- 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
re: 2011 Alternative Scenario
Posted on 8/1/13 at 10:45 am to Gardevoir
Posted on 8/1/13 at 10:45 am to Gardevoir
quote:
I don't consider having the best record in a round robin schedule to make you the best.
Well, you are objectively wrong. This is empirically the best way to crown a champion. Winning a round robin format in which every team played every other team is the single "fairest" way to crown a champ. The SEC doesn't do it because we have too many teams, and championship games are fun moneymakers. but a round robin format is "more accurate".
I prefer title games because they are fun, and I like fun. But winning a round robin is more impressive because there's no way to avoid other quality teams in the conference. There's no "luck of the draw".
ETA: I should also point out that a round robin format depresses each team's record while the SEC's format inflates them. It is literally impossible for the Big 12 to have 6 10-win teams like the SEC did last year, just by the format of the schedule.
This post was edited on 8/1/13 at 10:47 am
1
Posted on 8/1/13 at 10:57 am to Gardevoir
quote:
Holy shite. Y'all are really going to be particular about winning your division. 2003 Ole Miss and LSU had identical division record. LSU got blown out at home by a Florida team that Ole Miss defeated. LSU won a close one over Ole Miss on the road.
Man, you really just don't accept anything but a blowout as a win do you??
This post was edited on 8/1/13 at 10:59 am
Posted on 8/1/13 at 10:59 am to Gardevoir
quote:
Holy shite. Y'all are really going to be particular about winning your division.
You argued that Oklahoma 2003 didn't deserve to be in the BCSNCG because they didn't beat anyone and lost in their championship game, but argue Bama 11 was justified in making it though they didn't even win their division.
quote:
2003 Ole Miss and LSU had identical division record. LSU got blown out at home by a Florida team that Ole Miss defeated.
LSU had the tiebreaker, so they won the division. I'm not following.
quote:
LSU won a close one over Ole Miss on the road. Take from that what you will, but you've got to appreciate Ole Miss losing to Memphis and Texas Tech; one cannot describe how much that helped you r case in the BCS standings.
If anything Ole Miss' losses hurt LSU because it brought down their SOS and make Ole Miss a less impressive victory. The losses had no bearing on the SEC West.
You're grasping.
Look, although no rules were broken, conferences historically serve as a gauntlet to determine the best team, out of a group of teams in a system where one plays roughly 10% of those eligible and no playoffs. It's a way to find commonality where it otherwise doesn't exist. That's a distinction from a the appointed "Champion" in some cases (2001, 2003). The bigger abomination is giving a second chance to team A while denying a single opportunity to a more deserving (statistically) Team B under a system where the sample size is so small.
Teams have not historically received second bites at the apple. You get your chance at a team, that's it. Don't give me 96 because the two are not very similar at all--both conf champs, and that Sugar Bowl was not a winner take all event until after the Rose Bowl was concluded. What happened was defied all protocol and precedent set in the modern era of college football. You should at least appreciate that and not assume it was God's will that selected Bama.
Posted on 8/1/13 at 10:59 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
quote:
but who wants to watch the national championship if the two best teams aren't featured? I wouldn't.
So you didn't watch Bama vs. ND?
quote:
Mo Jeaux
Beat me to it
Posted on 8/1/13 at 11:00 am to Tiger Voodoo
Not sure 19-7 is a 'blowout' anyway. 
Posted on 8/1/13 at 11:01 am to Baloo
quote:
Well, you are objectively wrong. This is empirically the best way to crown a champion. Winning a round robin format in which every team played every other team is the single "fairest" way to crown a champ.
This. Wisconsin was the 4th or 5th best team in their conference over the course 3 months. But they're champs. Was LSU 2001 the "best" team in the SEC. I don't think so. The RR is the most equitable way to determine a champion.
How can one argue that a system based on arbitrary divisional champs with unbalanced schedules is more "fair?"
This post was edited on 8/1/13 at 11:02 am
Posted on 8/1/13 at 11:16 am to Baloo
quote:
Well, you ignored all of my other arguments made in this thread. But I'm not calling you a hypocrite. I'm saying your statement was hypocritical. Just like a person can lie without being a Liar, because every single person has told at least one lie in their life. But calling out USC for not taking care of business is incredibly hypocritical from a Bama fan. Bama hasn't taken care of business either, yet they've been rewarded.
I'm not saying that Alabama deserved to be there, and I'm not the one whom introduced "not taking care of business" or "finishing the season strong". I've provided other examples that counter y'all's points regarding the importance of resumes, winning your conference, and the timing and/or quality of a loss. I didn't mean to call out USC. I agree that they were robbed, but if they hadn't lost a game, then the would have played Oklahoma instead; that scenario would have been way worse than what happened in 2011 because we know LSU was better than Oklahoma; your team dominated them and the score was deceptively close.
quote:
I'm the one who argued about the importance of winning your conference above all else, as it makes the regular season more meaningful. So yes, OSU won their conference.
