Mock CFP 12 for 2022

Easy path for Clemson. Klubnik would have a field day
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Remember that when divisions go away in the PAC, SEC, and B1G you won’t see teams like Purdue and LSU getting into CCGs. SEC would have had Bama or UTjr v UGA, and the B1G would have been UM v tOSU.
Click to expand...

Without divisions then it would have been Georgia vs Tennessee as they had the head to head over both Bama and LSU. Bama doesn't get in even without divisions as they had two conference losses just like LSU and Tennessee but lost to both of them
 
fishinabarrel said:
Without divisions then it would have been Georgia vs Tennessee as they had the head to head over both Bama and LSU. Bama doesn't get in even without divisions as they had two conference losses just like LSU and Tennessee but lost to both of them
Click to expand...
Well, somebody (in the CFP) will be making changes quick-style.
 
I'm still not clear on why we don't let the computers do it. If a set of at least 3 different computer results were pooled to determine a smoothed ranking for the top 50 teams, then it would be hard to point fingers at regional bias, conference pressure or ribbon-participation fanatics as the reason for anyone being included or left out of a 12 team playoff. I simply no longer trust a room full of people with real and hidden agendas picking which teams get ranked in a certain order. Hal 2000 doesn't give a shit and would be more likely to just crunch the data and spit out a fair ranking. There'd have to be some agreement on what data was used. It's a cold hard fact that seems to keep getting lost that some teams do play harder schedules and some teams don't deserve higher/lower rankings just because they lost earlier or later in the season. Computers could take that kind of emotion out of the equation too.
 
Goldbug said:
I'm still not clear on why we don't let the computers do it. If a set of at least 3 different computer results were pooled to determine a smoothed ranking for the top 50 teams, then it would be hard to point fingers at regional bias, conference pressure or ribbon-participation fanatics as the reason for anyone being included or left out of a 12 team playoff. I simply no longer trust a room full of people with real and hidden agendas picking which teams get ranked in a certain order. Hal 2000 doesn't give a shit and would be more likely to just crunch the data and spit out a fair ranking. There'd have to be some agreement on what data was used. It's a cold hard fact that seems to keep getting lost that some teams do play harder schedules and some teams don't deserve higher/lower rankings just because they lost earlier or later in the season. Computers could take that kind of emotion out of the equation too.
Click to expand...
I am a fan of this somewhat. Now, the only thing is the computers can't see injuries. Like if Tennessee hadn't lost to South Carolina, they might be in by computers, but what about Hooker's injury? I am not saying that Tennessee should be out because of his injury. But a lot of folks (especially committee) would look at that.

The thing about the room full of people is they can spew their ridiculous speech about eye test, metrics, logistics, this team had to overcome so many comebacks, this team would have won on a neutral field, this team has only lost twice and both in overtime, Vegas always favors us, etc., blah, you get the idea. If we are going to say that Alabama lost when the clock hit zeroes at Tennessee, isn't the same true for TCU winning 12 games when the clock hit zero, regardless of some of them being comebacks?

The other thing is what is considered a blowout? Like Georgia lost to Alabama by 17 in the CCG last year. Ohio State loses to Michigan by 22-23. One was neutral field, and one was the losing team's place. But those extra 6-7 points dictate a blowout?

I do a computer poll after about week 6 or 7. I have always liked the computer rankings aspect. Is mine perfect? Nope, not a chance. I do it for the Hooplanation top 25 and just for fun. The results after the CCG's:
1 Georgia
2 Michigan
3 TCU
4 Ohio State
5 Tennessee
6 Clemson
7 Alabama
8 Penn State
9 Utah
10 Southern Cal
11 Kansas State
12 Washington
13 Oregon State
14 Oregon
15 Florida State
16 LSU
17 UCLA
18 Tulane
19 Texas
20 Troy
21 Mississippi State
22 Ole Miss
23 South Carolina
24 Notre Dame
25 North Carolina
 

