ONE factor, and that's AFTER they judge at least two teams to be "comparable".
THEN, we are in agreement (although that pains me to say it...)
Louisville's playoff chances
- Thread starter TheRealVille
- Start date
- Status
THEN, we are in agreement (although that pains me to say it...)
For anyone late to the dance, this "tiger" a$$hat is an interloper from some fanbase that he won't claim. And he drops by every week or so to try to throw water on whatever pro-U of L conversation he wants to obsess on.
Fortunately, he's an idiot. And he will post over and over and over again to make sure everyone is convinced...
Fortunately, he's an idiot. And he will post over and over and over again to make sure everyone is convinced...
That leads you to a problem. How does the committee determine how a team is "comparable??" You can't say strength of schedule, because SOS is also on the list of "tie breakers." You also can't use head-to-head or common opponents, because those are also on the list of "tie breakers." So for example, if we have Pac 12 champ 12-1 Washington vs. non-champ 11-1 Michigan, how do you determine who's better? You can't say, "Well, Michigan plays a tougher schedule," because SOS is only a "tie breaker." See the problem? Anytime you have P5 teams with the same record, you are pretty much going to have to go to the "tie breaker."
Here is my point. The chaos you are talking about doesn't really matter. The odds are, the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, and Pac 12 champs will most likely all be 12-1. If that is the case, those four teams are getting in. It doesn't matter if it's Alabama at 12-1 or Tennessee at 12-1. A non-champ is simply not jumping either of those teams to get in to the playoffs.
I'm not telling you Louisville can't make the playoffs. Right off the bat, I'll agree it's certainly possible Clemson loses 2 games. It's also possible that Washington loses 2-3 games. Ditto Alabama and Ohio St. The point of these discussions (both on this board and in general) has been whether Louisville can get in the playoffs without winning the conference. If the conference champs don't drop a couple of games, then it's not realistic. It's either going to take Louisville winning the ACC outright, or another P5 champ dropping a couple of games.
They're purposely vague about how they decide that they have "comparable" teams. And I'd argue--as much as it offends fans--that they want the process to be a glorified look test.
They want a process something like the committee sitting down and polling its members on the four best teams, and comparing results with NO criteria formally applied. If by chance the same four teams are on each member's list, the meeting is over. If three teams are on 90% of the lists, that's probably good enough for those three teams. The 4th slot that maybe involves 3-4 lesser teams is when the criteria get applied: SOS, head-to-head, champs, etc.
That is along the lines of what is described in the CFP protocol. I don't know or have evidence that it's exactly like that. What I read is that the criteria are applied AFTER the committee believes that it has two or more comparable teams without defining how it gets to that point...
Vegas says the Cardinals are favorites on a neutral field versus anyone not Alabama and Uh-hi-uh State. By my math, that makes Louisville the 3rd best team in NCAAF according to Vegas. And as I've said before - good enough for someone to build all those pyramids & fountains in the middle of nowhere in the desert, then good enough for me, topdecktiger, and anyone else on a message board.
The CFP protocol does not say AFTER. Nowhere does it say AFTER. You are trying to make the case that "tie breaker" = after. If you've already determined the 4 best teams, then there is no tie breaker.
I don't believe I said my opinion was more valid. You really need reading comprehension lessons. Strength of schedule has everything to do with BOTH your out of conference AND conference schedule. If you play in a better, tougher conference then it naturally follows that your schedule will be tougher. And, by the way, you should send all of your proclamations to Michigan after their little dance thru the lillies over Rutgers. If you don't believe that UM believes margin of victory matters then you MUST believe pigs will be flying by noon ANYDAY. Sheesh!
GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!
You are missing the point, regarding strength of schedule. SOS doesn't trump a conference championship. If you have two P5 teams with the same record, the conference champ isn't going to be trumped by the other team's SOS.
It doesn't matter what Michigan believes about margin of victory. All you have to do is read the CFP procedure, and it specifically says they don't consider margin of victory.
You left out one loss Miami and Virginia Tech from the ACC...Either one could get to the ACCCG and beat a 12-0/11-1 Clemson for the Title...Now, where's that put Clemson!?!?!?
You are falling into what I call the chalk fallacy. Everyone is betting this horse, so he must be good. That is not the way betting works and it is not the way the odds work. Bettors who know what they are doing bet value. If there are two horses, one of which you think has a 50/50 shot of winning and one that has a 25% chance of winning (based on your handicapping) then "fair odds" should put the first at 1-1 and the second at 3-1. If those are the odds on the tote board though, you layoff. There is no value. If, on the other hand, the first is sitting at 3-2 or the second is at 9-2, you hammer it. You know you are going to lose two thirds of the time, so you have to get value.
