Joel Klatt with an excellent criticism of the CFP rankings.
After listening to this guy announce some of our games and hearing him on the Rich Eisen show, I got the impression that he's got a decent head on his shoulders. That was confirmed by this little mini-rant he goes on about how the ACC is way over ranked in the CFP rankings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uPUIWm4gfs
The title sounds like a click-baity hot take, but he's got some good arguments.
November 2nd, 2018 at 5:05 AM ^
Sorry, I'm bad at looking down at the mgoboard. Delete this. Already posted.
November 2nd, 2018 at 6:18 AM ^
It's such a great video, that it's worth a double post. Also too psyched about the game to care. Go Blue.
November 2nd, 2018 at 6:19 AM ^
It's such a great video, that it's worth a double post .....
November 2nd, 2018 at 8:06 AM ^
I don't think it hurts anything to leave it up. It was a good listen and he uses pretty good data to back up his claim. Maybe someone will get a chance to listen that missed it the other day.
November 2nd, 2018 at 8:36 AM ^
Saw it earlier and didn't bother watching it. Your double post gave me the push to actually watch. Hero is a word that gets thrown around too loosely these days, but you are my hero.
November 2nd, 2018 at 5:36 AM ^
Joel Klatt is Michigan's answer to Paul Finebaum.
November 2nd, 2018 at 8:23 AM ^
*Pete
/FIFY
November 2nd, 2018 at 6:02 AM ^
A statistics and psychology lesson from Mr. Klatt. Cool.
November 2nd, 2018 at 6:12 AM ^
Deja vu?!
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!
November 2nd, 2018 at 6:13 AM ^
Practically eviscerated it.
November 2nd, 2018 at 6:18 AM ^
I agree with him about 95%. He didn't bring up the idea that the cfp committee also probably has a bias toward making sure each conference is well represented to maintain interest and boost resumes. The ACC could legit have one or two ranked teams, but then how could they justify Clemson at 2 without having another ranked team in their conference.
November 2nd, 2018 at 8:10 AM ^
Or maybe its something to do with Clemson having the #2 OOC schedule at this point in the year. Who is #3? Oh yeah, its the good guys! Go Blue!
November 2nd, 2018 at 8:22 AM ^
Yes. Specifically the ACC has ties with five of thirteen members including the chair, and the SEC with four.
When you consider the B1G only has one who is also split with his ND roots and equal hate of Michigan, Gene Smith, it doesn't take an expert to find where some natural lines of consensus will form; around how the ACC and SEC have the toughest schedules.
November 2nd, 2018 at 7:06 AM ^
Wasnt the other video from BTN?
Either way I'm pissed there isn't a transcript.
November 2nd, 2018 at 7:32 AM ^
Can I get a summary?
November 2nd, 2018 at 8:28 AM ^
CFP ranking is artificially skewed by
1. Confirmation bias related to SEC. SEC teams are generally overrated, which feeds back into the thought that SEC is the best conference.
2. Frank Beamer as a nefarious actor inside the committee pushing for ACC teams, which gets BC, Virginia, Syracuse and NC State ranked. Those teams are overrated compared to FPI by about 16 places, on average, far far out of line with all other conferences.
3. Big Ten is generally underrated, even though it has the second best inter-conference record this year. Also, the big ten is the only undervalued conference, so it bears the entire brunt of the ACC shenanigans.
November 2nd, 2018 at 9:19 AM ^
The committee approach isn’t working for two main reasons:
[1] Confirmation bias toward SEC extends beyond its leaders, so top-ranked one-loss, top-ranked two-loss, top-ranked three-loss are always SEC.
[2] One or two “influencers” in the committee can cause it to skew against the data far beyond the margins for error in the data. Currently the skew is toward the ACC, with four teams ranked on average sixteen spots above where they are ranked in the FPI (BC, Virginia, NC State, Syracuse), and the B1G taking the brunt of the displacement. He posits the influencer in this case is likely Frank Beamer.
The B1G is the only conference with its ranked teams on average placed below their FPI rankings — all the other conferences’ ranked teams are on average placed above their FPI rankings. Plus, that statement does not even include MSU, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Purdue, who are not ranked by the committee (having been displaced by the ACC).
