Sure as hell seems like it gets mentioned every time I watched it. I know it was mentioned last night with Ohio State.

 

:ohbrother:

:ohbrother:

You don’t believe me?

You don’t believe me?

 

I believe that they said it last night, sure.

 

My reaction was to you going from "they've said it every time for two years" to "I know they said it last night about OSU."

I believe that they said it last night, sure.

 

My reaction was to you going from "they've said it every time for two years" to "I know they said it last night about OSU."

It wasn’t just last night. It’s been a recurring stat they have used every time I’ve heard them. If you’re asking me whether or not they have mentioned it in every single rankings show I can’t tell you that with 100% certainty, but it’s been pretty close to every time. Listening to podcasts that interview the committee chairmen every week, the fact that wins over .500 teams is a very important statistic to the committee is a pretty well founded opinion.

It wasn’t just last night. It’s been a recurring stat they have used every time I’ve heard them. If you’re asking me whether or not they have mentioned it in every single rankings show I can’t tell you that with 100% certainty, but it’s been pretty close to every time. Listening to podcasts that interview the committee chairmen every week, the fact that wins over .500 teams is a very important statistic to the committee is a pretty well founded opinion.

 

The fact that it's mentioned doesn't make it the be all end all in ranking teams. All things being equal, then yeah you get down to the 4th or 5th criteria of record against .500 teams. They have said from day one that the "Eye Test" will play a big part in the rankings, even if they don't mention it weekly, it is the key metric when deciding between two teams.

It wasn’t just last night. It’s been a recurring stat they have used every time I’ve heard them. If you’re asking me whether or not they have mentioned it in every single rankings show I can’t tell you that with 100% certainty, but it’s been pretty close to every time. Listening to podcasts that interview the committee chairmen every week, the fact that wins over .500 teams is a very important statistic to the committee is a pretty well founded opinion.

 

I'm just going off what you said:

 

Every single rankings show for the past 2 years this stat has been brought up.

 

I haven't heard them mention it that often, but admittedly I don't listen for that specific stat, so you may be right.

 

We'll see next week if you're right about LSU/WSU/OSU/WVU. I'm honestly intrigued to see if you will be.

The fact that it's mentioned doesn't make it the be all end all in ranking teams. All things being equal, then yeah you get down to the 4th or 5th criteria of record against .500 teams. They have said from day one that the "Eye Test" will play a big part in the rankings, even if they don't mention it weekly, it is the key metric when deciding between two teams.

Did I say it was the be all end all?

Did I say it was the be all end all?

 

I mean, you've only been harping on it as the reason why everyone would jump LSU for the past 50 posts...

I mean, you've only been harping on it as the reason why everyone would jump LSU for the past 50 posts...

Yeah because it’s a stat the committee has been using to rank teams they view as comparable.

Yeah because it’s a stat the committee has been using to rank teams they view as comparable.

 

And based on wins against the top 25, they aren’t comparable.

And based on wins against the top 25, they aren’t comparable.

Oh I can play that game too. The number of losses also aren’t comparable. So you counter that with the fact that their losses were against good teams. We can keep this show up all day. LSU is where they should be right now. We just don’t know enough about Wazzu, WVU, and OSU right now. If these teams add victories to their resume this week that the committee says they value so a win against a .500 team for Wazzu, a win against a top 25 win for OSU, and a dominating win for WVU. The committee learns more about these teams and I think the rankings will show that. I didn’t get the impression from the chairmen when he talked about LSU that he believed there was much separation between 7-10. They all have flaws. So if we learn more about the three 1 loss teams this week and next to nothing about the 2 loss team, I don’t think it’s really a crazy idea that the 2 loss team is going to be behind the 1 loss teams next week. I know I’m a real hot take kind of guy, but this one is pretty lukewarm if you ask me.

Did I say it was the be all end all?

 

No, but you've been acting like it is.

 

I understand, you need LSU downgraded and Purdue upgraded to fit your teams agenda.

No, but you've been acting like it is.

 

I understand, you need LSU downgraded and Purdue upgraded to fit your teams agenda.

Ah there it is. The old “he can’t be objective about this because his team is in the discussion” My team has one agenda and one agenda only: play better. Just ignore the words I’m saying and paint me in whatever light you want because I’m an OSU fan. Ignore the fact that I’ve said OSU is where they deserve to be. Ignore the fact that I’ve said LSU is where they deserve to be. In fact just keep ignoring the majority of my posts and just highlight the parts of my posts, that without context, paint me as a giant homer. I’m not posting about these rankings as an Ohio State fan. I’m posting about these rankings based on what I think the committee is going to do. But yes let’s look out for the hidden agenda of GrantNKY telling us why Purdue, one of two teams in the country with 3 wins against the committees top 25, should be ranked instead of teams like Washington. If you think I’m only posting things to fit some hidden agenda I have, then just stop engaging with my posts.

Ah there it is. The old “he can’t be objective about this because his team is in the discussion” My team has one agenda and one agenda only: play better. Just ignore the words I’m saying and paint me in whatever light you want because I’m an OSU fan. Ignore the fact that I’ve said OSU is where they deserve to be. Ignore the fact that I’ve said LSU is where they deserve to be. In fact just keep ignoring the majority of my posts and just highlight the parts of my posts, that without context, paint me as a giant homer. I’m not posting about these rankings as an Ohio State fan. I’m posting about these rankings based on what I think the committee is going to do. But yes let’s look out for the hidden agenda of GrantNKY telling us why Purdue, one of two teams in the country with 3 wins against the committees top 25, should be ranked instead of teams like Washington. If you think I’m only posting things to fit some hidden agenda I have, then just stop engaging with my posts.

I don't care if you have an agenda or not or if you admit it or not.

 

You're just being a fan, no fault in that.

I don't care if you have an agenda or not or if you admit it or not.

 

You're just being a fan, no fault in that.

Yeah I’m being a fan of college football. Believe it or not I don’t let my fandom for Ohio State keep me from being a rational fan of the sport of college football. The reason I’m saying Purdue should be ranked isn’t because they beat Ohio State it’s because there is so much consensus near the top that if chaos does happen who is in the back part of the polls matters because now it becomes a question of who did you beat and I think the rankings should reflect who the best teams are and while Purdue has some head scratching losses, they have great wins. For example the ACC is getting entirely too much love in this poll. Clemson can drop a game now and still have no issues getting in where as before I didn’t think that was the case. This is the stuff that intrigues me right now.