Fran believes we should be ranked

[Eric15]

It's not rational because you *think* they're better and *believe* they would beat Army, which is unknowable about any future single game outcome, so it is extremely irrational.

We're just used to accepting that irrationality.

I'm saying, we've over weighted on subjective criteria when we have *some* objective criteria, and a 12 team playoff and how it resolves the champion provides room for more acceptance of the objective criteria we do have. The concept of identifying the 12 *best* teams to include in the playoffs is the wrong standard because it's subjective. The concept of identifying the 12 *most deserving* teams based on their ability to win games is more objective. And the beauty of the playoff is that the winner objectively deserves to be named the champion.

Would you apply the same philosophy to the NCAA Tournament? Should a 4 loss team in the SWAC whose SOS is 250 be given preference to an 8 loss team in say the ACC whose SOS is in the single digits?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

It's really not worth getting worked up about rankings until the final one before the playoffs. Most of this stuff resolves itself on the field.

Indiana is "overranked" because they haven't beaten anyone? Here's an Ohio State game for them.

One loss SMU should be in the top 12 over 2 loss Tennessee? Here's an ACC champ game SMU, have at it.

Ultimately I'd much rather be Outraged (tm) about some 2 loss team not getting the #12 seed than a 1 loss team not making the final 4 in the previous incarnation of the Playoff, or even worse, an undefeated team not making the final 2, in the version before that.

We're actually saying the same thing about how it works out in the end (other than I'm not talking about applying this to the 4 team playoff, my rank within cohorts concept only applies to the 12 team playoff structure).

Teams prove it out in the end. But since we have the playoffs, and there are limited spots, I advocate for rewarding the teams that win the most and lose the least over rewarding teams we *think* are better. Give those teams the shot to work it out at the very end.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Would you apply the same philosophy to the NCAA Tournament? Should a 4 loss team in the SWAC whose SOS is 250 be given preference to an 8 loss team in say the ACC whose SOS is in the single digits?

I'm making no claim of any kind about the NCAA tourney, completely different animal and dynamics. The issues the NCAA tourney has are far different than the NCAA football playoff. I'm not shoehorning a solution designed to solve different problems.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

OttoinGrotto, I want to agree with you. Ideally we should go on Ws. However, there is way too much variance in schedules. But we can fix that.

I think the P4 conferences should come together and all agree to play 10 P4 games total. This would somewhat decrease the variance in schedules between the 4 conferences. Yes not all 10 games will be equal, but at least everyone is playing 10 vs having some play 8.

The B1G and B12 for the most part already do play 10 games. The change would be with the SEC and ACC. The SEC would either have to play 9 conference games or agree to an SEC-ACC challenge. I think they pick the latter since an ACC game is easier in most cases than a 9th SEC game, and many SEC teams already play ACC teams yearly.


Step two would be to ban FCS games. This IMO is the number issue with OOC schedules. Eliminating these games will greatly reduce the variance in schedules between the P4 and G6, and also somewhat reduce between each of the P4s.

Some P4s play zero FCS games, so they will have a slightly harder schedules than other P4s. If you ban FCS games then the P4 will need 2 G6 OOC games. Which means most G6 teams will play 2 P4 teams. A lot easier to respect a 11-1 G6 team if they have played 2 P4s and no FCSs to get to those 11 Ws. That would likely mean they are 10-0 vs the G6, 1-1 vs the P4, and 0-0 vs the FCS.

There are currently 68 P4 teams. The G6 also has 68 teams. Of those 68 G6 teams, I would say close to 60 will end up playing 2 P4 teams, maybe 5-6 will have 3 games and another 5-6 with only 1 game.

Just enacting these simple two things would make me agree with you that we need to go off of record. You are in the right place, but we need to fix the scheduling first before going there. Otherwise you will have the P4 go down to 8 conference games, zero P4 OOC games, and one FCS game. That way they inflate their own records. Which would be a disservice to the regular season.

I'm fully supportive of these kinds of ideas.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

that would be under the 4 team scenario. By your logic It should’ve been Liberty, FSU, Michigan, Washington

At no point have I been talking about the 4 team scenario.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

OIG, I love you platonically as a poster, but that makes zero sense. In a sport like MLB/NBA/NHL where there isn't a massive difference between the best and worst teams and there is a large sample size of games, ranking teams by pure W/L makes sense. But it just doesn't work that way with college football. There are only 12 games, and massive variance in the strength of schedules. There needs to be some subjective ranking based on schedule strength, who you beat, who you lose to, etc. Bama and Georgia being ranked below Army just isn't rational.

Even the NFL is a big difference. In CFB, there are very few like games between different teams in different conferences. On top of that you are either playing 8 or 9 of your 11 FBS games within conference, and only 2 or 3 OOC. For the NFL you play only 6 of your 13 conference games within division, and 7 outside.

