(12-16-2020 02:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 02:37 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 02:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 01:37 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  2016 Western Michigan at 13-0 ranked #15 in final CFP rankings... 4-loss Auburn directly ahead of them at #14? GTFO. BCS NEVER would've allowed for such disrespect/shenanigans. Yes, there is disrespect under the BCS, but nothing like we've seen from the committee.

An 8-4 Auburn team who lost by 6 to the national champs Clemson, by 18 at runnerup Alabama, by 13 at ranked 8-4 Texas A&M and by 6 at 8-4 rival Georgia and beat 2 other ranked teams. Auburn was a better team than that WMU team.

Just like the 3 loss Auburn the next yr that beat Alabama and Georgia (CFP finalists) that ultimately fell to UCF in the Peach Bowl? Auburn was obviously the better team that year too huh? In short, you can say Auburn was better than WMU because they kept a couple close against good teams (13 and 18 pt losses aren't keeping it close btw), but WMU lost by 8pts to Wisconsin in the NY6 bowl as well, so maybe WMU is better than they were being given credit for? That 4 loss Auburn got their 5th loss against Oklahoma by 16 pts in the Sugar Bowl that year as well.

I watched that game. WMU is easily the worst G5 NY6 team we have had. And they weren't nearly as good as the Marshall MAC champs of the 90s or Ben's Miami team of 2003. They only got it to 8 with a TD with about 3 minutes left. Wisconsin was in control the whole game. As for Auburn they lost to #5 OU. 3 of those 5 losses were to top 5 teams. And they did beat #13 LSU.

Nonetheless, let them settle it on the field. No precedent to put a 4 loss team above an undefeated team. Ever.

(12-16-2020 01:37 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  2016 Western Michigan at 13-0 ranked #15 in final CFP rankings... 4-loss Auburn directly ahead of them at #14? GTFO. BCS NEVER would've allowed for such disrespect/shenanigans. Yes, there is disrespect under the BCS, but nothing like we've seen from the committee.

any lip service paid by the committee and their supporters about fairness and access is exactly that.

In the BCS era they realized that even though things were highly weighted against them that schools from the big revenue conferences were starting to break through the barriers set in front of them. The result was they simply changed the rules, created a new system that gave the facade of equality, but in reality was just moving the goal markers.

The networks are to blame in all of this because they are the ones rigging the system to favor the conferences that they have invested billions in.

If Boise or UCF or Cincinnati are suddenly performing just as good on the field as the programs getting paid $65 million/yr that diminishes the sense of value and scarcity that the network has placed upon their investment (ie the programs in this conference are elite and starkly different than these other programs—you should only want to watch these elite teams play and to watch them you need to have our network [and if you want to see all of their games you’re going to need to pay for our streaming service and upgrade to the next tier of cable to get the “Conference” channel])

(12-16-2020 02:56 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 02:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 02:37 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 02:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 01:37 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  2016 Western Michigan at 13-0 ranked #15 in final CFP rankings... 4-loss Auburn directly ahead of them at #14? GTFO. BCS NEVER would've allowed for such disrespect/shenanigans. Yes, there is disrespect under the BCS, but nothing like we've seen from the committee.

An 8-4 Auburn team who lost by 6 to the national champs Clemson, by 18 at runnerup Alabama, by 13 at ranked 8-4 Texas A&M and by 6 at 8-4 rival Georgia and beat 2 other ranked teams. Auburn was a better team than that WMU team.

Just like the 3 loss Auburn the next yr that beat Alabama and Georgia (CFP finalists) that ultimately fell to UCF in the Peach Bowl? Auburn was obviously the better team that year too huh? In short, you can say Auburn was better than WMU because they kept a couple close against good teams (13 and 18 pt losses aren't keeping it close btw), but WMU lost by 8pts to Wisconsin in the NY6 bowl as well, so maybe WMU is better than they were being given credit for? That 4 loss Auburn got their 5th loss against Oklahoma by 16 pts in the Sugar Bowl that year as well.

I watched that game. WMU is easily the worst G5 NY6 team we have had. And they weren't nearly as good as the Marshall MAC champs of the 90s or Ben's Miami team of 2003. They only got it to 8 with a TD with about 3 minutes left. Wisconsin was in control the whole game. As for Auburn they lost to #5 OU. 3 of those 5 losses were to top 5 teams. And they did beat #13 LSU.

Nonetheless, let them settle it on the field. No precedent to put a 4 loss team above an undefeated team. Ever.

If we were talking about a playoff I agree with you. But this was a ranking that really had no impact.

I lean more towards "deserves" over "best." Best is entirely subjective. Deserves at least can have some criteria.

(12-16-2020 03:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 02:56 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 02:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 02:37 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 02:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  An 8-4 Auburn team who lost by 6 to the national champs Clemson, by 18 at runnerup Alabama, by 13 at ranked 8-4 Texas A&M and by 6 at 8-4 rival Georgia and beat 2 other ranked teams. Auburn was a better team than that WMU team.

