They were abundantly clear why and how they used the criteria, all five, this year. The Chair said it plain and clear. Did you watch?
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
- Thread starter Alfred91
- Start date
Because the criteria is vague, and is only there to retroactively justify the decisions that the committee makes. It's stupid.
A norm was broken this year. Never, not once, has an undefeated P5 champion been excluded from a BCS championship game or CFP in favor of a team with one or more losses. This year, an undefeated P5 team was excluded in favor of TWO teams with a loss.
In order for that extraordinary and unprecedented action to happen, there needs to have been an extraordinary reason. Teams suffer injuries all the time. The committee should have to justify why this circumstance was so unusual to force them to break all precedent going back 25 years.
You are arguing from the pollyanna-ish standpoint that this is just a normal comparison between two teams under normal circumstances. It's not.
I'm listing Bama, FSU, Washington, Michigan, tOSU, Texas
Listing Georgia or tOSU could go either way, and I'd slightly favor descriptive metrics over predictive metrics.
I expect the room lists Georgia more often than tOSU.
So, I rank
1. Michigan
2. Washington
3. FSU
Gap
4. Texas
5. Bama
6. Georgia
I didn't. I'm only responding the inconsistencies I'm encountering in your arguments.
I feel there are two camps here:
1. The group that feels that access to the CFP should be earned (I'm in that camp).
2. The group that feels entry to the CFP is based on speculation of the four best teams.
It's my observation that those two viewpoints are in tension here.
Correct, and I would add that this is all muddied by the fact that it’s not entirely clear that FSU is not one of the best teams (plus they earned it)
Asserting this does not make it true.
At a minimum, you fail to properly explicate a correct understanding.
Paraphrasing, "six are listed, then the action with the 5 criteria starts"
That is inconsistent with a correct understanding of the process.
The criteria are not vague for comparable teams. They are crystal clear in the protocol.
I understand how the six are selected. I understand the buckets. I understand the selection criteria. I understand how they are applied. I understand the decision.
By “action” after the final six, I refer to the assessment of comiatsblr teams and application of the selection criteria. That’s the “action” that seeds the final teams.
What data do you think the 13 members use to select the final six?
Except you stated that you didn't know what data were used to select the six.
That is correct. I understand they can use whatever data they want for the initial six. I cited the Metrics section. I listed possible sources. Do you know what data each of the 13 members individually uses?
My dude, "Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance." (Emphasis mine) as a key factor is vague... maybe you don't know what that word means?
No. He's also not the one insisting (repeatedly) that he knows how the protocol works and what criteria was used (chorus: because they explained it did you watch?)
The unavailability of Travis is crystal clear. It will affect FSU performance in the post season.
Finally, we are talking about the decision.
You're trolling. There's absolutely no way a person is this obtuse.
The specific example that they give in the wording is unavailability of players or coaches, BUT it clearly says "Other relevant factors," which means those factors can be anything they deem to be relevant. That is intentionally vague.
The Committee chair clearly said what factor they addressed under criteria 5
That’s not trolling. That’s a fact.
Do you agree with their assessment of Travis’ unavailability?
As a poster on here since 2007, I don't understand how you can say this.
Again, not explicitly from your statements. Implicitly you are missing steps.
This is not consistent with what SI published.
There is not a strict final six.
The rankings are determined in groups of 3 initially, then 4 by ranking groups of 6. Once all 25 are ranked reasonably comparable teams can span the bins of 3, 4 or 6. It's not 100% explicated, but seems to be a matter of 3+ members asserting that a group of ranks is reasonably comparable.
Asked and answered, noting that it is not final six but lists of the 6 best remaining unranked teams, in a 7 part process.
Does that initial ranking, by you, account for the injury?
This isn't my fight, so I will gladly read any responses you have to me, but I am done posting after this.
"They can use whatever data they want for the initial six" - which is the place where comparable teams are determined - feels fraught for opportunity to introduce bias that supports an SEC champion. The data we choose can often provide us the outcome we want. Without clarity around that data, it's difficult for me to believe that a fair process took place. And also with the opportunities to introduce subjective outcomes through the five considerations of the so-called protocol used in tie-breakers (no matter how it was rationalized by the committee).
That is the only point I've been trying to make in my brief foray into this dialogue.
Please read again. The process starts each week with each Committee member listing their top six in order.
I’ll be happy to learn what steps I am missing. Please tell.
You are missing my argument. You are arguing that the criteria was clearly applied, and the reasons for applying it were clear. That's not what I'm arguing against at all.
I'm saying that the criteria itself is intentionally vague. By including a catchall "Other relevant factors" clause, the committee leaves themself the leeway to include any factor they deem relevant. For example, If 13 committee members were to decide that having blue as a primary uniform color was relevant, then they could decide that to be a deciding factor. therefore, the criteria is so broad as to be irrelevant.
To answer your question: I do not believe that the dropoff from Jordan Travis to the Rodemaker is extraordinary enough to justify a break with 25 years of precedent, especially when FSU's defense is playing at the level they are. since Travis went out, they held Florida and #12 Louisville to a season low in yardage and UL to a season low in points scored.
Why do you believe that this situation was so extraordinary as to justify a break with 25 years of precedent?
Is it first six or final six in your mind, you seem to use those interchangeably?
In your understanding, is it possible to get a team ranked as high as 4 that didn't make the original group of six?
Where can subjective elements be introduced in the 5 criteria other than #5 which actually can be quantified? That’s a strong claim you are making. It’s central to the decision. Can you back it up?
First, there is not 25 years of precedent on criteria 5. This year in unique given the number of quality teams. See Committee comments.
I believe there is information (games and data) to show that the absence of Travis materially affects their performance on the post season. You don’t. That’s fine.
Was reading this morning that they had 6-8 secret ballots for #4 with no resolution (results are collected and announced by chair). Then, there was overnight lobbying and Bama was announced after a few votes the next morning. Questions are being raised over whether they never had a result or if they hadn't gotten the result which was wanted.
No. Power rankings and eyeballs after CCG.
There is absolutely 25 years of precedent that demonstrates that an undefeated P5 champ has NEVER before been excluded from either a BCS championship game or the CFP in favor of a team with a loss.
There is 25 years of precedent that a P5 champion has never been excluded from a CG or CFP in favor of a team with more losses, full stop.
Why do you feel that this year's scenario was so extraordinary as to justify breaking from this precedent?
Where did you get that there was not resolution Saturday night? That’s new info to me.