(12-04-2017 02:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well, all 4 years of the playoff, it's matched 100% what the BCS ratings would have been.

That's right. Here's the simulated BCS ranking for this season:



Among other things, I think this indicates that the committee members are looking at computer rankings of various kinds when making their decisions.

It certainly looks like it. Have to wonder if those rankings still have the Harris Poll.

AP is being used in this in place of Harris.

(12-04-2017 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well, all 4 years of the playoff, it's matched 100% what the BCS ratings would have been.

Which makes you wonder if that wasn't a better way. Would take out the drama and appearance of bias.

I still like the committee more, as they do get more information and spend more time evaluating than any human poll in history. But since the AP basically mimics the CFP rankings for the most part, it does make you wonder if it wouldn't be easier and less controversial just to have a formula.

OTOH, the AP is more of a crowd-sourcing poll, which has an advantage over a small committee where strong personalities and biases can sway a room.

(12-04-2017 02:15 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  OTOH, the AP is more of a crowd-sourcing poll, which has an advantage over a small committee where strong personalities and biases can sway a room.

Crowds are stupid.

Small committees can also have problems as you point out. I've been disappointed in the committee. I think the problem was some of the strong personalities and biases, particularly Tom Osborne and Barry Alvarez, who others have said, were carefully listened to since they had coached.

I think we're arguing semantics when we say "most deserving" versus the "best." The best team in the Big Ten last year, its champion, didn't make the playoff, but the most deserving, statistically speaking, did.

It's all a crappy risk with no baseline is what I'm saying. Wisconsin WAS the 4th best team going into championship week and ahead of Alabama. How does playing and losing to a top 10 team hurt them in a ranking? In basketball, it actually would help.

(12-04-2017 02:32 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I think we're arguing semantics when we say "most deserving" versus the "best." The best team in the Big Ten last year, its champion, didn't make the playoff, but the most deserving, statistically speaking, did.

It's all a crappy risk with no baseline is what I'm saying. Wisconsin WAS the 4th best team going into championship week and ahead of Alabama. How does playing and losing to a top 10 team hurt them in a ranking? In basketball, it actually would help.

You see, a champion in what you're saying would be the most deserving. They won the conference. That's 100% most deserving. But Ohio St was the best last year.

Wisconsin's problem is that their schedule wasn't perceived to be that good at all and this was their big test. And they lost. It's similar to a team that's been playing cupcakes in basketball and then sees a real team and loses. Those teams get dinged much more than teams that have played good opponents, then had a loss to a top 10 team.

Also would bring up Notre Dame in basketball. They were #5 in both polls last week. Then lost to #3 Michigan St. last week. They're now #9 and #8 this week.

(12-04-2017 02:14 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well, all 4 years of the playoff, it's matched 100% what the BCS ratings would have been.

Which makes you wonder if that wasn't a better way. Would take out the drama and appearance of bias.

I still like the committee more, as they do get more information and spend more time evaluating than any human poll in history. But since the AP basically mimics the CFP rankings for the most part, it does make you wonder if it wouldn't be easier and less controversial just to have a formula.

The Committee could be use for the bowl pairings and computers for the rankings.

(12-04-2017 09:16 AM)ken d Wrote:  The first seven are identical, and Penn State and USC take turns at #8 and #9. The only practical result that would be different from the selection committee's decisions would be that Notre Dame would get the last NY6 spot instead of Washington.

How much better could the committee have done?

It's not that the committee got it wrong. It's that, when the decision is made by a dozen people in a room, it's human nature for the side the decision goes against to say "No fair" and coming up with theories about how the system was rigged against them.

That's harder to do with a half-dozen computer formulas, a hundred-plus coaches and however many writers get AP poll ballots.

It's not that the committee could have done any better than it did. It's that the result of a complex formula "feels" more impartial than the result of a dozen people deciding.

(12-04-2017 02:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  AP is being used in this in place of Harris.

I think the Harris Poll only existed because the AP refused to be a party to the BCS, and so they needed a substitute.

(12-04-2017 02:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  You see, a champion in what you're saying would be the most deserving. They won the conference. That's 100% most deserving. But Ohio St was the best last year.

