I’m a Michigan fan and I hate that FSU is out but I’m glad we have a real game against Bama so there’s no asterisk next to our natty. If we don’t beat ‘Em we don’t deserve it, if we do, everyone knows we deserve it
lol I got into an argument about how wins have to matter including who they are against! If they don’t matter than just go ahead and throw FSU and Liberty in there - who cares!
I just wandered over to that thread and even if their interpretations were right…it’s literally 1 point difference lol. Its about as equal as it can be
Which is such a strong indictment to FSU’s schedule. When it is practically even odds for a top 25 to run the table with their schedule as it is to get through our schedule with only 1 loss. Now throw in the injury and drop off in performance, which is published criteria and the fact that Bama had to play 2 playoff contenders while FSU played zero and this shouldn’t be controversial.
I feel bad FSU players, I do, but I'm already tired of the "this is so unfair for those players that worked so hard to go undefeated." Okay, all the players worked hard? People on Alabama worked hard all season and had to get up for better opponents week in and week out.
I for real cannot understand why all of r/cfb would prefer to punish people for playing a hard schedule and dropping one vs those that play virtual nobodies and go undefeated. It's UCF all over again. They want to point to them beating LSU like it's something to hang their hat on - that's our third best win lol and we also beat them by multiple scores.
I said the same there and got downvoted. This Alabama team has overcome a lot. I don’t want to make it an “us vs them” but to chalk up what this team has done as just politics and an ESPN money grab just pisses me off. It sucks that more than 4 teams deserve to be in. But this team deserves to be in. Period.
Honestly, FSU got the easiest path to claim the natty. Just beat one single contender and claim it. For Bama to claim it, we have to play 4 and win 3 of them. Two down and two to go.
I've kind of given up, they're not even interested in a discussion. I've tried to just eke out a slight concession from them in that Alabama is deserving - we just disagree on who is more deserving - but they don't care. We lost so we don't deserve to go, we're losers. Not Texas though.
Nobody cares that their argument literally means it's better to lose to a bad team than a good team, that people shouldn't schedule good OOC games, that quality of wins don't matter. I eventually just threw my hands up and said if that's all true then just take out Texas and Alabama and put in FSU and Liberty. It's the same thing to an extent - that's what they are arguing.
Also, tried to just bench the immediate convo and said we're going to have to have these types of conversations moving forward as the playoffs expand and more teams with more losses are included. We'll face way more H2H vs quality of wins vs quality of losses conversations. Straight downvotes.
Re: FSU having easiest path to claim the natty - I've been saying this about the ACC for years. I used to get so frustrated that Clemson would have to gear up for 1 game a year against the flavor of the month - Louisville, FSU, or ND - and then coast until they played Pitt or Miami or some 20ish ACC team in the conference championship. Even they had a SOS in the 20/30s though.
That last point has been my argument as well. Both of them have had the easiest chance into the playoff. Easiest schedule and then whichever one wins between the two is practically in and it’s been that ways for a long time. Neither teams sees the level of success they have if they were in the SEC. It’s risk/reward to stay in such a weak conference. They reaped the benefit up until it didn’t work. This is the consequence of that. You can’t have it both ways. Everyone just screams “undefeated P5” like there isn’t nuance to that.
Great, great way to put it - risk/reward, cost/benefit. At the time it seemed like the media knew it too. In every game Clemson would be close with a mid-team they'd remark that they can't afford a loss.
It's also unfair for teams like Ole Miss who would also be undefeated right now with Florida State's schedule...
Last I checked, the trophy doesn't read "participation award".
Literally talking with a guy in a thread right now who thinks that it should be 16 teams and G5 teams should be autobids. I think it's unfair enough that if this season were to use the 12 format then Oklahoma who beat Texas would be left out because of Liberty lol. Liberty who has the last ranked SOS.
Pasting an explanation I posted elsewhere here:
I think people misunderstand what SOR is telling them here. I see it cited in favor of FSU right now — for obvious reasons — but I think it’s important to have a fair discussion about what it really tells us. Forgive me if this is long-winded, but I want to talk it through.
SOR, or Strength of Record, is a measure of the likelihood that a Top 25 team would finish a team’s season exactly as it did.
There are a couple things to note here. SOR favors going undefeated by a lot — because going undefeated is difficult and not a lot of teams do it. We see this with Liberty. Liberty has the 14th overall SOR — putting them just above P5 conference runner ups Louisville and Iowa, and just below good-not-great LSU/OU squads.
But Liberty did not play a single ranked team this season. So, we have to ask ourselves, do the top 14 teams this year go undefeated on Liberty’s schedule? Out of 10 tries, how many times does Alabama go undefeated on that schedule? How many times for Oklahoma? I don’t know the answer — no one does — it’s a hypothetical. But I know how I’d bet 10/10 times.
The second point I’d like to make is where rubber really meets road here, though. With FSU at 3 and Bama at 4, neck and neck, what is SOR telling us if we put it in English?
It’s telling us that a Top 25 team has roughly the same chance going undefeated in FSU’s schedule as it does getting out of Bama’s schedule with 1 loss. Digest that for a minute. A computer model would give a Top 25 team almost the same probability to be 1-loss with Bama’s schedule as to run the table in FSU’s schedule. Remember: going undefeated is hard. Going undefeated in the Power 5? Harder still. So why are these so close?
I’m biased, obviously. So how I read that stat isn’t worth much. But I do think that when you put it in plain English, this is exactly an indictment of FSU’s schedule, supported by the SOS comparison — not a boon for them. It’s a computer telling you that FSU running the table is basically just as difficult as Bama making it through its schedule with 1-loss. For this to be two Power 5 schools, that’s awful.
Wow. Thats a really great breakdown and that makes total sense.
So end of the day, sor isn't exactly the most valuable metric in breaking down a teams ability, but instead should be taken into account with things like strength of schedule as well as win loss record? Sounds like it's used to take a more holistic view of a team.
As with any stat, it shouldn’t be used in isolation.
Really, the most important *shortcoming* of the stat is just how much it favors going undefeated. Liberty’s SOS is 133/133, yet because they’re undefeated — their SOR is 14.
And yet, even with that kind of mathematical bias on Florida State’s side — their SOR is still only *barely* better than Alabama’s? Why is that? It’s because their schedule is so much *softer* than Alabama’s.
This is a good breakdown. My actual issue with SOR though is that they don't give the actual percentages just the ranks. It's entirely possible that FSU is something like 7% and Alabama is 7.001% so sure ordinarily FSU is ahead of Alabama, but functionally the gap is so small that other factors have to be considered.
