header pic

The B12 (XII) Forum, home of the 'Front Porch, y'all' 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: Bama or Buckeyes?

 (Read 9158 times)

CousinFreddie

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2017, 12:51:59 PM »
Well, I think many of us apes could grasp what you're suggesting, kind of.

It's the same kind of method a college instructor uses to rank students.  You let the top group emerge from the cloud of grades over a semester.  From a class of say 20 students, it can range from 2-3 up to 6-7 in that top grade cluster.  They all get As.  Everyone else gets lower grades, also clustered out.

Here, instead of As, the top group get into the playoff bracket.  The trick of course would be to decide on what the metrics are (for example number of losses, conference championship winners, number of impressive non-conference wins, lack of blowouts, lack of losses to losing teams, etc).  Of course to some extent that's what the BCS system tried to do (at least the metrics part, but not the flexible, or any type of, playoff part).

MikeDeTiger

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2029
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2017, 12:57:04 PM »
so which team is better Bama or OSU

thats the only question that has merit
Depends on how you view their resumes.
Alabama has a better loss.  Ohio State has better wins.  Alabama has only 1 loss.  Ohio State played more games.  Discounting for now that I think losses are wuss things to be judging potential championship teams on (it really said something about Alabama in 2011 that their biggest resume bullet was a good LOSS), we'll just say that so far they cancel out.  
Ohio State won their division and won their conference.  That would tip it for me.  
Alabama is in due to the eyeball test, which is the biggest pile of crap, considering nobody knows who the "best" teams are just by watching them.  Every week teams win that people thought would lose, and frankly people would make their living gambling if they were so good at predicting the better team.  This has historically been, and should remain, a resume sport.  But lately the rules get bent more and more to accommodate things like ratings, helmet bias, or sheer stupidity of voters.  

CousinFreddie

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2017, 01:08:24 PM »
I guess for me it's more of a game by game kind of thing, and as I look at the Bama schedule, basically no one can get going against them.  They have such a crushing defense.  It's an achievement even to get to double digits against those guys.  Auburn scored 26 and that tops it for the year.  True their offense may not be the end all, but they're good enough to hold on to the ball and grind out points and keep the defense on the bench long enough to keep the other team's offense pinned down and stymied.

Ohio State on the other hand, better offense, but like as happened against OU, they just don't have the defense to stay up with a really good offense.  Oklahoma had them figured out by the 2nd quarter and was going through them both on the ground and in the air in the 2nd half.  And then other teams were also able to parse their D, such as Iowa, Penn St and to some extent Wisconsin (that was a really good game though - pretty even match).  No one did anything like those games against the Bama defense.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14512
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2017, 01:13:56 PM »
Depends on how you view their resumes.
Alabama has a better loss.  Ohio State has better wins.  Alabama has only 1 loss.  Ohio State played more games.  Discounting for now that I think losses are wuss things to be judging potential championship teams on (it really said something about Alabama in 2011 that their biggest resume bullet was a good LOSS), we'll just say that so far they cancel out.  
Ohio State won their division and won their conference.  That would tip it for me.  
Alabama is in due to the eyeball test, which is the biggest pile of crap, considering nobody knows who the "best" teams are just by watching them.  Every week teams win that people thought would lose, and frankly people would make their living gambling if they were so good at predicting the better team.  This has historically been, and should remain, a resume sport.  But lately the rules get bent more and more to accommodate things like ratings, helmet bias, or sheer stupidity of voters.  
Yeah, the real key to me, is that tOSU just has a better list of wins.   Somewhere upthread CousinFred made a statement along the lines of, "at least we can all agree that Alabama is one of the four best teams in the country."  And my answer is, no, I don't think we can all agree on that.  There's simply not enough data supporting the idea that Alabama can beat the "other three" of the best teams in the country, because to date they haven't beaten a single team of that caliber.  Clemson, OU, and Georgia all have signature wins both in and out of conference.  Ohio State has signature wins IN conference.  Alabama has none of the above.
I'm not saying it's impossible to think of Alabama as one of the top 4 teams in the country, but I'm saying it's certainly arguable that they are not.  Ohio State and USC each have a reasonable argument to be considered ahead of Alabama.

