- Thread starter
- #1
BigAppleBadger
On Wisconsin
“Quality losses” are the only possible way to put Auburn higher than 4th.
The term 'quality loss' was made up by ESPN for the SEC some years back.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.
“Quality WINS” are the only possible way to put Auburn higher than 4th.
I really don't know. Did anyone hear what the chairman explanation?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.
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.The term 'quality loss' was made up by ESPN for the SEC some years back.
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.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.
Yes, exactly what I have been trying to convey (poorly). You put it better than I did.Sure. But it’s not a “quality loss”, it’s a mitigating factor
Yes, I think we’re on the same page.Yes, exactly what I have been trying to convey (poorly). You put it better than I did.
And here I 'member the good ole days when we let computers have their input, fans lost their shit.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.
The BCS refused to explain their pseudo formula. It's all a bunch of bs and always has been.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.
Now THAT is an interesting angle I did not consider. . .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.
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.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?
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.
Probably true.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.