Qualifications for making the College Football Playoff

[CJH9972]

Ummmm, there are lots of quality SoS metrics out there. The SoS metric you mention is not new, it's probably one of the oldest SoS methods out there because it's so simple, but it's extremely flawed and can be demonstrated as such.

Because stats used improperly are LIES. They are not objective as you seem to claim, they are LIES. The formula you are wanting to use try to suggest that all 6-6 teams are equal, and anyone with a little common sense knows this is bullshit. So to base anything on such a formula is to be a system on lies.

You can sit here and say whatever you want, but everyone who matters know this(which is why so many other better formulas exist) and by proposing such systems you only highlight your own ignorance on the topic and why nobody should take you seriously.

The problem is that you think equal as a matter of rule must be equal as a matter of perception about ability. I make no claim that all 6-6 teams are equally good teams just as conferences and pro sports don't claim all teams are equally good teams even though wins versus the best and worst count the same in the standings. The only lies come from those who think any stats system is making a subjective claim when that is precisely what it is not doing. If teams played by my rules, every higher placed team is simply more accomplished according to what those rules value. Nothing more and nothing less. You may oppose my idea because it doesn't validate your perceptions about the very things it is meant to ignore, but its results are not making a false claim about those things.

 

[4down20]

The problem is that you think equal as a matter of rule must be equal as a matter of perception about ability. I make no claim that all 6-6 teams are equally good teams just as conferences and pro sports don't claim all teams are equally good teams even though wins versus the best and worst count the same in the standings. The only lies come from those who think any stats system is making a subjective claim when that is precisely what it is not doing. If teams played by my rules, every higher placed team is simply more accomplished according to what those rules value. Nothing more and nothing less. You may oppose my idea because it doesn't validate your perceptions about the very things it is meant to ignore, but its results are not making a false claim about those things.

The reason "perception" is bad and such is because nobody is able to equally watch every single game, not because we as humans are incapable of seeing the reality.

So when we can easily see that your method is treating teams equally when they are not, it's fucking shit.

The truth is, other methods are better and they are not subjective. They treat all teams equally and are based 100% on stats. Of course, you're so far out of your element you have no clue what this all means which is why you are hiding behind this bullshit about subjective and objective when you know damn good and well the method is bullshit.

BCF Toys - 2018 SOS Ratings

That is not subjective.

 

[WizardHawk]

The problem is that you think equal as a matter of rule must be equal as a matter of perception about ability. I make no claim that all 6-6 teams are equally good teams just as conferences and pro sports don't claim all teams are equally good teams even though wins versus the best and worst count the same in the standings. The only lies come from those who think any stats system is making a subjective claim when that is precisely what it is not doing. If teams played by my rules, every higher placed team is simply more accomplished according to what those rules value. Nothing more and nothing less. You may oppose my idea because it doesn't validate your perceptions about the very things it is meant to ignore, but its results are not making a false claim about those things.

We can hash out your full system later, but 4D20 used to run his own site with computer modeled rankings and he's pretty well versed in the background of how various stat systems work.

I spent 20 years working in casinos as a surveillance manager, IT director, and spent a shit ton of time working with stats. I can assure you on every level that stats do not equal facts. It's easy to make mistakes or not take the right things into account and end up with something far from the 'truth'.

Ask any politician how hard it is to skew stats into supposed facts. They are anything but altruistic.

 

[CJH9972]

The reason "perception" is bad and such is because nobody is able to equally watch every single game, not because we as humans are incapable of seeing the reality.

So when we can easily see that your method is treating teams equally when they are not, it's fucking shit.

The truth is, other methods are better and they are not subjective. They treat all teams equally and are based 100% on stats. Of course, you're so far out of your element you have no clue what this all means which is why you are hiding behind this bullshit about subjective and objective when you know damn good and well the method is bullshit.

BCF Toys - 2018 SOS Ratings

That is not subjective.

I'm not hiding behind anything. I don't care about validating your subjective perceptions. I'm not trying to identify the best team. The reality you speak of is irrelevant to me. That said, my bullshit system has matched the AP on three of four top four teams over 40 seasons and where they disagree, the teams favored by my system own more AP top 25 wins than the teams favored by the AP.

