What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

2017 College Football Thread: Hawaiian QB devastated to find out Jesus was "kinda rooting for Georgia" (3 Viewers)

FreeBaGeL said:
:lmao:  at "33%" with a sample size of 2 games.

Like I said, I agree it's probably negative EV, but you're using some serious results bias here.  If OU had dropped another game this year that OSU win would probably still have gotten them in whereas without it they'd have had no chance.
Click to expand...
For ADs and head coaches, millions of dollars are based on these scheduling decisions. Even if the net negative is 1%, that's a HUGE motivation to not schedule OU/OSU type games. 

 
Politician Spock said:
For ADs and head coaches, millions of dollars are based on these scheduling decisions. Even if the net negative is 1%, that's a HUGE motivation to not schedule OU/OSU type games. 
Click to expand...
You're probably right.  We're just speculating based on wildly incomplete data though.  If OU had lost to Iowa instead of Ohio State this year then we'd be talking about 33% in their favor because they scheduled each other the last two years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL said:
We're just speculating based on wildly incomplete data though.  If OU had lost to Iowa instead of Ohio State this year then we'd be talking about 33% in their favor because they scheduled each other the last two years.
Click to expand...
If the #1 thing regarding the selection committee is, as Capella said it, "don't lose twice", then scheduling non-conference OSU/OU type games hurts more than it helps. Nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise. In fact, I think we agree on that.

This is why the playoff needs to be expanded, unless we are happy with a system where cupcake match ups are more valuable to ADs and head coaches than OSU/OU type match ups are. 

If the playoff was expanded to simply 6 teams and conference champs got an automatic bid, then the non-conference OSU/OU type match ups help the winner get the 6th spot if they don't win their conference championship. Likewise, the loser of these non-conference OU/OSU type games isn't hurt by them. The loser can simply go on to win their conference championship and they're in. If you expanded the playoff to 8 teams, then there are 3 spots for those non-conference champions, meaning those non-conference OSU/OU matchups help the winner even more, as they are three times more likely to help them get in if they don't win their conference championship (like Alabama this year). 

ETA: if the playoff this year were six teams with automatic conference champ bids, then this is what the playoff would look like:

#1 Clemson and #2 Oklahoma on a bye.

#6 USC vs #3 Georgia

#5 OSU vs #4 Alabama. 

Who would complain about that?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SHIZNITTTT said:
Linebacker Natrez Patrick was one of two Georgia players arrested late Saturday night on misdemeanor marijuana charges. Reserve receiver Jayson Stanley was arrested for DUI, misdemeanor possession of marijuana and speeding. It's Patrick's third...

blaze up for the win!
Click to expand...
Willie Taggart isn't the only reason kids from the south are coming to Oregon....

 
PlasmaDogPlasma said:
I know you understand how economically devastating that would be for the teams collecting the paychecks.

Either way, it's a different argument than you started with.

Arguing that the ACC and SEC should be forced to play 9 conference games like the other P5s would probably be something a lot of people would get behind. I know I'd like to go back to 2 cross-division rivals and play Auburn every year.
Click to expand...
I'd love it if Arkansas could get Kentucky every year.

 
Capella said:
You guys are focusing on the wrong thing. Penn State lost by 31 points last year. Ohio lost by like a billion. That's way worse than carrying an extra L. If you're just willing to ignore a giant loss like that I don't know what to say. 
Click to expand...
Bama was dominated by Auburn, the only really good team they played. Had Auburn not played in the SEC Championship game, they would be in the playoffs over Bama. Auburn played 4 games against the top 4 teams, winning 2 of them. Bama doesn't beat a team in the final top 10. Forget about OSU and USC. It's absurd that Bama is in over Auburn.

 
Hoosier16 said:
Bama was dominated by Auburn, the only really good team they played. Had Auburn not played in the SEC Championship game, they would be in the playoffs over Bama. Auburn played 4 games against the top 4 teams, winning 2 of them. Bama doesn't beat a team in the final top 10. Forget about OSU and USC. It's absurd that Bama is in over Auburn.
Click to expand...
When I told my wife Bama made it in her first reaction was "Over Auburn?" Not OSU. She's a smart cookie. She watched that abortion of a Big 10 championship game.

 
Odds to win national championship @LVSuperBook:
Alabama 2/1
Clemson 11/5
Oklahoma 11/4
Georgia 7/2

 
Politician Spock said:
If the #1 thing regarding the selection committee is, as Capella said it, "don't lose twice", then scheduling non-conference OSU/OU type games hurts more than it helps. Nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise. In fact, I think we agree on that.

