OT: D1

[IUP24]

That's not really an answer to the question I asked. I'm not vouching for the veracity of human polling; I found multiple rankings on ESPN and wasn't sure which one was at the center of the complaint.

I understand what his point is. Regardless of “which poll” or metric is being referenced, those rankings all get twisted for the benefit of the few. And even the computer metrics largely don’t matter when the rubber meets the road. There’s rarely clarity with how or if those metrics are ever applied, but the arbitrary human rankings seem to always matter. And they’re unfairly slanted to favor select teams with the help of the talking heads.

Missouri is great example. They finished 0-5 against teams with a winning record. They did not beat a single team with a .500 record, and their 8 wins came against teams with a combined 30-67 record, including an FCS opponent. They spent almost the entire season as a ranked team, allowing Paul Finebaum to always clamor about how “(insert sec team here) got a ranked win over Missouri”… They beat nobody.

Tennessee didn’t beat a single bowl eligible team this year either. They too, like Missouri, were ranked most of the year.

[IUP24]

I'm against humans deciding who gets in and who doesn't probably necessary for at large bids. Top 25 polls by coaches, media, players, agents, or marching band drum majors are utter BS. Nobody has even once watched half of the teams they're ranking. FBS just can't quit its obsession with Top 25 polls and it's perverted the minds of millions of "college football" fans.

There’s a website, the exact name is escaping me, but it exists to show the voter bias in the AP Poll. It’s quite remarkable actually. Every week, the site breaks down the poll using a massive spreadsheet. Allows you to see each voters Top 25. Allows you to see using actual data which teams each poster has biases for and against.

The Midwest voters are actually the worst. Somebody in Chicago or Detroit will legitimately put nearly the entire B1G into their rankings, but they’ll “give a vote” to maybe 1 ACC team. It’s stuff like that makes you realize why a 4-3 Illinois or Michigan State will seem to be ranked 21st in the country while a 5-2 Wake Forest won’t even be “receiving votes.”

People tend to generally think the voters in SEC Country are the worst, but it isn’t even remotely close to how bad those in the Midwest and the Great Plains are in terms of how they vote. There’s a ton of tribalism with Big 12 voters too. It’s a unique website and is extremely interesting to dive into.

Why I share that… If anybody does not believe that those phony polls shape perception amongst the casual fans, then they are absolutely insane. And if anybody thinks how teams are “ranked” in the initial CFP rankings isn’t influenced in some minuscule way by how those polls look, they simply don’t have a solid grasp on how this all works. Those pollsters hardly watch any football outside of the team they cover. Those on the CFP committee watch more, but not much more. But that’s ultimately how the perception of which team is better, which conference is better, etc., is actually developed amongst the masses.

Edit… I remembered the site and here’s the link… https://collegepolltracker.com/whats-new-bias/

[IUP24]

I’m normally not an advocate for BIG teams at all, but I’ll attempt to make a point since we’re discussing polls, rankings, etc.

Over the last 5 years…

LSU:
42-24, .636 winning %
5-0 vs FCS
37-24 vs FBS, .607 winning %
28-24 vs P4/P5, .538 winning %
7-17 vs AP ranked teams, .292 winning %

Minnesota:
40-25, .615 winning %
3-0 vs FCS
37-25 vs FBS, .597 winning %
29-24 vs P4/P5, .547 winning %
5-11 vs AP ranked teams, .313 winning %

Heres the fun part…. Weeks ranked:

LSU - 46
Minnesota - 1

LSU and Minnesota, over the last 5 years, are literally the same exact football program. One is a historical brand playing in a cathedral of the game and has been ranked 46 weeks. The other is considered a below average B1G program playing in a professional sports city that doesn’t always draw extremely well (attendance vs capacity numbers better now that they have their own smaller stadium). So somebody is going to have to work really hard to change my opinion that status in college football isn’t decided by anything more than perception and optics surrounding the program.

[IUPNation]

I’m normally not an advocate for BIG teams at all, but I’ll attempt to make a point since we’re discussing polls, rankings, etc.

Over the last 5 years…

LSU:
42-24, .636 winning %
5-0 vs FCS
37-24 vs FBS, .607 winning %
28-24 vs P4/P5, .538 winning %
7-17 vs AP ranked teams, .292 winning %

Minnesota:
40-25, .615 winning %
3-0 vs FCS
37-25 vs FBS, .597 winning %
29-24 vs P4/P5, .547 winning %
5-11 vs AP ranked teams, .313 winning %

Heres the fun part…. Weeks ranked:

LSU - 46
Minnesota - 1

LSU and Minnesota, over the last 5 years, are literally the same exact football program. One is a historical brand playing in a cathedral of the game and has been ranked 46 weeks. The other is considered a below average B1G program playing in a professional sports city that doesn’t always draw extremely well (attendance vs capacity numbers better now that they have their own smaller stadium). So somebody is going to have to work really hard to change my opinion that status in college football isn’t decided by anything more than perception and optics surrounding the program.

Rankings need to be taken out of the equation.

[EastStroud13]

That's what I was getting at ... P4 is the big stage and its own level.

G becomes essentially its own thing. Nationally, correct, nobody would care, but the G teams could at least have a chance to win a championship.

Nobody needs or wants to see Ohio State play the MAC champion in Round 1.

OK, but semantically, that's a different thing; the status quo includes the P4 and the G6 in one division. The onus is on the P4 to separate, not the G6 to have their own playoff. Otherwise the G6 rightfully should demand guaranteed access to the playoff.

[Chuck Norris]

Rankings need to be taken out of the equation.

It’s college sports. Unless you’re proposing making FBS football into a single, uniform 134 team league with a set number of divisions where playoff qualification is based solely off wins and losses then I’m not sure how you get away from some form of subjective ranking to differentiate between teams.

Maybe you eliminate the AP and coaches polls and only have the CFP rankings and don’t release them until the latter portion of the season like they do now? Maybe put out a preseason set of rankings just so people have something to talk about but don’t release them again until at least a month into the season? I wouldn’t oppose these ideas. The polls have been great conversation for a century, but every other tradition that made college football fun is being flushed, so what’s one more?

[IUP24]

It’s college sports. Unless you’re proposing making FBS football into a single, uniform 134 team league with a set number of divisions where playoff qualification is based solely off wins and losses then I’m not sure how you get away from some form of subjective ranking to differentiate between teams.

Maybe you eliminate the AP and coaches polls and only have the CFP rankings and don’t release them until the latter portion of the season like they do now? Maybe put out a preseason set of rankings just so people have something to talk about but don’t release them again until at least a month into the season? I wouldn’t oppose these ideas. The polls have been great conversation for a century, but every other tradition that made college football fun is being flushed, so what’s one more?

The challenge is that rankings skew perception. And when perception helps to drive how teams are viewed in the hierarchy of college football, it’s a problem (the LSU versus Minnesota example is exhibit A). And I know the objective human rankings are used in everything, but that doesn’t mean that’s how it should be. I’d rather just scrap them entirely (in everything). I have full belief that those rankings impact how the first set of CFP rankings shake out.

Who has a little number by their name to open up the season creates inherent bias on who is good, and those teams have a built in advantage and benefit of the doubt as the year progresses.

[TheBigCat2192]

It’s college sports. Unless you’re proposing making FBS football into a single, uniform 134 team league with a set number of divisions where playoff qualification is based solely off wins and losses then I’m not sure how you get away from some form of subjective ranking to differentiate between teams.

Maybe you eliminate the AP and coaches polls and only have the CFP rankings and don’t release them until the latter portion of the season like they do now? Maybe put out a preseason set of rankings just so people have something to talk about but don’t release them again until at least a month into the season? I wouldn’t oppose these ideas. The polls have been great conversation for a century, but every other tradition that made college football fun is being flushed, so what’s one more?

Eliminate the AP poll from what? The NCAA/CFP can’t stop the AP from creating a top [#] by taking a poll of its members.