 

[4down20]

I'm not hiding behind anything. I don't care about validating your subjective perceptions. I'm not trying to identify the best team. The reality you speak of is irrelevant to me. That said, my bullshit system has matched the AP on three of four top four teams over 40 seasons and where they disagree, the teams favored by my system own more AP top 25 wins than the teams favored by the AP.

Right, only your system is objective, even though it's been proven to be shit for longer than you've been alive, and every other system is subjective.

Have a nice day dumbass.

 

[CJH9972]

We can hash out your full system later, but 4D20 used to run his own site with computer modeled rankings and he's pretty well versed in the background of how various stat systems work.

I spent 20 years working in casinos as a surveillance manager, IT director, and spent a shit ton of time working with stats. I can assure you on every level that stats do not equal facts. It's easy to make mistakes or not take the right things into account and end up with something far from the 'truth'.

Ask any politician how hard it is to skew stats into supposed facts. They are anything but altruistic.

The problem with what you say is that we aren't all using stats for the same purpose. My goal is simply to determine placement and advancement in a competition based on which teams best accomplish what my particular system values. While I think the best teams as a matter of perception rank highest a significant percentage of the time, the purpose of the system is not about identifying the best team. The objections to my system here and elsewhere are all about the values of wins and losses not lining up with subjective perceptions about ability. The only fact I claim with my system is that a higher placed team is more accomplished according to its rules. I make no other claims. Now if people want to say my method is bullshit because it doesn't value what they value, so be it.

 

[CJH9972]

Right, only your system is objective, even though it's been proven to be shit for longer than you've been alive, and every other system is subjective.

Have a nice day dumbass.

Where did I say no other system is objective? And how do you prove my system is shit for not doing what you want it to do?

 

[4down20]

Where did I say no other system is objective? And how do you prove my system is shit for not doing what you want it to do?

Does your system make difference between a 5-7 team and a 6-6 team? If so, why?

 

[WizardHawk]

The problem with what you say is that we aren't all using stats for the same purpose. My goal is simply to determine placement and advancement in a competition based on which teams best accomplish what my particular system values. While I think the best teams as a matter of perception rank highest a significant percentage of the time, the purpose of the system is not about identifying the best team. The objections to my system here and elsewhere are all about the values of wins and losses not lining up with subjective perceptions about ability. The only fact I claim with my system is that a higher placed team is more accomplished according to its rules. I make no other claims. Now if people want to say my method is bullshit because it doesn't value what they value, so be it.

I can't object to a system or idea that isn't fully vetted. I can say I'm not likely to support it based on what I've already said is a minority opinion that I'd rather go back to 2 team championship game as it is and have no interest in expanding, but I'll hear what you have to say when the time comes.

 

[Rolltide94]

And the problem I have is the SEC getting away with 8 conference game schedules. That's guaranteeing almost 7 less losses wherever they fall across the conference. Insert November FCS marathon here. Meanwhile, conferences playing 9 conference games add a cross divisional game per school, that ensures 7 more losses across the conference, again, wherever they fall. And in some years that kills your playoffs chances, see my Buckeyes the past two seasons losing cross division games. I don't blame the SEC for taking advantage of this, but it hurts the integrity of the sport when they're getting 2 teams in out of the 4. This is where the NCAA needs to end this crap.

You know what really hurts your conference...when you get your shit pushed in 31-0 and 38-0. Notice how the conference that was the first to get two teams in the playoffs was also the first to put two teams in the championship game. I'm sure all of that was due to playing 8 conference games.

FYI...the FCS games aren't going away, not when 3/4 of the FBS teams are also playing them. So you are not replacing 7 wins with 7 losses, because even the SEC doesn't beat G5 teams at a 100% rate...although certainly it is a higher rate than the Pac or B1G.

LOL at the NCAA ending anything. When, it comes to football, the P5 conferences carry around the NCAA's balls in a little sack and trot them out when it suits them.

If anything, we should be playing less conference games across the country, not more. Want to choose who gets left out, Alabama vs Stanford would be a lot more useful data point than Alabama vs Kentucky.

 

[CJH9972]

Does your system make difference between a 5-7 team and a 6-6 team? If so, why?

Yes. The difference is meant to encourage teams to play stronger schedules compared to a simple best record system even though better record doesn't always mean better team.

 

[4down20]

Yes. The difference is meant to encourage teams to play stronger schedules compared to a simple best record system even though better record doesn't always mean better team.

So you are saying that you are using 5-7 and 6-6 as indicators of team strength and that 6-6 teams are therefore all equal and 5-7 teams are not as strong as 6-6.

And this is all demonstrability bullshit. You keep acting like you aren't making some claim about team strength, and you are. Bad ones.

 

[WizardHawk]

So you are saying that you are using 5-7 and 6-6 as indicators of team strength and that 6-6 teams are therefore all equal and 5-7 teams are not as strong as 6-6.

And this is all demonstrability bullshit. You keep acting like you aren't making some claim about team strength, and you are. Bad ones.

If you read what he said yesterday, he's a bit all over the map, but it's not really the time to get into the weeds deeply on anyone's alternative proposal. He's not really in favor of clarks thing and not fully supportive of AQ's, but at least he's being civil. Anyone able to talk out their views is a welcome change from what a few have devolved to.

 

[CJH9972]

So you are saying that you are using 5-7 and 6-6 as indicators of team strength and that 6-6 teams are therefore all equal and 5-7 teams are not as strong as 6-6.

And this is all demonstrability bullshit. You keep acting like you aren't making some claim about team strength, and you are. Bad ones.

No. I'm not making any claim about team strength. I don't claim that teams with better records are automatically better teams. However, by rewarding teams for playing and beating teams with better records, I do more to encourage stronger schedules than if I simply treated all wins as equal regardless of record. Of course, I realize you and others may object because the value of wins and losses isn't more closely aligned with your perceptions about good teams versus bad teams but I think my system ultimately does a better job of encouraging and rewarding stronger schedules than polls/committees have. Of course, I'm sure there are other objective systems I'd accept being used.

 

[4down20]

No. I'm not making any claim about team strength. I don't claim that teams with better records are automatically better teams. However, by rewarding teams for playing and beating teams with better records, I do more to encourage stronger schedules than if I simply treated all wins as equal regardless of record. Of course, I realize you and others may object because the value of wins and losses isn't more closely aligned with your perceptions about good teams versus bad teams but I think my system ultimately does a better job of encouraging and rewarding stronger schedules than polls/committees have. Of course, I'm sure there are other objective systems I'd accept being used.

But you are making claims about team strength. If you weren't, then there would be no difference between a 6-6 team and 5-7 team.

There isn't much to discuss if there is no agreement on that.

 

[Hang_On_Sloopy08]

You know what really hurts your conference...when you get your shit pushed in 31-0 and 38-0. Notice how the conference that was the first to get two teams in the playoffs was also the first to put two teams in the championship game. I'm sure all of that was due to playing 8 conference games.

FYI...the FCS games aren't going away, not when 3/4 of the FBS teams are also playing them. So you are not replacing 7 wins with 7 losses, because even the SEC doesn't beat G5 teams at a 100% rate...although certainly it is a higher rate than the Pac or B1G.

LOL at the NCAA ending anything. When, it comes to football, the P5 conferences carry around the NCAA's balls in a little sack and trot them out when it suits them.

If anything, we should be playing less conference games across the country, not more. Want to choose who gets left out, Alabama vs Stanford would be a lot more useful data point than Alabama vs Kentucky.

No need to get all defensive, we're just having a discussion here. You sure do seem to have the need to beat the loudest drum? You have a very protective mentality when it comes to the yearly SEC FCS marathon. It's simple math, when you schedule an extra conference game across the board you're effectively guaranteeing 7 more losses across the conference. The SEC is smart enough to take advantage of this loophole and schedule less conference game and replace it with a November cupcake. That's how you afford to get two teams in the playoff.

 

[Rolltide94]

No need to get all defensive, we're just having a discussion here. You sure do seem to have the need to beat the loudest drum? You have a very protective mentality when it comes to the yearly SEC FCS marathon. It's simple math, when you schedule an extra conference game across the board you're effectively guaranteeing 7 more losses across the conference. The SEC is smart enough to take advantage of this loophole and schedule less conference game and replace it with a November cupcake. That's how you afford to get two teams in the playoff.

It's only simple math if you're simple.

As I stated, no conference beats even FCS opponents at a 100% rate, so the 7 games clip is a ridiculous argument. If you want to put some actual thought behind the numbers and come back with some real analysis I will entertain your argument.

Nobody is taking advantage of a loophole. Shit, back in the day, we all played 8...or less when we had less members. Your the ones adding games to your conference schedule...almost as if you were scared of playing teams outside your conference, likely true in the case of the PAC, or at least it should be based on their record. They incidentally have the lowest win percentage against G5 teams...they would barely get 4 more wins if they switched to 8 games by adding g5's. If you guys think playing 8 is an unfair advantage, you have my permission to drop back too. Would certainly leave room for inter-conference opportunities.

 

[Hang_On_Sloopy08]

It's only simple math if you're simple.

As I stated, no conference beats even FCS opponents at a 100% rate, so the 7 games clip is a ridiculous argument. If you want to put some actual thought behind the numbers and come back with some real analysis I will entertain your argument.

Nobody is taking advantage of a loophole. Shit, back in the day, we all played 8...or less when we had less members. Your the ones adding games to your conference schedule...almost as if you were scared of playing teams outside your conference, likely true in the case of the PAC, or at least it should be based on their record. They incidentally have the lowest win percentage against G5 teams...they would barely get 4 more wins if they switched to 8 games by adding g5's. If you guys think playing 8 is an unfair advantage, you have my permission to drop back too. Would certainly leave room for inter-conference opportunities.

Ah I see, the semantics game of absolutes. A wise Hooplan past time of debate. The second weakest position one can take in a debate behind name calling. Shoulda prefaced my reply that was coming, I knew better.

No shit you're not going to have a 100% win percentage? But stop moving the goal post each time when you lump in G5 teams as you did below. We're here to debate the advantages of playing 8 conferences games versus 9 as it pertains to giving an advantage for conference playoff participation. What I was getting at before you moved the goal posts, that by playing an extra conference game versus an FCS November opponent, it leaves the top tier of the conference (team(s) in playoff contention) much more vulnerable to an additional loss. You'd be forced into an extra cross divisional game, and depending on the year or schedule you'll face a much more formidable opponent than a FCS team. That can't be debated, that's just fact.

I said from the beginning it's a smart move by the SEC. That's why I'm in favor of the NCAA stepping in and requiring a standardized number of conference games played.

 

[WizardHawk]

It's only simple math if you're simple.

As I stated, no conference beats even FCS opponents at a 100% rate, so the 7 games clip is a ridiculous argument. If you want to put some actual thought behind the numbers and come back with some real analysis I will entertain your argument.

Nobody is taking advantage of a loophole. Shit, back in the day, we all played 8...or less when we had less members. Your the ones adding games to your conference schedule...almost as if you were scared of playing teams outside your conference, likely true in the case of the PAC, or at least it should be based on their record. They incidentally have the lowest win percentage against G5 teams...they would barely get 4 more wins if they switched to 8 games by adding g5's. If you guys think playing 8 is an unfair advantage, you have my permission to drop back too. Would certainly leave room for inter-conference opportunities.

Dropping league games takes away a .500 win/loss. That math just can't be too hard for you yeah?
Suggesting any P5 conference wouldn't be able to sustain better than a .500 win rate against G5/FCS schools is just plain stupid. No way to sugar coat it.

SEC plays those extras to get more home games you fucking dolt. They don't care about how lame it makes their schedule. Without 4 OOC you can't have 7 home plus (wink wink) one 'neutral' and only play 4 actual road games a year. They make them against those lower shit stains because they can't do home/home without doing more road games.

SEC cares far more about making extra money than playing quality football. Dropping the FCS teams and playing an extra league game would make for better football, but lose money.

This isn't hard.

 

[CJH9972]

But you are making claims about team strength. If you weren't, then there would be no difference between a 6-6 team and 5-7 team.

There isn't much to discuss if there is no agreement on that.

The motive behind using opponents' records to determine win and loss values is to encourage/compel teams to pursue stronger schedules than they would if simply ranked by their records but there is no claim that a better record equals a stronger team. So, it is quite possible to get equal or greater value for beating a lesser team with respect to ability. That said, the method works when comparing my system to a best record system. The two methods have agreed on 126 of 160 top four teams over the past 40 seasons. However, the 34 teams favored by my method won 60 more games and played 93 more games versus AP ranked teams than the 34 teams favored by the best record method. So, is 6-6 team a better team than a 5-7 team. Not necessarily, but the method still promotes stronger scheduling even if "team strength" does not determine win/loss values.