- 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 in review vs 4 team playoff? Let's see what the potential playoff would be
Posted on 1/16/14 at 11:21 am to Dr. Shultz
Posted on 1/16/14 at 11:21 am to Dr. Shultz
quote:Wrong. The top four, as the committee sees it (yuck, btw), will make it in. Alabama would have made it this year. Oklahoma would have made it in 2003.
In a 4 team playoff. Yes. The team that loses has no chance of making the playoff
quote:Yes it is.
But with a 4 team playoff and 120+ teams to get those 4 spots, that way of thinking just isn't true.
quote:What a team deserves is irrelevant. If a team is in the top four in the country, it is likely that they will be in the playoff.
If a team has faced someone already and beat them and won their conference the other team does not deserve a shot at getting one of the 4 spots in the 4 team playoff.
You're doing what just about everybody else is doing--putting way more emphasis on a conference championship than the committee ever will. If there's two teams that are neck and neck, same record, same SOS, etc, and one of them won their conference and the other didn't, the conference champion will go. But Alabama was by all accounts (polls and computers) better than Michigan State, Stanford, Baylor, and Central Florida, and that's why it's unreasonable to think that a team will be excluded from the playoffs when they've earned their clear, little-if-at-all-disputed #3 ranking.
2
Posted on 1/16/14 at 11:33 am to ballscaster
quote:
But Alabama was by all accounts (polls and computers) better than Michigan State, Stanford, Baylor, and Central Florida, and that's why it's unreasonable to think that a team will be excluded from the playoffs when they've earned their clear, little-if-at-all-disputed #3 ranking.
Except on the field. Bama was not better than MSU. MSU won their BCS bowl.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 12:23 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
Forget my last post; these are only two years where things differed between BCS and Human Polls for inclusion of top 4 teams:
1999
1. FSU
2. VT
3. Nebraska
4. Bama
Polls:
1. FSU
2. VT
3. Nebraska
4. Wisconsin
2004
BCS:
1. USC
2. Oklahoma
3. Auburn
4. Texas
Polls:
1. USC
2. Oklahoma
3. Auburn
4. Cal
2007:
BCS:
1. Ohio State
2. LSU
3. Virginia Tech
4. Oklahoma
Polls:
1. Ohio State
2. LSU
3. Oklahoma
4. Georgia
2010
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Stanford (BCS)
4. Wisconsin (Tied with Stanford in Polls)
The orders changed around a bit most years, but in only four seasons were the top 4 teams were not identical in the BCS and the polls.
1999
1. FSU
2. VT
3. Nebraska
4. Bama
Polls:
1. FSU
2. VT
3. Nebraska
4. Wisconsin
2004
BCS:
1. USC
2. Oklahoma
3. Auburn
4. Texas
Polls:
1. USC
2. Oklahoma
3. Auburn
4. Cal
2007:
BCS:
1. Ohio State
2. LSU
3. Virginia Tech
4. Oklahoma
Polls:
1. Ohio State
2. LSU
3. Oklahoma
4. Georgia
2010
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Stanford (BCS)
4. Wisconsin (Tied with Stanford in Polls)
The orders changed around a bit most years, but in only four seasons were the top 4 teams were not identical in the BCS and the polls.
This post was edited on 1/16/14 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 1/16/14 at 1:03 pm to ballscaster
quote:
but the margin/ratio of victory was insanely in Alabama's favor. Bama scored 4.08 times as much as their opponents; Oklahoma State scored 1.91 times as much as their opponents. This is because Alabama was better
That's not a logical way of looking at it. Alabama had the better defense, but OSU had the better offense, and ratioing the scores will always favor the team with the better defense. A fairer way to look at it would be to compare margins of victory, not ratios, while remembering that OSU had a tougher schedule.
This post was edited on 1/16/14 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 1/16/14 at 1:04 pm to Moustache
quote:Are you aware of when the playoff teams will be selected?
Except on the field. Bama was not better than MSU. MSU won their BCS bowl.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 1:18 pm to ballscaster
quote:
You're doing what just about everybody else is doing--putting way more emphasis on a conference championship than the committee ever will.
I think the bigger issue is that no one knows what the committee will do. Look at years like 2008 where the consensus 4 teams by computers and polls were from 2 conferences. Will they really go through with that or exclude Bama and Texas in favor of other conf champs?
We have no idea and I don't like that aspect.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 1:19 pm to trackfan
quote:It's math. It couldn't be more logical.
