Fran believes we should be ranked

[OttoinGrotto]

I don’t disagree with bama, Miami would get smacked by bama, that said everything else is spot on

So what?

We can't give credit to teams for hypothetical victories.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The B10/SEC bias is absolutely disgusting

People are starting to take notice too as well and call them out on it.

Booger was making an argument last night now some of the Top 5 teams aren’t worthy of the spot and basically got blasted by the rest of the crew.

Very sad to see but had to know it was coming as ESPN refuses to put the ACC on anything other than ACCN/ESPN2/CW/ACCNX it seems for most weeks

We were blessed with that Miami game on ESPN

I keep bringing this up in other threads, and people keep telling me I'm wrong, but my cohort ranking concept solves for this.

If any of you posters haven't yet witnessed my genius, the cohort concept is very simple - teams cannot be ranked lower than a team that has more losses than they do, and teams are only ranked relative to teams that have an equal number of losses.* Also, if teams happen to play each other, that result matters a lot. Conference affiliation and pre-season ranking biases evaporate.

So let's look at the rankings and how they would work using the cohort ranking system:

1. Oregon - best undefeated resume, has the most wins
2. Indiana - better undefeated resume than Army, 1 more win than Army, 1 fewer than Oregon
3. Army - last remaining unbeaten to rank
4. Ohio St. - best loss among 1 loss teams with solid wins
5. Boise St. - shares best loss among 1 loss teams, has some quality wins
6. Texas - next best loss among 1 loss teams with solid wins
7. BYU - bad loss among 1 loss teams but has head to head over SMU
8. SMU - only loss is to BYU just ahead of them, mehish wins
9. Miami - bad loss, mehish wins
10. Notre Dame - slightly worse loss, mehish wins
11. Penn St. - respectable loss but wins are all crap, also I'll see all of these enablers of child abuse in Hell
12. Pick an 8-2 SEC team I guess, whatever

Now, without using a hypothetical or applying some unknown criteria to benefit a team that you aren't applying to another, or using something imaginary like a betting line, or drawing on something entirely subjective like pre-season ranking, or giving unearned weight to conference affiliation,tell me the how the above is wrong.

You cain't.

You cain't.

And I know people are crapping their pants saying Army is too high, but it. Does. Not. Matter. They've accomplished what only two other teams have, keeping a spotless record. That matters. And if they aren't all that, we'll find out before the season ends. And if they do run the table... they earned their spot.

Fight me.

*With the exception of conference championship games. Conference championships cannot count against a program, they only count in favor of a program. This is so teams don't get credit for avoiding a potential loss from a conference championship.

 

[sufandu]

The B10/SEC bias is absolutely disgusting

People are starting to take notice too as well and call them out on it.

Booger was making an argument last night now some of the Top 5 teams aren’t worthy of the spot and basically got blasted by the rest of the crew.

Very sad to see but had to know it was coming as ESPN refuses to put the ACC on anything other than ACCN/ESPN2/CW/ACCNX it seems for most weeks

We were blessed with that Miami game on ESPN

Wilbon has been saying it since for the first rankings were announced. It's nice hearing it from an admitted B1G supporter.

 

[sufandu]

So what?

We can't give credit to teams for hypothetical victories.

You kinda can and since the overlap of who plays who is so small compared to the pros you kind of have to. It's what the eye test is. The committee said from the beginning they would factor that in. It doesn't mean they're always right though.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I keep bringing this up in other threads, and people keep telling me I'm wrong, but my cohort ranking concept solves for this.

If any of you posters haven't yet witnessed my genius, the cohort concept is very simple - teams cannot be ranked lower than a team that has more losses than they do, and teams are only ranked relative to teams that have an equal number of losses.* Also, if teams happen to play each other, that result matters a lot. Conference affiliation and pre-season ranking biases evaporate.

So let's look at the rankings and how they would work using the cohort ranking system:

1. Oregon - best undefeated resume, has the most wins
2. Indiana - better undefeated resume than Army, 1 more win than Army, 1 fewer than Oregon
3. Army - last remaining unbeaten to rank
4. Ohio St. - best loss among 1 loss teams with solid wins
5. Boise St. - shares best loss among 1 loss teams, has some quality wins
6. Texas - next best loss among 1 loss teams with solid wins
7. BYU - bad loss among 1 loss teams but has head to head over SMU
8. SMU - only loss is to BYU just ahead of them, mehish wins
9. Miami - bad loss, mehish wins
10. Notre Dame - slightly worse loss, mehish wins
11. Penn St. - respectable loss but wins are all crap, also I'll see all of these enablers of child abuse in Hell
12. Pick an 8-2 SEC team I guess, whatever

Now, without using a hypothetical or applying some unknown criteria to benefit a team that you aren't applying to another, or using something imaginary like a betting line, or drawing on something entirely subjective like pre-season ranking, or giving unearned weight to conference affiliation,tell me the how the above is wrong.

