"...(but) 3 and 4 get complicated"

[Jimmy Serrano]

My fingers aren't really comprehending what they are about to type, but... that link makes a lot of sense, Carl.

I stopped reading at DeLoss Dodds. Because Carl told us to only read quotes from school presidents and conference commissioners.

All kidding aside, I've been advocating for a selection committee similar to what hoops has. I differ from Dodds in that I think the semi-final games should be on campus with the NCG at a neutral site (one of the existing bowls).

 

[Carl Spackler]

I stopped reading at DeLoss Dodds. Because Carl told us to only read quotes from school presidents and conference commissioners.

All kidding aside, I've been advocating for a selection committee similar to what hoops has. I differ from Dodds in that I think the semi-final games should be on campus with the NCG at a neutral site (one of the existing bowls).

stop being a tool.

I'm telling you all not to pay attention to any garbage out there about the inner workings of the big east. Holy mackerel, the big east has been victim to the inability to maintain a chain of command and the information networks out there pecking at it for too long.

let them feast on the other conferences out there for a while, as we get our squared away, and let the media peck and the ones that have actually caused all this mess of realignment.

TIme will tell, and it will only be a few short months to know if I'm right or wrong, but I'm convinced that the BCS and conference leadership involved, has no idea what kind of tactics are coming there way.

The big east is the largest conference in the country, and has been, for several years now.

I've said all along, that a big east, with proper priorities and leadership, is exactly where I want to be.

We'll see.

Now stop with the garbage, and pay attention to what's happening.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

There is no valid reason for the bowl system to continue. I can only assume that any athletic director supporting the bowl system is receiving some kind of kickback, because the bowls are horrendous money losers for the schools.

 

[Carl Spackler]

There is no valid reason for the bowl system to continue. I can only assume that any athletic director supporting the bowl system is receiving some kind of kickback, because the bowls are horrendous money losers for the schools.

Wrong, there's a huge reason for an invitation bowl system to co-exist with a playoff, and it's to ensure that every regular season game DOES maintain value. THese clowns are going to argue til their blue in the face that a playoff will DE-value a regular season, and they'd be right, if the invitation bowl season goes away, because what does a 5-5 team have to look forward to in November with no bowls, and no shot at a conference title or a playoff.

What needs to happen is that the corruption around the college football post season needs to get cleaned up, and the invitation bowls will actually have to pick games that will do well for the bowls, rather than sit on the guaranteed ticket sales rape of athletic departments money and take your cut and then redistribute model.

My ideal is that in the not too distant future, you still have some 30 or so post season games to reward those teams that have done well, with about half being invitation bowls, adn the other half, being the first round of a playoff for a national championship.

Baby steps though, but that first giant step was taken.

And if my info is correct, which isn't anything you can't find online, is that Marinatto was in the trenches with Slive during those meetings, in which those commissioners came out with that incredibly monumental decision to go to a college playoff in the post season. Those 12 guys divided up in pairs of two for pow-wows in those meetings, and Marinatto went into the room with Slive, and came out with Slive talking playoff.

 

[UConnDan97]

Wrong, there's a huge reason for an invitation bowl system to co-exist with a playoff, and it's to ensure that every regular season game DOES maintain value. THese clowns are going to argue til their blue in the face that a playoff will DE-value a regular season, and they'd be right, if the invitation bowl season goes away, because what does a 5-5 team have to look forward to in November with no bowls, and no shot at a conference title or a playoff.

I don't agree with that statement, Carl. The bowl system doesn't really maintain value. You have brought up the example of a 5-5 team in November. What about the teams in November that are 3-7? How about if they are 6-4 and already "bowl eligible"? Do they all just put it in the tank? No, of course not. They are playing for pride, they are playing for starting positions for next year, and they most certainly are playing to beat in-conference rivals that they surely hate.

What I would love to see is a similar system to FCS, where a true champion is chosen. At every level in every other collegiate sport, a true champion is chosen. The 4-team playoff is only a baby step away from the old-boys network, and in fact, it is still being shaped by the old-boys network...

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

If Marinatto & Slive went into a room together, the only thing I would expect Slive to come out of that meeting with is Marinatto's lunch.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Dan - they're going to try to do that, but they won't be able to. The wheels are in motion, they won't be able to stop it. The invitation bowl system, most certainly ahs a ton of value. THe way to make Delaney shut up is to propose that the Rose Bowl be designated as the annual site of the national championship game for the duration of whatever playoff system contract for broadcasting is designed.

