On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:
> The four best teams is a completely subjective and arbitrary standard. There is
> no way to measure that. What I think are the four best teams probably won't be
> what somebody else thinks are the four best teams. Furthermore, if you were
> to really put the four best teams in the playoff, you might have to put in a great
> but underachieving team (Ohio State, Georgia?). In some years that could be
> a team with two or three losses. There is no way to measure the four best..
>
> What we can measure are accomplishments. By that criteria, Michigan,
> Washington, FSU, and Texas would get the nod. The first three because they
> are undefeated Power 5 conference champions and Texas would get the nod
> over Alabama because they beat them head-t0-head.
>
> The committee neither selected the four best teams nor the four most
> accomplished teams. Their choices were political. They didn't want to ruffle
> feathers by leaving the SEC out. They had to take Alabama over Georgia but
> they couldn't justify putting Alabama in and leaving Texas out so they took
> put them both in and gave the finger to FSU. I truly believe that if Georgia
> had won the SEC, they would have selected the four unbeaten conference
> champions and left Texas out.

I completely agree with this, and it wasn't talked about enough.

Alabama being thrown in the mix is probably what saved texas too.

I'm someone who believes that HTH doesn't *always* have to trump everything else(assuming similar number of losses). But a lot of people do, so when the committee decided that they had to take alabama due to the significant of the win against georgia(which is a reasonable stance in my opinion.....I mean you have to reward those type of wins, of which there was only 1 this year and only 1 every 3-4 years probably) they also decided they had to take Texas due to the HTH(or people would really lose it). So FSU is the odd team out, and the travis injury was their supposed cover.....

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:49:07 -0800 (PST), michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 9:58:27?AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:
>> The four best teams is a completely subjective and arbitrary standard. There is
>> no way to measure that. What I think are the four best teams probably won't be
>> what somebody else thinks are the four best teams. Furthermore, if you were
>> to really put the four best teams in the playoff, you might have to put in a great
>> but underachieving team (Ohio State, Georgia?). In some years that could be
>> a team with two or three losses. There is no way to measure the four best.
>>
>> What we can measure are accomplishments. By that criteria, Michigan,
>> Washington, FSU, and Texas would get the nod. The first three because they
>> are undefeated Power 5 conference champions and Texas would get the nod
>> over Alabama because they beat them head-t0-head.
>>
>> The committee neither selected the four best teams nor the four most
>> accomplished teams. Their choices were political. They didn't want to ruffle
>> feathers by leaving the SEC out. They had to take Alabama over Georgia but
>> they couldn't justify putting Alabama in and leaving Texas out so they took
>> put them both in and gave the finger to FSU. I truly believe that if Georgia
>> had won the SEC, they would have selected the four unbeaten conference
>> champions and left Texas out.
>
>I completely agree with this, and it wasn't talked about enough.
>
>Alabama being thrown in the mix is probably what saved texas too.
>
>I'm someone who believes that HTH doesn't *always* have to trump everything else(assuming similar number of losses). But a lot of people do, so when the committee decided that they had to take alabama due to the significant of the win against georgia(which is a reasonable stance in my opinion.....I mean you have to reward those type of wins, of which there was only 1 this year and only 1 every 3-4 years probably) they also decided they had to take Texas due to the HTH(or people would really lose it). So FSU is the odd team out, and the travis injury was their supposed cover.....

HTH doesn't necessarily yield the best team, often it doesn't. A lucky turnover, a bad call, etc. can keep the better team from winning. HTH is fun
for rivals and fans, but should not mean the winner must always and forever be ranked above the loser. The rest of the season must also be looked at,
especially closer to season end. Bowl game and conference championship rematches have demonstrated this many times. My favorite is FSU and UF in
1997. #2 FSU beat #1 Florida final game of the regular season by 3 points, a game when UF's entire offense line was out with injuries. Both were then
chosen as the best teams for the Sugar Bowl. Bowden shit, he knew the Gators were the better team, and FSU could likely win a NC against any other
team but lose one if they played the Gators. In the rematch with their line back, the Gators won by 32 points.

In 1993 #2 Notre Dame beat #1 FSU by intercepting an endzone pass at the end. Next game ND lost to #17 Boston College then beat #7 T-A&M by 3.
while FSU crushed NS State by 60, beat #6 UF and then #2 Nebraska, and there are still those who think ND should have jumped past FSU to #1. If ND and
FSU had played 10 times that season, it probably would have been 8-2 in FSU's favor. It's BS to think one close HTH meant ND should always be ranked
higher than FSU regardless of how the season progressed.

And, anyway, the pros demonstrate the insignificance of mid-season HTH regularly.

In the Texas-Alabama case, though, both teams had good seasons. Their HTH was first game and Alabama has gotten better as the season progressed, so it
will be interesting and good football if they get to play each other again.

