(12-07-2015 11:08 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(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.

Coaches polled should be abolished. AP poll is fine.

I didn't say OU was not one of the best four teams. Not sure why you injected that red herring.

(12-07-2015 11:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:08 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(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.

Coaches polled should be abolished. AP poll is fine.

I didn't say OU was not one of the best four teams. Not sure why you injected that red herring.

Sorry I misunderstood you. I guess commenting in a thread entitled "should Stanford be ahead of Oklahoma" with this

Quote::In my world, either Stanford or Iowa would be in over Oklahoma.

led me to understand you thought that OU shouldn't be one of the top 4 teams. I was probably reading too much into it...

(12-07-2015 11:23 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:08 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(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.

Coaches polled should be abolished. AP poll is fine.

I didn't say OU was not one of the best four teams. Not sure why you injected that red herring.

Sorry I misunderstood you. I guess commenting in a thread entitled "should Stanford be ahead of Oklahoma" with this

Quote::In my world, either Stanford or Iowa would be in over Oklahoma.

led me to understand you thought that OU shouldn't be one of the top 4 teams. I was probably reading too much into it...

Correct, trying to pull in a quote from outside this thread is a red herring.

The context of this discussion is not "in my world". Obviously.

(12-07-2015 11:32 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:23 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:08 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  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.

Coaches polled should be abolished. AP poll is fine.

I didn't say OU was not one of the best four teams. Not sure why you injected that red herring.

Sorry I misunderstood you. I guess commenting in a thread entitled "should Stanford be ahead of Oklahoma" with this

Quote::In my world, either Stanford or Iowa would be in over Oklahoma.

led me to understand you thought that OU shouldn't be one of the top 4 teams. I was probably reading too much into it...

Correct, trying to pull in a quote from outside this thread is a red herring.

The context of this discussion is not "in my world". Obviously.

That was a quote inside this topic, FWIW.

(12-07-2015 11:37 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:32 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:23 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:08 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  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.

Coaches polled should be abolished. AP poll is fine.

I didn't say OU was not one of the best four teams. Not sure why you injected that red herring.

Sorry I misunderstood you. I guess commenting in a thread entitled "should Stanford be ahead of Oklahoma" with this

Quote::In my world, either Stanford or Iowa would be in over Oklahoma.

led me to understand you thought that OU shouldn't be one of the top 4 teams. I was probably reading too much into it...

Correct, trying to pull in a quote from outside this thread is a red herring.

The context of this discussion is not "in my world". Obviously.

That was a quote inside this topic, FWIW.

Oops, that's embarrassing. Oh well, no cyber-skin off my cyber-teeth.


As I said, the context of the discussion you and I were having (not my reply to EvilVodka) is not "in my world". Obviously.

You could just as easily put Stanford in ahead of Clemson, Alabama or Michigan State if you think they are the stronger team. You could make a good case that Oklahoma is the strongest of the four teams selected, not the weakest. I would have ranked them OU, Alabama, MSU and Clemson. Of course, that wouldn't change the matchups anyway, so what difference does it make?

(12-07-2015 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  You could just as easily put Stanford in ahead of Clemson, Alabama or Michigan State if you think they are the stronger team. You could make a good case that Oklahoma is the strongest of the four teams selected, not the weakest. I would have ranked them OU, Alabama, MSU and Clemson. Of course, that wouldn't change the matchups anyway, so what difference does it make?

Right.

That's why they need to just pick the best four teams and not rank them. The rankings always end up being wrong, anyway.

(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

I know I am late on this, but I wanted to add my thoughts. Personally, no they should not have. But I place more value on number of losses then some, within reason. I personally feel that for a team to finish ahead of a team with less losses, there has to be a REALLY good reason, and it should be the exception, not the norm, as far the top ten goes (further down, it gets a lot easier to justify).

But, in terms of the committee. They have made an edict both that conference champions are more or less the preferred teams, and the last two years have seeded one loss teams over undefeated teams. To me, it is a bigger jump from undefeated to one loss, then it is from one loss to two. So if you can justify having a one loss team over an undefeated team, as Oklahoma and Alabama were over Iowa, then it is fair to put a two loss team over Oklahoma.

Now that doesn't mean it should happen, but it is fair game. I do think Stanford, playing 12 P5 schools, attempting to schedule a 13th near power school (UCF that showed up was the UCF they scheduled), playing ND at home and @NW, plus nine conference games, AND a CCG, they certainly have a case. Especially when their two losses were first game of the season to a top 15 school, and a 2 point loss later in the season to a top 20 school, when Oklahoma was rather humiliated in Dallas (the score was closer than the game I watched). And many of Oklahoma's best wins were marred by injuries to the opponent.

