|
|
Post by northcountymike on Jan 2, 2018 10:22:18 GMT -8
I'd like to believe this, I really would. However, when you back your argument only by saying "it's biased" (and twice, mind you), it lends little credibility to your argument. How is it biased? I'm honestly curious. On the flip side, I know plenty of times when we've tried using SOS as an argument to make our team look better, both in football and basketball - we didn't say it was "biased" then. Whenever you evaluate two teams based on paper and not them playing it is a subjective evaluation that is riddled with bias. There is no way around it. Hell, Stanford was ranked ahead of SDSU. Did that make them a better team? On the field result says different. There must be a clear path for every team in the FBS to win a NC or it is just a popularity contest. The bias of the selection committee and the talking heads at ESPN will always protect their own power and interests in the rankings. How is it you cant see this? Let's stay on topic, shall we? You said strength of schedule was biased. I asked why. Now you're talking about rankings and ESPN's talking heads and popularity contests. Which one is it? The latter most certainly is biased. However, I don't believe computer-based SOS nor the findings that result from hoards of nerds crunching numbers regarding schedule strength are technically biased. |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Jan 2, 2018 10:27:24 GMT -8
Whenever you evaluate two teams based on paper and not them playing it is a subjective evaluation that is riddled with bias. There is no way around it. Hell, Stanford was ranked ahead of SDSU. Did that make them a better team? On the field result says different. There must be a clear path for every team in the FBS to win a NC or it is just a popularity contest. The bias of the selection committee and the talking heads at ESPN will always protect their own power and interests in the rankings. How is it you cant see this? Let's stay on topic, shall we? You said strength of schedule was biased. I asked why. Now you're talking about rankings and ESPN's talking heads and popularity contests. Which one is it? The latter most certainly is biased. However, I don't believe computer-based SOS nor the findings that result from hoards of nerds crunching numbers regarding schedule strength are technically biased. I think what he is saying is the strength of schedule comes from how highly ranked your opponents are. Therefore, if the rankings are skewed to favor P5 teams, then the strength of schedule would also be affected. G5 teams have a horrible SOS because they play their conference teams who are ranked low. |
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 2, 2018 10:33:48 GMT -8
Whenever you evaluate two teams based on paper and not them playing it is a subjective evaluation that is riddled with bias. There is no way around it. Hell, Stanford was ranked ahead of SDSU. Did that make them a better team? On the field result says different. There must be a clear path for every team in the FBS to win a NC or it is just a popularity contest. The bias of the selection committee and the talking heads at ESPN will always protect their own power and interests in the rankings. How is it you cant see this? Let's stay on topic, shall we? You said strength of schedule was biased. I asked why. Now you're talking about rankings and ESPN's talking heads and popularity contests. Which one is it? The latter most certainly is biased. However, I don't believe computer-based SOS nor the findings that result from hoards of nerds crunching numbers regarding schedule strength are technically biased. The problem is that you have to start with some assumptions to develop your strength of schedule model. The fact that there are several different SOS evaluations shows that there is bias inherent in that system. If it was a purely objective system then there would only be one. Clearly that is not the case. When there are assumptions and subjectivity there will always be bias that skews the results. The only deviation from this argument would be if SOS was based ONLY on W/L records. |
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Jan 2, 2018 11:06:15 GMT -8
Let's stay on topic, shall we? You said strength of schedule was biased. I asked why. Now you're talking about rankings and ESPN's talking heads and popularity contests. Which one is it? The latter most certainly is biased. However, I don't believe computer-based SOS nor the findings that result from hoards of nerds crunching numbers regarding schedule strength are technically biased. The problem is that you have to start with some assumptions to develop your strength of schedule model. The fact that there are several different SOS evaluations shows that there is bias inherent in that system. If it was a purely objective system then there would only be one. Clearly that is not the case. When there are assumptions and subjectivity there will always be bias that skews the results. The only deviation from this argument would be if SOS was based ONLY on W/L records. I wonder how (if at all) it's different in basketball. |
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jan 2, 2018 11:10:25 GMT -8
The problem is that you have to start with some assumptions to develop your strength of schedule model. The fact that there are several different SOS evaluations shows that there is bias inherent in that system. If it was a purely objective system then there would only be one. Clearly that is not the case. When there are assumptions and subjectivity there will always be bias that skews the results. The only deviation from this argument would be if SOS was based ONLY on W/L records. I wonder how (if at all) it's different in basketball. I dont think it is different at all in basketball. The key difference in basketball is that there is a clear road for any team to win a NC. The autobid criteria for all conferences is the same. Win your conference tourney and get it. While you can argue the merits of that at least everyone plays by the same rules for an autobid. |
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jan 2, 2018 12:07:16 GMT -8
Ucf will lose by 30 to whoever they play. UCF beat Auburn. I thought they would lose by 30. Don't believe the CFP hype machine. It's not real. Thank you, count for bringing up my bold prediction. |
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Jan 2, 2018 12:09:58 GMT -8
I wonder how (if at all) it's different in basketball. I dont think it is different at all in basketball. The key difference in basketball is that there is a clear road for any team to win a NC. The autobid criteria for all conferences is the same. Win your conference tourney and get it. While you can argue the merits of that at least everyone plays by the same rules for an autobid. So, it is different in basektball then  . |
|
|
|
Post by aztecnails on Jan 2, 2018 13:25:56 GMT -8
The powers that be DON'T want a repeat of 1985 when by puke stole that title playing a 50-50 team in the holiday bowl. Washington was the second best team that year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 14:47:24 GMT -8
Last year, UCF was 6-7. The year before they were 0-12. They’ve just completed a magical season. Their status as a team has been raised immeasurably. If they are decently ranked in the preseason AND win out next year they will be able to get into the 4 team playoff.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jan 2, 2018 15:24:17 GMT -8
72 teams in the top conferences. Divide into 8 conferences of 9 teams each. Play 8 conference games. Winners of each conference go into 8 game playoff. Bottom teams in each conference drop out and are replaced by the top 8 teams in the lower division. The whole thing is scheduled and run by a single controlling organization. TV Monies are divided to teams at different tiers.
1. Upper division playoff teams
2. Upper division teams
3. Lower division CHAMPS
4 lower division teams
|
|
|
|
Post by tonatiuh on Jan 2, 2018 15:35:56 GMT -8
UCF doesn't have a single win against a P5 school. Last I checked Maryland was in the Big 10. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Right, and neither they ,or Rutgers belong there at all!  But, like I mentioned in an earlier post which some argued that they (UCF) didn't belong because they didn't play a tough enough schedule. My only point was that it didn't matter who they played because you still have to be doing something right just to go undefeated. I was only promoting them for the 4 team playoffs because I knew if they got the opportunity to get in it would open the door for future G5 teams to have a chance to make it in the playoffs. Of course, the NCAA/ P5 teams would not allow that, and that's why we need to go to a complete playoff system like the lower divisions currently do now. It has already been proven to work so why not? (NFL does the Same!)  |
|
|
|
Post by tonatiuh on Jan 2, 2018 15:39:47 GMT -8
The powers that be DON'T want a repeat of 1985 when by puke stole that title playing a 50-50 team in the holiday bowl. Washington was the second best team that year. Close, but that was actually 1984 when they beat Michigan in the Holiday Bowl played in December! |
|
.
