Started By
Message
re: For all the criticism of the CFP, I think we can call the winner the conclusive Champ.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:27 am to bigDgator
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:27 am to bigDgator
quote:
So you think less teams = more legit?
His argument flies in the face of reason. Statistically the larger sample size (within reason) the greater the accuracy. It is a guiding principle accepted across all of humanity.
This post was edited on 12/16/24 at 10:28 am
2
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:29 am to SemperFiDawg
Statistically, during the CFP, even the 4th ranked team had no shot.
It's a battle of haves versus have nots.
It's a battle of haves versus have nots.
This post was edited on 12/16/24 at 10:30 am
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:34 am to SemperFiDawg
Eh, not really. Sooner or later, there's going to be a CFB "champion" that's akin to the 2023 Miami Heat Eastern conference "champions" or the 2011-12 NY Giants Super Bowl "champions".
This post was edited on 12/16/24 at 10:36 am
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:35 am to jangalang
2014 Ohio State and 2017 Alabama were both 4 seeds.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:35 am to bigDgator
quote:
So, how do you determine who is the best team(s)?
It flies in the face of reason. Those arguing for the 12 "best" are supporting their argument stating head to head results don't matter. In short it's an argument of opinion over.fact.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:40 am to jangalang
quote:
Statistically, during the CFP, even the 4th ranked team had no shot.
You may be correct or incorrect, but without the CFP model it's another untested assumption. With the model, you will have a more definitive answer.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:41 am to UFFan
quote:
2014 Ohio State and 2017 Alabama were both 4 seeds.
2017 Alabama is an example of why if you want to let mediocrity in then you might as well let in Bama...because they can lose, but none has better talent than Bama and can pick off wins
I think both are great examples of haves versus have nots.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:42 am to UFFan
quote:
2014 Ohio State and 2017 Alabama were both 4 seeds.
Yeah, I'm not sure where he's getting his info.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:44 am to shallowminded
quote:
You also seem unhappy Alabama is not in the 12?
No not at all. Alabama had its opportunity and blew it. Just beat Vanderbilt or Oklahoma and you’re in. What really caught my attention is when you see teams like Clemson and Arizona state who are outside the top 12 jump to 3/4 in the rankings because they won their conf while not playing ranked teams or winning any of those games. Clemson only ranked team was against an SMU team who didn’t beat a ranked opponent all year while somehow being ranked in the top ten. Meanwhile TN and Texas who played better teams, had better wins are traveling. If you’re gonna pick 12 pick the 12 best. Clemson lost to Georgia and SC and an unranked team yet are a 3/4 seed.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:45 am to SemperFiDawg
I don't think, given the way the field was selected, that this season's eventual champ is any more legit than the one the Hahira Times Democrat named in 1956 (or any other national champion). The reason is simple, CFB competition is not legitimately equal. If, for example, Boise State wins it all, are they really legitimately better than South Carolina? One played 1 game in the regular season against meaningful competition while the other played 4-5 games against rosters and coaches who would easily match Boise State's regular season record. Football is, in large part, a game of attrition.
This years winner will be legit but no more so than a team that the NAPA Parts Pup picked in years past....because it is all based on opinion and not legit data because it is impossible to obtain legit data with 134 teams and several conferences. Many teams are playing a different game.
This years winner will be legit but no more so than a team that the NAPA Parts Pup picked in years past....because it is all based on opinion and not legit data because it is impossible to obtain legit data with 134 teams and several conferences. Many teams are playing a different game.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:45 am to jangalang
quote:
2017 Alabama is an example of why if you want to let mediocrity in then you might as well let in Bama...because they can lose, but none has better talent than Bama and can pick off wins
You do realize that you are arguing against head to head results and the example you provided directly contradicts every point you have raised?
