So the committee is officially a joke

[bamawriter]

Actually he has, he’s just more vocal about it because Alabama got in without winning the SEC.

If you can find any similar complaints from last year, then you are better with the search feature than I am.

 

[NashVol11]

Yeah, you are right. Winning a conference championship is a stupid criteria. Cant wait until we finish third and play for a NC.

Boise State is a conference champion. Do you think they would beat Alabama because they won their conference? Do you think USC would? Do you think Bama would get blown out by Iowa?

 

[NashVol11]

OSU got in last year over Penn State even though PSU won their conference. There is no criteria than who they think are the 4 best teams. Hard to argue that bama isn’t one of the best 4 teams in the country

End of discussion.

 

[SaintLouisVol]

That’s not a problem. The CFP picks the four best teams, not the four best teams that meet certain stupid criteria. That’s exactly how it should be.

What other sport does that?

In the NFL, MLB, NBA and pretty every sport I can think of, there is a clearly defined path to the post season. It's not about an "eye test" or finding the "best" teams.

I absolutely hate the way they are doing it right now.

 

[bamawriter]

What other sport does that?

In the NFL, MLB, NBA and pretty every sport I can think of, there is a clearly defined path to the post season. It's not about an "eye test" or finding the "best" teams.

I absolutely hate the way they are doing it right now.

Yeah, every pro sport has a defined path: record paired with well-defined tie-breakers. However, there aren't any college sports that don't rely on human beings to select the teams.

 

[05_never_again]

What other sport does that?

In the NFL, MLB, NBA and pretty every sport I can think of, there is a clearly defined path to the post season. It's not about an "eye test" or finding the "best" teams.

I absolutely hate the way they are doing it right now.

Those are all professional sports. We're talking about college. You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[TUSKtimes]

What other sport does that?

In the NFL, MLB, NBA and pretty every sport I can think of, there is a clearly defined path to the post season. It's not about an "eye test" or finding the "best" teams.

I absolutely hate the way they are doing it right now.

That's because it's all math. That type of transparency does not translate to a 4 team playoff.

In the NFL, an 8-8 team can win a division and an 11-5 wildcard team in the same conference can be left out and it's happened a number of times, just ask New England?

So a mediocre team limping in beats out an elite team left out. What kind of math is that?

 

[Burger]

That's because it's all math. That type of transparency does not translate to a 4 team playoff.

In the NFL, an 8-8 team can win a division and an 11-5 wildcard team in the same conference can be left out and it's happened a number of times, just ask New England?

So a mediocre team limping in beats out an elite team left out. What kind of math is that?

I don't think anyone is debating that a 9-3 team should get in over an 11-1 team. We're debating the eye test of the committee. With the politics that exist in the CFP Committee, they will never be objective.

 

[TUSKtimes]

I don't think anyone is debating that a 9-3 team should get in over an 11-1 team. We're debating the eye test of the committee. With the politics that exist in the CFP Committee, they will never be objective.

Thus my point, that you can't translate anything that the NFL does to the 4 team playoff and get the same "objectivity."

The "eye test" will always be "subjective." There is no way to ask humans to do anything without bias. Emotionally, it's impossible.

The closest to our human foray into so-called "objectivity" would be the BCS "error" we just lived through. A geek's delight no doubt with all the computers spewing all those insignificant numbers and each week hearing weird things like Boise State is actually the #1 team by certain computer metrics.

Wasn't it all that BCS/computer "objectivity" that gave us the 2011 rematch with Alabama/LSU, that in turn started the eye test?

Face it, folks, we are just stuck with Alabama and it looks like years to come.

 

[Burger]

Thus my point, that you can't translate anything that the NFL does to the 4 team playoff and get the same "objectivity."

The "eye test" will always be "subjective." There is no way to ask humans to do anything without bias. Emotionally, it's impossible.

