Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I know that as a Tech fan on a Texas board, I’m a guest and should act accordingly.

But we are all CFB fan tho, right?

I saw a comment in the MICH/OU thread about Michigan being overrated and were the face for all that it wrong with pre-season polls. I disagree about Michigan being the best example for why but I could not agree more about the fallacy of the early polls. And that’s why I’m commenting here and not there because I don’t want it to be only about that game.

I believe the Longhorns will very much be in the mix at the end of the season and I’m not singling them out - in fact, ND is right there with them - top10 teams with losses to top10 teams but ranked ahead of 2-0 teams with WINS over ranked teams

Thus my thread title:

When did wins over Alabama and Michigan stop mattering ????

What has Penn St, Oregon, Georgia, Texas, ND, or Illinois done that is anywhere close to beating Alabama, Michigan, or Florida(and Boise) Heck, even Mississippi St’s win over ASU is more impressive. Iowa St has a non-con P4 win and a 3-0 record. Cupcake this, schedule that - who have those 6 “Top10” teams beat???

It’s always stated that it all works out by the end of the season. But does it? Why does “settle it on the field” only matter during the playoffs?

Yes, I pull for Texas Tech.

No, I’m not here to beat their drumb as they haven’t done jack squat either!

Edited by BluTechsan
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

When did wins over Alabama and Michigan stop mattering ????

Yes, I pull for Texas Tech.

Neither matters to me unless UT is playing them.

I'm pulling for Tech to continue money-whipping recruits away from OU and aggy. Keep it up!

Posted
9 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

I know that as a Tech fan on a Texas board, I’m a guest and should act accordingly.

But we are all CFB fan tho, right?

I saw a comment in the MICH/OU thread about Michigan being overrated and were the face for all that it wrong with pre-season polls. I disagree about Michigan being the best example for why but I could not agree more about the fallacy of the early polls. And that’s why I’m commenting here and not there because I don’t want it to be only about that game.

I believe the Longhorns will very much be in the mix at the end of the season and I’m not singling them out - in fact, ND is right there with them - top10 teams with losses to top10 teams but ranked ahead of 2-0 teams with WINS over ranked teams

Thus my thread title:

When did wins over Alabama and Michigan stop mattering ????

What has Penn St, Oregon, Georgia, Texas, ND, or Illinois done that is anywhere close to beating Alabama, Michigan, or Florida(and Boise) Heck, even Mississippi St’s win over ASU is more impressive. Iowa St has a non-con P4 win and a 3-0 record. Cupcake this, schedule that - who have those 6 “Top10” teams beat???

It’s always stated that it all works out by the end of the season. But does it? Why does “settle it on the field” only matter during the playoffs?

Yes, I pull for Texas Tech.

No, I’m not here to beat their drumb as they haven’t done jack squat either!

In general I agree that polls are silly and biased and the voters are often lazy, and preseason/early season polls are the worst.

But if we're going to say that the team that just beat Michigan has proven more and is better than Texas, then what is Ohio State's claim to #1?  If Texas isn't all that, then Ohio State isn't, either.

I understand you're not singling out Texas here and that's not the way I'm taking it, I'm just responding to the general gist of your post with the specific example of Texas.

At some point we have to make assumptions about the quality of a team and during the preseason/early season, the majority of that necessarily comes from the performance the prior season, and the expectation of the current talent and coaching. 

Texas was demonstrably superior to OU last year.  Texas was expected to be superior to OU this year.  So far, a close road loss to the defending national champs and current #1 team, is the only reason to say that OU should be ranked ahead of Texas.  But we saw these teams play last year, and it wasn't close.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I’m laughing at the responses.

But seriously, of course yell, fight, scream, politic on hold biases on behalf of our teams but can we not also promote a little objectivity when evaluating the overall landscape of the sport.

Why play the games if outcomes don’t matter? The never ending realignment discussions are always heavily focused on the BIG and the SEC and are told that football just means more in those leagues yet here we sit with FSU and OU virtually getting no credit whatsoever for victories over two of the bluest Blue Bloods on the map.

