- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
0
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:43 pm to Zamoro10
No. 1 is without a doubt 2003 (USC) and No. 2 would have to be 2004 (Auburn).
Also, those coaches switched their vote in 2003 because they were obligated to vote LSU number one as the winner of the BCS national championship game (although I believe a few dissented).
Also, those coaches switched their vote in 2003 because they were obligated to vote LSU number one as the winner of the BCS national championship game (although I believe a few dissented).
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:47 pm to INFIDEL
quote:
objective math?
Please enlighten how these formulas are objective?
They either assume all conferences and wins are equal or come programmed with the programmers own bias. Maybe we should pick women with computers too? Therefore what we think won't be clouded by our own eyes.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:53 pm to brad8504
you could eliminate 60 games from the season, that way the teams that are out of it can enjoy the rest of the summer, and there will be less baseball games to interrupt my football watching.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 5:04 pm to Zamoro10
quote:Motherfricking steamy pile of steamy horse shite.
Computers only spit out what you put in...that is why most people on this board rail against Sagarin and his Top Conference Pac 10.
I'd rather have some stupid honk who at least watched one game decide the rankings then a computer that doesn't watch any games.
Sportswriters vs. computers.
Sportswriters write articles and try to make you believe what they believe.
Computers have actual support for their arguments and do not have to rely on propaganda to support their mathematical results.
Sportswriters use computers to write articles because they can't do it themselves.
frick the writers.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 5:05 pm to Ttyger
quote:
you could eliminate 60 games from the season, that way the teams that are out of it can enjoy the rest of the summer, and there will be less baseball games to interrupt my football watching.
Do you realize that the players would strike if this were the case? The owners would not be able to pay them these ungodly salaries.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 5:11 pm to Zamoro10
quote:Because they are concocted without regard to team names, colors, or locations. Numbers = Numbers.
Please enlighten how these formulas are objective?
Formulae are nothing but objective. They may not be always favorable, but they are always objective.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 5:13 pm to xiv
quote:
Computers have actual support for their arguments and do not have to rely on propaganda to support their mathematical results.
What sports bars have you been to where computers watch the games?
Computers...what you put in, comes out. Why do you think all those BCS computer rankings all have different results. They're no different from human bias, but at least humans watch the frickin' games.
There's nothing like taking a subjective human sport and turning over control of it to a machine...brilliant.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 5:17 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
* 4: Year, 2006. No. 1 Ohio State beat No. 2 Michigan in an epic regular-season thriller and the talk afterward was whether Michigan, with one loss, deserved a rematch in the BCS title game. The BCS rankings, instead, promoted one-loss Florida to No. 2, and the Gators took advantage by beating Ohio State to win the BCS title.
The fact that Michigan lost their bowl game means that this is not a controversy by any stretch.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 5:20 pm to xiv
quote:
Because they are concocted without regard to team names, colors, or locations. Numbers = Numbers.
Formulae are nothing but objective. They may not be always favorable, but they are always objective.
Formulas may be objective but the people creating the formulas are not.
This post was edited on 8/2/08 at 5:21 pm
Posted on 8/2/08 at 5:54 pm to SG_Geaux
quote:
Zamoro10
Posted on 8/2/08 at 5:59 pm to SG_Geaux
quote:If Auburn was called "Notre Dame," it would be 2004's AP national champion.
Formulas may be objective but the people creating the formulas are not.
If Oregon were called "Notre Dame," they, instead of Nebraska, would have been slaughtered in the 2002 Rose Bowl.
If Auburn were called "Notre Dame," it would be 1984's concensus national champion.
Formulae don't allow for such bullshite.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:09 pm to INFIDEL
quote:
INFIDEL
I guess you won't be watching the games then...since you can't trust your own eyes.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:13 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
* 4: Year, 2006. No. 1 Ohio State beat No. 2 Michigan in an epic regular-season thriller and the talk afterward was whether Michigan, with one loss, deserved a rematch in the BCS title game. The BCS rankings, instead, promoted one-loss Florida to No. 2, and the Gators took advantage by beating Ohio State to win the BCS title.
Ohio State and Michigan both got waxed in their bowl games. This isn't a controversy.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:15 pm to Zamoro10
My eyes see purple and gold. If I were a reporter in California with a bunch of SC fans reading my bullshite, my eyes would see in maroon and gold. Can you pick what I'm puttin down here?
In other words, the south knows that the SEC is best conference in the nation. The west coast is sure that it's the Pac-10. The northeast and ESPN is in love the the big-10. Not to mention the fact that those sports writers you're blowing don't watch all the games either, and everyone knows that ESPN's coverage is biased to say the least. So, how are these all seeing eyes getting their information on who's the best team in the land?
In other words, the south knows that the SEC is best conference in the nation. The west coast is sure that it's the Pac-10. The northeast and ESPN is in love the the big-10. Not to mention the fact that those sports writers you're blowing don't watch all the games either, and everyone knows that ESPN's coverage is biased to say the least. So, how are these all seeing eyes getting their information on who's the best team in the land?
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:18 pm to Ross
quote:
Ohio State and Michigan both got waxed in their bowl games. This isn't a controversy.
Fair point...it turned out like the right decision but the ranking is about all the controversy and the media storm before the bowl games. There were a lot of media folks clamoring for an Ohio St. v. Michigan even that idea was asinine.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:20 pm to INFIDEL
quote:What a shame, since the northeast has another conference that has been better than the Big Ten for the past five years.
The northeast and ESPN is in love the the big-10.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:21 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
There were a lot of media folks clamoring for an Ohio St. v. Michigan even that idea was asinine.
How could it be asinine? Surely they had seen the games with their own eyes and made fair and inbiased decision.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:22 pm to Zamoro10
quote:All the more reason to trust math over voters.
Fair point...it turned out like the right decision but the ranking is about all the controversy and the media storm before the bowl games. There were a lot of media folks clamoring for an Ohio St. v. Michigan even that idea was asinine.
Seriously...you think Rick Reilly is smarter than Isaac Newton?
Posted on 8/2/08 at 6:27 pm to INFIDEL
quote:
Most of these problems have arisen due to the belief that the AP and the Coaches polls were accurate. If that is the case, then why the hell did we create the BCS to begin with?! I was under the assumption that the BCS was created to remove the human bias from the polls. If we wanted it to simply reflect the human polls, then creating it would have been a huge waste of time, correct?
Incorrect. The problems occur with the idea that it is possible in most years to identify the 2 most worthy teams after a 12 game schedule. This is impossible and the correct answer is that no formula or solution is possible under the given circumstances in most years.
Just to add to the 2000 controversey was that Washington was also a 1 loss team that year that beat Miami. So Washington beats Miami and Miami beats Florida St., so naturally Florida St. gets the nod.
This post was edited on 8/2/08 at 6:32 pm
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News