If the computers / metrics picked the CFP field…

[Perd Hapley]

It would only look slightly different.

Below is the field ranked by the average of team rank in the FPI, SOR, and the Connelly rankings (efficiency index).

The 5 italicized teams had the exact same ranking as the committee gave them. Conference champ autobids are denoted by asterisk.

***A note that Texas Tech and UGA actually tied for 4th, but gave the nod in these seedings to UGA. That is why TT is italicized here.

5 other teams were only one or two spots off their final committee ranking.

The only major changes were that OM and OU do not make the field, and are replaced by Notre Dame and Vanderbilt. And hey look, both Miami AND Notre Dame made it. ACC still gets their team…..koombayah.

Tell me, why do we need a committee again?

The Seeded Field

1. Indiana*
2. Ohio State
3. Oregon
4. UGA*
5. Texas Tech*
6. Notre Dame
7. Texas A&M
8. Miami
9. Alabama
10. Vanderbilt
11. James Madison*
12. Tulane*

OUT
T11. Ole Miss
T11. Utah
T13. Oklahoma
T13. BYU
T15. Texas
T15. USC

 

[BreckyBratt]

Why are tewlane and jmu in? Honestly one go boat raced by a team head to head and the other not even sure if they played d1 football.

 

[11thEagleFan]

This is honestly worse than the committee did. James Madison as the 11? Notre Dame at 6 and Oregon at 3? Nah.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Why are tewlane and jmu in? Honestly one go boat raced by a team head to head and the other not even sure if they played d1 football.

What do you mean? They got in as the 4th and 5th highest rated conference champs. Same way as they actually got in. I didn’t change any of the auto qualifier rules. Only how the field was seeded and how at-large teams were slotted.

JMU’s average rank in the three major indices was 25.33. Tulane’s was 37.67. Therefore, JMU gets the 11 and Tulane gets the 12. If you’re splitting hairs on which G5 should be #11 and which should be #12, then I’ll just let you have that to yourself. FYI, Duke’s average was a horrendous 53.00. They would not have even gotten in if there were 6 auto bids for conference champs….6th would have gone to Boise State who finished with a 48 average.

 

[Perd Hapley]

This is honestly worse than the committee did.

That remains to be seen. Let’s see how the games unfold to see who was underrated and overrated by the committee.

James Madison as the 11?

Yes, instead of the 12. Tulane gets the 12, per the metrics. Those two teams are switched. Is this really a hill anyone is willing to die on?

Notre Dame at 6

Why not? I personally like them here instead of the team the committee actually placed here***

and Oregon at 3? Nah.

Oregon’s currently #5. It’s not some huge stretch. They went 11-1 in a tough league.

 

[BreckyBratt]

What do you mean? They got in as the 4th and 5th highest rated conference champs. Same way as they actually got in. I didn’t change any of the auto qualifier rules. Only how the field was seeded and how at-large teams were slotted.

JMU’s average rank in the three major indices was 25.33. Tulane’s was 37.67. Therefore, JMU gets the 11 and Tulane gets the 12. If you’re splitting hairs on which G5 should be #11 and which should be #12, then I’ll just let you have that to yourself. FYI, Duke’s average was a horrendous 53.00. They would not have even gotten in if there were 6 auto bids for conference champs….6th would have gone to Boise State who finished with a 48 average.

You truly think that Tulane and JMU could just walk blindly through a SEC schedule, B10, B12, or independent schedule with pulse. You honestly need to just do what you do best and that's what makes the world go round.

 

[Perd Hapley]

You truly think that Tulane and JMU could just walk blindly through a SEC schedule, B10, B12, or independent schedule with pulse. You honestly need to just do what you do best and that's what makes the world go round.

Honest question - Are you having a stroke right now…or something?

No, I don’t think that at all. Where did I imply anything close to what you are saying?

 

[DT4248]

You truly think that Tulane and JMU could just walk blindly through a SEC schedule, B10, B12, or independent schedule with pulse. You honestly need to just do what you do best and that's what makes the world go round.

You're trolling being this dumb right?

 

[Maroon13]

Why those three ranking models? If I understand correctly, FPI and Connerly use scoring and efficiently to arrive at their rankings. ND would score well on those models because their schedule turned out to be weak. Play weak teams, you score a lot of points. ND had 4 teams on their schedule that combined, won less than 10 games. Point being if you added SOS, how would that change the rankings.

