Make me Laugh. Try to explain SOS - Strength of Schedule

[7Samurai13]

View attachment 202100


Here's another QB that made 3 Pro Bowls.

































View attachment 202099

Obviously he is a first ballot hall if UCFamer.

 

[4down20]

I kind of rushed that post although I don't know what the problem is. Value in poll/committee formats is driven by perception regarding how good teams are. Such perceptions are irrelevant where only facts regarding game results matter in math systems. If, for example, we rank teams by adding their win% and opponents' win percentage, being a better team and playing better competition is ONLY a competitive advantage towards achieving the desired winning percentages. And based on the lopsided difference in outcomes, it is a significant advantage. However, if and when a G5 team and its opponents post percentages equal to a P5 team and its opponents, it gets equal credit. Yet, beauty contest voters are able to pick and choose the facts that mirror their perceptions about things the facts says nothing about which leads to a more lopsided difference in outcomes. G5 teams are not provided a fair opportunity to win or lose based on facts only. College football is all about identifying and validating the best teams. It should be about determining a winner based on which team posts the best results as a matter of fact without regard to any perceptions.

paragraphs

 

[Olyduck]

Here is what I've learned from reading through this, OP has a set idea of what SOS should be. If anyone post anything other than what OP wants, it is wrong.

#UCFallacy
#UCFlawedlogic
#whoCFuckingcares

 

[UCFhonors]

Here is what I've learned from reading through this, OP has a set idea of what SOS should be. If anyone post anything other than what OP wants, it is wrong.

#UCFallacy
#UCFlawedlogic
#whoCFuckingcares

I wanted to address the notion of different SOS. Thanks for opening that door.

I love epistemology. I have found people rarely question anything that supports their preconceived notions. And the worst side effect of today’s Information Age is people can find a website to support whatever. No matter how stupid it is.

Only logic and an open mind can avoid this quagmire.

Are there different versions of the statistic of a batting average? Are there different batting average calculations? What about the statistics for passing completion percentage? For any sports stats, are there is any acceptable different versions of that stat?

No.

If you change a sports statistic, it’s a completely different stat, not a different version.

SOS is a stat. It’s a bullshit stat at that. And to make it worse it’s a misnomer to the actual calculation.

To be UCFair, being a misnomer causes lots of the confusion.

People love the concept of Strength of Schedule. But when they see the math, they reject it. Some then try to create a different calculation to capture the concept. And that’s UCFoolish. Why? Because of espitemology.

#UCFacts

 

[CJH9972]

paragraphs

Does this help?

I kind of rushed that post although I don't know what the problem is. Value in poll/committee formats is driven by perception regarding how good teams are. Such perceptions are irrelevant where only facts regarding game results matter in math systems. If, for example, we rank teams by adding their win% and opponents' win percentage, being a better team and playing better competition is ONLY a competitive advantage towards achieving the desired winning percentages. And based on the lopsided difference in outcomes, it is a significant advantage.

However, if and when a G5 team and its opponents post percentages equal to a P5 team and its opponents, it gets equal credit. Yet, beauty contest voters are able to pick and choose the facts that mirror their perceptions about things the facts says nothing about which leads to a more lopsided difference in outcomes. G5 teams are not provided a fair opportunity to win or lose based on facts only. College football is all about identifying and validating the best teams. It should be about determining a winner based on which team posts the best results as a matter of fact without regard to any perceptions.

 

[UCFhonors]

Does this help?

I kind of rushed that post although I don't know what the problem is. Value in poll/committee formats is driven by perception regarding how good teams are. Such perceptions are irrelevant where only facts regarding game results matter in math systems. If, for example, we rank teams by adding their win% and opponents' win percentage, being a better team and playing better competition is ONLY a competitive advantage towards achieving the desired winning percentages. And based on the lopsided difference in outcomes, it is a significant advantage.