That's not a logical way of looking at it.
quote:I think beating a team 14-0 is way better than beating a team 63-49, but fine, let's go with this.
A fairer way to look at it would be to compare margins of victory, not ratios, while remembering that OSU had a tougher schedule.
Alabama 326
Oklahoma State 282
Alabama
average score: 36.00
average allowed: 8.83
Oklahoma State
average score: 49.33
average allowed: 25.83
Alabama was better. It's obvious.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 1:19 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:Exactly why this will fail. It sucks.
I think the bigger issue is that no one knows what the committee will do. Look at years like 2008 where the consensus 4 teams by computers and polls were from 2 conferences. Will they really go through with that or exclude Bama and Texas in favor of other conf champs? We have no idea and I don't like that aspect.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 1:21 pm to Moustache
quote:
Playoff was chosen by taking top 4 in BCS
Would be much better and less controversial than the committee we're getting.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 1:55 pm to ballscaster
quote:
It's math. It couldn't be more logical.
Math is logical, but you're using the wrong formula.
quote:
I think beating a team 14-0 is way better than beating a team 63-49, but fine, let's go with this.
Alabama 326
Oklahoma State 282
Alabama
average score: 36.00
average allowed: 8.83
Oklahoma State
average score: 49.33
average allowed: 25.83
Alabama was better. It's obvious.
Not so fast my friend. You're using the right formula, but you're conveniently overlooking the fact that OSU played the tougher schedule. The bottom line is that Alabama had an average margin of victory on 27.2 while OSU had an average margin of victory of 24.5 against a significantly tougher schedule.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 2:06 pm to Dr. Shultz
quote:
When picking your 4 team playoff are you picking the top 4 teams in the BCS ranking? Because, if so, those wouldn't be the matchups.
The committee has already came out and stated they aren't putting the top 4 teams in. More likely the top 4 conference champions
This
Plus the formula has been changed multiple times in response to outrage over discrepancies between it and the human opinion polls. So you really can't honestly compare the results from year to year unless you have someone go back and recalculate all of the BCS seasons using a single BCS formula.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 2:06 pm to trackfan
All these differing opinions only go to show that the 4 team "playoff" will not lessen the controversy that will occur when post season begins.
I don't think the new system will solve anything in the long run. Now instead of #3 stating its case of why they should be in, now it will be the #5 school.
And this is just my opinion.
I don't think the new system will solve anything in the long run. Now instead of #3 stating its case of why they should be in, now it will be the #5 school.
And this is just my opinion.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 2:08 pm to oompaw
quote:
All these differing opinions only go to show that the 4 team "playoff" will not lessen the controversy that will occur when post season begins.
The committee is going to face an absolute shite-storm unless they release some sort of parameters to outline how they will make their decisions.
If programs know what they need to do and fall short of that they will have less to complain about than if the expectations of the committee were to remain behind closed doors.
This post was edited on 1/16/14 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 1/16/14 at 2:21 pm to bigpapamac
quote:I think the near-perfect way would be just to use the computers in the BCS to judge the top 4. Here are the top 4 from each BCS year in the computers. I'll seed them 1 through 4 according to the computers, and if they have a number in parentheses, it indicates their actual BCS ranking if different:
Would be much better and less controversial than the committee we're getting.
1998
1 Tennessee vs. 4 UCLA (5)
2 Florida State vs. 3 Kansas State
(Ohio State was #4 in the BCS, #6 in the computers; Texas A&M was #5 in the BCS, #5 in the computers)
1999
1 Florida State vs. 4 Alabama
2 Virginia Tech vs. 3 Nebraska
2000
1 Florida State (2) vs. 4 Virginia Tech (5)
2 Oklahoma State (1) vs. 3 Miami
(Washington was #4 BCS and #5 in the computers. This would be a tough one to decide; I'd have no problem with either one.)
2001
1 Miami vs. 4 Oregon
2 Nebraska vs. 3 Colorado
2002
1 Miami vs. 4 Southern California
2 Ohio State vs. 3 Georgia
2003
1 Oklahoma vs. 4 Michigan
2 Louisiana State vs. 3 Southern California
2004
1 Oklahoma vs. 4 Texas
2 (vacated) vs. 3 Auburn
2004 (assuming we take vacated out of the equation altogether)
1 Oklahoma vs. 5 Utah
3 Auburn vs. 4 Texas
(California was #4 BCS, #6 computers)
2005
1 (vacated) (2) vs. 4 Ohio State
2 Texas (1) vs. 3 (vacated)
2005 (assuming that vacated doesn't exist)
2 Texas vs. 6 Virginia Tech (10)
4 Ohio State vs. 5 Oregon
(Notre Dame was #6 BCS & #t10 computers; Georgia was #7 BCS & #8 computers; Miami was #8 BCS & #9 computers; Auburn was #9 BCS & #12 computers.)