Texas A&M got screwed being ranking 7 v OM at 6. OM should be 7 and playing Miami, per the committee rankings. Or more like, OM should be hosting Vandy.


....Vandy..... Notre Dame .....Miami....,,OM....TAM
SOS 24 ...........44................ 45 ........ 40......15
SOR 11............13................ 14........ 40........1

 

[BreckyBratt]

Honest question - Are you having a stroke right now…or something?

No, I don’t think that at all. Where did I imply anything close to what you are saying?

Blindly taking what the committee says and whatever the feel good rules and then writing a four page memorandum on why you think this is what is best is why you need to run to check if your the dubmass having the stroke. JMU and Tulane should not be in the playoffs at all until someone with a pair says here you go little ones. AAC and SBC conference champs or not should not be in the playoffs.

 

[BreckyBratt]

You're trolling being this dumb right?

Please explain. Im not a troll I live in the real world where actual results matter. You have Tulane about to go to oxpatch and get boat raced again. Then you have a JMU team who barely beat a WSU team by four. Also they were doubled by a mediocre Louisville team. About to head to Oregon, not expecting a good outcome from that at all. I may be wrong but....

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I actually like those results.

 

[DT4248]

Please explain. Im not a troll I live in the real world where actual results matter. You have Tulane about to go to oxpatch and get boat raced again. Then you have a JMU team who barely beat a WSU team by four. Also they were doubled by a mediocre Louisville team. About to head to Oregon, not expecting a good outcome from that at all. I may be wrong but....

Here in the real world it's been explained to you multiple times that the top 5 conference champions get in the bracket. You're repeatedly ignoring reality.

 

[DT4248]

Blindly taking what the committee says and whatever the feel good rules and then writing a four page memorandum on why you think this is what is best is why you need to run to check if your the dubmass having the stroke. JMU and Tulane should not be in the playoffs at all until someone with a pair says here you go little ones. AAC and SBC conference champs or not should not be in the playoffs.

Smokey this is bowling not nam. There are rules.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Blindly taking what the committee says and whatever the feel good rules and then writing a four page memorandum on why you think this is what is best is why you need to run to check if your the dubmass having the stroke. JMU and Tulane should not be in the playoffs at all until someone with a pair says here you go little ones. AAC and SBC conference champs or not should not be in the playoffs.

All he did was show what the computers would rank the teams and then create the bracket based on the criteria of the playoffs. JMU and Tulane would be 11 and 12 based on the playoff rules.

 

[8dog]

ND over OM and Oklahoma. Good grief that’s terrible

 

[onewoof]

ND over OM and Oklahoma. Good grief that’s terrible

I agree with both of those based on raw data

 

[8dog]

I agree with both of those based on raw data

ND SOS was 44. They went 10-2. I don’t know how a metrics can have them 6th. FPI may be one of the strangest metrics ever. ND has a 13 SOR and 44 SOS but a 3 FPI??? SP+ admits it’s not a resume metric but is meant to be predictive. It says it doesn’t give credit for good wins or strong scheduling. I think FPI is the same so I think it gives ND a lot of credit for boat racing bad teams

Vandy got hurt bc Mizzou and TN (and to some degree TAMU) dropped from the rankings which is absurd. Is there really any team that would rather play those two than JMU, Tulane, or NT?

 

[patdog]

This is honestly worse than the committee did. James Madison as the 11? Notre Dame at 6 and Oregon at 3? Nah.

But Mississippi out trumps all of that.

 

[85Bears]

Fan duel had ND -5.5 at OU, which was taken down of course. Now fan duel has Alabama -1.5 at OU.
ND would be favored over OU or Ole Miss on a neutral field, and Over Alabama as well.

ND over OM and Oklahoma. Good grief that’s terrible

 

[Drebin]

It would only look slightly different.

Below is the field ranked by the average of team rank in the FPI, SOR, and the Connelly rankings (efficiency index).

The 5 italicized teams had the exact same ranking as the committee gave them. Conference champ autobids are denoted by asterisk.

***A note that Texas Tech and UGA actually tied for 4th, but gave the nod in these seedings to UGA. That is why TT is italicized here.

