But why OU?

 

[stnbooth]

I don’t see any problem with UM being ranked above Clemson. I’d prefer it, actually. But why OU?

The loss is better, if there is such a thing. Oklahoma beat Oklahoma State and crushed TCU, both playing great and ranked highly. Clemson beat Auburn before hitting its stride, VT was a fairly solid win, and NC State was an ok win.

 

[Ken M.]

The loss is better, if there is such a thing. Oklahoma beat Oklahoma State and crushed TCU, both playing great and ranked highly. Clemson beat Auburn before hitting its stride, VT was a fairly solid win, and NC State was an ok win.

Is their loss really better? Why? They got dismantled. They didn’t lose by a FG.

 

[stnbooth]

Is their loss really better? Why? They got dismantled. They didn’t lose by a FG.

They lost by 7 points...

 

[joplin gamecock1]

Yep,thats kinda the way i remember it. Now if Notre Dame or Ohio State would have lost to Syracuse, they would have went straight to number one. The ( rankers) are re tards

 

[stnbooth]

Is their loss really better? Why? They got dismantled. They didn’t lose by a FG.

I forgot another win too. They also beat a solid Ohio State team in their house.

 

[Ken M.]

They lost by 7 points...

Oh yeah...now that I look. Thought it was worse than that.

All I can think of is wins over winning programs. Who has the most? That’s probably where the answer to your perplexion lies. I may have just made that word up.

 

[stnbooth]

Oh yeah...now that I look. Thought it was worse than that.

All I can think of is wins over winning programs. Who has the most? That’s probably where the answer to your perplexion lies. I may have just made that word up.

I guess that's possible. I didn't look that much into detail honestly. You see I can have a rational discussion about Clemson even though I don't like them, but they should not be where they are and I'm not only saying it because I'm a Gamecock fan.

 

[topdecktiger]

I guess that's possible. I didn't look that much into detail honestly. You see I can have a rational discussion about Clemson even though I don't like them, but they should not be where they are and I'm not only saying it because I'm a Gamecock fan.

For some reason, people don't seem to actually watch the rankings shows. Kirby Hocutt said there was a lot of debate about Oklahoma, Clemson, and Miami. It's not like it was exactly a cut and dried selection. The other thing he said is that Clemson has more wins over teams with winning records than anyone in the top 25, and he mentioned that the committee was impressed with two of Clemson's road wins, as opposed to Miami. (And they have the Auburn win to boot.) He also said previously that the committee, particularly the coaches, simply don't like Oklahoma because of their defense. He gave a pretty clear explanation of why the teams were ranked like they were.

One other point, which you raised about Syracuse. The committee simply doesn't consider a "bad loss." A loss is a loss, is the way they look at it. You may not agree with that, and that's fine, but that's simply not how the committee looks at it.

 

[radcock]

Oh yeah...now that I look. Thought it was worse than that.

All I can think of is wins over winning programs. Who has the most? That’s probably where the answer to your perplexion lies. I may have just made that word up.

perception is reality....then the facts show up.

but I do like perplexion....may steal it....probably a word in some language (en francais).

Your love of stats and then assuming a blow out loss for OK because it fit your agenda pretty much sums up any perplexion.

Who the heck has NC State beaten to be ranked? please don't say FSU or UL.

 

[BigTomE]

I don’t see any problem with UM being ranked above Clemson. I’d prefer it, actually. But why OU?

I don’t see any problem with UM being ranked above Clemson. I’d prefer it, actually. But why OU?

Why Oklahoma? Is that a joke? Remove your orange glasses and compare resumes. Oklahoma has better wins and a better loss.

 

[stnbooth]

For some reason, people don't seem to actually watch the rankings shows. Kirby Hocutt said there was a lot of debate about Oklahoma, Clemson, and Miami. It's not like it was exactly a cut and dried selection. The other thing he said is that Clemson has more wins over teams with winning records than anyone in the top 25, and he mentioned that the committee was impressed with two of Clemson's road wins, as opposed to Miami. (And they have the Auburn win to boot.) He also said previously that the committee, particularly the coaches, simply don't like Oklahoma because of their defense. He gave a pretty clear explanation of why the teams were ranked like they were.

One other point, which you raised about Syracuse. The committee simply doesn't consider a "bad loss." A loss is a loss, is the way they look at it. You may not agree with that, and that's fine, but that's simply not how the committee looks at it.

You're right. I didn't watch. I don't see how that matters. Whether they gave the explanation of why they did it or not makes no difference. It's an awful metric. 1 team is unbeaten, beat team A, beat team B, and beat now number 8 ranked team C. The other team lost to team A, beat team B, and beat now number 6 team D.

Team 1 is the clear winner here.

 

[BigTomE]

For some reason, people don't seem to actually watch the rankings shows. Kirby Hocutt said there was a lot of debate about Oklahoma, Clemson, and Miami. It's not like it was exactly a cut and dried selection. The other thing he said is that Clemson has more wins over teams with winning records than anyone in the top 25, and he mentioned that the committee was impressed with two of Clemson's road wins, as opposed to Miami. (And they have the Auburn win to boot.) He also said previously that the committee, particularly the coaches, simply don't like Oklahoma because of their defense. He gave a pretty clear explanation of why the teams were ranked like they were.

One other point, which you raised about Syracuse. The committee simply doesn't consider a "bad loss." A loss is a loss, is the way they look at it. You may not agree with that, and that's fine, but that's simply not how the committee looks at it.

So a good win is good, but 's bad loss isn't bad? Got it. Thanks

 

[topdecktiger]

So a good win is good, but 's bad loss isn't bad? Got it. Thanks

Yep. That's exactly how they look at it.

