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!
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…?
I am going to root for Cincy to win out so I watch the committee leave them out and just laugh at this whole process.
The first point.
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.
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?
Not for nothing, but the simulated BCS rankings also have Wisconsin number 9.
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".
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.
They could win B1G.
H2H matters when all else equal.
Best is fundamental to CFP. It’s on the charter, purposefully.
This has nothing to do with NCAA. Unlike CBB, NCAA is not involved with CFP.
If H2H should jump all else, if aTm #2?
But that’s the problem isn’t it? All else can’t be equal because of the differences in scheduling, strength of schedule, etc.
NCAA doesn't do college football post-season, IIRC.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Does resume and body of work?
