Don't disagree, but maintaining the status quo isn't the answer and has been proven to be a detriment.
***OFFICIAL CFP Rankings Show Watch Thread***
- Thread starter ISUCyclones2015
- Start date
So as I understand SOS doesn’t really matter to them, just wins do. Unless you’re in the SEC then winning is less important. This is a clown show.
Clown show is EXACTLY what it is and always was going to be. I don't think it can be said any more clearly than what @ChrisMWilliams has been saying all along: "It is a TV product".
I'd like to see teams ranked by their TV viewership and how that compares to the CFP rankings. I would expect a very high level of correlation.
I’m not even going to worry about Boise anymore. I’m much more worried about Tulane. It’s unfathomable to me they are even being discussed as supplanting a B12 champion.
2 losses including head to head against Kansas State, and their best win is Navy. Hoping Memphis can do us a solid tomorrow. Watch, then Memphis will jump all the B12 teams.
2 losses including head to head against Kansas State, and their best win is Navy. Hoping Memphis can do us a solid tomorrow. Watch, then Memphis will jump all the B12 teams.
This shows me committee members never should try to explain anything.
Specific question: Is there a difference between saying "a 3-point loss" and "a very close 3-point loss"? If they consider the UO result Boise's main "accomplishment," fine, whatever. But was there a clearance sale at The Adjectives Store, or something?
Polar opposite. The committee should be required to take questions from the media to justify their rankings.
Actually, I agree with you. They should be held accountable in that way. I probably should revise my post. Sometimes the more they talk, the less convincing it is.
I said I’m for anything that improves Big 12 perception.
Ultimately improving the CFP perception.
It’s going to be tough because the CFP has an agenda. And currently, it seems obvious the Big 12 is on the outside of the P2 love fest party.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
“We value winning, which is why we’re looking very strongly at some 3-loss SEC teams as possible qualifiers. That’s also why we’ve put SMU above BYU and Tulane above Kansas State, even though they lost to those teams, because we value winning. And by “winning,” of course, we mean our wallets winning by pulling in the maximum amount of revenue from our playoff, not that we actually put the most deserving teams in. What, you think we’re crazy or something? Money talks, folks.”
He can substitute”Boise State” for any team they want to inflate.
He can substitute “we value ‘Winning’ “ with any “metric” he chooses that supports his agenda.
It’s CFP Three Card Monte and the guy running the game was in charge during the Connor Stalions era.
He seems to be insinuating because Ashton Jeanty is good they should be in. And because Wyoming is a tough place to play.
I’ve seen a Wyoming game in person, there were like 30 fans there.
As much as I don't like the networks playing kingmaker, this is one instance where I hope ESPN would put the screws to the SEC a bit. Stop with these joke November games that can't get great ratings for them.
I hoped in one hand and **** in the other. Now I smell like **** and regret.
Some incentive would be games more people would tune in to watch but in turn would also cost espn more money
Boise has played a much harder schedule than Tulane, they are undefeated in conference, only loss is a tight one ve the #1 team in the nation. It's a decent resume. They have a Heisman candidate. I do think they should be 1-2 lower, but overall they aren't too far off from where I'd put them.
Tulane and Clemson's rankings are just straight up malpractice
Anyone remember when CW was saying they’re gonna **** the B12 this year? And people jumped at him because they thought he was a closet hawk? I think to anyone paying attention this was obvious, I just didn’t think it’d be Boise Tulane and SMU on the benefitting side