Alright, I'm fine with you arguing the importance of winning your conference; however, I don't value conference championships as much as some do because I disagree with the current conference championship and/or round robin formats of determining a conference champion; both methods have serious flaws. The method of determining a division champion is flawed too, at least in the SEC. I haven't detailed the flaws, but when they are considered conference champions can occasionally become a joke.
I understand that winning your conference is probably the most objective way to determine the better teams, but not the best. Also, when winning your conference relies on some fortunes or not defeating the second best team in your conference, it becomes subjective. Humans have determined how a division and conference champion are selected, and they are wrong. Until the Big 5 conferences are using an improved, unified method of selecting the division champs and determining the conference champion, conference championships aren't free of criticism.
Don't take my arguments as implying that losing or winning your conference is irrelevant; that's not my stance. My stance is that winning your conference is rarely what it's blown up to be.
quote:
Which I pointed out earlier. those were also abominations. I f'n hate the BCS. The way it has devalued conference titles is abhorrent to me, as a longtime college football fan. It started in 2001, and continued through 2011. I completely agree, Oregon should've played for the title in '01 and USC in '03. And Okie St in '11.
See how my position is internal consistent, and not dependent on which team I like? Ask the USC fans on the MSB fans if I like the Trojans.
The problem with your argument is that you start from the point that "Alabama should've been in the title game" and then you construct an argument around proving that point. Which is fine, but you have to expect to be called out on it.
Look there is no other scenario during the BCS that's a perfect copy of what happened in 2011. Any bias aside, Oklahoma State was not definitively better than Alabama; the matchup wasn't settled on the field. The only way that would have been possible back then is if the two scheduled to play each other during the regular season. It's hard to argue consistency against me when nobody has a scenario that strongly resembles the 2011 dilemma; there's nothing like it. You can only compare bits and pieces of it to other seasons, but not the whole thing.
Posted on 8/1/13 at 11:17 am to Baloo
quote:
Maybe because selectors don't have the Sight and can't see the future? They have to make their selection based on the data on hand, at the time. They can't make a decision based on future data because they aren't precogs. Also, we have no idea how that team would've played had they not been screwed in the bowl selection. K-State had a habit of sleep walking through their games after getting hosed out of the BCS over the years. Can't blame them, either.
The BCS is supposed to rank #1 and #2. What do those numbers mean if #3 or #4 has a great shot at beating #1 and/or #2 without help? They can't make a decision based on the future, but if they'd given the teams the rematch then Michigan and Ohio State wouldn't have been exposed by better teams. We could just admit that we've been missing a sound playoff system for a long time, but that's irrelevant back then. The BCS was all we had, and we know Michigan and Ohio State were not the best. Regardless of the team across from you, how do you not prepare and get up for the national championship game? We're talking about the chance to win the coveted crystal football and finish the season ranked #1 here, not to mention being declared the national champions by the #1 accepted rankings system.
quote:
The losss, of course, means something. It just doesn't mean EVERYTHING. I prefer to rank teams by their wins, not their losses. I care what your accomplishments are. So, of course the ISU loss matters. It was also on the road, after a short week, after a campus tragedy, in overtime, and on a controversial call. As far as losses go, it isn't a crippling one.
Oklahoma State stretched their lead to 17 points after halftime. When did they find out that the basketball coaches had died? That excuse is getting old. Did they just find out when Iowa State started mounting the comeback? Were they even close to the coaches whom died in the tragedy or was the media just using those people's deaths to push for Oklahoma State?
Comparing accomplishments eh? What legit. accomplishments did 2012 Georgia have? They played the weakest schedule of the East's 3 best teams. Arkansas > Auburn, though both were garbage. LSU > Ole Miss, though their game was competitive and close. Texas A&M and LSU >>> Auburn and Ole Miss. Georgia only had one good win, and that was against the undefeated Gators that won above expectations. I could list a few reasons not to believe Georgia deserved to represent the division or was even the best team; however, then I'd have to defend Alabama if a few arguments of those arguments could be used against 2012 Alabama. Of course some here will only see homerism instead of objectively analyzing those arguments, so there's not much of a point in going there.
quote:
As for close games against A&M, KSU, and Stanford... is your argument, seriously, that Okie State beat a lot of really good teams? Stanford was arguably the 4th or 5th best team in the country. Yeah, I'm impressed by a win over them. KSU was really good. So was A&M. Know what we call narrow escapes? WINS. Wins are a good thing, and those were really good wins.