Just like the 3 loss Auburn the next yr that beat Alabama and Georgia (CFP finalists) that ultimately fell to UCF in the Peach Bowl? Auburn was obviously the better team that year too huh? In short, you can say Auburn was better than WMU because they kept a couple close against good teams (13 and 18 pt losses aren't keeping it close btw), but WMU lost by 8pts to Wisconsin in the NY6 bowl as well, so maybe WMU is better than they were being given credit for? That 4 loss Auburn got their 5th loss against Oklahoma by 16 pts in the Sugar Bowl that year as well.

I watched that game. WMU is easily the worst G5 NY6 team we have had. And they weren't nearly as good as the Marshall MAC champs of the 90s or Ben's Miami team of 2003. They only got it to 8 with a TD with about 3 minutes left. Wisconsin was in control the whole game. As for Auburn they lost to #5 OU. 3 of those 5 losses were to top 5 teams. And they did beat #13 LSU.

Nonetheless, let them settle it on the field. No precedent to put a 4 loss team above an undefeated team. Ever.

If we were talking about a playoff I agree with you. But this was a ranking that really had no impact.

I lean more towards "deserves" over "best." Best is entirely subjective. Deserves at least can have some criteria.

If it was only about the Playoff (Top 4) then you stop at the Top 4 (or maybe continue it to first two out for a Top 6). Why have an entire Top 25? This is about perception and trying to understand the rationale of why certain teams are ranked higher or lower than others. This gives off the appearance that a 4 loss SEC/P5 team is better and/or more deserving than an undefeated MAC/G5. And the fact they continue to rankings like this with 3 and 4 loss P5 teams ahead of undefeated or 1 loss G5s further cements their stance.

(12-16-2020 11:48 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Even including what I believe to be be the skew of AP/Coaches Polls by the BCS/CFP, the simulated BCS for this yr (odd year I know) looks more accurate than the CFP (see link below).

https://twitter.com/BCSKnowHow/status/13...et%3DTweet

Looks good to me. BCS all day everyday.

(12-16-2020 12:17 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:37 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:12 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Many people I've seen like to say how the CFP rankings mirror the BCS (when doing a simulated BCS comparison using the AP/Coaches Poll as part of the formula during the CFP era).

The part most are leaving out here is the affect the committee rankings has had on the AP/Coaches Poll AFTER the CFP rankings begin each year (this yr is all over the place and a bad example however).

There is no such effect of the CFP on the AP/Coaches. This was discussed a couple years ago and laid to rest. If anything, the human polls influence the CFP, as they come out before the CFP rankings.

The reason Boise/TCU types were ranked higher 10 years ago than AAC teams are ranked now is that they were better than the UCF/Cincy teams of today. The computers back then had them higher-ranked than the top AAC teams of today. For example, in 2010, going in to the bowls, the Massey Composite had TCU at #3 and Boise at #5. In 2017 and 2018, UCF was never higher than #8 in the MC (pre-bowls) during its two-year unbeaten run.

That's BS and you know it. Better than teams today? How can you say that when all you can go off of are comparable schedules? One thing of note, the BCS would rank teams higher than the AP/Coaches. The CFP ranks lower the the AP/Coaches. Both were pulled/influenced one way/other (IMO) by the BCS/CFP rankings. Was the MWC circa 2006-2012 better than the AAC circa 2014-2020? The teams in the MWC back then were ranked higher than the AAC teams today but were the schedules all that different? I can say for a fact the WAC sure wasn't better yet Boise was regularly getting higher ranked in the WAC than AAC teams today. Heck even Boise with a similar record on the MWC today doesn't get ranked as highly as they did in their hay-day.

BS? The MC rankings are what they are. Look at the rankings for early December 2010 - TCU is #3, Boise is #5. We're talking computers here not polls, so human bias isn't in the mix.

In 2009, in the MC, TCU was #4, Cincy was #5 and Boise was #7 going in to bowls. No AAC team has been that highly-ranked in the MC up to this year, and this year the MC is worthless because of lack of data points.

Remember, you can't just look at TCU in 2010 and compare them to say UCF in 2018. Rankings are relative to who you are competing against that year. One thing the CFP has done is make "the best teams better". The past five years we have these amazing Alabama and Clemson and Ohio State dynasties where they go 13-0 or 12-1 every year. Then you toss in teams like Notre Dame and LSU that have big years. In 2009 Alabama was just getting started and there was nobody like Clemson. More P5 teams are going unbeaten or with just one loss than was true during the BCS era. So a Cincy or UCF is facing tougher competition near the top than was true in 2009.

The Massey Composite includes FAR more polls, computers, and rankings than the BCS did (two human polls and average of 6 computers). I'm not sure how MC weights each ranking/poll either, or are all equal. But if you want to go with Massey Composite... Cincinnati (AAC) is currently #5 going into CCG week, which is right in line with Boise at #5 going into CCG week in December 2009 (sticking with my 2009 example).

The MC, like all computers, is basically useless this year because of the lack of data points. So just stick with years before 2020 to make comparisons.

As I've noted, UCF in 2017 and 2018 wasn't ranked as high in the Massey Composite as were TCU/Boise ten years ago. They don't make the playoffs using the BCS formula those years either.

(12-16-2020 12:49 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:12 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Many people I've seen like to say how the CFP rankings mirror the BCS (when doing a simulated BCS comparison using the AP/Coaches Poll as part of the formula during the CFP era).

