re: 11/29 CFB Playoff Rankings | 1. Alabama 2. tOSU 3. Clemson 4. Washington

quote:

---

All signs pointing to this being the third straight year that the playoff four reflect the top four in the Massey Composite. Sounds like consistency supported by an ocean of comprehensive evidence.

---

Gtfo with this shite. The committee is supposed to do more than just rank the top 4. That Massey Composite you love has LSU at #13, the highest ranked SEC team outside of Alabama. Where are they in the CFP? #21. Oklahoma State is #18 in the composite, but #10 in the CFP.

So what happens to Ohio State's quality wins if Oklahoma and Wisconsin lose this weekend? Does that knock some luster off of them in the Committee's eyes?



Looking back, the Committee showed their hand and bias when they kept Michigan in the same spot after losing to Iowa, but they drop TAMU 4 spots the week prior for losing. It just seems the committee is intent on not penalizing Michigan or Ohio State for losing, but burying Penn State and Wisconsin for theirs.

The "eye test" is used for one set of teams and records/head to head are used for other schools.

Do we really want to go down the rabbit hole of "a team should have won that game" as opposed to the results on the field and have that be a factor as to which teams are ranked higher than others?

quote:

---

Looking back, the Committee showed their hand and bias when they kept Michigan in the same spot after losing to Iowa, but they drop TAMU 4 spots the week prior for losing. It just seems the committee is intent on not penalizing Michigan or Ohio State for losing, but burying Penn State and Wisconsin for theirs.

The "eye test" is used for one set of teams and records/head to head are used for other schools.

---

I agreed with you as this was playing out. It felt like the committee kind of arbitrarily decided the B1G was good, so every win or loss in conference looked solid to them. That said, OSU over Okla, Mich over Colo, and LSU over Wiscy are probably the data points they are using. The first two of those look like great wins now, and LSU not too bad, either. I'm going to be a whiny little bitch on here if Colo wins, as Mich would have beaten the B1G and Pac 12 champ.

I wish they would just use the BCS rankings for the top 4, although I don't think it would look much different here.

Reminds me a lot of 2007. How insane would it be if Alabama, Clemson, and Washington all lose this week?

What the hell would that even look like?

quote:

---

That said, OSU over Okla, Mich over Colo, and LSU over Wiscy are probably the data points they are using. The first two of those look like great wins now,

---

The Oklahoma win should NEVER look good.

quote:

---

But I think computers might be favorable to LSU because their SOS is rated higher due to not playing a poor South Alabama team. Whereas Oklahoma State's schedule strength will improve--win or lose--with that 12th game.

---

That argument would be a net zero for LSU IMO. The added win offsets the strength of schedule hit.

quote:

---

Not to mention, two or the other teams that are ahead of them but lower in the computer models, are Auburn and Florida who have similar (8-4) or better records (8-3) AND beat LSU.

---

So put LSU @ 15 with UF and Auburn at 13 and 14. The point is they're 8 spots off. Utah is ahead of LSU for Christ's sake.

There is a nice shiny #9 next to Oklahoma, but it takes a real a-hole to recognize it.

Game 1 - lost to Houston
Game 2 - LA Monroe
Game 3 - Lost to OSU
Game 4 - Beat shite arse TCU by 6, allowing 46 points.
Game 5 - Beat fricking Texas 45 to frickING 40
Also Beat 3-9 Iowa State by 10.

^^^^^^ That's one of the reasons why people want OSU in over PSU? There's no way to argue that you aren't an a-hole if that's the case. Oklahoma is either a dogshit football team, or was a complete dogshit football team when OSU beat them.

The only good wins occur in Tiger or Bryant Denney Stadia.

quote:

---

The only good wins occur in Tiger or Bryant Denney Stadia.

---

quote:

---

BR is a tough place to play. So is Tuscaloosa(mostly because Alabama is good, not really because of the invironment). But both teams beat each other on the road all the time. In 2014, Alabama was noticeably better on the road.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a difference in playing on the road and playing at home. But IMO, from week to week, team to team, and stadium to stadium, it's too subjective. Plus teams can't control where they play in conference.

---

Damn bro! Got me figured out.

quote:

---

That argument would be a net zero for LSU IMO. The added win offsets the strength of schedule hit.

---

Look at Sagarin's ratings, which incorporates SOS, that doesn't appear to be the case.

For example, Sagarin has LSU as 8th with an 89.35 rating and USC as 9th with an 88.49 rating.

By my quick calculations, the 7 teams LSU beat had an average rating of 72.15 with an average ranking of 58.14; the 9 teams USC beat had an average rating of 74.84 and an average ranking of 52.

So USC had more wins and, on average, their wins were over higher quality teams according to Sagarin's own rankings.

So the only thing that can explain that is that LSU's overall schedule is rated higher (2nd; USC's was 5th). South Alabama would have been BY FAR the worst team LSU had played, which would have brought their SOS down. Therefore, given this, it would have had to have negatively impacted their rating and ranking in that model.