Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board

BobcatAttack.com Message Board
Ohio Football
Topic:  RE: It's over

Topic:  RE: It's over
Author
Message
roger
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: durham, NC
Post Count: 92

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/21/2020 9:37:30 PM 
In addition, selections are supposed to be based on the current year only not anything from the past.
However, it appears that the Sunbelts 3-0 record against the Big 12 meant nothing.
It appears that Louisianaís beat down of Iowa State in Ames also meant nothing.
A victory achieved much easier than what Oklahoma did to the Cyclones on a neutral field.
In a limited amount of out of conference games this year, this should have had a bearing. But obviously it did not. Iím not arguing that UC.should have been in the top four but they should have been at least 5th or 6th and certainly ahead of Oklahoma. A fair system.......I think not.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,871

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/22/2020 10:57:11 AM 
Pataskala wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Sorry, just canít get into the UC thing, especially with zero non-league games. The AAC is not a great conference, yes they are undefeated, but the CFP is about the best teams, and not just good records. Luke is a great guy and doing a great job, and as they continue to build, they may break that barrier, but just going undefeated should not automatically get you a seat at the table.


FTR, Cincy did play two OOC games -- Austin Peay and a very good Army team. On the other hand, O$U played zero OOC games and their B10 schedule featured Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU and MSU, all of which had lousy seasons and would probably have a difficult time vs any AAC team except maybe USF or Temple. O$U beat ONE team with a winning record during the regular season -- IU. Cincy played and beat five teams that had winning records, and beat them by at least two TDs, except for yesterday's Tulsa game. Cincy beat three teams that were ranked when they played (Army, SMU and Tulsa) while O$U beat only two (IU and NWern). Penn St was ranked the first week of play but quickly faded. Further, the CFP really isn't about the best teams getting in; it's about the four teams that the committee, in its extremely biased view, want in. That's why Bama gets in about every year, even when they don't play for the SEC championship.



Based on what objective data do you have that says UC is better than any of the 4 teams? I like how you quickly just go towards OSU. Sorry, the AAC is not that good of a conference. Just because you go undefeated in a bad conference does not give you a ticket as the top 4 schools.

They beat Army in week 2 when the Big10 and PAC10 were not even playing. They were ranked #22 Army played 3 FCS schools in their 9 wins!


And what objective criteria are there that says any of the four teams is better than UC? None. It's strictly the subjective opinions of the selection committee, at least eleven of whom have ties to "P" schools. Only the Wyoming and Ark St ADs currently represent G5 schools. The only objective criteria would be based on head-to-head competition, which didn't happen this year and will get scarcer as the "P"s are pressured into playing other "P"s OOC.


Let's start with Strength of schedule by school.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/sch...

Power rankings, whatever metric you want to go by.

Do you really believe if a MAC team goes 12-0 they should be a top 4 play-off team?


SOS assumes that "P" teams are better than G5 teams. It's based on who they play and if they play "P" teams vs G5 teams. It's subjective as hell, especially in years where few or no OOC games are played.

And we're not talking about a hypothetical MAC team. We're talking about an actual Cincy team that ran the table against some very good competition this year, and mostly by impressive margins. Nevertheless, if a MAC team were to beat three or four ranked teams and go unbeaten in the MAC by substantial margins, then yes, they should get consideration. But under the current system they don't because the committee considers all G5 teams to be inferior to all "P" teams.


The current system considers all G5 teams inferior to P teams because over the last 20 years:

The MAC is 34-193 against P5 teams.
The Mountain West is 98-239
The Sun Belt is 21-307.
The WAC is 61 - 223.

The current system assumes that because it's true.

(Edit to note that these numbers are from two years ago -- but doubt the winning percentages have moved in any major way.)


No. The current system perpetuates the stereotype that NO undefeated G5 team can be better than ANY "P" conference champion because of the biases of the people chosen to sit on the committee. They simply refuse to be open-minded about it.


What are you replying 'No' to, exactly? I stated that the system assumed G5 are inferior to P5 teams because P5 teams lose to G5 teams 85% of the time. Is that what you're disagreeing with?
Back to Top
  
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 7,359

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/22/2020 6:06:36 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Sorry, just canít get into the UC thing, especially with zero non-league games. The AAC is not a great conference, yes they are undefeated, but the CFP is about the best teams, and not just good records. Luke is a great guy and doing a great job, and as they continue to build, they may break that barrier, but just going undefeated should not automatically get you a seat at the table.