Points out that Purdue beat BC, Indiana beat Virginia, and Penn State beat down Pitt 51-6. Only Northwestern lost to Duke.
[EDIT: Ninja'd so added info to make it less redundant...]
November 2nd, 2018 at 11:39 AM ^
Also notes that the acc has a horrible p5 record against other conferences and the B1G(1-5?), and that only the B1G and SEC have winning records vs other p5 conferences this year, but the B1G is still devalued. (He could have added last year B1G bowl results but that is last year...)
November 2nd, 2018 at 8:13 AM ^
Even though it's a repeat, it bears repeating.
November 2nd, 2018 at 8:14 AM ^
This is the benefit of having competition for ESPN/ABC/SEC Network in the college football broadcasting world (aside from seeing more games). There's finally an outlet with a wide reach that will legitimately point out these biases.
The SEC/Southeast bias has been around at least since Florida pantsed OSU in the championship game after the 2006 season, so this is a long time coming.
November 2nd, 2018 at 10:35 AM ^
Agreed. It’s nice to have someone like Klatt making this point so the coaches aren’t put in the position of having to argue with the Finebaums of the world.
November 2nd, 2018 at 8:34 AM ^
Beat PSU...
November 2nd, 2018 at 8:45 AM ^
I really hope it is not a close game at all... Would love to absolutely crush their spirits instantly right away...
November 2nd, 2018 at 8:50 AM ^
"This thread is from Mars!"
-Joel Klatt
Seriously, though. Klatt is becoming one of my favorites.
November 2nd, 2018 at 8:54 AM ^
The national championship will always be mythical. You cannot have a 100+ team league which is what College Football is and have a true "national champion."
If you have a resume equal to the CFP winner and get voted by a selector for a national championship then you should claim it. Doesn't matter what the CFP committee says.
November 2nd, 2018 at 10:43 AM ^
I think an 8 team playoff gets you pretty close. Have 5 auto bids for the P5 conference champions and then 3 at-large spots for the top three teams who aren't included.
Alternately, you could have the conference championship games act as "play in" games which earn the winners a by week, while pairs of potential at large teams need to beat each other to get a spot. That would force teams like ND to play the extra game that Michigan would have to play in order to get in.
November 2nd, 2018 at 9:11 AM ^
I think his argument rings hollow. The committee is primarily looking at resume rather than on-field quality (and not a predictive tool). Wisconsin has 3 losses, one to BYU. Northwestern has 3 losses, one to Akron. MSU has three losses, one to ASU. It's not outrageous that none of those teams is ranked. If those teams continue to win, they'll become ranked. If Wisconsin had beaten BYU, Northwestern had beaten Akron, MSU had beaten ASU, they would have very similar FPI or S&P+ rankings, and they would all be top 25 in the committee's rankings.
TL;DR: Committee is looking at resume/accomplishments/deservedness, not performance-based stats which are designed to be predictive.
November 2nd, 2018 at 11:22 AM ^
Funny thing is, since it's a bias confirming what you already believe, you don't think there is anything "wrong" with it.
But especially when its the extremely subjective points of "resume/ accomplishments / deservedness", they better have something objective to support it.
November 2nd, 2018 at 11:32 AM ^
I'm not supporting the committee's approach that predictive stats do not factor into their considerations. I do research on predictive numerical simulations in physics. I love the fancy stats. My point is that the committee doesn't care about those fancy stats and that's why their rankings are the way they are, rather than some conspiracy to prop up certain conferences. Whether the committee should or shouldn't use S&P+, FPI, etc. is not the argument here.
November 2nd, 2018 at 1:14 PM ^
Confirmation bias is almost always oblivious to the perpetrator, so no conspiracy needed.
And doesn't it seem suspicious that the subjectiveness of the committee seems to be skewed uniformly in one direction away from the metrics rather than a randomly around them.
November 2nd, 2018 at 11:44 AM ^
Are any of those losses worse than those that ranked teams have who lost to:
Indiana
Minnesota
Maryland
Purdue
No, Though my personal opinion is the bias is made easier as those ranked teams haven't played as many decent schools to have that third loss.
November 2nd, 2018 at 11:54 AM ^
But those ranked ACC teams don't have 3 losses. It's that simple for the committee. There's no conspiracy. Which B1G team are you putting above NC State, BC, Virginia, Syracuse? Whatever you say, the reason the committee didn't is because that B1G team has more losses than those ACC teams.