Better because they lost the head-to-head. More deserving because they didn't win the conference division or title.

Don't blur the two, "best" and "more deserving." They're subjective, just like the polls used to rank teams and then used by the committee to re-rank. It's very, VERY slippery ground.

I'd love to see more of an adherence to SOS and SRS in college football, or a composite of the two. That's where Ohio State really had it over others last year. By that account (at least, when using the numbers from here), the Big Ten and Notre Dame got royally screwed this year, whereas the SEC and Big XII got gifts. Problem is, it's not adhered to universally (and perhaps not without its own issues).

I mean, hypothetically, SRS has the following ranking:

1) Georgia
2) Wisconsin
3) Clemson
4) Penn State

If the above relieves people "the right four teams" were selected, then, we're all in on this "best" or "most deserving" thing. We simply can't accept stats won't propel a champion to the top of any heap. And that's fine...just, stick to that lane then, and play a fiddle for the stat-blessed non-champs.

You have no clue wht you're talking about.....

Best means who you think would win a game played tomorrow...

most deserving means who has done more prior to today.....

head to head is a lot more most deserving than it is best.

It's really 2 totally different ways of looking at things.

(12-05-2017 12:51 PM)stever20 Wrote:  You have no clue wht you're talking about.....

Best means who you think would win a game played tomorrow...

most deserving means who has done more prior to today.....

head to head is a lot more most deserving than it is best.

It's really 2 totally different ways of looking at things.

Whatever helps prop up your opinions, I guess. No worries.

It is what it is. But, hey, you're a smart guy. Do you need to hear that today, scout?

I have a big what if for you guys. What if the Committee only uses the BCS formula for the selection of the final four and the rest of the time they do watch some of the games, enjoy their sequestered time for which they are well paid, eat, drink and have a good time and then send forward their chair to put on the grim face and come up with controversial and stress producing explanations just to jazz up numbers for ESPN and create a public annual furor that they hope will make even more folks tune into the games.

And just maybe this committee is quietly pushing an agenda that moves us away from CCGs so that ESPN can have three weeks worth of guaranteed viewership for the playoffs all of which they can monetize instead of the conferences keeping the revenue from the first week's CCG's.

Call me suspicious that their results don't vary from that of the BCS, but it seems that with the BCS ESPN stumbled onto how successful controversy over the selection process could be and they have now baked it into an annual soap opera.

(12-04-2017 06:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:16 AM)ken d Wrote:  The first seven are identical, and Penn State and USC take turns at #8 and #9. The only practical result that would be different from the selection committee's decisions would be that Notre Dame would get the last NY6 spot instead of Washington.

How much better could the committee have done?

It's not that the committee got it wrong. It's that, when the decision is made by a dozen people in a room, it's human nature for the side the decision goes against to say "No fair" and coming up with theories about how the system was rigged against them.

That's harder to do with a half-dozen computer formulas, a hundred-plus coaches and however many writers get AP poll ballots.

It's not that the committee could have done any better than it did. It's that the result of a complex formula "feels" more impartial than the result of a dozen people deciding.

(12-04-2017 02:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  AP is being used in this in place of Harris.

I think the Harris Poll only existed because the AP refused to be a party to the BCS, and so they needed a substitute.

If computers are better (or fairer) than people, then why don't they all produce the same result? The very fact that they vary so wildly from each other demonstrates that they are anything but fair or objective.

(12-05-2017 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I have a big what if for you guys. What if the Committee only uses the BCS formula for the selection of the final four and the rest of the time they do watch some of the games, enjoy their sequestered time for which they are well paid, eat, drink and have a good time and then send forward their chair to put on the grim face and come up with controversial and stress producing explanations just to jazz up numbers for ESPN and create a public annual furor that they hope will make even more folks tune into the games.

And just maybe this committee is quietly pushing an agenda that moves us away from CCGs so that ESPN can have three weeks worth of guaranteed viewership for the playoffs all of which they can monetize instead of the conferences keeping the revenue from the first week's CCG's.

Call me suspicious that their results don't vary from that of the BCS, but it seems that with the BCS ESPN stumbled onto how successful controversy over the selection process could be and they have now baked it into an annual soap opera.

I was under the impression that the committee members aren't paid anything - they just get expenses reimbursed.

