In Defense of The Committee (Or A Reminder of What Could Be Happening Right Now)

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
That also isn't entirely correct because its using the AP. The AP hasn't been a part of the process for sometime. Lets use what would really be used in today's football. Lets use the CFP, USA, and computers.
I did not use the AP and Coaches poll. I only used the 6 computer polls. (As an aside, you see that the human polls are exactly the same as the CFP Selection Committee, unlike the computer polls. It is they who correct the error of the computer polls not vice versa, as you say.)

First lets use the computers alone. Take into account they factor SOS, SOR, and different methods per computer. Also keep in mind your highest and lowest ranking is dropped and the other four are averaged out.

Computer rankings

1. Clemson 1.5
2. UGA 2
3.tOSU 4
4.OU 4.25
5. UA 5.25
6. Wisc 5.5
7. UCF 6
8. USC 8.25
9. Auburn 9.25
10. PSU 9.25
11. Miami 11.5
12. WU 13.75

Yes the computers don't favor us, and that's why they shouldn't be an end all be all ranking. But they are consistent in their rankings in November. They aren't switching favorites in order to produce a certain matchup of teams. If they are used as a failsafe to prevent a rogue coach (like Bob Stoops in 2011) and a potentially biased committee full of playoff hopeful ADs from doing so then it is a very effective tool in deciding who goes.

Here is how they would end up.


CFP USA C Divide by 3= answer
1. Clemson #1 + #1+ 1.5 / 3 = 1.2
2. UGA #3 + #3+ 2 /3 = 2.6
3. OU #2+ #2+ 4.25 /3 =2.75
4. Bama #4+ #4+ 5.25 /3 = 4.42
5. tOSU #5+ #5+ 4 /3 = 4.7
6. Wisconsin #6+ #6+ 5.5 / 3 = 5.8
7. USC #8+ #7+ 8.25 /3 = 7.75
8. Auburn #7 + #8+ 9.25 /3 = 8.1
9. PSU #9+ #9+ 9.25 /3 = 9.08
10. UCF #12 + #10+ 6 /3 = 9.3
11. Miami #10 + #11+ 11.5 /3 = 10.8
12. WU #11 + # 12+ 13.75 /3 =12.25
This is exactly what I said in the original post.

The point is that the computers show where there is bias in the human polls, and prevents big shifts week to week because it puts it on the human voters to either be unbiased or get exposed.
First of all, as I said in the original post, my point was not to assess the right or wrong of the computer poll result, but to show that there is significant variation in computer poll results, thus demonstrating that they are not a magical, impartial source of information. They are just an inflexible extension of human thought, with all the limitations of computer software. Finally, the computers do not show bias in the human polls, they show the difference between computer polls and human polls and the human actually correct the ignorance of the computer polls. The variation in the computer polls is actually greater than that of the human poll. You are assuming that computer polls are superior, I know that they are not, at least not superior to the AP or Coaches polls, even less so in regard to the Selection Committee.

It's like you didn't even carefully read the original post.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
First of all, as I said in the original post, my point was not to assess the right or wrong of the computer poll result, but to show that there is significant variation in computer poll results, thus demonstrating that they are not a magical, impartial source of information. .
no you didn't, you were clearly going with 27's logic of human polls only

Here is a good example as to why we don't want computers as an official component of any ranking system. Again, yes, they can be consulted but not used as a fixed part of any ranking
The argument has been going back to the BCS system of thinking where computers were 1/3 of the rankings



Finally, the computers do not show bias in the human polls, they show the
difference between computer polls and human polls and the human actually
correct the ignorance of the computers

.


Actually they do. Before the BCS there were multiple Human polls doing screwy things. The computers keep coaches and others in check by showing a clear pattern of rankings week to week. It prevents good ole boys from a specific conference from putting their horse in while another putting another horse in. See 1990 for a great example.




You are assuming that computer
polls are superior, I know that they are not, at least not superior to the AP
or Coaches polls, even less so in regard to the Selection Committee.

.


