Started By
Message
re: This is why I hate a Committee making the decisions
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:09 am to StopRobot
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:09 am to StopRobot
quote:
You all hated the BCS for putting Bama #2 in 2011
Not me. I hated the result of the game. But, I was then, and remain, a vocal proponent of that being the correct decision.
0
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:12 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
I think this boils down to the eye test and who they think would win the most games if these teams play
BINGO. But "eye test" is biased in nature. It creates the opportunity for them to think, "Surely Oklahoma would beat Baylor" simply because they have ingrained biases towards teams like Oklahoma (positive) and also Baylor (negative).
Eye Test creates a way for past program prestige to slip its way into the rankings, and that's not good.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:12 am to BHMKyle
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:16 am to BHMKyle
quote:
This is a perfect example of "Brand" trumping actual facts and results on the field. It's also the same reason Ohio State came in at #1 ahead of LSU who clearly has the better resume.
Maybe, but every major poll (AP and Coaches) both think Oklahoma is better than Baylor. I do too, for that matter.
But, as another poster said, it will become clearer soon. Oklahoma plays Baylor. This is better than the BCS, and I think, as a whole the Playoff committee has gotten it right every year, so far. I can't think of a year in which they messed up.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:18 am to SadSouthernBuck
quote:
Exactly!! Penn State having 2 losses, including getting blown out by Michigan, had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Surely you don't think that if the roles were reversed, it never would have played out the same way for Penn State.
Penn State won the BIG 10 and beat Ohio State head-to-head. Yes, they lost to Michigan early in the season (in Ann Arbor), but Ohio State only beat Michigan in Double OT at home.
Penn State played the tougher schedule, beat OSU head-to-head, and won the BIG 10.
Had you switched the resumes, the Committee still would have put in OSU as a two-loss team and they would have hung their hat on head-to-head results and a Conference Championship. You know that.
No way they would have put in Penn State ahead of Ohio State if OSU had beaten them on the field and won the BIG 10.
This post was edited on 11/6/19 at 9:22 am
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:19 am to BHMKyle
quote:
This is a perfect example of "Brand" trumping actual facts and results on the field. It's also the same reason Ohio State came in at #1 ahead of LSU who clearly has the better resume.
FPI has Oklahoma 7 and Baylor 21
SP+ has Oklahoma 4 and Baylor 15
It isn't "brand", Baylor just isn't as good as OU. Baylor beat Rice by 8, went to double OT with Texas Tech, beat WVU by 3.
OU has the bad loss @KSU, but every metric says they are a better team. They play next weekend so it'll even itself out then.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:20 am to StopRobot
quote:
You all hated the BCS for putting Bama #2 in 2011
The BCS was filled with 2/3 bias also.
There needs to be an 8-team Playoff.... The 5 Conference Champs should get in automatically.
Have a Computer Poll Average (similar to the one used in the old BCS) except make it 100% of the formula to decide the seeding and decide the 3 other at-large teams.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:20 am to DawgsLife
The problem with SOS ratings at this point is they are based mostly on perceptions of conference strength. We just don't know how LSU, Bama and UGA would stack up to OSU, PSU and Wisconsin till the bowls are played.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:27 am to BHMKyle
quote:
This is a perfect example of "Brand" trumping actual facts and results on the field. It's also the same reason Ohio State came in at #1 ahead of LSU who clearly has the better resume.
I don't think brand had anything to do with Ohio State coming in at #1; if it had, Ohio State wouldn't have been left out of the play-offs the past two years. Ohio State is #1 in Offensive Efficiency, #2 in Defensive Efficiency, and #1 in Overall Efficiency. They also stomped two ranked teams (Wiscy 38-7, Cincy 42-0) and have easily handled the lesser teams as they should. In addition to the committee, most computer models (Sagarin, Colley, & Massey) have Ohio State as #1 as well.
There are strong arguments for ranking either OSU or LSU at #1, but brand is not one of them...
quote:
What basis would one have to rank Oklahoma ahead of Baylor at this point in the season? But of course, the Committee did just that, ranking 7-1 Oklahoma at #9 and undefeated Baylor at #12.
Even if it wasn't by committee, most have OU ranked ahead of Baylor (AP, Coaches, Sagarin, Massey, Billingsley); only Colley had Baylor above OU (they also have Cincinnati ranked above Alabama). OU also has a much higher overall Efficiency rating. While I think Oklahoma is the better team here, brand might've played a role in this particular instance; but since they play one another, it'll all wash out in the end.
And initial ratings in the CFP are overrated any way; heard on the radio this morning that the top ranked team in the initial poll has never won the CFP and the third ranked team has never even made the CFP Final Four...
This post was edited on 11/6/19 at 9:32 am
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:32 am to Bill_M
quote:
The problem with SOS ratings at this point is they are based mostly on perceptions of conference strength. We just don't know how LSU, Bama and UGA would stack up to OSU, PSU and Wisconsin till the bowls are played.
While this is a good point, there are ways to gauge conferences.
1. Recent history
2. Recruiting rankings
3. OOC records against decent to good teams
Wisconsin has lost two games....one to Illinois and a blowout to OSU. That gives us a pretty good picture of whta they are. It's one thing to drop and bad game if you win out or play tough in all the other games. But lose to a bad team and get blown out by a bad team?
I don't think anybody is arguing OSU should not make it at this point. They have played well against everybody, including a good, but not great Wisconsin team.
We won't really know what Penn State has until they face OSU. Don't be fooled by flashy records if they haven't played anybody. Pitt, Iowa and Michigan all playing Penn State raises questions. If they get blown out by OSU we will know what they are. if they beat OSU or play them close we will still have a question or two.
As for Georgia? They look good, but we need to see what they do with Auburn and, if they make it the West Champion in the SECCG.
We will also have an idea about Alabama and LSU after Saturday and the Iron Bowl. People want to know too much too soon. Some of the best games of the year are still ahead of us. Things will become much, much clearer by the time the season is over.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:34 am to BHMKyle
Yeah, that's complete bullshite. Baylor should be ranked ahead. Absolutely no question.
People can't go 5 mins without doing stupid shite.
People can't go 5 mins without doing stupid shite.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:34 am to BHMKyle
I agree we should have Lord Commander Darth Saban to be the only one making the decisions
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:36 am to texag7
quote:
Ohio State is ranked higher in advanced metrics and has a better SOS. They also beat their top 2 opponents by 73 points.
They have a better resume
Wisconsin doesn't seem to be what we thought. Maybe not a good team afterall.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:39 am to BHMKyle
If Baylor beats TCU and OU on 11/16, then runs the table plus the league championship game. They'll be in the playoffs.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:40 am to BHMKyle
quote:
The 5 Conference Champs should get in automatically.
I don't agree that they should automatically get in...but at least there would be room for all 5 to get in, if justified.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:41 am to BHMKyle
quote:
There needs to be an 8-team Playoff.... The 5 Conference Champs should get in automatically.
no.
Before it was..."We need a playoff!"
I can't think of a single year in which people felt like the #6,7,or 8 ranked team would have a legit shot at winning the Championship. You could maybe make an argument for a #5 team one year. In more years than not the top 4 teams are the only teams that have a shot, and in some years the top 3 could be argued. Remember blowouts like:
Oregon 59 FSU 20
Clemson 37 Oklahoma 17
Alabama 38 Michigan State 0
Clemson 31 Ohio St. 0
Alabama 24 Washington 7
Clemson 30 ND 3
Go to an 8 team playoff and you will have a lot more of those. In five years over half of the first round playoff games have been total snoozers. Add another round or two and it gets worse, not better.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:46 am to BHMKyle
It's supposed to be the best teams, right? Right now the committee believes that Oklahoma is better than Baylor.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:47 am to BHMKyle
Good points
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:48 am to BHMKyle
Good post. As an LSU Fan but being fair I have much less issue with Ohio State being ahead of LSU than what you point out with OU and Baylor.
I think putting Ohio State #1 is more a way for the committee to say "we do our own ranking, we’re just not going to copy-paste the AP". LSU at #2 is hardly being ignored or not being given a fair chance to make it.
What I don't like is the committee trying to predict the future. Is OU ahead of Baylor because they think OU will beat Baylor? Now that is dangerous. Examine the body of work, digest the metrics, but don't try to play Nostradamus.
I think putting Ohio State #1 is more a way for the committee to say "we do our own ranking, we’re just not going to copy-paste the AP". LSU at #2 is hardly being ignored or not being given a fair chance to make it.
What I don't like is the committee trying to predict the future. Is OU ahead of Baylor because they think OU will beat Baylor? Now that is dangerous. Examine the body of work, digest the metrics, but don't try to play Nostradamus.
Posted on 11/6/19 at 9:49 am to StopRobot
quote:
You all hated the BCS for putting Bama #2 in 2011
Yes we did, but I still prefer using the BCS formula over the EYE TEST.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News