Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Should aggy win their first rd game, Ohio State also gets the reward of playing a defacto home game against A&M at JerryWorld.  
Did the committee just not GAF?

Doesnt matter. OSU took out a much more promising Texas team in Jerryworld last year. IF aggy happens to win, they will lose to OSU. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

There will always be contention, no matter what system you put in place. I will say it again, it should just be a normal fucking playoff like every other goddamn sport on the planet. CFB is not that special and doesn't need a cutesie playoff system. If you had that, Texas is in, ND is in, BYU is in, everyone that's fucking crying right now would be in. 

Set it up for 24 teams with 8 automatic byes (1 each for the P4 conference champs and then the next 4 highest ranked teams, regardless of conference, after that). Seed the rest by composite ranking.

I'm using the final CFP rankings just for the sake of argument here, but whatever composite ranking that is agreed upon prior to the season would work the same way:

image.thumb.png.4490fa9b3d44f7b44c0a6d7881a4fe45.png

Would anyone at all be upset with this? Seriously, be honest with yourself. The SEC gets 4 byes (7 teams total), B1G gets 3 (6 teams total), Big 12 gets 1 (5 teams total), ACC gets 0 (3 teams total). What exactly would be wrong with a playoff bracket like this?

If you really want it to be like every other sport, you have to get rid of all polls and rankings and guaranteed byes for conferences.  Otherwise, it's still a subjective list.

To get a true playoff you have to restructure the conferences.  Until we do that, this is going to continue to be based on voters and rankings to some extent, which is not how a true playoff field should be determined.

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Uncle Nate said:

If you really want it to be like every other sport, you have to get rid of all polls and rankings and guaranteed byes for conferences.  Otherwise, it's still a subjective list.

To get a true playoff you have to restructure the conferences.  Until we do that, this is going to continue to be based on voters and rankings to some extent, which is not how a true playoff field should be determined.

I changed it to just grant byes by ranking but you could do it any way that's agreed upon. It just shouldn't change week to week like it has this year.

I understand that objective rankings are virtually impossible but it would be miles better than the way we decided it this year.

Edited by Brian Fantana
Posted
6 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

how is SOR calculated?

Compare a team's record vs the expected record for a team of some arbitrary strength against that schedule.  Rank the teams based on how much they over or underperformed vs this hypothetical team.  It's not like it is foolproof, depending on how you rank the teams you end up with different expected losses, and then the strength of the hypothetical team can shift the ranks around.

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, El Hornarino said:

Compare a team's record vs the expected record for a team of some arbitrary strength against that schedule.  Rank the teams based on how much they over or underperformed vs this hypothetical team.  It's not like it is foolproof, depending on how you rank the teams you end up with different expected losses, and then the strength of the hypothetical team can shift the ranks around.

 

I know you aren't saying this is good or correct, but what you describe it as sounds like complete bullshit to me.  So the committee makes up this new thing called "SOR" and it lines up almost perfectly 1-12 with the teams in the top 12 to 13 in the playoff that are ranked by number of losses.  there isn't one outlier other than possibly BYU.

Personally, I think this is just a bullshit metric made up by the morons at ESPN and the "committee" to validate their reliance on the loss column and top 12.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Nivek said:

I for one do not believe expansion will fix the issue. The issue is the committee.

Agree, I'd say just use BCS model to get the 16 with expansion. Have a weekly show revealing the rankings and discussing the rankings. Don't have some schmuck coming on each week giving different stories and changing the criteria they use weeks later to fit a narrative. Also bring back the BCS rule that to be in the BCS bowl game(CFP in this instance) that you have to be ranked in the top 16 of the BCS to be included even as conference champion for g6.

Posted
4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Why? BCS formula is the best metric to use for what people want....it's not perfect but it's better than current schmuck.

How is it better? We got royally fucked in 2008. And intentionally by tons of petty fucks in the coaching profession and the media. The computers factored in tons of irrelevent nonsense. And now I am supposed to be outraged and want to bring that back since our 3 loss team didn't make it?

