I went back an analyzed the Massey Composite the since 2014. There is a systematic under-ranking of the G5 rep.

In 2014, 38 polls (most computer, some human) agreed with the playoff committee on the Top 4 teams.

Averaging those polls, Boise came in 13th (vs Arizona at 11th). The committee ranked Boise 20th (vs Arizona at 10th). Boise beat Arizona 38-30 in the Fiesta Bowl.

*************

In 2015, 45 polls in the Massey Composite agreed with the playoff committee on the Top 4 teams.

Averaging those polls, Houston came in 12th (vs Florida St at 10th). The committee ranked Houston 18th (vs Florida St at 9th). Houston beat Florida St 38-24 in the Peach Bowl.

**************

In 2016, 46 polls in the Massey Composite agreed with the playoff committee on the Top 4 teams.

Averaging those polls, Western Mich came in 11th (vs Wisconsin at 8th). The committee ranked Western Mich 15th (vs Wisconsin at 8th). After PJ Fleck announced he was leaving before the Cotton bowl, Western Mich lost to Wisconsin 24-16 in the bowl game.

**************

Clearly, these other polls value VERY similar things to the committee, as they all agreed on the Top 4.

And just as clearly, these other polls (applying the same criteria for all teams) think much more highly of the G5 champ than the committee.

So it follows that the committee is using harsher criteria to judge the G5 champ than the P5 teams in the poll.

This is called bias. And it's costing the G5 champ between 4-7 spots in the poll year in and year out.

*************

We are seeing the same thing happen with UCF.

Four years in a row is not a coincidence, and it's time to call an end to the charade.

(11-22-2017 05:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Clearly, these other polls value VERY similar things to the committee, as they all agreed on the Top 4

You can't cherry pick the polls that agreed with the CFP, you have to use all the polls otherwise you're throwing out useful data and skewing the results.

Using the entire Massey Composite, we see that yes, the CFP has ranked the G5 champ lower:

2014: Boise ....... 20 M .... 22 CFP
2015: Houston ... 14 M .... 18 CFP
2016: WMU ....... 12 M .... 15 CFP

So yes, there is a gap, but the average is 3 positions. Which given the structure of the playoffs means ... zero. Correcting for a one-tailed interval of -3 doesn't put any past G5 champ in the playoffs, and it wouldn't put UCF in this year either.

And MC isn't always correct. E.g., last year, the CFP had Clemson #2, Massey had Clemson #4, and Clemson won the title, vindicating the CFP. Heck, Massey Composite still had Clemson ranked behind Alabama even after Clemson beat Alabama to win the title.

So we can't necessarily presume that MC is the Word of God. It is unbiased, but unbiased doesn't necessarily mean correct.

(11-22-2017 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 05:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Clearly, these other polls value VERY similar things to the committee, as they all agreed on the Top 4

You can't cherry pick the polls that agreed with the CFP, you have to use all the polls otherwise you're throwing out useful data and skewing the results.

Using the entire Massey Composite, we see that yes, the CFP has ranked the G5 champ lower:

2014: Boise ....... 20 M .... 22 CFP
2015: Houston ... 14 M .... 18 CFP
2016: WMU ....... 12 M .... 15 CFP

So yes, there is a gap, but the average is 3 positions. Which given the structure of the playoffs means ... zero. Correcting for a one-tailed interval of -3 doesn't put any past G5 champ in the playoffs, and it wouldn't put UCF in this year either.

And MC isn't always correct. E.g., last year, the CFP had Clemson #2, Massey had Clemson #4, and Clemson won the title, vindicating the CFP. Heck, Massey Composite still had Clemson ranked behind Alabama even after Clemson beat Alabama to win the title.

So we can't necessarily presume that MC is the Word of God. It is unbiased, but unbiased doesn't necessarily mean correct.

It doesn't matter if they are correct. The point was that the criteria be applied fairly and equally. A 1-loss Houston beat a #9. You and I both know this committee would never put a G5 1-loss team in the top 10. That's bias.

The problem with the committee is simple. With regard to the G5, they dismiss them out of hand and spend little time discussing them because the committee is of the single opinion that they really cant possibly field a top 10 team. Its basically like an investigation that eliminates suspects before they look at the evidence.

Honestly, is there anyone that actually doesn't think UCF would probably beat about half the current top 10? When Miss St passed up UCF, that was the committee finally jumping the shark for me. That team has been about as unimpressive as a team can be this year and I have zero doubt UCF would clean their clock.

(11-22-2017 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 05:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Clearly, these other polls value VERY similar things to the committee, as they all agreed on the Top 4

You can't cherry pick the polls that agreed with the CFP, you have to use all the polls otherwise you're throwing out useful data and skewing the results.

Consider Football Power Index in 2015. It disagreed with the committee, ranking Baylor in and Clemson SIXTH in 2015, presumably based a scoring margin algo. It rated Houston 39th.

Likewise, Dokter Entropy had Baylor in and Clemson sixth. Houston was 31st.

As a reminder, the Committee ranked Baylor 17th in 2015.

Clearly, these polls who disagreed with the committe re: the Top 4 are not valuing the same things as the committee. They are "un-committee like."

It so happens that many of the polls who disagreed with the committee on the Top 4 rated the G5 champ lower than the polls who agreed with the committee on the Top 4.

Again, more evidence that the committee is applying a double standard. One set of criteria for P5 teams. Another set for G5 teams.

So I am not cherry picking. I included every single poll that agreed with the committee regarding the Top 4 that particular year.

The picture is even more clear if you look at the eight polls who agreed with the committee on the Top 4 EACH year.

(11-22-2017 07:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 05:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Clearly, these other polls value VERY similar things to the committee, as they all agreed on the Top 4

You can't cherry pick the polls that agreed with the CFP, you have to use all the polls otherwise you're throwing out useful data and skewing the results.

Using the entire Massey Composite, we see that yes, the CFP has ranked the G5 champ lower:

2014: Boise ....... 20 M .... 22 CFP
2015: Houston ... 14 M .... 18 CFP
2016: WMU ....... 12 M .... 15 CFP

So yes, there is a gap, but the average is 3 positions. Which given the structure of the playoffs means ... zero. Correcting for a one-tailed interval of -3 doesn't put any past G5 champ in the playoffs, and it wouldn't put UCF in this year either.

And MC isn't always correct. E.g., last year, the CFP had Clemson #2, Massey had Clemson #4, and Clemson won the title, vindicating the CFP. Heck, Massey Composite still had Clemson ranked behind Alabama even after Clemson beat Alabama to win the title.

So we can't necessarily presume that MC is the Word of God. It is unbiased, but unbiased doesn't necessarily mean correct.

It doesn't matter if they are correct. The point was that the criteria be applied fairly and equally. A 1-loss Houston beat a #9. You and I both know this committee would never put a G5 1-loss team in the top 10. That's bias.

The problem with the committee is simple. With regard to the G5, they dismiss them out of hand and spend little time discussing them because the committee is of the single opinion that they really cant possibly field a top 10 team. Its basically like an investigation that eliminates suspects before they look at the evidence.

Honestly, is there anyone that actually doesn't think UCF would probably beat about half the current top 10? When Miss St passed up UCF, that was the committee finally jumping the shark for me. That team has been about as unimpressive as a team can be this year and I have zero doubt UCF would clean their clock.

Three things stand out for me here.

1) While Aresco's P6 campaign hasn't had an impact on the real world, sadly, it does seem to have influenced AAC fans on these boards. I keep explaining that even in an "unbiased" system like MC, there is no way UCF will make the top four and the playoffs, so it really doesn't matter if they are #10 or #12 or #15.

