Official CFP Selection Freakout Thread

[leftybuff]

The non playoff bowls are next to meaningless.

The Cheez It Bowl will have National implications and I will fight any man that says different.

 

[Buffnik]

The Cheez It Bowl will have National implications and I will fight any man that says different.

Cheez Its suck

 

[leftybuff]

Cheez Its suck

That's it, I am on my way to Casa Bonita, and I shall see you, sir, in the parking lot.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Not sure that UW scores on that Defense more than 24 points
UW has given up quite a lot of points this year and has won like 8 games by single digits
Travis is amazing, but they still have a crap ton of talent all over, likely better than Washington in a couple places and probably more speed
Just another argument that ****s on the committee
Michigan v Texas
UW v Florida State
I think both games would still be close

I remember when it was explained to us - several years back - that Oregon just didn't have the athletes to compete with FSU in the playoffs. Oregon obliterated FSU and honestly, it looked like the Seminoles athletes were a half-step slower than all of Oregon's.

I'm wondering if all of these assumptions (not just you) about Washington come from a place of regional bias. Washington is a good team. Oregon is also a good team.

 

[Big Jim]

I remember when it was explained to us - several years back - that Oregon just didn't have the athletes to compete with FSU in the playoffs. Oregon obliterated FSU and honestly, it looked like the Seminoles athletes were a half-step slower than all of Oregon's.

More reason for @hawg1 to prove the SEC, err, Alabama belongs in the playoff and not the ACC, FSU.

 

[Bliff Cranch]

SIAP, but if the 3 point Alabama win over Georgia was so meaningful, why is Georgia now sixth in the poll?

 

[Uncle Ken]

More reason for @hawg1 to prove the SEC, err, Alabama belongs in the playoff and not the ACC, FSU.

Not the point I was trying to make.

 

[Big Jim]

Not the point I was trying to make.

And yet.

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

The SoS is directional and confirmed by numerous sources. The Committee has access to different cuts. If you don’t like the ordinal version (I get your point), I’m sure they can calculate it as a continuous variable using win percentage.. I don’t think FSU was in the first grouping the last week. See the article from Dinich for more details on Travis unavailability and its impact on the Committee. Travis not being available is not a net “win” for FSU. Their team is impacted. They are less competitive. (See models in this thread).

The Committee (virtually all of them evidently) dont see it like you.

After watching this, I will forever laugh when someone mentions the "committee" in a positive light.

 

[Burrito]

Cheez Its suck

 

[Denver_sc]

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?

The point is, I want to know how you would rank those teams based upon SoS with no other considerations. Here it is w/out conf. champ data:

Team	SoS ranking	vs top 10	vs top 30
1​	5​	2-0	6-0
2​	61​	0-0	3-0
3​	12​	1-1	5-1
4​	4​	1-1	6-1
5​	51​	2-0	2-0
6​	19​	1-1	4-2
7​	36​	1-1	2-1

 

[hokiehead]

The point is, I want to know how you would rank those teams based upon SoS with no other considerations. Here it is w/out conf. champ data:

Team	SoS ranking	vs top 10	vs top 30
1​	5​	2-0	6-0
2​	61​	0-0	3-0
3​	12​	1-1	5-1
4​	4​	1-1	6-1
5​	51​	2-0	2-0
6​	19​	1-1	4-2
7​	36​	1-1	2-1

I know you're not talking to me, but where are you going with this?

SOS without consideration of win/loss would've put Stanford, KSU and ASU in the CFP and CU as first out. I'm not following how this contributes to the discussion -- wins and losses have to be a factor.

 

[Dark Bohner]

I know you're not talking to me, but where are you going with this?

SOS without consideration of win/loss would've put Stanford, KSU and ASU in the CFP and CU as first out. I'm not following how this contributes to the discussion -- wins and losses have to be a factor.

That’s his point. SOS is one of numerous variables that the committee “used” to justify their selections. But by no means the only criteria.

