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

[CJH9972]

Leaving wouldn't look any different for the P5 teams. The G5 teams however will become the new FCS. And everything I said wasn't about money, other than addressing that you claimed it was.

But I'm not sure you really understand where college football money comes from. And the part I bolded clearly shows you don't understand where the money that is made goes, or how the people in charge have their salaries decided/by who.

Futhermore, I don't think you know what the NCAA is if you think the "school's have no choice in the matter". You seem to have it backwards. The NCAA does what the schools want, not the other way around. And if the P5 schools decide they don't want the NCAA involved with the sport, they can just ignore them. The NCAA isn't involved with the deciding of the national championship in FBS and never has been that I know of. They aren't involved with the contracts in football either, like you see in basketball.

It's not a forced system legally or anything, and the threat of P5 breaking off is not just imaginary scenario on a message board, it's something they've been pretty much using to get more control over themselves and no subject to the rules the smaller schools decide just a few years ago.

Money dictates everything. It matters not to me what P5 leagues do with the money. The bottom line is that my idea of a fair competition format will never happen because P5 leagues know it is not good for their business. Whether or not the threat to leave is real or a bluff, they need G5 teams in order to play 7-8 home games but they can only accomplish that by enforcing a two class system within FBS. If they break away and only play among themselves, they lose the extra home games which also means less games to sell to TV

 

[4down20]

Money dictates everything. It matters not to me what P5 leagues do with the money. The bottom line is that my idea of a fair competition format will never happen because P5 leagues know it is not good for their business. Whether or not the threat to leave is real or a bluff, they need G5 teams in order to play 7-8 home games but they can only accomplish that by enforcing a two class system within FBS. If they break away and only play among themselves, they lose the extra home games which also means less games to sell to TV

Bullshit. It won't happen because there isn't a problem and your idea of "fair competion" is the opposite.

You're probably one of those stupid fucks who thinks every woman who turn him down is a lesbian.

 

[CJH9972]

Well holy shit, you finally got there.

And as I said, you're trying to provide a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist.

The playoffs have been around for 4 years now, where are the examples of the rankings being wrong? Even over the BCS, where are the examples, outside needing 4 teams? They do not exist.

In fact, by the time the playoffs get here it's so damn obvious who the 4 teams are I don't even watch the rankings show and I post what they are going to be days in advance, year after year - and it's not because I'm special, most people who watch do it. The whole Ohio St vs Alabama thing 2 years ago? Didn't watch, it was obvious who the 4 best were even though it had 2 SEC teams in it. They sit down and they look at the data, they don't give a fuck about outside influences, they just put the best teams in.

Until they start fucking that up - you are trying to provide a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

My issue with the committee has nothing to do with it picking the right or wrong teams. It is not about Oklahoma, Georgia, or Ohio State being the right choice. The problem is that none of the three advances due to its season results being worth more as a matter of rule. With objectively determined competitions, teams place and advance based on which teams best accomplish what the rules in play value. Being a better team is a competitive advantage only. You don't pick the winners and losers based which teams are the best teams. Doing so ultimately makes the games not count. If A is picked over B because it is better team then it would still be picked if two teams traded season results. That makes no sense to me. Beyond that, I don't think the committee strictly adheres to a best team policy anyway. If Wisconsin had beaten Ohio State in the 2017 CCG, the Badgers would have been selected over Alabama because they would have received more credit for their results and not because anyone on the committee would have believed they were the better team.

 

[CJH9972]

Bullshit. It won't happen because there isn't a problem and your idea of "fair competion" is the opposite.

You're probably one of those stupid fucks who thinks every woman who turn him down is a lesbian.

Of course, rules that apply equally all teams without regard to identity and perception is somehow the opposite of fair. Makes sense.

