Signature Wins

[donniesyracuse]

If a team goes 1 - 1 in games against the 10th best team and the 100th best team, is it better to have beaten the better team and have lost to the worse team? Popular belief seems to be that the committee subscribes to that thinking. I don’t see the logic.

 

[Alsacs]

College football playoff committee is the first organization that has put an actual thought into rankings.
Just because you lose shouldn’t mean you go down in the polls.
If you lose to a team above you and it’s a close game you shouldn’t fall down.
If you are the number 10 team and lose to the number 1 team you don’t have to move down.

It’s dumb how these rankings work.
Winning games is the goal but losing to teams better than you shouldn’t knock you down automatically.

 

[Marty McFly]

Don't they say it's who you beat, that carry's a lot of weight in the committee room? Big wins move the needle, bad losses are more easily glossed over, especially if it's not a bunch of 'em.

 

[donniesyracuse]

Don't they say it's who you beat, that carry's a lot of weight in the committee room?

That seems to be the case, but I don't get the logic. Why should playing above one's head for a single game be rewarded more than consistently taking care of business against similar and inferior teams?

 

[Brooky03]

You play good teams in the NCAAT, so you have to show that you’re capable of beating those teams. Not losing to bad teams is fine, but if your best argument is that you don’t lose to teams not in the NCAAT, you don’t have much argument.

The committee already knows anybody could lose in the NCAAT. They’re looking for teams who’ve shown they can win.

 

[donniesyracuse]

You play good teams in the NCAAT, so you have to show that you’re capable of beating those teams. Not losing to bad teams is fine, but if your best argument is that you don’t lose to teams not in the NCAAT, you don’t have much argument.

The committee already knows anybody could lose in the NCAAT. They’re looking for teams who’ve shown they can win.

So basically there’s nothing wrong with losing to bad teams as long as you beat a good team. It’s silly!

 

[Brooky03]

So basically there’s nothing wrong with losing to bad teams as long as you beat a good team. It’s silly!

Yes. It’s pretty intuitive, imo.

 

[donniesyracuse]

Yes. It’s pretty intuitive, imo.

I am ready for subjectivity to be removed from this process. None of the formulas are perfect, but I’ll take any of them (e.g., net, massey) over humans in a room.

 

[Brooky03]

I am ready for subjectivity to be removed from this process. None of the formulas are perfect, but I’ll take any of them (e.g., net, massey) over humans in a room.

Until computers start thinking for themselves (not that far off, really), I think human brains are still better at deciding these things. Computer generated ratings/rankings can get you most of the way to a fair result but bias will always be built in by the designers, one way or another.

If we’re taking the Syracuse angle on this, the extra weight given to good wins is obviously going to hurt the team this season. But this team really hasn’t played like a tournament team all year, with the exception of a few very brief spurts. In recent years, the extra weight given to good wins was the only thing that got us in off the bubble. Win some lose some.

If this team runs the table to finish the season and does anything short of making the ACCT championship, I’m probably not going to gripe that they belong in the NCAAT.

 

[donniesyracuse]

Until computers start thinking for themselves (not that far off, really), I think human brains are still better at deciding these things. Computer generated ratings/rankings can get you most of the way to a fair result but bias will always be built in by the designers, one way or another.

If we’re taking the Syracuse angle on this, the extra weight given to good wins is obviously going to hurt the team this season. But this team really hasn’t played like a tournament team all year, with the exception of a few very brief spurts. In recent years, the extra weight given to good wins was the only thing that got us in off the bubble. Win some lose some.

If this team runs the table to finish the season and does anything short of making the ACCT championship, I’m probably not going to gripe that they belong in the NCAAT.

To be clear, I’m talking generally and I am not trying make a case for Syracuse.

We definitely disagree. I think human brains are terrible at deciding these things. Use a composite of the various formulas to control for some of the biases. The Ranking Composite provided by Massey has Syracuse at 64 right now. That feels pretty reasonable.

 

[Brooky03]

To be clear, I’m talking generally and I am not trying make a case for Syracuse.

