another attempt to figure out what conference is best

[beorach]

I stopped collecting stats ahead of the CCG weekend and here are the results...

Conference Ratings by Average Overall Z-Score

SEC: 0.204

B1G: 0.117

Big XI:- 0.108

ACC: 0.101

Pac-12: 0.070

These numbers represent the average z-score for nine categories (pass d/o, rush d/o, scoring d/o, total d/o, and turnover margin). I took the average z-score of all the individual stats within each of these nine categories and then took the average for all those average z-scores to come up with the average overall z-scores for each team. I averaged all of a conference's teams' average overall z-scores to get the conference rankings. For SOS, I took the average of all the conference teams' opponents average z-scores. You get it, right? I took a lot of averages!

To clarify, the z-score is just the difference from the national average in terms of the number of standard deviations. A z-score of 1 means the stat is a full standard deviation better than the national average figure. I only considered games played between the 128 FBS teams to determine means and standard deviations for statistical comparisons and I tried to normalize things...meaning I'd always divide figures by the number of games played...

Conference Ratings by Average Strength of Schedule

SEC: 0.141

ACC: 0.105

B1G: 0.080

Big XII: 0.061

Pac-12: 0.041

Conference Ratings by Average Defensive Category Z-score

SEC: 0.566

B1G: 0.384

ACC: 0.373

Pac-12: -0.198

Big XII: -0.438

Conference Ratings by Average Offensive Category Z-score

Big XII: 0.619

Pac-12: 0.325

B1G: -0.132

SEC: -0.149

ACC: -0.158

Conference Ratings by Average Passing Offense Z-score

Pac-12: 0.440

Big XII: 0.357

ACC: -0.103

SEC: -0.133

B1G: -0.204

Conference Ratings by Average Rushing Offense Z-score

Big XII: 0.514

Pac-12: 0.076

SEC: -0.001

B1G: -0.022

ACC: -0.108

I'm going to dump all the B1G stuff for the above categories now...

BIG Team over
Ohio State 0.973
Iowa 0.813
Wisconsin 0.692
Michigan 0.593
Michigan State 0.536
Penn State 0.159
Northwestern 0.101
Nebraska 0.012
Illinois -0.054
Minnesota -0.082
Indiana -0.105
Maryland -0.607
Rutgers -0.697
Purdue -0.697

BIG Team def
Wisconsin 1.702
Michigan 1.439
Ohio State 1.407
Iowa 1.040
Northwestern 1.039
Penn State 0.771
Michigan State 0.676
Minnesota 0.405
Illinois 0.362
Nebraska 0.069
Maryland -0.468
Purdue -0.974
Indiana -1.012
Rutgers -1.087

BIG Team off
Ohio State 0.748
Indiana 0.642
Iowa 0.476
Michigan State 0.243
Nebraska 0.207
Michigan 0.036
Wisconsin -0.198
Rutgers -0.423
Purdue -0.474
Minnesota -0.503
Penn State -0.513
Maryland -0.565
Illinois -0.616
Northwestern -0.908

BIG Team SOS
Maryland 0.438
Purdue 0.277
Illinois 0.204
Minnesota 0.190
Penn State 0.133
Northwestern 0.109
Indiana 0.079
Nebraska 0.077
Michigan State 0.072
Rutgers 0.052
Michigan -0.056
Ohio State -0.061
Iowa -0.181
Wisconsin -0.212

BIG Team po
Indiana 0.624
Michigan State 0.426
Michigan 0.181
Iowa 0.179
Ohio State 0.129
Nebraska -0.077
Penn State -0.110
Wisconsin -0.153
Rutgers -0.246
Minnesota -0.254
Illinois -0.299
Purdue -0.451
Northwestern -1.175
Maryland -1.628

BIG Team ro
Ohio State 1.629
Iowa 0.992
Maryland 0.416
Indiana 0.264
Nebraska 0.075
Michigan -0.065
Michigan State -0.156
Wisconsin -0.197
Northwestern -0.406
Rutgers -0.440
Minnesota -0.445
Penn State -0.572
Purdue -0.619
Illinois -0.788


PAC-12

Pac-12 Team over
California 0.036
Oregon 0.264
Oregon State -1.008
Stanford 0.524
Washington State 0.046
Washington 0.324
Arizona -0.296
Arizona State 0.040
USC 0.508
Utah 0.383
UCLA 0.369
Colorado -0.348

