CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on January 03, 2019, 01:34:21 AM
-
Letdown team: any team that is in line to play for the national championship if it wins its last game of the season (pre-bowl), but loses said game. Then they go on to lose their bowl, most often against a lower-ranked/talented team.
Playoff era: top 4 team or ranked 5th and playing a top 4 team in its CCG/season finale.
BCS era: top 2 team or ranked 3rd and playing a top 2 team in its CCG/season finale.
Pre-BCS era: #1 team only, or #2 and playing the #1 team in its CCG/season finale.
Year, Team, Bowl outcome
2018, Michigan - L
Georgia - L
2017, Auburn - L
Wisconsin - W
2016, Michigan - L
2015, Iowa - L
2013, Missouri - W
Ohio State - L
2012, Georgia - W
2009 , Florida - W
2008 , Alabama - L
2007, Missouri - W
West Virginia - W
2006, Michigan - L
USC - W...........UM & USC played in a bowl, one had to win/one had to lose
2001
Tennesee - W
1998, UCLA - L
Kansas State - L
1995, Ohio State - L
1989, Alabama - L
Notre Dame - W
1988, USC - L
1985, Nebraska - L
1984, Nebraska - W
1982, SMU - W..........The Mustangs actually tied their last game, but dropped in the polls, so I'll count it
1981, Pitt, W
1980, Notre Dame - L
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so that's going back to my birth year, which is plenty.
These teams are 12-15 in their bowl games. If someone else has a better explanation for these teams having a losing record, when most of them were favored/higher ranked in their bowl, I'm all ears. The point isn't that they always lose due to a letdown, it's that they lose more often than they should be expected to. I think this bores that out.
-
First, I'd like to thank you for putting in the time and effort to do some research. It's an interesting topic for sure.
But to answer this question you posed:
"If someone else has a better explanation for these teams having a losing record, when most of them were favored/higher ranked in their bowl, I'm all ears. "
Well then, sure, there are plenty of reasons for the effect you're attempting to describe and define. One simple explanation is that the "let-down losers" were overrated. Your model is relying on the rankings/ratings of the very sheeple you blast on a regular basis. They are often wrong, because they are lazy and engage in group-think. But there's a reason they didn't make it into the playoff/BCS/MNC game. In most cases they didn't just lose their final game, they lost other game(s) too. Which indicates they're fallible and the final season-ending loss wasn't some anomaly.
Second, the sample size is still small enough to be considered statistically insignificant. And it comes out almost 50-50 which does little to support your assertion, regardless. Even if we are to disregard the point I made above and assume that the rankings were "correct," there's still not enough of a trend to come to the conclusion that you have. And I absolutely can't disregard my first point because I have little faith in the rankings themselves.
Third, you've narrowed your definition so fine, that it's not a representative sample. Despite your protests to the contrary, many teams that don't fit your precise definition, still have all of the emotional hallmarks of a team that accuratley fit your "let-down syndrome" hypothesis.
In the other thread, you dismissed them, but 2008 Texas is ABSOLUTELY a team that had every single one of its post-season dreams ripped away at the very end of the season. And not by a particular season-ending loss, but by something far worse-- a tie-breaker that essentially removed their chances at attaining EVERY single post-season goal they had. When the B12 tie-breaker concluded that OU would represent the B12 South-- a team that Texas had already beaten by double digits on a neutral site-- it eliminated ALL of Texas' season-long goals of playing in the B12 CCG, winning the B12, and playing for the MNC. It also quite possibly flipped the Heisman voting to Sam Bradford. Colt McCoy finished second, but had it been Texas playing in the B12 CCG and winning it, and then being selected to go to the MNC game, then it's possible and perhaps even likely that Colt would have edged Bradford in the voting. Texas lost EVERYTHING with that coin flip tie-breaker, and had every reason to mail it in for the bowl game. And yet they didn't-- they went on to play and beat the B10 co-champ Ohio State Buckeyes in the Sugar Bowl that year. Because they were playing for pride, and they were playing to show the poll voters that it should have been Texas in the MNC game, not the Sooners.
And 2008 Texas is just one example of teams that have all of the same emotional hallmarks of a "snubbed" team or a "disappointed" team that didn't make the final game or playoff. There are numerous others. Your narrow definition dismisses them, which is part of why it results in an inaccurate hypothesis and an unsubstantiated conclusion.
So in short,there are plenty of valid reasons to disagree with your assertion.
But again I do appreciate the time and effort you took to break down the data. If you included ALL of the data, like 2008 Texas and numerous others in similar circumstances, you might come closer to getting a statistically significant sample size, as well as an appropriately representative one. Then we could all take a look at the total picture and see if there's really any consistent trend.
-
My guess is the "let down" concept is a significant factor at times. I still think the "no let down" record would be something like 15-12 in some alternative reality simply because of the quality of the opponents.
How often should a #5 team beat a #15 team without a let down? I'd guess something like 2 times in 3., and that is a larger spread than is typical as you often have a #5 team playing a #8 team.
This is an interesting concept to consider next year. Did Ohio State have a let down or were they motivated to prove something? Had UGA blow out Texas, would they have proven the committee wrong?
-
My guess is the "let down" concept is a significant factor at times. I still think the "no let down" record would be something like 15-12 in some alternative reality simply because of the quality of the opponents.
How often should a #5 team beat a #15 team without a let down? I'd guess something like 2 times in 3., and that is a larger spread than is typical as you often have a #5 team playing a #8 team.
This is an interesting concept to consider next year. Did Ohio State have a let down or were they motivated to prove something? Had UGA blow out Texas, would they have proven the committee wrong?
One way to cut the data, would be to take a look at how many times in the regular season do similar "upsets" happen? If it happens more often in "let-down loser" bowl games, then that might be a start at generating a real hypothesis. Unfortunately I still don't think we have enough data to come to any serious conclusions. Nor do I believe using the rankings is a valid way to measure relative team strength and expectation of outcome.
But it would at least be another view.
-
First, I'd like to thank you for putting in the time and effort to do some research. It's an interesting topic for sure.
But to answer this question you posed:
"If someone else has a better explanation for these teams having a losing record, when most of them were favored/higher ranked in their bowl, I'm all ears. "
Well then, sure, there are plenty of reasons for the effect you're attempting to describe and define. One simple explanation is that the "let-down losers" were overrated. Your model is relying on the rankings/ratings of the very sheeple you blast on a regular basis. They are often wrong, because they are lazy and engage in group-think. But there's a reason they didn't make it into the playoff/BCS/MNC game. In most cases they didn't just lose their final game, they lost other game(s) too. Which indicates they're fallible and the final season-ending loss wasn't some anomaly.
Second, the sample size is still small enough to be considered statistically insignificant. And it comes out almost 50-50 which does little to support your assertion, regardless. Even if we are to disregard the point I made above and assume that the rankings were "correct," there's still not enough of a trend to come to the conclusion that you have. And I absolutely can't disregard my first point because I have little faith in the rankings themselves.
Third, you've narrowed your definition so fine, that it's not a representative sample. Despite your protests to the contrary, many teams that don't fit your precise definition, still have all of the emotional hallmarks of a team that accuratley fit your "let-down syndrome" hypothesis.
In the other thread, you dismissed them, but 2008 Texas is ABSOLUTELY a team that had every single one of its post-season dreams ripped away at the very end of the season. And not by a particular season-ending loss, but by something far worse-- a tie-breaker that essentially removed their chances at attaining EVERY single post-season goal they had. When the B12 tie-breaker concluded that OU would represent the B12 South-- a team that Texas had already beaten by double digits on a neutral site-- it eliminated ALL of Texas' season-long goals of playing in the B12 CCG, winning the B12, and playing for the MNC. It also quite possibly flipped the Heisman voting to Sam Bradford. Colt McCoy finished second, but had it been Texas playing in the B12 CCG and winning it, and then being selected to go to the MNC game, then it's possible and perhaps even likely that Colt would have edged Bradford in the voting. Texas lost EVERYTHING with that coin flip tie-breaker, and had every reason to mail it in for the bowl game. And yet they didn't-- they went on to play and beat the B10 co-champ Ohio State Buckeyes in the Sugar Bowl that year. Because they were playing for pride, and they were playing to show the poll voters that it should have been Texas in the MNC game, not the Sooners.
And 2008 Texas is just one example of teams that have all of the same emotional hallmarks of a "snubbed" team or a "disappointed" team that didn't make the final game or playoff. There are numerous others. Your narrow definition dismisses them, which is part of why it results in an inaccurate hypothesis and an unsubstantiated conclusion.
So in short,there are plenty of valid reasons to disagree with your assertion.
But again I do appreciate the time and effort you took to break down the data. If you included ALL of the data, like 2008 Texas and numerous others in similar circumstances, you might come closer to getting a statistically significant sample size, as well as an appropriately representative one. Then we could all take a look at the total picture and see if there's really any consistent trend.
Excellent post. I agree on all counts. I think a team like Washington St should be included in his letdown criteria. Their loss to UW knocked them out of the CFP, the Rose Bowl, and any other NY6 bowl. Despite that, they went out and won the Alamo Bowl.
Here is my other problem with the letdown theory. I’ll agree that it may affect a player or team’s preparation for the game. But you will never convince me it affects the effort in the game. Once the lights come on and the crowd starts roaring, and the hitting starts, and the trash talking begins the competitive instincts kick in. It’s a football game at that point and they are trying to win.
-
First, I'd like to thank you for putting in the time and effort to do some research. It's an interesting topic for sure.
But to answer this question you posed:
"If someone else has a better explanation for these teams having a losing record, when most of them were favored/higher ranked in their bowl, I'm all ears. "
Well then, sure, there are plenty of reasons for the effect you're attempting to describe and define. One simple explanation is that the "let-down losers" were overrated. Your model is relying on the rankings/ratings of the very sheeple you blast on a regular basis. They are often wrong, because they are lazy and engage in group-think. But there's a reason they didn't make it into the playoff/BCS/MNC game. In most cases they didn't just lose their final game, they lost other game(s) too. Which indicates they're fallible and the final season-ending loss wasn't some anomaly.
Second, the sample size is still small enough to be considered statistically insignificant. And it comes out almost 50-50 which does little to support your assertion, regardless. Even if we are to disregard the point I made above and assume that the rankings were "correct," there's still not enough of a trend to come to the conclusion that you have. And I absolutely can't disregard my first point because I have little faith in the rankings themselves.
Third, you've narrowed your definition so fine, that it's not a representative sample. Despite your protests to the contrary, many teams that don't fit your precise definition, still have all of the emotional hallmarks of a team that accuratley fit your "let-down syndrome" hypothesis.
In the other thread, you dismissed them, but 2008 Texas is ABSOLUTELY a team that had every single one of its post-season dreams ripped away at the very end of the season. And not by a particular season-ending loss, but by something far worse-- a tie-breaker that essentially removed their chances at attaining EVERY single post-season goal they had. When the B12 tie-breaker concluded that OU would represent the B12 South-- a team that Texas had already beaten by double digits on a neutral site-- it eliminated ALL of Texas' season-long goals of playing in the B12 CCG, winning the B12, and playing for the MNC. It also quite possibly flipped the Heisman voting to Sam Bradford. Colt McCoy finished second, but had it been Texas playing in the B12 CCG and winning it, and then being selected to go to the MNC game, then it's possible and perhaps even likely that Colt would have edged Bradford in the voting. Texas lost EVERYTHING with that coin flip tie-breaker, and had every reason to mail it in for the bowl game. And yet they didn't-- they went on to play and beat the B10 co-champ Ohio State Buckeyes in the Sugar Bowl that year. Because they were playing for pride, and they were playing to show the poll voters that it should have been Texas in the MNC game, not the Sooners.
And 2008 Texas is just one example of teams that have all of the same emotional hallmarks of a "snubbed" team or a "disappointed" team that didn't make the final game or playoff. There are numerous others. Your narrow definition dismisses them, which is part of why it results in an inaccurate hypothesis and an unsubstantiated conclusion.
So in short,there are plenty of valid reasons to disagree with your assertion.
But again I do appreciate the time and effort you took to break down the data. If you included ALL of the data, like 2008 Texas and numerous others in similar circumstances, you might come closer to getting a statistically significant sample size, as well as an appropriately representative one. Then we could all take a look at the total picture and see if there's really any consistent trend.
Don't think I could possibly phrase it better
-
During the regular season a team can play a less respected program/team in between 2 big games. often there is a "let down" and they lose. When it comes to playoffs or NC games, we don't excuse those away... they are part of the resume. Yet when it comes to bowl games, fans love to make excuses.
-
Excellent post. I agree on all counts. I think a team like Washington St should be included in his letdown criteria. Their loss to UW knocked them out of the CFP, the Rose Bowl, and any other NY6 bowl. Despite that, they went out and won the Alamo Bowl.
Here is my other problem with the letdown theory. I’ll agree that it may affect a player or team’s preparation for the game. But you will never convince me it affects the effort in the game. Once the lights come on and the crowd starts roaring, and the hitting starts, and the trash talking begins the competitive instincts kick in. It’s a football game at that point and they are trying to win.
This is it right here. This is 100 percent on the coaching staff, period. If a staff sees a kid or kids giving half effort, it's up to them to get the kids snapped in and focused.
-
So many factors at work.
First, I think teams do have letdowns. Definitely on the preparation side, which in sports played at this level makes a huge difference. Teams "play down" to the competition all the time. Better preparation, better leadership, better whatever could fix this, but there's a reason that there's more to coaching at this level than just recruiting.
Second, I think teams get behind early and fall apart. This happens at all levels of sport (and life, frankly). This is more likely to happen if the team already feels like it isn't getting its due, which is part of the letdown dynamic. To Cincy's point about teams losing when they are favored, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have been favored, it just means they lost. Again, Purdue shouldn't have crushed Ohio State--a 1-loss, Rose Bowl winner--but it did. The ball starts rolling and sometimes it doesn't stop.
This goes to the "they showed up to play" issue. Yes, when the lights go on, they run out of the tunnel, and they line up for the first play, they are jacked and ready to go. But when they are all of the sudden--unexpectedly--down two scores, they remember the feeling of loss from the last game, they don't get a call they really wanted, and they have another turnover, players--and teams--absolutely do fall apart. Not all teams, not all the time, but this is a team dynamic. Good leadership prevents that--so Georgia and Washington fought back into games that looked too far gone (they still lost, but they went down swinging); Miami imploded against Wisconsin. Was 7-5 Wisconsin that much better? A team that lost at home to BYU and was kicked around at home by Minnesota? No.
