Well, having listened to all the arguments posed here, I'm now prepared to concede that the playoff selection committee is biased - bought and paid for. I think it's time we toss them aside and replace them with a group of unbiased ratings. Let's take the AP Poll, coaches' Poll, Massey, Colley and Sagarin rankings. Throw out each team's highest and lowest rankings, and average the rest. That should take the bias out of the selection process.

To show how well that would have worked, the final four teams would have been, in order from #1 to #4, Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama, instead of that holy mess the selection committee came up with.

And the next four teams, who would have missed the playoff under this new system, were, in order, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Auburn and USC. Now, I admit that's pretty much the order the CFP had them. But at least it was arrived at in an unbiased way.

And UCF still would have been #12.

Now that I read this, I begin to wonder if that isn't exactly the methodology the selection committee used to arrive at its ranking. Hmmm.......

(01-03-2018 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:09 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Football season is done, and Undefeated National champs in place, will go for a good rerun on tv. Maybe a replay of National championship peach bowl.:0)

Nobody in their right mind would call UCF 'national champs' because they beat a 3-loss Auburn team that nobody thought even belonged in the playoffs.

Just the fact that you feel obliged to respond to every chest thumping post like this shows that it does bother you. I am sure it bothers you that much more since its UCF, of all teams.

(01-03-2018 11:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='14953913' dateline='1514994519']
It was the nations only unbeaten and they refused to place them in the top 10. The systems a joke amd frankly, Ive lost interest at this point. If there is nothing else on, Ill watch it--otherwise, now that its clear the G5 is not included in the CFP, the outcome is of no more interest to me than the Canadian Grey Cup...casual at best. Ive moved on to pro football where a champ is chosen on the field and there arent any paid off out of work ice skating judges picking the winners.

Personally, as much as i 'hate' UCF, i thought they deserved to be around #9 or #10 in the final rankings not #12. So i agree the CFP under-ranked them. But they aren't the only teams I thought were under-ranked. I had Notre Dame at #11, not #14, and that was consequential as in their case that was the difference between being in an NY6 and not. There were a few others.

Not a big deal, as it didn't cost UCF anything they deserved. They deserved an NY6 spot, and that's what they got.

No. They deserved a shot at the playoff. We know that now. Not really sure why its so hard to admit whats now obvious. You can say it wasnt obvious then--but now its clear the UCF was for real. The problem is, with SOS operating as the committee's be all end all--it automatically eliminates all G5's from contention before the first snap of the season.

The only fix is a 10 member selection committee comprised of 1 member from each FBS conference. Somehow I feel that such a group will find a way to fairly judge G5's against P5's when the schedules are not the same. This committee never even tried. They simply made a blanket assumption that SOS trumped all and that a good team with a weaker schedule could not possibly really be a top ten team.

(01-03-2018 11:23 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:09 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Football season is done, and Undefeated National champs in place, will go for a good rerun on tv. Maybe a replay of National championship peach bowl.:0)

Nobody in their right mind would call UCF 'national champs' because they beat a 3-loss Auburn team that nobody thought even belonged in the playoffs.

Just the fact that you feel obliged to respond to every chest thumping post like this shows that it does bother you. I am sure it bothers you that much more since its UCF, of all teams.

So ... beaten by the logic, you resort to questioning my motivations? When brimming emotions are all that UCF fans are bringing to the table today?

(01-03-2018 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  Well, having listened to all the arguments posed here, I'm now prepared to concede that the playoff selection committee is biased - bought and paid for. I think it's time we toss them aside and replace them with a group of unbiased ratings. Let's take the AP Poll, coaches' Poll, Massey, Colley and Sagarin rankings. Throw out each team's highest and lowest rankings, and average the rest. That should take the bias out of the selection process.

To show how well that would have worked, the final four teams would have been, in order from #1 to #4, Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama, instead of that holy mess the selection committee came up with.

And the next four teams, who would have missed the playoff under this new system, were, in order, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Auburn and USC. Now, I admit that's pretty much the order the CFP had them. But at least it was arrived at in an unbiased way.

And UCF still would have been #12.

Now that I read this, I begin to wonder if that isn't exactly the methodology the selection committee used to arrive at its ranking. Hmmm.......

The problem is the polls were trying to mirror the selection committee process. The system is fine. Its simply been corrupted by stacking the committee. If the committee is so fair and equitable and is arriving at the same decision that anyone would--then why not make it a 10 member committee with one representative from each FBS conference. Surely, if the committee is so fair and reasonable--a body composed of one representative from each conference would reach the same fair and reasonable conclusions--but withut the apeparance of bias? Right?

(01-03-2018 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The problem is the polls were trying to mirror the selection committee process.

There's little evidence that this happens, in fact, on the crucial decision day, the polls come out before the CFP. E.g., this year, both the AP and coaches polls came out with Alabama at #4 before the CFP released its final rankings. So if anything, one can argue that the CFP took its tip from the polls, not vice-versa.

But even if so, that doesn't address the computer problem - they had UCF way out of the playoffs too.

I agree that maybe a 8 or 16 team playoff would be better. There is a happy medium that balances the problem of allowing deserving teams in while keeping undeserving teams out (an equally bad problem). E.g., most pro leagues, for money reasons, have playoffs that let undeserving teams in - the Tennessee Titans are in the NFL playoffs with a 9-7 record, NBA teams make the playoffs with 40 losses, etc. They don't belong in the playoffs, but they are in because of the money.

On the other hand, for college football, 4 may be too little. But even if it is, since $$$ is always the most important thing, not competitive purity, the dollars will decide it.

(01-03-2018 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  Well, having listened to all the arguments posed here, I'm now prepared to concede that the playoff selection committee is biased - bought and paid for. I think it's time we toss them aside and replace them with a group of unbiased ratings. Let's take the AP Poll, coaches' Poll, Massey, Colley and Sagarin rankings. Throw out each team's highest and lowest rankings, and average the rest. That should take the bias out of the selection process.

To show how well that would have worked, the final four teams would have been, in order from #1 to #4, Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama, instead of that holy mess the selection committee came up with.

And the next four teams, who would have missed the playoff under this new system, were, in order, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Auburn and USC. Now, I admit that's pretty much the order the CFP had them. But at least it was arrived at in an unbiased way.

And UCF still would have been #12.

Now that I read this, I begin to wonder if that isn't exactly the methodology the selection committee used to arrive at its ranking. Hmmm.......

The problem is the polls were trying to mirror the selection committee process. The system is fine. Its simply been corrupted by stacking the committee. If the committee is so fair and equitable and is arriving at the same decision that anyone would--then why not make it a 10 member committee with one representative from each FBS conference. Surely, if the committee is so fair and reasonable--a body composed of one representative from each conference would reach the same fair and reasonable conclusions--but withut the apeparance of bias? Right?

The polls can't even try to mirror anything. They are a disparate group of individuals who each vote their own way - biases and all - with no communication or coordination among themselves. And, they announce their results before the selection committee does, both after the committee's first "reveal" and before it, publishing a weekly poll for about 9 weeks before the committee meets.

It seems to me that if hundreds of people are arriving at the same conclusion (and many of those folks announce their votes publicly) we've pretty much taken the bias out of the process. The very idea that having one representative from each conference would be less biased makes no sense. That structure presumes bias - that is, the suggestion that G5 representatives would advocate for G5 teams is the antithesis of impartiality. The idea that ten biased committee members would reach an unbiased decision, but 60 AP voters would not, just doesn't fly with me.

(01-03-2018 11:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='14953913' dateline='1514994519']
It was the nations only unbeaten and they refused to place them in the top 10. The systems a joke amd frankly, Ive lost interest at this point. If there is nothing else on, Ill watch it--otherwise, now that its clear the G5 is not included in the CFP, the outcome is of no more interest to me than the Canadian Grey Cup...casual at best. Ive moved on to pro football where a champ is chosen on the field and there arent any paid off out of work ice skating judges picking the winners.

Personally, as much as i 'hate' UCF, i thought they deserved to be around #9 or #10 in the final rankings not #12. So i agree the CFP under-ranked them. But they aren't the only teams I thought were under-ranked. I had Notre Dame at #11, not #14, and that was consequential as in their case that was the difference between being in an NY6 and not. There were a few others.

Not a big deal, as it didn't cost UCF anything they deserved. They deserved an NY6 spot, and that's what they got.

No. They deserved a shot at the playoff. We know that now. Not really sure why its so hard to admit whats now obvious. You can say it wasnt obvious then--but now its clear the UCF was for real. The problem is, with SOS operating as the committee's be all end all--it automatically eliminates all G5's from contention before the first snap of the season.

If it was an 8-team playoff, I agree, it is now clear UCF would deserve to be in it. But not a 4-team playoff. How can you put them in ahead of Clemson and Oklahoma? Because they beat 3-loss, now 4-loss Auburn? Or ahead of Wisconsin?

UCF will finish around #6 or #7 in the polls, polls that aren't influenced by the CFP. Still not worthy of a top 4 playoff berth.

(01-03-2018 11:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The problem is the polls were trying to mirror the selection committee process.

There's little evidence that this happens, in fact, on the crucial decision day, the polls come out before the CFP. E.g., this year, both the AP and coaches polls came out with Alabama at #4 before the CFP released its final rankings. So if anything, one can argue that the CFP took its tip from the polls, not vice-versa.

But even if so, that doesn't address the computer problem - they had UCF way out of the playoffs too.

I agree that maybe a 8 or 16 team playoff would be better. There is a happy medium that balances the problem of allowing deserving teams in while keeping undeserving teams out (an equally bad problem). E.g., most pro leagues, for money reasons, have playoffs that let undeserving teams in - the Tennessee Titans are in the NFL playoffs with a 9-7 record, NBA teams make the playoffs with 40 losses, etc. They don't belong in the playoffs, but they are in because of the money.

On the other hand, for college football, 4 may be too little. But even if it is, since $$$ is always the most important thing, not competitive purity, the dollars will decide it.

The key in my mind is to avoid the error of keeping the best team out, not the error of allowing an undeserving team in who simply gets hot-at least they won it on the field. I think TCU was the best team in 2014 and they got kept out. I think Oklahoma St. was better than LSU in 2011 and instead, they gave Alabama a 2nd shot at LSU. I believe very strongly Texas was the best team in 2008 and they got kept out. I don't think UCF is top 8. 12 was about right. But by going to 8, they can have room for an unbeaten team with a weaker schedule by guaranteeing a slot to the best G5 champ.

I don't believe UCF is necessarily better than Auburn anymore than I believe 2008 Utah was better than 2008 Alabama. They were better prepared and motivated and the better team that day. And that didn't surprise me at all. UCF IS good and Auburn wanted to be somewhere else. Auburn beat Georgia 40-17 at home when they were playing a #1 team that had already clinched its division while they were facing a do or die game. Then Auburn lost to UGA 28-7 at a neutral site when both had everything on the line. College teams are very variable based on motivation.

(01-02-2018 12:34 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'll watch because it's the last football game until next season.

I agree but I think it could very well be a dull / low scoring game.

I really enjoyed watching Mayfield and am disappointed he isn't in the final.

(01-02-2018 12:31 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm quite excited.

I'm sure all your Klan brothers are excited.

(01-03-2018 12:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The problem is the polls were trying to mirror the selection committee process.

There's little evidence that this happens, in fact, on the crucial decision day, the polls come out before the CFP. E.g., this year, both the AP and coaches polls came out with Alabama at #4 before the CFP released its final rankings. So if anything, one can argue that the CFP took its tip from the polls, not vice-versa.

But even if so, that doesn't address the computer problem - they had UCF way out of the playoffs too.

I agree that maybe a 8 or 16 team playoff would be better. There is a happy medium that balances the problem of allowing deserving teams in while keeping undeserving teams out (an equally bad problem). E.g., most pro leagues, for money reasons, have playoffs that let undeserving teams in - the Tennessee Titans are in the NFL playoffs with a 9-7 record, NBA teams make the playoffs with 40 losses, etc. They don't belong in the playoffs, but they are in because of the money.

On the other hand, for college football, 4 may be too little. But even if it is, since $$$ is always the most important thing, not competitive purity, the dollars will decide it.

The key in my mind is to avoid the error of keeping the best team out, not the error of allowing an undeserving team in who simply gets hot-at least they won it on the field. I think TCU was the best team in 2014 and they got kept out. I think Oklahoma St. was better than LSU in 2011 and instead, they gave Alabama a 2nd shot at LSU. I believe very strongly Texas was the best team in 2008 and they got kept out. I don't think UCF is top 8. 12 was about right. But by going to 8, they can have room for an unbeaten team with a weaker schedule by guaranteeing a slot to the best G5 champ.

Lots of beliefs in there, some i agree with (Auburn lacked mojo vs UCF) some i don't (in 2011, LSU would have crushed Oklahoma State), but i do agree with the big point you make here - in determining the playoff structure, better to err on the side of letting in a marginal undeserving than keeping out a marginal-deserving. So when i say the pro leagues let in too many undeservings, i say it with that belief in mind, they just take that principle too far. For college football, i don't know where the best place to draw the line is, but i do think 4 is better than 2, and 8 is probably better than 4.

In the end, though, we know money will decide all of this, not theoretical principles.

(01-03-2018 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  Well, having listened to all the arguments posed here, I'm now prepared to concede that the playoff selection committee is biased - bought and paid for. I think it's time we toss them aside and replace them with a group of unbiased ratings. Let's take the AP Poll, coaches' Poll, Massey, Colley and Sagarin rankings. Throw out each team's highest and lowest rankings, and average the rest. That should take the bias out of the selection process.

To show how well that would have worked, the final four teams would have been, in order from #1 to #4, Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama, instead of that holy mess the selection committee came up with.

And the next four teams, who would have missed the playoff under this new system, were, in order, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Auburn and USC. Now, I admit that's pretty much the order the CFP had them. But at least it was arrived at in an unbiased way.

And UCF still would have been #12.

Now that I read this, I begin to wonder if that isn't exactly the methodology the selection committee used to arrive at its ranking. Hmmm.......

The problem is the polls were trying to mirror the selection committee process. The system is fine. Its simply been corrupted by stacking the committee. If the committee is so fair and equitable and is arriving at the same decision that anyone would--then why not make it a 10 member committee with one representative from each FBS conference. Surely, if the committee is so fair and reasonable--a body composed of one representative from each conference would reach the same fair and reasonable conclusions--but withut the apeparance of bias? Right?

The polls aren't "trying" to mimic the committee, especially not the coaches poll. But they can't help but be influenced. I think you see the coaches and AP poll with quite a few differences at the start of the season and then they start to converge, not because the facts are obvious, but because they read the other polls and reconsider.

Back in the days when all this information wasn't at your hands on the internet, the coaches and AP polls showed more differences throughout the season. Its like with the media in last year's election. They were all (including Fox) mistakenly convinced the Democrats would win easily because they all talked to each other and shared the same information. The coaches and AP polls read each other's polls and develop groupthink.

Hard to beat Oklahoma-Georgia game. I'll give it a go and hope it's not a boring game. If it is, BTN will have plenty of replays to watch so I'll go there.

Congrats Georgia and Alabama!

Sent from my SM-G920V using CSNbbs mobile app

(01-03-2018 11:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  UCF will finish around #6 or #7 in the polls, polls that aren't influenced by the CFP. Still not worthy of a top 4 playoff berth.

Right, because some teams ranked ahead of them, some with less of a claim to the playoff (like PSU, Washington, and Miami) to UCF, either won or lost, giving the Big Ten three more of push to follow right after the 4 teams in the playoff.

It doesn't answer or resolve why UCF is so darn far down in the first place. And nothing really seems to answer how Auburn went as high as #2 but never further than #7 before UCF. With two, then three losses. Or, again, how 12-0 with weak-*** SOS Wisky is #4, lose a game at 12-1, and now both OSU and Wisky are worse off than 11-1 Bama.

(01-03-2018 12:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  Well, having listened to all the arguments posed here, I'm now prepared to concede that the playoff selection committee is biased - bought and paid for. I think it's time we toss them aside and replace them with a group of unbiased ratings. Let's take the AP Poll, coaches' Poll, Massey, Colley and Sagarin rankings. Throw out each team's highest and lowest rankings, and average the rest. That should take the bias out of the selection process.

To show how well that would have worked, the final four teams would have been, in order from #1 to #4, Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama, instead of that holy mess the selection committee came up with.

And the next four teams, who would have missed the playoff under this new system, were, in order, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Auburn and USC. Now, I admit that's pretty much the order the CFP had them. But at least it was arrived at in an unbiased way.

And UCF still would have been #12.

Now that I read this, I begin to wonder if that isn't exactly the methodology the selection committee used to arrive at its ranking. Hmmm.......

The problem is the polls were trying to mirror the selection committee process. The system is fine. Its simply been corrupted by stacking the committee. If the committee is so fair and equitable and is arriving at the same decision that anyone would--then why not make it a 10 member committee with one representative from each FBS conference. Surely, if the committee is so fair and reasonable--a body composed of one representative from each conference would reach the same fair and reasonable conclusions--but withut the apeparance of bias? Right?

The polls aren't "trying" to mimic the committee, especially not the coaches poll. But they can't help but be influenced. I think you see the coaches and AP poll with quite a few differences at the start of the season and then they start to converge, not because the facts are obvious, but because they read the other polls and reconsider.

Back in the days when all this information wasn't at your hands on the internet, the coaches and AP polls showed more differences throughout the season. Its like with the media in last year's election. They were all (including Fox) mistakenly convinced the Democrats would win easily because they all talked to each other and shared the same information. The coaches and AP polls read each other's polls and develop groupthink.

So I went back this year to see how dissimilar the two polls were at the start of the season, and when they converged. The fact is, they were nearly identical at the top of the rankings, less so the further down you go. Their point of convergence was the first polls. And, over the next several weeks, before the CFP rankings came into the picture, each changed significantly based on that week's results. But both polls changed in virtually the identical way. The two stayed remarkably similar all year.

It is hard to see how two large groups (60+ each) of voters who cast their individual ballots almost immediately after the last games are played on Saturday, could collude with each other in time to produce nearly identical results by early afternoon on Sunday. And a couple of days after these two polls are released, the playoff selection committee releases its ranking. There is no evidence the polls are influenced by the selection committee - if anything, it's the other way around.

(01-03-2018 12:29 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 12:31 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm quite excited.

I'm sure all your Klan brothers are excited.

yeah I am sure you are having wet dreams over the NIT

(01-03-2018 11:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  Well, having listened to all the arguments posed here, I'm now prepared to concede that the playoff selection committee is biased - bought and paid for. I think it's time we toss them aside and replace them with a group of unbiased ratings. Let's take the AP Poll, coaches' Poll, Massey, Colley and Sagarin rankings. Throw out each team's highest and lowest rankings, and average the rest. That should take the bias out of the selection process.

To show how well that would have worked, the final four teams would have been, in order from #1 to #4, Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama, instead of that holy mess the selection committee came up with.

And the next four teams, who would have missed the playoff under this new system, were, in order, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Auburn and USC. Now, I admit that's pretty much the order the CFP had them. But at least it was arrived at in an unbiased way.

And UCF still would have been #12.

Now that I read this, I begin to wonder if that isn't exactly the methodology the selection committee used to arrive at its ranking. Hmmm.......

The problem is the polls were trying to mirror the selection committee process. The system is fine. Its simply been corrupted by stacking the committee. If the committee is so fair and equitable and is arriving at the same decision that anyone would--then why not make it a 10 member committee with one representative from each FBS conference. Surely, if the committee is so fair and reasonable--a body composed of one representative from each conference would reach the same fair and reasonable conclusions--but withut the apeparance of bias? Right?

The polls can't even try to mirror anything. They are a disparate group of individuals who each vote their own way - biases and all - with no communication or coordination among themselves. And, they announce their results before the selection committee does, both after the committee's first "reveal" and before it, publishing a weekly poll for about 9 weeks before the committee meets.

It seems to me that if hundreds of people are arriving at the same conclusion (and many of those folks announce their votes publicly) we've pretty much taken the bias out of the process. The very idea that having one representative from each conference would be less biased makes no sense. That structure presumes bias - that is, the suggestion that G5 representatives would advocate for G5 teams is the antithesis of impartiality. The idea that ten biased committee members would reach an unbiased decision, but 60 AP voters would not, just doesn't fly with me.

You dont think the fact that every voter KNOWS the selection committee has never and will never place a G5 in a top 10 position has no affect on voting. LOL. Ok. Whatever you say. Im sure a balanced CFP Selection Committee of 5 G5 reps and 5 P5 reps would never put UCF in the top 10. Just remember, in 2011 a UH team with almost an identical resume to UCF was #6 in the nation with the conference championship game still to play. The only difference between now and then is 4 years of the selection committee.

(01-03-2018 12:29 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 12:31 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm quite excited.

I'm sure all your Klan brothers are excited.

Very classy of you.

You've been thinking of me I see.

The problem with "the system" will always go back to schedule.

It is plausible a G5 could be one of the best four but the odds of being invited are low because of schedules.

UCF had zero control over 9 games they played (8 regular season AAC games and AAC title game). Those are the best available games to UCF for conference play, UCF can't just make a decision to play an ACC or SEC schedule.

The other four UCF has limited control over. They cannot schedule USC unless USC is willing to play, they can't get UGA home and home unless UGA is willing.

UCF ain't owed a home and home with Clemson but when UCF can't get that game and has to play FIU instead it is a messed up system to say you cannot be seriously considered because you played FIU instead of NC State or you played ECU in conference instead of Tennessee.