College Football 2015 - Page 20 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Put 'Em Under Pressure
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-04-2015, 08:43 PM   #286
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 80,815
Local Time: 09:58 AM
If you're going to ignore all of the other factors that were mathematically being factored into the positioning up until last season, I don't know what to tell you .
__________________

__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 08:45 PM   #287
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 11,545
Local Time: 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LemonMelon View Post
I mean, the simple fact of the matter is that Temple hasn't proven they can punch above their weight. They're a good team, but teams that have proven they can get it done in January always get the benefit of the doubt. It isn't really fair, but the idea is to 1) rack up advertising $$$, 2) prevent dud games. There is absolutely reason to question a team that swept seven unranked opponents following a middling 6-6 season outside of a power 5.

Ask yourself: would Temple equal or better a 3-1 record vs. Georgia, Ole Miss, Texas A&M and Wisconsin? If not, there's no logical reason to rank them above Alabama.

I never said they should be ranked above Alabama. But, I've already said that all in the prior post.

Yeah, you're right about the duds and the dough.

But you're not right about knocking Temple as a legitimate victory for ND. And you're not right that Alabama or LSU have any right being up that high, nor does Temple have any right being that low.
__________________

__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 08:46 PM   #288
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 11,545
Local Time: 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
If you're going to ignore all of the other factors that were mathematically being factored into the positioning up until last season, I don't know what to tell you .

You don't understand how data sets work, at all. You don't know what a boundary condition even is, right?
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 09:01 PM   #289
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 80,815
Local Time: 09:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
You don't understand how data sets work, at all. You don't know what a boundary condition even is, right?
You want to act as though the original ranking is meaningless. I understand what you're saying. I just disagree. You're disregarding the fact that there is already a sort of handicap added to all teams that come from a power-5 conference. That automatically makes a victory against nearly any of those teams a positive towards a team that achieves said victory. You are ONLY looking at ranking as any kind of factor into what goes into the determination of strength of schedule, and you're wrong. Bias only goes so far.

But if you'd like to insult my intelligence instead of having a conversation, by all means, go ahead.
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 09:16 PM   #290
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 11,545
Local Time: 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
You want to act as though the original ranking is meaningless. I understand what you're saying. I just disagree. You're disregarding the fact that there is already a sort of handicap added to all teams that come from a power-5 conference. That automatically makes a victory against nearly any of those teams a positive towards a team that achieves said victory. You are ONLY looking at ranking as any kind of factor into what goes into the determination of strength of schedule, and you're wrong. Bias only goes so far.

But if you'd like to insult my intelligence instead of having a conversation, by all means, go ahead.

Sorry if you feel as though I was insulting your intelligence, but that's exactly how I felt on your last post.

I don't think the original rank is "meaningless." I think the opposite. I think it has too much meaning. Too much wrong meaning. It seeds teams based upon their previous performances of historical performance. That's inherently wrong. That's the stem of the problem. Alabama is given a good initial seed because they were given it last year. And the year before. And the year before. It's not even about Alabama as an individual team. It's about the conference that they belong to. Their strength of schedule is automatically "high" because all of the teams they play also retain their initial seedlings (and consequently they all have automatically "high" strengths of schedule, too).

When one of those teams has a bad year? They can rely on having a "strong" schedule to bounce back, when they start winning. Why is their schedule strong? Historically, the teams in their schedule beat "good teams."

It's a mathematical rich-get-richer scheme. There's no way to dethrone the reigning regime given the current system. Because when one goes down, it goes down because someone in its conference beat them. And that team goes up, and then the following season they can rely on having their schedule to be considered *strong.*

And you're falling for it. You think that these little clauses here and there about handicaps and power-5 conference teams actually mathematically make a difference and they don't. What they do is, season by season, give a team a CHANCE to contend. But they do NOT disable the system.

It's just like when they "did away with the BCS." It was a publicity stunt, at best. They made it seem more competitive by adding a playoff, but they actually consolidated the types f teams that can get in by a significant margin, while simultaneously adding more "big games." The result? More "big name teams" playing in "more games" while getting away with the public eye sore that is the BCS.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 09:42 PM   #291
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 80,815
Local Time: 09:58 AM
Which is why I agree that an unbeaten team should always be given the benefit of the doubt over a team with a loss EXCEPT in the case where you can LOOK point blank at Strength of schedule and say, "no, this team with one loss is definitely better than team with no losses."

The thing is, I don't disagree with you necessarily. I disagree with your argument. The fact is there's no reason for Alabama to be ranked as highly as they are besides bias. I just wish you didn't have to come across so harshly to get to that point. SoS does matter, but not if you're one of the "chosen" schools. tOSU, Alabama, ND, Texas, etc. But when a team like Texas is playing poorly, they are treated accordingly. ND and Alabama are absolutely being shown bias.

Look at Memphis vs Alabama: Their victories are against teams that have won 2 games, 4 games, 7 games (Ole Miss, who is a great victory and a ranked opponent), 4 games, 5 games, 6 games, 0 games, and 1 game.

Alabama has beat teams that have won: 7 games (Wisconsin, ranked opponent), 3 games, Lost to the one opponent they have in common with Memphis (7 wins Ole Miss), 1 win, 5 games (at the time ranked Georgia), 4 wins, 6 wins (Ranked opponent T A&M) and 4 wins.

To me, that makes Memphis a MUCH better team than Alabama and honestly continues to prove my point that Alabama is absolutely over ranked.

But when you want to head to head compare Alabama to Temple, to be honest, Temple looks a LOT worse than Alabama. Temple has beat a team with 7 wins (Penn state, whose other loss is to #2 OSU), 5 wins, 1 win, 2 wins, 0 wins, 4 wins, and then lost to Notre Dame. I'm sorry, but that doesn't scream top ten team to me.


That's just my two cents. And that's JUST based on opponent. Then you get into style points, injuries, margin of victory, strength of schedule of the wins of the opponent, etc. All of the things that the committee is supposedly looking at during the week, and it's a LOT for me to look at right now at work. But suffice it to say, Temple is probably just about as well ranked as they should be, most things considered. And tbh, I believe that the committee DOES look at these things very thoroughly, considering how often I've listened to them TALK about all of these things. They usually make very convincing arguments, but again, I DO believe in bias as well, and I DO believe they're over ranking Notre Dame and Alabama. I just DON'T believe they're underranking Temple, and to get back to your original point, no I don't think that the ND victory over Temple is impressive enough to catapult them over teams with no losses.
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 09:51 PM   #292
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,079
Local Time: 09:58 AM
I think there's a fairly strong consensus amongst impartial observers that a minimum 16 team playoff is required in order to give mid-major/non-AQs something to shoot for. The roadblocks to this (overlong seasons for young amateur players, the potential of overlapping with the NFL playoffs, etc) are fairly weak to me and can be negotiated, but I outlined earlier why they won't be.

I get what LN7 is saying; there is no inherent, definable quality to the "strength" in "strength of schedule" outside of historical success (which originated from the same flawed system) and the eye test (subjectivity by definition). Those factors are often determined before the season ever begins, which is how preseason rankings (a fucking joke year in and year out) are established. Teams outside of the power 5 are placed behind the eight ball or not on the table at all. Some teams within the power 5 are on thin ice based on their strength of schedule (look at Iowa; one loss and they're toast). Granted, the concept of strength of schedule is fluid within a given season, but not the extent that it should be because so many factors of "strength" rely on reputation. You can see this in the current ranking of MSU.

That being said, I don't know what to do about it. Mid-majors should have a token shot at a quality power 5 opponent to give them a chance at punching a ticket, but there simply aren't enough slots to go around. Temple actually received theirs and blew it, which is why I don't feel bad for them. But there are so many 11-1 or 12-0 teams from mid-majors that will have no shot at the playoff itself and have to build their reputations on lesser bowls the way TCU did for years until they finally received the respect they deserved with a Rose Bowl opportunity that they took full advantage of.
__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 10:05 PM   #293
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 11,545
Local Time: 12:58 PM
College Football 2015

I happen to have a degree in computational sciences. I'm not saying that's why my word is valid, but rather... given that I went to a university that was arguably injusticed twice by the system... I took interest in it.

I'm talking about 2013 and UCF finishing 10th overall, despite having the second best record, demolishing Baylor, and otherwise only having lost once to a top ranked team by a field goal. And then having their conference having an automatic bid systematically revoked due to the "removal of the BCS" that basically didn't touch the top dogs but erased the big east legacy.

The system was mathematically designed to keep things largely in place, with minimal room for temporary shuffling. You could probably randomly automate the next five years of matches and still end up with the SEC on top, and a wildcard team finding its way into notoriety every so often.

I'm not just like, annoyed that my team never stood a chance or something. It just opened my eyes. The only thing you can do is radically redesign the system into tournament fashion, like LM said.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 10:28 PM   #294
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 80,815
Local Time: 09:58 AM
You're just going to continue to ignore the records of opponents...aren't you...
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 10:28 PM   #295
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 04:58 PM
College Football 2015

16 team playoff would be absolutely horrific. Way too many teams and would take too long. Not everyone deserves to make it in, if you're 9-3 and ranked #15 in the nation, you shouldn't deserve to be in the playoff. If you're a mid major who plays a bunch of cupcakes, you don't deserve to make it in. I think a 6 team playoff designed like the NFL divisional playoffs would be most ideal.
Top 2 teams get a bye, then 3 v 6 and 4 v 5.
The current system isn't great, but it sure as heck is an improvement over the BCS.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
bobsaget77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 10:37 PM   #296
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 80,815
Local Time: 09:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsaget77 View Post
16 team playoff would be absolutely horrific. Way too many teams and would take too long. Not everyone deserves to make it in, if you're 9-3 and ranked #15 in the nation, you shouldn't deserve to be in the playoff. If you're a mid major who plays a bunch of cupcakes, you don't deserve to make it in. I think a 6 team playoff designed like the NFL divisional playoffs would be most ideal.
Top 2 teams get a bye, then 3 v 6 and 4 v 5.
The current system isn't great, but it sure as heck is an improvement over the BCS.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Actually, it would barely take any time at all. You're forgetting that teams take almost all of December off. Even if you gave everyone a week's bye, or took out one week of the season, making it a flat 12, with each conference having a championship game, you'd still be able to end the season the same week it already ends. Yeah, young people are playing more games, but only a handful of them. Obviously half the teams would be out after the first game.
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 10:41 PM   #297
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,079
Local Time: 09:58 AM
A 16 team, four round playoff would be "horrific?"

March Madness must be your least favorite time of year.
__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 10:43 PM   #298
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 11,545
Local Time: 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
You're just going to continue to ignore the records of opponents...aren't you...

No? I'm not ignoring it at all. I've taken it into account, it's a part of the point I'm making.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 10:53 PM   #299
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 80,815
Local Time: 09:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
No? I'm not ignoring it at all. I've taken it into account, it's a part of the point I'm making.
UCF 2013 Schedule:

5 - 7 Akron
1 - 11 FIU
7 -5 Penn State
11 -2 SCAR (Loss)
3 - 9 Memphis
12 - 1 Louisville
3 - 9 UCONN
8 -5 Houson
2 - 10 Temple
6 - 7 Rutgers
2 - 10 South Florida
5 - 7 SMU

Defeat 11-2 Baylor in the FIESTA BOWL

Where did UCF get boned, exactly? You're complaining about where they started in 2014? Were there NO offseason changes for your team? Did the ranking end up proving to be...oh, I don't know...inaccurate in any way? UCF went 9-4 the following year and their only impressive win was to a highly ranked team in the FCS. AND they lost their bowl.
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2015, 10:54 PM   #300
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Entombed in a shrine of zeroes and ones, you know?
Posts: 18,643
Local Time: 12:58 PM
I agree with whatever argument gets Penn State into the rankings.
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
college football, ncaa

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com