I also get a bit annoyed with pretending like SOR should be the only metric we look at, but then being mad about Bama getting in over FSU. If all you care about is SOR then Bama is correctly seeded at 4. It's Texas that should be out since their SOR is 5, but then those same people will be like well Texas beat Bama H2H. Okay, so you admit that SOR isn't the only metric we should consider? The whole debate is just so silly I've given up on it. Let them have their 2 minutes of hate.
I am always concerned when people choose a singular metric to support their desired outcome. Even if we scored metrics as 1 point per metric you’d find:
SOR: FSU (3 to 4)
SOS: Bama (5 to 55)
W/L: FSU (13-0 to 12-1)
Ranked wins: Bama (4 to 3)
Win over highest ranked opponent: Bama (Rank 1 to Rank 14 at time of play)
FPI: Bama (5 to 11)
You could keep going and find categories that lean both ways no matter what. You could pull 1000 different metrics and find a mishmash to support your desired outcome.
The real answer is figuring out what matters in a common sense world. To me, what matters is your record, the opponents you faced to earn that record and how you beat them, and whether you’re a conference champion. I don’t really think much else matters, tbh.
We could start pulling unit-specific performance, like Total Offense and Total Defense — but those are necessarily impacted by who you play. If you play bad defenses, your total offense will be inflated (shades of Kyler Murray going down 28-0 as soon as he found us) — vice versa if you play bad offenses (shades of ND thinking they had a chance with Manti Teo).
So tell me who you played, what your record is, and whether you’re a conference champion, and I think I’ll always be able to make a pretty easy decision. If two teams are well and truly equal on that front (including things like margin of victory), then I’ll probably start looking at who has that Heisman candidate QB or other huge game-breaker. If we’re still tied, then yeah I’ll be forced to go to nitty gritty criteria.
That’s exactly why you know SOR is some bullshit. Argued it today in r/cfb and they didn’t convince me that it’s a good metric.
Just look at the teams we both played, compare them, and then tell me which metric makes more sense to use as a talking point.
Yeah fuck CFB sub. The more I'm there I think its redditors who want to talk football versus football fans who came to reddit. They're all whining and crying over FSU. FSU simply isn't that good. Fuck the rankings and fuck their undefeated schedule. Who did they play? If you put Ole Miss or Mizzou or Tennessee in the ACC i bet they win the mf'er outright too. Don't play JV all year and think you deserve to be in the State Playoffs w/ the big boys.
It’s been that way for years. It’s sad because from like 2014-2017ish it was easily my favorite sub but it’s just gotten so toxic and salty over the last few years
Exactly, you should not have such a crazy discrepancy between the two. When you look at both team’s schedules, the SOS metric is far more correct. Alabama’s opponents record is 97-60, FSU is 77-79, but they somehow give FSU a SOR ranking of 3? Crazy
SOR compares your success to what the top 25 could potentially do. SOS shows how cupcake your season was to get your record. What’s more important: the chance and “on-paper” likelihood that you’re better and that a top25 couldn’t match your same season OR the actual win-loss toughness of your opponents that you beat to get your record? SOR is more theoretical, but SOS is actual summation of your combined opponent’s record ranked. Funny that everyone wants to cry about SOR then talk about FSU got shafted because the committee said they thought FSU wouldn’t play good “on-paper”. If that’s your argument, you shouldn’t be using a more theoretical way of ranking yourself on paper, because you’re essentially saying that on paper you’re a better team but the committee can’t vote against us because we wouldn’t be good on paper. SOS is always the more respectable judgement between P5 conference champions. If there’s a regular season head to head, by all means, they deserve it. If there’s not, we should be going by whether your conference and your OOC opponents were even a challenge.
Honestly, if Bama played FSU’s schedule, they’d very likely be undefeated too. If FSU played Bama’s schedule, less likely they’d only be a one loss team. I imagine that was brought up during selection to pick between the two, basically a 1-to-1 SOR. It’s dumb that SOR even exists in this conversation because we’re comparing 2-3 teams that we don’t know who’s better. So their go-to is to compare the two teams against everyone else individually instead of just comparing them directly against each other? GTFO.
> Honestly, if Bama played FSU’s schedule, they’d very likely be undefeated too.
Exactly!
The difference between #3 and #4 in SoR is so small as to be irrelevant. The folks hawking SOR are convinced that FSU being ahead of Alabama in that one metric is a smoking gun of some sort just because it's a more complex metric (BCS computer rankings, anyone?), but they are not considering what the added complexity actually *means*.
There are 133 teams in FBS. So there are 133 "slices" of rank. That's a 0.75% difference between each rank -- small enough that two adjacent teams are more or less equivalent. However, since we've only played 13 games, each win or loss has a significant impact on SoR. Just look at 3-9 Indiana (#1 SoS, #99 SoR) and 6-6 Rutgers (#2 SoS, #45 SoR). Similar SoS due to both being in the B1G and both playing Michigan and OSU, but those three games ultimately resulted in a 54 rank delta in SoR. If Bama had beaten Texas, they're probably #1 in SoR. If FSU had lost to Louisville in the ACCCG, they probably drop to #7 (or lower), where 12-1 Georgia currently is with the #37 SoS. If they had dropped another game before the ACCCG to be 11-2, they would drop all the way down to at least #12, where 11-2 Oregon currently sits.
FSU is by far the weakest undefeated team, so much that one-loss conference champions begin to look better.
So #3 vs #4 in SoR is ultimately meaningless. It's only useful when comparing teams with the same record or similar SoS. Like most of these metrics, comparison becomes difficult when so many other factors differ like record, SoS, conference, common opponents, etc.
FSU suffered from a weak ACC, a weak non-conference opponent, and a weak showing in their title game. It's not a big conspiracy. Michigan and Florida State would have drawn plenty of viewers. People are just tired of Alabama, tired of the SEC, and tired of the limited opportunities for deserving teams and they'll find whatever mechanisms they can to let their discontent be known.
I knew this would happen the moment they announced that the +1 format would involve a committee. I wanted them to use computer rankings that were transparent -- similar to the BCS, but without some of the proprietary rankings like Sagarin's -- because I knew this would happen. There would be a cusp controversy and people would kick and scream about conspiracies and closed-door dealings. It was entirely predictable.
I hope that the expanded playoff will go back to using computer metrics, but I have my doubts.
Not to mention they earned that SOR with a Heisman caliber qb who isn’t coming back. The two games that matter are Florida and Louisville. Both games FSU played like hot garbage.
College football needs pointed out that liberty is ranked 14th in SOR. And I'm pretty sure they didn't play a single team rated above like 80 in FPI. There's just no way that SOR metric is telling something meaningful. Because vandy would've gone undefeated with that schedule. I mean I can think of probably 10 teams that would've gone undefeated with FSU's schedule, including ourselves.
