Official CFP Selection Freakout Thread

[hawg1]

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.

Tough job. I don’t envy you.

 

[b3buffs]

At this point I don't know whether to be pissed or amused when I see new posts to this, yet I still feel the urge to open it.

 

[241Volcanos]

Chattanooga went 8-5 and lost to teams like Furman who went 10-2. Do wins like this beef up Bama’s strength of schedule?

 

[Robert Sorell]

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?

That's the crux of it all.

The CFP process, particularly the sequential ranking and binning, requires subjective decisions about what metrics to use and how to weight those metrics. The overwhelming odds are that more than a few committee members used qualitative, subjective metrics. That process is vulnerable to conscious and unconscious biases.

That easily biased process also ranks the top 6, not just lists them, before considering the tie-breaking criteria.

From the SI article:

3. Ranking step​

This is when each selection committee member formally ranks the top-six teams from the listing step. The top-ranked team in each member's poll receives one point. The second-best team receives two points, the third-best three points, and etc.


Not for a second do I believe the committee members all ignore the injury when making that ranking list.

So, if they then find FSU and Bama as reasonably comparable, and go to the tie breaking 5 criteria, they're likely reusing criteria that they had the freedom to initially choose to use directly or indirectly.

I simply reject your argument that the committee must have used a rational, unbiased, quantitative, clearly defined procedure because they arrived at the same conclusion you did.

It seems your procedure was to accept the committee's assertion that FSU and Bama were reasonably comparable and then apply the tie breaking criteria.

I also reject that FSU and Bama have reasonably comparable resumes. I accept that that is a subjective judgment, but find the committee's prior rankings this year and in previous seasons to be inconsistent with those resumes being comparable.

I think the committee talked themselves into believing the resumes were reasonably comparable because that then allows them to point to the injury as the justification they needed to keep the premier program and conference of the last decade in.

 

[Robert Sorell]

I have no idea what individual members use to compile their top 6.

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

This is incorrect

 

[hawg1]

That's the crux of it all.

The CFP process, particularly the sequential ranking and binning, requires subjective decisions about what metrics to use and how to weight those metrics. The overwhelming odds are that more than a few committee members used qualitative, subjective metrics. That process is vulnerable to conscious and unconscious biases.

That easily biased process also ranks the top 6, not just lists them, before considering the tie-breaking criteria.

From the SI article:

3. Ranking step​

This is when each selection committee member formally ranks the top-six teams from the listing step. The top-ranked team in each member's poll receives one point. The second-best team receives two points, the third-best three points, and etc.


Not for a second do I believe the committee members all ignore the injury when making that ranking list.

So, if they then find FSU and Bama as reasonably comparable, and go to the tie breaking 5 criteria, they're likely reusing criteria that they had the freedom to initially choose to use directly or indirectly.

I simply reject your argument that the committee must have used a rational, unbiased, quantitative, clearly defined procedure because they arrived at the same conclusion you did.

It seems your procedure was to accept the committee's assertion that FSU and Bama were reasonably comparable and then apply the tie breaking criteria.

I also reject that FSU and Bama have reasonably comparable resumes. I accept that that is a subjective judgment, but find the committee's prior rankings this year and in previous seasons to be inconsistent with those resumes being comparable.

I think the committee talked themselves into believing the resumes were reasonably comparable because that then allows them to point to the injury as the justification they needed to keep the premier program and conference of the last decade in.

The Committee saw them as reasonably comparable. You don’t. That’s fair. It’s your choice.

I saw them as very close with similar resumes, especially after Bama beat UGA. I don’t care about previous rankings.

If you don’t see them as reasonably comparable, FSU is in. And the five criteria are moot.

I get how you arrived at that choice.

For curiosity, what was your final 6 and which ones were reasonably close?

 

[Agent Dave Kujan]

I have some experience with this sort of thing and I can tell you exactly how this works. You guys are overthinking it.

The committee’s job is to pick the best four teams to appear in the CFP.

They all sat down and picked the teams that they believe are the best teams at this point in the season to play in the four team playoff.

They have their own individual agendas and biases and that is why they have 13 members. It helps bring some semblance of a democratic process to selections.

The criteria that the committee uses is set up to do nothing more than provide cover for their decision. That is why there is no weightings or rankings to the criteria. They can use the criteria to create the illusion of objectivity to hide what is nothing more than a subjective decision with a vote at the end.

The committee decided, based largely on the conference championships, that Alabama is a better team than FSU and would be a better draw than FSU and then went about creating the narrative to justify the decision.

Don’t be fooled by thinking the criteria had anything to do with the decision.

