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

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

It seems to be punishing teams for something outside their control which is exactly what we don't want to do. Teams should be rewarded by who was the better team, and even with an OT loss at Autzen, it is abundantly clear that Oregon consistently outperformed Stanford by margins that are so wide it isn't because of style of play or pace.

Oregon was eligible to win their division and the Pac-12, but they blew it. It's not the system's fault, it was the Ducks fault. They couldn't beat a team with an akin division record.

The reality is very simple:

Stanford won their conference, Oregon did not.
Stanford won the head-to-head match-up in Oregon's own building.
Stanford's schedule was better than Oregon's schedule.
Stanford didn't play a single cupcake.
According to the AP poll, Stanford beat 5 ranked opponents, Oregon beat only one.

Placing Oregon over Stanford would have devalued conference championship status and the head-to-head match-up.

There's nothing more I can say here.

 

[4down20]

You only "blew it" because of a system that that rewards the status quo ranking system over actually picking the best team.

How can you be eliminated by "blowing it" when you lose by 6 in Auburn but Auburn didn't blow it by losing by 14 to LSU? You didn't "blow it" against LSU...you beat them by 21.

You only had one close game all regular season (@ TAMU) and guess what....you were still closer than Auburn. They had seven wins by 8 or less. You had 1.

But somehow, because the schedule makers put you in Auburn and you lost in the closest game possible, you were less deserving even though you had the same number of losses and played better. Uh, what? If you take off your "that's the way CFB is" glasses and look at it, there is no doubt who deserved to play in the NCG. And it wasn't Auburn. I just hope given a similar situation, the committee will see the same thing.

I don't think Auburn was the better team, but I do believe they were the most deserving.

At any rate, I believe Alabama would have still been in the playoffs.

 

[The Authority]

I still dont understand. That could mean the best win for Team A is 6-6 team, while Team B beat 10-1 team. It is a simple idea. 2 sprinters run 100 meters with 10 different sized hurdles. Both trip over a hurdle and run it in 13 seconds. Do we give the medal to the guy that tripped over the tallest hurdle? Is he superior, because he tripped on a 30 inch hurdle and the other guy tripped on a 28 inch hurdle? Or do you reward the runner that cleared the highest hurdle? I just dont get your pt.

You said the schedules were the same. (assuming without playing each other).

We all know that one bounce of a ball could be the difference between a win and a loss so they only way to gauge those losses is to evaluate the team that you lost too.

If one team loses to a much less talented team it means they are not as good.

 

[gordontrue]

I'm just happy for a step in the right direction. 3 postseason games that mean something > 1 postseason game that means something.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

2013 Alabama. People can roast me all they want for it, but there is no objective way to reach the conclusion that Auburn played better than Bama before the bowls last year.

Are you ready?

Category #1 - SOS numbers.

Alabama - .527 (55th best schedule)
Auburn - .607 (13th best schedule)

Category #2 - Notable wins.

Alabama - (8-4) Virginia Tech, (8-4) Texas A&M, (7-5) Ole Miss, and (9-3) LSU
Auburn - (7-5) Arkansas State, (7-5) Ole Miss, (8-4) Texas A&M, (8-4) Georgia, (11-1) Alabama, and (11-2) Missouri.

Alabama never faced off against Missouri or South Carolina. Two elite schools within their conference. The edge goes to Auburn because they won their division and conference, and played a better schedule.

 

[Codaxx]

You said the schedules were the same. (assuming without playing each other).

We all know that one bounce of a ball could be the difference between a win and a loss so they only way to gauge those losses is to evaluate the team that you lost too.

If one team loses to a much less talented team it means they are not as good.

it was. Why dont you use the best win? You know one team gave a 10 win its only loss, the other team lost to them. That same team lost to the 5th best team on their schedule. Seems to me that we know they should of beaten that team "balls bouncing" and all that. We do not know that the other team is capable of beating a 10 win team.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

You said the schedules were the same. (assuming without playing each other).