On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 4:33:29 PM UTC-5, j...@mich.com wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:49:07 -0800 (PST), michael anderson <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 9:58:27?AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:
> >> The four best teams is a completely subjective and arbitrary standard. There is
> >> no way to measure that. What I think are the four best teams probably won't be
> >> what somebody else thinks are the four best teams. Furthermore, if you were
> >> to really put the four best teams in the playoff, you might have to put in a great
> >> but underachieving team (Ohio State, Georgia?). In some years that could be
> >> a team with two or three losses. There is no way to measure the four best.
> >>
> >> What we can measure are accomplishments. By that criteria, Michigan,
> >> Washington, FSU, and Texas would get the nod. The first three because they
> >> are undefeated Power 5 conference champions and Texas would get the nod
> >> over Alabama because they beat them head-t0-head.
> >>
> >> The committee neither selected the four best teams nor the four most
> >> accomplished teams. Their choices were political. They didn't want to ruffle
> >> feathers by leaving the SEC out. They had to take Alabama over Georgia but
> >> they couldn't justify putting Alabama in and leaving Texas out so they took
> >> put them both in and gave the finger to FSU. I truly believe that if Georgia
> >> had won the SEC, they would have selected the four unbeaten conference
> >> champions and left Texas out.
> >
> >I completely agree with this, and it wasn't talked about enough.
> >
> >Alabama being thrown in the mix is probably what saved texas too.
> >
> >I'm someone who believes that HTH doesn't *always* have to trump everything else(assuming similar number of losses). But a lot of people do, so when the committee decided that they had to take alabama due to the significant of the win against georgia(which is a reasonable stance in my opinion......I mean you have to reward those type of wins, of which there was only 1 this year and only 1 every 3-4 years probably) they also decided they had to take Texas due to the HTH(or people would really lose it). So FSU is the odd team out, and the travis injury was their supposed cover.....
> HTH doesn't necessarily yield the best team, often it doesn't. A lucky turnover, a bad call, etc. can keep the better team from winning. HTH is fun
> for rivals and fans, but should not mean the winner must always and forever be ranked above the loser. The rest of the season must also be looked at,
> especially closer to season end. Bowl game and conference championship rematches have demonstrated this many times. My favorite is FSU and UF in
> 1997. #2 FSU beat #1 Florida final game of the regular season by 3 points, a game when UF's entire offense line was out with injuries. Both were then
> chosen as the best teams for the Sugar Bowl. Bowden shit, he knew the Gators were the better team, and FSU could likely win a NC against any other
> team but lose one if they played the Gators. In the rematch with their line back, the Gators won by 32 points.
>
> In 1993 #2 Notre Dame beat #1 FSU by intercepting an endzone pass at the end. Next game ND lost to #17 Boston College then beat #7 T-A&M by 3.
> while FSU crushed NS State by 60, beat #6 UF and then #2 Nebraska, and there are still those who think ND should have jumped past FSU to #1. If ND and
> FSU had played 10 times that season, it probably would have been 8-2 in FSU's favor. It's BS to think one close HTH meant ND should always be ranked
> higher than FSU regardless of how the season progressed.
>
> And, anyway, the pros demonstrate the insignificance of mid-season HTH regularly.

Nobody's arguing HTH is the be-all end-all. Otherwise, people would be arguing that Oklahoma should be in over Texas and then find themselves in a giant loop. The point is that HTH is used as a tie-breaker for close situations.

