By Allan Taylor November 16, 2016 at 11:41AM
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — The College Football Playoff (allegedly) dissed West Virginia with a No. 14 ranking. Then Kirby Hocutt (unconvincingly) tried to explain that position relative to two-loss Oklahoma being No. 8 (with essentially the same SOS) and listing the Mountaineers behind three-loss Southern Cal.
Thus, Twitter scorched the committee members as imbecilic stewards of a rigged system, awash in brand bias and conveniently propped up by their subjective eye tests.
Before bashing our human playoff guardians, however, have you checked out the bias-free computer rankings? Remember the ones that previously factored into the BCS, the ones that categorize teams solely based on blind data? They’re still around. and they don’t profile West Virginia any better. Check out the Gold & Blue Lunch Report to see the numbers.
LINK to article and Video Report
http://wvmetronews.com/2016/11/16/computer-rankings-dont-like-wvu-any-more-than-playoff-committee/
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — The College Football Playoff (allegedly) dissed West Virginia with a No. 14 ranking. Then Kirby Hocutt (unconvincingly) tried to explain that position relative to two-loss Oklahoma being No. 8 (with essentially the same SOS) and listing the Mountaineers behind three-loss Southern Cal.
Thus, Twitter scorched the committee members as imbecilic stewards of a rigged system, awash in brand bias and conveniently propped up by their subjective eye tests.
Before bashing our human playoff guardians, however, have you checked out the bias-free computer rankings? Remember the ones that previously factored into the BCS, the ones that categorize teams solely based on blind data? They’re still around. and they don’t profile West Virginia any better. Check out the Gold & Blue Lunch Report to see the numbers.
LINK to article and Video Report
http://wvmetronews.com/2016/11/16/computer-rankings-dont-like-wvu-any-more-than-playoff-committee/