Re: CFB Playoff rankings

by Herbie Green Wed 1 Nov - 19:53

NigelUno wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:
Interestingly, Silver only gives Notre Dame a 64% chance if they win out. This would seem to indicate a big boost for conference championship winners. But his model has never had to account for a Notre Dame factor.

What do you mean by the bolded part?

ND was ranked #10 in the first CFP Poll in 2014.
ND was ranked #5 in the first CFP Poll in 2015.

Are you saying he didn't account for a ND factor then?

Maybe we could bet on it.

Notre Dame has never been a factor for a final four playoff spot so we have no idea how a lack of a conference championship could hurt them. In fact, he really doesn't know how much of a boost a championship game gives teams from conferences in the first place. He comes up with a factor and then runs different what ifs with variations of this assumption. In the three years he has been doing this he had adjusted this factor and others such as head-to-head.

So let's say his model has a scenario where UW gets a playoff spot 75% of the time and Notre Dame gets it 25% of the time. Then if the committee picks Notre Dame then that means the base level assumption(s) was incorrect.

And I won't even get into whether there should be a factor based on drawing power.

Does this help you understand it better?

by **NigelUno** Wed 1 Nov - 20:29

Herbie Green wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

What do you mean by the bolded part?

ND was ranked #10 in the first CFP Poll in 2014.
ND was ranked #5 in the first CFP Poll in 2015.

Are you saying he didn't account for a ND factor then?

Maybe we could bet on it.

Notre Dame has never been a factor for a final four playoff spot so we have no idea how a lack of a conference championship could hurt them. In fact, he really doesn't know how much of a boost a championship game gives teams from conferences in the first place. He comes up with a factor and then runs different what ifs with variations of this assumption. In the three years he has been doing this he had adjusted this factor and others such as head-to-head.

So let's say his model has a scenario where UW gets a playoff spot 75% of the time and Notre Dame gets it 25% of the time. Then if the committee picks Notre Dame then that means the base level assumption(s) was incorrect.

And I won't even get into whether there should be a factor based on drawing power.

Does this help you understand it better?

Hey Herb?

OSU made it last year without winning the conference championship.

That's strike two.

by Herbie Green Wed 1 Nov - 20:53

NigelUno wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:

Notre Dame has never been a factor for a final four playoff spot so we have no idea how a lack of a conference championship could hurt them. In fact, he really doesn't know how much of a boost a championship game gives teams from conferences in the first place. He comes up with a factor and then runs different what ifs with variations of this assumption. In the three years he has been doing this he had adjusted this factor and others such as head-to-head.

So let's say his model has a scenario where UW gets a playoff spot 75% of the time and Notre Dame gets it 25% of the time. Then if the committee picks Notre Dame then that means the base level assumption(s) was incorrect.

And I won't even get into whether there should be a factor based on drawing power.

Does this help you understand it better?

Hey Herb?

OSU made it last year without winning the conference championship.

That's strike two.

So you think conference championships are irrelevant because 1 out of 12 playoff teams didn't have one?

Perhaps you should notify Nate so he can take out one of specifically mentioned committee factors out of his model.

And you do realize then that this also means that you actually agree with me or even feel stronger that ND has a higher chance of making it than Nate's model?

Or do you basically have no idea WTF you are talking about? That is a rhetorical question because that is what I automatically assume every time you respond to one of my posts.

by **NigelUno** Wed 1 Nov - 20:57

Herbie Green wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

Hey Herb?

OSU made it last year without winning the conference championship.

That's strike two.

So you think conference championships are irrelevant because 1 out of 12 playoff teams didn't have one?

Perhaps you should notify Nate so he can take out one of specifically mentioned committee factors out of his model.

And you do realize then that this also means that you actually agree with me or even feel stronger that ND has a higher chance of making it than Nate's model?

Or do you basically have no idea WTF you are talking about? That is a rhetorical question because that is what I automatically assume every time you respond to one of my posts.

Rambling nonsense (as usual when you're talking about the CFP).

Strike 3. Looking.

by Herbie Green Wed 1 Nov - 21:51

NigelUno wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:

So you think conference championships are irrelevant because 1 out of 12 playoff teams didn't have one?

Perhaps you should notify Nate so he can take out one of specifically mentioned committee factors out of his model.

And you do realize then that this also means that you actually agree with me or even feel stronger that ND has a higher chance of making it than Nate's model?

Or do you basically have no idea WTF you are talking about? That is a rhetorical question because that is what I automatically assume every time you respond to one of my posts.

Rambling nonsense (as usual when you're talking about the CFP).

Strike 3. Looking.