The closest to our human foray into so-called "objectivity" would be the BCS "error" we just lived through. A geek's delight no doubt with all the computers spewing all those insignificant numbers and each week hearing weird things like Boise State is actually the #1 team by certain computer metrics.

Wasn't it all that BCS/computer "objectivity" that gave us the 2011 rematch with Alabama/LSU, that in turn started the eye test?

Face it, folks, we are just stuck with Alabama and it looks like years to come.

I think the computers did a better job than the committee is doing.

 

[TUSKtimes]

I think the computers did a better job than the committee is doing.

We just were not staying at only 2 teams, no matter what process we used. Folks wanted in, BUT, the BCS could have spit out 4 teams as easily as 2.

Something to think about, in 2013, Bama was upset by the barners in the kick-six game. The BCS had us only dropping to #4 after that game. That's when I became convinced 2 just isn't enough.

 

[bamawriter]

I think the computers did a better job than the committee is doing.

My computer formula (which I posted and can be tested) has Bama and Georgia #1 and #2, and OU isn't in the playoff.

 

[rjd970]

All this talk from Bammers about how the conference championship is just another thing to consider almost has me convinced Wisconsin should have been a lock to the playoffs regardless of what happened against OSU. Alabama and Wisconsin didn't have that much of a dissimilar schedule.

Not only did the conference title not mean as much to the committee, Wisconsin was effectively PENALIZED for playing in theirs (opportunity for a loss) and Alabama was REWARDED for not playing in theirs (effectively a first round bye)....yet Wisconsin actually finished the regular season undefeated and finished higher in the conference standing than Alabama.

 

[TUSKtimes]

All this talk from Bammers about how the conference championship is just another thing to consider almost has me convinced Wisconsin should have been a lock to the playoffs regardless of what happened against OSU. Alabama and Wisconsin didn't have that much of a dissimilar schedule.

Not only did the conference title not mean as much to the committee, Wisconsin was effectively PENALIZED for playing in theirs (opportunity for a loss) and Alabama was REWARDED for not playing in theirs (effectively a first round bye)....yet Wisconsin actually finished the regular season undefeated and finished higher in the conference standing than Alabama.

Here's the problem, Alabama was ranked #1 every game in the regular season in 2016 by the AP and coaches poll and Alabama was ranked #1 in every game in the AP and coaches poll during the regular season in 2017.

That's 2 straight years, every game, ranked #1 in the regular season. Has that ever happened before, ever?

Alabama has now been ranked #1 in the AP poll, sometime during the season, for 10 straight years. Never happened before in the history of college football.

Alabama has been ranked #1 under coach Saban for more seasons than any SEC team has been #1 in their entire history, including Tennessee.

What are all these voters seeing that you are deaf and blind too?

Anyway, tell us all about the badger's resume again?

 

[05_never_again]

All this talk from Bammers about how the conference championship is just another thing to consider almost has me convinced Wisconsin should have been a lock to the playoffs regardless of what happened against OSU. Alabama and Wisconsin didn't have that much of a dissimilar schedule.

Not only did the conference title not mean as much to the committee, Wisconsin was effectively PENALIZED for playing in theirs (opportunity for a loss) and Alabama was REWARDED for not playing in theirs (effectively a first round bye)....yet Wisconsin actually finished the regular season undefeated and finished higher in the conference standing than Alabama.

Strength of schedule and who you lost to means a lot to the committee. Much was made of Alabama's weak schedule, which is accurate, but look at who Wisconsin played. They didn't play in a game that should have been competitive until mid-November.

Wisconsin is a good team and has a great program given their inherent disadvantages. However, you can't deny that Paul Chryst in particular has been a big beneficiary of playing in the Big 10 West these last two years.

 

[rjd970]

Here's the problem, Alabama was ranked #1 every game in the regular season in 2016 by the AP and coaches poll and Alabama was ranked #1 in every game in the AP and coaches poll during the regular season in 2017.

That's 2 straight years, every game, ranked #1 in the regular season. Has that ever happened before, ever?

