Can someone calm my fears?

[Frog Attack II]

Good grief this is a beating... For those that are "worried" / "scared to death" / need "calming of fears" Listen, they don't like Baylor... They like TCU... pretty darn obvious.  They ranked us over Bama for God's sake last night... If you can't see that you are blind.
 
if we don't F it up, we're in (unless we get passed by another SEC team). Did you watch the show last night and hear them literally say that the folks in the top 6 are in control of their own destiny.  Period - that's it...
 
The other guys need help.
 
Even though they denied it, it's obvious they are sending a message (per Herbstreit's comments) that they aren't going to let that kind of an OOC schedule in unless there are major changes to the success of the 6 above them.
 
if we lose or stumble, we're out. Period.  That's what some of you folks need to be worried about... Beat UT in Austin on Thanksgiving... If you need something to worry about, use that. 

 

[Gehörnter Frosch]

 
The chairman was asked why TCU over Baylor, his answer?
 
TCU has 2 wins vs. ranked opponents while Baylor has 1. TCU had a better resume and they did not have to use head to head.
 
Lets say at the end of the season. Wins over ranked teams:
 
TCU - Kstate
Baylor - Kstate, TCU
 
THAT in itself may equalize the "resume" or "body of work" 
 
Then they go to head to head. TCU is screwed.
 
Wouldn't this look better:
TCU - Kstate, WVU
Baylor - Kstate, TCU
 
TCU still has a better resume, no need for head to head.

 
Exactly what I have been saying.
 
But to complicate things further, TCU doesn't just have a Baylor problem, TCU might just have a "Top 25 Wins" problem.
 
I know this is long, so if you want to skip ahead to the conclusion, I outline what TCU needs to have happen to be assured of a Top 4 spot in the final poll. 
 
Otherwise, read along at your own peril. 
 
Her's the problem, folks.  Before worrying about beating Baylor into the Top 4, TCU has to beat the field to even be in the Top 5.  Yes, TCU is there now, but it's because TCU has 2 "Top 25 Wins" (T25) as of right now.  Clearly, the Committee is not using a static model each week.  When compared against the other Top 6 teams vying tor the Top 4 spots in the final rankings, if there are more than 3 undefeated and/or one-loss teams with one (or more) T25, and TCU doesn't have a single T25 on their resume, Baylor would literally be the least of our worries.  The other teams at the top have resumes that will include multiple T25.  This is clearly one metric the committee is weighing heavily.
 
So here's what TCU needs to have happen in order to assure at least 2, hopefully 3, T25 as of the final rankings:
 
Ideally, WVU wins out, beating KSU in a squeaker.  WVU hopefully winds up #25 in the final rankings.  +1 T25 for TCU.
 
Meanwhile, KSU beats Kansas and Baylor to make it back into the Top 25.  +1 T25 for TCU, and takes care of any Baylor problem.
 
Up north, Minnesota wins 2 or 3 between Ohio State, Nebraska and Wisconsin, and finishes in the Top 25.  +1 more T25 for TCU, and additional SOS points to boot.  Also takes care of any B1G problems.
 
In the end, TCU would have 3 T25 and 1 -T25 (Baylor loss).  That will be good enough for the final Top 4, because only either (Oregon or Arizona State), and (Mississippi State or Alabama), and FSU can finish with more than 3 T25 and only 1 -T25.  The best the B1G can do is 2 T25.  Once you drop into the group of 2 (or even 1) T25, the field opens up a lot.  This includes several teams from the B1G and Baylor.  The last place you want to be is in the group of ZERO T25.  Right now, TCU is where they are because of 2 T25.  If those go away, then all bets are off.  It is easy to see a path where TCU has ZERO T25 Wins.
 
And don't think that if FSU drops a game then they are automatically out.  That is a false cushion, and here's why:  If Louisville beats Notre Dame, but Notre Dame beats Northwestern and USC, then Notre Dame and Louisville would both be in the final Top 25, giving FSU 3 T25.  If they go on the beat Duke in the ACC Champ Game, and Duke stays in the Top 25, then FSU would finish with 4 T25.  Granted, their loss would have to be against a non-Top 25 team, but will the Committee view a team that is 3-1 vs. Top 25 (TCU) as better, worse, or equal to a team that is 4-0 vs. Top 25, with 1 loss vs. non-Top 25?  Who knows, but the point remains that TCU needs help.
 
The bottom line:  TCU needs "Top 25 Wins".  The following primer outlines best case scenario:
 
Minnesota:  Win at least 2 of 3 games remaining (vs. Ohio State, @Nebraska, @Wisconsin); Minny's record would be 10-2 or 9-3 and they would be in Final Top 25; Also takes care of any lingering B1G problems
 
WVU:  Win all remaining game (vs. K-State, @ Iowa State); 8-4 WVU hopefully in Final Top 25
 
K-State:  Lose @ WVU; Win vs. Kansas; Win @ Baylor; 9-3 K-State in Final Top 25
 
Baylor:  Win vs. Oklahoma State; Win @ Texas Tech; Lose vs. K-State; 10-2 Baylor in Final Top 25
 
TCU:  Win all remaining games (@ Kansas, @ Texas, vs. Iowa State)
 
TCU's Resume
11-1 Record
Sole Conference Champions
3 "Top 25 Wins" (2 if WVU doesn't crack the top 25)
1 "Top 25" loss
 
That firmly puts TCU in the final Top 4 along with similar resumes (e.g., Alabama or Mississippi St., Oregon or Arizona State, & FSU).  Anything short of that, and there are a whole host of problems present, including Baylor.

 

[TX_Krötenechse]

Last week Bama had zero T25 wins and one T10 loss. TCU had two T25 wins and one T15 loss. Bama was ahead of TCU.

Top 25 wins and losses are not the sole determining factor. Calm down.

 

[Gehörnter Frosch]

Last week Bama had zero T25 wins and one T10 loss. TCU had two T25 wins and one T15 loss. Bama was ahead of TCU.

Top 25 wins and losses are not the sole determining factor. Calm down.

 
I'm very calm, but you do raise a fair point.
 
Because I deal with metrics, statistics and relative stack-rankings for a living, there are certain aspects of what the Committee has done/said that lead me to believe my assessment above is correct.
 
To your point about Alabama, my semi-educated guess is that the Committee's plan called for a line in the sand to occur (after their initial rankings) at which point they would then consider the "Top 25" statistically valid for qualifying "a Top 25 Win" as a T25, thus giving credit for those wins.
 
That's why, before this week, they referenced things like "eyeball test" when explaining relative rankings.  Now, this week, they are using their own model to calibrate and compare subsequent activity, while simultaneously using it as an objective (arguable) filter to look-back at previous results throughout the season.

 

[Capt John Mason SAS]

Some of you guys are a beating.  A week ago, Long's interview discussed the "eye test"  This week, he make ONE comment (in a very short interview) about wins versus the current top-25 and people act like that is the only metric that matters now.  
 
In a different interview that has been published in numerous places, Long also pointed out BU's loss to an unranked team as having an effect on their ranking.

 

[Gehörnter Frosch]

Some of you guys are a beating.  A week ago, Long's interview discussed the "eye test"  This week, he make ONE comment (in a very short interview) about wins versus the current top-25 and people act like that is the only metric that matters now.  
 
In a different interview that has been published in numerous places, Long also pointed out BU's loss to an unranked team as having an effect on their ranking.

 
Imagine you are a hiring manager with 4 identical sales executive positions available.  Five resumes sit on your desk, and you must make a hiring decision based only on the information in front of you.  Which of the following internal candidates would hold up against HR, Legal and public scrutiny if subjected to an open-records review after being hired?
 
2014 Job Performance
 
Candidate A

• Top Sales Associate:  Region 1
• 12 New Accounts Gained:  33% are Fortune 250 Companies
• 0 Accounts Lost

Candidate B

• Top Sales Associate:  Region 2
• 12 New Accounts Gained:  25% are Fortune 250 Companies
• 0 Accounts Lost

Candidate C

• Top Sales Associate:  Region 3
• 11 New Accounts Gained:  18% are Fortune 250 Companies
• 1 Account Lost to a Fortune 250 Competitor

Candidate D

• Top Sales Associate Region 4
• 11 New Accounts Gained:  18% are Fortune 250 Companies
• 1 Account Lost to a Fortune 250 Competitor

Candidate E

• Top Sales Associate in Region 5
• 11 New Accounts Gained:  0% are Fortune 250 Companies
• 1 Account Lost to a Fortune 250 Competitor

Obviously, in the real world, you would interview them all and rank them according to both objective and subjective criteria.  You'd look at many other factors.  But in the end, you would need a compelling case to take Candidate E over any of the other 4, even though Candidate E is clearly qualified (that's why he/she is in the pool to begin with).
 