FWIW, here's the post-CCG top 25 SP+ rankings.​

SP+ Champ Week Rankings​

TEAMRATINGOFFENSEDEFENSESPEC TMS
1. Georgia (13-0)36.739.6 (16)4.6 (2)1.7 (5)
2. Michigan (13-0)33.539.1 (18)7.3 (4)1.7 (6)
3. Ohio St. (11-1)31.445.2 (4)15.5 (15)1.7 (7)
4. Alabama (10-2)30.642.7 (10)13.7 (12)1.6 (12)
5. Tennessee (10-2)25.647.4 (1)22.3 (38)0.4 (52)
6. TCU (12-1)24.544.1 (6)20.6 (33)1.1 (31)
7. Texas (8-4)23.238.0 (24)15.4 (14)0.6 (41)
8. Kansas St. (10-3)23.037.7 (28)15.6 (16)0.9 (34)
9. Penn St. (10-2)22.736.5 (31)13.5 (11)-0.3 (75)
10. Utah (10-3)21.638.8 (22)16.9 (21)-0.3 (72)
11. Clemson (11-2)19.335.1 (33)17.2 (23)1.4 (19)
12. Oregon (9-3)19.345.2 (5)26.5 (65)0.6 (46)
13. USC (11-2)17.446.8 (2)28.2 (71)-1.3 (118)
14. Ole Miss (8-4)16.538.9 (19)23.4 (42)1.1 (30)
15. Illinois (8-4)16.220.1 (100)4.6 (3)0.8 (37)
16. Minnesota (8-4)16.023.1 (89)8.2 (5)1.1 (28)
17. Washington (10-2)16.041.5 (11)25.5 (59)0.0 (63)
18. LSU (9-4)15.937.0 (29)20.4 (32)-0.7 (88)
19. Miss. St. (8-4)15.734.9 (34)19.4 (27)0.2 (61)
20. Oklahoma (6-6)15.441.0 (12)26.6 (66)1.0 (32)
21. UCLA (9-3)15.045.9 (3)30.2 (84)-0.7 (87)
22. Oregon St. (9-3)14.433.2 (44)17.4 (24)-1.3 (117)
23. Tulane (11-2)13.433.6 (43)20.2 (30)0.0 (65)
24. Kentucky (7-5)13.322.9 (94)9.3 (6)-0.3 (73)
25. S. Carolina (8-4)13.236.5 (32)25.1 (56)1.8 (1)
 


 
Collegefbfan said:
I am a fan of this somewhat. Now, the only thing is the computers can't see injuries. Like if Tennessee hadn't lost to South Carolina, they might be in by computers, but what about Hooker's injury? I am not saying that Tennessee should be out because of his injury. But a lot of folks (especially committee) would look at that.

The thing about the room full of people is they can spew their ridiculous speech about eye test, metrics, logistics, this team had to overcome so many comebacks, this team would have won on a neutral field, this team has only lost twice and both in overtime, Vegas always favors us, etc., blah, you get the idea. If we are going to say that Alabama lost when the clock hit zeroes at Tennessee, isn't the same true for TCU winning 12 games when the clock hit zero, regardless of some of them being comebacks?

The other thing is what is considered a blowout? Like Georgia lost to Alabama by 17 in the CCG last year. Ohio State loses to Michigan by 22-23. One was neutral field, and one was the losing team's place. But those extra 6-7 points dictate a blowout?

I do a computer poll after about week 6 or 7. I have always liked the computer rankings aspect. Is mine perfect? Nope, not a chance. I do it for the Hooplanation top 25 and just for fun. The results after the CCG's:
1 Georgia
2 Michigan
3 TCU
4 Ohio State
5 Tennessee
6 Clemson
7 Alabama
8 Penn State
9 Utah
10 Southern Cal
11 Kansas State
12 Washington
13 Oregon State
14 Oregon
15 Florida State
16 LSU
17 UCLA
18 Tulane
19 Texas
20 Troy
21 Mississippi State
22 Ole Miss
23 South Carolina
24 Notre Dame
25 North Carolina
Click to expand...
Goldbug said:
I'm still not clear on why we don't let the computers do it. If a set of at least 3 different computer results were pooled to determine a smoothed ranking for the top 50 teams, then it would be hard to point fingers at regional bias, conference pressure or ribbon-participation fanatics as the reason for anyone being included or left out of a 12 team playoff. I simply no longer trust a room full of people with real and hidden agendas picking which teams get ranked in a certain order. Hal 2000 doesn't give a shit and would be more likely to just crunch the data and spit out a fair ranking. There'd have to be some agreement on what data was used. It's a cold hard fact that seems to keep getting lost that some teams do play harder schedules and some teams don't deserve higher/lower rankings just because they lost earlier or later in the season. Computers could take that kind of emotion out of the equation too.
Click to expand...
Definitely removes human bias with one exception. Bias comes in the form of what data is to be used. Key to this is having agreement on what/which data is included. Example: many teams have good looking total defense numbers when in fact they are playing defense with ball control offense. Others may have better defenses but their total defense stats suck because their offense scored so damn quick. Same the other way. A team’s defense was so good it gave their offense a lot of short fields.

Getting agreement on the data will be difficult.
 
Deep Creek said:
Definitely removes human bias with one exception. Bias comes in the form of what data is to be used. Key to this is having agreement on what/which data is included. Example: many teams have good looking total defense numbers when in fact they are playing defense with ball control offense. Others may have better defenses but their total defense stats suck because their offense scored so damn quick. Same the other way. A team’s defense was so good it gave their offense a lot of short fields.

