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!

Official CFP Selection Freakout Thread

I’m appreciate you can’t see the difference. That’s on you, not me.
All human beings are biased. You are talking yourself in circles justifying one avenue of subjective analysis that supports Bama, and completely ignoring that the the subjective justification of FSU not being as good without JT (fair) is not a completed thought, because it is truly impossible to answer how good they would have been with Rodemaker
 
The committee used the factors to get the result it wanted. It's no different than a judge using stare decisis in one case, public policy reasons in another, and legislative intent in another. There are multiple factors that are widely accepted, and you use/emphasize the factors that get the result you want regardless of whether there is any consistency with prior or future decisions.
Committee is like the Supreme Court. Protocol interpreted to fit desired outcome.
 
All human beings are biased. You are talking yourself in circles justifying one avenue of subjective analysis that supports Bama, and completely ignoring that the the subjective justification of FSU not being as good without JT (fair) is not a completed thought, because it is truly impossible to answer how good they would have been with Rodemaker
Line up the 5 factors. Evaluate the teams against them.
 
You will all understand the picks better when Saban announces his retirement in January.

Personally, I am rooting for cheatin' Michigan and Washington to win the semi's convincingly and make the CFP selection committee look as foolish as possible.
 
Line up the 5 factors. Evaluate the teams against them.
I don't need to, they did it for us last week. Using the same criteria, the Committee had 12-0 FSU at #4 following a rivalry win vs UF (Rodemaker), and Bama at #8 following a rivalry win vs. UA (Hail Mary).

Last week Bama beat #1 (who had several key lingering injuries), and FSU Beat #14 with a true frosh, 3rd string QB.

You continue to use the performance of FSU in the ACC CCG as justification...that is the fallacy. Rodemaker should have been presumed to be back, and viewed just as the CFP committee viewed 12-0 FSU the week prior. The only way this makes logical sense is if there WERE unfair biases used against FSU.
 
Is SoS really calculated:

(2*OpponentWin% + 1*OpponentsOpponentsWin%) / 3

How did they wrestle these quants from working at top tier hedge funds?

Who said 8 game conf schedule doesn’t matter vs 9?
Next go round wins over teams in SEC will be one of the 5 metrics.
 
I don't need to, they did it for us last week. Using the same criteria, the Committee had 12-0 FSU at #4 following a rivalry win vs UF (Rodemaker), and Bama at #8 following a rivalry win vs. UA (Hail Mary).

Last week Bama beat #1 (who had several key lingering injuries), and FSU Beat #14 with a true frosh, 3rd string QB.

You continue to use the performance of FSU in the ACC CCG as justification...that is the fallacy. Rodemaker should have been presumed to be back, and viewed just as the CFP committee viewed 12-0 FSU the week prior. The only way this makes logical sense is if there WERE unfair biases used against FSU.
Things changed since last week. Only one ratings matters, the last one. The Committee has numerous data points on FSU w/o Travis. Your refusal to look at the criteria and evaluate the teams says much.
 
Is SoS really calculated:

(2*OpponentWin% + 1*OpponentsOpponentsWin%) / 3

How did they wrestle these quants from working at top tier hedge funds?

Who said 8 game conf schedule doesn’t matter vs 9?
Next go round wins over teams in SEC will be one of the 5 metrics.
How would you calculate SOS? There are numerous approaches. This is just one.

But no matter which one you use, the conclusion is the same.
 
Is SoS really calculated:

(2*OpponentWin% + 1*OpponentsOpponentsWin%) / 3

How did they wrestle these quants from working at top tier hedge funds?

Who said 8 game conf schedule doesn’t matter vs 9?
Next go round wins over teams in SEC will be one of the 5 metrics.
I believe that's how SOS was calculated as part of RPI, which isn't used any more.

the current CFP guidelines don't specify how to calculate SOS, and there are multiple formulas used by various groups.
 