This is why the playoff needs to be expanded, unless we are happy with a system where cupcake match ups are more valuable to ADs and head coaches than OSU/OU type match ups are. 

If the playoff was expanded to simply 6 teams and conference champs got an automatic bid, then the non-conference OSU/OU type match ups help the winner get the 6th spot if they don't win their conference championship. Likewise, the loser of these non-conference OU/OSU type games isn't hurt by them. The loser can simply go on to win their conference championship and they're in. If you expanded the playoff to 8 teams, then there are 3 spots for those non-conference champions, meaning those non-conference OSU/OU matchups help the winner even more, as they are three times more likely to help them get in if they don't win their conference championship (like Alabama this year). 
Click to expand...
The worst discussion we have every year is "the committee is telling us this" or "you have to do this".

Is the #1 thing "don't lose twice".  If Auburn had beaten Georgia yesterday then they'd probably not only be in, but be the #1 OVERALL SEED despite having two losses, based on the strength of their wins and losses.  So saying strong wins/losses don't matter and number of losses is all that counts is absurd.  Like I said, if OU had lost to Iowa instead of OSU they'd both be in and we'd be sitting here talking about how scheduling strong OOC games is all that matters.

That's the thing with all of this.  It's all fluid.  There are a ton of variables and they all line up differently every year, so they're all going to matter more or less every year just based on how the results pan out and compare to each other, not to mention the changing members of the committee. 

Trying to peg things down into "I guess conference championships don't matter" because a conference champ didn't make it or "I guess only losses matter" because it worked out that the teams with more losses didn't make it this year (like I said, we could have just as easily had a 2-loss team as the #1 overall seed this year) is just results based bunk.  Remember when we were all convinced that conference titles were THE most important thing because the big 12 teams got left out that year they didn't have a conference champion when there were 6 teams with very similar resumes?  Now people are just as convinced that conference titles are irrelevant.  The same goes for strong out of conference games, as teams have been punished for not scheduling those previously as well.

These things are all just one variable in a sea of many that will have varying degrees of importance based on how the teams finish and have the current year's committee values that.  I don't know why everyone is suddenly clamoring for some defined algorithm of "you have to have this and you can't have this".  We had that, it was called the BCS and everyone hated it.  So now we have a committee of people trying to objectively pick the 4 best teams using a whole sea of variables that may be more important one year than the next because of how things shake out.  I agree that Alabama shouldn't have gotten in this year and I don't think they would have if their name wasn't Alabama, so I think that's a failure in objectivity by the committee but that is going to happen regardless (in every proposed system people have suggested the last team in is an objective choice, just as it was here).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL said:
The worst discussion we have every year is "the committee is telling us this" or "you have to do this".

Is the #1 thing "don't lose twice".  If Auburn had beaten Georgia yesterday then they'd probably not only be in, but be the #1 OVERALL SEED despite having two losses, based on the strength of their wins and losses.  So saying strong wins/losses don't matter and number of losses is all that counts is absurd.  Like I said, if OU had lost to Iowa instead of OSU they'd both be in and we'd be sitting here talking about how scheduling strong OOC games is all that matters.

That's the thing with all of this.  It's all fluid.  There are a ton of variables and they all line up differently every year, so they're all going to matter more or less every year just based on how the results pan out and compare to each other, not to mention the changing members of the committee. 

Trying to peg things down into "I guess conference championships don't matter" because a conference champ didn't make it or "I guess only losses matter" because it worked out that the teams with more losses didn't make it this year (like I said, we could have just as easily had a 2-loss team as the #1 overall seed this year) is just results based bunk.  Remember when we were all convinced that conference titles were THE most important thing because the big 12 teams got left out that year they didn't have a conference champion when there were 6 teams with very similar resumes?  Now people are just as convinced that conference titles are irrelevant.  The same goes for strong out of conference games, as teams have been punished for not scheduling those previously as well.

These things are all just one variable in a sea of many that will have varying degrees of importance based on how the teams finish and have the current year's committee values that.  I don't know why everyone is suddenly clamoring for some defined algorithm of "you have to have this and you can't have this".  We had that, it was called the BCS and everyone hated it.  So now we have a committee of people trying to objectively pick the 4 best teams using a whole sea of variables that may be more important one year than the next because of how things shake out.  I agree that Alabama shouldn't have gotten in this year and I don't think they would have if their name wasn't Alabama, so I think that's a failure in objectivity by the committee but that is going to happen regardless (in every proposed system people have suggested the last team in is an objective choice, just as it was here).
Click to expand...
  :goodposting: Seriously. This isn't that hard. It's baffling to me that people always bring up different seasons today. 

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Is the #1 thing "don't lose twice". 
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. They've said it with their actions two years in a row now, by letting in two 1 loss teams without a a conference championship over four two loss teams with conference championships.

In 2016, I thought their reasoning was because OSU had so many big wins, but by taking Alabama it's clear that wasn't their reasoning. They've sent the message that losses hurt more than big wins and/or conference championships help. Don't lose twice.

You can say Auburn is proof that this isn't true, but Auburn didn't happen. 

 
We need to get out of the mindset of "losses" and focus on wins.  Teams that beat good teams should be rewarded more than punishing someone for a loss.  Encourage bigger games.

 
Politician Spock said:
Yes, it is. They've said it with their actions two years in a row now, by letting in two 1 loss teams without a a conference championship over four two loss teams with conference championships.

In 2016, I thought their reasoning was because OSU had so many big wins, but by taking Alabama it's clear that wasn't their reasoning. They've sent the message that losses hurt more than big wins and/or conference championships help. Don't lose twice.

You can say Auburn is proof that this isn't true, but Auburn didn't happen. 
Click to expand...
Dude. The message they sent after 2016 is those were the four teams they wanted in the playoff. The message they sent this year is these are the four teams. That's it. There is no consistent reasoning year to year, nor should there be. 

 
FreeBaGeL said:
And conference champion Ohio State as well?
Click to expand...
If the playoff took five teams, then sure.

If the playoff took six teams, then USC has a better win resume than Alabama too.

If we went to an 8 team playoff, then Alabama's win resume would be good enough. 

 
FreeBaGeL said:
And conference champion Ohio State as well?
Click to expand...
I would have no problem with that.  Ohio St doesn't exactly have a ton of big wins.  Auburn does.  But at least Ohio State did win a conference if they got in over Auburn.  I just hate this whole idea of fewest losses to rank teams.

ETA:  I also don't think teams should be penalized for losing conference championship games especially in favor of someone not even playing in one.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moe. said:
Dude. The message they sent after 2016 is those were the four teams they wanted in the playoff. The message they sent this year is these are the four teams. That's it. There is no consistent reasoning year to year, nor should there be. 




 
Click to expand...
I don't agree.   I think that teams/coaches/administrators all should know what exactly it is that will and will not get you into the playoffs.   I think allowing teams to schedule DIV II schools, and other cupcakes should hurt.   Maybe some sort of point system has to be reached.  +1 point for scheduling DIV schools, and 0.5 points for non DIV schools.  Scheduling teams that have beein the top 20 in the past 5 years is worth 1.5 points.  In case of a tie maybe we could use GPA of the team as the final point?   I mean if we are worried about the student-athletes. 

 
Politician Spock said:
If the playoff took five teams, then sure.

If the playoff took six teams, then USC has a better win resume than Alabama too.

If we went to an 8 team playoff, then Alabama's win resume would be good enough. 
Click to expand...
The playoff takes 4 teams.  Who is your 4th team if you kick Bama out.  OSU or Auburn?

 
Moe. said:
Dude. The message they sent after 2016 is those were the four teams they wanted in the playoff. The message they sent this year is these are the four teams. That's it. There is no consistent reasoning year to year, nor should there be. 
Click to expand...
You and others keep saying this, but it's simply not true.

From: http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/documents/2017/10/20//CFP_Selection_Committee_Protocol.pdf?id=23

  • Championships won
  • Strength of schedule
  • Head to head competition (if it occurred)
  • Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)
Click to expand...
This is the narrative that they publish.... but their actions ignore it. 

 
FreeBaGeL said:
The playoff takes 4 teams.  Who is your 4th team if you kick Bama out.  OSU or Auburn?
Click to expand...
Auburn has the bigger wins, but OSU has the conference championship. I would be fine with either. 

Selecting Alabama makes them hypocrites given what they've published as their criteria. 

Again, I'm glad OSU won't get smashed in the playoff, but I love how this decision exposes the existing hypocrisy. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wingnut
Daniel Day-Lewis is back! The GOAT seeks fourth Oscar for Best Actor in new film Anenome
Replies
0
Views
124
Wingnut
Wingnut
Chadstroma
Brain Storm Help with a Youth Football Program
Replies
28
Views
827
Chadstroma
Chadstroma
General Malaise
Can you remember a time in your life when you were totally free of stress? - White Lotus Inspired
2 3
Replies
120
Views
4K
General Malaise
General Malaise

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top