Author
Topic: 5+1+2
(Read 16562 times)

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #70 on:** December 03, 2018, 03:42:53 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on December 03, 2018, 03:25:35 PM

I don't like ESPN so much, but you look at their "advanced" rankings.

Football Power Index has ND at 7th, behind all of the teams mentioned above.
Team Efficiency ratings has ND at 6th, behind OU, UGA, UM, just ahead of LSU at 7th and OSU at 8th.

So other than the "damn that helmet is shiny" ranking, I don't see why ND should be in the CFP. I don't think they have a case that they're one of the best 4 teams in the country.

I absolutely despise Notre Dame so this is not easy for me but I'll defend the committee here:
Notre Dame has wins over #7 Michigan, #20 Syracuse, and #22 Northwestern. That isn't a bad schedule. They do have a lot of close wins and some of those raise questions (all wins by 8 points or less listed chronologically):

Over #7 Michigan by 7
Over Ball State by 8
Over Vanderbilt by 5
Over Pitt by 5
Over USC by 7

The close wins over BSU, Vandy, Pitt, and USC definitely raise questions but when a team is undefeated and did it against a decent schedule I'm willing to let that slide. I draw the line with UCF because they don't even have a single win over a ranked team. If UCF had one then I think they might have an argument and if they had 2+ with at least one being top-15 then I'd include them.

TyphonInc · « **Reply #71 on:** December 03, 2018, 03:43:31 PM »

The other option would to get rid of the 5th p5 conference, and take the 4 champs.

rolltidefan · « **Reply #72 on:** December 03, 2018, 03:44:43 PM »

Quote from: TyphonInc on December 03, 2018, 03:32:59 PM

aww. did your team get left out of the playoffs? so instead of being sad, you decided to poke the fan base that has an actual complaint about getting left out. how quaint.
Actually, I think enough of the power people don't like how this iteration of the playoffs is playing out, and I think if the next three years have this much controversy there will be a change.

what controversy? this is one of the most controversy choices we've seen them or the bcs have to make.
i think at this point we're getting bent out of shape looking for any reason to hate the system.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #73 on:** December 03, 2018, 03:46:41 PM »

Quote from: TyphonInc on December 03, 2018, 03:12:48 AM

Just make sure you and OFM are talking about the same thing.
He said 1v8 (Alabama vs. UCF) which would have a huge spread.
Compared to 1v4/5 (Alabama vs. OU/Georgia or OSU depending how the pie gets made.) all would have a closer spread; Georgia ~9, OU ~11.5, and OSU ~13.

That's right. My comment was just clarifying that crappier playoff games aren't a guarantee of all larger formats but of specific larger formats (those without first round byes for the regular season).

Cincydawg · « **Reply #74 on:** December 03, 2018, 03:47:24 PM »

Quote from: TyphonInc on December 03, 2018, 03:32:59 PM

aww. did your team get left out of the playoffs? so instead of being sad, you decided to poke the fan base that has an actual complaint about getting left out. how quaint.
Actually, I think enough of the power people don't like how this iteration of the playoffs is playing out, and I think if the next three years have this much controversy there will be a change.

UGA, as I stated clearly, should not be in the playoffs, so you post has nothing to do with what I posted, not a thing.
The playoffs are not going to change in a decade in my opinion. Very few people in power want that, almost no one, including university presidents.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #75 on:** December 03, 2018, 03:48:20 PM »

Quote from: TyphonInc on December 03, 2018, 03:43:31 PM

The other option would to get rid of the 5th p5 conference, and take the 4 champs.

Also not remotely likely.
Let's try to stay in reality here.

rolltidefan · « **Reply #76 on:** December 03, 2018, 03:51:09 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 03, 2018, 03:42:53 PM

I absolutely despise Notre Dame so this is not easy for me but I'll defend the committee here:
Notre Dame has wins over #7 Michigan, #20 Syracuse, and #22 Northwestern. That isn't a bad schedule. They do have a lot of close wins and some of those raise questions (all wins by 8 points or less listed chronologically):
Over #7 Michigan by 7
Over Ball State by 8
Over Vanderbilt by 5
Over Pitt by 5
Over USC by 7

The close wins over BSU, Vandy, Pitt, and USC definitely raise questions but when a team is undefeated and did it against a decent schedule I'm willing to let that slide. I draw the line with UCF because they don't even have a single win over a ranked team. If UCF had one then I think they might have an argument and if they had 2+ with at least one being top-15 then I'd include them.

