Who's better?

[URMite]

I know the best way to determine this is on the field. But how about when deciding who makes the playoff field?

Given the high number of variable factors:

"Any Given Saturday" motto

Home Field Advantage

Injuries and Depth

matchups - not every team is good at everything - which leads to the "transitive property" being a fallacy.

How do you decide between teams that are perceived as being close to the same quality?

As an example, if there are 2 teams that loss to a FBS and a seed and both only play 1 other playoff team. Both beat there playoff opponent but 1 beat the #7 team at home, the other beat #13 away. What else do you look at? What if one looks to have a bit better starters but no depth? What if one is steadily good and the other is occasionally great but also sometimes mediocre?

[89Hen]

IMO if you have two equally ranked/rated teams, you have to look at other variables...

- How they finished the season, the committee likes teams coming in winning not losing.

- Would one give the field a better balance (a western team vs another CAA or SoCon).

- Playoff history, would it be the same old same old loser, or can we expose a new market to the playoffs (Coastal, CalPoly).

- What is their support like (read attendance).

xtwocentsx

[URMite]

I stole your tiebreaker response on another thread and eliminated references to conference and AQ. How does this look for a model for the committee to use for at-large?

1. Head-to-head competition.

2. Combined winning percentage versus all common opponents.

3. Should a tie remain, one (1) point will be awarded for a victory versus
a I-AA opponent from the following conferences: Big Sky, Big
South, Gateway, Ivy, Mid-Eastern Athletic, Ohio Valley, Patriot,
Southern, Southland, Southwestern Athletic, and current independents;
one-half (0.5) point will be awarded for a victory versus a I-AA opponent
from the following conferences: Metro Atlantic, Northeast, and
Pioneer; and two (2) points will be awarded for a victory versus a I-A
opponent. In addition, one (1) point will be deducted for a loss to a
Division II or Division lII opponent. Points will not be awarded for a
victory versus a Division II or III institution, nor will points be deducted
for a loss to a Division I-A or I-AA institution. The team with the
most points would receive the bid.

Although I'm sure it would upset San Diego because of PFL, as well as much of the west because of DII. Some might even see that since we have this in our conference, it is evidence of institutionalizing "east coast bias".

But it certainly shows what our conference's opinion is.

[nwFL Griz]

I don't buy your 2 points awarded for a victory against a FBS opponent. Not all FBS opponents are created equal. For example, the entire MAC and Sun Belt would be worth 1 point in my book. I would also give only 1.5 points for a victory against any team that has less than 3 wins in FBS (i.e. Iowa St, Minnesota, Marshall)

But that's only my opinion.

[stevdock]

I don't buy your 2 points awarded for a victory against a FBS opponent. Not all FBS opponents are created equal. For example, the entire MAC and Sun Belt would be worth 1 point in my book. I would also give only 1.5 points for a victory against any team that has less than 3 wins in FBS (i.e. Iowa St, Minnesota, Marshall)

But that's only my opinion.

Just curious for next year, where would Central Michigan rate than? I think they are 4-4, but leading the MAC.

[appstate38]

I know the best way to determine this is on the field. But how about when deciding who makes the playoff field?

Given the high number of variable factors:

"Any Given Saturday" motto

Home Field Advantage

Injuries and Depth

matchups - not every team is good at everything - which leads to the "transitive property" being a fallacy.

How do you decide between teams that are perceived as being close to the same quality?

As an example, if there are 2 teams that loss to a FBS and a seed and both only play 1 other playoff team. Both beat there playoff opponent but 1 beat the #7 team at home, the other beat #13 away. What else do you look at? What if one looks to have a bit better starters but no depth? What if one is steadily good and the other is occasionally great but also sometimes mediocre?


The whole thing is very subjective. The dreaded SOS has to come into play at some point. There are alot of factors that have to be considered, but when it comes down to it at some point it is somebody's opinion based on all the factors just mentioned.

[URMite]

I don't buy your 2 points awarded for a victory against a FBS opponent. Not all FBS opponents are created equal. For example, the entire MAC and Sun Belt would be worth 1 point in my book. I would also give only 1.5 points for a victory against any team that has less than 3 wins in FBS (i.e. Iowa St, Minnesota, Marshall)

But that's only my opinion.

