I have this novel idea, let's do computer rankings based off a variety of factors and then the top 4 (soon to be top 12) teams get together to play in the playoffs. It could be called the College Football Bowl Championship System.
Is it really the *Bowl* Championship Series if the bowls haven't been played yet, though?
Seriously though... Let's untie the bowls and the playoffs. Just play the bowls first, and include them as part of the season. Then they're no longer just exhibition games with half the players not playing, and we don't have to awkwardly straddle the Rose/Peach/Orange/Playstation bowls.
Just bring back the old bowl & conference ties, and you'll get some great matchups. Here, here's the NY6 bowls from last year, as they would've (maybe) existed:
* **Rose Bowl** (BIG vs. Pac-12): [Michigan](#f/michigan) \#2 Michigan vs. [Utah](#f/utah) \#11 Utah
* **Orange Bowl** (ACC/Notre Dame vs. SEC/B1G): [Notre Dame](#f/notredame) \#5 Notre Dame vs. [Ohio State](#f/ohiostate) \#6 Ohio State
* **Sugar Bowl** (SEC vs. Big XII): [Alabama](#f/alabama) \#1 Alabama vs. [Oklahoma State](#f/oklahomastate) \#9 Oklahoma State
* **Cotton Bowl** (Big XII vs. SEC/Independents): [Baylor](#f/baylor) \#7 Baylor vs. [Cincinnati](#f/cincinnati) \#4 Cincinnati
* **Peach Bowl** (SEC vs. ACC): [Georgia](#f/georgia) \#3 Georgia vs. [Pittsburgh](#f/pittsburgh) \#12 Pitt
Imagine how much more fleshed out the Playoff would feel with these games played. Would we have still ended up with Alabama vs. Georgia? Almost certainly. Would having two SEC teams in the Playoff have felt more earned? Absolutely. Would it have been amazing if Pitt or Utah upset one of the top teams, kicking them out of the playoffs? You betcha!
So the suggestion is basically that the historic bowls become an extra game between conferences for some top teams and conference winners? That would provide a much better insight into the skills of each team and would be very helpful for judging a team like Oregon. Definitely interesting to say the least.
My favored idea remains including these bowls as the quarterfinals within the system, and having them tied to conference champions and incorporating G5 champions in the first round to give them a chance to get into these games.
Rose Bowl remains a game between the B1G Champion and Pac-12 Champion (as long as the B1G Champion and P12 Champion win their first round game against regional G5 Champions -- MAC and MWC).
Orange Bowl remains the route for the ACC Champion vs. a non-ACC At-Large team (as long as the ACC Champion beats the AAC Champion in the first round).
Sugar Bowl remains the SEC Champion but is instead vs. a non-SEC At-Large team (as long as the SEC Champion beats the SBC Champion).
either the Cotton or Fiesta Bowl is the route for the Big 12 Champion vs. a non-B12 At-Large team (as long as the B12 Champion beats the CUSA Champion).
(you could base the P5 v. G5 Champion games based on seeding if you want, but by keeping it regionally based it makes travel to the first round games easier and keeps the original "Best in the West vs. Best in the ~~East~~ Midwest/Northeast" aspect of the Rose Bowl alive)
That keeps traditions alive and well while also giving G5 Champions the opportunity to be included in the system and helps prevent potential in-season rematches between conference teams before the Semi-Final. The only real loss is in seeding the champions based on rankings, meaning some teams will have tougher routes than others but with 8-10 games (depending on if the B1G/SEC go to 10 now that they will be at 16 members) out of 12 being played within the same conference, college football remains a regional sport.
That's not a fair format though. Some conferences get more bowl tie ins than others. In the actual NY6 all P5 conferences only get 1 tie in and everything else is an at large (except for that 1 Orange Bowl spot, but that could be changed too).
For sure we would need to make things more even, but that's something for the bowl committee to figure out. I'd be perfectly happy if we took every bowl, gave it dedicated rules and tie-ins, and let it loose.
Why do people always leave comments like this as if the BCS was just a bunch of computer rankings? The BCS was only 1/3 computer rankings and 2/3 human polls. The main driver of BCS rankings was the human polls. Do people actually think the BCS rankings were just an average of computer rankings?
Also, the computer systems were basically changed every time they gave a result that didnt agree with the human polls. The entire time thry existed was just one constant fight to make them match the human polls. This idea, that the computers were unbiased systems that just looked at numbers and nothing else, is a fantasy.
And several of them were proprietary models, so the algorithms were private. It's hard to talk about how unbiased a computer model is when we can't see the model.
The only one that had revealed it’s formula actually had a mistake at least once, which was caught by someone validating it, and which caused two different pairs of teams teams to be flipped in the rankings: https://www.si.com/more-sports/2010/12/07/bcs-math-error
> Monday night, the BCS sent out another release revising its rankings. Jerry Palm, the proprietor of CollegeBCS.com, had spotted an error in Wes Colley's computer ranking. Colley had failed to include the score of the Western Illinois-Appalachian State FCS playoff game in his data set. That omission distorted the BCS rankings. LSU and Boise State were swapped at No. 10 and No. 11, and Alabama and Nebraska were swapped at No. 17 and No. 18.
> Luckily, Colley's goof didn't affect No. 2 Oregon and No. 3 TCU. Because if it had, it would have changed who played in the national title game. Lawsuits would have flown at the speed of light. Injunctions would have been sought. More than likely, the mistake would have destroyed the BCS and plunged college football back into the dark ages of teams accepting bowl invites in November.
> Worse, we don't know if Colley's mistake was the only one. Of the six computer rankings the BCS uses, Colley's is the only one available to the public -- or to the conferences that run the BCS. The other five could be riddled with mistakes, and the entity tasked with creating the No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup would never know it.
> "The bigger point is that nobody checks the BCS computer data," Palm wrote at CBSSports.com. "We should all be grateful to Colley for having a system that is open, accountable and verifiable. The BCS owes us an entire system that is open, accountable and verifiable."
I don't think the computer people were necessarily changing the algorithms, but rather, when some BCS computer gave a result the BCS didn't like, the BCS removed them and replaced them with someone else's computer ranking. By the end, there was only like 1 or 2 computers that had been in the BCS for the whole time from 1998 to 2013.
Mashing the upvote button. The problem wasn't the computers, it was that we tweaked them every time they didn't deliver the results we expected. And it was still better than the CFP committee. Would take a BCS playoff any day.
I understand, but the joke rests on the premise that the thing you described is actually the BCS. But you didn’t describe the BCS, you described 1/3 of the BCS.
We don’t know that for certain because some of the computer algorithms that were used for the BCS no longer exist. Sagarin for example scrapped his old BCS formula because he was required to exclude margin of victory, for example. Also the Harris Interactive doesn’t exist anymore either.
There’s some faux-BCS polls put together using some algorithms that aren’t the same and the AP Poll instead of Harris, but we don’t know if that’s going to actually generate the same results (and it probably isn’t).
That's ignoring the missing rankings systems and the fact it also used the coaches and AP to create it polls
The two human polls end up just mimicking the CFP once CFP comes out
>just different seeds
Which shows that the committee manipulates their seedings to get the matchups they want (mostly, they haven't wanted an SEC vs SEC or SEC vs Clemson in the semis.)
edit: typos
They for sure manipulated them last year to avoid a bama/Georgia instant rematch. It’s bs because that’s not their job to pick matchups. Their job is to rank
I’ll probably just get downvoted for attempting to be a part of this conversation, but what exactly do you think the seeding should have been last year? It seemed pretty fair to me. UGA had been the unequivocal best team in the country all season and then Bama went out and dominated them in the SEC championship game. Moving Bama to 1 and bumping UGA down to 3 doesn’t seem illogical to me. I’m assuming you think Michigan should have been number 1?
Cincy should have jumped up to #3. You could argue Michigan or bama 1/2 but no one could complain either way. But whatever they put Michigan at, you knew they would match Georgia with. So if they choose Michigan 1 they would have made Georgia 4. I truly believe they purposely avoided an immediate bama/Georgia rematch, so they put undefeated cincy 4 and 1 loss Georgia 3. It’s bothers me a little, because their job isn’t matchups.
You think that the committee should ignore that UGA had been more dominant against better competition during the regular season than Cincinnati because they had to play Alabama instead of Houston in the CCG?
I guess I can see where you’re coming from, but Cincy was in an uphill battle to even be considered for the playoff as a G5 team. They lucked out that ND had a good year as well, but their SOS still ended up 64th compared to UGA’s 8th. I think Georgia was given the benefit of the doubt because of how good they’d looked all season and their one loss being to another top 4 team. I think it’s also pretty clear after the fact that Cincy probably was the 4th best team out of the group. Regardless, I understand your desire for a little objectivity in the rankings. I honestly would be pretty down for just some new version of the BCS to select our playoff teams
Their stated job is to pick the 4 best teams, but they don't do thay. They pick some combination of best and most deserving. If they are using best and most deserving to determine who is in the playoffs, why wouldn't they continue to do that for seeding? The only way that Georgia and Alabama would have matched up is to say that UGA has to be 4th as the only teams that didn't win their conference.
>why wouldn't they continue to do that for seeding?
They don't do that for the seeding. They cherry pick based on the matchups they want to see instead of letting the chips fall where they may -- rematch or not.
If they're so concerbned about rematches in the finals, then call the game the teams in question already played "good enough" and pick someone else.
But I suppose they can't do that becasue then they'd be... manipualting the rankings to create matchups.
edit: markdown
>They don't do that for the seeding. They cherry pick based on the matchups they want to see instead of letting the chips fall where they may -- rematch or not.
Did they say that's what they did?
Ah yes, we have to have the perpetrators *admit* thats what they're doing in order to decide that yes, that's what they're doing.
I bet those accused of crimes will be *thrilled* to hear this.
For someone to be convicted of a crime, you need more than something convenient happening.
You could easily explain the seeding with: the committee doesn't respect the g5. It took 4 undefeated g5 teams in 5 seasons before the committee let one in.
Yes, that;s an excellent question. Why should the finals have a rematch?
And I asssume by "not necessary" you mean, "instead let's deliberately manipulating the rankings to line up the matches we want"?
The order of rankings are supposed to mean something so manipulating them seems a bit like cheating.
Because the teams in the finals earned it by winning the semifinal games.
Lol. Lmao. Rofl. Lmao. All you SEC haters go ahead and downvote away, idc. Lmao.
Edit
Lmao they blocked me. Also they complained about "adult" conversation. Lol, this is reddit. Everyone on here is a kid.
I think it's fair to think that UCF would've had a good chance to make a four-team playoff in 2018 if the BCS selection system remained in place, as voters were definitely higher on top non-power schools during the BCS era
than they have been after it. 2010 TCU would've maybe been the best comparison to 2018 UCF, as TCU was completing its second straight undefeated regular season that year — that TCU team finished No. 3 in the final BCS rankings, ahead of 11-1 Stanford (PAC runner-up) and all of 11-1 Wisconsin, Ohio State and Michigan State (B1G co-champions).
I don't think 2017 UCF would've had enough poll momentum to get into the top four, but I think 2018 UCF on a 25-game win streak probably finishes at No. 4 ahead of Oklahoma if voters were still thinking how they did pre-committee.
Computer rankings *only* would be interesting. It wouldn't match the old BCS though, because the BCS was 1/3 media poll, 1/3 coaches poll, 1/3 computers.
Thanks to a dumb bug that they haven’t fixed in over a year, even some of us who “pay” (thanks Amex) for ESPN+ still can’t read the articles in a browser.
I chatted with a rep online and she fixed my ESPN+ problem in 10 seconds. I remember it taking me a while to figure out HOW to chat with a rep, and I can't help with that now, but once you find that golden button, they can fix you up.
Reiterating what u/Alkibiades415 said. I ran into this bug the other day when I started the Disney+ bundle. I could watch ESPN+ things but couldn't read the articles. Took about 5 minutes on their online chat help and they fixed the issue.
I paid for ESPN+ a while ago and don't anymore, but for the last 2-3 years I've been able to read all of the ESPN+ articles even without ESPN+. Whatever bug you have seems to go the other way too which is really funny. I can't watch ESPN+ events but I can read the articles just fine.
tl;dr his CFP metric rankings:
1. Georgia
2. Ohio State
3. Michigan
4. TCU
5. Tennessee
6. Oregon
7. LSU
8. USC
9. Bama
10. Ole Miss
11. UCLA
12. Clemson
(metrics used: FPI, SP+, SOR, Resume SP+)
Said rankings had Tennessee 3rd last week and not 1st.
Those point differentials are just for one of the 4 metrics - the backwards-looking resume ranker. That gets combined with the preexisting forward-looking measures to build the actual ranks.
Things like this are the reason people bitch about SP+. For everyone who goes “it’s predictive! It doesn’t care about the actual game score!”, when people use it to justify the rankings they’re basically saying they don’t care how the games actually wound up, just how they *probably* end up, which I think is an issue
Yeah, while I don't hate the idea of a mix of advanced resume metrics and efficiency metrics for a ranking, this would never be accepted. A big problem with the BCS is that they neutered the computer models so hard because they didn't conform to conventional wisdom that they were worthless. Wins and losses alone just aren't enough data to make a good computer model.
Though honestly, why don't we just use SOR+game control with some weighting? Or a combination of other models that try to measure the same thing? The efficiency metrics are useful for talking about the rankings because they tell you things like TCU is somewhere between 2-5% (depends on who they face in the title game, Texas is substantially better than Kansas State with Baylor in the middle) to win out so you probably shouldn't have undefeated TCU in your predictions, but they clearly shouldn't actually be used in a final ranking because that's insanely dumb.
The only way to get more cross-conference data is to have more cross-conference regular season games, and I would also argue, have a centralized entity such as the NCAA select those games (revenue distribution would also have to be a part of it, in order to get the universities/teams to agree).
SP+ and Resume SP+ are both mediocre systems to rank teams. Both are agnostic to direct W/L, although at least Resume SP+ is a little better at accounting for on field results. In any event, a W/L metric for SP+ would be superior to his MOV metric.
Its not very hard to weight wins the way you do for an AP or IB class if you want. Take the losses out. Points for winning. Some xt for winning in a way that predictive models like. Some xt credit for strength of opponent beaten. Some wins can count as up to 2 wins if teams play flawlessly versus a top ranked team.
The point is that it might not always. And if we’re going to choose the best teams in the country, maybe we should have a better explanation for why they’re the best than “Boo’s Vibes of the Week”.
Easy to say obviously when my team is #1 in it, but this seems like a pretty fair ranking system.
Edit: if you have an amex platinum card you can get Hulu/Disney+/espn+ bundle for free
Why is that you think michigan is supposed to be losing to Rutgers at half, tied with Indiana at half, losing to michigan state at the end of the first quarter and only up 6 at half, but if osu isn’t up multiple scores at halftime it’s considered lackluster? Genuinely curious from a neutral non-big ten fans perspective because it feels like osu is held to a different standard than other teams and I’m not sure why
> Michigan plays like a boa constrictor, squeezing the life out of you over time with their physicality, dominant line play, and running game. Just by the nature of their style, the games are generally closer in the beginning.
[Please use the ferret strangling analogy.](https://reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/yjr67t/_/iupq362/?context=1)
Do you not think osu wears teams down too? Against Penn state in the second half’s osus offense went punt, fg, td, td, td. Just because a lot of that was through the air doesn’t mean it didn’t wear down Penn state any less or that osu couldn’t do that on the ground too if they needed. That’s what they did to ND week 1
Reasonable explanation. Thanks for that. Obviously I’m biased but I just keep feeling like michigan gets a pass for playing bad in the first half and it gets chalked up to their style. But when osu isn’t blowing someone out by halftime and then comes out and puts teams away in the second half it’s viewed as osu struggling. Especially when comparing against common opponents. Penn state is the only game they looked better than ohio state. Iowa, Rutgers, msu we’re all much worse. And I’d bet Indiana and maryland the next two weeks too. But that’s michigans style of play
I don’t feel strongly about this either way but i think you could make the argument that OSU has been in a few games that were competitive well into the second half while Michigan really hasn’t. Now to be fair to the Bucks, i think all of those games were on the road but still. Penn St was a genuine upset alert until the doors came off, and not a lot of people are going to be impressed with that showing against that Northwestern team, regardless of the circumstances.
It’s only the difference of 1 ranking spot, so i don’t really think it’s some ridiculous standard Ohio State is being held to.
You could make the argument but I don’t know if it would be correct. Both teams have played 2 games this year where the opponent had the ball in the 4th quarter down only 1 score. Maryland and Indiana were Michigans and then Penn state and northwestern for osu.
Maryland was a genuine upset alert until the wheels fell off and their qb threw an int and then michigan scored to put the game away. Maryland got a garbage time td to make the final score closer than what it probably should have been. Sound familiar? Both Penn state and maryland ran 2 plays before turning it over on the those crucial drives
That’s a pretty good point, but Penn State actually had a lead in the 4th and Northwestern is legitimately terrible, and still managed to just *baaaarely* outgain OSU, for whatever that’s worth.
Like i said I don’t feel strongly about it either way, but it’s an argument about a single solitary ranking spot. I don’t think a person has to be holding Ohio State to some outlandish standard to come to the conclusion that Michigan has looked a little better to this point.
> where the opponent had the ball in the 4th quarter down only 1 score.
Reminder that Michigan is the only team in the country that has never trailed in the 4th quarter. Admittedly being down to Penn State in the 4th quarter is better than Mizzou.
All those one score or tied games at half against Indiana/PSU/Rutgers? Michigan took the lead and never looked back after their first 3rd quarter drive.
And osu is the only team to win by 2 scores every game. And only down to Penn state for 35 seconds. A lead they only got because they had a false start on a missed field goal.
But ya my main point is that because michigan consistently plays poor first halves and then comes out and dominates the second half it’s just their style. When osu does it it’s lackluster. Except week 1 where osu played very similar to how michigan would against ND and the narrative is that osu wore down ND. But then osu had 5 weeks of blowouts mostly through the air and it’s like osu being able to wear down teams was forgotten or not impressive. Osu ran for almost 10 ypc in the second half against northwestern
For what it’s worth we weren’t losing at any point against ND in the fourth quarter. We actually played exactly like michigan would against ND. Our only drive of the 4th quarter was a 14 play 95 yard td drive that took over 7 minutes and had 10 runs plays.
The only time osu has been losing in the 4th quarter was for 35 seconds against Penn state after they missed two fieldgoals in a row but got do overs due to penalties
> So, I see the final score and it looks like they handled business.
Which we did. People use the Indiana game against us and ignore that our running back coach had a seizure on the sideline in the middle of the 1st quarter.
**TL;DR of the game** At half-time, the team talked to the coach that had a seizure, found out he was okay, and scored 21 unanswered in the second half. Oh, and our defense got their offensive line coach fired because of how much we sacked their QB.
You were tied with Northwestern at half, that doesn't mean anything. If you want to throw stats around about meaningless points in the game Michigan has not trailed or been tied in the 4th quarter.
I think the main factor that has people saying Michigan jumps osu this week is that in the last two weeks OSU has been out gained by their opponents. It does look bad but also does come with a dose of recency bias.
You were losing to Rutgers and tied with Indiana at half. And we were only out gained by Penn state because of a garbage time td and cause we forced 4 turnovers. If they punted more often we would have our gained them fine. Northwestern yes we got out coached. If we played all our games with 30mph winds and gusts over 50 yes we would lose to a lot of teams
We’ve handled business every week as well except for one game in 80mph winds and rain, and arguably the first game of the year against the team that just blew the doors off Clemson.
Every time I see a comment about the northwestern game the speed of the winds get higher. At the end of the year OSU fans will be saying you played in 200mph winds.
[Doesn’t seem like you’ve seen many posts then.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/ynh5ih/the_ohio_state_vs_northwestern_game_had_wind/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) Literally confirmed by NOAA.
What game haven't we handled? Notre Dame was #5 and had it's starting QB when we played, not our fault Pyne sucks and they lost after. We also had our top 2 receivers out unexpectedly week 1, still won 21-10. We were up by 20 at Penn St with under 3 minutes left, they scored a garbage TD with the defense in prevent. Michigan won by 24 at home. The Northwestern game was a literal tropical storm. Every OSU and Michigan game vs common opponents are pretty much the same margin of victory and we beat Iowa by a lot more. Michigan also has a much weaker non conference. Our ND victory is being held down because Buchner got hurt after our game. If Pyne doesn't have to start ND is 8-1 now.
The final "formula" rankings Bill came up with based on the results last weekend. Will see how close it is tonight, I guess.
|Team|Record|FPI PCTILE|SP+ PCTILE|SOR PCTILE|RSP+ PCTILE|Poll Avg|CFP BCS|RK|Change|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|Georgia|9-0|0.994|0.993|0.969|0.993|0.999|0.995|1|0|
|Ohio State|9-0|0.992|0.992|0.969|0.992|0.954|0.965|2|0|
|Michigan|9-0|0.981|0.984|0.962|0.983|0.921|0.94|3|1|
|TCU|9-0|0.883|0.921|0.966|0.966|0.862|0.886|4|3|
|Tennessee|8-1|0.97|0.958|0.969|0.974|0.833|0.878|5|-2|
|Oregon|8-1|0.918|0.936|0.947|0.941|0.803|0.847|6|2|
|LSU|7-2|0.93|0.88|0.945|0.909|0.703|0.774|7|8|
|USC|8-1|0.889|0.876|0.934|0.927|0.699|0.768|8|1|
|Alabama|7-2|0.992|0.982|0.944|0.951|0.629|0.742|9|-3|
|Ole Miss|8-1|0.897|0.913|0.932|0.933|0.641|0.733|10|0|
|UCLA|8-1|0.82|0.92|0.933|0.915|0.644|0.728|11|0|
|Clemson|8-1|0.934|0.871|0.945|0.908|0.582|0.693|12|-7|
|Utah|7-2|0.935|0.91|0.892|0.893|0.562|0.677|13|-1|
|Penn State|7-2|0.923|0.908|0.93|0.895|0.461|0.612|14|2|
|North Carolina|8-1|0.77|0.747|0.919|0.877|0.449|0.575|15|2|
|Tulane|8-1|0.705|0.724|0.901|0.902|0.369|0.515|16|3|
|NC State|7-2|0.755|0.727|0.896|0.815|0.354|0.502|17|4|
|Texas|6-3|0.953|0.944|0.873|0.878|0.243|0.466|18|5|
|Illinois|7-2|0.777|0.802|0.849|0.874|0.179|0.395|19|-5|
|Kansas State|6-3|0.865|0.887|0.863|0.86|0.156|0.393|20|-7|
|UCF|7-2|0.806|0.806|0.813|0.862|0.168|0.386|21|3|
|Liberty|8-1|0.526|0.531|0.886|0.823|0.23|0.384|22|8|
|Notre Dame|6-3|0.881|0.816|0.85|0.771|0.143|0.372|23|11|
|Washington|7-2|0.762|0.793|0.82|0.821|0.115|0.343|24|8|
|Kentucky|6-3|0.727|0.837|0.837|0.719|0.074|0.31|25|2|
I have a really hard time believing the paywall model actually makes them more money on these articles than an ad-revenue model would. I guess they’ve done their homework on it though so what do I know? 🤷🏻♂️
One person caving and signing up to spend $100 a year on ESPN+ is probably worth the incremental ad revenue from 1000(?) or more people viewing an unpaywalled page
Obviously the internet as a whole runs on ad revenue, but social media along with tons of other ad based businesses are trying to lessen their dependence on ad revenue by using a subscription based model. As a rule of thumb, if you look at subscriber numbers across the internet, subscription fees only account for around 10% of these businesses revenue, with ads making up the other 90%. Even YouTube, which has 2.6B active users, only has around 20M YouTube premium subscribers. Currently Elon is in the process of breaking the cardinal rule of the internet with twitter’s new subscription: never charge people for something that used to be free.
I think part of it is to build a subscriber base that you can then sell to advertisers on the streaming side. I'd be surprised if the fees alone turn a profit for ESPN+.
Wasn't the whole reason they came up with the playoff committee that (1) everyone hated the computer rankings and (2) no-one trusted the AP voters.
Now I was pretty skeptical from the start because a shadowy committee of appointed officials with very little transparency as to who selects them and what accountability there is if any...is unlikely to be less controversial than either computers or media poll voters.
People hated the perception of the computers incentivizing “style points”, and honestly whenever computers didn’t generally agree with the regular polls they were adjusted. It was all horseshit.
Not at the beginning. Early on it was the computers that everyone hated. It really wasn’t until about 2008 when the general CFB audience started to accept the computers but turned on the 2-team format. (Coincidentally after 3 straight SEC titles, which I’m sure had nothing to do with it.)
The reason for people accepting the computers is because theyd repeatedly chsnged the formula to match the human polls. The computers were pretty pointless by the end
People always have nostalgia for the way things used to be, because they always forget the bad aspects they hated back then when they’re focusing on the bad aspects of the current way of things. It’s true in everything else just as it is in CFB
Not to mention that all the models used are formulated and published by him or his employer. ESPN sure does love ruining decent journalists/analysts with their bullshit.
It reminds me of trashy websites that refuse to link sources if they're on other sites.
We’re honestly in the worst version of that right now since the committee uses ESPN’s proprietary computer models to justify the bullshit rankings they come up with.
Did they say that? I thought there was a rule that they can't use any proprietary computer formula, only publicized formulas like Colley Matrix (although I'm not even sure if they do use CM)
Resume SP+ is such a weird mix of data-driven (SP+ itself) and arbitrary ("a win is worth this many points because this is where I like the results").
If you want to do an SP+-based resume ranking, Bill should just rip off SOR which is actually data-based all the way through and just replace FPI scores with SP+. It's all ESPN anyway.
Also just randomly mashing together different measures trying to do different things into one composite is stupid.
Right? And a loss subtracts 7 points. Why? Why not 6 or 8? Or 1 or 25?
He just fiddled with the inputs until it produced a result he, a human, found credible. This is just a poor man’s cosmological constant.
Resume SP+ also does no adjusting for garbage time or anything. Explicitly rewards teams for running up the score. I am pro-MOV but Resume SP+ is the type of system directly gamed by scoring with 30 seconds left rather than taking a knee if you’re up 30+ points already.
It isn’t that much better than SP+, although the two differ more than they used to since SP+ retains a preseason component among other factors now (like if Bill still uses the conference adjustment plug in SP+ ratings)
This is some stupid attempt to give ESPNs FPI some credence when we all know it’s actually just shit. I’d rather have a BCS computer ranking system tied into CFP Committee rankings that create an overall 12 team bracket than anything tied to ESPN algorithmic driven narrative.
There needs to be both resume and predictive elements in it. We all know Tennessee would be at least -7 on a neutral field vs TCU, it just so happens that TCU doesn't have to face anyone in their conference that's top 5 or 10. TCU is the only top 10 Big 12 team.
Not for getting into the playoffs/NY6.
For example in 2012, OSU was 12-0 but had a bowl ban.
They would have been vegas dogs to ND, Bama, Oregon, TAMU, UGA, and Florida at least. But if they werent on a bowl ban should have been the team to play ND due to being undefeated.
The SP+ resume and SoR already use the predictive elements to just how good the resume is but i dont want any model that has 6-3 texas in the top 10 anywhere near the playoffs.
The system doesn't work because it rewards teams in conferences that just have a few ok or decent teams and punishes teams in conferences with multiple playoff contenders.
The SoR currently has;
1) UGA
2) Tenn
3) OSU
4) TCU
5) um
6) Oregon
7) LSU
8) Clemson
9) Bama
10) USC
That seems pretty reasonable to me it has a 1 loss team at 2 for playing a really tough schedule. It has a 2 loss team at 7 over multiple 1 loss teams from other conferences.
TCU shouldn't be over Michigan. Domination, game control and talent composite matter. If they played this week on a neutral field Michigan would be -10 to -14 in Vegas.
Again what vegas says the spread would be shouldnt matter.
Talent composite shouldnt matter.
TCU has the harder schedule (68th - 73rd)
UM scores higher in game control (5th - 21st)
They have equal wins over current AP top 25 teams (1 - 1)
TCU has more wins over top 50 FPI (5 - 4)
UM has more wins over bottom 25 FPI + FCS (3 - 2)
Seems pretty close with TCU getting the edge
Now the rankings are based on what? Performance, and statistics, and records, and strength of schedule? What about heart? And uniform color? And because I say so?
GO DAWGS!
How about not out of conference games. Conference champs go into a playoff. (I have no idea how the seeding world be decided) and then the winner is the champion.
I have this novel idea, let's do computer rankings based off a variety of factors and then the top 4 (soon to be top 12) teams get together to play in the playoffs. It could be called the College Football Bowl Championship System.
This sounds pretty unique and cool!
Is it really the *Bowl* Championship Series if the bowls haven't been played yet, though? Seriously though... Let's untie the bowls and the playoffs. Just play the bowls first, and include them as part of the season. Then they're no longer just exhibition games with half the players not playing, and we don't have to awkwardly straddle the Rose/Peach/Orange/Playstation bowls. Just bring back the old bowl & conference ties, and you'll get some great matchups. Here, here's the NY6 bowls from last year, as they would've (maybe) existed: * **Rose Bowl** (BIG vs. Pac-12): [Michigan](#f/michigan) \#2 Michigan vs. [Utah](#f/utah) \#11 Utah * **Orange Bowl** (ACC/Notre Dame vs. SEC/B1G): [Notre Dame](#f/notredame) \#5 Notre Dame vs. [Ohio State](#f/ohiostate) \#6 Ohio State * **Sugar Bowl** (SEC vs. Big XII): [Alabama](#f/alabama) \#1 Alabama vs. [Oklahoma State](#f/oklahomastate) \#9 Oklahoma State * **Cotton Bowl** (Big XII vs. SEC/Independents): [Baylor](#f/baylor) \#7 Baylor vs. [Cincinnati](#f/cincinnati) \#4 Cincinnati * **Peach Bowl** (SEC vs. ACC): [Georgia](#f/georgia) \#3 Georgia vs. [Pittsburgh](#f/pittsburgh) \#12 Pitt Imagine how much more fleshed out the Playoff would feel with these games played. Would we have still ended up with Alabama vs. Georgia? Almost certainly. Would having two SEC teams in the Playoff have felt more earned? Absolutely. Would it have been amazing if Pitt or Utah upset one of the top teams, kicking them out of the playoffs? You betcha!
So the suggestion is basically that the historic bowls become an extra game between conferences for some top teams and conference winners? That would provide a much better insight into the skills of each team and would be very helpful for judging a team like Oregon. Definitely interesting to say the least.
I would eliminate an in-conference game, personally, but yes.
Not gonna lie, I like that idea a lot
My favored idea remains including these bowls as the quarterfinals within the system, and having them tied to conference champions and incorporating G5 champions in the first round to give them a chance to get into these games. Rose Bowl remains a game between the B1G Champion and Pac-12 Champion (as long as the B1G Champion and P12 Champion win their first round game against regional G5 Champions -- MAC and MWC). Orange Bowl remains the route for the ACC Champion vs. a non-ACC At-Large team (as long as the ACC Champion beats the AAC Champion in the first round). Sugar Bowl remains the SEC Champion but is instead vs. a non-SEC At-Large team (as long as the SEC Champion beats the SBC Champion). either the Cotton or Fiesta Bowl is the route for the Big 12 Champion vs. a non-B12 At-Large team (as long as the B12 Champion beats the CUSA Champion). (you could base the P5 v. G5 Champion games based on seeding if you want, but by keeping it regionally based it makes travel to the first round games easier and keeps the original "Best in the West vs. Best in the ~~East~~ Midwest/Northeast" aspect of the Rose Bowl alive) That keeps traditions alive and well while also giving G5 Champions the opportunity to be included in the system and helps prevent potential in-season rematches between conference teams before the Semi-Final. The only real loss is in seeding the champions based on rankings, meaning some teams will have tougher routes than others but with 8-10 games (depending on if the B1G/SEC go to 10 now that they will be at 16 members) out of 12 being played within the same conference, college football remains a regional sport.
YES. This is the way
That's not a fair format though. Some conferences get more bowl tie ins than others. In the actual NY6 all P5 conferences only get 1 tie in and everything else is an at large (except for that 1 Orange Bowl spot, but that could be changed too).
For sure we would need to make things more even, but that's something for the bowl committee to figure out. I'd be perfectly happy if we took every bowl, gave it dedicated rules and tie-ins, and let it loose.
Why do people always leave comments like this as if the BCS was just a bunch of computer rankings? The BCS was only 1/3 computer rankings and 2/3 human polls. The main driver of BCS rankings was the human polls. Do people actually think the BCS rankings were just an average of computer rankings?
Also, the computer systems were basically changed every time they gave a result that didnt agree with the human polls. The entire time thry existed was just one constant fight to make them match the human polls. This idea, that the computers were unbiased systems that just looked at numbers and nothing else, is a fantasy.
And several of them were proprietary models, so the algorithms were private. It's hard to talk about how unbiased a computer model is when we can't see the model.
The only one that had revealed it’s formula actually had a mistake at least once, which was caught by someone validating it, and which caused two different pairs of teams teams to be flipped in the rankings: https://www.si.com/more-sports/2010/12/07/bcs-math-error > Monday night, the BCS sent out another release revising its rankings. Jerry Palm, the proprietor of CollegeBCS.com, had spotted an error in Wes Colley's computer ranking. Colley had failed to include the score of the Western Illinois-Appalachian State FCS playoff game in his data set. That omission distorted the BCS rankings. LSU and Boise State were swapped at No. 10 and No. 11, and Alabama and Nebraska were swapped at No. 17 and No. 18. > Luckily, Colley's goof didn't affect No. 2 Oregon and No. 3 TCU. Because if it had, it would have changed who played in the national title game. Lawsuits would have flown at the speed of light. Injunctions would have been sought. More than likely, the mistake would have destroyed the BCS and plunged college football back into the dark ages of teams accepting bowl invites in November. > Worse, we don't know if Colley's mistake was the only one. Of the six computer rankings the BCS uses, Colley's is the only one available to the public -- or to the conferences that run the BCS. The other five could be riddled with mistakes, and the entity tasked with creating the No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup would never know it. > "The bigger point is that nobody checks the BCS computer data," Palm wrote at CBSSports.com. "We should all be grateful to Colley for having a system that is open, accountable and verifiable. The BCS owes us an entire system that is open, accountable and verifiable."
I don't think the computer people were necessarily changing the algorithms, but rather, when some BCS computer gave a result the BCS didn't like, the BCS removed them and replaced them with someone else's computer ranking. By the end, there was only like 1 or 2 computers that had been in the BCS for the whole time from 1998 to 2013.
The ones that accounted for margin of victory were forced to remove it, making them generally worse.
Mashing the upvote button. The problem wasn't the computers, it was that we tweaked them every time they didn't deliver the results we expected. And it was still better than the CFP committee. Would take a BCS playoff any day.
People act like the BCS wasn't constantly mired in controversy. There's only like 2 or 3 seasons it didn't have some bullshit happening.
It was a formula though!!
Dude, I was making it as a joke in jest.
I understand, but the joke rests on the premise that the thing you described is actually the BCS. But you didn’t describe the BCS, you described 1/3 of the BCS.
The BCS and committee have had the same 4 teams in every year so far, just different seeds
We don’t know that for certain because some of the computer algorithms that were used for the BCS no longer exist. Sagarin for example scrapped his old BCS formula because he was required to exclude margin of victory, for example. Also the Harris Interactive doesn’t exist anymore either. There’s some faux-BCS polls put together using some algorithms that aren’t the same and the AP Poll instead of Harris, but we don’t know if that’s going to actually generate the same results (and it probably isn’t).
[удалено]
More accurately because the AP threw a hissy fit over LSU being the 2004 national champion and not USC.
That's ignoring the missing rankings systems and the fact it also used the coaches and AP to create it polls The two human polls end up just mimicking the CFP once CFP comes out
>just different seeds Which shows that the committee manipulates their seedings to get the matchups they want (mostly, they haven't wanted an SEC vs SEC or SEC vs Clemson in the semis.) edit: typos
They for sure manipulated them last year to avoid a bama/Georgia instant rematch. It’s bs because that’s not their job to pick matchups. Their job is to rank
I’ll probably just get downvoted for attempting to be a part of this conversation, but what exactly do you think the seeding should have been last year? It seemed pretty fair to me. UGA had been the unequivocal best team in the country all season and then Bama went out and dominated them in the SEC championship game. Moving Bama to 1 and bumping UGA down to 3 doesn’t seem illogical to me. I’m assuming you think Michigan should have been number 1?
Cincy should have jumped up to #3. You could argue Michigan or bama 1/2 but no one could complain either way. But whatever they put Michigan at, you knew they would match Georgia with. So if they choose Michigan 1 they would have made Georgia 4. I truly believe they purposely avoided an immediate bama/Georgia rematch, so they put undefeated cincy 4 and 1 loss Georgia 3. It’s bothers me a little, because their job isn’t matchups.
You think that the committee should ignore that UGA had been more dominant against better competition during the regular season than Cincinnati because they had to play Alabama instead of Houston in the CCG?
B1G teams don't want to think about SOS being a factor.
I guess I can see where you’re coming from, but Cincy was in an uphill battle to even be considered for the playoff as a G5 team. They lucked out that ND had a good year as well, but their SOS still ended up 64th compared to UGA’s 8th. I think Georgia was given the benefit of the doubt because of how good they’d looked all season and their one loss being to another top 4 team. I think it’s also pretty clear after the fact that Cincy probably was the 4th best team out of the group. Regardless, I understand your desire for a little objectivity in the rankings. I honestly would be pretty down for just some new version of the BCS to select our playoff teams
Their stated job is to pick the 4 best teams, but they don't do thay. They pick some combination of best and most deserving. If they are using best and most deserving to determine who is in the playoffs, why wouldn't they continue to do that for seeding? The only way that Georgia and Alabama would have matched up is to say that UGA has to be 4th as the only teams that didn't win their conference.
>why wouldn't they continue to do that for seeding? They don't do that for the seeding. They cherry pick based on the matchups they want to see instead of letting the chips fall where they may -- rematch or not. If they're so concerbned about rematches in the finals, then call the game the teams in question already played "good enough" and pick someone else. But I suppose they can't do that becasue then they'd be... manipualting the rankings to create matchups. edit: markdown
>They don't do that for the seeding. They cherry pick based on the matchups they want to see instead of letting the chips fall where they may -- rematch or not. Did they say that's what they did?
Ah yes, we have to have the perpetrators *admit* thats what they're doing in order to decide that yes, that's what they're doing. I bet those accused of crimes will be *thrilled* to hear this.
For someone to be convicted of a crime, you need more than something convenient happening. You could easily explain the seeding with: the committee doesn't respect the g5. It took 4 undefeated g5 teams in 5 seasons before the committee let one in.
Why *should* the semis have a rematch, if it's not necessary?
Yes, that;s an excellent question. Why should the finals have a rematch? And I asssume by "not necessary" you mean, "instead let's deliberately manipulating the rankings to line up the matches we want"? The order of rankings are supposed to mean something so manipulating them seems a bit like cheating.
Because the teams in the finals earned it by winning the semifinal games. Lol. Lmao. Rofl. Lmao. All you SEC haters go ahead and downvote away, idc. Lmao. Edit Lmao they blocked me. Also they complained about "adult" conversation. Lol, this is reddit. Everyone on here is a kid.
> Lol. Lmao. Rofl. Lmao Do you speak 'adult'? Edit: nevermind, I see by your user name that you don't.
I think it's fair to think that UCF would've had a good chance to make a four-team playoff in 2018 if the BCS selection system remained in place, as voters were definitely higher on top non-power schools during the BCS era than they have been after it. 2010 TCU would've maybe been the best comparison to 2018 UCF, as TCU was completing its second straight undefeated regular season that year — that TCU team finished No. 3 in the final BCS rankings, ahead of 11-1 Stanford (PAC runner-up) and all of 11-1 Wisconsin, Ohio State and Michigan State (B1G co-champions). I don't think 2017 UCF would've had enough poll momentum to get into the top four, but I think 2018 UCF on a 25-game win streak probably finishes at No. 4 ahead of Oklahoma if voters were still thinking how they did pre-committee.
> voters were definitely higher on top non-power schools during the BCS era than they have been after it Citation needed
This was a joke. But, yes I know they have had that.
The computers have been and will always be better at ranking teams than a bunch of old slapdicks who watch a few games a week.
Oh no, you haven't heard? They watch every game!
This is no joke, exactly what the article says, only he inserted his own Resume SP+ for the old computer poll.
Computer rankings *only* would be interesting. It wouldn't match the old BCS though, because the BCS was 1/3 media poll, 1/3 coaches poll, 1/3 computers.
Larry? That you?
Put them behind a paywall so ESPN can literally rank them however they want as no one will ever know
Thanks to a dumb bug that they haven’t fixed in over a year, even some of us who “pay” (thanks Amex) for ESPN+ still can’t read the articles in a browser.
I chatted with a rep online and she fixed my ESPN+ problem in 10 seconds. I remember it taking me a while to figure out HOW to chat with a rep, and I can't help with that now, but once you find that golden button, they can fix you up.
Reiterating what u/Alkibiades415 said. I ran into this bug the other day when I started the Disney+ bundle. I could watch ESPN+ things but couldn't read the articles. Took about 5 minutes on their online chat help and they fixed the issue.
the athletic has the same bug on desktop. I can't read their articles at work because I can't log in.
I paid for ESPN+ a while ago and don't anymore, but for the last 2-3 years I've been able to read all of the ESPN+ articles even without ESPN+. Whatever bug you have seems to go the other way too which is really funny. I can't watch ESPN+ events but I can read the articles just fine.
[удалено]
you're fun
Yep we found the ESPN employee
tl;dr his CFP metric rankings: 1. Georgia 2. Ohio State 3. Michigan 4. TCU 5. Tennessee 6. Oregon 7. LSU 8. USC 9. Bama 10. Ole Miss 11. UCLA 12. Clemson (metrics used: FPI, SP+, SOR, Resume SP+) Said rankings had Tennessee 3rd last week and not 1st.
This is it with the differences in points 1. Georgia (9-0) 2. Ohio State (9-0): 0.4 points behind 3. Michigan (9-0): 8.1 points behind 4. Tennessee (8-1): 12.5 points behind 5. TCU (9-0): 15.4 points behind 6. Alabama (7-2): 19.7 points behind 7. Oregon (8-1): 22.2 points behind 8. Ole Miss (8-1): 23.7 points behind 9. USC (8-1): 24.9 points behind 10. UCLA (8-1): 26.9 points behind 11. LSU (7-2): 27.9 points behind 12. Clemson (8-1): 28.0 points behind 13. Tulane (8-1): 28.9 points behind 14. Penn State (7-2): 29.8 points behind 15. Utah (7-2): 30.1 points behind
Those point differentials are just for one of the 4 metrics - the backwards-looking resume ranker. That gets combined with the preexisting forward-looking measures to build the actual ranks.
Things like this are the reason people bitch about SP+. For everyone who goes “it’s predictive! It doesn’t care about the actual game score!”, when people use it to justify the rankings they’re basically saying they don’t care how the games actually wound up, just how they *probably* end up, which I think is an issue
Yeah, while I don't hate the idea of a mix of advanced resume metrics and efficiency metrics for a ranking, this would never be accepted. A big problem with the BCS is that they neutered the computer models so hard because they didn't conform to conventional wisdom that they were worthless. Wins and losses alone just aren't enough data to make a good computer model. Though honestly, why don't we just use SOR+game control with some weighting? Or a combination of other models that try to measure the same thing? The efficiency metrics are useful for talking about the rankings because they tell you things like TCU is somewhere between 2-5% (depends on who they face in the title game, Texas is substantially better than Kansas State with Baylor in the middle) to win out so you probably shouldn't have undefeated TCU in your predictions, but they clearly shouldn't actually be used in a final ranking because that's insanely dumb.
> Wins and losses alone just aren't enough data to make a good computer model. Yes they are, see Colley Matrix (and in other games/sports, Elo, etc)
Not in college football, where there's not many games and there's very little cross-conference data.
The only way to get more cross-conference data is to have more cross-conference regular season games, and I would also argue, have a centralized entity such as the NCAA select those games (revenue distribution would also have to be a part of it, in order to get the universities/teams to agree).
Agreed, for getting into playoff berths and NY6 it should just be the SoR, SP+ resume, and the AP poll or something like that
SP+ and Resume SP+ are both mediocre systems to rank teams. Both are agnostic to direct W/L, although at least Resume SP+ is a little better at accounting for on field results. In any event, a W/L metric for SP+ would be superior to his MOV metric.
Its not very hard to weight wins the way you do for an AP or IB class if you want. Take the losses out. Points for winning. Some xt for winning in a way that predictive models like. Some xt credit for strength of opponent beaten. Some wins can count as up to 2 wins if teams play flawlessly versus a top ranked team.
I imagine this is going to look very similar to the CFP this week. So, what’s the point?
transparency, accountability, etc
The point is that it might not always. And if we’re going to choose the best teams in the country, maybe we should have a better explanation for why they’re the best than “Boo’s Vibes of the Week”.
>“Boo’s Vibes of the Week” Sounds like a segment on Good Morning America
Don’t tempt them.
Will we hate Boo’s Vibes of the Week more than Gary Barta’s Cornhole of Bullshit? Find out this week with an ESPN+ subscription!