Pac-12 Team off
California 0.620
Oregon 1.339
Oregon State -0.781
Stanford 0.811
Washington State 0.399
Washington -0.208
Arizona 0.517
Arizona State 0.448
USC 0.713
Utah -0.030
UCLA 0.511
Colorado -0.437

Pac-12 Team def
California -0.551
Oregon -0.845
Oregon State -1.392
Stanford 0.402
Washington State -0.278
Washington 0.790
Arizona -0.995
Arizona State -0.385
USC 0.167
Utah 0.733
UCLA 0.304
Colorado -0.322

Pac-12 Team SOS
California 0.198
Oregon 0.089
Oregon State 0.164
Stanford -0.076
Washington State -0.128
Washington 0.123
Arizona 0.041
Arizona State 0.109
USC 0.116
Utah -0.018
UCLA -0.066
Colorado -0.066

Pac-12 Team ro
California -0.358
Oregon 1.529
Oregon State -0.022
Stanford 1.030
Washington State -1.458
Washington -0.381
Arizona 0.490
Arizona State -0.061
USC 0.169
Utah 0.096
UCLA 0.591
Colorado -0.715

Pac-12 Team po
California 1.158
Oregon 0.828
Oregon State -1.115
Stanford 0.792
Washington State 1.614
Washington 0.011
Arizona 0.280
Arizona State 0.510
USC 1.114
Utah -0.095
UCLA 0.267
Colorado -0.088


Big XII

Big XII Team over
Baylor 1.008
Oklahoma 1.156
Kansas -1.506
TCU 0.507
Oklahoma State 0.368
Texas -0.121
West Virginia 0.588
Texas Tech 0.050
Iowa State -0.515
Kansas State -0.456

Big XII Team off
Baylor 2.035
Oklahoma 1.580
Kansas -1.290
TCU 1.156
Oklahoma State 0.821
Texas 0.019
West Virginia 0.501
Texas Tech 1.683
Iowa State -0.092
Kansas State -0.226

Big XII Team def
Baylor 0.111
Oklahoma 0.839
Kansas -2.020
TCU 0.000
Oklahoma State -0.316
Texas -0.448
West Virginia 0.577
Texas Tech -1.552
Iowa State -0.827
Kansas State -0.746

Big XII Team sos
Baylor -0.145
Oklahoma 0.013
Kansas 0.208
TCU -0.037
Oklahoma State 0.048
Texas -0.001
West Virginia 0.110
Texas Tech 0.054
Iowa State 0.274
Kansas State 0.082

Big XII Team ro
Baylor 1.709
Oklahoma 1.221
Kansas -1.756
TCU 0.663
Oklahoma State -0.498
Texas 1.095
West Virginia 1.014
Texas Tech 1.370
Iowa State 0.125
Kansas State 0.193

Big XII Team po
Baylor 1.519
Oklahoma 1.421
Kansas -0.684
TCU 0.982
Oklahoma State 1.232
Texas -0.580
West Virginia -0.442
Texas Tech 1.200
Iowa State -0.259
Kansas State -0.821


ACC

ACC Team over
Clemson 0.938
Miami (Florida) -0.152
Florida State 0.655
North Carolina 0.742
Duke 0.084
Louisville 0.160
Pittsburgh 0.305
Virginia Tech 0.011
Boston College -0.114
North Carolina State 0.525
Georgia Tech -0.166
Virginia -0.354
Syracuse -0.587
Wake Forest -0.631

ACC Team off
Clemson 0.879
Miami (Florida) -0.218
Florida State 0.369
North Carolina 1.238
Duke -0.007
Louisville -0.202
Pittsburgh -0.124
Virginia Tech -0.503
Boston College -1.675
North Carolina State 0.492
Georgia Tech -0.245
Virginia -0.359
Syracuse -0.606
Wake Forest -1.253

ACC Team def
Clemson 1.256
Miami (Florida) -0.397
Florida State 1.042
North Carolina 0.284
Duke 0.228
Louisville 0.684
Pittsburgh 0.719
Virginia Tech 0.422
Boston College 1.421
North Carolina State 0.449
Georgia Tech 0.088
Virginia -0.318
Syracuse -0.759
Wake Forest 0.108

