• The KillerFrogs

Was 2014 CFP Snub Pivotal Long Term?

Wexahu

Full Member
Not ignoring margin of victory. To me "margin of victory", "game control", and "eye test" are all different ways of saying the same thing. It's how dominant one team was over another team.

I disagree though about ranked wins because without that there is no real way to distinguish between the "quality" of opponents. In theory the ranking reflects a team's abilities and season accomplishments. If we don't have rankings then we'd have to be relying on tradition and a program's brand, and none of us here agree with that. I'd be the first to agree that the rankings are screwed up a lot of times, but under the current system it's the best we've got.

Why use the top 25? Why not 20? Or 35? Or 15? It’s stupid. It just so happens that the top ranked team your Baylor Bears have beaten is ranked #25, so obviously that’s why you want to emphasize that. Never mind that Utah has beaten their opponents by about an average of 10 ppg more, or that Baylor had arguably the worst OOC schedule in college football. What was the record of your two G5 opponents?
 

BearlyAFrog

Active Member
Why use the top 25? Why not 20? Or 35? Or 15? It’s stupid. It just so happens that the top ranked team your Baylor Bears have beaten is ranked #25, so obviously that’s why you want to emphasize that. Never mind that Utah has beaten their opponents by about an average of 10 ppg more, or that Baylor had arguably the worst OOC schedule in college football. What was the record of your two G5 opponents?

I think you're trying to make an argument where there is none. I don't take issue with using the top 20 or 35 or 15. In all of those scenarios the Big-12 would have a better candidate than the Pac-12.

I do take exception with using margin of victory as a metric. Before the SEC bought into some Big-12 offensive concepts they (and the Big-10) would routinely spend 3 hours to beat their opponents 17-10. I think most here would agree that Gary would be perfectly content winning every game by a touch down or less. The point is that offensive production is a matter of coaching preference and scheme. I think the more important metric would be if you won your games or not.

There is always this perpetual myth about strength of schedule. You make the case against people picking their argument points and ignoring the facts that don't suit the narrative, but you're doing the exact same thing. Why focus on OOC schedule and not the entirety of a season? Baylor ranks 33rd in SOS. Baylor ranks 5th in FPI (which I don't even know what the hell that means but fifth seems pretty good).

Anyway, my argument is not a Baylor VS Utah argument, it is more of a Big-12 VS Pac-12 argument. I feel a 1 loss Big-12 Champion would be a better representative this season than a 1 loss Pac-12 Champion. All that being said, we shouldn't be having this discussion as all of the P5 champions should have an opportunity to play for the championship.
 

LSU Game Attendee

Active Member
Anyway, my argument is not a Baylor VS Utah argument, it is more of a Big-12 VS Pac-12 argument. I feel a 1 loss Big-12 Champion would be a better representative this season than a 1 loss Pac-12 Champion.
1) Pac 12 will get a nudge because that conference is overdue to be included to keep some west coast support up for the CFP
2) A 1 loss B12 champion Baylor does not equal a 1 loss B12 champion Oklahoma, and it's not even close. In the national consciousness, BU is a flash in the pan that still carries the rancid smell of institutional rape enablement.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
I do take exception with using margin of victory as a metric.

Of course you do. Why? Because that metric doesn't support what you're trying to prove. If Baylor had averaged giving up 11 ppg and had beaten teams by a significantly higher average margin than the teams it's being compared to that's what you'd be focusing on. Why not reference the attached composite computer rankings that has Utah #6, OU #7, and Baylor #12?

Thanks for proving my point over and over in this thread.

https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
 

Mean Purple

Active Member
not sure I agree but I can sympathize. I do think they need to change the playoff selection process into something that’s consistent that programs can anticipate and prepare for. This weekly game of committees moving the goalposts is a farce.
for sure. what seems to go on with that committee is a lot of conjecture. Dump the committee and pick the top 4 or 8 using the old bcs model. I think it would be more assuring to folks. because that committee goes against their own rational from one week to the next. obviously, how team's opponents finish change the strength from week to week, but the debate of quality wins vs quality losses is all over the map. especially when some claimed quality losses are garbage (added that when it is used in a choice between two teams who had the same common opponent and the left out team played the common opponent far better).
 

Mean Purple

Active Member
1) Pac 12 will get a nudge because that conference is overdue to be included to keep some west coast support up for the CFP
2) A 1 loss B12 champion Baylor does not equal a 1 loss B12 champion Oklahoma, and it's not even close. In the national consciousness, BU is a flash in the pan that still carries the rancid smell of institutional rape enablement.
So far, at this point of the season, UTAH just wins the eye test better. Oregon is not a bad team and they will have their hands full with them. But if they win, I think they are in. I think if Oregon played OU or baylor, Oregon would likely win. I just think our conference is down this season. a lot of sloppy ball being played.
 