So what explains all the whining? Seems like many of these AAC fans are shocked to realize that despite the P6 yard markers and helmet stickers and Aresco tweets, the CFP obviously is treating the AAC best teams like the hired help, not like one of the invited guests. AAC teams are getting treated like the G5 they are.

This is surprising to nobody in the real world, but i guess it is shocking to those who live in Aresco World.

2) There is a strong stench of hypocrisy. E.g., recall several threads where AAC fans boasted of an "AAC premium" compared to other G5 in the CFP. Many claimed that the AAC is so well-respected by the CFP that an AAC champ with one or even two losses would be viewed as superior to other G5 champs that were undefeated. And yet ... these same AAC fans who bitterly complain about "bias" against the AAC compared to the P5 were boasting and happy about the alleged CFP bias in favor of the AAC vs the other G5.

3) I thought of the current top 10 teams and can't think of even one I'd expect UCF to beat. Which ones do you think they'd beat?

Alabama?
Miami?
Clemson?
Wisconsin?
Oklahoma?
Auburn?
Notre Dame?
Ohio State?
Georgia?
Penn State? .... Hmmmmm ... just maybe.

Remember, UCF has beaten nobody but other AAC teams plus an FCS team, an FIU team that is 6th in C-USA, and a 4-7 Maryland team in last place in their B1G division, behind even Rutgers. Don't be bedazzled by 100 point wins vs awful teams.

(11-22-2017 08:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 05:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Clearly, these other polls value VERY similar things to the committee, as they all agreed on the Top 4

You can't cherry pick the polls that agreed with the CFP, you have to use all the polls otherwise you're throwing out useful data and skewing the results.

Using the entire Massey Composite, we see that yes, the CFP has ranked the G5 champ lower:

2014: Boise ....... 20 M .... 22 CFP
2015: Houston ... 14 M .... 18 CFP
2016: WMU ....... 12 M .... 15 CFP

So yes, there is a gap, but the average is 3 positions. Which given the structure of the playoffs means ... zero. Correcting for a one-tailed interval of -3 doesn't put any past G5 champ in the playoffs, and it wouldn't put UCF in this year either.

And MC isn't always correct. E.g., last year, the CFP had Clemson #2, Massey had Clemson #4, and Clemson won the title, vindicating the CFP. Heck, Massey Composite still had Clemson ranked behind Alabama even after Clemson beat Alabama to win the title.

So we can't necessarily presume that MC is the Word of God. It is unbiased, but unbiased doesn't necessarily mean correct.

It doesn't matter if they are correct. The point was that the criteria be applied fairly and equally. A 1-loss Houston beat a #9. You and I both know this committee would never put a G5 1-loss team in the top 10. That's bias.

The problem with the committee is simple. With regard to the G5, they dismiss them out of hand and spend little time discussing them because the committee is of the single opinion that they really cant possibly field a top 10 team. Its basically like an investigation that eliminates suspects before they look at the evidence.

Honestly, is there anyone that actually doesn't think UCF would probably beat about half the current top 10? When Miss St passed up UCF, that was the committee finally jumping the shark for me. That team has been about as unimpressive as a team can be this year and I have zero doubt UCF would clean their clock.

Three things stand out for me here.

1) While Aresco's P6 campaign hasn't had an impact on the real world, sadly, it does seem to have influenced AAC fans on these boards. I keep explaining that even in an "unbiased" system like MC, there is no way UCF will make the top four and the playoffs, so it really doesn't matter if they are #10 or #12 or #15.

So what explains all the whining? Seems like many of these AAC fans are shocked to realize that despite the P6 yard markers and helmet stickers and Aresco tweets, the CFP obviously is treating the AAC best teams like the hired help, not like one of the invited guests. AAC teams are getting treated like the G5 they are.

This is surprising to nobody in the real world, but i guess it is shocking to those who live in Aresco World.

2) There is a strong stench of hypocrisy. E.g., recall several threads where AAC fans boasted of an "AAC premium" compared to other G5 in the CFP. Many claimed that the AAC is so well-respected by the CFP that an AAC champ with one or even two losses would be viewed as superior to other G5 champs that were undefeated. And yet ... these same AAC fans who bitterly complain about "bias" against the AAC compared to the P5 were boasting and happy about the alleged CFP bias in favor of the AAC vs the other G5.

3) I thought of the current top 10 teams and can't think of even one I'd expect UCF to beat. Which ones do you think they'd beat?

Alabama?
Miami?
Clemson?
Wisconsin?
Oklahoma?
Auburn?
Notre Dame?
Ohio State?
Georgia?
Penn State? .... Hmmmmm ... just maybe.

Remember, UCF has beaten nobody but other AAC teams plus an FCS team, an FIU team that is 6th in C-USA, and a 4-7 Maryland team in last place in their B1G division, behind even Rutgers. Don't be bedazzled by 100 point wins vs awful teams.

In reply--

1) Im one that has maintained pretty much for the last 2 years that a G5 does not have any way to make the play off and that Houston would not have been in last year had they run the table. I was unsure on the topic the first couple of years, then if became clear that G5's are not even allowed in the top ten. My guess is that "top 10" ranking is reserved for a 2016 Houston type that runs the table. A top 4 finish is impossible with the current structure of the committee.

2) No hypocrisy. I can easily see that it is reasonably plausible that some one-loss P5 teams SHOULD be in front of an undefeated G5. I see the silliness of 2, 3, and 4 loss P5's in front of an undefeated G5. I figured the AAC would at least get a 1-game deference vs the other G5's (and they largely have).

3) Really? Seriously? You "lol" at the prospect of UCF beating Notre Dame? That would be the same Notre Dame that barely squeaked by Navy just last week at home (same Navy UCF destroyed?)? I think UCF would prison rape that slow Wisconsin team. Oklahoma....didnt they get crushed by a 4-loss mid-pack AAC team just last year? Dont see Penn State as all that. So, yeah, that's nearly half Id flat out expect them beat. Plus, Id give them a punchers chance against all the rest but Bama. Your as blinded by a brand name as the committe. At some point you need to understand that the name on the jersey is just a name. Like mutual funds, past performance may not be a guarantee of future performance.

Im completely willing to concede they may not be a top 4 team (probably are not), but I know they are a top 10 team.

It's a freaking sham.

In four years so far, the Committee has refused to rank a G5 team in the Top 12.

(11-22-2017 09:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 08:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 05:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Clearly, these other polls value VERY similar things to the committee, as they all agreed on the Top 4

You can't cherry pick the polls that agreed with the CFP, you have to use all the polls otherwise you're throwing out useful data and skewing the results.

Using the entire Massey Composite, we see that yes, the CFP has ranked the G5 champ lower:

2014: Boise ....... 20 M .... 22 CFP
2015: Houston ... 14 M .... 18 CFP
2016: WMU ....... 12 M .... 15 CFP

So yes, there is a gap, but the average is 3 positions. Which given the structure of the playoffs means ... zero. Correcting for a one-tailed interval of -3 doesn't put any past G5 champ in the playoffs, and it wouldn't put UCF in this year either.

And MC isn't always correct. E.g., last year, the CFP had Clemson #2, Massey had Clemson #4, and Clemson won the title, vindicating the CFP. Heck, Massey Composite still had Clemson ranked behind Alabama even after Clemson beat Alabama to win the title.

So we can't necessarily presume that MC is the Word of God. It is unbiased, but unbiased doesn't necessarily mean correct.

