FSU 24, Florida 19
Georgia Tech 30, Georgia 24, OT
Clemson 35, South Carolina 17
Louisville 44, Kentucky 40
So, this headline sounds good doesn't it? Especially when it comes on rivalry weekend. But, can anything substantial be taken from it? I would say that the Georgia Tech win is the only one that really surprised me.
When it comes to the argument about SEC bias and what not, I have always shrugged it off. I do believe that the SEC is the strongest conference. More importantly though, it's the most passionate one. So in a world where ratings equal money, I understand why networks like ESPN may lean a certain way. However, with all that said, the SEC is not as good as SEC fans want us all to think. The key for the SEC is that they almost always have multiple national contenders every year, which keeps more games nationally relevant longer into the season. From the top to the bottom though, it's not nearly the invincible league the crazy fans think it is.
For this week at least....GO ACC!!!
Comments
ACC goes 4-0 against the SEC this weekend.
1-loss Alabama jumps undefeated FSU for #1
SEC bias is alive and well
Point taken. Does anybody run a mock formula of the old BCS system anymore? I'd be curious to know how the points worked out for the top 10 or so relative to the selection committee.
Oh and FWIW, I think Vegas would favor Bama by double digits over FSU. And they are in the business of being right.
Vegas is in the business of balancing bets. If it thinks people will overbet on an overrated team, it will favor them by more points than they deserve in reality.
Having said that, all the betting bias in the world isn't worth double digits points.
Yep, the way Vegas lines work is they need to get as close to a 50-50 split on each side of the bet to make the most money possible. Therefore they are a reflection of the popular opinion, which may or may not be based on facts. In my opinion, the best way to figure out which team is better without them actually playing is to do a statistics-based analysis like joelestra's "By the Numbers" series. I hope that joelestra might do an analysis for the first round of the playoff because I have no idea how to do them myself.
As we saw in both the WF & anOSU games, the advanced analyses can be dead wrong.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. All the stats (or anything outside of Gray's Sports Almanac) can do is make a prediction. Anything can happen on the field, nothing has a true zero chance of happening. The stats are 100% factual, and interpreting them is somewhat straightforward, but they don't govern what actually occurs during the next game
Yeah, the entire game is an entropy machine: the ball will bounce the wrong way, a pass will slip out of a QB's hand, the wind will blow a kick wide, etc. Statistics is just the best predictor we have. Why watch the game if it's predictable?
You assume too much. I am very well versed in stats. In fact I make a nice living building statistical models.
If 99% of models predict a W for team A, but team B then the models are wrong because they didn't do their job. The user counts on the models being right more than they are wrong, but incorrect prediction is still wrong.
With regard to zero chance.... If you are working with discrete data, then odds of zero can't happen for a possible outcome. If you are working with continuous data, the predicting any single outcome (I.e., not a range of values), then the probability of the outcome is zero.
Now that we're done splitting statistical hairs.... No one gave VT a chance vs OSU. No one gave WF a chance (well... except French). Foir all intents & purposes the eventual winner was given zero chance of winning.
If Auburn had beat Bama, would no SEC team make the tourney?
I don't think the bias is strong enough to put a 2 loss SEC team in there based on the current standings. But with Ohio State being questionable now (after Barrett's injury) and the championship games looming, who knows. FSU, Oregon, and Ohio St. could all lose this weekend.
O God no, if they all lose they will try shoving two SEC teams into the playoffs.
Seriously was thinking the same exact thing. What would happen, two Big 12 teams then? And what if Mizzou beats Bama this week? Then what?
The story out of the SEC damage control camp is "But the SEC East isn't good/really SEC". Meanwhile if the SEC went 4-0 against ACC teams like Wake, Syracuse, UNC, and Pitt their story would be "LOL ACC SO BAD".
Exactly. No matter what happens, the SEC camp is always going to spin the story one way or the other to enhance their image. Too much big money invested by the media and the programs themselves to have any other narrative floating around.
Don't get me wrong, it's a tough conference, but I think they're top-heavy like most of the other conferences. You wouldn't know it because the media campaigns them as their champion 24/7.
