- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
The BCS has been more right than we think
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:10 pm
Any team who has ever claimed that they've gotten screwed by the BCS has always had a lower SOS than the team that snuck in ahead of them.
2000, Miami. Same record as Florida State. FSU had the tougher schedule and got the nod. Injustice? No. The BCS got it right.
2001, Oregon. Nebraska was 11-1; Oregon was 10-1. Nebraska had a higher SOS. Injustice? No. The BCS got it right.
2003, Southern California. Oklahoma 12-1, LSU 11-1 (1A), USC 11-1. Oklahoma had the highest SOS, and LSU second. OU/LSU in the title game. The BCS got it right (no matter how wrong it seemed).
2004, Auburn. Oklahoma and Southern California had higher SOS's than Auburn. The BCS isn't supposed to sympathize with Auburn because a team bailed on them; the BCS chose the two most qualified teams, which is what its objective is. The BCS got it right.
2006, Michigan. Florida and Michigan were both 11-1 (vs. 1A). Florida had a higher SOS. It's as simple as that. The BCS got it right.
2007, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Missouri, Southern California, Kansas, West Virginia, Arizona State. LSU had a higher SOS than all of them. Kansas, who is the only one mentioned who had only one loss, had the 5th weakest schedule in the country (and to their credit, they did little to no bitching). LSU was ranked #2 in the polls and the computers. The only possible complaint could come from Virginia Tech, who was #1 in the computers (Ohio State was #3). Again, all things considered, the BCS got it right.
The BCS is designed to pick the best two teams, and it has never failed in doing that.
About 99% of the people who bash the BCS (even and especially the ones on TV) have no idea wtf they're talking about.
2000, Miami. Same record as Florida State. FSU had the tougher schedule and got the nod. Injustice? No. The BCS got it right.
2001, Oregon. Nebraska was 11-1; Oregon was 10-1. Nebraska had a higher SOS. Injustice? No. The BCS got it right.
2003, Southern California. Oklahoma 12-1, LSU 11-1 (1A), USC 11-1. Oklahoma had the highest SOS, and LSU second. OU/LSU in the title game. The BCS got it right (no matter how wrong it seemed).
2004, Auburn. Oklahoma and Southern California had higher SOS's than Auburn. The BCS isn't supposed to sympathize with Auburn because a team bailed on them; the BCS chose the two most qualified teams, which is what its objective is. The BCS got it right.
2006, Michigan. Florida and Michigan were both 11-1 (vs. 1A). Florida had a higher SOS. It's as simple as that. The BCS got it right.
2007, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Missouri, Southern California, Kansas, West Virginia, Arizona State. LSU had a higher SOS than all of them. Kansas, who is the only one mentioned who had only one loss, had the 5th weakest schedule in the country (and to their credit, they did little to no bitching). LSU was ranked #2 in the polls and the computers. The only possible complaint could come from Virginia Tech, who was #1 in the computers (Ohio State was #3). Again, all things considered, the BCS got it right.
The BCS is designed to pick the best two teams, and it has never failed in doing that.
About 99% of the people who bash the BCS (even and especially the ones on TV) have no idea wtf they're talking about.
This post was edited on 12/1/08 at 4:12 pm
9
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:11 pm to xiv
What was UW's SOS in 2000. They were also a 1 loss team and they beat Miami.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:17 pm to xiv
And its exactly what the computers do. If anything the human polls throw that off. People act like the computers are this black box where out come some crazy results. But the truth is that if 2 teams have the same record the one with the harder SOS comes out on top. You can argue that SOS is subjective (and it is), but most of the time all the computers agree well by the end of the season.
And that seems fair to me. If two teams have the same record, the team that had a tougher schedule to do it DESERVES to be there.
I defended USC and OU over Auburn for that reason in 2004. I definitely defended OU in 2003 as their schedule was super tough.
And that seems fair to me. If two teams have the same record, the team that had a tougher schedule to do it DESERVES to be there.
I defended USC and OU over Auburn for that reason in 2004. I definitely defended OU in 2003 as their schedule was super tough.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:23 pm to xiv
quote:
The BCS is designed to pick the best two teams, and it has never failed in doing that.