i'm with you. i'm no nd apologist, but just because they didn't obliterate teams doesn't mean they aren't a good team themselves.
advanced metrics are good info to use, but i would hesitate to rely on them 100%. some of them tend highly overvalue teams with big point spreads and undervalue teams that just know how to win. until last couple years, bama is usually one of those undervalued teams that just won, but didn't always look great in the advance metrics because they didn't run up the score. but reality is bama has been one of if not the best team each season for over a decade now.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #77 on:** December 03, 2018, 03:51:15 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 03, 2018, 03:42:53 PM

I absolutely despise Notre Dame so this is not easy for me but I'll defend the committee here:
Notre Dame has wins over #7 Michigan, #20 Syracuse, and #22 Northwestern. That isn't a bad schedule. They do have a lot of close wins and some of those raise questions (all wins by 8 points or less listed chronologically):
Over #7 Michigan by 7
Over Ball State by 8
Over Vanderbilt by 5
Over Pitt by 5
Over USC by 7

The close wins over BSU, Vandy, Pitt, and USC definitely raise questions but when a team is undefeated and did it against a decent schedule I'm willing to let that slide. I draw the line with UCF because they don't even have a single win over a ranked team. If UCF had one then I think they might have an argument and if they had 2+ with at least one being top-15 then I'd include them.

So, wait...
Are we including teams based on the best resume, or are we selecting the 4 best teams in college football?
Are you saying that you legitimately think that Notre Dame is better than OU, UGA, UM, and OSU? Or are you just rewarding them because in all those close games, they managed to not actually suffer a loss. And that by avoiding a conference championship game against Clemson, because they're "independent", they should be rewarded?
I assume that had Iowa been "independent" and not have to play a conference championship game, they'd have been included in the CFP. But did anyone actually believe they were one of the 4 best teams at the end of the 2015 regular season?

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #78 on:** December 03, 2018, 03:51:23 PM »

Quote from: rolltidefan on December 03, 2018, 12:47:38 PM

i don't like conf champs getting auto bids, unless it comes with a caveat that they have to be ranked in top 10-12 or something. i don't want a 4-5 loss team getting lucky being in the right side of the divisions and having the game of their lives getting them in the playoffs. if you're 1 w/l swap away from being .500, you don't deserve a shot, i don't care what conf you won.

if you're a p5 champ with 0-2 losses, you'll almost always be in top 10. and those are the limits i'd put on a team deserving a title shot.

I go back-and-forth on this. Like you, I don't think that 7-5 Pitt and 8-4 Northwestern were legitimate contenders and to give them a one game and you are in shot last weekend would have been pretty silly. That said, including all P5 Champions does have a certain fundamental fairness. Suppose both had won this year. I'm guessing that the final rankings would have been:

13-0 Bama
12-0 Notre Dame
12-1 Oklahoma
11-2 Georgia
12-1 Clemson
11-2 Ohio State
10-2 Michigan
12-0 UCF
10-3 Washington

So the two at-large teams in a 5+1+1 would have been Notre Dame and Georgia and the first two out would have been Clemson and Ohio State. I would still believe that Clemson and Ohio State were better than Pitt and Northwestern but I'd have a hard time feeling sorry for Clemson and Ohio State losing their CFP spots to the teams that they lost to in the CG's.

LittlePig · « **Reply #79 on:** December 03, 2018, 03:51:42 PM »

Watering down the schedule is not the answer. If the Big Ten misses the playoffs, so be it.

The real key is when they do get in, don't lose 38-0 in the semi-finals.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #80 on:** December 03, 2018, 03:52:21 PM »

Quote from: TyphonInc on December 03, 2018, 01:33:30 PM

1- But you typically state that it's the SEC deserving that 2nd, or 3rd bid. Even when presented with evidence that another team is just as deserving. And we have have already seen the SEC offering. If I'm suggesting Georgia is that good, it's because of their team, not because of their conference.
2 - But the committee ranked them higher??? And perhaps I misread your previous post I thought you where campaigning Georgia inclusion due to Virtual Vegas odds makers? This was just an observation.
3 - Perhaps it writing style? You leave out those qualifying words like "I think" or "In my Opinion" so when you take a hard line stance I (and others) often read as an OAM fact. and you are right, these are merely our opinions.

