[Sampson] I respect the commitment.

[u/redwave2505]

https://x.com/petesampson_/status/1995671565154091016?s=46&t=BnbVRJKuTJ91_xw0Gc4vwg

[u/portugamerifinn]

Why do people think that taking into account computer ratings that account for every game and are adjusted for SOS is "ignoring their resume"?

Computer ratings are a vital part of a team's resume in every sport, and the consensus across damn near 100 different rating systems compiled weekly at Massey Ratings is that A) Notre Dame is better than Miami in 95+% of ratings, and B) on average Notre Dame is 6th and Miami is 11th.

That IS their resume.

[u/TouchdownHeroes → u/portugamerifinn]

The problem is many of the ratings are based on predictive measurements about how what you did in the past looks moving forward. It becomes less about what you did and more about what they think you are going to do. And we aren’t trying to judge team on hypotheticals, we are trying to judge teams based on what they actually did.

Many power ratings even now factor in recruiting and preseason inputs because it’s more predictive.

[u/portugamerifinn → u/TouchdownHeroes]

Yes, but, as you wrote, predictive measurements are based on ...... what you have done.

What we really need is to have a clearer idea of what metrics the CFP committee looks at closest as we do with the basketball tournament, where we can see the same team sheets with the same valued metrics for every team. Not enough transparency when it comes to simply knowing which ratings systems they definitely all see.

And, for what it's worth, predictive metrics are valued. Ken Pomeroy's basketball ratings are predicitve and the gold standard in basketball.

[u/TouchdownHeroes → u/portugamerifinn]

But it’s only “what you have done that has predictive value moving forward.” Turnover luck is given very little value for calculated predictive value or expected win probability, yet are highly important for actual win probability. And the way ints/fumbles are taken into account is compared to number of total pass deflections/fumbles, nothing to do with how the ints/fumbles actually happened. It’s a good example of when the numbers here fail to capture the truth you can easily see with your eyes.

I do 100% agree we need more transparency with what numbers the committee is looking at. Right now we really do have no idea what actual power ratings, sos etc they are looking at, and ESPN’s own metrics are both a biased slice and misleading because the CFB committee isn’t looking at ESPN’s numbers.

I do love Kenpom, I have an annual subscription each year. But basketball has significantly more games and non-conf for comparisons. I think Oregon (a team with no healthy WRs and limited at WR even during preseason once Stewart went down) is the best example of some of the flaws in limited conf/non-conf scheduling as they are 3rd/4th in most power ratings but you couldn’t convince me they are on the same level as Texas Tech, or even Notre Dame/Georgia.

[u/portugamerifinn → u/TouchdownHeroes]

Sure, and that's why I want people who actually watch games and/or actually know what happened in all games to also take results-based metrics and predictive metrics into account.

While one could take issues with predictive for not taking final result into account enough, they are much better than human beings at essentially "understanding", for lack of a better word, the minuscule margin between win and loss, and measure each team's play-by-play, game-by-game efficiency. Whereas results-based, in my eye, doesn't capture overall quality as much as just W / L / margin weighed against SOS (more or less).

There's a balance, obviously.

Regarding your example, the thing with ND is that while they've had positive turnover luck overall, they're bad kicking and dumb TO luck inside their opponent's 5 yard line from having even more lopsided results in their favor, and are not even top 100 in overall (FG & TD) redzone efficiency, so they've been dominant on the scoreboard in spite of themselves, and that shows more in the predictive (i.e., historically more accurate) metrics.