So the three human polls - the AP, Coaches and CFP - all produced the identical list of NY6 teams and semifinalists. The Sagarin computer ranking also had those same 12 teams. The only difference was that they had Michigan in their Final Four instead of Clemson.

So, tell me again why we need a CFP selection committee (other than to fill a Tuesday evening time slot for ESPN).

I liked the old school BCS rankings. I thought the rankings were fine, taking the 2 polls + computer analysis. The only issue was there wasn't a playoff game in the mix. Yeah, add a playoff game (and they should make it an actual playoff in 8 teams) -- but there was no reason to ditch the ranking way of things.

(12-04-2016 04:32 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  I liked the old school BCS rankings. I thought the rankings were fine, taking the 2 polls + computer analysis. The only issue was there wasn't a playoff game in the mix. Yeah, add a playoff game (and they should make it an actual playoff in 8 teams) -- but there was no reason to ditch the ranking way of things.

They could not have G5 schools being ranked high by the computers and actually getting into the playoff.

I wasn't talking about that. I was saying the method of polling has nothing to do with a playoff or non-playoff. Adding in the extra "play off" game post-BCS didn't call for a different method of polling, but they did anyway.

And as a side note, whatever method of polling has nothing to do with a G5 getting in to a 4 or 8 team playoff. For an 8 team playoff, you'd need, regardless of the poll methodology, something like the Top 6 Conf Champs to get in.

(12-04-2016 06:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 04:32 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  I liked the old school BCS rankings. I thought the rankings were fine, taking the 2 polls + computer analysis. The only issue was there wasn't a playoff game in the mix. Yeah, add a playoff game (and they should make it an actual playoff in 8 teams) -- but there was no reason to ditch the ranking way of things.

They could not have G5 schools being ranked high by the computers and actually getting into the playoff.

The problems with computers are that it is human input and not a real eye candy. In some years, the AAC and MWC are much better conferences over all than a couple of P5 conferences like the ACC and Big 12. Last year, you had the AAC with Temple, Navy, Houston and Memphis as great teams with Tulsa and USF on the rise. The WAC one year had Boise State, UNR, Hawaii and Fresno State in the running. Combined with the MWC of Utah, TCU and BYU, you have a 7 team great western coast to back the PAC 12 up.

(12-04-2016 04:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  So the three human polls - the AP, Coaches and CFP - all produced the identical list of NY6 teams and semifinalists. The Sagarin computer ranking also had those same 12 teams. The only difference was that they had Michigan in their Final Four instead of Clemson.

So, tell me again why we need a CFP selection committee (other than to fill a Tuesday evening time slot for ESPN).

So far, in three years of the playoff, the CFP and AP/Coaches have agreed 100%, 12 for 12, on who should be in the playoffs.

They have also been 100% in agreement on who #1 and #4 are, meaning that not only have the polls chosen the same teams, but if we'd just gone by the polls we'd have gotten the exact same playoff games as well.

So much for those who think the CFP committee uses criteria that is radically different from the polls.

(12-04-2016 07:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 04:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  So the three human polls - the AP, Coaches and CFP - all produced the identical list of NY6 teams and semifinalists. The Sagarin computer ranking also had those same 12 teams. The only difference was that they had Michigan in their Final Four instead of Clemson.

So, tell me again why we need a CFP selection committee (other than to fill a Tuesday evening time slot for ESPN).

So far, in three years of the playoff, the CFP and AP/Coaches have agreed 100%, 12 for 12, on who should be in the playoffs.

They have also been 100% in agreement on who #1 and #4 are, meaning that not only have the polls chosen the same teams, but if we'd just gone by the polls we'd have gotten the exact same playoff games as well.

So much for those who think the CFP committee uses criteria that is radically different from the polls.

I wonder if the results would be the same if no poll was made public and were completely independent of one another. In other words, I wonder how much the polls actually influence one another so that by the end of the season, they tend to mirror one another.

That's one reason The be come to hate the selection committee method. The polls are so large that they generate a consensus among widely divergent points of view. The committee, because of its small size, represents fewer points of view and can be easily skewed by a few fringe votes. The committee will always be somewhat suspected of bias, where as a poll of thousands of votes is fairly bias proof. If they are coming out the same---we don't need the committee.

(12-05-2016 02:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 07:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 04:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  So the three human polls - the AP, Coaches and CFP - all produced the identical list of NY6 teams and semifinalists. The Sagarin computer ranking also had those same 12 teams. The only difference was that they had Michigan in their Final Four instead of Clemson.

So, tell me again why we need a CFP selection committee (other than to fill a Tuesday evening time slot for ESPN).

So far, in three years of the playoff, the CFP and AP/Coaches have agreed 100%, 12 for 12, on who should be in the playoffs.

They have also been 100% in agreement on who #1 and #4 are, meaning that not only have the polls chosen the same teams, but if we'd just gone by the polls we'd have gotten the exact same playoff games as well.

So much for those who think the CFP committee uses criteria that is radically different from the polls.

I wonder if the results would be the same if no poll was made public and were completely independent of one another. In other words, I wonder how much the polls actually influence one another so that by the end of the season, they tend to mirror one another.

That's one reason The be come to hate the selection committee method. The polls are so large that they generate a consensus among widely divergent points of view. The committee, because of its small size, represents fewer points of view and can be easily skewed by a few fringe votes. The committee will always be somewhat suspected of bias, where as a poll of thousands of votes is fairly bias proof. If they are coming out the same---we don't need the committee.

The committee has the advantage that they actually have to watch the games and they have to publically defend their point of view to each other. The problem with the committee IMO is that it is skewed to old school coaches and to the Big 10, SEC and Pac 12. I believe each of those conferences has 3 people closely connected with the conference.