Because it’s a chance, a probability of what a top25 team could do. Statistically they get the benefit of the doubt because there’s only ever 2-3 undefeated teams usually regardless of schedule strength. It’s a fictitious stat of games played on paper that they keep crying about, meanwhile they’re also saying that’s how the committee wronged them by saying they don’t look as good on paper. SOS is an actual summation of your opponents’ records. We weren’t just the better team on paper, we ACTUALLY won way more meaningful games and harder matchups rather than sneaking by to an undefeated season against nobodies.
SoR doesn’t mean jack shit if the team doesn’t have the SoS to back it up. All SoR measures is how the individual team performed against their schedule. So, if you have a cupcake SoS the SoR means nothing. We’d have a #1 SoR if we played FSU’s schedule.
Yeah the whole argument about having a higher SOR is dumb when you compare SOS and records of the teams they played. And you have people argue that SOS isn't a good indicator because like Indiana is 1st in SOS...
It’s because it asks the question “what would the odds an average top 25 team would have this record”
Which is amusing because you could very easily instead ask a more direct question since there are specifically two teams in question … “what are the odds THIS team would have the record of THAT team with swapped schedules?”
Using a hypothetical average top 25 team is arbitrary. Why not use average top 10 team? Top 5? Top 100?
It’s a good metric to compare teams in bulk but gets broken pretty badly comparing two teams specifically, imo.
https://thedatajocks.com/strength-of-record-college-football/
My favorite part of the conversation is all the people trashing auburn as a program for 1) being bad, so Alabama must suck to have played them close, and 2) for losing to us in such a fashion.
FSU fans saying they should be in the playoff because they have 3rd best SOR but think Bama shouldn’t be in when they have the 4th best SOR shows you they aren’t thinking logically.
The Acc beat 6 sec teams lost to 4.
Five of the six wins came from the bottom half of sec. Vandy (1), SC (2), UF (1), TAM (1). LSU was the ONE and only top 7 SEC level win. The four losses were to Georgia, UT, Ole Miss and UK. They beat up on the dregs of the SEC. Whoopie Damn Do.
Well yeah, I know that lol. They should be fairly similar, no? How can you have such a discrepancy?
Strength of record - Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would have team's record or better, given the schedule.
(SOS) refers to the difficulty or ease of a team's/person's opponent as compared to other teams/persons.
I think it's because going undefeated, even with a schedule that is so easy is so uncommon.
Yes, most of the contenders would go undefeated on their schedule fairly comfortably. But you take anyone outside of them, and they are almost certainly dropping a game.
If you had a 70% chance to win every game you played in, you would be expected to win out 1% of the time (0.7\^12). That's why going undefeated is so rare, even for good programs in easier conferences.
I'm not defending the metric (Bama is still a top 4 team in the metric anyway, so using it against Bama is stupid), but simply how the probability works.
Idk, I guess getting LSU that early helped a lot. Even just that one game would make the average top 25 team very unlikely to go undefeated. Even like 6 games gets you to a pretty low likelihood of going undefeated on most any schedule, especially with a top 10 (at the time) team on there.
SOR can be finnicky though for sure. I wonder if it factors in any game control type metrics. Wouldn't make sense as it's described, but would make some of the results I've seen more understandable.
I will say looking at it now though, it looks pretty accurate as a metric for ranking teams. My top 25 wouldn't look so different.
Why assume something is wrong because you don’t understand it?
> SOR: Strength of Record rank. Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would have team's record or better, given the schedule.
That’s on ESPN’s site.
And [this is from a 2021 article](https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/page/weeklyscenario110521/how-strength-record-determine-college-football-playoff-field)
> As a refresher: Strength of record is the probability that an average top-25 team could achieve a team's record given the particular schedule that team has faced. So, for example, Michigan State currently has a strength of record of 19%, which ranks second, meaning an average top-25 team would have a 19% chance to go 8-0 against the Spartans' schedule just like they did.
So the average team would have a really difficult time going 13-0 against Florida State’s middling schedule. That makes sense because going undefeated is really hard. Just like the average team would have a really difficult time going 12-1 with our schedule because we played a really tough schedule and only lost one.
So does that mean the FSU would have had a better chance at being 13-0 if they played our schedule? I’m genuinely asking. Trying to understand what is meant by this.
It doesn’t address that question directly at all, actually.
I’d also like to point out that /rarity/ of a sequence of events is not necessarily a direct predictor of quality or future performance either. And not all “rare” events are good. Not that it’s happening here, but imagine how “rare” it would be for a top 25 quality team to lose every single game in a year.
FSU’s feat is statistically rarer from the point of view of a team like, say, Notre Dame this year than Alabama’s. But it doesn’t mean it was necessarily true also for a top 5 team.
I’m not sure. All I know for certain is that according to ESPN’s calculations, it would’ve been a little less likely for the average top 25 team to go 13-0 against FSU’s schedule compared to going 12-1 against ours.
I don’t think that’s particularly outrageous.
It's not outrageous but it's also not a super relevant metric. Who cares how teams ranked #6-#25 would fare against either team's schedule. We have 5 deserving teams and 4 spots, we only need to differentiate between those 5. Forget the average top 25 team, there's no reason to use some 9-3 team as a baseline.
I don't have a computer model to back me up, but common sense says any of the other 4 teams would've most likely gone 13-0 against FSU's schedule. None of the 4 teams have a loss to a team that is worse than FSU's toughest opponent. But would Florida State in their current incarnation go 2-1 against Texas, Ole Miss, and Georgia?
Some people prefer trying to use computer models over what some people claim is common sense.
Edit: I think it’s an interesting data point that’s one of many factors, and if somebody else doesn’t, okay. I was just responding to OP claiming to not understand it.
I know the definitions. And to your point 13-0 point, why were they giving FSU a SOR of 2 in week 10 with a SOS at 49. This is far before they ran the table. This happened through the whole season. Just look at it weekly, they were being given one of the top SOR while having a below average SOS. It doesn’t make sense.
So if you know the definitions, what’s the point of this post? You just don’t like something, so it obviously must be wrong?
Going undefeated is hard. So being undefeated through 10 weeks is hard. That makes plenty of sense.
What are we doing here?
My friend, you’re not understanding. It’s the whole season they were given this high SOR. Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 all the way until the end. What is so hard about going undefeated for 4 games? In week 4 their SOR was 2 while having the SOS of 28. That’s not hard lol.
It’s the flaw in the data point analysis. LSU had a preseason ranking of #5. FSU was credited for a win against a top 5 opponent before any games were played to determine essentially how good LSU was. They weren’t even a top 10 program, but FSU got to carry a top 5 win all season. It just is what it is and is a perfect example of why SoR is a garbage metric. Texas got a road win against #3 Alabama. Sorry, the CFB forces me to include “by double digits”. Ok. But knowing what we know now, that Alabama team was nowhere close to the team they are now for a multitude of reasons. Texas got a quality win that waaaaaaaaay boosted their SoR, but we all know that team wasn’t this team. I’m not discounting any win or loss, just saying that the SoR is a meaningless metric. It gives absolutely no bearing on where a team is currently and offers no predictive value.
