Official CFP Selection Freakout Thread

[Robert Sorell]

The focus on minor and/or irrelevant points astounds me. The primary question has been lost for many.

Leon feels better. We’ll see if we can’t do same for Robert.

I don't feel bad.

You are a master of selectively responding to queries that you feel you can defend, and responding minimally.

You're an interesting exercise in looking at the limits and processes of motivated reasoning.

 

[hawg1]

If it makes you feel better to say that, fine, play victim. I was simply trying to debate the issue with you in good faith, and you quit. I didn't (and still don't) see a consistent path to justify the final ranking, except for an admission that they simply decided what the best 4 teams were....in their opinion, and with bias. If that's the answer, and I believe it is, just admit it....you refuse to do so. You have maintained that this is all clearly measurable within the criteria (apologies if my semantics here are a smidge off). I asked repeatedly for you to point to the specific criteria that justifies this, and was constantly ignored and told to "read the criteria"....and then when presented with the actual published protocol, you conceded while not admitting that this is a biased process.

I honestly could care less if it was Bama or FSU but for the seeming lack of fairness, and was in search of the quantitative logic that would justify it. You continue to defend it, but can't justify it with quantifiable logic that makes sense. I actually find that annoying, especially when paired with a seemingly arrogant attitude towards opposing inquiry.

I didn’t go anywhere. I’ve been here. I conceded the point to you on last weeks rankings.

Now you are back. Welcome.

Bama was chosen as one of the four best over FSU in the final pill using the 5 criteria. I have previously reviewed the data for the teams relative to these criteria. Their advantages were in SOS and the impact of Travis not playing in the postseason.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

Sweet jesus

 

[Buffs35]

But the “biased” decision is also the right decision according to the criteria.

One last invitation for you to list the criteria. And list the two teams.

The criteria was ESPN and Fox telling the committee, vote as we tell you to if you want to keep this cushy gig.

 

[hawg1]

I don't feel bad.

You are a master of selectively responding to queries that you feel you can defend, and responding minimally.

You're an interesting exercise in looking at the limits and processes of motivated reasoning.

I understand agnostic reasoning. I made a career out of it.

And I understand the criteria and Committee’s decision. I happen to agree with it.

Plus I know how and when to use orthogonal vs oblique rotation.

 

[hawg1]

Sweet jesus

Not much of a reasoned argument.

 

[Buffs35]

Wrong. When members select the initial 6, they are using metrics. They aren’t just pulling them out of the hat.

 

[hawg1]

Another reasoned response. I love cute gifs.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

Not much of a reasoned argument.

Seems your reading comprehension is improving!

 

[Buffs35]

Another reasoned response. I love cute gifs.

this one is cuter

 

[hawg1]

Seems your reading comprehension is improving!

Tell me what I did not comprehend in your previous post. I’ll respond. I didn’t run. I didn’t sign off. Welcome back.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

Tell me what I did not comprehend in your previous post. I’ll respond. I didn’t run. I didn’t sign off. Welcome back.

I have, several times, and I laid it all out in my previous posts. I'm good here.

 

[hawg1]

I have, several times, and I laid it all out in my previous posts. I'm good here.

You laid out an argument about the discrepancy in last week’s rankings. I said it didn’t matter.

Your most recent post said I ran. It went on to talk about the decision. I responded.

All good.

 

[Robert Sorell]

I understand agnostic reasoning. I made a career out of it.

And I understand the criteria and Committee’s decision. I happen to agree with it.

Plus I know how and when to use orthogonal vs oblique rotation.

I thought it was cute that you take the committee at their word, it's downright adorable that you are protecting your understanding of statistical methods into the committee.

Garbage in garbage out, all models are wrong some are useful.

Provide a published list of the metrics that the committee uses, that have unbiased, quantitatve inputs, and maybe I'll entertain the idea that the committee is using an unbiased, quantitative process.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

You laid out an argument about the discrepancy in last week’s rankings. I said it didn’t matter.

Your most recent post said I ran. It went on to talk about the decision. I responded.

All good.

Correct. You said it didn't matter but could never prove or justify why or how it didn't matter.