ACC Team sos
Clemson 0.060
Miami (Florida) 0.184
Florida State 0.024
North Carolina -0.078
Duke -0.114
Louisville 0.133
Pittsburgh 0.106
Virginia Tech 0.104
Boston College 0.210
North Carolina State -0.036
Georgia Tech 0.221
Virginia 0.180
Syracuse 0.245
Wake Forest 0.236

ACC Team ro
Clemson 0.636
Miami (Florida) -0.972
Florida State 0.623
North Carolina 1.903
Duke -0.042
Louisville -0.369
Pittsburgh -0.237
Virginia Tech -1.051
Boston College -1.095
North Carolina State 0.939
Georgia Tech 0.766
Virginia -0.567
Syracuse -0.453
Wake Forest -1.589

ACC Team po
Clemson 0.861
Miami (Florida) 0.504
Florida State 0.551
North Carolina 0.737
Duke -0.019
Louisville -0.123
Pittsburgh 0.302
Virginia Tech -0.203
Boston College -1.715
North Carolina State 0.138
Georgia Tech -1.060
Virginia -0.153
Syracuse -0.480
Wake Forest -0.775


SEC

SEC Team over
Vanderbilt -0.358
Tennessee 0.385
South Carolina -0.347
Mississippi State 0.157
Mississippi 0.513
Missouri -0.221
Texas A&M 0.118
Kentucky -0.127
Georgia 0.468
Auburn -0.076
Alabama 0.962
Florida 0.588
Arkansas 0.282
LSU 0.512

SEC Team off
Vanderbilt -1.315
Tennessee 0.372
South Carolina -0.595
Mississippi State 0.212
Mississippi 0.809
Missouri -1.554
Texas A&M -0.189
Kentucky -0.391
Georgia -0.235
Auburn -0.182
Alabama 0.364
Florida -0.352
Arkansas 0.533
LSU 0.432

SEC Team def
Vanderbilt 0.614
Tennessee 0.510
South Carolina -0.310
Mississippi State 0.255
Mississippi 0.351
Missouri 1.078
Texas A&M 0.496
Kentucky 0.093
Georgia 1.197
Auburn -0.110
Alabama 1.694
Florida 1.472
Arkansas 0.013
LSU 0.568

SEC Team sos
Vanderbilt 0.304
Tennessee 0.194
South Carolina 0.147
Mississippi State 0.245
Mississippi 0.094
Missouri 0.142
Texas A&M 0.077
Kentucky -0.042
Georgia 0.026
Auburn 0.206
Alabama 0.193
Florida 0.046
Arkansas 0.209
LSU 0.137

SEC Team ro
Vanderbilt -0.997
Tennessee 0.820
South Carolina -0.393
Mississippi State -0.726
Mississippi 0.258
Missouri -1.339
Texas A&M -0.476
Kentucky 0.318
Georgia 0.333
Auburn 0.357
Alabama 0.646
Florida -0.660
Arkansas 0.259
LSU 1.586

SEC Team po
Vanderbilt -1.340
Tennessee -0.047
South Carolina -0.484
Mississippi State 1.055
Mississippi 0.955
Missouri -1.193
Texas A&M -0.069
Kentucky -0.840
Georgia -0.279
Auburn -0.400
Alabama 0.118
Florida 0.086
Arkansas 0.889
LSU -0.318


When I look at the statistical distribution for the overall ratings, 0.578 is the standard deviation. By that rationale, the following conferences have the following number of great/terrible teams:

B1G has 4 great teams and 3 terrible teams

SEC has 2 great teams and no terrible team

ACC has 3 great teams and 2 terrible teams

Big XII has 3 great teams and 1 terrible team

Pac-12 has no great teams and 1 terrible team

This has nothing to do with talent nor W-L records. It's just the relation of teams' statistical performances relative to the averages set by all 128 FBS teams in games against other FBS teams. I may cut half the teams out next time and just go with the P5 teams but this is enough "work" for now... I think this is enough to question the eyeball test of even our playoff committee experts. There just aren't enough games between FBS teams from different conferences to really know what's what. I can't tell whether a team is a contender or a pretender but deviations from statistical trends are easily tracked and provide a factual basis, at least.

 

[NUance]

SEC has 2 great teams and no terrible team

_____Bwahahaha!

______/

("Mr. C", The Commodore)

 

[VA Husker Fan]

Those are selected "facts". W-L is a more important fact than anything you put in. If I read this correctly, and it's not very easy to read so maybe I'm not, you're saying the Big 10 has 4 great teams but Michigan State isn't one of them? That doesn't pass the eyeball test at all. Just because you found some things that are measurable doesn't mean those are the things that really say who are the best teams.

 

[beorach]

Those are selected "facts". W-L is a more important fact than anything you put in. If I read this correctly, and it's not very easy to read so maybe I'm not, you're saying the Big 10 has 4 great teams but Michigan State isn't one of them? That doesn't pass the eyeball test at all. Just because you found some things that are measurable doesn't mean those are the things that really say who are the best teams.

It's a fact that MSU, over the course of a season, didn't perform like a great team. Their passing defense numbers are pretty average. Their rushing offense numbers are below average. Total offense is another below average category for them.

I suppose my wording could be better. I tried to explain this but was probably too verbose and that obscured the overall message. I used the standard deviation as the cutoff because that means you're in the top third of the bell curve. When that's where you are for the average rating of all nine categories I considered, I thought it was fair to call those team performances great. Getting back to the B1G champ, MSU's average overall z-score was 0.536 compared to the standard deviation of 0.579. We're talking about hundredths as the difference but Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, and Wisconsin managed to exceed that for their respective averages over the course of the season (considering only their games against other FBS teams).

p.s. - Vandy is at a -0.358 so they were close. South Carolina's value was -0.347. For our bad teams, Purdue and Rutgers have the same -0.697 while Maryland's was -0.607.

 

[Mierin]

Those are selected "facts". W-L is a more important fact than anything you put in. If I read this correctly, and it's not very easy to read so maybe I'm not, you're saying the Big 10 has 4 great teams but Michigan State isn't one of them? That doesn't pass the eyeball test at all. Just because you found some things that are measurable doesn't mean those are the things that really say who are the best teams.

It's a fact that MSU, over the course of a season, didn't perform like a great team. Their passing defense numbers are pretty average. Their rushing offense numbers are below average. Total offense is another below average category for them.

I suppose my wording could be better. I tried to explain this but was probably too verbose and that obscured the overall message. I used the standard deviation as the cutoff because that means you're in the top third of the bell curve. When that's where you are for the average rating of all nine categories I considered, I thought it was fair to call those team performances great. Getting back to the B1G champ, MSU's average overall z-score was 0.536 compared to the standard deviation of 0.579. We're talking about hundredths as the difference but Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, and Wisconsin managed to exceed that for their respective averages over the course of the season (considering only their games against other FBS teams).

p.s. - Vandy is at a -0.358 so they were close. South Carolina's value was -0.347. For our bad teams, Purdue and Rutgers have the same -0.697 while Maryland's was -0.607.

Maybe you should have record as one of your categories. "Ability to win" is an important quality. It says something about the mentality of the players/coaches you have.

 

[beorach]

VA - I appreciate the convo even if we're confusing each other some. I suppose you're right that there is a path with the current system. I felt like I had explained my reasoning for what I had shared well enough to not have it called ridiculous is all. To give you a little grief back, do you realize you made opposite arguments in two different threads yesterday? In one, you were arguing that I needed to recognize that MSU is a great team (when I'm not doing anything except sharing stats and drawing some conclusions - the standard deviation thing is just saying they're not exceeding the 67th percentile (rounded up)). That would mean I prioritize their late season performance and the CCG, though. I was stressing that I was looking at the whole season and not a subset. That was the other thread. In this thread, you were arguing that I'm looking at a subset of games and needed to look at the whole season. Just looking at the B1G, you have less than a third of out-of-conference games that were played against P5 teams...and that was the second toughest scheduling for any P5 conference (with the ACC at 38%).

http://www.mcall.com/sports/mc-college-football-big-ten-scheduling-20150903-story.html

Moiraine - I appreciate the ideas. I'd like to do something like that and come up with some rankings. Incorporating strength of schedule is another stumbling block I have to overcome before I could, though. For now, I'm just sharing figures that I feel indicate some level of consistency in performance. There are certainly things the stats miss. E.g., Northwestern looks pretty weak on paper but they've come up with some quality wins. On a final note, I did stop looking at field goals the way we had talked about before...and I just consider touchdowns and total points (both per game to even things out when some teams didn't play so many FBS teams as others).

 

[VA Husker Fan]

I used "ridiculous" in the playoff thread. If you think the P5 is going to limit themselves to only 5 of the 8 playoff spots, I don't know another word to use. It will never ever happen. And this was a good year for the non-P5 (incl ND). Last year only 1 of them was ranked by the committee, and the year before 2. Who wants to see unranked teams in the playoffs?? And part of your reasoning included an error in the only fact I checked (WKU top 25 games).