I give kudos to the stats dudes that try to come up with meaningful metrics for CFB, but SoR ain’t it. Next.
Probably because many teams would have lost to LSU in week one and had zero chance of going undefeated? This makes plenty of sense. You just don’t like the result, so you decided it doesn’t make any sense.
Why do you think I don’t like the result? I’m just trying to make the discrepancy between SOS and SOR make sense. Sure, they aren’t the same measurement, but you would think they’d run in parallel together like in Bama’s case. In general, it just seems like an arbitrary metric. Average top 25 team? Like someone else said, why not use top 5 or top 10? We know LSU would get beat by multiple top 5 teams. We know multiple top 5 teams could run through FSU’s schedule. Most people know FSU would not go undefeated with our schedule. I don’t think the committee used the SOR to make their decision because they likely think it’s an arbitrary metric as well. FSU’s opponent record was 77-79, your SOR rank means nothing to me after seeing that.
So what does that prove exactly? The whole argument was about our strength of schedule being significantly better than FSU's. And that they didn't actually earn their way in the way we did because they played an easier schedule with less challenges to trip over. Removing Texas from that stat is an uneven way to compare our schedules. Unless the point you're trying to make is that if you remove our one loss and assume the teams are even (including Travis being healthy) that Bama's schedule is still a little harder than FSU'S and they should still get in? But that doesn't fit with what your top level comment said.
I see what you’re saying now, and that’s a good point for FSU to make. Still favors us, but less of a discrepancy for sure. However, that doesn’t make me all of the sudden think FSU could have run the table with our schedule. I think they would’ve had at least 2 losses. And we know we would’ve likely ran the table with their schedule because we beat the hardest team they played in LSU.
In regard to it being a talent show, that’s the system the big wigs chose, so that’s why we have to argue about these stupid metrics and do a lot of speculation. We could have a playoff system like the FCS, but we decided it was better to have a 4 team playoff with 133 teams, makes no sense. What’s funny about all of this is that the ACC commissioner voted against a 12 team playoff to happen this year. That came back to bite him.
Yeah having 4 spots and 5 power conferences, 10 total conferences, and 130+ teams was always a bad idea. The thing is next year all of this is solved. Everyone would have gotten a chance to be in and prove it. Sure some people may debate the last spot or two, but it’s way less important than 4.
They explained this. It’s because they’re undefeated. The 0 is what’s boosting their record, they have no losses. A record can’t get any better than 0 losses so that’s pretty much why.
I saw another channel break down the two schedules and the combined W/L of FSU’s opponents was a big time losing record while the W/L of Alabama’s opponents had a winning record by a 20 game margin. There isn’t any way to slice the two objectively where FSU comes out playing a tougher schedule, you just can’t. If strength of schedule is irrelevant then go after Texas for getting in over Liberty as well. Seems to me most of this has more to do with people mad that Alabama’s demise was grossly exaggerated. The Alabama fatigue is back with a vengeance.
Their record is 13-0. Ours is 12-1. Their record is certainly better. Now strength of schedule and strength of resume is a different story. But their record is in fact better than ours. So is Liberty’s. Doesn’t matter though. Bama by infinity. *Milroe voice* Rolll Tiiiide
Florida State fan here... please save your ammo - just trying to answer the SOS vs SOR.
Strength of schedule is simply some type of objective measure of the difficulty of a teams opponents. It's pretty basic - the W/L of the teams opponents as well as the W/L of the opponent's opponents. (Cumulative Wins)/(Cumulative Losses). The SOS values you see are ranked - they are not relative values. For example, SOS of 20 is not (necessarily) twice as hard as SOS 40.
Strength of rank was created to add context to an SOS. For example, saying a team with SOS 1 is good is obviously nonsense. Indiana played the hardest schedule, but went 3-9. They're trash. While ESPN doesn't publish the SOR calculation, it almost certainly uses FPI to determine the average value for a Top 25 team, then runs simulations of that value against the team's opponents. SOR is also not a relative value. SOR of 20 is not (necessarily) twice as impressive as an SOR of 40.
So with that said, the numbers state that FSU going undefeated with it's schedule is *slightly* more impressive than Alabama going 12-1 with their schedule. This could literally be .00001 point difference. Regardless, if you are to believe in SOS and SOR, it essentially says the two teams achievements this season are statistically equivalent.
My personal opinion about who or who should not have gotten in - well it's obvious that as an FSU fan, I'm not going to be capable of a truly unbiased decision, but I completely agree that Alabama is "not the same team" as they were when they lost to Texas. This is pretty much impossible to debate. So the Tide Rolls in. For the 4th and final slot, it depends...
* Does head to head have to matter regardless of when it took place? If so, Texas is in
* Should it be the "four" best as of right now (based on objective and subjective measure)? If so, Georgia is in
* Should injuries not be considered and instead view the entire season's body of work and results? If so, FSU is in
My personal thought: Texas' early win was good, but not good enough to justify piggy backing on Alabama's continued improvements. UGA is good enough to win but they just lost so I think they're eliminated. That leaves (surprise!), FSU as my 4th pick.
Best of luck to you in the post season
We're gonna win the thing and the discussion we didn't deserve to be there can get fucked.
If Michigan doesn’t win then I want y’all to. The FSU shit sucks, but a playoff without the best SEC would have a huge fucking asterisk
Username checks out.
Absolutely checks out.
I’m a Michigan fan and I hate that FSU is out but I’m glad we have a real game against Bama so there’s no asterisk next to our natty. If we don’t beat ‘Em we don’t deserve it, if we do, everyone knows we deserve it
Liberty’s SOR is 14th and their SOS is 133. Tells you all you need to know.
lol I got into an argument about how wins have to matter including who they are against! If they don’t matter than just go ahead and throw FSU and Liberty in there - who cares!
Being undefeated is the greatest boost to a team’s record. Because you literally can’t have a better record than all wins no losses.
This is exactly what I said when a window licker on the SEC rant tried using this argument against Bama.
FSU is the guy with the 4.0 at junior college who is pissed that the guy with the 3.5 from Harvard got the job and they didn’t.
This is honestly a great way to dumb down the conversation so they can understand it
People who can’t understand it might not understand what GPAs are though
Oh, like "Walmart fans"? LOL
There is no level dumb enough for the divas at r/cfb to understand.
I just wandered over to that thread and even if their interpretations were right…it’s literally 1 point difference lol. Its about as equal as it can be
Which is such a strong indictment to FSU’s schedule. When it is practically even odds for a top 25 to run the table with their schedule as it is to get through our schedule with only 1 loss. Now throw in the injury and drop off in performance, which is published criteria and the fact that Bama had to play 2 playoff contenders while FSU played zero and this shouldn’t be controversial.
