(12-16-2020 08:21 AM)schmolik Wrote:  What makes you think the computer rankings are any less biased than committee rankings? Unless you know the formula that goes into them, the formula is written by a person and is just as biased as any committee member or pollster. Some of the old computer rankings formulas weren't released and others were so complicated nobody here could understand them.

That depends on your position on whether the election was stolen or not .

(12-15-2020 09:01 PM)balanced_view Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 08:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 07:58 PM)leofrog Wrote:  Looks to me that they are setting up a Cincinnati-Coastal Carolina NY6 game if they both win.

I like that Coastal has inched closer to an at-large berth in case Cincy clinches the auto-G5 bid. I would not want Cincy and Coastal to play if they both get in, but if it is the only way that both get in, then yes, let's have it.

I am surprised Florida didn't fall to #12 or so. Other than that, not much to look at, LOL.

I think its the opposite. With Florida staying so high, it will keep Coastal out the NY6. They have won the chess match to keep all the money flowing to P5. even with another Florida loss to #1, they wont drop 6 spots. and Indiana can fill in for Oklahoma if they lose. Its all rigged

FWIW, I wasn't predicting that Coastal will make the NY6. I like that they moved closer to doing so. Still don't think they will.

Here's the NY6 games as of now, not necessarily in terms of matchups and games but who would be in:

Sugar .......... Alabama (1) vs Ohio State (4)
Rose ........... Notre Dame (2) vs Clemson (3)

Orange ....... North Carolina (14) vs Texas AM (5)
Cotton ........ Iowa State (6) vs Oklahoma (10)
Fiesta ......... USC (13) vs Florida (7)
Peach ......... Cincy (9) vs Georgia (8)

At #12, Coastal *should* be in the NY6. But we have two interlopers outside the Top 12 taking spots, and since those are contractual, that is what is is. Regarding at-large, Indiana at (11) would be next in line, Coastal (12) after them. So Coastal needs two teams ahead of them to drop behind without any moving ahead. E.g., it will not help Coastal if USC loses to Oregon, because then Oregon will take the PAC spot in the NY6.

Now, Oklahoma likely would drop behind Coastal if they lost to Iowa State. That's one down. But where does the other spot come from? Indiana doesn't play. The CFP could move Coastal past Indiana, but that's not likely.

Sadly, the CFP's weird love-fest with Florida and especially Iowa State is likely keeping them out. *Maybe* if Florida or Iowa State gets absolutely gob-smacked, like Miami did, then one of them falls behind Coastal as well. But that's a long-shot.

One other chance? If Clemson loses to Notre Dame and falls out of the playoffs, that likely means Texas AM moves in to the playoffs. Clemson would then take UNC's spot in the Orange Bowl, booting UNC out of the NY6. On the SEC side of the Orange Bowl, that would start a ripple effect, bumping Florida and Georgia in to other NY6 bowls and opening up an at-large spot at the tail end. But Clemson isn't likely to lose, and even if they do, the CFP might still keep them in the playoffs anyway. Crazy but true.

Coastal's best hope to make the NY6 is still the automatic one - Tulsa beats Cincy, knocking Cincy behind them for the auto-G5 spot. The path to an at-large is much less likely.

(12-16-2020 08:21 AM)schmolik Wrote:  What makes you think the computer rankings are any less biased than committee rankings? Unless you know the formula that goes into them, the formula is written by a person and is just as biased as any committee member or pollster. Some of the old computer rankings formulas weren't released and others were so complicated nobody here could understand them.

But unless the computers have a line of code that says something like "If 'team' is from 'P5', add 10 points to rating", they are not biased against the G5 the way we suspect most people are. They are in that sense "objective".

FWIW though, the BCS formula would have produced the exact same playoff teams as the CFP every single year so far, 24/24 teams.

(12-15-2020 09:13 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  Nothing too shocking in the rankings. I assumed Florida would fall a couple more spots; but other then that no surprises.

Florida and A & M's ADs are on the committee. No conflict there. (same for Oklahoma AD)

(12-16-2020 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 09:01 PM)balanced_view Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 08:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 07:58 PM)leofrog Wrote:  Looks to me that they are setting up a Cincinnati-Coastal Carolina NY6 game if they both win.

I like that Coastal has inched closer to an at-large berth in case Cincy clinches the auto-G5 bid. I would not want Cincy and Coastal to play if they both get in, but if it is the only way that both get in, then yes, let's have it.

I am surprised Florida didn't fall to #12 or so. Other than that, not much to look at, LOL.

I think its the opposite. With Florida staying so high, it will keep Coastal out the NY6. They have won the chess match to keep all the money flowing to P5. even with another Florida loss to #1, they wont drop 6 spots. and Indiana can fill in for Oklahoma if they lose. Its all rigged

FWIW, I wasn't predicting that Coastal will make the NY6. I like that they moved closer to doing so. Still don't think they will.