So if someone had made the case for Stanford to be in, I'd say it was fair game. I think a good argument can be made they have a better resume. And I personally prefer resume over the eye test. However, I just think Oklahoma is a better team, AND they have one less loss. But I have a tad different criteria than the committee.

(12-07-2015 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  You could just as easily put Stanford in ahead of Clemson, Alabama or Michigan State if you think they are the stronger team. You could make a good case that Oklahoma is the strongest of the four teams selected, not the weakest. I would have ranked them OU, Alabama, MSU and Clemson. Of course, that wouldn't change the matchups anyway, so what difference does it make?

Stanford is 3-2 vs. top 25 with two of those over #25 USC (8-5).
They don't come close to a top 4 resume.

The eyeball test says Stanford is as good as any of the top 4.

(12-07-2015 05:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  You could just as easily put Stanford in ahead of Clemson, Alabama or Michigan State if you think they are the stronger team. You could make a good case that Oklahoma is the strongest of the four teams selected, not the weakest. I would have ranked them OU, Alabama, MSU and Clemson. Of course, that wouldn't change the matchups anyway, so what difference does it make?

Stanford is 3-2 vs. top 25 with two of those over #25 USC (8-5).
They don't come close to a top 4 resume.

Consider the following. I have calculated the average power rating of all the opponents for each of the contenders for NY6 bowls. I suspect the selection committee had access to similar data.

CFP.............................................Wins vs.....Games vs
Rank...Team (W-L)..........SOS........Top 30.......Top 30

..2...Alabama (12-1).......76.2...........7...............8
..6...Stanford (11-2).......75.4...........5...............6
..4...Oklahoma (11-1).....74.6...........5...............5
..3...Michigan St (12-1)...73.7...........4...............4
12...Ole Miss (9-3)..........73.2...........3...............5
..1...Clemson (13-0).......72.9...........3...............3
..8...Notre Dame (10-2)..74.7...........2...............4
16...Oklahoma St(10-2)..72.0...........2...............4
11...TCU (10-2)..............71.6...........2...............4
17...Baylor (9-3).............70.2..........2................4
..9...Florida St (10-2)......71.4...........1...............2
..5...Iowa (12-1).............70.8...........1...............2
..7...Ohio St (11-1)..........70.4..........1...............2
10...UNC (11-1)...............69.4..........0...............1

You can argue that Stanford doesn't belong in the playoff. But I don't think it's fair to say they don't come close to a Top 4 resume.

(12-07-2015 08:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  You can argue that Stanford doesn't belong in the playoff. But I don't think it's fair to say they don't come close to a Top 4 resume.

But weren't two of those wins and games against the same team?

Since they are ranked #6, it would be fair to say that in the eyes of the CFP committee, they come close to a Top 4 resume ... and if they had not lost one of those two games, they would have been a lock.

(12-07-2015 11:08 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(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.

Betting lines aren't about the best teams. They are about who they think the public will perceive as the best teams.

Friend of my father's said he always bet against Kentucky in basketball. Figured the spreads were pushed up by enthusiastic UK fans. Vegas is trying to balance the betting, not pick the winner.

(12-07-2015 08:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 05:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  You could just as easily put Stanford in ahead of Clemson, Alabama or Michigan State if you think they are the stronger team. You could make a good case that Oklahoma is the strongest of the four teams selected, not the weakest. I would have ranked them OU, Alabama, MSU and Clemson. Of course, that wouldn't change the matchups anyway, so what difference does it make?

Stanford is 3-2 vs. top 25 with two of those over #25 USC (8-5).
They don't come close to a top 4 resume.

Consider the following. I have calculated the average power rating of all the opponents for each of the contenders for NY6 bowls. I suspect the selection committee had access to similar data.

CFP.............................................Wins vs.....Games vs
Rank...Team (W-L)..........SOS........Top 30.......Top 30

..2...Alabama (12-1).......76.2...........7...............8
..6...Stanford (11-2).......75.4...........5...............6
..4...Oklahoma (11-1).....74.6...........5...............5
..3...Michigan St (12-1)...73.7...........4...............4
12...Ole Miss (9-3)..........73.2...........3...............5
..1...Clemson (13-0).......72.9...........3...............3
..8...Notre Dame (10-2)..74.7...........2...............4
16...Oklahoma St(10-2)..72.0...........2...............4
11...TCU (10-2)..............71.6...........2...............4
17...Baylor (9-3).............70.2..........2................4
..9...Florida St (10-2)......71.4...........1...............2
..5...Iowa (12-1).............70.8...........1...............2
..7...Ohio St (11-1)..........70.4..........1...............2
10...UNC (11-1)...............69.4..........0...............1

You can argue that Stanford doesn't belong in the playoff. But I don't think it's fair to say they don't come close to a Top 4 resume.

