- 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 2:58 pm to ballscaster
Posted on 1/16/14 at 2:58 pm to ballscaster
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 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.
You make some good points, but remember that the computer rankings used by the BCS are the bastardized versions that exclude margin of victory from the calculations. There's a chance that OSU might have been the unanimous #2 in the computers if the BCS used the real computer rankings. IMO, the best version of the computer rankings was used in 2001 when all the computer services were instructed by the BCS to cap margin of victory component at 21 points.
The reason I favored OSU is because Alabama had already had a bite at the apple, and I thought the resumes of OSU and Alabama were too close to justify a rematch between Alabama and LSU. The fact that Alabama didn't win its conference didn't bother me at all. I think Alabama unfairly benefitted from what the SEC had done in previous years. IMO, no team should benefit from or be hurt by anything that's happened in previous years.
2
Posted on 1/16/14 at 2:59 pm to SSpaniel
quote:
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?
In that scenario the loser of the game was in the playoff. The championship game was essentially a "play in" game. If you don't prove on the field that you're the best in your conference, how can you prove that you're the best in the country? It doesn't make sense.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 3:00 pm to trackfan
quote:
The reason I favored OSU is because Alabama had already had a bite at the apple, and I thought the resumes of OSU and Alabama were too close to justify a rematch between Alabama and LSU. The fact that Alabama didn't win its conference didn't bother me at all. I think Alabama unfairly benefitted from what the SEC had done in previous years. IMO, no team should benefit from or be hurt by anything that's happened in previous years.
in a subjective system prior results inevitably color the present. I'm not saying that's good because I feel the opposite
FWIW the committee's verbiage on the criteria that will be considered does include mention of prior results - which would imply in a heads up comparison Bama might suffer (in that respect) compared to Oklahoma State.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 3:09 pm to trackfan
quote:Yep, and that's the very reason I cite it as justification for the voters voting differently from the way the computers spat out their results.
You make some good points, but remember that the computer rankings used by the BCS are the bastardized versions that exclude margin of victory from the calculations.
quote:The exact opposite, actually. MOV favored Alabama, and I know for a fact that it would have swayed Colley Matrix toward Alabama, creating a computer tie, and it is almost certain that one of the final three would have swayed Alabama's way, making for a #2 computer ranking for the Tide.
There's a chance that OSU might have been the unanimous #2 in the computers if the BCS used the real computer rankings.
quote:This is exactly why I think MOV doesn't belong in the first place. 21 points is completely arbitrary, and it's when we insert arbitrary stuff into this that it becomes muddled and gay. The object of the game is to score more points than the other team, not to score enough points to impress someone. We're smart enough as humans to use only wins and losses as criteria to judge this.
IMO, the best version of the computer rankings was used in 2001 when all the computer services were instructed by the BCS to cap margin of victory component at 21 points.
quote:A team losing to the #1 team in no way disqualifies them from being the #2 team.
The reason I favored OSU is because Alabama had already had a bite at the apple, and I thought the resumes of OSU and Alabama were too close to justify a rematch between Alabama and LSU. The fact that Alabama didn't win its conference didn't bother me at all. I think Alabama unfairly benefitted from what the SEC had done in previous years. IMO, no team should benefit from or be hurt by anything that's happened in previous years.
There is no "bite at the apple." Alabama had 12 bites at apples, and they chewed up 11 of them, and they chewed them more throughly than all but one team in the country.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 3:12 pm to molsusports
quote:
in a subjective system prior results inevitably color the present. I'm not saying that's good because I feel the opposite
FWIW the committee's verbiage on the criteria that will be considered does include mention of prior results - which would imply in a heads up comparison Bama might suffer (in that respect) compared to Oklahoma State.
I also think that Oklahoma State might have been viewed with suspicion because it's an upstart program, unlike Alabama, which is one of the most storied programs in the nation. Under that same scenario, I wonder how the humans would have voted if the Oklahoma Sooners and Ole Miss had brought those same exact resumes to the table.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 3:17 pm to trackfan
quote:
I also think that Oklahoma State might have been viewed with suspicion because it's an upstart program, unlike Alabama, which is one of the most storied programs in the nation.
I don't think there's any question that's what happened.
If Ok State had been a major program with a major fanbase and ideally had started the year more highly ranked they would have been treated differently. In 2006 Florida went to the BCS NCG instead of Michigan when they had similar resumes - even though most thought Michigan was the better team that might beat tOSU in a rematch game.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 3:20 pm to Moustache
quote:
2003
BCS LSU vs OU
Playoffs OU vs Mich, LSU vs USC
Notes: 1st year playoff was really necessary and people viewed BCS as failure. USC had an argument that they had the better loss than LSU. However, lots of 2 loss teams battling for 4th spot.
I'm just using this year as an example...
My feeling is that they're going to seed teams so that the Big Ten and Pac 12 play each other, at least in the years that the Rose Bowl is hosting. Let's say it's the Rose and Sugar hosting in 2003...
Rose Bowl: USC v. Michigan
Sugar Bowl: LSU v. Oklahoma
Winner of those two games play for the championship
Posted on 1/16/14 at 3:29 pm to ballscaster
quote:
The exact opposite, actually. MOV favored Alabama, and I know for a fact that it would have swayed Colley Matrix toward Alabama, creating a computer tie, and it is almost certain that one of the final three would have swayed Alabama's way, making for a #2 computer ranking for the Tide.
Not necessarily if it was capped at 21 points.
quote:
This is exactly why I think MOV doesn't belong in the first place. 21 points is completely arbitrary, and it's when we insert arbitrary stuff into this that it becomes muddled and gay. The object of the game is to score more points than the other team, not to score enough points to impress someone. We're smart enough as humans to use only wins and losses as criteria to judge this.
I respectfully disagree. Coaches were feeling a lot of pressure to run up the score unnecessarily. Do you remember how Bobby Bowden ran up the score against his own son Tommy? In the post-game press conference he felt terrible, but explained why he had to do it. Miami won all of its games convincingly, but Butch Davis refused to run up the score, and that's what ultimately cost Miami the bid to the championship game. During the season, some local pundits pointed out that Davis' sportsmanship might come back to haunt him and afterwards, Davis was slammed in the local media for costing the Hurricanes a shot at the Crystal Football.
quote:
A team losing to the #1 team in no way disqualifies them from being the #2 team.
There is no "bite at the apple." Alabama had 12 bites at apples, and they chewed up 11 of them, and they chewed them more throughly than all but one team in the country
I couldn't disagree more. If the number #2 team has already failed to beat the #1 team, and the #1 team only has to face one more test, it semms logical to me to give the #3 team a shot.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 4:03 pm to molsusports
quote:Bogus conspiracy theory stuff. Kansas State was ranked ahead of Notre Dame the entire year of 2012 before they lost to Baylor, and they would have been ranked ahead of the Irish had they gone undefeated, and tons of voters were openly saying that they would have KSU ahead of ND because of their SOS.
quote:
I also think that Oklahoma State might have been viewed with suspicion because it's an upstart program, unlike Alabama, which is one of the most storied programs in the nation.
I don't think there's any question that's what happened.
There is a very simple explanation as to why Alabama got in the BCS title game for the 2011 season: Alabama was better than Oklahoma State and proved it on the field.
This post was edited on 1/16/14 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 1/16/14 at 4:06 pm to trackfan
quote:And that's terrible.
Not necessarily if it was capped at 21 points.
quote:Then I wonder what your disagreement is since this is exactly why I think MOV should not be counted at all. If there's no MOV factor and computers decide, there's never any strategic reason to run up the score, ever.
I respectfully disagree. Coaches were feeling a lot of pressure to run up the score unnecessarily. Do you remember how Bobby Bowden ran up the score against his own son Tommy? In the post-game press conference he felt terrible, but explained why he had to do it. Miami won all of its games convincingly, but Butch Davis refused to run up the score, and that's what ultimately cost Miami the bid to the championship game. During the season, some local pundits pointed out that Davis' sportsmanship might come back to haunt him and afterwards, Davis was slammed in the local media for costing the Hurricanes a shot at the Crystal Football.
quote:#3 had 12 shots and proved that they were #3. That's why they didn't belong in the game between #1 and #2.
I couldn't disagree more. If the number #2 team has already failed to beat the #1 team, and the #1 team only has to face one more test, it semms logical to me to give the #3 team a shot.
This post was edited on 1/16/14 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 1/16/14 at 4:25 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Bogus conspiracy theory stuff.
I don't believe there was any sort of conspiracy, but there probably was subconscious bias that favored Alabama.
quote:
Kansas State was ranked ahead of Notre Dame the entire year of 2012 before they lost to Baylor, and they would have been ranked ahead of the Irish had they gone undefeated, and tons of voters were openly saying that they would have KSU ahead of ND because of their SOS.
That's because Notre Dame had been winning close games all year, even against inferior opponents. That wasn't the case with Oklahoma State whose average margin of victory was nearly the same as Alabama's. The voters would have been derelict in their duties if that didn't flunk Notre Dame on the eyeball test last year. If Notre Dame had been winning with similar margins of victory as Kansas State, there's no question the Irish would have been ranked higher.
quote:
There is a very simple explanation as to why Alabama got in the BCS title game for the 2011 season: Alabama was better than Oklahoma State and proved it on the field.
What the hell are you talking about? The two teams never played. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 4:31 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Then I wonder what your disagreement is since this is exactly why I think MOV should not be counted at all. If there's no MOV factor and computers decide, there's never any strategic reason to run up the score, ever.
No coach will call off the dogs with a one-point lead, but many will with a 21-point lead, and if you can't see the difference between team a one-point win and a 21-point win, there's nothing I can do for you.
quote:quote:#3 had 12 shots and proved that they were #3. That's why they didn't belong in the game between #1 and #2.
I couldn't disagree more. If the number #2 team has already failed to beat the #1 team, and the #1 team only has to face one more test, it semms logical to me to give the #3 team a shot.
