Quote:
Originally Posted by nickerjones
Their best win is a 4-4 Texas team. They almost choked games off to Kansas and Tulane. They aren't Alabama. Im an Oklahoma fan and understand the ranking. But if they win out they have to be in .... right?
I'm convinced they should just make a conference of the top 10 teams the media loves (Bama, GA, Clemson, OU, Oregon, Ohio State etc) and let them play a schedule against each other and for a National Title.
The other 100 or so schools then play for another lesser national title.
How Alabama is ranked in the Top 4 after losing to Texas A&M is beyond me. How Oregon is ranked below Ohio State after beating them is silly. I understand the NCAA is all about money and the money is in the Bama and Ohio States being in the playoffs. It sucks but what can ya do?
|
These rankings have generated a ton of controversy because the general feeling is that the committee is setting it up to put in two SEC teams.
However, the committee uses very strict criteria. One of those being “how would other teams fare if they played each other’s schedules”. Plus SOS and margin of victory etc.
So you’re absolutely right OU simply doesn’t have the resume to this point. It also provides a good reason as to why Bama is in despite their loss and why Wake is 9th. Even why Cincy is 6th.
Going undefeated used to be the ultimate measuring stick. But all it did was encourage puffball schedules and teams with hilariously bad out of conference schedules.
SEC and B1G are the only conferences that are good enough to make it based on intra conference play.
For better or worse, losing a game isn’t a huge deal anymore. It’s all about who you play and how you play. Having a bad week and losing to a mediocre team no longer ends your season.