Need another name other than Low APR U

Need another name other than Low APR U - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Need another name other than Low APR U (/thread-10342.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - StanfordMatt - 10-22-2015

I'm definitely rooting for UCLA for all the reasons that Stupac so clearly laid out above. The main question for me is who we should be rooting for from the South to make the CCG assuming we make it ourselves.

Utah is clearly in the driver seat with a 2 game lead over the rest of the division and I think I'll be rooting for them to extend that lead this weekend when they play SC. Even with as much turmoil as SC is in right now, they still strike me as the team I'd least like to face. Vegas apparently agrees with this assessment given the fact that SC is favored over the Utes. Of course, I'd welcome UCLA (another reason to root for the Bruins tonight) or ASU winning the South, but neither seems too likely at the moment.

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - SeattleTree - 10-22-2015

(10-22-2015, 10:22 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:If "going to the playoff" is what matters to you, again, you ought to be rooting for UCLA over the 59ers:

1) because it increases the odds of winning the division
2) because it means, performance-wise, that Stanford beat a marginally better team rather than a marginally worse team last Thursday, which in turn means Stanford is more likely to beat the other teams on its schedule.

I've already explained why I want Cal to win tonight and why I think it helps Stanford's chances of making the playoff.Â The ONLY way Stanford makes the playoff is if they win out, which by default means winning the division and winning the conference championship game.Â I think even if Stanford does win out there's a chance they don't make the playoff.Â I think the committee factors in how the team is playing to end the season, so three impressive wins (over a highly ranked Cal, highly ranked Notre Dame and a highly ranked Utah) would seem to give Stanford the best chance to close on a high note and impress the committee.Â That's why I'll be cheering for each of those three teams to win out until Stanford plays (and hopefully beats) them.Â Shoot for the stars, wim.Â Shoot for the stars.

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - washingtonismoney - 10-22-2015

(10-22-2015, 11:57 AM)SeattleTree link Wrote:I've already explained why I want Low APR U to win tonight and why I think it helps Stanford's chances of making the playoff.Â The ONLY way Stanford makes the playoff is if they win out, which by default means winning the division and winning the conference championship game.Â I think even if Stanford does win out there's a chance they don't make the playoff.Â I think the committee factors in how the team is playing to end the season, so three impressive wins (over a highly ranked Low APR U, highly ranked the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends and a highly ranked Utah) would seem to give Stanford the best chance to close on a high note and impress the committee.Â That's why I'll be cheering for each of those three teams to win out until Stanford plays (and hopefully beats) them.Â Shoot for the stars, wim.Â Shoot for the stars.

Look, you keep on repeating "shoot for the stars," but it doesn't make any sense.

Let's take Ohio State, the example of a team leaping past its one-loss rivals. It beat 4-8 Indiana by 15 in its second-to-last regular season game, 5-7 Michigan by 14 in its last regular season game, and then demolished #13 Wisconsin in its conference championship game.

TCU beat three scrubs consecutively.

Baylor beat 4-8 Texas Tech, 7-6 Oklahoma State, and then #9 Kansas State in its last game.

If you can find a "shoot for the stars" pattern in here, congratulations. What's my interpretation? Committee decisions are random. Trying to figure out what does or doesn't influence committee decisions is similar to divining the status of Soviet apparatchiks from parade photos. Embrace whatever eases your path to victory.Â

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - oldalum - 10-22-2015

(10-22-2015, 11:47 AM)StanfordMatt link Wrote:. Vegas apparently agrees with this assessment given the fact that SC is favored over the Utes.

It's really not "Vegas" that's agreeing, it's the betting public. Vegas oddsmakers have no opinion on who should be favored and by how much, their job is simply to predict how the betting public is going to bet. I wouldn't give the betting public's opinion any weight.

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - washingtonismoney - 10-22-2015

(10-22-2015, 12:10 PM)oldalum link Wrote:It's really not "Vegas" that's agreeing, it's the betting public. Vegas oddsmakers have no opinion on who should be favored and by how much, their job is simply to predict how the betting public is going to bet. I wouldn't give the betting public's opinion any weight.

This is a constant argument against betting lines, but a bad one.

If Vegas consistently set poor lines it would lose oodles of money. Since Vegas sports betting is a successful business, I think we can infer that they have some insight into how games will turn out.*

* (of course the exact lines have even less meaning to non-sports-betting fans. What we're interested in is the broad assessment. If SC beats Utah by 2, the basic thrust of Vegas's favor-SC-by-3 -- which was the opening line, by the way -- would be vindicated, even if some bettors lost out. And given the amount of surprise at Vegas's choice to favor SC by 3, the betting line was informative to some.)

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - CTcard - 10-22-2015

(10-22-2015, 12:08 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Committee decisions are random. Trying to figure out what does or doesn't influence committee decisions is similar to divining the status of Soviet apparatchiks from parade photos.

Agree with the "reach for the stars" critique.

Don't agree that it is all that hard to figure out what the committee was thinking last year on Ohio State vs Baylor and TCU.

tOSU had a tougher schedule and was more impressive at the end of the season - though that latter had as much to do with margin of victory/style points as who they played (though Wisconsin was decent).

Where the committee was likely wrong was in keeping FSU in the top 4 - but also not that hard to figure out what the committee was thinking there.

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - OutsiderFan - 10-22-2015

I root for my perception of reality to be realized.Â I think Utah is overrated and will lose this weekend.Â I know Stanford's playoff chances are strengthened by the chance to play an undated Utah, but there is also some good in Stanford whipping USC in LA when Utah couldn't do it.Â And Frankly, I see Stanford as the best team in the Pac-12 and want that reflected in the first playoff rankings.

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - stupac2 - 10-22-2015

(10-22-2015, 12:25 PM)CTcard link Wrote:Agree with the "reach for the stars" critique.

Don't agree that it is all that hard to figure out what the committee was thinking last year on Ohio State vs Baylor and TCU.

tOSU had a tougher schedule and was more impressive at the end of the season - though that latter had as much to do with margin of victory/style points as who they played (though Wisconsin was decent).

Where the committee was likely wrong was in keeping FSU in the top 4 - but also not that hard to figure out what the committee was thinking there.

I don't think it's all that hard to figure out how the committee works, someone (wim?) basically outlined it somewhere else:

1) You have to Power 5.
2) If you have a 0 in the loss column, you're in. (There won't ever be 5 undefeated teams.)
3) If you have a 1 in the loss column, ties go to most wins and/or perceptions of conference strength.

3 plays to our advantage, since the Pac is perceived as being #2 to the SEC in strength.

And we'll have a great test of the truth of this in a couple weeks when rankings come out.

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - BostonCard - 10-22-2015

You never know, of course, but I think if we win out, we are likely in, barring an unlikely sequence that leaves three unbeaten teams in the ACC, BigTen and Big-12, and a one-loss SEC champion.Â We might run into a challenge if the committee has to pick between a one-loss Pac-12 team and a one-loss BigTen team.

BC

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - SeattleTree - 10-22-2015

(10-22-2015, 12:08 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=SeattleTree link=topic=13294.msg136240#msg136240 date=1445540255]
I've already explained why I want Low APR U to win tonight and why I think it helps Stanford's chances of making the playoff.Â The ONLY way Stanford makes the playoff is if they win out, which by default means winning the division and winning the conference championship game.Â I think even if Stanford does win out there's a chance they don't make the playoff.Â I think the committee factors in how the team is playing to end the season, so three impressive wins (over a highly ranked Low APR U, highly ranked the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends and a highly ranked Utah) would seem to give Stanford the best chance to close on a high note and impress the committee.Â That's why I'll be cheering for each of those three teams to win out until Stanford plays (and hopefully beats) them.Â Shoot for the stars, wim.Â Shoot for the stars.

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - OutsiderFan - 10-22-2015

I'm feeling Utah, Clemson, and Michigan State could all go down this weekend.

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - CTcard - 10-22-2015

(10-22-2015, 12:33 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:I don't think it's all that hard to figure out how the committee works, someone (wim?) basically outlined it somewhere else:

1) You have to Power 5.
2) If you have a 0 in the loss column, you're in. (There won't ever be 5 undefeated teams.)
3) If you have a 1 in the loss column, ties go to most wins and/or perceptions of conference strength.

3 plays to our advantage, since the Pac is perceived as being #2 to the SEC in strength.

And we'll have a great test of the truth of this in a couple weeks when rankings come out.

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - stupac2 - 10-22-2015

(10-22-2015, 01:16 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13294.msg136253#msg136253 date=1445542388]
I don't think it's all that hard to figure out how the committee works, someone (wim?) basically outlined it somewhere else:

1) You have to Power 5.
2) If you have a 0 in the loss column, you're in. (There won't ever be 5 undefeated teams.)
3) If you have a 1 in the loss column, ties go to most wins and/or perceptions of conference strength.

