"In the current schedule strength metric, more weight will be applied to games against strong opponents. The new metric of "record strength" will help the committee determine how teams performed against their schedule, rewarding those that beat high-quality opponents while minimizing the penalty of losing to one. These changes will also provide minimal reward for beating a lower-quality opponent while imposing a greater penalty for losing.

Historically, the selection committee typically has evaluated in this manner, but adding it to a computer metric should help codify their process publicly. It could also incentivize athletic directors to continue to schedule marquee matchups between blueblood programs without fear of being penalized for a loss in the committee meeting room. This is something some FBS commissioners have been publicly pushing for and the CFP has been working on over the past six months."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/46027603/cfp-selection-committee-use-enhanced-metrics

I'm all for it. Selecting 12 teams with aid from metrics vs selecting 2 teams based solely on metrics is completely different. With the expanded 12 team playoff, the more they rely on metrics rather than human bias, the better IMO.

The march madness selection committee has expanded their use of metrics (e.g. using Torvik ratings) recently, and it greatly reduced the number of teams that had significant seeding issues.

I would add the mis-step with seeding conference champions as byes exploded the selection committee concept though it showed the power of taking decisions away from the selection committee members.

And the Big Ten is destroying their credibility by insisting on four guaranteed bids. Can't get over the entitlement of owning January 1.

No conference should get a guaranteed amount of bids.

greg.w.h said:

---

I would add the mis-step with seeding conference champions as byes exploded the selection committee concept though it showed the power of taking decisions away from the selection committee members.

And the Big Ten is destroying their credibility by insisting on four guaranteed bids. Can't get over the entitlement of owning January 1.

---

Agreed. The selection committee has lowkey done their job well.

GigEmReggie said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

I would add the mis-step with seeding conference champions as byes exploded the selection committee concept though it showed the power of taking decisions away from the selection committee members.

And the Big Ten is destroying their credibility by insisting on four guaranteed bids. Can't get over the entitlement of owning January 1.

---

Agreed. The selection committee has lowkey done their job well.

---

Loki? The Norse god of mischief? I agree…

Gigemags382 said:

---

I'm all for it. Selecting 12 teams with aid from metrics vs selecting 2 teams based solely on metrics is completely different. With the expanded 12 team playoff, the more they rely on metrics rather than human bias, the better IMO.

The march madness selection committee has expanded their use of metrics (e.g. using Torvik ratings) recently, and it greatly reduced the number of teams that had significant seeding issues.

---

"Why stop at 12? Why not 24?"
-big 10 ADs

Don't fall apart in November & we'll be fine

i have heard this taking point many times over the last 25 years but i have seen few times where it was applied unless it was to ensure a big name school got in. you can't beat a shiny record with few losses regardless of what they say publicly about strength of schedule. . especially in football.

Gigemags382 said:

---

I'm all for it. Selecting 12 teams with aid from metrics vs selecting 2 teams based solely on metrics is completely different. With the expanded 12 team playoff, the more they rely on metrics rather than human bias, the better IMO.

The march madness selection committee has expanded their use of metrics (e.g. using Torvik ratings) recently, and it greatly reduced the number of teams that had significant seeding issues.

---

in a perfect world the metrics would be used without the team name attached. Comparing the blind metrics would go a lot further to dropping the clear blue blood bias that is deeply imbedded in the committee

Florida State a few years ago might disagree.

Or maybe I have a false sense of how big a name they are.

Indiana should not have been in last year. Their schedule was a joke.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Indiana should not have been in last year. Their schedule was a joke.

---

There were at least 7 more teams who didn't earn to be there.

B1G - SEC is a baby, too scared to schedule 9 conference games
SEC - add strength of schedule metrics and we will, Indiana was a joke
B1G - <scrambling> maybe we'll do 28 team playoff…..
Everyone - you are a joke and stupid
B1G - fine….use strength of schedule…

Everyone knows the goal of the system is to get the most lucrative fan bases in the playoff to maximize revenue. We have a big former student base but the follow on spend isn't as good in part because we really don't have a metro area that create follow on fans and revenue. And frankly our marketing is clunky and awful.

AgDad121619 said:

---

Gigemags382 said:

---

I'm all for it. Selecting 12 teams with aid from metrics vs selecting 2 teams based solely on metrics is completely different. With the expanded 12 team playoff, the more they rely on metrics rather than human bias, the better IMO.

The march madness selection committee has expanded their use of metrics (e.g. using Torvik ratings) recently, and it greatly reduced the number of teams that had significant seeding issues.

---

in a perfect world the metrics would be used without the team name attached. Comparing the blind metrics would go a lot further to dropping the clear blue blood bias that is deeply imbedded in the committee

---

The media partners just want to have fun..umm make a LOT of money…