THe key - is those six names I put up before. A ranking system needs to be set up, using the power of computers, such that the top 4 teams are the top 4 teams, and everybody knows how it was determined, and agrees that the way it was determined is valid.

Any human interaction in this ranking system is a big problem. I'm not sure it will be able to be kept out, as the human polls sell tons of papers and magazines, but the accuracy and precision of those rankings, is essential.

I"m willing to bet that the majority of voters in the room come summertime when ti comes to these discussions, are going to agree with that.

 

[UConnDan97]

If Marinatto & Slive went into a room together, the only thing I would expect Slive to come out of that meeting with is Marinatto's lunch.

Actually, lunch is the only battle I think Marinatto can beat Slive at!

 

[Carl Spackler]

If Marinatto & Slive went into a room together, the only thing I would expect Slive to come out of that meeting with is Marinatto's lunch.

Enough for today. Just start building an information filter, please. I'm showing you how.

 

[UConnDan97]

THe key - is those six names I put up before. A ranking system needs to be set up, using the power of computers, such that the top 4 teams are the top 4 teams, and everybody knows how it was determined, and agrees that the way it was determined is valid.

Any human interaction in this ranking system is a big problem.

But THAT is the fallacy of the computers, Carl! The idea that they are somehow better than the human interaction. The secret is; THEY ARE the human interaction! They all require human inputs, where humans determine what a "quality win" is, or a "good loss", or a conference strength of schedule factor. If the computers were less fallible than humans, they should all give the same results. They in fact do not. The Sagarin is different than the Harris, which is different than....you get the point. I have seen 3-loss teams in the Sagarin rated more highly than undefeated teams in "lesser conferences". This is the ultimate problem; that the computers mirror the human prejudice...

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Enough for today. Just start building an information filter, please. I'm showing you how.

Thank you. I don't know what I'd do without your guidance.

 

[Carl Spackler]

But THAT is the fallacy of the computers, Carl! The idea that they are somehow better than the human interaction. The secret is; THEY ARE the human interaction! They all require human inputs, where humans determine what a "quality win" is, or a "good loss", or a conference strength of schedule factor. If the computers were less fallible than humans, they should all give the same results. They in fact do not. The Sagarin is different than the Harris, which is different than....you get the point. I have seen 3-loss teams in the Sagarin rated more highly than undefeated teams in "lesser conferences". This is the ultimate problem; that the computers mirror the human prejudice...

I believe only one of the six computer systems in use publishes actually how the rankings are calculated. Those six people/organizations have made a TON of money on the college football post season.

It's those six people/ organizations that stand to take the biggest hit in all of this, because you can't have multiple computer systems anymore, you need one system, that everyone has input into, as to how it's going to work, and everyone can see it in action, such that a graduate assistant in Wisconsin can plug the same information into the system as a head coach in florida, or a news reporter in New York....and all get the same results.

It can be done, but they will fight.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

If Marinatto & Slive went into a room together, the only thing I would expect Slive to come out of that meeting with is Marinatto's lunch.

I think you picked the one thing he'd fight for, food.

 

[freescooter]

If Marinatto & Slive went into a room together, the only thing I would expect Slive to come out of that meeting with is Marinatto's lunch.

Jimmy,
You are completely wrong! Marinatto would eat his own lunch, Slive's lunch, and most likely any other lunch that was unguarded...but anything related to the betterment of their respective conferneces, Slive would get while Mike was busy chowing down...

 

[SubbaBub]

You would not say if you've ever been to a Rose Bowl. It's one of the top 5 sporting events in the US to attend.

This^^^. I've been to the Rose Bowl and it is indeed one of the cooler events I've ever attended, and I didn't like L.A. all that much.

It's like the Masters of college football. You'd have to experience it to understand.

 

[whaler11]

Remember - there are 12 people that will vote on all of this summer. The public is watching, and they want a playoff that determines a true champion.

THe seeding system needs to be valid, and transparent, and reproducible, so that the top 4 teams in the country are the top four teams. Strength of schedule matters. Conference champions matter. The old guard will twist and spew but it means nothing.

Sagarin, Wolfe, Massey, Colley, Billingsley, Anderson & Hester.


Learn these names. Figure out who they are. THese are the names that will be the most important when it comes to the college football playoff, and they can't doing business as usual.

The big east will be among those votes to be counted.

I will learn the names of people I already know. Thank God you were here to identify them.

 

[whaler11]

If computers pick the teams all you have is the same thing you have now. The formula changing every year based on what happened the year before which allowed a team the masses didn't want in the playoff.

 

[UConnDan97]

If computers pick the teams all you have is the same thing you have now. The formula changing every year based on what happened the year before which allowed a team the masses didn't want in the playoff.

That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to Carl; the fact that the computers are a circular argument by design! Let's say that I start off saying that Team A is good (you need to start somewhere, so that you can evaluate strength of schedule). Therefore, Team B must be good because they beat Team A. Team C had a victory over Team D, but I didn't say that Team D was good, only Team A, so therefore Team C is not as good as Team A.

Now fill in the following names as real examples and maybe Carl will see what I'm saying, with record and Sagarin rating next to it (Baylor = Team A, 10-3, 13th / Texas A&M = Team B, 7-6, 14th / Team C = Houston, 13-1, 15th / Team D = Penn State, 9-4, 28th). So now you see how a team with FIVE MORE LOSSES can still be ahead of a team with 1 loss, and more importantly, considered a top 14 team (if the playoffs included 16 teams like 1-AA, the computers would have A&M in with 6 losses). This is the ridiculous nature of the computer system; they are only as good as the inputs....

 

[SAMCRO]

If Marinatto & Slive went into a room together, the only thing I would expect Slive to come out of that meeting with is Marinatto's lunch.

And Marinatto would come out w/ Slive's DNA somewhere on his bod (sorry, did I cross a line there? Too much?).

 

[huskymedic]

I'll get the cannoli and the espresso, you grab the pizza! We'll make the LaRosa Bowl!!

Leave the Gun... Take the Cannoli.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to Carl; the fact that the computers are a circular argument by design! Let's say that I start off saying that Team A is good (you need to start somewhere, so that you can evaluate strength of schedule). Therefore, Team B must be good because they beat Team A. Team C had a victory over Team D, but I didn't say that Team D was good, only Team A, so therefore Team C is not as good as Team A.

Now fill in the following names as real examples and maybe Carl will see what I'm saying, with record and Sagarin rating next to it (Baylor = Team A, 10-3, 13th / Texas A&M = Team B, 7-6, 14th / Team C = Houston, 13-1, 15th / Team D = Penn State, 9-4, 28th). So now you see how a team with FIVE MORE LOSSES can still be ahead of a team with 1 loss, and more importantly, considered a top 14 team (if the playoffs included 16 teams like 1-AA, the computers would have A&M in with 6 losses). This is the ridiculous nature of the computer system; they are only as good as the inputs....

It will not work unless everything is "zeroed-out" every year. Schedule and conference strength should be fluid variables, starting at zero, and recalculated every week. If factors like "SOS" become "fixed," based on pre-season notions or perceptions, instead of fluid "variables," the whole exercise will be a waste, little different from what we have now.

 

[UConnDan97]

It will not work unless everything is "zeroed-out" every year. Schedule and conference strength should be fluid variables, starting at zero, and recalculated every week. If factors like "SOS" become "fixed," based on pre-season notions or perceptions, instead of fluid "variables," the whole exercise will be a waste, little different from what we have now.

The problem truly is that there aren't enough games to perform a good computational model. In the example of Sagarin, he uses an Elo-Chess calculation (from Professor Arpad Elo, a formula used to figure out chess ratings). In the Elo calculations, you assume that victories over lower ranked opponents lead to lower increases in your tally and victories over higher ranked opponents lead to higher increases. There is an arbitrary assignment of rankings, and through large multiples of games, you can standardize rankings across a country...or a planet!

But in college football, you get 12 chances to do so (13 with a conference championship). So your arbitrary initial assignment becomes overwhelming to the data analysis! If the teams played 100 games, it might come out in the wash (especially with enough "crossover games" to calibrate assumptions), but clearly that isn't practical for any sport, much less football.