5 other teams were only one or two spots off their final committee ranking.

The only major changes were that OM and OU do not make the field, and are replaced by Notre Dame and Vanderbilt. And hey look, both Miami AND Notre Dame made it. ACC still gets their team…..koombayah.

Tell me, why do we need a committee again?

The Seeded Field

1. Indiana*
2. Ohio State
3. Oregon
4. UGA*
5. Texas Tech*
6. Notre Dame
7. Texas A&M
8. Miami
9. Alabama
10. Vanderbilt
11. James Madison*
12. Tulane*

OUT
T11. Ole Miss
T11. Utah
T13. Oklahoma
T13. BYU
T15. Texas
T15. USC

If you're going to rethink the seeding and who should've got in, do it right and leave out the G5s. They don't belong.

 

[85Bears]

 

[patdog]

View attachment 1063752

If only there were some way we could determine on the football field how Notre Dame and Miami compare. What does it say about all those computer metrics and human polls that they ALL got the Notre Dame vs Miami comparison wrong?

 

[85Bears]

If only there were some way we could determine on the football field how Notre Dame and Miami compare. What does it say about all those computer metrics and human polls that they ALL got the Notre Dame vs Miami comparison wrong?

Or Alabama or Oklahoma

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

So when Tulane played a team with a real pulse it was not pretty.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Why those three ranking models? If I understand correctly, FPI and Connerly use scoring and efficiently to arrive at their rankings. ND would score well on those models because their schedule turned out to be weak. Play weak teams, you score a lot of points. ND had 4 teams on their schedule that combined, won less than 10 games. Point being if you added SOS, how would that change the rankings.

Texas A&M got screwed being ranking 7 v OM at 6. OM should be 7 and playing Miami, per the committee rankings. Or more like, OM should be hosting Vandy.


....Vandy..... Notre Dame .....Miami....,,OM....TAM
SOS 24 ...........44................ 45 ........ 40......15
SOR 11............13................ 14........ 40........1

It wouldn’t necessarily have to be those three or just those three. I’d be open to seeing the same study done over other ones as well, or other metrics in addition to some combination of these 3.

These were just ones that were easily available all in one place, so I chose to use them. I also considered placing a 50% emphasis on SOR and 25% on the other two, because I do feel SOR is the most important of those….but decided to keep it simple to what I could process in like 20 min.

In general, I found it very interesting how closely aligned it was with the committee’s final rankings. The only major differences were that Notre Dame was a lot higher and OU/OM were a lot lower. Everyone else landed within 2 spots or less of their final committee ranking.

 

[johnson86-1]

It would only look slightly different.

Below is the field ranked by the average of team rank in the FPI, SOR, and the Connelly rankings (efficiency index).

The 5 italicized teams had the exact same ranking as the committee gave them. Conference champ autobids are denoted by asterisk.

***A note that Texas Tech and UGA actually tied for 4th, but gave the nod in these seedings to UGA. That is why TT is italicized here.

5 other teams were only one or two spots off their final committee ranking.

The only major changes were that OM and OU do not make the field, and are replaced by Notre Dame and Vanderbilt. And hey look, both Miami AND Notre Dame made it. ACC still gets their team…..koombayah.

Tell me, why do we need a committee again?

The Seeded Field

1. Indiana*
2. Ohio State
3. Oregon
4. UGA*
5. Texas Tech*
6. Notre Dame
7. Texas A&M
8. Miami
9. Alabama
10. Vanderbilt
11. James Madison*
12. Tulane*

OUT
T11. Ole Miss
T11. Utah
T13. Oklahoma
T13. BYU
T15. Texas
T15. USC

To allow for politics and because people are concerned that computers can come up with absurd rankings.

I'd like to see what the old BCS formula would give. I always thought those were pretty accurate.

 

[Perd Hapley]

ND SOS was 44. They went 10-2. I don’t know how a metrics can have them 6th. FPI may be one of the strangest metrics ever. ND has a 13 SOR and 44 SOS but a 3 FPI??? SP+ admits it’s not a resume metric but is meant to be predictive. It says it doesn’t give credit for good wins or strong scheduling. I think FPI is the same so I think it gives ND a lot of credit for boat racing bad teams

Vandy got hurt bc Mizzou and TN (and to some degree TAMU) dropped from the rankings which is absurd. Is there really any team that would rather play those two than JMU, Tulane, or NT?