2006
1 Ohio State vs. 4 Southern California (5)
2 Florida vs. 2 Michigan
(LSU was #4 BCS, #5 computers)
2007
1 Virginia Tech (3) vs. 4 Missouri (6)
2 Louisiana State vs. 3 Ohio State (1)
(Oklahoma was #4 BCS, #t6 computers; Georgia was #5 BCS, #t6 computers; Kansas was #8 BCS, #5 computers)
2008
1 Oklahoma vs. 4 Texas Tech (7)
2 Texas (3) vs. 3 Florida (2)
(Alabama was #4 BCS, #6 computers; undefeated Utah was #6 BCS, #5 computers; Southern California was #5 BCS, #7 computers. I'd have no problem with Utah getting the nod over Texas Tech.)
2009
1 Alabama vs. 4 Florida (5)
2 Cincinnati (3) vs. 3 Texas (2)
(Undefeated TCU was #4 BCS & #5 computers; Undefeated Boise State was #6 BCS & #6 computers. I have no problem with TCU replacing Florida.)
2010
1 Auburn vs. 4 Oklahoma (7)
2 Oregon vs. 3 Texas Christian
(Stanford was #4 BCS & #5 computers. Wisconsin was #5 BCS & #8 computers. Ohio State was #6 BCS & #9 computers.)
2011
1 Louisiana State vs. 4 Kansas State (8)
2 Oklahoma State (3) vs. 3 Alabama (2)
(Stanford was #4 BCS & #t5 computers. Oregon was #5 BCS & #8 computers. Arkansas was #6 BCS & #t6 computers. Boise State was #7 BCS & #9 computers.)
2012
1 Notre Dame vs. t4 Stanford* (6)
2 Florida (3) vs. 3 Alabama (2)
(Oregon was #4 BCS & #6 computers; Kansas State was #6 BCS & #t4 computers*.)
*Stanford (11-2) and Kansas State (11-1) were tied in the computers. Stanford's computer rankings were 345556 (.8500), and Kansas State's computer rankings were 334578 (.8500). If there's a tie in BCS standings, you re-insert the two computers (the highest one and lowest one) and then try to break the tie there. If we do this, Stanford scores 345556 (.8533), and Kansas State scores 334578 (.8400), giving Stanford the computer advantage. That said, I'd have no problem with either Oregon or Kansas State replacing Stanford.
2013
1 Florida State vs. t3 Stanford (5)*
2 Auburn vs. t3 Alabama (3)*
(Michigan State was #4 BCS & #5 computers. I have no problem with them replacing Stanford.)
*Stanford and Alabama had the same exact computer ratings, 333456, so there was no way to break the tie with computers, so I just went by win-loss percentage. I have no problem switching them.
This post was edited on 1/16/14 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 1/16/14 at 2:28 pm to trackfan
quote:Firstly, I'm certainly not overlooking SOS. I've always recognized that OSU's SOS was higher than Alabama's. I'm not trying to sneak one by.
Not so fast my friend. You're using the right formula, but you're conveniently overlooking the fact that OSU played the tougher schedule.
quote:Your bottom line used "significantly" quite liberally. OSU's SOS was marginally better than Alabama, or else Alabama wouldn't have been ranked higher than OSU in two of the six BCS computers. In fact, some SOS formulas in the BCS computers favored Alabama straight-up.
The bottom line is that Alabama had an average margin of victory on 27.2 while OSU had an average margin of victory of 24.5 against a significantly tougher schedule.
The difference between Alabama's average margin and Oklahoma State's average margin is 2.7 points; the difference between Alabama's average opponent and Oklahoma State's average opponent is less than that.
I will say, though, just so you don't get me wrong, that I have no problem with putting Oklahoma State (or Alabama) in that game. My whole reason for justifying Alabama's place in the game is margin of victory and, more substantially, ratio of victory, which I find to be more significant, though I understand a disagreement there. I say this while supporting the BCS' elimination of margin of victory from the computers years ago since I don't even think margin of victory should count per se. My point is that in a system where 2/3 of the equation is pure opinion, an opinion that Alabama is better is 100% justified while an opinion that Oklahoma State had better qualifications to be in the game is also 100% justified.
