Why did 11 - 1 Alabama get picked over 12 - 1 Wisconsin?

[HuskerinBig10]

Stupid thread topic.

Big Ten West blows dead, green frog dicks.

Northwestern lost by 24 to Duke, and 24 to Penn State and beat up a crappy B1G West.
Iowa plays games tough, yet lost to Purdue.
Purdue sucks because they lost to nebraska.

No one else in the B1G west goes bowling.

Any Top 20 team in the country that would have played Wisconsin's schedule, would have finished 12-0.

The most of the same top 20 teams would have all lost one or two games if they played Alabama's schedule.

 

[tducey]

Bama's name had to help no doubt. Wisconsin's record though makes me think they had to be given some strong consideration as well.

 

[Cobrabit]

Cant' find 4 deserving teams, so let's go ahead and add even more undeserving teams.

Alabama is one of the 4 best teams, Wisconsin is not.

/end thread.

It was, but Ohio St made the best of it.

Hope Alabama does the same with their charity spot this year.

No 'dog' in this fight, obviously, but how can you go from saying that the committee can't find 4 deserving teams, then only a couple posts later state that Bama is one of the 4 best?

Later, you mention the charity spot and hope that Bama pulls an OSU given the 'pity' for the undeserving spot.

This just appears to be a lot of flip-flopping by stating you received the charity, undeserving spot, but then saying you're one of the top 4.

Do I personally think Bama is top 4? I know I certainly wouldn't want to face Saban and a healthy team given time to prepare, but that is just my opinion.


This is the primary issue regarding the selection. While stats are a part, much of the selection comes down to subjective analysis (eye test). None of the subjective can be proven, and a fundamental reason that AQ qualifications should be considered in an expanded playoff.

Everyone seems so worried if a 3/4 loss team wins their conference championship, but then would run through the playoffs ultimately winning the NC. Why? If he other undefeated/1-loss teams can't beat a 3/4 loss team in the playoffs, do they really 'deserve' the NC?

As it stands now, there's the chance all P5 champions could go undefeated and one being left out due to opinion. Expand the playoff to 8 teams, with the P5 champions getting the AQ and allowing 3 'wild card' teams to fill out the remainder. If a 0/1-loss team is worried about playing and losing to a 2/3 loss team in the playoffs, then why should they even be considered for the National Championship?

There's just too much subjectivity in CFB now where one team's schedule is compared to another's with little, if any, common opponents, let alone the matchup issues that teams must deal with. Could both Bama and Wisconsin had the other's record when faced with the same schedule? Yes. Saying otherwise is just being subjective and providing an opinion, rather than fact.

Give everyone an opportunity to make the playoffs (I've suggested 8, but could also debate AQs for every FBS conference) by winning their conference, and if not, THEN subjectivity comes into play for the remaining wild card spots.


Just my $0.02

 

[DHoey]

Because the current +1 teams are chosen by a group of college football oracles instead of being earned on the field.

 

[Myles]

8 team playoff.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

With all the bitching about the selections, I’m just curious which team(s) these folks really think got screwed this year?

 

[Cobrabit]

I've been a long time proponent of every conference champion getting into the playoff and then having a wild card available for the other teams in the event that one 'off day' not being the end of a season's hope for redemption. As such, go to the 16 team playoff with all FBS conferences getting the AQ for their champion. Seeding can be adjusted and even the first round played at the higher seeded team's home stadium, if needed.

It just sucks that a team can win every game on their schedule and still have NO shot at the NC. Win your conference to get the spot, then, and only then, should subjectivity come into play to fill out the wild cards.

 

[Cobrabit]

With all the bitching about the selections, I’m just curious which team(s) these folks really think got screwed this year?

Could OSU or Wisconsin beat Bama given the chance to actually settle it on the field? Or are you prepared to just bow down to media influence and subjectivity on who's the better team without having the chance to prove it?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Could OSU or Wisconsin beat Bama given the chance to actually settle it on the field? Or are you prepared to just bow down to media influence and subjectivity on who's the better team without having the chance to prove it?

Has nothing to do with the Media.

Obviously, tOSU would bend Alabama over a barrel and have its way with them, but Iowa bent tOSU over the barrel, so they lost their chance and I’m not going to piss and moan about it.

 

[JuiceTheGator]

I can't believe this thread got 7 pages. Nobody really thinks UW should be in contention, right???

 

[4down20]

No 'dog' in this fight, obviously, but how can you go from saying that the committee can't find 4 deserving teams, then only a couple posts later state that Bama is one of the 4 best?

Later, you mention the charity spot and hope that Bama pulls an OSU given the 'pity' for the undeserving spot.

This just appears to be a lot of flip-flopping by stating you received the charity, undeserving spot, but then saying you're one of the top 4.