We all know that one bounce of a ball could be the difference between a win and a loss so they only way to gauge those losses is to evaluate the team that you lost too.

If one team loses to a much less talented team it means they are not as good.

Here's my method:

(1) RPI
(2) Conference Championship status
(3) Head-to-head
(4) Best win, worst loss difference.

If 1, 2, and 3 are the same, I would go with the team with the better #4 objective.

None of which is btw, determined through human feeling. I also think it should be 8 to 16 teams, not 4.

 

[cane_man]

And why does winning the conference matter? It's just another surrogate for head-to-head. It's counting the same factor twice.

Teams should be ranked on merit. I'm tired of head to head mattering, but common opponents being irrelevant. It takes an entire season of work and throws it out the window for one night. And that's not how statistics or common sense works. In statistics, it's very clear that more data points are better. If one team beats another by 52, that's one thing. It shows one team was conclusively better. But when a team wins in overtime and played worse the entire rest of the season? You seem to be saying "One play in this game tells me more about merit than hundreds of plays throughout the season." And it's bullshit.

But there's something to be said for close wins. Some teams (including possibly Stanford) have a knack for winning close games. If you win more games and come up big in clutch situations, there's something to that. But here's the thing: STANFORD AND OREGON HAD THE SAME RECORD IN THE PAC-12. So that argument is gone. Now all you have is two teams with the same record, and you saying "one win (AS I KEEP EMPHASIZING, IN OVERTIME) is more important than eight other games, which clearly shows one team is better. And the two have the same record."

It's the single most illogical aspect of college football to me. I just don't get how anyone could support it, and it seems like everyone does. Nobody would even consider Bama over Auburn last year, for example, even though Bama was clearly the better team the entire regular season and lost on a fucking kickoff return in Auburn. The message seems to be "let's reward the worst team because they happened to draw you at home this year, even though thy have the same record." People purposely chose the less deserving team!

Maybe Im stoned......are you saying if, for example, two teams played in championship game the fact of who won should not be counted in determing the champion? Or that the ONLY way to actually compare two team head head in the real world is a shitty way to compare two teams head to head.

 

[cane_man]

2013 Alabama. People can roast me all they want for it, but there is no objective way to reach the conclusion that Auburn played better than Bama before the bowls last year.

The scoreboard?

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

And why does winning the conference matter? It's just another surrogate for head-to-head.

Virtually every single team sport out there thinks it matters greatly. In the NFL, winning your division, means you get both an automatic spot in the playoffs and at least one home game. In college hoops or college baseball, winning your conference means, you get an automatic spot in the tournament. Why? Because winning your conference/division means you conquered your obstacle course and beat opponents you had no control of. It's considered an objective and distinct achievement.

If conference championship status means nothing, then why have them in the first place?

I really don't believe you should be hanging your hat on a statistical variable FBS had erased from the computer formulas, and is pretty much a junk stat. We judge teams based on who they beat and who they lost to. If we focused on how well they beat them, then you would have take into consideration:

(1) Location of the game.
(2) The injury status of the two teams involved.
(3) The weather conditions.
(4) The team rivalry.
(5) The style of ball.
(6) When the games are played. Normally we give teams a break for losing early, and finishing up strong. It's when the team develops chemistry and finds their identity.

Like I said before, I don't care about Stanford, Oregon, Auburn, or Alabama. I don't. If it was 2011, I would have supported Oregon over Stanford, for the same reasons, I preferred Stanford over Oregon in 2012.

 

[TBBishop]

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?

I would hope that they looked at all of this info then looked at the film and decided based on all of the information available who they would vote for. I don't know if I agree that they didn't pay enough attention to SOS or division/conference championships but I certainly dont' believe they took enough stock in the film. And if you're talking about the coaches poll you should probably just disregard that nonsense all together.