November 2nd, 2018 at 1:08 PM ^
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/
Sagarin Ranking and Record against Top 10 teams:
#21 Wisconsin 1-1
#24 Purdue 1-0
#26 Michigan State 1-1
#31 NC State 0-1
#33 Boston College 0-0
#43 Virginia 0-0
#44 Syracuse 0-1
November 2nd, 2018 at 1:16 PM ^
Simple?
So why has LSU 3?
November 2nd, 2018 at 9:23 AM ^
I completely understand where he is coming from, but the B1G has no legs to stand on... The teams in question, just outside the rankings:
Wisconsin (3-loss team) with a loss to BYU
Northwestern (3-loss team) with a loss to Akron
Maryland (3-loss team) with a loss to Temple.
Michigan State (3-loss team) with a loss to Arizona State.
The best win of that bunch is Maryland over Texas, but they are about to go to 4-4. Maybe MSU sneaks back into the rankings with a win over Maryland. Right now there is only one 3-loss team in the playoff rankings. And Texas A&M three losses are to #1 Alabama, #2 Clemson, and #21 Mississippi State with a win over #11 Kentucky to boot.
None of our 3 loss teams deserve to be ranked right now.
November 2nd, 2018 at 9:29 AM ^
Yes, precisely. This isn't some conspiracy by Frank Beamer. It's just the committee is looking at wins and losses, who you beat, who you lost to and not FPI or S&P+. The B1G has two 2-loss teams and they are ranked higher than all of the ACC 2-loss teams. Occam's razor is the way to go here.
November 2nd, 2018 at 9:59 AM ^
Yes and no. B1G isn't really being penalized, in my opinion. PSU and OSU are a little low in the CFP rankings compared to computers (S&P, FPI & Sagarin), but only by a few spots. When it comes to ranking 3-loss teams in the bottom end of the CFP-25, I could not care any less. Those teams affect nothing. Clemson is #2 in the poll and #2 in every other ranking on earth, computer or otherwise, regardless of the back end of the CFP-25. Michigan is #5 and is either 4 or 5 in every ranking system out there, regardless of whether we shoehorn MSU into the 20s somewhere. So this isn't really mattering (yet) with regard to the actual 4 team CFP and isn't worth getting worked up over.
That said, it is quite odd that Syracuse, NC State, BC & Virginia occupy 4 of the last 7 spots. Those resumes are capital-F Flimsy. The best win for each of them is usually each other. Or Miami, which is not all they were cracked up to be early. There's nothing in there like a Purdue win over OSU, or MSU over Penn State.
Again, I don't care because it's not affecting anything. But Klatt is on to something in that the committee seems to be cramming in ACC junk in the back end.
November 2nd, 2018 at 10:22 AM ^
For full illustration, I mapped out the rankings. I can't remember where I saw how to make a table, but here's some supporting info. Major discrepancies between the CFP ranking and where teams are ranked elsewhere. Let's go with CFP ranking, team and then their computer ranking in a (S&P+, FPI, Sagarin) format. For example:
#3 LSU - (13, 10, 8) According to the advanced stat/computer polls, LSU doesn't deserve to be that high.
Here are a few others whose CFP ranking vastly outweighs their computer ranking.
#4 Notre Dame - (6, 8, 12)
#8 Washington State - (23, 22, 19)
#9 Kentucky - (29, 28, 23)
#12 UCF - (11, 31, 29)
#17 Texas - (42, 23, 18)
#19 Syracuse - (51, 41, 44)
#21 NC State - (35, 36, 31)
#22 Boston College - (38, 29, 33)
#24 Iowa State - (37, 30, 30)
#25 Virginia - (48, 48, 43)
While the 4 ACC lumps at the back end is...something, you also have a couple SEC teams, two Big XII teams and a PAC team in there well above where they probably deserve to be. (shrug) As far as our B1G teams are concerned:
#5 Michigan (4, 5, 4)
#10 OSU (8, 6, 6)
#14 PSU (10, 7, 7)
#16 Iowa (24, 14, 9)
PSU and Ohio State are a little low. I can't really get worked up over that.
Is it the weekend yet? *looks at clock* Shit.