FTR, Cincy did play two OOC games -- Austin Peay and a very good Army team. On the other hand, O$U played zero OOC games and their B10 schedule featured Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU and MSU, all of which had lousy seasons and would probably have a difficult time vs any AAC team except maybe USF or Temple. O$U beat ONE team with a winning record during the regular season -- IU. Cincy played and beat five teams that had winning records, and beat them by at least two TDs, except for yesterday's Tulsa game. Cincy beat three teams that were ranked when they played (Army, SMU and Tulsa) while O$U beat only two (IU and NWern). Penn St was ranked the first week of play but quickly faded. Further, the CFP really isn't about the best teams getting in; it's about the four teams that the committee, in its extremely biased view, want in. That's why Bama gets in about every year, even when they don't play for the SEC championship.



Based on what objective data do you have that says UC is better than any of the 4 teams? I like how you quickly just go towards OSU. Sorry, the AAC is not that good of a conference. Just because you go undefeated in a bad conference does not give you a ticket as the top 4 schools.

They beat Army in week 2 when the Big10 and PAC10 were not even playing. They were ranked #22 Army played 3 FCS schools in their 9 wins!


And what objective criteria are there that says any of the four teams is better than UC? None. It's strictly the subjective opinions of the selection committee, at least eleven of whom have ties to "P" schools. Only the Wyoming and Ark St ADs currently represent G5 schools. The only objective criteria would be based on head-to-head competition, which didn't happen this year and will get scarcer as the "P"s are pressured into playing other "P"s OOC.


Let's start with Strength of schedule by school.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/sch...

Power rankings, whatever metric you want to go by.

Do you really believe if a MAC team goes 12-0 they should be a top 4 play-off team?


SOS assumes that "P" teams are better than G5 teams. It's based on who they play and if they play "P" teams vs G5 teams. It's subjective as hell, especially in years where few or no OOC games are played.

And we're not talking about a hypothetical MAC team. We're talking about an actual Cincy team that ran the table against some very good competition this year, and mostly by impressive margins. Nevertheless, if a MAC team were to beat three or four ranked teams and go unbeaten in the MAC by substantial margins, then yes, they should get consideration. But under the current system they don't because the committee considers all G5 teams to be inferior to all "P" teams.


The current system considers all G5 teams inferior to P teams because over the last 20 years:

The MAC is 34-193 against P5 teams.
The Mountain West is 98-239
The Sun Belt is 21-307.
The WAC is 61 - 223.

The current system assumes that because it's true.

(Edit to note that these numbers are from two years ago -- but doubt the winning percentages have moved in any major way.)


No. The current system perpetuates the stereotype that NO undefeated G5 team can be better than ANY "P" conference champion because of the biases of the people chosen to sit on the committee. They simply refuse to be open-minded about it.


What are you replying 'No' to, exactly? I stated that the system assumed G5 are inferior to P5 teams because P5 teams lose to G5 teams 85% of the time. Is that what you're disagreeing with?


You got it.


We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,834

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/23/2020 6:52:53 AM 
The numbers donít lie! 🤦🏼‍♂️
Back to Top
  
OUs LONG Driver
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Copley, OH
Post Count: 592

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/23/2020 11:04:23 AM 
Anyone have data of records of P5 @ G5 & P5 vs G5 on neutral field? When ~90% of the games are held at the P5's home field that skews the data.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,871

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/23/2020 11:22:36 AM 
OUs LONG Driver wrote:
Anyone have data of records of P5 @ G5 & P5 vs G5 on neutral field? When ~90% of the games are held at the P5's home field that skews the data.


Couldn't find neutral field data, but not sure how useful it would be.

Here's another Reddit thread where somebody did an analysis of how the worst P5 teams fare against the best G5 teams. It's not pretty for the G5.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/9q85cv/bottom_of_th... /

Maybe the numbers look better on neutral fields, who knows. But it also doesn't really matter at all if G5 teams perform better on neutral fields, because the G5 teams want money games against P5 teams and likely prefer to play on the road.