Even though I'm the one who brought it up, it isn't my system. This was the A10 tiebreaker for AQ last year (I assume same for CAA the year). So conference admin seems to respect the FBS but not DII, now that really could be "east coast bias", maybe fewer bad FBS and fewer good DII here.

I do think this system is an interesting place to start for at-large consideration, even if it needs some serious tweeking.

[nwFL Griz]

Sorry, thought it was yours.

Obviously this is better than a coin-flip to decide a tie-breaker. I also think that my way would obviously change from year-to-year, which may-or-may not be desirable.

SOS is such a hard thing to look at, because, as pointed out above, it will eventually be someone's opinion. But if you were to give me two teams, with identical records, from the same (or similar) conferences....then it boils down to OOC. Obviously you give credit in descending order for playing FBS teams, then to perenial FCS power conferences, then to non-scholly, then to DII and lower. You still have to look at the individual teams, though.

Hypothetical example (out of my imagination): Let's say Delaware and UMass finish any given season at 8-3. Both have their losses in conference. Delaware played and beat FIU, while UMass played and beat App St (2006 version), both on the road. Who are you more impressed with? The story may be different if Delaware had played at someone like Maryland, Indiana or even Air Force.

That's my point about FBS teams. While it is nice to be able to say you beat someone from FBS, to me, it doesn't mean much if it is Marshall or Iowa St.

But, hey....what do I know....I'm from Montana.

[appfan2008]

I don't buy your 2 points awarded for a victory against a FBS opponent. Not all FBS opponents are created equal. For example, the entire MAC and Sun Belt would be worth 1 point in my book. I would also give only 1.5 points for a victory against any team that has less than 3 wins in FBS (i.e. Iowa St, Minnesota, Marshall)

But that's only my opinion.

how many points would you give for a win over a team that is 7-2 and undefeated in the big ten!!! xnodx :p xlolx xnodx

[URMite]

Sorry, thought it was yours.

Obviously this is better than a coin-flip to decide a tie-breaker. I also think that my way would obviously change from year-to-year, which may-or-may not be desirable.

SOS is such a hard thing to look at, because, as pointed out above, it will eventually be someone's opinion. But if you were to give me two teams, with identical records, from the same (or similar) conferences....then it boils down to OOC. Obviously you give credit in descending order for playing FBS teams, then to perenial FCS power conferences, then to non-scholly, then to DII and lower. You still have to look at the individual teams, though.

Hypothetical example (out of my imagination): Let's say Delaware and UMass finish any given season at 8-3. Both have their losses in conference. Delaware played and beat FIU, while UMass played and beat App St (2006 version), both on the road. Who are you more impressed with? The story may be different if Delaware had played at someone like Maryland, Indiana or even Air Force.

That's my point about FBS teams. While it is nice to be able to say you beat someone from FBS, to me, it doesn't mean much if it is Marshall or Iowa St.

But, hey....what do I know....I'm from Montana.

I guess in my mind I do give more weight to almost any FBS (particular BCS) unless they are always bad (Duke, Temple).

I'm trying to see if a decent system can be devised for looking at the at-large candidates. I think it would need a lot more tiers than the above Maybe >.5 BCS <.5 BCS, >.5 other FBS <.5 other FBS, FCS 7+DI wins, FCS 6 or < wins, non-full scholly w/l, dII w/l... that would be 10 tiers.

BTW If 3 teams finish 7-1 in the Big Sky all going 1-1 against the other two, who gets the AQ? I get the feeling #3 above would be different out west.

[nwFL Griz]

I guess in my mind I do give more weight to almost any FBS (particular BCS) unless they are always bad (Duke, Temple).

I'm trying to see if a decent system can be devised for looking at the at-large candidates. I think it would need a lot more tiers than the above Maybe >.5 BCS <.5 BCS, >.5 other FBS <.5 other FBS, FCS 7+DI wins, FCS 6 or < wins, non-full scholly w/l, dII w/l... that would be 10 tiers.

BTW If 3 teams finish 7-1 in the Big Sky all going 1-1 against the other two, who gets the AQ? I get the feeling #3 above would be different out west.

Good question...and I have no idea. But I'm sure you're right....it might be different out west.