Bruce Wayne
Well-Known Member
Clearly @whiteyc_77 doesn't understand SEC, and don't call me Shirley.
-
Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.
Mongmittee Thread
- Thread starter Renegade
- Start date
Are you saying that TCU = Bama, OU = AU, UT = aTm, WVU = LSU or are you saying in a tournament of those teams, it is likely it ends up 50/50 SEC v B12?
If it's the former, no way in hell. Even if I grant you OU = AU (fair comparison) and UT = aTm (lol no), there is no metric, ranking, rating or "eye test" that would put TCU anywhere close to Bama or West Virginia anywhere close to LSU.
If it is the latter, sure I'll grant you that, but it doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. There are no metrics anywhere that support your premise that Baylor has better wins or a tougher strength of schedule than Mississippi State. Not FPI, not Sagarin, not FEI. Every single advanced metric that exists for calculating strength of wins and losses and strength of overall schedule has Mississippi State significantly higher than Baylor.
That isn't to say MSU is significantly better than Baylor or even that MSU should be ranked ahead of Baylor, but on a purely strength of schedule and strength of wins/losses comparison, it isn't even a contest.
Think about why you are so adamant that Daddy is better than UT and why LSU is so superior to WV.
Seriously, what's your logic?
Also, Bama being superior to TCU.
Bruce Wayne
Well-Known Member
This. All you need to know that the SEC is overrated is the Mizzou is reel e good in the SEC. As opposed to above average in the BiG 12.
It isn't MY logic. Every single advanced metric that exists for this exact argument disagrees with your assessment. You laughed at Greg McElroy using the "eyetest" to determine who is better than who, yet you're arguing against the results of every single advanced metric that exists in college football. So what are YOU using to judge? You laughed at the "eyetest" comment and yet the argument you are making is based entirely on your own eyetest, with help from arbitrary rankings like the AP.
Sagarin Strength of Schedule:
Mississippi State - 72.55 (39)
Baylor - 69.40 (59)
Sagarin Record vs Top 30:
Mississippi State - 4-1
Baylor - 2-1
FPI Strength of Record:
Mississippi State - 95.9 (3)
Baylor - 92.5 (7)
FPI Game Control:
Mississippi State - 96.8 (2)
Baylor - 95.3 (5)
FPI Remaining Strength of Schedule:
Mississippi State - 5
Baylor - 52
FEI Strength of Schedule:
Mississippi State - .093 (21)
Baylor - .286 (68)
Both Sagarin and FPI have Baylor ranked ahead of Mississippi State overall, but my comments were purely on the subject of strength of schedule which isn't even remotely comparable.
Given those advanced metrics, how could both rankings have Baylor ahead of Mississippi State?
Sagarin's overall ranking is a predictor, its purpose is to compare strength of schedule, strength of wins and losses, home field advantage, game scores and determine who would win in a neutral site game. MSU's overall ranking is 92.18 (5), Baylor's is 93.07 (3). Mississippi State's overall score is swayed significantly by its predictor score, which, due to their tougher remaining strength of schedule (road game vs Sagarin #7) is significantly lower than Baylor's predictor score. If you compare the Elo Score of each team, which is less of a predictor and more a metric judging overall skill, MSU is 93.62 (3) compared to Baylor's 93.38 (4).
FPI's overall ranking is very similar to Sagarin in that it is a predictor ranking, judging performance from this point on. Again, like Sagarin, Mississippi State's overall ranking is swayed significantly by its significantly more difficult remaining strength of schedule. In terms of FPI, MSU has a 36.8% chance to win out compared to Baylor's 70.6%. Because it is a predictor ranking, the system predicts that MSU will end up behind Baylor.
FEI is an efficiency ranking that solely judges the on-field performance of each team relative to its opponent. It does not predict future results, it simply judges the strength of each team, the expected mean wins based on the strength of schedule and the expected remaining wins based on strength of schedule.
