This is the year

NewPhoneWhoDis said:
AGAIN -- since it is this season's class, which one of the recruits that you haven't signed yet has helped you guys this season?
Click to expand...

I said Oregon is recruiting better than Michigan. Do you even present tense, bro?
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
What makes you think you would beat them? But, I am not sure what makes you think you would be favored against them on a neutral field.
Click to expand...

Most of the predictive models put Alabama and Oregon very close and Texas behind them. I'm not the only one who thinks this. It's why the committee has continued to put Oregon as the top one loss team.

ESPN FPI:
Alabama - 4th
Oregon - 5th
Texas - 8th

SP+:
Oregon - 4th
Alabama - 7th
Texas - 8th

Ford Ratings:
Oregon - 4th
Alabama - 6th
Texas - 10th

Sagarin Predictor:
Oregon - 3rd
Alabama - 6th
Texas - 9th

Action Network Power Ratings:
Oregon - 3rd
Alabama - 4th
Texas - 8th
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
I said -- Michigan and Oregon recruit very comparably. An Oregon fan is the one who said Oregon for sure recruits better than Michigan because of the last 1 or 2 years?!?!
Click to expand...

I was agreeing with you. The "on paper" talent is very comparable
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
The committee is telling you that they are the best 1 loss team. You are the one trying to argue with them.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm sure the conversation went like this:

Committee Member #1 - Texas has a better resume than Oregon, should we move them over Oregon?

Committee Chairman: Does a single person in this room think Texas would be favored over Oregon on a neutral field?

***Crickets***

Committee Chairman: Ok so we're keeping Oregon at 6
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
He was upset with me because I pointed out how much better Lanning is recruiting than Harbaugh.
Click to expand...

Lanning's 2023 and 2024 class has been better than Harbaugh's. I'm not sure I would say "much" better but it's definitely been better on paper.
 
duckboy33 said:
Lanning's 2023 and 2024 class has been better than Harbaugh's. I'm not sure I would say "much" better but it's definitely been better on paper.
Click to expand...

They are well behind Oregon both years.
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
They are well behind Oregon both years.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree. Michigan was in the top 20 both years. They were behind but I wouldn't say "well behind".

But I'm not really worried about comparing the program to Michigan. I'm just really excited that Oregon has closed well so far in 2024 and are in the picture for some more big time players in this class. Just need to pair that with a PAC 12 Championship and CFP appearance. Then we'll see this thing take off.
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
The committee is telling you that they are the best 1 loss team. You are the one trying to argue with them.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what your point is.

I don't think the committee has it right.
I laid out some of the reasons why.
Duckboy responded, but didn't really address some of the issues, IMO.
I acknowledged what he said and pointed out a few other things and asked if he would address those.

So, what's your point. Seems like we are having a civil discussion on Oregon v. the other 1 loss teams.
 
duckboy33 said:
Exactly. I'm sure the conversation went like this:

Committee Member #1 - Texas has a better resume than Oregon, should we move them over Oregon?

Committee Chairman: Does a single person in this room think Texas would be favored over Oregon on a neutral field?

***Crickets***

Committee Chairman: Ok so we're keeping Oregon at 6
Click to expand...
So, you are basically saying the eye test favors Oregon even though they haven't beaten a single ranked opponent.

FWIW, I seriously doubt the scenario you painted happened. There are a lot of people who would favor Bama and probably Texas over Oregon on a neutral field, primarily because they don't have a single good win.

I have thought the same thing regarding FSU over Washington. That has made zero sense. Washington should have been ranked above FSU even before their QB went down.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
I am not sure what your point is.

I don't think the committee has it right.
I laid out some of the reasons why.
Duckboy responded, but didn't really address some of the issues, IMO.
I acknowledged what he said and pointed out a few other things and asked if he would address those.

So, what's your point. Seems like we are having a civil discussion on Oregon v. the other 1 loss teams.
Click to expand...

My point is that ultimately the committee's opinion is the only one that matters.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
There are a lot of people who would favor Bama and probably Texas over Oregon on a neutral field, primarily because they don't have a single good win.
Click to expand...

Those people aren't on the committee.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
So, you are basically saying the eye test favors Oregon even though they haven't beaten a single ranked opponent.
Click to expand...

I mean, it's not just me. It's me, the committee and most of the advanced metrics. If the committee really believed Texas would be favored on a neutral field vs Oregon, there's no way Oregon would be ranked higher than them.

If you think the decision should be 100% resume based, I can respect that opinion. However, it's clear the committee uses predictive models to determine who the best team is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top