In other news (apolitical thread)...

[MrNubbz]

better weather in Cali

Better prices everywhere else

[FearlessF]

Since you couldn't cut it in Lincoln maybe one of those trucks stops will put you to work - if ya don't mind portaling

unfortunately they don't seem to have full service stations any longer
my high school job was pumping gas, checking oil, washing windshields, inflating tires, selling cigarettes & beer, and cleaning restrooms

[MrNubbz]

Didn't break down any tires,slacker? 

[FearlessF]

did that at my uncle's shop - didn't get paid for that - just a coke out of the pop machine, maybe a snickers bar

[SFBadger96]

I don't know a lot about vet schools, but I know that Californians consider the one at UC-Davis elite.

[utee94]

I don't know a lot about vet schools, but I know that Californians consider the one at UC-Davis elite.

Yup it's very good.  USNWR has it ranked #1, for whatever that is worth.

Texas A&M is ranked #5 and here in Texico, holds the most weight for obvious reasons.  But I don't think she'd go wrong with any of them.

[SFBadger96]

Traditionally, Davis is our aTm--sans big time college athletics. If I understand the relationship between UT and aTm correctly.

[utee94]

Traditionally, Davis is our aTm--sans big time college athletics. If I understand the relationship between UT and aTm correctly.

Yeah Texas A&M is the land grant school.

[betarhoalphadelta]

The consensus seems to be to hold h2h more than any other outcome, even when things aren't equal.  But when teams have equal records, the masses tend to treat that as all else being equal (a separate issue).

It's hard to make it more specific when the idea is held by the masses, lol. 

When we have a tie at the top of a conference, the h2h winner tends to have a worse loss.  That means their performance has more variance than the other team:  higher ceiling AND lower floor.  Is a higher-variance team more likely to have had a better season?  Isn't it better to be a lower-variance team (ie - consistent, reliable)?  Why not reward that team with the tie-breaker?

But it's not always clear. Sometimes the better team wins H2H and their offsetting loss(es) are quality. Sometimes the worse team wins H2H and their offsetting loss(es) are bad ones without corresponding "good wins" due to SoS. I'm not sure I've seen a consistent and prevalent bias here. 

And that's why I asked. I realize it's hard to make it specific, but when you rely on "consensus", or even worse, "the masses", it makes it hard to pin down as anything more than a gut feeling that this is what you see people doing. People who have no real effect on the outcome. Such as internet message board cranks like us 

I.e. there are a few groups I can think of that have actual power:

• Conferences (as it relates to conference standings tiebreakers)
• The AP/Coaches poll
• The CFP selection committee

The first is mathematical and structural. No subjectivity enters into it. The second is subjective, and I think we'd all agree that it's often subject to some groupthink. I'd have to look a lot closer to see how prevalent the H2H bias is, though. The third is a group of commissioned "experts" that we entrust to make the "hard calls" even if that means violating H2H in the favor of taking other factors into account. That may be well-done, or it might be a completely different pile of groupthink and bias. But I think if they rank a team that last a H2H matchup over a team that won said matchup, they are generally given the benefit of the doubt that they have a solid reason. 

Beyond that, I'm not sure I care what "the masses" think... I think it's well established that we share the same view of the masses. 

[Gigem]

What about the 2011 LSU/Alabama debacle.  LSU beats Alabama in the regular season, and then loses to them in the BCS championship game.  Who was better?  LSU had the better record, but Alabama trounced them in the 2nd meeting.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

What about the 2011 LSU/Alabama debacle.  LSU beats Alabama in the regular season, and then loses to them in the BCS championship game.  Who was better?  LSU had the better record, but Alabama trounced them in the 2nd meeting. 

Ignore everything after the first meeting. 

The question OAM is asking is... Should that first H2H matchup win be justification for LSU being ranked ahead of Bama immediately following and then continuing ROS as long as they both continue to win games? Or does it reflect unconscious bias and/or laziness to rank them ahead even if we believe Bama is the better team?  

In other words, how much weight should H2H hold, and are we routinely giving it too much? 

[OrangeAfroMan]

Also, in that situation, it was an OT game in the regular season.  I tend to still view those as ties, when it comes to the "who is better?" question.  Yes, you still have to win it in overtime, but I look at OT akin to a short series in MLB's postseason.  

Otherwise, all I have to say about 2011 is that Oklahoma State had the 61st-ranked defense in the country.  The voters did them a favor by not allowing them to play LSU.  It could have been an UGA-TCU type of outcome.

[OrangeAfroMan]

Ignore everything after the first meeting.

The question OAM is asking is... Should that first H2H matchup win be justification for LSU being ranked ahead of Bama immediately following and then continuing ROS as long as they both continue to win games? Or does it reflect unconscious bias and/or laziness to rank them ahead even if we believe Bama is the better team? 

In other words, how much weight should H2H hold, and are we routinely giving it too much?

It's not even this.  It's gauging the other 11 games on-par with the h2h game.  
Maybe this helps - just taking off the name of each opponent (including each other, for h2h) and saying it was this outcome vs this team X or Y.
What might be the argument against that?

[betarhoalphadelta]

It's not even this.  It's gauging the other 11 games on-par with the h2h game. 
Maybe this helps - just taking off the name of each opponent (including each other, for h2h) and saying it was this outcome vs this team X or Y.
What might be the argument against that?

It's a matter of uncertainty. When you're looking at ranking teams with an H2H matchup, there are various aspects. But in absolutely zero cases have they played the same common opponents. Even if they HAD, those games would be skewed by when in the season they played each opponent, whether they played home vs away, what the weather conditions were for those games, etc. 

The idea is that H2H should be important when all else is equal. But who's to say when all else is equal? Even if they have a common opponent, what if one team played them early in the year when they were cohesive because they had a lot of returning starters, while the other played them late in the year when the opponent had a bunch of critical players injured. Is it equal just because it's the same name on the front of the jersey? I'd say no. 

Nobody is saying H2H means everything. In 2018, Purdue beat Ohio State 49-20. Nobody ranked Purdue higher than OSU the next week. So it's not everything. It's useful as an added weight when everything else LOOKS close. 

But it's not nothing. When you're dealing with a lot of uncertainty, maybe H2H shouldn't be just 8.3% weighting of a 12-game slate. That doesn't mean it should be 50%, but it might mean that it's 10% of 12.5%. Especially as you get into matchups in 18-game conference schedules where teams might only have 4-5 common opponents. Or when you're dealing with two teams who played each other OOC so they have zero common opponents. 

When you have uncertainty, H2H can and probably SHOULD carry more weight than just 1 of n.