CFP Committe SOS problem

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

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.

All of the conferences, except for one, agrees with me: the 4 team playoff should favor conference champions. If we had the 4 team playoff for the last two seasons, I would have voted for Florida State, Auburn, Stanford, and Michigan State in the top 4. In 2012, I would have either went ND, Alabama, Florida, and Stanford or ND, Alabama, Stanford, and Kansas State. I don't think Oregon deserved to be in the final four. Same story for 2011, I would either go LSU, Oklahoma State, Alabama, and Oregon, or LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon, and Wisconsin. That's just my opinion. There's no need to get nasty here. I am not why you get huffy and puffy over a hypothetical playoff debate. Good day sir.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

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.

The 4 team playoff wasn't really designed for the non-AQ schools. It was designed for the Big 5. This is one of the major reasons why I support 8 teams. It gives the little guy a chance.

If a non-AQ schools runs the table and challenges two AQ opponents, I have no issue with them being in a 4 to 8 team playoff. No issue.

 

[4down20]

Those same conferences only ever agreed to a playoff to begin with because they got left out. So am I surprised they are still in line for a handout? No.

There's no need to get nasty here. I am not why you get huffy and puffy over a hypothetical playoff debate. Good day sir.

Because you constantly post the same stupid crap while having no real clue what you are talking about. Just like your other thread where you think you are making some kind of great formula for something, without the first clue to any statistical significance of the data. I doubt you even realize how many people have spent time on the data. Yet here you go acting as if you've found some magical grail that is going to solve the problems of college football and who should go to the playoffs with some mind numbingly flawed bit of a formula that doesn't even begin to compare to what other people have done. There were better math formulas 60 years ago.

 

[4down20]

The 4 team playoff wasn't really designed for the non-AQ schools. It was designed for the Big 5. This is one of the major reasons why I support 8 teams. It gives the little guy a chance.

If a non-AQ schools runs the table and challenges two AQ opponents, I have no issue with them being in a 4 to 8 team playoff. No issue.

Bullshit. The 4 team playoff is designed to take the best 4 teams. It's people like you who ignorantly harp on "conference champions" as if it means anything who would squeeze non-AQ teams out of it. Same ignorant shit that brought us "AQ" in the first place.

The kicker of the entire thing is that the 2011 season is what makes people cry conference champion the most, when the only reason OSU was conference champion and Alabama wasn't, is because OSU lost their conference game to a crappy team that wasn't even in contention for the title. Both teams lost 1 conference game, OSU was declared champion because they game they lost didn't matter for the conference championship, while the game Alabama lost did. If Alabama had lost to a crappy team like OSU did, say Kentucky, Alabama would have been conference champion.

And yet here you will keep on harping on ignorantly about conference champions as if it actually means a damn thing outside the conference itself.

 

[Codaxx]

Those same conferences only ever agreed to a playoff to begin with because they got left out. So am I surprised they are still in line for a handout? No.


.

That would include the SEC. They were the first to jump into the pro-playoff camp. Happened right after Auburn was left out. Funny, how that happened with pretty much every conference.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Bullshit. The 4 team playoff is designed to take the best 4 teams.

And yet here you will keep on harping on ignorantly about conference champions as if it actually means a damn thing outside the conference itself.

You once again re-enforced why I don't like to debate with you. You come across as really arrogant and very rude.

No more did I say I oppose the concept of taking the "best 4 teams." Keep in mind that "best" is a subjective term, unless properly defined ahead of time.

If being in a conference is meaningless, then there's no point in having conferences. Pretty much all sports gives conference champions or division champions (in professional) a leg-up in the competition. In college hoops, you get an automatic spot in the tournament. In the NFL, you get one of the top 4 playoff spots within your conference and at least one home playoff game. In college football, you get an automatic BCS Bowl appearance. I have no idea why we can't do the same for the 4 team playoff.

My formula is purely for fun. I want to see how my results match the selection committee's top teams. But apparently expressing an opinion and not worshiping the alter of "Roll Tide Nation" is too much for you.

