CFP committee vs the F+ Top 12

[chaseball]

Just me or does the top 12 in F+ look like a legit playoff with the best ~12 or so teams in the country vs that of the CFP playoff committee's top 12? I'd be way more interested in seeing how F+'s tournament bracket would play out than that of the official CFP committee's top 12/playoff bracket this year.

I feel like too many good teams are being penalized too severely for losses in really competitive games vs really competitive conference opponents and its going to start incentivizing programs to schedule more watered down seasons vs crap opponents to pad the W-L record and avoid potential losses on the final record.

PS I apologize for the poor formatting, just did some quick copy and paste jobs to get the information in one place.

CFP Top 12
1 Oregon 9-0
2 Ohio State 7-1
3 Georgia 7-1
4 Miami 9-0
5 Texas 7-1
6 Penn State 7-1
7 Tennessee 7-1
8 Indiana 9-0
9 BYU 8-0
10 Notre Dame 7-1
11 Alabama 6-2
12 Boise State 7-1

vs

	F+ Top 12
1​	Ohio State	2.26​
2​	Oregon	2.19​
3​	Georgia	2.02​
4​	Ole Miss	2​
5​	Texas	2​
6​	Alabama	1.89​
7​	Miami	1.69​
8​	Penn State	1.68​
9​	Notre Dame	1.67​
10​	Tennessee	1.62​
11​	Indiana	1.57​
12​	LSU	1.45​

 

[chaseball]

BTW I feel like the CFP committee will have a good idea of who the best teams are by the end of the regular season (so this isn't really a knock on the CFP committee perse), but I think F+ is a bit ahead of the CFP committee in figuring out who the best teams are, which is why the current Top 12 in F+ in week 10 is a good idea of what the final CFP committee's top 12 might look like by the end of the season.

 

[Pennick4]

More flatulence from Chase and his buds ..😂

 

[mrwigglesby21]

Replacing BYU and Boise St with Ole Miss and LSU seems logical. Unfortunately BYU is the defacto Big 12 Champ, and Boise the G5 champ. So it is what it is. Also makes the SEC regular season more valuable for those participants.

 

[Golson5]

BTW I feel like the CFP committee will have a good idea of who the best teams are by the end of the regular season (so this isn't really a knock on the CFP committee perse), but I think F+ is a bit ahead of the CFP committee in figuring out who the best teams are, which is why the current Top 12 in F+ in week 10 is a good idea of what the final CFP committee's top 12 might look like by the end of the season.

No it won't. F+ has 6 sec teams and that's not happening. And it has no big12 or non p4

So it's not even close to what it will be in the end

 

[88ND]

Replacing BYU and Boise St with Ole Miss and LSU seems logical.

Of course it does to the talking heads and the sheep that follow.

The voters and fans love lining up to be told who is really good.

 

[sjb75]

Of course it does to the talking heads and the sheep that follow.

The voters and fans love lining up to be told who is really good.

Impressed with himself.

 

[burmafrd1943]

chase his balls loves this F+

You do know even a F+ is a failing grade, right?

 

[chaseball]

Through week 11:

Rank	F+ (Week 11)	CFP Committee (Latest)
1	Ohio State	Oregon
2	Oregon	Ohio State
3	Texas	Texas
4	Ole Miss	Penn State
5	Alabama	Indiana
6	Georgia	BYU
7	Penn State	Tennessee
8	Notre Dame	Notre Dame
9	Indiana	Miami
10	Tennessee	Alabama
11	Miami	Ole Miss
12	South Carolina	Georgia
13	Clemson	Boise State
14	LSU	SMU
15	Texas A&M	Texas A&M
16	SMU	Kansas State
17	Iowa	Colorado
18	Boise State	Washington State
19	Louisville	Louisville
20	USC	Clemson
21	Kansas State	South Carolina
22	BYU	LSU
23	Iowa State	Missouri
24	Missouri	Army
25	Army	Tulane

I'd much rather see the F+ playoff bracket playout than that of what the CFP committee (plus the auto bid seeding) is producing.