Fuck that.

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Why? BCS formula is the best metric to use for what people want....it's not perfect but it's better than current schmuck.

BCS is OK.  but I would say computers more weighted 60% than pollsters 40% and you kick out pollsters when their deviation from norm shows bias.  This wouldn't be hard.

having 50 sports writers and 40 coaches at least limits the damage one moron can do.  13 people deciding on 7 teams is stupid.

Posted
1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

How is it better? We got royally fucked in 2008. And intentionally by tons of petty fucks in the coaching profession and the media. The computers factored in tons of irrelevent nonsense. And now I am supposed to be outraged and want to bring that back since our 3 loss team didn't make it?

Fuck that.

It's fine as an overall ranking but not to pick 2 teams to play for it all. No metric is good enough for that if we're being honest.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Brian Fantana said:

It's fine as an overall ranking but not to pick 2 teams to play for it all. No metric is good enough for that if we're being honest.

I would rather have 100 humans polling and computers decide who is number 12 or 16 than the AD's for Nebraska and Arkansas and 11 other idiots like Ivan Maisel. 

At least idiots like Maisel can be buffered against with 99 other people.

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

BCS is OK.  but I would say computers more weighted 60% than pollsters 40% and you kick out pollsters when their deviation from norm shows bias.  

Yeah, but that's only after they've done the damage and you're left sitting at home with nothing but "wait'll next year."

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Royale with cheese said:

Yeah, but that's only after they've done the damage and you're left sitting at home with nothing but "wait'll next year."

Maybe Mack should have ran scores up more to sway computers instead of being a nice guy and coasting. Doing just that little bit would have pushed us into #2 in the computers.

Edited by BurntOrange&White
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Royale with cheese said:

Yeah, but that's only after they've done the damage and you're left sitting at home with nothing but "wait'll next year."

sure, those guys don't want to lose their vote for 10 years.  either way, 100 humans is better than 13 that REALLY have a vested interest on who makes it.

Posted

Until they figure out how to incorporate a real metric for strength of schedule, it will be unfair.

Our 5th or 6th hardest game next year (by my quick glance) @Tenn is arguably harder than anything on ND or Tech's schedule.    

Posted
1 hour ago, heso said:

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the teams that got left out. It’s really hard to say a team with 2+ losses is deserving of a shot at a championship. That said, I think UT and ND are more capable at making a run at it than at least 7 of the teams that did get in. That tells me that 12 isn’t enough. It also confirms my bias that 16 was the right number for a playoff  since before they went to 4 teams. 

This year it could be argued that 4 would be enough. Last year showed that at least 8 is needed to identify a champion. 12 could have been enough this year if bama and 1 of the G6 teams were left out. 

I think 16 is the right number. It doesn’t discourage compelling early season matchups. It preserves the value of the conference championship games. It includes at least two G6 teams for the occasional Cinderella story. Plus it puts into play the possibility of a G6 team that goes undefeated in their schedule to host a blue blood school for a playoff game delivering the type of event that would only be possible in college football. 

I think the bids should be:

the conference champions of the B1G, SEC, ACC, and Big 12. You win that game and you’re in. That is the biggest piece of not punishing good OOC games. 

The next two bids should go to the two highest ranked g6 teams. I think including these teams is good for the sport and creates much more interesting story lines for everyone except the fans of the 5th or 6th best sec/b1g team that gets left out. I don’t give a fuck about them. They are probably a better team, maybe, but we know they aren’t one of the best 4-5 teams in their conference. They can get fucked. 

After those 6 conference champions, give me 10 at-large bids. 

The committee should be granted some latitude in the seeding to avoid rematches in the first round. 

My bracket for this year sets up thusly:

1 IU - 16 Duke

8 OU - 9 Miami

5 Ore - 12 BYU

4 TT - 13 Texas

 

6 Miss - 11 ND

3 OSU - 14 Tul

7 A&M - 10 Bama

2 UGA - 15 JMU

 

IU’s reward, or OSU’s punishment, for the B1G championship game is that OSU and UGA are on the opposite side of the bracket.