I contended that FSU was ranked at #4 and Bama was ranked at #8 when all relevant data was available, and bias ($greed$) caused them to manipulate the rankings for the benefit of eyeballs/ad revenue. You stated that this is false, and the committee was not allowed to take ALL (injury) relevant data into account until the final ranking. Fine.

You told me to read the criteria, I presented you with the protocol that makes no mention of this construct. You apologized, and said that it was actually in the committee's comments. I asked to be directed to these comments being made before the Final 4 selection was made (important, as making these statements after the selection only bolsters the appearance of justifying a biased decision).

 

[hawg1]

I thought it was cute that you take the committee at their word, it's downright adorable that you are protecting your understanding of statistical methods into the committee.

Garbage in garbage out, all models are wrong some are useful.

Provide a published list of the metrics that the committee uses, that have unbiased, quantitatve inputs, and maybe I'll entertain the idea that the committee is using an unbiased, quantitative process.

I didn’t take the Committee at their word. I looked at the criteria. I came to the same decision as the Committee.

Yeah, my stats reference was uncalled for. You got me with your question if I understood qual vs quant data. I should have let it pass.

I don’t know what you want me to say on your last paragraph. The protocol addresses what kind of data the Committee can use in the Metrics section.

You know the list of determinative criteria when things are comparable. No need to list those. All of those can be quantitative.

What else?

 

[hawg1]

Correct. You said it didn't matter but could never prove or justify why or how it didn't matter.

I contended that FSU was ranked at #4 and Bama was ranked at #8 when all relevant data was available, and bias ($greed$) caused them to manipulate the rankings for the benefit of eyeballs/ad revenue. You stated that this is false, and the committee was not allowed to take ALL (injury) relevant data into account until the final ranking. Fine.

You told me to read the criteria, I presented you with the protocol that makes no mention of this construct. You apologized, and said that it was actually in the committee's comments. I asked to be directed to these comments being made before the Final 4 selection was made (important, as making these statements after the selection only bolsters the appearance of justifying a biased decision).

To my knowledge the Committee never addressed Point 5 before the final rankings. There was never the need (as they mentioned). I agree with this statement. To look forward before you have all the data is wrong.

What else?

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

To my knowledge the Committee never addressed Point 5 before the final rankings. There was never the need (as they mentioned). I agree with this statement. To look forward before you have all the data is wrong.

What else?

Nothing. Thank you for finally clarifying that my read was correct.

 

[Big Jim]

hawg conceded to Leon, but little did he know that Robert was just waiting for his chance

@hawg1 is like an intern on the last muffin, he neve concedes.

 

[hokiehead]

@hawg1 is like an intern on the last muffin, he neve concedes.

And he pulled Leon back in!

 

[hawg1]

@hawg1 is like an intern on the last muffin, he neve concedes.

Spent a career negotiating and compromising. I know when the muffin matters.

 

[hawg1]

And he pulled Leon back in!

You knew that was gonna happen as well as me. Leon is good people.

 

[Big Jim]

Spent a career negotiating and compromising. I know when the muffin matters.

I can see the negotiating part.

 

[Not Sure]

I can’t believe neither Manhattan nor Hokie is involved in this.

 

[hawg1]

I can see the negotiating part.

No such thing as negotiating without compromise.

 

[hokiehead]

I can’t believe neither Manhattan nor Hokie is involved in this.

Hokie has said his point and has nothing further to add. I think he considers this approach a "sign of growth".

 

[hawg1]

Hokie has said his point and has nothing further to add. I think he considers this approach a "sign of growth".

Manhattan has said his part too.

I think we are all getting to the end on this one.

 

[Robert Sorell]

I didn’t take the Committee at their word. I looked at the criteria. I came to the same decision as the Committee.

Yeah, my stats reference was uncalled for. You got me with your question if I understood qual vs quant data. I should have let it pass.

I don’t know what you want me to say on your last paragraph. The protocol addresses what kind of data the Committee can use in the Metrics section.

You know the list of determinative criteria when things are comparable. No need to list those. All of those can be quantitative.

What else?

