Do They Really Analyze It That Way?

[collegefbfan-8898]

By they, I mean whoever the talking heads and media are. Maybe even crazed fans too. Just using teams as examples, not bashing whatsoever. So, is this how it really works? Okay, so Ohio State is getting the love. Ohio State is getting the love for beating Michigan. That's cool. And Oklahoma. But do these talking heads really get wrapped up in Ohio State beating Oklahoma and that win was great. Then Houston beat Oklahoma, then Houston got beat by Memphis and SMU, so now the Ohio State win over Oklahoma looks worse. Is that how it works? Or Virginia Tech's win over Duke didn't mean much until Duke beat UNC. Some of this puzzles me because some of these games are at the beginning of the season when we don't know much about these teams. Like beating Texas A&M must have been great until Texas A&M lost to two teams with losing records to finish the season.

Just curious if this is what they look at and how they look at it. I know there isn't much to go on because there are so many teams. I would think this isn't the same Oklahoma team as the start of the season. Same for Southern Cal and LSU and many others.

[Spence]

It is because they really don't know who is good or not good. Oklahoma looked really bad at the beginning of the year. Then they ran through their conference like a knife through hot butter. They are improving and not the same team as early on. Or did they just play a bunch of really bad teams?

These guys don't know any more than we do about who the best teams are in any given year. That is why I have always said two teams from the same conference shouldn't play each other in the post season beyond the conference championship. The SEC used to get major love about being the best conference. They probably were, but they weren't a lot better than everyone else like people said they were. Same with the Big10 now. The Big 10 is decent. They have 4 to 5 good teams. The East is really good. They have 3 good teams. One just below the other 3. and 3 bad teams. The West has one good team. A couple decent teams and several bad teams. It is a lot better than in the recent past, but not that different than the ACC, SEC, or PAC12. The only "power 5" conference that is truly not very good is the big 12. The other 4 are all pretty good. I guess we will find out in the post season how they compare to each other, but my guess is the games will be pretty close.

[billybud]

Teams change over a season as well....FSU is not the same team that they were the first five games....Houston doesn't seem like the same team that beat Oklahoma.
.
The Noles just held the SEC East champ to no offensive touchdowns for the 10th consecutive quarter...Florida went 0-12 on 3rd down.

FSU's defensive scheming was tweaked...and they now lead the nation in sacks....3rd down defense moved from #102 to #17, FSU has moved up 85 spots in yards per play allowed...


The Committee will try to find the four "best" teams...using win loss. SOS, conference championship, bad losses, good wins...and anything else that tweaks their interest.

Will Penn State winning a conference championship overcome the BAD LOSS (42-10 beating by Michigan) or their loss to a mid level ACC team?

[collegefbfan-8898]

Yeah that is what I like about the "craziness" of it. Tons of discussion and points to prove. The other year when LSU and Bama met for a rematch. Should Oklahoma State have been in it instead? Also, a few years back, Texas beat Oklahoma, and Oklahoma beat Texas Tech, and Texas Tech beat Texas. So, what does one do? I know a lot of these were before the "playoff era". But still makes good water cooler talks or friendly verbal battles.

So. Ohio State has one loss. Michigan has two losses. Penn State has two losses. Ohio State loses to Penn State, but Michigan beat Penn State. Ohio State beat Michigan. How much weight will the conference champs game hold?

I am not sure I could be a sane CFP committee member...

[billybud]

I love transitional wins...

Pitt beat PSU who beat Ohio state..Pitt therefore is better than Ohio State

Pitt is also better than Washington...

Pitt beat Penn State...who beat Minnesota

who beat Oregon State

who beat Cal

who beat Utah

who beat USC

...........Who beat Washington

[donovan]

Under the current system, conference games are on a par with non conference games. Why have conferences? Head to head contests are marginalized by the above.

[Spence]

Teams change over a season as well....FSU is not the same team that they were the first five games....Houston doesn't seem like the same team that beat Oklahoma.
.
The Noles just held the SEC East champ to no offensive touchdowns for the 10th consecutive quarter...Florida went 0-12 on 3rd down.

FSU's defensive scheming was tweaked...and they now lead the nation in sacks....3rd down defense moved from #102 to #17, FSU has moved up 85 spots in yards per play allowed...


The Committee will try to find the four "best" teams...using win loss. SOS, conference championship, bad losses, good wins...and anything else that tweaks their interest.

Will Penn State winning a conference championship overcome the BAD LOSS (42-10 beating by Michigan) or their loss to a mid level ACC team?

Florida State is better for sure. They are heathier now which explains a better team. Penn State is better for a lot the same reason. Oklahoma was heathy earlier in the season. They were at full strength to start the game with Ohio State.

