Author
Topic: Stirring the Pot
(Read 35745 times)

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #84 on:** September 27, 2018, 10:45:59 AM »

Quote from: bayareabadger on September 27, 2018, 10:09:20 AM

I don't even think it was wrong particularly.

This is a big part of my entire point here. If Bama>Wisconsin in 2016 wasn't wrong then why are we even talking about bias?
I could claim that Bama>tOSU in 2017 was based on bias, but I'm not saying that largely because I don't think it was wrong.
I do think that the committee is overly biased against losses and should consider SoS more strongly. When Ohio State got in in 2016 I optimistically hoped that it was mostly due to tOSU's very strong SoS that year. That year the Buckeyes played two P5 Champions, both on the road. They also played P5 Divisional Champion Wisconsin on the road. Granted, I'm a fan of Ohio State so I am biased but I think that it is objectively obvious that getting through a slate that includes those three road games plus 10-3 Michigan with only one loss was VERY impressive.
Bama's 2017 SoS wasn't at the level of Ohio State's in 2016 but it was quite good. Unfortunately, I think the committee showed their hand. IMHO, the final rankings will generally be:

All of the undefeated P5 teams (Champions by definition)
All 1-loss P5 Champions
All 1-loss P5 non-Champions

In four years of the CFP we have never had to go beyond #3 but I assume that if we do, the pattern will repeat such that it will go like this:

#4. All 2-loss P5 Champions
#5. All 2-loss P5 non-Champions
etc

I don't think it should be that simplistic. I think that SoS should be a major consideration. If a team loses one more game than another but played three more tough teams then I think the team with the extra loss should get in.

Part of the problem, of course, is that SoS is subjective. A lot of people on here (see @847badgerfan above) like to criticize SEC teams like Bama for playing an FCS opponent. I get that, but in the context of CFP contenders I don't think it matters much. In the context of CFP contenders the difference between playing a bad P5 team, a middling or worse G5 team, or an FCS team will almost always be nil. If you are a legitimate CFP contender then you should beat any bad P5 team, any middling or worse G5 team, and any FCS team without breaking a sweat. What does matter, IMHO, is two things:

How many relative equals did you play. In this context, looking at 2016 tOSU for example, I would consider four of tOSU's opponents to be "relative equals": B12 Champion Oklahoma; B1G Champion Penn State; B1G-W Champion Wisconsin; B1G-E Contender (to the last snap as was recently pointed out to me by @Anonymous Coward ) Michigan.
How many teams that could beat you on the right day without it being the "upset of the century" did you play. I would consider this to be roughly P5 .500+ teams and a few really high-end G5 teams. In my example of 2016 tOSU that would include: 7-6 Northwestern and 9-4 Nebraska with 6-7 Indiana and Maryland and 10-3 Tulsa as possibles.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #85 on:** September 27, 2018, 10:48:25 AM »

Along those lines, BaB, I'm not saying that UW *should* have been in ahead of Bama. What I'm getting at is that there was not even a discussion about UW. It was between Bama, USC and OSU for that spot.

I'm happy that OSU, PSU and UW won their respective NYD6 games. I watched them all.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #86 on:** September 27, 2018, 10:57:59 AM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on September 27, 2018, 10:48:25 AM

Along those lines, BaB, I'm not saying that UW *should* have been in ahead of Bama. What I'm getting at is that there was not even a discussion about UW. It was between Bama, USC and OSU for that spot.

I'm happy that OSU, PSU and UW won their respective NYD6 games. I watched them all.