No I'm definitely not arguing that. I'm arguing that there has to be a system in place to have a consistent committee. Again it changes every 3 years, and it hasn't been consistent, nor does it explain in detail while it makes its rankings. There needs to be something more to prevent them from constantly changing the criteria due to pressure to do so. If you don't think they will then you are fooling yourself.








It's like you didn't even carefully read the original post.


I did







[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB]


 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
You do realize the BCS threw out your highest and lowest rankings and averaged the other 4. So in all likelihood we still get the same result just different seeds.

The point is there is an unbiased failsafe in case the human element turns biased. We never know what a committee is going to say, and before you say that we do. Think about the week after the iron bowl and how Hocutt compared Bama to tosu and how he did on selection day. How do you go from “ razor thin” to “unequivocally better” in a matter of 5 days? The truth is ESPN has taken the Eric Biscoff theory of entertainment that states “ controversy =cash”. The problem is that there is no real criteria from committee to committee.
I answered most of this post in another post.

I answered the Hocutt charge earlier. In fact, I agree that the Selection Comm often botches their communication of their reasoning and mindset with those interviews, but that does not necessarily reflect the state of the Sel Comm's thinking. It's obvious that his comments were not consistent with what they were thinking.

IMO, there is real criteria, but it is flexible, as it should be. If it was formulaic, just publish the formula and abolish the Committee. But that's not what we want because the computers reflect that kind of inflexible thinking and most do not want their outcome. You are giving far too much credit to computer software's ability to evaluate a college football season. And they, as well as the polls and Committee, have a tremendous starting point: whatever they say, they all go primarily by wins and losses. That's probably 85% of the formula, the remainder being left up to judgment, and knowing software and seeing concrete confirmation of my concerns, I much, much prefer a committee of individuals with proven integrity and judgment to make the final call. Computers do not provide "an unbiased failsafe", they provide frightening outputs that may rank UCF #1 or #16, Bama #1 or #7.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
no you didn't, you were clearly going with 27's logic of human polls only


The argument has been going back to the BCS system of thinking where computers were 1/3 of the rankings





Actually they do. Before the BCS there were multiple Human polls doing screwy things. The computers keep coaches and others in check by showing a clear pattern of rankings week to week. It prevents good ole boys from a specific conference from putting their horse in while another putting another horse in. See 1990 for a great example.






No I'm definitely not arguing that. I'm arguing that there has to be a system in place to have a consistent committee. Again it changes every 3 years, and it hasn't been consistent, nor does it explain in detail while it makes its rankings. There needs to be something more to prevent them from constantly changing the criteria due to pressure to do so. If you don't think they will then you are fooling yourself.






I did







[SUB][/SUB]

We are having a real problem communicating. I'm either not communicating well or you are having trouble with reading comprehension and making unwarranted assumptions. You appear to be ignoring some things I've said and completely misunderstanding other things. I don't see any reason for us to continue sparring as we seem to be talking past each other.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
IMO, there is real criteria, but it is flexible, as it should be. If it was formulaic, just publish the formula and abolish the Committee. .
Really. Then why are we reverting to WWE tactics to promoting a show that people only watch for 3 minutes instead of telling us who is where and how can others jump in the conversation. The truth is the criteria changes every 2-3 years when the new committee is in power. Trust me Delaney isn't going to let this die, and will be advocating for the "deserving" argument over "best". So get ready for college champs in the next few years

But that's not what we want because the computers reflect that kind of inflexible thinking and most do not want their outcome. .
Again 1/3 can be overruled by 2/3. The thing it does is force the 2/3 to be more consistent on their rankings, and prevents them from going rogue. In 1990 we had two champions because neither the AP and Coaches could agree. In 1984 BYU was awarded a NC because human voters thought so. What sense does that make?
You are giving far too much credit to computer software's ability to evaluate a college football season. .
No you are just thinking humans are incapable of stupidness and obvious bias.

