You seem to place a lot of emphasis on losses over wins.
by revressbo (2021-11-10 18:32:14)
Edited on 2021-11-10 18:33:27

In reply to: Arguably 2015 MSU over Ohio St, based on head to head.  posted by rockmcd

Post Reply Return to Rock's House

I’m forming that opinion based on your head-to-head opinion, but also on your second paragraph. I do not agree that MSU’s resume would’ve been enhanced if their Michigan and Nebraska results had flipped, I think it would’ve been the opposite.

I find big wins much more impressive than avoiding bad losses (assuming “bad” only means mediocre teams, like 2015 Nebraska or 2014 Virginia Tech or 2016 Pitt, and not absolutely terrible teams). It’s basically the difference between Clemson/OSU and Notre Dame over the past 5 years. I’d much rather have their results over the past half-decade than ours, and also think no one could argue they’ve been the better programs.

Semi-relatedly but distinct, I think Head-to-head is fine if teams are relatively similar in ability/resume. If hypothetically, we had lost to UC by 3 on the road or a neutral field, and teams like UNC, Wisconsin and USC had performed better this season, then I think our overall resume would maybe trump UC’s head-to-head if we each had a loss. But just because our schedule is a bit better this year in actual reality, I don’t think it’s better enough where it should trump an 11-point home loss head-to-head if we each finish with a loss.

Yes, I do in some instances.
by rockmcd  (2021-11-10 20:25:33)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

If we're talking about a Notre Dame team where there are genuine doubts about their ceiling, then I agree with what you're saying. But I think there have been other instances where the best team gets upset by the 2nd best team, who lost to the 3rd place team; and the tiebreaker goes to the 2nd best team.

One example of that is 2017 SEC West. Alabama got upset by Auburn, and Auburn got upset by LSU. Alabama and Auburn both had high ceilings, but I thought Alabama was the better team because I didn't think they were capable of getting upset by a team of LSU's caliber.