Week 14 Discussion

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • illwill10
    Hall Of Fame
    • Mar 2009
    • 19828

    #181
    Re: Week 14 Discussion

    Originally posted by canes21
    Committee has said all year they won't punish conference game losers and then come out and reverse that tonight. To the surprise of nobody they remain consistently inconsistent.
    Not surprising, just wild to say that out loud. If that's the case, a team that's in the field is better off not making the championship game
    Originally posted by mercalnd
    Remember that the 5 highest ranked conference champions are guaranteed a spot. So leaving the Big 12 champ out doesn't help SMU or Bama since another conference champ would replace the Big 12 champ.
    You're right. I think I still had Tulane having a chance to be a playoff team had they not got upset. Barring a SMU or BSU upset, the Big 12 team will likely get the 12th seed.

    Comment

    • LowerWolf
      Hall Of Fame
      • Jun 2006
      • 12270

      #182
      Re: Week 14 Discussion

      I'm mostly OK with last night's rankings. It is a bit frustrating that Alabama and Ohio State always seem to get the benefit of the doubt, but it's not an unreasonable take for them to be ranked where they're at. I'd have been fine with Miami being ranked ahead of Alabama as well.

      I'll be more irked if SMU (if it loses) is slotted behind Alabama next week. If you're safely in now, you should still be in if you lose your conference championship game.

      I know a lot of Vols fans are unhappy that we're likely hitting the road for our first playoff game. I had zero expectation we'd be ranked higher than Ohio State. And I'm OK with that too.

      At the end of the day, everybody is trying to judge teams that are flawed in one way or another. Sucks that in 2024 we still have a subjective system, but it is what it is.

      Comment

      • canes21
        Hall Of Fame
        • Sep 2008
        • 22931

        #183
        Re: Week 14 Discussion

        Originally posted by LowerWolf
        I'm mostly OK with last night's rankings. It is a bit frustrating that Alabama and Ohio State always seem to get the benefit of the doubt, but it's not an unreasonable take for them to be ranked where they're at. I'd have been fine with Miami being ranked ahead of Alabama as well.

        I'll be more irked if SMU (if it loses) is slotted behind Alabama next week. If you're safely in now, you should still be in if you lose your conference championship game.

        I know a lot of Vols fans are unhappy that we're likely hitting the road for our first playoff game. I had zero expectation we'd be ranked higher than Ohio State. And I'm OK with that too.

        At the end of the day, everybody is trying to judge teams that are flawed in one way or another. Sucks that in 2024 we still have a subjective system, but it is what it is.
        Having a subjective system is the root cause of it all, imo. If we're going to have a playoff, have an actual playoff. What we have now is an invitational.

        We have 10 conferences and 12 slots. Give 10 of the slots to all 10 conference champions. Give the last 2 to at-large teams. Remove the committee, bring back the computers, remove any human polls from the computer formula, take the 2 highest ranked teams that aren't conference champions and put them in the at-large spots.

        Would be far less subjective and frustrating than what this playoff system has been nearly every single year since its inception.
        “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”


        ― Plato

        Comment

        • Tovarich
          Hall Of Fame
          • Jul 2008
          • 10914

          #184
          Re: Week 14 Discussion

          Originally posted by LowerWolf

          I'll be more irked if SMU (if it loses) is slotted behind Alabama next week. If you're safely in now, you should still be in if you lose your conference championship game.
          What would be irking about SMU with no ranked wins getting left out? "We lost to the whole two ranked teams we played but we beat all these 7-5 teams, so give us a playoff spot over that team who went 3-1 against the top 20 because they played a way tougher schedule than us and lost one more game than we did" is a sad argument for getting a playoff spot. Either way you declare it to me, "Our best win is beating Louisville!" or "But but but they have one extra loss! So just ignore the 3 ranked wins they have to our zero because we lost all of ours", it doesn't sound like they have accomplished anything.

          It's already bad enough they're going to let in a team who beat ONE winning team and probably three who still haven't beaten one single current top 25 team. It's clear already 12 teams is watering it down too much. Rewarding of these weak schedules again like they did with Liberty last year is just going to encourage teams to play Kent State, Southern Mississippi, Kennesaw State and New Mexico State every year and encourage conferences to manipulate their elite teams' records by avoiding them playing each other as much as possible because of some arbitrary declaration that a third loss magically eliminates you and we just lazily rank everyone by record. The regular season being diminished already was apparent and everyone will be playing Indiana schedules soon if they get rewarded for it, which will only make it worse.

