Against adding to playoff

[Cdog923]

1 minute ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

And with very little human bias.

 

You want to play for a National Championship? Your first hurdle is winning your Conference. Having 3 at large bids lets non-P5 teams have a chance (UCF anyone?) and allows for a conference to have more than one team in the playoff. A good example of that could be, two undefeated teams meet in a CCG and both end up in the playoff, one as the champion and one as a wildcard or "at large berth".

I believe that is his objective. 

 

I was stating my agreement

[Big Red 40]

43 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

Far to open to human bias. Human bias is why we have "mythical national champions" instead of National Champions. How can we claim to have a "true 1 vs 2" when human bias is involved in deciding who goes and who stays?

How is using data collected over the season human bias ? Numbers don’t lie . If you played a high sos and you won all your games you have a legitimate claim to #1 or #2 if you didn’t then you don’t . 

[jager]

SOS is biased. It is based on your perception of a team or possibly the teams rank. Sometimes the preseason rank is used, the time of the game rank is used, or the most recent rank is used. Everyone knows the preseason rank is bull. Listen to pundits through out the year and they will use the ranking that best promotes their agenda.

[Big Red 40]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

They only "got it right" in years where there were exactly 2 undefeated teams and they played each other in a bowl game.  Pretty sure that didn't happen too often.  How about 1994?  How about 1997?  I think the Huskers were the better teams those years but you don't really know unless you play it on the field.  How do you know they "get it right" if there are three undefeated teams?  How about if there is one undefeated team and several one-loss teams?

 

The four team playoff has been around all of for years and the #4 seed has won it twice.  The #1 seed has yet to win.  There is no justification for your opinion other than that's what you want to believe.

Use strength of schedule and other data gathered over the entire season to pick the best one loss team. 

I already stated there were times when other teams had a legitimate claim but that was the exception not the norm . I can’t think of a single year the #8 team in the country had a legit argument that they deserved to be #1 or #2 , or in the national championship game, under any scenario. 

[Big Red 40]

14 minutes ago, jager said:

SOS is biased. It is based on your perception of a team or possibly the teams rank. Sometimes the preseason rank is used, the time of the game rank is used, or the most recent rank is used. Everyone knows the preseason rank is bull. Listen to pundits through out the year and they will use the ranking that best promotes their agenda.

How else would you decide how good the opponents were ?  Would you say a team that wins the all their games against unranked opponents Is better than a team with a 1 loss season playing 4 or 5 top ten teams ? I wouldn’t 

[jager]

I agree with you. I’m just saying that stats can be manipulated. Look at when FSU lost their quarterback. After that they weren’t good, but it didn’t affect anyone’s SOS. How is that objective. Look at the SEC, it’s always biased. Yes, they have some tough teams, but the also have easy teams. Those teams affect schedules less compared to playing the weaker B10 teams.

[Cdog923]

10 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

How else would you decide how good the opponents were ?  Would you say a team that wins the all their games against unranked opponents Is better than a team with a 1 loss season playing 4 or 5 top ten teams ? I wouldn’t 

 

Without looking, in 2016, who was the better team: Nebraska or UCLA? 

[Big Red 40]

7 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

Without looking, in 2016, who was the better team: Nebraska or UCLA? 

I’d say UCLA mostly because I don’t remember us being good at all during the Riley years lol. Seriously though I do remember us having a very nice bowl win over them in 2016 yes . Not sure what the point is ? 

[Cdog923]

2 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

I’d say UCLA mostly because I don’t remember us being good at all during the Riley years lol. Seriously though I do remember us having a very nice bowl win over them in 2016 yes . Not sure what the point is ? 

 

The point is, UCLA went 4-8 in 2016, but had the 27th ranked SOS. Nebraska went 9-4, but had the 47th ranked SOS. 

 

Knowing that, who is the better team? The one who played a harder schedule and lost, or the one who played an easier schedule but won? 

[HS_Coach_C]

30 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

Use strength of schedule and other data gathered over the entire season to pick the best one loss team. 

I already stated there were times when other teams had a legitimate claim but that was the exception not the norm . I can’t think of a single year the #8 team in the country had a legit argument that they deserved to be #1 or #2 , or in the national championship game, under any scenario. 

The problem is, data is inherently biased.  The inputs, outputs, intent, the collection methods, weight of certain factors over others, the use (or exclusion) of additional variables such as home/away/injuries/etc.

It's not as black and white as you'd like it to be.

[Big Red 40]

3 minutes ago, HS_Coach_C said:

The problem is, data is inherently biased.  The inputs, outputs, intent, the collection methods, weight of certain factors over others, the use (or exclusion) of additional variables such as home/away/injuries/etc.

It's not as black and white as you'd like it to be.

The “selection committee “ for the playoff system is human beings. Humans have biases feelings etc . If the goal is to remove that , computers are a much better way . They have no feelings or bias . 

[Big Red 40]

17 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

The point is, UCLA went 4-8 in 2016, but had the 27th ranked SOS. Nebraska went 9-4, but had the 47th ranked SOS. 

 

Knowing that, who is the better team? The one who played a harder schedule and lost, or the one who played an easier schedule but won? 

That year we also beat them head to head though right ? Knowing that we get the nod . 

Without that in the equation I actually agree with Bohunk lol lots of subjectivity in that answer. 

[Mavric]

35 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

The “selection committee “ for the playoff system is human beings. Humans have biases feelings etc . If the goal is to remove that , computers are a much better way . They have no feelings or bias . 

 

Who programs the computers to put how much weight on which factors?

[brophog]

25 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

If the goal is to remove that , computers are a much better way . They have no feelings or bias . 

 

Completion percentage is a number, a ratio, no inherent bias. If I write an algorithm that double weights completion percentage to compute qb rating, then I've inserted bias towards qbs with that statistic.

 

One of the failings of the bcs was calling them "computers" when they're really human created data models. That's why there were multiple models to account for multiple bias.

[Redux]

2 hours ago, Cdog923 said:

Even then, the Big Ten is only at a 60% clip for getting teams into the CFP. 

 

We only have a 4 year sample size to base this conclusion on.  The bottom line is if the Big Ten champ has one loss, they are almost automatic.  The same can't be said about the Pac 12 or the Big 12, especially the Big 12.  The selection committee placing two teams from the SEC was soemthing they won't look to repeat this year.

 

That said, it's really neither here nor there.  My original point was this: A 4 team playoff is clearly the easier path to a natty because it's less games needed to win one.  Getting in isn't a problem for Nebraska if they can go 12-1 just like every other power 5 team.  It all depends on how the dominoes fall and how many two loss teams there are.  The Big Ten having multiple 2 loss teams is what hurt it, nothing more.

 

And furthermore, if you look at my op, I'm for moving to 8 teams anyways so this is a moot debate.