Wisconsin Badgers Thread | Fick got the Axe back

[wgbeethree]

2 minutes ago, bkobow05 said:

Don't forget Fresno State! (chuckles because Fresno has no business being ranked other than for the purpose of buffing up Bama's resume). 

Ugh. Of course when I switched to see their schedules they used different rankings. 

[Jetfan66]

59 minutes ago, wgbeethree said:

It doesn't even seem like their own rankings matter.

UCF is undefeated with wins over THEIR #16 and #23 schools. Alabama has a loss and wins over THEIR #17 and #24 schools. Theirs literally ZERO ways you can make that logically make sense.

Now I 100% believe Alabama is the better team but based on what THEY say matters and THEIR rankings I just don't see how they can rationalize that. 

The eye test is a large determining factor in the rankings. They say as much. Which, coupled with your last statement explains why Alabama is ranked above UCF.

[Rodjahs12]

This game really all depends on what JT Barrett shows up because everyone knows the Wisconsin defense will bring a great showing as it has all season long. When Barrett plays any defense that's this good, he can easily rack up 2 or 3 turnovers quickly and this game could be ugly early. 

 

If "good" Barrett shows up, I have a difficult time seeing the Wisconsin offense keeping pace.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Rodjahs12

[RandyMossIsBoss]

10 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Yeah agreed. It was probably less Hornibrook and more Bama-level defense than we expected going into the year. But it's a relevant footnote that we did need Hornibrook to carry the team once this year.

Agreed. I definitely did not expect a relatively easy 12-0 with Hornibrook throwing a handful of truly awful passes every game, but at the same time he did improve. Certainly didn't make the strides I'd hoped for or assumed we would need, but when he's on in 2017 >>> when he was on in 2016. 

 

I am going to stick with that sentiment though and say that we won't beat OSU, or anyone in the CFP if we make it, if Hornibrook does not play well. Of course I'll have no complaints if the defense can continue proving me wrong and winning us games in spite of Horni's bouts of ineptitude...

[ramssuperbowl99]

If the committee came out and said they just pick the best teams in their opinion each week and didn't try to justify it, it'd be whatever and you couldn't argue it. But the criteria completely changes each week and for each team. All we heard about with Wisconsin was the non-conference schedule and lack of quality wins from the committee. So then the committee picks Bama, who's played no one non-conference and beaten no one all year, over Georgia for the 5th spot? How does that make sense?

[Pugger]

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

If the committee came out and said they just pick the best teams in their opinion each week and didn't try to justify it, it'd be whatever and you couldn't argue it. But the criteria completely changes each week and for each team. All we heard about with Wisconsin was the non-conference schedule and lack of quality wins from the committee. So then the committee picks Bama, who's played no one non-conference and beaten no one all year, over Georgia for the 5th spot? How does that make sense?

It doesn't, really.  The only reason Bama is in the top 10 is because of what they have done the past few years IMO.  Bama's SOS might be even weaker than ours.

I saw most of the "experts" think we only have a 35% chance to beat OSU Saturday night.  That tells it all.

[BobbyPhil1781]

13 hours ago, titans0021 said:

Nevermind.

You really, honestly think you're better than Auburn?....... You're serious?

[BobbyPhil1781]

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

If the committee came out and said they just pick the best teams in their opinion each week and didn't try to justify it, it'd be whatever and you couldn't argue it. But the criteria completely changes each week and for each team. All we heard about with Wisconsin was the non-conference schedule and lack of quality wins from the committee. So then the committee picks Bama, who's played no one non-conference and beaten no one all year, over Georgia for the 5th spot? How does that make sense?

B/c it's irrelevant b/c if Georgia beats Auburn, they're in. If they don't, they're not. Don't really see why ranking a team one spot ahead of the other, when they're only loss is a mutual opponent and Georgia got beat much more substantially, is a big deal.

[MWil23]

From a B1G Title game standpoint, I honestly think that Wisconsin is a VERY difficult matchup for OSU.

1. All year this team has been an absolute disaster covering Tight Ends. That's a strength for Wiscy.

2. While this Front 7 is VERY difficult to run on, teams with good fullbacks, interior OL, and blocking TE's have made it possible. UM and Iowa come to mind.

3. Wiscy's tenacious run defense against OSU's running attack and average at best passing game are a major concern.

If Hornibrook plays turnover free football, Wisconsin has a great chance of winning.

[ramssuperbowl99]

50 minutes ago, JTagg7754 said:

B/c it's irrelevant b/c if Georgia beats Auburn, they're in. If they don't, they're not. Don't really see why ranking a team one spot ahead of the other, when they're only loss is a mutual opponent and Georgia got beat much more substantially, is a big deal.

Because it's a perfect example of how inconsistently the criteria the committee says they are beholden to is applied.

[Packerraymond]

From looking at their rankings it seems the committee will all get together this Saturday, hold hands and pray that either WI or Oklahoma lose so they can put their precious Bama back in the top 4. Miss State and Fresno State in the top 25? Lol are you kidding me?

[BobbyPhil1781]

2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Because it's a perfect example of how inconsistently the criteria the committee says they are beholden to is applied.

If it were like four spots, yes, I get it, but it's only one. Is it really that big of a deal that you disagree w/ how a team is ranked by one spot? And again, they both have loss to one team and Georgia lost by a much larger margin and looked way worse against them.

Regardless, the kicker is; it's better than what we had before!

Edited November 29, 2017 by JTagg7754

[titans0021]

2 hours ago, JTagg7754 said:

You really, honestly think you're better than Auburn?....... You're serious?

I really, honestly think that an undefeated Power 5 school shouldn't be ranked below a two-loss team. Call me crazy, but I think the top emphasis in ranking teams should be, you know, winning football games.

As rams said, if the committee is just using the CFP as their own personal power rankings, whatever. But they use different reasonings for different programs to try to justify their nonsense.

If it makes you feel better, I find it equally ridiculous that a 12-0 Big Ten team is ranked behind a team that lost to Syracuse.

[BobbyPhil1781]

Just now, titans0021 said:

I really, honestly think that an undefeated Power 5 school shouldn't be ranked below a two-loss team. Call me crazy, but I think the top emphasis in ranking teams should be, you know, winning football games.

As rams said, if the committee is just using the CFP as their own personal power rankings, whatever. But they use different reasonings for different programs to try to justify their nonsense.

If it makes you feel better, I find it equally ridiculous that a 12-0 Big Ten team is ranked behind a team that lost to Syracuse.

That's such an elementary way of looking at things. C'mon now. You guys have played crap this year and there's no denying it while they're taking out big dogs left and right. I get what you're saying but if you leave context out of this then there's no point to having a committee and no one will schedule tougher opponents. Just going by the numbers would be a recipe for disaster and then you have teams like UCF throwing their hands up saying "what about us??" and they've played tougher opponents than you have.

[titans0021]

Just now, JTagg7754 said:

That's such an elementary way of looking at things. C'mon now. You guys have played crap this year and there's no denying it while they're taking out big dogs left and right. I get what you're saying but if you leave context out of this then there's no point to having a committee and no one will schedule tougher opponents. Just going by the numbers would be a recipe for disaster and then you have teams like UCF throwing their hands up saying "what about us??" and they've played tougher opponents than you have.

Is taking out big dogs left and right code for taking out two teams whose best combined win is Notre Dame?