Do I personally think Bama is top 4? I know I certainly wouldn't want to face Saban and a healthy team given time to prepare, but that is just my opinion.

Someone has to go. When I say they don't deserve it, I mean they don't have a legitimate claim as being the #1 team, which is what the playoffs are supposed to decide. With the BCS, the problem was in the years where 3 teams had a legitimate claim on the #1 spot. So we expanded the playoffs to 4 for those deserving teams.

So what often happens, especially with the #4 spot, it's a charity spot because someone has to fill up the spot. So yeah, Alabama is among the 4 best teams, but don't really deserve it in terms of having a claim as #1. If the other teams were better, then Alabama wouldn't be going and shouldn't etc.

This is the primary issue regarding the selection. While stats are a part, much of the selection comes down to subjective analysis (eye test). None of the subjective can be proven, and a fundamental reason that AQ qualifications should be considered in an expanded playoff.

Everyone seems so worried if a 3/4 loss team wins their conference championship, but then would run through the playoffs ultimately winning the NC. Why? If he other undefeated/1-loss teams can't beat a 3/4 loss team in the playoffs, do they really 'deserve' the NC?

As it stands now, there's the chance all P5 champions could go undefeated and one being left out due to opinion. Expand the playoff to 8 teams, with the P5 champions getting the AQ and allowing 3 'wild card' teams to fill out the remainder. If a 0/1-loss team is worried about playing and losing to a 2/3 loss team in the playoffs, then why should they even be considered for the National Championship?

There's just too much subjectivity in CFB now where one team's schedule is compared to another's with little, if any, common opponents, let alone the matchup issues that teams must deal with. Could both Bama and Wisconsin had the other's record when faced with the same schedule? Yes. Saying otherwise is just being subjective and providing an opinion, rather than fact.

Give everyone an opportunity to make the playoffs (I've suggested 8, but could also debate AQs for every FBS conference) by winning their conference, and if not, THEN subjectivity comes into play for the remaining wild card spots.


Just my $0.02

"None of the subjective can be proven" makes the assumption the subjective is therefore wrong. It's not. Nor is it just random people who are making these decisions, it's informed people who for the most part have spent their lives in the sport.

I'm a programmer by profession. There are many things you could say are "my opinion", but my opinion is based on 20 years of experience and is an informed opinion. It's not like I could be randomly right or wrong.

And as far as conference champions go. It's easy to prove that they will on a regular basis take teams who don't deserve it. Any system that says USC is more deserving of Alabama this year is broken.

All the while, the current system isn't broken.

 

[Cobrabit]

Has nothing to do with the Media.

Obviously, tOSU would bend Alabama over a barrel and have its way with them, but Iowa bent tOSU over the barrel, so they lost their chance and I’m not going to piss and moan about it.

Could Bama have lost to Iowa in that same circumstance? I certainly understand the feeling that you lost 2 games, therefore, should not get in over another 1-loss team (that played completely different teams than you). However, what about UCF that went undefeated? Only FBS team to do so, yet, they weren't even a consideration for the 4th spot.

Someone has to go. When I say they don't deserve it, I mean they don't have a legitimate claim as being the #1 team, which is what the playoffs are supposed to decide. With the BCS, the problem was in the years where 3 teams had a legitimate claim on the #1 spot. So we expanded the playoffs to 4 for those deserving teams.

So what often happens, especially with the #4 spot, it's a charity spot because someone has to fill up the spot. So yeah, Alabama is among the 4 best teams, but don't really deserve it in terms of having a claim as #1. If the other teams were better, then Alabama wouldn't be going and shouldn't etc.



"None of the subjective can be proven" makes the assumption the subjective is therefore wrong. It's not. Nor is it just random people who are making these decisions, it's informed people who for the most part have spent their lives in the sport.

I'm a programmer by profession. There are many things you could say are "my opinion", but my opinion is based on 20 years of experience and is an informed opinion. It's not like I could be randomly right or wrong.

And as far as conference champions go. It's easy to prove that they will on a regular basis take teams who don't deserve it. Any system that says USC is more deserving of Alabama this year is broken.

All the while, the current system isn't broken.

Thanks for the clafication of your previous thoughts. However, what would happen if all P5 champions went undefeated, with no common opponents? This is indeed a possibility.

I'm an engineering professor myself, so I am always concerned with the uncertainties. In this case, the system is flawed. You mention there are informed people making the decisions which is true, but they aren't infallible. Much is the case with the multitudes of failures engineers come across and their decisions are based on the facts at the time. Calculations are done with those facts in order to predict the likelihood of failure, even so, there is always a factor of safety granted to those designs. Sometimes that uncertainty is adequate, but others, it is not without disasterous consequences. The point is we learn from those mistakes and try to make a better product in the future.

