Jump to content

gernblansten

Full Members
  • Posts

    1727
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gernblansten

  1. 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.”
  2. You should probably try to keep your dumbassery confined to the Cowboys thread. You’re literally the reason “shut the fuck up, Drew” exists.
  3. 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.
  4. 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."
  5. So, Rubio read the news about how Witkoff told Russia they've got praise Trump and then they can get whatever the want.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Missouri's starting QB was hurt in the 3rd Quarter against Vandy and played against OU.
  11. Pretty insensitive of her showing up in the Charlie Kirk thread showing off her Fulnecky when he only has Halfnecky.
  12. 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
  13. https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi/_/view/efficiencies There’s not much utility in discussing 98.61% of this 3,700+ post thread.
  14. I don't disagree, but that Heather Dinich person who seems to generally have the pulse of the committee said if UT was 10-2 with a win against lesser OOC opponent it was not a given to be in the playoff. That's apparently how bad the UF loss and 35-10 UGA loss are viewed.
  15. I get the sentiment, and OU's offense is very flawed with an offensive efficiency ranking of 54. But, UT's is 41. For reference, Iowa is 48. OU and UT have by far the worst offensive efficiency ranking among playoff contenders. In an argument of more deserving, it might be a better argument against ND as they're 0-2 against teams in the playoff mix. The problem is ND only lost by 3 to 10-2 Miami on a FG with a minute to play and by 1 to 11-1 aggy on a 4th down TD with eleven seconds left after ND missed an extra point while they've handled everyone else in a manner that they should. Easy to say they are a couple plays from undefeated. UT can talk away couple plays away from losses to tOSU and UF. But there's no undoing the UGA loss and no amount of "it was close until...." changes the final score. Those three teams have an interesting look though: Strength of Record: OU-9, UT-12, ND 13 Strength of Schedule: UT-8, OU 12, ND-42 Game Control: ND-5, OU-9, UT-17 Average in-game win probability: ND-5, OU-16, UT-45 Offensive efficiency: ND-3, UT-41, OU-54 Defensive efficiency: OU-4, ND-8, UT-11 Special teams: OU-2, UT-5, ND-64
  16. Yeah, it's that pesky third loss to 4-8 Florida that's the problem; and, then you dig into the less than pretty wins against UK and MSU for the game control/beauty pageant part of things. Thinking back to those threads and the arguments now about deserving a playoff spot is interesting.
  17. Is this one of those things that someone claims and then others just repeat it? Referee Ken Williamson got "permanently suspended" by the SEC after the Georgia-Auburn game. His crew did not officiate the OU-Auburn game, Jeff Heaser's crew did and they continued to officiate games after OU-Auburn.
  18. I think LSU could've slept just fine at night if they said, "hell, Lane, we'll pay you a billion if the Rebels win the title this year."
  19. Did you mean the loss to FSU? I know this is the wacky playoff argument season and Oklahoma is a very flawed team. But, if losing to a 10-2 SEC team by 2 points at home is a pretty bad loss we might've jumped the shark. It's not like Oklahoma's two losses were to bad teams.
  20. In your opinion, which teams are playoff caliber?
  21. This is the time of year when most of the teams suck because they either lose games or because they win games against teams that suck. Somehow, only around 4 teams belong in the top 10. Yet, we have to pick 7 teams to fill out a top 12. Quite the problem.
  22. He is, and always has been a blatant liar. He now shows signs of cognitive declined. But, watching the video those quotes are a little misleading and lack context. His answers are bullshit, but he does provide actual answers.
  23. Now I have to figure out if Oregon gets credit for a top 3 win against PSU, but tOSU and IU get no credit for beating unranked PSU.
  24. It's college football. Coaches take better jobs. Players transfer every year. Players opt out of games. Players self redshirt. If you're whining about loyalty in cfb you need to pay more attention to the real world. The wink and nod about the student part of student-athlete isn't even a wink and nod anymore. Mississippi isn't winning the NC with or without Kiffin. If you think there is a right or wrong in this from any side, you're somehow to strongly invested. Also, if you think there is a "consensus" top 3 CFB jobs you don't know the definition of "consensus".
×
×
  • Create New...