What does this say about the importance of SOS and the CFP field?

[PrestonyteParrot]

Strength Of Schedule for the remaining 4 teams

15) Texas: 213.25 CFP Rank 3
23) Ohio State: 199.25 CFP Rank 6
38) Penn State: 183.00 CFP Rank 4
57) Notre Dame: 162.25 CFP Rank 5


Strength of Schedule for the CFP Field of 12

10) Georgia: 225.50 CFP Rank 2
15) Texas: 213.25 CFP Rank 3
23) Ohio State: 199.25 CFP Rank 6
35) Arizona State: 184.75 CFP Rank 12
38) Penn State: 183.00 CFP Rank 4
42) Oregon: 178.75 CFP Rank 1
49) Tennessee: 172.5 CFP Rank 7
54) Clemson: 164.50 CFP Rank 16
57) Notre Dame: 162.25 CFP Rank 5
64) SMU: 142.50 CFP Rank 10
67) Indiana: 130.50 CFP Rank 8
78) Boise State: 96.75 CFP Rank 9

 

[KingWard]

Strength Of Schedule for the remaining 4 teams

15) Texas: 213.25 CFP Rank 3
23) Ohio State: 199.25 CFP Rank 6
38) Penn State: 183.00 CFP Rank 4
57) Notre Dame: 162.25 CFP Rank 5


Strength of Schedule for the CFP Field of 12

10) Georgia: 225.50 CFP Rank 2
15) Texas: 213.25 CFP Rank 3
23) Ohio State: 199.25 CFP Rank 6
35) Arizona State: 184.75 CFP Rank 12
38) Penn State: 183.00 CFP Rank 4
42) Oregon: 178.75 CFP Rank 1
49) Tennessee: 172.5 CFP Rank 7
54) Clemson: 164.50 CFP Rank 16
57) Notre Dame: 162.25 CFP Rank 5
64) SMU: 142.50 CFP Rank 10
67) Indiana: 130.50 CFP Rank 8
78) Boise State: 96.75 CFP Rank 9

Tells me that this current CFP Committee doesn't assign value to it. Tells me that we need to put the computers to work and wash out all the subjectivity. Tells me that, now that we have gone away from two far superior systems, we might as well go to 16 teams and have a true playoff bereft of automatic byes and automatic qualifiers - and with realistic seedings and brackets. Tells me that we need to use the bowl system for the preliminaries.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

Getting these humans to relinquish their power and status to a computer will be more difficult than getting them on the table for a colonoscopy.

 

[Lurker123]

Devils advocate question.

If we go to a 9 game conference schedule, and SEC and B10 teams don't mingle, how will we compare SOS?

Meaning that Preseason polls will be all important, since they would go a long way to determine that SOS. And Preseason polls are garbage.

Imo, we need more inter conference play, not less.

 

[KingWard]

Devils advocate question.

If we go to a 9 game conference schedule, and SEC and B10 teams don't mingle, how will we compare SOS?

Meaning that Preseason polls will be all important, since they would go a long way to determine that SOS. And Preseason polls are garbage.

Imo, we need more inter conference play, not less.

I agree, even if it means giving up the championship game and awarding the trophy by points, which I'm not saying is necessary but it might work as a concession. One more conference game certainly enhances spectator and television ratings value.

 

[Anon1734820979]

It means that this same human subjectivity also impacts SOS. It's common sense actually. The SOS is based on where humans had teams ranked when you played them. The only true fair way is to input data into a computer that factors in win/loss records, home/away records, offense/defense rankings against opponents, (add more if needed) then have it spit out ratings after week 8. No human involvement. Then you could say that SOS is accurate. But now it looks like teams rated 15-57 were good enough to beat teams 14 and higher? So maybe Georgia had a SOS rating that was flawed as did Notre Dame?? The range of SOS remaining is too broad to make any analytical assumptions.

 

[Anon1734820979]

Tells me that this current CFP Committee doesn't assign value to it. Tells me that we need to put the computers to work and wash out all the subjectivity. Tells me that, now that we have gone away from two far superior systems, we might as well go to 16 teams and have a true playoff bereft of automatic byes and automatic qualifiers - and with realistic seedings and brackets. Tells me that we need to use the bowl system for the preliminaries.

No system that had humans pick 2 or 4 teams was superior. Teams ranked 5 -8 could win the title. Teams ranked say 10th or lower are like winning the lottery. Realistically no team that finishes outside the top 3 in any conference should be playing for a natty. Or if they are it's OK, but complaining about who is 11th or 14th is just stupid. But hey play 16 and then when you finish 17th you'll complain because your weren't 14th?? No one wants clear numeric criteria. Like top 4 in SEC are in. Because they won't thier 5th place team in??? No common sense is why we have this argument still.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

It means that this same human subjectivity also impacts SOS. It's common sense actually. The SOS is based on where humans had teams ranked when you played them. The only true fair way is to input data into a computer that factors in win/loss records, home/away records, offense/defense rankings against opponents, (add more if needed) then have it spit out ratings after week 8. No human involvement. Then you could say that SOS is accurate. But now it looks like teams rated 15-57 were good enough to beat teams 14 and higher? So maybe Georgia had a SOS rating that was flawed as did Notre Dame?? The range of SOS remaining is too broad to make any analytical assumptions.

EXACTLY, AND ON POINT.

