- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Side-by-side rankings: the BCS computers vs. CFP selection committee
Posted on 12/9/24 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 1:25 pm
For those interested how the BCS would've looked.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. 
5
Posted on 12/9/24 at 1:26 pm to Kinderman
And side-by-side of the playoff matchups.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 12/9/24 at 1:28 pm to Kinderman
ND forever getting that computer bump on name lol
Posted on 12/9/24 at 1:38 pm to Kinderman
To me, this is actually a good case study in why the committee is preferable.
Both the simulated BCS rankings and the CFP rankings had SMU ahead of Alabama entering championship weekend. The BCS had Alabama ahead of SMU afterward.
A formula won’t recognize or care about the meta-incentives of teams playing or not playing in conference championship games. It will just tell you “objectively” (per its formula) which team is better. But unless you want teams to start opting out of conference championship games, you can’t allow a team to drop out of the playoff for losing them by a field goal as time expired. This is where the “human element” is actually helpful IMO.
(For the record, I think Alabama’s resume at 9-3 was better than SMU’s at 11-1. I don’t know if the committee agreed, but if it did, it should have ranked Alabama ahead of SMU in the penultimate rankings, so that it was clear that SMU would only make it by winning the conference championship.)
This is also why I’m glad the playoff expanded to 12 teams. SMU and Alabama aren’t “worthy” title contenders; they were scrapping for a pity bid. There’s controversy about which team should have made it, but no one serious will question the legitimacy of the title at the end.
Both the simulated BCS rankings and the CFP rankings had SMU ahead of Alabama entering championship weekend. The BCS had Alabama ahead of SMU afterward.
A formula won’t recognize or care about the meta-incentives of teams playing or not playing in conference championship games. It will just tell you “objectively” (per its formula) which team is better. But unless you want teams to start opting out of conference championship games, you can’t allow a team to drop out of the playoff for losing them by a field goal as time expired. This is where the “human element” is actually helpful IMO.
(For the record, I think Alabama’s resume at 9-3 was better than SMU’s at 11-1. I don’t know if the committee agreed, but if it did, it should have ranked Alabama ahead of SMU in the penultimate rankings, so that it was clear that SMU would only make it by winning the conference championship.)
This is also why I’m glad the playoff expanded to 12 teams. SMU and Alabama aren’t “worthy” title contenders; they were scrapping for a pity bid. There’s controversy about which team should have made it, but no one serious will question the legitimacy of the title at the end.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:54 pm to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
To me, this is actually a good case study in why the committee is preferable. Both the simulated BCS rankings and the CFP rankings had SMU ahead of Alabama entering championship weekend. The BCS had Alabama ahead of SMU afterward. A formula won’t recognize or care about the meta-incentives of teams playing or not playing in conference championship games. It will just tell you “objectively” (per its formula) which team is better. But unless you want teams to start opting out of conference championship games, you can’t allow a team to drop out of the playoff for losing them by a field goal as time expired. This is where the “human element” is actually helpful IMO. (For the record, I think Alabama’s resume at 9-3 was better than SMU’s at 11-1. I don’t know if the committee agreed, but if it did, it should have ranked Alabama ahead of SMU in the penultimate rankings, so that it was clear that SMU would only make it by winning the conference championship.) This is also why I’m glad the playoff expanded to 12 teams. SMU and Alabama aren’t “worthy” title contenders; they were scrapping for a pity bid. There’s controversy about which team should have made it, but no one serious will question the legitimacy of the title at the end.
Bama wasn’t punished harshly enough for the Vandy and Oklahoma losses. Alabama completely ????the bed twice to bad teams. They shouldn’t get any credit for changing the sheets after ????the bed.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:04 pm to BradBallard
quote:
Alabama completely ????the bed twice
You can't get run off the field by TWO! 6-6 teams and then cry about not making the Playoffs.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:15 pm to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
This is also why I’m glad the playoff expanded to 12 teams. SMU and Alabama aren’t “worthy” title contenders; they were scrapping for a pity bid. There’s controversy about which team should have made it, but no one serious will question the legitimacy of the title at the end.
This is pretty much why I think the expansion to 12 was dumb. You're arguing over teams that have no business being in the playoffs/no shot at winning a title, No need for playoff games with teams that don't belong.
Not even factoring in Bama and SMU, you have two teams in Arizona St and Boise that aren't even top 8 teams but not only get in the playoffs, but get a first round buy and are guaranteed to be one of the final 8 teams remaining.
I liked the four tam playoffs because loses mattered and yes you'd have a debate at who should be at four some years but it was always a team that you could see winning a championship, not teams that just get a participation trophy. I think an expansion to 6 would have been better over 12.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:01 pm to Kinderman
Dont see how Indiana and Boise are ranked 8th and 9th in both.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:18 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
You can't get run off the field by TWO! 6-6 teams and then cry about not making the Playoffs.
Not necessarily to minimize getting run off the field twice, but NIL and transfer portal annual free agency have to adjust the effect of loses within same conference and maybe within the main 4 in making playoffs. Head scratching loses are going to happen more and more to otherwise play off worthy teams unless teams work their schedules to be easier. Next man up doesn’t work as well for top teams and being a complete team on both sides of the ball is less likely.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:22 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
This is pretty much why I think the expansion to 12 was dumb. You’re arguing over teams that have no business being in the playoffs/no shot at winning a title, No need for playoff games with teams that don’t belong.
I think it’s better to have a couple of dud teams in a 3-4 round playoff each year than to ever have to leave out a genuinely worthy team because there weren’t enough slots. Whoever wins this playoff will still have to go through at least two legit teams, even if they got a “sweetheart” bracket with two less-respected teams to start. And hell it’s not like Boise State and Arizona State suck. Maybe they knock off somebody big.
I do think the bye situation is dumb and I hope they just go to straight up seeding 1-12 in the future.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:39 pm to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
I do think the bye situation is dumb and I hope they just go to straight up seeding 1-12 in the future.
A better system would be all FBS conference champions with 3 at-large bids
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:01 pm to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
A formula won’t recognize or care about the meta-incentives of teams playing or not playing in conference championship games. It will just tell you “objectively” (per its formula) which team is better.
I'm guessing Vegas would favor Bama over SMU if they played.
quote:
But unless you want teams to start opting out of conference championship games, you can’t allow a team to drop out of the playoff for losing them by a field goal as time expired. This is where the “human element” is actually helpful IMO.
A team plays and loses, they pay a price. A team plays and wins, they reap a reward. SMU suffered in the BCS after losing to Clemson, as they should have. SMU was ranked higher, yet lost. If they belonged at the top, they win that game.
quote:
This is also why I’m glad the playoff expanded to 12 teams. SMU and Alabama aren’t “worthy” title contenders
These statements are not compatible.
quote:
but no one serious will question the legitimacy of the title at the end.
A larger field doesn't mean the title has more legitimacy. And with the auto bids and bye criteria, some teams have a much easier road. There will be questions about this title, just like in the bowl era before the BCS and original CFP.
Four teams has always been the right number. The BCS formula was always superior to the human committee. This new format is garbage. It profoundly rewarded teams from lesser conferences with easier schedules. Looking at the final rankings, I don't think SMU has a W over anyone ranked. And they are in the playoff. This is a joke.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:16 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
A team plays and loses, they pay a price. A team plays and wins, they reap a reward. SMU suffered in the BCS after losing to Clemson, as they should have. SMU was ranked higher, yet lost. If they belonged at the top, they win that game.
So do you want future SMUs opting out of conference championship games? Because that’s the obvious incentive this mentality creates.
quote:
These statements are not compatible.
Sure they are.
quote:
A larger field doesn’t mean the title has more legitimacy. And with the auto bids and bye criteria, some teams have a much easier road. There will be questions about this title, just like in the bowl era before the BCS and original CFP.
A larger field does mean the title has more legitimacy if the field is too small to encompass all legitimate contenders. The BCS had this problem in spades. The four-team CFP had this problem last year.
And the notion that any “questions” about this title will be equivalent to the pre-BCS era “questions” is absurd. Think through the logic. Whatever team wins it this year either beat all the other teams or beat all the teams that beat all the other teams (and so on for each level of recursion). Every team that lost had the opportunity to beat the winner, or had the opportunity to beat the team that played the winner in the title game, or had the opportunity to beat the team that those teams played against in the semis, etc. The roads are not perfectly equal, but every legitimate title contender gets their chance in this system. That’s leaps and bounds better than the pre-BCS era and the BCS era, and better than the occasional 4-team playoff years that had more than four real contenders (like last year).
The only real questions that get raised are when teams with a legitimate case to play for a championship get left out.
The optimal number of teams is the lowest number that will cover all legitimate cases. It may not be 12. Maybe it’s 10, or 8, or 6 as some have said. But we saw last year that it’s bigger than 4. And in the meantime, while the committee figures out the optimal number, it’s better to err on the side of letting a couple of lesser teams luck into a spot they don’t really deserve so that no deserving teams are left out.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 10:57 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:Happens every year in Pro Sports
No need for playoff games with teams that don’t belong.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 10:59 pm to Kinderman
Nobody can convince me that Indiana belongs in the playoffs. There isn't an argument
Posted on 12/10/24 at 10:13 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
You can't get run off the field by TWO! 6-6 teams and then cry about not making the Playoffs.
Those 2 6-6 SEC teams have an 8th ranked recruiting class and a 40th ranked recruiting class. Meanwhile SMU's 2 ranked losses have an 11th ranked recruiting class and 44th ranked recruiting class. Don't act like OU and Vandy wouldn't be easy 9-3 ACC teams this year.
Once you throw in that SMU couldn't even begin to plan to dream to initiate to suppose to think to navigate going into Baton Rouge at night and winning by 29 and beat Georgia and South Carolina, well that's why the BCS has them in, and human error and committee got it wrong.
This post was edited on 12/10/24 at 10:40 am
Posted on 12/10/24 at 10:18 am to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
So do you want future SMUs opting out of conference championship games? Because that’s the obvious incentive this mentality creates.
Nope, doesn't. Guess what happened 2023 when UGA, back to back National Champion winner. Had 100%, 64 of 64 1st placed AP Poll votes, played the class of college football Bama, and lost by 3 measly point, guess what happened? Yep, you guessed it. They dropped from #1 to #6.
You can't think of any scenario that would make a team want to opt out more than that right there.
Now guess who didn't b*tch about getting dropped out, and the very next year played in the SECG. Yep 2023 UGA. Despite being the obvious best team in country last year.
Guess what happened in 2019 to UGA, and USC and many others?
So, the answer is no. It's been proven for a decade that many, many teams have gotten knocked out from a title game and continued to play in that exact game. In some instances, the very next year.
quote:
A larger field does mean the title has more legitimacy if the field is too small to encompass all legitimate contenders
Bumping from 4 to 12 I agree is legit. Even bumping from 12 to 16 could create more legitimacy would be an instance like this year. Bama could've won a Nati this year. Yeah they had unexpected losses, but there was a reason that before even getting a bid, their odds were +1000 and SMU was +6000 even after getting a bid.
The reason the entire sports media and general public was against them was for this exact reason. Because they knew they were one of the best teams and at their best could beat anyone in the country.
This post was edited on 12/10/24 at 10:25 am
Posted on 12/10/24 at 10:28 am to BradBallard
Bama would get the 3rd or 4th best odds if they had gotten in to win it all. But were booted for an SMU team that they would be a 14 pt favorite over and have +5200 worse odds than them to win it all. Let that sink in.
College Football has turned into DEI, affirmative action. Let's not put in the best teams. Let's put in the teams as to make this more inclusive and to not hurt anyone's feelings.
That's what this really was about. Everyone and their brother know that Bama would make SMU wipe their arse for them, but the public didn't want Bama because Bama at one point in time had assaulted their favorite team in a game. The committee caved to peer pressure from the public full well knowing Bama would beat SMU with their 2nd string likely.
Let's sacrifice quality as to be more inclusive and give minorities (aka the SMU's in this world) a seat at the table and make the majorities (Bama) have much higher qualitiy standards.
College Football has turned into DEI, affirmative action. Let's not put in the best teams. Let's put in the teams as to make this more inclusive and to not hurt anyone's feelings.
That's what this really was about. Everyone and their brother know that Bama would make SMU wipe their arse for them, but the public didn't want Bama because Bama at one point in time had assaulted their favorite team in a game. The committee caved to peer pressure from the public full well knowing Bama would beat SMU with their 2nd string likely.
Let's sacrifice quality as to be more inclusive and give minorities (aka the SMU's in this world) a seat at the table and make the majorities (Bama) have much higher qualitiy standards.
This post was edited on 12/10/24 at 10:32 am
Posted on 12/10/24 at 10:35 am to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
formula won’t recognize or care about the meta-incentives of teams playing or not playing in conference championship games. It will just tell you “objectively” (per its formula) which team is better. But unless you want teams to start opting out of conference championship games, you can’t allow a team to drop out of the playoff for losing them by a field goal as time expired. This is where the “human element” is actually helpful IMO.
How is everyone missing this? How is everyone missing the fact that literally every single year a team gets knocked out of the CFP from a conference title? There's 0 reason to expect that if 2023 Georgia who had 100% of 1st place AP Poll votes, back to back Nati's, lost by a small 3 points to the class of CF, Bama, and got dropped from #1 to #6, that teams would start opting out.
I can guarantee you if in that extreme situation that would ever in a blaring way say you need to stop playing in the SECG, but UGA didn't opt out because they literally played this year in the SECG, that it would never happen.
Other examples: 2019 UGA, USC, I'm sure at least a handful of others.
quote:
SMU and Alabama aren’t “worthy” title contenders
Bama's pre-bids odds to win it all was +1000. Before securing any spot which didn't happen. SMU after securing a spot odds to win it all was +6000. I don't know what your definition of worthy is, but Bama certainly had a shot to win it all. SMU on other hand has 0 shot to win it all.
This post was edited on 12/10/24 at 10:38 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News