Peoples inability to rank teams astounds me. Crazy recency bias having A&M as the worst 1-loss team in the top 10. We literally have the best strength of record of any of these teams. We are 11-1 despite having a really strong Strength of Schdule. I know our SEC schedule didnt turn out to be the toughest - but believe it or not, sheduling Notre Dame in out of conference does a TON to boost our strength of schedule.

Quit trying to Powerank teams - These should be rankings based on merit. Quit with the recency bias and evaluate each of 12 data points equally - not just the most recent one. Its unquestionable A&M deserves to be a top 5 team.

Its really easy to rank teams with the same record. Basically the team with the hardest stength of schedule should be on top, Period (again, i'm not talking about power-rankings but merit based rankings). I'll admit comparing teams with differing records and vastly differing SOS gets difficult but we can still do a way better job of it. ESPN Strength of record is a good starting point. We need other unbiased computer-metrics which compare records in a similar way...

Quote:

---

Basically the team with the hardest stength of schedule should be on top

---

How do you decide which strength of schedule to use?

Quote:

---

ESPN Strength of record is a good starting point.

---

So BYU #6? LOL. No thanks.

Quote:

---

We need other unbiased computer-metrics which compare records in a similar way...

---

The computers are also biased based on what their programmer inputs

Quote:

---

Its unquestionable A&M deserves to be a top 5 team.

---

Yet only 1 computer has us a Top 5 team. How is that possible since unbiased computer metrics are so great?

If we want true fairness and objectivity, then the polls and committees have to go. Professional sports know all of the objective criteria before the season starts. E.g. win the division and we're in. With 120+ teams, there are challenges, but nothing impossible to solve. It's just that all of this drama generates viewers and clicks.

we used to have this system and it was all computer generated, called BCS rankings. People hated it because it lacked transparency.

No perfect system, unfortunately.

Im Gipper said:

---

This season’s penultimate simulated BCS standings are here: pic.twitter.com/HaDMSXHj7a

— BCSKnowHow.com (@BCSKnowHow) November 30, 2025

It's SOOOO different now!!

---

blue star, Gipper.

wouldnt at all be surprised if this is what is helping guide the committee to remove biases.

Although, iirc the final iteration of BCS heavily weighted polls (maybe 50%). So, would be interesting to see the pure computer components. I'm sure that's easy to look up, but I don't care enough to check.

One click was all it took!

Our computers showed up early this week, giving us this speedy Sunday simulated BCS. Let's take a look at each algo's top 12: pic.twitter.com/VsUb38FmBf

— BCSKnowHow.com (@BCSKnowHow) November 30, 2025

the problem with thes polls IMO is they are power rankings (i think). they are trying to determine neutral field favorability using metrics such as roster strength, coaching staff strength, etc. These types of inputs can't be used in a merit based ranking system (or at least should be minimized).

It is really tough to come up with computer rankings, i will definitely grant that. But i'm really sick of people using "the eye test", or looking at one head-to-head matchup while ignoring the other 11 data points, or only looking at record and ignoring (or minimizing) SOS considerations. The selection process is a joke. The comittee is a joke. Looking for the "12 best teams" and not the most deserving teams is a joke. Giving an autobid to 4 conference champions or a group of 5 team is a joke. There should be 12 at-large bids - and thats it. If you aren't good enough to get in on your merit you should not be in period.

Haha. Thanks! I'm not on X, so I can only go to what's posted / can't navigate. Still - I was lazy.

So, computers are pretty aligned. There you go.

We've beaten one good team this year, and it was months ago.

I'm happy we took advantage of finally getting a break from the SEC schedule gods, but we didn't exactly blow all the weak teams out of the water. What exactly are we expecting either the eye test or the metrics to say about us? Our only real claim was being undefeated. And that's gone now

Texas is going to get in. Bet your house.

DGrimesAg92 said:

---

Texas is going to get in. Bet your house.

---

So dumb.

DegenAg said:

---

Peoples inability to rank teams astounds me. Crazy recency bias having A&M as the worst 1-loss team in the top 10. We literally have the best strength of record of any of these teams. We are 11-1 despite having a really strong Strength of Schdule. I know our SEC schedule didnt turn out to be the toughest - but believe it or not, sheduling Notre Dame in out of conference does a TON to boost our strength of schedule.

