Among other things....margin of victory doesn't matter; SOS is determined only by being above or below .500; they want teams to win their conference title; Losses degrade over time.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...mbers-list

Some of this bodes well. ECU/UCFs losses impact shouldn't count as much now.

The bias about "trying to schedule tough" OOC certainly makes ECU's schedule look even better if true.

Good read. Raises a lot of pertinent questions. Makes me wonder if this will actually be any better than BCS computer rankings.

This is really interesting stuff, it's really the first feedback I've seen regarding how the committee will look at things. It's still very vague but hopefully we will get a clearer picture after the first poll comes out.

Every single Major conference team would need to have two losses before ECU is considered for the playoff this year (or any year). Sorry guys.

(10-22-2014 09:48 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Every single Major conference team would need to have two losses before ECU is considered for the playoff this year (or any year). Sorry guys.

I don't think any of us ECU fans are expecting to be in the 4 team playoff.

(10-22-2014 09:48 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Every single Major conference team would need to have two losses before ECU is considered for the playoff this year (or any year). Sorry guys.

Don't disagree, but there's a lot in there that would certainly lead you to believe ECU will be rated above Marshall, which at this point is the only thing that matters.

(10-22-2014 09:45 AM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  This is really interesting stuff, it's really the first feedback I've seen regarding how the committee will look at things. It's still very vague but hopefully we will get a clearer picture after the first poll comes out.

Danny Kannell did a comple recap of the mock committee he did with other ESPN CF personalities that was proctored by the CFP Committee themselves on The SVP and Russilo Show last week using the year Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech all shared the Big 12 South Division Title. Really cool to hear it, especially the comments when all of the participants starting asking questions to the committee members in the room, who couldn't answer them back with reasonable answers. This is going to be a complete shitshow if there aren't 4 undefeated or 1-loss teams in CFB by the time selection comes around.

(10-22-2014 09:48 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Every single Major conference team would need to have two losses before ECU is considered for the playoff this year (or any year). Sorry guys.

The playoff committee also chooses the G5 access bowl selection so this is still relevant.

Its safe to assume they'll use the same methods of rating teams for the G5 slot as they will for the 4 playoff slots.

I agree the ECU has played the tougher schedule but I am not sure if I read this formula right. It appears ECU could be hurt more than helped buy it.

Thus far Marshall has beaten one winning team and a 500 team. ECU has beat only one winning team and a loss to a winning team. It appears the committee's formula would have these schedules about even. If Marshall is undefeated, and has a many winning record wins, are they saying the SOS would be a wash? I am wrong in my understanding?

(10-22-2014 10:28 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I agree the ECU has played the tougher schedule but I am not sure if I read this formula right. It appears ECU could be hurt more than helped buy it.

Thus far Marshall has beaten one winning team and a 500 team. ECU has beat only one winning team and a loss to a winning team. It appears the committee's formula would have these schedules about even. If Marshall is undefeated, and has a many winning record wins, are they saying the SOS would be a wash? I am wrong in my understanding?

I'm kind of wondering the same thing, if that is the case it is definitely not good for ECU because that would mean the committee would see, for example, a 8-4 Middle Tennessee win the same as a win vs an 8-4 Va Tech even though Tech played much tougher opponents. That's why most SOS metric not only incorporate the opponents record but also the record of the opponent's opponents.

(10-22-2014 09:48 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Every single Major conference team would need to have two losses before ECU is considered for the playoff this year (or any year). Sorry guys.

Yeah, but they pick who goes to the "access bowl" too, right? That's very pertinent to the AAC.

the SOS thing for us is good and bad for us
1) its an eye test, no matter how c-usa guys try to delusionally justify it, ucf, unc, south carolina, vt, cincy will look 100x better than anyone on marshalls schedule

2)the bad is that same logic will be used against us if we have aplayoff team

3) and the good, without computer weight teams down, it will be hard for them to leave out a multiyear dominant team ...if their is no finger SOS to point to why we cant go

so itll be bad for great teams coming out of nowhere but good for any multiyear power house teams we have

Maybe this is getting a little OT, but based on what the SBNation article said, here's my guess on how the committee would slot the "New Year's Six" bowls. (One caveat I'll put is that the higher ranked team in a conference gets to be the "conference champion.")