Again, I'm not arguing that Mississippi State is better than Baylor or that one deserves to be in the playoff more than the other, that will shake out on its own over the next two weeks. My argument is simply that there is no independent metric that exists to back up the argument that Baylor has a stronger strength of schedule and better wins than Mississippi State. Not one. And as those numbers show, it isn't particularly close.
Long term, I agree. Texas is in far better hands with Strong than aTm with Sumlin and I think they are each headed in opposite directions. Texas is better than the 6-5, likely 6-6 if they lose to TCU, record indicates. aTm is probably worse than their record indicates. I also think UT would beat aTm head to head given the strength of UT's defense. That said, A&M's resume is far better this year, especially with that Auburn win.
I too wish UT and aTm still played. That was one of the casualties of realignment I hated most. The Big 12 ruined Nebraska vs Oklahoma a long time ago so I don't really miss Nebraska in the Big 12, but Texas vs Texas A&M was one of those games that made CFB great. Having lived in Austin, I hate that those two don't play any more. That was just a classic rivalry.
If you are using a set of rankings to justify your argument, and those rankings have Auburn as #6, LSU as #12, and Arkansas as #17, then those rankings are terribly flawed. Something is very, very wrong with your formulas if that is what your rankings are spitting out.
-YTC
Renegade
Charge on!
Well, I tend to think LSU and Arkansas (with the improvement they're showing) would probably beat most of the teams ranked 15-25, but I don't like power polls. I like rewarding teams based on results, so I'd agree that those rankings aren't perfect.
goblue96
Disney and Curling Expert
Dr. Shats Basoon
Closed mouths don't get fed
Alabama vs. Oregon vs.
FSU vs. Baylor/TCU
This is what the people want.
FSU vs. Baylor/TCU
This is what the people want.
See Darren Wilson in Cops thread.
Do I really need to explain this again? Those rankings are PREDICTORS.
Meaning the overall rankings rank the teams in order of the likelihood they would win a game on neutral site. The rankings are NOT based on performance to date, they are predicting performance going forward. For example, Auburn's Sagarin score is 91.84 (6), Oklahoma is listed at 90.47 (8), that means at a neutral site, Auburn would be a 1 point favorite over Oklahoma. Home field advantage, at the moment, adds 3.15. So if Auburn was at home, they would be favored by 4. If Oklahoma were at home, they would be a 2 point favorite. Again, these are predictor rankings. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the formulas, they have existed for a long time and have been proven to be very accurate, very often.
I used one aspect of the formula(s), Strength of Schedule, to explain to you that there are no SOS formulas that exist for college football that support your premise. There is no existing formula that supports your belief that Baylor has better wins or a tougher schedule than Mississippi State. It simply is not true. At no point was I arguing that Mississippi State is better than Baylor, I was simply using all the existing metrics we have for judging Strength of Schedule to refute your argument.
You've yet to come back with any sort of basis for thinking Baylor's schedule and wins/losses are better than Mississippi State. That leads me to believe you're using the "eyetest", the same thing you called someone else out for using.
Now we are getting somewhere. Sagarin is ranking based on who the best teams are, while reasonable people are interested in the most deserving teams.
Mame YO
slings rocks
Crappy undefeated ND got blasted in the NCG. To what extent should we care more about who is the best team vs most deserving based on resume? Half the top 10 could've beaten ND that year if given the chance, but ND got that championship game berth because undefeated.
would people have been okay with leaving an undefeated team out though?
would people have been okay with leaving an undefeated team out though?
Isn't the point of a playoff to put the BEST team in? Not necessarily the most deserving? Deserving hasn't gotten us very far in the past.
Either way, at no point in this discussion have I talked about who the best team is or more deserving team is.
This is what you originally wrote:
The bolded part is not an accurate premise. I understand it is not your opinion, it was the opinion of the person asking the question, but the premise is flawed. I showed you exactly how and why. There is no metric anywhere that ranks Baylor's schedule or wins ahead of Mississippi State. That is all I am talking about. You called McElroy out for using the "eyetest" when you're making an argument solely based on your own eyetest, that you think Baylor's schedule and wins are better than Mississippi State. There are no numbers, stats or metrics available that support that so in reality, you are falling into the same trap you called McElroy out for using.
