Miami 6
Clemson 9
Pitt 20
SMU 23
Syracuse 31
Louisville T37
Clemson 9
Pitt 20
SMU 23
Syracuse 31
Louisville T37
20th in the coaches poll
- Thread starter Joe the Panther Fan
- Start date
We moved ahead of the two teams who lost (Oklahoma and Utah) and also passed up two Big Ten teams that were ahead of us last week (Illinois and Michigan).
What with all the Big Ten bias it's surprising that we could even move up as many spots as we did.
Does coach prime number of toes have a vote and if so where did he put us?
We moved ahead of the two teams who lost (Oklahoma and Utah) and also passed up two Big Ten teams that were ahead of us last week (Illinois and Michigan).
What with all the Big Ten bias it's surprising that we could even move up as many spots as we did.
I forgot we were 24 in the coaches, not 22.
Regardless like I said, just keep plugging!!
He does not, but in any event they do not release the votes of the coaches in the regular season.
Yeah I was expecting to jump up around 4-5 spots in each poll. Totally forgot we were 24 not 22 in the coaches, so I was expecting around 18-17. That’s what I expect in the ap.
20th in the AP as well.
Miami 6
Clemson 10
Pitt 20
SMU 21
Syracuse T33
Louisville 36
Miami 6
Clemson 10
Pitt 20
SMU 21
Syracuse T33
Louisville 36
Ole Miss at 15 (2 P5 wins @ South Carolina and @ Wake and 2 losses) and Missouri (got destroyed by their only real test, BC win at home is solid at best, like winning @ South Carolina) at 16 is head scratching.
BYU, Indiana and Pitt not getting a fair shake as early undefeateds.
BYU, Indiana and Pitt not getting a fair shake as early undefeateds.
When's the last time Army and Navy were both ranked in the AP poll? Good for those guys...
How high do you want an Indiana team that has beat absolutely nobody to be ranked? If we were ten games into the season, sure. But the level of competition has been way too diverse to rank teams based solely on their record right now.
Charlotte, FIU, Western Illinois, UCLA, Maryland, Northwestern
Where should be put them - ahead of Georgia? It's not like they're unranked. They're getting some respect for getting through that G5 schedule undefeated.
Using the Athletics ranking of all teams through last week's games, Indiana has beaten, in order, 110, a 2-4 FCS team, 95, 97, 70 and 82.
You would expect their record to be exactly the same if they were the 50th best team in the country.
Just for fun, our six opponents were ranked 134 (last), 73, 50, a 2-5 FCS team, 66 and 45. Certainly not a murderer's row, but much tougher than what Indiana has faced.
My goodness, was Westingtonhouse not able to pull off travel accommodations to IU?
I don't see how anyone could want a team that has played that schedule to be higher than where they're ranked.
I mean they could be as good as they are ranked. But I don't know how anyone could pretend to know that at this point. They have to play someone with a pulse before you can figure that out.
Anymore, it's crazy how different schedules within the same conference can be, also. Miami could theoretically avoid anyone else in the top 3-4 of the ACC.
BTW, for all the bitching about Johnny McGonigal keeping his vote even though he is now covering Penn State, there are only two writers in the poll who have Pitt ranked higher than he does. He has us 16th this week. A guy from the Atlanta Journal Constitution has us ranked 11th and a guy from CBS Austin has us ranked 14th.
There are still two people who did not put us in their top 25, one from San Jose and one from Baton Rouge.
There are still two people who did not put us in their top 25, one from San Jose and one from Baton Rouge.
We're 6-0 but could just as easily be 3-3. I'm thankful for the ranking because it gives us some national recognition.
However, the nice thing about rankings this year is that they don't predetermine if a team makes the playoffs.
If we win our conference championship, we are in the playoffs. So, if we just keep winning, we'll be going to where we want to be.
Having said that, I recognize that our schedule is a lot more challenging than some want to admit. SYRACUSE 5-1, @SMU 5-1, UVA 4-2, CLEMSON 5-1, @ LOUISVILLE 4-2, and @ BOSTON COLLEGE 4-2 is a worthy undertaking. Every one of those teams has a winning record.
Many years ago, when we started 5-0, we finished 1-5. I think this team, however, could have some special chemistry. I'm looking forward to going 6-0 from here out, but like the coaches say, we need to go 1-0 each week.
Let's go, Pitt.
However, the nice thing about rankings this year is that they don't predetermine if a team makes the playoffs.
If we win our conference championship, we are in the playoffs. So, if we just keep winning, we'll be going to where we want to be.
Having said that, I recognize that our schedule is a lot more challenging than some want to admit. SYRACUSE 5-1, @SMU 5-1, UVA 4-2, CLEMSON 5-1, @ LOUISVILLE 4-2, and @ BOSTON COLLEGE 4-2 is a worthy undertaking. Every one of those teams has a winning record.
Many years ago, when we started 5-0, we finished 1-5. I think this team, however, could have some special chemistry. I'm looking forward to going 6-0 from here out, but like the coaches say, we need to go 1-0 each week.
Let's go, Pitt.
But Indiana has won by an average of 33 points We've had to sweat quite a few out.
ESPN's models seem to like both of our strength of records thus far: ESPN SOR
We shall see. Indiana and Nebraska this week should be interesting.
Each week present it's different challenges. I like that we have won lots of different ways. It tells me this team is more complete than some, myself included, thought.
SOR would be pretty close to CFP rank. If the CFP rankings were tomorrow, we'd be Top 10 because the resume is pretty good. I'm not sure Danny Kanell has any official vote but he tweeted that he ranks Pitt #9 based on resume. That's about right. Our resume is 8-10. CFP ranks resumes.
You always get people at polar opposite ends of the spectrum with this stuff:
Some place a heavy emphasis on having zero losses because they argue that team has beaten everyone on its schedule and therefore achieved the maximum level of success that was possible. They're the ones who would want a 12-0 G5 team in a 4-team playoff.
Others want to go by what the Vegas spread would be if two teams would meet, and they'd want a 9-3 LSU team in over said 12-0 G5 team.
At the end of the day, I would think the metrics that measure success rate (i.e. not just point differential, thus adjusting for style of play) would be the best way to go, though nothing is perfect when the schedules are so ridiculously different.
Right now, does Pitt or Clemson have a better resume?
Clemson
Georgia - lost by 31
App State - won by 46
NC State - won by 24
Stanford - won by 26
FSU - won by 16
Wake - won by 35
I'm pretty confident we would be 5-1 at best against that schedule. And I'm pretty confident the 5 wins would have been by a lot less points. I'm pretty confident they would be 6-0 against our schedule and the wins would have been by more points. And if we played them on a neutral field I'm guessing it'd be something like Clemson -14.5, if not more. So who has the better resume? Cause many would argue it's Pitt, and I would disagree. We just so happened to play an FCS team whereas they played a top 5 team in the country.
Who woulda thunk we would be top 20 this quickly after last year.
Not I. I figured a 5 win season, 6 if we were lucky. Glad to be wrong
Well sure. That tends to happen when one team plays some decent opponents and the other team has not.
Similar threads
