SI: Takeaways on first playoff rankings

Swaye said:

It sucks playing in this dreck league. It sucks worse scheduling nobody in non-conference. Can we get out of any of these bullshit schedules and get somebody real on there in the next couple years?

We should join the SEC.

PM to Andy Staples; Cool cardigan.

EwaDawg said:

Committee was quoted as saying that a T m had four wins against teams with winning records (included S Carolina at 4-4). UW has two.

Highlights how fucking stupid it is to consider strength of schedule but to specifically prohibit considering margin of victory. Both pieces matter a great deal to any decent analysis. Using just one is probably worse than going strictly off the "eye test".

AIRWOLF said:

EwaDawg said:

Committee was quoted as saying that a T m had four wins against teams with winning records (included S Carolina at 4-4). UW has two.

Highlights how fucking stupid it is to consider strength of schedule but to specifically prohibit considering margin of victory. Both pieces matter a great deal to any decent analysis. Using just one is probably worse than going strictly off the "eye test".

I haven't paid attention to the playoff committee bullshit (probably because we weren't close to relevant) but is this for serious? They don't consider margin of victory? If that's true it's amazing they even got three of the four teams right. Holy shit.

It actually started back in the BCS era. Some of the computer rating sthat were available at the time were a part of the formula. They clearly considered margin of victory, because it is essential information. I think they might have used them as-is at first, but then decided it provided incentive to run up the score and they couldn't have that. Nevermind that the human polls clearly react to margins of victory as well. So the BCS jackasses forced any computer ratings that would be included in the BCS formula to explicitly not make use of margin of victory. Which pretty much made the computer rankings crappy and useless. And so when people caught on to the fact they were crappy and useless the coaches, public and especially sports writers complained about them incessantly. So when they were setting up this new system they decided to exclude the computers.

And somehow not considering margin of victory was passed along to this process.

I think there is also some bullshit about individual committee members not being allowed to consider any "unapproved" metrics or data. So things like SOS-adjusted net yards per play isn't something they are "allowed" to look at.

It is all pretty comical. For now. If a deserving Husky team gets left out b/c of any of the above bullshit I will probably lose perspective and not take a walk around the block to cool off.

NEsnake12 said:

The issue with including margin of victory as a factor in the computer polls is that you have assholes like Harbaugh purposely running up the score against shit teams like Rutgers. It should definitely be taken into consideration with this new committee though, given that anyone with half a brain can see the difference between when a team had the game won at half and hit the brakes, versus running up the score.

It's really not a problem. You simply cap the point at which incremental scores make a difference at a differential of like 35 points and an absolute score cap of 59 points.

The better computer systems already do something like that.

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

Stinky_Hankey said:

The problem is the committee. There should be no fucking committee. Win your conference and you are in. Nuf said on that.

There's the dumbest thing I will read all day.

You have got to be kidding. You're ok with *our Husky's fate being in the hands of Condy and TWFS? Really? Its time to take all the subjective bullshit out of the equation. Win and you're in. Its almost too simple.

AIRWOLF said:

NEsnake12 said:

The issue with including margin of victory as a factor in the computer polls is that you have assholes like Harbaugh purposely running up the score against shit teams like Rutgers. It should definitely be taken into consideration with this new committee though, given that anyone with half a brain can see the difference between when a team had the game won at half and hit the brakes, versus running up the score.

It's really not a problem. You simply cap the point at which incremental scores make a difference at a differential of like 35 points and an absolute score cap of 59 points.

The better computer systems already do something like that.

Correct.

AZDuck said:

The year Oregon made into the playoff, the committee churned out some weird results the first few weeks, and then in the final the eventual natty champs got a #4 seed because they "hadn't played anyone." The Big XII got the shaft, but let's be honest, they deserved it. (@Tequilla hardy har har)

Win out and UW is in. It's just that simple. If you? lose a game on the way, then you put yourself at the subjective mercies of Ty Willingham, Condoleeza Rice and Mike Mullens.

Somebody else has already mentioned it, but it seems like the first rankings always have something controversial to generate hype.

Why does this surprise anyone? Cunnilingus Rice (the Mexican dish) and Tyrone are making these decisions. Enough said on that.