Fiesta: #8 Michigan State (B1G "champion") vs. #9 Georgia (SEC at-large)
Cotton: #10 TCU (Big 12 "champion") vs. #6 Auburn (SEC at-large)
Peach: #5 Alabama (SEC at-large) vs. #18 ECU (G5)
Orange: #21 Clemson (ACC replacement) vs. #7 Notre Dame (B1G/SEC/ND)

Sugar: #1 Mississippi State (SEC "Champion") vs. #4 Oregon (Pac-12 "Champion")
Rose: #2 Ole Miss (SEC at-large) vs. #3 Florida State (ACC "Champion")

- I put Oregon in over Alabama or Auburn because I think the committee will value a one-loss champion of the Pac-12, which would own wins over several one- or two-loss Pac-12 teams as well as B1G champion, more than it would a third SEC team which had NOT beaten any conference champion nor any other one-loss teams.

- I put unbeaten Ole Miss over unbeaten Florida State due to the Rebels' superior strength of schedule to date. Not that it matters which is #2 or #3 since they'd both play in the Rose Bowl regardless.

- I do not think this is how it will turn out. This is only what I think will would happen if the season ended today. Right now, the SEC would have four at-large spots, with the ACC, B1G, Big 12, and Pac-12. That will not hold. Someone from the Big 12 (and/or Ohio State and/or from the Pac-12) will rise above one of those SEC West teams or Georgia.

(10-22-2014 10:33 AM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 10:28 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I agree the ECU has played the tougher schedule but I am not sure if I read this formula right. It appears ECU could be hurt more than helped buy it.

Thus far Marshall has beaten one winning team and a 500 team. ECU has beat only one winning team and a loss to a winning team. It appears the committee's formula would have these schedules about even. If Marshall is undefeated, and has a many winning record wins, are they saying the SOS would be a wash? I am wrong in my understanding?

I'm kind of wondering the same thing, if that is the case it is definitely not good for ECU because that would mean the committee would see, for example, a 8-4 Middle Tennessee win the same as a win vs an 8-4 Va Tech even though Tech played much tougher opponents. That's why most SOS metric not only incorporate the opponents record but also the record of the opponent's opponents.

That part could end up being a negative (but it's too early to tell yet) but the part about rewarding intending to schedule tough OOC vs not intending to schedule tough will help ECU. Also not including margin of victory will hurt Marshall because about the only thing they are doing impressive is crushing teams.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I actually like that there is a committee making the selections. There could never be enough games amongst all the teams in FBS football to go simply by standings, as the professional leagues do. There really aren't even enough games to compare teams very well statistically. There just isn't enough data to predict reliably as compared with, say, basketball.

So there has to be subjectivity and limited data to help. I think that the method used in the BCS, with polls and unexplained math logarithms (i.e., the computer rankings), were woefully flawed. The committee, on the other hand, is dedicated to watching the games, comparing team A to B head-to-head (if A and B did play each other), and coming up with rankings rationally. The polls, by contrast, do things like rank Ohio State ahead of Virginia Tech, who, in turn was ranked ahead of ECU, even after ECU won at VT and VT won at Ohio State. Even now, the coaches are ranking Michigan State ahead of Oregon. The committee will correct that kind of nonsense.

(10-22-2014 11:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  [quote='k-vegasbuc' pid='11277004' dateline='1413991999']
That part could end up being a negative (but it's too early to tell yet) but the part about rewarding intending to schedule tough OOC vs not intending to schedule tough will help ECU. Also not including margin of victory will hurt Marshall because about the only thing they are doing impressive is crushing teams.

I am not sure that helps either. Marshall did schedule originally to play Louisville this year. That one game does not erase playing 3 P5's, but it takes away the excuse against Marshall that they never tried to schedule a tough team. Then they still look and see they are undefeated.

That said, the SOS rules, as stated in the article, really do not help the cause. Because as of now, none of two wins (VPI and UNC) are guaranteed to be over 0.500, and neither is the loss (it didn't state which side of the coin a 6-6 team would be on).

(10-22-2014 12:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:16 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  [quote='k-vegasbuc' pid='11277004' dateline='1413991999']
That part could end up being a negative (but it's too early to tell yet) but the part about rewarding intending to schedule tough OOC vs not intending to schedule tough will help ECU. Also not including margin of victory will hurt Marshall because about the only thing they are doing impressive is crushing teams.

I am not sure that helps either. Marshall did schedule originally to play Louisville this year. That one game does not erase playing 3 P5's, but it takes away the excuse against Marshall that they never tried to schedule a tough team. Then they still look and see they are undefeated.

That said, the SOS rules, as stated in the article, really do not help the cause. Because as of now, none of two wins (VPI and UNC) are guaranteed to be over 0.500, and neither is the loss (it didn't state which side of the coin a 6-6 team would be on).

Marshall had plenty of time to find a harder game even if it was on the road. UCF just picked up a game at Stanford next year. It wasn't hard.

Marshall knew that UL would have to get out of that game well in advance to find SOME team that would lend their schedule a shred of credibility.

IMO they simply added another creampuff for exactly this reason- run the win totals and hope no one looks at who they actually beat.

(10-22-2014 10:28 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I agree the ECU has played the tougher schedule but I am not sure if I read this formula right. It appears ECU could be hurt more than helped buy it.

Thus far Marshall has beaten one winning team and a 500 team. ECU has beat only one winning team and a loss to a winning team. It appears the committee's formula would have these schedules about even. If Marshall is undefeated, and has a many winning record wins, are they saying the SOS would be a wash? I am wrong in my understanding?

That's one of the reasons they have a commitee this year. Just because you beat up on 10 d1aa schools doesn't mean you havr a good team, it just skews the stats

(10-22-2014 11:16 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Maybe this is getting a little OT, but based on what the SBNation article said, here's my guess on how the committee would slot the "New Year's Six" bowls. (One caveat I'll put is that the higher ranked team in a conference gets to be the "conference champion.")

Fiesta: #8 Michigan State (B1G "champion") vs. #9 Georgia (SEC at-large)
Cotton: #10 TCU (Big 12 "champion") vs. #6 Auburn (SEC at-large)
Peach: #5 Alabama (SEC at-large) vs. #18 ECU (G5)
Orange: #21 Clemson (ACC replacement) vs. #7 Notre Dame (B1G/SEC/ND)

Sugar: #1 Mississippi State (SEC "Champion") vs. #4 Oregon (Pac-12 "Champion")
Rose: #2 Ole Miss (SEC at-large) vs. #3 Florida State (ACC "Champion")

- I put Oregon in over Alabama or Auburn because I think the committee will value a one-loss champion of the Pac-12, which would own wins over several one- or two-loss Pac-12 teams as well as B1G champion, more than it would a third SEC team which had NOT beaten any conference champion nor any other one-loss teams.

- I put unbeaten Ole Miss over unbeaten Florida State due to the Rebels' superior strength of schedule to date. Not that it matters which is #2 or #3 since they'd both play in the Rose Bowl regardless.

- I do not think this is how it will turn out. This is only what I think will would happen if the season ended today. Right now, the SEC would have four at-large spots, with the ACC, B1G, Big 12, and Pac-12. That will not hold. Someone from the Big 12 (and/or Ohio State and/or from the Pac-12) will rise above one of those SEC West teams or Georgia.

Yep...Miss and Miss State will play later this season, and someone has to lose...plus Bama v Auburn, and the SEC champ game.