Computers do not provide "an unbiased failsafe

Yes they do. Again how many sham champions did you have in the 80's and 90's due to human polls compared to now. Had we not had a SECCG in 92 then I guarantee you FSU vs Miami would've gotten a rematch over Bama.
 
Last edited:

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
We are having a real problem communicating. I'm either not communicating well or you are having trouble with reading comprehension and making unwarranted assumptions. You appear to be ignoring some things I've said and completely misunderstanding other things. I don't see any reason for us to continue sparring as we seem to be talking past each other.
Then explain your point of view. Because it seems you are arguing against computers being a part of the equation at all.
 
Last edited:

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
Then explain yourself. Because it seems you are arguing against computers being a part of the equation at all.
We just have a vastly different view of the place computers should play in the selection process. That's fine.

As I stated in several posts about this subject, I do believe computers can be consulted as with other formulaic info such as advance analytics, the FPI, etc., but I do not think they should be a "hard fast component" like with the BCS. They gave us 2001 and 2003 and the near disaster of 2009 which would have been a disaster if it was for a 4 team playoff.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
Again 1/3 can be overruled by 2/3. The thing it does is force the 2/3 to be more consistent on their rankings, and prevents them from going rogue. In 1990 we had two champions because neither the AP and Coaches could agree. In 1984 BYU was awarded a NC because human voters thought so. What sense does that make?
It can override, but it doesn't always. E.g., 2001 and 2003 where the computer polls overrode the AP and Coaches poll by putting in undeserving Neb and OU.

No you are just thinking humans are incapable of stupidness and obvious bias.
Not at all. I've never said or implied that human polls or committes are infalible, they are just much preferred over computers. I know they are fully capable of stupidity and bias. In fact, I'm certain there is some level in every poll that ever been published, including the Sel Comm. I just know that every time there has been a difference, the human polls and the Selection Committee provided better choices than the computer polls - without exception. This coupled with my knowledge of how computer software is developed and its limitations, makes me much prefer human polls and even more a relatively devoted Committee who has demonstrated integrity and intelligence. I'm talking about their final choices, which is all that matters, not their ongoing "updates".


Yes they do. Again how many sham champions did you have in the 80's and 90's due to human polls compared to now. Had we not had a SECCG in 92 then I guarantee you FSU vs Miami would've gotten a rematch over Bama.
They do not begin to provide an unbiased failsafe mechanism, but I don't know what else to say that I haven't already said, unless I took you through how software is developed. I've shown previously that it is the human element that has had to keep the computer polls in line.

#2 Bama had a substantial lead over #3 FSU in the AP poll prior to the SEC Champ game. There were 62 voters and Bama had a 62 point lead, i.e., Bama and Miami would have played without the SECC game.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
It can override, but it doesn't always. E.g., 2001 and 2003 where the computer polls overrode the AP and Coaches poll by putting in undeserving Neb and OU.
.
But also remember why that happened in the first place. Nebraska beat OU by double digits then was molly whopped by Colorado to lose the division. OU sat at home after losing to Okie Lite. This actually ties into why I hate OU, and its because HUMANS love them for no reason. If I was to choose either team then its Nebraska due to less losses and H2H. Computers got it right if we are talking about those two. But the reason it was an issue is because Nick Saban beats Tennessee. Computers give it to Nebraska due to H2H and less losses. If anyone has an argument then its Tennessee not Oklahoma.

2003: Probably the only time the computers got it wrong.
Not at all. I've never said or implied that human polls or committes are infalible, they are just much preferred over computers. I know they are fully capable of stupidity and bias. In fact, I'm certain there is some level in every poll that ever been published, including the Sel Comm. I just know that every time there has been a difference, the human polls and the Selection Committee provided better choices than the computer polls - without exception. This coupled with my knowledge of how computer software is developed and its limitations, makes me much prefer human polls and even more a relatively devoted Committee who has demonstrated integrity and intelligence. I'm talking about their final choices, which is all that matters, not their ongoing "updates".
.
I have seen far more sham championships due to human polls than 1/3 computer polls, and I guarantee you have too. I mean we were really looking at Iowa over a defending tOSU in 2015 if MSU didn't pull it out.