And so all I am saying is, TCU is better served by having at least one Top 25 win on the resume.  The more the better.  It's not about emotion or being irrational; rather, it is quite the opposite.

 

[DeuceBoogieNights]

TCU moved up 2 spots by clobbering #7 Kansas State. How will Baylor move up 3+ spots with a win over a lower ranked opponent? Baylor only has one notable game left and I dont see them getting a huge bump from it unless they win 99-0.
 
TCU doesnt need a bump. They just have to sustain and win.

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

 
Imagine you are a hiring manager with 4 identical sales executive positions available.  Five resumes sit on your desk, and you must make a hiring decision based only on the information in front of you.  Which of the following internal candidates would hold up against HR, Legal and public scrutiny if subjected to an open-records review after being hired?
 
2014 Job Performance
 
Candidate A

• Top Sales Associate:  Region 1
• 12 New Accounts Gained:  33% are Fortune 250 Companies
• 0 Accounts Lost

Candidate B

• Top Sales Associate:  Region 2
• 12 New Accounts Gained:  25% are Fortune 250 Companies
• 0 Accounts Lost

Candidate C

• Top Sales Associate:  Region 3
• 11 New Accounts Gained:  18% are Fortune 250 Companies
• 1 Account Lost to a Fortune 250 Competitor

Candidate D

• Top Sales Associate Region 4
• 11 New Accounts Gained:  18% are Fortune 250 Companies
• 1 Account Lost to a Fortune 250 Competitor

Candidate E

• Top Sales Associate in Region 5
• 11 New Accounts Gained:  0% are Fortune 250 Companies
• 1 Account Lost to a Fortune 250 Competitor

Obviously, in the real world, you would interview them all and rank them according to both objective and subjective criteria.  You'd look at many other factors.  But in the end, you would need a compelling case to take Candidate E over any of the other 4, even though Candidate E is clearly qualified (that's why he/she is in the pool to begin with).
 
And so all I am saying is, TCU is better served by having at least one Top 25 win on the resume.  The more the better.  It's not about emotion or being irrational; rather, it is quite the opposite.

 

[frognutz]

 
I'm very calm, but you do raise a fair point.
 
Because I deal with metrics, statistics and relative stack-rankings for a living, there are certain aspects of what the Committee has done/said that lead me to believe my assessment above is correct.
 
To your point about Alabama, my semi-educated guess is that the Committee's plan called for a line in the sand to occur (after their initial rankings) at which point they would then consider the "Top 25" statistically valid for qualifying "a Top 25 Win" as a T25, thus giving credit for those wins.
 
That's why, before this week, they referenced things like "eyeball test" when explaining relative rankings.  Now, this week, they are using their own model to calibrate and compare subsequent activity, while simultaneously using it as an objective (arguable) filter to look-back at previous results throughout the season.

Can you speak dumb? Read twice still lost....

 

[Capt John Mason SAS]

 
 
Candidate D

• Top Sales Associate Region 4
• 11 New Accounts Gained:  18% are Fortune 250 Companies
• 1 Account Lost to the guy down the hall who got fired because he could only open 6 accounts (5 of which were from guys who were fired for even worse performance)

Candidate E

• Top Sales Associate in Region 5
• 11 New Accounts Gained:  9% are Fortune 250 Companies
• 1 Account Lost to Candidate D, but just barely, because of some home cooking.  Candidate E had the account locked up, but Candidate D made a last ditch effort and his dad made a call.

 

 
 
Well, i expect KSU to beat WVU and stay ranked, so I fixed it for you

 

[Rolex]

Last week Bama had zero T25 wins and one T10 loss. TCU had two T25 wins and one T15 loss. Bama was ahead of TCU.

Top 25 wins and losses are not the sole determining factor. Calm down.

 
This.  To add - TCU was determined to be #4 and Baylor #7 long before Minnesota was ever set as the 25th best team in their rankings (you can review their methodology for rankings somewhere).  Basically, the committee had no clue how many "Top 25" wins either school had until their rankings were finalized.  It was this week's talking point.
 
Next week, it will probably be something else.

 

[Capt John Mason SAS]

 
This.  To add - TCU was determined to be #4 and Baylor #7 long before Minnesota was ever set as the 25th best team in their rankings (you can review their methodology for rankings somewhere).  Basically, the committee had no clue how many "Top 25" wins either school had until their rankings were finalized.  It was this week's talking point.
 
Next week, it will probably be something else.