Not sure there's a way to slice this data that looks good for G5 teams.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,871

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/23/2020 11:29:03 AM 
Pataskala wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Sorry, just canít get into the UC thing, especially with zero non-league games. The AAC is not a great conference, yes they are undefeated, but the CFP is about the best teams, and not just good records. Luke is a great guy and doing a great job, and as they continue to build, they may break that barrier, but just going undefeated should not automatically get you a seat at the table.


FTR, Cincy did play two OOC games -- Austin Peay and a very good Army team. On the other hand, O$U played zero OOC games and their B10 schedule featured Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU and MSU, all of which had lousy seasons and would probably have a difficult time vs any AAC team except maybe USF or Temple. O$U beat ONE team with a winning record during the regular season -- IU. Cincy played and beat five teams that had winning records, and beat them by at least two TDs, except for yesterday's Tulsa game. Cincy beat three teams that were ranked when they played (Army, SMU and Tulsa) while O$U beat only two (IU and NWern). Penn St was ranked the first week of play but quickly faded. Further, the CFP really isn't about the best teams getting in; it's about the four teams that the committee, in its extremely biased view, want in. That's why Bama gets in about every year, even when they don't play for the SEC championship.



Based on what objective data do you have that says UC is better than any of the 4 teams? I like how you quickly just go towards OSU. Sorry, the AAC is not that good of a conference. Just because you go undefeated in a bad conference does not give you a ticket as the top 4 schools.

They beat Army in week 2 when the Big10 and PAC10 were not even playing. They were ranked #22 Army played 3 FCS schools in their 9 wins!


And what objective criteria are there that says any of the four teams is better than UC? None. It's strictly the subjective opinions of the selection committee, at least eleven of whom have ties to "P" schools. Only the Wyoming and Ark St ADs currently represent G5 schools. The only objective criteria would be based on head-to-head competition, which didn't happen this year and will get scarcer as the "P"s are pressured into playing other "P"s OOC.


Let's start with Strength of schedule by school.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/sch...

Power rankings, whatever metric you want to go by.

Do you really believe if a MAC team goes 12-0 they should be a top 4 play-off team?


SOS assumes that "P" teams are better than G5 teams. It's based on who they play and if they play "P" teams vs G5 teams. It's subjective as hell, especially in years where few or no OOC games are played.

And we're not talking about a hypothetical MAC team. We're talking about an actual Cincy team that ran the table against some very good competition this year, and mostly by impressive margins. Nevertheless, if a MAC team were to beat three or four ranked teams and go unbeaten in the MAC by substantial margins, then yes, they should get consideration. But under the current system they don't because the committee considers all G5 teams to be inferior to all "P" teams.


The current system considers all G5 teams inferior to P teams because over the last 20 years:

The MAC is 34-193 against P5 teams.
The Mountain West is 98-239
The Sun Belt is 21-307.
The WAC is 61 - 223.

The current system assumes that because it's true.

(Edit to note that these numbers are from two years ago -- but doubt the winning percentages have moved in any major way.)


No. The current system perpetuates the stereotype that NO undefeated G5 team can be better than ANY "P" conference champion because of the biases of the people chosen to sit on the committee. They simply refuse to be open-minded about it.


What are you replying 'No' to, exactly? I stated that the system assumed G5 are inferior to P5 teams because P5 teams lose to G5 teams 85% of the time. Is that what you're disagreeing with?


You got it.


Huh. Okay.

I'm not really sure what your argument is, to be honest. G5 conferences are consistently worse than P5 conferences head-to-head, but you feel that teams from those conferences should be assessed as if that's not the case?

Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 6,311

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/23/2020 11:42:46 AM 
Pretty well sums it up:

https://www.dispatch.com/story/football/2020/12/23/rob-ol... /
Back to Top
  
OUs LONG Driver
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Copley, OH
Post Count: 592

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/23/2020 11:57:56 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
OUs LONG Driver wrote:
Anyone have data of records of P5 @ G5 & P5 vs G5 on neutral field? When ~90% of the games are held at the P5's home field that skews the data.


Couldn't find neutral field data, but not sure how useful it would be.