It doesn't matter if they are correct. The point was that the criteria be applied fairly and equally. A 1-loss Houston beat a #9. You and I both know this committee would never put a G5 1-loss team in the top 10. That's bias.

The problem with the committee is simple. With regard to the G5, they dismiss them out of hand and spend little time discussing them because the committee is of the single opinion that they really cant possibly field a top 10 team. Its basically like an investigation that eliminates suspects before they look at the evidence.

Honestly, is there anyone that actually doesn't think UCF would probably beat about half the current top 10? When Miss St passed up UCF, that was the committee finally jumping the shark for me. That team has been about as unimpressive as a team can be this year and I have zero doubt UCF would clean their clock.

Three things stand out for me here.

1) While Aresco's P6 campaign hasn't had an impact on the real world, sadly, it does seem to have influenced AAC fans on these boards. I keep explaining that even in an "unbiased" system like MC, there is no way UCF will make the top four and the playoffs, so it really doesn't matter if they are #10 or #12 or #15.

So what explains all the whining? Seems like many of these AAC fans are shocked to realize that despite the P6 yard markers and helmet stickers and Aresco tweets, the CFP obviously is treating the AAC best teams like the hired help, not like one of the invited guests. AAC teams are getting treated like the G5 they are.

This is surprising to nobody in the real world, but i guess it is shocking to those who live in Aresco World.

2) There is a strong stench of hypocrisy. E.g., recall several threads where AAC fans boasted of an "AAC premium" compared to other G5 in the CFP. Many claimed that the AAC is so well-respected by the CFP that an AAC champ with one or even two losses would be viewed as superior to other G5 champs that were undefeated. And yet ... these same AAC fans who bitterly complain about "bias" against the AAC compared to the P5 were boasting and happy about the alleged CFP bias in favor of the AAC vs the other G5.

3) I thought of the current top 10 teams and can't think of even one I'd expect UCF to beat. Which ones do you think they'd beat?

Alabama?
Miami?
Clemson?
Wisconsin?
Oklahoma?
Auburn?
Notre Dame?
Ohio State?
Georgia?
Penn State? .... Hmmmmm ... just maybe.

Remember, UCF has beaten nobody but other AAC teams plus an FCS team, an FIU team that is 6th in C-USA, and a 4-7 Maryland team in last place in their B1G division, behind even Rutgers. Don't be bedazzled by 100 point wins vs awful teams.

In reply--

1) Im one that has maintained pretty much for the last 2 years that a G5 does not have any way to make the play off and that Houston would not have been in last year had they run the table. I was unsure on the topic the first couple of years, then if became clear that G5's are not even allowed in the top ten. My guess is that "top 10" ranking is reserved for a 2016 Houston type that runs the table. A top 4 finish is impossible with the current structure of the committee.

2) No hypocrisy. I can easily see that it is reasonably plausible that some one-loss P5 teams SHOULD be in front of an undefeated G5. I see the silliness of 2, 3, and 4 loss P5's in front of an undefeated G5. I figured the AAC would at least get a 1-game deference vs the other G5's (and they largely have).

3) Really? Seriously? You "lol" at the prospect of UCF beating Notre Dame? That would be the same Notre Dame that barely squeaked by Navy just last week at home (same Navy UCF destroyed?)? I think UCF would prison rape that slow Wisconsin team. Oklahoma....didnt they get crushed by a 4-loss mid-pack AAC team just last year? Dont see Penn State as all that. So, yeah, that's nearly half Id flat out expect them beat. Plus, Id give them a punchers chance against all the rest but Bama. Your as blinded by a brand name as the committe. At some point you need to understand that the name on the jersey is just a name. Like mutual funds, past performance may not be a guarantee of future performance.

Im completely willing to concede they may not be a top 4 team (probably are not), but I know they are a top 10 team.

Point 3.

That's funny. Not in a clever or humorous sort of way, but in a delusional one.

There isn't a top 10 team that wouldn't haul off and beotch slap UCF. That "slow" Wisconsin team would have no fear of getting "prison raped" because they'd punch them in the face and leave them for dead LONG before that would happen. ND & OU would stomp a mudhole in them and PSU & Bama would be playing the second string before the end of the third quarter.

You can yip like a Chihuahua all you like, but the TRUTH is that the top ten teams would fear UCF about as much as a windshield fears the bug.

Quote:There isn't a top 10 team that wouldn't haul off and beotch slap UCF.

Kind of like how a top 5 Wisconsin that just scored 83, 48, & 70 in its last 3 B10 games did to the Mountain West’s TCU.



Oh, wait...

Looking forward to hearing about the NCAA Basketball Committee bias from the AAC come March.

(11-23-2017 12:17 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

Quote:There isn't a top 10 team that wouldn't haul off and beotch slap UCF.

Kind of like how a top 5 Wisconsin that just scored 83, 48, & 70 in its last 3 B10 games did to the Mountain West’s TCU.



Oh, wait...

lol...Last time Wisconsin fans got that puffed up about one of their super duper punch you in the mouth teams didnt the 3rd string Ohio St QB score like 260 point on them in the CCG? Not sure, just asking for a friend.

Part of the issue here is that once you start talking about a Top 20 team the schedule itself isn't a big factor.

Schedule is more a factor when its a 10-3 MWC, MAC, CUSA or SBC team where they've defeated only 1 team with a winning record all season. In most cases its obvious they do not belong in the Top 20.

UCF is #11 in the computers and equivalent enough to the teams in the 5-10 range that they should be as high as 6 or 7 in the committees ratings as an undefeated team.

(11-22-2017 09:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 08:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 05:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Clearly, these other polls value VERY similar things to the committee, as they all agreed on the Top 4

You can't cherry pick the polls that agreed with the CFP, you have to use all the polls otherwise you're throwing out useful data and skewing the results.

Using the entire Massey Composite, we see that yes, the CFP has ranked the G5 champ lower:

2014: Boise ....... 20 M .... 22 CFP
2015: Houston ... 14 M .... 18 CFP
2016: WMU ....... 12 M .... 15 CFP

So yes, there is a gap, but the average is 3 positions. Which given the structure of the playoffs means ... zero. Correcting for a one-tailed interval of -3 doesn't put any past G5 champ in the playoffs, and it wouldn't put UCF in this year either.

And MC isn't always correct. E.g., last year, the CFP had Clemson #2, Massey had Clemson #4, and Clemson won the title, vindicating the CFP. Heck, Massey Composite still had Clemson ranked behind Alabama even after Clemson beat Alabama to win the title.

So we can't necessarily presume that MC is the Word of God. It is unbiased, but unbiased doesn't necessarily mean correct.

It doesn't matter if they are correct. The point was that the criteria be applied fairly and equally. A 1-loss Houston beat a #9. You and I both know this committee would never put a G5 1-loss team in the top 10. That's bias.

The problem with the committee is simple. With regard to the G5, they dismiss them out of hand and spend little time discussing them because the committee is of the single opinion that they really cant possibly field a top 10 team. Its basically like an investigation that eliminates suspects before they look at the evidence.

Honestly, is there anyone that actually doesn't think UCF would probably beat about half the current top 10? When Miss St passed up UCF, that was the committee finally jumping the shark for me. That team has been about as unimpressive as a team can be this year and I have zero doubt UCF would clean their clock.

Three things stand out for me here.

1) While Aresco's P6 campaign hasn't had an impact on the real world, sadly, it does seem to have influenced AAC fans on these boards. I keep explaining that even in an "unbiased" system like MC, there is no way UCF will make the top four and the playoffs, so it really doesn't matter if they are #10 or #12 or #15.