 

[Golson5]

Iowa at 17 is one of the worst rankings of a team I've ever seen

If your system is this bad, change the formula

Just wow that's all I can say on how bad that is

 

[Granite45]

Through week 11:

Rank	F+ (Week 11)	CFP Committee (Latest)
1	Ohio State	Oregon
2	Oregon	Ohio State
3	Texas	Texas
4	Ole Miss	Penn State
5	Alabama	Indiana
6	Georgia	BYU
7	Penn State	Tennessee
8	Notre Dame	Notre Dame
9	Indiana	Miami
10	Tennessee	Alabama
11	Miami	Ole Miss
12	South Carolina	Georgia
13	Clemson	Boise State
14	LSU	SMU
15	Texas A&M	Texas A&M
16	SMU	Kansas State
17	Iowa	Colorado
18	Boise State	Washington State
19	Louisville	Louisville
20	USC	Clemson
21	Kansas State	South Carolina
22	BYU	LSU
23	Iowa State	Missouri
24	Missouri	Army
25	Army	Tulane

I'd much rather see the F+ playoff bracket playout than that of what the CFP committee (plus the auto bid seeding) is producing.

F+ has USC at #20 with a losing record of 4-5. Silliness.

 

[chaseball]

F+ has USC at #20 with a losing record of 4-5. Silliness.

All of those losses are really close against good teams and they have some good wins vs good programs (LSU, Wisconsin)

They are a competitive team whose played a tough schedule and been on the wrong side of bad luck (which is why there's such a large discrepancy between their W-L record and their F+ rating)

 

[Golson5]

All of those losses are really close against good teams and they have some good wins vs good programs (LSU, Wisconsin)

They are a competitive team whose played a tough schedule and been on the wrong side of bad luck (which is why there's such a large discrepancy between their W-L record and their F+ rating)

Iowa....tell us how bad that ranking is

 

[NDSMC78]

All of those losses are really close against good teams and they have some good wins vs good programs (LSU, Wisconsin)

They are a competitive team whose played a tough schedule and been on the wrong side of bad luck (which is why there's such a large discrepancy between their W-L record and their F+ rating)

Michigan, Maryland and Minnesota are mediocrities, as is Wisconsin. LSU is good, but not great. We watch the games. We know who is good and who is not good.

 

[chaseball]

Michigan, Maryland and Minnesota are mediocrities, as is Wisconsin. LSU is good, but not great. We watch the games. We know who is good and who is not good.

Do you watch every play of all 50ish games every single week and have some way to compare/contrast every single team based on their play by play performance? of course not...which is where a powerful tool/data technology like F+ comes in handy. (it has limitations because its algorithmic and mostly automated) but if you know the strengths and weaknesses of the system you can use it where its strong and deemphasize it where its weak.

also, in your list of teams referenced:

1. Minnesota: Ranked 30th overall with an F+ rating of 0.70
2. Wisconsin: Ranked 33rd overall with an F+ rating of 0.60
3. Michigan: Ranked 38th overall with an F+ rating of 0.56
4. Maryland: Ranked 62nd overall with an F+ rating of 0.19

A "0" F+ rating is considered an average FBS college football team (average in context of all 130+ teams)

Every example you gave is a team that is considered above average (with 3 of those 4 teams ranked in the 30s). Those are competitive opponents with -- maryland being an edge case --and a good example of how underrated the big10 is.

 

[Granite45]

Minnesota: Ranked 30th overall with an F+ rating of 0.70

1. Wisconsin: Ranked 33rd overall with an F+ rating of 0.60
2. Michigan: Ranked 38th overall with an F+ rating of 0.56
3. Maryland: Ranked 62nd overall with an F+ rating of 0.19

Every example you gave is a team that is considered above average (with 3 of those 4 teams ranked in the 30s). Those are competitive opponents with -- maryland being an edge case --and a good example of how underrated the big10 is.

Examples are more representative of how poor the F+ system is for ranking teams.

 

[Golson5]

You're making his argument and you don't realize it

 

[NDSMC78]

Do you watch every play of all 50ish games every single week and have some way to compare/contrast every single team based on their play by play performance? of course not...which is where a powerful tool/data technology like F+ comes in handy. (it has limitations because its algorithmic and mostly automated) but if you know the strengths and weaknesses of the system you can use it where its strong and deemphasize it where its weak.

also, in your list of teams referenced:

1. Minnesota: Ranked 30th overall with an F+ rating of 0.70
2. Wisconsin: Ranked 33rd overall with an F+ rating of 0.60
3. Michigan: Ranked 38th overall with an F+ rating of 0.56
4. Maryland: Ranked 62nd overall with an F+ rating of 0.19

A "0" F+ rating is considered an average FBS college football team (average in context of all 130+ teams)

Every example you gave is a team that is considered above average (with 3 of those 4 teams ranked in the 30s). Those are competitive opponents with -- maryland being an edge case --and a good example of how underrated the big10 is.

