Author
Topic: CFP era performance Ranking
(Read 1450 times)

Cincydawg · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2024, 06:35:24 AM »

Choose the ranking you "know to be true" and then devise some "system" to generate same ....

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2024, 08:43:36 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on January 26, 2024, 06:35:24 AM

Choose the ranking you "know to be true" and then devise some "system" to generate same ....

I honestly don't know how much I value being consistently good as opposed to being great as a one off and I think I view it differently for "other" teams than for my own.

Hypothetical example:

In ten years team one won one NC but finished unranked the other nine years.
In the same ten years team two finished all ten years in the top-12, made the playoffs six times, and went 3-3 in semi-finals but never won an NC.

Which do you consider the "better" program?

Which would you rather YOUR team do?

Are those the same team?

As for me, I consider #2 to be the better program but I'd probably rather my team be #1.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2024, 08:58:17 AM »

It's just personal preference etc. I think to make the CFP Twice is more than twice as good as making it once, which could be just a fluke. To win a first rounder is also a thing, for me. I'd probably weight these things differently from others. Likewise, I think winning more than one NC is a indicator of a strong program.

So much depends on "luck" or "chance" these days.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 26, 2024, 09:11:36 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on January 26, 2024, 08:58:17 AM

It's just personal preference etc. I think to make the CFP Twice is more than twice as good as making it once, which could be just a fluke. To win a first rounder is also a thing, for me. I'd probably weight these things differently from others. Likewise, I think winning more than one NC is a indicator of a strong program.

So much depends on "luck" or "chance" these days.

This is so true. Winning one semi-final or even one NC could be largely luck. Maybe you got a ridiculously weak opponent? Maybe you just got REALLY lucky with a specific recruit? That is where I do hold Bama, Clemson, UGA, and tOSU as significantly above the rest. Those four have multiple semi-final wins. Even the other NC winners (M, LSU) don't. Winning one NC (LSU, M) or a single semi-final (Washington, Oregon, TCU) as you said "could be just a fluke" but if you've been there and won at least one game repeatedly that isn't a fluke, you have a very strong program.

I would also draw a distinction between a team that won semi-finals in back-to-back years and a team that won semi-finals further apart. To me the team with back-to-back semi-final wins could still be a "flash-in-the-pan" thing where everything came together for them at one time and they had a really strong team then but will they ever get back there? Conversely a team that won semi-finals separated by more than a few years is a strong program, they are more likely to be back.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2024, 09:14:05 AM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on January 26, 2024, 08:43:36 AM

Hypothetical example:
In ten years team one won one NC but finished unranked the other nine years.
In the same ten years team two finished all ten years in the top-12, made the playoffs six times, and went 3-3 in semi-finals but never won an NC.

Which do you consider the "better" program?

Which would you rather YOUR team do?

I'd strongly prefer #2 because it indicates a very good chance of continued winning and a shot at an NC. You gotta make continued runs at "it" to get there, often as not.

LittlePig · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2024, 09:36:38 AM »

I agree. If a team's one time run is looked at as lucky or a fluke, it does not count as much in people's minds. TCU's NCG is largely looked at as lucky and is written off as a fluke. So maybe points should be subtracted from TCU's score for being perceived as lucky.

But LSU's National championship is largely looked at as legit and maybe LSU should get extra points for going undefeated against a bunch of ranked opponents in a tough conference.

Of course that's all subjective so I don't know how you make that work with a real points system.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #20 on:** January 26, 2024, 10:19:02 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on January 26, 2024, 06:35:24 AM

Choose the ranking you "know to be true" and then devise some "system" to generate same ....

Exactly. It was always why people hated the BCS computer rankings...

...because they didn't agree 100% lock-step with humans, so they must be "wrong".

Cincydawg · « **Reply #21 on:** January 26, 2024, 10:23:11 AM »

In my view, any "real ranking" means a higher ranked team is more likely to beat a lower ranked team. When comparing #3 and #4, that margin is going to be slim, near 50%, usually.