On UGA and SEC/UGA/OSU:
I do think Georgia is one of the best 4 teams this year.
I would have OSU #4 on my playoff ranking.
I've just made note of the committee's BS...if UGA is one of the 4 best, they should be in, according to what the committee, itself, has said.

At the end of the day, pfffft….let's just go back to the old traditional bowl tie-ins, then play a +1 between #1 and #2 after the bowls.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #81 on:** December 03, 2018, 03:55:46 PM »

I don't put "I think" because I'm the one typing it, you know it's what I think. Something a writer once told me to stop doing.

rolltidefan · « **Reply #82 on:** December 03, 2018, 03:59:59 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 03, 2018, 03:51:23 PM

I go back-and-forth on this. Like you, I don't think that 7-5 Pitt and 8-4 Northwestern were legitimate contenders and to give them a one game and you are in shot last weekend would have been pretty silly. That said, including all P5 Champions does have a certain fundamental fairness. Suppose both had won this year. I'm guessing that the final rankings would have been:
13-0 Bama
12-0 Notre Dame
12-1 Oklahoma
11-2 Georgia
12-1 Clemson
11-2 Ohio State
10-2 Michigan
12-0 UCF
10-3 Washington

So the two at-large teams in a 5+1+1 would have been Notre Dame and Georgia and the first two out would have been Clemson and Ohio State. I would still believe that Clemson and Ohio State were better than Pitt and Northwestern but I'd have a hard time feeling sorry for Clemson and Ohio State losing their CFP spots to the teams that they lost to in the CG's.

i'd have a hard time feeling sorry for them if they got passed by someone somewhat deserving. pitt and nw would not fit that criteria.
it's less about feeling sorry for clemson/osu and them getting a second chance and more about not wanting to give nw and pitt their 5th and 6th chance to not f it up.
look at those likely rankings you posted. just take those and run with it. only one with possible complaint is washington, and they have 3 losses (1 4-loss team, 2 5-loss teams) with 1 decent win. between them and ucf, both need to fix their schedules (either in result or in strength) to complain to much.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #83 on:** December 03, 2018, 04:04:04 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on December 03, 2018, 03:51:15 PM

So, wait...
Are we including teams based on the best resume, or are we selecting the 4 best teams in college football?
Are you saying that you legitimately think that Notre Dame is better than OU, UGA, UM, and OSU? Or are you just rewarding them because in all those close games, they managed to not actually suffer a loss. And that by avoiding a conference championship game against Clemson, because they're "independent", they should be rewarded?
I assume that had Iowa been "independent" and not have to play a conference championship game, they'd have been included in the CFP. But did anyone actually believe they were one of the 4 best teams at the end of the 2015 regular season?

Speaking only for myself, it is a combination of the two things.
I've said this in response to @OrangeAfroMan several times so you may have read it before.
In theory, I think we should take the best 2/4/6/8/whatever teams. However, in practice there isn't enough interleague play to be able to adequately compare a 12-0 record in one of them to a 12-0 record in another. Back in 2011 I believed that 11-1 Alabama was a better team than 11-1 Oklahoma State but I wasn't sure. I would have taken 11-1 OkSU over 11-1 Bama not because I thought they were better but because I thought it was close enough that I couldn't be sure.
It is different when you compare any 10-2 or better P5 team to UCF because UCF's schedule wasn't just somewhat worse, it was a complete joke.
Back in 2015 Iowa went into the CG at 12-0 and #4. They played a weak schedule for a P5 team but they did have a win over #13 Northwestern so that is a LOT better than UCF's schedule this year. Then of course they had to play #5 MSU in the CG. That made this a non-issue because either way Iowa was going to be:

A 13-0 P5 Champion with wins over two highly ranked teams (#13 NU and ~#7 MSU), or
A 12-1 non-factor in the CFP discussion.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: 5+1+2

medinabuckeye1

Re: 5+1+2

TyphonInc

Re: 5+1+2

rolltidefan

Re: 5+1+2

Anonymous Coward

Re: 5+1+2

Cincydawg

Re: 5+1+2

Cincydawg

Re: 5+1+2

rolltidefan

Re: 5+1+2

betarhoalphadelta

Re: 5+1+2

medinabuckeye1

Re: 5+1+2

LittlePig

Re: 5+1+2

OrangeAfroMan

Re: 5+1+2

OrangeAfroMan

Re: 5+1+2

rolltidefan

Re: 5+1+2

medinabuckeye1

Re: 5+1+2