Should the final four only include 0 to 1 loss teams?

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

When I have been examining the top 4 for the last 16 seasons, I have noticed that voters seem to be very high on wins and losses, and not so much on SOS and division/conference championship status.

In 2012, for example, Oregon was ranked #3 in the nation, and Stanford was ranked #7 in the nation. How could that be? Stanford beat Oregon in the one-on-one match-up, and won the conference. Stanford beat 5 ranked opponents: San Jose State, UCLA twice, Oregon, and Oregon State. Oregon? Only beat Oregon State. What was the difference? The OCC scheduling. Oregon played Arkansas State, Fresno State, and a cupcake. Stanford played Duke, San Jose State, and Notre Dame.

Why should the division champ get ranked lower than the division champ, simply because they lost their conference championship game? In 2012, Georgia was ranked #3 and above Florida going into the conference championship week. After they lost to Alabama, they feel to #5 in the country. Last season, Missouri came into conference championship week ranked 4th, and after losing to Auburn, got ranked #9 and below South Carolina. Same thing happened with Michigan and Michigan State in 2011.

Can somebody explain the logic behind this?

 

[potzer25]

eye test

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

eye test

Do they all have 20-20 vision or do they need glasses?

 

[outofyourmind]

It's a fluid, dynamic, ever changing system, that is worked and manipulated so that the SEC gets the most teams ranked highest.


Everyone knows that.

 

[cane_man]

They should just stop keeping score so nobody gets their feelings hurt

 

[Codaxx]

This logic a huge part of the problem. WHy dont teams schedule tough in the OOC? Because if you lose 2 games you are out, 1 game you are a contender.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

This logic a huge part of the problem. WHy dont teams schedule tough in the OOC? Because if you lose 2 games you are out, 1 game you are a contender.

Exactly. It makes no sense for teams to win by losing, and getting punished for winning their division and losing.

SOS should always be more important than wins and losses. Plus, if you're constantly playing elite competition, you're vulnerable to losing to an inferior opponent. Stanford in 2012 and 2013 should have been in the final four, even though they had two losses, because they had the hardest road to conquer.

 

[cane_man]

Sos is subjective, Ws and Ls are objective. If we are not gonna base a season on that then Im just gonna take my ball and go home.

....unless you are talking about midmajors, which you obviously are not.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Sos is subjective, Ws and Ls are objective. .

No, it's not. SOS is based on the formula of opponents winning% and opponents of opponents winning%.

 

[cane_man]

No, it's not. SOS is based on the formula of opponents winning% and opponents of opponents winning%.

Then why doesnt every sos ranking service spit out identical sos rankings

 

[cane_man]

No, it's not. SOS is based on the formula of opponents winning% and opponents of opponents winning%.

And its just slightly hilarious you want to downgrade win and losses in favor of a formula you base wholly on.........

Wait for it..........

Wins and losses

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Then why doesnt every sos ranking service spit out identical sos rankings

Because different "SOS services" (if you want to call it that) factor in FCS opponents, and treat home and away games different. It's all still objective. It's based on rules, not opinions. There's no bias involved. But the main concept is the same, where you look at opponents winning%, and how well their opponents play.

And if this is your excuse for why teams can get away with winning by losing or playing weak OOC, then I think you need a better argument.

 

[Codaxx]

And its just slightly hilarious you want to downgrade win and losses in favor of a formula you base wholly on.........

Wait for it..........

Wins and losses

misses the pt. Formula derives a value of those wins and loses. SOS is not subjective. Simple formula that everyone can use and get the same answer. Some use their rankings to derive SOS and that is subjective. Original formula for the BCS was clear as day and not in any manner subjective

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

And its just slightly hilarious you want to downgrade win and losses in favor of a formula you base wholly on.........

Wait for it..........

Wins and losses

I really don't think you're comprehending my points here.

 

[cane_man]

I really don't think you're comprehending my points here.

Maybe not.

 

[cane_man]

misses the pt. Formula derives a value of those wins and loses. SOS is not subjective. Simple formula that everyone can use and get the same answer. Some use their rankings to derive SOS and that is subjective. Original formula for the BCS was clear as day and not in any manner subjective

Simply using numbers doesnt make it objective. Its all opinio as to what to use in ranking sos. Home or away? Injuries? Team rank? The weather? Its hard to debate a loss.

.....unless terry porter was involved.

 

[cane_man]

Who had the better sos between fsu and auburn?

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Simply using numbers doesnt make it objective.

So by that standards, wins and losses are objective. Who wins the football game is based on how many points were on the scoreboard. Those points were determined through rules and people coming together.

The thing about math is that it doesn't care the name of your team, your conference, or how many mythical National Championships you won.

 

[Smart]

Didn't Oregon and Stanford play, like, seven common opponents and Oregon did better against ALL of them? That's really your best example of poll bias?

 

[Smart]

Also, Oregon scheduled #6 Kansas State, and we know they would have beaten them because they beat the shit out of them in a bowl. So now, you just let a team got robbed of the national title because a team bailed on a scheduled game.

How exactly is that some fair principle?