Jump to content

956 Worldwide

Full Members
  • Posts

    11787
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

956 Worldwide last won the day on April 17

956 Worldwide had the most liked content!

Reputation

47715 Surly 1%

1 Follower

About 956 Worldwide

Recent Profile Visitors

12823 profile views
  1. I asked ChatGPT to create this for me in keeping with the zeitgeist of making college football as shitty as possible. I’ve been thinking a lot about how we choose college football playoff teams, and honestly, we’re overdue for a smarter, fairer, more transparent system. Here’s my pitch: use AI to process end-of-season data and run massive simulations in which every team plays every other team thousands of times under varied conditions. Then select playoff teams based on the statistically strongest performers across those simulated matchups. Why is this better? 1. It removes human bias. Committee members—no matter how qualified—are still human. They carry regional preferences, conference assumptions, and subconscious leanings. With large-scale simulations, teams are evaluated solely on measurable performance. No human bias or controversy—just data. 2. It’s far more comprehensive than polls or committee debates. Right now, we use a small sample of actual games to infer who’s best. But football schedules are uneven, conferences vary dramatically, and season-long narratives often overshadow the numbers. Simulations allow us to explore every hypothetical matchup, not just the handful that happened in real life. 3. It gives us probabilistic truth, not guesswork. Instead of “eye tests” and résumé comparisons, we’d know how often a team would beat each of its contenders across thousands of scenarios. That makes playoff selection not only more accurate, but more defendable. 4. It makes strength of schedule and injuries more realistic. Simulations can weight for missing players, venue effects, weather, and late-season improvement. The result: a nuanced picture of a team’s true quality—something that the current system struggles to capture. 5. Transparency becomes a feature, not a problem. Publish the simulation model, publish the inputs, publish the results. Fans can argue about model parameters, sure—but at least the process is consistent and openly documented. We already use analytics and machine learning in recruiting, game planning, and sports betting. It’s time the playoff selection process caught up. Let the games be decided on the field—but let simulation-backed evidence decide who reaches that field. I know it’s unconventional, but so was expanding the playoff—and look how that turned out. Curious what others think: is it time to take the biggest decision in college football out of the committee room and into the data lab?
  2. Man, fuck these conferences for getting themselves into a totally predictable situation by expanding too big and then trying to fix it by further marginalizing the half the CFP universe. A playoff is better when it allows for a Cinderella moment. College football is more fun when the mid-majors have that shot at a magic moment. Having auto-bids for a conference champ is the standard in all the other sports. The NIT isn’t a good analogy. The Horizon League gets a bid and it’s the power league “not as good as the top” that gets shunted off to NIT. Thats why it’s cool. Fuck Bama, they’ve lost to 1/6 of the CFP field and FSU. I’d rather see the G5 get their crack.
  3. Dropping Bama seems to solve a lot: - No forcing of ND/Miami question - Avoids 1st round rematches and first round intra-conference games The big problem is the “punishing for a CCG.” Bama made it easier by getting smoked.
  4. It can help Miami. The committee was going to be wary of letting in two ACC teams. This lets them drop the autobid for ACC champ and give an ACC spot to Miami.
  5. Sark, Freeman, and Diaz should meet at a gas station in Abilene and flip a coin.
  6. If you have that bad of a bad matchup with a team in front of you, you’re not as good as them. A third go-round shouldn’t be an option.
  7. There should honestly be a rule that you can’t go if you lost to another playoff team twice. Hard to get better evidence that at least one CFP team is better and thus no need to be in the mix for the best team.
  8. Never stir a roux with anything but wood! You’re challenging the food gods.
  9. We basically had this but the issue is that none of the helmet schools wanted divisions like these and actively blew them up LOL. You’re alluding to money and conference media rights but the heart of the problem is this: the power programs want to get paid for being in a conference of only other power schools but then are unhappy when they take losses and wish they had a Kansas on the schedule. Honestly a hard reset to 2003 would produce good (enough) conference balance with the PAC, Big XII, Big Ten, SEC, Big East, ACC plus ND. You could have a great 16 team playoff with all the champs, 8 P6 + ND at large (no more than two per conference) , and then the two best mid-majors. Remember that at the time the superconferences weren’t bloated and teams like TCU, Boise, Utah, BYU, etc that were more than worthy of squaring up. But teams didn’t want those conferences!
  10. Anyone who followed FCS or DII football could tell you that you could put half the teams in the division in the POs and there’d still be endless whining about who got left out.
  11. As a life-long soccer hater, it brings me no joy to be proven correct in my contention that it is a sport bereft of proper theology and geometry and fundamentally incompatible with a healthy, vigorous, and confident America.
×
×
  • Create New...