The part most are leaving out here is the affect the committee rankings has had on the AP/Coaches Poll AFTER the CFP rankings begin each year (this yr is all over the place and a bad example however).

There is no such effect of the CFP on the AP/Coaches. This was discussed a couple years ago and laid to rest. If anything, the human polls influence the CFP, as they come out before the CFP rankings.

The reason Boise/TCU types were ranked higher 10 years ago than AAC teams are ranked now is that they were better than the UCF/Cincy teams of today. The computers back then had them higher-ranked than the top AAC teams of today. For example, in 2010, going in to the bowls, the Massey Composite had TCU at #3 and Boise at #5. In 2017 and 2018, UCF was never higher than #8 in the MC (pre-bowls) during its two-year unbeaten run.

You forgot Cincy who went 12-0 in the regular season in 2009. The 2020 Bearcats are better than that team, especially on Defense. The 2009 Bearcats struggled on D down the stretch, poor depth. Not the case with this Bearcat team, the guys coming off of the bench are just as good as the guys they replace. We have an OLB?DE in the portal who was a starter 2 years ago on an 11-2 team and started some last year on an 11-2 team and he can't get any playing time...and he is a good player.

I mentioned 2009 Cincy in the follow-up post above. Whether today's Cincy is as good or better than 2009 Cincy is opinion. One thing to be said for Cincy in 2009 is they went unbeaten in a considerably better conference than Cincy this year. By the computers, the Big East in 2009 was the #2 overall conference, behind only the SEC. This year's AAC is nowhere close to that, no AAC year ever has ben. And that year's Cincy won 12 games, this year's has only won 8, and against no ranked teams. The 2009 team beat the #16, #17 and #18 teams in the final BCS standings.

But the point is, in the MC that year Cincy was #5. That's better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018. That's why TCU/Boise (and Cincy) were able to rise higher in the BCS than the AAC champs are rising in the playoffs these days. Has zero to do with an alleged CFP effect influencing the AP and Coaches polls.

(12-16-2020 04:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 12:17 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:37 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  There is no such effect of the CFP on the AP/Coaches. This was discussed a couple years ago and laid to rest. If anything, the human polls influence the CFP, as they come out before the CFP rankings.

The reason Boise/TCU types were ranked higher 10 years ago than AAC teams are ranked now is that they were better than the UCF/Cincy teams of today. The computers back then had them higher-ranked than the top AAC teams of today. For example, in 2010, going in to the bowls, the Massey Composite had TCU at #3 and Boise at #5. In 2017 and 2018, UCF was never higher than #8 in the MC (pre-bowls) during its two-year unbeaten run.

That's BS and you know it. Better than teams today? How can you say that when all you can go off of are comparable schedules? One thing of note, the BCS would rank teams higher than the AP/Coaches. The CFP ranks lower the the AP/Coaches. Both were pulled/influenced one way/other (IMO) by the BCS/CFP rankings. Was the MWC circa 2006-2012 better than the AAC circa 2014-2020? The teams in the MWC back then were ranked higher than the AAC teams today but were the schedules all that different? I can say for a fact the WAC sure wasn't better yet Boise was regularly getting higher ranked in the WAC than AAC teams today. Heck even Boise with a similar record on the MWC today doesn't get ranked as highly as they did in their hay-day.

BS? The MC rankings are what they are. Look at the rankings for early December 2010 - TCU is #3, Boise is #5. We're talking computers here not polls, so human bias isn't in the mix.

In 2009, in the MC, TCU was #4, Cincy was #5 and Boise was #7 going in to bowls. No AAC team has been that highly-ranked in the MC up to this year, and this year the MC is worthless because of lack of data points.

Remember, you can't just look at TCU in 2010 and compare them to say UCF in 2018. Rankings are relative to who you are competing against that year. One thing the CFP has done is make "the best teams better". The past five years we have these amazing Alabama and Clemson and Ohio State dynasties where they go 13-0 or 12-1 every year. Then you toss in teams like Notre Dame and LSU that have big years. In 2009 Alabama was just getting started and there was nobody like Clemson. More P5 teams are going unbeaten or with just one loss than was true during the BCS era. So a Cincy or UCF is facing tougher competition near the top than was true in 2009.

The Massey Composite includes FAR more polls, computers, and rankings than the BCS did (two human polls and average of 6 computers). I'm not sure how MC weights each ranking/poll either, or are all equal. But if you want to go with Massey Composite... Cincinnati (AAC) is currently #5 going into CCG week, which is right in line with Boise at #5 going into CCG week in December 2009 (sticking with my 2009 example).

The MC, like all computers, is basically useless this year because of the lack of data points. So just stick with years before 2020 to make comparisons.

As I've noted, UCF in 2017 and 2018 wasn't ranked as high in the Massey Composite as were TCU/Boise ten years ago. They don't make the playoffs using the BCS formula those years either.

Using those BCS rankings in a 4 team CFP model the following teams would've made the CFP during the BCS era ('98-'13)

Final BCS rankings:

2009 #4 TCU
2010 #3 TCU

Additionally there were a number of times BCS had those schools ranked #6 in the final ranking (better than the #8 or less that AAC teams and others have seen under final CFP rankings).

