Yep. For reasons unknown, the OP continues to insist that teams should be evaluated by some obscure formula, as opposed to how they play on the field. Very strange.
Well to be fair, everything about that 'formula', consists of data points derived from the games themselves. It's just that wins and losses, which really is all the fuss is about when it comes to sports, are just a data point, possibly not even an important one. The main data points comprise things like 3rd down efficiency, how many big chunk plays you make, your red zone performance, how well you compile various statistics versus different opponents in different conditions, etc. It's just data, data, data, data. And they write some algorithm that shuffles the data points, these mathematical figures, through some process, some elaborate series of equations. And when it's all done they spit out a number. And then they rank the teams by who has the highest number. And apparently it's felt that its possible, by way of these equations, to arrive at a 'score', we'll call it, by which you can make some not completely undue or misplaced or inappropriate claim of who the best teams really are. On account of a proper appreciation of what teams accomplish on the field, in what circumstances, over the course of a game, the the course of a season. When the ball is snapped, and a play is attempted and completed. And of course this goes for both offense and defense, both orientations. And the various categories of play on the field that can be measured numerically in some fashion, and then thrown into the mix to be mathematically processed and factored into the final numerical score, is large. I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere, and not every key component to success on the football field is easily quantifiable, but that's a judgement call for the little code writers on their keyboards to decide. One would think they work with coaches and football people when constructing these algorithms, so when all the computing is finished, and the score is revealed, that you picked the right statistical considerations to prioritize or not, so that justice could sort of be served? But I don't know....
Needless to say, something like this in entirely antithetical, and abhorrent to the very endeavor of athletic competition. Using algorithms and computerized statitistical analysis to help coaches and players better understand and appreciate their own performance is one thing. Actually in any way deciding the outcome, in effect, of the competition itself by way of these formulas is morally hideous. That's why the bowls and the polls suck so bad. Got rid of the bowls, but apparently we're going to be stuck forever with the polls. Instead of automatic qualification by virtue of W/L record. And we got a lot of computer geeks who need jobs. So they set to work!
