NCAAF College Football final 4 debate thread 2016
12-04-2016
, 05:54 PM
12-04-2016
, 06:31 PM
12-04-2016
, 06:57 PM
Lsu vs Louisville should be fun.
Nebraska vs Tennesee might have the most lulz of the entire bowl season as both teams have been delivering the lulz all year.
Florida vs Iowa will probably suck.
And all the New Years six bowls are all solid matchups. I'm liking this bowl season
Nebraska vs Tennesee might have the most lulz of the entire bowl season as both teams have been delivering the lulz all year.
Florida vs Iowa will probably suck.
And all the New Years six bowls are all solid matchups. I'm liking this bowl season
12-04-2016
, 07:00 PM
Quote:
Lsu vs Louisville should be fun.
Nebraska vs Tennesee might have the most lulz of the entire bowl season as both teams have been delivering the lulz all year.
Florida vs Iowa will probably suck.
And all the New Years six bowls are all solid matchups. I'm liking this bowl season
Nebraska vs Tennesee might have the most lulz of the entire bowl season as both teams have been delivering the lulz all year.
Florida vs Iowa will probably suck.
And all the New Years six bowls are all solid matchups. I'm liking this bowl season
12-04-2016
, 07:24 PM
looks like they got it rightOn another note, Big 12 commish had a pretty interesting statement today:
Quote:
Obviously I acknowledge the difficulty of the task, but I'm not sure what I advise my members right now, because we've been telling them that nonconference schedules matter, and one of the four has an exceedingly weak nonconference schedule. And we've been telling them the 13th data point matters, and we added a conference championship game because of that. We've always heard that conference championships matter and division championships matter, and now it's confusing.
I'm just looking for clarity. We didn't have a team that was a likely participant in the playoff, and so from that standpoint it doesn't make a lot of difference to us this year, but I'd just like to know what we're supposed to advise our members. Does the 13th data point make a difference, or does it not? Does the conference championship game make a difference, or does it not? Are they only used as tiebreakers, or is it other metrics?
In TCU's case, they fell out of the playoff. They had a great year and had a Heisman Trophy candidate at quarterback and won by 50 points on the last day of the season, but we were told the reason they didn't get in, the reason they fell, was they didn't have a 13th data point and they didn't have a championship. Now I think it's reasonable to seek clarity on that, and when the time is right, I will ask those questions.
I'm just looking for clarity. We didn't have a team that was a likely participant in the playoff, and so from that standpoint it doesn't make a lot of difference to us this year, but I'd just like to know what we're supposed to advise our members. Does the 13th data point make a difference, or does it not? Does the conference championship game make a difference, or does it not? Are they only used as tiebreakers, or is it other metrics?
In TCU's case, they fell out of the playoff. They had a great year and had a Heisman Trophy candidate at quarterback and won by 50 points on the last day of the season, but we were told the reason they didn't get in, the reason they fell, was they didn't have a 13th data point and they didn't have a championship. Now I think it's reasonable to seek clarity on that, and when the time is right, I will ask those questions.
I find it interesting for a few reasons:
1. Nowhere mentioned is number of losses or number of wins. He's throwing shade at Washington and he's throwing shade at OSU, but he never brings up that they are the 1 loss teams and they got in over the 2 loss teams. He's discussing 13th data points and hiring data analysts, but not really factoring in "what was your record" which seems to be one of the earliest data points.
2. The talk about OOC scheduling - and forcing the entire conference to play a P5 team and limit FCS teams - is interesting when looking at #1. Is SOS or Wins/Losses the more important factor? It's clear he thinks it's the 1st (given the shade at the X-1 teams), but if that's not the case then moving forward why would you let your big teams schedule really good ooc opponents? If Oklahoma played UTSA instead of Ohio State, would their playoff chances be better or worse at the end of the year?
3. The distinct inability to realize this is a fluid situation year to year and not a strict algorithm. By bringing up TCU in relation to OSU this year, we see a person that's not really recognizing how 2 conference champs with the same record being broken by tiebreakers is different from an X-1 team that beat #3 in its last game getting in over a 2 loss team with a conference title. There's no overarching point here. Just kind of fascinating.
12-04-2016
, 07:47 PM
12-04-2016
, 07:48 PM
12-04-2016
, 08:06 PM
12-04-2016
, 09:48 PM
Quote:
looks like they got it right
On another note, Big 12 commish had a pretty interesting statement today:
Source being an espn blurb: http://www.espn.com/college-football...s-make-playoff
I find it interesting for a few reasons:
1. Nowhere mentioned is number of losses or number of wins. He's throwing shade at Washington and he's throwing shade at OSU, but he never brings up that they are the 1 loss teams and they got in over the 2 loss teams. He's discussing 13th data points and hiring data analysts, but not really factoring in "what was your record" which seems to be one of the earliest data points.
2. The talk about OOC scheduling - and forcing the entire conference to play a P5 team and limit FCS teams - is interesting when looking at #1. Is SOS or Wins/Losses the more important factor? It's clear he thinks it's the 1st (given the shade at the X-1 teams), but if that's not the case then moving forward why would you let your big teams schedule really good ooc opponents? If Oklahoma played UTSA instead of Ohio State, would their playoff chances be better or worse at the end of the year?
3. The distinct inability to realize this is a fluid situation year to year and not a strict algorithm. By bringing up TCU in relation to OSU this year, we see a person that's not really recognizing how 2 conference champs with the same record being broken by tiebreakers is different from an X-1 team that beat #3 in its last game getting in over a 2 loss team with a conference title. There's no overarching point here. Just kind of fascinating.
looks like they got it rightOn another note, Big 12 commish had a pretty interesting statement today:
Source being an espn blurb: http://www.espn.com/college-football...s-make-playoff
I find it interesting for a few reasons:
1. Nowhere mentioned is number of losses or number of wins. He's throwing shade at Washington and he's throwing shade at OSU, but he never brings up that they are the 1 loss teams and they got in over the 2 loss teams. He's discussing 13th data points and hiring data analysts, but not really factoring in "what was your record" which seems to be one of the earliest data points.
2. The talk about OOC scheduling - and forcing the entire conference to play a P5 team and limit FCS teams - is interesting when looking at #1. Is SOS or Wins/Losses the more important factor? It's clear he thinks it's the 1st (given the shade at the X-1 teams), but if that's not the case then moving forward why would you let your big teams schedule really good ooc opponents? If Oklahoma played UTSA instead of Ohio State, would their playoff chances be better or worse at the end of the year?
3. The distinct inability to realize this is a fluid situation year to year and not a strict algorithm. By bringing up TCU in relation to OSU this year, we see a person that's not really recognizing how 2 conference champs with the same record being broken by tiebreakers is different from an X-1 team that beat #3 in its last game getting in over a 2 loss team with a conference title. There's no overarching point here. Just kind of fascinating.
12-04-2016
, 09:59 PM
12-04-2016
, 11:09 PM
12-05-2016
, 12:02 AM
12-05-2016
, 01:53 AM