I really don’t understand it.

 

Posted

For me the entire issue starts with a singular aspect, pre-season polls. All polls done thereafter are influenced by it win or loss. #1 close loss on the road to #2 top 10. #8 road loss to unranked, move #8 down to top 20 and unranked into top 20, push out a lower ranked top 25 to make was for FSU. 

Both the preseason and polls post wins/losses also have massive bias based on brand recognition. 

The only cure, which wouldn’t remove brand bias, is not releasing any polls until the 6 week of the season. Play shitty teams up front, polls reflected, loose to shitty teams, polls reflected, beat good teams, polls reflected. 

I don't think it will ever happen but.. it would fix a lot of the issues. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
5 minutes ago, utee94 said:

In general I agree that polls are silly and biased and the voters are often lazy, and preseason/early season polls are the worst.

But if we're going to say that the team that just beat Michigan has proven more and is better than Texas, then what is Ohio State's claim to #1?  If Texas isn't all that, then Ohio State isn't, either.

I understand you're not singling out Texas here and that's not the way I'm taking it, I'm just responding to the general gist of your post with the specific example of Texas.

At some point we have to make assumptions about the quality of a team and during the preseason/early season, the majority of that necessarily comes from the performance the prior season, and the expectation of the current talent and coaching. 

Texas was demonstrably superior to OU last year.  Texas was expected to be superior to OU this year.  So far, a close road loss to the defending national champs and current #1 team, is the only reason to say that OU should be ranked ahead of Texas.  But we saw these teams play last year, and it wasn't close.

 

Thank you for that response. And you’ve swerved into a data point that I believe should matter not one bit - history and prior seasons - if there HAS to be a pre-season poll then yes you need something to hang your hat on. But once the first ball is kicked, new data should replace the old. And wins should matter. Losses too, but only when compared to other losses. 
 

ND at 0-1 and still Top10?  They gotta earn that back. Other teams also scheduled tough ranked opponents - and won. They deserve to be rewarded for those wins!

Posted

michigan's inability to react to shit on the field was mind bottling. they should be out of the top 20 because their Michigan men are so fucking dumb...

 

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

ND at 0-1 and still Top10?  They gotta earn that back. Other teams also scheduled tough ranked opponents - and won. They deserve to be rewarded for those wins!

Those teams probably aren't revenue generators like Notre Dame. That matters. That's why some 9-3 teams have a much better shot at getting into the CFP than other 9-3 teams.

Posted
10 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

For me the entire issue starts with a singular aspect, pre-season polls. All polls done thereafter are influenced by it win or loss. #1 close loss on the road to #2 top 10. #8 road loss to unranked, move #8 down to top 20 and unranked into top 20, push out a lower ranked top 25 to make was for FSU. 

Both the preseason and polls post wins/losses also have massive bias based on brand recognition. 

The only cure, which wouldn’t remove brand bias, is not releasing any polls until the 6 week of the season. Play shitty teams up front, polls reflected, loose to shitty teams, polls reflected, beat good teams, polls reflected. 

I don't think it will ever happen but.. it would fix a lot of the issues. 

For sure, but that's not what the polls are really for.  At least, not anymore.

Currently they exist to promote exactly the kind of discussion that's occurring on this thread.  Team A doesn't deserve it, Team B so much better, just look at the records!

In weeks 4 and 5 when Team B loses to Teams C and D, that chatter will go away.

Very low signal to noise ratio early in the season.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

Thank you for that response. And you’ve swerved into a data point that I believe should matter not one bit - history and prior seasons - if there HAS to be a pre-season poll then yes you need something to hang your hat on. But once the first ball is kicked, new data should replace the old. And wins should matter. Losses too, but only when compared to other losses. 
 

ND at 0-1 and still Top10?  They gotta earn that back. Other teams also scheduled tough ranked opponents - and won. They deserve to be rewarded for those wins!

I'll put it another way.