They do not begin to provide an unbiased failsafe mechanism, but I don't know what else to say that I haven't already said, unless I took you through how software is developed. I've shown previously that it is the human element that has had to keep the computer polls in line.
.
The BCS had far less controversy in its 16 years than the 16 years prior to it and it isn't even debatable. So computers as a component give a far better field than a human committee alone.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,530
39,620
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
The BCS had far less controversy in its 16 years than the 16 years prior to it and it isn't even debatable. So computers as a component give a far better field than a human committee alone
I, for one, welcomed the compute input. I've seen us suffer from human bias altogether too many times...
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
The BCS had far less controversy in its 16 years than the 16 years prior to it and it isn't even debatable. So computers as a component give a far better field than a human committee alone.

The BCS had 2001,
2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2011, maybe other years, where there was great controversy. In some cases there was great frustration because the computers were a component over which the college football world had no immediate control. If there had been a 4 team playoff it would have been far worse. And the reasons there was not more controversy was not lessened by the computers. That's simply your opinion, not a fact. IMO, one of the reasons that it was not worse was that fans felt they had a more legitimate champion because all of the college football world, including the Rose Bowl participants, was united in selecting a champion, and because there were 2 teams that were playing for it, not just one chosen. It had nothing to do with computers being involved.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama


The BCS had 2001,
2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2011, maybe other years, where there was great controversy. In some cases there was great frustration because the computers were a component over which the college football world had no immediate control. If there had been a 4 team playoff it would have been far worse. And the reasons there was not more controversy was not lessened by the computers. That's simply your opinion, not a fact. IMO, one of the reasons that it was not worse was that fans felt they had a more legitimate champion because all of the college football world, including the Rose Bowl participants, was united in selecting a champion, and because there were 2 teams that were playing for it, not just one chosen. It had nothing to do with computers being involved.
Out of all those years only 2001, 2003, and 2011 stick out but only 2003 has weight to an argument.

You still have yet to convince me that either the 4 years since or 17 years prior are/ were better methods in selecting championship participants.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
I, for one, welcomed the compute input. I've seen us suffer from human bias altogether too many times...
I agree that there were years where Bama was hurt because of bias, which computers may have addressed to some degree: '66 and '77. OTOH, computer input would have likely prevented Bama from a claim on the '73 NC and maybe '78. In '73 Bama split with ND after losing to them in the Sugar Bowl. In '78 Bama split with USC after losing to them at Legion Field in decisive fashion. Bama would likely only be able to claim either '64 or '65. So, IMO, Bama would have gained and lost. But there was a definite bias against the South some of it having nothing to do with football, and some because they thought Midwest and West Coast football was superior. I believe that kind of bias is now. over though there is likely other kinds of more subtle but less egregious bias. In the 60s and even the 70s, the polls were not taken as seriously by the voters as they are now, plus there was little "intersectional football" played, everything was so regional. So there was little reference point for computers. But computers were not a component of rankings at that time and we have no idea if they would have helped.


I just know that now, where human polls or committees differ with computers, the humans come out ahead. I can't remember one time they did not. Not saying they shouldn't be consulted, along with other numerical type data like advanced stats, FPI, etc., but I don't want them having a direct say in the selection. I would assume that the Selection Committee members do consult them. Really for whatever selection method used, their primary work is greatly dictated by won/loss records, the selectors just evaluate 2-4 teams for the final spot or two. It's not that hard. Only a computer can mess it up badly like 2009 when it would have been UTx, Bama, Cinn, pre P5 TCU. It was Bama/Cinn if UTx doesn't hit a last second 46 yd FG after having a second put back on the clock in their Conf Champ game. That's the kind of disaster they can cause.
 