Things changed since last week. Only one ratings matters, the last one. The Committee has numerous data points on FSU w/o Travis. Your refusal to look at the criteria and evaluate the teams says much.
And around and around we go. Please tell me what changed, because from my POV, they only really had one (singular) data point to evaluate the FSU team that would have showed up in the CFP, and when they did that, with their criteria, they had FSU at #4. Just admit that FSU was unfairly penalized for being forced into a temporary QB in an inopportune time
 
How would you calculate SOS? There are numerous approaches. This is just one.

But no matter which one you use, the conclusion is the same.
I’d factor in out of conference record as well as adjust for 8 vs 9 game conf schedules.
If I spent more than 5 min on it I’d probably use more thought out factors, data and weightings.
 
hoping that UM and UW lose in the CFP, Liberty loses to UO and FSU beats UGA to be the only remaining undefeated D1 team

it won't matter to anyone except some previously unknown computer poll and a few Florida newspapers declaring them NCs

typing this up, I flashed back to UCF a few years ago. it occurs to me that the AAC is a part of the CFP (and more relevantly was in 2017)... I'm mildly curious if UCF declaring themselves NCs based on an obscure poll is a violation of their conference's contract with the CFP LLC and what, if any, legal threats the AAC received over that.
 
Because several people have asked:

There is a section in the committee's protocol that specifically refers to the "unavailability of key players ... that may have affected a teams performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance." That allowed the committee to do something it intentionally avoids every other week: look ahead.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39041535/college-football-playoff-committee-selection-process-florida-state-alabama-texas
 
How would you calculate SOS? There are numerous approaches. This is just one.

But no matter which one you use, the conclusion is the same.
Ok. SoS is important. Blind resume time:
    • Team 1:
      • Conf. Champs
      • SoS ranking 5
      • Record against top 10: 2-0
      • Record vs. top 30: 6-0
    • Team 2:
      • Conf Champs
      • SoS ranking 61
      • Record against top 10: 0-0
      • Record against top 30: 3-0
    • Team 3
      • Conf Champs
      • SoS ranking 12
      • Record against top 10: 1-1
      • Record against top 30: 5-1
    • Team 4
      • Conf Champs
      • SoS ranking 4
      • Record against the top 10: 1-1
      • Record against the top 30: 6-1
    • Team 5
      • Conf Champs
      • SoS ranking 51
      • Record against top 10: 2-0
      • Record against top 30: 2-0
    • Team 6
      • SoS ranking 19
      • Record against the top 10: 1-1
      • Record against top 30: 4-2
    • Team 7
      • SoS ranking 36
      • Record against top 10: 1-1
      • Record agaisnt top 30: 2-1
    [*]
EDIT: Put it into a table:
TeamConf ChampsSoS rankingvs top 10vs top 30
1​
Yes
5​
2-06-0
2​
Yes
61​
0-03-0
3​
Yes
12​
1-15-1
4​
Yes
4​
1-16-1
5​
Yes
51​
2-02-0
6​
No
19​
1-14-2
7​
No
36​
1-12-1

Based upon what YOU think the criteria used by the committee is (that they should have used, according to you), seed those teams (no cheating by looking it up)
 
Last edited:
Ok. SoS is important. Blind resume time:
  • Team 1:
    • Conf. Champs
    • SoS ranking 5
    • Record against top 10: 2-0
    • Record vs. top 30: 6-0
  • Team 2:
    • Conf Champs
    • SoS ranking 61
    • Record against top 10: 0-0
    • Record against top 30: 3-0
  • Team 3
    • Conf Champs
    • SoS ranking 12
    • Record against top 10: 1-1
    • Record against top 30: 5-1
  • Team 4
    • Conf Champs
    • SoS ranking 4
    • Record against the top 10: 1-1
    • Record against the top 30: 6-1
  • Team 5
    • Conf Champs
    • SoS ranking 51
    • Record against top 10: 2-0
    • Record against top 30: 2-0
  • Team 6
    • SoS ranking 19
    • Record against the top 10: 1-1
    • Record against top 30: 4-2
  • Team 7
    • SoS ranking 36
    • Record against top 10: 1-1
    • Record agaisnt top 30: 2-1
Based upon what YOU think the criteria used by the committee is (that they should have used, according to you), seed those teams (no cheating by looking it up)
I didn't look anything up and I'd pick 1, 3, 4, 5. First criteria for me was conf champ, then SoS.
 