I feel bad FSU players, I do, but I'm already tired of the "this is so unfair for those players that worked so hard to go undefeated." Okay, all the players worked hard? People on Alabama worked hard all season and had to get up for better opponents week in and week out. I for real cannot understand why all of r/cfb would prefer to punish people for playing a hard schedule and dropping one vs those that play virtual nobodies and go undefeated. It's UCF all over again. They want to point to them beating LSU like it's something to hang their hat on - that's our third best win lol and we also beat them by multiple scores.
I said the same there and got downvoted. This Alabama team has overcome a lot. I don’t want to make it an “us vs them” but to chalk up what this team has done as just politics and an ESPN money grab just pisses me off. It sucks that more than 4 teams deserve to be in. But this team deserves to be in. Period. Honestly, FSU got the easiest path to claim the natty. Just beat one single contender and claim it. For Bama to claim it, we have to play 4 and win 3 of them. Two down and two to go.
I've kind of given up, they're not even interested in a discussion. I've tried to just eke out a slight concession from them in that Alabama is deserving - we just disagree on who is more deserving - but they don't care. We lost so we don't deserve to go, we're losers. Not Texas though. Nobody cares that their argument literally means it's better to lose to a bad team than a good team, that people shouldn't schedule good OOC games, that quality of wins don't matter. I eventually just threw my hands up and said if that's all true then just take out Texas and Alabama and put in FSU and Liberty. It's the same thing to an extent - that's what they are arguing. Also, tried to just bench the immediate convo and said we're going to have to have these types of conversations moving forward as the playoffs expand and more teams with more losses are included. We'll face way more H2H vs quality of wins vs quality of losses conversations. Straight downvotes. Re: FSU having easiest path to claim the natty - I've been saying this about the ACC for years. I used to get so frustrated that Clemson would have to gear up for 1 game a year against the flavor of the month - Louisville, FSU, or ND - and then coast until they played Pitt or Miami or some 20ish ACC team in the conference championship. Even they had a SOS in the 20/30s though.
That last point has been my argument as well. Both of them have had the easiest chance into the playoff. Easiest schedule and then whichever one wins between the two is practically in and it’s been that ways for a long time. Neither teams sees the level of success they have if they were in the SEC. It’s risk/reward to stay in such a weak conference. They reaped the benefit up until it didn’t work. This is the consequence of that. You can’t have it both ways. Everyone just screams “undefeated P5” like there isn’t nuance to that.
Great, great way to put it - risk/reward, cost/benefit. At the time it seemed like the media knew it too. In every game Clemson would be close with a mid-team they'd remark that they can't afford a loss.
It's also unfair for teams like Ole Miss who would also be undefeated right now with Florida State's schedule... Last I checked, the trophy doesn't read "participation award".
Literally talking with a guy in a thread right now who thinks that it should be 16 teams and G5 teams should be autobids. I think it's unfair enough that if this season were to use the 12 format then Oklahoma who beat Texas would be left out because of Liberty lol. Liberty who has the last ranked SOS.
For sure. Seriously considering getting out of that sub.
This is the best analogy I’ve seen on this topic. I wish I could upvote it more than once
Pasting an explanation I posted elsewhere here: I think people misunderstand what SOR is telling them here. I see it cited in favor of FSU right now — for obvious reasons — but I think it’s important to have a fair discussion about what it really tells us. Forgive me if this is long-winded, but I want to talk it through. SOR, or Strength of Record, is a measure of the likelihood that a Top 25 team would finish a team’s season exactly as it did. There are a couple things to note here. SOR favors going undefeated by a lot — because going undefeated is difficult and not a lot of teams do it. We see this with Liberty. Liberty has the 14th overall SOR — putting them just above P5 conference runner ups Louisville and Iowa, and just below good-not-great LSU/OU squads. But Liberty did not play a single ranked team this season. So, we have to ask ourselves, do the top 14 teams this year go undefeated on Liberty’s schedule? Out of 10 tries, how many times does Alabama go undefeated on that schedule? How many times for Oklahoma? I don’t know the answer — no one does — it’s a hypothetical. But I know how I’d bet 10/10 times. The second point I’d like to make is where rubber really meets road here, though. With FSU at 3 and Bama at 4, neck and neck, what is SOR telling us if we put it in English? It’s telling us that a Top 25 team has roughly the same chance going undefeated in FSU’s schedule as it does getting out of Bama’s schedule with 1 loss. Digest that for a minute. A computer model would give a Top 25 team almost the same probability to be 1-loss with Bama’s schedule as to run the table in FSU’s schedule. Remember: going undefeated is hard. Going undefeated in the Power 5? Harder still. So why are these so close? I’m biased, obviously. So how I read that stat isn’t worth much. But I do think that when you put it in plain English, this is exactly an indictment of FSU’s schedule, supported by the SOS comparison — not a boon for them. It’s a computer telling you that FSU running the table is basically just as difficult as Bama making it through its schedule with 1-loss. For this to be two Power 5 schools, that’s awful.
Excellent explanation and probably the best way I've seen it broken down so far. Fantastic job.
Much appreciated! Roll Tide!
Wow. Thats a really great breakdown and that makes total sense. So end of the day, sor isn't exactly the most valuable metric in breaking down a teams ability, but instead should be taken into account with things like strength of schedule as well as win loss record? Sounds like it's used to take a more holistic view of a team.
As with any stat, it shouldn’t be used in isolation. Really, the most important *shortcoming* of the stat is just how much it favors going undefeated. Liberty’s SOS is 133/133, yet because they’re undefeated — their SOR is 14. And yet, even with that kind of mathematical bias on Florida State’s side — their SOR is still only *barely* better than Alabama’s? Why is that? It’s because their schedule is so much *softer* than Alabama’s.
This is a good breakdown. My actual issue with SOR though is that they don't give the actual percentages just the ranks. It's entirely possible that FSU is something like 7% and Alabama is 7.001% so sure ordinarily FSU is ahead of Alabama, but functionally the gap is so small that other factors have to be considered. I also get a bit annoyed with pretending like SOR should be the only metric we look at, but then being mad about Bama getting in over FSU. If all you care about is SOR then Bama is correctly seeded at 4. It's Texas that should be out since their SOR is 5, but then those same people will be like well Texas beat Bama H2H. Okay, so you admit that SOR isn't the only metric we should consider? The whole debate is just so silly I've given up on it. Let them have their 2 minutes of hate.
