UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

They played one good team and lost, and their schedule is easier than ours.

Franklin is more of a fraud than Brian Kelly.

They are around the same level of team as Miami, neither of which should be in the top 10.

and it's not even us vs them thing for me, even though I think we're better.

If they were 7 with us at 8 I'd be OK with that, but having them at 4 is just laughable.

like us, very good linebackers like us, an ok defensive line like us, and a mediocre offensive line, we are better just younger. Their QB is erratic, makes mistakes yet makes great plays. Ours is improving and playing better every game and is more consistent. We are slightly better overall but I remember we had better teams in 1981 we lost, in 1987 we lost, in 1990 we lost, and should have beaten them in 1982 and 1986 in their national championship years. They absolutely have the Big 10 refs on their side and don't necessarily over achieve(because they are never that good), but for some reason get a better result than they deserve almost all the time.

I want to play them in the elite 8 so badly and kick their overrated, referee aided asses!

That would be awesome, if only because of the rivalry.

(no message)

they are 3-1 vs ranked teams.
.

Which they won by 3.

They smell.

(no message)

ND has a tough schedule.

I said ND had a weak schedule all off season, before the season when we didn't know FSU and USC would be this bad.

I'm certainly not going to argue we have a tough schedule now. But if someone wants to speak in terms of record vs ranked teams, there is a recognized standard for that which has been in place since rankings existed. It doesn't necessarily speak to schedule strength as much as it does to how you did vs the perceived better teams you played on your schedule. If you play 3 teams ranked 15, 18, and 23 but the rest of your teams are outside the top 100 while another team plays 3 teams ranked 9, 13, and 15 with the rest of their schedule being top 50 type teams.

Both played 3 ranked teams but who played the tougher schedule?

If ND plays 3 teams who were ranked when we played them but the rest of the schedule is dog shit, is it not true we have a weak schedule but played against 3 teams that were ranked?

If we beat those 3 teams but lose to some shitty teams (ala NIU) can both things not be true?

Because they don't care that Michigan was ranked #10 when they played.

ND, current top 25 victories =
A&M, Louisville

Scroll to the far right column labeled "POLLS" where it shows how every FBS team in every conference has done vs Top 25 from both the AP and Coaches polls.

Link: College Football Standings - 2024

So what if 5-5 Michigan was #10 when they played, or 5-5 OK ranked at #18 or 6-4 Vandy at #25? Are you suggesting that whatever team beats these teams this week is less impressive because of bullshit early season rankings?

#7 at 8-0
Is more impressive than #7 at 1-0

they are a popular opinion, taken by a vote, of how good a team was thought to be at that time.

It may not be perfect (it isn't) but it's the best you can do in a sport with this many teams who don't all play each other and have major scheduling disparities...until after the season when all is said and done.

When you take the rankings for what they are (a popular opinion) it's easy to understand that you can only go by what it was at the time the game was played, because the result of the game will alter the popular opinion.

How can anyone ever claim to have beaten the #1 team, if that team drops to #5 "because" you beat them.

And the discussion about formerly ranked teams with 3 and 4 losses now

You’re mixing apples and oranges

Thankfully the CFP committee knows what to do and doesn’t considered a team with 3 losses or 4 losses as a quality win/opponent

I completely understand the difference between the arguments. The ones mixing it up are the ones who think ND being 3-0 vs ranked teams means we have a tough schedule.

I only corrected the original statement saying they had no Top 25 wins.

(no message)

more credit for it than we did...like it or not, wrong or right, it IS what happened.

GA Tech was unranked with ZERO vote/points before they beat FSU. After beating them they jumped up to being ranked #23 with 161 vote/points. They barely beat them while we blew the doors off FSU with our backups beating them worse than Tech did after we pulled our starters to show mercy...but we gained only 29 vote/points vs their 161 and we moved up two spots only because two teams in front of us lost.

And you can't say this is because they still thought FSU was good, they dropped FSU completely out of the Top 25 in the very same poll where they propelled GA Tech in. This is because it isn't about how good the team actually is now, after you or others beat them...you get credit for how good the team was thought to be when you beat them.

Just like weather you like it or not, the way ranked wins are (and always have been) tracked is by what the team was ranked when you played them. How would you ever have a win over a #1 ranked team when their ranking drops "after" you beat them.

This isn't something I made up (you can see it on ESPN by scrolling over to the "POLLS" column in this link) and I'm not telling you how much to value it or defending Texas' sos...I'm just telling you (factually) if speaking in terms of record vs ranked teams, this IS how it is tracked, like it or not.

Your feelings in one hand, facts in the other hand...you do you!


Link: College Football Standings - 2024

The point of this thread is that Texas isn't deserving of it's lofty ranking based on their resume.

I understand how the wins vs top 25 metric is determined, my point is "why does that matter?"

The thread was started with this statement "UT #3 with no top 25 wins. Best W= Vanderbilt".