No, I'm afraid computer modeling will NEVER do a better job at removing prejudice from the system than humans, because the inputs are too heavily weighted. Make conferences, and have every conference champion meet in a 16 team playoff with the highest qualified "at-large" teams, and play it out like the FCS does!

 

[FAIRTIDES]

The problem truly is that there aren't enough games to perform a good computational model. In the example of Sagarin, he uses an Elo-Chess calculation (from Professor Arpad Elo, a formula used to figure out chess ratings). In the Elo calculations, you assume that victories over lower ranked opponents lead to lower increases in your tally and victories over higher ranked opponents lead to higher increases. There is an arbitrary assignment of rankings, and through large multiples of games, you can standardize rankings across a country...or a planet!

But in college football, you get 12 chances to do so (13 with a conference championship). So your arbitrary initial assignment becomes overwhelming to the data analysis! If the teams played 100 games, it might come out in the wash (especially with enough "crossover games" to calibrate assumptions), but clearly that isn't practical for any sport, much less football.

No, I'm afraid computer modeling will NEVER do a better job at removing prejudice from the system than humans, because the inputs are too heavily weighted. Make conferences, and have every conference champion meet in a 16 team playoff with the highest qualified "at-large" teams, and play it out like the FCS does!

I am not competent to to engage in any discussion related to statistically significant sample sizes. But:

. The only "input" is provided by a digital feed w/schools, scores, home or away. Every thing else is"internal" to the system.
. Not "modeling." Calculating an actual rank based on who beats who, victory margin, who "who" beats/margins in a string of "who's" equaling 144 (I think) games and results per team.
. Those much smarter than I can decide if the universe (not a "sample") size ='s irrelevance. But, one result of the argument should be a method the zero's out individual or group perceptions related to schedule/conference strength, history and tradition .

 

[UConnDan97]

I am not competent to to engage in any discussion related to statistically significant sample sizes. But:

. The only "input" is provided by a digital feed w/schools, scores, home or away. Every thing else is"internal" to the system.
. Not "modeling." Calculating an actual rank based on who beats who, victory margin, who "who" beats/margins in a string of "who's" equaling 144 (I think) games and results per team.
. Those much smarter than I can decide if the universe (not a "sample") size ='s irrelevance. But, one result of the argument should be a method the zero's out individual or group perceptions related to schedule/conference strength, history and tradition .

The problem is this; how does a computer (or a person, for that matter) parse through 10 teams that are all 11-1? If it is just based on "who beat who", you will end up without enough cross-conference information to make the determination. If you also include margin of victory, you are more likely to end up with the 11-1 team that happens to have the WORST schedule strength and not the BEST. All of these factors need to be "played out."

In the world of chess, a player will play hundreds if not thousands of games to see what their ranked score is. What I am proposing is to do away with the computers altogether, and let winning a conference send you into the playoffs. This way, you have played it out on the field. Let's say there are 9 conferences, leading to 9 conference winners. Invite another 7 "at-large" schools based on the rankings for a 16 team playoff. Seed them, so that 1 plays 16 and so on. At the end of the season, the champion is crowned, plain and simple. Nobody can argue that they didn't get a fair shake, because everybody has a chance to win their conference...

 

[Carl Spackler]

The problem is this; how does a computer (or a person, for that matter) parse through 10 teams that are all 11-1? If it is just based on "who beat who", you will end up without enough cross-conference information to make the determination. If you also include margin of victory, you are more likely to end up with the 11-1 team that happens to have the WORST schedule strength and not the BEST. All of these factors need to be "played out."

In the world of chess, a player will play hundreds if not thousands of games to see what their ranked score is. What I am proposing is to do away with the computers altogether, and let winning a conference send you into the playoffs. This way, you have played it out on the field. Let's say there are 9 conferences, leading to 9 conference winners. Invite another 7 "at-large" schools based on the rankings for a 16 team playoff. Seed them, so that 1 plays 16 and so on. At the end of the season, the champion is crowned, plain and simple. Nobody can argue that they didn't get a fair shake, because everybody has a chance to win their conference...

Dan. I'm in 100% accord w/ you. The thing is, there' only four teams to be considered right now. You have to take a step back and reaize that fact. For 130 years, the college football post season has been a popularity contest that revolves around making lots and lots of money.

