(01-08-2018 04:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 08:19 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 03:51 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  It is going to be rare that I think a G5 team deserves to be one of the top four but this year was one of them. They flat out were better than AU and AU can play with anyone. So it is not that they just beat AU it was beyond clear they were the better team and it was not a one off upset. They beat 13 teams with losing their bye week and having to deal with the hurricane. No to mention they had to beat the same top 25 team twice. Yes overall the SEC schedule it going to be harder but beating horrible teams like Tenn or FSU is supposed to carry a ton more weight than beating slightly lower ranked horrible teams?

May happen once a decade with just four teams but UCF got screwed intentionally and the CFP went out of its way to ensure they had no shot to make it in.

How would you have felt about UCF in the final four before the win over Auburn? It really is perfect that they got to beat the one team that's beaten both of the championship game participants, but that's a pretty big data point that wasn't there at the time of the final rankings.

Forget the morass of "data points" and SOS smoke screens. Those are just BS and thier reliance on indicators changes weekly. The reality is there are only 12 data points per team per season (not to mention the better G5 and P5 teams rarely play). The truth is---there are never going to be enough meaningful G5 vs P5 data points to be statistically significant anyway.

Just look at the base committee thought process when looking at a team that is undefeated and has a limited number of "data points" against ranked teams (remember---not NO DATA points---just LIMITED data points against ranked teams).

I think that its telling that the base assumption by the committee is an undefeated G5 team with a P5 win and 3 top 25 wins is not top 10 worthy. They say they need more data. Without the data, the assumption is the G5 is not worthy until PROVEN otherwise. However, the committee's base assumption is that P5 teams that LOSE to top 25 teams ARE top 10 worthy. Wait, what? Im at a loss as to describe what that kind of logic could even be based on.

Its fairly dust and baked in bias that puts a 3 loss Miss St in front of a undefeated UCF with 2 Top 25 wins.

Think about this for a moment. UCF was #12 in the final CFP rankings after winning thier 3rd game over a ranked top 25 team. Hot on their heels at #13, was a 4-loss Stanford. An undefeated 12-0 G5 was almost passed by a 4 loss P5 team. In 2016--a 4 loss Auburn actually DID pass an undefeated WMU. The committee is a joke.

So you really don't think SOS matters?

So, 12-0 in the MAC is better than 10-2 in the SEC for instance?