 

[Cuse181]

You seem to be completely missing that I'm saying rank WITHIN the cohort.

If by some statistical oddity you end up with 13 undefeated teams for 12 playoff spots, you'd use whatever evaluation you want to differentiate them.

You just wouldn't make a case that any of the 1 loss teams deserve to be in over the undefeated teams.

People keep trying to poke holes in this in ways that don't apply to the proposal.

But the point is that any differentiation within the cohort DOES have outside impact. If SOS or margin of victory are being weighed within cohorts it is inevitably going to be called into question way it isn’t weighed between cohorts. i mean its largely irrelevant because the idea is pretty flawed if the goal is to get the best teams, not just the undefeated teams.

If the goal is get an undefeated team to win the championship because it is so hard then just do a giant 13X team tournament and you’re guaranteed to get an undefeated team left over.

 

[Cuse181]

At no point have I been talking about the 4 team scenario.

Why would it be any different?

 

[Eric15]

I'm making no claim of any kind about the NCAA tourney, completely different animal and dynamics. The issues the NCAA tourney has are far different than the NCAA football playoff. I'm not shoehorning a solution designed to solve different problems.

If Notre Dame manhandles undefeated Army on Saturday the way they manhandled undefeated Navy, would you still have one-loss Army ahead of two-loss Georgia who has beat Texas, Tennessee and Clemson?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Will there ever be a scenario where an 11-1 or better G6 school is not their conference champ and not Top 10 in the polls? I don't think we have to worry about that.

 

[upperdeck]

we had chances this year for three 12-0 ACC teams. It didn't play out but it was all possible.

We could be 10-0 right now with Clem/SMU and ranked behind 2 loss team perhaps. I do expect 12-0 would get us in.

 

[shantydaze]

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.

I would rather see the conference champions of all 10 conferences (including the Pac) get an automatic bid. The conference strength/eye ball test would apply to seedings and which teams get a bye in the first round. It also leaves open two at large spots.

This would (1) allow teams to play more interesting and competitive OOC games, (2) put an emphasis on conference games, and (3) likely push Notre Dame into a conference. It would also return the majority of P4 schools back into the bowl system.

It will not happen because the networks will not let it happen as there is likely little national interest in watching Oregon destroy Jacksonville State. Because I am jaded, I also think it may have to do with gamblers being less likely to bet on games in which the line is 40 points, but as I am not a degenerate gambler, I have no idea.

 

[shantydaze]

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.

Right now, the ACC has a perception problem. It cost an undefeated FSU a bid last year. It is demonstrated by how lowly ranked Miami and SMU are this year. What it also does is provide mid-level B1G and SEC teams a recruiting advantage by pointing out that the ACC (or XII) are one-bid leagues, but if you go to Purdue or Vandy and have a special year, multiple bids for the B1G or SEC means there is a shot, even with a loss or two, to make the playoffs.

If there is going to be further consolidation and just one of the ACC or XII will survive as a power conference, the ACC needs to consistently be a multi-bid league (hopefully at the expense of the XII). While I would also like the ACC teams win or at least lose by a respectable margin, in the end, memories are short and I think being a multi-bid league whose teams get destroyed is less of an issue long term than being a single bid league.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That isn’t what you proposed though. Having 2-3 teams that do not belong in the playoff, cheapens the playoff. If you have a 12-1 Army as a two seed you just gave the 7 seed a bye into the semis. That 7 seed doesn’t belong. Then the 3 seed has a 7 seed to get to the final. That ruins things. No one is saying keep the 12-1 team out. They deserve the 12 seed which they would get anyway under the current system.

Just to get back to this, because I think generally we're in agreement just have some different thoughts on how to solve some of these problems - I would say that 7 seed still needs to win that game, and if they do, it's ok. If that means there's a chance the 3 seed has an "easier" path, they still need to win both games, and they'll still need to win the 3rd for the championship. I'm intentionally putting a lot of faith in the inherent power of a single elimination playoff, that regardless of the draw, if you put the 12 most "deserving" teams in the playoff, the last team standing is the objective champion and the proven "best" team, and any assessment of "best" doesn't matter until the end.

 

[upperdeck]

Two schools of thought on Rankings
1 ) who are the most talented teams
2) who have played the best

There are about 5-6 top teams

There about 5-10 middle teams

There are about 25-30 teams after that

Ala/Ga are probably at the top of the talented teams

GA looked great vs Clem/TX
Ga looked OK vs Tenn

GA did not look top 25 vs Kent/Miss st/FL/Ala/Ole Miss

most of top SEC teams have done that as well.