I think a lot of it is designed to consider luck and margin of victory and whether or not a team’s performance is considered predictive or sustainable.

Ole Miss didn’t really have a much better schedule than Notre Dame. They were 40th. And, they damn near lost at home to a crappy Washington State team. Ask yourself, if you compare Ole Miss and ND, which is a worse performance…..winning by 3 at home against WSU, or losing by 3 on the road at Miami or at home against Texas A&M? Those are the type things that metrics expose clearly, but humans have a hard time processing / acknowledging. Notre Dame played 12 games, and were perhaps 2 plays away from being 12-0 and the #1 overall seed. They lost to really good teams by very narrow margins. On a bell curve of what they were capable of doing this season, their record pretty much fell on the extreme bottom end, whereas Ole Miss’ fell on the extreme top end.

Oklahoma is a similar story. Tougher schedule than OM, but looked very vulnerable many, many times. They had a record of 4-0 in games decided by 7 points or less. 3 of those 4 games were against teams outside the CFP Top 25. How sustainable is that when they start playing nothing but elite teams? This is another thing the metrics can show clearly, but humans have a hard time because they are too results-focused.

 

[Perd Hapley]

To allow for politics and because people are concerned that computers can come up with absurd rankings.

I'd like to see what the old BCS formula would give. I always thought those were pretty accurate.

I thought that the BCS formula worked pretty well also.

Another option might be a hybrid model. Perhaps they use the computers / metrics to select the 5 highest rated conference champs, then the next 4 best teams. Then, let humans select the final 3 teams, then let humans seed all 12 of the teams. I think that could work. There will likely still be overlap between the computers and humans for the final 3 teams.

 

[8dog]

I think a lot of it is designed to consider luck and margin of victory and whether or not a team’s performance is considered predictive or sustainable.

Ole Miss didn’t really have a much better schedule than Notre Dame. They were 40th. And, they damn near lost at home to a crappy Washington State team. Ask yourself, if you compare Ole Miss and ND, which is a worse performance…..winning by 3 at home against WSU, or losing by 3 on the road at Miami or at home against Texas A&M? Those are the type things that metrics expose clearly, but humans have a hard time processing / acknowledging. Notre Dame played 12 games, and were perhaps 2 plays away from being 12-0 and the #1 overall seed. They lost to really good teams by very narrow margins. On a bell curve of what they were capable of doing this season, their record pretty much fell on the extreme bottom end, whereas Ole Miss’ fell on the extreme top end.

Oklahoma is a similar story. Tougher schedule than OM, but looked very vulnerable many, many times. They had a record of 4-0 in games decided by 7 points or less. 3 of those 4 games were against teams outside the CFP Top 25. How sustainable is that when they start playing nothing but elite teams? This is another thing the metrics can show clearly, but humans have a hard time because they are too results-focused.

And that’s my issue…it gives too much credit for boat racing bad teams. Who cares if someone sleep walks through an 11 am home game against a bottom tier OOC opponent When they go 11-1 and win at OK which is far more than most can claim. And they lost a one score game at Georgia where they scored 5 straight TDs. To me that’s where the human element is imnportant- people know to discount something like that when the rest of the resume is positive.

 

[She Mate Me]

And that’s my issue…it gives too much credit for boat racing bad teams. Who cares if someone sleep walks through an 11 am home game against a bottom tier OOC opponent When they go 11-1 and win at OK which is far more than most can claim. And they lost a one score game at Georgia where they scored 5 straight TDs. To me that’s where the human element is imnportant- people know to discount something like that when the rest of the resume is positive.

Well, the guys who make money by setting realistic odds on games care how teams perform against anybody they are playing. It is pretty predictive of how good they are.

As bad as Arkansas was, there are very few teams in this country capable of going into Fayetteville and being in front 42-13 at the half like ND was. They are good, and should be in the playoffs.

 

[8dog]

Well, the guys who make money by setting realistic odds on games care how teams perform against anybody they are playing. It is pretty predictive of how good they are.

As bad as Arkansas was, there are very few teams in this country capable of going into Fayetteville and being in front 42-13 at the half like ND was. They are good, and should be in the playoffs.

