Started By
Message
Why not just let a computer decide the playoffs and let the chips fall where they may?
Posted on 12/7/25 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 12/7/25 at 4:31 pm
That’s what Herbie suggests. Whereas I am not saying this is the formula that should be used, this SOR would be a lot more accurate playoffs than we have now.
1. Indiana Hoosiers
2. Georgia Bulldogs
3, Texas A&M Aggies
4. Oregon Ducks
5. Ohio State Buckeyes
6. Ole Miss Rebels
7. Texas Tech Red Raiders
8. Oklahoma Sooners
9. BYU Cougars
10. Alabama Crimson Tide
11. Vanderbilt Commodores
12. Texas Longhorns
LINK
1. Indiana Hoosiers
2. Georgia Bulldogs
3, Texas A&M Aggies
4. Oregon Ducks
5. Ohio State Buckeyes
6. Ole Miss Rebels
7. Texas Tech Red Raiders
8. Oklahoma Sooners
9. BYU Cougars
10. Alabama Crimson Tide
11. Vanderbilt Commodores
12. Texas Longhorns
LINK
This post was edited on 12/7/25 at 4:32 pm
3
Posted on 12/7/25 at 4:33 pm to prouddawg
quote:
Why not just let a computer decide the playoffs
I think this is what every sane, rationale, non cuck SEC fan has constantly said since the day the committee was formed to transparently limit the number of SEC teams in the playoff in the wake of the GOTC II.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 4:34 pm to prouddawg
It is harder to get the sisters of the poor DEI teams in that way.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 4:37 pm to Night Vision
So the Golden Domers still wouldn't make the playoff.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 4:40 pm to prouddawg
Well because if the current trends continue the computers are going to turn to shite. A huge factor in what determines the accuracy of the computers is how many links exist between conferences. Even small games have meaning and help.
Otherwise you get bubbles. If the SEC only plays the SEC and the Big10 only plays that Big10, then you have no way to rank these teams accurately because all their stats exist in their own world - aka a bubble. It's OOC games between conferences that allow these teams to be graded accurately.
The more OOC games, the better the metrics will be. The Big12 this year is an example of a bubble IMO. And that's highlighted by BYU at #9.
But now they are making it so SoS means shite and that means there is less incentive to schedule these games. Also conferences are doing 9 games and that means less OOC games.
And I can also tell you that many so called ranking systems are very flawed. If they don't know how to opponent adjust, they shouldn't be considered for example. And then the SoR stat many seem to use - it's not great either. You need a process for ranking.
If you want to put it on computer formulas, then I suggest asking people who know about using data to rank teams what is needed to do it accurately. BCS era = SoS meant a lot. 12 team playoff era = SoS means nothing.
Otherwise you get bubbles. If the SEC only plays the SEC and the Big10 only plays that Big10, then you have no way to rank these teams accurately because all their stats exist in their own world - aka a bubble. It's OOC games between conferences that allow these teams to be graded accurately.
The more OOC games, the better the metrics will be. The Big12 this year is an example of a bubble IMO. And that's highlighted by BYU at #9.
But now they are making it so SoS means shite and that means there is less incentive to schedule these games. Also conferences are doing 9 games and that means less OOC games.
And I can also tell you that many so called ranking systems are very flawed. If they don't know how to opponent adjust, they shouldn't be considered for example. And then the SoR stat many seem to use - it's not great either. You need a process for ranking.
If you want to put it on computer formulas, then I suggest asking people who know about using data to rank teams what is needed to do it accurately. BCS era = SoS meant a lot. 12 team playoff era = SoS means nothing.
This post was edited on 12/7/25 at 4:42 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News