(12-16-2020 04:34 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 04:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 12:17 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:37 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  That's BS and you know it. Better than teams today? How can you say that when all you can go off of are comparable schedules? One thing of note, the BCS would rank teams higher than the AP/Coaches. The CFP ranks lower the the AP/Coaches. Both were pulled/influenced one way/other (IMO) by the BCS/CFP rankings. Was the MWC circa 2006-2012 better than the AAC circa 2014-2020? The teams in the MWC back then were ranked higher than the AAC teams today but were the schedules all that different? I can say for a fact the WAC sure wasn't better yet Boise was regularly getting higher ranked in the WAC than AAC teams today. Heck even Boise with a similar record on the MWC today doesn't get ranked as highly as they did in their hay-day.

BS? The MC rankings are what they are. Look at the rankings for early December 2010 - TCU is #3, Boise is #5. We're talking computers here not polls, so human bias isn't in the mix.

In 2009, in the MC, TCU was #4, Cincy was #5 and Boise was #7 going in to bowls. No AAC team has been that highly-ranked in the MC up to this year, and this year the MC is worthless because of lack of data points.

Remember, you can't just look at TCU in 2010 and compare them to say UCF in 2018. Rankings are relative to who you are competing against that year. One thing the CFP has done is make "the best teams better". The past five years we have these amazing Alabama and Clemson and Ohio State dynasties where they go 13-0 or 12-1 every year. Then you toss in teams like Notre Dame and LSU that have big years. In 2009 Alabama was just getting started and there was nobody like Clemson. More P5 teams are going unbeaten or with just one loss than was true during the BCS era. So a Cincy or UCF is facing tougher competition near the top than was true in 2009.

The Massey Composite includes FAR more polls, computers, and rankings than the BCS did (two human polls and average of 6 computers). I'm not sure how MC weights each ranking/poll either, or are all equal. But if you want to go with Massey Composite... Cincinnati (AAC) is currently #5 going into CCG week, which is right in line with Boise at #5 going into CCG week in December 2009 (sticking with my 2009 example).

The MC, like all computers, is basically useless this year because of the lack of data points. So just stick with years before 2020 to make comparisons.

As I've noted, UCF in 2017 and 2018 wasn't ranked as high in the Massey Composite as were TCU/Boise ten years ago. They don't make the playoffs using the BCS formula those years either.

Using those BCS rankings in a 4 team CFP model the following teams would've made the CFP during the BCS era ('98-'13)

Final BCS rankings:

2009 #4 TCU
2010 #3 TCU

Additionally there were a number of times BCS had those schools ranked #6 in the final ranking (better than the #8 or less that AAC teams and others have seen under final CFP rankings).

Yes, and that's because - at least objectively - those teams were better *relatively speaking* than the AAC teams of the past few years. Take the human element out, and the computers ranked those teams higher than they ranked the recent UCF, Memphis and Cincy teams.

(12-16-2020 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 12:49 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:12 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Many people I've seen like to say how the CFP rankings mirror the BCS (when doing a simulated BCS comparison using the AP/Coaches Poll as part of the formula during the CFP era).

The part most are leaving out here is the affect the committee rankings has had on the AP/Coaches Poll AFTER the CFP rankings begin each year (this yr is all over the place and a bad example however).

There is no such effect of the CFP on the AP/Coaches. This was discussed a couple years ago and laid to rest. If anything, the human polls influence the CFP, as they come out before the CFP rankings.

The reason Boise/TCU types were ranked higher 10 years ago than AAC teams are ranked now is that they were better than the UCF/Cincy teams of today. The computers back then had them higher-ranked than the top AAC teams of today. For example, in 2010, going in to the bowls, the Massey Composite had TCU at #3 and Boise at #5. In 2017 and 2018, UCF was never higher than #8 in the MC (pre-bowls) during its two-year unbeaten run.

You forgot Cincy who went 12-0 in the regular season in 2009. The 2020 Bearcats are better than that team, especially on Defense. The 2009 Bearcats struggled on D down the stretch, poor depth. Not the case with this Bearcat team, the guys coming off of the bench are just as good as the guys they replace. We have an OLB?DE in the portal who was a starter 2 years ago on an 11-2 team and started some last year on an 11-2 team and he can't get any playing time...and he is a good player.

I mentioned 2009 Cincy in the follow-up post above. Whether today's Cincy is as good or better than 2009 Cincy is opinion. One thing to be said for Cincy in 2009 is they went unbeaten in a considerably better conference than Cincy this year. By the computers, the Big East in 2009 was the #2 overall conference, behind only the SEC. This year's AAC is nowhere close to that, no AAC year ever has ben. And that year's Cincy won 12 games, this year's has only won 8, and against no ranked teams. The 2009 team beat the #16, #17 and #18 teams in the final BCS standings.

But the point is, in the MC that year Cincy was #5. That's better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018. That's why TCU/Boise (and Cincy) were able to rise higher in the BCS than the AAC champs are rising in the playoffs these days. Has zero to do with an alleged CFP effect influencing the AP and Coaches polls.