You cain't.

You cain't.

And I know people are crapping their pants saying Army is too high, but it. Does. Not. Matter. They've accomplished what only two other teams have, keeping a spotless record. That matters. And if they aren't all that, we'll find out before the season ends. And if they do run the table... they earned their spot.

Fight me.

*With the exception of conference championship games. Conference championships cannot count against a program, they only count in favor of a program. This is so teams don't get credit for avoiding a potential loss from a conference championship.

You want to reward teams for playing a crap schedule. Makes for a great regular season.

The fact that the coaches are complaining about not wanting to play in the CG for fear of losing should be the mic drop against your argument.

 

[Cuse181]

So what?

We can't give credit to teams for hypothetical victories.

That’s all you can do when you’re ranking teams that don’t play eachother…

 

[Cuse181]

I keep bringing this up in other threads, and people keep telling me I'm wrong, but my cohort ranking concept solves for this.

If any of you posters haven't yet witnessed my genius, the cohort concept is very simple - teams cannot be ranked lower than a team that has more losses than they do, and teams are only ranked relative to teams that have an equal number of losses.* Also, if teams happen to play each other, that result matters a lot. Conference affiliation and pre-season ranking biases evaporate.

So let's look at the rankings and how they would work using the cohort ranking system:

1. Oregon - best undefeated resume, has the most wins
2. Indiana - better undefeated resume than Army, 1 more win than Army, 1 fewer than Oregon
3. Army - last remaining unbeaten to rank
4. Ohio St. - best loss among 1 loss teams with solid wins
5. Boise St. - shares best loss among 1 loss teams, has some quality wins
6. Texas - next best loss among 1 loss teams with solid wins
7. BYU - bad loss among 1 loss teams but has head to head over SMU
8. SMU - only loss is to BYU just ahead of them, mehish wins
9. Miami - bad loss, mehish wins
10. Notre Dame - slightly worse loss, mehish wins
11. Penn St. - respectable loss but wins are all crap, also I'll see all of these enablers of child abuse in Hell
12. Pick an 8-2 SEC team I guess, whatever

Now, without using a hypothetical or applying some unknown criteria to benefit a team that you aren't applying to another, or using something imaginary like a betting line, or drawing on something entirely subjective like pre-season ranking, or giving unearned weight to conference affiliation,tell me the how the above is wrong.

You cain't.

You cain't.

And I know people are crapping their pants saying Army is too high, but it. Does. Not. Matter. They've accomplished what only two other teams have, keeping a spotless record. That matters. And if they aren't all that, we'll find out before the season ends. And if they do run the table... they earned their spot.

Fight me.

*With the exception of conference championship games. Conference championships cannot count against a program, they only count in favor of a program. This is so teams don't get credit for avoiding a potential loss from a conference championship.

So liberty was a playoff team last year

 

[jncuse]

Have every "Big 4" team play 2 games against teams from other Big 4 conferences. One home, one road. These are randomly selected a year in advance. The conference that has the best winning % in these games will have the highest # of bids in the playoff - give them 4. That leaves 6 or 7 for the other 3 conferences.

This will also provide better level of connectivity that will make it easier to assess teams.. both with the eye test or formulaic algorithms.

If a school wants to play an extra game outside of those against a Big 4, say a rivalry game, that is swell as well and can be considered in their playoff resume, But it doesn't count in the standings to determine the best conference.

 

[sufandu]

I keep bringing this up in other threads, and people keep telling me I'm wrong, but my cohort ranking concept solves for this.

If any of you posters haven't yet witnessed my genius, the cohort concept is very simple - teams cannot be ranked lower than a team that has more losses than they do, and teams are only ranked relative to teams that have an equal number of losses.* Also, if teams happen to play each other, that result matters a lot. Conference affiliation and pre-season ranking biases evaporate.

So let's look at the rankings and how they would work using the cohort ranking system:

1. Oregon - best undefeated resume, has the most wins
2. Indiana - better undefeated resume than Army, 1 more win than Army, 1 fewer than Oregon
3. Army - last remaining unbeaten to rank
4. Ohio St. - best loss among 1 loss teams with solid wins
5. Boise St. - shares best loss among 1 loss teams, has some quality wins
6. Texas - next best loss among 1 loss teams with solid wins
7. BYU - bad loss among 1 loss teams but has head to head over SMU
8. SMU - only loss is to BYU just ahead of them, mehish wins
9. Miami - bad loss, mehish wins
10. Notre Dame - slightly worse loss, mehish wins
11. Penn St. - respectable loss but wins are all crap, also I'll see all of these enablers of child abuse in Hell
12. Pick an 8-2 SEC team I guess, whatever

Now, without using a hypothetical or applying some unknown criteria to benefit a team that you aren't applying to another, or using something imaginary like a betting line, or drawing on something entirely subjective like pre-season ranking, or giving unearned weight to conference affiliation,tell me the how the above is wrong.

