So much for the Committee not counting “quality losses”

[BigAppleBadger]

“Quality losses” are the only possible way to put Auburn higher than 4th.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

The committee is a joke.

 

[Beaker]

While it hurts Wisconsin in this case, I think not considering the quality of the team someone lost to is a mistake (though, the term "quality loss" is poor).

I don't think we should ignore context for the sake of simplicity.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

While it hurts Wisconsin in this case, I think not considering the quality of the team someone lost to is a mistake (though, the term "quality loss" is poor).

I don't think we should ignore context for the sake of simplicity.

The term 'quality loss' was made up by ESPN for the SEC some years back.

 

[cwalke3408]

“Quality WINS” are the only possible way to put Auburn higher than 4th.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

Why are they ahead of Oklahoma? Wins over OSU and TCU (and Okie Lite) aren’t that far off from Auburn’s best wins, and they’ve only got one loss.

I get that Auburn has quality wins. But they’ve basically played 4 good teams, and won 50% of the time.

 

[cwalke3408]

Why are they ahead of Oklahoma? Wins over OSU and TCU (and Okie Lite) aren’t that far off from Auburn’s best wins, and they’ve only got one loss.

I get that Auburn has quality wins. But they’ve basically played 4 good teams, and won 50% of the time.

I really don't know. Did anyone hear what the chairman explanation?

 

[cwalke3408]

Thinking about it more. Winning in Columbus is more impressive than beating Bama or UGA at home.

 

[Beaker]

The term 'quality loss' was made up by ESPN for the SEC some years back.

That makes sense. ESPN seems to enjoy riding the SEC's dick. That way, even when an SEC team loses in conference, it is actually a GOOD thing somehow.

But, despite the term "quality loss" being stupid, a 24-21 loss to, say, Clemson says less bad things about your team than a 24-21 loss to, say, Minnesota.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

That makes sense. ESPN seems to enjoy riding the SEC's dick. That way, even when an SEC team loses in conference, it is actually a GOOD thing somehow.

But, despite the term "quality loss" being stupid, a 24-21 loss to, say, Clemson says less bad things about your team than a 24-21 loss to, say, Minnesota.

Sure. But it’s not a “quality loss”, it’s a mitigating factor that should come into play only when comparing teams with the same number of losses, and only in really obvious cases.

I’m also not convinced that LSU is a quality loss. They’ve moved up in the rankings as Auburn has done well, but that team lost to Troy. Earlier this season LSU fans were in meltdown mode.

 

[Beaker]

Sure. But it’s not a “quality loss”, it’s a mitigating factor

Yes, exactly what I have been trying to convey (poorly). You put it better than I did.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

Yes, exactly what I have been trying to convey (poorly). You put it better than I did.

Yes, I think we’re on the same page.

Compare last year’s Wisconsin team to this year’s. Last year’s had better wins, but it lost to 2 (very good) teams during the regular season. Is that more impressive than 12-0? If Wisconsin had a tougher SOS this year but two losses, would that be more impressive? It doesn’t make sense.

Now if one is comparing two 12-0 teams or two 11-1 teams, then yes SOS is definitely a tie breaker, as is the quality of teams that they each lost to.

 

[batchaps4me]

Not saying that it is right, but it seems that the committee may be using our 14-8 loss @Clemson as a plus. We are playing much better ball right now and probably as good or better than anyone in college football. I do like the message that high quality OOC games will not hurt you in the end and in fact can help ... and hope that leads to better OOC matchups, especially early in the season.

IMHO, the top four teams are correct but out of order. But there is no need to get sand in your vajayjay just yet. Win and you are in. They will manipulate the standings to avoid early season rematches in the first round of the playoffs either way. For those of you in Wisconsin, don't worry about that ... you probably have to play a top 10 team in the regular season for that to occur.

 

[outofyourmind]

Ohio State or Michigan would be ranked #1 right now if they had the same exact schedule that Wisconsin has and were undefeated.

FACT

That's what makes the committee a joke.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Ohio State or Michigan would be ranked #1 right now if they had the same exact schedule that Wisconsin has and were undefeated.

FACT

That's what makes the committee a joke.

And here I 'member the good ole days when we let computers have their input, fans lost their shit.

Eyetest winning out in these things.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

And here I 'member the good ole days when we let computers have their input, fans lost their shit.

Eyetest winning out in these things.

The BCS refused to explain their pseudo formula. It's all a bunch of bs and always has been.

 

[Beaker]

Ohio State or Michigan would be ranked #1 right now if they had the same exact schedule that Wisconsin has and were undefeated.

FACT

That's what makes the committee a joke.

Now THAT is an interesting angle I did not consider. . .

Thinking about it, though, say FCU played Wisconsin's schedule and garnered the same results? How would they look in the standings?

Previous success by a program is already a factor in the committee's rankings. Is that wrong, however?

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Now THAT is an interesting angle I did not consider. . .

Thinking about it, though, say FCU played Wisconsin's schedule and garnered the same results? How would they look in the standings?

Previous success by a program is already a factor in the committee's rankings. Is that wrong, however?

The committee values TV sets over everything else. It's a bs committee for fvks sake. I mean this is the same bunch of BCS/ESPN nutswingers that had Condi Rice and some retired Air Force general on the first committee ... now if that isn't fvked up I don't know what is. It's all a sham.

 

[Rolltide94]

Sure. But it’s not a “quality loss”, it’s a mitigating factor that should come into play only when comparing teams with the same number of losses, and only in really obvious cases.

I’m also not convinced that LSU is a quality loss. They’ve moved up in the rankings as Auburn has done well, but that team lost to Troy. Earlier this season LSU fans were in meltdown mode.

LSU also has two P5 wins OOC....which is the exact same number of wins as all the ranked B1G teams COMBINED.

Every good thing you say about the B1G involves beating other B1G teams...because outside of the B1G the biggest thing any of your ranked teams has done is beat a 5-7 Pitt team.

Yet, somehow LSU is shitty and the B1G has 5 ranked teams.

and the only answer any of you have to this is BUT TROY.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

Ohio State or Michigan would be ranked #1 right now if they had the same exact schedule that Wisconsin has and were undefeated.

FACT

That's what makes the committee a joke.

Probably true.

Although, in your alternative universe, Ohio State would need to have not gotten smoked by the Iowa team that Wisconsin beat handily.