David Shaw: CFP should look at full schedules

[ralphiewvu]

I don't think you even understand my "theory" if you think that's the case.

Of course, I'm pretty sure you rarely understand much of anything that goes on since most often times you sit around and make up shit and argue it.

Again you didn’t explain any theory you simple fuck. Just admit you are off base on this or leave.

As I said, too stupid to comprehend basic conversation.

 

[4down20]

Again you didn’t explain any theory you simple fuck. Just admit you are off base on this or leave.

"theory"

it's in quotes for a reason you tard.

 

[ralphiewvu]

"theory"

it's in quotes for a reason you tard.

You can put it in quotes all you want. I asked you to explain it and you have yet too. You know you’re fucking wrong here dumbass. Just leave

 

[4down20]

You can put it in quotes all you want. I asked you to explain it and you have yet too. You know you’re fucking wrong here dumbass. Just leave

It's in quotes because you are the one who called it a theory you dense motherfucker.

I don't think I've ever in my life seen someone so pathetic and butthurt that they literally sit around and look for reasons to argue. Hell it's not even me you do this too, you're just fucked.

 

[ralphiewvu]

It's in quotes because you are the one who called it a theory you dense motherfucker.

I don't think I've ever in my life seen someone so pathetic and butthurt that they literally sit around and look for reasons to argue. Hell it's not even me you do this too, you're just fucked.

You literally were arguing there is no difference between an 8 game and 9 game conference schedule and then used Oregon State as the example to prove this point. IE your theory.

I’ve never met a more egotistical jackass that has been absolutely wrong and yet still defends his team/conference he bandwagons to the end no matter what. Congrats

 

[4down20]

You literally were arguing there is no difference between an 8 game and 9 game conference schedule and then used Oregon State as the example to prove this point. IE your theory.

I’ve never met a more egotistical jackass that has been absolutely wrong and yet still defends his team/conference he bandwagons to the end no matter what. Congrats

Same post...for the 3rd time.

I didn't make a theory or claim, I was responding to one dipshit. Of which I proved wrong already and instead of acknowledging it, you started claiming I needed more examples of proof - apparently without a clue to the discussion(not a surprise).

The original claim was that less conference games meant that conference would get more teams above .500. But as I pointed out, the actual biggest influence are teams in the conference and that when some teams take the majority of those losses, as did Oregon St, Cal and Utah, then you are still able to get the bulk of those teams above .500

And for the record, Oregon St, Cal and Colorado were the only Pac12 teams to not be .500 or above last year before bowl season(add UCLA to that after, they went 6-7)

 

[ralphiewvu]

Same post...for the 3rd time.

Yeah your too chicken shit. Like usual

 

[DHoey]

You mean settle it on the field instead of voting on it? That's a novel idea.

Settling it on the field is for the cretins. The upper echelon of college football doesn’t deserve to be put through such petty bullshit.

 

[4down20]

Yeah your too chicken shit. Like usual

I don't have a too chicken, dipshit.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I don't have a too chicken, dipshit.

LOL at the grammar police. Hey tell us again how an 8 game conference schedule and 9 game conference schedule are no different.

 

[4down20]

LOL at the grammar police. Hey tell us again how an 8 game conference schedule and 9 game conference schedule are no different.

#4

I didn't make a theory or claim, I was responding to one dipshit. Of which I proved wrong already and instead of acknowledging it, you started claiming I needed more examples of proof - apparently without a clue to the discussion(not a surprise).

The original claim was that less conference games meant that conference would get more teams above .500. But as I pointed out, the actual biggest influence are teams in the conference and that when some teams take the majority of those losses, as did Oregon St, Cal and Utah, then you are still able to get the bulk of those teams above .500

And for the record, Oregon St, Cal and Colorado were the only Pac12 teams to not be .500 or above last year before bowl season(add UCLA to that after, they went 6-7)

 

[ralphiewvu]

#4

You can try and back track all you want. The fact of the matter is you were arguing with me an 8 an a 9 game conference schedule are no different. But please continue to back track. It’s hilarious and clearly all ya got left.

 

[nddulac]

Here is an analysis of the ACC from last year, using my final computer ratings. I did this three times.

1. Drop the highest rated FBS team from the out-of-conference schedule, while still maintaining at least one P5 opponent, and replace that team with the average of the conference.
2. Drop the lowest rated FBS team from the OOC schedule, and replace that with the conference average.
3. Drop the average of the FBS teams on the OOC schedule, and replace that with the conference average.

The results were:
1. In the first case (the best possible scenario for 4down20’s hypothesis that an extra conference game doesn’t matter) the average conference strength of schedule decreased slightly (by 0.04 points per game.)
2. In the second case (the least favorable to 4down20’s case) the average conference SOS increased by 1.7 points per game.
3. In the third case (the most balanced of the three), the average conference strength of schedule increased by 0.4 points per game.

So the conclusion here is that 4down20 is wrong. Playing an extra conference game would increase the strength of schedule on average for a top conference such as (in this case) the ACC in 2017.

 

[4down20]

Here is an analysis of the ACC from last year, using my final computer ratings. I did this three times.

1. Drop the highest rated FBS team from the out-of-conference schedule, while still maintaining at least one P5 opponent, and replace that team with the average of the conference.
2. Drop the lowest rated FBS team from the OOC schedule, and replace that with the conference average.
3. Drop the average of the FBS teams on the OOC schedule, and replace that with the conference average.

The results were:
1. In the first case (the best possible scenario for 4down20’s hypothesis that an extra conference game doesn’t matter) the average conference strength of schedule decreased slightly (by 0.04 points per game.)
2. In the second case (the least favorable to 4down20’s case) the average conference SOS increased by 1.7 points per game.
3. In the third case (the most balanced of the three), the average conference strength of schedule increased by 0.4 points per game.

So the conclusion here is that 4down20 is wrong. Playing an extra conference game would increase the strength of schedule on average for a top conference such as (in this case) the ACC in 2017.

First off - I'm someone in favor of looking at the teams strength of schedule based on the actual opponents and just say that a 9 game conference schedule isn't automatically better than an 8 game conference schedule.

2nd off - Here's what I mean by doing bad math. It's not an average conference opponent that you are replacing them with, it's an average conference opponent from the OTHER division, that is not a permanent rival. You are applying factors that do not actually apply to the teams, and that skews the data.

So take a team from the Big10 East and add an extra Big10 West opponent, and even though it's the same conference, the Big10 East's SoS is more likely to fall while the Big10 West's schedule strength is more likely to rise.

Or in the SEC, Alabama's is more likely to fall while Georgia's is more likely to rise.

And then that also changes from conference to conference, because each conference has different strengths. So I'd be interested in seeing the Pac12's numbers for example, using your same formula.

Still, even with your data there it shows there is minimal difference, of which is EASILY offset by other means of scheduling if that is so desired. The cries are baseless.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

First off - I'm someone in favor of looking at the teams strength of schedule based on the actual opponents and just say that a 9 game conference schedule isn't automatically better than an 8 game conference schedule.

2nd off - Here's what I mean by doing bad math. It's not an average conference opponent that you are replacing them with, it's an average conference opponent from the OTHER division, that is not a permanent rival. You are applying factors that do not actually apply to the teams, and that skews the data.

So take a team from the Big10 East and add an extra Big10 West opponent, and even though it's the same conference, the Big10 East's SoS is more likely to fall while the Big10 West's schedule strength is more likely to rise.

Or in the SEC, Alabama's is more likely to fall while Georgia's is more likely to rise.

And then that also changes from conference to conference, because each conference has different strengths. So I'd be interested in seeing the Pac12's numbers for example, using your same formula.

Still, even with your data there it shows there is minimal difference, of which is EASILY offset by other means of scheduling if that is so desired. The cries are baseless.

 

[RoyUte]

Hell no, playing most G5 and a few FCS teams is way harder than playing Oregon St.

If Alabama had added that "P5" opponent in exchange for any of our OOC opponents, our SoS would have dropped.

Except the next game in our rotation isn't Georgia, it's Missouri. And it wouldn't be the FCS team that got replaced, it would have been Fresno St or Colorado St.

Just as I said, people like you cherry pick and create scenarios without a clue in what would actually happen.

What was that you were saying again? It would be Georgia because you already have Missouri in your rotation and you're adding a 9th conference game. And you said adding that 9th P5 opponent (Georgia) in place of any OOC opponent would lower your SOS. You're completely full of shit.

 

[RoyUte]

I didn't make a theory or claim, I was responding to one dipshit. Of which I proved wrong already and instead of acknowledging it, you started claiming I needed more examples of proof - apparently without a clue to the discussion(not a surprise).

The original claim was that less conference games meant that conference would get more teams above .500. But as I pointed out, the actual biggest influence are teams in the conference and that when some teams take the majority of those losses, as did Oregon St, Cal and Utah, then you are still able to get the bulk of those teams above .500

And for the record, Oregon St, Cal and Colorado were the only Pac12 teams to not be .500 or above last year before bowl season(add UCLA to that after, they went 6-7)

Those teams prove the point that 8 conference games would be easier. Cal and Colorado would have been .500 if they played an 4th OOC instead of a conference opponent.

 

[nddulac]

2nd off - Here's what I mean by doing bad math. It's not an average conference opponent that you are replacing them with, it's an average conference opponent from the OTHER division, that is not a permanent rival. You are applying factors that do not actually apply to the teams, and that skews the data.

This is why you are a poor judge of what constitutes "bad math".

Since I reported the average strength of schedule, the fluctuations caused by having some teams play strong teams and other play weak teams mathematically cancel one another, and the result on the average strength of schedule is unchanged from what you get if you simply use the average for each team.

This is where a basic understanding of high school algebra is useful. Unfortunately, you have just demonstrated a lack of that level of understanding.

 

[outofyourmind]

This is what is most important to the CFP Committee:

1. Name on the Jersey
2. How much money it will generate
3. Blah Blah Blah
4. Blah Blah Blah
5. Blah Blah Blah
6. Some more shit
7. More Blah
8. Strength of Schedule

Did I leave anything out????

 

[nddulac]

This is what is most important to the CFP Committee:

1. Name on the Jersey
2. How much money it will generate
3. Blah Blah Blah
4. Blah Blah Blah
5. Blah Blah Blah
6. Some more shit
7. More Blah
8. Strength of Schedule

Did I leave anything out????

Potato Salad. You left out Potato Salad.