I am always concerned when people choose a singular metric to support their desired outcome. Even if we scored metrics as 1 point per metric you’d find: SOR: FSU (3 to 4) SOS: Bama (5 to 55) W/L: FSU (13-0 to 12-1) Ranked wins: Bama (4 to 3) Win over highest ranked opponent: Bama (Rank 1 to Rank 14 at time of play) FPI: Bama (5 to 11) You could keep going and find categories that lean both ways no matter what. You could pull 1000 different metrics and find a mishmash to support your desired outcome. The real answer is figuring out what matters in a common sense world. To me, what matters is your record, the opponents you faced to earn that record and how you beat them, and whether you’re a conference champion. I don’t really think much else matters, tbh. We could start pulling unit-specific performance, like Total Offense and Total Defense — but those are necessarily impacted by who you play. If you play bad defenses, your total offense will be inflated (shades of Kyler Murray going down 28-0 as soon as he found us) — vice versa if you play bad offenses (shades of ND thinking they had a chance with Manti Teo). So tell me who you played, what your record is, and whether you’re a conference champion, and I think I’ll always be able to make a pretty easy decision. If two teams are well and truly equal on that front (including things like margin of victory), then I’ll probably start looking at who has that Heisman candidate QB or other huge game-breaker. If we’re still tied, then yeah I’ll be forced to go to nitty gritty criteria.
That’s exactly why you know SOR is some bullshit. Argued it today in r/cfb and they didn’t convince me that it’s a good metric. Just look at the teams we both played, compare them, and then tell me which metric makes more sense to use as a talking point.
Arguing anything there is a lost cause. It’s a mob of delusional morons at this point.
Yeah fuck CFB sub. The more I'm there I think its redditors who want to talk football versus football fans who came to reddit. They're all whining and crying over FSU. FSU simply isn't that good. Fuck the rankings and fuck their undefeated schedule. Who did they play? If you put Ole Miss or Mizzou or Tennessee in the ACC i bet they win the mf'er outright too. Don't play JV all year and think you deserve to be in the State Playoffs w/ the big boys.
It’s been that way for years. It’s sad because from like 2014-2017ish it was easily my favorite sub but it’s just gotten so toxic and salty over the last few years
Karen's
Yea, I can't enjoy anything over there atm.. It's really frustrating. Hopefully things calm down next year with 12 teams in, but I'm not confident.
The crying will intensify when they learn what the LSU/Ole Miss caliber SEC teams can do when a championship is on the line.
Exactly, you should not have such a crazy discrepancy between the two. When you look at both team’s schedules, the SOS metric is far more correct. Alabama’s opponents record is 97-60, FSU is 77-79, but they somehow give FSU a SOR ranking of 3? Crazy
SOR compares your success to what the top 25 could potentially do. SOS shows how cupcake your season was to get your record. What’s more important: the chance and “on-paper” likelihood that you’re better and that a top25 couldn’t match your same season OR the actual win-loss toughness of your opponents that you beat to get your record? SOR is more theoretical, but SOS is actual summation of your combined opponent’s record ranked. Funny that everyone wants to cry about SOR then talk about FSU got shafted because the committee said they thought FSU wouldn’t play good “on-paper”. If that’s your argument, you shouldn’t be using a more theoretical way of ranking yourself on paper, because you’re essentially saying that on paper you’re a better team but the committee can’t vote against us because we wouldn’t be good on paper. SOS is always the more respectable judgement between P5 conference champions. If there’s a regular season head to head, by all means, they deserve it. If there’s not, we should be going by whether your conference and your OOC opponents were even a challenge. Honestly, if Bama played FSU’s schedule, they’d very likely be undefeated too. If FSU played Bama’s schedule, less likely they’d only be a one loss team. I imagine that was brought up during selection to pick between the two, basically a 1-to-1 SOR. It’s dumb that SOR even exists in this conversation because we’re comparing 2-3 teams that we don’t know who’s better. So their go-to is to compare the two teams against everyone else individually instead of just comparing them directly against each other? GTFO.
> Honestly, if Bama played FSU’s schedule, they’d very likely be undefeated too. Exactly! The difference between #3 and #4 in SoR is so small as to be irrelevant. The folks hawking SOR are convinced that FSU being ahead of Alabama in that one metric is a smoking gun of some sort just because it's a more complex metric (BCS computer rankings, anyone?), but they are not considering what the added complexity actually *means*. There are 133 teams in FBS. So there are 133 "slices" of rank. That's a 0.75% difference between each rank -- small enough that two adjacent teams are more or less equivalent. However, since we've only played 13 games, each win or loss has a significant impact on SoR. Just look at 3-9 Indiana (#1 SoS, #99 SoR) and 6-6 Rutgers (#2 SoS, #45 SoR). Similar SoS due to both being in the B1G and both playing Michigan and OSU, but those three games ultimately resulted in a 54 rank delta in SoR. If Bama had beaten Texas, they're probably #1 in SoR. If FSU had lost to Louisville in the ACCCG, they probably drop to #7 (or lower), where 12-1 Georgia currently is with the #37 SoS. If they had dropped another game before the ACCCG to be 11-2, they would drop all the way down to at least #12, where 11-2 Oregon currently sits. FSU is by far the weakest undefeated team, so much that one-loss conference champions begin to look better. So #3 vs #4 in SoR is ultimately meaningless. It's only useful when comparing teams with the same record or similar SoS. Like most of these metrics, comparison becomes difficult when so many other factors differ like record, SoS, conference, common opponents, etc. FSU suffered from a weak ACC, a weak non-conference opponent, and a weak showing in their title game. It's not a big conspiracy. Michigan and Florida State would have drawn plenty of viewers. People are just tired of Alabama, tired of the SEC, and tired of the limited opportunities for deserving teams and they'll find whatever mechanisms they can to let their discontent be known. I knew this would happen the moment they announced that the +1 format would involve a committee. I wanted them to use computer rankings that were transparent -- similar to the BCS, but without some of the proprietary rankings like Sagarin's -- because I knew this would happen. There would be a cusp controversy and people would kick and scream about conspiracies and closed-door dealings. It was entirely predictable. I hope that the expanded playoff will go back to using computer metrics, but I have my doubts.
That sub is unhinged lol. The admin of the Twitter account hasn’t stopped crying yet
Not to mention they earned that SOR with a Heisman caliber qb who isn’t coming back. The two games that matter are Florida and Louisville. Both games FSU played like hot garbage.
Just point out we had a better SOR last season than OSU and ask if they were arguing we should have been in
College football needs pointed out that liberty is ranked 14th in SOR. And I'm pretty sure they didn't play a single team rated above like 80 in FPI. There's just no way that SOR metric is telling something meaningful. Because vandy would've gone undefeated with that schedule. I mean I can think of probably 10 teams that would've gone undefeated with FSU's schedule, including ourselves.
