I think what is interesting is that the top 10 team the committee was most disparate from the computer composite was Baylor. Computer composite has Baylor 10, committee 6. Is Baylor getting "brand" name treatment?

(11-04-2015 11:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Forde claims that the CFP is "biased" in favor of "brand names", and specifically cites Memphis being ranked #13 (says they belong in the top 10) and Alabama being ranked #4 despite losing to an Ole Miss team that Memphis beat.

But is Forde correct? Probably not. If we look at the Massey Composite of 100+ computer rankings, computers which do not recognize "brand names", we see the following rankings:

1) Clemson
2) Ohio State
3) LSU
4) Alabama

Those are the four teams the CFP would have in the playoffs right now.

Where is Memphis? #15, two spots lower than in the CFP.

Bottom line is that Alabama has played a very tough schedule and Memphis, despite the Ole Miss game, hasn't. Alabama's schedule is ranked #7 in Sagarin, Memphis is #84. That's a big difference.

So let's calm down about "brand bias", at least for this week.



http://sports.yahoo.com/news/playoff-com...ncaaf.html

Hell, I told you that before Pat Forde did! I told you that last year and repeated it again this year. And I wasn't even being prophetic. It just is what it is. The advertising rates go way up if there are four brands, one from each major region of the country.

The first pole set up the final one. LSU/Alabama/Florida will play down to one. Iowa/Ohio State/Michigan State will play down to one giving you the strongest two regions for viewing. Stanford/Notre Dame will play down to one giving you either the West Coast or Catholics everywhere with the most Historical of college programs, and finally if Clemson can beat Florida State you gain the East Coast (in theory) if not you likely get an unbeaten out of the Big 12 (although that is their last preference should it be Baylor or T.C.U. both with limited fan bases and only partial regional pull).

(11-04-2015 04:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think the NFL should copy this. Instead of deciding it on the field, take a vote after several games to determine who gets in the playoff - but the playoff will only be 2 teams.

The NFL got it all wrong when the Giants won the Super Bowl last.

(11-04-2015 12:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 12:38 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 11:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is that Alabama has played a very tough schedule and Memphis, despite the Ole Miss game, hasn't. Alabama's schedule is ranked #7 in Sagarin, Memphis is #84. That's a big difference.

So let's calm down about "brand bias", at least for this week.

The shame is that Alabama's #7 schedule still isn't that spectacular. Perhaps that's more of an indictment of the current structure of college football.

- Wisconsin, in Houston (35-17) - decent win. Wisconsin is 7-2 and almost in the AP top-25. The Badgers best win is by 2 over Nebraska? This game could rise or fall with Northwestern and Minnesota still left on the schedule.

- Middle Tennessee (37-10) - 3-5. Bleh.

- #18 Ole Miss (loss 37-43) - a "good" loss, but at home. This is the Rebels' statement win for sure. But, Ole Miss isn't a statement loss, because the Rebels have losses to Florida and Memphis.

- Louisiana-Monroe (34-0) - 1-7. 0-4 in the Sun Belt. Ew.

- @Georgia (38-10) - Alabama's first true road game. Georgia is 5-3 and has no good wins.

- Arkansas (27-14) - Arkansas has a .500, 4-4 record, padded by UTEP and UTM. Home losses to Toledo and Texas A&M.

- @#19 Texas A&M (41-23) -good win by a good margin. 6-2 record with a win over #20 Mississippi St. But, THIS is Alabama's statement win? Really?

Tennessee (19-14) - .500, 4-4 record, padded by WCU and Bowling Green...and Kentucky. Home losses to Arkansas and Oklahoma, but played Alabama and Florida tough on the road.

So, a top-7 schedule includes FOUR teams with above .500 records? And, THREE near-top-25 opponents? Wow.

And, Alabama went 2-1 in the three games, so they deserve #4 ranking in the CFP? WOW.

...those recruiting rankings must be a bigger factor than most realize. Or, may be it's the coaching salaries? Or TV ratings?

Of course, if Alabama beats LSU this weekend it's all justified. And, if they lose, it will be a great loss and still justifiable to keep Alabama in the discussion.

Sagarin has Alabama at the #9 schedule, still in the same range. But this is simply NOT impressive. I don't know how it warrants putting them above schools that actually won their games. Fact is it doesn't. They are putting them above because of the eyeball test.

Sagarin isn't the be-all-end-all of schedule strength.

The Colley computer ranking (formerly part of the BCS) has the following SOS for the top-20 teams:
9 Notre Dame    
12 Michigan    
21 Utah    
23 Florida    
26 Alabama    
28 Michigan St    
36 Mississippi    
41 LSU    
42 Penn St    
43 Stanford    
49 Clemson    
60 Ohio St    
64 Iowa    
70 Oklahoma    
85 TCU    
94 Memphis    
97 Temple    
105 Oklahoma St    
126 Baylor    
127 Toledo    

(11-04-2015 07:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 12:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 12:38 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 11:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is that Alabama has played a very tough schedule and Memphis, despite the Ole Miss game, hasn't. Alabama's schedule is ranked #7 in Sagarin, Memphis is #84. That's a big difference.

So let's calm down about "brand bias", at least for this week.

The shame is that Alabama's #7 schedule still isn't that spectacular. Perhaps that's more of an indictment of the current structure of college football.

- Wisconsin, in Houston (35-17) - decent win. Wisconsin is 7-2 and almost in the AP top-25. The Badgers best win is by 2 over Nebraska? This game could rise or fall with Northwestern and Minnesota still left on the schedule.

- Middle Tennessee (37-10) - 3-5. Bleh.

- #18 Ole Miss (loss 37-43) - a "good" loss, but at home. This is the Rebels' statement win for sure. But, Ole Miss isn't a statement loss, because the Rebels have losses to Florida and Memphis.

- Louisiana-Monroe (34-0) - 1-7. 0-4 in the Sun Belt. Ew.

- @Georgia (38-10) - Alabama's first true road game. Georgia is 5-3 and has no good wins.

- Arkansas (27-14) - Arkansas has a .500, 4-4 record, padded by UTEP and UTM. Home losses to Toledo and Texas A&M.

- @#19 Texas A&M (41-23) -good win by a good margin. 6-2 record with a win over #20 Mississippi St. But, THIS is Alabama's statement win? Really?

Tennessee (19-14) - .500, 4-4 record, padded by WCU and Bowling Green...and Kentucky. Home losses to Arkansas and Oklahoma, but played Alabama and Florida tough on the road.

So, a top-7 schedule includes FOUR teams with above .500 records? And, THREE near-top-25 opponents? Wow.

And, Alabama went 2-1 in the three games, so they deserve #4 ranking in the CFP? WOW.

...those recruiting rankings must be a bigger factor than most realize. Or, may be it's the coaching salaries? Or TV ratings?

Of course, if Alabama beats LSU this weekend it's all justified. And, if they lose, it will be a great loss and still justifiable to keep Alabama in the discussion.

Sagarin has Alabama at the #9 schedule, still in the same range. But this is simply NOT impressive. I don't know how it warrants putting them above schools that actually won their games. Fact is it doesn't. They are putting them above because of the eyeball test.

Sagarin isn't the be-all-end-all of schedule strength.

The Colley computer ranking (formerly part of the BCS) has the following SOS for the top-20 teams:
9 Notre Dame    
12 Michigan    
21 Utah    
23 Florida    
26 Alabama    
28 Michigan St    
36 Mississippi    
41 LSU    
42 Penn St    
43 Stanford    
49 Clemson    
60 Ohio St    
64 Iowa    
70 Oklahoma    
85 TCU    
94 Memphis    
97 Temple    
105 Oklahoma St    
126 Baylor    
127 Toledo    

Agreed, Sagarin's SOS rating isn't necessarily the best. But they all pretty much spit out the same results. E.g., teams like ND and Bama have played tough schedules, Memphis and Baylor have not.

(11-04-2015 12:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Whether they are better or not, the computer rankings are 'blind' to brand names and the like. Point being, the computers indicate that it is possible to come up with the four teams the CFP has in the playoffs without being 'biased' by brand names.

