The Cheez It Bowl will have National implications and I will fight any man that says different.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Official CFP Selection Freakout Thread
- Thread starter Alfred91
- Start date
Cheez Its suck
That's it, I am on my way to Casa Bonita, and I shall see you, sir, in the parking lot.
I remember when it was explained to us - several years back - that Oregon just didn't have the athletes to compete with FSU in the playoffs. Oregon obliterated FSU and honestly, it looked like the Seminoles athletes were a half-step slower than all of Oregon's.
I'm wondering if all of these assumptions (not just you) about Washington come from a place of regional bias. Washington is a good team. Oregon is also a good team.
Bliff Cranch
Well-Known Member
SIAP, but if the 3 point Alabama win over Georgia was so meaningful, why is Georgia now sixth in the poll?
Not the point I was trying to make.
And yet.
After watching this, I will forever laugh when someone mentions the "committee" in a positive light.
The point is, I want to know how you would rank those teams based upon SoS with no other considerations. Here it is w/out conf. champ data:
| Team | SoS ranking | vs top 10 | vs top 30 |
1 | 5 | 2-0 | 6-0 |
2 | 61 | 0-0 | 3-0 |
3 | 12 | 1-1 | 5-1 |
4 | 4 | 1-1 | 6-1 |
5 | 51 | 2-0 | 2-0 |
6 | 19 | 1-1 | 4-2 |
7 | 36 | 1-1 | 2-1 |
I know you're not talking to me, but where are you going with this?
SOS without consideration of win/loss would've put Stanford, KSU and ASU in the CFP and CU as first out. I'm not following how this contributes to the discussion -- wins and losses have to be a factor.
That’s his point. SOS is one of numerous variables that the committee “used” to justify their selections. But by no means the only criteria.
Essentially the committee picked the 4 teams they wanted, and then decided how to justify that selection using hand picked data points.
Bingo
I understand everything after the first sentence, I don't see how looking at CFP candidate by SOS alone advances that point.
but nevermind, my understanding of this isn't important
I’ll be joining you to gang up on Nik. I’m sitting at my desk looking at my always present box of extra toasty cheez its, seething with anger.
I go through boxes often.
Good chance for a motivated Nile’s team to prove themselves against UGA.
Resume is the first filter. Not SOS.
Yup! Just like Colorado did versus UO in 2001 when they got the shaft for the MNC. Super easy to be motivated when you have a perfect season, and then have all of your dreams and goals ripped away from you with no hope (our chance) of redemption.
Either way, the conclusion is correct.
A conclusion based solely on biased opinion. Most have concluded that you are wrong, and they are correct.
The conclusion aligns with your opinion. It's subjective. And this year it went a way it never had - not including an undefeated P5 champ, elevating a team that was ranked below #6 heading into the championship week (and they did it with 2), dropping a team out of the top 4 despite winning.
85alum
Well-Known Member
The problem with comparing non-playoff bowl results is that they are driven by other factors, not just team strength. For example, many key players sit out these bowls. Also, the motivation factor is hit or miss: some teams are pumped to prove themselves, other teams that are probably better are deflated because they missed out on the playoffs and they play like they don't give a $#!%. Bowl results, these days, are not a good measure of team strength. IMHO
I've been beating that drum for years, and agree 100%, but that's not really related to the what-if scenario that Denver is posing
85alum
Well-Known Member
I agree, it didn't directly answer Denver's question. But if I were a voter, those key players sitting out/team motivation factors would enter into my voting. For right or wrong. Anymore, non-playoff bowl results are mostly worthless - why base rankings on those results? Maybe not have polls after the regular season, especially when playoff goes to 12