(11-14-2017 09:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-12-2017 05:53 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(11-12-2017 02:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 04:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 03:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Easy. B/c the first 2 years of the CFP, it became an issue when Big 12 teams, without a CCG, were getting shut out at the last minute, while other teams were playing that extra game, usually against a quality team (a division champ).

One of the CFP members (the chairman) used that phrase (13th data point) to explain how the Big 12 teams got jumped.

It is also why the Big 12 scheduled rival games and moved them back a week the next year, then later added a CCG, even without expanding.

And your Austin Peay analogy doesn't apply, b/c we're talking bout the last game of the season, which is critical for the final rankings.

Other P5s were playing CCGs and getting all the headlines, while the Big 12 sat idle.

I know the history of how the "13th point" term came in to usage. If you follow college football, you can't help but know. And FWIW, the Big 12 did get in to the playoffs in the second year of the CFP, so clearly the lack of a 13th data point didn't keep them out that year.

And yes, the Austin Peay analogy does work, because the last game of the season isn't any more the "13th game" in the sense of having played 13 games than any other game is. Obviously, the last game is critical because it's the last game that factors in to the final rankings. But it isn't "13" any more than the week two games is.

Yes quo, I realize you know everything ahead of time.

But despite the Big 12 making the CFP early, that "13th data point" comment is what spurred them to make changes.

And the difference is not that each game is one of 13, it's that one candidate has played an extra game (CCG) against a better opponent at the critical time of year, than the candidate who only played 12 games and sat out CCG week, or simply played a regular season game.

So yes, your analogy about Austin Peay is mathematically correct, but completely misses the point the CFP SC made about why that gave teams an advantage.

Recency bias in full effect, put in motion during the first CFP season when they said rankings are issued based on schedules to date. The last data point becomes important when it is considered a "good" win (which includes most CCG champ games vs. some random one off).

In full effect today. They completely forgot about Ohio St. being destroyed by an unranked Iowa and moved them back to 8. Also forgot about Auburn losing to LSU, focusing on their solid win at home vs. UGA. UGA has beaten ND on the road and MSU at home and lost to Auburn on the road. Auburn has beaten UGA and MSU at home and lost to Clemson and LSU on the road.

Ohio St is 9 not 8....

But really- who behind them should be ahead of them? Penn St? Nope. USC? Got murdered by Notre Dame. TCU? 1 CFP top 25 win. Oklahoma St? 0 CFP top 25 wins. Washington St? 3 CFP top 25 wins, but 2 ugly losses.

Also, Auburn's win over LSU was no solid win. It was a great win- one of the top ones of the year. And it's easy to see why the committee would rank Auburn ahead of Georgia- they did kind of just play, you know.