I am trying to help you come up with a point. Do you yourself have any idea what it is?

by **DWags** Wed 1 Nov - 22:04

Herbie Green wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

Rambling nonsense (as usual when you're talking about the CFP).

Strike 3. Looking.

I am trying to help you come up with a point. Do you yourself have any idea what it is?

He’s doing the opposite of what you’re thinking. It’s a strategy espoused by some in order to be successful.

by **NigelUno** Wed 1 Nov - 22:07

DWags wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:

I am trying to help you come up with a point. Do you yourself have any idea what it is?

He’s doing the opposite of what you’re thinking. It’s a strategy espoused by some in order to be successful.

The model has never factored in ND!!!
(Except when it did)

I meant factored in someone not winning a conference championship!!!
(Except when OSU did it last year)

Yeah, but...rambling...rambling...rambling...
(Steeeeeeeeeeeeeerike 3!!!)

by Herbie Green Wed 1 Nov - 23:04

NigelUno wrote:
DWags wrote:

He’s doing the opposite of what you’re thinking. It’s a strategy espoused by some in order to be successful.

The model has never factored in ND!!!
(Except when it did)

I meant factored in someone not winning a conference championship!!!
(Except when OSU did it last year)

Yeah, but...rambling...rambling...rambling...
(Steeeeeeeeeeeeeerike 3!!!)

How would the model be able to validate a factor for ND's lack of conference championship from being ranked in the top 10 in the first ranking of the season when they were completely out of it at the end?

And what is your point about Ohio State? Does that mean conference championships are actually irrelevant? Or you already know the factor and how it will be applied to ND? Maybe you should tell Nate Silver. Here is what he says:
"We’ve added other wrinkles over the years. Before the 2015 season, for example, we added a bonus for teams that win their conference championships, since the committee explicitly says that it accounts for conference championships in its rankings (although exactly how much it weights them is difficult to say)."

I would advise reading the rest of his methodology.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-our-2017-college-football-playoff-predictions-work/

After that, why don't you get back to me with an actual opinion about whether you think Nate accurately assesses ND's chances for the playoffs.

by Guest Wed 1 Nov - 23:05

Herbie wins.

by **NigelUno** Wed 1 Nov - 23:12

Herbie Green wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

The model has never factored in ND!!!
(Except when it did)

I meant factored in someone not winning a conference championship!!!
(Except when OSU did it last year)

Yeah, but...rambling...rambling...rambling...
(Steeeeeeeeeeeeeerike 3!!!)

How would the model be able to validate a factor for ND's lack of conference championship from being ranked in the top 10 in the first ranking of the season when they were completely out of it at the end?

And what is your point about Ohio State? Does that mean conference championships are actually irrelevant? Or you already know the factor and how it will be applied to ND? Maybe you should tell Nate Silver. Here is what he says:
"We’ve added other wrinkles over the years. Before the 2015 season, for example, we added a bonus for teams that win their conference championships, since the committee explicitly says that it accounts for conference championships in its rankings (although exactly how much it weights them is difficult to say)."

I would advise reading the rest of his methodology.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-our-2017-college-football-playoff-predictions-work/

After that, why don't you get back to me with an actual opinion about whether you think Nate accurately assesses ND's chances for the playoffs.

Remember that one time you thought MSU wouldn't get in?

CFB Playoff rankings - Page 2 502811600

by Herbie Green Wed 1 Nov - 23:27

NigelUno wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:

How would the model be able to validate a factor for ND's lack of conference championship from being ranked in the top 10 in the first ranking of the season when they were completely out of it at the end?

And what is your point about Ohio State? Does that mean conference championships are actually irrelevant? Or you already know the factor and how it will be applied to ND? Maybe you should tell Nate Silver. Here is what he says:
"We’ve added other wrinkles over the years. Before the 2015 season, for example, we added a bonus for teams that win their conference championships, since the committee explicitly says that it accounts for conference championships in its rankings (although exactly how much it weights them is difficult to say)."

I would advise reading the rest of his methodology.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-our-2017-college-football-playoff-predictions-work/

After that, why don't you get back to me with an actual opinion about whether you think Nate accurately assesses ND's chances for the playoffs.

Remember that one time you thought MSU wouldn't get in?

You mean when Nate gave them a 10% chance of not getting in and I therefore thought a 100-1 bet was smart? I actually alluded to that in this very thread by pointing out that an undefeated UW currently has a 3% chance of missing the playoffs.
I think you should have gone for at least two smilies on that one to show off how funny it is because I am such an idiot.

by **NigelUno** Wed 1 Nov - 23:32

Herbie Green wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

Remember that one time you thought MSU wouldn't get in?

