I Created a CFB Ranking System

#201
#201
bamawriter said:
I've never had a problem with the "eye test" argument, except that D4H's eye seems to be watching events that only he can see.
Click to expand...

My problem with the whole "eye test" is that it is subjective. College football is the only sport that sets up a playoff based on the "best" teams, which in reality means the teams that will generate the most revenue. Playoffs are about the most deserving teams.

It drives me crazy when these talking heads start going on about 2 teams from the same conference making it in. To me, if you take both teams from say the SECCG then you've just said that game was meaningless. The conference championship games should be elimination playoff games with the winner advancing and the loser getting a consolation bowl game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devo182
#202
#202
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
My problem with the whole "eye test" is that it is subjective. College football is the only sport that sets up a playoff based on the "best" teams, which in reality means the teams that will generate the most revenue. Playoffs are about the most deserving teams.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, you can't be objective when you're trying to compare 130 teams that only play 12 or 13 games. There is no way to objectively compare teams that not only didn't play each other, but only played 10% or less of the possible teams that might be used for comparison.
 
#203
#203
bamawriter said:
Like I said before, you can't be objective when you're trying to compare 130 teams that only play 12 or 13 games. There is no way to objectively compare teams that not only didn't play each other, but only played 10% or less of the possible teams that might be used for comparison.
Click to expand...

Completely agree
 
#204
#204
bamawriter said:
Okay. Compare apples-to-apples, then. After 60 minutes, USC was tied with Cal, and Oklahoma was down 4 touchdowns to KSU.



I've never had a problem with the "eye test" argument, except that D4H's eye seems to be watching events that only he can see.

In the case of 2003, I know that the eye test showed Oklahoma getting drilled by a good, but by no means great Kansas State team. I don't know what my formula would have returned for that year as I didn't go back that far. But if it were to return LSU and Oklahoma, it would be wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't remember that season but do you think USC was the number 1 team at the time? if so what would you be basing it on?

the computer system can actually point to something. in this case all the humans have is this team lost a lot longer ago, therefore they are the better team.
 
#205
#205
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
My problem with the whole "eye test" is that it is subjective. College football is the only sport that sets up a playoff based on the "best" teams, which in reality means the teams that will generate the most revenue. Playoffs are about the most deserving teams.

It drives me crazy when these talking heads start going on about 2 teams from the same conference making it in. To me, if you take both teams from say the SECCG then you've just said that game was meaningless. The conference championship games should be elimination playoff games with the winner advancing and the loser getting a consolation bowl game.
Click to expand...

you have two undefeateds from lets say the PAC 12 going into their Conf title, you have a 9-3 SEC conference champ, and two 10-2 from the BIGs. Are you pulling from just conf champs? Or should you be pulling from the best teams in general. thats often been the complaint with the SEC, where the two best teams have often been from the west yet we match up the latest sucker from the east against Bama so they can walk into the playoffs.

is it about the best teams playing, the real number 1-4 or we letting someone in because they beat a better team. in the case of 2003 should Kansas State have taken Oklahoma's place? they won. There was a 6-6 Cal that made it to their title game, they don't deserve to be in consideration.
 
#206
#206
LouderVol said:
I don't remember that season but do you think USC was the number 1 team at the time? if so what would you be basing it on?

the computer system can actually point to something. in this case all the humans have is this team lost a lot longer ago, therefore they are the better team.
Click to expand...

You're taxing my memory from my junior year of college, but yes, I remember thinking after the Big XII title game that USC and LSU were clearly the two best teams in the country. And you can say it's recency bias, but I disagree. KSU was a better team than Cal, for sure. And if OU had lost by 10, maybe 14, then we're not having this conversation. But they got completely embarrassed.
 