But if we are going to hold out teams that are worse but won their games from the postseason, why don't we nix Washington's place in the CFP and give it to Oregon? Sure Washington beat Oregon twice, but it was very close both times and the first time Washington was at home. 7 other data points from comparative Pac-12 games suggest that Oregon is actually the better team than Washington. And all the predictive computers agree: Oregon is a better team than Washington. But we don't reward on that, we reward on W-L.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 07:54:03 -0800 (PST), JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 4:33:29?PM UTC-5, j...@mich.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 07:49:07 -0800 (PST), michael anderson <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 9:58:27?AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:
>> >> The four best teams is a completely subjective and arbitrary standard. There is
>> >> no way to measure that. What I think are the four best teams probably won't be
>> >> what somebody else thinks are the four best teams. Furthermore, if you were
>> >> to really put the four best teams in the playoff, you might have to put in a great
>> >> but underachieving team (Ohio State, Georgia?). In some years that could be
>> >> a team with two or three losses. There is no way to measure the four best.
>> >>
>> >> What we can measure are accomplishments. By that criteria, Michigan,
>> >> Washington, FSU, and Texas would get the nod. The first three because they
>> >> are undefeated Power 5 conference champions and Texas would get the nod
>> >> over Alabama because they beat them head-t0-head.
>> >>
>> >> The committee neither selected the four best teams nor the four most
>> >> accomplished teams. Their choices were political. They didn't want to ruffle
>> >> feathers by leaving the SEC out. They had to take Alabama over Georgia but
>> >> they couldn't justify putting Alabama in and leaving Texas out so they took
>> >> put them both in and gave the finger to FSU. I truly believe that if Georgia
>> >> had won the SEC, they would have selected the four unbeaten conference
>> >> champions and left Texas out.
>> >
>> >I completely agree with this, and it wasn't talked about enough.
>> >
>> >Alabama being thrown in the mix is probably what saved texas too.
>> >
>> >I'm someone who believes that HTH doesn't *always* have to trump everything else(assuming similar number of losses). But a lot of people do, so when the committee decided that they had to take alabama due to the significant of the win against georgia(which is a reasonable stance in my opinion.....I mean you have to reward those type of wins, of which there was only 1 this year and only 1 every 3-4 years probably) they also decided they had to take Texas due to the HTH(or people would really lose it). So FSU is the odd team out, and the travis injury was their supposed cover.....
>> HTH doesn't necessarily yield the best team, often it doesn't. A lucky turnover, a bad call, etc. can keep the better team from winning. HTH is fun
>> for rivals and fans, but should not mean the winner must always and forever be ranked above the loser. The rest of the season must also be looked at,
>> especially closer to season end. Bowl game and conference championship rematches have demonstrated this many times. My favorite is FSU and UF in
>> 1997. #2 FSU beat #1 Florida final game of the regular season by 3 points, a game when UF's entire offense line was out with injuries. Both were then
>> chosen as the best teams for the Sugar Bowl. Bowden shit, he knew the Gators were the better team, and FSU could likely win a NC against any other
>> team but lose one if they played the Gators. In the rematch with their line back, the Gators won by 32 points.
>>
>> In 1993 #2 Notre Dame beat #1 FSU by intercepting an endzone pass at the end. Next game ND lost to #17 Boston College then beat #7 T-A&M by 3.
>> while FSU crushed NS State by 60, beat #6 UF and then #2 Nebraska, and there are still those who think ND should have jumped past FSU to #1. If ND and
>> FSU had played 10 times that season, it probably would have been 8-2 in FSU's favor. It's BS to think one close HTH meant ND should always be ranked
>> higher than FSU regardless of how the season progressed.
>>
>> And, anyway, the pros demonstrate the insignificance of mid-season HTH regularly.
>
>Nobody's arguing HTH is the be-all end-all. Otherwise, people would be arguing that Oklahoma should be in over Texas and then find themselves in a giant loop. The point is that HTH is used as a tie-breaker for close situations.
>
>But if we are going to hold out teams that are worse but won their games from the postseason, why don't we nix Washington's place in the CFP and give it to Oregon? Sure Washington beat Oregon twice, but it was very close both times and the first time Washington was at home. 7 other data points from comparative Pac-12 games suggest that Oregon is actually the better team than Washington. And all the predictive computers agree: Oregon is a better team than Washington. But we don't reward on that, we reward on W-L.

Agreed. But some do think HTH is all important. Others think w-l record is all important, regardless of SOS. None of it will matter much going forward
when there's actually a playoff.

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 10:49:10 AM UTC-5, michael anderson wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:
> > The four best teams is a completely subjective and arbitrary standard. There is
> > no way to measure that. What I think are the four best teams probably won't be
> > what somebody else thinks are the four best teams. Furthermore, if you were
> > to really put the four best teams in the playoff, you might have to put in a great
> > but underachieving team (Ohio State, Georgia?). In some years that could be
> > a team with two or three losses. There is no way to measure the four best.
> >
> > What we can measure are accomplishments. By that criteria, Michigan,
> > Washington, FSU, and Texas would get the nod. The first three because they
> > are undefeated Power 5 conference champions and Texas would get the nod
> > over Alabama because they beat them head-t0-head.
> >
> > The committee neither selected the four best teams nor the four most
> > accomplished teams. Their choices were political. They didn't want to ruffle
> > feathers by leaving the SEC out. They had to take Alabama over Georgia but
> > they couldn't justify putting Alabama in and leaving Texas out so they took
> > put them both in and gave the finger to FSU. I truly believe that if Georgia
> > had won the SEC, they would have selected the four unbeaten conference
> > champions and left Texas out.
> I completely agree with this, and it wasn't talked about enough.
>
> Alabama being thrown in the mix is probably what saved texas too.
>
> I'm someone who believes that HTH doesn't *always* have to trump everything else(assuming similar number of losses). But a lot of people do, so when the committee decided that they had to take alabama due to the significant of the win against georgia(which is a reasonable stance in my opinion.....I mean you have to reward those type of wins, of which there was only 1 this year and only 1 every 3-4 years probably) they also decided they had to take Texas due to the HTH(or people would really lose it). So FSU is the odd team out, and the travis injury was their supposed cover.....