Unfortunately I think you would have to throw Tech in there as we lost to Wake and Pitt this year...
You're absolutely right. The point is, if the SEC beats four middle of the road ACC teams, then it's treated as a reflection of the strength of the entire conference. Whereas if the ACC goes 4-0 against middle of the road SEC teams, then they get a pass because those teams are only mediocre SEC teams.
This is how I answered the SEC fans, if there are bad SEC teams how do SEC teams play tough games week in and week out?
That logic probably went way over their heads though
I was going to point out what the poster above did...that those are all SEC East teams...Though the GT win I feel is the best out of the bunch since Georgia is still a legit football team...Florida is a dumpster fire with a coach who is fired, Kentucky's coach is arguing for travelling calls, yes I know he is a Stoops' brother and probably wont be there for long., Clemson finally beat down on USCe but they have been so up and down this season I can't read them.
The thing that really pisses me off is that people think the Big Ten Conference is better then the ACC when it is not but they have the fan bases that bitch and cry the loudest and a lot of the media seem to think it is 20 or 30 years ago when their teams were legit.
35-21 bro.
"35-21 bro."
+1
#youcan'ttakethatawayfromme
The same UF team that put a big time beat down on uga, is what FSU faced. I agree that they've been inconsistent, but FSU took their best shot, the same one that uga got & FSU handled them reasonably well.
Well the "best" team in the Big 11 (or 12 or 14 or whatever they are meow) lost to one of the worst teams in the ACC this year so that should automatically elminate them from contention.
The argument I hear from Buckeye fans now is that it was early in the season and VT is so bad now that tOSU would never lose to them and so the lost shouldn't count...blah blah blah...I just want to point out that Alabama had a new QB this year and did fine besides no one has shown me proof yet that JT Barrett and Braxton Miller are anything but system QBs.
Well and * has now lost its starting QB for the rest of the season so they are not immune to the injury bug. Any given Saturday... (and usually Thursday ;) )
Puts anOSU's hype machine in quite a conundrum.,. If they claim the loss to VT was inexperienced qb & since that loss said qb has improved leaps & bounds to set passing records, so this is a vastly improved team, they then must suffer a demotion in consideration because said qb is out & a comp!etely green back up will take over.
This is exactly why the 'eye test' or the 'human element' is such bullshit. SEC teams 'look better' thus, the must be better teams. The 'best' team should not get a bid; the most 'deserving' team should. Use the BCS computer rankings. Select the 4 highest ranked conference champions in the top 6 teams. If there are less than 4 conference championships in the top 6, then start giving out at large bids. IT'S SO SIMPLE!!!!
EDIT: In case anyone was wondering, using the above method would have yielded the following teams each year.
2013
2012 Note that if we don't consider ND a conference champion, UF gets an at large bid, having the #2 best computer ranking.
2011 The most interesting year of the four listed - only two conference champions finish in the top 6, thus those two schools would get auto bids, with the bama and Kstate getting at large bids:
2010
This is what bothered me the most when they announced the playoff teams would be chosen by a committee and they are not bound to any polls to justify their choices.
College Football has now become more of a beauty pageant than it ever was during the BCS and somehow this got spun as being a good thing. With the BCS, at least there was a very clear computerized algorithm that determined the best teams and who would be playing for a title. The process was transparent, and while it wasn't perfect, it ended up getting it right more times than not (some would argue the times it got it wrong were when the human polls gamed the system, but I digress....).
Now, we're stuck with a system where, at the end of the day, the polls are thrown out the window, and this panel arbitrarily chooses which 4 teams get in based on the "eye test". Which is how you have a team that has won nearly 30 games in a row not sitting at #1 in the country when they're the only unbeaten playing the game. Who cares about results, they just don't "have the look". Its all bullshit predicated on this supermyth that the SEC is this superpower of a conference that cannot be matched, despite the growing evidence showing they're really just no better than anyone else.
I agree with your larger point about the idiocy of this system (why not have a BCS formula pick the top 4?), but having watched FSU, to me, they're not beating people as much as their opponents are failing to win. If Clemson doesn't fumble in OT, they probably win. If ND doesn't chip the defender, they win. If UF has a halfway competent offense, they win big. FSU is winning in spite of themselves and they are not, in my mind, worthy of #1. Good team, but not the best.
In my mind, they're the #1 team until someone proves they're not. Yeah, they had a lot of almost losses this year, but not once did the opponent actually knock them off. Alabama can't say that. Oregon can't say that. In fact, nobody else in football can say that, and FSU has been saying it for over 2 years straight now. They are the best team in football, because nobody has been able to beat them. Should that first loss happen, then we can talk, but until then, they are the undisputed best team in college football.
There might be that argument if they haven't play ed anyone but, they have, they've beaten ranked and they won the NC last year with nothing to show they're not the same team from last year.
They owned without their Trophy QB a game and they've won with their QB on a bad ankle.
Look, they might not look pretty and the come from behind stuff doesn't lend credence to the concept that they steamroll opponents but, it's still winning, every single game.
Or is it that by the virtue that their opponents have lost to them that proves them no good?
Kind of like not wanting to be part of a club that would have you.
It's BS FSU should be #1.
If another team should be #1 then don't lose.
That's the criteria,-don't lose. It's not about style, it's about the criteria set by unassailable rules.
I agree. We cried for years about the champs not being settled on the field, which got us the BCS. We still couldn't get everyone a chance to play it out on the field (see Auburn, etc.), so now we have a 4 team playoff.
CFP committee - please don't set us back over 15 years by not letting them settle it on the field! I was expecting an expansion of the BCS if we went to a playoff. Why? The human bias aspect that it was supposed to offset. The human polls make sure FSU gets its "we're number 1 until you beat us", while the computers tone down the hype a bit and use actual performance to help fill out the rest of the bracket (remember the highest and lowest result were thrown out).
I disagree with using the BCS formula to pick the teams. The BCS formula got it right once (last year) in the history of the BCS. Most of the teams were manipulated by the poles or the computers. Some of the computer rankings showed that they were nuts.
Well, the BCS may not have been perfect, but at least it was an attempt to remove or mitigate human bias. Now we have a dozen people, all of whom have connections to certain programs or conferences, picking who they like best. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. But I hate the very nature of it.
Oh, I think we aren't getting away from the personal bias in any way until we switch to an 8 team playoff, the five power 5 conference champions, 2 at large, and the group of 5 highest ranking team. No conference can have more than 2 representatives.
I would love to hear your argument for Bama then.
They just gave up 630 YARDS at home...they had to come back in the 4th quarter against a FOUR LOSS team...at home. They lost to a 3 loss team earlier in the year.
Yet they are "clearly" the #1 overall team? Sorry, but the SEC East is more of a dumpster fire than the ACC Coastal (which sounds insane, but look at the records). And the SEC West has literally 1 really good team and a few that are good. I don't think the Miss. teams are anywhere near as good as the SEC spin machine is selling, and the rest have 4 losses at least. Seems like some interesting double standard applied to the SEC vs. other conference, in this case FSU specifically. And it is happening. And the ESPN love fest and selection comittee bias might make it even worse.
Let's revisit this after the new rankings come out Tuesday. It's possible they could drop after that performance
I never said Bama was "clearly" the #1 team, never mentioned Bama at all. If I'm picking, #1 is Oregon.
I just don't understand how the UNDEFEATED defending national champions could NOT be the number 1 team. Absolutely blows my mind...
I do understand where there is some skepticism about FSU, based on their lackadaisical play (in the 1st half of games at least). But I agree with you. This isn't some situation where FSU is being highly rated because of a hype train. They havn't lost in 2 years!! And their wins include a National championship.
ESPN keeps saying its irrelevant what their ranking is because if they win out they will make the playoff. But I would imagine that now we are talking about seeding, so it does matter. Would you rather play Oregon or TCU/OSU on a neutral field for the first round? And I don't know how the bowl selection works, Is 1v4 locked into the Sugar Bowl and 2v3 the Rose? I would expect that FSU would be in a much better situation as a 1 playing close to home than a 2 or 3 playing a PAC-12 team in their home region.