 

[Smart]

Virtually every single team sport out there thinks it matters greatly. In the NFL, winning your division, means you get both an automatic spot in the playoffs and at least one home game. In college hoops or college baseball, winning your conference means, you get an automatic spot in the tournament. Why? Because winning your conference/division means you conquered your obstacle course and beat opponents you had no control of. It's considered an objective and distinct achievement.

If conference championship status means nothing, then why have them in the first place?

We judge teams based on who they beat and who they lost to. If we focused on how well they beat them, then you would have take into consideration:

(1) Location of the game.
(2) The injury status of the two teams involved.
(3) The weather conditions.
(4) The team rivalry.
(5) The style of ball.
(6) When the games are played. Normally we give teams a break for losing early, and finishing up strong. It's when the team develops chemistry and finds their identity.

Like I said before, I don't care about Stanford, Oregon, Auburn, or Alabama. I don't. If it was 2011, I would have supported Oregon over Stanford, for the same reasons, I preferred Stanford over Oregon in 2012.

You can say this all you want, but its conclusory. You haven't me a single reason why head to head is better than the whole resume besides "other sports do it." This is especially short-sighted because they don't. NFL teams may get a pass for winning the division, but its a double round robin. And the NCAA tournament cares a lot more about totality of the resume than head-to-head. See MSU getting a 4 seed after cruising through the BTT, while Michigan and Wisconsin both got 2s after losing to them by double digits.

College football is the only sport that elevates one meeting over all else.

 

[Smart]

The scoreboard?

LSU 35, Auburn 21
Alabama 38, LSU 17

Auburn 24, Mississippi State 20
Alabama 20, Mississippi State 7

Auburn 30, Ole Miss 22
Alabama 25, Ole Miss 0

Auburn 45, TAMU 41
Alabama 49, TAMU 42

Auburn 55, Tennessee 23
Alabama 45, Tennessee 10

Auburn 34, Alabama 28 (at Auburn, on a missed kick return)

The scoreboard shows both teams lost once. Alabama outscored common opponents by 95. Auburn outscored common opponents by 40.

Alabama clearly looks better on the scoreboard.

 

[Smart]

Maybe Im stoned......are you saying if, for example, two teams played in championship game the fact of who won should not be counted in determing the champion? Or that the ONLY way to actually compare two team head head in the real world is a shitty way to compare two teams head to head.

It should count.....the same as any other game.

 

[Smart]

Are you ready?

Category #1 - SOS numbers.

Alabama - .527 (55th best schedule)
Auburn - .607 (13th best schedule)

Category #2 - Notable wins.

Alabama - (8-4) Virginia Tech, (8-4) Texas A&M, (7-5) Ole Miss, and (9-3) LSU
Auburn - (7-5) Arkansas State, (7-5) Ole Miss, (8-4) Texas A&M, (8-4) Georgia, (11-1) Alabama, and (11-2) Missouri.

Alabama never faced off against Missouri or South Carolina. Two elite schools within their conference. The edge goes to Auburn because they won their division and conference, and played a better schedule.

But Bama played a better OOC (and let's not pretend Arkansas State was as good as VA Tech), and their only loss was in Auburn on the last play.

What you are saying is that the SEC schedule maker, not the performance of the teams on the field, should determine the champion. That's horseshit.

 

[cane_man]

LSU 35, Auburn 21
Alabama 38, LSU 17

Auburn 24, Mississippi State 20
Alabama 20, Mississippi State 7

Auburn 30, Ole Miss 22
Alabama 25, Ole Miss 0

Auburn 45, TAMU 41
Alabama 49, TAMU 42

Auburn 55, Tennessee 23
Alabama 45, Tennessee 10

Auburn 34, Alabama 28 (at Auburn, on a missed kick return)

The scoreboard shows both teams lost once. Alabama outscored common opponents by 95. Auburn outscored common opponents by 40.

Alabama clearly looks better on the scoreboard.