3 plays to our advantage, since the Pac is perceived as being #2 to the SEC in strength.

And we'll have a great test of the truth of this in a couple weeks when rankings come out.

Don't think that is quite the decision tree.

It looks to me like,

1. Include only Power 5 conference teams.
2. Rank by number of losses.
3. Evaluate ties in number of losses by strength of schedule and style points.

I don't think that number of wins explicitly comes into play. I also don't think perceived strength of conference matters so much - though it can't help but colour perceived strength of individual teams. Last year, the Big 12 was clearly a better conference than the Big Ten, but Baylor and TCU were not clearly better than tOSU.

I do wonder if we'll ever see a two loss conference champion taken over a one loss Power 5 team. Under most conditions it seems unlikely, but we might if the one loss team is not a conference champ - particularly if the two loss team is the champ of the same conference.
[/quote]

I think those work out to about the same. But you're right, winning your conference seems to count as -1 loss, so if you posit a year where, for some reason, two of the conferences look really bad and have 3-loss champions, and another has a 2-loss champion, the 2-loss one bumping a 1-loss one. But it's hard to say for sure what would happen.

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - CrazedZooChimp - 10-22-2015

(10-22-2015, 01:30 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:I think those work out to about the same. But you're right, winning your conference seems to count as -1 loss, so if you posit a year where, for some reason, two of the conferences look really bad and have 3-loss champions, and another has a 2-loss champion, the 2-loss one bumping a 1-loss one. But it's hard to say for sure what would happen.

Which really means that instead of number of losses, look at number of wins.Â I feel like there is a solid chance the committee would take an 11-2 team over an 11-1 team.Â Especially if the SOS of the 11-2 team is considered significantly better.

Also, I agree with you stupac, go Bruins.

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - BostonCard - 10-22-2015

It might be worth looking at the 5 Power 5 conferences historically.Â I'm including all conference champions and 1-loss non-champions.

2006
ACC: Champions 11-2 Wake Forest
Big12: Champions 11-2 Oklahoma
BigTen: Champions 12-0 Ohio State
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11-1 Wisconsin
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11-1 Michigan
Pac-12: Co-Champions 10-2 USC
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 10-2 Cal
SEC: Champion Florida 12-1

2007
ACC: Champion 11-2 Virginia Tech
Big12: Champion 11-2 Oklahoma
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11-1 Kansas
BigTen: Champion 11-1 Ohio State
Pac-12: Co-Champions 10-2 USC
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 10-2 ASU
SEC: Champion LSU 11-2

2008
ACC: Champions 9-4 Virginia Tech
Big12: Champions 12-1 Oklahoma
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11-1 Texas
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11-1 Texas Tech
BigTen: Co-ChampionsÂ 11-1 Penn State
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 10-2 Ohio State
Pac-12: Champion 11-1 USC
SEC: Champion Florida 12-1
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Alabama 12-1

2009
ACC: Champions 11-2 Georgia Tech
Big12: Champions 13-0 Texas
BigTen: Champions 10-2 Ohio State
Pac-12: Champion 10-2 Oregon
SEC: Champion Alabama 13-0
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Florida 12-1

2010
ACC: Champions 11-2 Virginia Tech
Big12: Champions 11-2 Oklahoma
BigTen: Champions 11-1 Wisconsin
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11-1 Ohio State (wins were later vacated)
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11-1 Michigan State
Pac-12: Champion 12-0 Oregon
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11-1 Stanford
SEC: Champion Auburn 13-0

2011
ACC: Champion 10-3 Clemson
Big12: Champion 11-1 Oklahoma State
BigTen: Champion 11-2 Wisconsin
Pac-12: Champion 11-2 Oregon
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11-1 Stanford
SEC: Champion LSU 13-0
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Alabama 11-1

2012
ACC: Champion 11-2 Florida State
Big12: Co-Champions 11-1 Kansas State
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 10-2 Oklahoma
BigTen: Champion 8-5 Wisconsin (Ohio State and Penn State were ineligible for the post-season)
Pac-12: Champion 11-2 Stanford
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11-1 Oregon
SEC: Champion Alabama 12-1
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Florida 11-1

2013
ACC: Champion 13-0 Florida State
Big12: Champion 11-1 Baylor
BigTen: Champion 12-1 Michigan State
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 12-1 Ohio State
Pac-12: Champion 11-2 Stanford
SEC: Champion Auburn 12-1
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Alabama 11-1

