|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 30, 2017 17:39:50 GMT
Perhaps but I think their schedule is too weak with two losses even if they get revenge. Sagarin has it ranked 46, ahead of Alabama (54), but behind of Ohio State (42) I suppose its possible with a committee. Not that my system matters, but they have no shot under it. Have nine teams still in it but UCF is one of those teams and they clearly have no chance with committee.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 30, 2017 17:31:01 GMT
The P5/G5 divide that the committee format reinforces is precisely why rules are needed. FBS teams should be treated the same. I don't believe the gap between P5 and G5 is as great as perceived and certainly not to the extent that UCF is routinely ranked behind 2-3 loss teams. P5 schedules compared to G5 schedules are not worth three free losses. Rules like my system would spell out what it typically takes to make a four team playoff and provide the top P5 teams with an incentive to play the top G5 schools. I think rules would do as much for G5 schools as would an invitation to a P5 league which is precisely why P5 schools would never go for rules and prefer a committee that can place UCF 14th without any real explanation and get away with it. The explanation is pretty simple - they beat one P5 team that finished 4-8 and finished tied for last in their division. And people who spend a helluva a lot more time watching and analyzing these things than we do mostly say the competition level is a big difference. I was listening to Steve Spurrier this morning and he said if UCF went undefeated and the playoff field was 8, he'd give them a chance but not in a field of 4. The AAC is basically a collection of teams that no other conference wants. There are very few historical or bitter rivalries, they've only been around about 5 years, none of the teams want to be in the conference, the better coaches get picked up by a P5 school as Tom Herman and soon, Scott Frost have demonstrated. UCF's had a great season and if they win on Saturday, and I think they will they'll get to play in a New Years Day bowl. That's a great feat for them. But like I said in another post, they'll probably have another coach on the sidelines! The P5/G5 is used to maintain the competitive gap that exists whether or not it is as great as imagined. There are plenty of G5 teams better than P5 programs. The committee has a three loss Stanford with a loss to a G5 team ranked ahead of an unbeaten UCF whose league is looked down upon despite 2 BCS/Big Six bowl wins and its fifth place team last year beating the Big 12 champions. This is why coaches leave. The format does not allow G5 teams to compete. It does not provide specifics on scheduling, does not create an incentive for top P5 teams to play top G5 teams, and basically allows P5 teams to load up on cupcakes in OOC play because conference play is enough. Too many seem to think that P5 teams have to beat 4-5 ranked teams on a yearly basis to make the top 4 when the average is less than three and many get there with less than 2 such wins.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 30, 2017 16:45:27 GMT
I don't think they have a shot. The entire Big 12's reputation is based on Oklahoma's win over Ohio State. Rest of league has nothing to show for itself. Well, people would point out that TCU beat Oklahoma, the team that beat Ohio State, should the Buckeyes win Perhaps but I think their schedule is too weak with two losses even if they get revenge.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 30, 2017 16:25:31 GMT
I don't think they have a shot. The entire Big 12's reputation is based on Oklahoma's win over Ohio State. Rest of league has nothing to show for itself.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 30, 2017 15:43:48 GMT
The P5/G5 divide that the committee format reinforces is precisely why rules are needed. FBS teams should be treated the same. I don't believe the gap between P5 and G5 is as great as perceived and certainly not to the extent that UCF is routinely ranked behind 2-3 loss teams. P5 schedules compared to G5 schedules are not worth three free losses. Rules like my system would spell out what it typically takes to make a four team playoff and provide the top P5 teams with an incentive to play the top G5 schools. I think rules would do as much for G5 schools as would an invitation to a P5 league which is precisely why P5 schools would never go for rules and prefer a committee that can place UCF 14th without any real explanation and get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 21, 2017 14:36:20 GMT
So far, results don't agree with committee as much as previous years. This week's poll might be the first time the two methods agree on only one top 4 team.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 19, 2017 18:02:22 GMT
If current highest placed teams win out, my point system would advance Alabama, Wisconsin, Miami, and UCF. Other teams that have a mathematical shot include Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Georgia, USC, Clemson, Ohio State, Auburn, and Boise State.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 19, 2017 8:11:51 GMT
It wasn’t all that long ago that the Southern Conference dominated D-IAA football. Losing Marshall, Appalachian State, and Georgia Southern is huge.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 19, 2017 4:41:11 GMT
AUTOMATIC BERTHS IN BOLD
IN
1 James Madison 60
2 South Dakota State 48
3 North Dakota State 46
4 Jacksonville State 46
5 Central Arkansas 42
6 Southern Utah 42
7 Sam Houston State 38
8 Stony Brook 35
9 Kennesaw State 34
10 Weber State 34
11 Elon 34
12 Wofford 33
13 Monmouth 32
14 Austin Peay 32
15 Western Illinois 31
16 Samford 27
17 San Diego 26
18 South Dakota 26
19 Eastern Washington 26
20 Northern Iowa 24
21 McNeese State 23
22 Furman 23
24 Central Connecticut 22
56 Lehigh -7
OUT
23 Nicholls State 22
25 New Hampshire 22
26 Richmond 20
27 Delaware 18
28 Northern Arizona 18
29 Drake 17
30 Sacramento State 16
31 Montana 14
32 Youngstown State 12
33 Duquesne 11
34 Western Carolina 11
35 Illinois State 11
36 Liberty 11
37 Southeastern Louisiana 10
38 Charleston Southern 10
39 Colgate 6
40 Mercer 6
41 Montana State 4
42 Jacksonville 3
43 Eastern Illinois 2
44 Villanova 1
45 UC Davis 1
46 Valparaiso 0
47 UT Martin -1
48 Maine -1
49 Tennessee State -2
50 Towson -2
51 Butler -3
52 Northwestern State -4
53 Bryant -6
54 Albany -6
55 Holy Cross -6
57 Eastern Kentucky -8
58 The Citadel -9
59 Presbyterian -9
60 Dayton -10
61 Stephen F. Austin -10
62 Fordham -10
63 Campbell -11
64 Wagner -11
65 Southern Illinois -15
66 Rhode Island -15
67 Saint Francis -16
68 Sacred Heart -17
69 Chattanooga -17
70 Idaho State -18
71 Bucknell -20
72 Marist -20
73 East Tennessee State -21
74 Missouri State -21
75 William & Mary -21
76 Northern Colorado -23
77 Morehead State -24
78 North Dakota -24
79 Abilene Christian -24
80 Southeast Missouri State -25
81 Murray State -27
82 Gardner-Webb -31
83 Lafayette -32
84 Lamar -35
85 Incarnate Word -35
86 Tennessee Tech -36
87 Robert Morris -40
88 Stetson -40
89 Cal Poly San Luis Obispo -40
90 Houston Baptist -43
91 Indiana State -47
92 Davidson -49
93 Georgetown -51
94 Portland State -51
95 VMI -60
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 12, 2017 22:35:19 GMT
None of those things are necessary to determine standings based on games played. If they were, how do voters get around those problems? Agree, but suppose we have a year where there are 7 undefeated P5 teams.
Does everyone tie for 1st place?
5 is most possible and that is where SOS comes into play. Comes down to how SOS is objectively defined.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 12, 2017 20:04:10 GMT
Standings are wonderful for the MLB playoffs. 162 games with lots of intersecting data points and many games against other teams. College football with 12 games, and only one game against a team, not so much. None of those things are necessary to determine standings based on games played. If they were, how do voters get around those problems?
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 12, 2017 16:54:23 GMT
Committee is and will always be a bad idea especially with a Top 20 requirement. What if a team is borderline Top 20? Would be very easy for a committee put a team right at 20 or 21 to put them in or keep them out with no actual explanation for the difference.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 6, 2017 17:31:13 GMT
Teams place most to least: 1-Power Points (Games Won Opponents' Wins - Games Lost Opponents' Losses) 2-Net Wins (Wins - Losses) 3-Schedule Strength (Opponents' Power Points) 4-Net Points (Points For - Points Against) For purposes here, I treat FCS wins and losses as equal to the least valuable FBS win and loss respectively. So... is it correct to assume, each number is just a tie-breaker for the preceding number? Or, are you using ALL four factors on every ranking? Yes. Tiebreakers. Rarely do any two teams go beyond the first tiebreaker by season's end.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 6, 2017 17:00:20 GMT
It is in the 70s under my system bit good enough thanks 9 games and many other 0-1 loss teams with weak schedules too. Hey CJ, remind me of your key factors and methodology - went to your site, but did not see it explicitly listed, nor did I search for it for a long time
Teams place most to least: 1-Power Points (Games Won Opponents' Wins - Games Lost Opponents' Losses) 2-Net Wins (Wins - Losses) 3-Schedule Strength (Opponents' Power Points) 4-Net Points (Points For - Points Against) For purposes here, I treat FCS wins and losses as equal to the least valuable FBS win and loss respectively.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 6, 2017 16:43:51 GMT
Seeing Wisconsin this high on your list suggests that their schedule is not quite as weak as everyone says? It is in the 70s under my system but good enough thanks 9 games and many other 0-1 loss teams with weak schedules too.
|
|