Okay, then Florida State cancels who... Michigan? And you're saying Clemson cancels Penn State.
Then it's Ohio State, Oregon, and USC vs Miami
Pat Forde - projected playoff bid
- Thread starter Slick Manager of Champs
- Start date
Okay, then Florida State cancels who... Michigan? And you're saying Clemson cancels Penn State.
Then it's Ohio State, Oregon, and USC vs Miami
You think recruiting rankings form a “large component” in any analytic ranking?
I’m asking what is the *large* component that is biased?
Ohio State
Clemson
FSU
Miami
PSU
Mich
USC
Oregon (not intending to rank these groupings)
Pitt
UNC
VT
Lou
NC St
MSU
Wis
Iowa
Wash
Purdue
Neb
GT
Duke
Cal
Stan
UCLA
Min
Md
Illinois
NW
BC
Wake
Rutgers
Indiana
Again, the only major difference is Ohio State
I don't think anyone is argueing about the accomplishments of Ohio State over the last 23 seasons. Where you lose everyone is rating Michigan equally as high. Not even close.
It's 5-3 in your first two tiers. You're calling that a negligible difference, but it's not. Five title contenders vs three.
And it's really 5-2, by your own criteria, because you're keeping Miami in there even though they've accomplished less than most of the teams you have in tier three over the last 20 years.
ACC Championships since Miami got there:
Virginia Tech - 4
FSU - 5
Clemson - 8
Pitt - 1
Georgia Tech - 1
Wake Forest - 1
Miami - 0.0
So that's exactly the type of bias that people on this board don't realize they have. If a team from the ACC had the run Wisconsin or Michigan State did, you guys would have them in tier two, also. Probably Washington as well, for making two playoffs.
I'm putting them in the same tier, potential-wise. I'm definitely not arguing that Michigan has been as successful on the field as OSU in recent times.
1. Haha, so you want to include B10 Championships when schools were not members? Apply some logic when making an argument.
2. Where did I get the numbers? Here are the facts BTW, NCAA Football NC
I wouldn't normally put Miami in 2nd tier but I believe they have blue blood potential, like Michigan.
Again, the difference is Ohio State. The B10 has OSU so its a better league. After that, the other teams are the same.
On. My. Goodness. What is so difficult to understand about this? We are talking about what the conferences are with the members they have right now. By your logic, Oklahoma and Texas add no value to the SEC because they were in a different conference during all of their success.
Like, what?
Ah, so we're toggling between what is factual and what we kind of believe can maybe sort of happen someday? That's why these arguments can't really be had with a team whose rival is in one of the big two conferences. It turns into a game of mental gymnastics. Especially puzzling from someone who believes Miami is 3-2 with two wins that should be overturned on protest.
The recruiting rankings should be disregarded because everyone is biased. But then the final rankings should also be disregarded because everyone is biased. National Championships only count if the team was in the conference at the time AND their coach is still there. Etc., etc., etc.
It shouldn't be ANY component of analyzing teams on field performance. We have seen many times a recruit get an offer from a big school and their ranking automatically go up a star. If B10 school recruiting rankings are inflated, that causes every team in the conference to have built in bias. Not only are they ranked higher, but every conference opponents is artificially ranked higher as well.
Other components in the FPI that should have no basis to the current year
- data on the last 4 seasons
- the number of returning starters on the offense and defense (with the QB counting as more)
- a binary input on the returning coach
- strength of the team's recruiting class (with an input for transfers)
College FPI is more reliant on the priors in the model due to the regular occurrences of mismatches each week. Priors are all the BS things listed above. It is a useless index.
Right. But a lot of these things are the preseason analytics.
That are then phased out as more data points begin to exist.
And so only recent success of previous seasons starts to still matter.
And that’s not true of all analytic models. SP+ completely phases them out after a certain number of games.
But it’s not like SP+ and FPI have these insane disagreements. Because what you’re concerned about is very marginal.
This is why the only answer is to settle the championship on the field, and why every team sport on earth does it that way other than college football. Rankings are subjective, results are not, and that's why the Fat 10 wants to lock in access they have no right to based on their on-field performance. They are not a peer to the SEC in football in anything other than revenue generated.
Only fans of teams who benefit from the status quo, message board trolls, or people with some form of Stockholm Syndrome would argue that things like recruiting rankings or the size/fanaticism of your fanbase should factor into playoff eligibility in any way.
I don't disagree that it is preferable to have playoffs that mimic pro sports, but I also see the argument to more stacked conferences having more seats at the table. SMF would be the first to argue that the Mountain West gets way too much NCAAT representation in basketball, and I agree. So what is the argument, then? More stacked conferences should have more teams in. Well, agreed. So, when it comes to reasonable CFP contenders, the FPI indicates that the BIG has 9 teams in the top 30 (reasonable striking distance) and the ACC has 5. So what's the issue if we are being consistent?
The issue is the Big Ten isnt twice as good as the ACC to warrant 4 teams while the ACC only gets 2. Its better only because of Ohio State so lets say OSU is basically an Independent because they are going every year. Giving the rest of the B10 2 and the ACC 2 seems very fair to me. And then if there are more deserving teams, they can earn it. The B10 isnt in the same stratosphere as the SEC.
Should be
SEC 4
B10 3
ACC 2
B12 2
At-large to include ND: 2
G6: 1
What the B10 wants to do in this 14 team CFP is eliminate any at-large bid if ND has a good season because they are getting it. Lets paint this scenario in a year where there is a 14 team playoff with the B10 and SEC get 4 autos each:
Clemson goes 11-2, wins the ACCG and are one of the 4 highest rated conference champions. Florida State goes 12-1 and loses to Clemson in the ACCG. They are also in. Pitt goes 11-1, only loss at Clemson in 4 OT. Pitt finishes the season ranked #6 but they dont get a CFP bid because Illinois finished 9-3 and ranked 18th and got the B10's 4th auto bid.
Those conferences that are stacked should have no issue earning the additional slots.
I don't care if there are 4 SEC teams in the playoff (or 4 from any other conference for that matter) because they "demonstrated" (the quotes are because there's not enough interconference play to objectively determine whether the 3rd best ACC team is better than the 4th best SEC team) that they are one of the top 12 teams in the country.
There's no reason to reserve 4 slots for any conference, let alone one where the 4th best team regularly has at least 4 losses by the end of the season and isn't close to the top 12 of the playoff rankings.
And the current FPI is meaningless, because there haven't been enough games and the preseason biases (see USC and Mizzou as examples) are still skewing the results. Yes, I'm aware there were 4 current Fat 10 teams in the top 5 at the end of last year. So maybe they should have gotten 4 teams in last year, but they aren't entitled to put in a team that ended the season 8-6 in 2022 because they had 4 strong teams in 2023.
Ultimately, the purpose of a playoff is to determine the best team in the country, which requires inter-conference play. A team that can't win its division (or the equivalent now that conferences are moving away from divisions) shouldn't be taking up a slot that would let us determine which of 2 teams who have no common opponents is better (on a given day).
Latest posts
-
-
Recruiting Update Pitt offers Western Carolina transfer OL- Latest: LeftCoastPanther
-
-
Recruiting Update Byron Nelson picks UNC/Recruiting board reset
- Latest: Islanderpanther