Computer rankings may be scientific but they are just as flawed as humans (which is because statistics are partially subjective). Add in that each of these computer rankings have their own "recipe" and while they may be blind, they're also far from perfect. From the earlier post, so far at least, Tulane has at worst had as tough a schedule as Alabama.

(11-04-2015 02:29 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Ding ding, we have a winner.

The CFP is just the BCS repackaged and a gullible public desperate for a "fair" way of setting the score bought the playoff idea. Gotta keep the masses happy and content. Because the masses loved the playoff idea.

What ended up happening is that the other conferences and Notre Dame were irate over UA's 2011 appearance in the title game as they didn't their division and playing game against a team they'd already lost to. Oklahoma State got shafted that year... so they kept the power tight within the P5 but expanded access to the title within the same.

(11-04-2015 02:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Using the eyeball test...

Which squad, A or B, would you say is better:

A: Clemson, LSU, Ohio State, Alabama or B: Memphis, Houston, Toledo, Temple

My guess is a round-robin of those teams would be strongly in team A's favour.

I'm not speaking to how deserving any of these squads are. In fact, I think Temple is hugely deserving from a personal standpoint. But, if it was your money on the line which squad, A or B, would have your bet?

In theory, that rationale should be dismissed, as games are played on the field. To prove that, Eastern Michigan, a God awful MAC team, stayed in contention @ LSU into the second half. And as a matter of fact, most of LSU's games have been at least relatively close. Ohio State has improved but hasn't dominated all of the easy teams on their schedule. Clemson beat Louisville by as much as UH.

That the likely outcome would happen is conjecture. Imagine the NCAA Tournament widdled down to the Elite 8 or Sweet 16.

(11-04-2015 03:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Has this really ever changed in the past 40-50 years or so?

Here is the final 1965 UPI poll (AP only listed top ten that year) and the final 1975 AP poll. Recognize most of the names??

Well duh, that's the point. Unlike in basketball, where a Gonzaga, Wichita State or Xavier can establish itself despite the close quarter environment of the elite.

(11-05-2015 06:41 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 12:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Whether they are better or not, the computer rankings are 'blind' to brand names and the like. Point being, the computers indicate that it is possible to come up with the four teams the CFP has in the playoffs without being 'biased' by brand names.

Computer rankings may be scientific but they are just as flawed as humans (which is because statistics are partially subjective). Add in that each of these computer rankings have their own "recipe" and while they may be blind, they're also far from perfect. From the earlier post, so far at least, Tulane has at worst had as tough a schedule as Alabama.

First, I acknowledged that I wasn't making any claim that computers are overall better than humans. A computer is only as good as the formula its creator came up with, and surely that formula isn't perfect. It's just that they are blind to brand names, the issue that was being discussed.

Second, the computers i have seen say that while Tulane has played a tough schedule, Alabama's has been a bit tougher. In any event, the comparison of Tulane's SOS with Alabama's would be relevant if Tulane was 7-1 like Alabama instead of 2-6. Nobody says it's good enough to just play a tough schedule, you have to win some games, too.

(11-05-2015 06:41 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 12:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Whether they are better or not, the computer rankings are 'blind' to brand names and the like. Point being, the computers indicate that it is possible to come up with the four teams the CFP has in the playoffs without being 'biased' by brand names.

Computer rankings may be scientific but they are just as flawed as humans (which is because statistics are partially subjective). Add in that each of these computer rankings have their own "recipe" and while they may be blind, they're also far from perfect. From the earlier post, so far at least, Tulane has at worst had as tough a schedule as Alabama.

(11-04-2015 02:29 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Ding ding, we have a winner.

The CFP is just the BCS repackaged and a gullible public desperate for a "fair" way of setting the score bought the playoff idea. Gotta keep the masses happy and content. Because the masses loved the playoff idea.

What ended up happening is that the other conferences and Notre Dame were irate over UA's 2011 appearance in the title game as they didn't their division and playing game against a team they'd already lost to. Oklahoma State got shafted that year... so they kept the power tight within the P5 but expanded access to the title within the same.

(11-04-2015 02:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Using the eyeball test...

Which squad, A or B, would you say is better:

A: Clemson, LSU, Ohio State, Alabama or B: Memphis, Houston, Toledo, Temple

My guess is a round-robin of those teams would be strongly in team A's favour.

I'm not speaking to how deserving any of these squads are. In fact, I think Temple is hugely deserving from a personal standpoint. But, if it was your money on the line which squad, A or B, would have your bet?

In theory, that rationale should be dismissed, as games are played on the field. To prove that, Eastern Michigan, a God awful MAC team, stayed in contention @ LSU into the second half. And as a matter of fact, most of LSU's games have been at least relatively close. Ohio State has improved but hasn't dominated all of the easy teams on their schedule. Clemson beat Louisville by as much as UH.

That the likely outcome would happen is conjecture. Imagine the NCAA Tournament widdled down to the Elite 8 or Sweet 16.

(11-04-2015 03:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Has this really ever changed in the past 40-50 years or so?

Here is the final 1965 UPI poll (AP only listed top ten that year) and the final 1975 AP poll. Recognize most of the names??

Well duh, that's the point. Unlike in basketball, where a Gonzaga, Wichita State or Xavier can establish itself despite the close quarter environment of the elite.

I didn't perceive that to be the point of the poster I responded to.

His post made it seem like this was some kind of new phenomenon.

I could be wrong, though. But, that is what prompted my post.

(11-04-2015 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 11:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Forde claims that the CFP is "biased" in favor of "brand names", and specifically cites Memphis being ranked #13 (says they belong in the top 10) and Alabama being ranked #4 despite losing to an Ole Miss team that Memphis beat.

But is Forde correct? Probably not. If we look at the Massey Composite of 100+ computer rankings, computers which do not recognize "brand names", we see the following rankings:

1) Clemson
2) Ohio State
3) LSU
4) Alabama

Those are the four teams the CFP would have in the playoffs right now.

Where is Memphis? #15, two spots lower than in the CFP.

Bottom line is that Alabama has played a very tough schedule and Memphis, despite the Ole Miss game, hasn't. Alabama's schedule is ranked #7 in Sagarin, Memphis is #84. That's a big difference.

So let's calm down about "brand bias", at least for this week.



http://sports.yahoo.com/news/playoff-com...ncaaf.html

Hell, I told you that before Pat Forde did! I told you that last year and repeated it again this year. And I wasn't even being prophetic. It just is what it is. The advertising rates go way up if there are four brands, one from each major region of the country.

The first pole set up the final one. LSU/Alabama/Florida will play down to one. Iowa/Ohio State/Michigan State will play down to one giving you the strongest two regions for viewing. Stanford/Notre Dame will play down to one giving you either the West Coast or Catholics everywhere with the most Historical of college programs, and finally if Clemson can beat Florida State you gain the East Coast (in theory) if not you likely get an unbeaten out of the Big 12 (although that is their last preference should it be Baylor or T.C.U. both with limited fan bases and only partial regional pull).

Some things never change......follow the money!

Any process that allows people or computers to choose "at-large" selections into a tournament is going to have an inherent bias build into it, whether the FBS playoffs, the FCS playoffs, or the NCAA basketball tournament. It exists by it's very nature. We either accept it and move on or demand a clear, on-field selection process such as only conference champs (and every conference champ).

However, many people don't want a true unbiased system, they only want the bias to fall in their favor or against those they dislike.

I personally see and accept the bias, and enjoy the games. In football, the regular season has always been where the excitement was found, in my mind.

Even when my alma mater was winning FCS championships, many of us Appfans wanted the FBS move knowing the we would never sniff another national championship (or even a playoff spot) because it would make the regular season more exciting.

I don't understand how the P5 schools can have such a lopsided edge in sos at this point of the season. We are 4 games into the conference schedule, most G5 schools play 3 P5 schools to start the year while the P5 play that many G5 schools. So unless they are saying G5 schools are better for your sos it doesn't make sense.