I really don't remember much discussion of USC in there either. That falls in line with my take (had I been on the committee) that I would have eliminated USC (similar to tOSU but not as good of an SoS) and UW (similar to Bama but not as good of an SoS) then simply decided between tOSU and Bama. Those who think it should be Champions only or at least that Championships should get a LOT of weight could then argue for Ohio State while those who think that bad losses (tOSU @ Iowa) and more losses (tOSU had two) should be bigger factors could then argue for Bama. I see the logic behind both.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #87 on:** September 27, 2018, 11:02:57 AM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on September 27, 2018, 10:45:59 AM

This is a big part of my entire point here. If Bama>Wisconsin in 2016 wasn't wrong then why are we even talking about bias?
I could claim that Bama>tOSU in 2017 was based on bias, but I'm not saying that largely because I don't think it was wrong.
I do think that the committee is overly biased against losses and should consider SoS more strongly. When Ohio State got in in 2016 I optimistically hoped that it was mostly due to tOSU's very strong SoS that year. That year the Buckeyes played two P5 Champions, both on the road. They also played P5 Divisional Champion Wisconsin on the road. Granted, I'm a fan of Ohio State so I am biased but I think that it is objectively obvious that getting through a slate that includes those three road games plus 10-3 Michigan with only one loss was VERY impressive.
Bama's 2017 SoS wasn't at the level of Ohio State's in 2016 but it was quite good. Unfortunately, I think the committee showed their hand. IMHO, the final rankings will generally be:
All of the undefeated P5 teams (Champions by definition)
All 1-loss P5 Champions
All 1-loss P5 non-Champions
In four years of the CFP we have never had to go beyond #3 but I assume that if we do, the pattern will repeat such that it will go like this:
#4. All 2-loss P5 Champions
#5. All 2-loss P5 non-Champions
etc
I don't think it should be that simplistic. I think that SoS should be a major consideration. If a team loses one more game than another but played three more tough teams then I think the team with the extra loss should get in.

Part of the problem, of course, is that SoS is subjective. A lot of people on here (see @847badgerfan above) like to criticize SEC teams like Bama for playing an FCS opponent. I get that, but in the context of CFP contenders I don't think it matters much. In the context of CFP contenders the difference between playing a bad P5 team, a middling or worse G5 team, or an FCS team will almost always be nil. If you are a legitimate CFP contender then you should beat any bad P5 team, any middling or worse G5 team, and any FCS team without breaking a sweat. What does matter, IMHO, is two things:
How many relative equals did you play. In this context, looking at 2016 tOSU for example, I would consider four of tOSU's opponents to be "relative equals": B12 Champion Oklahoma; B1G Champion Penn State; B1G-W Champion Wisconsin; B1G-E Contender (to the last snap as was recently pointed out to me by @Anonymous Coward ) Michigan.
How many teams that could beat you on the right day without it being the "upset of the century" did you play. I would consider this to be roughly P5 .500+ teams and a few really high-end G5 teams. In my example of 2016 tOSU that would include: 7-6 Northwestern and 9-4 Nebraska with 6-7 Indiana and Maryland and 10-3 Tulsa as possibles.

I suppose we’re talking for two reasons. 1. This kind of system engenders all the talking 2. Some folks were interested in why there wasn’t more talking back then. Basically, what separates the teams that satisfy the loss requirement, especially when some are dismissed more quickly.
Basically, we’re arfuig margins, not big picture.
I read and interesting Bill Connelly take on SoS. What’s interesting to me, is what we’re reallt talking about is this.
1. What what and what was the quality of the “hard” games.
2. Was there an abundance of less-hard, but tricky games (a 12 win team should beat a 7-win team, but playing eight of them is tricky)
3. Was there an intentionality in the schedule you could somewhat choose (this actually has a hint of helmet bias with neutral site games, but that’s another topic)

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #88 on:** September 27, 2018, 11:06:57 AM »

Just wait until a mediocre Notre Dame squad runs the table.

If they beat Stanford this week, it is almost a certainty. USC could still get them, of course. But only because we are "throwing out the records."

MrNubbz · « **Reply #89 on:** September 27, 2018, 11:53:58 AM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on September 26, 2018, 05:46:49 PM

8 teams. P5 conference champions + best G5 team + 2 at-large

Win your conference, you're in. Don't win your conference, you'd better hope you win the beauty contest.

Why is this so freaking hard?

That makes sense for the advertisers greed and the fans blood lust to find out who the best collegiate team is.But it will also be adding more games exposing Sunday Bound kids to greater chance of injury that they won't be willing to take - and I don't blame them

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #90 on:** September 27, 2018, 12:04:39 PM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on September 27, 2018, 11:06:57 AM

Just wait until a mediocre Notre Dame squad runs the table.

If they beat Stanford this week, it is almost a certainty. USC could still get them, of course. But only because we are "throwing out the records."

Michigan , Stanford, USC, Virginia Tech, and Florida State make for a mediocre schedule these days? Michigan is currently #14 (we have them at somewhere between 3 and 4 in our power rankings), Stanford is currently the #7 team, and it's fair to say FSU, VaTech, and USC will continue to flirt with the rankings.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #91 on:** September 27, 2018, 12:08:54 PM »

He may or may may not believe in ND's schedule. But he doesn't seem to be believing in ND itself.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #92 on:** September 27, 2018, 12:10:48 PM »

Quote from: MrNubbz on September 27, 2018, 11:53:58 AM

That makes sense for the advertisers greed and the fans blood lust to find out who the best collegiate team is.But it will also be adding more games exposing Sunday Bound kids to greater chance of injury that they won't be willing to take - and I don't blame them

True. And it'll cut into another week of class. But from adding a 12th game to adding a CFP, we've never seemed to reach our limit with those issues.

MrNubbz · « **Reply #93 on:** September 27, 2018, 12:15:26 PM »

Even if the OOC games beginning the season are cut out,playing more heavy weights at the end will increase risk of injury IMO.Just look at Jake Butt 2 years ago

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #94 on:** September 27, 2018, 12:19:05 PM »

FWIW, I was referencing their schedule from this point forward.

VA Tech and FSU look good on paper, but they are not good this year.

VA Tech lost to an FCS team, and FSU lost to VA Tech.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #95 on:** September 27, 2018, 01:58:03 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous Coward on September 27, 2018, 12:08:54 PM

He may or may may not believe in ND's schedule. But he doesn't seem to be believing in ND itself.

Heh. I have no idea about ND right now. They weren't impressive against Ball State or Vandy, allowing both to claw back into a game that looked out of reach at the start. But if they beat Stanford this weekend, that will be a pretty big feather in their cap to add to the Michigan win.
In any case, like Ohio State in 2002 and Notre Dame in 2012 (among others) if they go unbeaten, they will deserve their shot, which now is merely a spot in the playoff. Unless four other P5 conference champions are unbeaten (which would have to be the Big 12, the BigTen, the SEC, and the ACC), an argument to the contrary is silly.

Anonymous Coward · « **Reply #96 on:** September 27, 2018, 02:13:01 PM »

I'm not disagreeing. If anything I'm in the uncomfortable position of hoping ND is incredible ... or at the very least that ND is "solid" and Michigan has a very high albeit slow developing ceiling. In either event, the regular season be damned, I would love a bowl rematch. Won't happen though and that's good for the sport.

MrNubbz · « **Reply #97 on:** September 27, 2018, 02:18:10 PM »

I could happen,they hadn't played in a few years so it would be like filling the quota.Making up for lost time if you will

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: Stirring the Pot

medinabuckeye1

Re: Stirring the Pot

847badgerfan

Re: Stirring the Pot

medinabuckeye1

Re: Stirring the Pot

bayareabadger

Re: Stirring the Pot

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Stirring the Pot

MrNubbz

Re: Stirring the Pot

SFBadger96

Re: Stirring the Pot

Anonymous Coward

Re: Stirring the Pot

Anonymous Coward

Re: Stirring the Pot

MrNubbz

Re: Stirring the Pot

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Stirring the Pot

SFBadger96

Re: Stirring the Pot

Anonymous Coward

Re: Stirring the Pot

MrNubbz

Re: Stirring the Pot