2025 College Football Thread: Akron recruiter scoffs when player mentions maybe wanting to go to Penn State (27 Viewers)

[Moe.]

Sitake is staying at BYU. Blessing in disguise for PSU imo

Blessing? Signing day is tomorrow and they don’t have a coach. Chances are they aren’t getting anybody who was high on any list. They’ve set their program back multiple years.

That’s true whether they hired Sitake today or not. He is not the answer long-term. They need to make a stability hire (Terry Smith) yesterday and hope for the best, but they are screwed next year no matter what at this point.

 

[Moe.]

I like Sitake but he is basically a lesser version of Franklin. Penn State has ZERO recruits who are going to sign tomorrow. This might turn into a disaster for them.

I saw on a reddit conspiracy thread that Sexton is pissed they fired Franklin so he’s sabotaging their search.

I originally read this on reddit but Todd McShay was talking about it on Bill Simmons's podcast, so might be an actual thing.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The rep for the committee said they would rerank the whole top 25 after next week's games. Makes absolutely no sense other than to show they will pick whoever they want.

Isn’t that how it should be though? The last one is the only one that matters. They do themselves a disservice with this weekly show because everyone gets the wrong impression, but they need stuff for TV. They should not concern themselves with week to week movement or feel the need to justify it.

I’m not gonna lie I chuckle to myself every time someone uses the word “precedent” when they talk about this process. McIlroy did it a bunch of times tonight. It’s just a bunch of old dudes in a room talking. If they had to worry about decisions made in previous years and how that applies to this year they would all die in that room and we’d never get to watch any games. It’s all made up. Thats the point of a committee. There are no rules other than it’s 12 teams and they have to put 5 conference champs in.

Perhaps. If they choose this method, then just release one ranking at the very end.

For me, at this point, it seems that most should be locked in. Most of them have completed their resumes. If they see them as #10 and they don't play again, they are number 10. No new objective facts can be had specific to what they did in their schedule.

 

[Instinctive]

It's a travesty that Duke or Virginia get in the playoffs. They both suck.

I really don't think Duke gets in

 

[Capella]

It's a travesty that Duke or Virginia get in the playoffs. They both suck.

I really don't think Duke gets in

Somebody ( I think Bud Elliott) had a breakdown where Duke has like 5 better wins than JMU but I doubt it’s a sure shot. Did they show the rankings for them tonight?

Edit: I see JMU is 25. Yea Duke may be screwed, how high up could they move a team for beating #17? I wonder if they don’t try to find a way to slide Miami in then. What a mess this all is.

 

[MAC_32]

It's a travesty that Duke or Virginia get in the playoffs. They both suck.

I really don't think Duke gets in

Somebody ( I think Bud Elliott) had a breakdown where Duke has like 5 better wins than JMU but I doubt it’s a sure shot. Did they show the rankings for them tonight?

Edit: I see JMU is 25. Yea Duke may be screwed, how high up could they move a team for beating #17? I wonder if they don’t try to find a way to slide Miami in then. What a mess this all is.

How would they be able to backdoor Miami in?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

It's a travesty that Duke or Virginia get in the playoffs. They both suck.

I really don't think Duke gets in

Somebody ( I think Bud Elliott) had a breakdown where Duke has like 5 better wins than JMU but I doubt it’s a sure shot. Did they show the rankings for them tonight?

Edit: I see JMU is 25. Yea Duke may be screwed, how high up could they move a team for beating #17? I wonder if they don’t try to find a way to slide Miami in then. What a mess this all is.

Power conference teams will always have better wins. I don't know how the P4 didn't all guarantee their champion makes it. Funny thing is if Duke scheduled Elon, NC Central, and Charlotte instead of Tulane, UConn and Illinois they would be 10-2 and ranked like #18 just based on their record. No power conference team should ever schedule a tough non-conference game again until there is some reason to do so.

 

[Chadstroma]

I guess I am a tool because I don't see how pointing out that their loss to Florida is a massive part of their resume when you bring that up. And I have no idea how you take that personally. So I am me I guess.

And funny too when you are the one that stated "It's made up nonsense by people" which is much more of a tool statement than anything I wrote and I didn't even take offense.

Okay you got me. More wins equals a better team. So you agree that JMU, BYU, and North Texas should be ranked ahead of Notre Dame? They have 1 loss and ND has 2 losses.

I am not sure why you are so confrontational but it could be because I am a tool doing tool things.

Can you point out for me where I said anything remotely close to 'more win equals a better team"? As I said not too far up stream on this thread before, I am for taking everything into consideration. Yes, record is important but in college football it clearly is not enough. So, you have to take into account who you play and in those games played beyond win/loss is how good or bad that loss was. A close loss to a very good team is certainly not the same as losing to bad team or getting blown out by a good team. There is a whole lot more to it as well.

It is what makes all of this impossible to be objective about as the structure of college football means, at least in this way but honestly I can't even see it getting totally away from it even with the mystical "super conference" system people talk about, that it is all very subjective. That is a good thing in that it will have everyone talking about it non-stop but a bad thing in that everyone will disagree on who should be in and out and where.

It is what it is. And what it is is subjective. That means that intelligent, well informed, knowledgeable football lovers can and will disagree. In fact, we can never expect everyone to agree. It will never happen as it is now.

For me, Texas is rightfully out of the playoffs. I really hate a three loss team getting in but I would be somewhat open to it if the losses were from Ohio St, Georgia and say.... Texas A&M or OU but losing to a 4-8 putrid Florida team on top of the other two losses... for me, I don't see how you can put them in. They had some good quality wins and the eye test did much better as they played but I think either the same people who say the eye test now of Texas is why they should be in (which is the only good argument) seems to be the same people that either ignore the eye test with ND or maybe just plain haven't seen any of the games.

 

[Chadstroma]

I still think the committee should only release one set of rankings after the conference championships.

Not good for marketing. The rankings give people something to talk about and talking about it creates ratings and ratings is money.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I guess I am a tool because I don't see how pointing out that their loss to Florida is a massive part of their resume when you bring that up. And I have no idea how you take that personally. So I am me I guess.