Third, many of these teams were overrated going into that game they lost. The 2006 Big Ten teams appeared to be overrated. If I remember correctly, USC smoked Michigan and Florida smoked Ohio State in the MNC game. Maybe neither deserved the 1 or 2 ranking they had when they played each other. Wisconsin had 1 loss that season and took all it could muster to beat a one-dimensional, good-but-not-great Arkansas team in the Capital One Bowl. Maybe the Big Ten just wasn't that big that year, which inflated both Michigan and OSU's rankings. Maybe the Pac-10 (USC, Oregon State, and UCLA) and the SEC (Florida, LSU, and Auburn) were. Kansas State and UCLA in 1998 are other good examples. They lost those games because they weren't elite teams, despite their rankings.
Fourth, as already noted, these are often among the best teams each of these teams played all season, so it isn't surprising that they are tough outs.
And finally, some teams are better week-to-week in the regular season, others have coaching staffs that are really good at preparing for bowl games. Bret Bielema fielded better teams week-to-week; Barry Alvarez coached them up for bowl games. They aren't the same.
-
I’ll agree that it may affect a player or team’s preparation for the game. But you will never convince me it affects the effort in the game. Once the lights come on and the crowd starts roaring, and the hitting starts, and the trash talking begins the competitive instincts kick in. It’s a football game at that point and they are trying to win.
Who has said it affects the effort in the game? And if the preparation can be affected, does that not matter greatly? Hell, if it wasn't that important to prepare, why do they bother???
I'm saying it affects the outcome of the games.
-
I'm not sure why you're dwelling on 2008 Texas - they are obviously not in the "letdown" group of teams I specified. They were one spot ahead of OU late in the season, with a bye week and a game against a crap A&M team. They knew OU was playing #2 Texas Tech, and if they won, they'd jump the Longhorns, because the voters do that. And then they're in front of Florida, who was to play #1 Alabama in the SECCG as Texas sat home, again, KNOWING the winner was going to end up ranked ahead of the Longhorns.
The last-game loss is the thing. Not just the timing of it, but the fact that their fates were in their hands and they lost. Texas' loss on November 1 was damning at the time, and with where they were ranked and with what games were to be played, they knew the ifs and knew it wasn't good.
Also, if you're wanting to say these 11-1 and 10-0 teams may have been overranked, but then also suggest we include these teams with September losses and October losses and November 1st losses.....ummm, nope! What's less accurate, a 3-0 team being really good or a 10-0 team being really good? The top 5 in September is MUCH less accurate than the top 5 in December - that's just common sense.
-
The cool thing about this is that while everyone can disagree with me, we can identify the teams each year that fit this mold and see how they perform.
Georgia lost to a 4-loss team.
Michigan lost to a very ordinary Florida team it waxed just last season.
-
The cool thing about this is that while everyone can disagree with me, we can identify the teams each year that fit this mold and see how they perform.
Georgia lost to a 4-loss team.
Michigan lost to a very ordinary Florida team it waxed just last season.
Dropping Georgia to 2-3 against teams who will finish in the top 15, and Michigan to 0-3
-
I'm not sure why you're dwelling on 2008 Texas - they are obviously not in the "letdown" group of teams I specified. They were one spot ahead of OU late in the season, with a bye week and a game against a crap A&M team. They knew OU was playing #2 Texas Tech, and if they won, they'd jump the Longhorns, because the voters do that. And then they're in front of Florida, who was to play #1 Alabama in the SECCG as Texas sat home, again, KNOWING the winner was going to end up ranked ahead of the Longhorns.
The last-game loss is the thing. Not just the timing of it, but the fact that their fates were in their hands and they lost. Texas' loss on November 1 was damning at the time, and with where they were ranked and with what games were to be played, they knew the ifs and knew it wasn't good.
Also, if you're wanting to say these 11-1 and 10-0 teams may have been overranked, but then also suggest we include these teams with September losses and October losses and November 1st losses.....ummm, nope! What's less accurate, a 3-0 team being really good or a 10-0 team being really good? The top 5 in September is MUCH less accurate than the top 5 in December - that's just common sense.
You seem to be saying that unless a team meets the criteria you set forth then they couldn’t possibly be as disappointed at the end of the season as the other teams. All Texas needed the last game of the season was a loss from Oklahoma in a rivalry game to a very good opponent. Once Oklahoma won Texas was faced with reality that everything they wanted to accomplish that season was gone. You don’t think that was disappointing?
-
Dropping Georgia to 2-3 against teams who will finish in the top 15, and Michigan to 0-3
Very true. It could just be further evidence those teams weren’t quite as good as we thought they were.
-
I'm not sure why you're dwelling on 2008 Texas - they are obviously not in the "letdown" group of teams I specified.
It's because the narrowly defined group you've decided to outline is wrong. It's incomplete. It's a poor sample. It is not representative.
You're choosing criteria to fit a narrative you've already defined in your head. You're deliberately imposing your own confirmation bias on the experiment.
It renders your hypothesis inaccurate and inadequate. It renders your results meaningless. That you can't fathom this only speaks to how little you understand the data you are so desperately attempting to fit into your preconceived mold.
It's bad science. Start over. Do better. This is really easy stuff.
-
You seem to be saying that unless a team meets the criteria you set forth then they couldn’t possibly be as disappointed at the end of the season as the other teams. All Texas needed the last game of the season was a loss from Oklahoma in a rivalry game to a very good opponent. Once Oklahoma won Texas was faced with reality that everything they wanted to accomplish that season was gone. You don’t think that was disappointing?
I'm saying that what I've observed as a trend is what I've described here. I'm not claiming to measure the disappointment level of every team that doesn't win the national championship.
-
It's because the narrowly defined group you've decided to outline is wrong. It's incomplete. It's a poor sample. It is not representative.
You're choosing criteria to fit a narrative you've already defined in your head. You're deliberately imposing your own confirmation bias on the experiment.
It renders your hypothesis inaccurate and inadequate. It renders your results meaningless. That you can't fathom this only speaks to how little you understand the data you are so desperately attempting to fit into your preconceived mold.
It's bad science. Start over. Do better. This is really easy stuff.
I observed teams tending to lose an inordinate percentage of the time, in a specific situation. The fact you're labeling that so negatively is odd. What I observed set the parameters, not my bias.
-
I observed teams tending to lose an inordinate percentage of the time, in a specific situation. The fact you're labeling that so negatively is odd. What I observed set the parameters, not my bias.
We're rejecting that the teams you're observing make up the entire class of teams to consider.
Start over. Get the science right. Then at least some of us will reconsider.
-
Please stop pretending to be an authority on this. You look arrogant and, to me, combative and not worth the trouble.
-
Please stop pretending to be an authority on this. You look arrogant and, to me, combative and not worth the trouble.
This is rich, coming from the most abrasive and arrogant poster I've ever encountered on this forum. Pot, this is Kettle. Guess what? You're still black.
