David Shaw: CFP should look at full schedules

[4down20]

True - Alabama does not play Alabama. But someone plays Alabama, so their rating will figure into the conference strength of schedule for that game. Get it yet?


Yes - because that's what you said I did incorrectly.

No, I said conference average isn't what matters and it's incorrect/bad math to use it here. It's an extremely simple calculation on a much more complex problem.

I've pointed out numerous flaws in doing so, but all you want to do is stick your fingers in your ears.

In truth, the values for every single team would have different min's and max's because the pool of teams is different for each team, the "conference average" actually would not translate directly to a single team, other than by coincidence.

Alabama's pool of teams:
SEC West not including Alabama
Tennessee

Constants, no change from min and max for those.

And then this is the actual group for Alabama, not some "conference average":
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
Vanderbilt
Kentucky
Missouri

And then for Georgia it's much the opposite.
SEC East not including Georgia
Auburn

min/max group:
Alabama
Ole Miss
Miss St
LSU
Texas A&M
Arkansas


What do you know, the group of teams that Alabama and Georgia draw from to change the min and max doesn't include a single team that is the same. Yet I'm supposed to listen to your ass sit here and tell me how "conference average" is such a big deal. Bullshit. You may know the math, but you are fucking clueless on how to use it properly to find meaningful data. On the other hand, this is the kind of shit I do every fucking day. I'd get fired from my job if I tried to pass the kind of bullshit you have in this thread as being meaningful because my data would be shit.

So go do some more math, when what you need to do is learn some real world applications of it that don't fucking suck.

 

[nddulac]

So go do some more math, when what you need to do is learn some real world applications of it that don't fucking suck.

I see. When you said "math" you meant "applications". I forgot to factor in that you use the wrong word when it is convenient to cover a mistake. Just to remind you of what you said in response to my post (which was made to counter your claim that "conference strength of schedule will not change if the conference moves from 8 conference games to 9):

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.

My point, throughout this entire thread is that it does not skew the data, because the result that I cite would be identical if calculated using either method.

You can change the topic now if you wish. That is your general tactic when you are faced with having said something that is demonstrably incorrect. But my point will remain. My method does not skew the data.

 

[4down20]

I see. When you said "math" you meant "applications". I forgot to factor in that you use the wrong word when it is convenient to cover a mistake. Just to remind you of what you said in response to my post (which was made to counter your claim that "conference strength of schedule will not change if the conference moves from 8 conference games to 9):


My point, throughout this entire thread is that it does not skew the data, because the result that I cite would be identical if calculated using either method.

You can change the topic now if you wish. That is your general tactic when you are faced with having said something that is demonstrably incorrect. But my point will remain. My method does not skew the data.

Ok person who has never misspoken or made a typo.

I never made that claim. I've always said that it depends on the individual team and going from 8 to 9 does not AUTOMATICALLY AND ALWAYS equal an increase in schedule strength. Ask anyone around here that's not retarded and they know my position on SoS and these topics is that what actually matters is the quality of the teams actually played. Since Alabama is often times the one being attacked for this, I've at best pointed out that the Missouri was the replacement team for Alabama and the teams that would be replaced were better teams, aka FSU, Fresno St, and Colorado St. Obviously if you added a team like Georgia the team would get tougher, but that was not the reality of the actual schedule and rotation for an extra game last year.

And how the fuck can you say the results would be identical when they aren't even actually valid for a single team? I showed you the proper application, if you want to try and prove it wrong then be my guest. As I showed, the teams from each division don't share a single team. The ONLY way your application of the math would be valid is if it was a 100% rotation of all teams in the conference. It's pissing on the wall otherwise.

 

[nddulac]

And how the fuck can you say the results would be identical when they aren't even actually valid for a single team?

Because the results don't apply to any single team. The results apply to the conference as a whole. Some teams will have it tougher, and some will have it easier. But on average, teams will have it harder.

Get it?