Right now:

Maryland is 4-5.
Michigan is 5-5.
Minnesota is 6-4.
Wisconsin is 5-4.

Don't tell us that these are good football teams. Their records say otherwise. This has always been the fallacy of the F+ system. It is derived from an arcane formula which has no relation to performance on the field.

 

[chaseball]

Right now:

Maryland is 4-5.
Michigan is 5-5.
Minnesota is 6-4.
Wisconsin is 5-4.

Don't tell us that these are good football teams. Their records say otherwise. This has always been the fallacy of the F+ system. It is derived from an arcane formula which has no relation to performance on the field.

If you are using only their W-L record to evaluate these teams and to evaluate the "accuracy" of F+ then of course you're going to see it this way. What im saying is that evaluating teams based on W-L record is an outdated/flawed/limited evaluation methodology.

I'd rather know how a team performs from play to play on offense, defense, and special teams with the quality of their opponent being taken into consideration and the amount of luck they benefited from in their season and compare teams based on THIS criteria instead. Because it gives me a much clearer picture of how teams are stacking up in college football in relation to one another and it gives me a much clearer picture of how they are likely to perform going forward.

 

[Granite45]

If you are using only their W-L record to evaluate these teams and to evaluate the "accuracy" of F+ then of course you're going to see it this way. What im saying is that evaluating teams based on W-L record is an outdated/flawed/limited evaluation methodology.

So then the team winning the final Championship game will not be awarded the Champion's trophy until F+ validates its position?

 

[chaseball]

So then the team winning the final Championship game will not be awarded the Champion's trophy until F+ validates its position?

No, but their F+ rating is far more exacting/correlating to winning the final championship game than their W-L record is.

 

[NDSMC78]

If you are using only their W-L record to evaluate these teams and to evaluate the "accuracy" of F+ then of course you're going to see it this way. What im saying is that evaluating teams based on W-L record is an outdated/flawed/limited evaluation methodology.

I'd rather know how a team performs from play to play on offense, defense, and special teams with the quality of their opponent being taken into consideration and the amount of luck they benefited from in their season and compare teams based on THIS criteria instead. Because it gives me a much clearer picture of how teams are stacking up in college football in relation to one another and it gives me a much clearer picture of how they are likely to perform going forward.

Of course I'm looking at the win/loss records. That's how teams in any sport are judged. When the playoffs are held, the winners will be the teams that score the most points in the field. Their F+ ratings will not be considered, or even relevant.

 

[chaseball]

Of course I'm looking at the win/loss records. That's how teams in any sport are judged. When the playoffs are held, the winners will be the teams that score the most points in the field. Their F+ ratings will not be considered, or even relevant.

The goal in baseball is to make runs and to prevent runs more than the other team. But you don't evaluate players based on how many "runs" they score, because "runs" is a highly volatile statistic that relies on a ton of other external factors to produce them. You instead evaluate players based on how much they get on base, how often they hit home runs, how fast they are on the bases, etc. because these items correlate to run scoring more than the "runs" stat itself does.

This same logic can be applied to college football teams and their W-L record.

Yes the W-L record is the ultimate goal, but the peripherals under the hood (so to speak) of how a team is performing on offense, defense, and special teams, vs the quality of their opponent and how much luck they are benefiting from tells us far more about how good a team is at winning football games than their W-L record itself does.

Good questions/discussion btw

 

[NDSMC78]

The goal in baseball is to make runs and to prevent runs more than the other team. But you don't evaluate players based on how many "runs" they score, because "runs" is a highly volatile statistic that relies on a ton of other external factors to produce them. You instead evaluate players based on how much they get on base, how often they hit home runs, how fast they are on the bases, etc. because these items correlate to run scoring more than the "runs" stat itself does.

This same logic can be applied to college football teams and their W-L record.

Yes the W-L record is the ultimate goal, but the peripherals under the hood (so to speak) of how a team is performing on offense, defense, and special teams, vs the quality of their opponent and how much luck they are benefiting from tells us far more about how good a team is at winning football games than their W-L record itself does.

Good questions/discussion btw

You're beyond help. We've all been watching sports for decades. We all know teams win and lose based on the scores of the games. Now you tell us that winning and losing are not all that important, but the success in sports is based on some bizarre formula. This is crazy even for you.

 

[chaseball]

You're beyond help. We've all been watching sports for decades. We all know teams win and lose based on the scores of the games. Now you tell us that winning and losing are not all that important, but the success in sports is based on some bizarre formula. This is crazy even for you.