Your numbers are wrong. They lost to both Northwestern and Oregon. So they didn't have 5 wins vs. top 30 in 6 games. In the CFP poll, they beat #8, lost to 13 and 15 and beat 25 twice. That strikes me as a resume that puts them around 10-15.

(12-08-2015 09:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:08 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(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.

Betting lines aren't about the best teams. They are about who they think the public will perceive as the best teams.

Friend of my father's said he always bet against Kentucky in basketball. Figured the spreads were pushed up by enthusiastic UK fans. Vegas is trying to balance the betting, not pick the winner.

Correct.

If they thought giving team A a +5 instead of a -5 would produce more betting and thus make more money for the house, they'd do that.

(12-08-2015 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 08:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 05:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  You could just as easily put Stanford in ahead of Clemson, Alabama or Michigan State if you think they are the stronger team. You could make a good case that Oklahoma is the strongest of the four teams selected, not the weakest. I would have ranked them OU, Alabama, MSU and Clemson. Of course, that wouldn't change the matchups anyway, so what difference does it make?

Stanford is 3-2 vs. top 25 with two of those over #25 USC (8-5).
They don't come close to a top 4 resume.

Consider the following. I have calculated the average power rating of all the opponents for each of the contenders for NY6 bowls. I suspect the selection committee had access to similar data.

CFP.............................................Wins vs.....Games vs
Rank...Team (W-L)..........SOS........Top 30.......Top 30

..2...Alabama (12-1).......76.2...........7...............8
..6...Stanford (11-2).......75.4...........5...............6
..4...Oklahoma (11-1).....74.6...........5...............5
..3...Michigan St (12-1)...73.7...........4...............4
12...Ole Miss (9-3)..........73.2...........3...............5
..1...Clemson (13-0).......72.9...........3...............3
..8...Notre Dame (10-2)..74.7...........2...............4
16...Oklahoma St(10-2)..72.0...........2...............4
11...TCU (10-2)..............71.6...........2...............4
17...Baylor (9-3).............70.2..........2................4
..9...Florida St (10-2)......71.4...........1...............2
..5...Iowa (12-1).............70.8...........1...............2
..7...Ohio St (11-1)..........70.4..........1...............2
10...UNC (11-1)...............69.4..........0...............1

You can argue that Stanford doesn't belong in the playoff. But I don't think it's fair to say they don't come close to a Top 4 resume.

Your numbers are wrong. They lost to both Northwestern and Oregon. So they didn't have 5 wins vs. top 30 in 6 games. In the CFP poll, they beat #8, lost to 13 and 15 and beat 25 twice. That strikes me as a resume that puts them around 10-15.

He is using the power ratings. Stanford's top 30 wins would be USC (2), ND, Utah, and either UCLA or Washington St, who are number 30 or 31 in other polls, so depending on how he calculated it, it would be one of those. His miscalculation is that they had 7 games versus top 30 teams, not 6.
You left out Utah who is number 22 in CFP poll, so they have 4 committee top 25 wins.

(12-08-2015 11:19 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 08:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 05:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  You could just as easily put Stanford in ahead of Clemson, Alabama or Michigan State if you think they are the stronger team. You could make a good case that Oklahoma is the strongest of the four teams selected, not the weakest. I would have ranked them OU, Alabama, MSU and Clemson. Of course, that wouldn't change the matchups anyway, so what difference does it make?

Stanford is 3-2 vs. top 25 with two of those over #25 USC (8-5).
They don't come close to a top 4 resume.

Consider the following. I have calculated the average power rating of all the opponents for each of the contenders for NY6 bowls. I suspect the selection committee had access to similar data.