You can't be this dense.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 4:34 pm to trackfan
quote:I won't even pretend to say that such a bias doesn't exist for our crimson friends, but it is incredibly disingenuous and possibly ignorant for anyone to say that there is no logical or mathematical justification for Alabama's inclusion in that game, and given that such logical and mathematical justification does exist--only a heretic would say that it doesn't--it is perfectly fair and reasonable to opine that Alabama was #2 because they proved themselves to be so on the field.
I don't believe there was any sort of conspiracy, but there probably was subconscious bias that favored Alabama.
quote:That's reasonable.
That's because Notre Dame had been winning close games all year, even against inferior opponents. That wasn't the case with Oklahoma State whose average margin of victory was nearly the same as Alabama's. The voters would have been derelict in their duties if that didn't flunk Notre Dame on the eyeball test last year. If Notre Dame had been winning with similar margins of victory as Kansas State, there's no question the Irish would have been ranked higher.
quote:It's an opinion with plenty of evidence to support it, and it isn't necessarily mine, by the way--it's only the explanation as to why Alabama got in. They got in because they were better, and I can show you plenty of irrefutable evidence to support that explanation. The opinion that Oklahoma State was better is also an amply supported opinion.
What the hell are you talking about? The two teams never played. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
Don't get me wrong. If I ran things, Oklahoma State gets in because in my fantasy world, the computers alone judge it. There's just not a thing wrong with Alabama having gotten in.
Posted on 1/17/14 at 9:14 am to Moustache
quote:
I don't think a 2 loss Bama should be in over 1 loss Kstate, but it would've been voted that way because Bama.
back then, the big 12 was better than the SEC. k state probably would have gotten the nod.
Posted on 1/17/14 at 11:51 am to ballscaster
quote:
I also think that Oklahoma State might have been viewed with suspicion because it's an upstart program, unlike Alabama, which is one of the most storied programs in the nation.
I don't think there's any question that's what happened.
Bogus conspiracy theory stuff. Kansas State was ranked ahead of Notre Dame the entire year of 2012 before they lost to Baylor, and they would have been ranked ahead of the Irish had they gone undefeated, and tons of voters were openly saying that they would have KSU ahead of ND because of their SOS.
There is a very simple explanation as to why Alabama got in the BCS title game for the 2011 season: Alabama was better than Oklahoma State and proved it on the field.
I don't understand any of your response. There was no inference of conspiracy in the first post, only bias. If you don't believe that fan opinions and the body of media that cover those teams for those fans color media attitudes and arguments then I will respectfully but strongly disagree.
RE: the comment about proving they were better on the field I don't know what to make of that either. Ok State beat an outstanding Stanford team in their bowl game and had a better resume prior to the bowls.
Posted on 1/17/14 at 11:53 am to ballscaster
quote:
What the hell are you talking about? The two teams never played. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
It's an opinion with plenty of evidence to support it, and it isn't necessarily mine, by the way--it's only the explanation as to why Alabama got in
You pass over the easiest and best explanation. Opinion polls tend to support more popular teams. If Oklahoma State were renamed Southern California in 2011 they would have never been passed over
Posted on 1/17/14 at 1:35 pm to ballscaster
quote:
2001
1 Miami vs. 4 Oregon
2 Nebraska vs. 3 Colorado
fricking Chris Simms
Posted on 1/17/14 at 2:03 pm to trackfan
quote:I get your point. It's just not good. 21 is 100% arbitrary. We're smart enough as humans to craft a system that doesn't use MOV.
No coach will call off the dogs with a one-point lead, but many will with a 21-point lead, and if you can't see the difference between team a one-point win and a 21-point win, there's nothing I can do for you.
quote:I'm not dense at all. I'm right. Alabama and Oklahoma State each had 12 games to prove how good they were, and Alabama proved they were better, hence their #2 ranking. Being that the system at the time pitted #1 against #2, Alabama got in and #3 Oklahoma State didn't. The fact that Alabama had played the #1 team in the regular season in no way makes #3 the #2 team.
You can't be this dense.
"They had their shot" has never been a good argument. They had a whole season of shots just like everybody else. The two best teams played for the title.
Posted on 1/17/14 at 2:05 pm to molsusports
quote:Some people will do anything to avoid accepting that Alabama was better.
You pass over the easiest and best explanation. Opinion polls tend to support more popular teams. If Oklahoma State were renamed Southern California in 2011 they would have never been passed over
Posted on 1/17/14 at 2:09 pm to molsusports
quote:The bowl is irrelevant since the teams are selected before bowls. As of selection Sunday, Alabama had scored more than 4x as much as they had allowed, and Oklahoma State scored less than twice what they allowed. OSU played a slightly tougher schedule, but Alabama was significantly more dominant against theirs. If MOV were allowed by the computers, the polls and computers alike would have had Alabama ahead of OSU.
RE: the comment about proving they were better on the field I don't know what to make of that either. Ok State beat an outstanding Stanford team in their bowl game and had a better resume prior to the bowls.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News