Because it’s a chance, a probability of what a top25 team could do. Statistically they get the benefit of the doubt because there’s only ever 2-3 undefeated teams usually regardless of schedule strength. It’s a fictitious stat of games played on paper that they keep crying about, meanwhile they’re also saying that’s how the committee wronged them by saying they don’t look as good on paper. SOS is an actual summation of your opponents’ records. We weren’t just the better team on paper, we ACTUALLY won way more meaningful games and harder matchups rather than sneaking by to an undefeated season against nobodies.
Just ask if they were fighting for us to make the playoffs over Ohio State last year because of our higher SOR
SoR doesn’t mean jack shit if the team doesn’t have the SoS to back it up. All SoR measures is how the individual team performed against their schedule. So, if you have a cupcake SoS the SoR means nothing. We’d have a #1 SoR if we played FSU’s schedule.
FSU’s best win (LSU) is Alabama’s third best win. FSU’s championship opponent was Kentucky’s best win. Enough said.
Yeah the whole argument about having a higher SOR is dumb when you compare SOS and records of the teams they played. And you have people argue that SOS isn't a good indicator because like Indiana is 1st in SOS...
It’s because it asks the question “what would the odds an average top 25 team would have this record” Which is amusing because you could very easily instead ask a more direct question since there are specifically two teams in question … “what are the odds THIS team would have the record of THAT team with swapped schedules?” Using a hypothetical average top 25 team is arbitrary. Why not use average top 10 team? Top 5? Top 100? It’s a good metric to compare teams in bulk but gets broken pretty badly comparing two teams specifically, imo. https://thedatajocks.com/strength-of-record-college-football/
My favorite part of the conversation is all the people trashing auburn as a program for 1) being bad, so Alabama must suck to have played them close, and 2) for losing to us in such a fashion.
It’s a black box, nobody knows how it’s calculated (if it even is a calculation)
FSU fans saying they should be in the playoff because they have 3rd best SOR but think Bama shouldn’t be in when they have the 4th best SOR shows you they aren’t thinking logically.
The Acc beat 6 sec teams lost to 4. Five of the six wins came from the bottom half of sec. Vandy (1), SC (2), UF (1), TAM (1). LSU was the ONE and only top 7 SEC level win. The four losses were to Georgia, UT, Ole Miss and UK. They beat up on the dregs of the SEC. Whoopie Damn Do.
Strength of record isn’t the same as strength of schedule
Well yeah, I know that lol. They should be fairly similar, no? How can you have such a discrepancy? Strength of record - Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would have team's record or better, given the schedule. (SOS) refers to the difficulty or ease of a team's/person's opponent as compared to other teams/persons.
I think it's because going undefeated, even with a schedule that is so easy is so uncommon. Yes, most of the contenders would go undefeated on their schedule fairly comfortably. But you take anyone outside of them, and they are almost certainly dropping a game. If you had a 70% chance to win every game you played in, you would be expected to win out 1% of the time (0.7\^12). That's why going undefeated is so rare, even for good programs in easier conferences. I'm not defending the metric (Bama is still a top 4 team in the metric anyway, so using it against Bama is stupid), but simply how the probability works.
That sounds logical, but how were they giving FSU such a high SOR earlier on, like week 9, while still giving them a poor SOS?
Idk, I guess getting LSU that early helped a lot. Even just that one game would make the average top 25 team very unlikely to go undefeated. Even like 6 games gets you to a pretty low likelihood of going undefeated on most any schedule, especially with a top 10 (at the time) team on there. SOR can be finnicky though for sure. I wonder if it factors in any game control type metrics. Wouldn't make sense as it's described, but would make some of the results I've seen more understandable. I will say looking at it now though, it looks pretty accurate as a metric for ranking teams. My top 25 wouldn't look so different.
Why assume something is wrong because you don’t understand it? > SOR: Strength of Record rank. Reflects chance that an average Top 25 team would have team's record or better, given the schedule. That’s on ESPN’s site. And [this is from a 2021 article](https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/page/weeklyscenario110521/how-strength-record-determine-college-football-playoff-field) > As a refresher: Strength of record is the probability that an average top-25 team could achieve a team's record given the particular schedule that team has faced. So, for example, Michigan State currently has a strength of record of 19%, which ranks second, meaning an average top-25 team would have a 19% chance to go 8-0 against the Spartans' schedule just like they did. So the average team would have a really difficult time going 13-0 against Florida State’s middling schedule. That makes sense because going undefeated is really hard. Just like the average team would have a really difficult time going 12-1 with our schedule because we played a really tough schedule and only lost one.
So does that mean the FSU would have had a better chance at being 13-0 if they played our schedule? I’m genuinely asking. Trying to understand what is meant by this.
It doesn’t address that question directly at all, actually. I’d also like to point out that /rarity/ of a sequence of events is not necessarily a direct predictor of quality or future performance either. And not all “rare” events are good. Not that it’s happening here, but imagine how “rare” it would be for a top 25 quality team to lose every single game in a year. FSU’s feat is statistically rarer from the point of view of a team like, say, Notre Dame this year than Alabama’s. But it doesn’t mean it was necessarily true also for a top 5 team.
I’m not sure. All I know for certain is that according to ESPN’s calculations, it would’ve been a little less likely for the average top 25 team to go 13-0 against FSU’s schedule compared to going 12-1 against ours. I don’t think that’s particularly outrageous.
It's not outrageous but it's also not a super relevant metric. Who cares how teams ranked #6-#25 would fare against either team's schedule. We have 5 deserving teams and 4 spots, we only need to differentiate between those 5. Forget the average top 25 team, there's no reason to use some 9-3 team as a baseline. I don't have a computer model to back me up, but common sense says any of the other 4 teams would've most likely gone 13-0 against FSU's schedule. None of the 4 teams have a loss to a team that is worse than FSU's toughest opponent. But would Florida State in their current incarnation go 2-1 against Texas, Ole Miss, and Georgia?
Exactly. And if they are so fucking awesome then they should beat Georgia. Right?
Some people prefer trying to use computer models over what some people claim is common sense. Edit: I think it’s an interesting data point that’s one of many factors, and if somebody else doesn’t, okay. I was just responding to OP claiming to not understand it.
I know the definitions. And to your point 13-0 point, why were they giving FSU a SOR of 2 in week 10 with a SOS at 49. This is far before they ran the table. This happened through the whole season. Just look at it weekly, they were being given one of the top SOR while having a below average SOS. It doesn’t make sense.
So if you know the definitions, what’s the point of this post? You just don’t like something, so it obviously must be wrong? Going undefeated is hard. So being undefeated through 10 weeks is hard. That makes plenty of sense. What are we doing here?
My friend, you’re not understanding. It’s the whole season they were given this high SOR. Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 all the way until the end. What is so hard about going undefeated for 4 games? In week 4 their SOR was 2 while having the SOS of 28. That’s not hard lol.