No way to know if they've picked the two "best" teams. What they do is pick the two highest ranked BCS teams, at which they will never fail, by definition.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:23 pm to lsumatt
quote:
I defended USC and OU over Auburn for that reason in 2004.
I'm not saying the system was wrong in the teams it chose, I'm saying that using that particular system is wrong. Leaving out a BCS unbeaten like that shouldn't be permitted.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:26 pm to xiv
quote:
2001, Oregon. Nebraska was 11-1; Oregon was 10-1. Nebraska had a higher SOS. Injustice? No. The BCS got it right.
2003, Southern California. Oklahoma 12-1, LSU 11-1 (1A), USC 11-1. Oklahoma had the highest SOS, and LSU second. OU/LSU in the title game. The BCS got it right (no matter how wrong it seemed).
bullshite aaaaaannnndd bullshite.
You can not, I repeat not, get your arse womped in your last game and go in over teams with similar resumes that are on a roll.
This post was edited on 12/1/08 at 4:28 pm
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:27 pm to xiv
quote:
The BCS is designed to pick the best two teams, and it has never failed in doing that.
The only thing I would change in that sentence is that it picks the most DESERVING two teams.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:27 pm to xiv
quote:
The BCS is designed to pick the best two teams, and it has never failed in doing that.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:28 pm to aibo synthetic
quote:Yes you can. It's been done twice.
You can not, I repeat not, get your arse womped in your last game and go in over teams with similar resumes that are on a roll.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:28 pm to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:Fair enough.
The only thing I would change in that sentence is that it picks the most DESERVING two teams.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:28 pm to xiv
quote:and proven to wrong both times.
yes it has been done twice,
This post was edited on 12/1/08 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:29 pm to xiv
quote:
Yes you can. It's been done twice.
Are we talking what is, or what is right?
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:30 pm to MJRuffalo
The BCS does what it was designed to do, I just think its a terrible way to go about deciding a national title. Probably better than the old way, but any system that doesn't even offer an unbeaten team in a major conference a chance has a fatal flaw.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:31 pm to aibo synthetic
quote:
You can not, I repeat not, get your arse womped in your last game and go in over teams with similar resumes that are on a roll.
Why not? The BCS is not designed to necessarily pick those who are the hottest, or those who last early in the season. It's designed to choose the 2 teams with the best "resume'". And all teams/coaches/ADs/conferences know this before the season starts. So why bitch about it after the season is over. There are some rule changes I would debate about, for an upcoming season, but arguing about existing rules is pointless.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:32 pm to Ross
quote:In the old days, USC would have been undefeated in the Rose Bowl, Auburn undefeated in the Sugar, and Oklahoma undefeated in the Orange.
he BCS does what it was designed to do, I just think its a terrible way to go about deciding a national title. Probably better than the old way, but any system that doesn't even offer an unbeaten team in a major conference a chance has a fatal flaw.
Leaving one out is better than leaving two out, eh?
This post was edited on 12/1/08 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:32 pm to aibo synthetic
The idea that losing late should not be counted any differently that losing early is absurd.
Good teams, championship teams, get better as the season progresses. They do not get woodshedded in their final regular season game by decided underdogs.
Good teams, championship teams, get better as the season progresses. They do not get woodshedded in their final regular season game by decided underdogs.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:33 pm to xiv
quote:
In the old days, USC would have been undefeated in the Rose Bowl, Auburn undefeated in the Sugar, and Oklahoma undefeated in the Orange.
Leaving one out is better than leaving two out, eh?
Well then don't use the old way either.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:33 pm to aibo synthetic
quote:They each count as one win/loss. Absurd? Not at all.
The idea that losing late should not be counted any differently that losing early is absurd.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:34 pm to aibo synthetic
quote:Sure they do.
The BCS has been more right than we think
The idea that losing late should not be counted any differently that losing early is absurd.
Good teams, championship teams, get better as the season progresses. They do not get woodshedded in their final regular season game by decided underdogs.
Signed,
Les Miles
Posted on 12/1/08 at 4:34 pm to xiv
I
USC would have been NC's in either way.
quote:
n the old days, USC would have been undefeated in the Rose Bowl, Auburn undefeated in the Sugar, and Oklahoma undefeated in the Orange.
Leaving one out is better than leaving two out, eh?
USC would have been NC's in either way.
Page 1 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News