header pic

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.


Author

Topic: CFP era performance Ranking

 (Read 5795 times)

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 21773
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2024, 10:50:28 PM »
That said, I'll defend the committee a little bit on this.  The committee has been consistent about not punishing a team for losing a game that they earned their way into and I can appreciate that. 
Okay, fine.  Then why bother playing the game?  If there are no stakes, there's no point.
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 21773
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2024, 10:59:24 PM »
I agree with everything you've said here.  There is no doubt that refs aren't as careful about spotting the ball on low-stakes 2nd down plays in the first half as they are about 4th and 1 plays in the 4th quarter but I would think that overall it would balance out.  Sure, you might have a 2nd and 6 where you gain 3 but only get 2 because you get a bad spot but the next series you might have a 2nd and 7 where you gain 4 but get 5 because you get a good spot. 
This is wishful thinking, as there are only around 120-140 plays in a football game.
Things may balance out over the course of a season, but not in a game.  You're far, FAR more likely to come out ahead or behind in an individual game.

You're falling prey to the 'cosmic justice' idea religious people do.  Sorry, I know this is a touchy subject, but it IS the precise example for this.  The bullshit suggestion of good/pious believers going to a heaven of some kind and bad/evil non-believers going to a hell is embarrassingly simple, obvious, and childish.  
Same with karma.  Absurd.

The "things even out in a game" isn't those things, it's just a statistical thing.  
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10620
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2024, 11:24:01 PM »
Okay, fine.  Then why bother playing the game?  If there are no stakes, there's no point.
I'm not happy about it either and I do think that TCU should have dropped behind Ohio State after the loss on the basis that their SoS and MOV wasn't as good as the Buckeyes.  Also the game had stakes for KSU.  
This is wishful thinking, as there are only around 120-140 plays in a football game.
Things may balance out over the course of a season, but not in a game.  You're far, FAR more likely to come out ahead or behind in an individual game.

You're falling prey to the 'cosmic justice' idea religious people do.  Sorry, I know this is a touchy subject, but it IS the precise example for this.  The bullshit suggestion of good/pious believers going to a heaven of some kind and bad/evil non-believers going to a hell is embarrassingly simple, obvious, and childish. 
Same with karma.  Absurd.

The "things even out in a game" isn't those things, it's just a statistical thing. 
I wasn't making a philosophical or religious point, just a statistical one.  On that front, I agree that it is more likely to balance out over a season than over a game but it also only really matters if the game is close enough that a drive or two can determine the outcome.  Realistically, for most NC contenders that only occurs what, two or three times a season?  

What I am saying is that if you look at last week's Ohio State vs Purdue game, the Buckeyes won 45-0.  If they had gotten a whole bunch of unfovorable spots on low-stakes 2nd down plays in the first half maybe it would have only been 35-10.  Conversely, if they had gotten a whole bunch of good spots on low-stakes 2nd down plays in the first half maybe it would have been 62-0.  In either case, who cares?  A win is a win and MOV is only somewhat relevant.  It only really matters if the game is close enough that the statistically unlikely run of good or bad spots flips the outcome.  

Frankly, that is an argument in FAVOR of the 12-team playoff.  Ie, maybe Ohio State was the best team in the Country in 1998 and lost to Michigan State only due to a bunch of unfavorable spots on low-stakes 2nd down plays in the first half.  That single loss (to a vastly inferior team) cost Ohio State a shot.  Now that we have a 12 team playoff it would have only dropped the Buckeyes from the #1 seed (as an undefeated) to the #3 seed.  

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 21773
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2024, 11:33:44 PM »
Yeah, maybe.

Maybe they should just stop keeping score.

Playoffs are purely for entertainment. 
Win the most games in a 162-game season?  You get a t-shirt that says so.  Win the most short series in a row?  You're champions forever.

Go 16-0 in the regular season?  Cool, you'll be famous.  But not champs.  That went to the way worse team you had already beaten.  Brilliant.

My philosophy isn't that the sliding scale of competition vs entertainment is tilted too far towards entertainment (as I've said in the past).  It's that pure competition is supposed to be 'enough' entertainment.  It used to be. 
MLB had it right for like 60 years.  2 separate leagues that didn't play each other.  Find out who the best team is over many games, so it's valid.  And then those champs of separate entities duke it out.  At least it makes sense.

Wild-cards and 60-something teams in a playoff tournament and rewarding the very best teams less and less while rewarding mediocrity doesn't make sense.  
It makes money.  And that's all that matters.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2024, 11:41:49 PM by OrangeAfroMan »
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 82609
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #46 on: November 14, 2024, 06:06:36 AM »
Money matters, film at 11.

This is why we have playoff champions, nothing but that.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 82609
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #47 on: November 14, 2024, 06:23:33 AM »
It's interesting, I think, in March Madness, that a 16 had never beaten a 1 seed, I think it happened recently.  A 15 bears the 2 fairly often?  Every 3 years or so?  One could do the probability based on this, I suspect.  How long would it take for a 12 seed to win a CFB NC?  Longer than it will exist I suspect in current form, but it is possible.  The seedings of course cannot be perfect, but they generally are not far off "reality".