Getting agreement on the data will be difficult.
Click to expand...
I supposed so. But perfect is the enemy of good. At least going to 12 means the best teams are in the playoff somewhere even if their seeding is arguable. If seeding is the only argument left with 12 teams then we're probably looking at as good of a playoff system as we can get.
 
fishinabarrel said:
Without divisions then it would have been Georgia vs Tennessee as they had the head to head over both Bama and LSU. Bama doesn't get in even without divisions as they had two conference losses just like LSU and Tennessee but lost to both of them
Click to expand...
I assume that is correct, but didn't want to take the time to dig up the tie breakers.
 
Goldbug said:
I'm still not clear on why we don't let the computers do it. If a set of at least 3 different computer results were pooled to determine a smoothed ranking for the top 50 teams, then it would be hard to point fingers at regional bias, conference pressure or ribbon-participation fanatics as the reason for anyone being included or left out of a 12 team playoff. I simply no longer trust a room full of people with real and hidden agendas picking which teams get ranked in a certain order. Hal 2000 doesn't give a shit and would be more likely to just crunch the data and spit out a fair ranking. There'd have to be some agreement on what data was used. It's a cold hard fact that seems to keep getting lost that some teams do play harder schedules and some teams don't deserve higher/lower rankings just because they lost earlier or later in the season. Computers could take that kind of emotion out of the equation too.
Click to expand...
Bias is always there:

- there is bias in the different algorithms that judge certain things differently.
- the algorithms are based on polls which means you are pushing the bias down a level, but it is still there.

What egregious mistake did the committee make this year?
 
navamind said:

FWIW, here's the post-CCG top 25 SP+ rankings.​

SP+ Champ Week Rankings​

TEAMRATINGOFFENSEDEFENSESPEC TMS
1. Georgia (13-0)36.739.6 (16)4.6 (2)1.7 (5)
2. Michigan (13-0)33.539.1 (18)7.3 (4)1.7 (6)
3. Ohio St. (11-1)31.445.2 (4)15.5 (15)1.7 (7)
4. Alabama (10-2)30.642.7 (10)13.7 (12)1.6 (12)
5. Tennessee (10-2)25.647.4 (1)22.3 (38)0.4 (52)
6. TCU (12-1)24.544.1 (6)20.6 (33)1.1 (31)
7. Texas (8-4)23.238.0 (24)15.4 (14)0.6 (41)
8. Kansas St. (10-3)23.037.7 (28)15.6 (16)0.9 (34)
9. Penn St. (10-2)22.736.5 (31)13.5 (11)-0.3 (75)
10. Utah (10-3)21.638.8 (22)16.9 (21)-0.3 (72)
11. Clemson (11-2)19.335.1 (33)17.2 (23)1.4 (19)
12. Oregon (9-3)19.345.2 (5)26.5 (65)0.6 (46)
13. USC (11-2)17.446.8 (2)28.2 (71)-1.3 (118)
14. Ole Miss (8-4)16.538.9 (19)23.4 (42)1.1 (30)
15. Illinois (8-4)16.220.1 (100)4.6 (3)0.8 (37)
16. Minnesota (8-4)16.023.1 (89)8.2 (5)1.1 (28)
17. Washington (10-2)16.041.5 (11)25.5 (59)0.0 (63)
18. LSU (9-4)15.937.0 (29)20.4 (32)-0.7 (88)
19. Miss. St. (8-4)15.734.9 (34)19.4 (27)0.2 (61)
20. Oklahoma (6-6)15.441.0 (12)26.6 (66)1.0 (32)
21. UCLA (9-3)15.045.9 (3)30.2 (84)-0.7 (87)
22. Oregon St. (9-3)14.433.2 (44)17.4 (24)-1.3 (117)
23. Tulane (11-2)13.433.6 (43)20.2 (30)0.0 (65)
24. Kentucky (7-5)13.322.9 (94)9.3 (6)-0.3 (73)
25. S. Carolina (8-4)13.236.5 (32)25.1 (56)1.8 (1)
Click to expand...
Thinking most people would hate that computer model what with Bama getting in. This is what I mean - computers have bias built into them, too.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Bias is always there:

- there is bias in the different algorithms that judge certain things differently.
- the algorithms are based on polls which means you are pushing the bias down a level, but it is still there.

What egregious mistake did the committee make this year?
Click to expand...
In all honesty, I feel they got it right in the end. The thing that baffled me was the week-to-week rambling about TCU. They got lucky, they had to come back in the 4th quarter yet again. If they lose the CCG, they might drop out of the top 4. Even if they lose by 2 points, they might be out. Their game control sucks, TCU is living on the edge, etc. It is just that TCU isn't the brand that others are.
 