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:47 am to jangalang
although I think the SEC deserved 4 teams in, the SEC teams did it to themselves
South Carolina would have beat LSU if Sellers doesn't get hurt and probably should have beat Bama, do that and no arguments
Bama should have beat OU but laid an egg at the worst possible time
Ole Miss - not committee's fault they blew three winnable games
Aggies and Mizzou had numerous opportunities
If LSU beats Fla they at least get to play in SEC champ game for an automatic berth
I'm not losing sleep because teams didn't do enough on the field for the last playoff spot, it's not like they missed out on the 4th spot in the the 4 team format
South Carolina would have beat LSU if Sellers doesn't get hurt and probably should have beat Bama, do that and no arguments
Bama should have beat OU but laid an egg at the worst possible time
Ole Miss - not committee's fault they blew three winnable games
Aggies and Mizzou had numerous opportunities
If LSU beats Fla they at least get to play in SEC champ game for an automatic berth
I'm not losing sleep because teams didn't do enough on the field for the last playoff spot, it's not like they missed out on the 4th spot in the the 4 team format
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:49 am to SemperFiDawg
quote:
Yeah, I'm not sure where he's getting his info. .
There are always haves versus have nots. Unfortunately for you even the haves are better than the have nots
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.This post was edited on 12/16/24 at 10:50 am
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:51 am to SemperFiDawg
Completely correct OP.
Just ignore the tards with script As by their names
Just ignore the tards with script As by their names
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:51 am to SemperFiDawg
quote:
You do realize that you are arguing against head to head results and the example you provided directly contradicts every point you have raised?
False. I said the haves can have weak resumes and run the table because of their talent. The have nots are there for the ride and the CFP let a whole bunch of snoozers in.
This post was edited on 12/16/24 at 10:53 am
Posted on 12/16/24 at 10:53 am to SemperFiDawg
quote:
One could make the argument that this continued even up until last year …… and some may argue UGA, getting shafted.
quote:
SemperFiDawg
Posted on 12/16/24 at 11:04 am to AwgustaDawg
I get all the points being made and can understand the reasoning, but at the end of the day everyone has to chose a model for selecting the Champ. Each model has it's strengths and weaknesses. IMHO we have the best model in the CFP we've had in my lifetime, in that it is the least susceptible to
bias of any format that has existed thus far. There has always been bias if you're talking of the age in which the AP and Coaches would crown separate NCs or if you're talking about last year when Bama got in over FSU. I've always despised the bias. An argument for Bama, OM, or USC to make the final 12 are all to some degree an argument in favor of bias:
To that end, IMHO bias still exist in the CFP model in same bastion it has always existed: Notre Dame, but that's another subject altogether.
bias of any format that has existed thus far. There has always been bias if you're talking of the age in which the AP and Coaches would crown separate NCs or if you're talking about last year when Bama got in over FSU. I've always despised the bias. An argument for Bama, OM, or USC to make the final 12 are all to some degree an argument in favor of bias:
To that end, IMHO bias still exist in the CFP model in same bastion it has always existed: Notre Dame, but that's another subject altogether.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 11:04 am to SemperFiDawg
quote:
Statistically the larger sample size (within reason) the greater the accuracy.
You're right.
And you're wrong.
Why? The sample size is greater when you lower the amount of teams in the playoff.
Why? Because the results of the entire season take on greater significance (ie bigger sample size)
Why? If you allow 4 teams instead of 12 teams, for example, the larger sample size removes 8 additional teams.
But once you've chosen 12 instead of 4, the bigger sample size is then thrown out the window. (the season) Then the sample just becomes ONE going forward.
This post was edited on 12/16/24 at 11:06 am
Posted on 12/16/24 at 11:10 am to labamafan
quote:
Baseball is the only sport ..
Hockey.
Posted on 12/16/24 at 11:17 am to SemperFiDawg
Anything other than the old poll system is legit and conclusive enough.
There's no perfect method.
The bigger the playoff the more chance that you'll eventually have something like a 15-0 team that's dominated the entire season get upset in triple overtime by a team they have already soundly beaten twice.
Still legit but a case where old polls would still have that CG loser ranked #1.
Playoffs determine the winner of the playoffs in all sports more than they always reflect the best team over a season.
There's no perfect method.
The bigger the playoff the more chance that you'll eventually have something like a 15-0 team that's dominated the entire season get upset in triple overtime by a team they have already soundly beaten twice.
Still legit but a case where old polls would still have that CG loser ranked #1.
Playoffs determine the winner of the playoffs in all sports more than they always reflect the best team over a season.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News