(10-22-2014 10:28 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I agree the ECU has played the tougher schedule but I am not sure if I read this formula right. It appears ECU could be hurt more than helped buy it.

Thus far Marshall has beaten one winning team and a 500 team. ECU has beat only one winning team and a loss to a winning team. It appears the committee's formula would have these schedules about even. If Marshall is undefeated, and has a many winning record wins, are they saying the SOS would be a wash? I am wrong in my understanding?

the above .500 thing isnt a guage of the SOS but more of of just 1 of the 23 stat categories used in decideding the larger picture

there is no fornmula, and there is no guage for sos , besides what you (the committee member) believes is important

cbssports did a more indepth article (which is actually where the quotes from this article is)..their is rpi no RPI like with basketball deciding who played better schedules..its a eye test
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-decisions

this actually dramatically hurts marshall, for some reason the computers liked akron (who isnt that good) and was punshing UNC/SC for losing to good teams

no one not invested in c-usa can look at akron from an eye test and say they are better or even on the same planet as UNC/VT

also margin of vistory will not be available and heavily incouraged not to use...so marshall is hanging its hats on destroys bad to mediocre g5 teams..when in reality the destroying part will not be available to the committe just that they beat bad to mediocre g5 teams

(10-22-2014 01:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:16 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Maybe this is getting a little OT, but based on what the SBNation article said, here's my guess on how the committee would slot the "New Year's Six" bowls. (One caveat I'll put is that the higher ranked team in a conference gets to be the "conference champion.")

Fiesta: #8 Michigan State (B1G "champion") vs. #9 Georgia (SEC at-large)
Cotton: #10 TCU (Big 12 "champion") vs. #6 Auburn (SEC at-large)
Peach: #5 Alabama (SEC at-large) vs. #18 ECU (G5)
Orange: #21 Clemson (ACC replacement) vs. #7 Notre Dame (B1G/SEC/ND)

Sugar: #1 Mississippi State (SEC "Champion") vs. #4 Oregon (Pac-12 "Champion")
Rose: #2 Ole Miss (SEC at-large) vs. #3 Florida State (ACC "Champion")

- I put Oregon in over Alabama or Auburn because I think the committee will value a one-loss champion of the Pac-12, which would own wins over several one- or two-loss Pac-12 teams as well as B1G champion, more than it would a third SEC team which had NOT beaten any conference champion nor any other one-loss teams.

- I put unbeaten Ole Miss over unbeaten Florida State due to the Rebels' superior strength of schedule to date. Not that it matters which is #2 or #3 since they'd both play in the Rose Bowl regardless.

- I do not think this is how it will turn out. This is only what I think will would happen if the season ended today. Right now, the SEC would have four at-large spots, with the ACC, B1G, Big 12, and Pac-12. That will not hold. Someone from the Big 12 (and/or Ohio State and/or from the Pac-12) will rise above one of those SEC West teams or Georgia.

Yep...Miss and Miss State will play later this season, and someone has to lose...plus Bama v Auburn, and the SEC champ game.

Thank you. I tune out anytime someone has both Mississippi schools or both Alabama schools in the playoff.

Rules of the Playoff:

1. Rule One - be fair to ALL conference (wink wink)

2. Rule two - Screw the GoF conferernces

3. Rule three - If GoF get better and deserve a spot, change the rules

4. Rule four - refer to rule #2

(10-22-2014 12:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  That part could end up being a negative (but it's too early to tell yet) but the part about rewarding intending to schedule tough OOC vs not intending to schedule tough will help ECU. Also not including margin of victory will hurt Marshall because about the only thing they are doing impressive is crushing teams.

I am not sure that helps either. Marshall did schedule originally to play Louisville this year. That one game does not erase playing 3 P5's, but it takes away the excuse against Marshall that they never tried to schedule a tough team. Then they still look and see they are undefeated.

I got the impression they were thinking about good teams having down years. If you played Florida, Texas, or Michigan this year they would give you credit for playing historically great teams even if they're not very good right now.

(10-22-2014 02:32 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 12:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  That part could end up being a negative (but it's too early to tell yet) but the part about rewarding intending to schedule tough OOC vs not intending to schedule tough will help ECU. Also not including margin of victory will hurt Marshall because about the only thing they are doing impressive is crushing teams.

I am not sure that helps either. Marshall did schedule originally to play Louisville this year. That one game does not erase playing 3 P5's, but it takes away the excuse against Marshall that they never tried to schedule a tough team. Then they still look and see they are undefeated.

I got the impression they were thinking about good teams having down years. If you played Florida, Texas, or Michigan this year they would give you credit for playing historically great teams even if they're not very good right now.

Yep that's the exact impression I got as well, which is not surprising in the least because it allows for the committee to have a lot more leeway when it comes to making the teams they want to be at the top of the rankings be there and keeping those they don't want there not at the top.

(10-22-2014 12:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  [quote='k-vegasbuc' pid='11277004' dateline='1413991999']
That part could end up being a negative (but it's too early to tell yet) but the part about rewarding intending to schedule tough OOC vs not intending to schedule tough will help ECU. Also not including margin of victory will hurt Marshall because about the only thing they are doing impressive is crushing teams.

I am not sure that helps either. Marshall did schedule originally to play Louisville this year. That one game does not erase playing 3 P5's, but it takes away the excuse against Marshall that they never tried to schedule a tough team. Then they still look and see they are undefeated.

That said, the SOS rules, as stated in the article, really do not help the cause. Because as of now, none of two wins (VPI and UNC) are guaranteed to be over 0.500, and neither is the loss (it didn't state which side of the coin a 6-6 team would be on).

There is NO way they'll reward the intent of playing a school.

(10-22-2014 12:22 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 12:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  [quote='k-vegasbuc' pid='11277004' dateline='1413991999']
That part could end up being a negative (but it's too early to tell yet) but the part about rewarding intending to schedule tough OOC vs not intending to schedule tough will help ECU. Also not including margin of victory will hurt Marshall because about the only thing they are doing impressive is crushing teams.

I am not sure that helps either. Marshall did schedule originally to play Louisville this year. That one game does not erase playing 3 P5's, but it takes away the excuse against Marshall that they never tried to schedule a tough team. Then they still look and see they are undefeated.

That said, the SOS rules, as stated in the article, really do not help the cause. Because as of now, none of two wins (VPI and UNC) are guaranteed to be over 0.500, and neither is the loss (it didn't state which side of the coin a 6-6 team would be on).

Marshall had plenty of time to find a harder game even if it was on the road. UCF just picked up a game at Stanford next year. It wasn't hard.

Marshall knew that UL would have to get out of that game well in advance to find SOME team that would lend their schedule a shred of credibility.

IMO they simply added another creampuff for exactly this reason- run the win totals and hope no one looks at who they actually beat.

I don't know about marshalls situation, but it was a home game scheduled for this year that was moved just last year, like during the season in 2013. It's easy to say they could have played on the road, but then they'd be missing a home game. Most schools can't just miss a home game like that and be okay.

(10-22-2014 07:31 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 12:22 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 12:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  [quote='k-vegasbuc' pid='11277004' dateline='1413991999']
That part could end up being a negative (but it's too early to tell yet) but the part about rewarding intending to schedule tough OOC vs not intending to schedule tough will help ECU. Also not including margin of victory will hurt Marshall because about the only thing they are doing impressive is crushing teams.

I am not sure that helps either. Marshall did schedule originally to play Louisville this year. That one game does not erase playing 3 P5's, but it takes away the excuse against Marshall that they never tried to schedule a tough team. Then they still look and see they are undefeated.

That said, the SOS rules, as stated in the article, really do not help the cause. Because as of now, none of two wins (VPI and UNC) are guaranteed to be over 0.500, and neither is the loss (it didn't state which side of the coin a 6-6 team would be on).

Marshall had plenty of time to find a harder game even if it was on the road. UCF just picked up a game at Stanford next year. It wasn't hard.

Marshall knew that UL would have to get out of that game well in advance to find SOME team that would lend their schedule a shred of credibility.

IMO they simply added another creampuff for exactly this reason- run the win totals and hope no one looks at who they actually beat.

I don't know about marshalls situation, but it was a home game scheduled for this year that was moved just last year, like during the season in 2013. It's easy to say they could have played on the road, but then they'd be missing a home game. Most schools can't just miss a home game like that and be okay.

louisville v marshall

(10-22-2014 01:24 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:16 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Maybe this is getting a little OT, but based on what the SBNation article said, here's my guess on how the committee would slot the "New Year's Six" bowls. (One caveat I'll put is that the higher ranked team in a conference gets to be the "conference champion.")

Fiesta: #8 Michigan State (B1G "champion") vs. #9 Georgia (SEC at-large)
Cotton: #10 TCU (Big 12 "champion") vs. #6 Auburn (SEC at-large)
Peach: #5 Alabama (SEC at-large) vs. #18 ECU (G5)
Orange: #21 Clemson (ACC replacement) vs. #7 Notre Dame (B1G/SEC/ND)

Sugar: #1 Mississippi State (SEC "Champion") vs. #4 Oregon (Pac-12 "Champion")
Rose: #2 Ole Miss (SEC at-large) vs. #3 Florida State (ACC "Champion")

- I put Oregon in over Alabama or Auburn because I think the committee will value a one-loss champion of the Pac-12, which would own wins over several one- or two-loss Pac-12 teams as well as B1G champion, more than it would a third SEC team which had NOT beaten any conference champion nor any other one-loss teams.

- I put unbeaten Ole Miss over unbeaten Florida State due to the Rebels' superior strength of schedule to date. Not that it matters which is #2 or #3 since they'd both play in the Rose Bowl regardless.

- I do not think this is how it will turn out. This is only what I think will would happen if the season ended today. Right now, the SEC would have four at-large spots, with the ACC, B1G, Big 12, and Pac-12. That will not hold. Someone from the Big 12 (and/or Ohio State and/or from the Pac-12) will rise above one of those SEC West teams or Georgia.

Yep...Miss and Miss State will play later this season, and someone has to lose...plus Bama v Auburn, and the SEC champ game.

Thank you. I tune out anytime someone has both Mississippi schools or both Alabama schools in the playoff.

i bet you do considering how bad florida has become. driskel spent more time on his back than a uf sorority girl.
42-13 to missouri

(10-22-2014 09:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 09:48 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Every single Major conference team would need to have two losses before ECU is considered for the playoff this year (or any year). Sorry guys.

Don't disagree, but there's a lot in there that would certainly lead you to believe ECU will be rated above Marshall, which at this point is the only thing that matters.

I have ECU as the top team over any of the G4's, not even close.

(10-22-2014 08:16 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:24 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 01:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:16 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Maybe this is getting a little OT, but based on what the SBNation article said, here's my guess on how the committee would slot the "New Year's Six" bowls. (One caveat I'll put is that the higher ranked team in a conference gets to be the "conference champion.")

Fiesta: #8 Michigan State (B1G "champion") vs. #9 Georgia (SEC at-large)
Cotton: #10 TCU (Big 12 "champion") vs. #6 Auburn (SEC at-large)
Peach: #5 Alabama (SEC at-large) vs. #18 ECU (G5)
Orange: #21 Clemson (ACC replacement) vs. #7 Notre Dame (B1G/SEC/ND)

Sugar: #1 Mississippi State (SEC "Champion") vs. #4 Oregon (Pac-12 "Champion")
Rose: #2 Ole Miss (SEC at-large) vs. #3 Florida State (ACC "Champion")

- I put Oregon in over Alabama or Auburn because I think the committee will value a one-loss champion of the Pac-12, which would own wins over several one- or two-loss Pac-12 teams as well as B1G champion, more than it would a third SEC team which had NOT beaten any conference champion nor any other one-loss teams.

- I put unbeaten Ole Miss over unbeaten Florida State due to the Rebels' superior strength of schedule to date. Not that it matters which is #2 or #3 since they'd both play in the Rose Bowl regardless.

- I do not think this is how it will turn out. This is only what I think will would happen if the season ended today. Right now, the SEC would have four at-large spots, with the ACC, B1G, Big 12, and Pac-12. That will not hold. Someone from the Big 12 (and/or Ohio State and/or from the Pac-12) will rise above one of those SEC West teams or Georgia.

Yep...Miss and Miss State will play later this season, and someone has to lose...plus Bama v Auburn, and the SEC champ game.

Thank you. I tune out anytime someone has both Mississippi schools or both Alabama schools in the playoff.

i bet you do considering how bad florida has become. driskel spent more time on his back than a uf sorority girl.
42-13 to missouri

Apparently you don't know the UF sorority girls... what you propose is impossible.

(10-22-2014 11:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:33 AM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:28 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I agree the ECU has played the tougher schedule but I am not sure if I read this formula right. It appears ECU could be hurt more than helped buy it.

Thus far Marshall has beaten one winning team and a 500 team. ECU has beat only one winning team and a loss to a winning team. It appears the committee's formula would have these schedules about even. If Marshall is undefeated, and has a many winning record wins, are they saying the SOS would be a wash? I am wrong in my understanding?

I'm kind of wondering the same thing, if that is the case it is definitely not good for ECU because that would mean the committee would see, for example, a 8-4 Middle Tennessee win the same as a win vs an 8-4 Va Tech even though Tech played much tougher opponents. That's why most SOS metric not only incorporate the opponents record but also the record of the opponent's opponents.

That part could end up being a negative (but it's too early to tell yet) but the part about rewarding intending to schedule tough OOC vs not intending to schedule tough will help ECU. Also not including margin of victory will hurt Marshall because about the only thing they are doing impressive is crushing anemic teams.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

fify