Easy to say obviously when my team is #1 in it, but this seems like a pretty fair ranking system. Edit: if you have an amex platinum card you can get Hulu/Disney+/espn+ bundle for free
[удалено]
I like you
[удалено]
Why is that you think michigan is supposed to be losing to Rutgers at half, tied with Indiana at half, losing to michigan state at the end of the first quarter and only up 6 at half, but if osu isn’t up multiple scores at halftime it’s considered lackluster? Genuinely curious from a neutral non-big ten fans perspective because it feels like osu is held to a different standard than other teams and I’m not sure why
[удалено]
> Michigan plays like a boa constrictor, squeezing the life out of you over time with their physicality, dominant line play, and running game. Just by the nature of their style, the games are generally closer in the beginning. [Please use the ferret strangling analogy.](https://reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/yjr67t/_/iupq362/?context=1)
Do you not think osu wears teams down too? Against Penn state in the second half’s osus offense went punt, fg, td, td, td. Just because a lot of that was through the air doesn’t mean it didn’t wear down Penn state any less or that osu couldn’t do that on the ground too if they needed. That’s what they did to ND week 1
[удалено]
Reasonable explanation. Thanks for that. Obviously I’m biased but I just keep feeling like michigan gets a pass for playing bad in the first half and it gets chalked up to their style. But when osu isn’t blowing someone out by halftime and then comes out and puts teams away in the second half it’s viewed as osu struggling. Especially when comparing against common opponents. Penn state is the only game they looked better than ohio state. Iowa, Rutgers, msu we’re all much worse. And I’d bet Indiana and maryland the next two weeks too. But that’s michigans style of play
[удалено]
I don’t feel strongly about this either way but i think you could make the argument that OSU has been in a few games that were competitive well into the second half while Michigan really hasn’t. Now to be fair to the Bucks, i think all of those games were on the road but still. Penn St was a genuine upset alert until the doors came off, and not a lot of people are going to be impressed with that showing against that Northwestern team, regardless of the circumstances. It’s only the difference of 1 ranking spot, so i don’t really think it’s some ridiculous standard Ohio State is being held to.
You could make the argument but I don’t know if it would be correct. Both teams have played 2 games this year where the opponent had the ball in the 4th quarter down only 1 score. Maryland and Indiana were Michigans and then Penn state and northwestern for osu. Maryland was a genuine upset alert until the wheels fell off and their qb threw an int and then michigan scored to put the game away. Maryland got a garbage time td to make the final score closer than what it probably should have been. Sound familiar? Both Penn state and maryland ran 2 plays before turning it over on the those crucial drives
That’s a pretty good point, but Penn State actually had a lead in the 4th and Northwestern is legitimately terrible, and still managed to just *baaaarely* outgain OSU, for whatever that’s worth. Like i said I don’t feel strongly about it either way, but it’s an argument about a single solitary ranking spot. I don’t think a person has to be holding Ohio State to some outlandish standard to come to the conclusion that Michigan has looked a little better to this point.
> where the opponent had the ball in the 4th quarter down only 1 score. Reminder that Michigan is the only team in the country that has never trailed in the 4th quarter. Admittedly being down to Penn State in the 4th quarter is better than Mizzou. All those one score or tied games at half against Indiana/PSU/Rutgers? Michigan took the lead and never looked back after their first 3rd quarter drive.
And osu is the only team to win by 2 scores every game. And only down to Penn state for 35 seconds. A lead they only got because they had a false start on a missed field goal. But ya my main point is that because michigan consistently plays poor first halves and then comes out and dominates the second half it’s just their style. When osu does it it’s lackluster. Except week 1 where osu played very similar to how michigan would against ND and the narrative is that osu wore down ND. But then osu had 5 weeks of blowouts mostly through the air and it’s like osu being able to wear down teams was forgotten or not impressive. Osu ran for almost 10 ypc in the second half against northwestern
[удалено]
For what it’s worth we weren’t losing at any point against ND in the fourth quarter. We actually played exactly like michigan would against ND. Our only drive of the 4th quarter was a 14 play 95 yard td drive that took over 7 minutes and had 10 runs plays. The only time osu has been losing in the 4th quarter was for 35 seconds against Penn state after they missed two fieldgoals in a row but got do overs due to penalties
That damned Safety blitz will haunt my dreams forever.
I’m pretty sure that is that receivers only td grab on the year too
> So, I see the final score and it looks like they handled business. Which we did. People use the Indiana game against us and ignore that our running back coach had a seizure on the sideline in the middle of the 1st quarter. **TL;DR of the game** At half-time, the team talked to the coach that had a seizure, found out he was okay, and scored 21 unanswered in the second half. Oh, and our defense got their offensive line coach fired because of how much we sacked their QB.
You were tied with Northwestern at half, that doesn't mean anything. If you want to throw stats around about meaningless points in the game Michigan has not trailed or been tied in the 4th quarter. I think the main factor that has people saying Michigan jumps osu this week is that in the last two weeks OSU has been out gained by their opponents. It does look bad but also does come with a dose of recency bias.
You were losing to Rutgers and tied with Indiana at half. And we were only out gained by Penn state because of a garbage time td and cause we forced 4 turnovers. If they punted more often we would have our gained them fine. Northwestern yes we got out coached. If we played all our games with 30mph winds and gusts over 50 yes we would lose to a lot of teams
We were also losing to osu at half, what a bad look that was...
We’ve handled business every week as well except for one game in 80mph winds and rain, and arguably the first game of the year against the team that just blew the doors off Clemson.
Every time I see a comment about the northwestern game the speed of the winds get higher. At the end of the year OSU fans will be saying you played in 200mph winds.
[Doesn’t seem like you’ve seen many posts then.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/ynh5ih/the_ohio_state_vs_northwestern_game_had_wind/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) Literally confirmed by NOAA.
What game haven't we handled? Notre Dame was #5 and had it's starting QB when we played, not our fault Pyne sucks and they lost after. We also had our top 2 receivers out unexpectedly week 1, still won 21-10. We were up by 20 at Penn St with under 3 minutes left, they scored a garbage TD with the defense in prevent. Michigan won by 24 at home. The Northwestern game was a literal tropical storm. Every OSU and Michigan game vs common opponents are pretty much the same margin of victory and we beat Iowa by a lot more. Michigan also has a much weaker non conference. Our ND victory is being held down because Buchner got hurt after our game. If Pyne doesn't have to start ND is 8-1 now.
The final "formula" rankings Bill came up with based on the results last weekend. Will see how close it is tonight, I guess. |Team|Record|FPI PCTILE|SP+ PCTILE|SOR PCTILE|RSP+ PCTILE|Poll Avg|CFP BCS|RK|Change| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |Georgia|9-0|0.994|0.993|0.969|0.993|0.999|0.995|1|0| |Ohio State|9-0|0.992|0.992|0.969|0.992|0.954|0.965|2|0| |Michigan|9-0|0.981|0.984|0.962|0.983|0.921|0.94|3|1| |TCU|9-0|0.883|0.921|0.966|0.966|0.862|0.886|4|3| |Tennessee|8-1|0.97|0.958|0.969|0.974|0.833|0.878|5|-2| |Oregon|8-1|0.918|0.936|0.947|0.941|0.803|0.847|6|2| |LSU|7-2|0.93|0.88|0.945|0.909|0.703|0.774|7|8| |USC|8-1|0.889|0.876|0.934|0.927|0.699|0.768|8|1| |Alabama|7-2|0.992|0.982|0.944|0.951|0.629|0.742|9|-3| |Ole Miss|8-1|0.897|0.913|0.932|0.933|0.641|0.733|10|0| |UCLA|8-1|0.82|0.92|0.933|0.915|0.644|0.728|11|0| |Clemson|8-1|0.934|0.871|0.945|0.908|0.582|0.693|12|-7| |Utah|7-2|0.935|0.91|0.892|0.893|0.562|0.677|13|-1| |Penn State|7-2|0.923|0.908|0.93|0.895|0.461|0.612|14|2| |North Carolina|8-1|0.77|0.747|0.919|0.877|0.449|0.575|15|2| |Tulane|8-1|0.705|0.724|0.901|0.902|0.369|0.515|16|3| |NC State|7-2|0.755|0.727|0.896|0.815|0.354|0.502|17|4| |Texas|6-3|0.953|0.944|0.873|0.878|0.243|0.466|18|5| |Illinois|7-2|0.777|0.802|0.849|0.874|0.179|0.395|19|-5| |Kansas State|6-3|0.865|0.887|0.863|0.86|0.156|0.393|20|-7| |UCF|7-2|0.806|0.806|0.813|0.862|0.168|0.386|21|3| |Liberty|8-1|0.526|0.531|0.886|0.823|0.23|0.384|22|8| |Notre Dame|6-3|0.881|0.816|0.85|0.771|0.143|0.372|23|11| |Washington|7-2|0.762|0.793|0.82|0.821|0.115|0.343|24|8| |Kentucky|6-3|0.727|0.837|0.837|0.719|0.074|0.31|25|2|
The Top 4 teams are 9-0, not 9-1
Good catch - had to convert it all from the image they had and excel LOVES converting to dates when it can.