Let's drop this down to say a 10 seed, which starts to be reasonably possible in say 20 years perhaps.  They have to beat a 7 seed on the road, it'll happen of course, and then beat a 1-4 seed, and then a 1-4 see again, and then a 1-4 seed again, I think.

Their "odds" of winning each are something like 25%, then 20%, then 20%, then say 15%.  They aren't a bad team of course, they lost a couple games probably in the year, maybe one was close, one was an upset, whatever, and they had 10 wins.  If my math is right, they have a 0.15% chance of winning the NC.  And maybe their odds are better because they got back a couple key players.


ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 22874
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #48 on: November 14, 2024, 09:24:16 AM »
Okay, fine.  Then why bother playing the game?  If there are no stakes, there's no point.
But the other way, you are rewarding a team for not earning their way into the game when you are discussing two teams from the same conference

Gigem

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3351
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #49 on: November 14, 2024, 10:18:37 AM »
It's interesting, I think, in March Madness, that a 16 had never beaten a 1 seed, I think it happened recently.  A 15 bears the 2 fairly often?  Every 3 years or so?  One could do the probability based on this, I suspect.  How long would it take for a 12 seed to win a CFB NC?  Longer than it will exist I suspect in current form, but it is possible.  The seedings of course cannot be perfect, but they generally are not far off "reality".

Let's drop this down to say a 10 seed, which starts to be reasonably possible in say 20 years perhaps.  They have to beat a 7 seed on the road, it'll happen of course, and then beat a 1-4 seed, and then a 1-4 see again, and then a 1-4 seed again, I think.

Their "odds" of winning each are something like 25%, then 20%, then 20%, then say 15%.  They aren't a bad team of course, they lost a couple games probably in the year, maybe one was close, one was an upset, whatever, and they had 10 wins.  If my math is right, they have a 0.15% chance of winning the NC.  And maybe their odds are better because they got back a couple key players.
One thing that may skew this data is that some teams get much better a the season progresses, such that a team that has 1-2 losses early may be playing at a much higher level late in the season than what it was early.  Not CFB, I know, but the NY Giants the year they took out the Perfect Patriots comes to mind.  And by the same token, some teams start off playing really well and get worse as the season progresses, especially due to injury or other teams figuring out how to stop them and the rest copying.  

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 82609
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #50 on: November 14, 2024, 10:28:39 AM »
If you have a weekend where 2, 3, 4, and 5 all lose, and 6, 7, 8, and 9 don't play, it COULD make sense to leave them all where they were depending on how they lose.  A team might not drop in ratings IF other teams around them also lose.

And yes, teams can get it together later in the season and be better than their 10-2 record may suggest.

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10620
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #51 on: November 14, 2024, 10:51:11 AM »
A 15 bears the 2 fairly often?  Every 3 years or so?  One could do the probability based on this, I suspect.  
Since the expansion to 64 teams in 1985 there have been 39 NCAA Tournaments (1985-2024 not including 2020).  Thus, there have been 156 of each seed because there are four of each and 39*4=156.  The #2 seeds are 11-145 in the first round.  That is an average of one win roughly every 14 attempts and there are four attempts per year so you are just about right, it has been just shy of one every 3 years.  To be precise, 11 in 39 tournaments is one every 3.5 tournaments.  Further:
  • #16 seeds have upset #1 twice so roughly once every 20 years.  
  • #15 seeds have upset #2 11 times so roughly once every 3.5 years.  
  • #14 seeds have upset #3 23 times so roughly once every other year.  
  • #13 seeds have upset #4 33 times so almost once per year.  
  • #12 seeds have upset #5 55 times so a little under 1.5 times per year.  
  • #11 seeds have upset #6 61 times so a little over 1.5 times per year.  
  • #10 seeds have upset #7 60 times so also a little over1.5 times per year.  
  • #9 actually has a winning record against #8 at 82-74 so a little better than twice per year.  


Note the large gap between #12 and #13.  That gap carries through:
  • 22 #12 seeds have made it to the second weekend.  
  • Only 12 #13's and below have made it to the second weekend.  
  • The #13 and below have only ever won one second weekend game.  
  • #12's have won two second weekend games.  
  • #11 and above have each won at least five second weekend games.  


FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 45511
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #52 on: November 14, 2024, 11:01:23 AM »
obviously #13-#16 have so little shot to win the whole thing that they should be excluded

but, then you'd have fewer games and make less $$$
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10620
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #53 on: November 14, 2024, 11:14:55 AM »
obviously #13-#16 have so little shot to win the whole thing that they should be excluded

but, then you'd have fewer games and make less $$$
My interpretation is that down through usually #11 or so you are still including some at-large teams so we are talking about teams that are legitimately in the top-64.  Then once you run out of at-large teams you move to "tallest midgets" but the very best of those are still borderline legitimately good enough so down through the #12 seeds you are talking about REALLY tall tallest midgets.  Once you get beyond #12's, you get into progressively shorter "tallest midgets" that simply have no business playing in a NC tournament but they are included for money reasons but also for inclusion reasons to technically give every team a shot.  

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14514
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #54 on: November 14, 2024, 11:27:51 AM »
  • The #13 and below have only ever won one second weekend game. 

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 82609
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: CFP era performance Ranking
« Reply #55 on: November 14, 2024, 11:53:01 AM »
The G5 slot is to avoid litigation.

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.