Do you agree with the selection committee's make up?

[4down20]

I understand all of that. But there doesn’t seem to be a set list of criteria. (An im certainly not arguing for conference champions only). If there using SoS for some but not others because of an extra loss that’s BS. Again no set criteria.

Sure many would probably be undefeated with UCFs schedule, just like many would probably have two losses with Ohio states schedule.

SoS matters for everyone. I cited everyone's SoS in what I said.

Ohio St's 2nd loss was to Iowa, and it was a blow out loss. No top25 team would be expected to lose that game.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

What fucking criteria did the committee use? You talk about SoS with Wisconsin yet conviently leave it out when we get talking Ohio State. Then while talking UCF you bring up SoS again. There isn’t a set uniform criteria for all teams just admit that.

It's what we called the moving goalpost. I am assuming the poster you're debating with, is an Alabama homer. He's on my ignore list.

I can't see why Alabama should have been ranked higher than Wisconsin to be honest.

Wisky played a better schedule in a stronger conference. This is according to Colley Matrix and Anderson & Hester's SOS numbers. They beat Michigan, Northwestern, and Iowa. Kiffin's kids were no joke either. Wisky made won their division and only lost to Ohio State by 6 points. Bama lost the Iron Bowl by 12 points.

Ohio State had a bad loss to Iowa. We can dock them for that, but why does this make a team which failed to win their division or conference and played lesser quality opponent, magically better or more deserving?

 

[4down20]

What does they would have been 6-6 if they didn't beat OSU mean? Lot of teams would have had more losses if they didn't beat a team.

We are talking about the strength of Ohio St and the fact that Ohio St should have beaten them if they wanted to claim a playoff spot.

If we want to talk about where to rank Iowa, then Iowa is a 7-5 team with a great win over Ohio St.

 

[4down20]

It's what we called the moving goalpost. I am assuming the poster you're debating with, is an Alabama homer. He's on my ignore list.

I can't see why Alabama should have been ranked higher than Wisconsin to be honest.

Wisky played a better schedule in a stronger conference. This is according to Colley Matrix and Anderson & Hester's SOS numbers. They beat Michigan, Northwestern, and Iowa. Kiffin's kids were no joke either. Wisky made won their division and only lost to Ohio State by 6 points. Bama lost the Iron Bowl by 12 points.

Ohio State had a bad loss to Iowa. We can dock them for that, but why does this make a team which failed to win their division or conference and played lesser quality opponent, magically better or more deserving?

You can ignore me all you want, it doesn't stop me from destroying your shit.

 

[ralphiewvu]

SoS matters for everyone. I cited everyone's SoS in what I said.

Ohio St's 2nd loss was to Iowa, and it was a blow out loss. No top25 team would be expected to lose that game.

That doesn’t mean they use that SoS no matter how much you say it. Your citing their bad loss. What about Clemson? They had a bad loss no top 25 team would be expected to lose?

 

[4down20]

That doesn’t mean they use that SoS no matter how much you say it. Your citing their bad loss. What about Clemson? They had a bad loss no top 25 team would be expected to lose?

Clemson had a bad loss but good SoS, Oklahoma had a bad loss but good SoS, Ohio St had a bad loss + a loss to Oklahoma but good SoS. Alabama had a good loss, but weaker SoS, Wisconsin had a good loss but weakest SoS.

And these SoS numbers are all depending on the worst possible scenario for Florida St strength wise and treats the Florida St Alabama played as being the same team that finished the season 6-6 with it's backup QB. If Florida St remains a top quality team, then suddenly Alabama has a top2 claim even with the Auburn loss.

 

[ralphiewvu]

It's what we called the moving goalpost. I am assuming the poster you're debating with, is an Alabama homer. He's on my ignore list.

I can't see why Alabama should have been ranked higher than Wisconsin to be honest.

Wisky played a better schedule in a stronger conference. This is according to Colley Matrix and Anderson & Hester's SOS numbers. They beat Michigan, Northwestern, and Iowa. Kiffin's kids were no joke either. Wisky made won their division and only lost to Ohio State by 6 points. Bama lost the Iron Bowl by 12 points.

Ohio State had a bad loss to Iowa. We can dock them for that, but why does this make a team which failed to win their division or conference and played lesser quality opponent, magically better or more deserving?

While 4D is about as big of a homer as humanly possible I can’t agree with ya that Wisconsin had a tougher schedule than bama. Bamas only loss was to #2 at the time. Plus they had multiple AP top 25 wins.

For the record I’m not arguing against bama because I think they deserved in. Hell I bet on them and won a bunch a money. My argument is what or why a set of criteria needs to be used but isn’t.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Clemson had a bad loss but good SoS, Oklahoma had a bad loss but good SoS, Ohio St had a bad loss + a loss to Oklahoma but good SoS. Alabama had a good loss, but weaker SoS, Wisconsin had a good loss but weakest SoS.

And these SoS numbers are all depending on the worst possible scenario for Florida St strength wise and treats the Florida St Alabama played as being the same team that finished the season 6-6 with it's backup QB. If Florida St remains a top quality team, then suddenly Alabama has a top2 claim even with the Auburn loss.

Ohio State was only getting in if TCU beat Oklahoma and they win their CCG. I’m not totally against that but it felt like Ohio states SoS was being ignored because of that Iowa loss. Plus Ohio State has some good wins.

An one game wouldn’t have put bama over the edge. Your conference schedule did you no favors ethier.

 

[4down20]

Ohio State was only getting in if TCU beat Oklahoma and they win their CCG. I’m not totally against that but it felt like Ohio states SoS was being ignored because of that Iowa loss. Plus Ohio State has some good wins.

An one game wouldn’t have put bama over the edge. Your conference schedule did you no favors ethier.

If not for Ohio St's strong SoS, they wouldn't have even been in the conversation with that Iowa loss. It was their strong SoS that kept them in the top5.

The Iowa loss was really big and bad for Ohio St. It wasn't just a loss, it was a 31 point blowout. As the entire process is based on making a case for being among the top4 teams, such a loss really hurts - and it should.

 

[ralphiewvu]

If not for Ohio St's strong SoS, they wouldn't have even been in the conversation with that Iowa loss. It was their strong SoS that kept them in the top5.

The Iowa loss was really big and bad for Ohio St. It wasn't just a loss, it was a 31 point blowout. As the entire process is based on making a case for being among the top4 teams, such a loss really hurts - and it should.

You see it your way I see it mine. The fact that they had two losses was the reason they were outside the top 4. I don’t believe the committee took into Account the SoS they had.

Yes a loss to Iowa like that hurt. But that doesn’t mean it should be the tell all factor considering the schedule they played. Clearly, it was.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

While 4D is about as big of a homer as humanly possible I can’t agree with ya that Wisconsin had a tougher schedule than bama. Bamas only loss was to #2 at the time. Plus they had multiple AP top 25 wins.

For the record I’m not arguing against bama because I think they deserved in. Hell I bet on them and won a bunch a money. My argument is what or why a set of criteria needs to be used but isn’t.

I would argue that Wisky played a better schedule.

COLLEY MATRIX

Wisky - .564 (36th)
Bama - .555 (43rd)

Wisky's best wins were 8-4 Michigan and 9-3 Northwestern. Both were rated in his top 25. For Bama, they had LSU and nobody else. Plus, Wisky played no cupcakes. I think that was the statistical difference.

ANDERSON & HESTER

Wisky - .543 (47th)
Alabama - .540 (51st)

Wisky's best wins were Northwestern, Michigan, and Iowa. All of them were rated in the top 25. Alabama just had LSU.

Both Colley and A&H had Miss in their top 30.

When looking at the raw numbers, I don't see how Alabama's schedule was better. And I don't look at the AP for statistical reference or where they ranked before the week 15. Wisky only lost to the team which finished the regular season at #5 by 6 points. Alabama lost to the #7 team by 12 points.

I agree that Alabama deserved to get in as well. My point here is that we need criteria for picking the teams AND a balanced committee.

 

[Kaplony]

. Ohio State not only played in the toughest conference, but they had ZERO cupcakes on their schedule and challenged Oklahoma.

Um.....Rutgers, Illinois, UNLV?

 

[4down20]

You see it your way I see it mine. The fact that they had two losses was the reason they were outside the top 4. I don’t believe the committee took into Account the SoS they had.

