CFP Committe SOS problem

[Codaxx]

For the down AQ or non AQ teams, the committee could easily factor in what was the down team's record the year the contract for the game was signed. Schools could easily provide that information.

In 2020 Nebraska is playing Cincinnati in Lincoln. Contract signed in 2013. Cincinnati was 10-3 in 2012 and 10-3 in 2011. 2013 season had not started, 2013 Cincinnati finished 9-4.

How good is Cincinnati going to be in 2020? Who knows, but Nebraska signed a team that had three winning seasons in a row. You could include the down year 2010 and the up year of 2009 also. If I can easily look this up, imagine how much easier it is if the schools provide the information and the committee just data mines it. The Committee has already bragged about their use of technology.

I thought most if not all schools were eliminating FCS schools.

edit: conversely how good is Nebraska going to be?

They are going to look at the numbers, as they should. I think intent will be a secondary tie breaker. At least I hope it is. I have my doubts that the committee will focus on SOS. BCS continually weakened SOS component in its formulas over the years.

 

[sooner78wakeboard]

One conundrum that teams run into. They schedule teams so far out, that as time gets closer. Often team change their minds or drop the game. Leaving the team that got the shaft quickly looking to find a replacement game. Which odds are is a Savannah State, or East Popcorn State.

OU ran into it a few years back when a series was scheduled with Clemson, then Clemson backed out and OU was left trying to find someone I believe it was Tulsa or Middle Tennessee State.

 

[WizardHawk]

Going undefeated, can be a little deceptive. It all depends on the strength of your journey and the type of out of conference opponents you pick. Florida State last season had the easiest schedule of 11 to 13 win crowds (nixing UCF, Louisville, NIU, and Fresno State). According to Colley Matrix, they produced an SOS of .499. Missouri and South Carolina on the other hand, produced an SOS of .595 and .605. But if you're a team like 2013 Auburn, 2012 Notre Dame, 2011 LSU, 2010 Auburn, and 2009's Alabama and Texas, and you go undefeated, then you really deserve a pat on the back.

And would Florida State end up 5th or lower with this new system?

Until a major program goes undefeated and still ends up 5th or worse all of the arguments over how SoS is weighted is aimed at teams that had at least one loss and still are looking at a top 4 finish.

Teams should be worried about their OOC schedule specifically, but the actual number of teams with a potential for this to matter in terms of a possible playoff berth is at most 1-3 teams in any given year? And if they had simply won out their schedule and had at least a couple of high profile convincing wins they would have been in anyway.

That's just my take.

 

[dennis580]

The Committee says one of the biggest factors into their voting of the playoffs is a teams SOS. Most focused on their NON Conf. SOS.

I think that is great, as some teams schedule cupcakes year in and year out. Hell, even some teams haven't ever traveled West of the Mississippi River.

BUT...

Some teams that schedule other BCS conference teams schedule them so far out in advance that it is a hit or miss if that team will even be any good when they meet.

What are they going to do about that?

Actually there is no consideration of OOC schedule. Its just the teams overall SOS. Although Notre Dame, and other independents will be at a huge disadvantage because the committee has said that the only way a non champion or independent gets in is if they are clearly one of the 4 best teams in the country anything close will go to conference champions.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Until a major program goes undefeated and still ends up 5th or worse all of the arguments over how SoS is weighted is aimed at teams that had at least one loss and still are looking at a top 4 finish.

Teams should be worried about their OOC schedule specifically, but the actual number of teams with a potential for this to matter in terms of a possible playoff berth is at most 1-3 teams in any given year? And if they had simply won out their schedule and had at least a couple of high profile convincing wins they would have been in anyway.

That's just my take.

My point is about how some AQ conferences are tougher than others. For example in 2013, FSU had an SOS of .499, while Stanford had of .633. It was much tougher to play in the Pac-12 or SEC last season, than it was in the ACC. FSU might have not been "perfect" if they had a more challenging schedule. Just going by wins and losses is not telling the whole story.

 

[Boise4Life]

My point is about how some AQ conferences are tougher than others. For example in 2013, FSU had an SOS of .499, while Stanford had of .633. It was much tougher to play in the Pac-12 or SEC last season, than it was in the ACC. FSU might have not been "perfect" if they had a more challenging schedule. Just going by wins and losses is not telling the whole story.

100%.