My ironic opinion, simplified: Alabama was better, but Oklahoma State should have been in the game, and it has everything to do with computers and nothing to do with conference championships and rematches.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 2:30 pm to oompaw
quote:You're right. It will create more problems and more shameful rhetoric. Imagine the things that will be said about Condoleezza the minute she shares that she voted for a 2nd place SEC team over a Pac-12 team.
I don't think the new system will solve anything in the long run.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 2:33 pm to SSpaniel
quote:
So... what happens if, for instance, South Carolina blows the doors off of everyone they play in the east. Average margin of victory... 40 points. Don't lose a game.
Ole Miss does the same in the west (Ok, I thought Alabama, but Ole Miss somehow showed up on the screen... a guy can dream, can't he?). Both undefeated, both light years ahead of anyone else in the country. Then, in the SEC championship game, one of them wins 2-0 or 3-2 or some ridiculously low score. Does the loser, who gave up a field goal or a fluke safety or something, shafted and not have a chance at all to make the playoff?
And here you have why the playoff will be worse than the BCS.
Take 2011 for example. Say #1 LSU loses to #8 UGA. Who goes to the playoff? LSU, who went undefeated and lost to a top ten team in a bonus game, or Bama who lost to LSU at home and got to site at home while LSU played that top ten team? And what's UGA's reward for beating the #1 team in the country? Watching Bama and LSU play for a championship?
Or what about last year, where you had Bama, UGA, and aTm all ranked in the top 5. Do you penalize UGA for losing to the #1 team in the country in a bonus game? Will the committee take 3 teams from the SEC?
So many things will go wrong with this.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 2:42 pm to elprez00
quote:Ironically, the top 4 in the BCS wouldn't have changed had Georgia beaten LSU.
Take 2011 for example. Say #1 LSU loses to #8 UGA. Who goes to the playoff? LSU, who went undefeated and lost to a top ten team in a bonus game, or Bama who lost to LSU at home and got to site at home while LSU played that top ten team? And what's UGA's reward for beating the #1 team in the country? Watching Bama and LSU play for a championship?
1 LSU
2 Alabama
3 Oklahoma State
4 Stanford
I bet those four would have made the playoffs no matter what happened in the SECCG. The polls probably would have had 1 OSU 2 LSU 3 Alabama 4 Stanford, and the computers definitely would have had 1 LSU 2 OSU 3 Alabama. LSU was so far ahead of everybody that year that they could have thrown the game and still gotten in the playoff.
quote:No such thing as a bonus game. The SECCG is a game that Georgia agreed to play under certain circumstances, and when you play, you risk losing--tough shite.
Or what about last year, where you had Bama, UGA, and aTm all ranked in the top 5. Do you penalize UGA for losing to the #1 team in the country in a bonus game? Will the committee take 3 teams from the SEC?
And I think you mean Florida in the top 5 and not aTm. The playoff last year almost certainly would have been 1 Notre Dame 2 Alabama 3 Florida 4 Oregon.
This post was edited on 1/16/14 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 1/16/14 at 2:45 pm to elprez00
quote:
And here you have why the playoff will be worse than the BCS.
Take 2011 for example. Say #1 LSU loses to #8 UGA. Who goes to the playoff? LSU, who went undefeated and lost to a top ten team in a bonus game, or Bama who lost to LSU at home and got to site at home while LSU played that top ten team? And what's UGA's reward for beating the #1 team in the country? Watching Bama and LSU play for a championship?
Or what about last year, where you had Bama, UGA, and aTm all ranked in the top 5. Do you penalize UGA for losing to the #1 team in the country in a bonus game? Will the committee take 3 teams from the SEC?
So many things will go wrong with this.
that's why the committee needs to clarify their criteria
if they plan on using a computer style approach where teams like 2011 LSU and 2003 OU could actually lose their CCG and still be in the playoff then that's something they should explain. If they plan on using a conference championship system and having a tournament of champions they should say that. If they plan on using some combination of those two systems then they need to explain how the two approaches will be balanced.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 2:54 pm to molsusports
quote:Only computers will ever do that.
that's why the committee needs to clarify their criteria
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News