|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 4, 2016 16:20:18 GMT
The constant debate over who gets in is aggravating as hell because its all so pointless. One side favors Team A for reason X............other side side favors Team B for reason Y when all of this can be decided before competition begins by agreeing to play by X rules or Y rules. We should know who makes the playoffs given all possible outcomes before they occur. That we are waiting a committee to vote four teams in for reasons that carry no more weight than the reasons that favor the unchosen is the dumbest thing in sports.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Dec 1, 2016 6:45:28 GMT
Just my two cents but if you favor a champs only format, I certainly have no issue with Penn State being in and Ohio State being out. But if we treat teams as independents without regard to conference finish, then OSU's resume is easily better than PSU's. I don't get the exaggerated importance placed on HTH. It is just a tiebreaker that rewards teams as much for losing to opponents with different and often worse records as it does for beating opponents with the same record. Furthermore, HTH tiebreakers do not guarantee that all HTH winners place higher. If Michigan beats Iowa to create a three way tie, OSU moves to first in the east and PSU falls to third even though OSU and PSU's results remain unchanged.
Here is how OSU and PSU's resumes break down under my point system
Wisconsin vs Wisconsin = No adv Indiana vs Indiana - No adv Maryland vs Maryland = No adv MSU vs MSU = No adv Rutgers vs Rutgers = No adv Bowling Green vs Kent = OSU +1 Tulsa vs Temple = No adv Neb + NW vs IA + Minn = PSU +1
So even through 9 games.
What's left?
Ohio State is 2-1 vs Michigan, Oklahoma, and Penn State = 10+10+(-2)=18 Penn State is 2-2 vs Ohio State, Purdue, Michigan, and Pitt = 11+3+(-2)+(-4)=8
If A State and B State were 2-1 and 2-2 vs those respective schedules, no one would favor B State. However, 2-2 is suddenly greater than 2-1 vs those schedules if B owns a HTH win over A? I don't think so. It is one game out of 12-13 game season. Just because you beat another team does not mean your season is worth more and that is true even where HTH tiebreakers apply and any two teams share the same record. Here, one team has a better record versus a stronger SOS.
Again, if you value champs over no champs, PSU wins that argument but HTH is a rock, paper, and scissors argument that even in division format takes a back seat to geography. Wisconsin wins the West despite the fact that it would finish fourth in the East. If its okay for Wisconsin to advance to the CCG ahead of two teams with equal or better league records that it lost to, how can OSU advancing to playoffs over PSU with a better record and SOS possibly be worse?
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 30, 2016 17:26:20 GMT
If chalk holds serve, Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, and Washington will be the top four teams. However, Penn State can get in even if Washington wins if Temple beats Navy and Idaho loses. If I just go on FBS games only, Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State are in and the fourth spot is determined by Big Ten CCG.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 29, 2016 21:50:38 GMT
This is why rules are needed.........its a guess as to who is in based on different scenarios because we don't know what "rules" the committee will adopt to make their choices. However, if an objective method were employed, we would know who gets in based on all possible outcomes just like with the final weekend of the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 28, 2016 16:12:00 GMT
In the Big 10 a case can be made for four teams to play for the championship. So how do we simply "take the top two teams"? Are you guys proposing we vote the teams into the CCG? How do you resolve this year? Best Conference record gets Ohio State/Penn State rematch
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 28, 2016 2:33:29 GMT
Get rid of divisions and take top two teams and there is much less of a chance of a top four team missing out on its CCG.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 20, 2016 16:39:38 GMT
Bold teams in.
PLAYOFF FIELD 1 North Dakota State 59 2 Eastern Washington 44 3 James Madison 43 4 Jacksonville State 41 5 Sam Houston State 39 6 Citadel 39 7 South Dakota State 38 8 Central Arkansas 36 9 Lehigh 34 10 Youngstown State 34 11 North Dakota 33 12 Villanova 31 13 North Carolina A&T 30 14 Richmond 29 15 San Diego 26 16 Cal Poly 26 17 Wofford 24 18 Dayton 23 19 Charleston Southern 23 20 Duquesne 22 21 Chattanooga 20 22 Fordham 20 23 Maine 19 24 St. Francis PA 2
FIRST SEVEN OUT Albany 17 New Hampshire 16 Samford 15 Tennessee-Martin 15 Liberty 13 Illinois State 11 Weber State 8
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 20, 2016 6:35:32 GMT
Very cool...thanks CJH. How many points did my struggling Blue Hens earn in your system......6 or 8 ?? I predict that Jax State will be the overall #1 seed and that SHS will get a top 4 seed. I love this championship..the real D1 championship. No way NDSU 6 -peats. That would be too obscene. I got -11 for Delaware.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 20, 2016 5:35:35 GMT
Hopefully my math is right but here is the playoff field based on my point system....as I understand it, NC A&T can be selected despite its league sending champion to a bowl game. Ivy and SWAC teams were ignored. Pioneer League never gets two teams being non-scholarship so I think Dayton misses in real field. First four out are listed at bottom. Just more fun for the objective vs subjective debate.
1 North Dakota State 59
2 Eastern Washington 44
3 James Madison 43
4 Jacksonville State 41
5 Sam Houston State 39
6 Citadel 39
7 South Dakota State 38
8 Central Arkansas 36
9 Lehigh 34
10 Youngstown State 34
11 North Dakota 33
12 Villanova 31
13 North Carolina A&T 30
14 Richmond 29
15 San Diego 26
16 Cal Poly 26
17 Wofford 24
18 Dayton 23
19 Charleston Southern 23
20 Duquesne 22
21 Chattanooga 20
22 Fordham 20
23 Maine 19
24 St. Francis PA 2
Albany 17
New Hampshire 16
Samford 15
Liberty 13
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 9, 2016 14:27:39 GMT
After 15 committee rankings, PS has matched 50 of 60 top 4 teams. 7 of 10 disputed teams were the committee's #4 choice. 6 of 10 disputed teams favored by point system were the committee's #5 or #6.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 8, 2016 18:04:51 GMT
OTOH, CJ, a inclusive playoff system, such as already exists in FCS, D-II and D-III where all teams deserving of an opportunity to compete have such opportunity, eliminates all bias in voting or in the protocols for computer ratings. It would be simple for FBS: a 16-team playoff composed of the 10 conferences champions and 6 wild cards. Definitely but that seems like a long ways away and might as well get the four team format in place while we have it
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 8, 2016 15:22:51 GMT
Throw in my two cents to the discussion, I have always said here and elsewhere that purpose of competition is simply to determine winner preferably with rules that challenge the competing teams whereas much of CFB is obsessed with identifying and validating the best teams. I believe voting to place and advance teams is primarily to blame for the disparity that exists between P5 and G5. Certainly, P5 teams also have greater resources but some of that could also attributed to the current and past systems that have not provided G5 teams much opportunity to compete. After all, if the "rules" of the competition give you little hope, its difficult to attract recruits, grow a fanbase, and find networks willing to play significant money to broadcast your games. I believe the use of objective rules to rank teams would shrink the disparity between P5 and G5 teams. A system like mine provides G5 teams with a blueprint for making the playoffs that voting system have always denied them. Under my point system , around 50% of all G5 teams played schedules that allowed them to control their top four destiny based on how the season played out. Of course. the great majority of those teams were losing teams because P5 teams have been more inclined to play bad G5 teams rather than strong ones with little reward. However, with my system playing the best G5 teams becomes a viable and necessary scheduling strategy that all must pursue just to keep pace with each other. This allows G5 teams to attract the schedules needed to compete for a top four spot. The most points earned for a 4th place team in 38 seasons was 65. If G5 teams know, for example, that 12-0 vs a 65-79 schedule (or 65-67 minus games against), is what it takes to make the playoffs, they can do what it takes to acquire said schedules and then better sell their program to recruits who would know that a particular G5 team has the right schedule and just needs to win no matter what anyone's opinion of their team is.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 7, 2016 14:29:05 GMT
CJ's new Top 25 CJ? Here's a tip: Stay away from Louisville! ;-) Although, I think you're system is accurate. Louisville is getting a lot of mileage from intentionally running up scores against weaker teams. So far, Louisville's schedule is hurting them.........G5 teams seem to be doing much better than normal even for my system.......there is a Top 25 Sun belt battle this week.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 5, 2016 15:54:26 GMT
Nicely surprised to find this post. That said, WMU is surprisingly high for a G5 team especially a MAC team. After this week's committee rankings, the point system has matched 47 of 56 top 4 team through 14 committee polls over three seasons. WMU at 23rd is easily the lowest ranked team by the committee to make my top 4. The previous low was #11 UCLA in 2014. All others ranked in the top 8 at least.
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Sept 25, 2016 16:19:59 GMT
At least its objective even if a convoluted choice without transparency. Progress?
|
|