Should the final four only include 0 to 1 loss teams?

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Didn't Oregon and Stanford play, like, seven common opponents and Oregon did better against ALL of them? That's really your best example of poll bias?

Last time I checked, Stanford and Oregon were in the same division, and in 2012, Stanford not only won the division, but beat Oregon in their own backyard.

 

[Codaxx]

Simply using numbers doesnt make it objective. Its all opinio as to what to use in ranking sos. Home or away? Injuries? Team rank? The weather? Its hard to debate a loss.

.....unless terry porter was involved.

using numbers is exactly why it is objective. Not really sure where you are going with this. Long as the variables are are objective and the equation is objective, it is objective. If I calculate the horse power to move a 1000lb truck from 0-60 mph it is objective. The next guy calculates the same thing and incorporates a wind variable into the equation it is objective. The answers are going to be different, but that does not make either equation subjective. It simply changes information given.

 

[occupant]

It's been scientifically proven that a November/December loss weighs more than September/October losses.

It's gravity in combination with orbital placement or some shit...

 

[cane_man]

using numbers is exactly why it is objective. Not really sure where you are going with this. Long as the variables are are objective and the equation is objective, it is objective. If I calculate the horse power to move a 1000lb truck from 0-60 mph it is objective. The next guy calculates the same thing and incorporates a wind variable into the equation it is objective. The answers are going to be different, but that does not make either equation subjective. It simply changes information given.

Fair enough. Im just old school in thinking a champion is decided on the field, not some math nerds lab. For over 100 years there has been 1 objective in the game: winning. Now this new attitude that winning isnt really that important baffles me. Instead it should depend on lucky scheduling? The canes beat the gators last season. Whodda thunk that game would hurt the canes sos when it was scheduled? But, the canes shpuld be punished?

Any p5 team that goes undefeated, or once defeated, is deserving. If you want to use sos as a tie breaker after that, fine. I mean, winning the sec west is gonna be harder than the acc coastal right now, I get that. What I dont get is is the bench racing mentality. Just play the games on paper and reduce injuries if the results dont matter anyway.

The best team isnt always going to win, but the most deserving one usually does.

 

[cane_man]

It's been scientifically proven that a November/December loss weighs more than September/October losses.

It's gravity in combination with orbital placement or some shit...

2000 canes disagree

 

[Codaxx]

Fair enough. Im just old school in thinking a champion is decided on the field, not some math nerds lab. For over 100 years there has been 1 objective in the game: winning. Now this new attitude that winning isnt really that important baffles me. Instead it should depend on lucky scheduling? The canes beat the gators last season. Whodda thunk that game would hurt the canes sos when it was scheduled? But, the canes shpuld be punished?

Any p5 team that goes undefeated, or once defeated, is deserving. If you want to use sos as a tie breaker after that, fine. I mean, winning the sec west is gonna be harder than the acc coastal right now, I get that. What I dont get is is the bench racing mentality. Just play the games on paper and reduce injuries if the results dont matter anyway.

The best team isnt always going to win, but the most deserving one usually does.

There are problems with both arguments. Using statistical analysis you can easily believe a 2 loss team is better than an undefeated team. It maybe true 80%-90% of the time. I would use CBB as an example of the failure in this thought. UNLV put out a great team and had a woeful SOS in the now defunct Pacific league, but that did not change the fact that Larry Johnson, Stacy Augmon, and Greg Anthony made 1 hell of a team. No need to show the other side, because that is pretty intuitive. The greatest argument for using a SOS derived system is it will make things better for me. It will make scheduling a more important aspect and lead to better games. That will create more inter-conference games, which will make judging teams easier. There is no perfect answer to this issue, but I believe RPI/SOS type analysis will improve the game.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Fair enough. Im just old school in thinking a champion is decided on the field, not some math nerds lab.

Nobody is arguing that point, though.

 

[Olyduck]

No, it's not. SOS is based on the formula of opponents winning% and opponents of opponents winning%.

Thats a formula for it but going just off those kinds of things dont tell the whole story.

 

[Oney]

Overall record has to be the first consideration, always. Using SOS solely would be utter disaster.

Final SOS of 2013:

1. Purdue (.678)
2. Tennessee (.667)
3. Virginia (.660)
4. Mississippi State (.654)
5. Georgia (.652)

1. California (.646)
2. Utah (.644)
3. Indiana (.639)
4. Florida (.638)
5. Auburn (.637)

That's why record is most important.

 

[Codaxx]

Overall record has to be the first consideration, always. Using SOS solely would be utter disaster.

Final SOS of 2013:

1. Purdue (.678)
2. Tennessee (.667)
3. Virginia (.660)
4. Mississippi State (.654)
5. Georgia (.652)

1. California (.646)
2. Utah (.644)
3. Indiana (.639)
4. Florida (.638)
5. Auburn (.637)

That's why record is most important.

nobody said SOS only, of course record is going to be part of the equation.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Overall record has to be the first consideration, always. Using SOS solely would be utter disaster.

Final SOS of 2013:

1. Purdue (.678)
2. Tennessee (.667)
3. Virginia (.660)
4. Mississippi State (.654)
5. Georgia (.652)

1. California (.646)
2. Utah (.644)
3. Indiana (.639)
4. Florida (.638)
5. Auburn (.637)

That's why record is most important.