Wait, you think ND should be in the playoffs b/c they beat Arkansas badly? They also struggled with BC who is far worse than Arkansas. How you do against bad teams is a terrible metric.

 

[She Mate Me]

Wait, you think ND should be in the playoffs b/c they beat Arkansas badly? .

Pretty sure I didn't say that.

I think they should be in the playoffs because their performance in all 12 of their games as a complete body of work says to me and a lot of other folks (including the majority of the unbiased data metrics) that they are one of the 10 best teams in the country.

 

[mstateglfr]

You truly think that Tulane and JMU could just walk blindly through a SEC schedule, B10, B12, or independent schedule with pulse. You honestly need to just do what you do best and that's what makes the world go round.

How is it that you have yet to read what the selection process is? Its wild that you are commenting despite not knowing how selection works.
As recently stated, this is similar to auto-bids in the NCAA Tournament.

 

[8dog]

Pretty sure I didn't say that.

I think they should be in the playoffs because their performance in all 12 of their games as a complete body of work says to me and a lot of other folks (including the majority of the unbiased data metrics) that they are one of the 10 best teams in the country.

Why though? Thats the point of the exercise. What did they do over 12 games that impresses you so much? Is it just that they beat most bad teams they played badly?

 

[mstateglfr]

Fan duel had ND -5.5 at OU, which was taken down of course. Now fan duel has Alabama -1.5 at OU.
ND would be favored over OU or Ole Miss on a neutral field, and Over Alabama as well.

This board already has a terrible poster with Irish in their name. No need for you to hyperfocus on ND- that is simply too much ND Irish referencing.

 

[She Mate Me]

They also struggled with BC who is far worse than Arkansas. How you do against bad teams is a terrible metric.

They beat BC by 15, which was their closest win vs anybody other than Top 15 USC, who they beat by 10.

Syracuse is similar to BC. I notice you didn't mention that 70-7 game.

And I can promise you that how a team generally performs against even weak teams can tell you a lot about them.

Notre Dame found a way to lose to Northern Illinois last year, but was very good against the majority of its schedule. So they made the playoffs and proved to be the 2nd best team in the country. A team capable of beating Indiana, Georgia and Penn State in consecutive weeks.

 

[85Bears]

Pretty sure I didn't say that.

I think they should be in the playoffs because their performance in all 12 of their games as a complete body of work says to me and a lot of other folks (including the majority of the unbiased data metrics) that they are one of the 10 best teams in the country.

Vegas had them as the fourth best chance to win it all. To not even be in the playoffs is a freaking joke. ESPN broadcast rights $$ apparently trumps all merit

 

[paindonthurt]

It would only look slightly different.

Below is the field ranked by the average of team rank in the FPI, SOR, and the Connelly rankings (efficiency index).

The 5 italicized teams had the exact same ranking as the committee gave them. Conference champ autobids are denoted by asterisk.

***A note that Texas Tech and UGA actually tied for 4th, but gave the nod in these seedings to UGA. That is why TT is italicized here.

5 other teams were only one or two spots off their final committee ranking.

The only major changes were that OM and OU do not make the field, and are replaced by Notre Dame and Vanderbilt. And hey look, both Miami AND Notre Dame made it. ACC still gets their team…..koombayah.

Tell me, why do we need a committee again?

The Seeded Field

1. Indiana*
2. Ohio State
3. Oregon
4. UGA*
5. Texas Tech*
6. Notre Dame
7. Texas A&M
8. Miami
9. Alabama
10. Vanderbilt
11. James Madison*
12. Tulane*

OUT
T11. Ole Miss
T11. Utah
T13. Oklahoma
T13. BYU
T15. Texas
T15. USC

Hold the 17 up

ole miss destroyed Tulane
Played in the sec
Had a better record

Any computer system putting the ahead of ole Miss is flawed.

Unless it’s just taking into account the auto bid

 

[She Mate Me]

Why though? Thats the point of the exercise. What did they do over 12 games that impresses you so much? Is it just that they beat most bad teams they played badly?

I don't know how to better explain it. How a team plays against any opponent, most easily evidenced by the final score, tells you a lot about how good they are over an entire season.

Why do you think there are so many rating systems that use the final score of every game to determine a team's strength?