We definitely disagree. I think human brains are terrible at deciding these things. Use a composite of the various formulas to control for some of the biases. The Ranking Composite provided by Massey has Syracuse at 64 right now. That feels pretty reasonable.

I agree that 64th is reasonable. I also think humans wouldn’t rank Syracuse far off from that number.

 

[jncuse]

That seems to be the case, but I don't get the logic. Why should playing above one's head for a single game be rewarded more than consistently taking care of business against similar and inferior teams?

Good thing is we have done neither, so we don't need to worry about it.
Sorry for my Debbie Downer post of the day.

 

[Niastri]

That seems to be the case, but I don't get the logic. Why should playing above one's head for a single game be rewarded more than consistently taking care of business against similar and inferior teams?

Because the NCAA tournament committee knows where the whole shows entertainment value comes from:

Upsets, baby!

A mistake prone team with huge upside can give them what they need both ways, losing badly in the first round to a low major OR going on a run after putting it all together.

That sort of team is way more exciting than a solid senior led team that plays to is capacity but just isn't all that talented.

This Syracuse team actually only sort of fits that bill... If they have a great shooting day, they literally could put 100 on any team, but their truly bad stinker games aren't that common. They aren't very good, they aren't super talented, but shooters can get hot and win games. This team has three guys that could conceivably have a 10 for 15 night from three

 

[jncuse]

I'll give you one that actually benefits us.

We are 3-3 against Virginia Tech, Virginia, and Notre Dame.

Win those 3 games at home we would have no Q1 wins, and no road wins. (Committee not really impressed)
Win those 3 games on the road (which we did) , we now have three (or 2) Q1 wins and three road wins -- both of which impress the committee.

Same 3-3 record. But the committee values the way we did it significantly more. It gets buried in the metrics so they may not even realize the silliness of it.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

We’ve only played 4 games against top teams. Should be 3 given the lead ole miss had over pedo. We won @UVA.

We won’t be in a terrible spot if we win the rest of our regular season games and don’t lose the first ACCT game. People are acting as if teams around us are gonna win out too.

 

[Niastri]

It's a big if, but if we win out the regular season, I think the difference between winning one or two in the ACC tournament matters a lot.

 

[UpstateSM]

We’ve only played 4 games against top teams. Should be 3 given the lead ole miss had over pedo. We won @UVA.

We won’t be in a terrible spot if we win the rest of our regular season games and don’t lose the first ACCT game. People are acting as if teams around us are gonna win out too.

100% agree. Bubble teams are crapping the bed nightly, the door is open for us but we have to win probably our next six games.

 

[BBQuse]

That seems to be the case, but I don't get the logic. Why should playing above one's head for a single game be rewarded more than consistently taking care of business against similar and inferior teams?

because it proves out the potential upside. In any event, can't look at any of this in isolation -- if a team generally took care of business against poor teams but had one slip up and one win against a top ten team, I really do think that shows a lot more than one more crappy win and no stellar wins.

 

[Oakland]

The limits of human brains or computing power is not the 'problem' here; it's that you are trying to compare 300+ teams with only ~32 data points per team.

To Donnie's question, I think it is better to have the good win because it suggests a higher potential.

Until computers start thinking for themselves (not that far off, really), I think human brains are still better at deciding these things. Computer generated ratings/rankings can get you most of the way to a fair result but bias will always be built in by the designers, one way or another.

If we’re taking the Syracuse angle on this, the extra weight given to good wins is obviously going to hurt the team this season. But this team really hasn’t played like a tournament team all year, with the exception of a few very brief spurts. In recent years, the extra weight given to good wins was the only thing that got us in off the bubble. Win some lose some.

If this team runs the table to finish the season and does anything short of making the ACCT championship, I’m probably not going to gripe that they belong in the NCAAT.

 

[donniesyracuse]

To Donnie's question, I think it is better to have the good win because it suggests a higher potential.

but what is the mission of the committee? Is it to reward teams for what they accomplished during the season or is it to select teams with the best potential for success in the tournament? The answer has never been made clear to me.

 

[tbonezone]

if it's any comfort think of all the teams we screwed earlier this season by blowing our "signature" status .