So what explains all the whining? Seems like many of these AAC fans are shocked to realize that despite the P6 yard markers and helmet stickers and Aresco tweets, the CFP obviously is treating the AAC best teams like the hired help, not like one of the invited guests. AAC teams are getting treated like the G5 they are.

This is surprising to nobody in the real world, but i guess it is shocking to those who live in Aresco World.

2) There is a strong stench of hypocrisy. E.g., recall several threads where AAC fans boasted of an "AAC premium" compared to other G5 in the CFP. Many claimed that the AAC is so well-respected by the CFP that an AAC champ with one or even two losses would be viewed as superior to other G5 champs that were undefeated. And yet ... these same AAC fans who bitterly complain about "bias" against the AAC compared to the P5 were boasting and happy about the alleged CFP bias in favor of the AAC vs the other G5.

3) I thought of the current top 10 teams and can't think of even one I'd expect UCF to beat. Which ones do you think they'd beat?

Alabama?
Miami?
Clemson?
Wisconsin?
Oklahoma?
Auburn?
Notre Dame?
Ohio State?
Georgia?
Penn State? .... Hmmmmm ... just maybe.

Remember, UCF has beaten nobody but other AAC teams plus an FCS team, an FIU team that is 6th in C-USA, and a 4-7 Maryland team in last place in their B1G division, behind even Rutgers. Don't be bedazzled by 100 point wins vs awful teams.

In reply--

1) Im one that has maintained pretty much for the last 2 years that a G5 does not have any way to make the play off and that Houston would not have been in last year had they run the table. I was unsure on the topic the first couple of years, then if became clear that G5's are not even allowed in the top ten. My guess is that "top 10" ranking is reserved for a 2016 Houston type that runs the table. A top 4 finish is impossible with the current structure of the committee.

2) No hypocrisy. I can easily see that it is reasonably plausible that some one-loss P5 teams SHOULD be in front of an undefeated G5. I see the silliness of 2, 3, and 4 loss P5's in front of an undefeated G5. I figured the AAC would at least get a 1-game deference vs the other G5's (and they largely have).

3) Really? Seriously? You "lol" at the prospect of UCF beating Notre Dame? That would be the same Notre Dame that barely squeaked by Navy just last week at home (same Navy UCF destroyed?)? I think UCF would prison rape that slow Wisconsin team. Oklahoma....didnt they get crushed by a 4-loss mid-pack AAC team just last year? Dont see Penn State as all that. So, yeah, that's nearly half Id flat out expect them beat. Plus, Id give them a punchers chance against all the rest but Bama. Your as blinded by a brand name as the committe. At some point you need to understand that the name on the jersey is just a name. Like mutual funds, past performance may not be a guarantee of future performance.

Im completely willing to concede they may not be a top 4 team (probably are not), but I know they are a top 10 team.

1) Wasn't talking about you specifically, just the general AAC community of loons who have drunk the P6 kool-aid, and there are many of them. It does explain the irrational whining about UCF's apparent "ceiling" in the CFP.

2) Plenty of hypocrisy, though not necessarily from you. Lots of boasting about alleged pro-AAC bias in the CFP compared to other G5 (which i haven't seen, btw), but anger at anti-AAC bias compared to P5. Can't have it both ways.

3) You seriously would favor UCF over Notre Dame? A team with much better players and with wins over much better teams?

Seriously, I've never seen you so unbalanced as in that #3 eruption above. UCF over Oklahoma and Wisconsin? Because they rout FIU and Memphis and Temple while schlepping by the likes of Navy and SMU?

Seriously?

UCF destroyed Navy? Funny, i recall Navy being down 24-21 with 7 minutes left with the ball at around the UCF 40. Looked like Navy was going to take the lead, and yet UCF somehow destroyed them? That's really weird.

(11-22-2017 08:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 05:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Clearly, these other polls value VERY similar things to the committee, as they all agreed on the Top 4

You can't cherry pick the polls that agreed with the CFP, you have to use all the polls otherwise you're throwing out useful data and skewing the results.

Using the entire Massey Composite, we see that yes, the CFP has ranked the G5 champ lower:

2014: Boise ....... 20 M .... 22 CFP
2015: Houston ... 14 M .... 18 CFP
2016: WMU ....... 12 M .... 15 CFP

So yes, there is a gap, but the average is 3 positions. Which given the structure of the playoffs means ... zero. Correcting for a one-tailed interval of -3 doesn't put any past G5 champ in the playoffs, and it wouldn't put UCF in this year either.

And MC isn't always correct. E.g., last year, the CFP had Clemson #2, Massey had Clemson #4, and Clemson won the title, vindicating the CFP. Heck, Massey Composite still had Clemson ranked behind Alabama even after Clemson beat Alabama to win the title.

So we can't necessarily presume that MC is the Word of God. It is unbiased, but unbiased doesn't necessarily mean correct.

It doesn't matter if they are correct. The point was that the criteria be applied fairly and equally. A 1-loss Houston beat a #9. You and I both know this committee would never put a G5 1-loss team in the top 10. That's bias.

The problem with the committee is simple. With regard to the G5, they dismiss them out of hand and spend little time discussing them because the committee is of the single opinion that they really cant possibly field a top 10 team. Its basically like an investigation that eliminates suspects before they look at the evidence.

Honestly, is there anyone that actually doesn't think UCF would probably beat about half the current top 10? When Miss St passed up UCF, that was the committee finally jumping the shark for me. That team has been about as unimpressive as a team can be this year and I have zero doubt UCF would clean their clock.

Three things stand out for me here.

1) While Aresco's P6 campaign hasn't had an impact on the real world, sadly, it does seem to have influenced AAC fans on these boards. I keep explaining that even in an "unbiased" system like MC, there is no way UCF will make the top four and the playoffs, so it really doesn't matter if they are #10 or #12 or #15.

So what explains all the whining? Seems like many of these AAC fans are shocked to realize that despite the P6 yard markers and helmet stickers and Aresco tweets, the CFP obviously is treating the AAC best teams like the hired help, not like one of the invited guests. AAC teams are getting treated like the G5 they are.

This is surprising to nobody in the real world, but i guess it is shocking to those who live in Aresco World.

2) There is a strong stench of hypocrisy. E.g., recall several threads where AAC fans boasted of an "AAC premium" compared to other G5 in the CFP. Many claimed that the AAC is so well-respected by the CFP that an AAC champ with one or even two losses would be viewed as superior to other G5 champs that were undefeated. And yet ... these same AAC fans who bitterly complain about "bias" against the AAC compared to the P5 were boasting and happy about the alleged CFP bias in favor of the AAC vs the other G5.

3) I thought of the current top 10 teams and can't think of even one I'd expect UCF to beat. Which ones do you think they'd beat?

Alabama?
Miami?
Clemson?
Wisconsin?
Oklahoma?
Auburn?
Notre Dame?
Ohio State?
Georgia?
Penn State? .... Hmmmmm ... just maybe.

Remember, UCF has beaten nobody but other AAC teams plus an FCS team, an FIU team that is 6th in C-USA, and a 4-7 Maryland team in last place in their B1G division, behind even Rutgers. Don't be bedazzled by 100 point wins vs awful teams.

This takes the cake. I am sure you laughed your but off at UCF playing Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl and anticipated a drubbing. Not only are you a simple and narrow minded individual, you simply do not learn from your past mistakes.

However, with your inherent bias, if UCF got the opportunity to play all of them and won against most..... it was because the P5 team was simply let down for not playing in the playoffs......... same manure riddled coffee.