If Michigan and Alabama choked away games in weeks 1 or 2, then why should victories over those teams promote anyone?  You're still making assumptions, they're just your own assumptions, so you like them better.

Like @BurntEyes said if polls came out much later, like in week6 or something, then we could avoid some of this.  But helmet teams are still going to tend to be overranked, and there's still going to be disagreement in the rankings, because humans are fallible and emotional and subjective.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Of course there will always be biases and tradition when judging these things. I know that. Be can it not be tapped down just a little?

I’d like the to see some resemblance for this being the evaluating criteria

- wins over ranked teams (yes I see the irony here)

- wins over power conf teams

- wins

- losses to ranked teams when compared to other losses

- location where games were played

As I said, I see the irony in using rankings to rate wins when I’m railing against the ranking system. I do. But that can be managed. You wanna put ND in your pre-season top10, fine. But you gotta be willing to drop them after a loss. I’m pretty sure KSU was still ranked higher the ISU even after losing to them in week 1. That’s not a hard call. The 0-1 team should never be ranked above the 1-0 team that beat them. Ever. In the ND example Miami did jump ahead of them and rightfully so but ND hasn’t played again - they are still 0-1 while South Florida sits down there at 18 with 2 top25 wins(but not really because we dropped both of those teams out of the poll for losing to USF)

 

Posted
11 minutes ago, utee94 said:

For sure, but that's not what the polls are really for.  At least, not anymore.

Currently they exist to promote exactly the kind of discussion that's occurring on this thread.  Team A doesn't deserve it, Team B so much better, just look at the records!

In weeks 4 and 5 when Team B loses to Teams C and D, that chatter will go away.

Very low signal to noise ratio early in the season.  

They exist to hype up TV matchups 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
36 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

Thank you for that response. And you’ve swerved into a data point that I believe should matter not one bit - history and prior seasons - if there HAS to be a pre-season poll then yes you need something to hang your hat on. But once the first ball is kicked, new data should replace the old. And wins should matter. Losses too, but only when compared to other losses. 
 

ND at 0-1 and still Top10?  They gotta earn that back. Other teams also scheduled tough ranked opponents - and won. They deserve to be rewarded for those wins!

Conversely, FSU is still somewhat being punished for going 2-10 last season. Is OU good or is Michigan who looked pretty good against NMSU and pretty bad against OU good or are they still in the top 20 because of brand. Same could be asked about Texas who looked pretty good against SJSU and looked pretty good defensively against OSU. 

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Js1 said:

They exist to hype up TV matchups 

They are a massive marketing tool for the media that talks about them, the clicks and discussions on social-media and forums, teams in the ranking and the TV contracts that get to promote them. This is why particularly pre-season polls are never going away and why brand is going to be a massive factor in both pre-season and following polls. Brand sells, a couple of dark horses will sell. A bunch of no name also rans and shit ton of "dark horses" are the stuff of marketing nightmares. 

# 4 ranked undefeated Toledo is taking on up and coming #11 ranked Tulane. Can the Green Wave overcome Rocky the Rocket? 

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

The first poll shouldn't be until the Sunday after CCGs.

Unless you like banners for winning September...

Edited by Iceman
Posted
Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

Isn’t the premise of the OP why the CFP official poll isn’t released until later in the year? Early polls are a beauty contest. I wouldn’t get bent out of shape 

Do you know how the CFP official poll is created?!?

Quote

The College Football Playoff (CFP) polls are determined by a CFP Selection Committee of 11 members, who evaluate teams based on on-field performance, including strength of schedule, conference championships won, head-to-head results, and comparisons against common opponents. The committee uses a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of team performance to arrive at its own Top 25 rankings, which are not based on computer polls or other polls. These rankings determine which teams make the 12-team playoff field, with the five highest-ranked conference champions receiving automatic bids.

If you believe the underlined even a little, I dare you to look at the CFP polls and compare them to the AP and coaches poll when they are released. 

Posted (edited)

Early season polls don't matter in this era of 12 team playoff.  They serve as fodder for the media and fans to discuss / debate.