This is what I'm proposing. While the playoff has for the most part done its job, there is still a lot of uncertainties involved that can be improved upon.

If the selection is going to be based on metrics, then every team needs to know the required levels (e.g. a SOS above 40 with no more than 1 loss). When these measures can change from year to year, no one knows what the actual goal is. You can't even say that you must go undefeated, because the one undefeated team is left out, and there is always the possibility of 5 P5 champions going undefeated.

Subjectivity should NOT be a part of the selection when there could be more deserving teams than spots. Open it up to an AQ for conference champions and everyone knows what the goal is. If you don't win it, ONLY then, should subjectivity come into play to fill out e seeding.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

First...BYU is not a Power 5 team. Only 1 Independent is classified as Power 5 and that is
Notre Dame.

So we're down to 10 P5 teams for Whisky.

Of those 10...Only 4 won more games than they lost.

Only 6 of Whisky's opponents are going to a bowl.
7 of Bama's are going to a bowl and Bama played 1 less game.

Of the P5 conferences The Big10 had a higher percentage of conf members NOT bowl
eligible than all the others.

1- Big12 80% of their membership is bowl eligible
2- Pac12 75% of their membership is bowl eligible
3- ACC 71% of their membership is bowl eligible
4- SEC 64% of their membership is bowl eligible
5- Big10 57% of their membership is bowl eligible

There currently are on-going discussions about stripping the Big10
of their Power 5 status and replacing them with the Sun Belt.

If the playoff committee is not going to consider unbeaten UCF or 2-loss
Memphis (both losses coming to UCF @ UCF) why would they ever consider
some fuckin' have-not from the Big10?

Both the B1G and SEC qualify BYU as a P5 team. Not only that but it's a fvk lot easier to get bowl qualified when you play a beat ass 8 game conference schedule.

 

[fishinabarrel]

8 team playoff.

An 8 team playoff would not lessen controversy. You are still going to have teams on the fringe of the 8 that feel screwed. I'm fine with 8 bc it means more big time football at the end of the year but let's not act like it still wouldn't come down to some sort of beauty contest

 

[RP-29]

Let's look at this from another angle...

What if we correlate the college football schedule to the quality of chicks two guys banged this year? Did guy 1 (named Alabama) or guy 2 (named Wisconsin) have the better year snatching snatch? [Note: Both guys caught chlamydia from their hottest chick.]

ESPN has their Football Power Index (FPI) that power-ranks every team, so I'll use that as the basis for this analysis. They also list their FPI in their schedule, which helps quickly identify opponent quality.

ESPN Football Power Index - 2017 - ESPN
Alabama 2017 FPI - Crimson Tide - ESPN
Wisconsin 2017 FPI - Badgers - ESPN

There are 130 schools in their ranking. Therefore, if we were going to rank the quality of chicks they banged on a 0-10 scale:

1-13 = 10
14-26 = 9
27-39 = 8
40-52 = 7
53-65 = 6
66-78 = 5
79-91 = 4
92-104 = 3
105-117 = 2
118-130 = 1
N/A = 0

Alabama's Scores
(FPI) - (Chick)
20 - 9
60 - 6
72 - 5
77 - 5
55 - 6
44 - 7
70 - 5
75 - 5
17 - 9
19 - 9
N/A - 0
6 - 10

Alabama tapped 12 chicks. He tapped four high-quality pieces of ass, one rancid ass and a lot of average ass. Nice job Alabama!


Wisconsin's Scores
(FPI) - (Chick)
85 - 4
61 - 6
96 - 3
26 - 9
74 - 5
50 - 7
84 - 4
107 - 2
49 - 7
24 - 9
23 - 9
66 - 5
2 - 10

Wisconsin tapped 13 chicks. He tapped four high quality pieces of ass, a couple questionable pieces of ass and a lot of average ass. Nice job Wisconsin!


Now if you sum the chick quality for each guy, Alabama scored a 76 and Wisconsin scored an 80.
If you average the chick quality for each guy, Alabama scored a 6.33 and Wisconsin scored a 6.15.


Quantity of total ass: Edge Wisconsin
Quantity of premium ass: Tie (4)
Quantity of STDs: Tie (1)
Sum of chick quality: Edge Wisconsin
Average chick quality: Edge Alabama


Verdict:
Both guys had a really nice year - very nearly identical - but that extra piece of ass Wisconsin got does tip the better year in Wisconsin's favor.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Let's look at this from another angle...

What if we correlate the college football schedule to the quality of chicks two guys banged this year? Did guy 1 (named Alabama) or guy 2 (named Wisconsin) have the better year snatching snatch? [Note: Both guys caught chlamydia from their hottest chick.]

ESPN has their Football Power Index (FPI) that power-ranks every team, so I'll use that as the basis for this analysis. They also list their FPI in their schedule, which helps quickly identify opponent quality.