Vegas moves its odds based on the bets. If too much is coming in on one team relative to the rest, they lower the odds to discourage more. (Just like a tote board does automatically.) The odds do not reflect a probability of success nor do they represent relative quality. The CFP committee rightly does not look at Vegas odds because Vegas odds are meaningless in their assignment.
I have said this before: It has nothing to do with one loss or UL. I don't care if we are talking about Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama or anyone else. If you do not win your division, you are not getting in over a 0/1 loss P5 champion. Period.
I bet you are a miserable person to be around. The most negative person I have ever read as far as post. Gonhave a drink or a smoke. Relax man. Be a positive person.
without humility and focus we can forget about any hope of a playoff.
all of the snobbish, elitist talk on radio and people spewing the TALK, made its way to the kids.
we can not be a team that is snobbish or elitist.
tonight is a product of believing our own press clippings.
all of the snobbish, elitist talk on radio and people spewing the TALK, made its way to the kids.
we can not be a team that is snobbish or elitist.
tonight is a product of believing our own press clippings.
Odds do not reflect probability of success. They reflect what people THINK is the probability of success. To your point, that could be two different things.
BUT the organ that people do their thinking with is the same one that's trying to decide the four best teams. That makes something like Vegas odds perfectly representative of a human thought process yielding the "four best teams".
And truth be told, we don't know what the CFP committee uses to come up with those teams because as they say, "it's more art than science". We only know the criteria they're supposed to use to break ties, ONE of which is conference champs...
Thanks for restating my own case.
If there are four "best teams", then SOS, head-to-head, conference champ, and any other tie-breaker are not applied. There is no prescribed process to come up with those teams before you try to apply tie-breakers or decide if you even need them.
There is a BEFORE (coming up with 4 teams) and AFTER (applying tie-breakers if you need them)...
Typical lawyer dodge - cherry pick a line and quote it out of context. You conveniently leave out the next line which says this is impossible to do. I would hate for you to represent me in court
Hey teamcanada CL doesn't claim to be a litigator and he's right, he's no litigator. Bullshitter for sure but not a litigator. Guys like CL and topdecktiger come over here on our free board and spout all their "all knowing bullshit" knowing that we cannot go over to their free boards because they either don't exist or that we'll be banned the second we start telling the truth. What they don't understand is that the truth will set you free. So why don't you just tell us what school you do represent unless you simply don't have the guts to admit your failings.
GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!
Your are correct. It is typical lawyer. Someone who is smart enough to figure out how systems are supposed to work. In construction, the goal is to build the structure perfectly vertical to maximize load bearing capacity. That too is nearly impossible so there are tolerances allowed for out-of-plumb over a given number of vertical feet.
My whole point, which you apparently have not been able to follow, is the goal in Vegas is to split the money. Contrary to popular belief, Vegas doesn't gamble. It makes its money off the suckers who do. That is also why Vegas books include something the insurance industry has - a place to layoff bets. In insurance it is called reinsurance. In Vegas, it is just books who will take overloads on a side of the equation.
The point you cannot seem to get through your Cardinal-colored-glasses is the odds have nothing to do with Vegas' opinions of who will win anything. It is a reflection of their opinion of what will entice bets on a given proposition. Nothing more.
The goal of Vegas is to make money and if they can put some sucker line out their and take the public to the bank they like it even more. If you read the article you have saw how they factor perception and bettors tendencies in setting it but it doesn't sound like reading comprehension is a strong suit for you.
Apparently far better than yours:
'So does Esposito exploit those biases to increase his winnings? "But I don't know when the public's wrong, I really don't," he says. "That's a myth, too. I hear that all the time: 'You know who's going to win.' I wish I did."'
'The trick is to set a line that will satisfy both constituencies and make the casino lots of money.'
'it appears that the bookmaker strategically set point spreads to exploit these biases.'
'It suggests that faced with the risk of wiping out a season's profits, bookmakers play it safe on Super Bowl Sunday. Unlike a typical N.F.L. game, the Super Bowl gives a bookie incentive to balance his books and simply pocket the vig. To do so, he needs to inflate the spread against the favorite even more than usual, bringing in more underdog money and making the odds of the favorite's covering the bet even lower than usual.'
Really just semantics as it applies here... The odds are what the betting public decides are valid at a point in time. And as you say, Vegas moves the odds to get enough people on each side of the bet.
