College Football 2019-20: It'll Just Be Alabama vs. Clemson AGAIN.

[LynahFan]

Re: College Football 2019-20: It'll Just Be Alabama vs. Clemson AGAIN.

I’m not saying I disagree with your thesis, just that pointing to 5-loss teams isn’t great supporting evidence.

Many of the non-con wins are meaningless, and several of the non-con losses are real stinkers. That’s where there is hay to be made.

[ticapnews]

Re: College Football 2019-20: It'll Just Be Alabama vs. Clemson AGAIN.

No one cares.

Maybe if ESPN gave teams west of Texas more than a passing mention it would help.

[jerphisch]

Re: College Football 2019-20: It'll Just Be Alabama vs. Clemson AGAIN.

Yeah, but based on how Oregon manhandled an Auburn team that already has 2 SEC losses...oh.

I hate the SEC as much as the rest, but it certainly is possible that Alabama and LSU actually ARE 2 of the 4 best teams. Fortunately they all still have games to play that will help answer the question. It's pretty pointless to complain about it right now.

[SonofSouthie]

Re: College Football 2019-20: It'll Just Be Alabama vs. Clemson AGAIN.

BC has 484 total yards and 44 points in the 1st half @ Syracuse.

[state of hockey]

Re: College Football 2019-20: It'll Just Be Alabama vs. Clemson AGAIN.

Lol, Nebraska.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: College Football 2019-20: It'll Just Be Alabama vs. Clemson AGAIN.

I hate the SEC as much as the rest, but it certainly is possible that Alabama and LSU actually ARE 2 of the 4 best teams.

Based on what I've seen, LSU is the best team in the country. Alabama probably is a top 4 team as well. The biggest problem I have in the event both LSU and Alabama get in, is that winning your conference should matter more than it does. The real solution to all the griping about the SEC is to let each of the Power 5 conference's champions into the Playoff, and then one of the following options to fill out an eight team filed: (a) use the committee to pick the top 3 at-large bids; or (b) use the committee to pick the top 2 at-large bids, as well as the top Group of 5 conference champion. I'd prefer (b), but could live with (a).

Last year, under option (a):
1. Alabama v. 9. Washington
2. Clemson v. 7. Michigan
3. Notre Dame v. 6. Ohio State
4. Oklahoma v. 5. Georgia

Last year, under option (b):
1. Alabama v. 9. Washington
2. Clemson v. 8. UCF
3. Notre Dame v. 6. Ohio State
4. Oklahoma v. 5. Georgia

2017 (a):
1. Clemson v. 8. Southern Cal
2. Oklahoma v. 7. Auburn
3. Georgia v. 6. Wisconsin
4. Alabama v. 5. Ohio State

2017 (b):
1. Clemson v. 12. UCF
2. Oklahoma v. 8. Southern Cal
3. Georgia v. 6. Wisconsin
4. Alabama v. 5. Ohio State

2016 (a):
1. Alabama v. 8. Wisconsin
2. Clemson v. 7. Oklahoma
3. Ohio State v. 6. Michigan
4. Washington v. 5. Penn State

2016 (b)
1. Alabama v. 15. Western Michigan
2. Clemson v. 7. Oklahoma
3. Ohio State v. 6. Michigan
4. Washington v. 5. Penn State

I'd even be okay with incorporating the traditional bowls for the Quarterfinals and reseed after for the Semifinals. For example, last year, under option (b):

Rose Bowl (B1G v. Pac 12): 6. Ohio State v. 9. Washington
Orange Bowl (ACC Champion): 2. Clemson v. 8. UCF
Sugar Bowl (SEC v. Big 12): 1. Alabama v. 4. Oklahoma
Fiesta Bowl (At-Large/Notre Dame): 3. Notre Dame v. 5. Georgia

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2019-20: It'll Just Be Alabama vs. Clemson AGAIN.

Every known advanced computer ranking system as a composite:

https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

Note the conference rankings at the bottom

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: College Football 2019-20: It'll Just Be Alabama vs. Clemson AGAIN.

Every known advanced computer ranking system as a composite:

https://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

Note the conference rankings at the bottom

I wouldn't put much stock into those rankings. As to specific teams, I'm not sure there is enough of a sample size to justify the rankings. For example, I don't believe anyone would argue that Baylor is better than Clemson and Alabama, yet there are models that say just that. And then there are models that say Baylor is the 44th best team. Similarly, there is at least one model that puts Utah at #2, and another model has them at #45. One model puts SMU at #3, and another has them at #61. I get that the site averages the rankings, but when you have rankings that are so wildly off base that tends to skew the results.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2019-20: It'll Just Be Alabama vs. Clemson AGAIN.

I wouldn't put much stock into those rankings. As to specific teams, I'm not sure there is enough of a sample size to justify the rankings. For example, I don't believe anyone would argue that Baylor is better than Clemson and Alabama, yet there are models that say just that. And then there are models that say Baylor is the 44th best team. Similarly, there is at least one model that puts Utah at #2, and another model has them at #45. One model puts SMU at #3, and another has them at #61. I get that the site averages the rankings, but when you have rankings that are so wildly off base that tends to skew the results.

But that’s the point. They all evaluate teams based on different criteria and usually very different methods. They also incorporate predictive and non-predictive models. So it’s taking into account a bevy of stats, results (some are even result agnostic, which is interesting), schedules, geographies, and a few are purely human. So by evaluating from so many aspects, it’s a good, well-rounded model.

The only critique you could have is that some of the models might be over-represented because they’re similar.

The outliers are fine to include because it’s looking at a different way of evaluating the teams. I don’t see that as a negative, rather, that’s a positive feature.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

But that’s the point. They all evaluate teams based on different criteria and usually very different methods. They also incorporate predictive and non-predictive models. So it’s taking into account a bevy of stats, results (some are even result agnostic, which is interesting), schedules, geographies, and a few are purely human. So by evaluating from so many aspects, it’s a good, well-rounded model.

The only critique you could have is that some of the models might be over-represented because they’re similar.

The outliers are fine to include because it’s looking at a different way of evaluating the teams. I don’t see that as a negative, rather, that’s a positive feature.

So including obviously incorrect polls is a good thing?

[Slap Shot]

Re: College Football 2019-20: It'll Just Be Alabama vs. Clemson AGAIN.

The team aggregates look fairly ok not a lot to argue against, but the conference one at the bottom seems off. I count (2?) BIG12 teams in the Top 20 but it's the #1 conference?

[mookie1995]

Re: College Football 2019-20: It'll Just Be Alabama vs. Clemson AGAIN.

While the big ten may suffer, whatever keep psu irrelevant is a-ok with mookie

[mookie1995]

I wouldn't put much stock into those rankings. As to specific teams, I'm not sure there is enough of a sample size to justify the rankings. For example, I don't believe anyone would argue that Baylor is better than Clemson and Alabama, yet there are models that say just that. And then there are models that say Baylor is the 44th best team. Similarly, there is at least one model that puts Utah at #2, and another model has them at #45. One model puts SMU at #3, and another has them at #61. I get that the site averages the rankings, but when you have rankings that are so wildly off base that tends to skew the results.

Utah
First in Mormons, second in football

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2019-20: It'll Just Be Alabama vs. Clemson AGAIN.

So including obviously incorrect polls is a good thing?

Did you not read the post?

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Did you not read the post?

I read your post. Which led to my question to confirm my understanding of your position, namely that you believe that it is a good thing to include obviously incorrect rankings. Is my understanding correct?