(11-23-2017 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 09:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 08:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You can't cherry pick the polls that agreed with the CFP, you have to use all the polls otherwise you're throwing out useful data and skewing the results.

Using the entire Massey Composite, we see that yes, the CFP has ranked the G5 champ lower:

2014: Boise ....... 20 M .... 22 CFP
2015: Houston ... 14 M .... 18 CFP
2016: WMU ....... 12 M .... 15 CFP

So yes, there is a gap, but the average is 3 positions. Which given the structure of the playoffs means ... zero. Correcting for a one-tailed interval of -3 doesn't put any past G5 champ in the playoffs, and it wouldn't put UCF in this year either.

And MC isn't always correct. E.g., last year, the CFP had Clemson #2, Massey had Clemson #4, and Clemson won the title, vindicating the CFP. Heck, Massey Composite still had Clemson ranked behind Alabama even after Clemson beat Alabama to win the title.

So we can't necessarily presume that MC is the Word of God. It is unbiased, but unbiased doesn't necessarily mean correct.

It doesn't matter if they are correct. The point was that the criteria be applied fairly and equally. A 1-loss Houston beat a #9. You and I both know this committee would never put a G5 1-loss team in the top 10. That's bias.

The problem with the committee is simple. With regard to the G5, they dismiss them out of hand and spend little time discussing them because the committee is of the single opinion that they really cant possibly field a top 10 team. Its basically like an investigation that eliminates suspects before they look at the evidence.

Honestly, is there anyone that actually doesn't think UCF would probably beat about half the current top 10? When Miss St passed up UCF, that was the committee finally jumping the shark for me. That team has been about as unimpressive as a team can be this year and I have zero doubt UCF would clean their clock.

Three things stand out for me here.

1) While Aresco's P6 campaign hasn't had an impact on the real world, sadly, it does seem to have influenced AAC fans on these boards. I keep explaining that even in an "unbiased" system like MC, there is no way UCF will make the top four and the playoffs, so it really doesn't matter if they are #10 or #12 or #15.

So what explains all the whining? Seems like many of these AAC fans are shocked to realize that despite the P6 yard markers and helmet stickers and Aresco tweets, the CFP obviously is treating the AAC best teams like the hired help, not like one of the invited guests. AAC teams are getting treated like the G5 they are.

This is surprising to nobody in the real world, but i guess it is shocking to those who live in Aresco World.

2) There is a strong stench of hypocrisy. E.g., recall several threads where AAC fans boasted of an "AAC premium" compared to other G5 in the CFP. Many claimed that the AAC is so well-respected by the CFP that an AAC champ with one or even two losses would be viewed as superior to other G5 champs that were undefeated. And yet ... these same AAC fans who bitterly complain about "bias" against the AAC compared to the P5 were boasting and happy about the alleged CFP bias in favor of the AAC vs the other G5.

3) I thought of the current top 10 teams and can't think of even one I'd expect UCF to beat. Which ones do you think they'd beat?

Alabama?
Miami?
Clemson?
Wisconsin?
Oklahoma?
Auburn?
Notre Dame?
Ohio State?
Georgia?
Penn State? .... Hmmmmm ... just maybe.

Remember, UCF has beaten nobody but other AAC teams plus an FCS team, an FIU team that is 6th in C-USA, and a 4-7 Maryland team in last place in their B1G division, behind even Rutgers. Don't be bedazzled by 100 point wins vs awful teams.

In reply--

1) Im one that has maintained pretty much for the last 2 years that a G5 does not have any way to make the play off and that Houston would not have been in last year had they run the table. I was unsure on the topic the first couple of years, then if became clear that G5's are not even allowed in the top ten. My guess is that "top 10" ranking is reserved for a 2016 Houston type that runs the table. A top 4 finish is impossible with the current structure of the committee.

2) No hypocrisy. I can easily see that it is reasonably plausible that some one-loss P5 teams SHOULD be in front of an undefeated G5. I see the silliness of 2, 3, and 4 loss P5's in front of an undefeated G5. I figured the AAC would at least get a 1-game deference vs the other G5's (and they largely have).

3) Really? Seriously? You "lol" at the prospect of UCF beating Notre Dame? That would be the same Notre Dame that barely squeaked by Navy just last week at home (same Navy UCF destroyed?)? I think UCF would prison rape that slow Wisconsin team. Oklahoma....didnt they get crushed by a 4-loss mid-pack AAC team just last year? Dont see Penn State as all that. So, yeah, that's nearly half Id flat out expect them beat. Plus, Id give them a punchers chance against all the rest but Bama. Your as blinded by a brand name as the committe. At some point you need to understand that the name on the jersey is just a name. Like mutual funds, past performance may not be a guarantee of future performance.

Im completely willing to concede they may not be a top 4 team (probably are not), but I know they are a top 10 team.

1) Wasn't talking about you specifically, just the general AAC community of loons who have drunk the P6 kool-aid, and there are many of them. It does explain the irrational whining about UCF's apparent "ceiling" in the CFP.

2) Plenty of hypocrisy, though not necessarily from you. Lots of boasting about alleged pro-AAC bias in the CFP compared to other G5 (which i haven't seen, btw), but anger at anti-AAC bias compared to P5. Can't have it both ways.

3) You seriously would favor UCF over Notre Dame? A team with much better players and with wins over much better teams?

Seriously, I've never seen you so unbalanced as in that #3 eruption above. UCF over Oklahoma and Wisconsin? Because they rout FIU and Memphis and Temple while schlepping by the likes of Navy and SMU?

Seriously?

UCF destroyed Navy? Funny, i recall Navy being down 24-21 with 7 minutes left with the ball at around the UCF 40. Looked like Navy was going to take the lead, and yet UCF somehow destroyed them? That's really weird.

Ok....destroyed may have been a bit much. Still—a 10 point win over Navy in Annapolis (where Navy doesn’t lose a lot) is unimpressive when Notre Dame barely won a one score game over Navy in South Bend? Really? Where were all those amazing Notre Dame athletes UCF can’t possibly match up with?

Again, either unlikely G5 victory outcomes have been occurring at a statistical rate that doesnt make sense (75% the last 4 G5 vs P5 access bowls)—or the polling is significantly underrating the G5. Given one is real results and one is simply opinion based on made up criteria like the “eye test”—the simplest outcome is most likely. The polls are under ranking the G5 champs (CFP being among the worst offenders).

By the way, the last 4 years is not some carefully selected sample. Over the course of the entire BCS/CFP history that winning G5vsP5 NYD Bowl winning percentage has been well above 50%—which is further FACT based data indicating the current bias against the top G5 teams is unreasonable. In fact, we don’t see that bias as much in polling prior to the CFP era. G5’s would sometimes rise into the top 10–even the top5. Today, the Selection Committee tends to influence the other polls far more than the other way around (which was the entire intent). So, essentially, not only is the current anti-G5 bias you support wrong headed, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon (at least in its current level of bias)—not some long held view.

(11-22-2017 05:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I went back an analyzed the Massey Composite the since 2014. There is a systematic under-ranking of the G5 rep.

In 2014, 38 polls (most computer, some human) agreed with the playoff committee on the Top 4 teams.

Averaging those polls, Boise came in 13th (vs Arizona at 11th). The committee ranked Boise 20th (vs Arizona at 10th). Boise beat Arizona 38-30 in the Fiesta Bowl.

*************

In 2015, 45 polls in the Massey Composite agreed with the playoff committee on the Top 4 teams.

Averaging those polls, Houston came in 12th (vs Florida St at 10th). The committee ranked Houston 18th (vs Florida St at 9th). Houston beat Florida St 38-24 in the Peach Bowl.

**************

In 2016, 46 polls in the Massey Composite agreed with the playoff committee on the Top 4 teams.

Averaging those polls, Western Mich came in 11th (vs Wisconsin at 8th). The committee ranked Western Mich 15th (vs Wisconsin at 8th). After PJ Fleck announced he was leaving before the Cotton bowl, Western Mich lost to Wisconsin 24-16 in the bowl game.

**************

Clearly, these other polls value VERY similar things to the committee, as they all agreed on the Top 4.

And just as clearly, these other polls (applying the same criteria for all teams) think much more highly of the G5 champ than the committee.

So it follows that the committee is using harsher criteria to judge the G5 champ than the P5 teams in the poll.

This is called bias. And it's costing the G5 champ between 4-7 spots in the poll year in and year out.

*************

We are seeing the same thing happen with UCF.

Four years in a row is not a coincidence, and it's time to call an end to the charade.

IMO, there is indeed a systematic bias here. Only I believe it is Massey that systematically overvalues G5 teams. Not because they are G5 teams. Because they overvalue W-L records without regard to who these teams played.

That bias doesn't affect the CFP Top Four, because those teams generally also have very few losses. So they would be at the top of the Massey rankings as well. It is the 0 or 1 loss G5 teams that get overvalued by Massey.

That doesn't mean that those teams aren't any good, or capable of occasionally beating an NY6 team in a bowl game that is only meaningless to the P5 opponent and very meaningful to the G5 champion. They may also beat such a team in a regular season game on occasion. But those games are more the exception than the rule.

The selection committee has three responsibilities. They select the four semifinalists. They select the G5 champion to play in an access bowl (unless that champion is reanked in the top 4). And they select the other seven P5 NY6 bowl teams. There is no provision to select a second G5 representative among those seven. So it really doesn't matter where they rank the G5 champion.

(11-23-2017 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 09:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 08:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It doesn't matter if they are correct. The point was that the criteria be applied fairly and equally. A 1-loss Houston beat a #9. You and I both know this committee would never put a G5 1-loss team in the top 10. That's bias.

The problem with the committee is simple. With regard to the G5, they dismiss them out of hand and spend little time discussing them because the committee is of the single opinion that they really cant possibly field a top 10 team. Its basically like an investigation that eliminates suspects before they look at the evidence.

Honestly, is there anyone that actually doesn't think UCF would probably beat about half the current top 10? When Miss St passed up UCF, that was the committee finally jumping the shark for me. That team has been about as unimpressive as a team can be this year and I have zero doubt UCF would clean their clock.

Three things stand out for me here.

1) While Aresco's P6 campaign hasn't had an impact on the real world, sadly, it does seem to have influenced AAC fans on these boards. I keep explaining that even in an "unbiased" system like MC, there is no way UCF will make the top four and the playoffs, so it really doesn't matter if they are #10 or #12 or #15.

So what explains all the whining? Seems like many of these AAC fans are shocked to realize that despite the P6 yard markers and helmet stickers and Aresco tweets, the CFP obviously is treating the AAC best teams like the hired help, not like one of the invited guests. AAC teams are getting treated like the G5 they are.

This is surprising to nobody in the real world, but i guess it is shocking to those who live in Aresco World.

2) There is a strong stench of hypocrisy. E.g., recall several threads where AAC fans boasted of an "AAC premium" compared to other G5 in the CFP. Many claimed that the AAC is so well-respected by the CFP that an AAC champ with one or even two losses would be viewed as superior to other G5 champs that were undefeated. And yet ... these same AAC fans who bitterly complain about "bias" against the AAC compared to the P5 were boasting and happy about the alleged CFP bias in favor of the AAC vs the other G5.

3) I thought of the current top 10 teams and can't think of even one I'd expect UCF to beat. Which ones do you think they'd beat?

Alabama?
Miami?
Clemson?
Wisconsin?
Oklahoma?
Auburn?
Notre Dame?
Ohio State?
Georgia?
Penn State? .... Hmmmmm ... just maybe.

Remember, UCF has beaten nobody but other AAC teams plus an FCS team, an FIU team that is 6th in C-USA, and a 4-7 Maryland team in last place in their B1G division, behind even Rutgers. Don't be bedazzled by 100 point wins vs awful teams.

In reply--

1) Im one that has maintained pretty much for the last 2 years that a G5 does not have any way to make the play off and that Houston would not have been in last year had they run the table. I was unsure on the topic the first couple of years, then if became clear that G5's are not even allowed in the top ten. My guess is that "top 10" ranking is reserved for a 2016 Houston type that runs the table. A top 4 finish is impossible with the current structure of the committee.

2) No hypocrisy. I can easily see that it is reasonably plausible that some one-loss P5 teams SHOULD be in front of an undefeated G5. I see the silliness of 2, 3, and 4 loss P5's in front of an undefeated G5. I figured the AAC would at least get a 1-game deference vs the other G5's (and they largely have).

3) Really? Seriously? You "lol" at the prospect of UCF beating Notre Dame? That would be the same Notre Dame that barely squeaked by Navy just last week at home (same Navy UCF destroyed?)? I think UCF would prison rape that slow Wisconsin team. Oklahoma....didnt they get crushed by a 4-loss mid-pack AAC team just last year? Dont see Penn State as all that. So, yeah, that's nearly half Id flat out expect them beat. Plus, Id give them a punchers chance against all the rest but Bama. Your as blinded by a brand name as the committe. At some point you need to understand that the name on the jersey is just a name. Like mutual funds, past performance may not be a guarantee of future performance.

Im completely willing to concede they may not be a top 4 team (probably are not), but I know they are a top 10 team.

1) Wasn't talking about you specifically, just the general AAC community of loons who have drunk the P6 kool-aid, and there are many of them. It does explain the irrational whining about UCF's apparent "ceiling" in the CFP.

2) Plenty of hypocrisy, though not necessarily from you. Lots of boasting about alleged pro-AAC bias in the CFP compared to other G5 (which i haven't seen, btw), but anger at anti-AAC bias compared to P5. Can't have it both ways.

3) You seriously would favor UCF over Notre Dame? A team with much better players and with wins over much better teams?

Seriously, I've never seen you so unbalanced as in that #3 eruption above. UCF over Oklahoma and Wisconsin? Because they rout FIU and Memphis and Temple while schlepping by the likes of Navy and SMU?

Seriously?

UCF destroyed Navy? Funny, i recall Navy being down 24-21 with 7 minutes left with the ball at around the UCF 40. Looked like Navy was going to take the lead, and yet UCF somehow destroyed them? That's really weird.

Funny...a 10 point win over Navy in Annapolis (where Navy doesn’t lose a lot) is unimpressive. Yet your tellin* me m newness to think UCF could beat a Notre Dame squad that barel6 won a one score game in thier home stadium. Again, either unlikely G5 victory outcomes have been occurring at statistical rate that doesn5 make sense (75%) in the G5 vs P5 access bowl—or the polling is significantly underrating the G5. Given one is real results and one is simply opinion based on made up criteria like the “eye test”—the simplest outcome is most likely. The polls are under ranking the G5 champs (CFP being among the worst offenders).

When facts don't back up his diatribes, he moves onto trying to take down those facts on hocus pocus imaginary reasons......we have heard them all....... eye test, teams were not enthused enough to play a G5...... yep we have heard them all

(11-23-2017 09:10 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 08:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 05:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Clearly, these other polls value VERY similar things to the committee, as they all agreed on the Top 4

You can't cherry pick the polls that agreed with the CFP, you have to use all the polls otherwise you're throwing out useful data and skewing the results.

Using the entire Massey Composite, we see that yes, the CFP has ranked the G5 champ lower:

2014: Boise ....... 20 M .... 22 CFP
2015: Houston ... 14 M .... 18 CFP
2016: WMU ....... 12 M .... 15 CFP

So yes, there is a gap, but the average is 3 positions. Which given the structure of the playoffs means ... zero. Correcting for a one-tailed interval of -3 doesn't put any past G5 champ in the playoffs, and it wouldn't put UCF in this year either.

And MC isn't always correct. E.g., last year, the CFP had Clemson #2, Massey had Clemson #4, and Clemson won the title, vindicating the CFP. Heck, Massey Composite still had Clemson ranked behind Alabama even after Clemson beat Alabama to win the title.

So we can't necessarily presume that MC is the Word of God. It is unbiased, but unbiased doesn't necessarily mean correct.

It doesn't matter if they are correct. The point was that the criteria be applied fairly and equally. A 1-loss Houston beat a #9. You and I both know this committee would never put a G5 1-loss team in the top 10. That's bias.

The problem with the committee is simple. With regard to the G5, they dismiss them out of hand and spend little time discussing them because the committee is of the single opinion that they really cant possibly field a top 10 team. Its basically like an investigation that eliminates suspects before they look at the evidence.

Honestly, is there anyone that actually doesn't think UCF would probably beat about half the current top 10? When Miss St passed up UCF, that was the committee finally jumping the shark for me. That team has been about as unimpressive as a team can be this year and I have zero doubt UCF would clean their clock.

Three things stand out for me here.

1) While Aresco's P6 campaign hasn't had an impact on the real world, sadly, it does seem to have influenced AAC fans on these boards. I keep explaining that even in an "unbiased" system like MC, there is no way UCF will make the top four and the playoffs, so it really doesn't matter if they are #10 or #12 or #15.

So what explains all the whining? Seems like many of these AAC fans are shocked to realize that despite the P6 yard markers and helmet stickers and Aresco tweets, the CFP obviously is treating the AAC best teams like the hired help, not like one of the invited guests. AAC teams are getting treated like the G5 they are.

This is surprising to nobody in the real world, but i guess it is shocking to those who live in Aresco World.

2) There is a strong stench of hypocrisy. E.g., recall several threads where AAC fans boasted of an "AAC premium" compared to other G5 in the CFP. Many claimed that the AAC is so well-respected by the CFP that an AAC champ with one or even two losses would be viewed as superior to other G5 champs that were undefeated. And yet ... these same AAC fans who bitterly complain about "bias" against the AAC compared to the P5 were boasting and happy about the alleged CFP bias in favor of the AAC vs the other G5.

3) I thought of the current top 10 teams and can't think of even one I'd expect UCF to beat. Which ones do you think they'd beat?

Alabama?
Miami?
Clemson?
Wisconsin?
Oklahoma?
Auburn?
Notre Dame?
Ohio State?
Georgia?
Penn State? .... Hmmmmm ... just maybe.

Remember, UCF has beaten nobody but other AAC teams plus an FCS team, an FIU team that is 6th in C-USA, and a 4-7 Maryland team in last place in their B1G division, behind even Rutgers. Don't be bedazzled by 100 point wins vs awful teams.

This takes the cake. I am sure you laughed your but off at UCF playing Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl and anticipated a drubbing. Not only are you a simple and narrow minded individual, you simply do not learn from your past mistakes.

However, with your inherent bias, if UCF got the opportunity to play all of them and won against most..... it was because the P5 team was simply let down for not playing in the playoffs......... same manure riddled coffee.

You already have proved yourself a pedant, now with every post you are showing evidence of just having a very low IQ. To every rational rebuttal to your unsubstantiated fanboyism, you say "you are a narrow minded individual", as if that somehow refutes the complete rebuttal of your fanboyism.

I doubt that UCF could beat 5 of the current top 10, and I'm the delusional one? Welcome to UCF - Aresco Land.

(11-23-2017 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 09:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 08:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It doesn't matter if they are correct. The point was that the criteria be applied fairly and equally. A 1-loss Houston beat a #9. You and I both know this committee would never put a G5 1-loss team in the top 10. That's bias.

The problem with the committee is simple. With regard to the G5, they dismiss them out of hand and spend little time discussing them because the committee is of the single opinion that they really cant possibly field a top 10 team. Its basically like an investigation that eliminates suspects before they look at the evidence.

Honestly, is there anyone that actually doesn't think UCF would probably beat about half the current top 10? When Miss St passed up UCF, that was the committee finally jumping the shark for me. That team has been about as unimpressive as a team can be this year and I have zero doubt UCF would clean their clock.

Three things stand out for me here.

1) While Aresco's P6 campaign hasn't had an impact on the real world, sadly, it does seem to have influenced AAC fans on these boards. I keep explaining that even in an "unbiased" system like MC, there is no way UCF will make the top four and the playoffs, so it really doesn't matter if they are #10 or #12 or #15.

So what explains all the whining? Seems like many of these AAC fans are shocked to realize that despite the P6 yard markers and helmet stickers and Aresco tweets, the CFP obviously is treating the AAC best teams like the hired help, not like one of the invited guests. AAC teams are getting treated like the G5 they are.

This is surprising to nobody in the real world, but i guess it is shocking to those who live in Aresco World.

2) There is a strong stench of hypocrisy. E.g., recall several threads where AAC fans boasted of an "AAC premium" compared to other G5 in the CFP. Many claimed that the AAC is so well-respected by the CFP that an AAC champ with one or even two losses would be viewed as superior to other G5 champs that were undefeated. And yet ... these same AAC fans who bitterly complain about "bias" against the AAC compared to the P5 were boasting and happy about the alleged CFP bias in favor of the AAC vs the other G5.

3) I thought of the current top 10 teams and can't think of even one I'd expect UCF to beat. Which ones do you think they'd beat?

Alabama?
Miami?
Clemson?
Wisconsin?
Oklahoma?
Auburn?
Notre Dame?
Ohio State?
Georgia?
Penn State? .... Hmmmmm ... just maybe.

Remember, UCF has beaten nobody but other AAC teams plus an FCS team, an FIU team that is 6th in C-USA, and a 4-7 Maryland team in last place in their B1G division, behind even Rutgers. Don't be bedazzled by 100 point wins vs awful teams.

In reply--

1) Im one that has maintained pretty much for the last 2 years that a G5 does not have any way to make the play off and that Houston would not have been in last year had they run the table. I was unsure on the topic the first couple of years, then if became clear that G5's are not even allowed in the top ten. My guess is that "top 10" ranking is reserved for a 2016 Houston type that runs the table. A top 4 finish is impossible with the current structure of the committee.

2) No hypocrisy. I can easily see that it is reasonably plausible that some one-loss P5 teams SHOULD be in front of an undefeated G5. I see the silliness of 2, 3, and 4 loss P5's in front of an undefeated G5. I figured the AAC would at least get a 1-game deference vs the other G5's (and they largely have).

3) Really? Seriously? You "lol" at the prospect of UCF beating Notre Dame? That would be the same Notre Dame that barely squeaked by Navy just last week at home (same Navy UCF destroyed?)? I think UCF would prison rape that slow Wisconsin team. Oklahoma....didnt they get crushed by a 4-loss mid-pack AAC team just last year? Dont see Penn State as all that. So, yeah, that's nearly half Id flat out expect them beat. Plus, Id give them a punchers chance against all the rest but Bama. Your as blinded by a brand name as the committe. At some point you need to understand that the name on the jersey is just a name. Like mutual funds, past performance may not be a guarantee of future performance.

Im completely willing to concede they may not be a top 4 team (probably are not), but I know they are a top 10 team.

1) Wasn't talking about you specifically, just the general AAC community of loons who have drunk the P6 kool-aid, and there are many of them. It does explain the irrational whining about UCF's apparent "ceiling" in the CFP.

2) Plenty of hypocrisy, though not necessarily from you. Lots of boasting about alleged pro-AAC bias in the CFP compared to other G5 (which i haven't seen, btw), but anger at anti-AAC bias compared to P5. Can't have it both ways.

3) You seriously would favor UCF over Notre Dame? A team with much better players and with wins over much better teams?

Seriously, I've never seen you so unbalanced as in that #3 eruption above. UCF over Oklahoma and Wisconsin? Because they rout FIU and Memphis and Temple while schlepping by the likes of Navy and SMU?

Seriously?

UCF destroyed Navy? Funny, i recall Navy being down 24-21 with 7 minutes left with the ball at around the UCF 40. Looked like Navy was going to take the lead, and yet UCF somehow destroyed them? That's really weird.

Funny...a 10 point win over Navy in Annapolis (where Navy doesn’t lose a lot) is unimpressive. Yet your tellin* me m newness to think UCF could beat a Notre Dame squad that barel6 won a one score game in thier home stadium. Again, either unlikely G5 victory outcomes have been occurring at statistical rate that doesn5 make sense (75%) in the G5 vs P5 access bowl—or the polling is significantly underrating the G5. Given one is real results and one is simply opinion based on made up criteria like the “eye test”—the simplest outcome is most likely. The polls are under ranking the G5 champs (CFP being among the worst offenders).

By the way, the last 4 years is not some carefully selected sample. Over the course of the entire BCS/CFP history that winning G5vsP5 NYD Bowl winning percentage has been well above 50%—which is further FACT based data indicating the current bias against the top G5 teams is unreasonable. In fact, we don’t see that bias as much in polling prior to the CFP era. G5’s would sometimes rise into the top 10–even the top5. Today, the Selection Committee tends to influence the other polls far more than the other way around (which was the entire intent). So, essentially, not only is the current anti-G5 bias you support wrong headed, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon (at least in its current level of bias)—not some long held view.

You claimed UCF "destroyed" Navy. That was patently ridiculous so why are you still defending it?

The problem with your claim about underrating top G5 is that it's not just the human pollsters that have had the G5 team ranked behind their P5 bowl opponent.

Look at the Massey Composite where the G5 won the NY6 bowl the past four years: Houston was ranked behind FSU, Boise was ranked behind Arizona, and UCF was ranked behind Baylor, and in 2008 they had Utah behind Alabama.

So these wins were genuine upsets, not cases of underrated G5 really being better than their P5 opponents. So what explains that? one obvious factor would be the difference in motivation. No P5 team is excited to play a G5 in a major bowl, whereas the G5 team is chomping at the bit to beat the P5 and "prove themselves".

(11-23-2017 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 09:10 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 08:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You can't cherry pick the polls that agreed with the CFP, you have to use all the polls otherwise you're throwing out useful data and skewing the results.

Using the entire Massey Composite, we see that yes, the CFP has ranked the G5 champ lower:

2014: Boise ....... 20 M .... 22 CFP
2015: Houston ... 14 M .... 18 CFP
2016: WMU ....... 12 M .... 15 CFP

So yes, there is a gap, but the average is 3 positions. Which given the structure of the playoffs means ... zero. Correcting for a one-tailed interval of -3 doesn't put any past G5 champ in the playoffs, and it wouldn't put UCF in this year either.

And MC isn't always correct. E.g., last year, the CFP had Clemson #2, Massey had Clemson #4, and Clemson won the title, vindicating the CFP. Heck, Massey Composite still had Clemson ranked behind Alabama even after Clemson beat Alabama to win the title.

So we can't necessarily presume that MC is the Word of God. It is unbiased, but unbiased doesn't necessarily mean correct.

It doesn't matter if they are correct. The point was that the criteria be applied fairly and equally. A 1-loss Houston beat a #9. You and I both know this committee would never put a G5 1-loss team in the top 10. That's bias.

The problem with the committee is simple. With regard to the G5, they dismiss them out of hand and spend little time discussing them because the committee is of the single opinion that they really cant possibly field a top 10 team. Its basically like an investigation that eliminates suspects before they look at the evidence.

Honestly, is there anyone that actually doesn't think UCF would probably beat about half the current top 10? When Miss St passed up UCF, that was the committee finally jumping the shark for me. That team has been about as unimpressive as a team can be this year and I have zero doubt UCF would clean their clock.

Three things stand out for me here.

1) While Aresco's P6 campaign hasn't had an impact on the real world, sadly, it does seem to have influenced AAC fans on these boards. I keep explaining that even in an "unbiased" system like MC, there is no way UCF will make the top four and the playoffs, so it really doesn't matter if they are #10 or #12 or #15.

So what explains all the whining? Seems like many of these AAC fans are shocked to realize that despite the P6 yard markers and helmet stickers and Aresco tweets, the CFP obviously is treating the AAC best teams like the hired help, not like one of the invited guests. AAC teams are getting treated like the G5 they are.

This is surprising to nobody in the real world, but i guess it is shocking to those who live in Aresco World.

2) There is a strong stench of hypocrisy. E.g., recall several threads where AAC fans boasted of an "AAC premium" compared to other G5 in the CFP. Many claimed that the AAC is so well-respected by the CFP that an AAC champ with one or even two losses would be viewed as superior to other G5 champs that were undefeated. And yet ... these same AAC fans who bitterly complain about "bias" against the AAC compared to the P5 were boasting and happy about the alleged CFP bias in favor of the AAC vs the other G5.

3) I thought of the current top 10 teams and can't think of even one I'd expect UCF to beat. Which ones do you think they'd beat?

Alabama?
Miami?
Clemson?
Wisconsin?
Oklahoma?
Auburn?
Notre Dame?
Ohio State?
Georgia?
Penn State? .... Hmmmmm ... just maybe.

Remember, UCF has beaten nobody but other AAC teams plus an FCS team, an FIU team that is 6th in C-USA, and a 4-7 Maryland team in last place in their B1G division, behind even Rutgers. Don't be bedazzled by 100 point wins vs awful teams.

This takes the cake. I am sure you laughed your but off at UCF playing Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl and anticipated a drubbing. Not only are you a simple and narrow minded individual, you simply do not learn from your past mistakes.

However, with your inherent bias, if UCF got the opportunity to play all of them and won against most..... it was because the P5 team was simply let down for not playing in the playoffs......... same manure riddled coffee.

You already have proved yourself a pedant, now with every post you are showing evidence of just having a very low IQ. To every rational rebuttal to your unsubstantiated fanboyism, you say "you are a narrow minded individual", as if that somehow refutes the complete rebuttal of your fanboyism.

I doubt that UCF could beat 5 of the current top 10, and I'm the delusional one? Welcome to UCF - Aresco Land.

Wow, when you get called out on your inability to look at the big picture, you resort to stating I have a low IQ. Very rich. A narrow simple minded individual, very sad.

Case in point, since you have no ability to look at the big picture, and all you are good for is looking at small details one by one in a vacuum....... you completely contradicted yourself. You have moved from "maybe" beating one of the top 10 with the others being to you doubt that they could beat 5 of the current top ten.
Like I said, what a simple narrow minded soul, bless your heart.