- 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
Is this committee system better than BCS computers?
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:13 pm
After seeing that Ohio State got into the playoffs this year, I wanted to get the rant's opinion of if they thought the selection committee is better than the computers from the BCS.
As LSU fans, we benefited from the computers in 07 and then watched them set up the dreaded 1-9-12 game, so we've been on both sides of the fence there.
The biggest complaint and catalyst to move away from the computers was that head-to-head wasn't taken into account (ie FSU getting in over Miami in the 2000 season.) The next wave a change was spurred by a team getting in that didn't win it's division or conference (Bama in 2011 season). Those two situations were the biggest argument to move away from computers.
Fast forward to today and you watch Ohio State who lost the head-to-head, didn't win it's division, and didn't win it's conference get in over the team that did all of that and beat Ohio State. The question is simple, is a selection committee really better than the computers?
I don't really care who gets in the playoffs unless it's LSU, but after seeing how this season played out and watching top 5 teams lose to unranked teams and not drop in the rankings, I believe the computers were more objective and probably a better system. I think the sports channels pumping up certain teams do give them an unfair advantage in a committee type system have influenced who gets in and who gets left out.
What say you?
As LSU fans, we benefited from the computers in 07 and then watched them set up the dreaded 1-9-12 game, so we've been on both sides of the fence there.
The biggest complaint and catalyst to move away from the computers was that head-to-head wasn't taken into account (ie FSU getting in over Miami in the 2000 season.) The next wave a change was spurred by a team getting in that didn't win it's division or conference (Bama in 2011 season). Those two situations were the biggest argument to move away from computers.
Fast forward to today and you watch Ohio State who lost the head-to-head, didn't win it's division, and didn't win it's conference get in over the team that did all of that and beat Ohio State. The question is simple, is a selection committee really better than the computers?
I don't really care who gets in the playoffs unless it's LSU, but after seeing how this season played out and watching top 5 teams lose to unranked teams and not drop in the rankings, I believe the computers were more objective and probably a better system. I think the sports channels pumping up certain teams do give them an unfair advantage in a committee type system have influenced who gets in and who gets left out.
What say you?
39
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:14 pm to stho381
Computers are clearly less biased.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:15 pm to stho381
I always advocated for just the top four of the BCS.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:18 pm to stho381
The rants opinion. Wow!
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:18 pm to tom
Agreed and ESPN and the talking heads know this. They couldn't control the computers, so they were glad when the system was adopted.
It is quite simple, do away with conference championship games. They do not mean anything. Move to 8 teams, take the 5 conference winners and 3 at large teams.
It is quite simple, do away with conference championship games. They do not mean anything. Move to 8 teams, take the 5 conference winners and 3 at large teams.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:18 pm to jlovel7
Agree....keep BCS rankings & just take top 4 teams. PAY-off committee has just moved the goalpoststo suite their desired outcome.
Why even play conf championship games if it wont help you?
Why even play conf championship games if it wont help you?
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:24 pm to stho381
I agree. The talking heads definitely pumped up OSU over Penn State which likely swayed the opinion of the committee. Penn State won the head to head match up against OSU and won the Big 10. OSU gets rewarded for not making the conference championship game. The precedent has been set.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:30 pm to tjtiger9
quote:
Agreed and ESPN and the talking heads know this. They couldn't control the computers, so they were glad when the system was adopted.
I was quite amazed to see Reese Davis actually say that the committee placed the four teams they wanted in the play offs. Then they punched holes in resumes of those left out.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:36 pm to stho381
We have no playoff system. The media driven committee decides who gets in when the teams they want in don't win their division and/or conference. CF has gone the way of the NFL. Western Michigan should have the same opportunity to win the CF NC as any team. Teams should not be given a 2nd chance when they lose.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:41 pm to stho381
No there is a reason we went to computers
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:51 pm to stho381
Computers easy.
Takes all of the bullshite bias, and human emotion out of it
Takes all of the bullshite bias, and human emotion out of it
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:53 pm to TheBob
quote:
Computers easy. Takes all of the bullshite bias, and human emotion out of it
Computers also removed the media marketing bias. We all know that is totally unacceptable.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:54 pm to stho381
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 12/4/16 at 12:56 pm to TenTex
Never understood why they would rely on a committee and not just put every conference winner in the playoffs. It would keep the regular season releivent along with the championship games.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 1:03 pm to stho381
quote:
The biggest complaint and catalyst to move away from the computers was that head-to-head wasn't taken into account (ie FSU getting in over Miami in the 2000 season.) The next wave a change was spurred by a team getting in that didn't win it's division or conference (Bama in 2011 season). Those two situations were the biggest argument to move away from computers.
This is not correct. Bama didn't get in because of the computers. Oklahoma State was ranked ahead of Bama in 5 of the 7 computers and in the overall computer standings.
See the Okie State screwing right here.
Throughout the history of the BCS, the computers got less and less influence with every change. For example, LSU got in over USC in 2003 because there was an independent strength of schedule calculation that left the whole thing come down to the Boise State at Hawaii game. Result? The #1 team in the AP poll was left out because the computers were in love with Oklahoma (ESPN commentators knew Oklahoma could lose to either Texas Tech or Kansas State and still get to the Sugar Bowl that year.) So, the BCS dropped the strength of schedule calculation, and the polls became two thirds of the ranking, not half.
Posted on 12/4/16 at 1:04 pm to Thorny
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 12/4/16 at 1:05 pm to stho381
Nope
Posted on 12/4/16 at 1:15 pm to stho381
The BCS was better. No reason to allow people to be involved and then be able to do their rankings anonymously. I would like to know what the BCS final four would be
Posted on 12/4/16 at 1:16 pm to stho381
quote:
The biggest complaint and catalyst to move away from the computers was that head-to-head wasn't taken into account (ie FSU getting in over Miami in the 2000 season.) The next wave a change was spurred by a team getting in that didn't win it's division or conference (Bama in 2011 season). Those two situations were the biggest argument to move away from computers
Those damned computers, looking at the entire body of work and not implications of one off games.
BTW, it seems a little unfair to point the happenings of the BCS, good or bad, on the computer models.
They only accounted for a third of the system. The rest were people polls.
The only time the computers could change the outcome was if the situation was so ambiguous that the people couldn't pick a clear cut top 2
Posted on 12/4/16 at 1:17 pm to TKLSUMD
quote:
I always advocated for just the top four of the BCS.
All we needed. BCS wasn't completely flawed.
Page 1 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News