Last edited:

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54


The BCS had 2001,
2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2011, maybe other years, where there was great controversy. In some cases there was great frustration because the computers were a component over which the college football world had no immediate control. If there had been a 4 team playoff it would have been far worse. And the reasons there was not more controversy was not lessened by the computers. That's simply your opinion, not a fact. IMO, one of the reasons that it was not worse was that fans felt they had a more legitimate champion because all of the college football world, including the Rose Bowl participants, was united in selecting a champion, and because there were 2 teams that were playing for it, not just one chosen. It had nothing to do with computers being involved.
There was a controversy in 2003.

The others were just people mad about the BCS.

The 2001 controversy only occurred because of 9/11 and the cancellation of the Colorado-Washington State game. Without that, either Oregon (which nobody really doubted) or Colorado (bigger controversy but they DID beat Nebraska pretty handily) gets killed by Miami.

2006 was media generated because so many pundits attended Northwestern's fine journalism school and since NW is mostly terrible, they derive their egos from the rest of the conference in football. THEY created that controversy.

I went through each year with a separate post back in April. After looking closely at it, I had to conclude that save for 2003, the BCS got it right every single time.
 

RT27

All-American
Aug 13, 2017
2,301
130
82
There was a controversy in 2003.

The others were just people mad about the BCS.

The 2001 controversy only occurred because of 9/11 and the cancellation of the Colorado-Washington State game. Without that, either Oregon (which nobody really doubted) or Colorado (bigger controversy but they DID beat Nebraska pretty handily) gets killed by Miami.

2006 was media generated because so many pundits attended Northwestern's fine journalism school and since NW is mostly terrible, they derive their egos from the rest of the conference in football. THEY created that controversy.

I went through each year with a separate post back in April. After looking closely at it, I had to conclude that save for 2003, the BCS got it right every single time.
Like democracy, the system is bad, but still the best one going right now. :biggrin:
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Like democracy, the system is bad, but still the best one going right now. :biggrin:
Wanna know what my favorite would be?

The old Bowl Alliance days (but including the Rose Bowl folks) and AFTER the New Year's Day bowl game having a "Plus One" game. Quite frankly, we almost have that NOW except it's a committee and includes four teams, not two (the bowls below 1 vs 2 were NOT required to match up, say, 3 vs 4).
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,284
30,896
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
The problem is we've tried to marry all of these systems together. We want tradition, and that means the Big Ten playing the Pac 12 in the Rose Bowl, and the SEC in the Sugar Bowl, etc. But we also wanted all of these disparate parts brought together under one umbrella so that we'd hopefully eliminate controversy or at least eliminate split NCs.

I think this system has done the best we could do to bring all of that together. You get your Big Ten/Pac 12 Rose Bowl most years. You get your SEC Sugar Bowl most years (I never liked the Big 12 pairing, by the way. I know what they were trying to do. But we weren't talking about the Big 12 of the 90s). And we get all the power conferences together in the same system with 4 teams playing it off and they do this in the bowl games, not stand alone playoff games. So, you keep the bowl system valid and all the tradition that comes along with it.

I think you've got to have a committee for all of that to work, or at least human override capabilities. All that said, I am not a fan of it. Its worked out for us though, and I'll just say to the folks that can't stand us. At some point, we'll fall off this perch because it is impossible to stay on it forever. And when that day comes, you are going to want the committee to behave just as it has so far. Of course, I said that about the BCS after the 2011 season. Folks just have no patience.
 

FF4bama

1st Team
Sep 13, 2012
956
289
87
I was suspicious of the committee last year and the year before because I was afraid personal bias and conference politics would have too much influence. This year I was cautiously optimistic because IMO the committee had gotten it right three years in a row. I don't think the squawking for extending the playoffs will stop, however, and we're eventually going to be forced to allow more than four teams to play for it all.

Again, for the record, I'm against any more expansion-- I thought the BCS was sufficient. If we must expand, I submit that we should go to a 6 team rather than an 8 team playoff. The 1 and 2 team would get a first round bye, 3-6 would play two weeks after the conference championships, and the rest of the schedule would play out like it does today. The only benefit I see is that this would allow for someone from each of the P5 plus a play-in from one of the non-P5.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.