I imagine the 1 and 2 seeds are placed in the bowl closest to their campus to better give them a home field advantage. And when you're talking about a potential Oregon vs FSU in the first round with Oregon the 'home' team, that little advantage could loom large on the field.
Even in that case, if everything holds as it has than Bama would get the Sugar Bowl as the 1 and FSU if they got back to the #2 would still be headed all the way west.
I would just love to see Mizzou find a way to win the SECCG and totally screw up everything.
But... but... It's Alabammer! They get those special Bear Bryant points that makes their 11-1 record better than a team that hasn't lost in two years.
I get that, but all of this goes back to my feelings about preseason rankings and the like. FSU started the year #1 because they were the defending champs. Pretty logical, but I hate preseason rankings in general, because the entire season becomes biased by them. They're all about last year's team, and not how good the current one is. Sure, FSU hasn't lost in a long time. They were straight-up dominant last year, no question, and that was a hell of a championship game. Credit where it's due; they earned that undefeated year.
I don't really feel strongly about this whole thing either way, but if you want to look at "best" teams, I don't think it's just about W-L. Sure, undefeated at the FBS level is damn near impossible to do and earns respect, along with a top ranking, but look at any other advanced metric, analysis of efficiency, FEI, etc. and FSU is nowhere close to being the best. FSU has been winning in spite of themselves. Sure, they've got enough athleticism to overcome deficits, so that's in their favor, but like I said above, a lot of their wins came because their opponent screwed up. They could easily be sitting at 3 losses or more. They're not, and that's reality, and they'll likely get a chance in the playoffs, but if it comes down to, say, Oregon vs. FSU, I say Oregon smokes them.
I also think GT has a legitimate shot at beating FSU next weekend. A few mistakes from the Noles like we've seen, and GT's offense will hang on to the ball way better than Florida did, and score a lot more points. I think it will be a very interesting matchup.
I'd say if you're undefeated at the end of the year, you were pretty dominant.
Don't get me wrong, I share your feelings about the pre-season rankings. I hate rankings that are opinion based period. It leaves too much room for bias. I realize that it's a necessary evil to a certain extent, but after a while I think win/loss is extremely hard to argue against.
For what it's worth, the CFCC rankings, which apparently use the bcs formulas, have the following top 10.
1. Bama
2. FSU
3. Oregon
4. TCU
5. Ohio st.
6. Mississippi st.
7. Mississippi
8. Baylor
9. Arizona
10. Michigan St.
Again, I am not saying that FSU is the best team necessarily.
But, if we ("we" being the collection of college football fans nationwide) that are clamoring for things to be "decided on the field"...well then at this point there is no way that Florida State isn't the #1 ranked team.
Might have lost. Could have lost. Should have lost, etc etc are meaningless terms that people use to make themselves feel better about their teams lot in life.
If we all subscribe to the notion that on field results are paramount, then Florida St., as the only undefeated team in big boy football, is the #1 team until someone proves otherwise on the field.
I don't disagree in principle; but the playoff makes the #1 ranking just sort of a beauty pageant. If FSU is the best, they'll win their playoff game and they'll win the championship. #1 only matters if it's yours after all the games are done. They'll get their shot, along with the other top 3 teams. If they were sitting at #5 and not getting a chance, I'd clamor for them to be included, just like in the BCS days if they were #3.
#1 isn't just a beauty pageant now though. Football is still a game of matchups. Sometimes they work in your favor, and sometimes they don't. Either way, the #1 seed is still given, no matter how slight the edge may be, some edge in terms of the game before them to reach the National Championship.
Before, #1 or #2 was irrelevant because you still had to play and beat the same team to win the NC. Thats not the case anymore. There is a major difference between playing the #4 ranked team close to home or the #2/3 ranked team far from home in the "first round", if you will.
If you're truly the best team, does it matter? We had two wild-card winners in the World Series, so don't the on-field results dictate what is true?
There's no human manipulation of playoff seeding in any professional sport though. Which means no chance for double-standard glad-handing.
