For the SEC HOMERS, Texas A&M has one quality win in the SEC over Auburn and zero quality out of conference wins. They do not deserve to be ranked 4th. They beat UCLA that has a losing record. The final score against Alabama was 33-14, which means they are not competitive with the best of the best.
TEXAS A&M
- Thread starter CardinalStan
- Start date
I'd say pretty much everyone outside of the committee would agree with you on this. I am honestly not concerned with Texas A&M in the least.
The Big Ten love is what has me concerned. The high rank of Wisconsin, Nebraska and Penn State (most ridiculous rank of any team involved) set them up to have two teams. When (not if) OSU beats Michigan the Big 10 will secure two teams. Hope I am wrong as I do not think the Big Ten is worth a dime. Lot's of football left, but the committee set up Big 10.
The Big Ten love is what has me concerned. The high rank of Wisconsin, Nebraska and Penn State (most ridiculous rank of any team involved) set them up to have two teams. When (not if) OSU beats Michigan the Big 10 will secure two teams. Hope I am wrong as I do not think the Big Ten is worth a dime. Lot's of football left, but the committee set up Big 10.
I disagree. That would be Virginia Tech, who has lost to a shitty Syracuse and to an average Tennessee team.
That's fair Morgantown, my reasoning is really around all other metrics and the other polls. I think VA Tech is a couple spots lower than they should be (I think 21/22 is more appropriate). I just don't think Penn State is a team that should be any lower than 20.
Just personal opinion of course.
Just personal opinion of course.
They had already said that VT even if they win the ACC championship game would not make the playoff.
I've come to the conclusion that the CFP rankings and committee are biased and crooked. Everything is based on their opinion alone Having said that, I do agree with where they put Louisville. Louisville shit the bed against Virginia and Duke and it just didn't look good. If they had just kept handing out those beat downs consistently I'd have a different point of view.
I read an article the other day that said Texas A&M was in a good position because they still had 3 notable games left. The 3 notable games were Ole Miss, Miss St. and LSU I almost threw up. LSU yes but Ole Miss and Miss St are awful.
UCLA counts as a quality win for Texas A&M as do Arkansas and Tennessee. The committee can and does take into account where teams were physically a the time a game was played. UCLA was healthy coming into the season and started 3-2. Drew Rosen went down a couple of weeks ago and they have lost three games by a combined margin of 16 points with two of those on the road and the other versus Utah.
UT appears to be having personnel issues now, but they are still 5-3 and were undefeated and healthy when they visited TAMU. Arkansas is likewise 5-3 at this point.
I think TAMU is validly the highest ranked one loss team.
That's not why. Kirby Hocutt specifically said the reason A&M got ranked higher than Washington is because A&M beat 4 teams with winning records, vs. 2 for Washington. If you go beyond that, A&M's opponents are 38-26, Washington's opponents are 27-38. A&M's best win was Auburn, Washington's was Utah, so those are basically a wash. Later on in the season, this will change, and Washington will close the gap and overtake if they keep winning.
Outside of 2 or 3 teams the SEC sucks this year your football teams are playing like your basketball teams.
I'd say more like seven or eight. Everyone in the West is legitimate except Mississippi State. Ole Miss doesn't have a great record, obviously, but they are legit. They certainly are not losing to cream puffs. In the East Florida is legit (even if their offense does stink). Tennessee is a bit of a question mark now. They were fine until last Saturday. Now it appears they may implode. We'll see. A week ago I thought they would win out. Now I am not sure they beat UK.
Talk about spin. UCLA being a quality win is simply wishful thinking. If Louisville had beaten UCLA by the same score at the same time of the season, no one would be calling it a quality win. Just more excuses from SEC elitist who never seem to apply to other conferences. OSU with wins over ranked teams Oklahoma on the road and Wisconsin should be #4. Then there's the eye test and A&M falls below three teams on that accord. That 11 point win over South Carolina was something and two of their 7 wins are over Prairie View and N M state and they still have UTSA to play.
So I disagree that A&M is validly the highest ranked one loss team. I don't think it's Louisville either. I think it's OSU. But that could change as we all know.
It is not spin. UCLA without Rosen is not the same team they were September 2nd with Rosen. The committee knows that. As for Ohio State, to me they seem to be regressing rather than improving. Still, if A&M and OSU were reversed in the standings I would not argue. I don't see a lot of difference between the two (or either and Washington) in terms of the eye test. But I think it is perfectly valid to have A&M as the top one loss team.
Any of those 3 teams would get killed in the playoffs, OSU and Texas A&M don't have great quarterbacks. Both of them are just OK and Washijngton has a good quarterback but there defense is pretty basic. There defense is designed to stop the run they would get beat by a spread offense.
