|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Oct 2, 2019 14:34:14 GMT
OOC P5 G5 FCS
BIG (30-8) (4-5) (19-3) (4-0) B12 (24-6) (6-4) (9-2) (9-0) SEC (29-10) (5-5) (14-5) (10-0) P12 (24-10) (5-3) (11-7) (8-0) ACC (29-12) (3-6) (16-5) (10-1)
If the P5 Were the P7 OOC P7 G3 FCS
BIG (30-8) (12-7) (11-1) (4-0)
B12 (24-6) (8-5) (7-0) (9-0)
SEC (29-10) (7-8) (12-2) (10-0)
P12 (24-10) (10-9) (6-1) (8-0)
ACC (29-12) (7-8) (12-3) (10-1) AAC (28-13) (8-12) (10-1) (10-0) MWC (26-14) (8-10) (6-4) (12-0)
Both the BIG and the SEC have 5 unbeatens. The ACC and B12 have 2.
The AAC and the MWC are certainly competitive with the P5 and you have 3 unbeatens
Boise St (Beat FSU) SMU (Beat TCU) Memphis (Beat Ole Miss)
Then there is undefeated Appy St (Beat UNC worse than Clemson did)
I don't see a huge drop off in the conferences but I can guarantee you none of these teams get a consideration unless they are competing against a bunch of 2 loss P5 conference teams. Even then they are probably on the outside. Look at UGA vs UCF in the final rankings last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Oct 2, 2019 18:33:58 GMT
As far as post season opportunities "outside" is an understatement. They are systematically eliminated before any football play is run.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Oct 3, 2019 16:32:01 GMT
As far as post season opportunities "outside" is an understatement. They are systematically eliminated before any football play is run. You can thank the human element for that. Last year it was the "eyeball test" that prevailed. Previously it had been about conference championships??? The can hang there hat on on statistic that they want to when they try to justify their picks.
If I were in charge of the selection process I would get a selection process in place that would use 10 to 20 computer models. The average from all of these would determine the top 4.
Go out to the massy composite:
It has a composite of about 100 polls and averages them out. I would like to see this composite with the ones such as AP, Coaches Poll, USA Today removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 3, 2019 17:34:36 GMT
As far as post season opportunities "outside" is an understatement. They are systematically eliminated before any football play is run. They can hang there hat on on statistic that they want to when they try to justify their picks.
Again, I ask.... where has the committee made an egregious error?
To my mind, the biggest mistake they have made was picking Ohio State over Penn State a few years ago. But, in the end, that pick didn't matter. Either of them would have been smoked in the CFP.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Oct 3, 2019 20:21:21 GMT
As far as post season opportunities "outside" is an understatement. They are systematically eliminated before any football play is run. You can thank the human element for that. Last year it was the "eyeball test" that prevailed. Previously it had been about conference championships??? The can hang there hat on on statistic that they want to when they try to justify their picks.
If I were in charge of the selection process I would get a selection process in place that would use 10 to 20 computer models. The average from all of these would determine the top 4.
Go out to the massy composite:
It has a composite of about 100 polls and averages them out. I would like to see this composite with the ones such as AP, Coaches Poll, USA Today removed.
I would use scoreboards at first round, quarter-final, and semi-final sites to determine who plays for championships. Competition is even greater than computer geeks. HECK, PLAYING IS BETTER THAN VOTING AND/OR COMPUTING. All other team sports get this.
Problem with the Massey composite, imo, is that a majority of those systems give free head starts and higher initial rating values based on name brand factors.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Oct 3, 2019 21:27:37 GMT
You can thank the human element for that. Last year it was the "eyeball test" that prevailed. Previously it had been about conference championships??? The can hang there hat on on statistic that they want to when they try to justify their picks.
If I were in charge of the selection process I would get a selection process in place that would use 10 to 20 computer models. The average from all of these would determine the top 4.
Go out to the massy composite:
It has a composite of about 100 polls and averages them out. I would like to see this composite with the ones such as AP, Coaches Poll, USA Today removed.
I would use scoreboards at first round, quarter-final, and semi-final sites to determine who plays for championships. Competition is even greater than computer geeks. HECK, PLAYING IS BETTER THAN VOTING AND/OR COMPUTING. All other team sports get this.
Problem with the Massey composite, imo, is that a majority of those systems give free head starts and higher initial rating values based on name brand factors.
The computers don't recognize brand names...given the lack of commonality of schedule, and to be statistically valid, the computers have to include prior year data to their early season results. This bias gradually phases out as more current season games are played. |
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Oct 4, 2019 1:59:23 GMT
Computers do what people tell 'em to do. Yes, prior season data definitely inspires the free annual head starts.
Hey Bevo, scoreboards don't care or have any awareness of prior data. Playing is still light years better than computing or voting re: championships, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 4, 2019 2:19:18 GMT
Hey Bevo, scoreboards don't care or have any awareness of prior data.
