Stanford goes out and wins a championship game, while Oklahoma naps on the couch
Also, Iowa should still be considered ahead of Oklahoma. Oklahoma got beat by a horrible Texas team, barely beat TCU, and beat overrated Baylor and Oklahoma State teams that feasted on G5 and FCS opponents
I'd have Oklahoma at #6, definitely penalizing the Big XII for their weak schedules and lack of a championship game
(12-06-2015 08:19 AM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]Stanford goes out and wins a championship game, while Oklahoma naps on the couch
Having already played all of the best teams in its conference.
Also, Iowa should still be considered ahead of Oklahoma. Oklahoma got beat by a horrible Texas team, barely beat TCU, and beat overrated Baylor and Oklahoma State teams that feasted on G5 and FCS opponents [/quote]
And in the end beat all of the best teams in its conference ... although, admittedly, losing to a lesser team in its conference in a rivalry game ... while Iowa only played one of the three other top teams in it's conference, and lost to that team when it finally played them in the CCG.
Quote: I'd have Oklahoma at #6, definitely penalizing the Big XII for their weak schedules and lack of a championship game
But the lowest the CFP would put them is #4, so where you'd put them may be a moot point.
(12-06-2015 08:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2015 08:19 AM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]Stanford goes out and wins a championship game, while Oklahoma naps on the couch
Having already played all of the best teams in its conference.
So that sounds like a problem with the conference. Get some better teams and a championship game
Stanford played a much better schedule, has better wins, and won their championship game last night
Put them in ahead of Oklahoma
(12-06-2015 08:37 AM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2015 08:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2015 08:19 AM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]Stanford goes out and wins a championship game, while Oklahoma naps on the couch
Having already played all of the best teams in its conference.
So that sounds like a problem with the conference. Get some better teams and a championship game
Stanford played a much better schedule, has better wins, and won their championship game last night
Put them in ahead of Oklahoma
If we put Stanford in ahead of any of the one-loss teams (we're not, but if ...) that are going to make it, it should be Michigan State. Michigan State played a much easier schedule than Alabama or Oklahoma.
(12-06-2015 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2015 08:37 AM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2015 08:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2015 08:19 AM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]Stanford goes out and wins a championship game, while Oklahoma naps on the couch
Having already played all of the best teams in its conference.
So that sounds like a problem with the conference. Get some better teams and a championship game
Stanford played a much better schedule, has better wins, and won their championship game last night
Put them in ahead of Oklahoma
If we put Stanford in ahead of any of the one-loss teams (we're not, but if ...) that are going to make it, it should be Michigan State. Michigan State played a much easier schedule than Alabama or Oklahoma.
Last night in the Big 10 was basically a playoff game, and you want to override that result?
I guess you like eye-tests better than actual games
Honestly I'd consider putting in Iowa over Oklahoma if anything. Sure they have no spectacular wins but their only loss is by 3 to a playoff team. They aren't built to destroy anyone, but they are a team I believe is built to compete with anyone. They look great. Oklahoma, remember, was very close to losing to Tennessee and then TCU.
In a perfect world the team that doesn't play a conference championship should be punished but it works out this year.
(12-06-2015 11:04 AM)miztigers55 Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly I'd consider putting in Iowa over Oklahoma if anything. Sure they have no spectacular wins but their only loss is by 3 to a playoff team. They aren't built to destroy anyone, but they are a team I believe is built to compete with anyone. They look great. Oklahoma, remember, was very close to losing to Tennessee and then TCU.
I'd have to agree, if Iowa had played anything even approaching a decent schedule. It's clear they were the beneficiary of a lucky schedule. As it is, OU had a much stronger body of work.
Oklahoma/Stanford would have been a great championship game if the PAC-16 had become a reality.
Stanford played the toughest schedule in the country. Who else played 12 P5 opponents? Who else played two top-15 teams out of conference? Who else has 3 wins over ranked opponents, and 2 more against opponents getting votes?
Ohio State is better than Oklahoma. Ohio State lost to Michigan State as well, and they stomped Michigan into the ground while Michigan State barely won over Michigan.
(12-06-2015 08:19 AM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]Stanford goes out and wins a championship game, while Oklahoma naps on the couch
Also, Iowa should still be considered ahead of Oklahoma. Oklahoma got beat by a horrible Texas team, barely beat TCU, and beat overrated Baylor and Oklahoma State teams that feasted on G5 and FCS opponents
I'd have Oklahoma at #6, definitely penalizing the Big XII for their weak schedules and lack of a championship game
In my world, either Stanford or Iowa would be in over Oklahoma.
Full disclosure: that's partly because I want the XII to be pushed over the Big East cliff.
But it's also reasonable, to me, given how weak the XII was this year (fake top 25 teams), the loss to Texas earlier (when Texas was terrible) and for not playing a CCG.