However, if and when a G5 team and its opponents post percentages equal to a P5 team and its opponents, it gets equal credit. Yet, beauty contest voters are able to pick and choose the facts that mirror their perceptions about things the facts says nothing about which leads to a more lopsided difference in outcomes. G5 teams are not provided a fair opportunity to win or lose based on facts only. College football is all about identifying and validating the best teams. It should be about determining a winner based on which team posts the best results as a matter of fact without regard to any perceptions.

I really like the point about validating...

Does anyone ever say, a team this # in SOS to qualify? Nope. They only use SOS to dismiss a team. And if SOS doesn’t dismiss a team, the pundits will just move on to a different made up bullshit stat and call it whatever they like. Until the get a number to support their preconceived notion.

Rule based systems would eliminate this UCFoolishness that only FBS deals with. Albeit, NCAA is trying to pull a FBS with their NET rankings....

#UCFacts.

 

[LawDawg]

Does this help?

I kind of rushed that post although I don't know what the problem is. Value in poll/committee formats is driven by perception regarding how good teams are. Such perceptions are irrelevant where only facts regarding game results matter in math systems. If, for example, we rank teams by adding their win% and opponents' win percentage, being a better team and playing better competition is ONLY a competitive advantage towards achieving the desired winning percentages. And based on the lopsided difference in outcomes, it is a significant advantage.

However, if and when a G5 team and its opponents post percentages equal to a P5 team and its opponents, it gets equal credit. Yet, beauty contest voters are able to pick and choose the facts that mirror their perceptions about things the facts says nothing about which leads to a more lopsided difference in outcomes. G5 teams are not provided a fair opportunity to win or lose based on facts only. College football is all about identifying and validating the best teams. It should be about determining a winner based on which team posts the best results as a matter of fact without regard to any perceptions.

Your math approach makes no sense to me. Because everyone doesn't play everyone else, and with only 12 games and 130 teams, and with conferences that preclude enough cross-conference games, we can't even get close to enough data to rely solely on math. We can use what data we have - the BCS and the CFP use(d) some of that - but at the end of the day there has to be some subjective evaluation. That is where the committee comes in. The NFL, NHL, MLB has far fewer teams, and play enough against each other to have relevant data to go solely by results. College football doesn't come close to that.

As I stated above, my goal isn't to be fair to the G5. They should have their own championship against teams that are similarly situated. They don't have the quality of players, facilities, budgets, schedules, etc., to enable them to be fairly compared to the P5. We have some anecdotal evidence that a G5 team can win a game against a good P5 team - Utah v. Bama, BSU v. OU, UCF v. Auburn, but these games represent a small fraction of games ... the P5 win a large percentage of games against the G5. It seems people are trying to prove a rule with exceptions. It isn't the P5s job to try to help the G5 bootstrap their way up. The P5 doesn't care, and certainly isn't going share their wealth. I know that sounds harsh, but as a P5 guy I really don't think a thing about the G5 teams, other than the fun of discussing it here.

 

[jon2tanman]

Here is what I've learned from reading through this, OP has a set idea of what SOS should be. If anyone post anything other than what OP wants, it is wrong.

#UCFallacy
#UCFlawedlogic
#whoCFuckingcares

^^^
Ducks fail at everything, except putting too much glitter on uniforms.

 

[ellupo]

I wanted to address the notion of different SOS. Thanks for opening that door.

I love epistemology. I have found people rarely question anything that supports their preconceived notions. And the worst side effect of today’s Information Age is people can find a website to support whatever. No matter how stupid it is.

Only logic and an open mind can avoid this quagmire.

Are there different versions of the statistic of a batting average? Are there different batting average calculations? What about the statistics for passing completion percentage? For any sports stats, are there is any acceptable different versions of that stat?

No.

If you change a sports statistic, it’s a completely different stat, not a different version.

SOS is a stat. It’s a bullshit stat at that. And to make it worse it’s a misnomer to the actual calculation.

To be UCFair, being a misnomer causes lots of the confusion.

People love the concept of Strength of Schedule. But when they see the math, they reject it. Some then try to create a different calculation to capture the concept. And that’s UCFoolish. Why? Because of espitemology.

#UCFacts

Stop playing 90% cupcakes then you can talk about SOS being bullshit.

