Just tell them we had 6 wins(so far) against bowl eligible teams, they only played 6 bowl eligible teams.
SoS?
- Thread starter LincolnSwinger
- Start date
Pretty sure that number is only 5 wins against bowl eligible teams (Iowa, Ark. State, Baylor, WV, K-State). We played a 6th bowl eligible team, but lost (Tech).
Why do we only need to play 8 conference games? If your stance is ISU should replace one Big12 game with a Big10, ACC or SEC opponent to create cross conference play data points makes sense. But if it's to replace a Big12 opponent with a G5 or FCS opponent that makes little sense to me. The last thing the Big12 needs to do is water down it's schedule.
Yormark is right to push for a level playing field. The ACC and SEC should add a 9th conference game. Or to be CFP eligible SEC/ACC/Big10/Big12 teams should be required to play ten P4 games. And the SOS of those two P4 non-conference games should be a primary filter in selecting the 12 team playoff.
If for no other reason, fans want great match-ups. We don't need to see Iowa State play Illinois State instead of Baylor.
Per Sagarin our SOS has averaged about 11th for a decade (think about that, it's almost impossible to average top 5) while there's has been high 30s.
It's rich if any of them instantly care about SOS.
This year...at 38 before the CCG, we're sitting exactly at Iowa's 10 year SOS average. This is just a super typical Big Ten West year for ISU and we made it into 10-2. The CCG and playoff/bowl will take our SOS far better than a typical Iowa year.
The committee is justifying Boise State for the same reason the SEC weighs its own schedule: to increase the odds for their boys to advance.
We have to get back to using this for a % or at least having it as a tool the committee can use the way the basketball committee always is looking for a better tool.
The committee had #34 ahead of #12 and #14 last week. That's more absurd than anything connected to Boise State even.
I don't see any justification correlation between SEC scheduling and Boise (close road loss to Oregon). Two different criteria. And actually the composite computer rankings support the current CFP rankings for SEC teams but that doesn't excuse the SEC and ACC from having only 8 conference games.
Yes, the imbalance of games is a point of contention. But, let's face it, the 'rankings' is based on 'marketing' more than objective metrics as demonstrated by the 'moving' SOS, preseason prejudice, and late season patsy games. I'm a gassed Alabama is even in the discussion.
The playoff could have solved this problem by just saying that a school must play 10 P4 games during the regular season to qualify for the playoff. Let the conferences do what they want schedule wise, but to make the playoff you have to have 10 P4 games before the conference championship game.
Problem solved.
Hell no.
Give me the field instead of Oregon. That's the one team, or should I say, the closest team this year to a great team. They aren't perfect but they are a lot more complete then just about everyone else.
Heh. I was only referencing that the ESPN simulation has ISU beating them often, both as a 12/5 and a 4/5 matchup.
It doesn't have to be though.
For quite a while we had a statistical measure for 1/3 of the formula to pick playoff teams, the problem was it only fed a two team playoff.
If people cared about anything but money, you'd just have a really great computer composite and the committee's only job would be to correct the times where two teams are next to each other and the head to head loser is higher. Example of that is until very recently a lot of computers had Oregon/Ohio State as 1/2 but with Ohio State in front where the voters had Oregon in front. That's really the only rational/honest/logical reason to have a committee at all.
I'm not sure if it's better to have the metric as a guide for the comittee, or have the committee rank and then calculate it as a combination (like BCS ranking), but we definitely moved backwards when we removed that 1/3 computer average from the process and then didn't even use it as a guideline resource the way the basketball committee always has.
Ill die on the hill that Boise, Bama, and Ol Miss should not be anywhere in the top 15. Ol miss lost to Kentucky, which was their only P4 win. Bama lost to OU, and Vandy, who was barely better than Kentucky. And BSU played no on with a pulse.
I'm ok with Boise State being 10-14 range, not ok with the idea that they are automatically better than our 4-way tie teams and DEFINITELY not winner of B12CCG.
Ditto for entire ACC actually, don't think a single one of their teams is better than our 4-way tie teams as evidence by their first place team losing at home to BYU.
Skeptical more wins against an easier schedule will result in playoff berths. This year the Big12 had three 10-2 teams and it's a foregone conclusion the Big12 will get one team in the CFP. Same goes for ACC, their only hope for a 2nd bid is somehow a 10-2 Miami team jumps over a 9-3 Bama. Miami was dropped 6 spots this week by the committee and is conveniently ranked 12th- on the outside looking in. With both teams sitting at home, no chance Miami bumps Bama.
For the Big12 and/or ACC to become consistent 2 bid leagues, they will need to win CFP games over the next fews years. The other path to multiple Big12/ACC bids is Notre Dame not getting a bid.