You cain't.

You cain't.

And I know people are crapping their pants saying Army is too high, but it. Does. Not. Matter. They've accomplished what only two other teams have, keeping a spotless record. That matters. And if they aren't all that, we'll find out before the season ends. And if they do run the table... they earned their spot.

Fight me.

*With the exception of conference championship games. Conference championships cannot count against a program, they only count in favor of a program. This is so teams don't get credit for avoiding a potential loss from a conference championship.

Blindly looking at W-L record without context in college doesn't work. There's too much variability in schedules. Army has played 1 team with a winning record (6-4), 1 other that is 5-5, and every other team has 2 or 3 wins. Their 9-0 record doesn't add up to a #3 ranking.

I don't know why people think sports can be simply boiled down to numbers. It can't. There's too much nuance. There have to be people that know how to watch teams and know what is quality play and what is crap and factor that in to the numbers they also have to consider.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

You want to reward teams for playing a crap schedule. Makes for a great regular season.

The fact that the coaches are complaining about not wanting to play in the CG for fear of losing should be the mic drop against your argument.

1, no, I want to reward teams that win instead of playing imaginary logic games justifying losing. And news flash, going undefeated against a crap schedule is really hard. You don't see it often. It should be rewarded when it happens. Having 12 playoff spots allows for it.

2, you either didn't read and understand what I said about how under the cohort ranking championship game results can only benefit a program's standing for earning the right to compete in another challenging game, or were in such a hurry to try and make a point I already addressed that you just didn't acknowledge it.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

So liberty was a playoff team last year

Under a 12 team playoff structure tell me why that would have been a problem.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Blindly looking at W-L record without context in college doesn't work. There's too much variability in schedules. Army has played 1 team with a winning record (6-4), 1 other that is 5-5, and every other team has 2 or 3 wins. Their 9-0 record doesn't add up to a #3 ranking.

I don't know why people think sports can be simply boiled down to numbers. It can't. There's too much nuance. There have to be people that know how to watch teams and know what is quality play and what is crap and factor that in to the numbers they also have to consider.

I didn't say to blindly look at W-L record. I said to rank teams within cohorts determined by having the same number of losses.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That’s all you can do when you’re ranking teams that don’t play eachother…

That's what happens due to common practice and everyone bending the knee to assumed SEC superiority, not because it's "all you can do."

I mean sports fans, take a second and consider when you're arguing against what I'm proposing, you're arguing in favor of what actually happens on the field being less important than whatever people "think" about teams. THAT COMPLETELY UNDERMINES THE ETHOS OF COMPETITIVE SPORTS.

 

[sufandu]

I didn't say to blindly look at W-L record. I said to rank teams within cohorts determined by having the same number of losses.

Still doesn't work. An undefeated team with a crap schedule isn't better than a team with a loss(es) that has played a quality schedule. Use your eyeballs and observe who plays the game better. If you don't understand the sport enough to do that, let the people that do understand it do it for you.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Still doesn't work. An undefeated team with a crap schedule isn't better than a team with a loss(es) that has played a quality schedule. Use your eyeballs and observe who plays the game better. If you don't understand the sport enough to do that, let the people that do understand it do it for you.

If the undefeated team with the crap schedule isn't better than a team with losses, that's going to resolve itself in the PLAYOFF, oh great sport eyeball observer.

I'm not annointing any team. The annointing is what the current system does. I'm looking to get the 12 most deserving teams based on the only objective standard, wins and losses, into the 12 team playoff, at which point we have a single elimination battle royale, and the last team standing at the end of it has EARNED the absolute right to being declared the champion.

What's wrong with that?

 

[sufandu]

That's what happens due to common practice and everyone bending the knee to assumed SEC superiority, not because it's "all you can do."

I mean sports fans, take a second and consider when you're arguing against what I'm proposing, you're arguing in favor of what actually happens on the field being less important than whatever people "think" about teams. THAT COMPLETELY UNDERMINES THE ETHOS OF COMPETITIVE SPORTS.

Loading a schedule with tomato cans to fluff a W-L record also undermines the ethos of competitive sports.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Loading a schedule with tomato cans to fluff a W-L record also undermines the ethos of competitive sports.

1, it's not gonna happen frequently because even running the table against tomato cans is extremely hard to do, and 2, when it does IT'LL RESOLVE ITSELF IN THE CODDAM PLAYOFF LIKE IT SHOULD

 

[OttoinGrotto]

It's just funny to me that we have easily observable problems like unearned conference deference and over weighting pre-season ranking and people argue against my proposal to head off a problem that hasn't happened yet and may not even manifest like "teams will set up easy schedules."

