(Sorry I’m late to rant against committee but I’m still processing)
It’s counterintuitive but true that when you lose to good/ranked teams, specifically ranked near you in the polls w/ same # of L’s, then you’re actually at a disadvantage because the human element applies a head-to-head test and ranks you behind those teams.
However, those same human evaluators would never suggest that the by Bama & Ole Miss to Vanderbilt or Kentucky suggest that Vanderbilt or Kentucky are better than them. Never mind that because vandy & UK are shitty.
It’s too illogical for me to acknowledge that Vandy/UK aren’t better than Bama/ole miss because best team doesn’t always win H2H doesn’t matter; yet, Bama/ole miss are better than Georgia because of H2H. I would understand if our argument wasn’t supported by quality wins but we have more high-quality wins &/also “better” losses. Crazy!
It’s counterintuitive but true that when you lose to good/ranked teams, specifically ranked near you in the polls w/ same # of L’s, then you’re actually at a disadvantage because the human element applies a head-to-head test and ranks you behind those teams.
However, those same human evaluators would never suggest that the by Bama & Ole Miss to Vanderbilt or Kentucky suggest that Vanderbilt or Kentucky are better than them. Never mind that because vandy & UK are shitty.
It’s too illogical for me to acknowledge that Vandy/UK aren’t better than Bama/ole miss because best team doesn’t always win H2H doesn’t matter; yet, Bama/ole miss are better than Georgia because of H2H. I would understand if our argument wasn’t supported by quality wins but we have more high-quality wins &/also “better” losses. Crazy!
Last edited:
