If you haven't looked at Sagarin Rankings, they are interesting
- Thread starter PrestonyteParrot
- Start date
Seems like the most important criteria in there is vs. top-10 (of these rankings). Nothing about most recent games, which would/should be used in ranking teams. Ranking is a snapshot in time - where do you stack up right now? Otherwise we'd be using "legacy rankings" to determine who the best teams are... oh wait...
Ultimately, the only way for a team like South Carolina, or Indiana for that matter, absolutely must have no more than 2 losses to make the top-12. Meanwhile a team like Georgia, with 2+ losses and a couple other squeakers against lesser teams, and Bama get in based on their pedigree.
It would be easy to take the subjectivity out of it. Weight several different factors equally and let the black box spit it out. It would be defensible and understood by all. Especially the coaches and players. Why didn't we make the playoff? Oh, we lost two of our last four games... to unranked teams.
Right now the system is little better than gymnastics, which is judged to the .001 of a point. Track and swimming only record to the .01 of a second.
Ultimately, the only way for a team like South Carolina, or Indiana for that matter, absolutely must have no more than 2 losses to make the top-12. Meanwhile a team like Georgia, with 2+ losses and a couple other squeakers against lesser teams, and Bama get in based on their pedigree.
It would be easy to take the subjectivity out of it. Weight several different factors equally and let the black box spit it out. It would be defensible and understood by all. Especially the coaches and players. Why didn't we make the playoff? Oh, we lost two of our last four games... to unranked teams.
Right now the system is little better than gymnastics, which is judged to the .001 of a point. Track and swimming only record to the .01 of a second.
Get unlimited access today.