So, actually playing the game is meaningless? And, using secondary comparisons is more important in comparing two teams than anything they actually prove on the field? Whats the point in playing at all?

PS: auburn looked better on the scoreboard

 

[trojanfan12]

LSU 35, Auburn 21
Alabama 38, LSU 17

Auburn 24, Mississippi State 20
Alabama 20, Mississippi State 7

Auburn 30, Ole Miss 22
Alabama 25, Ole Miss 0

Auburn 45, TAMU 41
Alabama 49, TAMU 42

Auburn 55, Tennessee 23
Alabama 45, Tennessee 10

Auburn 34, Alabama 28 (at Auburn, on a missed kick return)

The scoreboard shows both teams lost once. Alabama outscored common opponents by 95. Auburn outscored common opponents by 40.

Alabama clearly looks better on the scoreboard.

Not in that one they didn't.

 

[The Authority]

it was. Why dont you use the best win? You know one team gave a 10 win its only loss, the other team lost to them. That same team lost to the 5th best team on their schedule. Seems to me that we know they should of beaten that team "balls bouncing" and all that. We do not know that the other team is capable of beating a 10 win team.

What if there was another 10 win or ranked team on the schedule that they both beat?


Losing to a sub par team is much more problematic than losing to a good team.

 

[Smart]

So, actually playing the game is meaningless? And, using secondary comparisons is more important in comparing two teams than anything they actually prove on the field? Whats the point in playing at all?

PS: auburn looked better on the scoreboard

What do you mean "secondary comparisons." We are comparing Alabama's football team in 2013 to Auburn's. Every game is part of their season equally. They are all games that took place on an actual football field and go down in the actual record book. We are comparing two teams' seasons. The fact that one team performed better on one night ON A MISSED FIELD GOAL RETURN IN THEIR OWN STADIUM doesn't somehow make the rest of the season magically disappear.

You're the one who is suddenly making football games meaningless, not me. LSU-Alabama? Meaningless to you. LSU-Auburn? It never fucking happened. My approach counts every game throughout the entire season. And any basic statistician will tell you more games produces a better sample. Also, any statistician will tell you a true comparison needs to be controlled...and a game played in Jordan-Hare Stadium is much less controlled than a seven game set of common opponents.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

But Bama played a better OOC (and let's not pretend Arkansas State was as good as VA Tech), and their only loss was in Auburn on the last play.

What you are saying is that the SEC schedule maker, not the performance of the teams on the field, should determine the champion. That's horseshit.

My word, you didn't listen to a single word I wrote here.

Every eligible team has the opportunity to win their conference. In 2012, Oregon had the same division record as Stanford, but the Pac-12 rules stated that division ties go to the team which won the head-to-head match-up. That was Stanford, deal with it. The Pac-12 rules don't care about MOV. They only care if you got the W or not. Stanford then went on to re-defeat UCLA in the Pac-12 conference championship game. If Oregon wanted to win the conference, they needed to beat Stanford in their own building. For a team, which produced high MOV numbers and according to you, was the "superior team," then they should have taken care of business. But they didn't.

Stanford, not only won the head-to-head match-up and the conference, they also played a more difficult road. Their SOS was much better. The number of quality opponents was much higher, 5:1. Their two losses were quite mild and came down to the wire. Some have even argued that Stanford should have beaten Notre Dame and refs messed up on the call. You maybe right that Oregon was the "better team" in 2012, but guess what? College football doesn't do best of seven series or best of three series. At most, you can have best of two. But when we look at the resume between the two programs, Stanford was the most impressive due to their SOS, quality of wins, and the fact they won both the conference and head-to-head match-up.

Now lets turn to Alabama and Auburn, and just like Stanford-Oregon, you had a division tie, and the edge going to the head-to-head winner. Also like Stanford, Auburn won its conference championship game and produced a better SOS number and produced more quality wins.

There's no way else to slice it. You either respect conference championship status or you have everybody go Notre Dame.