 

[4down20]

My issue with the committee has nothing to do with it picking the right or wrong teams. It is not about Oklahoma, Georgia, or Ohio State being the right choice. The problem is that none of the three advances due to its season results being worth more as a matter of rule. With objectively determined competitions, teams place and advance based on which teams best accomplish what the rules in play value. Being a better team is a competitive advantage only. You don't pick the winners and losers based which teams are the best teams. Doing so ultimately makes the games not count. If A is picked over B because it is better team then it would still be picked if two teams traded season results. That makes no sense to me. Beyond that, I don't think the committee strictly adheres to a best team policy anyway. If Wisconsin had beaten Ohio State in the 2017 CCG, the Badgers would have been selected over Alabama because they would have received more credit for their results and not because anyone on the committee would have believed they were the better team.

So basically you don't understand that you have to prove you are the best. I guess that explains alot.

If Wisconsin had beat Ohio St - they would have deserved to go. They had a weaker than normal schedule playing in the Big10 West, but they had a chance to prove they belonged vs Ohio St, and they didn't.

They would have been undefeated, while playing a SoS that was competitive enough.

So your entire complaint is what? The system working exactly as it should and couldn't work any better...

 

[CJH9972]

So basically you don't understand that you have to prove you are the best. I guess that explains alot.

If Wisconsin had beat Ohio St - they would have deserved to go. They had a weaker than normal schedule playing in the Big10 West, but they had a chance to prove they belonged vs Ohio St, and they didn't.

So your entire complaint is what? The system working exactly as it should and couldn't work any better...

Would Wisconsin have been a better team than Alabama simply by beating Ohio State? Would you have picked them to beat Alabama straight up? You said it was about picking the four best teams......now it is about proving you belong.......why can't it be about beating everyone (or at least 126 other FBS teams) at agree upon rules?

My complaint is the same as always.........teams do not place and advance based on their season results having more value as a matter of rule. They advance as a matter of opinion which is consistently inconsistent about what justifications it uses to favor one team over another, none of which has greater value as matter of rule than the justifications that may favor other teams.

 

[4down20]

Of course, rules that apply equally all teams without regard to identity and perception is somehow the opposite of fair. Makes sense.

Once again you are just making shit up and pretending things are baseless. Do you think these so called identities and perceptions are just random? No, it's because while the teams may change from year to year, there are indicators that occur over many years.

Will Alabama win the National Championship next year? I don't know. But based on recent history/data, or what you call "identity and perception", you can bet your ass they are going to be a very good team and will likely win at least 10 games.

What will change that identity and perception about Alabama? Losing a bunch of games obviously.

And is it just because of the name "Alabama"? As an Alabama fan I wish, but the reality is you have probably the best coach in college football history pulling in a ridiculous amount of talent. The same can be said for many other "blue bloods".

So when the preseason rankings come out and Alabama is in the top5, it's not going to be just because the name Alabama, it's because of what Alabama has been doing. And the same can be said of Ohio St, Georgia, Clemson and all the other teams you're going to see in the top5.

If you think humans are too dumb to make these decisions, then how can you call yourself as a human qualified to make the judgement - especially when you can't even show a bit of fucking evidence despite many seasons to draw on.

 

[4down20]

Would Wisconsin have been a better team than Alabama simply by beating Ohio State? Would you have picked them to beat Alabama straight up? You said it was about picking the four best teams......now it is about proving you belong.......why can't it be about beating everyone (or at least 126 other FBS teams) at agree upon rules?

My complaint is the same as always.........teams do not place and advance based on their season results having more value as a matter of rule. They advance as a matter of opinion which is consistently inconsistent about what justifications it uses to favor one team over another, none of which has greater value as matter of rule than the justifications that may favor other teams.

No, simply beating Ohio St doesn't make Wisconsin a better team. If Wisconsin was a better team - they would have beaten Ohio St. That you can't understand that difference isn't college footballs problem - it's yours.

If they had beat Ohio St, they would have been a pretty damn good team and many people could have picked them to beat Alabama. But you're sitting here asking me to compare a team that didn't as if it did.

You are literally having to MAKE UP SCENARIOS, because you can't cite an actual time shit was wrong despite having many seasons to pull from. And it might not be so bad if you actually made up valid scenarios, but you're just making up shit.