Here's the NY6 games as of now, not necessarily in terms of matchups and games but who would be in:

Sugar .......... Alabama (1) vs Ohio State (4)
Rose ........... Notre Dame (2) vs Clemson (3)

Orange ....... North Carolina (14) vs Texas AM (5)
Cotton ........ Iowa State (6) vs Oklahoma (10)
Fiesta ......... USC (13) vs Florida (7)
Peach ......... Cincy (9) vs Georgia (8)

At #12, Coastal *should* be in the NY6. But we have two interlopers outside the Top 12 taking spots, and since those are contractual, that is what is is. Regarding at-large, Indiana at (11) would be next in line, Coastal (12) after them. So Coastal needs two teams ahead of them to drop behind without any moving ahead. E.g., it will not help Coastal if USC loses to Oregon, because then Oregon will take the PAC spot in the NY6.

Now, Oklahoma likely would drop behind Coastal if they lost to Iowa State. That's one down. But where does the other spot come from? Indiana doesn't play. The CFP could move Coastal past Indiana, but that's not likely.

Sadly, the CFP's weird love-fest with Florida and especially Iowa State is likely keeping them out. *Maybe* if Florida or Iowa State gets absolutely gob-smacked, like Miami did, then one of them falls behind Coastal as well. But that's a long-shot.

One other chance? If Clemson loses to Notre Dame and falls out of the playoffs, that likely means Texas AM moves in to the playoffs. Clemson would then take UNC's spot in the Orange Bowl, booting UNC out of the NY6. On the SEC side of the Orange Bowl, that would start a ripple effect, bumping Florida and Georgia in to other NY6 bowls and opening up an at-large spot at the tail end. But Clemson isn't likely to lose, and even if they do, the CFP might still keep them in the playoffs anyway. Crazy but true.

Coastal's best hope to make the NY6 is still the automatic one - Tulsa beats Cincy, knocking Cincy behind them for the auto-G5 spot. The path to an at-large is much less likely.

oh ok. Well you explained in detail what i was saying, so that everyone can see.

p.s. Im sad that when Louisiana beats Coastal on Saturday, Everyone will jump to how Coastal didnt deserve all this, in the first place and the committee was right. IMO, They deserve all this at this moment in time compared to the field. Things change every time games are played.

(12-16-2020 09:33 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 09:13 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  Nothing too shocking in the rankings. I assumed Florida would fall a couple more spots; but other then that no surprises.

Florida and A & M's ADs are on the committee. No conflict there. (same for Oklahoma AD)

The CFP membership deck is stacked in favor of the P5. The membership of the committee needs to be more balanced. Doesn't seem to manifest in terms of who makes the playoffs - CFP selections have been identical to the BCS formula and human polls - but regarding NY6 at large bids it really shows.

It will be a real joke if Iowa State loses and Coastal Carolina wins and a three loss Iowa State is chosen for a NY6 bowl over an undefeated Coastal Carolina. Louisiana would have lost to Coastal Carolina twice (once at home) and beaten Iowa State (at Iowa State).

(12-16-2020 10:48 AM)schmolik Wrote:  It will be a real joke if Iowa State loses and Coastal Carolina wins and a three loss Iowa State is chosen for a NY6 bowl over an undefeated Coastal Carolina. Louisiana would have lost to Coastal Carolina twice (once at home) and beaten Iowa State (at Iowa State).

Even if IWST is dropped behind Coastal, that alone wouldn't get Coastal into the NY6, as Indiana is first in line to get bumped up.

Coastal needs two current top-12 teams to fall behind them, or one of the teams outside of the top-12 that is currently hogging an NY6 spot (looking at you, North Carolina) to get bumped out.

There are a couple ways that can happen, but none are likely.

Sun Belt Conference speaking out:

(12-16-2020 08:21 AM)schmolik Wrote:  What makes you think the computer rankings are any less biased than committee rankings? Unless you know the formula that goes into them, the formula is written by a person and is just as biased as any committee member or pollster. Some of the old computer rankings formulas weren't released and others were so complicated nobody here could understand them.

I suggested using an aggregate of computer rankings to account for the flaw inherent with any single system. A formula using some combination of wins + margin of victory + strength of schedule (based on opponent win%) + any other objective measurement deemed relevant by the formula's author for evaluating teams applied equally to all 130 teams will result in an unbiased ordering of those teams. The computer can't look at the name of a team or its conference affiliation and then make a post-hoc adjustment. Conversely, a human cannot eliminate the conscious and sub-conscious bias associated with ranking teams. Impossible to fully filter out recency and primacy bias and the unreliable "eye-ball" test.

the only way college football can become more popular is to have a real playoff system where conference champions play wildcards in a first round playoff and so on untill a final super bowl champion is decided on the fricken gridiron period the end...
pin this...

AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco sounds off on the CFP Committee Rankings:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ball-teams

(12-17-2020 12:19 PM)schmolik Wrote:  AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco sounds off on the CFP Committee Rankings:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ball-teams

I don't disagree with him, but using Texas is just a really bad example. Texas is 3 plays from being 9-0. Of course, also 2 plays from 4-5. (2 OT wins, 1 OT loss, 1 loss when they fumbled at the 1 in the final minute down 2, 1 loss when they missed a 4th and 1 at the 8 up 4, gave up a TD and then missed a long FG that would have sent it to OT). He couldn't use 3 loss Oklahoma St. as an example (a team Texas beat) because they gave his Tulsa their only loss.