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.

 

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.

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...