Church...
The wild card teams are determined by having the best winning % of those who don't win a division. Playoff seeding is determined by winning %. At no point does human subjectivity play into the process at all. And this is constant across all sports. The only places where subjectivity plays a major, major role in the process is collegiate sports, where people's opinions are used to seed.
Perhaps my point was too obscure. I agree with what you're saying, but I'm trying to argue that there's contradiction here - AZ is saying matchups matter, so that the best team can prove itself. But above, the point was that the best team will always perform on the field to leave no doubt. So that's what I'm saying, if that's true, why does one need a favorable matchup to win? If you're the best, you'll win, period.
The "best" team is not always the team that wins it in an one and done scenario. The NFL is the perfect example, you see the "better" team lose all the time when it comes to the win or you're done playoff scenario. But that doesn't change the fact that seeding is paramount because the teams that have been the "best" over the course of a whole season usually warrant some advantage, no matter how slight, in their quest for the championship.
Its also the exact reason why in the NBA or the NHL, you very rarely see an upstart team win it all, as the "best" teams assert themselves over a 7 game series. Even in MLB where we just had 2 wild cards play for the world series, you arn't just going to luck your way into the 11 victories required to take home the big prize. In college football though, you could easily have a team thats not anywhere close to the top ten string together a couple big wins given the right circumstances.
Matchups are key, regardless. Take us for example. Are we a better team than Ohio State? It would take a real homer to try and make that case. BUT, our defensive scheme was a matchup nightmare for them and their QB. My point ultimately was that whereas being ranked 1 or 2 in the previous BCS system was completely cosmetic, because you played the same team on a neutral field regardless.
But now being 1 or 2 can make a big difference in terms of making it to the NCG, not least of which because of the physical location where you might be playing the game, and the matchup that is presented to you. The difference between being ranked 1 or 2 is can potentially be huge
What if it's Marshall or some other non-power 5 team. Can't use the argument for one conference and not the other.
For the record, I would vote FSU 1, but I don't think they are the best team. But as pointed out, seeding will be important, and assuming FSU doesn't lose to PJ, their undefeated record should matter. Even if they are like notre dame of a few years ago.
Personally, I'm of the belief that each season should be viewed in a vacuum. Last season doesn't matter, recruiting rankings don't matter, all that matters the 12-14 games played this season.
When judging teams before a game, I often find myself saying "team A would beat team B X times in 10 games." Once the game is played, that X doesn't and shouldn't matter. All that matters is what happens the one time the two teams do play.
ok. In those 12 games that have been played, FSU is the only team that has won every single one of those games. The absolute BEST record possible...and they didn't just play a schedule full of "Bob's Small Engine Repair and Community College's"...i don't understand how you could put someone else higher than that. But then again i am not in charge of the playoff selection.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I do recognize that not all wins are equal. Each win/loss should be assigned a value. A team is given a 'rating' equal to the sum of a team's win values minus the sum of the team's loss values. Teams are then ranked from highest rating to lowest rating. If a 1-loss team is rated higher than an undefeated team, then so be it.
Viewing each season in a vacuum...FSU also finished this regular season undefeated.
It seems as if this facet is being completely overlooked by a large number of people. Name the last time Alabama had 2 straight undefeated seasons (Small hint, its been awhile, since they have had 2 undefeated seasons total since 1992)
And I would argue that that many wins in a row is a combination of coaching and skilled players vice "luck". Their QB has looked human on the field (maybe a result of all the off field shenanigans?) and the rest of the team has stepped up and gritted through the tough situations he has put them in and still won. Until they lose they are still #1 in my eyes (which means exactly jack squat I know) and still the reigning champs.
You're completely supporting my point. I'm of the belief that it's not for a voter to decide if a team gets 'lucky'. For every 'lucky' play FSU has gotten, they've had plenty of other hustle plays. Assuming this evens out as sample size increases, all that matters is wins/losses and level of competition - all things that can be modeled by the Phil Steeles, the MIT Graduates, and others far smarter than I.
See: Auburn, 2013.