Here's another Reddit thread where somebody did an analysis of how the worst P5 teams fare against the best G5 teams. It's not pretty for the G5.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/9q85cv/bottom_of_th... /

Maybe the numbers look better on neutral fields, who knows. But it also doesn't really matter at all if G5 teams perform better on neutral fields, because the G5 teams want money games against P5 teams and likely prefer to play on the road.

Not sure there's a way to slice this data that looks good for G5 teams.


I'm not suggesting it would look good. I do think it would look better. In my dream world the NCAA forces the P5 out of their home stadiums more often (same for college hoops). I don't expect a magical level playing field but certainly that change would mean more W's for the G5. Also, I realize it isn't happening, I said dream world.
Back to Top
  
bobcatsquared
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,176

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/23/2020 1:13:05 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
Pretty well sums it up:

https://www.dispatch.com/story/football/2020/12/23/rob-ol... /


Oller is living in a fantasy world if he thinks there's any chance of this happening.
Back to Top
  
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 7,359

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/23/2020 1:25:47 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


No. The current system perpetuates the stereotype that NO undefeated G5 team can be better than ANY "P" conference champion because of the biases of the people chosen to sit on the committee. They simply refuse to be open-minded about it.


What are you replying 'No' to, exactly? I stated that the system assumed G5 are inferior to P5 teams because P5 teams lose to G5 teams 85% of the time. Is that what you're disagreeing with?
[/QUOTE]

You got it. [/QUOTE]

Huh. Okay.

I'm not really sure what your argument is, to be honest. G5 conferences are consistently worse than P5 conferences head-to-head, but you feel that teams from those conferences should be assessed as if that's not the case?

[/QUOTE]

My point is that the extremely biased committee members do not look objectively at undefeated G5 teams. They automatically assume that undefeated G5 teams are inferior to "P" conference champs and even some one- or two-loss "P" teams. Historical records between "P" conferences and G5 conferences shouldn't play a part; the committee should look at THIS YEAR's performance. But they don't because the vast majority of committee members are biased against all G5 teams. For example, O$U and Cincy had the same week off because of covid cancellations. O$U didn't drop in the CFP poll, but Cincy did. In fact, Cincy was passed by Iowa State, which had two losses including a home loss to Louisiana of the Sun Belt Conference. In the final rankings, two-loss Oklahoma jumped ahead of Cincy simply because Okla beat two-loss Iowa St for the B12 championship. (One of Okla's wins was vs 1AA Missouri St). Cincy also finished behind three-loss Florida, one of whose losses was at home to a very mediocre LSU team. Cincy might get downgraded for playing 1AA Austin Peay but Clemson isn't penalized for playing 1AA The Citadel. So long as the committee is overwhelmingly comprised of individuals who have direct or indirect ties to "P" schools, undefeated G5 schools will get shafted over and over again.


We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,834

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/23/2020 6:39:30 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
OUs LONG Driver wrote:
Anyone have data of records of P5 @ G5 & P5 vs G5 on neutral field? When ~90% of the games are held at the P5's home field that skews the data.


Couldn't find neutral field data, but not sure how useful it would be.

Here's another Reddit thread where somebody did an analysis of how the worst P5 teams fare against the best G5 teams. It's not pretty for the G5.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/9q85cv/bottom_of_th... /

Maybe the numbers look better on neutral fields, who knows. But it also doesn't really matter at all if G5 teams perform better on neutral fields, because the G5 teams want money games against P5 teams and likely prefer to play on the road.

Not sure there's a way to slice this data that looks good for G5 teams.


ONE thing, when a G5 plays at a P5, itís often with the G5 crew.

And this statistic speaks volumes, when G5 wins itís often against a bad team, may be a name program, but still a bad year. Anyone want to look up records for Pitt, Minnesota, Maryland, Penn State when we beat them.
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,834

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/23/2020 6:45:09 PM 
OUs LONG Driver wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
OUs LONG Driver wrote:
Anyone have data of records of P5 @ G5 & P5 vs G5 on neutral field? When ~90% of the games are held at the P5's home field that skews the data.


Couldn't find neutral field data, but not sure how useful it would be.