Wins and Losses are VERY important. it is the end result/goal.

But there's A LOT that goes into winning or losing games and luck even plays a pretty significant role.

In order to determine which teams are best at winning games, you cant just look at their wins and losses in a silo. You have to look at how well they are doing the things that leads to winning games:

• how well do they move the ball and score points ?
• how good are they at preventing the other team from moving the ball and scoring points ?
• how good is their special teams performance ?
• how much has the team's overall performance been impacted by luck ?
• how good is the quality of a team's competition and how well did they produce vs the quality of their competition ?

All of these questions/peripherals tell us a lot more about a team's ability to win or lose games than their W-L record itself does. A system like F+ & FPI is answering these questions in its formula and ranking teams accordingly.

 

[mrwigglesby21]

Of course it does to the talking heads and the sheep that follow.

The voters and fans love lining up to be told who is really good.

I played football at the collegiate level; I am no sheep sir, not in any area of life, certainly not as it pertains to football.

Advanced analytics are useful.

But hey, if Georgia was playing BYU or Boise St you go right ahead and bet your money on BYU / Boise. I wonder who Vegas would make the favorite?

I do understand your point of view, however, which is why I personally would rank Indiana ahead of ND at this point even though I think ND would win that game 7 out of 10 times.

Feel free to be less of a dick when you communicate with me or we will not communicate.

 

[NDSMC78]

Wins and Losses are VERY important. it is the end result/goal.

But there's A LOT that goes into winning or losing games and luck even plays a pretty significant role.

In order to determine which teams are best at winning games, you cant just look at their wins and losses in a silo. You have to look at how well they are doing the things that leads to winning games:

• how well do they move the ball and score points ?
• how good are they at preventing the other team from moving the ball and scoring points ?
• how good is their special teams performance ?
• how much has the team's overall performance been impacted by luck ?
• how good is the quality of a team's competition and how well did they do vs that quality of competition ?

All of these questions/peripherals tell us a lot more about a team's ability to win or lose games than their W-L record itself does. A system like F+ & FPI is answering these questions in its formula and ranking teams accordingly.

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

[NDinNJ]

Through week 11:

Rank	F+ (Week 11)	CFP Committee (Latest)
1	Ohio State	Oregon
2	Oregon	Ohio State
3	Texas	Texas
4	Ole Miss	Penn State
5	Alabama	Indiana
6	Georgia	BYU
7	Penn State	Tennessee
8	Notre Dame	Notre Dame
9	Indiana	Miami
10	Tennessee	Alabama
11	Miami	Ole Miss
12	South Carolina	Georgia
13	Clemson	Boise State
14	LSU	SMU
15	Texas A&M	Texas A&M
16	SMU	Kansas State
17	Iowa	Colorado
18	Boise State	Washington State
19	Louisville	Louisville
20	USC	Clemson
21	Kansas State	South Carolina
22	BYU	LSU
23	Iowa State	Missouri
24	Missouri	Army
25	Army	Tulane

I'd much rather see the F+ playoff bracket playout than that of what the CFP committee (plus the auto bid seeding) is producing.

LSU at 14 with 3 losses. They got throttled in all 3 games. 😂

 

[chaseball]

LSU at 14 with 3 losses. They got throttled in all 3 games. 😂

Even in games where there's a big point differential the game might be more competitive 'under the hood' than what the final score indicates. We've all watched those kinds of games where it's a tight 1-possession type of game with a lot of back and forth for 3.5 quarters, and then a couple of fluky last minute turnovers and quick scores turns the game into a 20+ point blowout. I would describe the ND vs OU 2012 game that way. It was 13-7 up until the halfway point of the 4th quarter before ND outscored them 17-6 in the last half of the 4th quarter to finish the game with a 30-13 victory based on untimely turnovers and a short field to close out the game.

F+ will take into account the back and forth nature of the game/the production of both teams in the game, from play to play and drive to drive; and even if the final score shows a large point difference the game might have otherwise been really tight/close if it weren't for some untimely bad luck in super high leverage moments in the game.

Point being, you can't just look at final scores to understand how good a team was/how competitive they were in that game. You have to look at it with more nuance.