(12-05-2017 04:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I have a big what if for you guys. What if the Committee only uses the BCS formula for the selection of the final four and the rest of the time they do watch some of the games, enjoy their sequestered time for which they are well paid, eat, drink and have a good time and then send forward their chair to put on the grim face and come up with controversial and stress producing explanations just to jazz up numbers for ESPN and create a public annual furor that they hope will make even more folks tune into the games.

And just maybe this committee is quietly pushing an agenda that moves us away from CCGs so that ESPN can have three weeks worth of guaranteed viewership for the playoffs all of which they can monetize instead of the conferences keeping the revenue from the first week's CCG's.

Call me suspicious that their results don't vary from that of the BCS, but it seems that with the BCS ESPN stumbled onto how successful controversy over the selection process could be and they have now baked it into an annual soap opera.

I was under the impression that the committee members aren't paid anything - they just get expenses reimbursed.

That may be the case, I just couldn't imagine anyone doing it for nothing if it takes so much time. But my query stands. It's an angle most don't assume.

And to your post above this one computers vary wildly for the same reason opinions do. Human bias, since programs reflect the priority of their human creators. But again it's so obvious I don't get why many don't realize it.

BTW: If you conduct a propaganda war against conference championships you tacitly conduct a propaganda war against conferences specifically. I think the networks know that going forward the leverage will return to collectives. So tempting the largest brands to act independently might well become a leverage strategy of the rights purchasers.

If conferences are smart they will further consolidate the power of many into their advantage.

Yin & Yang.

(12-05-2017 04:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  If computers are better (or fairer) than people, then why don't they all produce the same result? The very fact that they vary so wildly from each other demonstrates that they are anything but fair or objective.

It's not that they ARE fair or objective. IT's that they LOOK fair and objective. You could get a "fair" process including a random draw. The point is to avoid the perception that it's rigged in one direction or another.

(12-05-2017 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I have a big what if for you guys. What if the Committee only uses the BCS formula for the selection of the final four and the rest of the time they do watch some of the games, enjoy their sequestered time for which they are well paid, eat, drink and have a good time and then send forward their chair to put on the grim face and come up with controversial and stress producing explanations just to jazz up numbers for ESPN and create a public annual furor that they hope will make even more folks tune into the games.

And just maybe this committee is quietly pushing an agenda that moves us away from CCGs so that ESPN can have three weeks worth of guaranteed viewership for the playoffs all of which they can monetize instead of the conferences keeping the revenue from the first week's CCG's.

Call me suspicious that their results don't vary from that of the BCS, but it seems that with the BCS ESPN stumbled onto how successful controversy over the selection process could be and they have now baked it into an annual soap opera.

I was under the impression that the committee members aren't paid anything - they just get expenses reimbursed.

That may be the case, I just couldn't imagine anyone doing it for nothing if it takes so much time. But my query stands. It's an angle most don't assume.

And to your post above this one computers vary wildly for the same reason opinions do. Human bias, since programs reflect the priority of their human creators. But again it's so obvious I don't get why many don't realize it.

BTW: If you conduct a propaganda war against conference championships you tacitly conduct a propaganda war against conferences specifically. I think the networks know that going forward the leverage will return to collectives. So tempting the largest brands to act independently might well become a leverage strategy of the rights purchasers.

If conferences are smart they will further consolidate the power of many into their advantage.

Yin & Yang.

CFP website says the committee members are not compensated, outside of reimbursement for expenses.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/sp...09963.aspx

Quote:Are the selection committee members compensated?

No, there is no compensation for committee members. Expenses are reimbursed.

(12-05-2017 05:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I have a big what if for you guys. What if the Committee only uses the BCS formula for the selection of the final four and the rest of the time they do watch some of the games, enjoy their sequestered time for which they are well paid, eat, drink and have a good time and then send forward their chair to put on the grim face and come up with controversial and stress producing explanations just to jazz up numbers for ESPN and create a public annual furor that they hope will make even more folks tune into the games.

And just maybe this committee is quietly pushing an agenda that moves us away from CCGs so that ESPN can have three weeks worth of guaranteed viewership for the playoffs all of which they can monetize instead of the conferences keeping the revenue from the first week's CCG's.

Call me suspicious that their results don't vary from that of the BCS, but it seems that with the BCS ESPN stumbled onto how successful controversy over the selection process could be and they have now baked it into an annual soap opera.

I was under the impression that the committee members aren't paid anything - they just get expenses reimbursed.

That may be the case, I just couldn't imagine anyone doing it for nothing if it takes so much time. But my query stands. It's an angle most don't assume.

And to your post above this one computers vary wildly for the same reason opinions do. Human bias, since programs reflect the priority of their human creators. But again it's so obvious I don't get why many don't realize it.

BTW: If you conduct a propaganda war against conference championships you tacitly conduct a propaganda war against conferences specifically. I think the networks know that going forward the leverage will return to collectives. So tempting the largest brands to act independently might well become a leverage strategy of the rights purchasers.

If conferences are smart they will further consolidate the power of many into their advantage.

Yin & Yang.

CFP website says the committee members are not compensated, outside of reimbursement for expenses.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/sp...09963.aspx

Quote:Are the selection committee members compensated?

No, there is no compensation for committee members. Expenses are reimbursed.

Well then, I bet they fly first class and eat extremely well.

(12-05-2017 04:51 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  If computers are better (or fairer) than people, then why don't they all produce the same result? The very fact that they vary so wildly from each other demonstrates that they are anything but fair or objective.

It's not that they ARE fair or objective. IT's that they LOOK fair and objective. You could get a "fair" process including a random draw. The point is to avoid the perception that it's rigged in one direction or another.

I think for many of us, "fair" means "it supports my view". So, if we find a computer ranking that puts UCF in its top four, and we think the game is currently rigged to exclude schools like UCF (and, we would like to see UCF included), we are inclined to say we should use that particular ranking.

FWIW, I don't hear nearly as many people arguing that UCF should be in the playoff as people saying that Ohio State should. Let's suppose, for a moment, that we were using computer formulas to determine the top four teams, and the computers said it's a virtual tie between Alabama and Ohio State for that fourth spot. I think this year, that's pretty close to the position the committee was in. Only they had to pick one, because that was their charge. They couldn't just say "it's a tie".

In football, "best" or "better" are purely subjective concepts. Most points scored, or fewest allowed, those are objective. Fewer losses is objective. But those things can never define "best". Only people can do that. And we all do it differently.

(12-05-2017 05:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 05:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I have a big what if for you guys. What if the Committee only uses the BCS formula for the selection of the final four and the rest of the time they do watch some of the games, enjoy their sequestered time for which they are well paid, eat, drink and have a good time and then send forward their chair to put on the grim face and come up with controversial and stress producing explanations just to jazz up numbers for ESPN and create a public annual furor that they hope will make even more folks tune into the games.

And just maybe this committee is quietly pushing an agenda that moves us away from CCGs so that ESPN can have three weeks worth of guaranteed viewership for the playoffs all of which they can monetize instead of the conferences keeping the revenue from the first week's CCG's.

Call me suspicious that their results don't vary from that of the BCS, but it seems that with the BCS ESPN stumbled onto how successful controversy over the selection process could be and they have now baked it into an annual soap opera.

I was under the impression that the committee members aren't paid anything - they just get expenses reimbursed.

That may be the case, I just couldn't imagine anyone doing it for nothing if it takes so much time. But my query stands. It's an angle most don't assume.

And to your post above this one computers vary wildly for the same reason opinions do. Human bias, since programs reflect the priority of their human creators. But again it's so obvious I don't get why many don't realize it.

BTW: If you conduct a propaganda war against conference championships you tacitly conduct a propaganda war against conferences specifically. I think the networks know that going forward the leverage will return to collectives. So tempting the largest brands to act independently might well become a leverage strategy of the rights purchasers.

If conferences are smart they will further consolidate the power of many into their advantage.

Yin & Yang.

CFP website says the committee members are not compensated, outside of reimbursement for expenses.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/sp...09963.aspx

Quote:Are the selection committee members compensated?

No, there is no compensation for committee members. Expenses are reimbursed.

Well then, I bet they fly first class and eat extremely well.

I'd like to think so. Theirs is a pretty thankless job.