Official CFP Selection Freakout Thread

[hawg1]

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

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.

 

[hawg1]

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.

list the criteria, list the teams. All this what if stuff and nobody wants to go through the process.

If reversed, I’m arguing for FSU.

 

[hawg1]

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?

Yes.

 

[hawg1]

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

I hope FSU shows up and is motivated.

 

[Robert Sorell]

Resume is the first filter. Not SOS.

Define resume

 

[hawg1]

Define resume

The team’s total body of work up until the most recent point.

 

[Robert Sorell]

The team’s total body of work up until the most recent point.

You see how that's a subjective, qualitative determination susceptible to biases (conscious or otherwise), right?

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

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.

You keep banging this drum and completely ignoring that the CFP Committee contradicted themselves, with their own criteria, between Conf Championship week and the actual selection. The reason they did contradict themselves is because their own guidelines allow for bias and total subjectivity. One might ask why they would allow for this vagueness, and the the answer is quite clear.....$$$$$$$

HOW TO SELECT THE FOUR BEST TEAMS TO COMPETE FOR THE COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP​

(Adopted unanimously by the BCS Group June 20, 2012)​

Ranking football teams is an art, not a science. Football is popular in some measure because the outcome of a game between reasonably matched teams is so often decided by emotional commitment, momentum, injuries and the “unexpected bounce of the ball.” In any ranking system, perfection or consensus is not possible and the physical impact of the game on student athletes prevents elaborate playoff systems of multiple games. For purposes of any four-team playoff, the process will inevitably need to select the four best teams from among several with legitimate claims to participate.

Proposed Selection Process:
Establish a selection committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head‐to‐head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie‐breaker; apply specific guidelines).

The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non‐champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non‐champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.

When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:

• Championships won
• Strength of schedule
• Head‐to‐head competition (if it occurred)
• Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)

We believe that a selection committee of experts properly instructed (based on beliefs that the regular season is unique and must be preserved; and that championships won on the field and strength of schedule are important values that must be incorporated into the selection process) has very strong support throughout the college football community.

Under the current construct, polls (although well‐intended) have not expressed these values; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head‐to‐head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non‐champions and teams that have lost in head‐to‐head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who “deserve” to be selected.

As we expand from two teams to four teams, we want to establish a human selection committee that: (1) will be provided a clear set of guidelines; (2) will be expected to take the facts of each case and specifically apply the guidelines; and (3) will be led by a chair who will be expected to explain publicly the selection committee’s decisions.

Some of the guidelines and protocols expected to be established to guide the selection committee would include, but not be limited to, the following:

• 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;
• Selection committee members associated with any team under consideration during the selection process will be required to recuse themselves from any deliberations associated with that team;

We would expect this same set of principles to be applied, particularly at the margins (teams 10‐11‐12).

 

[The Monk]

If the NCAA made good decisions it would be far less interesting.

 

[hawg1]

You see how that's a subjective, qualitative determination susceptible to biases (conscious or otherwise), right?

No. The resume is driven by quantifiable factors. Teams are grouped.

 

[hawg1]

You keep banging this drum and completely ignoring that the CFP Committee contradicted themselves, with their own criteria, between Conf Championship week and the actual selection. The reason they did contradict themselves is because their own guidelines allow for bias and total subjectivity. One might ask why they would allow for this vagueness, and the the answer is quite clear.....$$$$$$$

There is only one ratings that matters. The Travis issue only comes in to play at the end.

Explain your contradiction. I may not understand your point.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

There is only one ratings that matters. The Travis issue only comes in to play at the end.

Explain your contradiction. I may not understand your point.

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.

 

[hawg1]

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.

Read the criteria.

 

[manhattanbuff]

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

His arguments are faulty but the conclusion is correct.

 

[Highlander]

I am genuinely stunned you guys are still at it 2 days after the decision was made. I gave it two hours when it happened.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

Read the criteria.

I posted it in the message that you responded to above.....

@hawg1 please show me where you see this direction published in the criteria, because I am not seeing it, anywhere. The Protocol I C&P in my above message is directly from their website.

 

[hokiehead]

I am genuinely stunned you guys are still at it 2 days after the decision was made. I gave it two hours when it happened.

every time this thread is bumped, I re-attain a level of outrage close to where I was on Sunday.

 

[Robert Sorell]

No. The resume is driven by quantifiable factors. Teams are grouped.

What are the quantitative units that body of work is measured in? What are the specific components of body of work?

Resume is the first cut. It's qualitative, and explicitly allows consideration of polls.

The SOS and H2H are explicitly tie breakers for comparable teams.

 

[hawg1]

What are the quantitative units that body of work is measured in? What are the specific components of body of work?

Resume is the first cut. It's qualitative, and explicitly allows consideration of polls.

The SOS and H2H are explicitly tie breakers for comparable teams.

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

 

[hawg1]

His arguments are faulty but the conclusion is correct.

Which argument is faulty. I’ll be glad to correct it.

 

[hawg1]

I posted it in the message that you responded to above.....

@hawg1 please show me where you see this direction published in the criteria, because I am not seeing it, anywhere. The Protocol I C&P in my above message is directly from their website.

Apologies. In Committee comments.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

Apologies. In Committee comments.

Which comments? And again, I am looking for dialog on this specific subject from before the final 4 announcement (Not being able to take the Travis injury into account until the final vote)

 

[hawg1]

Which comments? And again, I am looking for dialog on this specific subject from before the final 4 announcement (Not being able to take the Travis injury into account until the final vote)

There is no reason to look forward until you have all the data on all the criteria. The committee said such.

It seems, again, we are arguing about the penultimate rankings which don’t matter (because you don’t have all the data).

If you need to win a point on last week’s rankings, I’ll concede.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

There is no reason to look forward until you have all the data on all the criteria. The committee said such.

It seems, again, we are arguing about the penultimate rankings which don’t matter (because you don’t have all the data).

If you need to win a point on last week’s rankings, I’ll concede.

Nope. You continue to avoid the argument that I am making (and continue to provide quips in a seemingly disingenuous way). One week ago, FSU was ranked #4 and Bama was ranked #8 with ALL of the data available short of the CCG results. The public discussion leading into the penultimate ranking was very much about what would happen with FSU now that Travis was out, because the committee can take injuries into account. The result was FSU #4, and Bama #8....again, ALL data available relative to the actual teams that would be available for the CFP (Rodemaker).

Yet, you continue to lean on this false narrative that it is all very clear via the published criteria. The actual protocol says in fancy language that ultimately, it is all very subjective, and this committee is going to make decisions that we should all respect because they are experts.

I posted the protocol above, you should actually read it. The very first sentence provides justification for making seemingly poor decisions ("Ranking football teams is an art, not a science")

I'm done. Peace

 

[hawg1]

Nope. You continue to avoid the argument that I am making (and continue to provide quips in a seemingly disingenuous way). One week ago, FSU was ranked #4 and Bama was ranked #8 with ALL of the data available short of the CCG results. The public discussion leading into the penultimate ranking was very much about what would happen with FSU now that Travis was out, because the committee can take injuries into account. The result was FSU #4, and Bama #8....again, ALL data available relative to the actual teams that would be available for the CFP (Rodemaker).

Yet, you continue to lean on this false narrative that it is all very clear via the published criteria. The actual protocol says in fancy language that ultimately, it is all very subjective, and this committee is going to make decisions that we should all respect because they are experts.

I posted the protocol above, you should actually read it. The very first sentence provides justification for making seemingly poor decisions ("Ranking football teams is an art, not a science")

I'm done. Peace

I don’t care about one week ago. It doesn’t matter. You won.

 

[Robert Sorell]

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

List the metrics.

Do you understand the distinction between qualitative and quantitative?

 

[hokiehead]

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

 

[hawg1]

List the metrics.

Do you understand the distinction between qualitative and quantitative?

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

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

 

[hawg1]

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

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.

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

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.

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.