[Chuck Norris]

The challenge is that rankings skew perception. And when perception helps to drive how teams are viewed in the hierarchy of college football, it’s a problem (the LSU versus Minnesota example is exhibit A). And I know the objective human rankings are used in everything, but that doesn’t mean that’s how it should be. I’d rather just scrap them entirely (in everything). I have full belief that those rankings impact how the first set of CFP rankings shake out.

Who has a little number by their name to open up the season creates inherent bias on who is good, and those teams have a built in advantage and benefit of the doubt as the year progresses.

I agree with you, but those little numbers also generate a ton of excitement, attention and conversation around the sport and around all collegiate sports. Students rush fields/courts over those numbers (I’m absolutely not a fan of doing that for what it’s worth).

I guess I just don’t have as much of an issue with the human element/polls, mostly because I don’t see a viable alternative. I feel like one probably would’ve been discovered at some point in the last 100 years. A CFP committee has been a good step in my opinion. Are they influenced by the AP poll? Probably. But what have they gotten horribly wrong? It’s never going to be perfect. Someone is always going to feel wronged. I’m ok with that. I grew up with college football that rarely produced an answer as to who was the best team. The top two teams rarely met in a bowl. We even had occasional split national champions, talk about lame. Don’t get me wrong, that time absolutely had its charms too, but I like what we have now. I like playoffs and the uncertainty of single elimination tournaments. I like that there is an effort to give every season a satisfying conclusion.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

I agree with you, but those little numbers also generate a ton of excitement, attention and conversation around the sport and around all collegiate sports. Students rush fields/courts over those numbers (I’m absolutely not a fan of doing that for what it’s worth).

I guess I just don’t have as much of an issue with the human element/polls, mostly because I don’t see a viable alternative. I feel like one probably would’ve been discovered at some point in the last 100 years. A CFP committee has been a good step in my opinion. Are they influenced by the AP poll? Probably. But what have they gotten horribly wrong? It’s never going to be perfect. Someone is always going to feel wronged. I’m ok with that. I grew up with college football that rarely produced an answer as to who was the best team. The top two teams rarely met in a bowl. We even had occasional split national champions, talk about lame. Don’t get me wrong, that time absolutely had its charms too, but I like what we have now. I like playoffs and the uncertainty of single elimination tournaments. I like that there is an effort to give every season a satisfying conclusion.

I'd consider myself an above average fan (but not much above average).

I couldn't tell you who won the last 5 titles if my life depended on it. To be honest, I don't really care, either.

A correct answer on this topic doesn't exist. My guess is it will just keep growing.

BTW, JoePa would have smoked Nebraska in 1994.

[Chuck Norris]

I'd consider myself an above average fan (but not much above average).

I couldn't tell you who won the last 5 titles if my life depended on it. To be honest, I don't really care, either.

A correct answer on this topic doesn't exist. My guess is it will just keep growing.

BTW, JoePa would have smoked Nebraska in 1994.

I don’t know. It would’ve been a fun contrast of styles. That was the team that finally got Tom Osborne over the hump. They were really good but not as dominant as they’d become over the next few years. It’s a shame we never got to find out.

[IUP24]

I agree with you, but those little numbers also generate a ton of excitement, attention and conversation around the sport and around all collegiate sports. Students rush fields/courts over those numbers (I’m absolutely not a fan of doing that for what it’s worth).

I guess I just don’t have as much of an issue with the human element/polls, mostly because I don’t see a viable alternative. I feel like one probably would’ve been discovered at some point in the last 100 years. A CFP committee has been a good step in my opinion. Are they influenced by the AP poll? Probably. But what have they gotten horribly wrong? It’s never going to be perfect. Someone is always going to feel wronged. I’m ok with that. I grew up with college football that rarely produced an answer as to who was the best team. The top two teams rarely met in a bowl. We even had occasional split national champions, talk about lame. Don’t get me wrong, that time absolutely had its charms too, but I like what we have now. I like playoffs and the uncertainty of single elimination tournaments. I like that there is an effort to give every season a satisfying conclusion.

I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that, but I do think it’s an issue in the sense of how those phony polls are getting applied at that level. Again… LSU and Minnesota example. The only difference between the two is that a bunch of writers have a higher perception of LSU and view Minnesota, in general, as much more unfavorable. So, yeah, to your point, the polls do generate talking points, drive excitement, etc., but those polls also - in my opinion - also do a lot to hold down programs that don’t have the benefit of higher levels of perception and optics.

If LSU and Minnesota are basically the exact same program over the last 5 years, why is one ranked nearly all the time and the other isn’t? What does Minnesota need to do to generate better perception to get ranked?

My point is that “those little numbers” also help with program growth because they generate excitement amongst those fans. Ranked teams are going to naturally get people watching, turning out, donating resources, etc. That helps to build the program more, get better players, retain players, get better coaches, etc. So if arbitrary rankings are helping out with talking points, they’re also helping to keep programs down. People should be talking about Minnesota in the same manner they discuss LSU over the last 5 years, but they don’t. Because the Gophers have had a little number just once, and they are perceived as Minnesota.”

If they want to use polls, fine. But I’d rather they not start until midseason for them to more fairly or accurately generated.

[TheBigCat2192]

If LSU and Minnesota are basically the exact same program over the last 5 years, why is one ranked nearly all the time and the other isn’t? What does Minnesota need to do to generate better perception to get ranked?

The problem with this statement is that they’re not “basically the exact same program over the last 5 years”. One of them has consistently been qualitatively better and played better schedules than the other. I’m not unsympathetic to the idea that Minnesota should have been ranked more often and LSU ranked less often but taking two teams with similar total records over a five year span and using that to declare them “the same”, as that guy on Twitter did, is misleadingly reductive. Over the last five years Kutztown has gone 56-10 while Harding has gone 62-7. Would you sincerely say that they’re similar programs? As for the question at the back half of this quote they could try beating more good teams and not getting dumptrucked by four scores multiple times in a season like they did this year. If they had hung tough against OSU, Iowa, and Oregon, or actually won one of those games, they probably could have crept in to the back end of the rankings while LSU was falling out of them.

[IUP24]

The problem with this statement is that they’re not “basically the exact same program over the last 5 years”. One of them has consistently been qualitatively better and played better schedules than the other. I’m not unsympathetic to the idea that Minnesota should have been ranked more often and LSU ranked less often but taking two teams with similar total records over a five year span and using that to declare them “the same”, as that guy on Twitter did, is misleadingly reductive. Over the last five years Kutztown has gone 56-10 while Harding has gone 62-7. Would you sincerely say that they’re similar programs? As for the question at the back half of this quote they could try beating more good teams and not getting dumptrucked by four scores multiple times in a season like they did this year. If they had hung tough against OSU, Iowa, and Oregon, or actually won one of those games, they probably could have crept in to the back end of the rankings while LSU was falling out of them.

Big Cat, I’m just using the same blanket statement of methodology as every single other media talking head and Twitter expert with a blue check mark.

And sure, what you said is accurate - and I agree with you. But Missouri spent nearly the entire season ranked and didn’t beat a single team that was .500. So all the good teams they played, they lost to too. But when Paul Finebaum uses them as a data point as a “ranked win,” I’m totally free to say that is an absurd and a fake, manufactured data point.

The point isn’t about Minnesota versus LSU, or Missouri. That’s not even close to the point. The point is that the rankings are subjectively and improperly used to drive perception and optics of particular programs and in some cases, specific conferences.

I don’t actually believe Minnesota is equal to LSU. But these people don’t watch the games, and they hold far more power to help drive the conversation than many care to admit.

[ctrabs74]

They don't need to be surefire draft picks.

They don't want to get hurt prior to entering the Portal.

Double whammy.

The crowds at these low-level bowls have been hilarious.

The North Texas QB played. He's about to get paid serious cash.

And said North Texas QB is in the transfer portal. Probably one the best football seasons they've had in Denton and this is how they get thanked...