Using AP Rankings, as playoff not out yet,
Bama Beat 10th ranked, 20th, and 23rd, lost to 13th
FSU beat 19th and 21st
Ore beat 7, 16, 24 but lost to 8th
TCU beat 9 and 18, lost to 5th.
Bama lost to the worst team out of the group, Oregon beat higher ranked teams. FSU has not played as hard a schedule, but has not lost. TCU played one less ranked, but lost to the best, and beat higher ranked teams than Bama.
Based on this there no logical way Bama is 1st. Every other team has a record based reason to be higher ranked.
Finally, why is TCU ahead of Baylor? I thought head-to-head was supposed to mean something.
I think Baylor is suffering due to OOC scheduling.. they still have a solid chance to jump TCU with a good showing vs K-State
This is what I hate. Same record, with a head to head win....how are they below them...insanity I tell you!
Because Baylor's OOC schedule is a travesty, while TCU's win @ Minnesota and their shelacking of some of the other teams int he Big 12 helps them.
Baylor could very easily move up if they impress against Kansas St. which is a big if.
TCU has a better loss, too. No mediocre teams have beaten TCU. Or Florida State, Alabama, or Oregon. OSU has a problem though...same as Baylor. I could see Baylor getting in in TCU's stead after beating KSU (not a given) and having the head-to-head. But the out of conference games Baylor played should literally keep them out of the playoff. I'm cool with the fact that you can schedule a tough team that doesn't play well throughout the year (see: FSU/OkSt) but I cannot fathom the committee rewarding the OOC schedule Baylor put up this year.
The elephant in the room on that argument though is this, TCU's better loss is to the very team on the other side of the debate.
There was great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the playoffs for some time because people claimed it would devalue results during the regular season. I didn't necessarily believe that, but an 11-1 TCU getting in over an 11-1 Baylor team that beat them might validate that concern in year 1.
TCU did play Minnesota, but both teams both played a god awful SMU team and the 1 other nobody.
Agreed. 11-1 TCU over 11-1 Baylor would create controversy.
Of the two, I'd argue that the Big 12 champion should be the one to get in, and that should be the final straw for being included. Didn't win your conference and lost to the team who did? Sorry, TCU, but you'd be out. If K-State beats Baylor, then TCU.
I just don't like the idea that a team with Baylor's OOC schedule would even get the chance. I was under the impression that OOC schedule, at least an attempt to have a challenging OOC schedule, would have mattered a lot.
Having said all that, the champions of the PAC12 (either Oregon or AZ), SEC (hopefully just Alabama to consider here), ACC (assuming it is FSU), and either the Big 12 or Big 10 champion will get in. I think if OSU beats Wisconsin, Baylor wins, and Ore/FSU/Bama all win, then OSU should go over Baylor, who I think would be the natural choice out of the Big 12.
I think the commish of the Big 12 has already stated that if Baylor wins, they will name TCU and Baylor co-champions, and leave the decision of whom to choose up to the committee. Smart move on his part, as it allows them to make the best case of any conference to have minimum of 1, if not 2 teams in the playoff depending on the outcomes of the other conference championship games.
Talking OOC schedule though, Florida St. had Ok. State, Notre Dame, and Florida on their OOC, along with a strong ACC Atlantic schedule. You would be hard pressed to find any P5 team with an OOC that good, even if Ok. State ended up not being that great and Notre Dame melted down after they lost to ASU.
How the hell do you justify dropping FSU to 4th? Because they scrapped by a Florida team with a pretty dagone good defense? They're the only undefeated team in the FBS. You want to argue about whether or not they deserve to be first, ok, I'll listen. But 4? Seriously??
It makes about as much sense as a short curl route on 3rd and 18.
Yeah. The committee has it out for them. I hate the way they're changing the criteria on the fly as they go. Okie State and Norte Dame are no longer good wins.
I kinda hope they keep them 4th and then they beat their precious Alabama in the first round.
I agree. Its very dumb for the committee to consider wins over OK State and ND weak and then the same committee has ND way up in the rankings for way longer than they deserved.