And Auburn's loss? What was that?
They lost by almost the same margin at home.
Indeed... and then they turned around and beat Florida.
What comparable team has Notre Dame beaten thus far? Georgia Tech? Please.
Let ND beat USC, and THEN we'll be able to compare Auburn and ND. Until then, I can't honestly say I have a problem with Auburn's ranking either. They've proven they can beat a top-10 program. ND hasn't... not yet, anyway.
Here's my main point: there are a lot of different arguments that can be made right now about where to rank all the 1-loss teams, many of them quite valid. The only obvious screw-jobs I can really see are both Auburn and Tennessee being ranked lower than teams that they've beaten, and even then, hey... Auburn beat Florida who beat Tennessee who beat California, but Auburn lost at home to Arkansas... except Arkansas is playing pretty well and only has one loss so far to... guess who? USC. So by head-to-head logic, the rankings right now should be USC, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee then California. Except USC just lost to an unranked team. Good luck ranking THAT mess without getting a headache.
And THEN on top of THAT, you have to slip in Notre Dame, plus take sidelong glances at 1-loss teams Texas, Wake Forest and Boston College, AND figure out how seriously to take undefeated West Virginia, Louisville and Rutgers.
Excederin, please. Make it a double.
And in the end, what are we talking about anyway? ND being #10 instead of #8, with over a month of football left to play. Is that really worth this much noise?
I just don't see bias here. I see a very muddled ranking picture, and no matter what system you come up with to rank it, someone else is going to come up with a very well-thought-out rebuttal to it, and some other clown is going to cry "Bias!"
Just win out. It's cliched, but still true.