For those clamoring for computer spit outs to determine rankings for CFP they are missing this one important element. SOS is based on the human element of the polls. As they stand now, The preseason polls should be regulated for "Entertainment Purposes Only". The same schools will be ranked in the top 15 based on name recognition, and biases. A case (on biases) in point was when Alabama was upset by Vandy and fell only 2 spots in the polls. Any other school would have dropped 10 spots and I'm being conservative.
Computer rankings will have multiple flaws, what indices will carry more weight than others, and who will determine how much weight is given to what indices. As long as the polls will be considered as a factor of SOS(which is based on human biases) then you will always have examinations of the selection process.

 

[LonghornsGamecocks]

Hard to fault the results or eye test of any of the remaining four IMO.

 

[Anon1734820979]

Hard to fault the results or eye test of any of the remaining four IMO.

But that same eye test would have been flawed against Arizona State if the humans would have had thier way. Arizona state would've been seeded way lower and they took Texas to the brink and technically got screwed. If the humans and media are involved it will never work.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

It means that this same human subjectivity also impacts SOS. It's common sense actually. The SOS is based on where humans had teams ranked when you played them. The only true fair way is to input data into a computer that factors in win/loss records, home/away records, offense/defense rankings against opponents, (add more if needed) then have it spit out ratings after week 8. No human involvement. Then you could say that SOS is accurate. But now it looks like teams rated 15-57 were good enough to beat teams 14 and higher? So maybe Georgia had a SOS rating that was flawed as did Notre Dame?? The range of SOS remaining is too broad to make any analytical assumptions.

Sagarin has worked quite well in the past

 

[KingWard]

No system that had humans pick 2 or 4 teams was superior. Teams ranked 5 -8 could win the title. Teams ranked say 10th or lower are like winning the lottery. Realistically no team that finishes outside the top 3 in any conference should be playing for a natty. Or if they are it's OK, but complaining about who is 11th or 14th is just stupid. But hey play 16 and then when you finish 17th you'll complain because your weren't 14th?? No one wants clear numeric criteria. Like top 4 in SEC are in. Because they won't thier 5th place team in??? No common sense is why we have this argument still.

First, everyone knows and has to accept that the championship process will involve a finite number of teams. There are always going to be good teams excluded, which is the way the mop flops. But if the criteria used are clear, and equally applied to everybody, the grounds for protest are going to be minimized.

The BCS leaned heavily on computer rankings. It was therefore superior to now. The four-team CFP assigned no specific weight to conference championships. It was therefore superior to now. The four-team system considered strength of schedule as significant. It was therefore superior to now. The four-team system considered end of season strength of personnel in its selections, as evidenced by the FSU case. People howled, but it was therefore superior to now.

I've already laid out what would bring us as close as we can come to perfection from this point on. Sixteen teams (really more than deserve to play for the championship, but we've got that fallacy already), all teams computer selected using agreed upon, understood, and recognized parameters. No automatic bids. No byes. Seeding according to where the computers have ranked the teams and games reflecting those seedings.

One variation might be to reseed after each of the first three rounds based upon what the computers determine to be the current strength of remaining teams. Preliminary rounds would involve the bowls considered the most preferable. If desirable, one bowl could be tapped to host the championship game and hosting could be rotated annually.

What could be better than that? If anything is better than that, then do it.

 

[Anon1734820979]

Conference champions will always get a bid not a bye. No offense, but thecACC was weak when Clemson had their run. But tbey still beat some really stacked teams in tbe semi and finals. Back when SEC was east and west the east was non existent for about 5 or more years. The west was king. Arizona State showed it this year. The Big 12 was not great, but what a hell of a fight they put up. I lime 16 with computer rankings, but the chapms get in. If they are below 16 then they are 16th. Not perfect but all Conference commissioners have to approve changes and that's the only way they will vote. Their champs are in at a minimum. No 5th place team from any conference should be arguing that they belong.

 

[KingWard]

...Conference champions will always get a bid...

Only if they decide to continue using substandard, non-optimal methodology, which is probable.

 

[Anon1734820979]

Only if they decide to continue using substandard, non-optimal methodology, which is probable.

FCS has used it for years. They have it all figured out. Use thier model and move on. Not hard unless we try to.justify teams that finished 5th or 6th in their own conference are a team capable of playing or honestly deserving to play in a playoff. No playoff system gives those teams playoffs spots. Man that SEC is really reaching. They actually are losing steam because of the poor performance this year. All hopes and dreams rest with Texas. Same team that this very forum said last year "that they couldn't wait for Texas to see how tough it was. Well they thrived. Maybe Arizona State should join the SEC too? Legends in your own minds.

 

[Cackmandu]

Legend in 13 of the last 20 national champions.

Hard to understand why the ACC can't do better, they're in the south recruiting the same kids, you would think they could compete!

No way conferences are going to get rid of championship games and hard to see the SEC going to 9 conference games after this year. I do like basketballs quad seeding though, again a human element involved if any polls are involved, pre-season polls should have zero merit.

 

[KingWard]

FCS has used it for years. They have it all figured out. Use thier model and move on. Not hard unless we try to.justify teams that finished 5th or 6th in their own conference are a team capable of playing or honestly deserving to play in a playoff. No playoff system gives those teams playoffs spots. Man that SEC is really reaching. They actually are losing steam because of the poor performance this year. All hopes and dreams rest with Texas. Same team that this very forum said last year "that they couldn't wait for Texas to see how tough it was. Well they thrived. Maybe Arizona State should join the SEC too? Legends in your own minds.

There have been permutations before. It's not the first time. The SEC is a stock you hold - like Coca Cola,