The only people that can possibly ever make that change, just did, a few weeks ago.

I have no doubt, that a true playoff will sooner than later be in place, most likely very similar to what you describe, the biggest and most unbelievable hurdle has been cleared, the dust has to settle a bit for a while.

I'm quite confident that the new leadership of the largest BCS AQ conference in the United States, is going to serve our interests well.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

The problem is this; how does a computer (or a person, for that matter) parse through 10 teams that are all 11-1? If it is just based on "who beat who", you will end up without enough cross-conference information to make the determination. If you also include margin of victory, you are more likely to end up with the 11-1 team that happens to have the WORST schedule strength and not the BEST. All of these factors need to be "played out."

In the world of chess, a player will play hundreds if not thousands of games to see what their ranked score is. What I am proposing is to do away with the computers altogether, and let winning a conference send you into the playoffs. This way, you have played it out on the field. Let's say there are 9 conferences, leading to 9 conference winners. Invite another 7 "at-large" schools based on the rankings for a 16 team playoff. Seed them, so that 1 plays 16 and so on. At the end of the season, the champion is crowned, plain and simple. Nobody can argue that they didn't get a fair shake, because everybody has a chance to win their conference...

Dan, From your mouth to God's ears. Unfortunately, God ain't listening, so we are forced to talk about a chosen "4." Humans have foibles and biases and fears. Brainwashed humans think in terms of what they've been told should be. Computers don't think. They deal with what is.

Perfect? No, but it's better than having a cabal of beat writers and talking heads voting teams from the SEC one thru four.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Dan, From your mouth to God's ears. Unfortunately, God ain't listening, so we are forced to talk about a chosen "4." Humans have foibles and biases and fears. Brainwashed humans think in terms of what they've been told should be. Computers don't think. They deal with what is.

Perfect? No, but it's better than having a cabal of beat writers and talking heads voting teams from the SEC one thru four.

I agree. I'm no computer guy, and I understand completely, that computers only do what programmers tell them to do, so that's why it's so important that what the computers are told to do, is discussed openly and makes sense to everybody, and is reproducible by anyone, anywhere, entering data.

RIght now, rankings don't start in the computers until I think week 6 regular season. WTF? Run the rankings starting in week 1,and run them weekly till the end of the season.

A team that wins a conference championship game, clearly, should have significant weight in the final rankings.

Every season, everybody starts from scratch in week 1.

The human polls can continue to do their job of selling papers, but they can't be involved in this, until a system that includes conference champions either only (if less than 11 teams involved), or a system of all 11 conference champs - is put in place.

 

[UConnDan97]

Humans have foibles and biases and fears. Brainwashed humans think in terms of what they've been told should be. Computers don't think. They deal with what is.

Computers don't think. True.
Computers deal with "what is." False. For all the reasons I've already discussed, plus more, I'm sure. Computers deal with what they are told to deal with by the brainwashed humans, which have their foibles and biases and fears.

I should add that I am completely aware of the fact that we are not going to have a 16 team playoff anytime soon (or maybe at all), as well as the fact that the selection of the 4 team playoff will be just as biased as it has always been. I am just stating what would be the most fair and just system.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Computers don't think. True.
Computers deal with "what is." False. For all the reasons I've already discussed, plus more, I'm sure. Computers deal with what they are told to deal with by the brainwashed humans, which have their foibles and biases and fears.

I should add that I am completely aware of the fact that we are not going to have a 16 team playoff anytime soon (or maybe at all), as well as the fact that the selection of the 4 team playoff will be just as biased as it has always been. I am just stating what would be the most fair and just system.

Those people (above) would not be allowed any where near the process. I would hire six, non-football fan, software engineers, impose "confidentiality," explain the issues and goals, define the input and output (essentially both "User" and "Engineering" specs) and send them off to develop the processing and return with a "ranking" from provided test data.. They would be told to deal with the raw data, only, and to not discuss the project with anyone. Finally, they would be told to develop documentation that explained the "logic" (all encompassing, including formulas/algorithms) that could be put in an understandable presentation.

The powers that be could then chose any, all or just one solution. See, once coded and accepted (the hard part), there would be no human intervention.

 

[whaler11]

If you ran computers week one you'd have 100 teams tied for number 1 as there would be no evidence past they are all 1-0.