Essentially the committee picked the 4 teams they wanted, and then decided how to justify that selection using hand picked data points.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

That’s his point. SOS is one of numerous variables that the committee “used” to justify their selections. But by no means the only criteria.

Essentially the committee picked the 4 teams they wanted, and then decided how to justify that selection using hand picked data points.

Bingo

 

[hokiehead]

That’s his point. SOS is one of numerous variables that the committee “used” to justify their selections. But by no means the only criteria.

Essentially the committee picked the 4 teams they wanted, and then decided how to justify that selection using hand picked data points.

I understand everything after the first sentence, I don't see how looking at CFP candidate by SOS alone advances that point.

but nevermind, my understanding of this isn't important

 

[Bread]

That's it, I am on my way to Casa Bonita, and I shall see you, sir, in the parking lot.

I’ll be joining you to gang up on Nik. I’m sitting at my desk looking at my always present box of extra toasty cheez its, seething with anger.

 

[Buffnik]

I’ll be joining you to gang up on Nik. I’m sitting at my desk looking at my always present box of extra toasty cheez its, seething with anger.

That made me dry heave.

People really eat those things?

 

[Burrito]

I’ll be joining you to gang up on Nik. I’m sitting at my desk looking at my always present box of extra toasty cheez its, seething with anger.

 

[Bread]

That made me dry heave.

People really eat those things?

I go through boxes often.

 

[hawg1]

More reason for @hawg1 to prove the SEC, err, Alabama belongs in the playoff and not the ACC, FSU.

Good chance for a motivated Nile’s team to prove themselves against UGA.

 

[hawg1]

That’s his point. SOS is one of numerous variables that the committee “used” to justify their selections. But by no means the only criteria.

Essentially the committee picked the 4 teams they wanted, and then decided how to justify that selection using hand picked data points.

Resume is the first filter. Not SOS.

 

[Buffnik]

The committee reached a conclusion and then found data points to justify it.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

Good chance for a motivated Nile’s team to prove themselves against UGA.

Yup! Just like Colorado did versus UO in 2001 when they got the shaft for the MNC. Super easy to be motivated when you have a perfect season, and then have all of your dreams and goals ripped away from you with no hope (our chance) of redemption.

 

[hawg1]

The committee reached a conclusion and then found data points to justify it.

Either way, the conclusion is correct.

 

[Dark Bohner]

Either way, the conclusion is correct.

A conclusion based solely on biased opinion. Most have concluded that you are wrong, and they are correct.

 

[Buffnik]

Either way, the conclusion is correct.

The conclusion aligns with your opinion. It's subjective. And this year it went a way it never had - not including an undefeated P5 champ, elevating a team that was ranked below #6 heading into the championship week (and they did it with 2), dropping a team out of the top 4 despite winning.

 

[Denver_sc]

Quick thought experiment- Alabama wins a tight game in both the Semis and Final. FSU destroys Georgia by multiple touchdowns. Would any AP voters put FSU ahead of Bama?

 

[85alum]

Quick thought experiment- Alabama wins a tight game in both the Semis and Final. FSU destroys Georgia by multiple touchdowns. Would any AP voters put FSU ahead of Bama?

The problem with comparing non-playoff bowl results is that they are driven by other factors, not just team strength. For example, many key players sit out these bowls. Also, the motivation factor is hit or miss: some teams are pumped to prove themselves, other teams that are probably better are deflated because they missed out on the playoffs and they play like they don't give a $#!%. Bowl results, these days, are not a good measure of team strength. IMHO

 

[hokiehead]

..... Bowl results, these days, are not a good measure of team strength. IMHO

I've been beating that drum for years, and agree 100%, but that's not really related to the what-if scenario that Denver is posing

 

[85alum]

I've been beating that drum for years, and agree 100%, but that's not really related to the what-if scenario that Denver is posing

I agree, it didn't directly answer Denver's question. But if I were a voter, those key players sitting out/team motivation factors would enter into my voting. For right or wrong. Anymore, non-playoff bowl results are mostly worthless - why base rankings on those results? Maybe not have polls after the regular season, especially when playoff goes to 12