The SoS services don’t know that. They are agnostic to rankings. They use game outcomes.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Official CFP Selection Freakout Thread
- Thread starter Alfred91
- Start date
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
Mich and UGA both light on marquee opponents.
I don't know. I think Georgia probably beats Michigan 7 out of 10 times. But I could be wrong.
But I definitely want to see Michigan tested. I didn't want to see them get a freebie against FSU. Why do you think the team clenched their sphincters in synchrony when it was announced that Alabama, and not FSU, would be their opponent?
Most have some quantitative measure of talent on rosters.
When was Georgia "tested" prior to yesterday? Neither team played even a mediocre OOC schedule and Michigan had the harder conference schedule.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
As evidenced by the fact they have a team who didn't play a game against a ranked opponent until November 11 at number 1 in their final rankings, right?
One more note on Michigan's schedule-IIRC, the only team they played that finished with a winning record between Labor Day and that game against Penn State was UNLV.
If the committee really used SOS like you're trying to argue they do, Georgia wouldn't have been number one up until yesterday, and Michigan would not be number one right.
Washington has the best resume in the sport right now, and its not close.
I don’t understand them that way. But I will look.
Can you just make the argument for FSU over Bama using the Committee criteria?
These other twists and turns are fun debates, but I suggest we all get back to how the Committee made their decision.
Thanks.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
- Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.
In my view, we should be rewarding a team like Florida State for finding a way to get things down without their QB, not punishing them because he got hurt.
Last edited:
Huh? I think you misunderstood my point. My point was that I wanted to see the champion tested with two wins against the top 4. Had Georgia made the playoff, I would want to see them do that too.
But to reply to your post, not a bad run:
I think it was a down year for the SEC, but I think they were better than the Big Ten.
Wait. You don’t know the protocol criteria? They are in the charter. They were shown on the ESPN show today. We may now be getting to the heart of this situation.
I looked at Massy, Sagarin, SP+ and FPI. I don’t see where roster make-up is a factor.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
The point I was trying to make is they use the criteria selectively.
Here's an example-If they use SOS as much as you think they do, explain why Michigan (who played one team with a winning record and zero ranked opponents until 11/11) is ahead of Washington (5 top 25 wins).
Not comparable would be my guess. You would have to ask the Committee.
But this is about FsU and Bama. Apply the criteria. Which one should have been chosen? Apply all five.
Why would criteria not be weighted?
Where is the starting point for each season?
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
He says rankings, records, strength of conf doesn’t matter. Then he says something something protocol.
Would one of you 35 year olds find out who ChatGPT would have chosen for the playoff?
Because several of them are binary choices.
There is not one. It gets populated and weighted by opponents win percentage and opponent’s opponents win percentages.
In that case, a great benefit of an 8-game conference schedule for the SEC.
SP+ is a bit different too.
You’ve already proven you don’t know the criteria elsewhere. That disqualifies you from the discussion.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Conference Championships-Even
SOS-Even/slight edge to Alabama in my view. Alabama does have a better win, but they also have a loss. That loss was also at home.
Head to Head-doesn't apply.
Comparative outcomes against common opponents-FSU. They beat LSU on a neutral field, while Alabama beat them at home. That's the way a computer would see that, no?
Unavailability of key players-This is FSU and I've already explained why. If you go 2-0 without your starting QB, you should be rewarded for that. Not punished in my view.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
That's my issue. You can't make a rational argument for SOS being a huge factor given who wound up number 1 in these rankings.
The Committee does not see SOS and key player availability like you. The key player availability is about impact on postseason. I think you are interpreting it incorrectly. They use SOS date not eyeballs like you.
Thanks for doing the exercise.
UDub at +750 is very good value.