nice try Bison. Michigan St is Big Ten champion. Period.

It could be that Adcorbett is correct in that maybe the committee didn't apply the "unequivocal" criterion as strictly with Iowa/Stanford because a playoff spot wasn't on the line.

That said, though, it may be that this criterion has been overstated and Iowa > Stanford could be evidence of that. I think there are two reasons to think it has been:

First, conceptually, it's a BAD criterion. It reflects the power of the big conferences, who want their champs elevated, it does not reflect rational thinking. There is no rational reason why a conference champ should be preemptively preferred to a non-champ or independent, especially not at the stringent level that "unequivocal" implies. At best, it should be one tie-breaker among many, not anything special. Especially when comparing teams from different conferences, it tells us LESS about their relative worth than criteria like SOS or head to head.

Second, the way the protocol is worded is suggestive as well. The "unequivocal" statement is in the preamble to the protocol, and preambles generally lack the "force" of actual requirements. In the part of the protocol which details the specific procedure the committee is to use, the conference champ criterion is listed as just one of several and is not elevated in importance.

So I really do HOPE that the committee's decision to rank Iowa > Stanford does indicate that they are not taking the "unequivocal" notion very strictly or seriously. It's an irrational criterion.

Finally, all that said, FWIW, I think the committee made a bad decision. Stanford was more deserving than Iowa, NOT because they won a championship, but just on the merits they had the better season. Stanford played a much tougher schedule than Iowa, enough so to outweigh the one-loss difference.

That's why the computer composites have Stanford > Iowa.

(12-06-2015 06:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  For those that were doing all the talking about conference champions being automatically pretty much ahead of anyone- notice that Iowa finished 5th and Stanford 6th.

Yeah, good point. Stanford's SOS rank (according to RealTimeRPI) ended up at 47, with Oklahoma at 51 and Iowa at 64. Stanford scheduled too tough. If they're going to play 9 conference games and a permanent rivalry with Notre Dame, they can't be traveling to a ranked Northwestern and losing to them. The two losses killed them compared to these two teams' one losses.

I think they also consider Stanford not a blue blood big name school like USC or UCLA. They are treated more like Oklahoma State, Baylor and TCU. When Alabama took on LSU in a rematch for the National Championship? They were left out just like Oklahoma State that year.

(12-07-2015 09:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  nice try Bison. Michigan St is Big Ten champion. Period.

Technically yes.

But the committee treated Iowa like a defacto conf champ. That explains why they're ranked ahead of Stanford.

(12-07-2015 10:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It could be that Adcorbett is correct in that maybe the committee didn't apply the "unequivocal" criterion as strictly with Iowa/Stanford because a playoff spot wasn't on the line.

That said, though, it may be that this criterion has been overstated and Iowa > Stanford could be evidence of that. I think there are two reasons to think it has been:

First, conceptually, it's a BAD criterion. It reflects the power of the big conferences, who want their champs elevated, it does not reflect rational thinking. There is no rational reason why a conference champ should be preemptively preferred to a non-champ or independent, especially not at the stringent level that "unequivocal" implies. At best, it should be one tie-breaker among many, not anything special. Especially when comparing teams from different conferences, it tells us LESS about their relative worth than criteria like SOS or head to head.

Second, the way the protocol is worded is suggestive as well. The "unequivocal" statement is in the preamble to the protocol, and preambles generally lack the "force" of actual requirements. In the part of the protocol which details the specific procedure the committee is to use, the conference champ criterion is listed as just one of several and is not elevated in importance.

So I really do HOPE that the committee's decision to rank Iowa > Stanford does indicate that they are not taking the "unequivocal" notion very strictly or seriously. It's an irrational criterion.

Finally, all that said, FWIW, I think the committee made a bad decision. Stanford was more deserving than Iowa, NOT because they won a championship, but just on the merits they had the better season. Stanford played a much tougher schedule than Iowa, enough so to outweigh the one-loss difference.

That's why the computer composites have Stanford > Iowa.

Computers and even most humans aren't smart enough/unbiased enough to realize how strong the B1G West was this year.

That's why Iowa > Stanford.

(12-07-2015 11:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Computers and even most humans aren't smart enough/unbiased enough to realize how strong the B1G West was this year.

That's why Iowa > Stanford.

Objectively, it just wasn't all that strong. The B1G West was barely stronger than the SEC East, which was the weakest P5 division out there.

Iowa was really lucky to play a schedule that didn't include Michigan or Ohio State. Stanford was the better team.

(12-07-2015 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Computers and even most humans aren't smart enough/unbiased enough to realize how strong the B1G West was this year.

That's why Iowa > Stanford.

Objectively, it just wasn't all that strong. The B1G West was barely stronger than the SEC East, which was the weakest P5 division out there.

Iowa was really lucky to play a schedule that didn't include Michigan or Ohio State. Stanford was the better team.

SEC West was #1, by a bit.
PAC North, B1G East and B1G West are some order of #2 - #4.
PAC South and SEC West are some order of #5 - #6
XII and the ACC divisions round out the bottom.

And I'll say that's objective, since you claimed your opinion was objective.

(12-07-2015 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Iowa was really lucky to play a schedule that didn't include Michigan or Ohio State. Stanford was the better team.

I would mostly tend to agree. However I do tend to look at wins and losses more than some, so long as the SOS wasn't a complete joke. And what I mean is, avoiding P5 competition or strong G5 competition OOC. You can't help your conference schedule. I don't like bumping up teams with more losses unless there is a REALLY good reason. Should be the exception, not the norm.

However the committee does not feel as I do, as their rankings have shown the last two years. So using the logic they have laid out, where one more loss but a supreme SOS or dominance is enough to move you up a team with fewer losses, I think a fair argument can be made for Stanford over Iowa, especially with one being a champion.

Plus, Iowa proved it was better than Ohio St when it played Mich St in a bowl-game atmosphere, CCG, pressure cooker environment.

Ohio St got to play Mich St at home. And Ohio St crushed Michigan and Mich St beat Michigan. And Iowa crushed a really strong NW team on the road, while Michigan beat them by less at home.


So Iowa is the true #2 in the conference.