Our friendly neighbor in the Heisman punditsphere doesn't like us picking on Notre Dame. After we knocked on the Irish for losing at home to the Spartans, Heisman Pundit defended Chucky and the Loveable Gang of Overhyped Catholics with this defense:
We're all for keeping a human element to the rankings, and we like a ranking system that incorporates both human subjective analysis and systematic, qualitative rankings. I'm reminded of the idiotic "Moneyball" critics, who say that Billy Beane and statheads have no appreciation for the value of scouting. To the contrary, Beane and his minions combine the two; there's no advocacy of a computer/statistics-only approach to player evaluation. Likewise, we value a comprehensive approach to football team evaluations.
Now, to the point. While we do value 'our eyes' as a useful tool in evaluating teams, HP appears to be drunk in this post. How is "who beat who" twisted logic? I'm asking honestly. And how is it arbitrary? Aren't wins and losses what actually counts? Does it matter a lick if your eyes tell you that Baylor is a good team when they lose as many games as they do? Maybe in HP's world, but not in ours.
I'll offer something that I do think is illogical. Saying that Notre Dame shouldn't get knocked for losing at home to Michigan State. The "Michigan State tailspin theory" is just the usual "intangible storyline" malarkey.