Week 1 Auburn crushed Baylor

Week 2 Baylor beat SMU

Would anyone in this thread be willing to predict how those 3 teams will finish the season / are ranked at the end of the season if you stood to lose a material amount of $$ for being wrong?

I think it is fairly safe to predict that FSU will be good this year and that is about all I am willing to stand up for at this point.  (cue the 6 game FSU losing streak beginning this week)

Edited by orange dream
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, orange dream said:

Early season polls don't matter in this era of 12 team playoff.  They serve as fodder for the media and fans to discuss / debate.

Week 1 Auburn crushed Baylor

Week 2 Baylor beat SMU

Would anyone in this thread be willing to predict how those 3 teams will finish the season / be ranked at the end of the season if you stood to lose a material amount of $$ for being wrong?

I think it is fairly safe to predict that FSU will be good this year and that is about all I am willing to stand up for at this point.  (cue the 6 game FSU losing streak beginning this week)

Florida State would like a word with you. So would Bama, Josh and Lane. 

Posted (edited)

If Michigan can fire Sherrone Moore and actually land a coach in the next 2 years, I think Bryce Underwood could be very good. Moore should stick to o-line coaching, and not under any circumstances be a HC at a school like Michigan. The only good thing he did was lean on his stud transfer RB Justice Haynes (the one I begged and wished we had gone after), and he kept them afloat from making the score look better than it actually was. The only thing going for Michigan is they have a pretty easy schedule with games against Purdue, Northwestern (who may quite literally have the worst QB in all of P4, Preston Stone. I'll give CTJ props for calling him a bust as a recruit), Maryland, Michigan State, Washington, Wisconsin, and Central Michigan. Nebraska will probably beat them, USC, if they aren't a fraud, should beat them, and Ohio State is a coin-flip at this point. They could easily either lose either 6-7 games or win 8-9, it's hard to tell with that league. 

Mateer looked OK. I didn't come away thinking "Wow! He's gonna be awesome!" He looked pretty good, at best. Our defense can shut him down. Their defense didn't look very intimidating against the run, and it's hard to tell against the pass since they faced a true frosh who clearly wasn't ready to face grown men. Ou looks beatable. 

Pre-season polls are dumb, I agree, but they have to have something to sort teams out, and it gives players motivation. No team looked absolutely dominant in 2 weeks. Oregon looks pretty good, but they played sisters of the poor, and Ohio State thumped an HBCU. Florida lost to South Florida, but I don't care. Notre Dame lost to Northern Illinois at home last year. Are they the same thing? Probably not, but it's week two. Not to mention Napier is still coaching. Aggies defense looks absolutely horrendous, and their offense is pedestrian. Georgia looks...well, like shit. They have a worse QB than us right now. LSU is a fraud like always under Brian Kelly. They put up a whopping 23 points on La Tech. At the end of the day, everyone has to get better, and no one out there looks dominant. 

Edited by William Bludworth
Posted
1 hour ago, BluTechsan said:

I know that as a Tech fan on a Texas board, I’m a guest and should act accordingly.

But we are all CFB fan tho, right?

I saw a comment in the MICH/OU thread about Michigan being overrated and were the face for all that it wrong with pre-season polls. I disagree about Michigan being the best example for why but I could not agree more about the fallacy of the early polls. And that’s why I’m commenting here and not there because I don’t want it to be only about that game.

I believe the Longhorns will very much be in the mix at the end of the season and I’m not singling them out - in fact, ND is right there with them - top10 teams with losses to top10 teams but ranked ahead of 2-0 teams with WINS over ranked teams

Thus my thread title:

When did wins over Alabama and Michigan stop mattering ????

What has Penn St, Oregon, Georgia, Texas, ND, or Illinois done that is anywhere close to beating Alabama, Michigan, or Florida(and Boise) Heck, even Mississippi St’s win over ASU is more impressive. Iowa St has a non-con P4 win and a 3-0 record. Cupcake this, schedule that - who have those 6 “Top10” teams beat???