2017 MC had UCF at #9, CFP at #12. 2009 MC at Boise at #7 and BCS had Boise at #6. The BCS had Boise ranked 1 spot higher than the MC, and the CFP had UCF ranked 3 spots lower than the MC. That 4 spot different (1 higher vs 3 lower) is about all you need to know about the BCS vs the CFP.

Note: In regards to Cincy in 2009, the MC had them at #5, while the BCS had them at #3. Fast forward to 2020 and the MC again has them at #5 while the CFP has them at #9. The difference from #3 in the BCS to #9 in the CFP is MASSIVE, especially since the MC has them at #5 at the same point both years.

(12-16-2020 05:01 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 12:49 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:12 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Many people I've seen like to say how the CFP rankings mirror the BCS (when doing a simulated BCS comparison using the AP/Coaches Poll as part of the formula during the CFP era).

The part most are leaving out here is the affect the committee rankings has had on the AP/Coaches Poll AFTER the CFP rankings begin each year (this yr is all over the place and a bad example however).

There is no such effect of the CFP on the AP/Coaches. This was discussed a couple years ago and laid to rest. If anything, the human polls influence the CFP, as they come out before the CFP rankings.

The reason Boise/TCU types were ranked higher 10 years ago than AAC teams are ranked now is that they were better than the UCF/Cincy teams of today. The computers back then had them higher-ranked than the top AAC teams of today. For example, in 2010, going in to the bowls, the Massey Composite had TCU at #3 and Boise at #5. In 2017 and 2018, UCF was never higher than #8 in the MC (pre-bowls) during its two-year unbeaten run.

You forgot Cincy who went 12-0 in the regular season in 2009. The 2020 Bearcats are better than that team, especially on Defense. The 2009 Bearcats struggled on D down the stretch, poor depth. Not the case with this Bearcat team, the guys coming off of the bench are just as good as the guys they replace. We have an OLB?DE in the portal who was a starter 2 years ago on an 11-2 team and started some last year on an 11-2 team and he can't get any playing time...and he is a good player.

I mentioned 2009 Cincy in the follow-up post above. Whether today's Cincy is as good or better than 2009 Cincy is opinion. One thing to be said for Cincy in 2009 is they went unbeaten in a considerably better conference than Cincy this year. By the computers, the Big East in 2009 was the #2 overall conference, behind only the SEC. This year's AAC is nowhere close to that, no AAC year ever has ben. And that year's Cincy won 12 games, this year's has only won 8, and against no ranked teams. The 2009 team beat the #16, #17 and #18 teams in the final BCS standings.

But the point is, in the MC that year Cincy was #5. That's better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018. That's why TCU/Boise (and Cincy) were able to rise higher in the BCS than the AAC champs are rising in the playoffs these days. Has zero to do with an alleged CFP effect influencing the AP and Coaches polls.

2017 MC had UCF at #9, CFP at #12. 2009 MC at Boise at #7 and BCS had Boise at #6. The BCS had Boise ranked 1 spot higher than the MC, and the CFP had UCF ranked 3 spots lower than the MC. That 4 spot different (1 higher vs 3 lower) is about all you need to know about the BCS vs the CFP.

Note: In regards to Cincy in 2009, the MC had them at #5, while the BCS had them at #3. Fast forward to 2020 and the MC again has them at #5 while the CFP has them at #9. The difference from #3 in the BCS to #9 in the CFP is MASSIVE, especially since the MC has them at #5 at the same point both years.

Furthermore the AP and Coaches in 2009 had Cincy 1 spot higher than MC at #4, and the BCS formula still elevated them to #3 in 2009. Harris which was part of the BCS formula also had Cincy at #4.

(12-16-2020 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 12:49 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:12 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Many people I've seen like to say how the CFP rankings mirror the BCS (when doing a simulated BCS comparison using the AP/Coaches Poll as part of the formula during the CFP era).

The part most are leaving out here is the affect the committee rankings has had on the AP/Coaches Poll AFTER the CFP rankings begin each year (this yr is all over the place and a bad example however).

There is no such effect of the CFP on the AP/Coaches. This was discussed a couple years ago and laid to rest. If anything, the human polls influence the CFP, as they come out before the CFP rankings.

The reason Boise/TCU types were ranked higher 10 years ago than AAC teams are ranked now is that they were better than the UCF/Cincy teams of today. The computers back then had them higher-ranked than the top AAC teams of today. For example, in 2010, going in to the bowls, the Massey Composite had TCU at #3 and Boise at #5. In 2017 and 2018, UCF was never higher than #8 in the MC (pre-bowls) during its two-year unbeaten run.

You forgot Cincy who went 12-0 in the regular season in 2009. The 2020 Bearcats are better than that team, especially on Defense. The 2009 Bearcats struggled on D down the stretch, poor depth. Not the case with this Bearcat team, the guys coming off of the bench are just as good as the guys they replace. We have an OLB?DE in the portal who was a starter 2 years ago on an 11-2 team and started some last year on an 11-2 team and he can't get any playing time...and he is a good player.