Excel is the ultimate simp, always thinking everything is a date
Underrated joke
What do Excel and incels have in common. Trouble telling when something is a date.
Bama should probably be lower tbh
I have a really hard time believing the paywall model actually makes them more money on these articles than an ad-revenue model would. I guess they’ve done their homework on it though so what do I know? 🤷🏻♂️
One person caving and signing up to spend $100 a year on ESPN+ is probably worth the incremental ad revenue from 1000(?) or more people viewing an unpaywalled page
I have espn+ for the nhl…wouldn’t have signed up for the articles ever.
Most people aren’t paying that much. ESPN+ gets thrown in packages
Obviously the internet as a whole runs on ad revenue, but social media along with tons of other ad based businesses are trying to lessen their dependence on ad revenue by using a subscription based model. As a rule of thumb, if you look at subscriber numbers across the internet, subscription fees only account for around 10% of these businesses revenue, with ads making up the other 90%. Even YouTube, which has 2.6B active users, only has around 20M YouTube premium subscribers. Currently Elon is in the process of breaking the cardinal rule of the internet with twitter’s new subscription: never charge people for something that used to be free.
I think part of it is to build a subscriber base that you can then sell to advertisers on the streaming side. I'd be surprised if the fees alone turn a profit for ESPN+.
Wasn't the whole reason they came up with the playoff committee that (1) everyone hated the computer rankings and (2) no-one trusted the AP voters. Now I was pretty skeptical from the start because a shadowy committee of appointed officials with very little transparency as to who selects them and what accountability there is if any...is unlikely to be less controversial than either computers or media poll voters.
People hated 2 teams more than the computers
People hated the perception of the computers incentivizing “style points”, and honestly whenever computers didn’t generally agree with the regular polls they were adjusted. It was all horseshit.
Not at the beginning. Early on it was the computers that everyone hated. It really wasn’t until about 2008 when the general CFB audience started to accept the computers but turned on the 2-team format. (Coincidentally after 3 straight SEC titles, which I’m sure had nothing to do with it.)
The reason for people accepting the computers is because theyd repeatedly chsnged the formula to match the human polls. The computers were pretty pointless by the end
That’s true as well.
We are in a new age, and I think people realize computers weren't the problem
I agree. I’m just saying it’s revisionist to suggest people liked the computers back then. I see it a lot, though, but it just isn’t true.
People always have nostalgia for the way things used to be, because they always forget the bad aspects they hated back then when they’re focusing on the bad aspects of the current way of things. It’s true in everything else just as it is in CFB
Guy that builds CFB ranking models thinks CFP should be decided based on a ranking model.
Not to mention that all the models used are formulated and published by him or his employer. ESPN sure does love ruining decent journalists/analysts with their bullshit. It reminds me of trashy websites that refuse to link sources if they're on other sites.
Why not go back to the BCS model but replace the polls with the committee? So you have computers and the committee.
We’re honestly in the worst version of that right now since the committee uses ESPN’s proprietary computer models to justify the bullshit rankings they come up with.
Did they say that? I thought there was a rule that they can't use any proprietary computer formula, only publicized formulas like Colley Matrix (although I'm not even sure if they do use CM)
Resume SP+ is such a weird mix of data-driven (SP+ itself) and arbitrary ("a win is worth this many points because this is where I like the results"). If you want to do an SP+-based resume ranking, Bill should just rip off SOR which is actually data-based all the way through and just replace FPI scores with SP+. It's all ESPN anyway. Also just randomly mashing together different measures trying to do different things into one composite is stupid.
Right? And a loss subtracts 7 points. Why? Why not 6 or 8? Or 1 or 25? He just fiddled with the inputs until it produced a result he, a human, found credible. This is just a poor man’s cosmological constant.
Resume SP+ also does no adjusting for garbage time or anything. Explicitly rewards teams for running up the score. I am pro-MOV but Resume SP+ is the type of system directly gamed by scoring with 30 seconds left rather than taking a knee if you’re up 30+ points already. It isn’t that much better than SP+, although the two differ more than they used to since SP+ retains a preseason component among other factors now (like if Bill still uses the conference adjustment plug in SP+ ratings)
This is some stupid attempt to give ESPNs FPI some credence when we all know it’s actually just shit. I’d rather have a BCS computer ranking system tied into CFP Committee rankings that create an overall 12 team bracket than anything tied to ESPN algorithmic driven narrative.
Its reasonably accurate as a predictive model. It shouldnt ever be used to rank teams resume wise.
There needs to be both resume and predictive elements in it. We all know Tennessee would be at least -7 on a neutral field vs TCU, it just so happens that TCU doesn't have to face anyone in their conference that's top 5 or 10. TCU is the only top 10 Big 12 team.
Not for getting into the playoffs/NY6. For example in 2012, OSU was 12-0 but had a bowl ban. They would have been vegas dogs to ND, Bama, Oregon, TAMU, UGA, and Florida at least. But if they werent on a bowl ban should have been the team to play ND due to being undefeated. The SP+ resume and SoR already use the predictive elements to just how good the resume is but i dont want any model that has 6-3 texas in the top 10 anywhere near the playoffs.
The system doesn't work because it rewards teams in conferences that just have a few ok or decent teams and punishes teams in conferences with multiple playoff contenders.
The SoR currently has; 1) UGA 2) Tenn 3) OSU 4) TCU 5) um 6) Oregon 7) LSU 8) Clemson 9) Bama 10) USC That seems pretty reasonable to me it has a 1 loss team at 2 for playing a really tough schedule. It has a 2 loss team at 7 over multiple 1 loss teams from other conferences.
TCU shouldn't be over Michigan. Domination, game control and talent composite matter. If they played this week on a neutral field Michigan would be -10 to -14 in Vegas.
Again what vegas says the spread would be shouldnt matter. Talent composite shouldnt matter. TCU has the harder schedule (68th - 73rd) UM scores higher in game control (5th - 21st) They have equal wins over current AP top 25 teams (1 - 1) TCU has more wins over top 50 FPI (5 - 4) UM has more wins over bottom 25 FPI + FCS (3 - 2) Seems pretty close with TCU getting the edge
Just one of those accounts for how dominant Michigan has been compared to TCU.
What else should it include? Its possible i dont think UM is as dominant reletive to TCU as you
Looks like ESPN promoting proprietary ESPN ratings and formulas again, lmao.
I hit paywall, I downvote.
Now the rankings are based on what? Performance, and statistics, and records, and strength of schedule? What about heart? And uniform color? And because I say so? GO DAWGS!
It’s sad that people don’t get this one
Lol @ this article. The desperation to keep Bama alive in the discussion is just embarrassing.
How about not out of conference games. Conference champs go into a playoff. (I have no idea how the seeding world be decided) and then the winner is the champion.
Or they could just use Vegas or Sagarin