ADVERTISEMENT

NU #20

NJCat83588

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jun 5, 2001
8,874
506
113
Dropped 2 spots in the only poll that matters after a lackluster PU game. Seems about right.
 
North Carolina and Navy were due to pass us. I think the Stanford loss to Oregon is more important to our resume than how we played against Purdue. I could have seen anything from 17-20
 
After the top 10 or 12, there is either ranked or unranked. Right now, we are ranked. It does not matter much where this week as this coming week-end's game will do much more for our placement than last week's. A win probably puts us back into the mid-to high teens. A loss knocks us out of the rankings.
 
Why is Stanford so far ahead of us 11 vs 20? Same record and obviously we have the head to head and both of our losses are to top 12 teams. Also don't get how Michigan moved up and is now ahead of Utah
 
Why is Stanford so far ahead of us 11 vs 20? Same record and obviously we have the head to head and both of our losses are to top 12 teams. Also don't get how Michigan moved up and is now ahead of Utah

It's the eye test. Stanford have been much more impressive in their wins than has nu, and also better in their losses. Unlike NU, Stanford actually has a competent offense.
 
Why is Stanford so far ahead of us 11 vs 20? Same record and obviously we have the head to head and both of our losses are to top 12 teams. Also don't get how Michigan moved up and is now ahead of Utah
Stanford has the 28th ranked strength of schedule. We have the 43rd. We're 7-2 against the FBS. They're 8-2. We're 6-2 against the powers five. They're 7-2. We've been blown out or won close games (except for 2). They've lost close games (10 points and 2 points) and have won 6 games by at least 3 scores.
 
Why is Stanford so far ahead of us 11 vs 20? Same record and obviously we have the head to head and both of our losses are to top 12 teams. Also don't get how Michigan moved up and is now ahead of Utah
Because Stanford has only lost one more game and it was close. We have lost two and they were not close. Because Utah has lost twice recently while Mich has lost once in a controversial fashion.
 
Because Utah has lost twice recently while Mich has lost once in a controversial fashion.

How was Michigan's loss to MSU controversial? The punter just blew it. Not like there was a bad referee call or something.
 
It's the eye test. Stanford have been much more impressive in their wins than has nu, and also better in their losses. Unlike NU, Stanford actually has a competent offense.

At the same time, don't think Stanford's lines are as good as they have been in the past.

Better than most of the PAC, but the PAC doesn't have great line play.
 
Because Stanford has only lost one more game and it was close. We have lost two and they were not close. Because Utah has lost twice recently while Mich has lost once in a controversial fashion.
I really do not understand the emphasis on scores. One either wins the game or loses the game. Nothing else matters.
 
I really do not understand the emphasis on scores. One either wins the game or loses the game. Nothing else matters.
When you're trying to separate a dozen teams with 2 losses and 6 of those teams have similar strength of schedule, some subjectivity has to come into play as the committ is (supposed to be) watching the games. Watching the Iowa and Michigan games doesn't really give any points subjectively. Additionally, it shows the committee that if NU were in the playoff, they could be risking a terrible blowout game that no one wants to watch. Watching Michigan MSU, one could say that Michigan "hung in there" with a top 10 team and really had the game in there hands. As such, that tells the committee that if Michigan were in the playoff, they would put up a fight.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT