Author
Topic: Championship Week (and Other Things)
(Read 15852 times)

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #252 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:00:00 AM »

Quote from: CWSooner on December 20, 2020, 06:51:45 PM

I have concluded that winning your conference championship should be a pre-requisite to playing in the CFP. Notre Dame: Join a conference or be left out. We'd be glad to welcome you as the 11th team in the Big 12.

I would be more apt to support this IF all conferences went to a divisonless format where the best two played in the CG like the B12. The problem in the other leagues is that HFA matters and upsets happen and sometimes (Bama @ Auburn, tOSU @ PSU) the better team goes on the road and loses and in a division format that can keep the best team in the league from winning the league. That is why I like the idea of having at least the possibility of a non-Champion getting in. Losing a game like that matters and it should but IMHO, it shouldn't necessarily be fatal especially when the upset winner (Auburn/PSU) is clearly NOT CFP caliber and it was clearly an upset.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #253 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:01:25 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 20, 2020, 03:32:05 PM

Not to mention the more teams there are in the playoff, the less urgent each regular season game becomes. We've already seen this - this weekend, Alabama was in even if it lost. ND, we found out, was in, even in a blowout loss.

That's crap. The very worst regular season of American sports is college basketball. A loss is a shrug. A loss is nothing. You can't name a huge, important regular season college basketball game from the past decade.
.
The more you expand the playoff, the closer you inch to that.

This is always and forever unavoidably true. Bama and ND, as it turns out, were playing for seeding only this past weekend. I'm not a fan of that. Also, Clemson may have been also playing for seeding only. At least two and as many as three teams went into last weekend already locked in.

utee94 · « **Reply #254 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:08:47 AM »

Quote from: CWSooner on December 21, 2020, 10:46:42 AM

I think you're right.
But a Buckeye might have gotten injured.
IMO, tOSU is the right choice for #3, but playing only 6 games, compared to 10, has left the team relatively fresh and uninjured compared to others.
OTOH, as HB has said, it may have left the team rusty too.

Beyond that, although the probability of winning each of those games is high, the probability of winning all three is much lower. That's the way probability works.

Take the Aggies for example-- they're a much better team than 0-9 Vanderbilit. And yet they struggled to beat Vanderbilt. That was very much a potential loss.

Conversely, the Buckeyes missed out on 3 more opportunities to struggle against, and potentially lose to, a bad team.

It's hard to go undefeated against a P5 schedule over 10-12 games. Clemson didn't do it. Notre Dame didn't do it. Ohio State didn't do it.

Only Alabama did it.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #255 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:14:34 AM »

Quote from: Kris60 on December 21, 2020, 10:58:57 AM

Head to head takes some of the guess work out of it, though. So much of this comes down to comparing resumes and looking at teams that haven’t played each other and making assumptions. A head to head matchup gives you a real, tangible result between two teams you are trying to compare.

I get it and I understand why people like H2H so much but there is another way to look at it:
In a normal season each CCG participant plays 13 games and each non-CCG participant plays 12. Those are either 12 or 13 data points.

The unavoidable reality is that the best team doesn't always win. H2H shouldn't be all-powerful because HFA exists and also because sometimes, even if they are at home, the better team just has a bad day.

The problem created by relying on H2H is that by rewarding a team for a good win that team is also effectively rewarded for a bad loss.

Consider if tOSU beats PSU. If they both go undefeated otherwise then tOSU wins but H2H never comes into play because the Buckeyes have a better record (12-0 vs 11-1). H2H only comes into play if tOSU loses to somebody else. The problem I have is that if tOSU and PSU both finish 11-1 and tOSU beat PSU then, by definition, tOSU has a worse loss. Reliance on H2H rewards that good win (tOSU's over PSU) but it also rewards that bad loss (tOSU to say RU).

I see it in our Power Rankings each week. You can't go by H2H because every year you get the same problem. Some 2-10 team beat some 3-9 team that beat some 4-8 team that beat some 5-7 team . . . that beat some 11-1 team. I think in data-points. In a normal season each team has 12 or 13 data points.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #256 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:19:14 AM »

Quote from: Kris60 on December 20, 2020, 03:10:04 PM

Right, although technically each year and each version of each team is supposed to be judged in a bubble.

I get the come back to that is “yeah, well maybe it’s supposed to work like that but it doesn’t.” But that should be the goal.

How do you view a team in a bubble?

I mean, part of that "bubble" is what they do solely on the field. But part of that bubble is also who they are. The CFP knows who is on their roster.

When the initial CFP rankings were released, OSU was 4-0 and Northwestern was 5-0. OSU was 4th and Northwestern was 8th.

Northwestern had blown out Maryland, had narrower wins over Iowa and Purdue, a solid defeat over Nebraska, and a convincing win over Wisconsin.

Ohio State had blown out Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, and had a narrower win over Indiana.

On strength of resume, I could see Northwestern possibly edging out Ohio State in the first CFP release. After all, Nebraska and Penn State looked terrible, Rutgers is far below what we normally think of Iowa and Wisconsin, and Indiana is Indiana.

Yet the CFP still ranked OSU 4 spots higher, on one less game and arguably an equal or possibly even lesser resume.

Seems they knew what they were talking about, though, because in the H2H matchup an Ohio State team that was significantly hobbled by players out due to COVID beat Northwestern by double digits.

So how do you judge them in a bubble? I realize "last year's results" shouldn't come into it... And I agree. But typically a pretty high portion of last year's talent is still on the roster, and by recruiting rankings you suspect the incoming talent is just as good as what graduated or went to the NFL. So is it that wrong to give a team the "benefit of the doubt"?

If the committee had ranked Northwestern over Ohio State at that point, would we not all have looked at it and wondered WTF they're smoking?

Kris60 · « **Reply #257 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:22:27 AM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 21, 2020, 10:38:57 AM

I'm not denying that it would have increased the chance of a loss, I'm questioning whether or not it would have mattered.

It may not have. What is almost undeniable to me is that Ohio St was being judged differently than almost every other team in the nation from the start. In the initial ranking they were 4-0 and ranked #4. Those 4 wins were a blowout of Nebraska, a blowout of Rutgers where the final score was closer than the actual game, a 13 point win over Penn St, and a 7 point win over Indiana.

Oregon started out 3-0 with a 21 point win over Stanford, a 14 point win over Wazzu, and a 3 point win over UCLA. Those 3 victories got Oregon a #15 ranking and behind several one loss teams and even two 2 loss teams.

USC started out 3-0 with close wins over ASU and Arizona and a two touchdown win over Utah. That got them slotted #18 behind a third two loss team.

If you are telling me Ohio St should have been ranked higher than those teams because they looked better and/or had a better resume I can buy that. If you are telling me the gap should have been THAT big right out of the gate between undefeated P5 teams I have trouble believing that. What the committee didn’t have in 2020 results they filled in with 2019 (and maybe even further back) results. I don’t think they did that with any other team.

Kris60 · « **Reply #258 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:24:06 AM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on December 21, 2020, 11:19:14 AM

How do you view a team in a bubble?

I mean, part of that "bubble" is what they do solely on the field. But part of that bubble is also who they are. The CFP knows who is on their roster.

When the initial CFP rankings were released, OSU was 4-0 and Northwestern was 5-0. OSU was 4th and Northwestern was 8th.

Northwestern had blown out Maryland, had narrower wins over Iowa and Purdue, a solid defeat over Nebraska, and a convincing win over Wisconsin.

Ohio State had blown out Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, and had a narrower win over Indiana.

On strength of resume, I could see Northwestern possibly edging out Ohio State in the first CFP release. After all, Nebraska and Penn State looked terrible, Rutgers is far below what we normally think of Iowa and Wisconsin, and Indiana is Indiana.

Yet the CFP still ranked OSU 4 spots higher, on one less game and arguably an equal or possibly even lesser resume.

Seems they knew what they were talking about, though, because in the H2H matchup an Ohio State team that was significantly hobbled by players out due to COVID beat Northwestern by double digits.

So how do you judge them in a bubble? I realize "last year's results" shouldn't come into it... And I agree. But typically a pretty high portion of last year's talent is still on the roster, and by recruiting rankings you suspect the incoming talent is just as good as what graduated or went to the NFL. So is it that wrong to give a team the "benefit of the doubt"?

If the committee had ranked Northwestern over Ohio State at that point, would we not all have looked at it and wondered WTF they're smoking?

I would have had zero problem with NW over OSU if the CFP had done that.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #259 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:30:14 AM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on December 21, 2020, 11:19:14 AM

How do you view a team in a bubble?

I mean, part of that "bubble" is what they do solely on the field. But part of that bubble is also who they are. The CFP knows who is on their roster.

When the initial CFP rankings were released, OSU was 4-0 and Northwestern was 5-0. OSU was 4th and Northwestern was 8th.

Northwestern had blown out Maryland, had narrower wins over Iowa and Purdue, a solid defeat over Nebraska, and a convincing win over Wisconsin.

Ohio State had blown out Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, and had a narrower win over Indiana.

On strength of resume, I could see Northwestern possibly edging out Ohio State in the first CFP release. After all, Nebraska and Penn State looked terrible, Rutgers is far below what we normally think of Iowa and Wisconsin, and Indiana is Indiana.

Yet the CFP still ranked OSU 4 spots higher, on one less game and arguably an equal or possibly even lesser resume.

Seems they knew what they were talking about, though, because in the H2H matchup an Ohio State team that was significantly hobbled by players out due to COVID beat Northwestern by double digits.

So how do you judge them in a bubble? I realize "last year's results" shouldn't come into it... And I agree. But typically a pretty high portion of last year's talent is still on the roster, and by recruiting rankings you suspect the incoming talent is just as good as what graduated or went to the NFL. So is it that wrong to give a team the "benefit of the doubt"?

If the committee had ranked Northwestern over Ohio State at that point, would we not all have looked at it and wondered WTF they're smoking?

I think part of it is that this year is just different because there are so few games.

When the first CFP rankings of 2019 came out each of the 25 ranked teams had either eight or nine games. Their eight or nine opponents each probably had eight or nine games as well. Thus, it was more-or-less possible to rank the teams based solely on 2019 performance. You had eight or nine games each to evaluate each team and eight or nine games each to evaluate each of their opponents. Here are the # of opponents for the top-10 in this years first CFP rankings:

7
8
8
4 (tOSU)
6
7
8
5
7
8

On top of that, this year you had almost zero OOC games so it is nearly impossible to evaluate the relative strength of the conferences. The B1G teams have only played each other. Maybe we all suck and Ohio State is just the tallest midget. Conversely, maybe this conference is all-time great and Ohio State's undefeated trip through it is the product of an all-time great team. I frankly doubt that either of those two extremes are correct but there is no "on the field" way to disprove either.

The SEC and PAC didn't play OOC games either so you can play the same game with them and I think that the ACC and B12 only played one each so that doesn't help much.

FearlessF · « **Reply #260 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:32:37 AM »

Quote from: Kris60 on December 21, 2020, 11:22:27 AM

It may not have. What is almost undeniable to me is that Ohio St was being judged differently than almost every other team in the nation from the start. In the initial ranking they were 4-0 and ranked #4.

except for Clemson and Bama

we all know why

Kris60 · « **Reply #261 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:33:11 AM »

Up until this year I had always done my own rankings using the same criteria the CFP uses. I’ve always been more of a resume guy than eye test guy, and I do my best to base it on the current year and not past accomplishments. I may have had NW over Ohio St myself if I had done my rankings this year.

Kris60 · « **Reply #262 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:43:29 AM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 21, 2020, 11:14:34 AM

I get it and I understand why people like H2H so much but there is another way to look at it:
In a normal season each CCG participant plays 13 games and each non-CCG participant plays 12. Those are either 12 or 13 data points.

The unavoidable reality is that the best team doesn't always win. H2H shouldn't be all-powerful because HFA exists and also because sometimes, even if they are at home, the better team just has a bad day.

The problem created by relying on H2H is that by rewarding a team for a good win that team is also effectively rewarded for a bad loss.

Consider if tOSU beats PSU. If they both go undefeated otherwise then tOSU wins but H2H never comes into play because the Buckeyes have a better record (12-0 vs 11-1). H2H only comes into play if tOSU loses to somebody else. The problem I have is that if tOSU and PSU both finish 11-1 and tOSU beat PSU then, by definition, tOSU has a worse loss. Reliance on H2H rewards that good win (tOSU's over PSU) but it also rewards that bad loss (tOSU to say RU).

I see it in our Power Rankings each week. You can't go by H2H because every year you get the same problem. Some 2-10 team beat some 3-9 team that beat some 4-8 team that beat some 5-7 team . . . that beat some 11-1 team. I think in data-points. In a normal season each team has 12 or 13 data points.

I think H2H should be used when resumes are close, not as a be all, end all.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #263 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:43:34 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on December 20, 2020, 03:32:05 PM

Not to mention the more teams there are in the playoff, the less urgent each regular season game becomes. We've already seen this - this weekend, Alabama was in even if it lost. ND, we found out, was in, even in a blowout loss.

That's crap. The very worst regular season of American sports is college basketball. A loss is a shrug. A loss is nothing. You can't name a huge, important regular season college basketball game from the past decade.
.
The more you expand the playoff, the closer you inch to that.

I've said it before, but I'll repeat.

There is no sport like American Football, whether NFL or college, as it relates to fan engagement. The reason for this is twofold:

The seasons are short.
[Almost] All games are played on weekends.

That is the reason we think so much about the "regular season" mattering. That is why so many games are "important" games--because we can arrange our week around watching them.

Football is a body-destroying sport. You can't have 3 games a week over a 6-month season. It just doesn't work. The only thing I can think of offhand that are worse are boxing and MMA, and those guys go months between bouts to recover.

If someone asks you what you're doing on a Saturday, you might answer "watching football." If they ask what you're watching, it might be "well Florida plays at 3:30, but I'll probably catch a few early games at noon while I'm puttering around the house and I'm having buddies over for the big 'Bama-LSU matchup on in prime time." It's a day, and you watch whatever the best football game is on that day.

If Purdue and Michigan State are playing a hoops game on a Tuesday in February, you'd be damn sure I'm watching that. I'll bet a lot of the other hardcore college basketball fans in the Big Ten might watch that too, especially if both teams are in the hunt for the conference championship. Those games are still important--to the teams playing.

The difference is that a college football fan sees a limited number of days called "Saturday" in the fall as appointment television. It's just hard to do that on a random Tuesday night in February. And then it's hard to sustain it through the entire week and weekend because games are played EVERY day. I'd also have a tough time getting "up" for a random Wednesday night game between #1 Bama and #5 LSU as well--it's in the middle of the work week and I have crap to do. Just as even the NFL, which successfully created "Monday Night Football", continues to fall flat on its face with "Thursday Night Football" because fans just don't have time--they're getting ready for the weekend rather than recovering from their first day back at work.

The lack of engagement isn't due to the playoff structure or games "not mattering". It's more due to schedule and number of games.

Kris60 · « **Reply #264 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:44:18 AM »

Quote from: FearlessF on December 21, 2020, 11:32:37 AM

except for Clemson and Bama

we all know why

Go ahead. I’m listening.

Honestbuckeye · « **Reply #265 on:** December 21, 2020, 11:48:11 AM »

As I said before any of these threads started, the committee uses their opinion and then reverse engineers their explanation to rationalize their decision. This year is no different and even more controversial because of the weird year that we had.

That’s why I would prefer the old system and just let the coaches pick the national champion or whatever because nobody’s ever happy.

I would have absolutely no problem excluding Ohio State. They didn’t prove anything on the field and don’t look any better than any other team out there.

They don’t pass any eye test and haven’t beaten anybody worth of shit as most of the posters here have already iterated. I have absolutely no problem with that conclusion, sincerely.

I could also see how you could punch big holes in any other team other than Clemson and Alabama.

I’m going to find it hard to imagine that this message gets attacked but I have a feeling it will anyway. It’s getting hard to post anything without smart ass or highfalutin Responses

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: Championship Week (and Other Things)

medinabuckeye1

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)

medinabuckeye1

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)

utee94

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)

medinabuckeye1

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)

Kris60

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)

Kris60

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)

medinabuckeye1

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)

FearlessF

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)

Kris60

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)

Kris60

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)

Kris60

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)

Honestbuckeye

Re: Championship Week (and Other Things)