Great post on the MAC board from earlier

RE: Week 4 Game Thread

"Wow! So far (3+ left 4q in Madison, 6 left in 2q in Akron), the MAC is down 176-34. Out gained 1528-581."

Final - Mich St 73, Eastern Mich 14

Wisconsin 68 Bowling Green 17

I think some Big 10 teams are out to prove something.

By the way - I can't go to UC-Miami tonight nor watch it - so somebody get some UC cheering in for me tonight at PBS and bring back a win.

VaTech loses again. This time to GaTech.

ECU beating up on North Carolina so far: 35-20 at the half.

(09-20-2014 05:00 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  ECU beating up on North Carolina so far: 35-20 at the half.

Add a pick 6 to that.

The U down 7 to Nebraska.

Wow! ECU put up 70 points against North Carolina...

If FSU loses, will Winston get his @ss kicked in the locker room?

If FSU loses tonight and then wins out, the committee damn well better not be able to use Winston's absence in their favor. I've heard a few analysts mention that this weekend. There's a difference between missing someone due to injury and suspension.

I agree Coop. If they overlook it then essentially his punishment meant nothing.

The kid came out of the locker room in full uniform, pads and all. The discussion between he and jimbo fisher looked damn funny. He is probably costing himself millions of dollars.

(09-20-2014 10:30 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  The kid came out of the locker room in full uniform, pads and all. The discussion between he and jimbo fisher looked damn funny. He is probably costing himself millions of dollars.

Fisher's face was priceless!

Miami goes down to Nebraska. Couldn't stop Nebraska's run game.

I really hate Winston. He shouldn't even be at the game.

(09-20-2014 10:22 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  If FSU loses tonight and then wins out, the committee damn well better not be able to use Winston's absence in their favor. I've heard a few analysts mention that this weekend. There's a difference between missing someone due to injury and suspension.

I don't think such allowances should be made in either case (and I say the same about basketball). Injuries are part of the game, and if the "experts" decide to adjust records based on asterisks, absences or injuries, then the whole "every game counts" mantra rings hollow.

(09-22-2014 07:30 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 10:22 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  If FSU loses tonight and then wins out, the committee damn well better not be able to use Winston's absence in their favor. I've heard a few analysts mention that this weekend. There's a difference between missing someone due to injury and suspension.

I don't think such allowances should be made in either case (and I say the same about basketball). Injuries are part of the game, and if the "experts" decide to adjust records based on asterisks, absences or injuries, then the whole "every game counts" mantra rings hollow.

I can see your point, but I think the issue goes deeper: what exactly is the objective of the pollster or committee member? Are you defining who "had the best season" or who "is the best team right now" or is it some form of hybrid? (Is it a reward or an attempt to match up the best teams/games?) If it's best season, then I agree with you and a win in week one matters just as much as a win today. But at least in basketball, the committee seems to be saying otherwise when they talk about "last 10 games" (or did they dump that?)

In football, at least as far as the committee goes, I'm guessing we're looking at an unofficial hybrid where what actually happened on the field is the primary analysis, but when that appears to be roughly even (and that could be pretty frequent with such a small sample relative to the number of teams) they'll take injuries and suspensions into account and go with the better team right now.

(09-22-2014 10:52 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 07:30 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 10:22 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  If FSU loses tonight and then wins out, the committee damn well better not be able to use Winston's absence in their favor. I've heard a few analysts mention that this weekend. There's a difference between missing someone due to injury and suspension.

I don't think such allowances should be made in either case (and I say the same about basketball). Injuries are part of the game, and if the "experts" decide to adjust records based on asterisks, absences or injuries, then the whole "every game counts" mantra rings hollow.

I can see your point, but I think the issue goes deeper: what exactly is the objective of the pollster or committee member? Are you defining who "had the best season" or who "is the best team right now" or is it some form of hybrid? If it's best season, then I agree with you and a win in week one matters just as much as a win today. But at least in basketball, the committee seems to be saying otherwise when they talk about "last 10 games" (or did they dump that?)

In football, at least as far as the committee goes, I'm guessing we're looking at an unofficial hybrid where what actually happened on the field is the primary analysis, but when that appears to be basically a tie (and that could be pretty frequent with such a small sample relative to the number of teams) they'll take injuries and suspensions into account and go with the better team right now.

Basketball they dumped last ten games, it supposed to be best season and by in large they do a good job of seeding as such. However, in basketball they will made adjustments for injuries and what not. I think it makes some sense in basketball at least for seeding purposes (i don't think a team with a quality resume should be left out because of an injury), but I think in a 4 team playoff it'd be ridiculous to do that. Body of work should be the end all.

(09-22-2014 10:54 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 10:52 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 07:30 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(09-20-2014 10:22 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  If FSU loses tonight and then wins out, the committee damn well better not be able to use Winston's absence in their favor. I've heard a few analysts mention that this weekend. There's a difference between missing someone due to injury and suspension.

I don't think such allowances should be made in either case (and I say the same about basketball). Injuries are part of the game, and if the "experts" decide to adjust records based on asterisks, absences or injuries, then the whole "every game counts" mantra rings hollow.

I can see your point, but I think the issue goes deeper: what exactly is the objective of the pollster or committee member? Are you defining who "had the best season" or who "is the best team right now" or is it some form of hybrid? If it's best season, then I agree with you and a win in week one matters just as much as a win today. But at least in basketball, the committee seems to be saying otherwise when they talk about "last 10 games" (or did they dump that?)

In football, at least as far as the committee goes, I'm guessing we're looking at an unofficial hybrid where what actually happened on the field is the primary analysis, but when that appears to be basically a tie (and that could be pretty frequent with such a small sample relative to the number of teams) they'll take injuries and suspensions into account and go with the better team right now.

Basketball they dumped last ten games, it supposed to be best season and by in large they do a good job of seeding as such. However, in basketball they will made adjustments for injuries and what not. I think it makes some sense in basketball at least for seeding purposes (i don't think a team with a quality resume should be left out because of an injury), but I think in a 4 team playoff it'd be ridiculous to do that. Body of work should be the end all.

Building upon that and focusing on the committee(s) (i.e. forgetting about polls), I kind of like the philosophy of exclusively looking at actual results (i.e. best season) to determine who's "in" and then taking things like injuries and suspensions (and probably "hotness") into account to determine seedings based upon best team right now. In football, the issue then becomes when we talk about "in" are we talking about the 4 in the playoffs or about the 12 playing in the New Years 6? I'm inclined to argue "both": first define the 4 and 12+ best "seasons"; adjust for mandatories as necessary (e.g. must have a G5 rep - probably based upon best season?); then rank them by "best right now" within those two categories for NY6 matchups. If it ends up that the current best team only had the fifth best season and thus ends up out of the playoffs so be it.

Upon further research, the committee is clearly taking a different approach - they are looking for the best team rather than the best season (especially for playoff purposes)

Quote:The members of the College Football Playoff selection committee held their final preseason meeting on Thursday, and emerged with a protocol which included an opening line -- under "Mission" -- that begins: "The committee's task will be to select the best teams."

How will they go about picking the "best teams?" Lets move to Line 2, "Principles," which spells out the criteria committee members will use in selecting the four teams that will play for the national championship under the new system:

Conference championships won,
Strength of schedule,
Head-to-head competition,
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and,
Other relevant factors such as key injuries that may have affected a team's performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.