Ok. SoS is important. Blind resume time:
  • Team 1:
    • Conf. Champs
    • SoS ranking 5
    • Record against top 10: 2-0
    • Record vs. top 30: 6-0
  • Team 2:
    • Conf Champs
    • SoS ranking 61
    • Record against top 10: 0-0
    • Record against top 30: 3-0
  • Team 3
    • Conf Champs
    • SoS ranking 12
    • Record against top 10: 1-1
    • Record against top 30: 5-1
  • Team 4
    • Conf Champs
    • SoS ranking 4
    • Record against the top 10: 1-1
    • Record against the top 30: 6-1
  • Team 5
    • Conf Champs
    • SoS ranking 51
    • Record against top 10: 2-0
    • Record against top 30: 2-0
  • Team 6
    • SoS ranking 19
    • Record against the top 10: 1-1
    • Record against top 30: 4-2
  • Team 7
    • SoS ranking 36
    • Record against top 10: 1-1
    • Record agaisnt top 30: 2-1
Based upon what YOU think the criteria used by the committee is (that they should have used, according to you), seed those teams (no cheating by looking it up)
These are not the only data the Committee used. Why use incomplete, selective data?. Supply all the data according to the criteria and I will choose.
 
It’s clear what the Committee did. They told you how they made the decision this year. You don’t like it. That’s your right

I told you the decision I would have made if the roles were reversed as an indication of my (lack of) bias.
You take the committee at their word. I don't.
 
These are not the only data the Committee used. Why use incomplete, selective data?. Supply all the data according to the criteria and I will choose.
You can assume that "vs. common opponent" outcomes are the same, because apparently site location and margin of victory doesn't matter. Point 5 (availability) is too vague to summarize in a table. Added H2H victory. that covers all 5 relevant factors. Go:

TeamConf ChampsSoS rankingH2H Victory(ies)vs top 10vs top 30
1​
Yes
5​
0​
2-06-0
2​
Yes
61​
0​
0-03-0
3​
Yes
12​
0​
1-15-1
4​
Yes
4​
vs. team 31-16-1
5​
Yes
51​
vs. team 72-02-0
6​
No
19​
vs. team 41-14-2
7​
No
36​
0​
1-12-1
 
in that order?
No, in order of original list. But my list based on the listed criteria. I agree with hawg1 that this list of criteria doesn't reflect the selection committee criteria - ie, if a given team has had an impactful change (injury), then that's also a factor. But I only considered the factors that were given.
I don't know how this compares with actual selection. But I do agree with the actual final 4 and I also agree that FSU can claim to be screwed (yes, that's contradictory). I don't have any confidence with FSU competing if they selected because of the injury and, as a fan of CFB, I'm selfishly more concerned about competitive games. Having 12 next year makes in better even though #13 will certainly cry. But I don't care about #13. #5 crying is more understandable, especially in this case.
 
You can assume that "vs. common opponent" outcomes are the same, because apparently site location and margin of victory doesn't matter. Point 5 (availability) is too vague to summarize in a table. Added H2H victory. that covers all 5 relevant factors. Go:

TeamConf ChampsSoS rankingH2H Victory(ies)vs top 10vs top 30
1​
Yes
5​
0​
2-06-0
2​
Yes
61​
0​
0-03-0
3​
Yes
12​
0​
1-15-1
4​
Yes
4​
vs. team 31-16-1
5​
Yes
51​
vs. team 72-02-0
6​
No
19​
vs. team 41-14-2
7​
No
36​
0​
1-12-1
Point 5 is important. There is no reason to selectively leave it out of the criteria.

What are the groupings the Committee used? I’ll use the same ones.

Do victories against current teams reflect current rankings or rankings at time of game?

is SoS depicted here directionally corroborated by sources other than the one you used?

Are other data available to evaluate resume? SOR, power ratings, etc?
 
No, in order of original list. But my list based on the listed criteria. I agree with hawg1 that this list of criteria doesn't reflect the selection committee criteria - ie, if a given team has had an impactful change (injury), then that's also a factor. But I only considered the factors that were given.
I don't know how this compares with actual selection. But I do agree with the actual final 4 and I also agree that FSU can claim to be screwed (yes, that's contradictory). I don't have any confidence with FSU competing if they selected because of the injury and, as a fan of CFB, I'm selfishly more concerned about competitive games. Having 12 next year makes in better even though #13 will certainly cry. But I don't care about #13. #5 crying is more understandable, especially in this case.
to add: I also think any of the 4 have at least a decent chance at winning it all. I wouldn't say that if FSU was included with the injured QB. Which is too bad, the QB injury really screwed FSU, both competitively and money wise. But thinking that any of the 4 could win, to me, makes it even more interesting.
 
That’s fine. They explained the decision according to the criteria. What should they have done?
Did they fully explicate how they grouped nearly comparable teams?

I don't find Bama and FSU this year to be nearly comparable.

The first three that are nearly comparable are UW, Michigan, and FSU.

Then out of Bama, Texas, Georgia, tOSU it's Texas then Bama because of conference champ and H2H.

Even if you group FSU and Bama, I see that as a draw.

-H2H = n/a

- conf. champs = tie

- SOS = the slimmest of margins for Bama, no metric for determining SOS is prescribed. I reject the ordinal rank of SOS because the size of the league for FBS is so big. The raw values aren't as disparate as one would believe from looking at the ordinal rank for FSU and Bama. Bama has the better top teams on their schedule, FSU has more good but not great opponents. Quality losses count less than quality wins so Bamas SOS advantage is discounted a bit.

- Quality of teams w/ injury considerations = FSU by slimmest of margins, over the past two weeks both teams played in state rivals and legit conference championship opponents. FSU won both by larger margins against marginally worse opponents. So it's a wash based on available data about the teams. If we're discounting for FSU's QB injury, we also have to rebate them a little bit for the opportunity to have 3 weeks of practice with Rodemaker finally getting first team reps and modify their gameplan accordingly. All told FSU slim margin.

So that's a draw. Did you read the protocol in a way that tells you what to do now?

The fundamental problem with the grouping, then comparing process is that FSU gets penalized twice for the injury. They're not in Bama's comparable group if they have JT. So because losing JT brought them down to Bama's level we now ding them for the injury again to rank them within group.

The fact that the published protocol neglects to weight factors, define the size of groups that are comparable, or how the voters should chose the ranks in the rounds of polling to get comparable groups, or how SOS should be calculated is no accident. It's all the window dressing of an objective process without any of the important meat in the bones to justify making decisions that benefit the earning potential of their system.
 
Two things with this: 1) it came from ESPN (one of the main culprits in this if you are one that believes that Bama was put in for ratings purposes) and 2) From the article - "All of us had the emotional tie, like, 'Holy s---, this is really going to suck to do this,'" one committee member told ESPN. "We talked about that over and over, and we just kept coming back [to] are they good enough with what they have to win a national championship, and it just kept coming back [to] we didn't think they could."

To #2: this is the logic break down that I continue to focus on, because their only relevant data point to make this evaluation was vs. UF, and this assessment feels like a cop out for not wanting to give the benefit of the doubt to a team that went undefeated and was figuring out how to get Rodemaker ready to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wip
Back
Top