- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The BCS has been more right than we think
Posted on 12/2/08 at 7:20 am to latiger09
Posted on 12/2/08 at 7:20 am to latiger09
quote:R S T L N E
secondly, explain how you can say the above, then say florida state deserved to go over miami in 2001 when miami proved they were the better team by beating florida st during the season.
_ETTER RE__R_, T____ER S__E___E
(Something I've said about 100 times in this post)
Solve the puzzle.
1
Posted on 12/2/08 at 7:28 am to xiv
you frickers are seriously arguing over something that happened 8 years ago?
Posted on 12/2/08 at 7:47 am to lsumatt
quote:
If two teams have the same record, the team that had a tougher schedule to do it DESERVES to be there
That sounds great and all, but how much tougher is the SOS? Are we talking say #5 v #50, #5 v. #8 or #49 v. #50? Cause if its more like the later 2, I'd go with head-to-head.
I also think SOS should be weighted, or count the better teams play. In 2000, Miami played 3 teams, FSU, Wash and VT that had only 1 loss each. The thing weighing Miami down is the bottom of their schedule which would be fine if it wasn't for the fact they beat FSU. I'd have less of a problem in 2000 if Washington had played OU.
Posted on 12/2/08 at 5:19 pm to latiger09
quote:There is no argument that matches "better record, tougher schedule." Therefore, I disagree. BRTS refers to not only your entire season but also the entire seasons of each of your opponents. It is as comprehensive as you can get.
2003 is obvious, as there were actually co champions.
2000, florida state got in when miami had an argument that was just as good, if not better.
2001, nebraska got in when oregon and colorado had arguments that were just as good, if not better.
2004, oklahoma and usc got in when auburn had an argument that was just as good, if not better.
2006: florida got in when michigan had an argument that was just as good, if not better.
2007: lsu got in when several other teams had an argument that was just as good, if not better.
2008: no matter who gets in, there are going to be teams that have arguments that are just as good, if not better.
A few questions to consider, if you care to consider:
What is harder to do: go undefeated vs. Boise State's schedule this year or going 11-1 vs. Florida's schedule this year?
Most would say Florida, and the numbers suggest so. That's why Florida has a BCS title shot and BSU doesn't.
What was harder to do: go 11-1 vs. USC's 2003 schedule or go 12-1 vs. Oklahoma's 2003 schedule?
Most anybody would agree on Oklahoma, and the numbers suggest so. That's why OU was ranked higher than USC.
What was harder to do: go 11-1 vs. FSU's 2001 schedule or go 10-1 vs. Miami's 2001 schedule?
Tossup. The numbers suggest, by the slightest of margins, FSU. That's why they got the title shot, and Miami didn't.
Posted on 12/2/08 at 5:23 pm to latiger09
quote:a) It isn't absurd. The work of an entire season outweighs the work of a game.
yes, yes it is. ties, like the same record. which makes it even more absurd for you to say that SOS determines the better team when two teams have the same record.
b) They didn't have the same record.
The opinions opposing mine are not dumb or categorically incorrect--they're just not comprehensive. The BCS system attempts to answer the question, which two teams have had the best seasons? The system determined that, when considering all games played, Florida State had a better season than did Washington and Miami. Head to head counted...for one of Miami's wins and Florida State's loss. It was and will always be nothing more than one game out of many.
I'm all for breaking a tie with head-to-head. It just wasn't a tie. FSU had the better resume.
Nobody can put up comprehensive numbers to suggest that FSU didn't deserve the #2 ranking. You can give us many facts and stats that suggest that UW/UM did, but none of those numbers is comprehensive. The BCS is a comprehensive system, and that's the way it should be.
This post was edited on 12/2/08 at 5:25 pm
Posted on 12/2/08 at 5:29 pm to xiv
quote:
Nobody can put up comprehensive numbers to suggest that FSU didn't deserve the #2 ranking. You can give us many facts and stats that suggest that UW/UM did, but none of those numbers is comprehensive. The BCS is a comprehensive system, and that's the way it should be.