In the end, because of the fact that there are thirteen people making the decision, they made the right choice. Alabama right now, is better than FSU without their starting QB and because Texas beat Alabama and manhandled OSU they are in as well.

FSU should really be pissed at ACC Commissioner, Jim Phillips who voted against expanding to a 12 team playoff in 2022. With 12 teams, FSU would certainly have been in.

 

[Uncle Ken]

I go through boxes often.

I think I remember seeing a photo of your desk. And this makes sense.

 

[Uncle Ken]

So you are telling me that when the CFP committee ranked FSU #4 (following a win led by Rodemaker), and Bama #8 following a close win versus UA, that the CFP rules dictate that they were not allowed to take the Travis injury into account? But that they were allowed to take the Travis injury into account this weekend? If that's what you are saying, please show me where it says that this is the guidance provided to the selection committee (And to be clear, I am looking for something formal, and preferably written before the selections took place....not some article that is trying to explain why we ended up here) This should relatively easy since there was plenty of discussion about the impacts of the JT injury to rankings in the week following the injury.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Says they can look at a variety of data. Doesn’t say what.

Yes. I understand types of data. (If you only knew).

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

This is amazing. When this started, I thought maybe hawg1 had a bead on this whole thing and - while I disagreed with the committee - maybe there was a clear and well-reasoned process.

What has happened since, culminating in these two remarkably insane ****ing posts (above), is that hawg1 has descended into a level of sheer ****ing stupidity that hasn't been witnessed on Allbuffs since BCS's epic drunken rants on chat during the 2008 football season.

"Says they can look at a variety of data. Doesn't say what" while insisting that the committee followed process and protocol. Jesus dude.

 

[Bread]

I think I remember seeing a photo of your desk. And this makes sense.

 

[hawg1]

This is amazing. When this started, I thought maybe hawg1 had a bead on this whole thing and - while I disagreed with the committee - maybe there was a clear and well-reasoned process.

What has happened since, culminating in these two remarkably insane ****ing posts (above), is that hawg1 has descended into a level of sheer ****ing stupidity that hasn't been witnessed on Allbuffs since BCS's epic drunken rants on chat during the 2008 football season.

"Says they can look at a variety of data. Doesn't say what" while insisting that the committee followed process and protocol. Jesus dude.

The committee can look at a variety of data when selecting the final six. That’s in the Metrics section.

If the teams are deemed comparable, the protocol prescribed 5 criteria to make the choice.

These are two different issues, both in the charter.

Please follow closer.

 

[Uncle Ken]

The committee can look at a variety of data when selecting the final six. That’s in the Metrics section.

If the teams are deemed comparable, the protocol prescribed 5 criteria to make the choice.

These are two different issues, both in the charter.

Please follow closer.

Okay, as long as they aren't pulling the metrics that they won't share out of a hat, I'm sure we get a valid final six, to then move forward to the very objective 5 criteria.

It's like you're going out of your way to make Leon's point for him.

As far as I can tell, the only difference between your two opinions is that you have faith in the pure intentions of the committee and their application of the mysterious data that they have definitely not pulled out of a hat.

 

[Boulder]

Anyone who works with statistics and/or models knows you can get any outcome desired if the right inputs and variables are selected. There is a strength of schedule model that favors Alabama and one that favors FSU. There is no way to get a truly neutral model and getting one that is fairly close would require a level of public access that would likely be uncomfortable for stakeholders. Every person on the thirteen-person committee is biased and in the era of the four-team playoff faced the massive design flaw of five power conference champions existing and only four spots being available. This hasn't really been a problem in the past to the same degree since in season loses caused a more clear top four to emerge. Sports are entertainment product just as much as a competition. With that the idea of maximizing revenue, ratings, and the product quality are part of every decision. From that perspective Alabama is the clear choice. A semi final of Alabama and Michigan is a dream come true for the stakeholders after last year with TCU. FSU with a key player missing is a harder marketing sell and one with a greater potential of being an uncompetitive opponent. An undefeated team missing out is hard to see but not surprising.

 

[hawg1]

Okay, as long as they aren't pulling the metrics that they won't share out of a hat, I'm sure we get a valid final six, to then move forward to the very objective 5 criteria.

It's like you're going out of your way to make Leon's point for him.

As far as I can tell, the only difference between your two opinions is that you have faith in the pure intentions of the committee and their application of the mysterious data that they have definitely not pulled out of a hat.

I don’t know how to respond other than I don’t think you understand the process. Or maybe you are intentionally mixing the issues on what data is used when. Either is OK with me.

Or maybe you are trying to draw Leon in again.

 

[hawg1]

Anyone who works with statistics and/or models knows you can get any outcome desired if the right inputs and variables are selected. There is a strength of schedule model that favors Alabama and one that favors FSU. There is no way to get a truly neutral model and getting one that is fairly close would require a level of public access that would likely be uncomfortable for stakeholders. Every person on the thirteen-person committee is biased and in the era of the four-team playoff faced the massive design flaw of five power conference champions existing and only four spots being available. This hasn't really been a problem in the past to the same degree since in season loses caused a more clear top four to emerge. Sports are entertainment product just as much as a competition. With that the idea of maximizing revenue, ratings, and the product quality are part of every decision. From that perspective Alabama is the clear choice. A semi final of Alabama and Michigan is a dream come true for the stakeholders after last year with TCU. FSU with a key player missing is a harder marketing sell and one with a greater potential of being an uncompetitive opponent. An undefeated team missing out is hard to see but not surprising.

What is the SOS model that favors FSU? Thanks.

 

[Boulder]

What is the SOS model that favors FSU? Thanks.

A motivated party could make one. SOS are arbitrary to a degree and the output can be manipulated by changing variable weights as an example. One could also invent a novel variable like number of second-half touchdowns surrendered to top-five opponents to bias the outcome to make FSU win an SOS argument. As the saying goes "All models are wrong, some are useful", that sentiment is both a warning and the method for delivering a biased model. Without outside validation whatever nerds they have doing the models don't have to disclose measures for goodness of fit or the regression function. In other words, the committee can make up the data to fit whatever outcome they want if they try hard enough.

 

[hawg1]

A motivated party could make one. SOS are arbitrary to a degree and the output can be manipulated by changing variable weights as an example. One could also invent a novel variable like number of second half touchdowns surrendered to top five opponents to bias the outcome to make FSU win end SOS argument. As the saying goes "All models are wrong, some are useful", that sentiment is both a warning and the method for delivering a biased model. Without outside validation whatever nerds they have doing the models don't have to disclose measures for goodness of fit or the regression function. In other words the committee can make up the data to fit whatever outcome they want if they try hard enough.

You mentioned one SOS model that favors FSU. I’m not interested in some hypothetical. Which one is it?

 

[FM-Buff]

 

[Uncle Ken]

I don’t know how to respond other than I don’t think you understand the process. Or maybe you are intentionally mixing the issues on what data is used when. Either is OK with me.

Or maybe you are trying to draw Leon in again.

I don't understand the process. But, when it comes to selecting the final six, your assertion that they're not just making up the data and also, who knows what data they use doesn't really lead me to believe that you do either.

 

[hawg1]

I don't understand the process. But, when it comes to selecting the final six, your assertion that they're not just making up the data and also, who knows what data they use doesn't really lead me to believe that you do either.

I understand the process. That’s not in question in my discussions with others.

 

[Denver_sc]

It's clear that a number of people on this board (ok, well, probably just the one) believe the committee is putting forth a good-faith justification of putting a 1-loss team in over an undefeated P5 conference champ.

I value consistency. I value honesty. The justifications put forth by the committee to me are neither consistent nor honest.

On the contrary, this is only the 2nd time since 1998, when D1/FBS college football decided to try to settle the championship on the field, that a P5 undefeated champ hasn't been given a shot to win the title on the field ('04 Auburn, when undefeated UT and undefeated USC played in the Championship). In fact, if you go back, a team with more losses has NEVER gone into either the BCS championship or CFP over a P5 champ with fewer losses. It's a radical departure from the norms we have come to expect, which I think a few people on this board (ok, maybe just the one) do not properly appreciate.

Undefeated conference champions have been passed over before in favor of teams 1 loss in both the BCS and CFP era, but all of them- '18 and '19 UCF, '17 WMU, '05 Utah, '06 Boise, '08 Utah, etc.- were G5 champs. The precedent that the committee has effectively just set is that it's a P2 and G7 now. That's what has a lot of people troubled. This is not all about FSU.

 

[hokiehead]

It's clear that a number of people (ok, well, probably just the one) believe the committee is putting forth a good-faith justification of putting a 1-loss team in over an undefeated P5 conference champ.

I value consistency. I value honesty. The justifications put forth by the committee to me are neither consistent nor honest.

On the contrary, this is only the 2nd time since 1998, when D1/FBS college football decided to try to settle the championship on the field, that a P5 undefeated champ hasn't been given a shot to win the title on the field ('04 Auburn, when undefeated UT and undefeated USC played in the Championship). In fact, if you go back, a team with more losses has NEVER gone into either the BCS championship or CFP over a P5 champ with fewer losses. It's a radical departure from the norms we have come to expect, which I think a few people (ok, maybe just the one) do not properly appreciate.