You mean when Nate gave them a 10% chance of not getting in and I therefore thought a 100-1 bet was smart? I actually alluded to that in this very thread by pointing out that an undefeated UW currently has a 3% chance of missing the playoffs.
I think you should have gone for at least two smilies on that one to show off how funny it is because I am such an idiot.

So, you do remember. CFB Playoff rankings - Page 2 502811600

by Herbie Green Wed 1 Nov - 23:40

NigelUno wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:

You mean when Nate gave them a 10% chance of not getting in and I therefore thought a 100-1 bet was smart? I actually alluded to that in this very thread by pointing out that an undefeated UW currently has a 3% chance of missing the playoffs.
I think you should have gone for at least two smilies on that one to show off how funny it is because I am such an idiot.

So, you do remember.

It was actually incredibly boring and mostly Vlad. You should keep up your strategy. Now you can offer like 1000-1 on Wisconsin. Hey there is a 97% chance you can post smilies at how much of an idiot someone was for taking the bet.

by **DWags** Wed 1 Nov - 23:44

I remember the funny part was, we got in with one loss but some guys were still adament it was a good bet when they were betting we would t get in with zero losses. That was the funny part to me.

by **NigelUno** Wed 1 Nov - 23:46

DWags wrote:I remember the funny part was, we got in with one loss but some guys were still adament it was a good bet when they were betting we would t get in with zero losses. That was the funny part to me.

Oops. I think Herbie forgot that part. CFB Playoff rankings - Page 2 502811600

by Herbie Green Wed 1 Nov - 23:46

DWags wrote:I remember the funny part was, we got in with one loss but some guys were still adament it was a good bet when they were betting we would t get in with zero losses. That was the funny part to me.

You also started a thread once asking what a 50% chance of rain means.

by **DWags** Wed 1 Nov - 23:48

Herbie Green wrote:
DWags wrote:I remember the funny part was, we got in with one loss but some guys were still adament it was a good bet when they were betting we would t get in with zero losses. That was the funny part to me.

You also started a thread once asking what a 50% chance of rain means.

What does it mean?

by **DWags** Wed 1 Nov - 23:51

If the forecaster is only 50% sure that precipitation will occur, and expects that, if it does occur, it will produce measurable rain over about 80 percent of the area, the PoP (chance of rain) is 40%. ( PoP = .5 x .8 which equals .4 or 40%. )Aug 18, 2016

Why a 50% chance of rain means 100% chance of confusion.

by Herbie Green Thu 2 Nov - 0:00

DWags wrote:If the forecaster is only 50% sure that precipitation will occur, and expects that, if it does occur, it will produce measurable rain over about 80 percent of the area, the PoP (chance of rain) is 40%. ( PoP = .5 x .8 which equals .4 or 40%. )Aug 18, 2016

Why a 50% chance of rain means 100% chance of confusion.

Ok, I will give you that. So why does a smart guy like you side with Nigel? It is not a good look for you.

by **NigelUno** Thu 2 Nov - 0:09

Herbie Green wrote:
Ok, I will give you that. So why does a smart guy like you side with Nigel? It is not a good look for you.

DWags wrote:I remember the funny part was, we got in with one loss but some guys were still adament it was a good bet when they were betting we wouldn't get in with zero losses. That was the funny part to me.

And Herbie is still adamant. And an idiot. CFB Playoff rankings - Page 2 502811600

by Herbie Green Thu 2 Nov - 0:35

Nigel, was winning this bet you had a 90% chance of winning the greatest accomplishment of your posting career?
Instead of wasting your time mentioning it 7,000 times here you should open a casino and rake it in while disproving the law of large numbers.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Thu 2 Nov - 6:18

Do y'all argue every night until it's time to go to bed or is this a one time thing?

by **NigelUno** Thu 2 Nov - 7:47

Herbie Green wrote:Nigel, was winning this bet you had a 90% chance of winning the greatest accomplishment of your posting career?
Instead of wasting your time mentioning it 7,000 times here you should open a casino and rake it in while disproving the law of large numbers.

Hey Bubble Boy?

Just because some guy with a model comes up with some numbers...it doesn't make them true (or absolute).

I recognized that. You're still arguing two years later that it was a bad bet. I think the oxygen level in your bubble is running low.

Bob? Can you ride your bike over to Herbie's and make sure he's OK?

by **Robert J Sakimano** Thu 2 Nov - 7:47

NigelUno wrote:
Bob? Can you ride your bike over to Herbie's and make sure he's OK?

maybe after work if he's still MIA. I've already ran this morning and showered..

by Herbie Green Thu 2 Nov - 17:23

NigelUno wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:Nigel, was winning this bet you had a 90% chance of winning the greatest accomplishment of your posting career?
Instead of wasting your time mentioning it 7,000 times here you should open a casino and rake it in while disproving the law of large numbers.

Hey Bubble Boy?

Just because some guy with a model comes up with some numbers...it doesn't make them true (or absolute).

I recognized that. You're still arguing two years later that it was a bad bet. I think the oxygen level in your bubble is running low.

Bob? Can you ride your bike over to Herbie's and make sure he's OK?

The bet is a complete bore I wasn't even involved with that you keep masturbating about two years later.

And Call me crazy but I will take some guy like Nate Silver's numbers over yours. I am sorry you don't understand basic math. You mean the MODEL that I was questioning assumptions about isn't "Absolute" good god you have no ducking idea what you are even talking about

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Thu 2 Nov - 17:34

Nothing like a good herbie Nigel clash.

by **NigelUno** Fri 3 Nov - 15:34

Bob! Did you check on Bubble Boy yet?

CFB Playoff rankings - Page 2 20100217-john-travolta-1-600x411

by **Robert J Sakimano** Tue 7 Nov - 19:07

#12, ahead of both Ohio State and Penn State.

by **Floyd Robertson** Tue 7 Nov - 19:08

Robert J Sakimano wrote:#12, ahead of both Ohio State and Penn State.

No one in their right mind would have predicted this three months ago.

by Guest Tue 7 Nov - 19:10

Floyd Robertson wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:#12, ahead of both Ohio State and Penn State.

No one in their right mind would have predicted this three months ago.

Quit insulting WBH.

by **NigelUno** Tue 7 Nov - 19:11

Robert J Sakimano wrote:#12, ahead of both Ohio State and Penn State.

As it should be.

by **Floyd Robertson** Tue 7 Nov - 19:21

Predictably u of m fans are crying foul on Twitter because they're out and Northwestern is in. CFB Playoff rankings - Page 2 502811600

by Guest Tue 7 Nov - 19:25

Jason Starrett‏ @starrettjason 14m14 minutes ago
More
.@MSU_Football's 12-spot jump from No. 24 to No. 12 is the biggest 1-week jump in the 4-year history of the CFP rankings.

Previous high was an 8-spot jump, done 3 times.

by **Turtleneck** Tue 7 Nov - 19:27

LooseGoose wrote:Jason Starrett‏ @starrettjason 14m14 minutes ago
More
.@MSU_Football's 12-spot jump from No. 24 to No. 12 is the biggest 1-week jump in the 4-year history of the CFP rankings.

Previous high was an 8-spot jump, done 3 times.

MSU should be no. 1. #rigged

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Tue 7 Nov - 19:29

Floyd Robertson wrote:Predictably u of m fans are crying foul on Twitter because they're out and Northwestern is in.

Floyd, are you telling me sports fans whine?! no!

by **Nordic** Tue 7 Nov - 19:30

Floyd Robertson wrote:Predictably u of m fans are crying foul on Twitter because they're out and Northwestern is in.

Well... NW has beaten a team with a winning record (more than one actually)

by **Floyd Robertson** Tue 7 Nov - 19:32

Nordic wrote:
Floyd Robertson wrote:Predictably u of m fans are crying foul on Twitter because they're out and Northwestern is in.

Well... NW has beaten a team with a winning record (more than one actually)

This is what makes u of m whiners so funny OTPT.

by Herbie Green Tue 7 Nov - 19:47

Lol, lots of chatter about an undefeated Wisconsin not making it. Will Nigel be offering 100-1 with Death Roe and Dwags lips attached to his nuts?

by **Turtleneck** Tue 7 Nov - 19:53

Herbie Green wrote:Lol, lots of chatter about an undefeated Wisconsin not making it. Will Nigel be offering 100-1 with Death Roe and Dwags lips attached to his nuts?

Are you the poster that bet an undefeated MSU, with wins over four top 10 teams, would not make the playoff? I thought that was OTPT. It was you? That's sorta dumb, Herbie.

by **NigelUno** Tue 7 Nov - 19:58

Herbie Green wrote:Lol, lots of chatter about an undefeated Wisconsin not making it. Will Nigel be offering 100-1 with Death Roe and Dwags lips attached to his nuts?

Herbie!

I knew the new rankings would draw you out!

Remember that one time you thought we wouldn't make it? CFB Playoff rankings - Page 2 502811600

Oh, wait...of course you do...you keep bringing it up!

Seriously...just an epic moment of failure on your part. You should probably let it go.

by Sponsored content