ESPN Football Power Index - 2017 - ESPN
Alabama 2017 FPI - Crimson Tide - ESPN
Wisconsin 2017 FPI - Badgers - ESPN

There are 130 schools in their ranking. Therefore, if we were going to rank the quality of chicks they banged on a 0-10 scale:

1-13 = 10
14-26 = 9
27-39 = 8
40-52 = 7
53-65 = 6
66-78 = 5
79-91 = 4
92-104 = 3
105-117 = 2
118-130 = 1
N/A = 0

Alabama's Scores
(FPI) - (Chick)
20 - 9
60 - 6
72 - 5
77 - 5
55 - 6
44 - 7
70 - 5
75 - 5
17 - 9
19 - 9
N/A - 0
6 - 10

Alabama tapped 12 chicks. He tapped four high-quality pieces of ass, one rancid ass and a lot of average ass. Nice job Alabama!


Wisconsin's Scores
(FPI) - (Chick)
85 - 4
61 - 6
96 - 3
26 - 9
74 - 5
50 - 7
84 - 4
107 - 2
49 - 7
24 - 9
23 - 9
66 - 5
2 - 10

Wisconsin tapped 13 chicks. He tapped four high quality pieces of ass, a couple questionable pieces of ass and a lot of average ass. Nice job Wisconsin!


Now if you sum the chick quality for each guy, Alabama scored a 76 and Wisconsin scored an 80.
If you average the chick quality for each guy, Alabama scored a 6.33 and Wisconsin scored a 6.15.


Quantity of total ass: Edge Wisconsin
Quantity of premium ass: Tie (4)
Quantity of STDs: Tie (1)
Sum of chick quality: Edge Wisconsin
Average chick quality: Edge Alabama


Verdict:
Both guys had a really nice year - very nearly identical - but that extra piece of ass Wisconsin got does tip the better year in Wisconsin's favor.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Could Bama have lost to Iowa in that same circumstance? I certainly understand the feeling that you lost 2 games, therefore, should not get in over another 1-loss team (that played completely different teams than you). However, what about UCF that went undefeated? Only FBS team to do so, yet, they weren't even a consideration for the 4th spot.

Ohio State would buttfuck UCF right in the face.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Let's look at this from another angle...

What if we correlate the college football schedule to the quality of chicks two guys banged this year? Did guy 1 (named Alabama) or guy 2 (named Wisconsin) have the better year snatching snatch? [Note: Both guys caught chlamydia from their hottest chick.]

ESPN has their Football Power Index (FPI) that power-ranks every team, so I'll use that as the basis for this analysis. They also list their FPI in their schedule, which helps quickly identify opponent quality.

ESPN Football Power Index - 2017 - ESPN
Alabama 2017 FPI - Crimson Tide - ESPN
Wisconsin 2017 FPI - Badgers - ESPN

There are 130 schools in their ranking. Therefore, if we were going to rank the quality of chicks they banged on a 0-10 scale:

1-13 = 10
14-26 = 9
27-39 = 8
40-52 = 7
53-65 = 6
66-78 = 5
79-91 = 4
92-104 = 3
105-117 = 2
118-130 = 1
N/A = 0

Alabama's Scores
(FPI) - (Chick)
20 - 9
60 - 6
72 - 5
77 - 5
55 - 6
44 - 7
70 - 5
75 - 5
17 - 9
19 - 9
N/A - 0
6 - 10

Alabama tapped 12 chicks. He tapped four high-quality pieces of ass, one rancid ass and a lot of average ass. Nice job Alabama!


Wisconsin's Scores
(FPI) - (Chick)
85 - 4
61 - 6
96 - 3
26 - 9
74 - 5
50 - 7
84 - 4
107 - 2
49 - 7
24 - 9
23 - 9
66 - 5
2 - 10

Wisconsin tapped 13 chicks. He tapped four high quality pieces of ass, a couple questionable pieces of ass and a lot of average ass. Nice job Wisconsin!


Now if you sum the chick quality for each guy, Alabama scored a 76 and Wisconsin scored an 80.
If you average the chick quality for each guy, Alabama scored a 6.33 and Wisconsin scored a 6.15.


Quantity of total ass: Edge Wisconsin
Quantity of premium ass: Tie (4)
Quantity of STDs: Tie (1)
Sum of chick quality: Edge Wisconsin
Average chick quality: Edge Alabama


Verdict:
Both guys had a really nice year - very nearly identical - but that extra piece of ass Wisconsin got does tip the better year in Wisconsin's favor.

Do the same exercise with tOSU and Wisconsin.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Do the same exercise with tOSU and Wisconsin.

Iowa says its a no go.

 

[kburjr]

Which was stated that it was a joke.

My humble apologies. I missed that.