Collegefbfan said:
In all honesty, I feel they got it right in the end. The thing that baffled me was the week-to-week rambling about TCU. They got lucky, they had to come back in the 4th quarter yet again. If they lose the CCG, they might drop out of the top 4. Even if they lose by 2 points, they might be out. Their game control sucks, TCU is living on the edge, etc. It is just that TCU isn't the brand that others are.
Click to expand...
I really like the podcast by Dan Wetzel and Pat Forde. You should hear them talk about that stupid weekly show. Man, they rip it apart.
 
Collegefbfan said:
Thanks I needed some more stuff to watch/follow.
Click to expand...
To me at least, they are hilarious while delivering great content. They have all been in the business for a long time so they have great sources. Their stories about the restaurants and bars they go to are great. You get the idea that Wetzel likes his cocktails. They have no problem telling it like it is.

They have 3 a week ... one right after each Saturday, Tuesday where they talk about point spreads and then Thursday where they have a lot of their best content. Wetzel writes for Yahoo Sports, Forde and Ross Dellenger are SI guys.

 
WhosYourDawggy said:
To me at least, they are hilarious while delivering great content. They have all been in the business for a long time so they have great sources. Their stories about the restaurants and bars they go to are great. You get the idea that Wetzel likes his cocktails. They have no problem telling it like it is.

They have 3 a week ... one right after each Saturday, Tuesday where they talk about point spreads and then Thursday where they have a lot of their best content. Wetzel writes for Yahoo Sports, Forde and Ross Dellenger are SI guys.

Click to expand...

Are the ones where they rip the CFP easy to find? Or is it an every week thing on each show?
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Bias is always there:

- there is bias in the different algorithms that judge certain things differently.
- the algorithms are based on polls which means you are pushing the bias down a level, but it is still there.

What egregious mistake did the committee make this year?
Click to expand...
TCU should not be in it. They're a nice story with that horse shoe up their ass saving them from losing 4 games but as for being one of the top 4 teams in the country? LMAO Put them on a neutral field against any of the top 7 ranked teams and they would be favored in how many games? But it's typical because most years a team that's going to get punked in the playoffs somehow cheeses their way in.
 
navamind said:

FWIW, here's the post-CCG top 25 SP+ rankings.​

SP+ Champ Week Rankings​

TEAMRATINGOFFENSEDEFENSESPEC TMS
1. Georgia (13-0)36.739.6 (16)4.6 (2)1.7 (5)
2. Michigan (13-0)33.539.1 (18)7.3 (4)1.7 (6)
3. Ohio St. (11-1)31.445.2 (4)15.5 (15)1.7 (7)
4. Alabama (10-2)30.642.7 (10)13.7 (12)1.6 (12)
5. Tennessee (10-2)25.647.4 (1)22.3 (38)0.4 (52)
6. TCU (12-1)24.544.1 (6)20.6 (33)1.1 (31)
7. Texas (8-4)23.238.0 (24)15.4 (14)0.6 (41)
8. Kansas St. (10-3)23.037.7 (28)15.6 (16)0.9 (34)
9. Penn St. (10-2)22.736.5 (31)13.5 (11)-0.3 (75)
10. Utah (10-3)21.638.8 (22)16.9 (21)-0.3 (72)
11. Clemson (11-2)19.335.1 (33)17.2 (23)1.4 (19)
12. Oregon (9-3)19.345.2 (5)26.5 (65)0.6 (46)
13. USC (11-2)17.446.8 (2)28.2 (71)-1.3 (118)
14. Ole Miss (8-4)16.538.9 (19)23.4 (42)1.1 (30)
15. Illinois (8-4)16.220.1 (100)4.6 (3)0.8 (37)
16. Minnesota (8-4)16.023.1 (89)8.2 (5)1.1 (28)
17. Washington (10-2)16.041.5 (11)25.5 (59)0.0 (63)
18. LSU (9-4)15.937.0 (29)20.4 (32)-0.7 (88)
19. Miss. St. (8-4)15.734.9 (34)19.4 (27)0.2 (61)
20. Oklahoma (6-6)15.441.0 (12)26.6 (66)1.0 (32)
21. UCLA (9-3)15.045.9 (3)30.2 (84)-0.7 (87)
22. Oregon St. (9-3)14.433.2 (44)17.4 (24)-1.3 (117)
23. Tulane (11-2)13.433.6 (43)20.2 (30)0.0 (65)
24. Kentucky (7-5)13.322.9 (94)9.3 (6)-0.3 (73)
25. S. Carolina (8-4)13.236.5 (32)25.1 (56)1.8 (1)
Click to expand...
a 4 loss Jexas ranked higher than the conference champ who has 2 more wins and 1 less loss? lel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top