[Eric]

Pittsburgh is really one of the most incredible college football situations I've ever seen. Pat Narduzzi is supposed to be the defensive wizard and their offense is supposed to be generic and simple and boring. Turns out, their offense is unbelievably good and their defense is the worst in the ACC outside of Syracuse. I have no idea why they are so terrible on defense, but if they were just a little bit better, they could probably be a top 10 team.

[Spence]

Pittsburgh is really one of the most incredible college football situations I've ever seen. Pat Narduzzi is supposed to be the defensive wizard and their offense is supposed to be generic and simple and boring. Turns out, their offense is unbelievably good and their defense is the worst in the ACC outside of Syracuse. I have no idea why they are so terrible on defense, but if they were just a little bit better, they could probably be a top 10 team.

I just don't think they had the personnel to be good on defense yet. I think Narduzzi is one of the best around.

[collegefbfan-8898]

Or maybe not enough analyzing... How is Nebraska not ranked in some polls especially the CFP? They beat Wyoming and Minnesota and a few teams finishing 6-6, and lost to the tough teams in the Big Ten. Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Iowa. Lost to Wisconsin in overtime. Yes they got their doors blown off by Iowa and Ohio State. But still 9 wins and all three losses to good or great teams.

[Spence]

Nebraska is better than the last few years but they aren't there yet from a personnel standpoint. They need to really hit the recruiting trail this winter. They need depth.

[collegefbfan-8898]

But, Spence, just curious... If you were a CFP member, AP Poll voter, or media head, would you have the Huskers in a top 25? Just curious.

[Cane from the Bend]

Pittsburgh is really one of the most incredible college football situations I've ever seen. Pat Narduzzi is supposed to be the defensive wizard and their offense is supposed to be generic and simple and boring. Turns out, their offense is unbelievably good and their defense is the worst in the ACC outside of Syracuse. I have no idea why they are so terrible on defense, but if they were just a little bit better, they could probably be a top 10 team.

I just don't think they had the personnel to be good on defense yet. I think Narduzzi is one of the best around.

I concur.

Just having a sound defensive mind to guide you, will only get you so far. If the position players are not suitable to the scheme, then the plan falls apart. So long as Pitt remembers to target recruits who will help add depth & toughness to that side of the ball, then the Panthers should be in decent shape going forward.

Or maybe not enough analyzing... How is Nebraska not ranked in some polls especially the CFP? They beat Wyoming and Minnesota and a few teams finishing 6-6, and lost to the tough teams in the Big Ten. Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Iowa. Lost to Wisconsin in overtime. Yes they got their doors blown off by Iowa and Ohio State. But still 9 wins and all three losses to good or great teams.

Well, let's take a look:

Fresno State (1-11) [0nly win was over FCS opponent Sacramento State]
Wyoming (8-4) [also lost to Eastern Michigan - UNLV - New Mexico]
Oregon (4-8) [squeaked by the Ducks, 35-32]
Northwestern (6-6) [also had a loss to FCS opponent, Illinois State]
Illinois (3-9)
Indiana (6-6) [the records of teams the Hoosiers beat, 4-8, 4-8, 3-9, 6-6, 2-10, 3-9]
Purdue (3-9)
Wisconsin (OT Loss, 23-17) [2cnd team the Huskers played with a winning record]
Ohio State (62-3, Loss) [3rd team they played with a winning record]
Minnesota (8-4) [2cnd team with winning record they actually beat]
Maryland (6-6) [did not beat one team with a winning record]
Iowa (40-10, Loss) [though 8-4, the Haweyes lost to FCS opponent NDSU]

If we're going by your computer model, where records of the teams you won versus are important; then the criteria for Nebraska likely does not justify a ranking.

.
.
.

[collegefbfan-8898]

Yeah that is totally right. The only thing I can figure is that Nebraska hasn't had any bad losses, as far as not getting beaten by a team with 2 or 3 wins only. As far as the computer model goes, they are ranked high I feel also.

Michigan was beaten by the same Iowa team that lost to NDSU. Not saying that the computer shows this.

That is what I am talking bout though, Cane. You see how you analyzed that. Are CFP members doing that?

[Cane from the Bend]

I believe they do not.

I think they simply subjectify their rankings, based upon popular assumptions, and media support.

I do believe they consider some of what we discuss. However, they do so in more general terms, and use overall records as secondary criteria. Then, if they need further justification, maybe one or more of them will present the above information as statistical analysis.

How much weight that carries with the committee, I can only speculate. Though, I would presume that it only matters to a few members, while others merely look for "Best Case Scenario" with regards to who could bring the biggest revenue draw; all while keeping up appearances that they are being as unbiased as they can be.

Ultimately, I think it just comes down to who they can pass by the common viewer's vantage, by maintaining a top 12 with as little movement as possible, so that they can adjust the ranking as they see fit, when the situation calls for it.

In Esse; those of us whom frequent this site, are otherwise too darned smart for their liking. [the media & playoff committee]

.
.
.