 
While I have been making the same point about them not looking solely at T25 wins, they pick the top 25 teams first in no order, and then slot them.  So while TCU was slotted at #4 first, Minnesota had already been determined to be a T25 team.

 

[dweller]

I found it interesting that Baylor beat number OU while they were ranked in the top 15, but beat them so bad they dropped out of the rankings and are now not considered a quality win. If Baylor had won by a closer score then OU would still be ranked and boost their T25 wins. :blink:

 

[Gehörnter Frosch]

 
This.  To add - TCU was determined to be #4 and Baylor #7 long before Minnesota was ever set as the 25th best team in their rankings (you can review their methodology for rankings somewhere).  Basically, the committee had no clue how many "Top 25" wins either school had until their rankings were finalized.  It was this week's talking point.
 
Next week, it will probably be something else.

 
That's exactly the point.  The Committee is using it's own rankings, and until two weeks ago, no Committee rankings existed.  Last week, their rankings weren't valid in terms of assigning "Top 25 Wins" or "Top 25 Losses", because the sample size wasn't large enough.  Their Top 25 list was comprised by subjective things, such as the ubiquitous "eyeball test."
 
This week, they now have enough foundation to validate internal relativity within their own ranking system, and therefore introduced the notion of "Top 25 Wins" and "Top 25 Losses".
 
This isn't rocket science, folks.

 

[Gehörnter Frosch]

 
While I have been making the same point about them not looking solely at T25 wins, they pick the top 25 teams first in no order, and then slot them.  So while TCU was slotted at #4 first, Minnesota had already been determined to be a T25 team.

 
Thank you for being intellectually honest.  It is clear that the vast majority of people don't understand that the Committee's first step each week is to identify the POOL of 25 teams that they deem are the best.  They then begin ranking them using qualitative and quantitative data, establishing groups of 6 teams teams at a time...from #1 to #25.
 
That's why being in the Top 6 is vital, and that's why, when compared against the final Top 6, you want your team to have some wins against the other 24 teams in the POOL.  Because you can damn sure bet that the other 5 teams in the Top 6 will.

 

[Rolex]

 
While I have been making the same point about them not looking solely at T25 wins, they pick the top 25 teams first in no order, and then slot them.  So while TCU was slotted at #4 first, Minnesota had already been determined to be a T25 team.

 
My bad

 

[texasrobster1997]

 
That's exactly the point.  The Committee is using it's own rankings, and until two weeks ago, no Committee rankings existed.  Last week, their rankings weren't valid in terms of assigning "Top 25 Wins" or "Top 25 Losses", because the sample size wasn't large enough.  Their Top 25 list was comprised by subjective things, such as the ubiquitous "eyeball test."
 
This week, they now have enough foundation to validate internal relativity within their own ranking system, and therefore introduced the notion of "Top 25 Wins" and "Top 25 Losses".
 
This isn't rocket science, folks.

I think the issue that can't be defined or quantified is our Baylor loss. We have a last second loss against a rival while playing away to a top ten team. This is the BEST loss of any one loss team IMO. The committee seems to be treating us as "almost" undefeated more than any other one loss team (as they should). This is the X factor that we can't quantify and should continue to work for us.

 

[BrewingFrog]

Gehornter, the answer to your H.R. Dilemma is easy: Hire the one with the biggest Brilesboobs.

 

[Gehörnter Frosch]

Can you speak dumb? Read twice still lost....

 
Sure.  Their first rankings were based almost entirely on relative subjectivity, using some objective data in the process.  In other words, they looked at data, film, scores, etc., but they couldn't include a component of "did Team A beat a higher ranked Team B"....because...well...they didn't have a precedent ranking to go by.
 
Now, their own rankings are being used as the de facto OBJECTIVE scale by which teams are compared relative to one another.
 
Think about it.  Before their first ranking, the Committee didn't have a ranking to reference...because they hadn't created one yet.  So in their initial release, it was primarily based on "what do we think."  Now, it is becoming more of an exercise in "what do we know", and part of their process includes "Has Team A beaten any of the other 24 in THIS WEEK's Pool of 25?"

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

 
Thank you for being intellectually honest.  It is clear that the vast majority of people don't understand that the Committee's first step each week is to identify the POOL of 25 teams that they deem are the best. 
 

Not correct. Each individual member ranks their own individual top 25. Any team on 3 or more lists remains in play for the voting process. They do not collectively determine the top 25 in advance of the ranking process.