You really need to work on telling the difference between Tiger and Bevo. We're both orange.... and, we both recognize the greatness of Donald Trump. But, the logos are VERY different. Try to follow the shapes. |
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Oct 4, 2019 2:37:46 GMT
They can hang there hat on on statistic that they want to when they try to justify their picks.
Again, I ask.... where has the committee made an egregious error?
To my mind, the biggest mistake they have made was picking Ohio State over Penn State a few years ago. But, in the end, that pick didn't matter. Either of them would have been smoked in the CFP.
2014 There is very little doubt in my mind that name brand helped Ohio State Jump 3 spots. How does TCU win by 50 points and drop from 3 to 6
2015 It was all about conference championships as opposed to last years eyeball test. tOSU dominated every game with the exception of one game in a torrential downpour in a 3 point loss to MSU. There was very little doubtin most peoples minds that tOSU was one of the top 4 teams. By the way, a 2 loss Stanford that won a conference was rated higher than a 1 loss tOSU team.
2016 A 2 loss conference champ PSU gets left out over a 1 loss tOSU team. This one is certainly debatable.
2017 A 1 loss Alabama team who looked very bad in the season ending to Auburn got the nod over a 2 loss Ohio State team. Even worse yet Wisconsin who made it the the BIG championship had a much better loss as they had the ball with a chance to win at the end in the BIG CCG. There wins during the season were very comparable and they were not even considered. I guess that extra data point that helped the Buckeyes in 2014 did not help Wisconsin. Name brand recognition once again.
2018 Although it did not determine the final 4, the committee somehow picked a 2 loss UGA team in the 5th spot over a one loss Buckeye team that wins its conference and had a complete beatdown over undefeated ttun.
There were 3 very debatable outcomes and one thing that is common is that the SEC got the benefit of the doubt every single time.
|
|
|
|
Post by doc on Oct 4, 2019 13:17:01 GMT
Again, I ask.... where has the committee made an egregious error?
To my mind, the biggest mistake they have made was picking Ohio State over Penn State a few years ago. But, in the end, that pick didn't matter. Either of them would have been smoked in the CFP.
2015 It was all about conference championships as opposed to last years eyeball test. tOSU dominated every game with the exception of one game in a torrential downpour in a 3 point loss to MSU. There was very little doubtin most peoples minds that tOSU was one of the top 4 teams. By the way, a 2 loss Stanford that won a conference was rated higher than a 1 loss tOSU team.
2016 A 2 loss conference champ PSU gets left out over a 1 loss tOSU team. This one is certainly debatable.
2018 Although it did not determine the final 4, the committee somehow picked a 2 loss UGA team in the 5th spot over a one loss Buckeye team that wins its conference and had a complete beatdown over undefeated ttun.
There were 3 very debatable outcomes and one thing that is common is that the SEC got the benefit of the doubt every single time.
In 2014 OSU winning by 59-0 over Wisconsin with a 3rd string QB trumped an assumed win by TCU over ISU. That and the fact TCU lost to Baylor in a game they had well in hand with about 10 minutes to play. Baylor played a horrible preconference schedule so what do you do? TCU was in had they not blown the Baylor game. OSU obviously proved they belonged by winning the title. Imagine the mess had Baylor been selected - the title would have probably been vacated given the turmoil they had to deal with. In hindsight, it may have been FSU that didn't belong.
2015 Ohio State just blew it. They inexplicable didn't use Elliott in the second half against MSU and let a second string QB lead the Spartans to victory on the final drive. I'll never get that one - such a talented team. But they were on a 24 game winning streak which just shows the more in a row you win, the more vulnerable you become. Look at Clemson last week...
I didn't think the 2018 Buckeyes deserved a bid but I do think they should have been 5th in the playoff pool - they wound up #3 in the final poll but the loss to Purdue was a catastrophe. I was actually glad they didn't get picked. But, I do agree the SEC gets the benefit of the doubt most of the time and it's driven by ESPN. But its up to the other conferences to change the narrative - even though the playoff has been in place for 5 years, the string on SEC championship teams during the BCS is still a very strong determining factor. Not sure it should be but that's the way it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Oct 4, 2019 14:27:26 GMT
2015 It was all about conference championships as opposed to last years eyeball test. tOSU dominated every game with the exception of one game in a torrential downpour in a 3 point loss to MSU. There was very little doubtin most peoples minds that tOSU was one of the top 4 teams. By the way, a 2 loss Stanford that won a conference was rated higher than a 1 loss tOSU team.
2016 A 2 loss conference champ PSU gets left out over a 1 loss tOSU team. This one is certainly debatable.
2018 Although it did not determine the final 4, the committee somehow picked a 2 loss UGA team in the 5th spot over a one loss Buckeye team that wins its conference and had a complete beatdown over undefeated ttun.
There were 3 very debatable outcomes and one thing that is common is that the SEC got the benefit of the doubt every single time.
But, I do agree the SEC gets the benefit of the doubt most of the time and it's driven by ESPN. But its up to the other conferences to change the narrative - even though the playoff has been in place for 5 years, the string on SEC championship teams during the BCS is still a very strong determining factor. Not sure it should be but that's the way it is.
SERENITY NOW! |
|
|
|
Post by doc on Oct 4, 2019 16:21:39 GMT
But, I do agree the SEC gets the benefit of the doubt most of the time and it's driven by ESPN. But its up to the other conferences to change the narrative - even though the playoff has been in place for 5 years, the string on SEC championship teams during the BCS is still a very strong determining factor. Not sure it should be but that's the way it is.
SERENITY NOW! That's what our friends named their house boat - SERENITY NOW! |
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Oct 4, 2019 16:23:35 GMT
That's what our friends named their house boat - SERENITY NOW! I love it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 4, 2019 17:10:40 GMT
2014 There is very little doubt in my mind that name brand helped Ohio State Jump 3 spots. How does TCU win by 50 points and drop from 3 to 6 Ohio State was 12-1, both TCU and Baylor were 11-1. Both TCU and OSU had impressive last wins... OSU's was the most impressive. I don't see how you can say the committee made a mistake here? Especially. after the #4 seed ended up winning it all. 2015 It was all about conference championships as opposed to last years eyeball test. tOSU dominated every game with the exception of one game in a torrential downpour in a 3 point loss to MSU. There was very little doubtin most peoples minds that tOSU was one of the top 4 teams. By the way, a 2 loss Stanford that won a conference was rated higher than a 1 loss tOSU team. Again, How in the world was the committee supposed to pick Ohio State over Michigan State? They had the same record... Michigan State BEAT THEM, on the field.. just a few weeks before the final rankings. I don't see ANY mistake here. The Buckeyes shat their own bed, that's all. I pay no attention to the rankings beyond the Top 4. I think, after the 4 are selected, they move teams around to get the matchups desired (or required) in the New Year's Day bowl games. All that really matters is: The Top 4. 2016 2 loss conference champ PSU gets left out over a 1 loss tOSU team. This one is certainly debatable. I have always thought this was the committee's biggest mistake. They gave the nod to a 1-loss team over a 2-loss team, even though the 2-loss team won a head to head game between the two. I think, in cases where there is head to head, the on-field competition should take precedence. But, here again... this was just a choice between TWO TEAMS who really didn't deserve a mulligan. It was ALL BAMA that year, and Clemson was right there with them. There were NO OTHER 1-loss teams to choose. So, they just went with the two undeserving teams that had posted the best records. 2017 A 1 loss Alabama team who looked very bad in the season ending to Auburn got the nod over a 2 loss Ohio State team. Even worse yet Wisconsin who made it the the BIG championship had a much better loss as they had the ball with a chance to win at the end in the BIG CCG. There wins during the season were very comparable and they were not even considered. I guess that extra data point that helped the Buckeyes in 2014 did not help Wisconsin. Name brand recognition once again. Why on earth should Ohio State get ANY consideration, with 2 losses, over a 1 loss Bama team that had been #1 ALL YEAR, but lost a close game on the road, to a highly ranked long-time rival? I mean, get real. Wisconsin could have had a beef... with the extra game. Deference could have been given to the Conference Champion, and I don't think anyone outside of Tuscaloosa would have objected. But, I think pretty much everyone knew Bama was the best team in the country... and, they went on to prove it. Interestingly, UGA and Bama were the #3 and #4 seed... They BOTH won. It' wasn't "name brand"... It was picking the best team. Bama clearly was, ALL YEAR. I don't think ANY mistake was made this year. And, ESPN certainly had nothing to do with it. 2018 Although it did not determine the final 4, the committee somehow picked a 2 loss UGA team in the 5th spot over a one loss Buckeye team that wins its conference and had a complete beatdown over undefeated ttun. See above... After the Top 4, the rankings don't matter... except to set the Bowl Game matchups that they want. There were 3 very debatable outcomes and one thing that is common is that the SEC got the benefit of the doubt every single time. I think you're off your rocker. Ohio State got the "benefit of the doubt" at least twice. One time, they took advantage of it. The other time, they got embarrassed. The B1G will always get plenty of love from the committee. Especially now, when the entire conference is playing much better than in recent years. I don't see any evidence of a terrible error made by the committee. Or, bias towards the SEC. I see a bias towards picking the teams with the best chance of winning. |
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Oct 4, 2019 17:45:08 GMT
Computers do what people tell 'em to do. Yes, prior season data definitely inspires the free annual head starts.
Hey CPA, scoreboards don't care or have any awareness of prior data. Playing is still light years better than computing or voting re: championships, of course.
|
|
