CFP Committee Final Four

[keesler 5,924]

This is a fun exercise so long as we (and I think most here do) understand there's a lot of football to be played. I'll bet the wacky human "hunch" element plays a bigger part this year in final 4 selection than we'll see for a while, because there's not much emphasis on having a "numbers person" on this committee. I predict that will be changed (for better or worse) next year. The human computer data statistics element has almost always been a significant PART of football polling in the modern game. In a committee that has "guidelines" but de facto carte blanche (mixing my romance languages), there's no clear economist/numbers geek type this year. If an every-person Condoleeza Rice has a seat so should a computer-with-human-element numbers person too IMO.

The playoff committee has hired SportSource Analytics to supply them with their statistical data on each team. So when the committee chooses the four teams for the playoff, they will be armed with an aresenal of statistics and data supplied by a company that is run by a few Vandy graduates. To what extent the committee uses the statistical data in making their choices is yet to be determined.

[triangletiger 1,599]

This is a fun exercise so long as we (and I think most here do) understand there's a lot of football to be played. I'll bet the wacky human "hunch" element plays a bigger part this year in final 4 selection than we'll see for a while, because there's not much emphasis on having a "numbers person" on this committee. I predict that will be changed (for better or worse) next year. The human computer data statistics element has almost always been a significant PART of football polling in the modern game. In a committee that has "guidelines" but de facto carte blanche (mixing my romance languages), there's no clear economist/numbers geek type this year. If an every-person Condoleeza Rice has a seat so should a computer-with-human-element numbers person too IMO.

The playoff committee has hired SportSource Analytics to supply them with their statistical data on each team. So when the committee chooses the four teams for the playoff, they will be armed with an aresenal of statistics and data supplied by a company that is run by a few Vandy graduates. To what extent the committee uses the statistical data in making their choices is yet to be determined.

What do Vandy grads know about football?

[AU-24 3,063]

"flukiness" of how they lost the iron bowl???

You certainly come up with unique ways to get your digs in.

Wow, you're hypersensitive. I was referencing the media perception, not my opinion.

As if you didn't know, we know, exactly what you are meaning, as you do it on a daily basis.

Are you really stupid or just trying to be obtuse?

Name calling I see; not surprised.

[aucanucktiger 1,791]

This is a fun exercise so long as we (and I think most here do) understand there's a lot of football to be played. I'll bet the wacky human "hunch" element plays a bigger part this year in final 4 selection than we'll see for a while, because there's not much emphasis on having a "numbers person" on this committee. I predict that will be changed (for better or worse) next year. The human computer data statistics element has almost always been a significant PART of football polling in the modern game. In a committee that has "guidelines" but de facto carte blanche (mixing my romance languages), there's no clear economist/numbers geek type this year. If an every-person Condoleeza Rice has a seat so should a computer-with-human-element numbers person too IMO.

The playoff committee has hired SportSource Analytics to supply them with their statistical data on each team. So when the committee chooses the four teams for the playoff, they will be armed with an aresenal of statistics and data supplied by a company that is run by a few Vandy graduates. To what extent the committee uses the statistical data in making their choices is yet to be determined.

My point exactly. Nobody on this committee is adequately qualified to know WHAT data to request, from WHICH sources to request it and HOW to interpret it when received. Since the outside company is only providing numbers and no accompanying opinions, it's even worse than hiring a 3d party to give the coaches perspective (if there weren't already committee members with college coaching experience), hiring some company to give the college adminsitrator perspective (if there weren't members to give the college adminsistrator perspective), etc.

There must be an economist, statistician, etc that's at all the committee meetings, discussions, phone calls, etc.

[AURex 1,994]

If I remember correctly, the committee will be issuing its own rankings each week beginning in October. I suppose it will be impossible for them to avoid seeing the AP and Coaches polls, but it's hard to know how they will go about their work of sorting out the contenders. Statistics are fine, but how much of a role will history and the media and the politics of the NCAA play in their thinking?

Personally, I think the idea of releasing their own poll during the season could backfire. They will be taking fire from all directions for months leading up to the playoffs. Lots of intense fanbases and the media looking for things to criticize. It will put a lot of pressure on them long before their selection day.