#208
#208
LouderVol said:
you have two undefeateds from lets say the PAC 12 going into their Conf title, you have a 9-3 SEC conference champ, and two 10-2 from the BIGs. Are you pulling from just conf champs? Or should you be pulling from the best teams in general. thats often been the complaint with the SEC, where the two best teams have often been from the west yet we match up the latest sucker from the east against Bama so they can walk into the playoffs.

is it about the best teams playing, the real number 1-4 or we letting someone in because they beat a better team. in the case of 2003 should Kansas State have taken Oklahoma's place? they won. There was a 6-6 Cal that made it to their title game, they don't deserve to be in consideration.
Click to expand...

My idea is to take the 5 P5 conference champions and allow for 1 wild card team. That could be the highest ranked team from a P5 conference not already in, or a high ranked non P5 team like Notre Dame. The teams ranked 1&2 would get a bye.

So basically your conference championship games would be first round playoff games. After that you would play your 3v6 and 4v5 matchups in mid December. The final 4 would be played using the NY6 bowls just like now, with the championship game a week after.
 
#209
#209
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
My idea is to take the 5 P5 conference champions and allow for 1 wild card team. That could be the highest ranked team from a P5 conference not already in, or a high ranked non P5 team like Notre Dame. The teams ranked 1&2 would get a bye.

So basically your conference championship games would be first round playoff games. After that you would play your 3v6 and 4v5 matchups in mid December. The final 4 would be played using the NY6 bowls just like now, with the championship game a week after.
Click to expand...

Still a lot of subjectivity in picking that wild card. I would just wait it out until the Big XII folds, then you just take the 4 major conference champs and no opinions are required.
 
#213
#213
bamawriter said:
I'm confused by this sentence.
Click to expand...

in 2011 a 6-6 Cal team made it to the PAC12 title game against Oregon. What if they won? Would they have the right to make it to the playoffs?

how about that year that Bama lost to LSU in the season LSU won the SEC and Bama beat them in the title game? Best team was?
 
#214
#214
LouderVol said:
in 2011 a 6-6 Cal team made it to the PAC12 title game against Oregon. What if they won? Would they have the right to make it to the playoffs?
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I thought you were still talking about 2003 with that comment and none of that made any sense.

To answer your question: based on the current subjective model, No, that team (which I'm pretty sure was UCLA and not Cal) would not have deserved a spot in the playoff.

how about that year that Bama lost to LSU in the season LSU won the SEC and Bama beat them in the title game? Best team was?
Click to expand...

Bama.
 
#215
#215
LouderVol said:
in 2011 a 6-6 Cal team made it to the PAC12 title game against Oregon. What if they won? Would they have the right to make it to the playoffs?
Click to expand...

Does an 8-8 division winner deserve to be in the playoffs over an 11-5 team that finishes 2nd in their division? IMO, which means little, you win your division you're in the CC game. Win that you're in the Big show.


LouderVol said:
how about that year that Bama lost to LSU in the season LSU won the SEC and Bama beat them in the title game? Best team was?
Click to expand...

Best team was bama no doubt. Thats not the point, and never has been in any other playoff format. Playoffs are about the most deserving team, not necessarily the best. Take care of business, win your division, and you have a shot.
 
#216
#216
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
Does an 8-8 division winner deserve to be in the playoffs over an 11-5 team that finishes 2nd in their division? IMO, which means little, you win your division you're in the CC game. Win that you're in the Big show.




Best team was bama no doubt. Thats not the point, and never has been in any other playoff format. Playoffs are about the most deserving team, not necessarily the best. Take care of business, win your division, and you have a shot.
Click to expand...

According to BW's little rant it is about the best. why else would he care that it was 2 vs 3?

and let me know when the CFP expands to include half the teams at least getting shot like the NFL.
 
#222
#222
LouderVol said:
but in the playoffs it should be who ever just so happens to win their conference?

there is a disconnect here.
Click to expand...

If the ultimate goal is to remove subjectivity, or human error, from the process, then a 4 team playoff featuring 4 conference champs is the way to go. Of course, that would require shedding a conference, but that's likely to happen before too long.

If we ultimately go that route, then everyone starts on equal footing, and everyone knows exactly what they have to do to make the playoff. You don't have to worry about polls or committees. If a 6-6 team slips thru and wins a conference title, then so be it. They did what was required to earn it.

But, with what we have now, where subjective assessments must be made, human beings are superior to formulas.
 
#223
#223
bamawriter said:
If the ultimate goal is to remove subjectivity, or human error, from the process, then a 4 team playoff featuring 4 conference champs is the way to go. Of course, that would require shedding a conference, but that's likely to happen before too long.

If we ultimately go that route, then everyone starts on equal footing, and everyone knows exactly what they have to do to make the playoff. You don't have to worry about polls or committees. If a 6-6 team slips thru and wins a conference title, then so be it. They did what was required to earn it.

But, with what we have now, where subjective assessments must be made, human beings are superior to formulas.
Click to expand...

again for the most part the computers are within points of the humans.

also it gives incentives to the SEC to stay at 8 conference games instead of going to 9. so even if you know what you have to do there isn't equality in it. also unless you are playing every team in their conference it is still going to give favorable schedules to someone like Iowa a few years ago. The year after we whooped them in a bowl game they went undefeated or 11-1 and made it to the conference title. they lost, but they would never had deserved to be up there. our 8-4 team would have whooped them again.
 
#224
#224
LouderVol said:
again for the most part the computers are within points of the humans.

also it gives incentives to the SEC to stay at 8 conference games instead of going to 9. so even if you know what you have to do there isn't equality in it. also unless you are playing every team in their conference it is still going to give favorable schedules to someone like Iowa a few years ago. The year after we whooped them in a bowl game they went undefeated or 11-1 and made it to the conference title. they lost, but they would never had deserved to be up there. our 8-4 team would have whooped them again.
Click to expand...

You're making my point for me. The entire point of having a playoff is to set up a championship based on what happened on the field. When you get into the whole if team X played them they would whip their a**, that's where the subjectivity comes in. The fact is nobody knows who would win. That's why the games are played. Taking the conference champions removes that subjectivity.

In your argument of the team that back doors their way in to a CCG from a weak division (Iowa, UCLA), they're going to get exposed in the CCG anyway. They always do. If they do manage to somehow get past the CCG though, then I believe they deserve a chance at the big stage. That's the whole point of a single game elimination playoff.
 
#225
#225
Here's where it starts to get fun.

WEEK 9 Top 25 (with AP/Coaches):

1. Ohio St (7-1) - 179.4375 (3/3)
2. Penn St (7-1) - 179.0927 (7/7)
3. Alabama (8-0) - 178.9582 (1/1)
4. Georgia (8-0) - 178.4884 (2/2)
5. UCF (7-0) - 175.9212 (15/14)
6. Notre Dame (7-1) - 174.0050 (5/8)
7. Clemson (7-1) - 172.2574 (6/5)
8. Wisconsin (8-0) - 165.3766 (4/4)
9. TCU (7-1) - 161.2056 (10/12)
10. Oklahoma St (7-1) - 157.4359 (11/10)
11. Mississippi St (6-2) - 154.7216 (21/22)
12. Miami (7-0) - 153.9771 (9/6)
13. Oklahoma (7-1) - 152.9775 (8/9)
14. Memphis (7-1) - 150.0221 (22/21)
15. Washington (7-1) - 149.4700 (12/11)
16. Virginia Tech (7-1) - 148.3874 (13/13)
17. USC (7-2) - 148.0580 (17/17)
18. Iowa St (6-2) - 144.8544 (14/16)
19. Boise St (6-2) - 143.3990 (UR/UR)
20. Auburn (6-2) - 143.2063 (16/15)
21. Michigan St (6-2) - 140.5306 (24/UR)
22. San Diego St (7-2) - 140.2189 (UR/UR)
23. NC State (6-2) - 140.0160 (20/19)
24. Toledo (7-1) - 137.0032 (UR/UR)
25. Navy (5-2) - 136.9807 (UR/UR)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top