(12-03-2014 11:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:53 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think you'll find that on the I've been very pro-committee since it was announced a year ago.

I have found, using your own words, that you went from being someone who championed transparency because it may have benefited your team (when they were lower ranked) to one who preferred cloaking when it benefited your team (to not answer questions as to why they have moved up). Your own words: not mine. That is what makes it hard to take your premise seriously, when it is for one made up, two an assumption, and three doesn't jive with reasonable time of people who work full time jobs, and four doesn't jive with their own words. Especially when your objectivity is clearly in question (and a committed committee with the current results favors your school). Note: I am not calling out your intelligence. Don't think that. It is your subjectivity and favoritism to what works best for your situation.

So where are we on that Utah beachfront property? Hurry before the guy with the "fake" Arizona beach property gets here.

Here are some of my comments, all while TCU was ranked 5-7:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-715017-post-114...id11439235

Quote:The old system had worse flaws. Voters simply weren't watching games. AP and Harris voters only catch parts of games and base their opinions on ESPN highlights for games they miss. They can put as much or as little time into their rankings as they want (and my guess is the latter). They don't sit in a room with standardized stats and indicators defending their position. And computers are notoriously flawed- they can't take into account injuries or fluke plays. And there is huge variation in their rankings.

The committee is a huge step forward. I do think it can be improved. For one thing, I don't think it is fair to Long to have to answer questions for the entire committee. I think that is why there are some mixed messages- he's having to wing it when these are very complex discussion and debates not amenable to sound-bites. I do think the criteria they use should be more explicit- what are the specific stats/ rankings they are emphasizing. I think those should be better disclosed. I also think the committee should be larger to dilute the influence of a strong opinion or two. Maybe twice as large.

But I think it is a big step forward and way better than the old BCS rankings.

Here's another:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-713568-post-114...id11400650

Quote:I definitely think the committee is better and that is from a fan that kinda got screwed this week. The reality is that 4-7 are really close and every one has an argument for the 4 spot.

These guys are looking at way more data and information that the AP and coaches do. Coaches have someone else fill out their votes and don't even watch games other than their own and the AP voters watch the games they cover plus Sportscenter. And the computers are blind to external circumstances ( injuries, weather, bad calls etc).

There are ways to improve it- make more of the key criteria known for one. But it is s huge improvement.

(12-03-2014 11:56 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:42 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  In a committee charged with picking the BEST teams rather than the most deserving- can you argue with how FSU has played that they are one of the 3 best teams right now?

That is all well and good, but the above that Large Marge posts states the opposite: they are changed with picking the most deserving teams. I mean unless of course they again changed their criteria.

nope:
from months ago:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ck-outrage
Jeff Long said it's not the "most deserving" teams... it's the "best."

I know Bowlsby said the same thing a few days ago as well.

I get what you're saying, but I believe most fans understand that being the "best" should include a heavy merit-based component (otherwise, what's the point of winning and losing games in the first place if those objective measures aren't taken into account).

If all that you want is the "best" 4 teams at a given point, then we should just take the 4 teams that Las Vegas bookmakers would choose. They're the ones that rely upon objective criteria the most and don't have any emotional interest involved whatsoever. Of course, they also don't care about whether a team suffered 4 losses in September - they just look at who is playing well NOW. So, that's the dangerous territory that you get into when you're trying to judge the pure "best" team versus who "deserves" to be in. Arkansas, for instance, would be a scary team for anyone to play right now, but can a 6-loss team ever be one of the "best"?

The practicality reality for most of us is that we take a merit-based "first cut" of teams based on on-the-field records and/or factors such as conference championships and strength of schedules and then try to determine the "best" teams out of that particular group.

To be sure, I'd honestly trust those Vegas bookmakers more than the CFP committee at this point. At least the Vegas bookmakers aren't setting odds by going with their guts or the eye test.

(12-03-2014 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:53 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 09:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 09:07 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 11:35 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  This committee is watching 100% of all the games. They aren't getting their info distilled from Sportscenter like most of us. They aren't listening to talking heads or follow traditional poll rules like always having undefeated ahead of 1 loss teams, or not moving teams down if they win. They are consistently rewarding teams for good play and punishing them for marginal play, even when they win. FSU is ranked #5 in the computer composite. It is not just the committee seeing their flaws on film.

If TCU plays poorly against ISU, that will matter. If OSU of Baylor play strongly this week, that will matter. This is far from over. But I am very impressed with thei job they are doing and that was even before this week.

This is a seriously flawed comment.

1. FSU is t-1st in the BCS computers with Alabama (.9700). TCU is 4th (.8700).

2. FSU faced OK State on a neutral field (that was significantly closer to OSU's campus) with their starting quarterback, Walsh. TCU played at home against OK State and with Walsh out injured.

that's still just 1 game. What has happened is to a lot of folks, FSU's string of unimpressive games is starting to add up. They've played what 3 unranked teams in a row here and been extremely unimpressive in all 3 games. Meanwhile TCU steamrolled what was an improved Texas team.

I'm responding directly to the flawed points made in the comment I responded to, which has nothing to do with what you said. But thanks for interjecting.

To your comment though, an "improved" Texas? LOL. Way to parrot what the media was saying leading up to that game. Texas is 6-6 and is unquestionably worse than last year. FSU has 8 teams on its schedule that are better than Texas.

FSU probably has 3 teams better than Texas on its schedule (so far). To argue 8, you would have to claim the Citadel, Wake Forest (3-9), Syracuse (3-9), Virginia (5-7) or Oklahoma St. (5-6) was better than Texas. And since Texas beat Oklahoma St. 28-7 (the team FSU beat 37-31) at Stillwater the week before Texas played TCU, OSU is a pretty hard argument. (and that was the week after Texas knocked WVU out of the rankings 33-16-their worst loss of the season and WVU has played Alabama, TCU, Baylor, Kansas St. and Oklahoma-5 ranked teams). And beating a ranked team and beating Oklahoma St. worse than the only unbeaten does give you a good reason to believe that a team is better than during a 2-4 start.

Not OSU, but uva. I didn't make the metrics (f/+), but it's better than the committee's eye test.

Also, it's 9 total on FSU's schedule when you include this weekend's game. (Assuming FSU wins, of course, but also assuming everyone else in the top 6 wins as well.)

(12-03-2014 11:19 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:12 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:40 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  First off 14 hours isn't that much- that's just four football games start to finish. I bet a lot of us watch that in a weekend.

You are still making 1) an assumption, 2) an assumption that the committee members themselves have al lbut debunked. Sorry but just because you want to believe it, doesn't make it true. And past that, even if it were true, when you listen to comments made by Jeff Long (which again reveal very clearly it is not true), what really comes into play is that breaking down film, is most certainly not their specialty. What they seem to be committed to, is to reaching a predetermined goal. What that is, I don't know. But they have changed their criteria LITERALLY three or more times since it started, and have all but abandoned the set goals they started with, which is what leads me to believe they have a set goal in mind. When Long was interviewed on his reasoning for moving Alabama to and Miss St to four, once he used the circular logic in trying to explain it, it became painfully clear he did not watch the game, he was relying on reports, AND he didn't know how to realize that both could not in fact be accurate. Either that or he did watch, and has no idea on how to break down a game. I'll let others decide which one it is, and which one is worse. Because both are bad.

The point is they are clearly putting more time into this than any other polling body has ever put into it. They have more resources and data than any other polling body has had at their disposal. They are spending a day every week flying to Dallas and hashing this out. They know they are under the microscope. The easy thing would be just to vote like the AP poll and not ruffle any feathers. I think the fact they are voting in ways that makes some people's assumptions get challenged shows they are taking this very seriously.

Their decisions aren't some flippant, not thought out vote. There is a lot of data, observations and reasoning behind it, more than any college football voting body has ever had.

They are taking it seriously. They aren't tying themselves to the polls. They aren't too tied to the recency bias that polls have. They aren't tying themselves to evaluate based on one high profile game like polls do. They don't stick too much with earlier rankings when data tells them otherwise. They aren't tying themselves to name brands (TCU is ahead of an unbeaten FSU and Ohio St.!). They aren't tying themselves to how the teams did last year.

But I agree with Frank. They are relying too much on the eyeball test and justifying it later.

Ultimately football comes down to winning and losing. If Marshall was unbeaten and didn't get into the top 4 that's one thing. If FSU with a decent schedule got left out over teams that didn't always get the job done, that would be ridiculous.

(12-03-2014 12:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:56 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:42 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  In a committee charged with picking the BEST teams rather than the most deserving- can you argue with how FSU has played that they are one of the 3 best teams right now?

That is all well and good, but the above that Large Marge posts states the opposite: they are changed with picking the most deserving teams. I mean unless of course they again changed their criteria.

nope:
from months ago:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ck-outrage
Jeff Long said it's not the "most deserving" teams... it's the "best."

I know Bowlsby said the same thing a few days ago as well.

I get what you're saying, but I believe most fans understand that being the "best" should include a heavy merit-based component (otherwise, what's the point of winning and losing games in the first place if those objective measures aren't taken into account).

If all that you want is the "best" 4 teams at a given point, then we should just take the 4 teams that Las Vegas bookmakers would choose. They're the ones that rely upon objective criteria the most and don't have any emotional interest involved whatsoever. Of course, they also don't care about whether a team suffered 4 losses in September - they just look at who is playing well NOW. So, that's the dangerous territory that you get into when you're trying to judge the pure "best" team versus who "deserves" to be in. Arkansas, for instance, would be a scary team for anyone to play right now, but can a 6-loss team ever be one of the "best"?

The practicality reality for most of us is that we take a merit-based "first cut" of teams based on on-the-field records and/or factors such as conference championships and strength of schedules and then try to determine the "best" teams out of that particular group.

To be sure, I'd honestly trust those Vegas bookmakers more than the CFP committee at this point. At least the Vegas bookmakers aren't setting odds by going with their guts or the eye test.

If they were solely going on "best", I think OSU would be ahead of FSU. Look at FSU's efficiency and MOV computer rankings. They are consistently in the teens and low 20s. Vegas is particularly down on the Seminoles. The only reason they are top 4 is because of the "deserves" bias is so strong.

(12-03-2014 12:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:56 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:42 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  In a committee charged with picking the BEST teams rather than the most deserving- can you argue with how FSU has played that they are one of the 3 best teams right now?

That is all well and good, but the above that Large Marge posts states the opposite: they are changed with picking the most deserving teams. I mean unless of course they again changed their criteria.

nope:
from months ago:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ck-outrage
Jeff Long said it's not the "most deserving" teams... it's the "best."

I know Bowlsby said the same thing a few days ago as well.

I get what you're saying, but I believe most fans understand that being the "best" should include a heavy merit-based component (otherwise, what's the point of winning and losing games in the first place if those objective measures aren't taken into account).

If all that you want is the "best" 4 teams at a given point, then we should just take the 4 teams that Las Vegas bookmakers would choose. They're the ones that rely upon objective criteria the most and don't have any emotional interest involved whatsoever. Of course, they also don't care about whether a team suffered 4 losses in September - they just look at who is playing well NOW. So, that's the dangerous territory that you get into when you're trying to judge the pure "best" team versus who "deserves" to be in. Arkansas, for instance, would be a scary team for anyone to play right now, but can a 6-loss team ever be one of the "best"?

The practicality reality for most of us is that we take a merit-based "first cut" of teams based on on-the-field records and/or factors such as conference championships and strength of schedules and then try to determine the "best" teams out of that particular group.

To be sure, I'd honestly trust those Vegas bookmakers more than the CFP committee at this point. At least the Vegas bookmakers aren't setting odds by going with their guts or the eye test.

do you know what the Vegas oddsmakers are saying right now(from ESPN Insiders-
The CFB Vegas Rankings are the composite power ratings of a panel of professional handicappers and college football statisticians, including fellow Insider Phil Steele, Brian Edwards and Bruce Marshall of The Gold Sheet. The ratings are intended to weigh the relative strength of the teams if they met on a neutral field and to be compared to the point spread on a given game.

-
1 Alabama 50
2 Oregon 47.5
3 TCU 46
4 Baylor 45
5 Florida St 44
t6 Miss St 43
t6 Ohio St 43
8 Mich St 42.5
t9 Ole Miss 42
t9 Wisconsin 42
t9 Kansas St 42

Pretty damn close to what the committee has in the top 5.

(12-03-2014 11:28 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:19 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:10 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:53 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I'm responding directly to the flawed points made in the comment I responded to, which has nothing to do with what you said. But thanks for interjecting.

To your comment though, an "improved" Texas? LOL. Way to parrot what the media was saying leading up to that game. Texas is 6-6 and is unquestionably worse than last year.

Texas is 6-6 yes. But in their 6 losses, 4 are already against teams with 9+ wins and a 5th could join that group this weekend. Considering where Texas was at the start of the year- yes they have improved quite a bit. Beat a good WVU team.

But even if Texas wasn't an improved team, they did what you are supposed to do with a team like that. Decimate them. Something that FSU is alergic to this year for whatever reason.

Good teams are supposed to win their games, too. Last I checked, FSU is the only school to do that all season. Despite having a more difficult schedule than several other playoff contenders and despite having half its schedule coming off byes (like Alabama a few years back). Not to mention the target of defending national champion on its back. But hey, losing games doesn't matter if you "control" the game during your wins.

Their schedule is not more difficult. Maybe OOC, but the entire schedule, no way. 2 ranked teams played all year long- #18 Clemson and #21 Louisville. Oh and btw, both of those games those teams were coming off of byes. You say but Notre Dame and Florida. 7-5 and 6-5. Whoop de doo.

It's FSU's fault that they think they can just turn on the switch at any time. The committee has seen right thru that.

Multiple SOS metrics support my comment. Just like FSU having played 8 teams more difficult than tcu playing Texas is supported by advanced metrics.

I'm just stating facts. You're just stating your opinion.

You're making stuff up to support your opinions. He's just stating opinions. Look at Massey's computer composite.
22 Clemson
24 Louisville
34 Florida
37 Notre Dame
40 Boston College
(41 Texas)
42 Miami
50 N. Carolina St.
57 Virginia
63 Oklahoma St.
90 Syracuse
103Wake Forest
Citadel well below that

(12-03-2014 12:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:53 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 09:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 09:07 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  This is a seriously flawed comment.

1. FSU is t-1st in the BCS computers with Alabama (.9700). TCU is 4th (.8700).

2. FSU faced OK State on a neutral field (that was significantly closer to OSU's campus) with their starting quarterback, Walsh. TCU played at home against OK State and with Walsh out injured.

that's still just 1 game. What has happened is to a lot of folks, FSU's string of unimpressive games is starting to add up. They've played what 3 unranked teams in a row here and been extremely unimpressive in all 3 games. Meanwhile TCU steamrolled what was an improved Texas team.

I'm responding directly to the flawed points made in the comment I responded to, which has nothing to do with what you said. But thanks for interjecting.

To your comment though, an "improved" Texas? LOL. Way to parrot what the media was saying leading up to that game. Texas is 6-6 and is unquestionably worse than last year. FSU has 8 teams on its schedule that are better than Texas.

FSU probably has 3 teams better than Texas on its schedule (so far). To argue 8, you would have to claim the Citadel, Wake Forest (3-9), Syracuse (3-9), Virginia (5-7) or Oklahoma St. (5-6) was better than Texas. And since Texas beat Oklahoma St. 28-7 (the team FSU beat 37-31) at Stillwater the week before Texas played TCU, OSU is a pretty hard argument. (and that was the week after Texas knocked WVU out of the rankings 33-16-their worst loss of the season and WVU has played Alabama, TCU, Baylor, Kansas St. and Oklahoma-5 ranked teams). And beating a ranked team and beating Oklahoma St. worse than the only unbeaten does give you a good reason to believe that a team is better than during a 2-4 start.

Not OSU, but uva. I didn't make the metrics (f/+), but it's better than the committee's eye test.

Also, it's 9 total on FSU's schedule when you include this weekend's game. (Assuming FSU wins, of course, but also assuming everyone else in the top 6 wins as well.)

Ironic to use f/+ rankings as support for FSU, because using the F/+ rankings are one of the efficiency rankings that don't like the Seminoles (#8). Top four are Alabama, Oregon, Ohio State and TCU.

(12-03-2014 11:42 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  In a committee charged with picking the BEST teams rather than the most deserving- can you argue with how FSU has played that they are one of the 3 best teams right now?

That is all well and good, but the above that Large Marge posts states the opposite: they are changed with picking the most deserving teams. I mean unless of course they again changed their criteria.

You are confused. Their charge is to pick the "best" teams, not the most deserving. On a most deserving metric, you can't leave FSU out. On a "best", you might. That would be an injustice IMO.

(12-03-2014 12:33 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 12:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:53 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 09:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  that's still just 1 game. What has happened is to a lot of folks, FSU's string of unimpressive games is starting to add up. They've played what 3 unranked teams in a row here and been extremely unimpressive in all 3 games. Meanwhile TCU steamrolled what was an improved Texas team.

I'm responding directly to the flawed points made in the comment I responded to, which has nothing to do with what you said. But thanks for interjecting.

To your comment though, an "improved" Texas? LOL. Way to parrot what the media was saying leading up to that game. Texas is 6-6 and is unquestionably worse than last year. FSU has 8 teams on its schedule that are better than Texas.

FSU probably has 3 teams better than Texas on its schedule (so far). To argue 8, you would have to claim the Citadel, Wake Forest (3-9), Syracuse (3-9), Virginia (5-7) or Oklahoma St. (5-6) was better than Texas. And since Texas beat Oklahoma St. 28-7 (the team FSU beat 37-31) at Stillwater the week before Texas played TCU, OSU is a pretty hard argument. (and that was the week after Texas knocked WVU out of the rankings 33-16-their worst loss of the season and WVU has played Alabama, TCU, Baylor, Kansas St. and Oklahoma-5 ranked teams). And beating a ranked team and beating Oklahoma St. worse than the only unbeaten does give you a good reason to believe that a team is better than during a 2-4 start.

Not OSU, but uva. I didn't make the metrics (f/+), but it's better than the committee's eye test.

Also, it's 9 total on FSU's schedule when you include this weekend's game. (Assuming FSU wins, of course, but also assuming everyone else in the top 6 wins as well.)

Ironic to use f/+ rankings as support for FSU, because using the F/+ rankings are one of the efficiency rankings that don't like the Seminoles (#8). Top four are Alabama, Oregon, Ohio State and TCU.

oops.

Using it to denounce this claim that FSU's schedule is weak. Which is what I've been doing this entire time. People make a stupid accusation and I use facts to show they're wrong.

A schedule with no top 20 teams IS weak.

The problem with "best" teams is that 100 people have 100 definitions for "best".

FSU has the best win% over the last 2 years - what's wrong with that measurement? It's a lot less theoretical or subjective than some of these other measures people seem to want to use...

(12-03-2014 12:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:56 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:42 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  In a committee charged with picking the BEST teams rather than the most deserving- can you argue with how FSU has played that they are one of the 3 best teams right now?

That is all well and good, but the above that Large Marge posts states the opposite: they are changed with picking the most deserving teams. I mean unless of course they again changed their criteria.

nope:
from months ago:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ck-outrage
Jeff Long said it's not the "most deserving" teams... it's the "best."

I know Bowlsby said the same thing a few days ago as well.

I get what you're saying, but I believe most fans understand that being the "best" should include a heavy merit-based component (otherwise, what's the point of winning and losing games in the first place if those objective measures aren't taken into account).

If all that you want is the "best" 4 teams at a given point, then we should just take the 4 teams that Las Vegas bookmakers would choose. They're the ones that rely upon objective criteria the most and don't have any emotional interest involved whatsoever. Of course, they also don't care about whether a team suffered 4 losses in September - they just look at who is playing well NOW. So, that's the dangerous territory that you get into when you're trying to judge the pure "best" team versus who "deserves" to be in. Arkansas, for instance, would be a scary team for anyone to play right now, but can a 6-loss team ever be one of the "best"?

The practicality reality for most of us is that we take a merit-based "first cut" of teams based on on-the-field records and/or factors such as conference championships and strength of schedules and then try to determine the "best" teams out of that particular group.

To be sure, I'd honestly trust those Vegas bookmakers more than the CFP committee at this point. At least the Vegas bookmakers aren't setting odds by going with their guts or the eye test.

Its like my economics professor said about the stock market. Don't ask me about that. That's the psychology department.

Vegas is about psychology, not who is best. My Dad had a friend in Lexington who figured the surest way to make money was to bet against Kentucky in basketball. Because Kentucky fans always think their team will win and bet on them almost regardless of the point spread. Vegas tries to balance the bettors, not figure out who will win.

(12-02-2014 11:20 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  Putting Florida State at 4 is an absolute disgrace and makes me question the neutrality of the committee. What is FSU being punished for that isn't also applicable to those ranked ahead of them? Only Alabama should be ranked ahead of them.

Arguments against FSU compared to TCU...

Too many close games? TCU has barely beaten Kansas, West Virginia, and Oklahoma and lost to Baylor. Let's say this is a draw.

No signature wins? TCU has wins over three ranked teams who aren't ranked anymore. In fact, only Kansas State is still ranked -- FSU has beaten two teams still ranked and is still undefeated. FSU wins.

Strength of schedule? TCU does have a vastly superior SoS but, if like the committee, we consider where those teams finish it looks a whole lot worse. FSU wins this by the committees supposed standard.

Arguments against FSU compared to Oregon...

Strength of schedule? Oregon is only ranked 8 spots higher than FSU. Considering there are 128 teams that's fairly even.

No signature wins? Oregon has three wins over ranked opponents, all of which are still ranked, but they also lost to Arizona. FSU only beating one less still ranked opponent but also being undefeated puts them ahead.

Too many close games? Oregon's only close win is against Wazu, no contest that Oregon is superior here.

After quickly reviewing the basic arguments against FSU we can see they should be ranked second. It's pretty simple really -- they're undefeated, if it were easy then they wouldn't be the only one. The committee's disregard for FSU's strengths is setting a bad precedent of bias.

+3, I agree 100%!

(12-03-2014 12:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The problem with "best" teams is that 100 people have 100 definitions for "best".

FSU has the best win% over the last 2 years - what's wrong with that measurement? It's a lot less theoretical or subjective than some of these other measures people seem to want to use...

seems like all the polls, the committee, and Vegas all disagree with you on that.

Pretty damn easy to see why they don't think FSU isn't the best. The schedule which is mediocre at best(6th best in the ACC for instance)- they haven't even won comfortably(let alone dominate). Also a lot of the comparable opponents- FSU hasn't done anywhere near as good. Oklahoma St, Florida to just name 2.

(12-03-2014 12:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 12:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The problem with "best" teams is that 100 people have 100 definitions for "best".

FSU has the best win% over the last 2 years - what's wrong with that measurement? It's a lot less theoretical or subjective than some of these other measures people seem to want to use...

seems like all the polls, the committee, and Vegas all disagree with you on that.

Pretty damn easy to see why they don't think FSU isn't the best. The schedule which is mediocre at best(6th best in the ACC for instance)- they haven't even won comfortably(let alone dominate). Also a lot of the comparable opponents- FSU hasn't done anywhere near as good. Oklahoma St, Florida to just name 2.

So basically, the committee is taking things week to week. So TCU beating Texas was good enough for them to jump FSU even though they beat Fl. FSU is still 4 and in the playoff. So if they beat the #11 team in the country this week, it is impossible to justify moving them lower than they are now. They should jump back over TCU who is playing Iowa State. So it is simple for FSU; win and you are in.

(12-03-2014 12:15 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Here are some of my comments, all while TCU was ranked 5-7:

The comments I listed WERE your comments. I even provided links to them.

(12-03-2014 12:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:42 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 11:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  In a committee charged with picking the BEST teams rather than the most deserving- can you argue with how FSU has played that they are one of the 3 best teams right now?

That is all well and good, but the above that Large Marge posts states the opposite: they are changed with picking the most deserving teams. I mean unless of course they again changed their criteria.

You are confused. Their charge is to pick the "best" teams, not the most deserving. On a most deserving metric, you can't leave FSU out. On a "best", you might. That would be an injustice IMO.

Just to note, I made it clear I did not know which one they were supposedly choosing. I said if what Marge posted from their website is true above, i.e. that was from their website and it was what they said they originally intended, then they either changed their mind, or it was supposed to be the most deserving. I

(12-03-2014 01:26 PM)samandrea Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 12:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 12:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The problem with "best" teams is that 100 people have 100 definitions for "best".

FSU has the best win% over the last 2 years - what's wrong with that measurement? It's a lot less theoretical or subjective than some of these other measures people seem to want to use...

seems like all the polls, the committee, and Vegas all disagree with you on that.

Pretty damn easy to see why they don't think FSU isn't the best. The schedule which is mediocre at best(6th best in the ACC for instance)- they haven't even won comfortably(let alone dominate). Also a lot of the comparable opponents- FSU hasn't done anywhere near as good. Oklahoma St, Florida to just name 2.

So basically, the committee is taking things week to week. So TCU beating Texas was good enough for them to jump FSU even though they beat Fl. FSU is still 4 and in the playoff. So if they beat the #11 team in the country this week, it is impossible to justify moving them lower than they are now. They should jump back over TCU who is playing Iowa State. So it is simple for FSU; win and you are in.

I think problably unless something happens to Winston on injury front. If he went out, could easily see the committee knocking them out.