[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13494.msg139390#msg139390 date=1446659433]
[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=13494.msg139389#msg139389 date=1446659239]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13494.msg139322#msg139322 date=1446603511]We're talking about events that we can't affect and don't understand. It's completely pointless,

Have you ever talked about the weather?
[/quote]

We mostly understand the weather.
[/quote]

We mostly understand the CFP selection process.  Last year, we probably would have nailed three out of the four selections, and the fourth (Ohio State) wouldn't have been below #6.  The only reason for the amount of uncertainty right now is that there are a lot of games left to play, and football has a lot of unexpected results.  I don't think 538's model, which gives Stanford a 19% chance of making the playoff, is all that different from a weather model giving San Francisco a 20% chance of rain this week end.

BC
[/quote]

Well, that's only sort of right. At this point in the season you sure wouldn't have nailed 3/4. I have no problem with guessing what's going to happen after the CCGs. Also, we have a lot more historical data on the weather and we have a solid understanding of the physics that underlies it. If this were year 20 of the CFP playoff, I'd agree with you, but it's not. It's all too new. Silver even says so himself, they made significant changes to the model after last year, and will almost certainly be doing the same thing next year.

But, again, that's not really a thing I have a problem with. If people here want to build a complicated, comprehensive statistical model that's based on what little historical data we have, then go ahead. But most of what's happening in this thread is more along the lines of "red sky at morning, sailors take warning". Which, sure, maybe more accurate than flipping a coin (though I doubt it), but not particularly useful. The simple fact is that we don't really any idea if a 2-loss SEC champion Alabama trumps us, or if Clemson winning out helps us, or whatever the hell else people are trying to game out. We just don't know because it's too sensitive to other results and we don't understand the committee's thinking well enough.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13494.msg139390#msg139390 date=1446659433]
[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=13494.msg139389#msg139389 date=1446659239]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13494.msg139322#msg139322 date=1446603511]We're talking about events that we can't affect and don't understand. It's completely pointless,

Have you ever talked about the weather?
[/quote]

We mostly understand the weather.
[/quote]

We mostly understand the CFP selection process.  Last year, we probably would have nailed three out of the four selections, and the fourth (Ohio State) wouldn't have been below #6.  The only reason for the amount of uncertainty right now is that there are a lot of games left to play, and football has a lot of unexpected results.  I don't think 538's model, which gives Stanford a 19% chance of making the playoff, is all that different from a weather model giving San Francisco a 20% chance of rain this week end.

BC
[/quote]

Well, that's only sort of right. At this point in the season you sure wouldn't have nailed 3/4. I have no problem with guessing what's going to happen after the CCGs. Also, we have a lot more historical data on the weather and we have a solid understanding of the physics that underlies it. If this were year 20 of the CFP playoff, I'd agree with you, but it's not. It's all too new. Silver even says so himself, they made significant changes to the model after last year, and will almost certainly be doing the same thing next year.

But, again, that's not really a thing I have a problem with. If people here want to build a complicated, comprehensive statistical model that's based on what little historical data we have, then go ahead. But most of what's happening in this thread is more along the lines of "red sky at morning, sailors take warning". Which, sure, maybe more accurate than flipping a coin (though I doubt it), but not particularly useful. The simple fact is that we don't really any idea if a 2-loss SEC champion Alabama trumps us, or if Clemson winning out helps us, or whatever the hell else people are trying to game out. We just don't know because it's too sensitive to other results and we don't understand the committee's thinking well enough.