 

[NDinNJ]

Even in games where there's a big point differential the game might be more competitive 'under the hood' than what the final score indicates. We've all watched those kinds of games where it's a tight 1-possession type of game with a lot of back and forth for 3.5 quarters, and then a couple of fluky last minute turnovers and quick scores turns the game into a 20+ point blowout. I would describe the ND vs OU 2012 game that way. It was 13-7 up until the halfway point of the 4th quarter before ND outscored them 17-6 in the last half of the 4th quarter to finish the game with a 30-13 victory based on untimely turnovers and a short field to close out the game.

F+ will take into account the back and forth nature of the game/the production of both teams in the game, from play to play and drive to drive; and even if the final score shows a large point difference the game might have otherwise been really tight/close if it weren't for some untimely bad luck in super high leverage moments in the game.

Point being, you can't just look at final scores to understand how good a team was/how competitive they were in that game. You have to look at it with more nuance.

Yea LSU was really competitive in that 42-13 loss to Alabama. 😂

 

[chaseball]

Yea LSU was really competitive in that 42-13 loss to Alabama. 😂

Maybe the game was closer than what the final score indicated? I'm not sure I didn't watch it ... but this is just one factor of many others that goes into a team's overall F+ rating.

LSU has 3 losses to the #20, #15, and #6 team in F+ through week 11.

In contrast Notre Dame has 1 game (total) vs a top 20 opponent (A&M #15) through week 11.

 

[Golson5]

Maybe the game was closer than what the final score indicated? I'm not sure I didn't watch it ... but this is just one factor of many others that goes into their F+ rating.

They have 3 losses to the #20, #15, and #6 team in F+.

In contrast Notre Dame has 1 game (total) vs a top 20 opponent (A&M #15)

Wrong.

Do you know or even believe in your rankings?

Louisville is 19th

So we have 2 top 19 wins according to your own rankings

 

[chaseball]

Wrong.

Do you know or even believe in your rankings?

Louisville is 19th

So we have 2 top 19 wins according to your own rankings

I appreciate the correction...i overlooked that Louisville was still in the top 20

 

[Golson5]

I appreciate the correction...i overlooked that Louisville was still in the top 20

It's more that you always look to put Notre Dame down in any way you can. Not that you overlooked it. If it was an sec team you would have not overlooked it.

Just like you do with the schedule. We'll have 4 top 25 games according to your rankings. But you say it's trash.

So do you believe in your own rankings or not?

 

[sjb75]

Same shit.

 

[sjb75]

Different day.

 

[burmafrd1943]

Chase his balls is our Kamikaze poster going down in flames again and again

 

[88ND]

You said this...

Replacing BYU and Boise St with Ole Miss and LSU seems logical.

To which I replied with...

Of course it does to the talking heads and the sheep that follow.

The voters and fans love lining up to be told who is really good.

Only logical to the talking heads who love the trendy teams....which is exactly accurate. They love what a team did yesterday and they love the pretty conferences by default in lieu of any other possibilities.

I played football at the collegiate level; I am no sheep sir, not in any area of life, certainly not as it pertains to football.

Advanced analytics are useful.

But hey, if Georgia was playing BYU or Boise St you go right ahead and bet your money on BYU / Boise. I wonder who Vegas would make the favorite?

I do understand your point of view, however, which is why I personally would rank Indiana ahead of ND at this point even though I think ND would win that game 7 out of 10 times.

Feel free to be less of a dick when you communicate with me or we will not communicate.

LOL...if you think that's being a dick can I offer you some thicker clothing for protection?
I wasn't being sarcastic whatsoever and simply speaking in reality.
ESPN LLLOOOVVVEEESSS the pretty teams and acts like football is only played in the south east United States which is absurd. Christ they won't even play a road game north the mason dixon line post Halloween.

I assume you realize that today more than ever CFB is robust with parity. Not every team is equal but with the portal today all it takes is a couple key transfers who want to play NOW...get a ton of NIL money promised and suddenly we have talent littered throughout the landscape.

Moreover we aren't talking about Vegas now are we? We are simply talking about rankings ( all types) and the fact that the playoff ranking has OSU at #2.....and BSU who shares the same identical one loss to the same team, same place and same defeat..
BSU scores more than OSU...Has a Heisman candidate...and all they've done is win all of their games minus the Eugene trip, just like OSU...
Yet they are on the outside looking in at #13 and the stupid lgbqabc123S&p f+ ranking has them at 18...??? 18..? YEP...18

The fact that F plus ranking has teams that have lost to other teams ranked ahead of them is beyond absurd.
You said you played the game and I'll take your word for that but if you did in fact play I would think you would despise a ranking that allows a team whose been defeated by another team to be ranked higher. Head to head supersedes all else but not with this formula.