Yes a loss to Iowa like that hurt. But that doesn’t mean it should be the tell all factor considering the schedule they played. Clearly, it was.

So why were they ranked ahead of other 2 loss teams, and in some cases 1 loss teams if not for SoS?

 

[ralphiewvu]

So why were they ranked ahead of other 2 loss teams, and in some cases 1 loss teams if not for SoS?

Quality wins?

Why weren’t they ranked ahead of other one loss teams with weaker SoS?

 

[4down20]

Quality wins?

Why weren’t they ranked ahead of other one loss teams with weaker SoS?

Because the other one loss teams SoS wasn't weak enough to justify it, and the #1 reason they were ahead of Wisconsin is because of the H2H.

Not sure why you are pretending like it's a binary thing with SoS and it's either "higher or lower".

 

[ralphiewvu]

Because the other one loss teams SoS wasn't weak enough to justify it, and the #1 reason they were ahead of Wisconsin is because of the H2H.

Ok, Alabama’s SoS was weak enough to justify it. An Ohio State was ahead of Penn State (one of those 2 loss teams) and behind Oklahoma because of H2H.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I would argue that Wisky played a better schedule.

COLLEY MATRIX

Wisky - .564 (36th)
Bama - .555 (43rd)

Wisky's best wins were 8-4 Michigan and 9-3 Northwestern. Both were rated in his top 25. For Bama, they had LSU and nobody else. Plus, Wisky played no cupcakes. I think that was the statistical difference.

ANDERSON & HESTER

Wisky - .543 (47th)
Alabama - .540 (51st)

Wisky's best wins were Northwestern, Michigan, and Iowa. All of them were rated in the top 25. Alabama just had LSU.

Both Colley and A&H had Miss in their top 30.

When looking at the raw numbers, I don't see how Alabama's schedule was better. And I don't look at the AP for statistical reference or where they ranked before the week 15. Wisky only lost to the team which finished the regular season at #5 by 6 points. Alabama lost to the #7 team by 12 points.

I agree that Alabama deserved to get in as well. My point here is that we need criteria for picking the teams AND a balanced committee.

I don’t know man. You do make some good points though. But I’m pretty sure all of Wiskys OOC were cupcakes. Plus playing in that weak west division and missing OSU, MSU And PSU in the regular season didn’t help.

I do agree that criteria is needed and needs to be relayed.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

I don’t know man. You do make some good points though. But I’m pretty sure all of Wiskys OOC were cupcakes. Plus playing in that weak west division and missing OSU, MSU And PSU in the regular season didn’t help.

I do agree that criteria is needed and needs to be relayed.

Wisconsin played zero FCS programs. Their three OCC (Alabama had 4) were BYU, Florida Atlantic, and Utah State. Florida Atlantic won 10 games in the regular season and the C-USA conference. I wouldn't call Kiffin's kids cupcakes.

I don't consider the "West Division" weak. Iowa and Northwestern are no joke. Plus, their 9 game conference schedule came with Michigan.

Again, I don't really see how Wisconsin's schedule was bad. It was good. The problem here is that media kept on telling us that Wisky beat "nobody", while Alabama was playing the same and even weaker competition. I think Alabama was rewarded for being Alabama, not what they produced on the field.

I am simply looking at the metrics, not going by perception.

But in the overall picture, I agree with you. The committee needs to come up with a strict set of procedures. They need to define what SOS means. They need to decide how they value conference champions. They need to explain to the G5 programs how they can actually get access to the final four.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Um.....Rutgers, Illinois, UNLV?

Cupcake = FCS program.

Ohio State's SOS was rated the #8 and #11 best in college football last season, according to Colley and A&H.

 

[cmc_rebar]

There's no criteria. Alabama got the benefit of the doubt, because they are Alabama. Nobody knows if Wisky (who actually played a better schedule than Alabama) or Ohio State (won the conference, had one of the toughest schedule in the country) could have beaten Clemson and then Georgia.

Sagarin final ranking had osu at 13, UGA at 6, OK at 7, Clemson at 4, bam at 27, wisc at 47
I could see "maybe" osu, had they not had their shit handed to them by Iowa, but no way wisc
or ucf (72) needed to be considered