Search results

ND and Miami should both be ahead of OU. And Bama, frankly. But I doubt that happens.

Well then I guess it isn't really a rule?

Yeah, I mean, 1993 called. That's never been the rule that is actually applied.

I would move 1 down to 3, but yes. The two toughest games should not be the first two games of the year when the team is finding their footing, because then a stumble results in a loss. Or, this year, two. This isn't "excuse-making" for the coaches/players, because we definitely should have won...

That's the issue, we don't know that.

Last year the losers dropped, they just didn't drop out. We don't know what will happen this year.

It was basically chalk, so no?

So it will change in the future. It's a joke.

The main piece of bad luck was OU beating Bama

I mean so was NIU but it didn't end up keeping us out of the playoffs. If we are left out, A&M is up there.

The A&M loss was the worst loss I've seen since following ND (2013 to now), because of the stakes (because it was the second loss) and because we led late at home.

It doesn't seem like the committee wants to drop a team after a win.

Which wins are those, again? Tennessee? What?

OU didn't look good last week either, they didn't move us up.

Right, but 1993 happened and that's all that matters. No reason to apply a rule to screw us now when it wasn't applied in the past to benefit us.

The problem is that has never been the rule that is actually applied, see, e.g., 1993. Head-to-head is treated as relevant but not dispositive.

Both were easy wins; beyond that, I don't think, say, a margin of 25 vs. 35 vs. 45 matters very much.

OSU winning helps us. But the favorites are winning both games, I'm not sure what people expected to happen?

To what? 9? 10? They aren't going to drop to 20 or something.

Yeah, okay, but they're 11-1. Sagarin has them 6th and 5-0 vs. the top 30. They aren't "seriously unimpressive."