Some dude posted this mathematical process to determine playoff teams, interesting...
Here it is.
1. Use the end of season CFP top 25 list.
2. Look at each teams schedule and the teams they played.
Wins
A. If you beat a team that is not in the top 25 now, you get 50 pts.
B. If you beat a team that IS in the top 25 now, you get 100 pts.
C. If your team beat a team that is now in the top 10, you get 100 plus a 25 bonus.
D. If your team beats a team that is now in the top 5, you get 100+25+ an additional 10 points.
Losses
A. If you lost to a team that is now not in the top 25, you lose 100 pts.
B. If you lost to a team that IS now in the top 25, you lose 50 pts.
C. If you lost to a team that is now in the top 10, you lose 35 pts.
D. Finally, if you lost to a team that is now in the top 5, you lose 25 pts.
*It doesn't matter what a teams ranking is when you play them. Only what their rank is now at the end of the season. You calculate with current rank. It's pretty interesting to me.

*What does this help?
1. It allows for lesser teams to take on stronger teams in the pre season without getting killed in points.
2. For those conferences that play a championship game, the extra game will help if you win but won't kill you if you lose. It's detrimental for a team to have to play a championship game because of possible injury and less time to recoup.

To refresh your memory: CFP 25
1. Indiana
2. Ohio State
3. Georgia
4. Texas Tech
5. Oregon
6. Ole Miss
7. Texas A&M
8. Oklahoma
9. Alabama
10. Miami
11. Notre Dame
12. BYU
13. Texas
14. Vanderbilt
15. Utah
16. USC
17. Arizona
18. Michigan
19. Virginia
20. Tulane
21. Houston
22. Georgia Tech
23. Iowa
24. James Madison
25. North Texas

Here are the math results:
1. Indiana 870
2. Georgia. 815
3. Texas Tech. 700
4. Ohio State. 675
5. Ole Miss. 650
6. Oregon. 625
7. Alabama. 625
8. BYU. 600
9. Texas A&M. 550
10. Oklahoma. 540
11. USC. 535
12. Texas/JMU. 500
14. Notre Dame. 470
15. Tulane. 465
16. Vanderbilt. 425
17. North Texas. 400
18. Utah. 375
19. Arizona. 370
20. Miami. 350
21. Michigan. 340
22. Houston. 275
23. Georgia Tech 225
24. Virginia. 200
25. Iowa. 190
*Not sure how Iowa jumped in. Navy has more points.

the committee does a better job than this

As long as the top 25 is still being chosen by a committee, the math means nothing. We're just assigning a random value to the input data

I'm so glad that I went to a school with so many grads with an engineering mindset.

Formulas, spreadsheets, algorithms ... lots of stuff to read on "sports" message boards.

Fun.

'Peter Brand' from "Moneyball" could figure it out. If he's not available, get the real thing: Bill James.

Country B, '67

Here's the formula. All the AD's and presidents with their panties in a bunch that got left out had an opportunity to expand the playoffs and chose not to. A field of 16 could have included BYU, Notre Dame, horn, and Vandy for example.

The Banned said:

---

As long as the top 25 is still being chosen by a committee, the math means nothing. We're just assigning a random value to the input data

---

This. It's not like this is a science problem. It's data driven guessing.

I'm pretty sure you want the eye test rather than a computer model. Perception is reality and sometimes you're on the right side of the bubble and sometimes you're on the wrong side. It happens every year during March Madness.

They honestly to stop ****ing with the system and leave it alone for at least 5 years to see any disturbing trends that are worth tweaking. They shouldn't bow down to powerhouses like ND and tu to make sure they are included in the CFP.

If anything, I'd say the SEC should make that 9th conference game a TBD and save it for a "conference championship" game. The first two seeds battle it out for a potential auto-bid to the CFP and 3rd vs 4th, 5th vs 6th, 7th vs 8th, 9th vs 10th and so forth and so on. It would make conference standings more value and gives lesser teams a chance to go out with a win or become bowl eligible.

nvm

The ranking themselves are not the problem, the problem is the the 5th automatic bid in my opinion.

I don't mind a formula, but it needs to not be based on how some people voted. I don't mind computers also being involved but there needs to be a whole lot more games between P4 teams to actually compare the conferences.

It also needs to incentivize teams to schedule good teams, whether P4 or good G5 teams.
A&M scheduling a good Clemson team, or Texas scheduling Ohio State and losing should be worth more than any team scheduling Samford. Beating a P4 team that ends up very high in its conference should be worth more than beating a bad G5 team. Likewise, beating a Tulane or North Texas team this year should be worth more than beating Syracuse or Oklahoma State.

barstoolexpert said:

---

No thanks. Using the end of season top 25 is ridiculous. Teams in the SEC beat each other up to the point they fall out. Above average teams in the Big 12 rise to the top. For example, Houston. Houston is ranked which gives Tech a ranked win while LSU/Mizzou are not ranked.

Are you telling me that Houston is ranked to end the season if they are in the SEC? Would LSU/Mizzou be ranked to end the season if they were in the Big 12?

That's a bad metric that needs to go away.

---

Was about to post the same thing.

Conference teams beat each other up but conf are so unbalanced what the OP is proposing does not make sense.

I mean Auburn & Miss St both went 1-7 against SEC competition but were magically 2-0 against Big 12 teams (ASU & Baylor). Overall SEC was 3-0 against the Big 12 this year.

Committee just needs to use a real sos metric not one that's just wins/loss based on

No sec team should ever be 90 in sos

Batty said:

---

The ranking themselves are not the problem, the problem is Notre Dame in my opinion.

---

Fixed

NyAggie said:

---

Committee just needs to use a real sos metric not one that's just wins/loss based on

No sec team should ever be 90 in sos

---

It isn't strength of schedule which is an awful metric. Please look it up to see why you don't want that.

The whole thing falls apart on number 1.

greg.w.h said:

---

NyAggie said:

---

Committee just needs to use a real sos metric not one that's just wins/loss based on

No sec team should ever be 90 in sos

---

It isn't strength of schedule which is an awful metric. Please look it up to see why you don't want that.

---

If you don't think the strength list used by this committee is absolutely horrible, then you are completely clueless!!

Didn't read this thread too closely but today I learned that the sp and fpi take into account recruiting rankings, coaching tenure and last season as a part of their system.

That's whack.


I think we could use something like college basketball and quads to help determine what teams actually beat decent teams

Totally agree. Need some sort of quad system that's data driven and accounts for home/away. For example we had bad luck and all our good wins disappeared as the season went on but we'd have been like 5-0 in a quad 2 or possibly due to being away games Mizzou and lsu would have remained quad 1. It's just ludicrous that we get no credit for Mizzou and LSU while ole miss gets all this extra credit for Tulane. Or same for tech and their "good wins". Using cfp top 25 as the cutoff for good wins is the biggest part of this whole problem.