That's not my argument. Stanford could not compete with Oregon. Kansas State was blown out in the Cotton Bowl by the team that Alabama owned. A&M blew several double digit halftime leads, that's not the sign of a good team; it just means they had the potential to be great. When you lose as many games as they did, potential is irrelevant. Those wins don't look good when compared to other teams' wins over those teams. 44-10 is the only win that wasn't topped, but it was Oklahoma State. A terrible Texas Tech team managed to beat Oklahoma already; that dulls Oklahoma's luster. What's worse getting blown out by a team that many consider among the best in the country or losing at home to a terrible, unranked squad? I'll take the blowout loss to a highly ranked opponent over losing to a garbage team at home; both are embarrassing, but I'd rather lose to a quality team.
Oklahoma State was very good; Alabama was great. That may sound biased, but oh well. Everyone here seems pretty grounded in their beliefs.
I will address the comments when I get a chance. I've taken a long break from volunteering and need to see what other work I can do now.
Posted on 8/1/13 at 11:30 am to Tiger Voodoo
Best post of the thread
Posted on 8/1/13 at 11:39 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
quote: but who wants to watch the national championship if the two best teams aren't featured? I wouldn't.
1. No one outside Alabama wanted to see the rematch. Ratings were bad.
2. That poll someone posted earlier showed 70% of 40,000 voters wanted to see OSU. OP dismissed that poll earlier.
Posted on 8/1/13 at 11:53 am to Gardevoir
quote:
Of course some here will only see homerism instead of objectively analyzing those arguments, so there's not much of a point in going there.
:rotflmao:
Posted on 8/1/13 at 11:59 am to Vlad The Inhaler
Alabama was the 2nd best team in the nation and not Okie State. That was pretty clear to see.
Posted on 8/1/13 at 1:05 pm to Gardevoir
quote:
Nick Saban's is topped by none when it comes to bowl game preparation and execution
Ask Utah in 09
And don't give me that bs bama lost to UF and it didn't matter.
Posted on 8/1/13 at 2:53 pm to Gardevoir
quote:
I'm not the one whom introduced "not taking care of business"
Actually, you were. This is you:
quote:
No. Several USC teams were left out of the BCSNCG because USC couldn't take care of business against a conference it owned and a weak schedule.
And I mocked that statement. I continue to mock it. Especially when we look at Bama's schedule in 2011.
quote:
Don't take my arguments as implying that losing or winning your conference is irrelevant; that's not my stance. My stance is that winning your conference is rarely what it's blown up to be.
It is the single most important factor. It is the only thing that every team can control entirely by their own performance at the season's start. Even winning all your games doesn't guarantee a title. Ask 2004 Auburn.
Your attitude is one that was caused by the BCS. I'm willing to bet you're young, probably under 25 but definitely under 30. You only know the BCS era. And it is an era that has consistently devalued the conference championship until now it is virtually valueless. It frankly, pisses me off. Conference championships are the whole point. In a way, they are more valuable than national titles, which are called mythical for a reason.
quote:
Any bias aside, Oklahoma State was not definitively better than Alabama; the matchup wasn't settled on the field.
The inverse is also true. Bama was not definitively better either. So, we are left to looking at what teams actually did. And Okie St's resume was objectively better. Thus, they were #2 and should have played for the title. The fact Bama didn't win their conference and already lost to LSU at home is just icing on the cake.
Posted on 8/1/13 at 2:58 pm to Rickdaddy4188
quote:
You're dumb for thinking Bama deserved to be in that game. That graphic you dismissed showed that every single state believed OSU should've been there.
Who cares what the rest of the country wants? I'm sure that there are a few changes that most Americans would want in the government, yet we don't get what we want.
Posted on 8/1/13 at 3:00 pm to Baloo
quote:
quote:
Any bias aside, Oklahoma State was not definitively better than Alabama; the matchup wasn't settled on the field.
The inverse is also true. Bama was not definitively better either. So, we are left to looking at what teams actually did. And Okie St's resume was objectively better. Thus, they were #2 and should have played for the title. The fact Bama didn't win their conference and already lost to LSU at home is just icing on the cake.
And there it is. After 9 pages, all wrapped up in a nice simple paragraph. The only thing missing is a bow
Posted on 8/1/13 at 3:16 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
So you didn't watch Bama vs. ND?
Alright, you've got me there. I've enjoyed you guys' intellect. It sucks that I'm the only person here to support my side. I know I posted this topic on the Tiger Rant, but I don't think it would have been received as maturely on the SEC Rant. I also don't think we'd have this depth of this discussion. Today is the last day I will post in this topic. It's been nice getting to know more about your thoughts; there are a few perspectives I hadn't read prior to making this topic.
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News