MikeDeTiger · « **Reply #22 on:** January 26, 2024, 01:08:21 PM »

Quote from: LittlePig on January 26, 2024, 09:36:38 AM

I agree. If a team's one time run is looked at as lucky or a fluke, it does not count as much in people's minds. TCU's NCG is largely looked at as lucky and is written off as a fluke. So maybe points should be subtracted from TCU's score for being perceived as lucky.

But LSU's National championship is largely looked at as legit and maybe LSU should get extra points for going undefeated against a bunch of ranked opponents in a tough conference.

Of course that's all subjective so I don't know how you make that work with a real points system.

While SOS may certainly be fairly factored in, I don't like the idea of dismissing teams as lucky, or rewarding others as more legit. That gets dicey because then you have to apply the same metrics to every team in every game considered....and that's just weighting with subjectivity what is meant as an attempt to be objective. TCU won the games they won, and lost the games they lost, end of story.

I mean, you could say UGA was lucky in the first round of the 2022 playoffs because Ohio State was missing its best receivers, or some fluky plays, or whatever. Not a good practice, imo. For something like this, it's better to just say UGA won, assign them whatever reward the system includes, and stick with it. It's impossible to peg "luck" with any certainty, so I wouldn't try, for something like this, which I assume is a something like a resume list. If we were talking about a "team quality" list, then it may be more appropriate to include subjective thoughts about luck.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #23 on:** January 27, 2024, 02:53:03 AM »

People shouldn't look at luck as a reason a '22 TCU beats UM.
In spots, luck is a constant.
In baseball, BABIP seems to be a true element of chance/luck. A pitcher can allow the same HRs, stirke out the same number of batters, and walk the same number of guys, but his BABIP allowed in any given season can swing pretty wildly. One year 37% of batted balls turn out to be hits, the next it's only 28%. There's an average of this stat (~.300), but even the all-time greats see ebbs and flows. Same with batters' BABIP on offense.

In football, a much more difficult sport to assign credit, there is certainly a luck element constant.
We may not know what all it is, or how to dole it out, but I'm sure it's there.

FearlessF · « **Reply #24 on:** January 27, 2024, 08:22:12 AM »

Better to be lucky than good

Cincydawg · « **Reply #25 on:** January 27, 2024, 08:25:54 AM »

I think you have to be good for luck to start to matter if we're talking playoff performance.

A team that finishes in the top 5 consistently but doesn't win an NC will eventually make it much more often than a team that finishes barely ranked each year.

The difference between a final ranking of 3 or 4 and 1 can include a lot of random chance.

MaximumSam · « **Reply #26 on:** January 27, 2024, 08:53:25 AM »

Quote

In football, a much more difficult sport to assign credit, there is certainly a luck element constant.

I think it's a lot easier. We have one element that is huge and and clearly revolves around luck, which are turnovers. Lost in all the talk about "forcing turnovers" and the "turnover battle" is that almost nothing is associated with turnovers except luck.

FearlessF · « **Reply #27 on:** January 27, 2024, 08:56:17 AM »

I wouldn't say almost nothing

many QBs are living proof

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: CFP era performance Ranking

Cincydawg

Re: CFP era performance Ranking

medinabuckeye1

Re: CFP era performance Ranking

Cincydawg

Re: CFP era performance Ranking

medinabuckeye1

Re: CFP era performance Ranking

Cincydawg

Re: CFP era performance Ranking

LittlePig

Re: CFP era performance Ranking

betarhoalphadelta

Re: CFP era performance Ranking

Cincydawg

Re: CFP era performance Ranking

MikeDeTiger

Re: CFP era performance Ranking

OrangeAfroMan

Re: CFP era performance Ranking

FearlessF

Re: CFP era performance Ranking

Cincydawg

Re: CFP era performance Ranking

MaximumSam

Re: CFP era performance Ranking

FearlessF

Re: CFP era performance Ranking