 

[4down20]

That would include the SEC. They were the first to jump into the pro-playoff camp. Happened right after Auburn was left out. Funny, how that happened with pretty much every conference.

The SEC and ACC have been the only conferences to be in favor of a playoff over recent years, while the other conferences all voted against it until 2011.

 

[4down20]

You once again re-enforced why I don't like to debate with you. You come across as really arrogant and very rude.

No more did I say I oppose the concept of taking the "best 4 teams." Keep in mind that "best" is a subjective term, unless properly defined ahead of time.

I am arrogant - because I know what the fuck I'm talking about. You don't like to "debate" me because you don't like people calling you out on the shit. Just like your formula thread. I gave you extremely valuable information about formulas, and you cried about it because I wasn't reinforcing what you thought was a good base formula.

It's not really that subjective. People just want to pretend like it is, and they accept it as fact. When actually pressed to name the teams that got screwed and that a 4 team playoff wouldn't have fixed, there is no response ever. The reality is it's just an assumption people make that goes unchallenged in general, and you don't know what to do when called on it.

If being in a conference is meaningless, then there's no point in having conferences. Pretty much all sports gives conference champions or division champions (in professional) a leg-up in the competition. In college hoops, you get an automatic spot in the tournament. In the NFL, you get one of the top 4 playoff spots within your conference and at least one home playoff game. In college football, you get an automatic BCS Bowl appearance. I have no idea why we can't do the same for the 4 team playoff.

Conferences have meaning - for the teams in the conference. Winning a conference doesn't really mean shit towards who are the best teams, although in general the best teams do win their conference. How people get that winning your conference automatically means they are the best team is beyond me.

Do I really have to sit here and spell out ever single difference between your examples? In the NFL, you play the same teams more than once, and they have way less teams in general. It doesn't compare.

In college basketball, they have 64 spots. The teams play way more games and it's not as big of a deal to add extra games to the year. Again, it doesn't compare.

In college football - the regular season is the playoff. It's what makes college football exciting and you want to shit all over it.

My formula is purely for fun. I want to see how my results match the selection committee's top teams. But apparently expressing an opinion and not worshiping the alter of "Roll Tide Nation" is too much for you.

And this highlights how stupid you are. I ranked Alabama lower than basically 99% of everyone last year. I didn't even have Alabama in my top10, I had them ranked #12. There was a total of 1 formula or any poll that had Alabama ranked lower, which had them at 13.

But please, continue on calling me arrogant while making these stupid assumptions. Although honestly, this little logical fallacy of yours is just you not having anything real to respond with.

 

[Codaxx]

The SEC and ACC have been the only conferences to be in favor of a playoff over recent years, while the other conferences all voted against it until 2011.

-
And that is because SEC was one of the first to be "screwed". They all operate in their self interest. Once a conference believes the system jammed them, they look to fix it. Motivations are not about fairness or justice

 

[4down20]

-
And that is because SEC was one of the first to be "screwed". They all operate in their self interest. Once a conference believes the system jammed them, they look to fix it. Motivations are not about fairness or justice

I don't disagree there.

 

[Jack_John_Mark]

Tom Osborne is on the committee.

It will always be right in the end.......always

 

[rmilia1]

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?

Maybe they should use the SOS from when the school scheduled the game instead?? That way you can measure intentions. If Iowa schedules Arizona State a year after they go 11-1 and then actually play them a year after they go 5-7 I dont think its fair to say they scheduled a "cupcake"

 

[Codaxx]

This is all silly. You make a deal 5 years out. Lets use Texas, since it has been a big fall. UCLA expected a NC contender 5 years ago. Now they get a 8-9 win team (using last years results). Even in a down year in the Big 12, Texas had the 29th best SOS last year. That is a major boon to your SOS. If you got the team, you signed it is unlikely you would have been favored. It actually turned out great. You got a boost in SOS and a reasonable chance at a win. You could have gone mid-major and played Louisville or UCF. Their SOS were 91st and 122nd. That would have been a tougher game and you would have gotten lessof a boost for it. I really dont understand the bitching

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Maybe they should use the SOS from when the school scheduled the game instead?? That way you can measure intentions. If Iowa schedules Arizona State a year after they go 11-1 and then actually play them a year after they go 5-7 I dont think its fair to say they scheduled a "cupcake"

Irmilia, Colley Matrix posts its RPI rating and SOS on their website. Here's some of the worst AQ schools and their SOS in 2013:

Purdue (1-11) - .633
California (1-11) - .646
Kentucky (2-10) - .594
Kansas (3-9) - .540
NC State (3-9) - .545
Virginia (2-10) - .630
Iowa State (3-9) - .558
Arkansas (3-9) - .595

So even if you schedule a team which just so happens to be bad the season, it's still not going to negatively impact your SOS number. You're still going to get the "AQ bounce."

 

[4down20]

I personally don't buy or care what the team was when you scheduled it. The bottom line is if 1 game makes or breaks your SoS, then it's your own fault. WVU was better when Alabama scheduled them, but tough shit. The SoS isn't about 1 game, it's about the entire schedule. It's not WVU making Alabama's schedule weak this year, it's FAU, Southern Miss and Western Carolina.

The weakest I've ever had Notre Dames schedule is like 19th since 2009. And they aren't even in a conference. In 2008 it was 43rd. Far cry from awful.

 

[yeodonie]

Tom Osborne is on the committee.

It will always be right in the end.......always

He's human. He will be bribed like the rest of them

 

[Codaxx]

I personally don't buy or care what the team was when you scheduled it. The bottom line is if 1 game makes or breaks your SoS, then it's your own fault. WVU was better when Alabama scheduled them, but tough shit. The SoS isn't about 1 game, it's about the entire schedule. It's not WVU making Alabama's schedule weak this year, it's FAU, Southern Miss and Western Carolina.

The weakest I've ever had Notre Dames schedule is like 19th since 2009. And they aren't even in a conference. In 2008 it was 43rd. Far cry from awful.

Agreed. Any one team on your schedule is only going to be worth 1/12 to 1/13. In the end it is a small number, but people are not factoring in the Opponents Opponents portion of the SOS formula. So even if you schedule a 3 win Ark team, you are better off than scheduling a 9 win Bowl team in Louisiana. Difference being made up in the 62% winning percentage of the SEC (not quite accurate, too lazy to look at Ark OOC) vs the 51% winning percentage in the Sun Belt.

 

[RobToxin]

SoS did matter, see TCU and Boise St.

And since the BCS was based on a formula that was out of it's control, I don't see how you can say the BCS did any selecting.

But TCU and Boise examples could also be used to prove his point.

Who will bring more fans with them to a BCS Bowl? An undefeated Boise or a two-loss Bama/OU/Texas?

 

[4down20]

But TCU and Boise examples could also be used to prove his point.

Who will bring more fans with them to a BCS Bowl? An undefeated Boise or a two-loss Bama/OU/Texas?

How so?

As for fans, not sure what it has to do with the topic, but Boise St can't even sell out their less than 40k stadium for home games. So undefeated Boise isn't going to be the one with more fans.

 

[Boise4Life]

How so?

As for fans, not sure what it has to do with the topic, but Boise St can't even sell out their less than 40k stadium for home games. So undefeated Boise isn't going to be the one with more fans.

It's all revenue driven and all about getting people into town for the bowl game and putting butts in the seats. Boise doesn't sell out every home game because it's IC schedule is weaker making for a less attractive home slate and traditional P5 teams wouldn't and didn't need to come play them. That's seemingly changing with Michigan State, Florida State, and Oklahoma State, etc. currently scheduled to come. They'll travel though. Ask Phoenix natives or Oklahoma or TCU fans if they'll travel. I live in the PHX now and it was an absolute zoo for both Fiesta Bowls. It was insane, a sea of blue and orange.