Started By
Message
Final Massey SOS Rankings highlight CFB's uneven playing field
Posted on 12/1/24 at 11:47 am
Posted on 12/1/24 at 11:47 am
and the playoff committee's inability to see beyond win/loss records
LINK
If not, why bother playing a competitive schedule?
Why play in a competitive conference, if you're likely to lose 2 or more conference games?
This isn't the NFL where the separation between the
toughest and weakest schedules are minimal
Solutions -
No team with a SOS ranking below 50 should be considered for the playoff
Indiana
Penn State
Notre Dame
Miami
SMU
Clemson
Boise State ... among other current contenders wouldn't qualify
Eliminate automatic bids and force teams from weak conferences to earn their spots, not this DEI nonsense
The best 12 teams are in the playoff regardless of conference affiliation
Eliminate the ridiculous auto-byes for conference champions, as not all conferences are created equal (or even close)
My fear is that without immediate changes to the CFB playoff, disenfranchised power teams and conferences will breakaway and form a league of their own
It would be impossible for a team to have a strength of schedule ranking over 50 in a league of 36 to 48 teams
LINK
If not, why bother playing a competitive schedule?
Why play in a competitive conference, if you're likely to lose 2 or more conference games?
This isn't the NFL where the separation between the
toughest and weakest schedules are minimal
Solutions -
No team with a SOS ranking below 50 should be considered for the playoff
Indiana
Penn State
Notre Dame
Miami
SMU
Clemson
Boise State ... among other current contenders wouldn't qualify
Eliminate automatic bids and force teams from weak conferences to earn their spots, not this DEI nonsense
The best 12 teams are in the playoff regardless of conference affiliation
Eliminate the ridiculous auto-byes for conference champions, as not all conferences are created equal (or even close)
My fear is that without immediate changes to the CFB playoff, disenfranchised power teams and conferences will breakaway and form a league of their own
It would be impossible for a team to have a strength of schedule ranking over 50 in a league of 36 to 48 teams
This post was edited on 12/1/24 at 11:53 am
2
Posted on 12/1/24 at 11:53 am to GAT BoilerPickle Doc
quote:
No team with a SOS ranking below 50 should be considered for the playoff
By which SoS metric?
Is it one that uses averages? If so, it's not a good metric. The only SoS formula I am aware of that doesn't use averages is FEI.
If there is another metric out there that someone knows that doesn't use averages, please share it.
Mostly agreed with everything else.
Posted on 12/1/24 at 12:09 pm to 3down10
Understand that there may be some variance between various SOS methodologies, but overall they are fairly consistent from what I've seen
The playoff committee could multiple sources and create an average SOS ranking, similar to the old BCS computer rankings
The playoff committee could multiple sources and create an average SOS ranking, similar to the old BCS computer rankings
Posted on 12/1/24 at 12:11 pm to 3down10
Whatever metric benefits my team the most
Posted on 12/1/24 at 12:20 pm to GAT BoilerPickle Doc
quote:
Understand that there may be some variance between various SOS methodologies, but overall they are fairly consistent from what I've seen
The playoff committee could multiple sources and create an average SOS ranking, similar to the old BCS computer rankings
But averages can be extremely wrong, it's just how numbers work. Playing the #1 team and the #120th team is much harder than playing the #49 and #50.
This doesn't matter when you are using them within computer rankings for final rankings, because SoS is actually a side stat with the way it is presented. When you are doing a SoR type thing, they get applied individually based on win/loss etc, not an average.
But we would be using the averages. I hope SoS metrics just fix that flaw.
The biggest problem I see with the committee/rankings and SoS is that they only really seem to apply it when the teams records are even. For example look at teams like SMU, Indiana etc. They have terrible SoS, lose to the only good teams they play and have no good wins. But it's not even looked at among others because they have a better record. So SoS is basically all but ignored, and that's ridiculous.
Posted on 12/1/24 at 12:34 pm to GAT BoilerPickle Doc
quote:
and the playoff committee's inability to see beyond win/loss records LINK If not, why bother playing a competitive schedule? Why play in a competitive conference, if you're likely to lose 2 or more conference games? This isn't the NFL where the separation between the toughest and weakest schedules are minimal Solutions - No team with a SOS ranking below 50 should be considered for the playoff Indiana Penn State Notre Dame Miami SMU Clemson Boise State ... among other current contenders wouldn't qualify Eliminate automatic bids and force teams from weak conferences to earn their spots, not this DEI nonsense The best 12 teams are in the playoff regardless of conference affiliation Eliminate the ridiculous auto-byes for conference champions, as not all conferences are created equal (or even close) My fear is that without immediate changes to the CFB playoff, disenfranchised power teams and conferences will breakaway and form a league of their own It would be impossible for a team to have a strength of schedule ranking over 50 in a league of 36 to 48 teams
SOS should matter but bot be everything. Using your logic a team like ND who beat teams like TAM, Louisville ,Ga Tech ,Army ,Navy , USC by an average of like 25 points shouldn’t be up for consideration ? lol
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News