          Comment

          • LowerWolf
            Hall Of Fame
            • Jun 2006
            • 12270

            #185
            Re: Week 14 Discussion

            Originally posted by Tovarich
            What would be irking about SMU with no ranked wins getting left out? "We lost to the whole two ranked teams we played but we beat all these 7-5 teams, so give us a playoff spot over that team who went 3-1 against the top 20 because they played a way tougher schedule than us and lost one more game than we did" is a sad argument for getting a playoff spot. Either way you declare it to me, "Our best win is beating Louisville!" or "But but but they have one extra loss! So just ignore the 3 ranked wins they have to our zero because we lost all of ours", it doesn't sound like they have accomplished anything.

            It's already bad enough they're going to let in a team who beat ONE winning team and probably three who still haven't beaten one single current top 25 team. It's clear already 12 teams is watering it down too much. Rewarding of these weak schedules again like they did with Liberty last year is just going to encourage teams to play Kent State, Southern Mississippi, Kennesaw State and New Mexico State every year and encourage conferences to manipulate their elite teams' records by avoiding them playing each other as much as possible because of some arbitrary declaration that a third loss magically eliminates you and we just lazily rank everyone by record. The regular season being diminished already was apparent and everyone will be playing Indiana schedules soon if they get rewarded for it, which will only make it worse.
            Criticism of their schedule is fair, but the committee currently doesn't have a problem with it since they have SMU ranked 8th, which is safely in the field. Using it as an excuse to drop them completely out after they've lost an extra game is weak, IMO. If you're going to use it against them, do it now.

            Comment

            • Master Live 013
              Hall Of Fame
              • Oct 2013
              • 12425

              #186
              Re: Week 14 Discussion

              The field has been expanded so much that I'm much more less sympathetic to leaving SMU or, in the past, Boise or Hawaii or BYU or whoever. In the past the argument was we can't let so and so in because we only have 2/4 spots and even is so and so are undefeated they would get crushed.

              Fine, then let them get crushed on the field. Show me they getting stomped, not only this year, but for multiple years in a row. After that, maybe we can leave them out again.
              OSHA Inspector for the NBA.

              Comment

              • georgiafan
                Hall Of Fame
                • Jul 2002
                • 11125

                #187
                Re: Week 14 Discussion

                This might not be a popular opinion, but brands do have to matter a little bit. I'm not saying the committee should put in Alabama over a team that clearly deserves it. The TV companies are paying a fortune for the playoff games and nobody wants to watch Indiana and SMU in the playoffs. Also if you had to put your own $ on SMU or Bama in a natural feud nearly everyone is putting that $ on Alabama
                Retro Redemption - Starting over with a oldschool PowerBone Offense

                My Youtube

                Twitter

                PS5 ID = BubbasCruise

                Comment

                • canes21
                  Hall Of Fame
                  • Sep 2008
                  • 22931

                  #188
                  Re: Week 14 Discussion

                  Using top 25 wins as a metric is a bit comical when the committee is the one creating said rankings. You're just using circular references to use as proof for keeping the rankings where they are.

                  The reality is, and metrics have shown this for years and years and years and years is that when you look at teams 15 to 20 through teams 50ish that they are all just about the same caliber of team. Take every team ranked 20-50 and have them play each other and they'll simply beat up on each other. The spread between them would be around 3 points depending on who is home meaning all the matchups are more or less toss ups.

                  So when you're talking about ranked wins and acting like beating the #19 team is significantly more impressive than beating the #26 team, it's not. They are the same caliber of win. Beating #21 is essentially the same as beating #40.

                  When you take that into account and then realize the committee is the one getting to manufacture the rankings that they then use as proof that Team A is better than Team B it becomes comical because they not only get to create the narrative that beating #19 is better than beating #26, they get to completely pick and choose who they want to be #19 and #26 in this equation allowing them to place teams in whichever way they want to fit the narrative they want to drive.

                  If you're comparing a win vs #3 and #24, yes there's a difference there. Rankings like in CFB tend to work where at the top there is the biggest difference between teams and the further down you go that difference gets smaller and smaller and smaller. And that change happens rapids. If you're comparing 2 wins vs #18 and #24 vs 2 wins vs #26 and #30, that's really 4 wins that are equal in quality. To disagree is going against all the different metrics that have surrounded this sport for years and years now.
                  “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”


                  ― Plato

                  Comment

                  • canes21
                    Hall Of Fame
                    • Sep 2008
                    • 22931

                    #189
                    Re: Week 14 Discussion

                    Another way to visualize this is looking at any random computer metric you tend to favor in CFB. There's 100's of them to choose from. They tend to rate teams off points and typically in a computer ranking the #1 team can have something like 65 points and the #10 team can have 56 points, a difference of 9 points between two teams separated by 9 spots.

                    Then look at team #20 with 48 points and compare them to team #70 who has 39 points. Again, a 9 point difference, this time between teams who have 50 spots between them.

                    As you go down the rankings you get diminishing returns between teams because outside of the top handful of teams in the country there's not a major difference between teams. We get a glimpse of this with just about any conferences standings. You'll have you 2-3 teams at the top of any given conference with 0-2 losses in conference play, then you'll have the bulk of the conference sitting right around .500 in conference play, then you have 1-2 teams at the bottom with 0-1 wins in conference play.

                    It's just how statistics work, it's how distributions work, it's how the world works in general. It's far from exclusive to college football. I could take my profession, accounting, and look at the top performers, the bottom performers, and then everyone else and the 90% of the workforce in the middle are all very very similar in quality. That's simply how things naturally work themselves out and that is not different in CFB and we've got decades of numbers showing that.
                    “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”


                    ― Plato

                    Comment

                    • Tovarich
                      Hall Of Fame
                      • Jul 2008
                      • 10914

                      #190
                      Re: Week 14 Discussion

                      Originally posted by georgiafan
                      This might not be a popular opinion, but brands do have to matter a little bit. I'm not saying the committee should put in Alabama over a team that clearly deserves it. The TV companies are paying a fortune for the playoff games and nobody wants to watch Indiana and SMU in the playoffs. Also if you had to put your own $ on SMU or Bama in a natural feud nearly everyone is putting that $ on Alabama
                      I don't even care about the 'brand'. I just don't want to watch a bunch of teams who played weak *** schedules and haven't beaten anyone getting in because they "didn't lose as much" as people who played far harder ones. Beyond terrible message to send to everyone.

                      It's clear 12 came along at the wrong time and way too fast. The NIL and transfer portal have spread out the talent so a few select programs aren't stockpiling it all and now we have 12 teams, half of which haven't beaten anyone worth a damn and they'll be handed a playoff spot anyway. I'd love some flexibility. These on-campus games aren't official yet, no one's made travel plans and no one's ill-affected by their cancellation. Drop it down to 8 if the argument for teams 10-12 are a bunch of people who couldn't beat a ranked team and only even played one. That's not a playoff-worthy accomplishment no matter how many you let in.

                      Comment

                      • canes21
                        Hall Of Fame
                        • Sep 2008
                        • 22931

                        #191
                        Re: Week 14 Discussion

                        By this logic, should Texas even be in the playoffs if they lose to UGA? Their best win is an unranked Texas A&M. Why is Texas ranked 2 in the first place? 0 top 25 wins, 0-1 vs the only top 25 team they faced all year. They're even ranked ahead of UGA despite the H2H result.

                        Feels like Texas is ranked ahead of UGA purely because they lost less games than UGA and for no other reason. If we use the logic we've used to put certain teams ahead of others then Texas should be a borderline playoff team at best, not the #2 team.

                        Too much inconsistency from the committee and the people that feel required to defend them.\

                        Continuing on with a similar line of questioning, why is Missouri ranked but not Louisville? Both have similar records in 9-3 and 8-4, but Missouri has lost to any half decent team they faced and their best win is a 7-5 Boston College team while Louisville has a top 25 win in Clemson. Can't say it's because Louisville lost to Stanford because the Bama > Miami argument has already set the precedent that your worst loss is not a factor that has any influence otherwise the Vandy AND OU losses would be keeping Bama down more.

                        This committee, like all the ones prior to it, picks and chooses what metrics they want to use for each team. There's no consistency at all with their rankings even in the same poll.
                        Last edited by canes21; 12-05-2024, 08:17 PM.
                        “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”


                        ― Plato

                        Comment

                        • p_rushing
                          Hall Of Fame
                          • Feb 2004
                          • 14514

                          #192
                          Re: Week 14 Discussion

                          Originally posted by Tovarich
                          I don't even care about the 'brand'. I just don't want to watch a bunch of teams who played weak *** schedules and haven't beaten anyone getting in because they "didn't lose as much" as people who played far harder ones. Beyond terrible message to send to everyone.



                          It's clear 12 came along at the wrong time and way too fast. The NIL and transfer portal have spread out the talent so a few select programs aren't stockpiling it all and now we have 12 teams, half of which haven't beaten anyone worth a damn and they'll be handed a playoff spot anyway. I'd love some flexibility. These on-campus games aren't official yet, no one's made travel plans and no one's ill-affected by their cancellation. Drop it down to 8 if the argument for teams 10-12 are a bunch of people who couldn't beat a ranked team and only even played one. That's not a playoff-worthy accomplishment no matter how many you let in.
                          There's a problem with your metric, rankings are subjective. The SEC gets over ranked to start the year. Then a lot of the teams don't play tough games to start the year. So rankings increase going into conference play. Now everyone in the SEC gets a huge boost for strength of schedule, so wins look a lot better than they are and that increases the winners rankings more. The lovers don't lose enough spots and move back up when they beat one of the other over ranked teams.


                          I hope Miami doesn't make it and regrets their comments last year. Maybe there will be enough backlash for them to finally get it in gear and join the lawsuits.

                          Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

                          Comment

                          • canes21
                            Hall Of Fame
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 22931

                            #193
                            Re: Week 14 Discussion

                            Originally posted by p_rushing
                            There's a problem with your metric, rankings are subjective. The SEC gets over ranked to start the year. Then a lot of the teams don't play tough games to start the year. So rankings increase going into conference play. Now everyone in the SEC gets a huge boost for strength of schedule, so wins look a lot better than they are and that increases the winners rankings more. The lovers don't lose enough spots and move back up when they beat one of the other over ranked teams.


                            I hope Miami doesn't make it and regrets their comments last year. Maybe there will be enough backlash for them to finally get it in gear and join the lawsuits.

                            Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
                            Bama falling only 6 spots after getting blown out by a bad OU team wasn't enough?

                            /s
                            “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”


                            ― Plato

                            Comment

                            • Tovarich
                              Hall Of Fame
                              • Jul 2008
                              • 10914

                              #194
                              Re: Week 14 Discussion

                              Originally posted by p_rushing
                              There's a problem with your metric, rankings are subjective. The SEC gets over ranked to start the year. Then a lot of the teams don't play tough games to start the year. So rankings increase going into conference play. Now everyone in the SEC gets a huge boost for strength of schedule, so wins look a lot better than they are and that increases the winners rankings more. The lovers don't lose enough spots and move back up when they beat one of the other over ranked teams.


                              I hope Miami doesn't make it and regrets their comments last year. Maybe there will be enough backlash for them to finally get it in gear and join the lawsuits.

                              Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
                              I'm not sure about whatever Miami comments but if the final spot is Miami or Alabama then I am glad they chose Alabama. Better wins interest me more than having one less loss but no wins of note. Sure there's some eye test to the rankings but the SEC mostly had their top teams playing more than the ACC and Big 12 did and I'd rather see that rewarded even if there's some luck involved. The mega sized conferences result in too many teams drawing a schedule like Indiana. More interesting OOC games would be nice for giving more of an idea of conference strength but the committee like with Liberty last year is rewarding easy scheduling so it's not an incentive for anyone to do it if they'll punishevery loss more than they'll reward a big win. But the ACC championship game is a team who just lost at home to 3-loss South Carolina and SMU who lost to at home to BYU in their only real chance at a high quality win. If quality games are going to be so few and far between for some of the teams in question then they need to take better advantage of them to earn benefit of the doubt. I could love without Alabama being out, just not because of SMU if they lose or Miami. I certainly can live without Indiana and if Texas loses to Georgia again they don't exactly have any quality wins either. The resumes involved in getting into a 12 team playoff in the mega conference era are sadly mediocre and watered down. Few of the playoff teams will have accomplished anything that's truly shown they've earned a chance at a national championship.

                              Comment

                              • canes21
                                Hall Of Fame
                                • Sep 2008
                                • 22931

                                #195
                                Re: Week 14 Discussion

                                Knocking Clemson down specifically for losing to a 3-loss team but also saying you're happy that Alabama is getting in despite having 2 losses to 6-loss teams, and those aren't their only losses, is an interesting choice.

                                Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
                                “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”


                                ― Plato

                                Comment

                                Working...