This is a little of a feedback loop. Bama lost the championship game last year, and promptly lost to the first good team they played this year. That means over the last calendar year Bama couldn't beat anybody with a pulse. They were number one because they kept winning, and they kept winning because they didn't play anybody worth a ****, and the committee decided that was the eye test. Bama is undefeated with the exception of the only teams they played with a pulse dating back to the playoffs last year.

Alabama has now been ranked #1 in the AP poll, sometime during the season, for 10 straight years. Never happened before in the history of college football.

So? What does that have to do with 2017? Lest we forget, Bama was a *** hair away from losing to MSU this year as well. By your reasoning, they could have lost what...2,3, even 4 games this year because, you know, 10 years? :crazy:

Alabama has been ranked #1 under coach Saban for more seasons than any SEC team has been #1 in their entire history, including Tennessee.

Again, so? I understand the need for you guys to come in here and rag us because your fanbase can barely read, much less put together a coherent message board. But I fail to recognize what that has to do with anything to the discussion at hand. Tennessee currently sucks, and Bama has more weeks at #1. Congrats. What in the holy **** does that have to do with the CFB 2017 playoffs?

What are all these voters seeing that you are deaf and blind too?

Anyway, tell us all about the badger's resume again?

Take the 2017 season and tell me what made Bama more deserving than Wisconsin. If the only thing you have is when they lost (in a conference championship game that Bama didn't even play in), then you really are confirming blind bias.


Look - Do I think Bama is better than Wisconsin?

Probably.

...but looking at it objectively with wins, losses, conference championship games, who they played, etc...tell me what objectively makes Bama better than Wisconsin in 2017.

 

[rjd970]

Strength of schedule and who you lost to means a lot to the committee. Much was made of Alabama's weak schedule, which is accurate, but look at who Wisconsin played. They didn't play in a game that should have been competitive until mid-November.

Wisconsin is a good team and has a great program given their inherent disadvantages. However, you can't deny that Paul Chryst in particular has been a big beneficiary of playing in the Big 10 West these last two years.

They both played weak schedules, got it.

Again, not denying any of that. In 2017, tell me what makes Bama qualitatively better than Wisconsin.

 

[bamawriter]

tell me what objectively makes Bama better than Wisconsin in 2017.

Objectivity is both irrelevant and impossible.

 

[rjd970]

Objectivity is both irrelevant and impossible.

ok, qualitatively....in 2017 what makes bama better?

 

[hndog609]

This is a little of a feedback loop. Bama lost the championship game last year, and promptly lost to the first good team they played this year. That means over the last calendar year Bama couldn't beat anybody with a pulse. They were number one because they kept winning, and they kept winning because they didn't play anybody worth a ****, and the committee decided that was the eye test. Bama is undefeated with the exception of the only teams they played with a pulse dating back to the playoffs last year.



So? What does that have to do with 2017? Lest we forget, Bama was a *** hair away from losing to MSU this year as well. By your reasoning, they could have lost what...2,3, even 4 games this year because, you know, 10 years? :crazy:



Again, so? I understand the need for you guys to come in here and rag us because your fanbase can barely read, much less put together a coherent message board. But I fail to recognize what that has to do with anything to the discussion at hand. Tennessee currently sucks, and Bama has more weeks at #1. Congrats. What in the holy **** does that have to do with the CFB 2017 playoffs?



Take the 2017 season and tell me what made Bama more deserving than Wisconsin. If the only thing you have is when they lost (in a conference championship game that Bama didn't even play in), then you really are confirming blind bias.


Look - Do I think Bama is better than Wisconsin?

Probably.

...but looking at it objectively with wins, losses, conference championship games, who they played, etc...tell me what objectively makes Bama better than Wisconsin in 2017.

It's an interesting discussion to be sure. I'm not even certain college football really minds the controversy that much considering all the talk it generates. Anyway I'm not vouching for how this list is generated but I think it says a lot about how little was thought of Wisconsin's SOS to be that low, especially considering it includes the OSU game.

NCAA College Football Strength of Schedule Rankings & Ratings

 

[bamawriter]

ok, qualitatively....in 2017 what makes bama better?

Tougher schedule, won more convincingly against that schedule.

If you want a math breakdown you can see the thread I created.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Look - Do I think Bama is better than Wisconsin?

Probably.

...but looking at it objectively with wins, losses, conference championship games, who they played, etc...tell me what objectively makes Bama better than Wisconsin in 2017.

I don't have to. Objectivity is dead. It frankly never truly existed. This is a people business and even during the BCS era humans were using the subjective "eye test" to pick the 2 BEST teams.

So, when you say objective, there is no such thing. You can get as nostalgic as you wish about computers and metrics but they ain't coming back. Humans can only be subjective and it will always come with a preconceived disposition. In other words, in human form, warts and all.

We have heard humanoids subjectively say to the college football world for the last 2 years that Bama stands alone week after week. You can't argue with that because it's already happened. Humans are subjectively telling the football world every week who they think is the BEST team.

You, on the other hand, are still lost in a sea of resumes, swimming upstream for meaning and clarification from the football stat gods.

Listen to Ernest on this one, "you can't go home again."

 

[rjd970]

I don't have to. Objectivity is dead. It frankly never truly existed. This is a people business and even during the BCS era humans were using the subjective "eye test" to pick the 2 BEST teams.

So, when you say objective, there is no such thing. You can get as nostalgic as you wish about computers and metrics but they ain't coming back. Humans can only be subjective and it will always come with a preconceived disposition. In other words, in human form, warts and all.

We have heard humanoids subjectively say to the college football world for the last 2 years that Bama stands alone week after week. You can't argue with that because it's already happened. Humans are subjectively telling the football world every week who they think is the BEST team.

You, on the other hand, are still lost in a sea of resumes, swimming upstream for meaning and clarification from the football stat gods.

Listen to Ernest on this one, "you can't go home again."

Then at best, we get a subjective NC. Nobody “wins” it....ever. Bama, Clemson, OK, etc included. It’s an empty championship. Might as well go back to the polls instead of window dressing this as some better system.

Somebody gets the trophy, sure. But there is no process that actually finds the best team. Why even have a playoff if only 50 or so teams even have the option to win it, and now it seems it’s not even a level decision on who gets in? The blue bloods are the ones that get to play for it. 50 of 130 teams have a chance, and about 20 of those 50 will ever realistically get in.

It looks like we are on the same page as far as the title of this thread is concerned.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Then at best, we get a subjective NC. Nobody “wins” it....ever. Bama, Clemson, OK, etc included. It’s an empty championship. Might as well go back to the polls instead of window dressing this as some better system.

Somebody gets the trophy, sure. But there is no process that actually finds the best team. Why even have a playoff if only 50 or so teams even have the option to win it, and now it seems it’s not even a level decision on who gets in? The blue bloods are the ones that get to play for it. 50 of 130 teams have a chance, and about 20 of those 50 will ever realistically get in.

It looks like we are on the same page as far as the title of this thread is concerned.

Over a hundred years of college football history should give a fair analysis of what the future looks like. We will always have exceptions, but you're looking at the rule.

You do realize that humans can only be "subjective" in every other aspect of life as well, right? It's not just football that gets the human touch.

 

[rjd970]

Over a hundred years of college football history should give a fair analysis of what the future looks like. We will always have exceptions, but you're looking at the rule.

You do realize that humans can only be "subjective" in every other aspect of life as well, right? It's not just football that gets the human touch.

BS. Real playoffs happen in other sports, including football. It’s based on records and on field play. It has established rules for getting in. At the end of the season it crowns a winner, and how a certain team did is not based on the previous season, much less what they did 10 years ago. And there are no exceptions to the “rule”.