Really the last two years were easy. The first year was hard. Everyone thought Alabama and Oregon were the two best teams, but they may not have been in the top 3. Ohio St. won. TCU dominated in their bowl.

(12-05-2016 08:15 AM)bullet Wrote:  The committee has the advantage that they actually have to watch the games and they have to publically defend their point of view to each other. The problem with the committee IMO is that it is skewed to old school coaches and to the Big 10, SEC and Pac 12. I believe each of those conferences has 3 people closely connected with the conference.

Well, so far, the ACC has gotten a team in all three years, but the PAC has been left out once and was the last to get in this year. So I don't see a PAC bias.

(12-04-2016 04:32 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  I liked the old school BCS rankings. I thought the rankings were fine, taking the 2 polls + computer analysis. The only issue was there wasn't a playoff game in the mix. Yeah, add a playoff game (and they should make it an actual playoff in 8 teams) -- but there was no reason to ditch the ranking way of things.

The BCS ranking system was by far the best system.

The playoff would work better if it simply used the BCS computers instead of the committee.

The committee is just an excuse to make good storyline matches for ESPN.

(12-05-2016 02:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 07:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 04:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  So the three human polls - the AP, Coaches and CFP - all produced the identical list of NY6 teams and semifinalists. The Sagarin computer ranking also had those same 12 teams. The only difference was that they had Michigan in their Final Four instead of Clemson.

So, tell me again why we need a CFP selection committee (other than to fill a Tuesday evening time slot for ESPN).

So far, in three years of the playoff, the CFP and AP/Coaches have agreed 100%, 12 for 12, on who should be in the playoffs.

They have also been 100% in agreement on who #1 and #4 are, meaning that not only have the polls chosen the same teams, but if we'd just gone by the polls we'd have gotten the exact same playoff games as well.

So much for those who think the CFP committee uses criteria that is radically different from the polls.

I wonder if the results would be the same if no poll was made public and were completely independent of one another. In other words, I wonder how much the polls actually influence one another so that by the end of the season, they tend to mirror one another.

I bet there is some mirroring, which is why the AP/Coaches are never really dramatically different, especially near the end of the season.

But IIRC, some around here have claimed that the reason the CFP has agreed with the AP/Coaches is a theory that the reporters and coaches have looked at the final CFP rankings and switched their votes to conform with it. First, I don't think that's likely, because as you note, the AP and coaches aren't some unified bloc, rather they are compromised of dozens of votes by separate coaches and reporters who aren't really in intimate contact with each other, so it would be hard to coordinate something like that.

Also, at least yesterday, the AP released its final poll before the CFP rankings came out, so there's no way the CFP could have influenced the AP, at least not yesterday.

The influencing happens during the season. Take 2014. FSU dropped in the polls when the CFP started rating them lower and lower.

(12-04-2016 04:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  So the three human polls - the AP, Coaches and CFP - all produced the identical list of NY6 teams and semifinalists. The Sagarin computer ranking also had those same 12 teams. The only difference was that they had Michigan in their Final Four instead of Clemson.

So, tell me again why we need a CFP selection committee (other than to fill a Tuesday evening time slot for ESPN).

They're needed to keep the G5 out of the CFP. If they used computer polls a G5 school could get into the playoffs.

(12-05-2016 10:19 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The influencing happens during the season. Take 2014. FSU dropped in the polls when the CFP started rating them lower and lower.

Given that the AP and Coaches Polls always come out before the CFP, it's more likely the committee is mirroring the polls than the other way around. FSU dropped in the polls when their performance on the field declined as the season went on. They showed that, even though they hadn't yet lost, they were clearly beatable.

(12-05-2016 08:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:19 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The influencing happens during the season. Take 2014. FSU dropped in the polls when the CFP started rating them lower and lower.

Given that the AP and Coaches Polls always come out before the CFP, it's more likely the committee is mirroring the polls than the other way around. FSU dropped in the polls when their performance on the field declined as the season went on. They showed that, even though they hadn't yet lost, they were clearly beatable.

But it's possible that without the CFP poll, their position may have held up better in the coaches and AFP polls, both of which seemed to have had more inertia in their rankings before the CFP polls were added to the mix.

In that argument, by being one of the polls from the previous weeks that people look at, the CFP polls nudge the other polls toward their ranking over the latter part of the season, and many of the final AP and coaches votes are in effect votes on where they think the CFP will end up.

But that's not a conspiracy, it's just what is called "anchoring" ... the previous week's polls being the default position many people start from, and then they adjust those positions based on the results from the games just played.

(12-05-2016 08:52 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:19 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The influencing happens during the season. Take 2014. FSU dropped in the polls when the CFP started rating them lower and lower.

Given that the AP and Coaches Polls always come out before the CFP, it's more likely the committee is mirroring the polls than the other way around. FSU dropped in the polls when their performance on the field declined as the season went on. They showed that, even though they hadn't yet lost, they were clearly beatable.

But it's possible that without the CFP poll, their position may have held up better in the coaches and AFP polls, both of which seemed to have had more inertia in their rankings before the CFP polls were added to the mix.

Some people say this, but I haven't seen it.

Maybe someone could study movement in the AP/Coaches polls in the 3 years prior to the CFP and now in the 3 years since, and see if there really has been a difference.

Quote:The problems with computers are that it is human input and not a real eye candy.

Yeah, but the total BCS ranking would be a computer ranking + 2 polls. So you get both elements. Having the AP & Coaches + Computer element would be a good deal.

The human input can be biased thinking the G5s are too low or too high. The good thing is in AP & Coaches, you get two different types of human evaluators, and multiples not committe'ing. And a computer to even it out. If the BCS Computer element was off, no, I wouldn't want it. But the overall BCS score with all 3 compilated spit out a pretty darn accurate result, IMO.