College Football 2015

[LuckyNumber7]

But they beat Temple!!!

Temple has looked pretty good. The whole AAC has looked a lot better, honestly.

Conveniently, this happened during the season that the team that was giving the conference its value decided to become the worst FBS team this season.

 

[Hewson]

Shocked at Alabama being ranked #4.

Thought for sure they'd be 1.



Assumed the top 10 would be:
1. Alabama
2. LSU
3. Florida
4. Missississississississississississississipi
5. Texas A&M
6. Missississississississississississississipi State
7. Georgia
8. Arkansas
9. Tennessee
10. Ohio State

 

[LemonMelon]

Temple has looked pretty good. The whole AAC has looked a lot better, honestly.

I mean, obviously they've improved. But as a marquee win for ND? Pfffffffftttt

Definitely the most overrated team in the top 10. Without question.

 

[Hewson]

At any rate, TCU controls their own destiny. If they win out, they'll knock off Baylor and jump them, LSU and Bama play Saturday, one will lose, that's another spot and tOSU will play MSU and that will be a loss for one of them. So lets say the top 3 win out, they are in, then the next 2 teams would be Notre Dame and TCU cause 4, 6 and 7 would all lose. Got to assume TCU would jump ND with 3 ranked opponents remaining on the schedule to ND's 1.

Spoiler

Who Am I kidding, if that scenario plays out exactly as above the 4 playoff teams would be undefeated Clemson, LSU, and tOSU plus 2 loss (maybe even 3 loss) Alabama

 

[deep]

The first four last year were Mississippi State, Florida State, Auburn and Mississippi.

Of the four, only Florida State ended up in the playoff.
Mississippi State, Auburn and Mississippi finished seventh, 19th and ninth.

 

[LemonMelon]

Clemson is going to get the 2014 FSU treatment if they win out because their road has been so easy. They have a playoff spot locked up if they win out, but I think they'll likely slip to #3 if tOSU, MSU or LSU win out. Early prediction, but:

1. 12-0 LSU
2. 13-0 tOSU OR 13-0 MSU
3. 13-0 Clemson
4. 12-0 TCU OR 12-0 Baylor

If Alabama wins out:

1. 13-0 tOSU OR 13-0 MSU
2. 13-0 Clemson
3. 12-1 Alabama
4. 12-0 TCU OR 12-0 Baylor

Where things get messy is if tOSU/MSU/Baylor/TCU all end up losing a game and Alabama runs the table. Then we get the ultimate sponsor scenario.

1. 13-0 Clemson
2. 12-1 Alabama
3. 12-1 tOSU
4. 11-1 Notre Dame

What a hellhole that would be.

 

[bono_212]

At any rate, TCU controls their own destiny. If they win out, they'll knock off Baylor and jump them, LSU and Bama play Saturday, one will lose, that's another spot and tOSU will play MSU and that will be a loss for one of them. So lets say the top 3 win out, they are in, then the next 2 teams would be Notre Dame and TCU cause 4, 6 and 7 would all lose. Got to assume TCU would jump ND with 3 ranked opponents remaining on the schedule to ND's 1.

Spoiler

Who Am I kidding, if that scenario plays out exactly as above the 4 playoff teams would be undefeated Clemson, LSU, and tOSU plus 2 loss (maybe even 3 loss) Alabama

Well that's the thing that feels so wrong about the whole setup to me. It seems like they did this EXACTLY to poise it to where a 2-loss Alabama could still get in. Like a little safety net. Cause if they lose to LSU this weekend, they still can beat them again in the title game, and you know that means they're auto-champions in that case.

ND is absolutely poised to run the table, so again, favorable positioning allows them to get into the top four when LSU inevitably loses one of the two games against BAMA.

And therefore, they have set up:

Then we get the ultimate sponsor scenario.

1. 13-0 Clemson
2. 12-1 Alabama
3. 12-1 tOSU
4. 11-1 Notre Dame

What a hellhole that would be.

 

[Hewson]

Notre Dame will lose at Stanford.

 

[bono_212]

Notre Dame will lose at Stanford.

Forgot about Stanford. We shall see. They're not as good this year as the last few, but then again...Notre Dame.

Again: My irritation/being upset isn't about TCU. It's about TCU, Baylor and MSU, not to mention Iowa. If one team in a power five is being given the benefit of the doubt by being undefeated, all teams should be treated as such. Why MSU, at the very least, isn't being treated the same as OSU is beyond me. Iowa, well... I get it, they're in the weaker side of the division, but still.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I mean, obviously they've improved. But as a marquee win for ND? Pfffffffftttt



Definitely the most overrated team in the top 10. Without question.

But see, I think you're feeding into the problem there. By discrediting other teams that have equal record and whatnot, you're effectively buying right back into the system. Temple was undefeated. Defeating a 7-0 team is a big deal.

The bullshit is that teams like Alabama are 7-1 and still considered the best of the best, while 7-1 Temple loses a close match to a perceived top 10 team and they're hanging on for dear life to even be ranked.

Do you get what I'm saying? I'm not saying ND deserves to be where they are. I'm saying don't knock on Temple in the process of making your point. Because the difference between ND and Temple is an equal record 4 points, but the difference in rank is tremendous.

 

[bono_212]

But see, I think you're feeding into the problem there. By discrediting other teams that have equal record and whatnot, you're effectively buying right back into the system. Temple was undefeated. Defeating a 7-0 team is a big deal.

The bullshit is that teams like Alabama are 7-1 and still considered the best of the best, while 7-1 Temple loses a close match to a perceived top 10 team and they're hanging on for dear life to even be ranked.

Do you get what I'm saying? I'm not saying ND deserves to be where they are. I'm saying don't knock on Temple in the process of making your point. Because the difference between ND and Temple is an equal record 4 points, but the difference in rank is tremendous.

Caliber of opponent absolutely matters. In the same way that TCU was overlooked for years because they were going undefeated against the MWC. Temple went 7-0 against good but not great teams, and lost the first time they were legitimately challenged. I'm not taking away from Notre Dame beating them, it's a good win for ND, but it's not as impressive as, say, Alabama beating LSU.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Caliber of opponent absolutely matters. In the same way that TCU was overlooked for years because they were going undefeated against the MWC. Temple went 7-0 against good but not great teams, and lost the first time they were legitimately challenged. I'm not taking away from Notre Dame beating them, it's a good win for ND, but it's not as impressive as, say, Alabama beating LSU.

Okay, and guess what this boils down to? Mathematically speaking, you're relying on an initial condition. A "boundary condition." Since your logic is seemingly continuous, if Temple doesn't play good teams, but wins, they can *never be good.* they don't play *perceived* challenging opponents. Coincidentally, no matter what Alabama does, they will *always* be good.

You're effectively describing the problem, but then you're complaining about it. By saying LSU and Alabama are "high caliber" opponents, you're granting them to be high in the boundary condition. And if you believe that, you support the current standings as is.

 

[bono_212]

It's one of the MANY conditions they look at in order to make the top ten. What you seem to be suggesting is that Temple should be rated as highly as Alabama. In order to make that be the case, you have to factor in more than w/l record.

There's more than one factor at play in the rankings. If Temple goes undefeated, obviously an undefeated team is better than a team with a loss on paper. If a team's loss is to a top 5 opponent, though, yeah, I think that probably makes a team with a stronger strength of schedule better than a team with a weaker strength of schedule that went undefeated.

If you think for one second that I don't have an intense hatred for the system, hate paper champions, and don't factor in as many different criteria as possible for the way I rank teams, then you haven't been reading my posts in these threads for the last 9 years.

 

[LemonMelon]

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.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

It's one of the MANY conditions they look at in order to make the top ten. What you seem to be suggesting is that Temple should be rated as highly as Alabama. In order to make that be the case, you have to factor in more than w/l record.

No, it's NOT. The ranking system is a power rank, based upon previous seed. If a #10 beats a #5, they earn the power forward of beating such a team. If they lose to an unranked team, they're shamed. Sure, "total offense" and the sort are "factored in." But it purely boils down to the boundary condition. What the initial seed was.

And I NEVER suggested that Temple should be ranked as highly as Alabama. I'm suggesting they should be ranked NEAR each other. One needs to go up and the other needs to go down.

There's more than one factor at play in the rankings. If Temple goes undefeated, obviously an undefeated team is better than a team with a loss on paper. If a team's loss is to a top 5 opponent, though, yeah, I think that probably makes a team with a stronger strength of schedule better than a team with a weaker strength of schedule that went undefeated.

And a loss to a top 5 who is a top 5 opponent only because they were placed highly as such, due to initial BIAS. That's not an inflammatory word. Bias. Statistical term. The data is influenced by a boundary condition. If one team loses to a top 5 opponent in week 1, that team was only top 5 because someone SAID they were top 5. What if that team was unranked to start the season. Would they be top 5, 3 weeks in? Probably not. Not unless they beat a top 5 team. Consequence? Only the teams who face initial seed teams have opportunity to move up early. And as every week passes on, that opportunity diminishes.

If you think for one second that I don't have an intense hatred for the system, hate paper champions, and don't factor in as many different criteria as possible for the way I rank teams, then you haven't been reading my posts in these threads for the last 9 years.

I know you hate it. I was trying to make a point. This isn't really worth arguing. It's almost like you're trying to argue that math isn't real. Sure, there's "voting" that takes place, but the psychology behind it is largely driven by a power ranking mentality.

 

[bono_212]

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 .

 

[LuckyNumber7]

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]

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?

 

[bono_212]

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.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

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.

 

[bono_212]

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.

 

[LemonMelon]

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.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

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.

 

[bono_212]

You're just going to continue to ignore the records of opponents...aren't you...

 

[bobsaget77]

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

 

[bono_212]

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.

 

[LemonMelon]

A 16 team, four round playoff would be "horrific?"

March Madness must be your least favorite time of year.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

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.

 

[bono_212]

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.

 

[PhilsFan]

I agree with whatever argument gets Penn State into the rankings.