Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Bowl Games (other than ours) and associated silliness 2024 Plus the Playoffs

BuffWarHog said:
CFB got it wrong cuz
[checks notes]
Teams that lost shouldn’t have even been given the opportunity to play for a ****ing National championship.
Click to expand...
So, then there's two separate discussions here.

I'm assuming CFB was not a typo and you're actually critiquing the sport at large (CFB and going to a 12 team playoff) and not the committee.
 
Last edited:
Hank said:
Next week should be great. Wish Tyson was healthy.

GfYJwH8WkAAG3Gt
Click to expand...
I guess reseeding after round one doesn’t really fix the problem 😂
 
Robert Sorell said:
Reseeding by CFP rank would give:

1 Oregon vs 12 ASU
2 Georgia vs 9 BSU
3 Texas vs 6 Ohio State
4 Penn State vs 5 Notre Dame
Click to expand...
Thats better but reseeding is annoying because you have no idea who may play when or where ahead of time.
I say go to 16 teams, top five conference champs guaranteed a spot and a home game but not a higher seed. no byes, straight seeding like basketball.
 
hawg1 said:
Yes. All derived slightly differently, but they are generally directionally the same and do they generally correlate to Vegas lines. My fav PR is Action Network. FPI has good late season predictive data. I subscribe to one of the guys on Bet The Board. I used to subscribed to Steele. All different, bit mostly all saying the same story on predicted lines. Every once in a while one of the ViSN guys will release theirs. It’s best to look at many. The Committee pays much data to develop their proprietary Power Rankings and, of course, Vegas protects theirs like Fort Knox
Click to expand...

So, the implied win probabilities from the moneylines were in the neighborhood of 1/3 for a couple of the underdogs.

In your book, that chance to win on the road doesn't merit inclusion in a tournament?
 
The first round games showed me that, and we all knew it, CFB is still exceedingly top heavy. There’s a wide gap between the truly elite and the next tier. Free agency is having an impact, and that’s helped the top end of the next tier get to 10-ish wins but the gap to the elites still exists.

As free agency continues, the elite teams will still be elite but they won’t be as deep. That’ll make them vulnerable game to game. The top end of the next tier will get incrementally stronger and the 12 team CFP will be more competitive.
 
hawg1 said:
Yes. All derived slightly differently, but they are generally directionally the same and do they generally correlate to Vegas lines. My fav PR is Action Network. FPI has good late season predictive data. I subscribe to one of the guys on Bet The Board. I used to subscribed to Steele. All different, bit mostly all saying the same story on predicted lines. Every once in a while one of the ViSN guys will release theirs. It’s best to look at many. The Committee pays much data to develop their proprietary Power Rankings and, of course, Vegas protects theirs like Fort Knox
Click to expand...
Action Network uses recruiting rankings and conference strength from prior seasons as inputs.

My problem with this is that, if and when (perhaps inevitably), the actual (not perceived) relative strengths of conferences changes, the models will lag behind reality.
 
Alfred91 said:
JMO - SMU and Tennessee struggled at least in part because of the cold. Southern teams never deal with it. Like at all. A lot of these kids grow up in the South, they play football exclusively in the South, and this was the first time they were playing in sub-freezing temps with winds whipping around.

I think there's a reason why the only Southern road team that had any kind of sustained success offensively was Clemson - they were playing in 60 degree, sunny weather.

The same thing would have happened to Alabama, Ole Miss, and South Carolina. I truly think that any SEC team that went to South Bend, Happy Valley, or Columbus would have gotten their asses beat.

I don't think it's sustainable to have every playoff game in a neutral site, but I think hone field is going to be huge in the years to come, especially with Southern teams who have to come north.
Click to expand...

Columbus is not that much colder than Knoxville. Knoxville isn't very warm. I looked last night, and I think Knoxville was about 5 degrees warmer than Columbus at kickoff.
 
I get the feeling that some of you guys get really upset at first round blowouts in the NCAA basketball tournament.


“What the Hell is GCU doing in this tournament?”

That’s part of the fun, guys. Every once in a while you get an upset in those games. It didn’t happen this year. It might not happen next year either. It will eventually happen, though. That’s why you set it up the way they did.
 
Not Sure said:
I get the feeling that some of you guys get really upset at first round blowouts in the NCAA basketball tournament.


“What the Hell is GCU doing in this tournament?”

That’s part of the fun, guys. Every once in a while you get an upset in those games. It didn’t happen this year. It might not happen next year either. It will eventually happen, though. That’s why you set it up the way they did.
Click to expand...
A) not upset, more expected…which is what happened here. But
2) it’s not the ONLY game on, trapping the viewer for 4 hours. It’s around an hour, and you can watch a different game if you want.
d) You can play more than one game a week so it captures your attention, switching back and forth between nail biters. With the CFP - we’re going to sit here for 9 more days. The formats don’t compare and it’s not as exciting.
Also, basketball is much easier to develop upsets because it’s so fast paced. Not likely at the upper echelons of football.
 
BuffWarHog said:
A) not upset, more expected…which is what happened here. But
2) it’s not the ONLY game on, trapping the viewer for 4 hours. It’s around an hour, and you can watch a different game if you want.
d) You can play more than one game a week so it captures your attention, switching back and forth between nail biters. With the CFP - we’re going to sit here for 9 more days. The formats don’t compare and it’s not as exciting.
Also, basketball is much easier to develop upsets because it’s so fast paced. Not likely at the upper echelons of football.
Click to expand...
In basketball one player going HAM can be enough for you to win and pull an upset. In football, not so much. Vince Young in the Rose Bowl probably comes closest, but even he needed blockers and a receiver.
 
Jens1893 said:
In basketball one player going HAM can be enough for you to win and pull an upset. In football, not so much. Vince Young in the Rose Bowl probably comes closest, but even he needed blockers and a receiver.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Trying to compare CFP to march madness is…madness
 
Jens1893 said:
In basketball one player going HAM can be enough for you to win and pull an upset. In football, not so much. Vince Young in the Rose Bowl probably comes closest, but even he needed blockers and a receiver.
Click to expand...

BuffWarHog said:
Exactly. Trying to compare CFP to march madness is…madness
Click to expand...
Disagree on some points here.

You have like 7-8 times as many possessions in a basketball game. This reduces the variance in scoring outcomes.

Balance that against the number of players on the field (more variance in basketball based on player performance), and I think you get fairly equal likelihood to get surprising results.
 
Robert Sorell said:
Disagree on some points here.

You have like 7-8 times as many possessions in a basketball game. This reduces the variance in scoring outcomes.

Balance that against the number of players on the field (more variance in basketball based on player performance), and I think you get fairly equal likelihood to get surprising results.
Click to expand...
Ok, you opened this can of worms - what is the incident rate of upsets college basketball (ncaa tournament) vs football (ccg, playoff games)
 
Robert Sorell said:
Disagree on some points here.

You have like 7-8 times as many possessions in a basketball game. This reduces the variance in scoring outcomes.

Balance that against the number of players on the field (more variance in basketball based on player performance), and I think you get fairly equal likelihood to get surprising results.
Click to expand...
I think that ignores the point that you're more reliant on your teammates in football (assuming everyone has basic competency) and that due to the nature of the game most players can only influence one aspect of the game. Ultimately you need 45-ish players (incl a kicker/punter) to play a football game and only 10 to play a game of basketball.
 
To be clear (and I don’t know why I have to make this distinction, because it should be obvious), I’m not comparing the football CFP to the Basketball March Madness. I’m comparing your reactions to each of them.
 
BuffWarHog said:
Ok, you opened this can of worms - what is the incident rate of upsets college basketball (ncaa tournament) vs football (ccg, playoff games)
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the data that matters.

n is still pretty small for neutral site postseason football games. I think you have to throw out the 1v16, 2v15, and maybe 3v14 and 4v13 in basketball because that gap is way bigger than anything that would have been in the CFP.

5 beats 12 35% of the time; 6 v 11 38%, 7 v 10 40%, 8 v 9 50% https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/new...adness-first-round-upsets-by-matchup/3806901/

Last 5 years of CFP it looks like the lower seeds were 4-6 in the semis.

Admittedly, this is still very apples to oranges, but a first level glance is consistent with upset rates not being wildly different between the two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top