tdubs_truckernutz
Freshman
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 167
“The head-to-head is one data point that the committee will use,” Yurachek said. “It’s easier to use when the teams are back-to-back as opposed to separated by a team or two or three as has been the case. Notre Dame is a winner of 10 straight, 10 game win streak, they outscored their opponents 440-143, have been very consistent offensively in how they run and pass, very explosive offense, third in offense. And a BYU team between them is 11-1. Their record strength metrics are really, really high. They have a win over 15th ranked Utah and 18th Arizona. And their metrics rank really, really high as well. And Miami when we had our first poll they came in losers of two of three games, were inserted at 18. They climbed faster than any other team up six spots, have won four consecutive games.
“The committee still felt like right now Notre Dame deserves to be ranked ahead of BYU and Miami, and BYU deserves to be ranked ahead of Miami.”
The current college football ranking system is not based on data; it is based on narrative, cognitive bias, and an arbitrary manipulation of logic. The disparate treatment of Miami and Notre Dame exposes a glaring weakness: The committee's hypocrisy in selectively applying Recency Bias versus Anchoring Bias is destroying the integrity of the sport.
1. The Arbitrariness of the Schedule
When the poll was released, both teams had identical records. They had both failed twice. The only difference was when those failures happened. But this distinction is logically bankrupt. Football schedules are finalized years in advance; Miami did not choose to play their hardest games late in the season, just as Notre Dame did not choose to play theirs early. By punishing a team for a mid-season loss more than an early-season loss, the committee is essentially grading teams based on the randomization of a calendar rather than the quality of the team. A loss is a loss. The mathematical impact on a win-loss percentage is constant, regardless of the date on the ticket.
2. The Inconsistency of "Momentum"
Let’s apply the committee’s logic to a hypothetical scenario to see if it holds water. If a team started the season 10-0 and lost their last two games, they would freefall down the rankings, labeled as "collapsing." However, if that same team lost their first two games and won the next ten, they would be praised for "resiliency" and ranked highly. This is the exact same 10-2 resume. The body of work is identical. If the resulting ranking is different, the methodology is flawed. You cannot objectively measure a team's quality if you value the sequence of data points more than the data points themselves.
3. The Trap of Anchoring Bias
The concept of "climbing back" up the rankings is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest part of the system. It relies on Anchoring Bias. Committee members release rankings mid-season based on "half a body of work." Yet, these premature rankings become the "anchor" for every subsequent week. If a team loses in Week 2, they drop out and spend ten weeks "climbing back" against a preconceived bias. If a team doesn't lose until Week 11, they benefit from having been anchored at the top for months. This creates a feedback loop where teams are stuck rising or falling based on uninformed initial assumptions rather than total performance.
4. The Mechanism of the Trap: Logic A vs. Logic B
This brings us to the core of the corruption. The system uses these two opposing forces to trap teams. It essentially allows committee members to "cherry-pick" which logic they want to use to keep a favored team (like Notre Dame) on top and a disfavored team (like Miami) down. They justify their rankings by toggling between two contradictory psychological biases:
“The committee still felt like right now Notre Dame deserves to be ranked ahead of BYU and Miami, and BYU deserves to be ranked ahead of Miami.”
The current college football ranking system is not based on data; it is based on narrative, cognitive bias, and an arbitrary manipulation of logic. The disparate treatment of Miami and Notre Dame exposes a glaring weakness: The committee's hypocrisy in selectively applying Recency Bias versus Anchoring Bias is destroying the integrity of the sport.
1. The Arbitrariness of the Schedule
When the poll was released, both teams had identical records. They had both failed twice. The only difference was when those failures happened. But this distinction is logically bankrupt. Football schedules are finalized years in advance; Miami did not choose to play their hardest games late in the season, just as Notre Dame did not choose to play theirs early. By punishing a team for a mid-season loss more than an early-season loss, the committee is essentially grading teams based on the randomization of a calendar rather than the quality of the team. A loss is a loss. The mathematical impact on a win-loss percentage is constant, regardless of the date on the ticket.
2. The Inconsistency of "Momentum"
Let’s apply the committee’s logic to a hypothetical scenario to see if it holds water. If a team started the season 10-0 and lost their last two games, they would freefall down the rankings, labeled as "collapsing." However, if that same team lost their first two games and won the next ten, they would be praised for "resiliency" and ranked highly. This is the exact same 10-2 resume. The body of work is identical. If the resulting ranking is different, the methodology is flawed. You cannot objectively measure a team's quality if you value the sequence of data points more than the data points themselves.
3. The Trap of Anchoring Bias
The concept of "climbing back" up the rankings is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest part of the system. It relies on Anchoring Bias. Committee members release rankings mid-season based on "half a body of work." Yet, these premature rankings become the "anchor" for every subsequent week. If a team loses in Week 2, they drop out and spend ten weeks "climbing back" against a preconceived bias. If a team doesn't lose until Week 11, they benefit from having been anchored at the top for months. This creates a feedback loop where teams are stuck rising or falling based on uninformed initial assumptions rather than total performance.
4. The Mechanism of the Trap: Logic A vs. Logic B
This brings us to the core of the corruption. The system uses these two opposing forces to trap teams. It essentially allows committee members to "cherry-pick" which logic they want to use to keep a favored team (like Notre Dame) on top and a disfavored team (like Miami) down. They justify their rankings by toggling between two contradictory psychological biases:
- Logic A: "We can't drop Notre Dame too far, they've been a top team all year!" (Anchoring / Past Bias).
- Logic B: "We have to drop Miami, they just lost yesterday!" (Recency / Present Bias).
Last edited:
