Your 11/25 Top 10.

[Killian]

Here's another one:

http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm

and another:

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/curr ... kings.html

[Van]

Why is Alabama #2?

Because we say so. Well, actually, because we say so and because ND fucked up and ran the table. Sorry we couldn't give you another two-fer, SEC.

-ESPN



24-50

[Van]

Sam, comparitive statistical rankings mean precisely fuckall unless the teams being compared played similar schedules. In college football this is not possible. Houston may well have had the #1 ranked offense in the country the last year or two, and who cares? Similarly, when Bama only played two ranked teams this year and their defense got torched by one of them, who cares what a bunch of stats that were built on the backs of an entire season's worth of awful offenses say?

The same thing holds true for your silly QB Passing Efficiency ratings. When comparing Bama's QB and his particular set of circumstances to, say, Louisville's or UCLA's, it's utterly meaningless.

Don't think so? Okay then, promise to bite your tongue the next time someone in the Big XII passes for 500 yards and six TDs during a 57-52 shootout. Don't dismiss such numbers as being solely the result of bad defenses and "system QBs."

Remember, such generalizations only count when they work to your favor. Bad offenses mean great defenses, but the opposite doesn't hold true. "System QBs" compile their gaudy stats not because of their talent but rather because Mike Leach designed a video game style of play using real humans on offense and tackling dummies on defense.

It doesn't matter that yes, there are in fact "system QBs" and other circumstances that artificially inflate offensive numbers. You'll just have to ignore this, the same as you ignore the equally obvious fact that those same factors also result in artificially gaudy defensive rankings and passing efficiency ratings in the SEC and elsewhere.

You're perfectly fine with doing this, right?





24-50

[Killian]

Beat Michigan 41-14. ND beat the Wolverines, 13-6. Wow.

Looks like the Oklahoma and Stanford wins are your big wins. Bama beat LSU and Mississippi State. I'll give you that.

Tell me this: Who's better than Alabama?

The transitive property? Really Sam? I guess I could pull the “hey, two rivals in two weeks” card, but it was more like 4 rivals in 4 weeks. Then a week off to resume one of the ugliest rivalries of the late 80’s, early 90’s. Then another rival in Stanford. Then Oklahoma two weeks after that.

We can play this game all you want. If we go by your transitive argument, why would you rank Oregon ahead of ND? They lost to Stanford, at home in OT. ND beat Stanford at home, in OT.

My point isn’t to say that Bama isn’t the second best team in the country. My point is that you have less of an argument to justify Bama at #2 than I do to justify ND at #1.

[Killian]

Fine, fair enough. Then ND is much better than KSU. Just look at the OU game.

[Van]

So what do we go by?

The eyeball test? I saw Notre Dame play several times this year. They looked terrible at times and very good at times. Just as Alabama did. And Oregon did.

What do you suggest we use to grade the teams?

Ummm...a playoff system? Oh, and one that isn't clearly rigged to favor a single conference over all others? The elimination of preseason rankings altogether? The abolition—enforced by severe rankings-penalties—of intentionally scheduling like pussies? The disqualifying from the tournament of any team that schedules two D1-AA squads, on top of those self-same severe rankings-penalties for any team that schedules even one D1-AA team?

Equal 6-6 home/road schedules for everyone, or as damn close to this as certain sacred traditional rivalries will allow?

I know, I know...



Just crazy stuff.



25-50

[Mace]

That's not the transitive property. We're talking about beating the same team by widely divergent scores.

But that doesn't matter.

You may or may not have beaten Stanford. :grin:

Look, this is nuts. ND, Bama, Oregon, Stanford are all good teams. Until we have a real playoff (8 teams at least), we'll never know who is the best team. It's an ugly system, but it's all we have right now.

You watch - there will be just as much whining when they go to the playoff system. I like it better as well, but mark my words - it's gonna happen.

Yep, we'll be arguing who deserves to be #8 instead of who should be #2. The good thing is that we should be able to find the best team in the country by taking 8 teams to the playoffs and they'll be able to prove it on the field.

[Killian]

^^^^^

Which is the most comical of all of this. Had ND beaten FSU in the 2011 Champs.com Bowl, they would have started the season ranked in the mid teens, well ahead of KSU. And had the season played out in the exact same manor, ND wouldn’t have needed Stanford or Baylor to win because they would have been ranked in the top 2, based on a shitty third tier bowl game result from last season.

[M2]

4. Texas A&M. NOBODY would want to play them right now.

Actually, nobody wants to play San Jose State (10-2) right now.




They lost 20-17 to Stanfurd at Stanfurd.


They just beat Louisiana Tech easily this weekend.


Yep, the same Louisiana Tech team that lost to Texas A&M by 2 points (and played a closer game with them than Alabama)

[Mace]

Is that the same San Jose State team that got blown out in their homecoming game against Utah State? Just checking.

[Mikey]

Translation:

1. Pac12
2. Pac12
3. Pac12
4. Pac12
5. Pac12
6. Pac12
7. Pac12
8. Pac12
9. Pac12
10. Pac12

Look everybody...I can post just like shutyomouth!!

RACK me.

[Mikey]

M2. NOBODY would want to read his posts right now.