This is what I'm seeing:

• While it is understood that selection committee members will take into consideration all kinds of data including polls, selection committee members will be required to discredit polls wherein initial rankings are established before competition has occurred;
• Any polls that are taken into consideration by the selection committee must be completely open and transparent to the public;
• Strength of schedule, head‐to‐head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie‐breakers between teams that look similar;

...So maybe they can bring whatever they want to the table? All kinds of data (kind of like Noah brought all the kinds of animals onto the ark?)

teams with similar records and pedigree

Pedigree is a horrible choice of word to use in this process, unless the committee provides a specific operational definition.

My read of their webpage is that committee members are encouraged to use metrics that they agree are valuable, but ultimately everyone is submitting their list of 6 best by using whatever criteria the individual members choose to prioritize because, after all, as the committee opens their explanation with "Ranking football teams is an art, not a science."

Or as described here: https://www.si.com/fannation/colleg...playoff-rankings-top-25-how-cfp-process-works

Selectors are allowed to use a variety of advanced analytics to gauge teams' performance, but those numbers don't play a formal role in determining Top 25 rankings, which is a decision made by selectors' own judgement.

The only list of metrics that I see are the five tie-breaker guidance for comparably ranked teams.

You can project the impact of an injured player, and even make that quantitative; that's what has me quoting Box though. There are certainly models (see Manhattan) that are probably useful if you're trying to set point spreads or moneylines in the case of injuries; my intuition is that the variance on projecting how Rodemaker performs after 3 full weeks of practice makes those models not particularly useful in answering the question of tiebreaking Bama and FSU if they are reasonably comparable.

I could just be missing the list of metrics though, that's why I'm asking you to provide it, as your statements suggest you have a sense of exactly what the metrics are to list their top teams as they go through the binning process.

 

[Robert Sorell]

Spent a career negotiating and compromising. I know when the muffin matters.

To declare my biases in thinking through this CFP morass.

I've spent the past two months explaining to purchasing agents, plant managers, materials engineers, and anyone else who fancies themselves a stakeholder that even though we can quantify that the defective parts we're receiving are marginally less defective from a materials standpoint they're still categorically a major defect from a microbiological standpoint.

Every day has been a battle of people who know just enough to be dangerous using whatever paragraph of whatever poorly written document they can find to justify pretending like the defects have been "fixed" and the regulatory processes can be subverted.

 

[hawg1]

This is what I'm seeing:



View attachment 67723
...So maybe they can bring whatever they want to the table? All kinds of data (kind of like Noah brought all the kinds of animals onto the ark?)


Pedigree is a horrible choice of word to use in this process, unless the committee provides a specific operational definition.

My read of their webpage is that committee members are encouraged to use metrics that they agree are valuable, but ultimately everyone is submitting their list of 6 best by using whatever criteria the individual members choose to prioritize because, after all, as the committee opens their explanation with "Ranking football teams is an art, not a science."

Or as described here: https://www.si.com/fannation/colleg...playoff-rankings-top-25-how-cfp-process-works



The only list of metrics that I see are the five tie-breaker guidance for comparably ranked teams.

You can project the impact of an injured player, and even make that quantitative; that's what has me quoting Box though. There are certainly models (see Manhattan) that are probably useful if you're trying to set point spreads or moneylines in the case of injuries; my intuition is that the variance on projecting how Rodemaker performs after 3 full weeks of practice makes those models not particularly useful in answering the question of tiebreaking Bama and FSU if they are reasonably comparable.

I could just be missing the list of metrics though, that's why I'm asking you to provide it, as your statements suggest you have a sense of exactly what the metrics are to list their top teams as they go through the binning process.

I have no idea what individual members use to compile their top 6. I know of no committee member that has ever divulged that. Sorry if I intimated that when I quoted the Metrics section. The Metrics section allows them to use a wide variety of data as noted. It only cautions against polls, also as noted.

So what do they use? Road wins? OOC SOS? Opponents winning percentages? Power ratings? SOR? Game control? Vegas odds? Splits? Action Network havoc rate? Sagarin conference ratings? FEI? Massey aggregate? FPI efficiency? DVOA? W-L? EPA? WAR? Eye balls? Magic Eight Ball? Dream sequencing? Seance? Rabbits foot? Whatever. I’m being facetious on some of these obviously. They can use a wide range as noted in the protocol. That’s OK with me.

Once they get those six, the action begins with the criteria.

I think that addresses your major question. What else?