What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

CFB Playoff.

Sure, if Cincy wins out then they should and would get in over ND if it came down to these 2
The thing about Notre Dame this year is that their schedule is much better in brand name opponent than actual quality of opponent. Wins over Florida State, USC and VA Tech don't mean so much this year. By far their best win (only really good one) was Wisconsin -- and the Badgers were playing terrible at the time they faced them.
 
The thing about Notre Dame this year is that their schedule is much better in brand name opponent than actual quality of opponent. Wins over Florida State, USC and VA Tech don't mean so much this year. By far their best win (only really good one) was Wisconsin -- and the Badgers were playing terrible at the time they faced them.
Speaking of which - Wisc at 15?! What the…?
 
@BuffLuke80 , I'm not following whether you're arguing that the criteria used by the CFP, LLC selection committee should be changed to give more prominence to head-to-head, or if you're arguing that the comittee this year is applying those criteria incorrectly.
 
To add to that, I'm tired of hearing this bull**** that if ND played Cincy three times, they'd win two. Even if it is probably accurate, you only play them ONCE. You got your ass kicked on your home field and winning there is hard to do for several reasons. If you've seen them over the years, you know what I'm referring to.
 
@BuffLuke80 , I'm not following whether you're arguing that the criteria used by the CFP, LLC selection committee should be changed to give more prominence to head-to-head, or if you're arguing that the comittee this year is applying those criteria incorrectly.
It's almost impossible for me not to hate what's happened to the sport as a result of the playoff committee- the criteria for ranking seems to change weekly, and this year they clearly are not putting any emphasis on H2H results. Why even play the games if the results don't matter?
 
Losses to #19 Penn State, #12 Notre Dame, and #14 Michigan. Penn State is no longer ranked, but Michigan and Notre Dame are now #6 and #8 respectively.

Plus, they beat #9 Iowa (now 17th).

Early season losses will always be better than late season, and they've been dominating for the last 6 weeks now
Not for nothing, but the simulated BCS rankings also have Wisconsin number 9.



My new favorite conspiracy theory (which I thought of just now) is that the entire point of the selection committee is to start with the massage the AP poll into looking like the BCS rankings by the end of the season.
 
It's almost impossible for me not to hate what's happened to the sport as a result of the playoff committee- the criteria for ranking seems to change weekly, and this year they clearly are not putting any emphasis on H2H results. Why even play the games if the results don't matter?
The whole "best four teams" criteria is part of the problem. The best teams don't and shouldn't always win or be given the botd. Sometimes there are teams that are more deserving, even though, they might or likely lose to another "the better team".

There is never going to be a scenario where Alabama isn't one of the "best four teams" in the country, and even if they lose to Georgia in the SEC CG they are still certainly better than Cincinnati, but would a 2 loss Bama team be more deserving than Cincy? Not IMO, but I would bet the committee would put them in over Cincy.
 
The whole "best four teams" criteria is part of the problem. The best teams don't and shouldn't always win or be given the botd. Sometimes there are teams that are more deserving, even though, they might or likely lose to another "the better team".

There is never going to be a scenario where Alabama isn't one of the "best four teams" in the country, and even if they lose to Georgia in the SEC CG they are still certainly better than Cincinnati, but would a 2 loss Bama team be more deserving than Cincy? Not IMO, but I would bet the committee would put them in over Cincy.
I agree. Head to head should trump everything else. The purpose of all the other stuff is to try and accurately compare teams that haven't played each other and try and predict who would win if the two teams played. If the teams have played, you don't need to look at anything else. I generally dislike sports where the outcome is determined by judges, because there can be too much subjectivity. If you put other criteria above head to head results, you might as well be a Nebraska fan handing out moral victories to the loser.
 
Losses to #19 Penn State, #12 Notre Dame, and #14 Michigan. Penn State is no longer ranked, but Michigan and Notre Dame are now #6 and #8 respectively.

Plus, they beat #9 Iowa (now 17th).

Early season losses will always be better than late season, and they've been dominating for the last 6 weeks now
They could win B1G.
 
It's almost impossible for me not to hate what's happened to the sport as a result of the playoff committee- the criteria for ranking seems to change weekly, and this year they clearly are not putting any emphasis on H2H results. Why even play the games if the results don't matter?
H2H matters when all else equal.
 
The whole "best four teams" criteria is part of the problem. The best teams don't and shouldn't always win or be given the botd. Sometimes there are teams that are more deserving, even though, they might or likely lose to another "the better team".

There is never going to be a scenario where Alabama isn't one of the "best four teams" in the country, and even if they lose to Georgia in the SEC CG they are still certainly better than Cincinnati, but would a 2 loss Bama team be more deserving than Cincy? Not IMO, but I would bet the committee would put them in over Cincy.
Best is fundamental to CFP. It’s on the charter, purposefully.

Deserving is a whole different concept.

I kinda hope Cincy makes it. Will hush 1/2 the crowd on whether (and other G5s) should be in.
 
I agree. Head to head should trump everything else. The purpose of all the other stuff is to try and accurately compare teams that haven't played each other and try and predict who would win if the two teams played. If the teams have played, you don't need to look at anything else. I generally dislike sports where the outcome is determined by judges, because there can be too much subjectivity. If you put other criteria above head to head results, you might as well be a ****braska fan handing out moral victories to the loser.
If H2H should jump all else, if aTm #2?

I know you think not. Reality has to play a role, along with their stated criteria.

The Mich vs Sparty thing is easy. They think Mich is better and has the better resume, this H2H not considered. I actually agree. The Michigan State game was great. The comeback was fabulous. They had a thrilling 2H after Michigan controlling 2.5 quarters. Lots of ball to be played. I think Sparty controls their fate.
 
H2H matters when all else equal.
Yes, I agree. A 1 loss Oregon team should be ranked ahead of a 1 loss Ohio State at the end of the year, assuming both win out. Many are arguing that shouldn't be the case because of the strength of Ohio State's assumed wins over the next few weeks.
Best is fundamental to CFP. It’s on the charter, purposefully.

Deserving is a whole different concept.

I kinda hope Cincy makes it. Will hush 1/2 the crowd on whether (and other G5s) should be in.
I get it's on the charter. It's stupid. Best is completely subjective, while deserving can be explained more objectively based on strength of wins, schedule, H2H, and of course W/L record.

Bama is clearly better than Cincinnati. They are not currently more deserving.
 
But that’s the problem isn’t it? All else can’t be equal because of the differences in scheduling, strength of schedule, etc.
The CFP has analytics than can address that such as SOS, SOR, GC, margin vs average, etc. Sure, it’s not perfect, but normalized data are better than non-normalized data.
 
Yes, I agree. A 1 loss Oregon team should be ranked ahead of a 1 loss Ohio State at the end of the year, assuming both win out. Many are arguing that shouldn't be the case because of the strength of Ohio State's assumed wins over the next few weeks.

I get it's on the charter. It's stupid. Best is completely subjective, while deserving can be explained more objectively based on strength of wins, schedule, H2H, and of course W/L record.

Bama is clearly better than Cincinnati. They are not currently more deserving.
It’s a old argument. I submit some of the metrics you propose are actually best, not most deserving. I don’t see the CFP changing their charter, especially if they go to 12. Maybe a modest change toward most deserving like top ranked P5/6 champs, but not a major shift on that direction.
 
You sure about that? I'm not.

Yes. An undefeated Cincinnati is not getting left out while ND gets in. They could both get in, in fact ND is in pretty good shape because just about everyone in front of them has to either play each other or some other good team still. Plus the survivors after that still have their respective conference championship games. Meanwhile ND has 2 easy games left and then has no conference title game to worry about.
 
The CFP has analytics than can address that such as SOS, SOR, GC, margin vs average, etc. Sure, it’s not perfect, but normalized data are better than non-normalized data.
I just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly- if the normalized data comparison between two teams indicates that they are equal, then and only then should H2H results between the two teams matter? Otherwise, we should trust that the metrics are correct?
 
I just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly- if the normalized data comparison between two teams indicates that they are equal, then and only then should H2H results between the two teams matter? Otherwise, we should trust that the metrics are correct?
The committee uses resume and body of work, supporting these, when appropriate, with normalized and other data. If they are equal, they use H2H. That’s the way I understand it from the charter, Committee statements and bits released from those that have done mock.

Otherwise, aTm would be #2.
 
Back
Top