 

[4down20]

Because the results don't apply to any single team. The results apply to the conference as a whole. Some teams will have it tougher, and some will have it easier. But on average, teams will have it harder.

Get it?

And you believe this difference which is random and changes every year is significant?

 

[nddulac]

And you believe this difference which is random and changes every year is significant?

Significant enough to knock a few teams out of bowl contention, yes. As @Kaplony correctly points out in the case of Duke last year:

LOL

Take away Duke's highest ranked FBS OOC game last year and you replace Northwestern. A game they won.

Instead they get Clemson, a game they would have lost.

Now Duke is 5-7 in the regular season instead of 6-6 and they don't get the chance to beat NIU in the Quick Lane Bowl to finish 7-6 and their ranking is lower in your "rankings" which lowers Clemson's ranking.

 

[socaljim242]

I dont even know how the SEC is considered a conference. Alabama and Georgia have been scheduled to play once (uno) times since 2009. Thats nine years. Has anyone (not in the SEC) had your teams have a conference foe scheduled only once in nine years? A&M joined the SEC in 2012 and has yet to play Georgia. It's been six years and they haven't played a team thats supposed to be in their conference.
Utah joined the PAC 12 in 2011 and they have played Washington , a team not in their division five times with a sixth this year, Oregon another team in the other division the same five times with a sixth this year. But Georgia vrs A&M not one stinking time? LOL.
So how in the hell are you in a conference where you play some teams once every eight or nine years but play the fuck out of Charleston Southern and Chattanooga or Citadel. Those teams somehow are on yearly rotation.

 

[4down20]

Significant enough to knock a few teams out of bowl contention, yes. As @Kaplony correctly points out in the case of Duke last year:

Every game is significant enough to knock a few teams out of bowl contention.

 

[4down20]

I dont even know how the SEC is considered a conference. Alabama and Georgia have been scheduled to play once (uno) times since 2009. Thats nine years. Has anyone (not in the SEC) had your teams have a conference foe scheduled only once in nine years? A&M joined the SEC in 2012 and has yet to play Georgia. It's been six years and they haven't played a team thats supposed to be in their conference.
Utah joined the PAC 12 in 2011 and they have played Washington , a team not in their division five times with a sixth this year, Oregon another team in the other division the same five times with a sixth this year. But Georgia vrs A&M not one stinking time? LOL.
So how in the hell are you in a conference where you play some teams once every eight or nine years but play the fuck out of Charleston Southern and Chattanooga or Citadel. Those teams somehow are on yearly rotation.

What the fuck does it matter? I mean I couldn't even imagine sitting around worrying about how many times teams in the Pac12 play each other.

A conference is just a group of teams that play each other etc. What the Pac12 does has no bearing on the SEC/Alabama, so why would I care?

"We can't win shit, but we play with each other a lot" - Pac12

 

[nddulac]

Every game is significant enough to knock a few teams out of bowl contention.

Yup - and replacing an easier opponent with a more difficult one (for example, swapping Northwestern for Clemson last year) would have done just that.

 

[Deep Creek]

I graduated from high school with Sonny Cumbie's dad. I've asked him several times about certain kids. I know for a fact that TCU doesn't waste any time and effort on a kid if they know they have absolutely no chance of landing him. They pare their list down pretty quick and then work hard going after the ones they have a chance at. They also eliminate several because of baggage.... of all kinds.

 

[7Samurai13]

So David Shaw thinks the committee should look at full schedules but then only wants to talk about when an FCS game is played?

 

[NolePride]

And yet the PAC manages to play more P5 opponents on average than the ACC & SEC. It must be a miracle.

Not out-of-conference teams, they don't.

I tried to be polite earlier in this thread. The PAC12 is regarded
by the general public as being weak. That goes along with the
adage that I used earlier..."perception is reality."

Beating another Pac12 team doesn't help your league change
the perception. If people view your league as weak you can only

change that by playing teams from other P5 leagues and beating
them.

The only Pac12 team that has national respect is USC. They
have always traveled the country and taken on the best. They
don't always win, but they still play tough opponents and they've
won enough of them to garner respect.

The Pac12 has a perception problem. The country thinks it is
weak. There is only ONE WAY to change that perception, play
P5 teams from other leagues and win.

You can't prove that you're better than other leagues if you
beat another Pac12 team.

Ans with a record of 3-5 in the last 4 years in the 7 elite bowl
games, that ain't exactly helping cause.

In the 4 year history of the Playoff system. (Including Bowl Games)

The ACC has played 113 games vs other P5 teams.
The Big10 95
The SEC 72
The Pac12 70
The Big12 62

You may think you're keeping up with the ACC, but you've
got a long way to go.

btw...The ACC and the SEC have never missed being in the playoffs. That perception thingy is kinda real.

 

[7Samurai13]

Not out-of-conference teams, they don't.

I tried to be polite earlier in this thread. The PAC12 is regarded
by the general public as being weak. That goes along with the
adage that I used earlier..."perception is reality."

Beating another Pac12 team doesn't help your league change
the perception. If people view your league as weak you can only

change that by playing teams from other P5 leagues and beating
them.

The only Pac12 team that has national respect is USC. They
have always traveled the country and taken on the best. They
don't always win, but they still play tough opponents and they've
won enough of them to garner respect.

The Pac12 has a perception problem. The country thinks it is
weak. There is only ONE WAY to change that perception, play
P5 teams from other leagues and win.

You can't prove that you're better than other leagues if you
beat another Pac12 team.

Ans with a record of 3-5 in the last 4 years in the 7 elite bowl
games, that ain't exactly helping cause.

In the 4 year history of the Playoff system. (Including Bowl Games)

The ACC has played 113 games vs other P5 teams.
The Big10 95
The SEC 72
The Pac12 70
The Big12 62

You may think you're keeping up with the ACC, but you've
got a long way to go.

btw...The ACC and the SEC have never missed being in the playoffs. That perception thingy is kinda real.

Kind of crazy that the ACC has played 42 more OOC games than the BigTen and have only 18 more P5 games.

 

[4down20]

Yup - and replacing an easier opponent with a more difficult one (for example, swapping Northwestern for Clemson last year) would have done just that.

Too bad going from 8 to 9 conference games doesn't automatically do that. And sitting around swapping losses for wins is cherry picking.

 

[NolePride]

Kind of crazy that the ACC has played 42 more OOC games than the BigTen and have only 18 more P5 games.

That included bowl games.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Not out-of-conference teams, they don't.

I tried to be polite earlier in this thread. The PAC12 is regarded
by the general public as being weak. That goes along with the
adage that I used earlier..."perception is reality."

Beating another Pac12 team doesn't help your league change
the perception. If people view your league as weak you can only

change that by playing teams from other P5 leagues and beating
them.

The only Pac12 team that has national respect is USC. They
have always traveled the country and taken on the best. They
don't always win, but they still play tough opponents and they've
won enough of them to garner respect.

The Pac12 has a perception problem. The country thinks it is
weak. There is only ONE WAY to change that perception, play
P5 teams from other leagues and win.

You can't prove that you're better than other leagues if you
beat another Pac12 team.

Ans with a record of 3-5 in the last 4 years in the 7 elite bowl
games, that ain't exactly helping cause.

In the 4 year history of the Playoff system. (Including Bowl Games)

The ACC has played 113 games vs other P5 teams.
The Big10 95
The SEC 72
The Pac12 70
The Big12 62

You may think you're keeping up with the ACC, but you've
got a long way to go.

btw...The ACC and the SEC have never missed being in the playoffs. That perception thingy is kinda real.

Lost in this massive stroking of ACC ego is the lack of factoring in Of number of teams in said conference.

If we are indeed comparing ooc of the PAC and ACC playing P5 teams one first has to look at the number of teams. If the ACC has two more teams and they play an extra ooc game than the PAC of course their number will be higher. They basically get an extra 20 ooc games a year (80 over the course of the 4 years) to schedule P5 teams. An that’s assuming you didn’t include ND.