CharleyHorse46

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2017, 01:18:34 PM »
I think that the major legitimate obstacle is the need to schedule venues well in advance.
I don't think that anyone should or even could use this year as a reason to push for 8 teams.  Does anyone think that 3-loss Auburn, #7 in the CFP rankings, should be playing for a national championship?
Sure.  I can see that as a legitimate obstacle.  However, I also see it as another modern day malady of the tail wagging the dog.
A hundred years ago if two teams wanted to play, they got out on the field and played.  Selling tickets to spectators was beside the point.
Nowadays, we're so worried about everybody getting their dollar that we're actually questioning whether or not a  game should be played if it creates a hardship for a venue?!!!
Craziness!
Most schools don't know which bowl they're going to play in until the season is over any way.
Schools that love baseball clamor to host regionals and super-regionals.  They submit bids to the NCAA who pick and choose.  Not all get picked.  There are no guarantees.
March Madness works the same way.
Here's what you do.  You let everybody know that there may or may not be a half dozen or more games that need to be played in late December or early January and you encourage them to bid.
Clemson and Alabama have been to the last three CFPs.  You think they wouldn't bid?  Other teams with nice facilities and high ambitions might bid.  Think Jerry Jones would let the opportunity pass?
Before the season starts the NCAA could name the 10 finalists or whatever and as the playoff scenario shakes out the necessary sites will be chosen.
What's the worst that could happen?  Some stadium sets empty one Saturday because they took a chance on hosting a playoff game and it didn't pay off?
Are we going to let some butthurt millionaire, franchise or university prevent us from embracing a sensible playoff system?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 01:21:07 PM by CharleyHorse46 »

CousinFreddie

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2017, 01:19:18 PM »
Somewhere upthread CousinFred made a statement along the lines of, "at least we can all agree that Alabama is one of the four best teams in the country."  And my answer is, no, I don't think we can all agree on that. 
I just looked back up thread, and I don't think I said this anywhere.  Maybe Drew did?  I'm not naive enough to think that we can "all agree" on really anything here on the porch :021: :039:

Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 9409
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2017, 01:26:52 PM »
.....Does anyone think that 3-loss Auburn, #7 in the CFP rankings, should be playing for a national championship?
well... funny you asked. 
no, not in the big game, and not in the tourney... but depending on how this thing shakes out- the final poll could have them as high as #3, and legitimately.  well... sorta legit... a solid argument.  
IF bama and ooga make it to final game, and it's close.... auburn beat both those teams, giving both teams their only loss(es)... if bama and ooga handle their prior opponents easily, this could be a real thing.  
the B10 would lose their collective minds.  well, those that haven't already misplaced it.  


utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14512
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2017, 01:27:29 PM »
fully agree...
there should be little doubt that Bama is at least one of the best four teams in the nation.   but... they didn't perform when they most needed to- and should have lost their position because of that one game.
however, they would destroy tOSU, and anyone else from the B10... Clemson is worthy, regardless of their terribly foul loss, and OU is playing as good as any of the other three.  
  • Georgia is going to be hard to stop.  their backfield is the best in the nation.  their starting 11 on D is the best starting 11 in the nation.  they're likely the team to beat by my reckoning.  
  • Clemson plays to whatever level they are required to play to... they lost to 'cuse, yeah- but it wasn't the rupture tOSU endured to both OU AND Iowa.  Their D is STOUT, and they have likely the best starting lines in the nation.
  • OU is playing as well as anyone on O, and have proven it's not a 'conference' thing by lighting up both TCU (x2) and tOSU's nationally ranked D's.  Their D is serviceable and enough to keep them in the game with the other three.
  • Bama may not have the best starting lines, nor the best starting O or D in the nation, but they are better than anyone below the top 6.   but to state the obvious, you could rotate three players on either side of the ball and they'd still have a better starting O or D than anyone but the top six... attrition wins.  they'll be fresh when the games begin, and.... they'll be favored throughout the playoffs.
honestly, once folks get over their redasses, this is going to be the best playoff so far.... there isn't a team there that clearly stands out from the others.
Sorry Fred, you're right, it was drew.  And even with his qualifiers in place, I still disagree-- I think there's plenty of room for doubt that they're one of the four best teams in the country.  I think there are plenty of reasonable arguments for Ohio State and perhaps even USC being picked ahead of them.
But, what's done is done.  No sense in arguing about it now.  College football fans have collectively clamored for a playoff for decades, and here it is.  Be careful what you wish, and all...

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5863
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2017, 01:29:29 PM »
I wish that Wisconsin would have won in Indianapolis Saturday night.  That would have given the Committee an easier choice.

13-0 conference champ would have trumped 11-1 not-even-division champ easily, whereas 11-2 conference champ with signature wins did not.
Play Like a Champion Today

CharleyHorse46

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2017, 01:31:30 PM »
Well, I think many of us apes could grasp what you're suggesting, kind of.

It's the same kind of method a college instructor uses to rank students.  You let the top group emerge from the cloud of grades over a semester.  From a class of say 20 students, it can range from 2-3 up to 6-7 in that top grade cluster.  They all get As.  Everyone else gets lower grades, also clustered out.