This isnt Ala of 5 yrs ago who looked good 10 of 12 games

 

[OttoinGrotto]

But the point is that any differentiation within the cohort DOES have outside impact. If SOS or margin of victory are being weighed within cohorts it is inevitably going to be called into question way it isn’t weighed between cohorts. i mean its largely irrelevant because the idea is pretty flawed if the goal is to get the best teams, not just the undefeated teams.

It's not weighed between cohorts because losses mean teams don't get that privilege.

Also, again, I'm not talking about getting the 12 best teams, because that's subjective. I'm talking about getting the 12 most deserving teams, which can be more objectively determined based on wins and losses.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Just to get back to this, because I think generally we're in agreement just have some different thoughts on how to solve some of these problems - I would say that 7 seed still needs to win that game, and if they do, it's ok. If that means there's a chance the 3 seed has an "easier" path, they still need to win both games, and they'll still need to win the 3rd for the championship. I'm intentionally putting a lot of faith in the inherent power of a single elimination playoff, that regardless of the draw, if you put the 12 most "deserving" teams in the playoff, the last team standing is the objective champion and the proven "best" team, and any assessment of "best" doesn't matter until the end.

But why not revise what you propose to...

All 13-0 teams get in
All 12-1 teams get in
All 12-0 teams get in
All 11-2 teams get in
All 11-1 teams get in
Best of the 10 W teams get in
9 W teams can go scratch

Then once you have your 12 team pool you seed based on the rankings and not record.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

But why not revise what you propose to...

All 13-0 teams get in
All 12-1 teams get in
All 12-0 teams get in
All 11-2 teams get in
All 11-1 teams get in
Best of the 10 W teams get in
9 W teams can go scratch

Then once you have your 12 team pool you seed based on the rankings and not record.

That's basically what it is.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

If Notre Dame manhandles undefeated Army on Saturday the way they manhandled undefeated Navy, would you still have one-loss Army ahead of two-loss Georgia who has beat Texas, Tennessee and Clemson?

Sure would.

Is Georgia even going to play in their conference championship game?

If you can't compete for your conference championship the way things are set up, why should you be given a chance to win the national championship?

(And yes, I know that has happened, and it's a traveshamockery. I will NEVER forgive that Alabama lost on their home field to LSU, didn't qualify for the SEC championship, and then was given the opportunity for a rematch against LSU for the national championship as one example.)

 

[HRE Otto IV]

That's basically what it is.

If Army is 11-1 you would give them a 2 seed, when the rankings would give them a 12. That is the issue. I don't think anyone would disagree that they belong in the playoff, but few will agree they should get a first round bye and play the 7/10 winner.

Same for 11-1 Indiana being a 3 seed vs a 10 seed. No issue with Indiana being in the field, but the 3rd placed B1G team that played OOC no P4s and an FCS should not be rewarded with a 3 seed.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

If Army is 11-1 you would give them a 2 seed, when the rankings would give them a 12. That is the issue. I don't think anyone would disagree that they belong in the playoff, but few will agree they should get a first round bye and play the 7/10 winner.

Same for 11-1 Indiana being a 3 seed vs a 10 seed. No issue with Indiana being in the field, but the 3rd placed B1G team that played OOC no P4s and an FCS should not be rewarded with a 3 seed.

Well it depends on what records the other 1 loss teams have. Army would only get the 2 for sure if there's only one unbeaten team ahead of them, and they're the only 1 loss team. If there are other 1 loss teams we'd see where they rank within the cohort of 1 loss teams.

 

[cali315phan]

If we beat UConn and Miami we will be in the 15 to 20 range. Just beating UConn won't (and shouldn't) do it.

 

[Cuse181]

It's not weighed between cohorts because losses mean teams don't get that privilege.

Also, again, I'm not talking about getting the 12 best teams, because that's subjective. I'm talking about getting the 12 most deserving teams, which can be more objectively determined based on wins and losses.

okay, so i was giving you more credit then you deserved, all you’re going is using a “greater than” formula and claiming that’s how this should work.

The CFP committee is flawed, but it’s always good to be remember that it could be far worse.

 

[Jcuse_44]

The SEC shenanigans are real.

It's been the same bullshit for 20 years. Why are people just catching on to this now? It's never been a fair contest. Preseason rankings ruin college football. Don't rank anyone for the first 4 weeks. Half of these SEC schools and big ten schools shouldn't be ranked at all.

 

[cusefan88]

It's been the same bullshit for 20 years. Why are people just catching on to this now? It's never been a fair contest. Preseason rankings ruin college football. Don't rank anyone for the first 4 weeks. Half of these SEC schools and big ten schools shouldn't be ranked at all.

I had the same thought this morning. Let one month go bye and start rankings October 1.