And we don't live in that world.
(12-06-2015 11:23 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: [ -> ]Oklahoma/Stanford would have been a great championship game if the PAC-16 had become a reality.
Interesting point!
In that case, does 11-2 Stanford, with a win in the CCG over OU, get in over Iowa? I would say yes. Or at least, that would be my choice.
I think the cw trend (based on the tendencies of the committee) is to put too much stock in recent games. The body of work should still count for something, and IMO the best way to evaluate the body of work is the computer ranking composite. It's not perfect, but the biases (MOV, SOS, efficiency) get worked out a bit when you have so many computer rankings.
OU was pretty clearly top 4, and actually clearly top 3 in the
Massey composite.
OU is favored against Clemson, to boot. It's a strong team with a strong record.
(12-07-2015 10:25 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]I think the cw trend (based on the tendencies of the committee) is to put too much stock in recent games. The body of work should still count for something, and IMO the best way to evaluate the body of work is the computer ranking composite. It's not perfect, but the biases (MOV, SOS, efficiency) get worked out a bit when you have so many computer rankings.
OU was pretty clearly top 4, and actually clearly top 3 in the Massey composite.
OU is favored against Clemson, to boot. It's a strong team with a strong record.
I go by eye test, and Oklahoma is not in the top 4 and I do not care what the computer says since they are not 100% perfect.
(12-07-2015 10:27 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2015 10:25 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]I think the cw trend (based on the tendencies of the committee) is to put too much stock in recent games. The body of work should still count for something, and IMO the best way to evaluate the body of work is the computer ranking composite. It's not perfect, but the biases (MOV, SOS, efficiency) get worked out a bit when you have so many computer rankings.
OU was pretty clearly top 4, and actually clearly top 3 in the Massey composite.
OU is favored against Clemson, to boot. It's a strong team with a strong record.
I go by eye test, and Oklahoma is not in the top 4 and I do not care what the computer says since they are not 100% perfect.
What do you think about the Vegas eye test?
(12-07-2015 10:29 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2015 10:27 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2015 10:25 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]I think the cw trend (based on the tendencies of the committee) is to put too much stock in recent games. The body of work should still count for something, and IMO the best way to evaluate the body of work is the computer ranking composite. It's not perfect, but the biases (MOV, SOS, efficiency) get worked out a bit when you have so many computer rankings.
OU was pretty clearly top 4, and actually clearly top 3 in the Massey composite.
OU is favored against Clemson, to boot. It's a strong team with a strong record.
I go by eye test, and Oklahoma is not in the top 4 and I do not care what the computer says since they are not 100% perfect.
What do you think about the Vegas eye test?
Blinded by the name, not on how will they play.
(12-07-2015 10:31 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2015 10:29 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2015 10:27 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2015 10:25 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]I think the cw trend (based on the tendencies of the committee) is to put too much stock in recent games. The body of work should still count for something, and IMO the best way to evaluate the body of work is the computer ranking composite. It's not perfect, but the biases (MOV, SOS, efficiency) get worked out a bit when you have so many computer rankings.
OU was pretty clearly top 4, and actually clearly top 3 in the Massey composite.
OU is favored against Clemson, to boot. It's a strong team with a strong record.
I go by eye test, and Oklahoma is not in the top 4 and I do not care what the computer says since they are not 100% perfect.
What do you think about the Vegas eye test?
Blinded by the name, not on how will they play.
That's not how it works in Vegas. It's all about money. They are about as blind to name as anyone can be.
(12-07-2015 10:25 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]I think the cw trend (based on the tendencies of the committee) is to put too much stock in recent games. The body of work should still count for something, and IMO the best way to evaluate the body of work is the computer ranking composite. It's not perfect, but the biases (MOV, SOS, efficiency) get worked out a bit when you have so many computer rankings.
OU was pretty clearly top 4, and actually clearly top 3 in the Massey composite.
OU is favored against Clemson, to boot. It's a strong team with a strong record.
No thanks. You can play your computer game.
I'll accept the opinion of humans.
(12-07-2015 11:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2015 10:25 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]I think the cw trend (based on the tendencies of the committee) is to put too much stock in recent games. The body of work should still count for something, and IMO the best way to evaluate the body of work is the computer ranking composite. It's not perfect, but the biases (MOV, SOS, efficiency) get worked out a bit when you have so many computer rankings.
OU was pretty clearly top 4, and actually clearly top 3 in the Massey composite.
OU is favored against Clemson, to boot. It's a strong team with a strong record.
No thanks. You can play your computer game.
I'll accept the opinion of humans.
Then you'll accept that humans make betting lines. And you'll accept that humans put OU in #3 in the Coaches poll. And #4 in the committee and AP.
No matter how you slice it (other than personal opinion) OU is one of the 4 best teams.