Quit trying to Powerank teams - These should be rankings based on merit. Quit with the recency bias and evaluate each of 12 data points equally - not just the most recent one. Its unquestionable A&M deserves to be a top 5 team.

Its really easy to rank teams with the same record. Basically the team with the hardest stength of schedule should be on top, Period (again, i'm not talking about power-rankings but merit based rankings). I'll admit comparing teams with differing records and vastly differing SOS gets difficult but we can still do a way better job of it. ESPN Strength of record is a good starting point. We need other unbiased computer-metrics which compare records in a similar way...

---

Which of the other 1-loss teams do you think we can CURRENTLY beat on a neutral field?

Quote:

---

Which of the other 1-loss teams do you think we can CURRENTLY beat on a neutral field?

---

For sure ole miss, probably Oregon

Not UGA

Toss up on tech.

DegenAg said:

---

the problem with thes polls IMO is they are power rankings (i think). they are trying to determine neutral field favorability using metrics such as roster strength, coaching staff strength, etc. These types of inputs can't be used in a merit based ranking system (or at least should be minimized).

It is really tough to come up with computer rankings, i will definitely grant that. But i'm really sick of people using "the eye test", or looking at one head-to-head matchup while ignoring the other 11 data points, or only looking at record and ignoring (or minimizing) SOS considerations. The selection process is a joke. The comittee is a joke. Looking for the "12 best teams" and not the most deserving teams is a joke. Giving an autobid to 4 conference champions or a group of 5 team is a joke. There should be 12 at-large bids - and thats it. If you aren't good enough to get in on your merit you should not be in period.

---

You don't like the committee picking the "12 best teams" is a joke, yet you want them to pick the 12 best teams. How do you propose this to be determined?

It comes down to earning a spot vs deserving one. Florida St comes up a lot here. Did FSU earn a spot? Yes, they won all their games and their conference, but did they deserve one? Their SOS was worse than some G5 teams and they lost their QB who had kept them in the games.

DegenAg said:

---

the problem with thes polls IMO is they are power rankings (i think). they are trying to determine neutral field favorability using metrics such as roster strength, coaching staff strength, etc. These types of inputs can't be used in a merit based ranking system (or at least should be minimized).

It is really tough to come up with computer rankings, i will definitely grant that. But i'm really sick of people using "the eye test", or looking at one head-to-head matchup while ignoring the other 11 data points, or only looking at record and ignoring (or minimizing) SOS considerations. The selection process is a joke. The comittee is a joke. Looking for the "12 best teams" and not the most deserving teams is a joke. Giving an autobid to 4 conference champions or a group of 5 team is a joke. There should be 12 at-large bids - and thats it. If you aren't good enough to get in on your merit you should not be in period.

---

ESPN's Strength of Record is literally part of their FPI. And it's not a simple 1 through 130 ranking based on counting data, it's a series of binomial probabilities cumulated in probability calculation. Their computer decides what the probability a team would have won Game 1 (for example) based on - yep, you guessed it, their own proprietary power ranking data they load into the model

Zero reason for anyone to schedule strong ooc. We get zero benefit for beating ND. Tech and others prove this, same for tu who would be in at 10-2

The committee is using fpi and likely sagarin. Big margin wins are really what matter most

Tango.Mike said:

---

DegenAg said:

---

the problem with thes polls IMO is they are power rankings (i think). they are trying to determine neutral field favorability using metrics such as roster strength, coaching staff strength, etc. These types of inputs can't be used in a merit based ranking system (or at least should be minimized).

It is really tough to come up with computer rankings, i will definitely grant that. But i'm really sick of people using "the eye test", or looking at one head-to-head matchup while ignoring the other 11 data points, or only looking at record and ignoring (or minimizing) SOS considerations. The selection process is a joke. The comittee is a joke. Looking for the "12 best teams" and not the most deserving teams is a joke. Giving an autobid to 4 conference champions or a group of 5 team is a joke. There should be 12 at-large bids - and thats it. If you aren't good enough to get in on your merit you should not be in period.

