I'm not convinced that a head-to-head where the home team wins is always dispositive. If they played on a neutral field or at TCU, then I can buy that argument. After all, Virginia Tech beat Ohio State at OSU. Using only head-to-head as the criterion, Virginia Tech would always be ranked ahead of Ohio State.Green Habit wrote:I'm guessing it's the whole Baylor/TCU controversy, since it's pretty blatant. Baylor beat TCU, and barring a circular tie like the infamous Texas/OU/TT mess of a few years ago, Baylor should be ahead of TCU, period. This might be a bigger screw job than Kansas getting in the BCS over Mizzou that one year despite the Tigers beating the Jayhawks.Chris_H_2 wrote:I assume you have a gripe with the current rankings. Anything in particular?
How would you feel if Baylor had lost another game to an opponent that TCU never played? From the sound of it, it shouldn't matter.
This is the problem I have with assigning rankings in general within an organization whose teams don't play the same schedules and don't play common opponents. It's just way too arbitrary. And by slotting a team into a "ranking," you're designating that team as better than every other team that is ranked lower. On Saturday morning, a team could be ranked No. 5, be better than the No. 6 ranked team (based purely on rankings) that is not in its conference or which plays 12 uncommon opponents and which does not even play a game that Saturday, and that No. 5 ranked team could lose to the No. 1 ranked team in the country and, by default, we're now ready to rank it lower than the previous No. 6 ranked team (suggesting that it is now somehow inferior to that team). It's just stupid.