 

[naslundfan19]

What I gather is that the OP won’t agree with anything that doesn’t go with what he wants, so you have made him laugh. Thread has served its purpose and should be closed, right?

 

[CJH9972]

Your math approach makes no sense to me. Because everyone doesn't play everyone else, and with only 12 games and 130 teams, and with conferences that preclude enough cross-conference games, we can't even get close to enough data to rely solely on math. We can use what data we have - the BCS and the CFP use(d) some of that - but at the end of the day there has to be some subjective evaluation. That is where the committee comes in. The NFL, NHL, MLB has far fewer teams, and play enough against each other to have relevant data to go solely by results. College football doesn't come close to that.

As I stated above, my goal isn't to be fair to the G5. They should have their own championship against teams that are similarly situated. They don't have the quality of players, facilities, budgets, schedules, etc., to enable them to be fairly compared to the P5. We have some anecdotal evidence that a G5 team can win a game against a good P5 team - Utah v. Bama, BSU v. OU, UCF v. Auburn, but these games represent a small fraction of games ... the P5 win a large percentage of games against the G5. It seems people are trying to prove a rule with exceptions. It isn't the P5s job to try to help the G5 bootstrap their way up. The P5 doesn't care, and certainly isn't going share their wealth. I know that sounds harsh, but as a P5 guy I really don't think a thing about the G5 teams, other than the fun of discussing it here.

Last year, my point system matched the committee's top 4 teams and matched 22 of 24 FCS playoff teams. Boil the problem down to two teams and 12 games is enough to determine which of any two teams should get more value for its season.

That said, I don't care about P5 vs G5 and I'm not asking P5 teams to share wealth. It is all FBS to me. The difference is that P5 leagues have the power to implement a format that maintains a competitive divide and they use it. I want rules for all teams and I don't care if a G5 team ever wins. I simply think all teams should place and advance based on facts derived from game results. Subjective evaluation is not at all required.

 

[CJH9972]

Stop playing 90% cupcakes then you can talk about SOS being bullshit.

Define cupcake.

 

[4down20]

Does this help?

I kind of rushed that post although I don't know what the problem is. Value in poll/committee formats is driven by perception regarding how good teams are. Such perceptions are irrelevant where only facts regarding game results matter in math systems. If, for example, we rank teams by adding their win% and opponents' win percentage, being a better team and playing better competition is ONLY a competitive advantage towards achieving the desired winning percentages. And based on the lopsided difference in outcomes, it is a significant advantage.

However, if and when a G5 team and its opponents post percentages equal to a P5 team and its opponents, it gets equal credit. Yet, beauty contest voters are able to pick and choose the facts that mirror their perceptions about things the facts says nothing about which leads to a more lopsided difference in outcomes. G5 teams are not provided a fair opportunity to win or lose based on facts only. College football is all about identifying and validating the best teams. It should be about determining a winner based on which team posts the best results as a matter of fact without regard to any perceptions.

Yeah it helps. If you don't care enough about your opinion to put it in a format that is friendly for other people to read, why should I care about it enough to dissect it? I'm not reading a big block of text, it's usually a sign of ignorance anyway.

On to the rest.

#1 Your opinion and assertion that people are incapable of making the decision is just wrong. I really don't understand what is wrong with society these days where they believe "Fact > Opinion" all the time. Facts don't mean shit if you aren't capable of applying them. What you get on the committee and such are the opinions of experts. It's their job to look at the facts and use their expert opinions on the topic to make a decision. Just because it's human based does NOT mean it's flawed. Quite the opposite.

And all opinions aren't equal either. So just because you can point to a flawed opinion doesn't mean all opinions are wrong. If I ask you how to best defend the option, your opinion on the matter is not more valuable than Nick Saban's. And just because what he says on the topic is opinion, not fact, doesn't mean he's wrong either. What it more likely means is you are wrong.

Because in the end your entire argument is really nothing more than "My opinion is different than those who made the decision". And since you haven't a fucking thing to validate your opinion, you just want to dismiss them all. Yet your entire basis is opinion, and a flawed one at that.

Are you telling me you can't tell the difference between Clemson and UTEP last year? Because most people should be able to. So no, their perceptions aren't irrelevant, your's are because they are different than theirs.

#2 Win% based anything is shitty and nobody really uses it other than a general tool for quick ballpark reference and is provided to the committee members. I'm not sure why you act like it doesn't exist. You can find it on the NCAA's site now as their SoS metric last I looked.

However, you've just made up a scenario that doesn't exist and I've never known of it existing. So how the fuck can you make the claim that something will happen as a result? Furthermore, how can you claim they are and will be treated unfairly? Let it actually happen before you claim it's a problem.

Because this once again points to what? Your entire argument is actually just based on your perception being different than theirs.

You are actually asking for special treatment for teams who do less. You want to screw over teams who have put in the work and actually deserve to be there. Meanwhile, you can actually look at different formats that have such "hard rules" and apply them over history and show time after time where they fail and put in terrible teams that in anyone's "perception" shouldn't be there.

 

[ellupo]

Define cupcake.

The west side of the B1G

 

[CJH9972]

The west side of the B1G

55-24

 

[CJH9972]

Yeah it helps. If you don't care enough about your opinion to put it in a format that is friendly for other people to read, why should I care about it enough to dissect it? I'm not reading a big block of text, it's usually a sign of ignorance anyway.

On to the rest.

#1 Your opinion and assertion that people are incapable of making the decision is just wrong. I really don't understand what is wrong with society these days where they believe "Fact > Opinion" all the time. Facts don't mean shit if you aren't capable of applying them. What you get on the committee and such are the opinions of experts. It's their job to look at the facts and use their expert opinions on the topic to make a decision. Just because it's human based does NOT mean it's flawed. Quite the opposite.

And all opinions aren't equal either. So just because you can point to a flawed opinion doesn't mean all opinions are wrong. If I ask you how to best defend the option, your opinion on the matter is not more valuable than Nick Saban's. And just because what he says on the topic is opinion, not fact, doesn't mean he's wrong either. What it more likely means is you are wrong.

Because in the end your entire argument is really nothing more than "My opinion is different than those who made the decision". And since you haven't a fucking thing to validate your opinion, you just want to dismiss them all. Yet your entire basis is opinion, and a flawed one at that.

Are you telling me you can't tell the difference between Clemson and UTEP last year? Because most people should be able to. So no, their perceptions aren't irrelevant, your's are because they are different than theirs.

#2 Win% based anything is shitty and nobody really uses it other than a general tool for quick ballpark reference and is provided to the committee members. I'm not sure why you act like it doesn't exist. You can find it on the NCAA's site now as their SoS metric last I looked.

However, you've just made up a scenario that doesn't exist and I've never known of it existing. So how the fuck can you make the claim that something will happen as a result? Furthermore, how can you claim they are and will be treated unfairly? Let it actually happen before you claim it's a problem.

Because this once again points to what? Your entire argument is actually just based on your perception being different than theirs.

You are actually asking for special treatment for teams who do less. You want to screw over teams who have put in the work and actually deserve to be there. Meanwhile, you can actually look at different formats that have such "hard rules" and apply them over history and show time after time where they fail and put in terrible teams that in anyone's "perception" shouldn't be there.

I made an assertion that people are incapable of making a decision about what? I have no idea what are you talking about here. That said, I simply favor fact based rules over opinion based rules where games and competition are concerned. I don't know why that preference is a problem for society.

As for a committee, my problem has nothing to do with arguing their opinions are wrong or the teams they picked are wrong. I simply don't value using committees to determine winners and losers. I'm not even sure what they are experts about. Evaluating the best teams? If so, I'll stipulate to their opinions on that issue and state I don't care who the best teams are. With fact based rules, being a better team is a competitive advantage only. With opinion based rules it might make sense to pick the winners and losers based on best team perceptions but I think that idea is absurd.

My entire argument is that my opinion is different than those who made the decision? What opinion? What decision? Again, I'm not disputing anyone's opinion about anything on the committee. And I'm not disputing who the committee picked. I simply don't like a committee picking teams based on opinions whether I agree or disagree with their opinions. I wouldn't want my opinion, expert or not, voting on who makes the playoffs either.

As for Clemson and UTEP, I certainly believe that Clemson is the much better team but I still wouldn't favor placing Clemson over UTEP based on my perception no matter how certain I am about it. Oddly enough, the fact based rules I favor placed Clemson 1st and UTEP 128th with no regard for my perceptions about the two teams.

My argument has nothing to do with my perceptions being different than anyone else's. I don't care about own my perceptions. Once more, I favor fact based rules so that all perceptions are ignored and it matters not how informed or expert those perceptions are.

Finally, the idea that I want special treatment for G5 teams is absurd. I favor fact based rules that apply equally to all teams without regard to identity and perception.......where winners and losers are determined by which teams best accomplish the objective(s) of the rules in play. While G5 teams have fared slightly better under the rules I favor, the results over the past 41 seasons are still lopsided in favor of P5 teams and there is no guarantee if the rules were applied in the real world that G5 teams would achieve greater success. Of course, I would argue that opinion based rules provide special treatment for P5 teams given that such methods are greatly influenced by identity and perception which significantly favors P5 teams.

 

[4down20]

I made an assertion that people are incapable of making a decision about what? I have no idea what are you talking about here. That said, I simply favor fact based rules over opinion based rules where games and competition are concerned. I don't know why that preference is a problem for society.

As for a committee, my problem has nothing to do with arguing their opinions are wrong or the teams they picked are wrong. I simply don't value using committees to determine winners and losers. I'm not even sure what they are experts about. Evaluating the best teams? If so, I'll stipulate to their opinions on that issue and state I don't care who the best teams are. With fact based rules, being a better team is a competitive advantage only. With opinion based rules it might make sense to pick the winners and losers based on best team perceptions but I think that idea is absurd.

My entire argument is that my opinion is different than those who made the decision? What opinion? What decision? Again, I'm not disputing anyone's opinion about anything on the committee. And I'm not disputing who the committee picked. I simply don't like a committee picking teams based on opinions whether I agree or disagree with their opinions. I wouldn't want my opinion, expert or not, voting on who makes the playoffs either.

As for Clemson and UTEP, I certainly believe that Clemson is the much better team but I still wouldn't favor placing Clemson over UTEP based on my perception no matter how certain I am about it. Oddly enough, the fact based rules I favor placed Clemson 1st and UTEP 128th with no regard for my perceptions about the two teams.

My argument has nothing to do with my perceptions being different than anyone else's. I don't care about own my perceptions. Once more, I favor fact based rules so that all perceptions are ignored and it matters not how informed or expert those perceptions are.

Finally, the idea that I want special treatment for G5 teams is absurd. I favor fact based rules that apply equally to all teams without regard to identity and perception.......where winners and losers are determined by which teams best accomplish the objective(s) of the rules in play. While G5 teams have fared slightly better under the rules I favor, the results over the past 41 seasons are still lopsided in favor of P5 teams and there is no guarantee if the rules were applied in the real world that G5 teams would achieve greater success. Of course, I would argue that opinion based rules provide special treatment for P5 teams given that such methods are greatly influenced by identity and perception which significantly favors P5 teams.

What "facts" do you think are so important?

 

[CJH9972]

What "facts" do you think are so important?

When it comes to determining a competition's standings, facts pertaining to wins, losses, and score. To be clear, I'm not arguing to rank teams best to worst record.

 

[4down20]

When it comes to determining a competition's standings, facts pertaining to wins, losses, and score. To be clear, I'm not arguing to rank teams best to worst record.

So basically you think record > all?

That's the extent of your facts? Are you fucking shitting me?

 

[CJH9972]

So basically you think record > all?

That's the extent of your facts? Are you fucking shitting me?

I said I'm not arguing in favor of best to worst record. However, facts regarding wins , losses, and score are all that matter to me.