As for Michigan St, they beat an Oregon team early which is actually very good when Adams is playing. You want to talk contradictions? How about listing Iowa as a great team in one thread based on your formula, and then calling it ridiculous in another thread that they would be in someone's 8 team playoffs?

 

[beorach]

Okay, it would seem we're not being friendly anymore (or maybe we never were and I just didn't realize it until now?). That's cool. I obviously hope you're wrong about the future of college football given that I agree wholeheartedly with the 'win your conference or you're out of contention for the national title' argument but everyone's entitled to his opinion.

Michigan State had one-score wins against two out of the three bottom feeders of the B1G plus they lost to us. Their stats put them below an average z-score that would translate to their being at the 67th percentile level among FBS teams - that's all I was ever sharing aside from my thoughts on those stats.

My issue with Iowa is entirely about schedule (given that they're not a conference champion - my favorite dead horse to wallop). Of the teams that were in the mix for playoff consideration down the stretch, their schedule was dramatically different. If you don't want to trust my SOS calculation, you can find them all over the internet. The first one that comes up has Iowa's schedule at 54th:

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other

I don't understand why some folks are hostile toward me for doing little more than sharing stats...projecting that I must think they're all that matter and that they represent the absolutely precise quality of all teams. I've had people insinuate that I don't watch college football. I'm totally fine with this (what I largely contribute here) not being everyone's cup of tea but I don't get why that preference needs to be expressed so extremely.

p.s. - I doubt we're so far apart as it may seem. As I've shared today, I think it would make sense to have half of the FBS be its own division and not allow its teams to play teams from any lower one. That would give us real data to look at instead of having all these cupcake game stats interspersed with those from games between the P5 conference teams. The reality now is you still have the little guy in the mix even if it may seem ridiculous to have them in the postseason mix...given their schedules not measuring up.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

Well, let's see. You used "ridiculous" in the other thread and then I used it, not intentionally, but I guess I was following the tone of your post.

You tried to point out a contradiction of mine, which I don't agree with, so I pointed out a contradiction of yours, which you only defended one side of. You still haven't backed off calling Iowa a great team, or acknowledged that your numbers aren't really too valid.

You see where I'm going here?

And then you accused me of skimming your post, which I just ignored because I didn't. I just didn't think it took much to shoot it down as a bad idea so I wasn't going to cover it point to point. I made my cases, WKU this year and unranked teams other years, don't belong in the playoffs, and the P5 teams won't give up 3 spots. What more do you need? You want conference champs only, fine. I totally disagree, and I guarantee it won't happen, at least not in anything close to the current BCS structure. Lop off the bottom half as you suggested in another post, and it probably would, but I have a lot of doubts that would happen either. The main reason is that lawyers and politicians would block it.

Maybe I was more to the point and not as friendly as you, but on the other hand, you don't really even address many of my points. Ignoring much of what I have to say and just repeating about your way isn't all that friendly either, no matter how you word it.

One more point, and I don't know how to make it friendly but I truly am trying to be constructive, is that your stat posts are almost unreadable. Not sure what to suggest--better formatting, maybe tables instead of just a long list, highlighting important parts, more explanation (not so much about the mechanics of the statistics, but what they really mean), something along those lines. I'm a numbers guy too, with 23 hours of college math, calculus and above, including a 300 level stats class (way back when) but I've opened up most of your threads and see a bunch of numbers between 1.5 and -1.5 and nothing to lead me what to really look at, and I usually just glaze over and close the tab. But what I do remember from the class is that you better have enough data to draw stats from, and 12-13 games isn't that much. Anyway, find a way to make the stats more readable and interesting and maybe you'll get better conversation.

 

[beorach]

I'm not going to waste any more time with a lot of what you wrote but figured I should clarify one thing, based on your quote below. You can have whatever problem you like with me and my conclusions, opinions, et cetera - that's a big part of what message boards are all about after all. The z-scores I've shared for college football statistics were accurately calculated, though (and I even divided appropriate figures by the number of games against FBS teams a team played to normalize figures and level the playing field - the average number of games played by FBS teams against FBS teams was barely over 11 (with Nebraska playing 12 but Alabama only playing 11, to give two examples)). There is absolutely nothing that requires higher math to do this. You take the difference between a statistic and the national average for it...and then divide by the standard deviation for that sample set of statistics from all the FBS teams. I took the average of all the z-scores in nine categories to come up with nine "ratings" for those categories. I then averaged those nine figures to come up with an overall rating for every FBS team.

When I considered a standard deviation off the average for that overall rating to be a good indicator that a team could fairly be considered great, that's just a matter of statistical significance. The average plus/minus one standard deviation encompasses 2/3 of your data in a normal distribution, as I recall from the most basic of stats instruction. I failed in describing that marker as a percentile last week because the 2/3 is in that range and the amount of data to the left is equal to the amount of data to the right...such that having exceeded the rating at the average plus one standard deviation means you're in the top sixth. We're then talking about the 83rd percentile. Iowa is one of 22 teams that put up numbers that are, to the statistically significant degree I just described, different than the national averages. These numbers were not adjusted in any way to reflect strength of schedule nor winning percentage. No category was given any more weight than another. The numbers are exactly what I described such that they cannot be valid or invalid. Is the sum of 2 and 2 valid? 4 is just the result of correctly calculating the sum.

Team overall
Oklahoma 1.156
Baylor 1.008
Ohio State 0.973
Alabama 0.962
Clemson 0.938
Houston 0.931
San Diego State 0.853
Western Kentucky 0.839
Southern Mississippi 0.838
Iowa 0.813
Appalachian State 0.796
Bowling Green 0.776
Georgia Southern 0.761
North Carolina 0.742
Navy 0.734
Boise State 0.693
Wisconsin 0.692
Florida State 0.655
Toledo 0.610
Michigan 0.593
West Virginia 0.588
Florida 0.588


I messed up the quote by editing it but here's what I was responding to:

'VA Husker Fan: "...or acknowledged that your numbers aren't really too valid."'

 

[VA Husker Fan]

The numbers aren't very valid in the sense that you used them to conclude who is a great team and who is not, but you yourself even disagreed with them regarding Iowa. You also somehow questioned the committee based on these numbers.

... I think this is enough to question the eyeball test of even our playoff committee experts.

To be more accurate, I should have said that your conclusions and interpretations of the numbers aren't very valid, IMO. Just because you can quantify something doesn't make it a good measurement.

You have 2+2 apples, and I have 4. But you have good healthy apples, and mine are undersized, bruised and going bad. Does 2+2=4? Not if you're trying to do any kind of evaluation of the apples.

 

[beorach]

The numbers aren't very valid in the sense that you used them to conclude who is a great team and who is not, but you yourself even disagreed with them regarding Iowa. You also somehow questioned the committee based on these numbers.

... I think this is enough to question the eyeball test of even our playoff committee experts.

To be more accurate, I should have said that your conclusions and interpretations of the numbers aren't very valid, IMO. Just because you can quantify something doesn't make it a good measurement.

You have 2+2 apples, and I have 4. But you have good healthy apples, and mine are undersized, bruised and going bad. Does 2+2=4? Not if you're trying to do any kind of evaluation of the apples.

Thanks for eventually clearing the numbers from judgment in your last post. That I don't think Iowa is worthy to be in a hypothetical 8-team playoff doesn't mean I "disagree" with the quality of their statistics. Furthermore, I'm perfectly fine with your not feeling that greatness should be determined by these calculations. There's no question these numbers the Hawkeyes put up are much, much greater than the average ones is all I was getting at. Taking the other thread's discussion here was largely the issue, I suppose. All I posted here for was to share information and generate discussion over what conferences have done relative to national averages. We've got a lot of teams and not enough games. That's why stats matter. It's hard to get a really clear picture of what's going on (as I opined in the OP).

Henry's probably not the best player in the nation but his stats, his team, and early marketing got him that trophy. I wonder how many voters didn't even watch many games involving the finalists and just looked at stats. I.e., I get that stats can be a problem. What's a bigger problem is we don't have enough out-of-conference games that matter to really know whether a team that looks good against its conference foes is really great. That's why I ran these calculations on conferences - there was simply not enough to see on the field to really determine one conference is much greater than another. As for the playoff committee, I don't think it's fair to be judging the numbers too harshly with respect to their seeding. Look at the spreads from Vegas. I've got the "right" order above, in terms of who the first round favorites are... The short money is on Alabama beating Oklahoma in the championship game, if you've paid attention.