Here's another Reddit thread where somebody did an analysis of how the worst P5 teams fare against the best G5 teams. It's not pretty for the G5.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/9q85cv/bottom_of_th... /

Maybe the numbers look better on neutral fields, who knows. But it also doesn't really matter at all if G5 teams perform better on neutral fields, because the G5 teams want money games against P5 teams and likely prefer to play on the road.

Not sure there's a way to slice this data that looks good for G5 teams.


I'm not suggesting it would look good. I do think it would look better. In my dream world the NCAA forces the P5 out of their home stadiums more often (same for college hoops). I don't expect a magical level playing field but certainly that change would mean more W's for the G5. Also, I realize it isn't happening, I said dream world.


So the better team with more money should have to play away for some socialistic feelings you have? If we hosted OSU or WVU, Michigan, how much Green do you think youíd see in Peden?
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,834

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/23/2020 6:47:00 PM 
Pataskala wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


No. The current system perpetuates the stereotype that NO undefeated G5 team can be better than ANY "P" conference champion because of the biases of the people chosen to sit on the committee. They simply refuse to be open-minded about it.


What are you replying 'No' to, exactly? I stated that the system assumed G5 are inferior to P5 teams because P5 teams lose to G5 teams 85% of the time. Is that what you're disagreeing with?


You got it. [/QUOTE]

Huh. Okay.

I'm not really sure what your argument is, to be honest. G5 conferences are consistently worse than P5 conferences head-to-head, but you feel that teams from those conferences should be assessed as if that's not the case?

[/QUOTE]

My point is that the extremely biased committee members do not look objectively at undefeated G5 teams. They automatically assume that undefeated G5 teams are inferior to "P" conference champs and even some one- or two-loss "P" teams. Historical records between "P" conferences and G5 conferences shouldn't play a part; the committee should look at THIS YEAR's performance. But they don't because the vast majority of committee members are biased against all G5 teams. For example, O$U and Cincy had the same week off because of covid cancellations. O$U didn't drop in the CFP poll, but Cincy did. In fact, Cincy was passed by Iowa State, which had two losses including a home loss to Louisiana of the Sun Belt Conference. In the final rankings, two-loss Oklahoma jumped ahead of Cincy simply because Okla beat two-loss Iowa St for the B12 championship. (One of Okla's wins was vs 1AA Missouri St). Cincy also finished behind three-loss Florida, one of whose losses was at home to a very mediocre LSU team. Cincy might get downgraded for playing 1AA Austin Peay but Clemson isn't penalized for playing 1AA The Citadel. So long as the committee is overwhelmingly comprised of individuals who have direct or indirect ties to "P" schools, undefeated G5 schools will get shafted over and over again.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, so objectively, where do you put Costal, Cincinnati, BYU, and any others. And please explain your justification and rationale for your placement.
Back to Top
  
Buckeye to Bobcat
General User

Member Since: 9/10/2013
Post Count: 1,560

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/23/2020 10:52:00 PM 
For me as a G5 school, comes down to whether you're willing to play neutral site games or not. Going to Cleveland or Cincy ain't a sin, especially if it means having someone of a power brand that considers Ohio a recruiting base matter. If we played our cards right, could have schools wanting to recruit Ohio all day in the state, but again, that comes down to savvy leadership.
Back to Top
  
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 7,359

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/24/2020 2:09:49 PM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


No. The current system perpetuates the stereotype that NO undefeated G5 team can be better than ANY "P" conference champion because of the biases of the people chosen to sit on the committee. They simply refuse to be open-minded about it.


What are you replying 'No' to, exactly? I stated that the system assumed G5 are inferior to P5 teams because P5 teams lose to G5 teams 85% of the time. Is that what you're disagreeing with?


You got it.


Huh. Okay.

I'm not really sure what your argument is, to be honest. G5 conferences are consistently worse than P5 conferences head-to-head, but you feel that teams from those conferences should be assessed as if that's not the case?