Once again, people here are countering arguments I never made. Yes, overall record is the most important. I do believe in the marriage between SOS and winning%. I just think playing a more difficult schedule should be weighed more than simple wins and losses. But what I pointed out in my original post was that teams can benefit from winning by losing.

 

[Smart]

Last time I checked, Stanford and Oregon were in the same division, and in 2012, Stanford not only won the division, but beat Oregon in their own backyard.

Winning one game head-to-head (in overtime, no less) doesn't undo seven games of clearly being outplayed. And of course, one of those games was a loss to a team Oregon beat by 31. Or to reframe this:

A beat B by 3 (in overtime)
B beat C by 31
C beat A by 4

The logical conclusion is that B was the best based solely on these games. And there can be no doubt that B was better outside these games, as they literally did better against every opponent. To argue that B's much better resume (again, including a game where they won and A lost) is offset by an overtime loss is beyond ludicrous.

 

[Olyduck]

Overall record has to be the first consideration, always. Using SOS solely would be utter disaster.


Final SOS of 2013:

1. Purdue (.678)
2. Tennessee (.667)
3. Virginia (.660)
4. Mississippi State (.654)
5. Georgia (.652)

1. California (.646)
2. Utah (.644)
3. Indiana (.639)
4. Florida (.638)
5. Auburn (.637)

That's why record is most important.

but again what criteria is used for SOS?
W-L?
W-L of Opponents W-L? or counting at a %?
some people argue bowl teams as a factor in the end.
ranking of when played or ranking at end of season?

 

[Oney]

At best, maybe use SOS as a tie breaker between teams with the same record.

 

[cane_man]

nobody said SOS only, of course record is going to be part of the equation.

But, some sound like they think sos is = or > win record. Sos is a solid tiebreaker tho, along with head to head.

The best formula is take all the p5 teams, subtract the amount os games won from the amount of games played. Lowest # wins. Then have a tie breaker in place. Midmajors only included if they score 0 or less, and a 1 gets added to their final score.

 

[Codaxx]

But, some sound like they think sos is = or > win record. Sos is a solid tiebreaker tho, along with head to head.

The best formula is take all the p5 teams, subtract the amount os games won from the amount of games played. Lowest # wins. Then have a tie breaker in place. Midmajors only included if they score 0 or less, and a 1 gets added to their final score.

-
I am not sure the authors exact thoughts, but think of it this way. CFB goes to RPI like basketball. TEam A is 12-0 and has a RPI of .50. Team B 10-2 and has an RPI of .66.. For the playoffs Team A is given a score of 6 (12*.5) and Team B is given a score of 6.6 (10*.66). Team B is given the nod over Team A.. make sense?

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Winning one game head-to-head (in overtime, no less) doesn't undo seven games of clearly being outplayed. The logical conclusion is that B was the best based solely on these games.

MOV is a junk stat. It doesn't take into consideration location of game, the injury report, weather, or the team's rival history, style of play, portion of the season played, and only benefits the team with the weaker schedule. All what I care about is the win and loss column, and the quality of the opponent.

Here's why Stanford deserve it over Oregon in 2012. Keep in mind, I am not a Stanford or Oregon fan, and would have picked Oregon over Stanford in 2011.

Oregon's notable victories:

Arkansas State and Fresno State - 9/3
Arizona, Washington, USC, and Arizona State - 7/5
Oregon State - 9/3

Stanford's notable victories:

San Jose State - 10/2
USC and Arizona - 7/5
Oregon State - 9/3
Oregon - 11/1
UCLA twice - 9/4

Stanford's best victories were against Oregon, Oregon State, and double victories against UCLA. The only elite victory for Oregon in 2012 was against Oregon State.

Stanford didn't play a single cupcake that season, and faced off against an undefeated Notre Dame team. Did Oregon do that? Nope.

You know what Stanford also did better than Oregon in 2012? They won the conference. For any person to put in Oregon over Stanford in a playoff, would mean that conference championship status is irrelevant, as well as head-to-heat match-ups and quality of opponents.

 

[4down20]

No, it's not. SOS is based on the formula of opponents winning% and opponents of opponents winning%.

win% based SoS are extremely crappy.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

-
I am not sure the authors exact thoughts, but think of it this way. CFB goes to RPI like basketball. TEam A is 12-0 and has a RPI of .50. Team B 10-2 and has an RPI of .66.. For the playoffs Team A is given a score of 6 (12*.5) and Team B is given a score of 6.6 (10*.66). Team B is given the nod over Team A.. make sense?

That's correct. To be more specific, here's are my exact thoughts on the subject matter:

(1) I dislike the concept of polls and committees determining things. Teams should be judged based on what they accomplished during the season, and based on rules agreed upon ahead of time. I don't care about how many National Championships you won in the past, conference affiliation, or the celebrity status of the players on the team.

(2) I support an RPI formula, which looks at winning%, SOS, and conference championship status. Tie-breakers go to conference championship status first, then head-to-head match-up, and then best win/worst loss difference.

(3) Yes, a 2-loss team with a brilliant schedule could get favored a 0-loss team with a shaky schedule. However in 2010, the RPI formula would have shown 0 loss Oregon and TCU over 2-loss Oklahoma.

 

[The Authority]

Having a strong SOS doesn't mean much when one of your losses is to a sub par / bad team.