[cooltigger21 0]

If I remember correctly, the committee will be issuing its own rankings each week beginning in October. I suppose it will be impossible for them to avoid seeing the AP and Coaches polls, but it's hard to know how they will go about their work of sorting out the contenders. Statistics are fine, but how much of a role will history and the media and the politics of the NCAA play in their thinking?

Personally, I think the idea of releasing their own poll during the season could backfire. They will be taking fire from all directions for months leading up to the playoffs. Lots of intense fanbases and the media looking for things to criticize. It will put a lot of pressure on them long before their selection day.

Well I don't think that's anything new to any of these people. Just look at Rice and all that she had to deal with during her tenure as National Security Advisor and later as Sec. of State. I know college football fans can get crazy but I don't think it will be anything they can't handle.

[AUpreacherman22 3,885]

It will most likely be conf. champs of SEC, ACC, PAC 12, and Big 12.

3 possible variables:

1. Notre Dame wins out and takes 1 spot

2. Big 10 champ is better than another conf champ in the eyes of the committee.

3. One loss bama doesn't win SEC. Committee decides to put them in over 2 conference champs (both of whom would have to have at least one loss)

[CJBas 4]

As an exercise in trying to predict how the Committee will evaluate this year's final four, I thought it might be useful to look at last year and think about which 4 teams would have made it last year. The rankings below are the final pre-bowl BCS standings. I've listed their losses and their wins over ranked teams.

1. Florida State 13-0, Won ACC, beat (12)Clemson, (24)Duke
2. Auburn 12-1, Won SEC; lost to (16)LSU; wins over (3)Alabama, (5)Mizzou, (21)aTm, (22)UGA
3. Alabama 11-1, lost to (2)Auburn; wins over (16)LSU, (21)aTm
4. Michigan State 12-1, Won B1G; lost to Notre Dame(8-4); beat (7)tOSU
5. Stanford 11-2 Won PAC12; lost to Utah(5-7), USC(9-4); beat (10)Oregon (14)Ariz State (twice), (17)UCLA
6. Baylor 11-1 Won Big 12, lost to (13)Ok State, beat (10)Oklahoma
7. Ohio State 12-1, lost B1GCG to (4)Mich State
8. Missouri 11-2, lost SECCG to (2)Auburn, (9)SCar, beat (21)aTm

I think it's pretty obvious FSU, Auburn, and Michigan State get in as conference champs. Does Bama get in over conference champs Stanford and Baylor?

Bama's only loss came to #2 Auburn, on the last play of the game. They did not win their division, nor their conference. They have wins over 2 ranked conference opponents and OOC schedule included Va Tech, Colorado State, Ga State, and Chattanooga.

Stanford won the PAC12 despite losing to an unranked Utah team and a decent USC. They have 4 wins over ranked opponents. OOC opponents San Jose State, Army, and Notre Dame. Their SOS was rated the most difficult in the nation by a composite of the computer rankings used in the BCS formula.

Baylor won the Big 12 despite losing badly to Oklahoma State. They did not have a Conf Champ Game. OOC opponents were Wofford, Buffalo, and La Monroe.

I would love to see the Committee have a mock meeting based on last year's finish so we could have some idea how they will operate. It's only guesswork at this point, but IMO, the committee would have put Stanford in as the 4th team. I think they want to bend over backward to avoid having 2 teams from the same conference, and Stanford's SOS and Conference Championship give them the nod over Bama. (Bama fans would have gone ballistic and Condoleeza Rice would have received death threats.)

My projected Committee Final Four:

1. FSU

2. Auburn

3. Michigan State

4. Stanford

What are your thoughts?

Of course bama gets in. C. Rice would have seen to that. Besides, they're bama. They could have lost another game and Rice would still have lobbied to get them in, and probably been successful.

Ask yourself this: Had the situation been reversed and it was Auburn with one loss, on their last game, failed wto win their division or conference...do you think Auburn would have had any hope of getting in? Of course not.

[cooltigger21 0]

It will most likely be conf. champs of SEC, ACC, PAC 12, and Big 12.

3 possible variables:

1. Notre Dame wins out and takes 1 spot

2. Big 10 champ is better than another conf champ in the eyes of the committee.

3. One loss bama doesn't win SEC. Committee decides to put them in over 2 conference champs (both of whom would have to have at least one loss)

I don't think they'll take a one loss non champion SEC team over a champion of any other conference. Big 10 champion will likely have 2 losses. ND is the wildcard in all of this.