 

[CJH9972]

Once again you are just making shit up and pretending things are baseless. Do you think these so called identities and perceptions are just random? No, it's because while the teams may change from year to year, there are indicators that occur over many years.

Will Alabama win the National Championship next year? I don't know. But based on recent history/data, or what you call "identity and perception", you can bet your ass they are going to be a very good team and will likely win at least 10 games.

What will change that identity and perception about Alabama? Losing a bunch of games obviously.

And is it just because of the name "Alabama"? As an Alabama fan I wish, but the reality is you have probably the best coach in college football history pulling in a ridiculous amount of talent. The same can be said for many other "blue bloods".

So when the preseason rankings come out and Alabama is in the top5, it's not going to be just because the name Alabama, it's because of what Alabama has been doing. And the same can be said of Ohio St, Georgia, Clemson and all the other teams you're going to see in the top5.

If you think humans are too dumb to make these decisions, then how can you call yourself as a human qualified to make the judgement - especially when you can't even show a bit of fucking evidence despite many seasons to draw on.

I don't want identity and perception to have any bearing on the outcome. I didn't say identities and perceptions were random nor did I say humans are too dumb to make whatever decision you would have them make.

 

[CJH9972]

No, simply beating Ohio St doesn't make Wisconsin a better team. If Wisconsin was a better team - they would have beaten Ohio St. That you can't understand that difference isn't college footballs problem - it's yours.

If they had beat Ohio St, they would have been a pretty damn good team and many people could have picked them to beat Alabama. But you're sitting here asking me to compare a team that didn't as if it did.

You are literally having to MAKE UP SCENARIOS, because you can't cite an actual time shit was wrong despite having many seasons to pull from. And it might not be so bad if you actually made up valid scenarios, but you're just making up shit.

I'm not arguing that the teams selected by the committee are the wrong teams so why would I need to provide an example of such? It is how the outcome is determined........not that one team is intrinsically more right than another. That is not the issue for me. And the point about Wisconsin is their playoff fate rested on beating Ohio State and NOT about being a better team than Alabama. Therefore, it is NOT about the best four teams except when the committee decides it is. If Wisconsin scores a game winning TD on their final drive, that would make them so much better than the team that did not? There are countless better examples of teams winning and losing on the final play. i don't think whether they are better or worse than any other team hinges on the outcome of final play. However, how good their season results are compared to others often does.

 

[4down20]

I don't want identity and perception to have any bearing on the outcome. I didn't say identities and perceptions were random nor did I say humans are too dumb to make whatever decision you would have them make.

Yeah, fuck reality having bearing on things.



You know how I know you don't know shit about ranking teams? If you did the first thing you would talk about is how limited the data is and how hard it is to get enough links between the teams(meaning games between conferences) to get meaningful data. It's very hard to get around the bubbles that form in the data due to conferences and limited games between them.

And then the strength between the teams is quite large, but then even against medium opponents people score points, or rush for 100 yards etc.

It's literally a nightmare environment for data. It's easier to search the MLS, find a house that needs to be remodeled based on market value and then correctly predict it's after remodel value than it is to correctly evaluate college football teams. It is easier to make an AI that can play atari games like a human than it would be to correctly predict college football games.

All because there are 130 teams and 12 game seasons. It would be awesome if a computer could do it, but the simple fact of the matter is it can't and humans are needed because there is not enough data to drive any formula to high accuracy.

 

[4down20]

I'm not arguing that the teams selected by the committee are the wrong teams so why would I need to provide an example of such? It is how the outcome is determined........not that one team is intrinsically more right than another. That is not the issue for me. And the point about Wisconsin is their playoff fate rested on beating Ohio State and NOT about being a better team than Alabama. Therefore, it is NOT about the best four teams except when the committee decides it is. If Wisconsin scores a game winning TD on their final drive, that would make them so much better than the team that did not? There are countless better examples of teams winning and losing on the final play. i don't think whether they are better or worse than any other team hinges on the outcome of final play. However, how good their season results are compared to others often does.