And funny too when you are the one that stated "It's made up nonsense by people" which is much more of a tool statement than anything I wrote and I didn't even take offense.

Okay you got me. More wins equals a better team. So you agree that JMU, BYU, and North Texas should be ranked ahead of Notre Dame? They have 1 loss and ND has 2 losses.

I am not sure why you are so confrontational but it could be because I am a tool doing tool things.

Can you point out for me where I said anything remotely close to 'more win equals a better team"? As I said not too far up stream on this thread before, I am for taking everything into consideration. Yes, record is important but in college football it clearly is not enough. So, you have to take into account who you play and in those games played beyond win/loss is how good or bad that loss was. A close loss to a very good team is certainly not the same as losing to bad team or getting blown out by a good team. There is a whole lot more to it as well.

It is what makes all of this impossible to be objective about as the structure of college football means, at least in this way but honestly I can't even see it getting totally away from it even with the mystical "super conference" system people talk about, that it is all very subjective. That is a good thing in that it will have everyone talking about it non-stop but a bad thing in that everyone will disagree on who should be in and out and where.

It is what it is. And what it is is subjective. That means that intelligent, well informed, knowledgeable football lovers can and will disagree. In fact, we can never expect everyone to agree. It will never happen as it is now.

For me, Texas is rightfully out of the playoffs. I really hate a three loss team getting in but I would be somewhat open to it if the losses were from Ohio St, Georgia and say.... Texas A&M or OU but losing to a 4-8 putrid Florida team on top of the other two losses... for me, I don't see how you can put them in. They had some good quality wins and the eye test did much better as they played but I think either the same people who say the eye test now of Texas is why they should be in (which is the only good argument) seems to be the same people that either ignore the eye test with ND or maybe just plain haven't seen any of the games.

I'm not confrontational. Just asking you questions. So you agree teams like Texas should schedule nothing but cupcakes outside of the SEC games? The Florida loss would be irrelevant if they were 10-2 (See Alabama).

Does who you beat matter at all? Or just who you lose to?

 

[bigbottom]

I guess I am a tool because I don't see how pointing out that their loss to Florida is a massive part of their resume when you bring that up. And I have no idea how you take that personally. So I am me I guess.

And funny too when you are the one that stated "It's made up nonsense by people" which is much more of a tool statement than anything I wrote and I didn't even take offense.

Okay you got me. More wins equals a better team. So you agree that JMU, BYU, and North Texas should be ranked ahead of Notre Dame? They have 1 loss and ND has 2 losses.

I am not sure why you are so confrontational but it could be because I am a tool doing tool things.

Can you point out for me where I said anything remotely close to 'more win equals a better team"? As I said not too far up stream on this thread before, I am for taking everything into consideration. Yes, record is important but in college football it clearly is not enough. So, you have to take into account who you play and in those games played beyond win/loss is how good or bad that loss was. A close loss to a very good team is certainly not the same as losing to bad team or getting blown out by a good team. There is a whole lot more to it as well.

It is what makes all of this impossible to be objective about as the structure of college football means, at least in this way but honestly I can't even see it getting totally away from it even with the mystical "super conference" system people talk about, that it is all very subjective. That is a good thing in that it will have everyone talking about it non-stop but a bad thing in that everyone will disagree on who should be in and out and where.

It is what it is. And what it is is subjective. That means that intelligent, well informed, knowledgeable football lovers can and will disagree. In fact, we can never expect everyone to agree. It will never happen as it is now.

For me, Texas is rightfully out of the playoffs. I really hate a three loss team getting in but I would be somewhat open to it if the losses were from Ohio St, Georgia and say.... Texas A&M or OU but losing to a 4-8 putrid Florida team on top of the other two losses... for me, I don't see how you can put them in. They had some good quality wins and the eye test did much better as they played but I think either the same people who say the eye test now of Texas is why they should be in (which is the only good argument) seems to be the same people that either ignore the eye test with ND or maybe just plain haven't seen any of the games.

The Florida loss among three losses may very well be definitive, but I don’t think the eye test is the only good argument. I think the fact that they have among the best wins of anyone in contention is an argument as well.

 

[Chadstroma]

I guess I am a tool because I don't see how pointing out that their loss to Florida is a massive part of their resume when you bring that up. And I have no idea how you take that personally. So I am me I guess.

And funny too when you are the one that stated "It's made up nonsense by people" which is much more of a tool statement than anything I wrote and I didn't even take offense.

Okay you got me. More wins equals a better team. So you agree that JMU, BYU, and North Texas should be ranked ahead of Notre Dame? They have 1 loss and ND has 2 losses.

I am not sure why you are so confrontational but it could be because I am a tool doing tool things.

Can you point out for me where I said anything remotely close to 'more win equals a better team"? As I said not too far up stream on this thread before, I am for taking everything into consideration. Yes, record is important but in college football it clearly is not enough. So, you have to take into account who you play and in those games played beyond win/loss is how good or bad that loss was. A close loss to a very good team is certainly not the same as losing to bad team or getting blown out by a good team. There is a whole lot more to it as well.

It is what makes all of this impossible to be objective about as the structure of college football means, at least in this way but honestly I can't even see it getting totally away from it even with the mystical "super conference" system people talk about, that it is all very subjective. That is a good thing in that it will have everyone talking about it non-stop but a bad thing in that everyone will disagree on who should be in and out and where.

It is what it is. And what it is is subjective. That means that intelligent, well informed, knowledgeable football lovers can and will disagree. In fact, we can never expect everyone to agree. It will never happen as it is now.

For me, Texas is rightfully out of the playoffs. I really hate a three loss team getting in but I would be somewhat open to it if the losses were from Ohio St, Georgia and say.... Texas A&M or OU but losing to a 4-8 putrid Florida team on top of the other two losses... for me, I don't see how you can put them in. They had some good quality wins and the eye test did much better as they played but I think either the same people who say the eye test now of Texas is why they should be in (which is the only good argument) seems to be the same people that either ignore the eye test with ND or maybe just plain haven't seen any of the games.