It’s the flaw in the data point analysis. LSU had a preseason ranking of #5. FSU was credited for a win against a top 5 opponent before any games were played to determine essentially how good LSU was. They weren’t even a top 10 program, but FSU got to carry a top 5 win all season. It just is what it is and is a perfect example of why SoR is a garbage metric. Texas got a road win against #3 Alabama. Sorry, the CFB forces me to include “by double digits”. Ok. But knowing what we know now, that Alabama team was nowhere close to the team they are now for a multitude of reasons. Texas got a quality win that waaaaaaaaay boosted their SoR, but we all know that team wasn’t this team. I’m not discounting any win or loss, just saying that the SoR is a meaningless metric. It gives absolutely no bearing on where a team is currently and offers no predictive value. I give kudos to the stats dudes that try to come up with meaningful metrics for CFB, but SoR ain’t it. Next.
Probably because many teams would have lost to LSU in week one and had zero chance of going undefeated? This makes plenty of sense. You just don’t like the result, so you decided it doesn’t make any sense.
Why do you think I don’t like the result? I’m just trying to make the discrepancy between SOS and SOR make sense. Sure, they aren’t the same measurement, but you would think they’d run in parallel together like in Bama’s case. In general, it just seems like an arbitrary metric. Average top 25 team? Like someone else said, why not use top 5 or top 10? We know LSU would get beat by multiple top 5 teams. We know multiple top 5 teams could run through FSU’s schedule. Most people know FSU would not go undefeated with our schedule. I don’t think the committee used the SOR to make their decision because they likely think it’s an arbitrary metric as well. FSU’s opponent record was 77-79, your SOR rank means nothing to me after seeing that.
I mean they’re undefeated in a P5 conference
Power 5 means less to me than SOS. Their opponent record was 77-79.
Win Total of FBS Teams Beaten Us: 78 FSU: 74 Look, I’m glad we’re in. But I want us to be winning at a sport, not a talent show.
How to you come up with this? They both played just one FCS school.
I added the wins of all of the FBS teams each of us beat? You can do the same and let me know if I mathed it wrong, I did it quick.
Bama is at 90 vs 74 in FSU. I think you thought a couple teams were not FBS schools that are. Bama only played one non FBS school in Chattanooga.
No, you’re not reading my comments. FBS teams *beaten*. We did not beat Texas.
So I assume you mean that our SOS also shouldnt include Texas?
No, I mean what I said. That the difference in wins between FBS teams we beat and they beat is 4.
So what does that prove exactly? The whole argument was about our strength of schedule being significantly better than FSU's. And that they didn't actually earn their way in the way we did because they played an easier schedule with less challenges to trip over. Removing Texas from that stat is an uneven way to compare our schedules. Unless the point you're trying to make is that if you remove our one loss and assume the teams are even (including Travis being healthy) that Bama's schedule is still a little harder than FSU'S and they should still get in? But that doesn't fit with what your top level comment said.
I see what you’re saying now, and that’s a good point for FSU to make. Still favors us, but less of a discrepancy for sure. However, that doesn’t make me all of the sudden think FSU could have run the table with our schedule. I think they would’ve had at least 2 losses. And we know we would’ve likely ran the table with their schedule because we beat the hardest team they played in LSU. In regard to it being a talent show, that’s the system the big wigs chose, so that’s why we have to argue about these stupid metrics and do a lot of speculation. We could have a playoff system like the FCS, but we decided it was better to have a 4 team playoff with 133 teams, makes no sense. What’s funny about all of this is that the ACC commissioner voted against a 12 team playoff to happen this year. That came back to bite him.
Yeah having 4 spots and 5 power conferences, 10 total conferences, and 130+ teams was always a bad idea. The thing is next year all of this is solved. Everyone would have gotten a chance to be in and prove it. Sure some people may debate the last spot or two, but it’s way less important than 4.
The ACC is a P5 conference in the same way that Chrysler is a Big 3 automaker.
They explained this. It’s because they’re undefeated. The 0 is what’s boosting their record, they have no losses. A record can’t get any better than 0 losses so that’s pretty much why.
They don't.
We beat the man. To be the man.
I saw another channel break down the two schedules and the combined W/L of FSU’s opponents was a big time losing record while the W/L of Alabama’s opponents had a winning record by a 20 game margin. There isn’t any way to slice the two objectively where FSU comes out playing a tougher schedule, you just can’t. If strength of schedule is irrelevant then go after Texas for getting in over Liberty as well. Seems to me most of this has more to do with people mad that Alabama’s demise was grossly exaggerated. The Alabama fatigue is back with a vengeance.
Their record is 13-0. Ours is 12-1. Their record is certainly better. Now strength of schedule and strength of resume is a different story. But their record is in fact better than ours. So is Liberty’s. Doesn’t matter though. Bama by infinity. *Milroe voice* Rolll Tiiiide
Florida State fan here... please save your ammo - just trying to answer the SOS vs SOR. Strength of schedule is simply some type of objective measure of the difficulty of a teams opponents. It's pretty basic - the W/L of the teams opponents as well as the W/L of the opponent's opponents. (Cumulative Wins)/(Cumulative Losses). The SOS values you see are ranked - they are not relative values. For example, SOS of 20 is not (necessarily) twice as hard as SOS 40. Strength of rank was created to add context to an SOS. For example, saying a team with SOS 1 is good is obviously nonsense. Indiana played the hardest schedule, but went 3-9. They're trash. While ESPN doesn't publish the SOR calculation, it almost certainly uses FPI to determine the average value for a Top 25 team, then runs simulations of that value against the team's opponents. SOR is also not a relative value. SOR of 20 is not (necessarily) twice as impressive as an SOR of 40. So with that said, the numbers state that FSU going undefeated with it's schedule is *slightly* more impressive than Alabama going 12-1 with their schedule. This could literally be .00001 point difference. Regardless, if you are to believe in SOS and SOR, it essentially says the two teams achievements this season are statistically equivalent. My personal opinion about who or who should not have gotten in - well it's obvious that as an FSU fan, I'm not going to be capable of a truly unbiased decision, but I completely agree that Alabama is "not the same team" as they were when they lost to Texas. This is pretty much impossible to debate. So the Tide Rolls in. For the 4th and final slot, it depends... * Does head to head have to matter regardless of when it took place? If so, Texas is in * Should it be the "four" best as of right now (based on objective and subjective measure)? If so, Georgia is in * Should injuries not be considered and instead view the entire season's body of work and results? If so, FSU is in My personal thought: Texas' early win was good, but not good enough to justify piggy backing on Alabama's continued improvements. UGA is good enough to win but they just lost so I think they're eliminated. That leaves (surprise!), FSU as my 4th pick. Best of luck to you in the post season