Not once have I argued that Mississippi State is better than Baylor or that one is more deserving of a playoff spot than the other, my sole point here is to explain how and why the premise of your original post is flawed. Now, if you want to talk about who is more deserving of a playoff spot, then we can do that. That said, I don't think there are many reasonable people who would put Baylor over MSU.
Clintmartian
Stringer Bell
Hey we're ahead of Marshall somehow! 
Rutgers Mike
Dr. Sad
Poor Marshall.
Wooly
Well-Known Member
During, and by the end of, the CFB regular season it's nearly impossible to determine who the best teams or who the most deserving teams are. Don't get me wrong, plenty of people are convinced they can, and spout off as though it their opinion is an unassailable fact. The one fact in all of this is that all attempts at determining the best teams, best conferences, and even a SOS are NECESSARILY circular arguments with no clear or correct conclusion. The answer to a circular argument depends the premise and the assumptions you make. CFB doesn't have enough common denominators to properly compare teams. In fact, you probably are more likely to be wrong than right given the variables and degrees of freedom that comes with such a task, so maybe you shouldn't bother. But if you are going bother, than at least know your limitations and pick a system that gives you the best chance to get it right. That would be a playoff with the right number of teams.
Since it's nearly impossible to determine either the best or most deserving teams, the next best thing you can do is to narrow down the teams, and then let them play to determine the best team. A playoff should have enough teams to reduce the margin of error to an acceptable amount, without then increasing the margin of error by including too many teams. I think the best number of teams for a playoff is eight. 8/122 is 6%. I think that is the definition of the cream of the crop, and I feel reasonably certain that the best and most deserving teams are in that group. With an eight team playoff I also think the odds of missing a team that is among the best and most deserving is low enough to accept.
The only exception to this was 1995 when the Nebraska Cornhuskers were the best team of all time and they could have beaten any pro team.
Since it's nearly impossible to determine either the best or most deserving teams, the next best thing you can do is to narrow down the teams, and then let them play to determine the best team. A playoff should have enough teams to reduce the margin of error to an acceptable amount, without then increasing the margin of error by including too many teams. I think the best number of teams for a playoff is eight. 8/122 is 6%. I think that is the definition of the cream of the crop, and I feel reasonably certain that the best and most deserving teams are in that group. With an eight team playoff I also think the odds of missing a team that is among the best and most deserving is low enough to accept.
The only exception to this was 1995 when the Nebraska Cornhuskers were the best team of all time and they could have beaten any pro team.
Yeah I think we'll see an 8 team playoff sooner rather than later. Especially if this year continues on its current path. If Bama, Oregon, Florida State, Mississippi State, TCU, Ohio State and Baylor all win out, which is not unreasonable, an awful lot of 11-1 teams are going to be watching the playoff from home. This year is shaping up to be the best thing that could have happened to a CFB Playoff. Some very good, qualified teams will be left out and we'll find ourselves at 8 teams pretty quickly.
Assuming all 7 of those teams win out and say Michigan State is the 8th best team, how great would this look:
1 - Alabama
8 - Michigan State
2 - Oregon
7 - Baylor
3 - Florida State
6 - Ohio State
4 - Mississippi State
5 - TCU
That is one hell of a first round.
Assuming all 7 of those teams win out and say Michigan State is the 8th best team, how great would this look:
1 - Alabama
8 - Michigan State
2 - Oregon
7 - Baylor
3 - Florida State
6 - Ohio State
4 - Mississippi State
5 - TCU
That is one hell of a first round.
No, that isn't the point at all. I know that's what the mongs on the committee keep saying, but that's awful. Anybody that is interested in the best over the most deserving are the people that will ruin CFB.
Deserving got us everywhere in the past. And God bless that wonderful system that only screwed up once in 17 years.
If McElroy had espoused some wonderful statistics about strength of schedule or ELO-CHESS rankings or whatever other formulas are out there designed to artificially inflate certain teams, then I'd have no problem with it.
It also cracks me up that Baylor's schedule would have been improved had they scheduled UT-Martin and Eastern Kentucky instead of SMU and Buffalo, according to these wonderful computers.
-YTC
BasinBictory
OUT with the GOUT
Fapfapfap over a playoff that will look like that.
I suspect that within 5 years, the playoff will have expanded to at least 6 teams, by 10 years, it'll probably be 8.
Any larger than that and you run into problems because of the length of the season. Most teams that aren't going to the playoffs (116/122) won't want to give up the 12-game schedule, and a playoff that is longer than 3 weeks (which is what a 8-team playoff will be), will start to run into mid-late January.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll stop at 8.
-YTC
-YTC
BasinBictory
OUT with the GOUT
Not sure if trolling.....
I'm sure they'd love to expand to 16, perhaps even beyond (perhaps the FCS fans can chime in), but I think for that to hapoen, they'd either have to start the season in the second week of August, or shorten the season. In basketbaw, the tourney expanded up to 64, then has been there for quite some time (despite the addition of those farcical "play in" games) because to expand it further would create scheduling problems.
Wooly
Well-Known Member
What 17 years are you talking about, and what system?
Dr. Shats Basoon
Closed mouths don't get fed
[quote="TXHusker05, post: 189893, member: 104]
1 - Alabama
8 - Michigan State
2 - Oregon
7 - Baylor
3 - Florida State
6 - Ohio State
4 - Mississippi State
5 - TCU
That is one hell of a first round.[/quote]
This is almost perfect. Michigan State should be replaced with Marshall. Sparty lost convincingly to the two best teams they played. They don't deserve a third shot.
Give it to Marshall (or Boise, CSU)
Should be 8 teams.
5 conference champs from p-5's
1 auto bid reserved for the best non-p 5 team
2 at large bids for anyone
1 - Alabama
8 - Michigan State
2 - Oregon
7 - Baylor
3 - Florida State
6 - Ohio State
4 - Mississippi State
5 - TCU
That is one hell of a first round.[/quote]
This is almost perfect. Michigan State should be replaced with Marshall. Sparty lost convincingly to the two best teams they played. They don't deserve a third shot.
Give it to Marshall (or Boise, CSU)
Should be 8 teams.
5 conference champs from p-5's
1 auto bid reserved for the best non-p 5 team
2 at large bids for anyone
Wooly
Well-Known Member
You think the BCS got it right every year but one? So you think they correctly narrowed it down to the two correct teams every year but one? How do you know that? Did you get to see these other teams play each other?
I don't think CFB has gotten in right very often in its history, whether that is the BCS era, the bowl era, etc. I do not think the CFB regular season is sufficient for getting it right when you either 1) vote on just two teams or 2) pick bowl teams based on corporate interests.
As I posted at length just above, we rarely know the best or most deserving team is, but we can usually narrow it down to a handful of teams. CFB has never done that, so I doubt they get it right very often. Getting it right also involves teams playing to determine outcomes, instead of people voting for outcomes. This was worse before a playoff. It will get even better with an 8 team playoff.
The BCS was an improvement from the system before them but it definitely had issues more than one year. It didn't necessarily get it wrong per se, but leaving out teams like 2004 Utah and Auburn, 2006 Boise State, 2008 USC, 2009 Florida, TCU, Boise State, and Cincy, 2010 TCU, 2012 Oregon, etc. was not "wonderful."
Only in 1 instance throughout the 16 year history of the BCS did an undeserving team make the BCSCG. A playoff of any size will automatically incorporate more undeserving teams.
It's all inclusion versus exclusion. My desired outcome is to exclude as many undeserving teams as possible, even if it means that some deserving teams are excluded. Your desired outcome is to include as many deserving teams as possible, even if it means that some undeserving teams are included.
Your way sucks, and it will only serve to desecrate the best regular season in sports. It's only going to get worse as the playoff expands.
-YTC