[/QUOTE]

My point is that the extremely biased committee members do not look objectively at undefeated G5 teams. They automatically assume that undefeated G5 teams are inferior to "P" conference champs and even some one- or two-loss "P" teams. Historical records between "P" conferences and G5 conferences shouldn't play a part; the committee should look at THIS YEAR's performance. But they don't because the vast majority of committee members are biased against all G5 teams. For example, O$U and Cincy had the same week off because of covid cancellations. O$U didn't drop in the CFP poll, but Cincy did. In fact, Cincy was passed by Iowa State, which had two losses including a home loss to Louisiana of the Sun Belt Conference. In the final rankings, two-loss Oklahoma jumped ahead of Cincy simply because Okla beat two-loss Iowa St for the B12 championship. (One of Okla's wins was vs 1AA Missouri St). Cincy also finished behind three-loss Florida, one of whose losses was at home to a very mediocre LSU team. Cincy might get downgraded for playing 1AA Austin Peay but Clemson isn't penalized for playing 1AA The Citadel. So long as the committee is overwhelmingly comprised of individuals who have direct or indirect ties to "P" schools, undefeated G5 schools will get shafted over and over again.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, so objectively, where do you put Costal, Cincinnati, BYU, and any others. And please explain your justification and rationale for your placement. [/QUOTE]

Cincy we've discussed. I'd put them at least 4th, ahead of ND. One of ND's two wins vs ranked teams was vs Clemson, at home when Clemson didn't have Trevor Lawrence.

At #12, Coastal's probably a little under-rated; they probably should be top ten. They won eight of their games by double-figures, including road wins at Kansas (yeah, it's only Kansas) and they beat two ranked teams -- ULL by three on the road and BYU by five at home. They also won at ULL, which won at Iowa St, so they should be ahead of the Cyclones. They're 27th in total offense, ahead of TxA&M and Georgia -- and 25th in total defense, ahead of Bama and O$U.

BYU is probably about right at #16. Their signature win was ripping Boise apart on the road, but they lost at Coastal. They got Navy when the Middies had had limited practice. Plus they had seven home games, which helped their cause.

It's hard to tell where San Jose should be. They played only MWC teams and none of them were ranked when San Jose played them. Since they played only seven games, #22 might be about right.

Tulsa is probably about right at #24. They lost only to #8 Cincy (which should be ranked higher) and #11 Okla St both on the road, but beat two teams that were ranked when they played them: at #11 UCF and #19 SMU at home. The rest of their wins, though, were vs teams that didn't have winning records.


We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Back to Top
  
Victory
General User

Member Since: 3/10/2012
Post Count: 787

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/24/2020 2:37:37 PM 
Pataskala wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Pataskala wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
Sorry, just canít get into the UC thing, especially with zero non-league games. The AAC is not a great conference, yes they are undefeated, but the CFP is about the best teams, and not just good records. Luke is a great guy and doing a great job, and as they continue to build, they may break that barrier, but just going undefeated should not automatically get you a seat at the table.


FTR, Cincy did play two OOC games -- Austin Peay and a very good Army team. On the other hand, O$U played zero OOC games and their B10 schedule featured Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU and MSU, all of which had lousy seasons and would probably have a difficult time vs any AAC team except maybe USF or Temple. O$U beat ONE team with a winning record during the regular season -- IU. Cincy played and beat five teams that had winning records, and beat them by at least two TDs, except for yesterday's Tulsa game. Cincy beat three teams that were ranked when they played (Army, SMU and Tulsa) while O$U beat only two (IU and NWern). Penn St was ranked the first week of play but quickly faded. Further, the CFP really isn't about the best teams getting in; it's about the four teams that the committee, in its extremely biased view, want in. That's why Bama gets in about every year, even when they don't play for the SEC championship.



Based on what objective data do you have that says UC is better than any of the 4 teams? I like how you quickly just go towards OSU. Sorry, the AAC is not that good of a conference. Just because you go undefeated in a bad conference does not give you a ticket as the top 4 schools.

They beat Army in week 2 when the Big10 and PAC10 were not even playing. They were ranked #22 Army played 3 FCS schools in their 9 wins!


And what objective criteria are there that says any of the four teams is better than UC? None. It's strictly the subjective opinions of the selection committee, at least eleven of whom have ties to "P" schools. Only the Wyoming and Ark St ADs currently represent G5 schools. The only objective criteria would be based on head-to-head competition, which didn't happen this year and will get scarcer as the "P"s are pressured into playing other "P"s OOC.


Let's start with Strength of schedule by school.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/sch...

Power rankings, whatever metric you want to go by.

Do you really believe if a MAC team goes 12-0 they should be a top 4 play-off team?


SOS assumes that "P" teams are better than G5 teams. It's based on who they play and if they play "P" teams vs G5 teams. It's subjective as hell, especially in years where few or no OOC games are played.

And we're not talking about a hypothetical MAC team. We're talking about an actual Cincy team that ran the table against some very good competition this year, and mostly by impressive margins. Nevertheless, if a MAC team were to beat three or four ranked teams and go unbeaten in the MAC by substantial margins, then yes, they should get consideration. But under the current system they don't because the committee considers all G5 teams to be inferior to all "P" teams.


The current system considers all G5 teams inferior to P teams because over the last 20 years:

The MAC is 34-193 against P5 teams.
The Mountain West is 98-239
The Sun Belt is 21-307.
The WAC is 61 - 223.

The current system assumes that because it's true.

(Edit to note that these numbers are from two years ago -- but doubt the winning percentages have moved in any major way.)


No. The current system perpetuates the stereotype that NO undefeated G5 team can be better than ANY "P" conference champion because of the biases of the people chosen to sit on the committee. They simply refuse to be open-minded about it.


What are you replying 'No' to, exactly? I stated that the system assumed G5 are inferior to P5 teams because P5 teams lose to G5 teams 85% of the time. Is that what you're disagreeing with?


You got it.


I understand the feeling that the rankings are rigged this year. IMO, sometimes we go overboard with head to head in the USA. If two teams are 11-1 and one has beaten the other it usually just means that the team that won the matchup lost to a lesser team that, in most cases, the team that lost defeated. Its a circular argument in that case. Tiebreakers have to choose something as a first step and this is as good as anything but in the USA we consider a situation like that definitive proof in ways that no other country does.

On the other hand, in a situation where there is no circular counterargument loss. like if I'm undefeated and beaten you, then I should almost always be ranked higher unless there are crazy differences in the rest of the resumes. This year Coastal Carolina>Louisiana>Iowa St. with nothing to counter that right now. You can argue that the Big XII schedule makes for one of those crazy differences in the rest of the resume. However, in the limited amount of non-conference data we have this year it isn't like the Big XII did much to prove that it was dramatically better than the Sunbelt and the difference in the committee's rankings were not small. At one point Louisiana was about #21 and ISU was about #7. This felt really rigged to me.

Having said that, WHAT THE HELL? How can you say "you got it"? Isn't the first step in being a decent human being altering your world view to fit the facts rather than just obstinately rejecting facts that conflict with your world view? Did you go to Ohio? If so I wonder how you benefited in any way from your time there. This seems like like most basic thing in education. It is a concept that a grade school dropout should have no trouble with let alone a college graduate.
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 6,311

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/24/2020 3:51:01 PM 
bobcatsquared wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Pretty well sums it up:

https://www.dispatch.com/story/football/2020/12/23/rob-ol... /


Oller is living in a fantasy world if he thinks there's any chance of this happening.


I guess my point was that the MAC wasn't/isn't even in the conversation of being included in what would be considered D 1 schools.

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 10,879

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/24/2020 7:56:02 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
bobcatsquared wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Pretty well sums it up:

https://www.dispatch.com/story/football/2020/12/23/rob-ol... /


Oller is living in a fantasy world if he thinks there's any chance of this happening.


I guess my point was that the MAC wasn't/isn't even in the conversation of being included in what would be considered D 1 schools.



But this is a pipe dream of a reporter that didn't have anything better to do with his time that day. Ain't going to happen, so I ain't going to worry about it one way or the other.


"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 546

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: It's over
   Posted: 12/24/2020 8:53:47 PM 
In 2006 unbeaten Utah destroyed no 4 Alabama in their bowl. 2010 unbeaten TCU beat no 4 Wisconsin in their bowl. In 2017 unbeaten UCF beat no 7 Auburn in their bowl. The idea that unbeaten G5 teams wouldnít win in these games or would be blown out has already been proven wrong multiple times. These teams deserved a shot for the national title, the games they were put in they proved they were above. Especially the 2006 Utah team. That game wasnít even close. Also I think UCFs star starting qb was out during that game as well.
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  51 - 70  of 70 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3
View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



Copyright ©2021 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties