Jump to content

gernblansten

Full Members
  • Posts

    1729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

5423 Surly 10%

About gernblansten

Recent Profile Visitors

3566 profile views
  1. They did say that, fans just ignore it. Amazing how many posts in those game threads recognized the dogshit non-playoff team performance in those games and then somehow think the committee didn’t see the same thing.
  2. I don’t decide it. The committee does. Get a member on the phone and ask them. It’s been the same all along. They have to answer questions week after week about ranking a sport that has hundreds of teams that don’t all play the same type of schedules. Every year they contradict themselves when the chair has to answer questions every week. But it’s been this way as long as I can recall: “team A was far and above Team B in our view, so we didn’t need to go to H2H, common opponents, etc, etc.”
  3. You should probably try to keep your dumbassery confined to the Cowboys thread. You’re literally the reason “shut the fuck up, Drew” exists.
  4. That’s been the rules as long as I can recall. It’s just a lot of dumb fucks don’t bother to understand what they’re whining and bitching about. It’s in the stated criteria again this year. If teams are comparable, hear in what we look at to separate “comparable” teams.
  5. All you had to say is, "I don't have any proof. I can't prove they aren't considering it. I'm just an emotional boy is all."
  6. So, Rubio read the news about how Witkoff told Russia they've got praise Trump and then they can get whatever the want.
  7. I didn't see anything in your post with the proof that the committee isn't considering what it publicly states it considers. Provide your proof. Or, hell, just keep regurgitating your personal wants and desires. It don't make a shit.
  8. Feel free to show me where I made that suggestion. I do not present a scenario of taking away a good win, taking away a bad loss, adding a good loss, and still being 9-3. Due to your avatar, I've noticed your posts, and you and highly regarded go well together.
  9. The College Football Playoff selection committee will announce its first of six rankings on Nov. 4 using enhanced metrics to help evaluate schedule strength and how teams perform against their slate, the CFP announced Wednesday. In the current schedule strength metric, more weight will now be applied to games against strong opponents. A new, added metric of "record strength" will help the committee determine how teams performed against their schedule, rewarding those that beat high-quality opponents while minimizing the penalty of losing to one. These changes will also provide minimal reward for beating a lower-quality opponent while imposing a greater penalty for losing to one. Historically, the selection committee typically has evaluated in this manner, but adding it to a computerized metric should help codify the process publicly. It could also incentivize athletic directors to continue to schedule marquee matchups between blue-blood programs without fear of being penalized for a loss in the committee meeting room. This is something some FBS commissioners have been publicly pushing for and the CFP has been working on over the past six months. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/46027603/cfp-selection-committee-use-enhanced-metrics It's interesting because you don't like the ranking, you think it proves they aren't considering the metrics. What evidence do you have to prove their position is not "UT is penalized slightly for losing to tOSU, and penalized a lot for losing to 4-8 UF and 35-10 to UGA. We have them behind the two loss teams because they have 1 good loss, 1 ouch okay loss, and 1 really bad loss. Alabama is the only 2 loss team with a comparable loss, and they nearly cancel it out with the best win of anyone. If UT would've beaten Purdue and had 2 losses, they would be the lowest 2 loss team because of the 35-10 loss and UF." I think UT would be in at 10-2. But, that doesn't change the fact the committee can be following the stated position of what they consider and still have UT outside the playoff. It's not weird fanatics think it's so black and white, but it doesn't change the fact fanatics gonna fanatic and ignore reasonable difference from tunnel vision.
  10. The strength of teams you beat and lose to is literally in the metrics calculation used by the committee. They are literally looking at who you lose to, AND who you play and beat, not just the loss.
  11. Missouri's starting QB was hurt in the 3rd Quarter against Vandy and played against OU.
  12. Pretty insensitive of her showing up in the Charlie Kirk thread showing off her Fulnecky when he only has Halfnecky.
  13. 1. I know this is a popular statement attributed to the committee, but I haven’t seen anyone actually show that to be the position. The closest thing I’ve seen is teams won’t be “heavily” penalized for such losses, but the winner will receive a big boost. In essence, high reward and low cost situation applied to the such games. It’s not “no penalty at all we just act like the winner got a great win and the loser didn’t even play the game.” I’ve seen references to those games are treated as 0.5 loss. However it is explained, the loss still matters. I think it’d be great if you could cite something that says the position is a team won’t be penalized at all as asserted. Finally, not specific to OOC games, I believe the committee announced before the season while losing to good teams in close games won’t hurt as bad this year, losing to bad teams will be heavily penalized, which is where the UF game arises. One way to read into these things is the losses could be counted similar to the following in the committee eyes: 0.5 to tOSU, 1.0 to UGA, 1.5 to UF. 2. My understanding of the committee, when comparing “comparable” teams the margin of victory isn’t incentivized. That’s a scenario of “we’re stuck on teams A and B with comparable data points, we’re not going to place undue weight on margin of victory in games against common opponents in our analysis.” I’ve not seen anything that says “we don’t take into consideration if you lose by 7 or 28.” Further, the committee states it looks at a wide variety of data and information. They can say margin of victory isn’t a factor to keep teams from running up the score when comparing teams with the same record and similar schedules, etc, but the scores are obviously known and discussed. Finally, hopefully I was clear in that I was repeating what Diniich said. And, my post you quoted lacks the context of the post to which I was responding, but my post sets out Ithink UT is in with 10-2 record beating Ohio instead of losing to tOSU. But, I’m not adjacent to the committee and she is. https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2016/10/24/selection-committee-protocol https://sports.yahoo.com/article/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-220716687.html
  14. https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi/_/view/efficiencies There’s not much utility in discussing 98.61% of this 3,700+ post thread.
×
×
  • Create New...