To answer your question "why does that matter?" ..I didn't say that it mattered, as I didn't defend Texas or their schedule. I simply pointed out that the 'no top 25 wins' part is not accurate, because HE SAID IT and it's not accurate.

Because that is just another thing you are clearly wrong about.

And what was this bullshit about the 2014 game against FSU if you weren't addressing the topic of the post?

That was quite the signature win for Georgia Tech over FSU!

For this argument, when evaluating teams resumes, we get the advantage now of looking at how good teams actually turned out to be. The ranking at the time they played is meaningless.


Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=viewall&forumid=6&msgid=562222

(no message)

As if they were a better team now but then got bad

Complete and utter bullsh*t

say #5 they are going to be a tougher team at that time because their attitude and belief in themselves is much better. I think it is a combination of "at the time" and "at the end". As Chris B says something similar below, if you are number 1 and get beat by a team and say drop to 5, you were a difficult team to beat at the time you were number 1 than number 5.

And are now unranked

Your example has nothing to do with what we are talking about

A high ranking can just as easily create overconfidence and complacency.

When trying to evaluate and rank teams, you have to look at how good the teams played in the aggregate, not point in time based on a highly subjective metric such as ranking (popularity contest). The SOS and SOR metrics reevaluate each week. When the committee looks at quality wins, they don't consider ranking at the time.

There are other factors you can consider such as injuries, but if we look at the body of evidence, which team do you think is actually better, Texas or Georgia? Would Texas have fared as well as Georgia with the same schedule? Note: UGA beat Texas 30-15.

If the polls were wrong in week 2, what guarantee is there that they're right in week 8. If the polls have any credibility, then of course the ranking at the time they played is what should matter. If ND goes in and beats the number 5 team in week 3, that's what they should get credit for. The victor shouldn't be penalized or held accountable for what happens to their opponent after they've been beaten. In other words SOS based on opinion polls is bs and shouldn't be a metric in the first place.

Remember 1-9 FSU was #10 at the beginning of the season. Do you think GT should get more credit for beating them 24-21 than ND should for beating them 52-3?

I think the opinions of sports writers and coaches in determining who the best teams are should be minimized as much as possible. It's a fool's errand to think that opinion polls are going to accurately determine who the best team is. I understand that implementing a system similar to the NFL is probably not possible, but I do think that's a much more accurate way of determining who the best team is. Additionally, under the current system the best teams can easily be eliminated from even competing for a national championship if they have more than 2 or 3 losses. The system is not capable of determining who is the best team on the day of the national championship game. I think it could be argued that in 1992 a 3 loss ND team was the best team in the country by the end of the year.

(no message)

it took a terrible homer call for #3 FSU (who went 13-0) to steal a W from us in Tallahassee, or on Nov 29th, 2014 when we lost 5 of our last 6 regular season games to finish 7-5?

the season wore on. We were injured later that year and obviously were worse than at the time we played FSU that year.

(no message)

Winston was lights out in the second half, even giving them a chance to win, but we all know the zebras took it from us in the end.

When you go to Tallahassee or any ACC road game, you can't put the game in the officials' hands...

They had 11 players drafted the following spring including number 1 overall, we had 1 (Koyack in the 7th). Any way you slice it, they were the better team that year.

You just showed you have no interest in discussing, you just want your way.

I mean, they got their asses kicked by Oregon, but ND got their asses kicked by a mediocre USC. ND was not the fifth best team in the country at any point in that season.

What is bullshit is using one game from 10 years ago to try to make the point that Texas' accomplishments to date are somehow impressive.

play our best. Your opponent and their toughness has something to do with your performance every game. Come on man!

Like with the scenario at hand, we received a hyped ranking because we beat a Michigan team that ended up 5-7.

We had a relatively healthy defense for the 1st half of the season, along with once in a lifetime talent leading it (Jaylon Smith). Smith was so good, that even with Brian Van Gorder's garbage playcalling, that the defense put up somewhat respectable numbers in the 1st half (until the UNC game).

By the time the UNC game came around, there were already quite a few injuries, thanks to Paul Longo's "strength and conditioning" program's effects, along with terrible luck.

It only got worse after the Navy game, where we lost several of our starters to those cheap near chop-blocks, especially the one that put Joe Schmidt out for the year. By the year's end, we were starting 4th string guys on the defensive line.

At that point, even Jaylon Smith's talent and abilities couldn't cover up the multitude of holes that opposing offenses definitely gashed, combined with Van Gorder's stupidity. Seriously, who in his right mind continually calls Cover 2 and Cover 3 against spread offense teams that mostly throw dink and dunk passes?

(no message)

I can’t believe this discussion is even happening.

(no message)

If Team A beats unranked Team B at the beginning of the season and Team B rises to the top 5 by the end of the season, would anyone really make the argument that "well, Team B wasn't ranked when they played". Pure silliness.