Undefeated conference champions have been passed over before in favor of teams 1 loss in both the BCS and CFP era, but all of them- '18 and '19 UCF, '17 WMU, '05 Utah, '06 Boise, '08 Utah, etc.- were G5 champs. The precedent that the committee has effectively just set is that it's a P2 and G7 now. That's what has a lot of people troubled. This is not all about FSU.

Not just one. The national media, sports and MSM, is overwhelmingly supportive of the committee's decision.

 

[hawg1]

It's clear that a number of people (ok, well, probably just the one) believe the committee is putting forth a good-faith justification of putting a 1-loss team in over an undefeated P5 conference champ.

I value consistency. I value honesty. The justifications put forth by the committee to me are neither consistent nor honest.

On the contrary, this is only the 2nd time since 1998, when D1/FBS college football decided to try to settle the championship on the field, that a P5 undefeated champ hasn't been given a shot to win the title on the field ('04 Auburn, when undefeated UT and undefeated USC played in the Championship). In fact, if you go back, a team with more losses has NEVER gone into either the BCS championship or CFP over a P5 champ with fewer losses. It's a radical departure from the norms we have come to expect, which I think a few people (ok, maybe just the one) do not properly appreciate.

Undefeated conference champions have been passed over before in favor of teams 1 loss in both the BCS and CFP era, but all of them- '18 and '19 UCF, '17 WMU, '05 Utah, '06 Boise, '08 Utah, etc.- were G5 champs. The precedent that the committee has effectively just set is that it's a P2 and G7 now. That's what has a lot of people troubled. This is not all about FSU.

The Committee has not been consistent. They applied the criteria this year. They explained the two critical decision factors. You disagree. Many of us don’t. Not just me. I note you fail to argue a case for FSU using the criteria.

 

[Robert Sorell]

I understand the process. That’s not in question in my discussions with others.

It is in question.

You have no idea what members use to compile their top 6.

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.

Below you have either an incorrect understanding of the process or you fail to explicate it correctly.

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

Once they get the top 6, they assign ordinal ranks (using whatever criteria each individual feels is appropriate).

That poll of the committee determines the top 3.

4-6 are held, everyone lists their next 6, the 3 getting most listed are added to 4-6, and now 4-9 are ranked (using whatever criteria committee members want).

Now run that in a loop.

The 5 criteria are only used in the case of nearly comparable teams, and the committee explicitly refers to the criteria as tiebreakers.

Nearly comparable is not explicitly defined. Presumably it could be some threshold for the polling scores, but more likely it's the threshold of 3+ members objecting.

I'm assuming that SI has accurately reported on the process in the article I've already linked.

That process is consistent with what Joel Klatt described on his podcast when talking about his experience in simulated ranking exercises run by the CFP that he participated in.

 

[Denver_sc]

Not just one. The national media, sports and MSM, is overwhelmingly supportive of the committee's decision.

I meant just on this board- fixed.

 

[Robert Sorell]

Not just one. The national media, sports and MSM, is overwhelmingly supportive of the committee's decision.

That's different than believing it was a decision consistent with prior decisions, arrived at by a transparent process.

 

[hawg1]

It is in question.

You have no idea what members use to compile their top 6.


Below you have either an incorrect understanding of the process or you fail to explicate it correctly.

Once they get the top 6, they assign ordinal ranks (using whatever criteria each individual feels is appropriate).

That poll of the committee determines the top 3.

4-6 are held, everyone lists their next 6, the 3 getting most listed are added to 4-6, and now 4-9 are ranked (using whatever criteria committee members want).

Now run that in a loop.

The 5 criteria are only used in the case of nearly comparable teams, and the committee explicitly refers to the criteria as tiebreakers.

Nearly comparable is not explicitly defined. Presumably it could be some threshold for the polling scores, but more likely it's the threshold of 3+ members objecting.

I'm assuming that SI has accurately reported on the process in the article I've already linked.

That process is consistent with what Joel Klatt described on his podcast when talking about his experience in simulated ranking exercises run by the CFP that he participated in.

Yes. I understand the process.

 

[hawg1]

I meant just on this board- fixed.

Incorrect. Others have supported Bama.

 

[Uncle Ken]

The Committee has not been consistent. They applied the criteria this year. They explained the two critical decision factors. You disagree. Many of us don’t. Not just me. I note you fail to argue a case for FSU using the criteria.

Why should anyone put forth an argument for FSU using the criteria. According to you this is the first time it has been used. Doesn't that seem to weird to you - that the committee would put forth criteria as justification when they've ignored that criteria before? And also, seem (as far as I can tell) unwilling to share HOW they used that criteria?