I mentioned 2009 Cincy in the follow-up post above. Whether today's Cincy is as good or better than 2009 Cincy is opinion. One thing to be said for Cincy in 2009 is they went unbeaten in a considerably better conference than Cincy this year. By the computers, the Big East in 2009 was the #2 overall conference, behind only the SEC. This year's AAC is nowhere close to that, no AAC year ever has ben. And that year's Cincy won 12 games, this year's has only won 8, and against no ranked teams. The 2009 team beat the #16, #17 and #18 teams in the final BCS standings.

But the point is, in the MC that year Cincy was #5. That's better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018. That's why TCU/Boise (and Cincy) were able to rise higher in the BCS than the AAC champs are rising in the playoffs these days. Has zero to do with an alleged CFP effect influencing the AP and Coaches polls.

and Cincy is #5 in the MC right now. Yeah the schedule in 2009 was more difficult, and multiple W's were closer. Fresno, WVU, Pitt and Uconn were all really close games. I know UC football better, much better than you. 2020 is a better team.

(12-16-2020 05:14 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 12:49 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:12 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Many people I've seen like to say how the CFP rankings mirror the BCS (when doing a simulated BCS comparison using the AP/Coaches Poll as part of the formula during the CFP era).

The part most are leaving out here is the affect the committee rankings has had on the AP/Coaches Poll AFTER the CFP rankings begin each year (this yr is all over the place and a bad example however).

There is no such effect of the CFP on the AP/Coaches. This was discussed a couple years ago and laid to rest. If anything, the human polls influence the CFP, as they come out before the CFP rankings.

The reason Boise/TCU types were ranked higher 10 years ago than AAC teams are ranked now is that they were better than the UCF/Cincy teams of today. The computers back then had them higher-ranked than the top AAC teams of today. For example, in 2010, going in to the bowls, the Massey Composite had TCU at #3 and Boise at #5. In 2017 and 2018, UCF was never higher than #8 in the MC (pre-bowls) during its two-year unbeaten run.

You forgot Cincy who went 12-0 in the regular season in 2009. The 2020 Bearcats are better than that team, especially on Defense. The 2009 Bearcats struggled on D down the stretch, poor depth. Not the case with this Bearcat team, the guys coming off of the bench are just as good as the guys they replace. We have an OLB?DE in the portal who was a starter 2 years ago on an 11-2 team and started some last year on an 11-2 team and he can't get any playing time...and he is a good player.

I mentioned 2009 Cincy in the follow-up post above. Whether today's Cincy is as good or better than 2009 Cincy is opinion. One thing to be said for Cincy in 2009 is they went unbeaten in a considerably better conference than Cincy this year. By the computers, the Big East in 2009 was the #2 overall conference, behind only the SEC. This year's AAC is nowhere close to that, no AAC year ever has ben. And that year's Cincy won 12 games, this year's has only won 8, and against no ranked teams. The 2009 team beat the #16, #17 and #18 teams in the final BCS standings.

But the point is, in the MC that year Cincy was #5. That's better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018. That's why TCU/Boise (and Cincy) were able to rise higher in the BCS than the AAC champs are rising in the playoffs these days. Has zero to do with an alleged CFP effect influencing the AP and Coaches polls.

and Cincy is #5 in the MC right now. Yeah the schedule in 2009 was more difficult, and multiple W's were closer. Fresno, WVU, Pitt and Uconn were all really close games. I know UC football better, much better than you. 2020 is a better team.

I'm not arguing that '09 Cincy might be better than '20 Cincy. The other poster keeps bringing up the MC as if it's the end all over all, so I was comparing MC to BCS and CFP in both eras. Obviously conference plays a role as well. If the Big East were alive and well or if Cincy was in a current P5, I have joined doubt that Cincy would be in the CFP Top 4 right now with an 8-0 record.

Sent from my LM-G820 using CSNbbs mobile app

(12-16-2020 05:04 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 05:01 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 12:49 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  There is no such effect of the CFP on the AP/Coaches. This was discussed a couple years ago and laid to rest. If anything, the human polls influence the CFP, as they come out before the CFP rankings.

The reason Boise/TCU types were ranked higher 10 years ago than AAC teams are ranked now is that they were better than the UCF/Cincy teams of today. The computers back then had them higher-ranked than the top AAC teams of today. For example, in 2010, going in to the bowls, the Massey Composite had TCU at #3 and Boise at #5. In 2017 and 2018, UCF was never higher than #8 in the MC (pre-bowls) during its two-year unbeaten run.

You forgot Cincy who went 12-0 in the regular season in 2009. The 2020 Bearcats are better than that team, especially on Defense. The 2009 Bearcats struggled on D down the stretch, poor depth. Not the case with this Bearcat team, the guys coming off of the bench are just as good as the guys they replace. We have an OLB?DE in the portal who was a starter 2 years ago on an 11-2 team and started some last year on an 11-2 team and he can't get any playing time...and he is a good player.

I mentioned 2009 Cincy in the follow-up post above. Whether today's Cincy is as good or better than 2009 Cincy is opinion. One thing to be said for Cincy in 2009 is they went unbeaten in a considerably better conference than Cincy this year. By the computers, the Big East in 2009 was the #2 overall conference, behind only the SEC. This year's AAC is nowhere close to that, no AAC year ever has ben. And that year's Cincy won 12 games, this year's has only won 8, and against no ranked teams. The 2009 team beat the #16, #17 and #18 teams in the final BCS standings.