2014
ACC: Champions 13-0 Florida State
Big12: Co-Champions 11-1 Baylor*
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11-1 TCU
BigTen: Champions 12-1 Ohio State
Pac-12: Champions 12-1 Oregon
SEC: Champion Alabama 12-1

BC

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - BostonCard - 10-22-2015

Here's the analysis (note, I am not remembering many of the teams, so my analysis could well be off):

2006: Undefeated Ohio State and SEC champ Florida are definitely in.Â Then it's a scramble between 1-loss non-champions (Michigan and Wisconsin), and 2-loss champions (Wake Forrest, USC, and Cal).Â My guess is that USC and Wisconsin would have been the other two.

2007: There is only 1 1-loss champion (tOSU).Â 2-loss LSU is probably there too (they were in the BCS championship, and a scramble between 1-loss non-champ Kansas, and 2-loss champions Virginia Tech, USC, and ASU.Â Â My guess is probably USC and Virginia Tech.

2008: Four 1-loss conference champions: Oklahoma, Florida, Penn State, and USC probably go, though maybe Alabama sneaks in.

2009: Undefeated Texas and Alabama are shoo ins.Â Then it's between 1-loss SEC championship loser Florida, and 2-loss Georgia Tech, Ohio State, and Oregon.Â I'd guess tOSU and Oregon would be in, but one could easily lose out to Florida, whose only loss was in the SEC championship.

2010: Undefeated Oregon and Auburn are shoo ins.Â Then the 1-loss BigTen Champs Wisconsin are probably in.Â Stanford finished #4 in the BCS and was winning impressively so there is a good chance we'd have been picked over 2-loss Oklahoma and Virginia Tech (who we would up beating in the Orange Bowl).

2011: Undefeated LSU is a shoo in, and 1-loss Big12 champion Oklahoma State seems likely.Â Then it gets tricky.Â Alabama had one loss, to LSU, and wound up going to the BCS championship, so it seems almost to be assured of a spot.Â Then do you pick 1-loss Stanford (whose loss was to Oregon), or two loss Wisconsin or Oregon?

2012: SEC Champion Alabama is a shoo-in.Â So too is Notre Dame, who was undefeated at that point that year and went to the BCS championship.Â Do you take two 1-loss non-chamions (ORegon and Florida), a weak 1-loss champion (K-state), or 2-loss champions (Stanford, who beat Oregon head-to-head, Florida State, or Oklahoma)?Â My guess is Florida goes, but I don't know Stanford versus Oregon.

2013: Undefeated Florida State, obviously, SEC champion Auburn, obviously.Â BigTen champion Michigan State would be most likely, then it gets hard between 11-1 champion Baylor, 11-1 non-champion Alabama, and 11-2 champion Stanford.

2014: We know how this turned out... Florida State, Ohio State, Oregon, and Alabama all went with 0 or 1 loss as conference champs; Baylor and TCU as 1-loss co-champs did not.

BC

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - Kathy - 10-22-2015

"weenies" works for me

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - CornFed - 10-22-2015

I don't think there can be much doubt that SeattleTree has the dream scenario in which Stanford is virtually "locked" into the CFP.Â We win out and every team left on our schedule wins every one of their remaining games except the one against us.Â That would mean that we finish the season beating Oregon, which may have snuck up into the top 25, Cal would presumably be near top 10, Notre Dame would be in the top 5 as would Utah.Â I would bet even money that we might be selected by the committee ahead of any one-loss team including Alabama.

Now THAT is shooting for the stars!!!!!!

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - Treebound - 10-22-2015

I like that scenario, Cornfed!Â

Regarding UCB versus UCLA, I think Cal will fold over the next three to four weeks (just like they did last year).Â If that's the case, then I would rather see the Bruins win tonight and have them keep pushing.Â I just don't think Cal has a winner's mentality.Â Maybe Dykes can turn that around if Goff stays one more year.Â

As for the Cal moniker, they need a few years of improvement and candidly they should always rank in the top 3 of the p12.Â Weenies, 59ers will be there when and if they improve their academics.Â Like USC, I'm not holding my breath.Â

Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - terry - 10-22-2015

Short digression --

I'd prefer to be able to read or write about U*S*C, C.al, and NotreDame without the software changing their names to "USC," "Cal," and "Notre Dame."