 

[dennis580]

For the down AQ or non AQ teams, the committee could easily factor in what was the down team's record the year the contract for the game was signed. Schools could easily provide that information.

In 2020 Nebraska is playing Cincinnati in Lincoln. Contract signed in 2013. Cincinnati was 10-3 in 2012 and 10-3 in 2011. 2013 season had not started, 2013 Cincinnati finished 9-4.

How good is Cincinnati going to be in 2020? Who knows, but Nebraska signed a team that had three winning seasons in a row. You could include the down year 2010 and the up year of 2009 also. If I can easily look this up, imagine how much easier it is if the schools provide the information and the committee just data mines it. The Committee has already bragged about their use of technology.

I thought most if not all schools were eliminating FCS schools.

edit: conversely how good is Nebraska going to be?

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. What happens in 2013 should have no effect on who gets in the playoffs in 2020. Only what happens on the FIELD in 2020 should effect who gets in the playoffs in 2020.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. What happens in 2013 should have no effect on who gets in the playoffs in 2020. Only what happens on the FIELD in 2020 should effect who gets in the playoffs in 2020.

That's correct. We should ONLY be focused on who you played that season. If you pick to play a major conference team, you at least get credit under the opponents winning% and opponents of opponents winning% sections of SOS.

But the poster is correct when he/she implies that SOS isn't foreshadowed. Nobody knows how good or bad your schedule will be one to three years ahead of time. There are very few teams out there which are incapable of putting up a bad season.

 

[Codaxx]

That's correct. We should ONLY be focused on who you played that season. If you pick to play a major conference team, you at least get credit under the opponents winning% and opponents of opponents winning% sections of SOS.

But the poster is correct when he/she implies that SOS isn't foreshadowed. Nobody knows how good or bad your schedule will be one to three years ahead of time. There are very few teams out there which are incapable of putting up a bad season.

It is overplayed though. Most teams play to their historic levels. You scheduke top teams and it will likely bolster your SOS, compared to a mid-major. Very rarely will you schedule a 3-8 Auburn. You schedule a Cincy or Uconn at its peak, dont be surprised when a reversion to the mean occurs.

 

[dennis580]

They are going to look at the numbers, as they should. I think intent will be a secondary tie breaker. At least I hope it is. I have my doubts that the committee will focus on SOS. BCS continually weakened SOS component in its formulas over the years.

Again like I said earlier only what happens on the FIELD during the SEASON should matter. What somebody intended years ago with the schedule has no bearing on the process.

Basically a undefeated team should be in the playoffs unless there schedule is very weak, and even them if they have dominated there schedule they should be in the playoffs. SOS should mostly come into play with 1, and 2 loss teams, and yes there will be 2 loss teams in the playoffs not every year, but some years. Heck LSU made the National Championship game in BCS with 2 loses 4 or 5 years ago.

 

[dennis580]

It should be a lot easier to move a 2 loss team with a far superior SOS ahead of a 1 loss team then it is to move a 1 loss team ahead of a undefeated. Being a undefeated should count for a lot, and in the era of a 4 team playoff very few if any undefeated teams should be left out.

 

[Codaxx]

Again like I said earlier only what happens on the FIELD during the SEASON should matter. What somebody intended years ago with the schedule has no bearing on the process.

Basically a undefeated team should be in the playoffs unless there schedule is very weak, and even them if they have dominated there schedule they should be in the playoffs. SOS should mostly come into play with 1, and 2 loss teams, and yes there will be 2 loss teams in the playoffs not every year, but some years. Heck LSU made the National Championship game in BCS with 2 loses 4 or 5 years ago.

It really won't matter. The truth is a 7-8 AQ school will boost your SOS more than a 8-10 mid-major in most circumstances. It might not be the boost you thought it was when you dinged the deal, but it will generally be worth more than Southwest directional.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

It is overplayed though. Most teams play to their historic levels. You scheduke top teams and it will likely bolster your SOS, compared to a mid-major. Very rarely will you schedule a 3-8 Auburn. You schedule a Cincy or Uconn at its peak, dont be surprised when a reversion to the mean occurs.

Correct. RPI ratings are heavy on SOS, and essentially 75% of the formula. 99% of all AQ opponents have between a .490 and .700 SOS number, and 99% of all non-AQ opponents have an SOS between .266 and .490.

My only issue here is how religious voters are on wins and losses. They are essentially telling Non-AQ schools you have to play at least two AQ opponents and they must be great ones, or else we're not going to give you the time and day, and telling AQ teams, don't challenge yourself with your OOC opponents. I would argue that Oregon should have never been ranked #3 or #4 in the human polls in 2012, and Stanford should have been ranked above them.

 

[4down20]

Correct. RPI ratings are heavy on SOS, and essentially 75% of the formula. 99% of all AQ opponents have between a .490 and .700 SOS number, and 99% of all non-AQ opponents have an SOS between .266 and .490.

My only issue here is how religious voters are on wins and losses. They are essentially telling Non-AQ schools you have to play at least two AQ opponents and they must be great ones, or else we're not going to give you the time and day, and telling AQ teams, don't challenge yourself with your OOC opponents. I would argue that Oregon should have never been ranked #3 or #4 in the human polls in 2012, and Stanford should have been ranked above them.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

You care to participate or simply disclose a facepalm? CC should be disproportionately favored. Sorry, I know you disagree, but winning your conference should be one of the primary criteria.

In 2011, I would have picked Oregon over Stanford.
In 2012, I would have picked Stanford over Oregon.

If we did 8 teams, then I am starting to believe the Power 5 should get an automatic spot, regardless of wins and losses.

 

[4down20]

You care to participate or simply disclose a facepalm? CC should be disproportionately favored. Sorry, I know you disagree, but winning your conference should be one of the primary criteria.

In 2011, I would have picked Oregon over Stanford.
In 2012, I would have picked Stanford over Oregon.

If we did 8 teams, then I am starting to believe the Power 5 should get an automatic spot, regardless of wins and losses.

What I disagree with is people like you who don't really like college football trying to change it all the time because your shitty teams can't win on the field. You guys are soooo sure it's the system that causes teams to not be included, rather than accepting the reality that they simply don't belong in the title hunt period.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

What I disagree with is people like you who don't really like college football trying to change it all the time because your shitty teams can't win on the field. You guys are soooo sure it's the system that causes teams to not be included, rather than accepting the reality that they simply don't belong in the title hunt period.

Stanford, Oregon, and Kansas State are bad teams? Boy 4downs, you really are something.

 

[4down20]

Stanford, Oregon, and Kansas State are bad teams? Boy 4downs, you really are something.

I'm a Stanford fan and also even a bit of a K-State fan. Neither of those teams has been good enough to be considered for the national championship. Oregon has once, and they went.

Alabama didn't deserve to go last year, or in 2010 either. Not good enough. I'm fine with that.

OSU deserved to go in 2011, and didn't. That is why we need an extra playoff game. To fit in people who deserve to go. Not for your stupid fantasies.

 

[smilesid]

Asking the top "non AQ" schools to play more than one top AQ means that the AQs must also travel. Boise has lined up FSU, Ok St., UConn, BYU (long term). Mich St., UW, WSU, and several more teams home and home. The SEC hasn't felt the need to do that yet. Most of them are still lining up cupcakes for home games, and only one meaningful OOC game, often a traditional rivalry or a "neutral" site game (usually closer to the SEC team than the opponent).

I suspect that the reluctance for SEC schools to travel will end, when one of them gets left out in favor of a school that did.

This is not the only problem with the 4 team format, still, it's a baby step. The less respected conferences are going to get hosed, even if one gets hot. The new star chamber style committee is way too open to skulduggery, or the suspicion of such even if they aren't.

 

[4down20]

Asking the top "non AQ" schools to play more than one top AQ means that the AQs must also travel. Boise has lined up FSU, Ok St., UConn, BYU (long term). Mich St., UW, WSU, and several more teams home and home. The SEC hasn't felt the need to do that yet. Most of them are still lining up cupcakes for home games, and only one meaningful OOC game, often a traditional rivalry or a "neutral" site game (usually closer to the SEC team than the opponent).

I suspect that the reluctance for SEC schools to travel will end, when one of them gets left out in favor of a school that did.

This is not the only problem with the 4 team format, still, it's a baby step. The less respected conferences are going to get hosed, even if one gets hot. The new star chamber style committee is way too open to skulduggery, or the suspicion of such even if they aren't.

Nobody needs Boise St.

Boise St needs everyone else.

Deal with it.