But the point is, in the MC that year Cincy was #5. That's better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018. That's why TCU/Boise (and Cincy) were able to rise higher in the BCS than the AAC champs are rising in the playoffs these days. Has zero to do with an alleged CFP effect influencing the AP and Coaches polls.

2017 MC had UCF at #9, CFP at #12. 2009 MC at Boise at #7 and BCS had Boise at #6. The BCS had Boise ranked 1 spot higher than the MC, and the CFP had UCF ranked 3 spots lower than the MC. That 4 spot different (1 higher vs 3 lower) is about all you need to know about the BCS vs the CFP.

Note: In regards to Cincy in 2009, the MC had them at #5, while the BCS had them at #3. Fast forward to 2020 and the MC again has them at #5 while the CFP has them at #9. The difference from #3 in the BCS to #9 in the CFP is MASSIVE, especially since the MC has them at #5 at the same point both years.

Furthermore the AP and Coaches in 2009 had Cincy 1 spot higher than MC at #4, and the BCS formula still elevated them to #3 in 2009. Harris which was part of the BCS formula also had Cincy at #4.

If Nebraska had beaten Texas UC was headed to the Championship Game. Think it was the refs who put a second back on the clock and Texas hit the winning FG.

I think OP has this just a bit off. I think the AP and Coaches poll have taken on much more of a CFB-playoff ranking style ever since the 1st playoff ranking. Heck, all the talk with the CFB Playoff picking the "best" not "most deserving" teams even probably influenced early 2014 AP and Coaches Poll results.

And don't forget that most of the BCS Computer Rankings changed their methodologies following the 2013 season. They began incorporating recruiting data, began factoring in scoring differential, and some even included prior years' data as feeders. The computer rankings definitely shifted to more "predictive" than "most deserving".

We should do some simple regression analysis. I think the data would pretty clearly show that Cincy would be Top 5 in the BCS if the voters and computers behaved exactly as they did in 2013.

(12-16-2020 11:12 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Many people I've seen like to say how the CFP rankings mirror the BCS (when doing a simulated BCS comparison using the AP/Coaches Poll as part of the formula during the CFP era).

The part most are leaving out here is the affect the committee rankings has had on the AP/Coaches Poll AFTER the CFP rankings begin each year

This is a fallacy because nothing is done in a vacuum. There has never been a season in which the polls were objective and not affected by outside forces. Sportswriters and broadcasters with big platforms influence the voters, prominent coaches influence the voters; voters get swayed by big names, or swayed in favor of coaches they like and maybe against coaches or players they don't like. There's no way to say the polls were "more pure" in one year or one period of time than another.

(12-16-2020 05:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:12 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Many people I've seen like to say how the CFP rankings mirror the BCS (when doing a simulated BCS comparison using the AP/Coaches Poll as part of the formula during the CFP era).

The part most are leaving out here is the affect the committee rankings has had on the AP/Coaches Poll AFTER the CFP rankings begin each year

This is a fallacy because nothing is done in a vacuum. There has never been a season in which the polls were objective and not affected by outside forces. Sportswriters and broadcasters with big platforms influence the voters, prominent coaches influence the voters; voters get swayed by big names, or swayed in favor of coaches they like and maybe against coaches or players they don't like. There's no way to say the polls were "more pure" in one year or one period of time than another.

If a school gets ranked surprisingly high in the CFP, they tend to move up in the AP and Coaches poll. They definitely get influenced. Plus ESPN talks constantly about the CFP and not the other polls.

(12-16-2020 05:14 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 12:49 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:12 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Many people I've seen like to say how the CFP rankings mirror the BCS (when doing a simulated BCS comparison using the AP/Coaches Poll as part of the formula during the CFP era).

The part most are leaving out here is the affect the committee rankings has had on the AP/Coaches Poll AFTER the CFP rankings begin each year (this yr is all over the place and a bad example however).

There is no such effect of the CFP on the AP/Coaches. This was discussed a couple years ago and laid to rest. If anything, the human polls influence the CFP, as they come out before the CFP rankings.

The reason Boise/TCU types were ranked higher 10 years ago than AAC teams are ranked now is that they were better than the UCF/Cincy teams of today. The computers back then had them higher-ranked than the top AAC teams of today. For example, in 2010, going in to the bowls, the Massey Composite had TCU at #3 and Boise at #5. In 2017 and 2018, UCF was never higher than #8 in the MC (pre-bowls) during its two-year unbeaten run.

You forgot Cincy who went 12-0 in the regular season in 2009. The 2020 Bearcats are better than that team, especially on Defense. The 2009 Bearcats struggled on D down the stretch, poor depth. Not the case with this Bearcat team, the guys coming off of the bench are just as good as the guys they replace. We have an OLB?DE in the portal who was a starter 2 years ago on an 11-2 team and started some last year on an 11-2 team and he can't get any playing time...and he is a good player.

I mentioned 2009 Cincy in the follow-up post above. Whether today's Cincy is as good or better than 2009 Cincy is opinion. One thing to be said for Cincy in 2009 is they went unbeaten in a considerably better conference than Cincy this year. By the computers, the Big East in 2009 was the #2 overall conference, behind only the SEC. This year's AAC is nowhere close to that, no AAC year ever has ben. And that year's Cincy won 12 games, this year's has only won 8, and against no ranked teams. The 2009 team beat the #16, #17 and #18 teams in the final BCS standings.