 

[Triton20x]

People used to gripe that the BSC was a rigged computer matrix without the human element. Now we have the human element and people bitch! The human element which is made up of several coaches still don't know what they are talking about!? I just think it's funny! End of the day, they almost always work out to be right at the end so I don't know why people get irrational or upset?

 

[stnbooth]

People used to gripe that the BSC was a rigged computer matrix without the human element. Now we have the human element and people bitch! The human element which is made up of several coaches still don't know what they are talking about!? I just think it's funny! End of the day, they almost always work out to be right at the end so I don't know why people get irrational or upset?

Exactly how do we know they're right? There are 4 teams that are given a shot now. There were 2 teams that had a shot before. Who's to say one of the other teams wouldn't be the right choice?

 

[Tatertaster]

We get our shot to knock them off, either we do something about it or not.

 

[section907]

Taters gets two votes. Bottom line. How many team lost to Syracuse. And Syracuse best them. It wasn’t a give me game. Syracuse out playedand coached them.

 

[Poultry King]

For some reason, people don't seem to actually watch the rankings shows. Kirby Hocutt said there was a lot of debate about Oklahoma, Clemson, and Miami. It's not like it was exactly a cut and dried selection. The other thing he said is that Clemson has more wins over teams with winning records than anyone in the top 25, and he mentioned that the committee was impressed with two of Clemson's road wins, as opposed to Miami. (And they have the Auburn win to boot.) He also said previously that the committee, particularly the coaches, simply don't like Oklahoma because of their defense. He gave a pretty clear explanation of why the teams were ranked like they were.

One other point, which you raised about Syracuse. The committee simply doesn't consider a "bad loss." A loss is a loss, is the way they look at it. You may not agree with that, and that's fine, but that's simply not how the committee looks at it.

Quality Wins on Road? VT Sucks. NCSU Sucks. Auburn in Sept.

 

[Poultry King]

People used to gripe that the BSC was a rigged computer matrix without the human element. Now we have the human element and people bitch! The human element which is made up of several coaches still don't know what they are talking about!? I just think it's funny! End of the day, they almost always work out to be right at the end so I don't know why people get irrational or upset?

You mean like how Washington and Ohio st showed last season

 

[jonesz21]

Georgia got “ embarrassed “ by a good team. Taters lost to a mediocre team. So it’s just as embarrassing

Yeah wake forest hung 64 on Syracuse

 

[Gamecock Lifer]

For some reason, people don't seem to actually watch the rankings shows. Kirby Hocutt said there was a lot of debate about Oklahoma, Clemson, and Miami. It's not like it was exactly a cut and dried selection. The other thing he said is that Clemson has more wins over teams with winning records than anyone in the top 25, and he mentioned that the committee was impressed with two of Clemson's road wins, as opposed to Miami. (And they have the Auburn win to boot.) He also said previously that the committee, particularly the coaches, simply don't like Oklahoma because of their defense. He gave a pretty clear explanation of why the teams were ranked like they were.

One other point, which you raised about Syracuse. The committee simply doesn't consider a "bad loss." A loss is a loss, is the way they look at it. You may not agree with that, and that's fine, but that's simply not how the committee looks at it.

“For some reason people don’t seem to actually watch the ranking shows”??
Yeah no shit... the reason is THEY ARE BORING AS HELL!! Oh, and completely MEANINGLESS at this point because they reorder them like starting from scratch every week! So, anybody can be jumped or bumped depending on a random whim of the voters! Why WOULD anyone watch those shows at this point in the season? The LAST one before the playoffs is the only ranking that has any meaning.

 

[mowog]

Yeah wake forest hung 64 on Syracuse

Glad you mentioned that, and what's more, in their game against CU, after giving up two quick scores Wake played even the rest of the game, with THEIR backup QB ... Clempson's excuse for losing to Syracuse a week later ... their "Syrexcuse", I guess ... sorry

 

[joplin gamecock1]

The loss is better, if there is such a thing. Oklahoma beat Oklahoma State and crushed TCU, both playing great and ranked highly. Clemson beat Auburn before hitting its stride, VT was a fairly solid win, and NC State was an ok win.

Oklahoma also beat Ohio State to start the season

 

[stnbooth]

Y

Oklahoma also beat Ohio State to start the season

Yea, I realized that later. I don't know how I forgot that one and at Ohio State.

 

[topdecktiger]

Quality Wins on Road? VT Sucks. NCSU Sucks. Auburn in Sept.

That's not me saying that. That is what the committee decided. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. The committee thinks those are quality road wins. That's simply what they think.

“For some reason people don’t seem to actually watch the ranking shows”??
Yeah no shit... the reason is THEY ARE BORING AS HELL!! Oh, and completely MEANINGLESS at this point because they reorder them like starting from scratch every week! So, anybody can be jumped or bumped depending on a random whim of the voters! Why WOULD anyone watch those shows at this point in the season? The LAST one before the playoffs is the only ranking that has any meaning.

And all that is fine....but if you're going to say that, you can't turn around and complain about the rankings. What I was responding to was people complaining about the rankings, but not actually paying attention to the explanation of the rankings.

Exactly how do we know they're right? There are 4 teams that are given a shot now. There were 2 teams that had a shot before. Who's to say one of the other teams wouldn't be the right choice?

You don't. That's why the only accurate way to have a playoff is to give conference champions an automatic spot in the playoffs, like the basketball tournament does. That's the only way to remove the speculation.

 

[stnbooth]

You don't. That's why the only accurate way to have a playoff is to give conference champions an automatic spot in the playoffs, like the basketball tournament does. That's the only way to remove the speculation.

I agree, and that was my point in responding to the previous post saying we now know they got it right.