I'm not confrontational. Just asking you questions. So you agree teams like Texas should schedule nothing but cupcakes outside of the SEC games? The Florida loss would be irrelevant if they were 10-2 (See Alabama).

Does who you beat matter at all? Or just who you lose to?

"OK you got me" is sarcastic and on the heels of calling me a tool would rationally rise to the level of being confrontational. It certainly isn't reconciliatory.

Again, can you point out where I state anything close to what you are asking? You can, if you look, find statements where I do day that the committee should hold FCS scheduling against the teams. You want to schedule Oregon St or New Mexico? Ok... go for it. But FCS teams should be counted against the teams that schedule them.

 

[Chadstroma]

I guess I am a tool because I don't see how pointing out that their loss to Florida is a massive part of their resume when you bring that up. And I have no idea how you take that personally. So I am me I guess.

And funny too when you are the one that stated "It's made up nonsense by people" which is much more of a tool statement than anything I wrote and I didn't even take offense.

Okay you got me. More wins equals a better team. So you agree that JMU, BYU, and North Texas should be ranked ahead of Notre Dame? They have 1 loss and ND has 2 losses.

I am not sure why you are so confrontational but it could be because I am a tool doing tool things.

Can you point out for me where I said anything remotely close to 'more win equals a better team"? As I said not too far up stream on this thread before, I am for taking everything into consideration. Yes, record is important but in college football it clearly is not enough. So, you have to take into account who you play and in those games played beyond win/loss is how good or bad that loss was. A close loss to a very good team is certainly not the same as losing to bad team or getting blown out by a good team. There is a whole lot more to it as well.

It is what makes all of this impossible to be objective about as the structure of college football means, at least in this way but honestly I can't even see it getting totally away from it even with the mystical "super conference" system people talk about, that it is all very subjective. That is a good thing in that it will have everyone talking about it non-stop but a bad thing in that everyone will disagree on who should be in and out and where.

It is what it is. And what it is is subjective. That means that intelligent, well informed, knowledgeable football lovers can and will disagree. In fact, we can never expect everyone to agree. It will never happen as it is now.

For me, Texas is rightfully out of the playoffs. I really hate a three loss team getting in but I would be somewhat open to it if the losses were from Ohio St, Georgia and say.... Texas A&M or OU but losing to a 4-8 putrid Florida team on top of the other two losses... for me, I don't see how you can put them in. They had some good quality wins and the eye test did much better as they played but I think either the same people who say the eye test now of Texas is why they should be in (which is the only good argument) seems to be the same people that either ignore the eye test with ND or maybe just plain haven't seen any of the games.

The Florida loss among three losses may very well be definitive, but I don’t think the eye test is the only good argument. I think the fact that they have among the best wins of anyone in contention is an argument as well.

That is a fair point. I rescind my comment about it being the only good argument.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I guess I am a tool because I don't see how pointing out that their loss to Florida is a massive part of their resume when you bring that up. And I have no idea how you take that personally. So I am me I guess.

And funny too when you are the one that stated "It's made up nonsense by people" which is much more of a tool statement than anything I wrote and I didn't even take offense.

Okay you got me. More wins equals a better team. So you agree that JMU, BYU, and North Texas should be ranked ahead of Notre Dame? They have 1 loss and ND has 2 losses.

I am not sure why you are so confrontational but it could be because I am a tool doing tool things.

Can you point out for me where I said anything remotely close to 'more win equals a better team"? As I said not too far up stream on this thread before, I am for taking everything into consideration. Yes, record is important but in college football it clearly is not enough. So, you have to take into account who you play and in those games played beyond win/loss is how good or bad that loss was. A close loss to a very good team is certainly not the same as losing to bad team or getting blown out by a good team. There is a whole lot more to it as well.

It is what makes all of this impossible to be objective about as the structure of college football means, at least in this way but honestly I can't even see it getting totally away from it even with the mystical "super conference" system people talk about, that it is all very subjective. That is a good thing in that it will have everyone talking about it non-stop but a bad thing in that everyone will disagree on who should be in and out and where.

It is what it is. And what it is is subjective. That means that intelligent, well informed, knowledgeable football lovers can and will disagree. In fact, we can never expect everyone to agree. It will never happen as it is now.

For me, Texas is rightfully out of the playoffs. I really hate a three loss team getting in but I would be somewhat open to it if the losses were from Ohio St, Georgia and say.... Texas A&M or OU but losing to a 4-8 putrid Florida team on top of the other two losses... for me, I don't see how you can put them in. They had some good quality wins and the eye test did much better as they played but I think either the same people who say the eye test now of Texas is why they should be in (which is the only good argument) seems to be the same people that either ignore the eye test with ND or maybe just plain haven't seen any of the games.

I'm not confrontational. Just asking you questions. So you agree teams like Texas should schedule nothing but cupcakes outside of the SEC games? The Florida loss would be irrelevant if they were 10-2 (See Alabama).

Does who you beat matter at all? Or just who you lose to?

"OK you got me" is sarcastic and on the heels of calling me a tool would rationally rise to the level of being confrontational. It certainly isn't reconciliatory.

Again, can you point out where I state anything close to what you are asking? You can, if you look, find statements where I do day that the committee should hold FCS scheduling against the teams. You want to schedule Oregon St or New Mexico? Ok... go for it. But FCS teams should be counted against the teams that schedule them.

Your flippant one liner about the Florida game as if that's all Texas has done got the response it deserved. I wasn't being sarcastic about the losses you did get me with that one and made your point. I agree its a bad loss though after hearing how tough Auburn is today (who I believe is comparable to Florida) I'm having more trouble calling Florida a bad loss.

I moved on and wanted to get to a point about quality wins. You don't seem to want to have that discussion.

It's possible that a 9-3 team is better than an 11-1 team and has a better resume but we've all been trained to believe better record means better team and there's no nuance in evaluating someone's total resume.

 

[Yo Mama]

I still think the committee should only release one set of rankings after the conference championships.

Not good for marketing. The rankings give people something to talk about and talking about it creates ratings and ratings is money.

The networks and podcasters would all have their bracketology experts make predictions of the rankings/seedings and people would still debate ND vs Miami and Duke vs JMU and everything else. There’d still be plenty to talk and complain about.

 

[Chadstroma]

I guess I am a tool because I don't see how pointing out that their loss to Florida is a massive part of their resume when you bring that up. And I have no idea how you take that personally. So I am me I guess.

And funny too when you are the one that stated "It's made up nonsense by people" which is much more of a tool statement than anything I wrote and I didn't even take offense.

Okay you got me. More wins equals a better team. So you agree that JMU, BYU, and North Texas should be ranked ahead of Notre Dame? They have 1 loss and ND has 2 losses.

I am not sure why you are so confrontational but it could be because I am a tool doing tool things.

Can you point out for me where I said anything remotely close to 'more win equals a better team"? As I said not too far up stream on this thread before, I am for taking everything into consideration. Yes, record is important but in college football it clearly is not enough. So, you have to take into account who you play and in those games played beyond win/loss is how good or bad that loss was. A close loss to a very good team is certainly not the same as losing to bad team or getting blown out by a good team. There is a whole lot more to it as well.

It is what makes all of this impossible to be objective about as the structure of college football means, at least in this way but honestly I can't even see it getting totally away from it even with the mystical "super conference" system people talk about, that it is all very subjective. That is a good thing in that it will have everyone talking about it non-stop but a bad thing in that everyone will disagree on who should be in and out and where.

It is what it is. And what it is is subjective. That means that intelligent, well informed, knowledgeable football lovers can and will disagree. In fact, we can never expect everyone to agree. It will never happen as it is now.

For me, Texas is rightfully out of the playoffs. I really hate a three loss team getting in but I would be somewhat open to it if the losses were from Ohio St, Georgia and say.... Texas A&M or OU but losing to a 4-8 putrid Florida team on top of the other two losses... for me, I don't see how you can put them in. They had some good quality wins and the eye test did much better as they played but I think either the same people who say the eye test now of Texas is why they should be in (which is the only good argument) seems to be the same people that either ignore the eye test with ND or maybe just plain haven't seen any of the games.

I'm not confrontational. Just asking you questions. So you agree teams like Texas should schedule nothing but cupcakes outside of the SEC games? The Florida loss would be irrelevant if they were 10-2 (See Alabama).

Does who you beat matter at all? Or just who you lose to?

"OK you got me" is sarcastic and on the heels of calling me a tool would rationally rise to the level of being confrontational. It certainly isn't reconciliatory.

Again, can you point out where I state anything close to what you are asking? You can, if you look, find statements where I do day that the committee should hold FCS scheduling against the teams. You want to schedule Oregon St or New Mexico? Ok... go for it. But FCS teams should be counted against the teams that schedule them.

Your flippant one liner about the Florida game as if that's all Texas has done got the response it deserved. I wasn't being sarcastic about the losses you did get me with that one and made your point. I agree its a bad loss though after hearing how tough Auburn is today (who I believe is comparable to Florida) I'm having more trouble calling Florida a bad loss.

I moved on and wanted to get to a point about quality wins. You don't seem to want to have that discussion.

It's possible that a 9-3 team is better than an 11-1 team and has a better resume but we've all been trained to believe better record means better team and there's no nuance in evaluating someone's total resume.

Again, no idea why "Florida is one hell of a resume along with two other losses." ruffles your feathers as much as it did but man it seems to have got your jet all hot.

I am all about looking at the entirety of the argument for each team and yes, Texas has some impressive wins. And as I said before, if the third loss was against another playoff team- at that point I would probably agree that they need to be in but losing to Florida is a bad loss and add that into the other two losses (which I would say were 'quality losses'.... I guess, seems odd to say that) then I think they don't belong the playoffs. 1 bad loss like that should really be like two losses in the W/L column to try to make it more "objective" way of putting it. Yes, a 9-3 team can be better than a 11-1 team, heck even a 12-0 team but when you lose to as bad of a team as Florida is this year, that matters a lot.

 

[Chadstroma]

I still think the committee should only release one set of rankings after the conference championships.

Not good for marketing. The rankings give people something to talk about and talking about it creates ratings and ratings is money.

The networks and podcasters would all have their bracketology experts make predictions of the rankings/seedings and people would still debate ND vs Miami and Duke vs JMU and everything else. There’d still be plenty to talk and complain about.

Not the same. People would talk about it sure... but think of college basketball.... there is chatter about who is in and out of March Madness but it isn't anywhere near what we have now in college football. It also doesn't create the energy around it.... with people having passion about who and who does not make it, outside of some who will pout their way out of watching any of it but those would be outliers, you will want to watch to see the team you thought shouldn't be in there lose like you think they will. I think your position makes sense in terms of making it 'cleaner' but it doesn't help towards creating better ratings. March Madness has too much going on where whether or not WV makes it or not isn't going to add or take away from the ratings. But you will get more Miami fans watching to cheer against ND if they don't make it in or vice versa or the average fan interested to see who among all us passionate fans that have been pulling out knives to argue who should and should not be in is really right or wrong when the games play. It just creates more eyes on the games.

 

[Chadstroma]

It's a travesty that Duke or Virginia get in the playoffs. They both suck.

I really don't think Duke gets in

Duke will not for sure. I would bet money on it and I don't bet.

 

[Chadstroma]

Sitake is staying at BYU. Blessing in disguise for PSU imo

But seriously... Penn State is getting turned down by the coach of BYU. They fired Franklin thinking that they would be the belle of the ball and now the coaching musical chairs seems to be pointing to them being stuck with not only plan B but what letter are they on now?

 

[AAABatteries]

I’m cherry picking but this years field would make a great 16 team playoff.

OSU v JMU
Indiana v Tulane
Georgia v Virginia
TT v Vandy
Oregon v BYU
Ole Miss v Miami
A&M v Oklahoma
Alabama v Notre Dame

I think once Miami, Alabama or ND get left out it’ll happen soon.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I'm pretty sure this means Texas and Miami are out regardless
Notre Dame is in if Texas Tech wins, likely out if BYU wins
Alabama is in unless they get absolutely destroyed in the SEC Championship game.

That's pretty much it.

The other two spots will be 2 of Virginia, JMU, North Texas, Tulane, Duke :barf:

 

[Capella]

It's a travesty that Duke or Virginia get in the playoffs. They both suck.

I really don't think Duke gets in

Duke will not for sure. I would bet money on it and I don't bet.

Duke is +150 to win Saturday but +2000 to make the playoff so seems likely. James Madison is +150 to make it.

 

[Capella]

It's a travesty that Duke or Virginia get in the playoffs. They both suck.

I really don't think Duke gets in

Somebody ( I think Bud Elliott) had a breakdown where Duke has like 5 better wins than JMU but I doubt it’s a sure shot. Did they show the rankings for them tonight?

Edit: I see JMU is 25. Yea Duke may be screwed, how high up could they move a team for beating #17? I wonder if they don’t try to find a way to slide Miami in then. What a mess this all is.

How would they be able to backdoor Miami in?

Because they are making this all up weekly to fill whatever narrative they want.

 

[MAC_32]

It's a travesty that Duke or Virginia get in the playoffs. They both suck.

I really don't think Duke gets in

Somebody ( I think Bud Elliott) had a breakdown where Duke has like 5 better wins than JMU but I doubt it’s a sure shot. Did they show the rankings for them tonight?

Edit: I see JMU is 25. Yea Duke may be screwed, how high up could they move a team for beating #17? I wonder if they don’t try to find a way to slide Miami in then. What a mess this all is.

How would they be able to backdoor Miami in?

Because they are making this all up weekly to fill whatever narrative they want.

Got it - I've intentionally not paid much attention to the weekly in or out stuff. I was wondering if there was actually a way for them to backdoor in if Duke wins without bumping out ND. Like everyone else, I don't need to see anymore ACC Football this year, but if this was a viable path I'd have something to root for Saturday.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I guess I am a tool because I don't see how pointing out that their loss to Florida is a massive part of their resume when you bring that up. And I have no idea how you take that personally. So I am me I guess.

And funny too when you are the one that stated "It's made up nonsense by people" which is much more of a tool statement than anything I wrote and I didn't even take offense.

Okay you got me. More wins equals a better team. So you agree that JMU, BYU, and North Texas should be ranked ahead of Notre Dame? They have 1 loss and ND has 2 losses.

I am not sure why you are so confrontational but it could be because I am a tool doing tool things.

Can you point out for me where I said anything remotely close to 'more win equals a better team"? As I said not too far up stream on this thread before, I am for taking everything into consideration. Yes, record is important but in college football it clearly is not enough. So, you have to take into account who you play and in those games played beyond win/loss is how good or bad that loss was. A close loss to a very good team is certainly not the same as losing to bad team or getting blown out by a good team. There is a whole lot more to it as well.

It is what makes all of this impossible to be objective about as the structure of college football means, at least in this way but honestly I can't even see it getting totally away from it even with the mystical "super conference" system people talk about, that it is all very subjective. That is a good thing in that it will have everyone talking about it non-stop but a bad thing in that everyone will disagree on who should be in and out and where.

It is what it is. And what it is is subjective. That means that intelligent, well informed, knowledgeable football lovers can and will disagree. In fact, we can never expect everyone to agree. It will never happen as it is now.

For me, Texas is rightfully out of the playoffs. I really hate a three loss team getting in but I would be somewhat open to it if the losses were from Ohio St, Georgia and say.... Texas A&M or OU but losing to a 4-8 putrid Florida team on top of the other two losses... for me, I don't see how you can put them in. They had some good quality wins and the eye test did much better as they played but I think either the same people who say the eye test now of Texas is why they should be in (which is the only good argument) seems to be the same people that either ignore the eye test with ND or maybe just plain haven't seen any of the games.

I'm not confrontational. Just asking you questions. So you agree teams like Texas should schedule nothing but cupcakes outside of the SEC games? The Florida loss would be irrelevant if they were 10-2 (See Alabama).

Does who you beat matter at all? Or just who you lose to?

"OK you got me" is sarcastic and on the heels of calling me a tool would rationally rise to the level of being confrontational. It certainly isn't reconciliatory.

Again, can you point out where I state anything close to what you are asking? You can, if you look, find statements where I do day that the committee should hold FCS scheduling against the teams. You want to schedule Oregon St or New Mexico? Ok... go for it. But FCS teams should be counted against the teams that schedule them.

Your flippant one liner about the Florida game as if that's all Texas has done got the response it deserved. I wasn't being sarcastic about the losses you did get me with that one and made your point. I agree its a bad loss though after hearing how tough Auburn is today (who I believe is comparable to Florida) I'm having more trouble calling Florida a bad loss.

I moved on and wanted to get to a point about quality wins. You don't seem to want to have that discussion.

It's possible that a 9-3 team is better than an 11-1 team and has a better resume but we've all been trained to believe better record means better team and there's no nuance in evaluating someone's total resume.

Again, no idea why "Florida is one hell of a resume along with two other losses." ruffles your feathers as much as it did but man it seems to have got your jet all hot.

I am all about looking at the entirety of the argument for each team and yes, Texas has some impressive wins. And as I said before, if the third loss was against another playoff team- at that point I would probably agree that they need to be in but losing to Florida is a bad loss and add that into the other two losses (which I would say were 'quality losses'.... I guess, seems odd to say that) then I think they don't belong the playoffs. 1 bad loss like that should really be like two losses in the W/L column to try to make it more "objective" way of putting it. Yes, a 9-3 team can be better than a 11-1 team, heck even a 12-0 team but when you lose to as bad of a team as Florida is this year, that matters a lot.

How many top 15 wins does a team need to overcome a bad loss? To me, your line of thinking is proving teams should just schedule cupcakes because you focus on total number of losses. Two of Texas losses are to top 3 teams. Hard to penalize them much for that. Three top 15 wins should easily overcome a "bad" loss, which by the way Alabama has a worse loss on their resume (Florida beat FSU).

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Sitake is staying at BYU. Blessing in disguise for PSU imo

But seriously... Penn State is getting turned down by the coach of BYU. They fired Franklin thinking that they would be the belle of the ball and now the coaching musical chairs seems to be pointing to them being stuck with not only plan B but what letter are they on now?

Sitake seems like he was using Penn State to get more money for himself and NIL from BYU and it worked.

 

[MAC_32]

I’m cherry picking but this years field would make a great 16 team playoff

For once, 6 would not be perfect

IU / OSU winner gets a bye
If they win then Georgia the other (if they lose then Texas Tech if they win)

Texas Tech v Oregon fits in one quarterfinal
But the other would be dependent on Georgia losing to Bama
Otherwise it's a sword fight to see who travels to play at the IU / OSU loser

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

It's a travesty that Duke or Virginia get in the playoffs. They both suck.

I really don't think Duke gets in

Somebody ( I think Bud Elliott) had a breakdown where Duke has like 5 better wins than JMU but I doubt it’s a sure shot. Did they show the rankings for them tonight?

Edit: I see JMU is 25. Yea Duke may be screwed, how high up could they move a team for beating #17? I wonder if they don’t try to find a way to slide Miami in then. What a mess this all is.

How would they be able to backdoor Miami in?

Not saying this will happen but the pretzel logic would be Texas Tech beats BYU and eliminates them, Miami moves up one spot ahead of BYU and is now back to back with Notre Dame, and the committee now all of a sudden decides Miami's head to head win over Notre Dame counts and moves them ahead of the Irish.

I also believe ESPN has a voice in who makes the playoffs and there's no chance in hell it will be Notre Dame if it comes down to ND vs Miami. The committee seems hell bent on the SEC getting 5 after the perception Alabama got screwed last year and they whined.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I’m cherry picking but this years field would make a great 16 team playoff.

OSU v JMU
Indiana v Tulane
Georgia v Virginia
TT v Vandy
Oregon v BYU
Ole Miss v Miami
A&M v Oklahoma
Alabama v Notre Dame

I think once Miami, Alabama or ND get left out it’ll happen soon.

Agreed but under the current rules, JMU doesn't get in if UVA does. And Texas is ranked ahead of Vandy and would get in. Using last night's rankings and assuming a UVA win it would be:

Ohio State vs Tulane (JMU if Duke wins)
Georgia (jump Indiana) vs UVA. (Tulane if Duke wins)
Indiana vs Vanderbilt
Texas Tech vs Texas
Oregon vs Miami
Ole Miss vs BYU
A&M vs Notre Dame
Oklahoma vs Alabama

Utah screams bloody murder.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I still think the committee should only release one set of rankings after the conference championships.

Not good for marketing. The rankings give people something to talk about and talking about it creates ratings and ratings is money.

Do you care more about meaningless marketing or getting the playoff order correct. There are a whole lot of you in here pissing and moaning about individual games, what cost who and how. MOST of that is driven by the stupid polls that start at the beginning of the season. Confirmation bias and ability to admit wrong are real things. Both are really hard for some people to accept and a result of that is some pretty bad polls that only exist because people want to be right or they can't admit they were wrong.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

It's a travesty that Duke or Virginia get in the playoffs. They both suck.

I really don't think Duke gets in

Somebody ( I think Bud Elliott) had a breakdown where Duke has like 5 better wins than JMU but I doubt it’s a sure shot. Did they show the rankings for them tonight?

Edit: I see JMU is 25. Yea Duke may be screwed, how high up could they move a team for beating #17? I wonder if they don’t try to find a way to slide Miami in then. What a mess this all is.

How would they be able to backdoor Miami in?

Because they are making this all up weekly to fill whatever narrative they want.

Pretty much sums up the reality behind all the smoke we're creating

 

[AAABatteries]

I think ND is probably a better team than Miami and definitely playing better right now but it will be a joke if they end up ranked 10/11 and they ignore H2H. As some have mentioned, there will be little incentive to play good teams OOC - would love to see the top teams refuse to play Notre Dame and force their hand to a conference.

 

[Capella]

I think ND is probably a better team than Miami and definitely playing better right now but it will be a joke if they end up ranked 10/11 and they ignore H2H. As some have mentioned, there will be little incentive to play good teams OOC - would love to see the top teams refuse to play Notre Dame and force their hand to a conference.

Yea the Texas argument is lame to me because they lost to OSU among other things. But why would anybody schedule Notre Dame? Miami actually beat them, fairly convincingly too, they have an almost similar resume and they’re still below them. It’s astonishing honestly.

 

[Jayded]

Read this on an ND forum and it feels like it makes the most sense - The committee did what it did to provide itself flexibility for the conference weekend, but lots hinges on BYU/Tech and a smaller amount with Virginia/Duke

* Moving Bama above ND is the way to ensure the SECCG loser is still likely in to not leave Bama out again for another ACC team ; and it also allows them the ability to move Bama back from 9 to 10 unless it's a major blowout (or a win)

* Current matchups would be rematches between Bama/OU and ND/A&M, which is unlikely to stick and past committees have avoided. If Bama wins, they move to the 6-7 range and if they lose, they move to 10 and avoid the rematch scenario

* If Tech wins and Bama loses, Bama goes to 10, ND goes to 9. If Tech wins and Bama wins, ND probably stays at 10, but this is where Virginia/Duke comes in. If Duke wins, that feels like when the committee says they don't want the ACC left out and brings in the H2H between Miami and ND and Miami slides in as the 10.

I might be wrong, but the above looks like what this has set up, with Bama being in unless there's a catastrophic loss and some wiggle room via the Virginia/Duke game to get Miami in. ND needs Tech and Virginia to win IMO.

 

[Chadstroma]

I guess I am a tool because I don't see how pointing out that their loss to Florida is a massive part of their resume when you bring that up. And I have no idea how you take that personally. So I am me I guess.

And funny too when you are the one that stated "It's made up nonsense by people" which is much more of a tool statement than anything I wrote and I didn't even take offense.

Okay you got me. More wins equals a better team. So you agree that JMU, BYU, and North Texas should be ranked ahead of Notre Dame? They have 1 loss and ND has 2 losses.

I am not sure why you are so confrontational but it could be because I am a tool doing tool things.

Can you point out for me where I said anything remotely close to 'more win equals a better team"? As I said not too far up stream on this thread before, I am for taking everything into consideration. Yes, record is important but in college football it clearly is not enough. So, you have to take into account who you play and in those games played beyond win/loss is how good or bad that loss was. A close loss to a very good team is certainly not the same as losing to bad team or getting blown out by a good team. There is a whole lot more to it as well.

It is what makes all of this impossible to be objective about as the structure of college football means, at least in this way but honestly I can't even see it getting totally away from it even with the mystical "super conference" system people talk about, that it is all very subjective. That is a good thing in that it will have everyone talking about it non-stop but a bad thing in that everyone will disagree on who should be in and out and where.

It is what it is. And what it is is subjective. That means that intelligent, well informed, knowledgeable football lovers can and will disagree. In fact, we can never expect everyone to agree. It will never happen as it is now.

For me, Texas is rightfully out of the playoffs. I really hate a three loss team getting in but I would be somewhat open to it if the losses were from Ohio St, Georgia and say.... Texas A&M or OU but losing to a 4-8 putrid Florida team on top of the other two losses... for me, I don't see how you can put them in. They had some good quality wins and the eye test did much better as they played but I think either the same people who say the eye test now of Texas is why they should be in (which is the only good argument) seems to be the same people that either ignore the eye test with ND or maybe just plain haven't seen any of the games.

I'm not confrontational. Just asking you questions. So you agree teams like Texas should schedule nothing but cupcakes outside of the SEC games? The Florida loss would be irrelevant if they were 10-2 (See Alabama).

Does who you beat matter at all? Or just who you lose to?

"OK you got me" is sarcastic and on the heels of calling me a tool would rationally rise to the level of being confrontational. It certainly isn't reconciliatory.

Again, can you point out where I state anything close to what you are asking? You can, if you look, find statements where I do day that the committee should hold FCS scheduling against the teams. You want to schedule Oregon St or New Mexico? Ok... go for it. But FCS teams should be counted against the teams that schedule them.

Your flippant one liner about the Florida game as if that's all Texas has done got the response it deserved. I wasn't being sarcastic about the losses you did get me with that one and made your point. I agree its a bad loss though after hearing how tough Auburn is today (who I believe is comparable to Florida) I'm having more trouble calling Florida a bad loss.

I moved on and wanted to get to a point about quality wins. You don't seem to want to have that discussion.

It's possible that a 9-3 team is better than an 11-1 team and has a better resume but we've all been trained to believe better record means better team and there's no nuance in evaluating someone's total resume.

Again, no idea why "Florida is one hell of a resume along with two other losses." ruffles your feathers as much as it did but man it seems to have got your jet all hot.

I am all about looking at the entirety of the argument for each team and yes, Texas has some impressive wins. And as I said before, if the third loss was against another playoff team- at that point I would probably agree that they need to be in but losing to Florida is a bad loss and add that into the other two losses (which I would say were 'quality losses'.... I guess, seems odd to say that) then I think they don't belong the playoffs. 1 bad loss like that should really be like two losses in the W/L column to try to make it more "objective" way of putting it. Yes, a 9-3 team can be better than a 11-1 team, heck even a 12-0 team but when you lose to as bad of a team as Florida is this year, that matters a lot.

How many top 15 wins does a team need to overcome a bad loss? To me, your line of thinking is proving teams should just schedule cupcakes because you focus on total number of losses. Two of Texas losses are to top 3 teams. Hard to penalize them much for that. Three top 15 wins should easily overcome a "bad" loss, which by the way Alabama has a worse loss on their resume (Florida beat FSU).

All the SEC teams are canceling non-conference games with guys like Virginia and scrambling to find an FCS to pay to play as is. SOC is important as well. If they want to water down their SOC then penalize them for that appropriately. There would be no such thing as a 'strong win' against an FCS- you either blow them out 70-0 or you lose position in the rankings. If I am on the committee, I am taking that into consideration absolutely. I don't know how many times I need to say it- you need to take everything into consideration and be strong when teams act in ways we don't want them to, such as scheduling cupcake opponents.

 

[Jayded]

I think ND is probably a better team than Miami and definitely playing better right now but it will be a joke if they end up ranked 10/11 and they ignore H2H. As some have mentioned, there will be little incentive to play good teams OOC - would love to see the top teams refuse to play Notre Dame and force their hand to a conference.

Yea the Texas argument is lame to me because they lost to OSU among other things. But why would anybody schedule Notre Dame? Miami actually beat them, fairly convincingly too, they have an almost similar resume and they’re still below them. It’s astonishing honestly.

A couple of things - Miami didn't beat them convincingly. They won by 3 in the first game of the year with new people all over the place on both sides. Neither team is really the same per se, and the computers weight teams on who they are now more than who they were then for a reason there as well (just fwiw).

Similar resumes is a misleading talking point on ESPN. Who was Miami's second toughest opponent? Their only opponent this year was ND. Yes, they won. ND also played A&M and USC. The SOS metric is a straight ranking comparison, but it's not looking at difficulty of the schedule at all. Doing that and comparing actually toughness, ND's schedule is tougher than Miami's and that's with everyone pointing to how weak ND's schedule is too. Imagine if ND took off A&M and USC and replaced them with SMU and Louisville and you still have a tougher schedule than Miami had.

 

[Chadstroma]

Sitake is staying at BYU. Blessing in disguise for PSU imo

But seriously... Penn State is getting turned down by the coach of BYU. They fired Franklin thinking that they would be the belle of the ball and now the coaching musical chairs seems to be pointing to them being stuck with not only plan B but what letter are they on now?

Sitake seems like he was using Penn State to get more money for himself and NIL from BYU and it worked.

Maybe. Seemed like an odd coupling to begin with but still PSU vs BYU.... the prestige of each of these is not the same at all and the higher prestige school just got snubbed. Makes me respect Sitake.

 

[Chadstroma]

I still think the committee should only release one set of rankings after the conference championships.

Not good for marketing. The rankings give people something to talk about and talking about it creates ratings and ratings is money.

Do you care more about meaningless marketing or getting the playoff order correct. There are a whole lot of you in here pissing and moaning about individual games, what cost who and how. MOST of that is driven by the stupid polls that start at the beginning of the season. Confirmation bias and ability to admit wrong are real things. Both are really hard for some people to accept and a result of that is some pretty bad polls that only exist because people want to be right or they can't admit they were wrong.

I don't care about it... just pointing out reality.

 

[mr. furley]

this is ridiculous. time to expand the playoffs to 22 teams.

 

[Moe.]

I still think the committee should only release one set of rankings after the conference championships.

Not good for marketing. The rankings give people something to talk about and talking about it creates ratings and ratings is money.

Do you care more about meaningless marketing or getting the playoff order correct. There are a whole lot of you in here pissing and moaning about individual games, what cost who and how. MOST of that is driven by the stupid polls that start at the beginning of the season. Confirmation bias and ability to admit wrong are real things. Both are really hard for some people to accept and a result of that is some pretty bad polls that only exist because people want to be right or they can't admit they were wrong.

My friend if you know the “correct” order then by all means share it with the class.

I have said that the weekly shows are mostly that - show. I do think the teams appreciate knowing where they stand though. I like to think of the weekly rankings as a rough draft. They know they’ve got a final draft due next week, but in the meantime they’ve gotta get something down on paper and they can fully flesh out the arguments when all the games are done. That’s why I’d have no issue with teams who don’t play this week moving in the final ranking. You’re talking about confirmation bias and inability to admit mistakes, but then saying they aren’t allowed to make changes week over week. They can’t change their minds?

After hearing Yurachek talk these past few weeks - I think we might be giving the ADs too much credit in terms of the long-term scheming. It’s very possible they are doing their best with an impossible task. Maybe we picked the wrong group of people for this exercise. Aren’t Athletic Directors really busy with lots of responsibility behind just the football program?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I think ND is probably a better team than Miami and definitely playing better right now but it will be a joke if they end up ranked 10/11 and they ignore H2H. As some have mentioned, there will be little incentive to play good teams OOC - would love to see the top teams refuse to play Notre Dame and force their hand to a conference.

The year is 1993. Notre Dame beats FSU in the game of the century. A week later, in what might be a predictable let down game, ND loses on a miracle last second field goal to Boston College.
They finish the season ranked 1-2

Guess who was 1? Guess who was 2? Guess how much H2H counted.

 

[Moe.]

this is ridiculous. time to expand the playoffs to 22 teams.

lol. I do think a huge part of the “problem” this year is the 16 team conferences are new and the intra-conference schedules are so unbalanced. Other than Texas, A&M pretty much played nobody within the SEC. If we still had the old conference setup this format would be much better. SEC going to 9 games next year will be a huge help. If they expand without adjusting the format it will be a huge mistake.

I like Klatt’s proposal because it forces additional conference games between teams at the top. Here is how it would work for those unfamiliar: https://www.on3.com/news/joel-klatt...-model-to-take-power-out-of-committees-hands/

The SEC doesn’t like it because it limits them to 4 spots, but if you can’t whittle your conference down to 4 contenders by the end of the season then what are we even doing. The SEC should be more concerned with the long-term health of the sport than making as much money as possible in the short-term. But I guess that sentence applies to every aspect of life nowadays.

 

[Chadstroma]

this is ridiculous. time to expand the playoffs to 22 teams.

Agreed! I look forward to arguing about how Georgia Tech shouldn't be in with Iowa and Tennesee out.

 

[Jayded]

I will say, while I do enjoy the spirited debate on who of the 1-3 loss teams to leave out, at least teams left out sowed their own fate. In a year where there were only 4 teams and some 0 loss teams were left out, things just felt especially unfair.

If you leave ND out, you should've pulled off one of your first two games. If you leave Miami out, you shouldn't have lost to two unranked teams. If you leave Texas out, you are afforded two losses but you can't have a third to a bad conference team. If you leave Vanderbilt out, not entirely your fault but you now have zero ranked wins and the same number of losses as other bubble teams.

 

[Capella]

Penn State is currently between Montana State and Akron in the recruiting rankings. Years long disaster incoming.

 

[crushedspirit]

The top 9 and the American Conf Champ are all locked in, which leaves 2 spots open. Only a lopsided loss by Bama would open the door for the committee to take a second look.

Virginia (win and in as ACC champ, lose they're out)
BYU (win and in as Big 12 champ, lose then their fate falls into the hands of what the committee decides)
JMU (win and Duke win they're in as Sun Belt champ, win and Duke lose they're out)
Duke (win and JMU loss they're in as ACC champ, win and JMU win they're out)

Miami and ND (best shot for either is a BYU loss and wait for the committee to decide what to do with the last at-large bid, and both are out if Virginia and BYU win)

 

[Chadstroma]

Brian Hartline to USF. Huge loss for Ohio St (already impacting their recruiting). Big hire for USF.

 

[General Malaise]

Penn State is currently between Montana State and Akron in the recruiting rankings. Years long disaster incoming.

Good lord.....

 

[JohnnyU]

Kentucky named Oregon offensive coordinator Will Stein as its next head football coach, the school announced Monday. Stein will replace Mark Stoops, who was officially fired Monday morning, two days after a 41-0 loss to Louisville. Stoops had been the Ky head coach for 13 years. He led them to a couple of 10 win seasons and eight straight bowl berths, but had two straight losing seasons when he was fired.

Face it, Ky will always be a basketball school, and Stoops probably did as well as he could there and better than most. What are your thoughts on this new hiring? Same as always for Ky football? It’s hard to compete consistently in the SEC when you’re Kentucky football.

 

[Jayded]

Brian Hartline to USF. Huge loss for Ohio St (already impacting their recruiting). Big hire for USF.

Wow. I really thought he'd be Penn State's backup plan when Sitake fell through. I really don't know where PSU goes from here as Hartline could be a great hire for Penn State, let alone USF. Feels like a homerun hire for USF.