It’s always stated that it all works out by the end of the season. But does it? Why does “settle it on the field” only matter during the playoffs?

Yes, I pull for Texas Tech.

No, I’m not here to beat their drumb as they haven’t done jack squat either!

As someone who has been kind of a Michigan fan since I was little guy back in the late 70's, I can say without reservation this might be one of the worst looking teams since the Brady Hoke / Rich Rod days.  Yes they were starting a True Freshmen QB, but that team was flat as on old Coke.   They might finish 7-5 again or worse.    A red flag that should've been raised by the sports talking heads  before their game with Oklahoma is the fact they didn't exactly look that strong against New Mexico the week before.   I thought they were going to come in much stronger against OU, but after that performance against New Mexico I was like hold the phone.    This is why I am no where close to being on the OU is back train and neither should Sooner fans.   It kind of reminds me of the year we beat Norte Dame at home in OT and everyone including the sports media though we were back to later just crater because Norte Dame turned out to be a dud.

The jury is still out on Bama this year.  I know some people wrote them off because of their performance against Florida State.   But FSU might turn out to be pretty good this year.   We will see how their season evolves. 

Posted (edited)

Yeah, Underwood looked really good against NMSU, Michigan as a team looked okay, but not great. 

CTJ broke it OU better down in that thread but as a Tshirt Michigan fan, I have some real concerns, but Underwood may be amazingly good. I might put him as the best young QB playing, with noted Tshirt UM homerism. 

As a Texas fan, I sure as shit wouldn't want to play FSU right now. OU is a concern, but not a deep one, yet. 

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
2 hours ago, BluTechsan said:

It’s always stated that it all works out by the end of the season. But does it? Why does “settle it on the field” only matter during the playoffs?

What team was left out of the 12 team playoff last year due to their preseason ranking?

2 hours ago, BluTechsan said:

Why play the games if outcomes don’t matter?

This is a child's argument.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Why does beating Alabama and Michigan matter?  In my opinion  its because they have both been very good teams the last x amount of seasons.  Bama had a dynasty and is still perceived as a powerhouse.  Michigan is a recent National Championship team with a superstar in the making at QB.  Beating those teams matters, it just does. 

Polls are a point of debate, but you have to start somewhere.  Previous year's records, returning starters, recruiting rankings and roster all play into the polls .  Tech may not like it but you havent done anything and if you keep winning you will get your shot. If you are a playoff team, next year you will start high/higher and beating you may matter , at some point.  

Polls drive fan interest, TV ratings, time slots, network matchups etc...Im not saying its right or its wrong, it just is what it is.  College football is glorious for its imperfections.  Its becoming the NFL but it still holds on to the subjectivity of sports writers and committees.  I think for the most part they get it right at the season progresses and then the next year it resets with some winners and losers.  Its not the absolute meritocracy like say PGA golf where the purses and results are defined. College football is its own animal and creates a hell of a debate every year.  Going to 9 SEC games and mandated OOC will level the field somewhat.

Giving credit for Beating Bama and Michigan given those team's recent success I have  no problem with and neither should you.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Ghost of Shag said:

I cannot imagine what type of retardation I would have to reach to think to myself, “I have a random opinion about Michigan and Alabama. I should post it on a Tech board.“

He comes here b/c the Tech board is filled with pages and pictures with numbers

Posted
4 hours ago, BluTechsan said:

I know that as a Tech fan on a Texas board, I’m a guest and should act accordingly.

Then don't start threads. 

Seems pretty fucking basic. 

Posted

Didn't watch the AL/FSU game - had a strong feeling FSU was going to do exactly what they did.  The MI coach is in over his head and it's showing.  He's a good coach, but overwhelmed.  It's not a good fit.  

MI/OU was also predictable.  A freshman on the road with no real ability to stretch the field going against a team that is only good at stopping the run.  The season will expose both teams as being meh....

Posted
4 hours ago, BluTechsan said:

When did wins over Alabama and Michigan stop mattering ????

When Saban/Harbaugh left and their replacements proved to be significant downgrades. Any more brain busters?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...