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

Yes, but if SOS then goes into your calculation of who the top teams are, it becomes a positive feedback loop. Each time you calculate who the top teams are, the SOS elevates those in that same conference, which then elevates those teams as the top teams, and so forth.

The same thing can happen in basketball RPI. Your RPI value is partially based on your SOS, which is partially based on the RPI of the teams you face, which is affected by your own RPI in their SOS. So conference teams can cluster there as well to a degree since they all play each other much more than they play OOC. I.e. the worst teams in the Big Ten sees a significant RPI boost simply from playing a B1G schedule, even if they're losing those games.

I don't know his methodology enough to know how well he combats this. I'm sure he understands that it's a potential problem.

I assume there's some mathematical fix for this. We have to remember, how conferences stack up is most likely just a matrix of scores and non-conference games. So at the end of the regular season, that's 42 games for the Big Ten, 56 for the SEC, et al. Unbalanced schedules might tweak that, but my gut is everything recalculates each time anyway, so it's not like there's a momentum/buildup factor.

The other good takeaway is that SOS is a pretty blunt tool, and while it's posted there because people like it, it might not be a pure factor on the back end. I know SB Nation's Bill Connelly doesn't list total SOS, but just lists the rankings of a team's opponents. There's pitfalls there too, but it's still useful.

There aren't enough meaningful OOC games to make much of a determination, and the bowl games are often more social outings than real football IMHO.

The other thing that bothers me about bowl games is that it almost purports to be a mix of "like" teams from different conferences, but often badly whiffs on that. "B1G #3 vs SEC #3" doesn't mean the third-best team from each league. It means that bowl gets to select in that order, and we all know that a lot more goes into the selection process than merely strength of each team.

And while this is less of an issue in the CFP era, it's still an issue if one conference gets multiple teams into NY6 bowls that you will have what is purportedly B1G #4 vs B12 #4 actually be B1G #6 vs B12 #4.

I firmly believe this hurt the B1G several times in bowl play where each team was "playing up" against a better opponent than they normally would if slotted evenly across conferences.

i think i'm on an island when i say this..... and maybe Bimini isl or one of the Faulken islands... somewhere nobody wants to be, whichever you choose.

POWER rankings, to me, are just about ALL about eye test.  but there is more to it than that.  consistency is what means (to me) how a team should rank in a real ranking.  meaning, and in example:

(hypothetical mid season: )

we know tOSU is pretty good.. they've beaten everyone they've played. however, they barely beat an ooc VT,  though the week before they stomped a mud hole in the Illini, who beat VT like a drum..

meanwhile, VT just doesn't play well unless they play somebody nowhere near as talented- but then they click and and put up 50+ points... except in that Illini game, who took them out of their comfort zone on that day, and because (to the eye) VT didn't have an answer for one key position- which was the slot receiver.   tOSU DID have an answer to that Illini threat and shut them down- the fighting Illini had nothing that would budge tOSU, but VT did- they got in a dogfight upfront pushing match, and almost beat tOSU- neither team could move the ball through the air, and maybe because tOSU doesn't have a slot threat like the Illini have, or maybe because VT figured out a way to stop that from happening again. 

other than these games, VT is 5-2, the fighting Illini are 4-3, and tOSU is 7-0...

who has the best team (ignoring the helmets)?

to me, this is ALL about eye test, and it's all about power rankings- and both feed overall rankings.  consistency is the key- if a team can pass at will against anyone they play (or rush... or both) no matter who they play, and they are consistent week in week out, then... they're pretty dang good... if a team just flashes momentarily, but look like they can beat anyone WHILE they flash, then- they are a pretty dang good team but just not consistent, so... lower ranking. it's the consistency i think that separates teams with similar builds- and that's on coaching (preparation) and execution more than anything imHo, and why we give 'helmet' teams breaks, and also- the better coaches are far more consistent... hence why they're good coaches... and why we're suspect of 'pan flashers'...


imHo, the ACC has done everything it can to bury the reputation they earned in the early part of the century, and they are the conference atop the others.

POWER rankings, to me, are just about ALL about eye test.  but there is more to it than that.  consistency is what means (to me) how a team should rank in a real ranking.

I agree, a power ranking isn't your resume, it's what you'd do to another team on a neutral field. And to some extent consistency plays into that. A team that can be up enough to beat a top-5 team on the road and then lose the next weekend to an unranked team at home is not a team you can "trust".

Which is why putting a team who beat another team below them in a power ranking can make sense. It's one of of those "yeah, they lost head to head, but I'd wager they'd win 7 of 10 if they played a series" kind of things.

A team with a solid fan base will get selected before a team with a lame fan base if the two teams are both available.

wasn't there a clause in the BCS that basically ended the document with "...unless we don't like the match, at what time we'll change it" which negated the entire purpose?

but power rankings- how well a team is playing TODAY (or, actually how they played their most recent game)... and it doesn't matter, when it possibly should matter. 

maybe you will agree with this statement: a few seasons ago (can't recall which) UGA played ugly early on, barely scraping by.  however, they winded up and slapped UF (this may have been the year both teams stormed the field), and i'm pretty sure they would have beaten anyone by seasons end.. didn't matter.. the die was cast with their early losses.  this is basically the 'hot team advantage' dynamic that opponents of play-off/tournament argue with. 

the first season of the BCS my fellas won out- beating FSU in Tempe- and.... I am SO happy they didn't play tOSU that year, who had fallen to MSU in something that would never be duplicated in a ten game series (my opinion, obviously).  the hot team, tOSU that season, was ONE series out of that game by losing to a really but momentarily super hot MSU. 

taking this a step further- MSU easily was ranked ahead of tOSU the week they beat them.  UTk or FSU, only pegged that meter once or twice that season.  tOSU on the other hand, they pegged that meter several times.  (all by my own reckoning).... yet they missed the dance.   

The only Vandy story up there is a player getting 15 years for rape. My that's some eSECpn fluffing.

(We find what we want in this world. We want to be agreaved and feel the big powers are against us. It's not surprising there would be an SEC network video dump somewhere in a content list of 50)

so, I rolled through Fox Sports College Football page..............


http://www.foxsports.com/college-football