November 2nd, 2018 at 11:27 AM ^
But my point is that S&P+, FPI, Sagarin all don't matter. The committee is not looking at predictive stats. Whether that ought to be the case is an entirely different argument. The point is that there is no conspiracy, the committee is just not using the criteria that people here and Joel Klatt want them to be using. Based on the criteria they are using (who have you beaten, who have you lost to), their rankings are justifiable.
November 2nd, 2018 at 12:27 PM ^
I disagree that those rankings don't matter. I agree that there's no "conspiracy". I don't care to dive any further. Good talk. Go Blue.
November 2nd, 2018 at 12:56 PM ^
The evidence is pretty clear that those rankings don't matter -- to the committee. They probably should. Go Blue.
November 2nd, 2018 at 11:40 AM ^
You're right that Syracuse, NC State, Virginia, BC all have mediocre resumes, but these are teams filling out the last part of the top 25. Who are you going to put above them based on resume?
Purdue might have a big win, but they have 4 losses, one of them to EMU! MSU has 3 losses, one of them to 4-4 Arizona State.
Sure, Virginia has a loss to Indiana, BC has a loss to Purdue, Syracuse has a loss to Pitt; but these are one of only two losses for each of those teams.
November 2nd, 2018 at 3:32 PM ^
While this may not be an "issue" yet, with only the first CFP rankings out and us sitting at #5, Joel's overall point is that using the committee's flawed system, they are building in the requirements to unjustifiably favor the SEC and ACC, more so the ACC.
The thing is, these ACC teams that ARE ranked in the top 25 (far above their statistical computer ranking spots) will automatically improve the resume of any team that beats them. Even when looking at who these over-ranked teams have beaten reveals that they haven't beaten anybody worth a darn. So their ranking is over-inflated, thus boosting the ranking of anyone who plays and beats them.
Conversely, all these B1G teams that were left out (far below their statistical computer ranking spots), who actually have beaten quality teams will negatively impact the resume of any team who plays and beats them. In our case, Michigan has all these quality wins against teams like Wisconsin, Northwestern, MSU, etc. but if they aren't ranked in the CFP top 25, it makes Michigan look not as good. So at the end of the season, it's conceivable (how likely is unknown) that a Michigan team which wins out COULD (in theory) get left out of the playoff in favor of Bama, Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia/LSU/SEC TEAM. And this COULD (in theory) be a final end result of the committee artificially inflating the resumes of these other teams by ranking their conference compatriots in the top 25 meanwhile leaving out most of the B1G teams.
This is the point Joel is making. ACC teams are being ranked by the CFP far above what their computer and statistical ranking should be, despite beating nobody. Meanwhile B1G teams are being ranked by the CFP far below what their computer and statistical ranking should be, despite beating quality opponents or at least facing quality opponents. And all of this adds up to boosting ACC final resumes while degrading B1G final resumes.
November 2nd, 2018 at 5:30 PM ^
The consequence that B1G teams are unranked and ACC teams are may be true, I don't find fault with that. I find fault with the argument that it is somehow nefarious when it is much more simply explained by the committee ignoring advanced metrics in favor of a more simplistic resume view.
If people want to blame someone for this, blame Wisconsin for losing to BYU, MSU for losing to ASU, Northwestern for losing to Akron, Purdue for losing to EMU/Missouri. If they win those games, the B1G has 8 teams in the top 25 and other conferences' talking heads are screaming about how the B1G is over-ranked and Frank Beamer is a pushover on the committee because the B1G's 2-loss teams are all ranked higher than the ACC's 2-loss teams.
November 2nd, 2018 at 10:09 AM ^
Fwiw there are three 3-loss teams
November 2nd, 2018 at 9:29 AM ^
I'm thinking the first time Klatt criticizes Harbaugh or Michigan, it will end his likeability factor here.
November 2nd, 2018 at 2:11 PM ^
Username checks out
November 2nd, 2018 at 9:43 AM ^
I used to think that Joel Klatt was just the Big Ten’s Finebaum (with a much less disgusting appearance, of course) but over time he really has proved he knows his stuff. I’m glad someone is speaking truth about our conference and about CFB. These rankings suck below the top, and more fans should be upset about it.
November 2nd, 2018 at 9:59 AM ^
Joel Klatt is my spirit animal