But the point is, in the MC that year Cincy was #5. That's better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018. That's why TCU/Boise (and Cincy) were able to rise higher in the BCS than the AAC champs are rising in the playoffs these days. Has zero to do with an alleged CFP effect influencing the AP and Coaches polls.

and Cincy is #5 in the MC right now. Yeah the schedule in 2009 was more difficult, and multiple W's were closer. Fresno, WVU, Pitt and Uconn were all really close games. I know UC football better, much better than you. 2020 is a better team.

The MC is meaningless this year, too few data points, the computers are using last year's numbers and other fillers to compensate.

Sometimes an outsider is more objective. The 2009 team seemed more dynamic and talented. I remember being impressed by Tony Pike.

Anyway, the 2009 resume was much stronger than the 2020 resume.

(12-16-2020 05:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 05:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:12 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Many people I've seen like to say how the CFP rankings mirror the BCS (when doing a simulated BCS comparison using the AP/Coaches Poll as part of the formula during the CFP era).

The part most are leaving out here is the affect the committee rankings has had on the AP/Coaches Poll AFTER the CFP rankings begin each year

This is a fallacy because nothing is done in a vacuum. There has never been a season in which the polls were objective and not affected by outside forces. Sportswriters and broadcasters with big platforms influence the voters, prominent coaches influence the voters; voters get swayed by big names, or swayed in favor of coaches they like and maybe against coaches or players they don't like. There's no way to say the polls were "more pure" in one year or one period of time than another.

If a school gets ranked surprisingly high in the CFP, they tend to move up in the AP and Coaches poll. They definitely get influenced. Plus ESPN talks constantly about the CFP and not the other polls.

But there were substantial influences on the polls before the CFP. The polls have always been subjective and swayed by outside influences.

(12-16-2020 05:01 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 12:49 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2020 11:12 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Many people I've seen like to say how the CFP rankings mirror the BCS (when doing a simulated BCS comparison using the AP/Coaches Poll as part of the formula during the CFP era).

The part most are leaving out here is the affect the committee rankings has had on the AP/Coaches Poll AFTER the CFP rankings begin each year (this yr is all over the place and a bad example however).

There is no such effect of the CFP on the AP/Coaches. This was discussed a couple years ago and laid to rest. If anything, the human polls influence the CFP, as they come out before the CFP rankings.

The reason Boise/TCU types were ranked higher 10 years ago than AAC teams are ranked now is that they were better than the UCF/Cincy teams of today. The computers back then had them higher-ranked than the top AAC teams of today. For example, in 2010, going in to the bowls, the Massey Composite had TCU at #3 and Boise at #5. In 2017 and 2018, UCF was never higher than #8 in the MC (pre-bowls) during its two-year unbeaten run.

You forgot Cincy who went 12-0 in the regular season in 2009. The 2020 Bearcats are better than that team, especially on Defense. The 2009 Bearcats struggled on D down the stretch, poor depth. Not the case with this Bearcat team, the guys coming off of the bench are just as good as the guys they replace. We have an OLB?DE in the portal who was a starter 2 years ago on an 11-2 team and started some last year on an 11-2 team and he can't get any playing time...and he is a good player.

I mentioned 2009 Cincy in the follow-up post above. Whether today's Cincy is as good or better than 2009 Cincy is opinion. One thing to be said for Cincy in 2009 is they went unbeaten in a considerably better conference than Cincy this year. By the computers, the Big East in 2009 was the #2 overall conference, behind only the SEC. This year's AAC is nowhere close to that, no AAC year ever has ben. And that year's Cincy won 12 games, this year's has only won 8, and against no ranked teams. The 2009 team beat the #16, #17 and #18 teams in the final BCS standings.

But the point is, in the MC that year Cincy was #5. That's better than UCF was in 2017 and 2018. That's why TCU/Boise (and Cincy) were able to rise higher in the BCS than the AAC champs are rising in the playoffs these days. Has zero to do with an alleged CFP effect influencing the AP and Coaches polls.

2017 MC had UCF at #9, CFP at #12. 2009 MC at Boise at #7 and BCS had Boise at #6. The BCS had Boise ranked 1 spot higher than the MC, and the CFP had UCF ranked 3 spots lower than the MC. That 4 spot different (1 higher vs 3 lower) is about all you need to know about the BCS vs the CFP.

If I understood you correctly, you do not think it is meaningless to say that CFP rankings mirror simulated BCS rankings, because you think the CFP rankings influence the polls, and thus the BCS rankings. This implies that if the CFP did not exist, BCS rankings these past six years would have significantly differed from what we see with the simulated rankings.

Problem is, we can look at computers, because surely the CFP rankings do not influence the computers. And the computers do not agree with your hypothesis. They show that the top non-AQ teams of 10 years ago were ranked higher than the top G5 teams of the past few years. This suggests that there is no CFP "drag" on the AP/Coaches polls that is artificially dampening the simulated BCS rankings of these recent AAC champ teams.