CFP.............................................Wins vs.....Games vs
Rank...Team (W-L)..........SOS........Top 30.......Top 30

..2...Alabama (12-1).......76.2...........7...............8
..6...Stanford (11-2).......75.4...........5...............6
..4...Oklahoma (11-1).....74.6...........5...............5
..3...Michigan St (12-1)...73.7...........4...............4
12...Ole Miss (9-3)..........73.2...........3...............5
..1...Clemson (13-0).......72.9...........3...............3
..8...Notre Dame (10-2)..74.7...........2...............4
16...Oklahoma St(10-2)..72.0...........2...............4
11...TCU (10-2)..............71.6...........2...............4
17...Baylor (9-3).............70.2..........2................4
..9...Florida St (10-2)......71.4...........1...............2
..5...Iowa (12-1).............70.8...........1...............2
..7...Ohio St (11-1)..........70.4..........1...............2
10...UNC (11-1)...............69.4..........0...............1

You can argue that Stanford doesn't belong in the playoff. But I don't think it's fair to say they don't come close to a Top 4 resume.

Your numbers are wrong. They lost to both Northwestern and Oregon. So they didn't have 5 wins vs. top 30 in 6 games. In the CFP poll, they beat #8, lost to 13 and 15 and beat 25 twice. That strikes me as a resume that puts them around 10-15.

He is using the power ratings. Stanford's top 30 wins would be USC (2), ND, Utah, and either UCLA or Washington St, who are number 30 or 31 in other polls, so depending on how he calculated it, it would be one of those. His miscalculation is that they had 7 games versus top 30 teams, not 6.
You left out Utah who is number 22 in CFP poll, so they have 4 committee top 25 wins.

Forgot about Utah. They weren't rated last week. Last week they were only 2-2.

Note I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him. Just clarifying.

(12-08-2015 11:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 11:19 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 08:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 05:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  Stanford is 3-2 vs. top 25 with two of those over #25 USC (8-5).
They don't come close to a top 4 resume.

Consider the following. I have calculated the average power rating of all the opponents for each of the contenders for NY6 bowls. I suspect the selection committee had access to similar data.

CFP.............................................Wins vs.....Games vs
Rank...Team (W-L)..........SOS........Top 30.......Top 30

..2...Alabama (12-1).......76.2...........7...............8
..6...Stanford (11-2).......75.4...........5...............6
..4...Oklahoma (11-1).....74.6...........5...............5
..3...Michigan St (12-1)...73.7...........4...............4
12...Ole Miss (9-3)..........73.2...........3...............5
..1...Clemson (13-0).......72.9...........3...............3
..8...Notre Dame (10-2)..74.7...........2...............4
16...Oklahoma St(10-2)..72.0...........2...............4
11...TCU (10-2)..............71.6...........2...............4
17...Baylor (9-3).............70.2..........2................4
..9...Florida St (10-2)......71.4...........1...............2
..5...Iowa (12-1).............70.8...........1...............2
..7...Ohio St (11-1)..........70.4..........1...............2
10...UNC (11-1)...............69.4..........0...............1

You can argue that Stanford doesn't belong in the playoff. But I don't think it's fair to say they don't come close to a Top 4 resume.

Your numbers are wrong. They lost to both Northwestern and Oregon. So they didn't have 5 wins vs. top 30 in 6 games. In the CFP poll, they beat #8, lost to 13 and 15 and beat 25 twice. That strikes me as a resume that puts them around 10-15.

He is using the power ratings. Stanford's top 30 wins would be USC (2), ND, Utah, and either UCLA or Washington St, who are number 30 or 31 in other polls, so depending on how he calculated it, it would be one of those. His miscalculation is that they had 7 games versus top 30 teams, not 6.
You left out Utah who is number 22 in CFP poll, so they have 4 committee top 25 wins.

Forgot about Utah. They weren't rated last week. Last week they were only 2-2.

Northwestern was rated #32. Stanford didn't play Utah IIRC. I couldn't use the CFP rankings because (a) they only go up to 25, and (b) to get the ratings for all opponents to calculate the average for each school, I needed to have a rating that included all D-I teams, including FCS teams.

No matter what ratings you use, there will always be another one that has it a little different. But looking at the big picture here, the schools that seem to be less "deserving" are Ohio State, Iowa and UNC, not Stanford. That suggests the committee may not consider SOS as being as important as some fans do.

As for the idea that Carolina's schedule was weak because it included two FCS teams, that depends on what criteria you use to evaluate schedules. They could just as easily have scheduled 2 more FBS opponents and had a weaker schedule on average. But IMO, the difficulty of a schedule isn't measured by "average" strength. It is a function of how many times you faced an opponent who had a realistic chance of beating you and how many opponents had a near 50-50 chance of doing so.

It wasn't the 2 FCS teams that hurt Carolina's schedule. It was the 10 FBS schools they played before Clemson.

I kept clicking on USC's schedule when trying to look up Stanford's. I detest the new format of ESPN's site.