Here, instead of As, the top group get into the playoff bracket.  The trick of course would be to decide on what the metrics are (for example number of losses, conference championship winners, number of impressive non-conference wins, lack of blowouts, lack of losses to losing teams, etc).  Of course to some extent that's what the BCS system tried to do (at least the metrics part, but not the flexible, or any type of, playoff part).
Exactly.
That's the way groups almost always shake out and many of us deal with things like this all of the time.
I audit contracts based on risk assessment scores.  When you rank them from highest risk to lowest, there are always natural breaks that identify a distinct group of highest but comparably ranked contractors.
Same with reviewing applications to determine which applicants to interview.  You rank them and there's always a top group of applicants worthy of interviewing.
The thing is you always have to let the number shake out naturally.  You can't predetermine it will be 5 or 10 or whatever.
Remember the helmetosity talk.  The same nine schools shake out just about every way you rank programs.  Not four, not six, not ten.  But nine.  
There's always a natural group.  It just doesn't always fit into a pre-determined box.
And here's how you can do it.  You take the two P5 team with the best record.  If more than two P5 teams have the same record, you take all of them too.  If a G6 team has record better than the best P5 team's record, you include it too.  Some years you have two teams.  Some years you have six or seven.  So what?  It's all good.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 01:36:29 PM by CharleyHorse46 »

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5863
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2017, 01:34:38 PM »
While I think that Bama would probably beat tOSU, the Committee in selecting Bama unfortunately has sent the message that you don't need to win your conference--heck! you don't even need to play for the championship--and you don't need a tough OOC schedule.

The Committee says that it stresses SoS, but when that stress interferes with selecting the team that it wants to see in there, SoS is quickly forgotten.

Sort of like having a key injury or two diminishing the impact of a loss.
Play Like a Champion Today

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14512
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2017, 01:39:05 PM »
Exactly.
That's the way groups almost always shake out and many of us deal with things like this all of the time.
I audit contracts based on risk assessment scores.  When you rank them from highest risk to lowest, there are always natural breaks that identify a distinct group of highest but comparably ranked contractors.
Same with reviewing applications to determine which applicants to interview.  You rank them and there's always a top group of applicants worthy of interviewing.
The thing is you always have to let the number shake out naturally.  You can't predetermine it will be 5 or 10 or whatever.
Remember the helmetosity talk.  The same nine schools shake out just about every way you rank programs.  Not four, not six, not ten.  But nine.  
There's always a natural group.  It just doesn't always fit into a pre-determined box.
And here's how you can do it.  You take at least the two P5 team with the best record.  If more than two P5 teams have the same record, you take all of them too.  If a G6 team has record better than the best P5 team's record, you include it too.  Some years you have two teams.  Some years you have six or seven.  So what?  It's all good.
It's not the ambiguity in venue selection, that would prevent a flexible postseason schedule.  It's the ambiguity in future revenue streams.
School athletic budgets, and therefore conference athletic budgets, cannot tolerate a wide variance in year-over-year income.  It must be steady and predictable, and in all honestly it must be contractually locked in to be guaranteed to be steady and predictable.  A 4-team playoff is going generate a lot more revenue than a 2-team playoff.  An 8-team playoff will generate more revenue still.  The money generated by these games goes to the conferences, and is then distributed to the schools.  And it can not be erratic, it must be be somewhat steady and predictable.
This is also why the idea of relegation would never work for college athletics, which doesn't come up often but has come up every once in a while over the past couple of decades.

CharleyHorse46

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2017, 01:44:57 PM »
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said, "Things which mater most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least."

But that's exactly what these pre-set 4, 8 or 16 team playoffs are all about.  That's exactly what worrying about venues is all about.

The best, most worthy teams should go to the playoff every year based on their record so that people don't have to sit around and debate whether or not the fifth best team was really better than the fourth.

It's insanity that we worry about things like networks and venues.

Let the season naturally shake out the teams and then pair them up.   If ESPN or Jerry World are so afraid of being left in the lurch that they object, so what?  Some other, possibly less mercenary entity, will volunteer.  

The point is all about putting first things first and getting it right.  Anybody stands in the way of that they just have their personal or financial interests at heart instead of COLLEGE FOOTBALL.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 01:46:52 PM by CharleyHorse46 »

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14512
  • Liked:
Re: Bama or Buckeyes?
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2017, 01:51:58 PM »
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said, "Things which mater most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least."

But that's exactly what these pre-set 4, 8 or 16 team playoffs are all about.  That's exactly what worrying about venues is all about.

The best, most worthy teams should go to the playoff every year based on their record so that people don't have to sit around and debate whether or not the fifth best team was really better than the fourth.

It's insanity that we worry about things like networks and venues.

Let the season naturally shake out the teams and then pair them up.   If ESPN or Jerry World are so afraid of being left in the lurch that they object, so what?  Some other, possibly less mercenary entity, will volunteer.  

The point is all about putting first things first and getting it right.  Anybody stands in the way of that they just have their personal or financial interests at heart instead of COLLEGE FOOTBALL.

It's a beautiful dream my friend.  But finances have been the driving force in college football for a very long time now.  That ship sailed long ago.
As I've said many times, I'd really prefer to go back to conference affiliations and bowl alignments from around 1980 or so.  Conferences were regional and made sense.  Beating your rival and winning the conference were the primary goals, and hoping for a "good bowl" where you might or might not get a chance to prove yourself on the national stage was significantly less important.  But that time is long gone, and there's no going back.

 

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