I mean, come on.

 

[sufandu]

If the undefeated team with the crap schedule isn't better than a team with losses, that's going to resolve itself in the PLAYOFF, oh great sport eyeball observer.

I'm not annointing any team. The annointing is what the current system does. I'm looking to get the 12 most deserving teams based on the only objective standard, wins and losses, into the 12 team playoff, at which point we have a single elimination battle royale, and the last team standing at the end of it has EARNED the absolute right to being declared the champion.

What's wrong with that?

It won't resolve in the playoff if the more deserving team is left out of the playoff because they challenged themselves with a more competitve schedule and took a couple losses.

If you want to go by only wins and losses, stick to the NFL where the teams and schedules are much more balanced and over 40% of the teams make the playoff. It doesn't work in college. There are too many teams with too much variation in schedules with fewer than 10% of the teams making the playoff.

 

[sufandu]

It's just funny to me that we have easily observable problems like unearned conference deference and over weighting pre-season ranking and people argue against my proposal to head off a problem that hasn't happened yet and may not even manifest like "teams will set up easy schedules."

I mean, come on.

It's funny that some people think their proposals can't have holes.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

It won't resolve in the playoff if the more deserving team is left out of the playoff because they challenged themselves with a more competitve schedule and took a couple losses.

If you want to go by only wins and losses, stick to the NFL where the teams and schedules are much more balanced and over 40% of the teams make the playoff. It doesn't work in college. There are too many teams with too much variation in schedules with fewer than 10% of the teams making the playoff.

Let's talk about that team. The "more deserving team" you're so worried about is the 12th team picked to make the playoff. The clear powerhouses with the best records aren't at risk. You're talking about a team that might not have even made their conference championship game, let alone won it.

Why are you more concerned about doing right by them than you are the team that walked off the field with a W every time?

The Cinderellas are one of the funnest parts of the NCAA tourney. College football doesn't even entertain that possibility. That doesn't make for a better game.

 

[SFCUSE GURU]

Sorry but he’s a hypocrite.

He said weeks ago it doesn’t matter and that he doesn’t want to be the 25th best he wants to be the best.

Now he wants to be ranked?

I bet he was told by a few recruits no because they aren’t ranked.

I guess you are a hall famer, but can’t read or interpret what was said. Do you also have the nickname Shoeless Joe cause if you don’t you should. Do you actually have a family that puts up with your unhappiness and not deserved hubris?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

It's funny that some people think their proposals can't have holes.

It's because my holes are better than the other holes discussed in this thread.

But like, it is weird. Heeter throws out that conference bias is a problem.

So I have a solution, but we literally have no choice but to not change anything, because my solution might have some other different problem. And we can't handle that. We're gonna stick with what we know is flawed and unfair so we don't upset a bunch of Confederate man babies. We only accept perfect solutions in college football.

 

[VTAaron]

Everyone forgets that rankings are based on votes, and the people with votes, and not team performances. You would think if you beat 2 ranked teams in the year you would be able to take their place... Well that obviously doesn't happen. It also doesn't happen if you beat a team that beat another ranked team, and or that unranked team kicked 'your' ass. The only reason why non SEC or other teams get votes is people WATCH the games. Most don't care and they just look at a win loose and judge. Everyone else gets votes is because they watched.

Of course it is all bias one way or another to the SEC and it is how it is... It just like we all complain about ACC north/south and refs etc. all the time. It is the same thing between the NCAA with all the rankings teams/media rights etc. Programs NIL, and every other BS factor.

Rankings are just a hypothetical bias model of media and conference Awipes that are trying to make money and hype up their own programs as well as promote a rivalry rather than just use simple truths of win/loss and I beat a ranked team BS, which is what it is. As it is all about votes, and I bet most of the SEC never changed theres or cares about it much other than we get to see the same stupid 4-6 teams every year all the time even if they were a 1-10 or another Florida State the year before.

I bet Florida may have kicked there arses last year regardless of this years performance and that is what they are all afraid of, and this will perpetuate forever. So army 9-0 means nothing to them, and hence they will not go anywhere for the playoffs regardless if they go undefeated or beat one of the 6.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

I think the 4 Big Ten teams deserve their spots more than the ACC CG loser. So do 2 loss SEC teams. Big 12 has no worthy at large either.

Colorado could have beaten Nebraska and been in line for one but they got blown out. SMU lost to BYU who's about to fall apart. Undefeated Miami would be ok but now have to win out.

I think we beat Miami and cost the ACC a bye tbh. I couldn't care less about seeing a second ACC team get destroyed.