Then is why is changed almost every season?
Posted on 12/2/08 at 5:31 pm to xiv
quote:
What was harder to do: go 11-1 vs. FSU's 2001 schedule or go 10-1 vs. Miami's 2001 schedule
2000, in 2001 Miami was undefeated and FSU had 3-4 losses, but in 2000, Miami played 3 teams (FSU, Washington and VT) that had 1 loss each. Throw out Miami and we 2 more undefeated teams.
Were FSU's top 3 games that tough?
Its the old what's tougher, playing 10 6-5 teams or 5 10-1 and 5 1-10 teams?
I think more credit/weight should be given to the top half of the schedule than the bottom half. I think we can agree that there is a bigger difference between #2 and #32 than there is between #70 and #100, even though stats say the difference is the same.
Posted on 12/2/08 at 5:38 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:I agree 100%. So does every BCS computer; all of them have a quality win element, or something similar. The quality win element was even bigger in 2000, when the system itself accounted for quality wins as a separate component.
in 2000, Miami played 3 teams (FSU, Washington and VT) that had 1 loss each. Throw out Miami and we 2 more undefeated teams.
Were FSU's top 3 games that tough?
Its the old what's tougher, playing 10 6-5 teams or 5 10-1 and 5 1-10 teams?
I think more credit/weight should be given to the top half of the schedule than the bottom half. I think we can agree that there is a bigger difference between #2 and #32 than there is between #70 and #100, even though stats say the difference is the same.
So many argue that a win over say, #1 and #50 should count more than a win over #25 and #26. It does, and it always has.
Posted on 12/2/08 at 6:33 pm to xiv
quote:
the system itself accounted for quality wins as a separate component.
I do not know about the computers, but the Quality win component was not part of the BCS in 2000, it was added BECAUSE of 2000.
Posted on 12/3/08 at 7:58 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:Ahh, yes. I remember now. And they removed that extra QW component a couple years later.
I do not know about the computers, but the Quality win component was not part of the BCS in 2000, it was added BECAUSE of 2000.
People couldn't accept the fact that FSU got in because of their better record and tougher schedule, so the BCS caved in and made a reactionary change to put the QW quotient in. That kind of thing never works out. If the BCS is a farce, it's only because it doesn't stick to its guns. If the BCS had said, "Sorry, Miami. Florida State had a better record and a tougher schedule. That's how this works," we wouldn't be having this argument today.
Anyway, about the computers--they're all top-heavy to a degree. If Team A beats #1 and loses to #50, and Team B loses to #1 and beats #50, Team A will be ranked slightly ahead. That's how the system was in 2000, and Miami still didn't inch ahead of FSU.
Bottom line: any team who has a better record and tougher schedule than you will finish ahead of you.
Posted on 12/3/08 at 12:04 pm to xiv
This is why the current BCS >>>>>>>> than the BCS in 2000.
You harp on about the "better record" because 1 team played 1 more game. In 2000, neither the ACC or Big East had a CCG. Every team could not just schedule an extra game they would need approval from the NCAA, most people understand that its statistically insignificant, but you pound to make your point. 10-1 and 11-1 are the same amount of loses. Saying 1 team had a better record of the 2 should rank just below uniform color as a determining factor for who plays in the CG.
Should head-to-head be throw out as a tie breaker in all cases?
For example say TT had lost to Baylor, you would have a 2 team tie in the Big 12 S between Texas and OU. Would you argue that OU should go to to the Big 12 title game because they had a tough schedule?
You harp on about the "better record" because 1 team played 1 more game. In 2000, neither the ACC or Big East had a CCG. Every team could not just schedule an extra game they would need approval from the NCAA, most people understand that its statistically insignificant, but you pound to make your point. 10-1 and 11-1 are the same amount of loses. Saying 1 team had a better record of the 2 should rank just below uniform color as a determining factor for who plays in the CG.
Should head-to-head be throw out as a tie breaker in all cases?
For example say TT had lost to Baylor, you would have a 2 team tie in the Big 12 S between Texas and OU. Would you argue that OU should go to to the Big 12 title game because they had a tough schedule?
Posted on 12/3/08 at 3:21 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:The extra game was played against Brigham Young, who, on BCS selection day, was 6-5, and therefore a slight bruise on FSU's schedule. That extra game made it even closer. Even if we were not to count that game, Florida State finishes slightly further ahead of Miami.
You harp on about the "better record" because 1 team played 1 more game. In 2000, neither the ACC or Big East had a CCG. Every team could not just schedule an extra game they would need approval from the NCAA, most people understand that its statistically insignificant, but you pound to make your point. 10-1 and 11-1 are the same amount of loses. Saying 1 team had a better record of the 2 should rank just below uniform color as a determining factor for who plays in the CG.
In determining who should be selected for something like this, if two teams are up for it, and they have the same record, things like SOS and QW decide it, and that's the way it should be.
quote:a) No, it shouldn't.
Saying 1 team had a better record of the 2 should rank just below uniform color as a determining factor for who plays in the CG.
b) It doesn't, and it never will.
quote:No. It should always be the first tie-breaker. It's just that FSU and Miami weren't tied. FSU was ahead. They were ahead because they had a better record and tougher schedule. If you want to pick a game at the beginning of the season called the Pigskin Classic and not count it for some incomprehensible reason, FSU had the same record vs. an even tougher schedule. Or a better 1A record vs. a tougher schedule.
Should head-to-head be throw out as a tie breaker in all cases?
When 12 teams play 8 teams against each other, it makes a certain amount of sense simply to take the two who have the best records and let them duke it out and call the winner "champion."
When 120 teams play 12 games against each other, it makes no sense to take the two who have the best record. Whom they played matters a lot more, and it matters a lot more than what happened in any single game whether anyone wants to believe it or not.
BYU/GT/NC/UL/MD/Mia/DU/VA/NCSt/Clem/WF/FL > McN/WA/WV/Rut/FSU/Tem/LT/VT/Pitt/Syr/BC
That's why Florida State got in. And that's the way it should be.
quote:Of course not. Texas and Oklahoma would then be tied in conference standings. Head to head is a tie-breaker, and Texas would win.
For example say TT had lost to Baylor, you would have a 2 team tie in the Big 12 S between Texas and OU. Would you argue that OU should go to to the Big 12 title game because they had a tough schedule?
But...FSU were not tied in the BCS standings. They didn't have the same record, nor did they have the same schedule strength. Tie-breakers are for ties, not close finishes.
Posted on 12/3/08 at 4:25 pm to xiv
quote:
Texas and Oklahoma would then be tied in conference standings. Head to head is a tie-breaker, and Texas would win.
But OU had a tougher schedule and therefore a tougher road to the same record.
quote:
But...FSU were not tied in the BCS standings
Neither were Texas and OU.
This post was edited on 12/3/08 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 12/3/08 at 5:43 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:I think you might have the Big XII and the BCS confused.
But OU had a tougher schedule and therefore a tougher road to the same record.
(The sad thing is that I think the Big XII has the Big XII and the BCS confused.)
quote:The BCS championship game's competitors have not been chosen yet. That will happen on December 7.
Neither were Texas and OU.
Posted on 12/4/08 at 2:22 am to aibo synthetic
quote:
So what are some of your ideas?
a 4 team playoff
Wait a minute.
You spent however many posts saying that a team getting crushed in its final game doesn't deserve to play for a championship, but the system you endorse would have that same team having a chance to play for a championship?
I don't follow the logic.
Posted on 12/4/08 at 2:25 am to MJRuffalo
quote:
A +1 would be better than a 4 team playoff.
I just don't see how.
You will be in the same predicament, only 1 game later.
In 2004, if all 3 undefeated teams win there bowl games, there is still controversy since Auburn is still being left out.
Make it a 4 team playoff, and that can't happen.
And frick the Rose Bowl tradition. Last time I checked, there are other bowl games out there.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News