- 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: BCS works __% of the time? 27%
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:58 am to xiv
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:58 am to xiv
quote:
I can't believe people on LSU boards actually post this.
C'mon Adam. Its true that its hard as hell to pass an undefeated team in the top 5 to drop after about week 3. LSU did pass USC, but it was still early in the season and USC looked weak for a couple weeks in a row. Also, LSU already had some votes above USC for leverage.
Auburn didn't deserve it in 2004. But there was nothing they could have done starting from #13 to pass OU/USC as long as those teams looked okay while winning.
0
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:00 am to lsumatt
quote:
It definitely had something to do with it. There was very little AU could have done to jump those teams in the human polls. But...almost every computer poll on the planet (which rarely have any sort of preseason bias) had AU 3rd also because they had a weaker schedule.
AU actually jumped OU after they dismantled Ga at home, but then OU jumped over them when AU struggled with AL and OU shut Baylor out. Totally not considering AL game was on the road and I thought rivalry games had more weight, guess not. AU also beat Tenn in the SEC CG, & the rule of thumb is usually beating the same team twice is difficult, guess not. AU's had Citadel on schedule because Bowling Green dropped out to play on a Thurs.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:03 am to tiger in the gump
You're judging who should be in and who should be out by who you think were the best teams at the time.
But if you did a tournament you'd have
many times in which the best team did not win..
For instance, Ole Miss beats USC and then Ohio State has Ole Miss in their bracket instead of USC when everyine knows USC would have beaten OSU 55-0.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:04 am to tiger in the gump
quote:
BCS works __% of the time? 27%
the BCS has crowned the correct champ 100% of the time in my opinion.
AT WORST, it's 80% (2003, 2004) and since the changes have been made post- AU, it's batting 1.000
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:05 am to tiger in the gump
quote:
AU actually jumped OU after they dismantled Ga at home, but then OU jumped over them when AU struggled with AL and OU shut Baylor out.
I don't think they jumped OU in either the AP or Coaches Poll. I could be wrong if you could provide a link.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:06 am to tiger in the gump
The Superbowl doesn't work either.
New England went to New York and beat the Giants. So how does New York beating New England on a neutral field make them better?
New England went to New York and beat the Giants. So how does New York beating New England on a neutral field make them better?
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:06 am to jmath23lsu
quote:Going undefeated? yes. Starting out #1 and #2? no. If you believe the latter, you must reasonably explain how the following happened:
USC and OU starting out as 1 and 2 and going undefeated has almost everything to do with Auburn not getting into the top two
o At one point, AU actually tied OK in the AP poll. How could this happen?
o AU was ranked third in every BCS computer poll (and the vast majority of all other computer polls). By the end of the season, none care where you started. How could this happen?
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:07 am to Gmorgan4982
quote:
It's a popularity contest.
then UF would never have made it in 2006
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:08 am to Indiana Tiger
quote:
At one point, AU actually tied OK in the AP poll. How could this happen?
AU was making lots of noise in the polls until they laid an egg against a so-so UTenn team in the SECCG
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:15 am to SlowFlowPro
Even if AU had been more impressive against Tenn and a few other games I don't think they would have been able to build enough cushion in the polls to overcome their weak computer polls. They would have needed to have a big lead over OU in the human polls.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:15 am to tiger in the gump
quote:
98 - OSU was left out
Our own fault.
quote:
99 - two undefeated (doesn't mean it worked)
quote:
2002 - two undefeated(doesn't mean it worked)
quote:
2005 - two undefeated(doesn't mean it worked)
quote:
2000 - Miami shafted
Again, don't lose, no prob.
quote:
2001 - Neb should've never been either Oregon or CU
Actually agree about the participant, but Miami would have killed either Oregon or Colorado anyway.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
AU was making lots of noise in the polls until they laid an egg against a so-so UTenn team in the SECCG
I'm not at all arguing that AU could not have won it all, but someone had to be left out. There was nothing you could hang your hat on to say that they were the best. Their SOS sucked. They played good, but not great defense, and were consistent, but not spectacular on offense. They didn't shut everyone out, nor did they beat everyone by 50. All they did was win, and it's unfortunate they were excluded, but it was justified by the record. It was not due to not being #1 in preseason. If they had, they would have been hammered for that schedule (and the SEC's overall poor performance that year) and they would have dropped and it would have been supported by the computers.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:34 am to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:
quote: 98 - OSU was left out Our own fault. quote: 99 - two undefeated (doesn't mean it worked) quote: 2002 - two undefeated(doesn't mean it worked) quote: 2005 - two undefeated(doesn't mean it worked) quote: 2000 - Miami shafted Again, don't lose, no prob. quote: 2001 - Neb should've never been either Oregon or CU Actually agree about the participant, but Miami would have killed either Oregon or Colorado anyway.
98 - FSU lost worse at home to NC State 24-6, OSU lost last second to a better Saban led MSU team
2000- FSU lost too, but head to head to Miami (but guess that doesn't matter)
2001 - Miami would def be the favorite, but you never know until you take the field, reference when 2005 USC was being touted G.O.A.T
For the seasons of 2 undefeated I won't credit the BCS evaluation process, anybody could've picked the two contenders in '99 & '05.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:39 am to tiger in the gump
quote:You and I haven't met, have we?
By you saying this you already disqualified yourself with knowledge of the BCS.
Truth be told, I can be out-BCS'ed only by lsumatt.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:41 am to tiger in the gump
quote:
For the seasons of 2 undefeated I won't credit the BCS evaluation process, anybody could've picked the two contenders in '99 & '05.
Right, which is why we need an objective system to determine those teams in the other years. All those other years people can argue either way, but we have devised a system that combines a subjective component (the human polls) with objective computers to determine those two teams.
If you stop and look at the history of the BCS you will see that in almost every case you can say "yes, those two teams had the best combination of record and Schedule Strength of the field and were the most deserving". Find me 2 cases where you couldn't make that statement
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:47 am to xiv
quote:
You and I haven't met, have we?
Truth be told, I can be out-BCS'ed only by lsumatt
*Flicks you on the head*
Posted on 7/16/09 at 11:55 am to lsumatt
quote:
I don't think they jumped OU in either the AP or Coaches Poll. I could be wrong if you could provide a link.
Never jumped them, but they were tied in the AP on Nov 13
Posted on 7/16/09 at 12:07 pm to lsumatt
quote:
Right, which is why we need an objective system to determine those teams in the other years. All those other years people can argue either way, but we have devised a system that combines a subjective component (the human polls) with objective computers to determine those two teams.
If you stop and look at the history of the BCS you will see that in almost every case you can say "yes, those two teams had the best combination of record and Schedule Strength of the field and were the most deserving". Find me 2 cases where you couldn't make that statement
I can come up with two cases, but the difficulty is that it considers factors that are not considered by the BCS.
Nebraska 2001 and Oklahoma 2003 do not meet the third of your criteria - "and were most deserving". But the reason is that they did not perform in a game that counts more than other games. Oklahoma lost only one game that year. The world recognized that the game they lost had extra weight - it was for a conference championship, and it was the last game of the season. However, the BCS is not allowed to give extra credence to any games, nor is it allowed to consider margin of victory or margin of defeat, so that game was just treated as another loss in their schedule.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 12:10 pm to tiger in the gump
quote:
2003 - OU should've never been
totally disagree with this one....BCS got it right that year
Posted on 7/16/09 at 12:15 pm to RLDSC FAN
What about the good old days of paying the pollsters to vote you in...ala Bear Bryant.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News