---

ESPN's Strength of Record is literally part of their FPI. And it's not a simple 1 through 130 ranking based on counting data, it's a series of binomial probabilities cumulated in probability calculation. Their computer decides what the probability a team would have won Game 1 (for example) based on - yep, you guessed it, their own proprietary power ranking data they load into the model

---

Yep, and their "proprietary power ranking data" includes recruiting rankings and historical performance. What some people don't seem to get is… just because a computer spits out a list, doesn't mean it's unbiased.

TexasAggie81 said:

---

DegenAg said:

---

Peoples inability to rank teams astounds me. Crazy recency bias having A&M as the worst 1-loss team in the top 10. We literally have the best strength of record of any of these teams. We are 11-1 despite having a really strong Strength of Schdule. I know our SEC schedule didnt turn out to be the toughest - but believe it or not, sheduling Notre Dame in out of conference does a TON to boost our strength of schedule.

Quit trying to Powerank teams - These should be rankings based on merit. Quit with the recency bias and evaluate each of 12 data points equally - not just the most recent one. Its unquestionable A&M deserves to be a top 5 team.

Its really easy to rank teams with the same record. Basically the team with the hardest stength of schedule should be on top, Period (again, i'm not talking about power-rankings but merit based rankings). I'll admit comparing teams with differing records and vastly differing SOS gets difficult but we can still do a way better job of it. ESPN Strength of record is a good starting point. We need other unbiased computer-metrics which compare records in a similar way...

---

Which of the other 1-loss teams do you think we can CURRENTLY beat on a neutral field?

---

If we play our best, any of them. If we play poorly, none of them.

I'm not sure why people act like teams are static entities week to week.

the BDF illustrates one big problem

Tech, BYU, and Utah -- their best wins are against each other -- self-licking ice cream cone situation

they did nothing outside their mediocre conference

so it is very difficult to gauge how good these teams really are...with their gaudy W-L records and impressive "game control" metrics

DegenAg said:

---

the problem with thes polls IMO is they are power rankings (i think). they are trying to determine neutral field favorability using metrics such as roster strength, coaching staff strength, etc. These types of inputs can't be used in a merit based ranking system (or at least should be minimized).

It is really tough to come up with computer rankings, i will definitely grant that. But i'm really sick of people using "the eye test", or looking at one head-to-head matchup while ignoring the other 11 data points, or only looking at record and ignoring (or minimizing) SOS considerations. The selection process is a joke. The comittee is a joke. Looking for the "12 best teams" and not the most deserving teams is a joke. Giving an autobid to 4 conference champions or a group of 5 team is a joke. There should be 12 at-large bids - and thats it. If you aren't good enough to get in on your merit you should not be in period.

---

Gotta disagree.

One of the whining and wailing and gnashing of teeth complaints I saw the most about going to the playoff format was that it would render conference records and championships pointless. The counter to that is that there should still be value in winning your conference, especially if you are in a conference that is the SEC or BIG and objectively a harder seasonal schedule than some other conferences have. So having the big 4 conference champs be included is a good thing IMO.

Beyond that, you want some form of non-homogenous playoff. If it's the 12 "best teams", you'll end up with a post season that is nothing more than a replay of the regular season of the SEC and B1G with maybe an outsider tossed in here and there. At some point in the future some of the power dynamics may shift, but for the foreseeable future - it would be SEC and BIG making up at least 10 of the 12 spots. And if it is only the 12 best teams, there is little reason to even have a conference - everybody should just be independents and schedule whomever to maximize their chance of high rankings.

Transparency is the key to eliminating a lot of the fog and garbage surrounding the rankings. Make it very clear what metrics are involved in the rankings and stick to them. And if the committee is doing nothing more than rubber stamping a computer program, no need for the committee at all.

DGrimesAg92 said:

---

Texas is going to get in. Bet your house.

---

Let me bet your house. We'll split any winnings.

The lack of transparency means they don't want people to know how they rank teams. I.e. they're up to no good. They want to retain the ability to put teams in the slots they want in order to maximize viewership.