So the result is fine, but you are sure the way it happens is bad? How do you know how the outcome is determined?

You don't, you just make one up to fit your agenda or whatever you want to believe.

Fantasy tard land.

Maybe you should worry more about learning how to use paragraphs before college football.

If Wisconsin wins that game, they are undefeated with a win over a top team. Alabama lost a game to Auburn and didn't have an extremely strong resume.

In that scenario there are only 2 teams at stake and only 1 team can get screwed. If Alabama doesn't make it, then it's Alabama's fault for losing to Auburn.

Furthermore, you can name many examples of final plays, but all you are doing is cherry picking data. Wisconsin still had an entire season of wins, and Ohio St wasn't a random team. It would have been a win over a top5 team.

But they didn't win. So again you keep trying to compare a team as if they were better than they actually were. You're either claiming that Wisconsin was better or Ohio St was worse, when the reality was Wisconsin was mostly a product of their schedule and that was exposed by Ohio St. Period.

If you can't stop making up bullshit scenario's and present a valid example I'm just going to ignore you. Everyone already knows you are full of shit and you've been debunked with a full swirly, there isn't much left.

 

[cclxxxvdicere]

Keep waiting, as you apparently can't read for shit.

One of us seems to have a problem with reading, you’re just confused about who it is.

I said that no simple mathematical point system would ever be the sole selector for the playoff, because it depends on the schedules being played as roughly equal. Only a fool or the OP, but I repeat myself, believes that to be true. Playing an AAC schedule isn’t like playing an ACC schedule. The people who run the playoff will never agree to use only his system to make the selections because it amounts to an affirmative action program for G5’s by assuming unequal things are equal. Stating this does not mean I think there’s a conspiracy to unfairly keep them out of the playoff, if they want to get in they have to play a harder OOC schedule because of their weak in conference schedule. UCF didn’t play any hard OOC regular season games in their last two undefeated regular seasons, that’s why they didn’t deserve a playoff berth, not because the P5 schools and their representatives on the playoff committee were skeered of them or just wanted to keep all that money for themselves.

 

[CJH9972]

Yeah, fuck reality having bearing on things.



You know how I know you don't know shit about ranking teams? If you did the first thing you would talk about is how limited the data is and how hard it is to get enough links between the teams(meaning games between conferences) to get meaningful data. It's very hard to get around the bubbles that form in the data due to conferences and limited games between them.

And then the strength between the teams is quite large, but then even against medium opponents people score points, or rush for 100 yards etc.

It's literally a nightmare environment for data. It's easier to search the MLS, find a house that needs to be remodeled based on market value and then correctly predict it's after remodel value than it is to correctly evaluate college football teams. It is easier to make an AI that can play atari games like a human than it would be to correctly predict college football games.

All because there are 130 teams and 12 game seasons. It would be awesome if a computer could do it, but the simple fact of the matter is it can't and humans are needed because there is not enough data to drive any formula to high accuracy.

There is enough data to accomplish my purpose. I'm not attempting to determine a team's strength and I don't need greater connection between teams to determine the value of their seasons. Your season is better or worse as a matter of rule. There is no model of accuracy where my purpose is concerned. Beyond that, how do humans accurately select teams without enough data?

 

[CJH9972]

So the result is fine, but you are sure the way it happens is bad? How do you know how the outcome is determined?

You don't, you just make one up to fit your agenda or whatever you want to believe.

Fantasy tard land.

Maybe you should worry more about learning how to use paragraphs before college football.

If Wisconsin wins that game, they are undefeated with a win over a top team. Alabama lost a game to Auburn and didn't have an extremely strong resume.

In that scenario there are only 2 teams at stake and only 1 team can get screwed. If Alabama doesn't make it, then it's Alabama's fault for losing to Auburn.

Furthermore, you can name many examples of final plays, but all you are doing is cherry picking data. Wisconsin still had an entire season of wins, and Ohio St wasn't a random team. It would have been a win over a top5 team.

But they didn't win. So again you keep trying to compare a team as if they were better than they actually were. You're either claiming that Wisconsin was better or Ohio St was worse, when the reality was Wisconsin was mostly a product of their schedule and that was exposed by Ohio St. Period.

If you can't stop making up bullshit scenario's and present a valid example I'm just going to ignore you. Everyone already knows you are full of shit and you've been debunked with a full swirly, there isn't much left.

I'm sure teams were selected as a matter of opinion for reasons that are not worth more as matter of rule. It makes no difference what four teams are picked according to that method. The method is worthless to me.

And you still don't get the point of my Wisconsin example. Wisconsin is in and Alabama is out if the Badgers beat Ohio State because the committee will value their results more than Alabama's and not because they think the Badgers are a better team than the Tide. Yet, you stated earlier it is about picking the four best teams. Which is it?

I'm not making any claims about Wisconsin being a better team than Ohio State or Alabama regardless of the CCG outcome. I'm pointing out that the committee favors results in one instance and best team in another. Of course, someone could argue that the committee might believe Wisconsin to be a better team than Alabama had they scored to beat Ohio State on their last drive but I don't think most people would agree.

You keep arguing against points I'm not even making. I use hypotheticals related to actual scenarios and you call them made up bullshit. Who makes the playoffs with a committee format ten years prior to the CFP? We can certainly guess but we don't know because a committee makes up who gets in and the reasons why on the spot. And no one qualifies based on their season results being worth more as a matter of rule. And that is my problem with college football. You don't have to agree that that is a problem.

 

[CJH9972]

One of us seems to have a problem with reading, you’re just confused about who it is.

I said that no simple mathematical point system would ever be the sole selector for the playoff, because it depends on the schedules being played as roughly equal. Only a fool or the OP, but I repeat myself, believes that to be true. Playing an AAC schedule isn’t like playing an ACC schedule. The people who run the playoff will never agree to use only his system to make the selections because it amounts to an affirmative action program for G5’s by assuming unequal things are equal. Stating this does not mean I think there’s a conspiracy to unfairly keep them out of the playoff, if they want to get in they have to play a harder OOC schedule because of their weak in conference schedule. UCF didn’t play any hard OOC regular season games in their last two undefeated regular seasons, that’s why they didn’t deserve a playoff berth, not because the P5 schools and their representatives on the playoff committee were skeered of them or just wanted to keep all that money for themselves.

I certainly don't expect that my idea will ever be used but the idea that my system is affirmative action for G5 teams is not true. They are not guaranteed any particular degree of success. Based on 41 seasons worth of results, P5 teams own a 133-11 advantage in top four finishes. If these rules were actually used, top P5 teams would have a much greater incentive to schedule top G5 teams and they could eliminate them on the field as opposed to the ballot box. And G5 teams would need to improve their schedules because most G5 schedules would not have put an undefeated G5 team in the top four. The differences between the leagues are a competitive advantage towards accomplishing what the rules value and based on the results, a significant one. What my idea does for G5 teams is provide them a blueprint for making the playoffs and a better chance at getting the schedules needed to contend by making successful G5 teams more valuable opponents to top P5 teams.

 

[4down20]

I said that no simple mathematical point system would ever be the sole selector for the playoff, because it depends on the schedules being played as roughly equal.

vs

The biggest reason that his system won’t ever be used to select the playoff teams is that the playoff is a creation of the P5 conferences

The reason his formula won't be used is because it's crap and there isn't a problem.

 

[4down20]

There is enough data to accomplish my purpose. I'm not attempting to determine a team's strength and I don't need greater connection between teams to determine the value of their seasons. Your season is better or worse as a matter of rule. There is no model of accuracy where my purpose is concerned.

Again, that you don't understand the data needs only goes to highlight your ignorance on the topic. Not much more I can say about it.

Beyond that, how do humans accurately select teams without enough data?

Intuition. Humans have it, computers don't. And that's not a word I'm just throwing out there, it's an actual goal in AI research right now. It requires the ability to generalize the data in a way to speed up the learning process.

Take Deepmind for example. They are the ones who created AlphaGo and AlphaStar. You may have heard about them, they are AI's that have been used to beat the best humans at their games. However, Deepminds goal isn't to beat humans at games, they are trying to develop general AI, which is AI that has intuition. Meaning, it can take existing things that are similiar, generalize it and find a solution to the problem with limited amounts of data. So what they do is they develop AI that is really advanced and can beat humans, but after that point they mostly try to find out how to accomplish the same results with less and less data. AKA, what humans do.

 

[4down20]

I'm sure teams were selected as a matter of opinion for reasons that are not worth more as matter of rule. It makes no difference what four teams are picked according to that method. The method is worthless to me.

You are sure how? You have yet to even show a single example of a wrong pick, much less the reason for such things. All you do is make up fantasy shit that hasn't happened.

And you still don't get the point of my Wisconsin example. Wisconsin is in and Alabama is out if the Badgers beat Ohio State because the committee will value their results more than Alabama's and not because they think the Badgers are a better team than the Tide. Yet, you stated earlier it is about picking the four best teams. Which is it?

If you are among the best teams, you have to prove it. You are just creating a false dilemma and saying the 2 don't go hand in hand - well they do.

I'm not making any claims about Wisconsin being a better team than Ohio State or Alabama regardless of the CCG outcome. I'm pointing out that the committee favors results in one instance and best team in another. Of course, someone could argue that the committee might believe Wisconsin to be a better team than Alabama had they scored to beat Ohio State on their last drive but I don't think most people would agree.

I would have agreed with Wisconsin going in over Alabama, and I'm an Alabama fan. What the fuck are you talking about? Oh yeah, you're making up scenario's and then demanding the result will be whatever it is you imagine.

You keep arguing against points I'm not even making. I use hypotheticals related to actual scenarios and you call them made up bullshit. Who makes the playoffs with a committee format ten years prior to the CFP? We can certainly guess but we don't know because a committee makes up who gets in and the reasons why on the spot. And no one qualifies based on their season results being worth more as a matter of rule. And that is my problem with college football. You don't have to agree that that is a problem.

If a real problem existed you wouldn't need hypothetical scenarios in the first place. Hypothetical meaning - you've made it up, it doesn't exist and hasn't happened. AKA, it's made up bullshit.

When it came time to go from the BCS to the playoffs, hypothetical scenarios were not used. Actual examples were used. Because it was a legit problem that needed fixed, while you're just a dumbass who doesn't understand a process and demands it needs attention.

Show a real problem, otherwise it must not exist.

 

[cclxxxvdicere]

vs



The reason his formula won't be used is because it's crap and there isn't a problem.

Funny, you didn't include this part of that second quote:

I’d have no problem if the committee used it as part of their evaluation process, but neither it nor any other “objective” system will ever be the sole selector for the playoff. As he said, all conferences are not equally difficult, and for a simple mathematical formula to work they would need to be at least close.

Which is the same thing I said in that first quote. And you left out this part too:

and they damn sure aren't going to use a system that assumes the AAC and Sunbelt are equal to the P5s.

Go ahead and selectively quote to make it look like I'm some sort of conspiracy nut who thinks the playoff is being manipulated to keep the G5s out so we can keep all the money. The biggest reason that his system would never be used as the sole selector in the playoff is that playing a P5 schedule isn't the same as playing a G5 schedule, and the representatives of the P5 schools aren't going to use a system that assumes it is. UCF beat nobody in 2017, or beat anybody who beat anybody, and his system had UCF in over Alabama, Ohio St, ect. That's enough to make sure his system would have no chance of being adopted.

So, you can just admit that maybe you didn't read it quite correctly the first time, or you can just keep being a dick. I have an idea of which you'll choose.