-
I am a white.
:57:
-
I am too.
Perhaps I should rephrase that to-- porcelain teacup, this is porcelain saucer, you're still white. :)
Look OAM, I'm not refuting you for the fun of it. I think your idea is worth exploring. I just don't agree with your data set for the reasons that I, and several other posters on this thread and the other one, have outlined.
If you're attempting to link emotional letdown to bowl game outcomes, then the definition you're trying to use is simply too narrow. There are no reasonable conclusions to be drawn from it, because you're not considering the entire class affected by such letdowns.
Texas 2008 is a pristine example of a team you choose not to consider, and yet had EVERYTHING ripped away at the very last moment. It wasn't through a loss-- which would be a game-played outcome that they COULD control-- but rather through a coin-flip tie-breaker where they had no control at all, that occurred AFTER their final game of the season. If you don't believe that's emotionally devastating enough to be considered in your very own let-down theory, then I can't honestly believe you understand the point you're trying to make.
-
I'm saying that what I've observed as a trend is what I've described here. I'm not claiming to measure the disappointment level of every team that doesn't win the national championship.
When looking at some of your posts on this topic in the Bowl SOC thread and then your responses you seem to be contradicting yourself from one thread to the other. Here you say you aren’t claiming to measure the disappointment level of every team that doesn’t win the national championship. But in the SOC thread you say this in response to Marq Husker’s findings:
“You’re not willing to acknowledge the emotional difference in going 11-1 and losing in September and going 11-1 with your only loss being in the 12th game. I can’t help you.”
That response leads to believe you are very much trying to measure the disappointment levels of teams. You also challenge utee to do his own research but when MarqHusker did just that you immediately dismissed it because the parameters for disappointment weren’t exactly like what you came up with.
Losing your last game that cost you a chance at a national title is extremely disappointing. No one argues that. But so is needing one result in the last week and not getting it (2008 Texas). So is winning your last game and having the voters decide to put someone else in (2014 TCU, 2018 Ohio St).
You seem to have narrowly defined what ultimate disappointment is in your view and any evidence to the contrary you are putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and shaking your head.
-
It's because the narrowly defined group you've decided to outline is wrong. It's incomplete. It's a poor sample. It is not representative.
You're choosing criteria to fit a narrative you've already defined in your head. You're deliberately imposing your own confirmation bias on the experiment.
It renders your hypothesis inaccurate and inadequate. It renders your results meaningless. That you can't fathom this only speaks to how little you understand the data you are so desperately attempting to fit into your preconceived mold.
It's bad science. Start over. Do better. This is really easy stuff.
Good posts ITT 94 - you get a Yuengling
-
This is rich, coming from the most abrasive and arrogant poster I've ever encountered on this forum.
What about fearless and I?We're not getting off to a good start in the New Year,Buster
-
What about fearless and I?We're not getting off to a good start in the New Year,Buster
Sorry to exclude you. You're a real jackwagon and I wish you nothing but ill will in this New Year. And lots and lots of malty beers, of course. :)
-
When looking at some of your posts on this topic in the Bowl SOC thread and then your responses you seem to be contradicting yourself from one thread to the other. Here you say you aren’t claiming to measure the disappointment level of every team that doesn’t win the national championship. But in the SOC thread you say this in response to Marq Husker’s findings:
“You’re not willing to acknowledge the emotional difference in going 11-1 and losing in September and going 11-1 with your only loss being in the 12th game. I can’t help you.”
That response leads to believe you are very much trying to measure the disappointment levels of teams. You also challenge utee to do his own research but when MarqHusker did just that you immediately dismissed it because the parameters for disappointment weren’t exactly like what you came up with.
Losing your last game that cost you a chance at a national title is extremely disappointing. No one argues that. But so is needing one result in the last week and not getting it (2008 Texas). So is winning your last game and having the voters decide to put someone else in (2014 TCU, 2018 Ohio St).
You seem to have narrowly defined what ultimate disappointment is in your view and any evidence to the contrary you are putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and shaking your head.
OAM set his criteria narrowly, that is true. He did so because he believes there is a qualitative emotional difference between a "final loss" and a "September loss".
It honestly makes sense. Ohio State, for example, had time to emotionally process the loss to Purdue. They knew it might be considered a damning loss by the committee, and continued their season. They ended up accomplishing some of their goals--beating Michigan, winning the CCG, and although they missed out on the CFP, they ended up in the Rose Bowl. And then, to top it off, they had an additional emotional goal--to send Meyer out on a high note.
Michigan, on the other hand, did not have a damning loss. They had a tough-fought close road loss to Notre Dame, a team that ended up undefeated and was a shoo-in for the CFP. All they had to do to get to the CFP was knock off Ohio State, and then they'd have as close to a lay-up in a CCG as you can get with Northwestern, and they'd have been in. But they lost. So instead of going to the CCG, instead of their consolation prize being the ROSE Bowl on NYD, they ended up losing and facing Florida in a rematch of the Citrus Bowl that nobody cared about. So much so that quite a few players even sat out.
Now, does that mean that OAM's criteria is a complete theory of quantifying "disappointed teams"? Probably not. But that doesn't invalidate that his criteria itself is meaningful.
-
I agree with @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) and I think his post in defense of @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) 's point is very well stated.
The problem, as I see it, with what @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) and others are advocating is that it is highly subjective and we could spend the entire off-season arguing about which teams were sufficiently disappointed to belong in the group and which were not. In contrast, OAM's definition avoids that entire debate by laying out a very narrow and very specific definition. I like that.
Now, as I see it, the major problem with OAM's definition is that even after going back ~30 years we are still dealing with a fairly small sample-size which leaves the possibility that the result could be just random noise.
On the overall debate, I agree with OAM.
First, it is indisputable that teams do not always play their "best game". You can look at any conference or team for proof but I'll use tOSU because they are my team. Looking at the whole seasons it would be silly to argue that Iowa-2017 and/or Purdue-2018 were better than tOSU in those respective years. In spite of that, Ohio State lost to those teams. Why? Well, IMHO it is mostly because S*&T happens. However, there are mental/emotional influences in a game played by college kids.
I think OAM's data make a strong case. It isn't THAT big of a gap but on the other hand a lot of these teams were playing opponents that were MUCH worse than they are.
-
OAM set his criteria narrowly, that is true. He did so because he believes there is a qualitative emotional difference between a "final loss" and a "September loss".
It honestly makes sense. Ohio State, for example, had time to emotionally process the loss to Purdue. They knew it might be considered a damning loss by the committee, and continued their season. They ended up accomplishing some of their goals--beating Michigan, winning the CCG, and although they missed out on the CFP, they ended up in the Rose Bowl. And then, to top it off, they had an additional emotional goal--to send Meyer out on a high note.
Michigan, on the other hand, did not have a damning loss. They had a tough-fought close road loss to Notre Dame, a team that ended up undefeated and was a shoo-in for the CFP. All they had to do to get to the CFP was knock off Ohio State, and then they'd have as close to a lay-up in a CCG as you can get with Northwestern, and they'd have been in. But they lost. So instead of going to the CCG, instead of their consolation prize being the ROSE Bowl on NYD, they ended up losing and facing Florida in a rematch of the Citrus Bowl that nobody cared about. So much so that quite a few players even sat out.
