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!
All human beings are biased. You are talking yourself in circles justifying one avenue of subjective analysis that supports Bama, and completely ignoring that the the subjective justification of FSU not being as good without JT (fair) is not a completed thought, because it is truly impossible to answer how good they would have been with Rodemaker
Committee is like the Supreme Court. Protocol interpreted to fit desired outcome.
Line up the 5 factors. Evaluate the teams against them.
I don't need to, they did it for us last week. Using the same criteria, the Committee had 12-0 FSU at #4 following a rivalry win vs UF (Rodemaker), and Bama at #8 following a rivalry win vs. UA (Hail Mary).
Things changed since last week. Only one ratings matters, the last one. The Committee has numerous data points on FSU w/o Travis. Your refusal to look at the criteria and evaluate the teams says much.
How would you calculate SOS? There are numerous approaches. This is just one.
I believe that's how SOS was calculated as part of RPI, which isn't used any more.
And around and around we go. Please tell me what changed, because from my POV, they only really had one (singular) data point to evaluate the FSU team that would have showed up in the CFP, and when they did that, with their criteria, they had FSU at #4. Just admit that FSU was unfairly penalized for being forced into a temporary QB in an inopportune time
I’d factor in out of conference record as well as adjust for 8 vs 9 game conf schedules.
Finally. Something we can all agree on.
Ok. SoS is important. Blind resume time:
| Team | Conf Champs | SoS ranking | vs top 10 | vs top 30 |
1 | Yes | 5 | 2-0 | 6-0 |
2 | Yes | 61 | 0-0 | 3-0 |
3 | Yes | 12 | 1-1 | 5-1 |
4 | Yes | 4 | 1-1 | 6-1 |
5 | Yes | 51 | 2-0 | 2-0 |
6 | No | 19 | 1-1 | 4-2 |
7 | No | 36 | 1-1 | 2-1 |
I didn't look anything up and I'd pick 1, 3, 4, 5. First criteria for me was conf champ, then SoS.
These are not the only data the Committee used. Why use incomplete, selective data?. Supply all the data according to the criteria and I will choose.
You take the committee at their word. I don't.
You can assume that "vs. common opponent" outcomes are the same, because apparently site location and margin of victory doesn't matter. Point 5 (availability) is too vague to summarize in a table. Added H2H victory. that covers all 5 relevant factors. Go:
| Team | Conf Champs | SoS ranking | H2H Victory(ies) | vs top 10 | vs top 30 |
1 | Yes | 5 | 0 | 2-0 | 6-0 |
2 | Yes | 61 | 0 | 0-0 | 3-0 |
3 | Yes | 12 | 0 | 1-1 | 5-1 |
4 | Yes | 4 | vs. team 3 | 1-1 | 6-1 |
5 | Yes | 51 | vs. team 7 | 2-0 | 2-0 |
6 | No | 19 | vs. team 4 | 1-1 | 4-2 |
7 | No | 36 | 0 | 1-1 | 2-1 |
in that order?
That’s fine. They explained the decision according to the criteria. What should they have done?
No, in order of original list. But my list based on the listed criteria. I agree with hawg1 that this list of criteria doesn't reflect the selection committee criteria - ie, if a given team has had an impactful change (injury), then that's also a factor. But I only considered the factors that were given.
Point 5 is important. There is no reason to selectively leave it out of the criteria.
to add: I also think any of the 4 have at least a decent chance at winning it all. I wouldn't say that if FSU was included with the injured QB. Which is too bad, the QB injury really screwed FSU, both competitively and money wise. But thinking that any of the 4 could win, to me, makes it even more interesting.
Told the truth.
Glib.
Did they fully explicate how they grouped nearly comparable teams?
Two things with this: 1) it came from ESPN (one of the main culprits in this if you are one that believes that Bama was put in for ratings purposes) and 2) From the article - "All of us had the emotional tie, like, 'Holy s---, this is really going to suck to do this,'" one committee member told ESPN. "We talked about that over and over, and we just kept coming back [to] are they good enough with what they have to win a national championship, and it just kept coming back [to] we didn't think they could."
Please explain why the games are even played.
