Started By
Message
re: Let me get this straight...
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:43 am to elposter
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:43 am to elposter
quote:
I think it is funny that people are surprised that the playoff committee has injected more subjectivity, arbitrariness, and probably bias into the system. It was obviously going to do this.
Anytime you go from hundreds of inputs (i.e., all voters in coaches poll, all voters in Harris polls, all the computer polls which themselves have hundreds of inputs each) and replace that with 12 people, basic statistics tells you that you have introduced more subectivity, arbitrariness, and bias into the result. It's why polling predictors have to have a certain sample size to be considered valid. The more inputs you have should reduce the impact of individual subjectivity and bias.
0
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:43 am to eatatjoes
Hope all 6 favorites LOSE.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:47 am to Farmer1906
You are just way off base here. A head to head matchup is infinitely more important than a common opponent. It's not even comparable.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:49 am to AllBamaDoesIsWin
quote:
Ehhh, the Baylor comeback seemed kind of flukey though. I personally think TCU wins, say, 7/10 games if they played 10 times.
But you can say the same something very similar about West Virginia in the TCU game.
West Virgina turned the ball over 5 times and TCU still needed a defensive TD and last second field goal to win by one point.
As far as the OP, no the purpose of the committee was NOT to put the best four teams in the playoff. In fact, the committee was created for the express purpose of PREVENTING that from happening if it meant unpopular matchups (see 1/9/12 for reference).
Using the BCS formula made perfect sense, but then you couldn't artificially manipulate standings to create a Bama/FSU Sugar Bowl and an Oregon/TCU Rose Bowl.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:51 am to eatatjoes
quote:
This committee has thrown the process back several years imo.
how is it much worse than having sports writers decide who is #1-#25?
it really isn't.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:59 am to Farmer1906
when the first cfpc poll came out, ole miss was ranked ahead of bama because of 'head to head' ole miss won. now keep in mind that ole miss had just gotten beat the saturday before the poll came out. the cfpc totally ignored that fact and looked at their 'h t h' win over bama. now, the 'h t h' baylor victory over tcu is basically not relevant.
my take, this committee is in the business of matching up whoever they want. they will use whatever metrics, stats, talking points they have to in order to achieve their desired outcome. ignoring a loss, highlighting a loss, ignoring head to head, highlighting head to head, this week, last week none is a constant. as i have said before, the only constant has been, style points, style points, style points. its sad for college football that they finally get a system to determine a real on field champ and they muck up everything with this committee.
my take, this committee is in the business of matching up whoever they want. they will use whatever metrics, stats, talking points they have to in order to achieve their desired outcome. ignoring a loss, highlighting a loss, ignoring head to head, highlighting head to head, this week, last week none is a constant. as i have said before, the only constant has been, style points, style points, style points. its sad for college football that they finally get a system to determine a real on field champ and they muck up everything with this committee.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:04 am to Jagd Tiger
Jagd, it's not any different, but it's not as good as what the BCS did imo. There were many inputs when the BCS ran the show. That's why I said it has set it back several years, back to before the BCS.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:05 am to Jagd Tiger
quote:
how is it much worse than having sports writers decide who is #1-#25?
it really isn't.
because there were over 100 sports writers polled and only 12 people on the committee.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:06 am to lsufball19
It's not the committee's fault that the Big12 doesn't have a Conference Championship.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:10 am to JustGetItRight
JGR, I'm not really sure why a TCU/Oregon matchup would be better TV than a Baylor/Oregon matchup. I honestly think the committee thinks TCU is just a better team than Baylor.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:39 am to eatatjoes
quote:Whoa there. I agree that the committee proved itself to be a farce from the very first rankings it released, and it's a joke that a system created to decide a champion based on head-to-head ignores that aspect when determining which teams play head-to-head; but to say this committee equals pre-BCS is blasphemy.
That's why I said it has set it back several years, back to before the BCS.
The pre-BCS era of college football will go down in history as its most glorious. It's what attracted the big-money cockroaches in the first place.
Unfortunately, like every other sport out there, big money is raping the purity of it.
Such is life.
This committe, and the playoffs, were created for nothing more than a tighter control on this big-money-making business, PERIOD.
It's about money. It's ALWAYS about money.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:40 am to eatatjoes
The day they announced the committee I said it was a bad idea.
I thought then they should use the BCS formula to determine the top 4 and I still do.
I thought then they should use the BCS formula to determine the top 4 and I still do.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:41 am to lsufball19
quote:
because there were over 100 sports writers polled and only 12 people on the committee.
which IN NO WAY WHAT SO EVER, means those 12 people aren't as capable or even more capable of making a better decision.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:43 am to eatatjoes
quote:
I don't doubt one bit that they may be sending a message to Baylor to "beef up your OOC schedule", but it only adds to the unprofessionalism of the entire thing. Besides, and I may be wrong, wouldn't Baylor's OOC schedule for 2014 have been created before this CFP was announced? Again, I could be wrong on that.
I agree. Good point.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:45 am to eatatjoes
quote:
. There were many inputs when the BCS ran the show.
doesn't make them better though, sure ask a sports writer if he's eminently more qualified than the average person walking down the street, and 98% will tell you they are, and 97% of those are delusional.
yes this system may "stink" but you still haven't offered any evidence it will stink any worse than the BCS did.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:46 am to Farmer1906
quote:O.K. Fine.
To me the head to head matters little when you factor in common opponents where TCU has the edge.
Then after the playoffs are complete, you have to go back and determine which team had the best record/body of work for that entire season and crown them national champions.
You can't have it both ways.
Under your "system" in some years, the playoff champion would also be crowned national champion.
Some years, however, a team that didn't even play in the playoffs would/could be crowned national champions.
BRILLIANT!
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:47 am to eatatjoes
quote:
JGR, I'm not really sure why a TCU/Oregon matchup would be better TV than a Baylor/Oregon matchup. I honestly think the committee thinks TCU is just a better team than Baylor.
I don't know if it would, that one's a wash. If anything Baylor might be a bit better because it has almost twice the enrollment of TCU.
My post was more in relation to the other three seeds. By dropping FSU to 4th, they create a situation where the Sugar gets Bama/FSU and the Rose gets a PAC-12 host.
Both will be huge TV games and a very hard ticket. Neither would be as attractive if you were shipping say, FSU or Bama out to California or Oregon to New Orleans.
I actually don't have a problem with creating first round matchups this way, but I find it insulting to be so dishonest as to say they're ranking that top 4 by who you think is best. They're ranking the top 4 by which matchup creates the best first round games.
Oh, and should K-State beat Baylor and TCU struggle against Iowa State, don't be surprised to see Ohio State grab that 4th slot if they beat Wisconsin. If they win, they might do it anyhow no matter the outcome of the B12 games. The committee will say they did it because the B1G has a conference championship game, but at least as big of a reason would be that it would create the traditional Pac-12/BiG Rose Bowl.
This post was edited on 12/3/14 at 10:51 am
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:49 am to Jagd Tiger
quote:
which IN NO WAY WHAT SO EVER, means those 12 people aren't as capable or even more capable of making a better decision.
No, it doesn't but it is a hell of a lot easier to influence 12 people behind closed doors than 100 scattered all across the nation.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:50 am to Tuscaloosa
quote:
I thought leaving the BCS in place and just taking the top 4 teams made the most sense.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 10:52 am to TX Tiger
I agree with TX Tiger. Who is to say that we will have a true champion after the playoff is complete, if head-to-head is not the ultimate deciding factor in all of this?
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News