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: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages

 (Read 19818 times)

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 41515
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #196 on: May 29, 2020, 05:08:36 PM »
yup, the 4 best teams are ALWAYS the 4 teams with the fewest losses

the committee usually just has to select the 4th team from a list of teams with the same amount of losses

2019 only 4 teams with one loss or less - EASY

2018 Sooners or Buckeyes

2017 was tough - Georgai, Bama, Ohio St, Wisconsin, 

2016 - only 4 teams with one loss or less - EASY

2015 - Michigan St, Iowa, or Ohio St

2014 - Ohio St. Baylor, or TCU
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 78300
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #197 on: May 29, 2020, 05:13:45 PM »
I know Auburn was about to be selected with two losses one year, so that can happen.  I think it will be rare, as will be a 12-1 P5 champ being left out.

I have not had any outrage over the selections personally.  I heard last year they have UGA serious consideration, which I think would have been atrocious really, they had two bad losses and had their shot.  I think had UGA slipped by USCe, they would have been included last year, which also would have been a mistake I think.

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 41515
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #198 on: May 29, 2020, 05:27:49 PM »
I've not had a problem with their selections either

it's not rocket science - you and I could pick the top 4 on a webX in 15 minutes
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13532
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #199 on: May 29, 2020, 05:43:31 PM »
I've not had a problem with their selections either

it's not rocket science - you and I could pick the top 4 on a webX in 15 minutes
Sure, it's easy when you care a lot less about the "best teams" and just limit yourselves to the simple rules:

  • Undefeated? You're in.
  • 1-loss? We'll try to figure out who has either the strongest schedule or the least "bad" loss.
  • 2-losses? Better hope the world's on fire if you want a shot. 

I mean, in 2018 Georgia couldn't have been one of the best 4 teams in the land, because they had two losses.

Sure, after losing their bowl game they were STILL second only to Alabama in S/P+, and the only games they lost prior to their bowl were losses to the teams that finished #1 and #5 in S/P+.

I don't know what Notre Dame's S/P+ was prior to losing the CFP Semifinal, but they finished at 13th. But they were undefeated so they were definitely one of the best 4 teams in the country. A century of being perennially overrated notwithstanding.


Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 78300
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #200 on: May 29, 2020, 05:58:45 PM »
I didn't think the Dawgs should have been in even given their close loss to Bama in the CG.  That was their shot, they lost.  Win, and you're in.  

Maybe if they had no other losses, maybe, depending.

Their bowl opponent was some G5 team and they just didn't care as I dimly recall.

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13532
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #201 on: May 29, 2020, 06:00:12 PM »
I didn't think the Dawgs should have been in even given their close loss to Bama in the CG.  That was their shot, they lost.  Win, and you're in. 

Maybe if they had no other losses, maybe, depending.

Their bowl opponent was some G5 team and they just didn't care as I dimly recall.
But I thought you wanted the 4 best teams in the land?

At least by S/P+, considering after losing in their bowl to Texas Georgia was *still* #2 in S/P+, it seems like they were pretty damn good. 

Better than Notre Dame, anyway.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 78300
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #202 on: May 29, 2020, 06:01:53 PM »
No, I never said I wanted the four best teams.  I noted the guidelines say "four best teams for the playoff", which to me is different.

I'm fine with how the committee has chosen.

Kris60

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2576
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #203 on: May 29, 2020, 06:15:31 PM »
That's why I don't want college football to have a post-season that resembles that of other sports.
Me either 

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20289
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #204 on: May 29, 2020, 06:19:51 PM »
  • I'd say Baylor/TCU could make an argument in 2014. Nobody believed FSU was all that good that year, but there was no way the committee would exclude a 13-0 team, so they came in and got curb-stomped by Oregon.
  • 2015 I'm not sure which one was excluded, but Michigan State certainly wasn't one of the best 4.
  • 2018 Ohio State could make an argument. After all, Notre Dame is perennially overrated and there's no way that the committee wouldn't select them at 12-0, and then they were exposed (as always happens with ND) badly. They had one bad upset, but I don't think that reflects on the quality of that team.

Now, I'm not saying that any of those teams would have won it all, but I'm sure there are a few that should have been in the conversation.


Yeah, I worded my post to specifically avoid what you did here.  You're debating bubble teams.  
“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: 20289
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #205 on: May 29, 2020, 06:21:52 PM »
It is objective.
It might not be fair or accurate, but it is objective.  You win your conference, by rules in place before the season starts, and you are in the playoff.
As I've said, I'd vote for going back to bowls and polls.
In the absence of that, I'd like to see winning your conference either be a pre-requisite (for a 2- or 4-team playoff) or an automatic entry (for a 6-team playoff).

I don't like mandated uniformity in conference size and scheduling philosophy.  The NFL provides that for people who like such things.
The NFL also lets you in its playoffs with a 7-9 record.  In college football, that would not happen.
Can we please stop with the equitable, uniform college football framework fast-forwarding to the NFL model?  They're nowhere near the same.
“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: 20289
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #206 on: May 29, 2020, 06:25:08 PM »
For me, I don't think a goal of the 4 best teams is important.  
Within a group of 4 top teams, as long as the committee has included the best team, they've done their job.  No, the best team won't always win it all, and statisically speaking, it won't always be the 1 seed.  But as long as they don't flub it up so badly that the actual (and unknowable) best team is one of the four, they did their job.
“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: 78300
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #207 on: May 29, 2020, 06:27:07 PM »
I think they have always gotten 3 of 4 right, the fourth one will be controversial often as not.  I can live with that.

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 41515
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #208 on: May 29, 2020, 08:00:51 PM »
No, I never said I wanted the four best teams.  I noted the guidelines say "four best teams for the playoff", which to me is different.

I'm fine with how the committee has chosen.
so we have the same old beauty pagent with the polls, but with a 4 team playoff at the end
hey, it's not fair, but it makes money
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 78300
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #209 on: May 30, 2020, 07:02:33 AM »
Life is not fair.  I stopped expecting fairness decades ago.  

 

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