Trevor Knight (TAMU) is pretty good. Washington has a good defense. You have not seen them play. Spread offenses are not a big deal anymore.
I watched the Washington vs Utah game and if Utah had a half way decent quarterback Washington would have lost. The Utah quarterback was awful he couldn't make plays and he wasn't under pressure from the Washington defense. UW defense on the season only blitzes 9% of the game.
Louisville must have the best win in the entire season so far. A 42-point drubbing (that wasn't really that close) of the #2 or #3 team nationally. I guess one of the upcoming rankings will start to reflect that.
Didn't we recently beat them with a Frosh QB who didn't even know all the plays?
You're a fool, A&M has as a weak of a schedule as we do...probably weaker
yeah, but that was before they picked up Oklahoma's 3rd string qb...right cardlaw?
And does the committee understand that we beat a really good FSU team before we broke their spirit?
So, if committee takes in to count where teams were physically at the time, Louisville's total destruction of #3 FSU would place us in the CFP.
Yet the difference is Ohio State lost to Penn State, which wasn't considered to be a good team until recently and A&M lost to #1 Bama. As people have mentioned the polls are dynamic and only relevant at the time they come out.
I don't know FSU's personnel that well, but my understanding is they played that game with not only their star safety out, but there were three or four other defensive starters missing or hobbled. I just heard Heather Denetch mention that last week.
It has been my understanding for all three years that the committee takes injuries (then and now) into account when evaluating teams and individual games.
James was out against Louisville ....everyone else played and it still doesn't excuse a 43 point beat down...no way aTm should be over Unbeaten Washington and Ohio State-(who won Night Road games at Oklahoma and Wisconsin)...nobody has better wins IMO
Last edited:
On the one side (so far) we have UCLA, Auburn, Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama. On the other we have (so far) Clemson and FSU. That is 4-1 versus quality opponents versus 1-1. Put another way, they are 2-0 at home, 1-1 on the road and 1-0 neutral versus 1-0 at home and 0-1 on the road.
I think TAMU's SOS compares quite favorably to UL's.
I'm not disagreeing. I suspect the margin right now between A&M and OSU is pretty small. I thought that section of the rankings (4-7) would be Washington, A&M, OSU, UL in that order. I thought any one of Washington, A&M or OSU would be valid at #4 and still do. If none of them lose, I would not be surprised to see movement in that 4-6 range among them.
A&M has already played prairie view, New Mexico St, and they still have Texas San Antonio left. They are the same team we beat last year and would beat worse if we played them this year.
Rocky card, you forgot to mention we have been playing without one of our starting defensive backs Shaq Wiggins. CardLaw stated earlier the only reason we beat FSU by 43 points was because there starting safety was out. I guess the only reason our margin of victory isn't greater is because we have a starter out also.
Why do you continue to include UCLA? Injuries are a part of football right? OSU won a title using a 3rd string QB. The guy taking over at UCLA is pretty good and isn't the reason they have 6 losses. Arkansas is a decent team but nothing to brag about. But for you to continue with UCLA is just plain dumb. Make your arguments for A&M but please, get rid of UCLA. Maybe I should use Syracuse as a good win for Louisville? After all they beat Virginia Tech which is a better win than beating UCLA.
James would have returned 7 interceptions back for TD's, so FSU wins by 6.
I think CardLaw just likes messing with some of you.
Look at the Sagarin ratings. UCLA (3-5) is #29. Arkansas (5-3) is #42. Ole Miss (3-5), meanwhile, is #16. Duke, who was mentioned earlier is #63 and Syracuse, who you brought up is #76. That is why I mention UCLA as a quality win on A&M's schedule - because it is.
No I didn't. I never said anything of the sort. I responded to Easy's post with the information I heard first last week from Heather Denetch that several key defensive players for FSU missed the game. If she is correct - and I have no idea if she is or not - the committee will take that into account and somewhat downplay the significance of the win. The inverse of that is that with Texas A&M's win over UCLA, the committee evaluates as UCLA that week as opposed to UCLA now due to Josh Rosen now being out for the season.
EVERY YEAR we hear about the schools that have the best recruiting classes in the country and they are always the same. Alabama, FSU, Clemson, Ohio State but never Louisville. We hear that they are not only 2 deep in every position but they are 4 deep in every position.
So for you to use an excuse that one of their players were missing or even 2 or 3 of their players are missing is somewhat skewed.
So for you to use an excuse that one of their players were missing or even 2 or 3 of their players are missing is somewhat skewed.
If I made that excuse (or any excuse) then you would have a point. But I didn't. So what's your point?
So Sagarin is your bible? UCLA is 3-6 and common sense would dictate they are not a top 30 team. I guess if they finish the season 4-8 you will still include them as a quality win for A&M? The lengths you go to make argument are ridiculous.