Now, does that mean that OAM's criteria is a complete theory of quantifying "disappointed teams"? Probably not. But that doesn't invalidate that his criteria itself is meaningful.
If the entire point is to derive a correlation between disappointment and let-down losses, then excluding entire classes of disappointed teams only serves to weaken the hypothesis, and any conclusion that might be drawn from it.
Again I'll go to the 2008 Texas example because it's an important one. That Texas team didn't lose a final game, it lost a tie-breaker without having any control at all. And they watched their hated archrival-- that they'd already beaten in the regular season by double digits on a neutral field-- take away every single one of their postseason goals, effectively at the flip of a coin. That was an unbelievably bitter outcome for that team. I don't think this year's Georgia or Michigan could have been ANY more bitterly disappointed than that 2008 Texas team was.
So eliminating entire classes of teams that should be considered, renders the data set incomplete. And therefore, any conclusions drawn, are already faulty before we've even begun the experiment.
I get it, we're arguing opinions here, but being told by OAM that his view is the only acceptable one is way out of line, and I reject that. If we're here for debate, great, let's debate it.
Otherwise, it's just as Kris said-- OAM is sticking his fingers in his ears, closing his eyes as tight as possible, and ignoring all of the other potential factors that affect these classes of "disappointed" teams.
-
If the entire point is to derive a correlation between disappointment and let-down losses, then excluding entire classes of disappointed teams only serves to weaken the hypothesis, and any conclusion that might be drawn from it.
That's fair. But there's a degree to which that's hard. If you're trying to figure out "disappointment", you have to realize that there are different kinds of disappointment.
I'd wager that Ohio State 2017 or 2018 disappointment is a lot different than Michigan 2018 or Georgia 2018 disappointment. In both cases OSU was the conference champion in a strong P5 conference and was excluded. But in neither case was that disappointment all that much of a surprise to them. They knew going into the CCG that winning the game was in their control, but that the CFP was out of their hands.
Conversely, Michigan and Georgia were both in a position where a win would pretty much undoubtedly put them in [although for Michigan they'd have needed to beat NU too], and a loss excluded them. Basically the outcome WAS within their control, and their own inability to prevail destroyed their shot at it. And again, unlike OSU, both teams also didn't hit their secondary goal of a conference championship. UM by not making it to the CCG, and UGA by losing the CCG.
Again I'll go to the 2008 Texas example because it's an important one. That Texas team didn't lose a final game, it lost a tie-breaker without having any control at all. And they watched their hated archrival-- that they'd already beaten in the regular season by double digits on a neutral field-- take away every single one of their postseason goals, effectively at the flip of a coin. That was an unbelievably bitter outcome for that team. I don't think this year's Georgia or Michigan could have been ANY more bitterly disappointed than that 2008 Texas team was.
Again, there's a question of motivation. I don't think that Texas team was necessarily "disappointed", I think it's far more likely they were f'ing angry. It's the very fact that they believed they were every bit as qualified--probably more so due to H2H--as Oklahoma. They wanted to prove a point. It's a different feeling to be excluded because you didn't measure up on the field, rather than believing that you never got your shot and the team that got their shot should have been you.
Do you honestly think that Michigan or Georgia this year had that sort of fire? That they wanted to prove that they were legitimate CFP contenders, and that they were unfairly excluded? Did Michigan have any argument that they should have been in over ND or over OSU [who didn't even get in]? Did Georgia have any argument they should have been in over Alabama?
No, Michigan and Georgia were excluded because they lost. Texas was excluded because a team they beat by double digits won an irrelevant beauty contest.
-
And beyond all of that, getting a near 50/50 result from a sample size that is already not statistically significant, isn't telling us anything, anyway.
This year Georgia will end up 2-3 against teams that will finish in the top 15. Their "let-down" opponent Texas will end up 2-1 against the same group of teams. Texas had a couple of bad losses for sure, but this is hardly representative of an opponent that had no chance at winning, unless Georgia experienced a "let-down." Texas was completely capable of beating Georgia under any circumstances.
Michigan will end up 0-3 against teams finishing in the top 15. Their "let-down" opponent Florida will end up 1-2 against that same group of teams. Again, Florida had a bad loss, but the fact that Michigan couldn't beat a single Top 15 team doesn't make me feel like it was a "let-down" that caused their loss. They just weren't good enough to beat ANY top 15 teams.
-
That's fair. But there's a degree to which that's hard. If you're trying to figure out "disappointment", you have to realize that there are different kinds of disappointment.
I'd wager that Ohio State 2017 or 2018 disappointment is a lot different than Michigan 2018 or Georgia 2018 disappointment. In both cases OSU was the conference champion in a strong P5 conference and was excluded. But in neither case was that disappointment all that much of a surprise to them. They knew going into the CCG that winning the game was in their control, but that the CFP was out of their hands.
Conversely, Michigan and Georgia were both in a position where a win would pretty much undoubtedly put them in [although for Michigan they'd have needed to beat NU too], and a loss excluded them. Basically the outcome WAS within their control, and their own inability to prevail destroyed their shot at it. And again, unlike OSU, both teams also didn't hit their secondary goal of a conference championship. UM by not making it to the CCG, and UGA by losing the CCG.
Again, there's a question of motivation. I don't think that Texas team was necessarily "disappointed", I think it's far more likely they were f'ing angry. It's the very fact that they believed they were every bit as qualified--probably more so due to H2H--as Oklahoma. They wanted to prove a point. It's a different feeling to be excluded because you didn't measure up on the field, rather than believing that you never got your shot and the team that got their shot should have been you.
Do you honestly think that Michigan or Georgia this year had that sort of fire? That they wanted to prove that they were legitimate CFP contenders, and that they were unfairly excluded? Did Michigan have any argument that they should have been in over ND or over OSU [who didn't even get in]? Did Georgia have any argument they should have been in over Alabama?
No, Michigan and Georgia were excluded because they lost. Texas was excluded because a team they beat by double digits won an irrelevant beauty contest.
Neither you nor I have ANY way to know what you're suggesting. I'm not willing to split those hairs, because we don't know. I actually disagree with you and think Texas was more bitterly disappointed than Georgia or Michigan could have been, due to the fact that they lost everything to their archrival, but that doesn't really matter at all because neither of us can ever actually know.
Which is precisely why JUDGING various classes of "disappointment" completely invalidates the experiment.
-
And beyond all of that, getting a near 50/50 result from a sample size that is already not statistically significant, isn't telling us anything, anyway.
This year Georgia will end up 2-3 against teams that will finish in the top 15. Their "let-down" opponent Texas will end up 2-1 against the same group of teams. Texas had a couple of bad losses for sure, but this is hardly representative of an opponent that had no chance at winning, unless Georgia experienced a "let-down." Texas was completely capable of beating Georgia under any circumstances.
Michigan will end up 0-3 against teams finishing in the top 15. Their "let-down" opponent Florida will end up 1-2 against that same group of teams. Again, Florida had a bad loss, but the fact that Michigan couldn't beat a single Top 15 team doesn't make me feel like it was a "let-down" that caused their loss. They just weren't good enough to beat ANY top 15 teams.
To be fair, this is a stronger critique than that of OAM's criteria. Being 1.5 games under .500 for these teams isn't exactly the most statistically strong statement.
However, I'd counter with a few things:
- I haven't gone through the data, but I would believe that even AFTER losing that final game, the teams OAM considers "disappointed" were more highly ranked than their bowl opponents.
- Thus, the "disappointed" teams shouldn't actually be measured against .500, they should be measured against the theoretical win percentage expected based in the ranking differential, which I'm sure is above .500.
- To extend farther, it would be best to look at a more granular differential than the very noisy W/L record. Such as based upon either ranking or S&P, what is the expected scoring differential in these games and compare to actual.
Perhaps #3 might be most important. W/L is a VERY noisy statistic. Score differential gives a lot more granularity, and might help. The game I'm most familiar with here, the 1998 Alamo Bowl, is a good example of that. KSU was ranked #3 in the BCS and Purdue came in unranked. I think on basically any measure, the game SHOULD have been a comfortable win for KSU. In the end KSU lost a really hard-fought back and forth game. Had they won by 4 points instead of losing by 3 points--i.e. if Brees hadn't completed that TD pass with 0:30 left in the 4th, all of a sudden OAM's analysis would have been 13-14 instead of 12-15. But I'd still argue that a 4-point win would be considered a letdown for KSU, even though they would have ended the day with a victory...
Now, all of these things dramatically complicate the testing, and would be a HELL of a lot more work. I don't know how many people are willing to go in and do all that work, so perhaps we'll never get to a truly statistically significant answer.
But I do think that 12-15 as a record suggests that perhaps there's something there. You can deny that it's enough evidence to PROVE anything, but doesn't it give you at least some suspicion?
-
To be fair, this is a stronger critique than that of OAM's criteria. Being 1.5 games under .500 for these teams isn't exactly the most statistically strong statement.
However, I'd counter with a few things:
- I haven't gone through the data, but I would believe that even AFTER losing that final game, the teams OAM considers "disappointed" were more highly ranked than their bowl opponents.
- Thus, the "disappointed" teams shouldn't actually be measured against .500, they should be measured against the theoretical win percentage expected based in the ranking differential, which I'm sure is above .500.
- To extend farther, it would be best to look at a more granular differential than the very noisy W/L record. Such as based upon either ranking or S&P, what is the expected scoring differential in these games and compare to actual.
Perhaps #3 might be most important. W/L is a VERY noisy statistic. Score differential gives a lot more granularity, and might help. The game I'm most familiar with here, the 1998 Alamo Bowl, is a good example of that. KSU was ranked #3 in the BCS and Purdue came in unranked. I think on basically any measure, the game SHOULD have been a comfortable win for KSU. In the end KSU lost a really hard-fought back and forth game. Had they won by 4 points instead of losing by 3 points--i.e. if Brees hadn't completed that TD pass with 0:30 left in the 4th, all of a sudden OAM's analysis would have been 13-14 instead of 12-15. But I'd still argue that a 4-point win would be considered a letdown for KSU, even though they would have ended the day with a victory...
Now, all of these things dramatically complicate the testing, and would be a HELL of a lot more work. I don't know how many people are willing to go in and do all that work, so perhaps we'll never get to a truly statistically significant answer.
But I do think that 12-15 as a record suggests that perhaps there's something there. You can deny that it's enough evidence to PROVE anything, but doesn't it give you at least some suspicion?
To be fair, BOTH of the critiques I've raised are equally strong, and here's why--
To answer your final question, my response is: I can't really believe there's something there, unless we're considering all of the members of the class of "disappointed" teams. Until we are, then this is a futile exercise.
(Although it's likely still futile even if we DID include all of the suggestions made by Marq, and me, and others. Such is the nature of statistical significance. )
-
Neither you nor I have ANY way to know what you're suggesting. I'm not willing to split those hairs, because we don't know. I actually disagree with you and think Texas was more bitterly disappointed than Georgia or Michigan could have been, due to the fact that they lost everything to their archrival, but that doesn't really matter at all because neither of us can ever actually know.
Which is precisely why JUDGING various classes of "disappointment" completely invalidates the experiment.
Which is why you create an objective rule where you don't have to subjectively judge each team's disappointment. Which is exactly what OAM did:
Letdown team: any team that is in line to play for the national championship if it wins its last game of the season (pre-bowl), but loses said game.
Playoff era: top 4 team or ranked 5th and playing a top 4 team in its CCG/season finale.
BCS era: top 2 team or ranked 3rd and playing a top 2 team in its CCG/season finale.
Pre-BCS era: #1 team only, or #2 and playing the #1 team in its CCG/season finale.
It's true that this is more narrow than you want, and excludes SOME teams that you'd consider disappointed, like 2008 Texas.
But you can't sit here and accuse OAM of cherry-picking. He laid out a very clear objective rationale of teams that know that they're basically in with a win and out with a loss, who lost.
That doesn't include all classes of "disappointment". But the class of disappointment he considered at least suggests that there's something there worth further study.
-
To answer your final question, my response is: I can't really believe there's something there, unless we're considering all of the members of the class of "disappointed" teams. Until we are, then this is a futile exercise.
Well, there's another question, then. You say "I can't really believe there's something there."
Do you affirmatively believe there's nothing there? I.e. that the "letdown" theory is bunk?
Or are you agnostic on the question?
-
Which is why you create an objective rule where you don't have to subjectively judge each team's disappointment. Which is exactly what OAM did:
It's true that this is more narrow than you want, and excludes SOME teams that you'd consider disappointed, like 2008 Texas.
But you can't sit here and accuse OAM of cherry-picking. He laid out a very clear objective rationale of teams that know that they're basically in with a win and out with a loss, who lost.
That doesn't include all classes of "disappointment". But the class of disappointment he considered at least suggests that there's something there worth further study.
Where did I suggest he was cherry-picking?
I asserted that his definition is so narrow that it precludes a truly representative sample. And therefore the experiment is faulty before it begins.
-
Well, there's another question, then. You say "I can't really believe there's something there."
Do you affirmatively believe there's nothing there? I.e. that the "letdown" theory is bunk?
Or are you agnostic on the question?
I'm either agnostic, or I think there might be something to it. KSU in 1998 is probably the best example IMO.
But Georgia and Michigan this past season are extremely poor examples IMO, because both had already proven to be completely capable of losing to teams of the same caliber (top 15 ranking) as those they faced in their bowl games.
-
If we include all of the "disappointed teams" and the result flips from 12-15 to 22-19 or something like that, does that flip your view on whether it's a "real thing" or not?
Should it?
-
Where did I suggest he was cherry-picking?
I asserted that his definition is so narrow that it precludes a truly representative sample. And therefore the experiment is faulty before it begins.
Sorry, I shouldn't say you accused him of cherry-picking. Someone in this thread or the Bowl SOC suggested that his criteria basically just confirmed his bias, which I thought was an unfair accusation. And you were complaining that his criteria didn't include that wider range [such as 2008 Texas] and was incomplete.
My apologies.
I'm either agnostic, or I think there might be something to it. KSU in 1998 is probably the best example IMO.
But Georgia and Michigan this past season are extremely poor examples IMO, because both had already proven to be completely capable of losing to teams of the same caliber (top 15 ranking) as those they faced in their bowl games.
If you're agnostic, I can accept that. I think other folks, such as Badge and Kris, are not agnostic but actively believe the theory is bunk. That once you strap on that helmet, "letdown theory" goes out the window. I wasn't sure whether you were in that group or not; based on how vociferously you were debating OAM, I may have lumped you in there.
I'm agnostic on this as well. I wouldn't say that OAM has proven his case by any means. But his analysis provided enough data to be intriguing. Which is about all one might expect on a message board.
It's not like he was saying that more carries equals lower YPC or something silly like that ;-)
-
Heh. I'm a scientist and an engineer. I simply want the process-- the experiment-- to be as precise as possible.
I'll admit that OAM's dismissive nature occasionally rubs me the wrong way and leads me to debate things more... vociferously... than I might otherwise. :)
-
I would suggest a better metric is to look at point spreads. What causes a team that is a 7+point favorite to lose its bowl game?
Getting away from the beauty contests of the rankings and CFP selection, the odds makers have a lot of data to base their spreads on by the time we reach bowl season. They also take into account who is and who isn't playing, injury reports, and god knows what else. And their profits are related to how good they are at setting those spreads.
Upsets happen in all sports, but is there any correlation between upsets in college football, the relative disparity of teams (K-State/Purdue being an easy example), and the way the favorite ended its season?
Games where the spread is close going either way shouldn't surprise anyone, but games where there is enough data to support more than a 1-score difference suggest something else happened on that field. Now, if there number of upsets isn't any different than for any other type of match-up, it suggests nothing unique about these games. But worth looking at. Also, how big the upset victory was, vs where the spread was.
Wisconsin has a couple of signature wins against the odds: 1999 Rose Bowl (vs. UCLA), 2006 Capital One Bowl (vs. Auburn) come to mind. Don't know how they figure against the spreads.
-
Wisconsin has a couple of signature wins against the odds: 1999 Rose Bowl (vs. UCLA), 2006 Capital One Bowl (vs. Auburn) come to mind. Don't know how they figure against the spreads.
Obviously, UCLA and Auburn were bitterly disappointed and didn't want to be there, which was the sole reason for their losses. ;)
And yes, point spreads might be an interesting metric. bwar already suggested score differentials as a potential way to assess.
I'm a little wary of using point spreads produced by betting houses, because they're not actually designed to be representative of an expected point differential, but rather they're created to entice equal betting on each side. So they're SORT OF representative of what "the people" believe is an appropriate final point differential, but the added complexity of the betting house attempting to generate an even monetary distribution concerns me somewhat. I guess it might only be worth a point or two of error in either direction? But that point or two in either direction could change the outcome of the experiment.
-
If we include all of the "disappointed teams" and the result flips from 12-15 to 22-19 or something like that, does that flip your view on whether it's a "real thing" or not?
Should it?
The problem is you have yet to provide an objective criteria to pull out disappointed teams, where while you may object to the definition at least OEM has provided criteria that is objective. So you think his criteria is wrong, give some criteria that can be used to pull teams out. Otherwise quit complaining about his.
-
And yes, point spreads might be an interesting metric. bwar already suggested score differentials as a potential way to assess.
I'm a little wary of using point spreads produced by betting houses, because they're not actually designed to be representative of an expected point differential, but rather they're created to entice equal betting on each side. So they're SORT OF representative of what "the people" believe is an appropriate final point differential, but the added complexity of the betting house attempting to generate an even monetary distribution concerns me somewhat. I guess it might only be worth a point or two of error in either direction? But that point or two in either direction could change the outcome of the experiment.
Yeah, I have the same concern about point spreads. Also have concern about the idea I floated, which is using historical ranking differential to generate expected point differential.
I think the ideal would be to use S&P. I believe that is actually designed to be a predictor. Only issue is that I'm not sure it goes back far enough to give us a reasonable sample size, and also not sure how easy it is to pull out the S&P ratings PRIOR to the bowl game as opposed to the final post-bowl season S&P, which would affect the validity.
-
The problem is you have yet to provide an objective criteria to pull out disappointed teams, where while you may object to the definition at least OEM has provided criteria that is objective. So you think his criteria is wrong, give some criteria that can be used to pull teams out. Otherwise quit complaining about his.
In a scientific experiment you simply can't say, "Well the data set is flawed, statistically insignificant, and also not representative, but it's all we have so we're going to run with it anyway." That's just bad science.
If it's your opinion that the criteria outlined by OAM are sufficient to be representative, you can state that, and we can debate that. I clearly wouldn't agree, but at least that debate is better than you telling me I should shut up and go away.
And MarqHusker offered a list of teams that he felt should be included on the other thread. I've stated that's a good start. I'm not sure what the objective criterion would look like, perhaps "any team excluded from the BCS/playoff that was withing 4 spots" or something? I'm not saying it's easy. But I am saying that I don't believe OAM's narrow criteria are sufficient, whether they're objective or not.
So I'll continue to complain about it, thank you very much.
-
I also don't think anyone is saying it's never a factor, and that it doesn't play some role. But my issue is in too narrowly defining disappointing teams and negating other factors. As I pointed out, Michigan and Georgia both lost to the majority of top teams they faced this year (Michigan lost to all of them). To fit your definition, a team has to lose its final two games, at the time of year they are likely facing their best opponents. To me, it is just as likely as those teams getting exposed by the toughest part of their schedule.
Take a look at a couple of teams that should have met your definition, except for some fortunate bounces, 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma. Both should have been knocked out by season ending losses, but both managed to find their way into a national title shot. Both fell flat a second straight time on the big stage. It seems just as likely to me that teams who lose a big game in the finale, and then follow it with a bowl loss did so because it's as simple as they were overrated to begin with. Is that every time? No. But I'm guessing it's just as much of a factor, and the "data" is probably just as supportive.
-
I also don't think anyone is saying it's never a factor, and that it doesn't play some role. But my issue is in too narrowly defining disappointing teams and negating other factors. As I pointed out, Michigan and Georgia both lost to the majority of top teams they faced this year (Michigan lost to all of them). To fit your definition, a team has to lose its final two games, at the time of year they are likely facing their best opponents. To me, it is just as likely as those teams getting exposed by the toughest part of their schedule.
Take a look at a couple of teams that should have met your definition, except for some fortunate bounces, 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma. Both should have been knocked out by season ending losses, but both managed to find their way into a national title shot. Both fell flat a second straight time on the big stage. It seems just as likely to me that teams who lose a big game in the finale, and then follow it with a bowl loss did so because it's as simple as they were overrated to begin with. Is that every time? No. But I'm guessing it's just as much of a factor, and the "data" is probably just as supportive.
Extremely well said.
-
If it's your opinion that the criteria outlined by OAM are sufficient to be representative, you can state that, and we can debate that. I clearly wouldn't agree, but at least that debate is better than you telling me I should shut up and go away.
And MarqHusker offered a list of teams that he felt should be included on the other thread. I've stated that's a good start. I'm not sure what the objective criterion would look like, perhaps "any team excluded from the BCS/playoff that was withing 4 spots" or something? I'm not saying it's easy. But I am saying that I don't believe OAM's narrow criteria are sufficient, whether they're objective or not.