I didn’t spend much time on seeding, just avoiding 1st round rematches. Looking at it now, I’d get bama away from a second round 3rd game against UGA. But I think that’s the only major flaw I see in this bracket. 

I think that byes need to remain in the format, and that’s as someone who wants to leave a G5 team in.  That’s the FCS and DII standard.  I don’t need a PO to tell me IU beats Duke.  True last thing anyone needs is an OT falling on Mendoza’s ankle and ending their run early in a game against Duke or JMU. 
 

The process needs to be put on hold a bit with the exception of the weekly release. Let things work for a while. These massive demands for overcorrection are emotional and pointless.  In five years, after IU, OSU, or UGA hoists the hardware, everyone will see how silly it would be to change everything just so a few multiple loss teams could get an extra game and a “CFP Participant” ribbon. 

Posted

It would seem that with ai and other advances a BCS type formula could be far improved than the prior iteration. The big question is how to agree on how to program it and how to weigh certain things like noncon games or conference games with unequal scheduling. UT’s beef is the tOSU loss. Should the computers disregard it entirely or give it a weight? Should the weight be on a sliding scale? A noncon loss to the No. 2 team should be less detrimental than to the No. 10 team, or No. 20, or No. 25, etc., but it likely cannot be ignored entirely. Would admins and conferences agree to the computer weighing wins over FCS very lightly or possibly ignoring them altogether? How about computer rankings set the bracket and a committee is formed with the sole job of determining if other factors require an adjustment and the vote must be unanimous to alter the computer ranking and explained on paper in a professional manner like a legal brief or arbitrators decision instead of putting some jagoff on camera to yammer away like a dolt.

Posted
2 hours ago, Js1 said:

I thought it was the woman on the committee who only scrolls on her phone during games....

Hey, that woman is doing important research on how to stop autism and manage the next pandemic, okay?

Posted

We don’t need AI for that, the math and formulas have always been there. The real issue is that sports guy talking heads, conference reps, and fans will not like doing it that way and will melt down when the math doesn’t work their way. 

Posted
18 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

We don’t need AI for that, the math and formulas have always been there. The real issue is that sports guy talking heads, conference reps, and fans will not like doing it that way and will melt down when the math doesn’t work their way. 

I mean they’ve been melting down for years now and directing their ire at people, at least the computer is what it is and can’t be accused of its own bias (programming maybe but everyone would have agreed to the programming). One solution is for programs who get left out to stop overreacting like little bitches every year. Sitting out a bowl game is as bad as it’s been, fuck ND and their pansy ass admins. Even FSU put out a team a few years ago after being decimated by the portal and opt outs.

Posted
1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

This would be the bracket using BCS to get top 16

IMG_7474.jpeg

I assume this is using the AP instead of the no-longer-existent Harris poll?  

Posted
1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

There will always be contention, no matter what system you put in place. I will say it again, it should just be a normal fucking playoff like every other goddamn sport on the planet. CFB is not that special and doesn't need a cutesie playoff system. If you had that, Texas is in, ND is in, BYU is in, everyone that's fucking crying right now would be in. 

Set it up for 24 teams with 8 automatic byes for the highest ranked teams. Seed the rest by composite ranking.

I'm using the final CFP rankings just for the sake of argument here, but whatever composite ranking that is agreed upon prior to the season would work the same way:

image.thumb.png.4490fa9b3d44f7b44c0a6d7881a4fe45.png

Would anyone at all be upset with this? Seriously, be honest with yourself. The SEC gets 4 byes (7 teams total), B1G gets 3 (6 teams total), Big 12 gets 1 (5 teams total), ACC gets 0 (3 teams total). What exactly would be wrong with a playoff bracket like this?

not enough drama/NCAA + CFB Committee + Sports Media talking heads

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...