None of that diminishes the point... The odds are a sentiment indicator, and they should be representative of the general public unless bettors have some sort of reality distortion. If U of L has the third shortest odds to win the CFP, they have in the vicinity of that chance of making the playoff field. Because you can't win it without being in it...
The committee's job isn't to decide who the public thinks are the four best teams. The committee's job is to decide who they think are the four best teams. The opinions of people who can't distinguish between a cover two and a cover who are irrelevant.
So now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Earlier in this very thread you said no one outside of Jefferson County thinks a non-conference winning P5 team will make the playoff. I brought up these Vegas odds, proving that to be a false statement. Now you've moved on to this gibberish, struggling to explain your take on Vegas odds and that it's up to the committee. You have no idea what you are talking about. Move along.
Card law lost another argument. Hope he's doesn't ever have to argue my case before the courts. He even copied a piece of the column where he says they distort the favorites more than they usually do that rejects his argument and tries to say it proves his point.
Unless the committee is NOT supposed to be representative of the public--which is not intuitively obvious--that's exactly what it is. It's simply the aggregated opinion of some group of people. And during the initial determination, WITHOUT applying the tie-breakers discussed in the protocol...
You left out one loss Miami and Virginia Tech from the ACC...Either one could get to the ACCCG and beat a 12-0/11-1 Clemson for the Title...Now, where's that put Clemson!?!?!?
Miami and Virginia Tech don't have one loss. Pretty obvious they were going to have more, which is why I left them out. (Which I also did for a few teams from other conferences.) If Clemson loses the CCG, then the ACC won't get a team in the playoffs.
No, I'm not restating your case. If you read ALL of the CFP protocol, then all these factors go into choosing the 4 best teams. If you take out conference championships, head-to-head, strength of schedule, common opponent, etc., then you don't have any means to decide the "4 best teams" in the first place. The committee simply doesn't work the way you want it to. We have previous examples to demonstrate this. It doesn't matter if it's only two years. That's two more years than you have.
I doubt you have a job, so I doubt you can pay my fee. No need to worry about me arguing your case. I don't do pro bono and I am not a public defender. I'm sure you know several of those. I also don't represent anyone who hand the proof to the other side as you did. My point was never that Vegas does or does not distort the odds. My point was that the odds have nothing to do with who Vegas thinks will win. But, you cannot seem to grasp that point.
Why would you think they are supposed to be "representative of the pubic"? What possible purpose would that serve? It is made up of former coaches, players, and current and former AD's (plus Secretary Rice). Their job is to pick the four best teams. What the fat guy sitting in Sec. 226, Row KK, Seat 120 thinks is irrelevant.
You know I know the exact point that was being made, and that I proved it wrong. Why else would you be needing to lower yourself to insults as a part of your rebuttal? Honestly, I feel bad for you, I really do. You must be pretty miserable, and tough to be around if you need to spend this much time on another team's board constantly "trying" to set people straight. Keep doing what you do, 'cause you're good at it.
I have a job where I work with idiot lawyer's all the time because they are to stupid to balance a checkbook. The last resort of someone who has lost an argument is to try to denigrate the other person. You are changing your argument from Vegas puts the line so half bets on one side to the odds have nothing to do with what Vegas thinks. Disappear again Wendell.
Sure you do. There are many ways to decide which teams are best. How many polls and rankings are out there? Maybe one or two of these guys will actually take the time to watch some of these teams play.
The protocol simply prescribes the above comparisons when you can't completely decide the four teams. Just because those criteria are mentioned on the same page doesn't mean you can just smear all of that stuff together. It's a stepwise process, and you're simply obsessing on ONE tie-breaker. Clueless as usual...
Last edited:
Because they're just a group of people using their eyes and minds to come up with four teams. I don't have a football background, but I could help do that.
The BCS was an automated, numbers-based process that just spit out results. The CFP is intended to let people make decisions. They should be able to put you or me on that committee and come up with the same results. If the guy in Section 226 has half a brain, he probably qualifies as well...
You're SEVERAL Days Late to my initial response...I posted that before both lost on Saturday...CHECK the posted date...The Only "Obvious" loss was that one of them had to lose when they faced each other!!!
Clemson has had Four ESCAPES...Auburn (Away), Troy, Louisville and N.C. State (All at home)...So it's not "if" Clemson loses...They WILL lose at least one...At FSU comes to mind, and Syracuse Hurry Up Offense will run the Tigers ragged as well...Virginia Tech can attest to that!!!
- Status
Similar threads