Like I said in another post the 2018 Clemson team finished the year 15-0 and gave Bama a drubbing of the decade was actually ranked third in the final ranking of the year. Ranked 3rd behind Alabama..the team they just obliterated...and Georgia who Alabama beat earlier.


When the playoff goes to 16 and then ultimately 24 there is no doubt the committee will mess up the seedings but the more available spots will mean fewer exclusions of teams deserving a spot.

Some day...
not...
too...
far away

 

[NDinNJ]

Maybe the game was closer than what the final score indicated? I'm not sure I didn't watch it ... but this is just one factor of many others that goes into a team's overall F+ rating.

LSU has 3 losses to the #20, #15, and #6 team in F+ through week 11.

In contrast Notre Dame has 1 game (total) vs a top 20 opponent (A&M #15) through week 11.

you're an idiot if you believed that game was closer than the final score. It was worse, because LSU scored a TD in garbage time to make it closer than it was. It was 42-6, up until the last 2 minutes of the game.

LSU had 343 yards in total offense yet managed to only score 13 points, 7 of which came in the waning moments of the game. F+ is garbage.

 

[mrwigglesby21]

You said this...

To which I replied with...


Only logical to the talking heads who love the trendy teams....which is exactly accurate. They love what a team did yesterday and they love the pretty conferences by default in lieu of any other possibilities.



LOL...if you think that's being a dick can I offer you some thicker clothing for protection?
I wasn't being sarcastic whatsoever and simply speaking in reality.
ESPN LLLOOOVVVEEESSS the pretty teams and acts like football is only played in the south east United States which is absurd. Christ they won't even play a road game north the mason dixon line post Halloween.

I assume you realize that today more than ever CFB is robust with parity. Not every team is equal but with the portal today all it takes is a couple key transfers who want to play NOW...get a ton of NIL money promised and suddenly we have talent littered throughout the landscape.

Moreover we aren't talking about Vegas now are we? We are simply talking about rankings ( all types) and the fact that the playoff ranking has OSU at #2.....and BSU who shares the same identical one loss to the same team, same place and same defeat..
BSU scores more than OSU...Has a Heisman candidate...and all they've done is win all of their games minus the Eugene trip, just like OSU...
Yet they are on the outside looking in at #13 and the stupid lgbqabc123S&p f+ ranking has them at 18...??? 18..? YEP...18

The fact that F plus ranking has teams that have lost to other teams ranked ahead of them is beyond absurd.
You said you played the game and I'll take your word for that but if you did in fact play I would think you would despise a ranking that allows a team whose been defeated by another team to be ranked higher. Head to head supersedes all else but not with this formula.

Like I said in another post the 2018 Clemson team finished the year 15-0 and gave Bama a drubbing of the decade was actually ranked third in the final ranking of the year. Ranked 3rd behind Alabama..the team they just obliterated...and Georgia who Alabama beat earlier.


When the playoff goes to 16 and then ultimately 24 there is no doubt the committee will mess up the seedings but the more available spots will mean fewer exclusions of teams deserving a spot.

Some day...
not...
too...
far away

I appreciate the effort you put forth in your reply. Unfortunately, you misrepresented your original assertion - you left out: "and the sheep that follow". Considering I said "it seems logical", I can only infer that you were calling me a sheep for having such an opinion. I don't think Vegas is watching ESPN to make their lines, so, according to you, it appears only the talking heads, sheep (myself), and the EXPERTS in Vegas, would assume LSU (prior to their Alabama beatdown) and Ole Miss replacing (being actual better teams) BYU / Boise would be logical.

Ohio St has 4 wins (Iowa, Nebraska, Penn St, Michigan St.) better than any 1 win possessed by Boise St. This is where advanced analytics comes into play - especially when both teams are 8-1. The schedules each respective school plays are not equal. The fashion in which each team won those games are not equal. I like making choices with as much information as possible. Advanced analytics is one of those data points, although I rely more on the eye test, previous recruiting, previous seasons' records, etc. I incorporate it all.

I don't need thicker clothing, my skin is thick enough, so much so, that I have no issue sitting keyboard to keyboard and letting someone know I don't appreciate being called a sheep. Supposedly we are all ND fans, and I assume we chose to be ND fans based on the overall mission and brand of the school (certainly not the championships we have been winning over the last 36yrs), so you are already elevated in my eyes. Enjoy your day.