An why you would factor in bowl games in this is beyond comprehension other than to make the ACC look like they play the most P5 teams.

ACC should have the most or tied for the most because they are tied for #1 with teams and tied for #1 with the most ooc games among P5 conferences.

 

[NolePride]

Lost in this massive stroking of ACC ego is the lack of factoring in Of number of teams in said conference.

If we are indeed comparing ooc of the PAC and ACC playing P5 teams one first has to look at the number of teams. If the ACC has two more teams and they play an extra ooc game than the PAC of course their number will be higher. They basically get an extra 20 ooc games a year (80 over the course of the 4 years) to schedule P5 teams. An that’s assuming you didn’t include ND.

An why you would factor in bowl games in this is beyond comprehension other than to make the ACC look like they play the most P5 teams.

ACC should have the most or tied for the most because they are tied for #1 with teams and tied for #1 with the most ooc games among P5 conferences.

You're attempting to alter the topic.

My posts have been about controlling perception. Not about
who plays the most.

My info was about teams/leagues boasting of playing 9 league
games and believing it helps change perception...it does not.
You MUST beat teams from other P5 leagues to change perception.

But, I'll play and show you the averages.

ACC 113 games divided by 4 seasons is 28.3 per year divided
by 14 teams...Each school averages 2 games a year.

Big10 averages 1.7 per year.

SEC averages 1.6 per year (I had a typo....SEC has played 92 games not 72 as listed)

Big12 averages 1.6 per year

Pac12 averages 1.5 per year.

It's not a feather in your cap to play 9 conf games and not play
teams from other P5 leagues. It is stupid scheduling. It is
trying to hide conf weaknesses by avoiding being compared
to other leagues. Especially, because when this goes to the
committee, they will want to see how you stack up against the
other P5 leagues. Which is why the Big12, the Pac12 and the Big10 have all had seasons in the last 4 where they were not
represented in the playoffs.

Again...it is not about how many OOC games you play...it is about not being able
to change perception

 

[nddulac]

Too bad going from 8 to 9 conference games doesn't automatically do that. And sitting around swapping losses for wins is cherry picking.

I wonder if anyone could think of a methodology that would average over an entire distribution of data so as to avoid the kinds of difficulties that cherry picking would introduce?

 

[ralphiewvu]

You're attempting to alter the topic.

My posts have been about controlling perception. Not about
who plays the most.

My info was about teams/leagues boasting of playing 9 league
games and believing it helps change perception...it does not.
You MUST beat teams from other P5 leagues to change perception.

But, I'll play and show you the averages.

ACC 113 games divided by 4 seasons is 28.3 per year divided
by 14 teams...Each school averages 2 games a year.

Big10 averages 1.7 per year.

SEC averages 1.6 per year (I had a typo....SEC has played 92 games not 72 as listed)

Big12 averages 1.6 per year

Pac12 averages 1.5 per year.

It's not a feather in your cap to play 9 conf games and not play
teams from other P5 leagues. It is stupid scheduling. It is
trying to hide conf weaknesses by avoiding being compared
to other leagues. Especially, because when this goes to the
committee, they will want to see how you stack up against the
other P5 leagues. Which is why the Big12, the Pac12 and the Big10 have all had seasons in the last 4 where they were not
represented in the playoffs.

Again...it is not about how many OOC games you play...it is about not being able
to change perception

I’m not attempting to alter anything. I’m telling you your numbers are skewed when trying to compare all P5 the same.

An why on earth would you include bowl games? The teams have no say in who they play in bowl games. Another skewed number of your perception argument. I challenge you to look up the numbers with out bowl games.

An your second to last paragraph sounds great in theory, but when there is no ruling authority that’s uniform for ooc games, playing 4 conference games doesn’t automatically mean you play more P5 teams ooc. Example WVU vs half the ACC on ooc scheduling for 2018.