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.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 20   Go Down
Author

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

 (Read 13801 times)

Kris60

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2514
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #210 on: May 30, 2020, 08:04:10 AM »
Quote from: FearlessF on May 29, 2020, 08:00:51 PM
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
Like I mentioned earlier, an 8-8 team making the playoffs and an 11-5 team staying home probably isn’t fair either.

All college sports playoff selections  have degree of subjectivity to them and it is because of the vastly different schedules college teams play. Not only around the country but within conferences.

The biggest bone of contention with football is that it is all subjective, there is no objective criteria.  I’m actually ok with that but I get the other side with people who aren’t.
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71550
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #211 on: May 30, 2020, 08:26:08 AM »
There are objective criteria obviously.  It's the fourth spot that uses rather more subjective criteria, or better stated, criteria we don't fully understand because we're not in the room.

They have a list of objective criteria that can be applied subjectively at times, using judgment.  It's not as if they are making truly ridiculous selections based on uniform colors.

I don't know how to remove all aspects of subjectivity or make it "fair".  Even if you have a 5 team playoff with only conference champions, you still have Notre Dame, unless you just rule them out entirely.  That would be entirely objective, and could result at times in some "unusual" situations that would not be "fair".
Logged

ftbobs

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 118
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #212 on: May 30, 2020, 05:17:42 PM »
Quote from: Kris60 on May 30, 2020, 08:04:10 AM
Like I mentioned earlier, an 8-8 team making the playoffs and an 11-5 team staying home probably isn’t fair either.

All college sports playoff selections  have degree of subjectivity to them and it is because of the vastly different schedules college teams play. Not only around the country but within conferences.

The biggest bone of contention with football is that it is all subjective, there is no objective criteria.  I’m actually ok with that but I get the other side with people who aren’t.


You have to have some measure of subjectivity.  You can't "rank" teams that not only don't play each other, but rarely play common opponents without some subjectivity.  However, some subjectivity can be removed with the wave of a wand.  If you don't win your conference, your out is one.  You had your chance, why should a subjective measure deny another possibly deserving team the chance?  
Logged

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20325
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #213 on: May 30, 2020, 05:21:29 PM »
That's always been my stance.  I had no problem with the "old" method, but I think 2 or 8 > 4.  At least 2 never even could pretend to be any more than an MNC.  8 allows an objective criteria, mixed with a subjective criteria, while still allowing all conference races to matter into early December.

Is it the best way to determine a national champion?  Of course not.  But neither is any single elimination method.  So why not make the most fun possible regular season?  2 or 8 allows that over 4.
Logged

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6049
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #214 on: May 30, 2020, 09:23:50 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on May 30, 2020, 08:26:08 AM
There are objective criteria obviously.  It's the fourth spot that uses rather more subjective criteria, or better stated, criteria we don't fully understand because we're not in the room.

They have a list of objective criteria that can be applied subjectively at times, using judgment.  It's not as if they are making truly ridiculous selections based on uniform colors.

I don't know how to remove all aspects of subjectivity or make it "fair".  Even if you have a 5 team playoff with only conference champions, you still have Notre Dame, unless you just rule them out entirely.  That would be entirely objective, and could result at times in some "unusual" situations that would not be "fair".
"Fairness" is subjective.  What you think is fair, maybe OAM won't.
We could go back to those BCS computer rankings and use them as a composite.  And that composite ranking would be it.  That at least would be a combination of objectively created rankings.
But the first time a loud enough minority disagreed with the rankings, we'd tell the computer guys to do something stupid, like not let the computers know the scores of the games.
And the next time, we'd just throw them out completely.
Logged
Play Like a Champion Today

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71550
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #215 on: May 31, 2020, 08:46:07 AM »
The only "objective" way would be to use a computer algorithm, which we know generates "unusual" results at times, even end of season.

I think we need human "intervention" when that happens.  Take three decent computer polls and average them to get the top 4, or whatever, might work most of the time.  By "work", I mean generate a reasonable output, but then, the committee does that anyway in my view.

Perfection is the enemy of good enough ...

Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71550
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #216 on: May 31, 2020, 08:47:03 AM »
I also suggest that ANY change be examined retroactively back through 20 seasons to see how often it spits out a weird result.
Logged

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6049
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #217 on: May 31, 2020, 11:51:08 AM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on May 31, 2020, 08:47:03 AM
I also suggest that ANY change be examined retroactively back through 20 seasons to see how often it spits out a weird result.
That is a good suggestion.
Logged
Play Like a Champion Today

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18849
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #218 on: May 31, 2020, 08:21:36 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on May 31, 2020, 08:46:07 AM
The only "objective" way would be to use a computer algorithm, which we know generates "unusual" results at times, even end of season.

I think we need human "intervention" when that happens.  Take three decent computer polls and average them to get the top 4, or whatever, might work most of the time.  By "work", I mean generate a reasonable output, but then, the committee does that anyway in my view.

Perfection is the enemy of good enough ...


No, we don't need intervention, we need to better understand why the computers ranked the teams the way they did.
We almost had it - using the objective computers, but then we bastardized them and their formulas, then tweaked them every year, then threw them out.

We were soooo close........
Logged
“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

Kris60

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2514
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #219 on: May 31, 2020, 08:22:01 PM »
Quote from: ftbobs on May 30, 2020, 05:17:42 PM
You have to have some measure of subjectivity.  You can't "rank" teams that not only don't play each other, but rarely play common opponents without some subjectivity.  However, some subjectivity can be removed with the wave of a wand.  If you don't win your conference, your out is one.  You had your chance, why should a subjective measure deny another possibly deserving team the chance? 
To me, the answer is the wacky way these supersized conferences decide championships. You mentioned teams that don’t play each other or common opponents.  Hell, that happens within conferences.  Ohio St had an undefeated record and had already beaten a 2 loss Wisconsin team when they had to play them again in the Big Ten CCG.  A couple years ago Oklahoma went undefeated in a round robin schedule but still had to play TCU again in the CCG to be declared the champion.  I don’t want teams like Ohio St and Oklahoma waved off with a magic wand because they play in conferences with stupid rules for determining a champion.

It’s entirely possible for a team  to go undefeated within its  division but still not win the division to qualify for the CCG.  I’d be more inclined to agree with your proposal if we had conference sizes that allowed round robin scheduling without the split divisions and CCG format.
Logged

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18849
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #220 on: May 31, 2020, 08:22:26 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on May 31, 2020, 08:47:03 AM
I also suggest that ANY change be examined retroactively back through 20 seasons to see how often it spits out a weird result.
A "weird result" to whom?  
We have to change our attitude about this - a weird result isn't something to fix, it's something to understand.
Logged
“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: 18849
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #221 on: May 31, 2020, 08:31:52 PM »
An only-conference-champs-get-in model rewards weak conferences.  It does.  It rewards being lucky to miss certain teams from the other division.  
Logged
“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: 71550
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #222 on: May 31, 2020, 08:53:52 PM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 31, 2020, 08:22:26 PM
A "weird result" to whom? 
We have to change our attitude about this - a weird result isn't something to fix, it's something to understand.
I would consider a 10-3 team getting in over an 11-1 team that beat said 10-3 team decisively a weird result.
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #223 on: June 01, 2020, 11:59:44 AM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on May 29, 2020, 07:43:40 AM
Weirdness happens if you wait long enough.  In 1978, UGA almost won the SEC and a Sugar Bowl bid with FOUR OOC losses.
You must have misspoken here.  I was curious so I looked it up.  In 1978 UGA finished 9-2-1.  The two losses were OOC (USCe) and Bowl (Stanford).  The tie was with Auburn but the Tigers only went 6-4-1.  The Dawgs finished the regular season 9-1-1/5-0-1 but missed the Sugar Bowl because the Tide (UGA and Bama did not play that year) finished their regular season 10-1/6-0 with an OOC loss to USC.  

I think you meant 1979.  In 1979 the  Dawgs finished the regular season 5-5/5-1 with a conference loss to Auburn and FOUR OOC losses to:
  • Wake Forest at home by a point
  • Clemson on the road by five
  • USCe at home by a TD
  • UVA at home by 31-0

They missed the SEC Championship and Sugar Bowl because the Tide went 11-0/6-0.  

I agree weirdness happens.  If the four-team CFP lasts long enough eventually there will be a debate between a 3-loss Champion and a two-loss non-champion for the fourth spot.  
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 20   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
Smokeys Record Year Hoodie

Living Wedding Guest Book