The silly thing about the HTH standard is by the end of the season, somebody has to be ranked above another team that
beat them. There's no getting around it. HTH only means on one particular day, one team was better than another. Does
that mean we should ignore the other 11 games? I remember the uproar back in the BCS days when Colorado rolled
Nebraska in their regular season finale and beat Texas in the Big 12 Championship but Nebraska narrowly made it into
the national championship game based on the BCS formula. It was because the BCS formula took into account all the
games both teams played. It had no recency bias other than what existed amongst the pollsters. Colorado had lost TWO
regular season games and that was their undoing. HTH is important, but it shouldn't be used as an eraser. Despite
Alabama beating Georgia, I think Georgia has been the better team over the course of the season and if they four best
teams had been selected, Georgia would have been one of thm.

On 2023-12-16, JE Corbett <jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 10:49:10 AM UTC-5, michael anderson wrote:
>> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 9:58:27 AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:
>> > The four best teams is a completely subjective and arbitrary standard. There is
>> > no way to measure that. What I think are the four best teams probably won't be
>> > what somebody else thinks are the four best teams. Furthermore, if you were
>> > to really put the four best teams in the playoff, you might have to put in a great
>> > but underachieving team (Ohio State, Georgia?). In some years that could be
>> > a team with two or three losses. There is no way to measure the four best.
>> >
>> > What we can measure are accomplishments. By that criteria, Michigan,
>> > Washington, FSU, and Texas would get the nod. The first three because they
>> > are undefeated Power 5 conference champions and Texas would get the nod
>> > over Alabama because they beat them head-t0-head.
>> >
>> > The committee neither selected the four best teams nor the four most
>> > accomplished teams. Their choices were political. They didn't want to ruffle
>> > feathers by leaving the SEC out. They had to take Alabama over Georgia but
>> > they couldn't justify putting Alabama in and leaving Texas out so they took
>> > put them both in and gave the finger to FSU. I truly believe that if Georgia
>> > had won the SEC, they would have selected the four unbeaten conference
>> > champions and left Texas out.
>> I completely agree with this, and it wasn't talked about enough.
>>
>> Alabama being thrown in the mix is probably what saved texas too.
>>
>> I'm someone who believes that HTH doesn't *always* have to trump everything else(assuming similar number of losses). But a lot of people do, so when the committee decided that they had to take alabama due to the significant of the win against georgia(which is a reasonable stance in my opinion.....I mean you have to reward those type of wins, of which there was only 1 this year and only 1 every 3-4 years probably) they also decided they had to take Texas due to the HTH(or people would really lose it). So FSU is the odd team out, and the travis injury was their supposed cover.....
>
> The silly thing about the HTH standard is by the end of the season,
> somebody has to be ranked above another team that beat them. There's
> no getting around it. HTH only means on one particular day, one team
> was better than another. Does that mean we should ignore the other
> 11 games? I remember the uproar back in the BCS days when Colorado
> rolled Nebraska in their regular season finale and beat Texas in the
> Big 12 Championship but Nebraska narrowly made it into the national
> championship game based on the BCS formula. It was because the BCS
> formula took into account all the games both teams played. It had no
> recency bias other than what existed amongst the pollsters. Colorado
> had lost TWO regular season games and that was their undoing. HTH is
> important, but it shouldn't be used as an eraser. Despite Alabama
> beating Georgia, I think Georgia has been the better team over the
> course of the season and if they four best teams had been selected,
> Georgia would have been one of thm.

But you have to follow pre-agreed rules of assessment if you want to
avoid accusations of bias. The committee did a very good job of
conforming to those, so there are no real complaints. Sure FSU is
gonna whine; they kind of have to as a matter of fan service. But I
have seen very little real pushback, considering. Even FSU fans are
coming to terms with it.

If Georgia had beaten Alabama, does anyone question that we would
have had four undefeated teams in the CFP? Even though it would be
pretty clear that FSU was not one of the best teams minus their QB?
But the moment you have to let a one-loss team in, 1) you can't
exclude Alabama because you can't exclude the SEC, and 2) you can't
easily exclude Texas because they beat Alabama. FSU could be excluded
because of their QB. I really don't know what the committee would
have done if they didn't have that -- they would have had to negate
either 1) or 2) above.

If FSU whomps Georgia, they'll have a great time with their asterisk,
claiming they should have been national champions. I doubt that's
going to happen, though.

--
It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams
because they grow old, they grow old because they
stop pursuing dreams. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez