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!

First playoff rankings released

TSchekler said:
Yeah, it’s funny that Zandi thinks there’s like a committee of people sitting around a table in Vegas going through every game and setting odds based on their personal opinions.
Click to expand...
Yup, that's EXACTLY what I think.

Computers are the only way to do unbiased, and that's only if you give them unbiased input. No committee will EVER be unbiased.

There isn't enough inter-conference play to have a realistic comparison to rank them.

Win your conference, go play the other teams that won their conference. There is 0 chance you don't have the best team in the playoffs if all of the conference champions are there.

The champion should be the best team, not the one that couldn't win their conference.
 
Since people are biased and input for computers are biased, the only way to be fair is place all the 1,2,3 loss teams in a hat and pick 4. Same size paper for each entry.
 
ZandiBuff said:
Yup, that's EXACTLY what I think.

Computers are the only way to do unbiased, and that's only if you give them unbiased input. No committee will EVER be unbiased.

There isn't enough inter-conference play to have a realistic comparison to rank them.

Win your conference, go play the other teams that won their conference. There is 0 chance you don't have the best team in the playoffs if all of the conference champions are there.

The champion should be the best team, not the one that couldn't win their conference.
Click to expand...
I was responding to your assertion that the "reasoned experts" said we were 24 point favorites. The computers said we were 24 point favorites, not any kind of experts.

I also agree with the rest of your post here. There are very few years in which a P5 champ should not be considered one of the best teams in the country. Maybe this year in the Pac 12, but at 12-1, I think Washington State would have a legit argument. Purely hypothetical, but I simply don't believe an 11-1 LSU team, who couldn't win their own conference or division, even if their only loss was to Alabama, should be considered better than a 12-1 Pac 12 team that won their conference.
 
ZandiBuff said:
Yup, that's EXACTLY what I think.

Computers are the only way to do unbiased, and that's only if you give them unbiased input. No committee will EVER be unbiased.

There isn't enough inter-conference play to have a realistic comparison to rank them.

Win your conference, go play the other teams that won their conference. There is 0 chance you don't have the best team in the playoffs if all of the conference champions are there.

The champion should be the best team, not the one that couldn't win their conference.
Click to expand...
I do wish the Committee has access to at least one Vegas Power Rating set of numbers.

Your last statement is not logical.
 
TSchekler said:
I was responding to your assertion that the "reasoned experts" said we were 24 point favorites. The computers said we were 24 point favorites, not any kind of experts.

I also agree with the rest of your post here. There are very few years in which a P5 champ should not be considered one of the best teams in the country. Maybe this year in the Pac 12, but at 12-1, I think Washington State would have a legit argument. Purely hypothetical, but I simply don't believe an 11-1 LSU team, who couldn't win their own conference or division, even if their only loss was to Alabama, should be considered better than a 12-1 Pac 12 team that won their conference.
Click to expand...

This right here. Alabama is the better team, they won their conference (in your example) - they go to the playoffs, LSU goes to the Orange bowl, or . . . . Bowl. Try again next year.
 
TSchekler said:
Click to expand...

I'm not in a convenient place to watch a twitter video at the moment, if you can enumerate his reasoning, that'd be helpful.

"the most POSSIBLE ..." is kind of a silly claim to make about anything. would a random number generator be less flawed?
 
hokiehead said:
I'm not in a convenient place to watch a twitter video at the moment, if you can enumerate his reasoning, that'd be helpful.

"the most POSSIBLE ..." is kind of a silly claim to make about anything. would a random number generator be less flawed?
Click to expand...
He discusses the advanced statistics/rankings to point out that there is clear confirmation bias with the SEC rankings, as well as influence bias with ACC rankings.
 
TSchekler said:
So are you lobbying for a 5 team playoff or keep the 4 team but only P5 conference champs can make it?
Click to expand...
I guess I'll repeat it:

6 team:
P5 champs
highest remaining G5 champ or independent.

Each conference gets, at most, 1. Period. End of discussion.
 
hawg1 said:
I do wish the Committee has access to at least one Vegas Power Rating set of numbers.

Your last statement is not logical.
Click to expand...
How is it not logical?

How can you be the best team in football if you aren't the best team in your conference?
 
ZandiBuff said:
...
How can you be the best team in football if you aren't the best team in your conference?
Click to expand...
by being in a conference where the selection process for champion is not guaranteed to select the 'best'.

i.e. "best" != "champion"
 
TSchekler said:
What do you disagree with and why do you think it's click bait?
Click to expand...
Klatt is known for intentionally contrarian views in this video.

Syntax and choice of words are sensational.

Claims THiS IS the most flawed system possible. Nope. Polls are more flawed.

The tosses around statistical terms like vausnce and MOE is completely inappropriate ways. FPI and Sagarin are within MOE. Huh?

He postulates co formation boss using SEC as example stating “EVERYTIME” SEC has a chance to be ranked higher, they are. Huh? Everytime in history of poll. No other teams has this “bias”. Maybe data support the ranking this year. He conveniently did not address that.

He has historically been an SEC contrarian which, by the way, his network does not have a conference contract.

“Fraudulent”. Huh? Someone committed fraud?

Beamer? The 15-25 is just mush as this point. So what ACC is ranked. There are Committee processes to prevent undue influences from single contributors.

B1G underrepresented. Fox sure shows a lot of these games.

It’s a silly 9 minute video.
 
hokiehead said:
by being in a conference where the selection process for champion is not guaranteed to select the 'best'.

i.e. "best" != "champion"
Click to expand...
Who has that now?

power 5 all now have a championship game. No one "picks" a champion.

If you argue the big 10, then they penalize themselves if they allow the not best team to play in the championship game.

Allowing a team to skip the first round of the playoffs (the conference championship) and play for it all, just because some committee member has a hard on for them is dumb, invalidates the regular season and the conferences in general.
 
ZandiBuff said:
How is it not logical?

How can you be the best team in football if you aren't the best team in your conference?
Click to expand...

The best team is determined by the national championship, not by being a conference champion. It is completely logical that a conference runner-up could be the best (national champion). And it has happened.
 
ZandiBuff said:
Who has that now?

power 5 all now have a championship game. No one "picks" a champion.

If you argue the big 10, then they penalize themselves if they allow the not best team to play in the championship game.

Allowing a team to skip the first round of the playoffs (the conference championship) and play for it all, just because some committee member has a hard on for them is dumb, invalidates the regular season and the conferences in general.
Click to expand...
Yes, if they are chosen by Committee because of a hard on, that’s wrong. If they are chosen because they are one of the four best teams (Committee charter), then that’s right.
 
TSchekler said:
He discusses the advanced statistics/rankings to point out that there is clear confirmation bias with the SEC rankings, as well as influence bias with ACC rankings.
Click to expand...

Watched what he said-On the SEC, yes and no. Alabama should rightly be #1. LSU and Florida are both overrated (I'd have had Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, and Michigan 1-4 with Oklahoma and LSU at 5 and 6. Florida's win over LSU looks great, sure, but the reality is there's not much else there. Mississippi State? Hasn't done much. They've got a win over A&M-who has probably been the only team to this point to play with Alabama for a half, and gave Clemson a game. Good. Not much else there.) His ACC take is more interesting to me-They are getting a bounce they don't deserve, but I don't know if I agree with his take on why that is. I think when Notre Dame is nationally relevant (they play five ACC teams a year) that entire league gets a bounce they don't deserve. Look at last year's Miami team as a previous example of this. Virginia Tech was ranked in the AP poll the week they played Notre Dame IIRC (Hokie or somebody else correct me if I'm wrong here), and that win would look better if the Hokies beat Virginia (who is also ranked this weekend) over Thanksgiving. Syracuse appears in this weeks CFP rankings, and they get a shot at Notre Dame in a couple weeks.
 
ZandiBuff said:
How is it not logical?

How can you be the best team in football if you aren't the best team in your conference?
Click to expand...

Happens all the time in sports Zandi. Was 2013-14 Connecticut (who won the national championship without a regular season or conference tourney title) the best team in college basketball that year? What about 2014-15 Duke? They didn't win the ACC regular season title or the conference tournament.
 
ahoelsken said:
Watched what he said-On the SEC, yes and no. Alabama should rightly be #1. LSU and Florida are both overrated (I'd have had Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, and Michigan 1-4 with Oklahoma and LSU at 5 and 6. Florida's win over LSU looks great, sure, but the reality is there's not much else there. Mississippi State? Hasn't done much. They've got a win over A&M-who has probably been the only team to this point to play with Alabama for a half, and gave Clemson a game. Good. Not much else there.) His ACC take is more interesting to me-They are getting a bounce they don't deserve, but I don't know if I agree with his take on why that is. I think when Notre Dame is nationally relevant (they play five ACC teams a year) that entire league gets a bounce they don't deserve. Look at last year's Miami team as a previous example of this. Virginia Tech was ranked in the AP poll the week they played Notre Dame IIRC (Hokie or somebody else correct me if I'm wrong here), and that win would look better if the Hokies beat Virginia (who is also ranked this weekend) over Thanksgiving. Syracuse appears in this weeks CFP rankings, and they get a shot at Notre Dame in a couple weeks.
Click to expand...
VT was ranked then, they shouldn't have been. I probably posted that at the time.

I never noticed the three ACC teams at the bottom of the playoff ranking. giving it a bit of consideration, that's pretty much how the AP and Coaches polls have the ACC teams, though (except Syracuse and NCSU are swapped). I guess you can conclude there is approximately the same bias in the Playoff poll for ACC schools as in the others.
 
ahoelsken said:
Happens all the time in sports Zandi. Was 2013-14 Connecticut (who won the national championship without a regular season or conference tourney title) the best team in college basketball that year? What about 2014-15 Duke? They didn't win the ACC regular season title or the conference tournament.
Click to expand...
1. Different sport
2. Tournament / playoffs don't determine the best team, they determine the champion.

IMHO you don't deserve to call your selves champions if you didn't even win your conference. In football.

The only thing expanded playoffs determine is who got hot at the end.
 
ZandiBuff said:
1. Different sport
2. Tournament / playoffs don't determine the best team, they determine the champion.

IMHO you don't deserve to call your selves champions if you didn't even win your conference. In football.

The only thing expanded playoffs determine is who got hot at the end.
Click to expand...
Why do conference championship games mean anything? They are dinosaurs, doomed, especially with possible expansion and doing away with divisions.

Go Virginia, Northeestern, Wazzu, WVU and Kentucky. All could be conference champs. None are four best.
 
Why the **** do we care about rankings that don't involve us and don't mean anything?
 
hawg1 said:
Why do conference championship games mean anything? They are dinosaurs, doomed, especially with possible expansion and doing away with divisions.

Go Virginia, Northeestern, Wazzu, WVU and Kentucky. All could be conference champs. None are four best.
Click to expand...
What if one of them gets hot in the playoffs? What if Alabama's bus crashes on the way to the game?

Tell me you honestly believe every year's BBall champion was the best team that year.

The wider you make the playoffs, the more diluted the pool is, and the greater chance someone gets lucky.

And conference championships matter because they ARE the first round of the playoffs.

How can championships be doomed with expansion and doing away with divisions? There'd still be 16 teams per "conference", which would have some sort of inner playoff for the top spot, which would then go to the final playoff. Which is exactly what I'm arguing for in the current conference setup.
 
ZandiBuff said:
What if one of them gets hot in the playoffs? What if Alabama's bus crashes on the way to the game?

Tell me you honestly believe every year's BBall champion was the best team that year.

The wider you make the playoffs, the more diluted the pool is, and the greater chance someone gets lucky.

And conference championships matter because they ARE the first round of the playoffs.

How can championships be doomed with expansion and doing away with divisions? There'd still be 16 teams per "conference", which would have some sort of inner playoff for the top spot, which would then go to the final playoff. Which is exactly what I'm arguing for in the current conference setup.
Click to expand...
I don’t care about BBall. I like a four team playoff. I like that the season matters. There are playoff games this weekend. I don’t care about CCGs that much, especially as an entree to the playoffs. That’s a system of entitlement, not a system of choosing the four best. I want to see the four best teams play, not WVU or Virginia. The current system works for which is was designed (best). Want a different, change the charter, which was carefully designed by administrators and ADs who likely had a bias to choose conference champs. Even they chose the “best” model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top