The problem with a proposed criteria such as what you postulated is that it would include teams that COMPLETELY missed out on the entire idea of "letdown". Say, a 2-loss team wins its CCG to go from #9 (5 spots out of playoff) to #6 (2 spots out of playoff). What would they be let down or disappointed by?
The biggest critique in my opinion of OAM's data set is small sample size. And that small sample size came from restricting his data set to things that meet his definition of a letdown: a team that is basically in the CFP with a win, but loses their last game to be excluded.
I think his criteria is actually quite good. I think the downside of that criteria is that not enough teams meet it to be truly statistically significant, at least upon the narrow grounds of mere W/L as the result. I think if we could have a more granular measurement such as score differential, it would give us a lot more info.
-
I also don't think anyone is saying it's never a factor, and that it doesn't play some role. But my issue is in too narrowly defining disappointing teams and negating other factors. As I pointed out, Michigan and Georgia both lost to the majority of top teams they faced this year (Michigan lost to all of them). To fit your definition, a team has to lose its final two games, at the time of year they are likely facing their best opponents. To me, it is just as likely as those teams getting exposed by the toughest part of their schedule.
Take a look at a couple of teams that should have met your definition, except for some fortunate bounces, 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma. Both should have been knocked out by season ending losses, but both managed to find their way into a national title shot. Both fell flat a second straight time on the big stage. It seems just as likely to me that teams who lose a big game in the finale, and then follow it with a bowl loss did so because it's as simple as they were overrated to begin with. Is that every time? No. But I'm guessing it's just as much of a factor, and the "data" is probably just as supportive.
So then you're saying that determining MNC, BCSCG participants, or CFP participants, is a horribly flawed beauty contest where the voters / committee routinely get these things so wrong that they're overrating teams on a regular enough basis to throw off all of OAM's data set?
Sounds like a great way to crown a "champion" :57:
-
The problem with a proposed criteria such as what you postulated is that it would include teams that COMPLETELY missed out on the entire idea of "letdown". Say, a 2-loss team wins its CCG to go from #9 (5 spots out of playoff) to #6 (2 spots out of playoff). What would they be let down or disappointed by?
The biggest critique in my opinion of OAM's data set is small sample size. And that small sample size came from restricting his data set to things that meet his definition of a letdown: a team that is basically in the CFP with a win, but loses their last game to be excluded.
I think his criteria is actually quite good. I think the downside of that criteria is that not enough teams meet it to be truly statistically significant, at least upon the narrow grounds of mere W/L as the result. I think if we could have a more granular measurement such as score differential, it would give us a lot more info.
I understand that is YOUR biggest concern.
It is only one of mine.
We've pretty much beaten this one to death.
-
I'm just sort of dumbfounded that the suggestion being offered to me is to take my admittedly small sample size and stuff it full of much more diverse, subjective data to make it more valid.
WHAT???
-
For a team to be "left out" of the playoff or BCSNCG because of a tie-breaker or rankings or even an early-season loss, you have someone else to blame. You can blame the voters, the system, the baby Jesus,..whoever you want. You feel cheated. You learn that life is unfair. You're probably pissed.
For a team to lose their last game and go from IN to OUT, it's on them. They have no one else to blame. THAT, is perhaps, the specific difference being glossed over here. To fail when you had the power to achieve your season-long goals is an especially damning thing, imo. When you fail in that way, you're broken. Emasculated.
If you don't see that colossal difference, I have nothing left to offer.
-
I observed teams tending to lose an inordinate percentage of the time, in a specific situation. The fact you're labeling that so negatively is odd. What I observed set the parameters, not my bias.
I've observed almost exactly half the bowl teams losing their last game. Can we analyze the significance of that disappointment?
-
For a team to be "left out" of the playoff or BCSNCG because of a tie-breaker or rankings or even an early-season loss, you have someone else to blame. You can blame the voters, the system, the baby Jesus,..whoever you want. You feel cheated. You learn that life is unfair. You're probably pissed.
For a team to lose their last game and go from IN to OUT, it's on them. They have no one else to blame. THAT, is perhaps, the specific difference being glossed over here. To fail when you had the power to achieve your season-long goals is an especially damning thing, imo. When you fail in that way, you're broken. Emasculated.
If you don't see that colossal difference, I have nothing left to offer.
You asked for reasons to dispute what, in your opinion, is a trend. This was your exact question:
" If someone else has a better explanation for these teams having a losing record, when most of them were favored/higher ranked in their bowl, I'm all ears."
Several individuals have offered multiple possibilities for disputing your opinion. Those challenges consist of:
1) A non-representative sample that does not include the appropriate teams that represent the class you're attempting to differentiate and identify
2) A sample that is too small to be statistically significant
3) The idea that the "let-down losers" are often simply overrated, as they've already demonstrated the capability of losing to other ranked teams, so their losses in the bowl games are neither surprising nor notable. This doesn't necessarily apply in all cases, such as KSU 1998, but it certainly applies to this year's batch of let-down losers, as Michigan failed to beat ANY of the three teams it faced that will complete the season ranked in the top 15, and Georgia lost to 3 of the 5 teams it faced that will complete the season ranked in the Top 15.
4) The idea that there are potentially other numerous contributing factors, such as "let-down losers" simply encountering their toughest stretch of opponents at the end of the season in rivalry games, CCGs, etc. Again, making it neither notable nor surprising that they would also lose to another ranked team in a bowl to close out their season.
You apparently have already made up your mind and are completely closed off to debate. So yes, I'd say you have nothing left to offer.
-
One other thing-- as I stated earlier, I actually do think there's something to this. Watching KSU in 1998 was eye-opening, that was a very good team that just got man-handled in a FAR lesser bowl.
To what extent it factors in, though, is highly debatable. And that's what I'm debating.
-
For a team to lose their last game and go from IN to OUT, it's on them. They have no one else to blame.
There is a plethora of scenarios/variables against a blanket statement like that.Not on whether they lost but going from in to out. As in other teams records/opponents/home & away/schedule strength/injuries/etc.For instance Michigan was rated no 4 when tOSU had played them.What if the Buckeyes had not been beat by Purdue earlier.Then lost to Michigan by a fg or less.Why would an Oklahoma be rated in front of them then?Because they scored a boat load of points,had the Heisman Trophy Winner and lost earlier?A loss is a loss everything being equal.All of this a fun argument but with nothing concretely conclusive
-
There is a plethora of scenarios/variables against a blanket statement like that.Not on whether they lost but going from in to out. As in other teams records/opponents/home & away/schedule strength/injuries/etc.For instance Michigan was rated no 4 when tOSU had played them.What if the Buckeyes had not been beat by Purdue earlier.Then lost to Michigan by a fg or less.Why would an Oklahoma be rated in front of them then?Because they scored a boat load of points,had the Heisman Trophy Winner and lost earlier?A loss is a loss everything being equal.All of this a fun argument but with nothing concretely conclusive
I don't have to deal with the "what ifs" because I don't bother with them. I'm just going by what actually happened. Simple.
-
One if or time doesn't a complete study make
-
This was just a fast 'n dirty look-see at what I thought I had observed had merit to it. I think it does. As has been said, something deeper than wins and losses would tell us more.