Everyone seemed to have a hot take about the CFP and the selection committee.
I would like to explore this in the way we do here at LarryTheGM.
Let's define what I think is the best way to evaluate teams against each other. I will work through this step-by-step and apply it to the teams the CFP was actually considering.
Let's start with a fictious Larry U schedule. The GM's played
- Eleven Power 5 teams and won ten of those games.
- The ten Power 5 opponents they beat had a combined 60-60 record.
- One Group of 5 team that had an 8-4 record.
- One FCS Opponent with a 9-3 record.
Therefore, the combined record of their schedule wins would be 77-67 or a 0.535 Pct.
I specifically DO NOT credit a team for the record of their loses. More on that later.
How many of you THINK the general group of 5 opponents and FCS opponents should be factored in equally as the Power 5 Opponents? I don't! I think
Group 5 opponents should have
- Wins factored at 75%
- Loses factored at 125%
This would mean the WEIGHTED Group of 5 opponent record would be 6-5 instead of 8-4. This is fairer in generally to me for most Group 5/ Power 5 games.
FCS opponents should have
- Wins factored at 50%
- Loses factored at 150%
This would mean the WEIGHTED FCS opponent record would be 4.5-4.5 instead of 9-3. This is fairer in generally to me for most FCS/ Power 5 games.
You will understand why I think this is important when you see how all of these top teams scheduled.
For the Larrry U team WEIGHTED combined record of their schedule wins would be 71-70 or a 0.504 Pct. In general, this is a fairer depiction of the overall strength of this schedule.
I said I ONLY credit a team for their wins and not their loses. I apply a WIN ADJUSTMENT to their opponents record of wins. Here is how I do that above.
The Larry U GMs went 12-1 having a 0.923 winning percentage. I multiply the opponents record of wins by that factor. I divide the opponents record of loses by that same factor. In our example, the opponents record of wins of 77-67 becomes a win adjusted opponents record of wins of 71-73 or 0.495. In our example, the weighted opponents record of wins of 71-70 becomes a win adjusted weighted opponents record of wins of 65-75 or 0.464.
I think the win adjusted weighted opponents record of wins is the BEST measure of how good teams did against their schedule. It factors the team's record, the opponent's record, AND the quality of the opponents. If this is true, did the CFP committee get it right if we apply this metric? This is the cell in green above.
Let's take a look at the detailed tables for Texas, Alabama, and Florida State.
Of the top 7 CFP teams, Texas is the ONLY team to play a winning record of Group of 5 opponents AND NO FCS Opponents. They played nine teams going to bowls. One of those teams is in the CFP- Alabama who they beat. Their Weighted Opponent Record of Wins is 0.534. This is second among all seven teams.
They played nine teams going to bowls. They lost to their one opponent team in the CFP. Two others are playing in New Year's Six games. Their Weighted Opponent Record of Wins is 0.546. This is BEST among all seven teams.
Florida State fans scream that they played LSU, a good Power 5 out of conference opponent and Florida their rival (who ended up 5-7). What they don't tell you is that they also played in the relatively weak ACC, AND a very weak Group of 5 Southern Miss, and an even weaker FCS North Alabama. They played eight teams going to bowls, but none going to the CFP or New Year's Six Bowls. Their Weighted Opponent Record of Wins is 0.467.
I think if FSU wants the benefit of the doubt in these tiebreaker situations that they cannot afford to be scheduling weak FCS teams as long as they remain in the ACC.
Let's summarize all seven teams now and also show the Win Adjusted Weighted Opponent Record of Wins.
If this is a comparison of FSU to Alabama and Texas, there is NO record strength metric that would give the nod to the Seminoles. Even with the win adjustment factor, Bama and Texas are better than the Noles.
Texas and Alabama are the only two teams to have played nine bowl teams.
If you ask me, this data objectively PROVES that the CFP committee got it right. This is without even factoring FSU's QB situation.
Support the Site
Do you want to support this site? Do you want to make sure you continue to get real analysis like this?
It takes time and it does cost money, I really would appreciate your support of the work. Here is your opportunity to do that at a nominal cost. This support will help me continue to provide you what I do- objective analysis of your teams. It will also help the site improve and expand our reach.
If you don't think our work is worthy of financial support, I will accept your non-action feedback humbly.
The details are available at Patreon.com. It is VERY easy to sign up.