ShadowFrog

Moderators
for sure. what seems to go on with that committee is a lot of conjecture. Dump the committee and pick the top 4 or 8 using the old bcs model. I think it would be more assuring to folks. because that committee goes against their own rational from one week to the next. obviously, how team's opponents finish change the strength from week to week, but the debate of quality wins vs quality losses is all over the map. especially when some claimed quality losses are garbage (added that when it is used in a choice between two teams who had the same common opponent and the left out team played the common opponent far better).
Concur, and if the result is not the one they really want and just like before, they keep re-voting until the final result is the one they already had in mind.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
for sure. what seems to go on with that committee is a lot of conjecture. Dump the committee and pick the top 4 or 8 using the old bcs model. I think it would be more assuring to folks. because that committee goes against their own rational from one week to the next. obviously, how team's opponents finish change the strength from week to week, but the debate of quality wins vs quality losses is all over the map. especially when some claimed quality losses are garbage (added that when it is used in a choice between two teams who had the same common opponent and the left out team played the common opponent far better).

I'd be fine with that, but I don't think it would change anything about the fact that if it doesn't work out the way you want it to, you're going to think it's BS and want it changed. And vice versa. Generally speaking, not directing that at you.

Most people hated when computers decided things. "Why are we letting something that can't even watch a game determine who the best teams are!"
 

Mean Purple

Active Member
Concur, and if the result is not the one they really want and just like before, they keep re-voting until the final result is the one they already had in mind.
seems to be that way. the odd jumps and drops you seem in teams who are the "wins" for the top 6 teams looks like they are just reverse engineering the data to support the desired outcome at times.
 

Mean Purple

Active Member
I'd be fine with that, but I don't think it would change anything about the fact that if it doesn't work out the way you want it to, you're going to think it's BS and want it changed. And vice versa. Generally speaking, not directing that at you.

Most people hated when computers decided things. "Why are we letting something that can't even watch a game determine who the best teams are!"
I can see your point. but those committees have not been watching these teams all year. They can say they have, but folks know the reality of that.
 

BearlyAFrog

Active Member
Of course you do. Why? Because that metric doesn't support what you're trying to prove. If Baylor had averaged giving up 11 ppg and had beaten teams by a significantly higher average margin than the teams it's being compared to that's what you'd be focusing on. Why not reference the attached composite computer rankings that has Utah #6, OU #7, and Baylor #12?

Thanks for proving my point over and over in this thread.

https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

I would also have no problem using those rankings as the official criteria for selection. Again, you're looking for an argument where there is none. There are lots of different ways to look at it. Points per game has OU 6th, Utah 14th, and BU 23rd. Margin of victory has Utah 5th, OU 12th, BU 15th. As I keep typing these rankings out I keep running into the same team near the top of the lists: Alabama. If we're using game control and eye test and the rankings don't matter much, then Alabama should be in. No one here is going to argue that they're not a great team and no one here would argue that they couldn't beat OU, Utah, or BU more often than not. At the end of the day, a decision will need to be made and if the decision making criteria was clear and objective then we wouldn't have a problem. We also wouldn't have a need for the hours of pundit conjecture and an entire cable television show dedicated to the revealing of some rankings.
 

BearlyAFrog

Active Member
The idea that we need to put the "best" teams in is stupid anyway. It's only a thing because there is no formalized playoff system like literally every other sport has. It doesn't matter who the best is, it matters who wins the game played on the field. Baylor beat TCU, but no one thinks for a second that TCU couldn't have won that game, or the West Virginia game, or really any of the other games this season. It's not about stats and eye tests, it's about winning. Either you win or you don't. If we're just going boil it down to stats then we should just assign Bowl Games based on recruiting classes.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
I would also have no problem using those rankings as the official criteria for selection. Again, you're looking for an argument where there is none. There are lots of different ways to look at it. Points per game has OU 6th, Utah 14th, and BU 23rd. Margin of victory has Utah 5th, OU 12th, BU 15th. As I keep typing these rankings out I keep running into the same team near the top of the lists: Alabama. If we're using game control and eye test and the rankings don't matter much, then Alabama should be in. No one here is going to argue that they're not a great team and no one here would argue that they couldn't beat OU, Utah, or BU more often than not. At the end of the day, a decision will need to be made and if the decision making criteria was clear and objective then we wouldn't have a problem. We also wouldn't have a need for the hours of pundit conjecture and an entire cable television show dedicated to the revealing of some rankings.

I wouldn't say noone here but I agree. If Alabama played any of those three teams tomorrow I'd take Bama in every game and not think twice about it. Might even give a lot of points in a couple of them.

Nevertheless, by the criteria they do use (and they do have a criteria even if nobody understands that) , Baylor doesn't really have a path unless they win, LSU wins, and Utah loses. There really is no logical argument to be made unless those three things happen.
 

puckster59

Active Member
B12 teams will always be at a disadvantage under this system due to the round robin, need to win twice championship path we’ve created. Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE our conference as it is and don’t want to expand, but until the playoffs include 8 instead of 4 we’ll always be at a disadvantage.

My belief is that it's not necessarily the Big 12 as much as it is the blue blood mentality. If Oklahoma wins Saturday, I think they go (as long as Georgia doesn't win). If Baylor does, I think there's a better chance they get screwed simply because they're not in the club.
 
Top