- 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 10:46 am to Indiana Tiger
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:46 am to Indiana Tiger
quote:
USC and OU starting out as 1 and 2 had nothing to do with AU ending up 3rd.
Looking at history, it probably did. Historically, a team that starts out ahead of another team doesn't fall behind another team until it loses. That doesn't mean that Auburn was shafted, necessarily in 2004, but Auburn could not have jumped either USC or OU under almost any set of circumstances, and there is little historical precedent to show otherwise.
2007 was an unusual year because no team went undefeated who was in serious contention. LSU jumped some teams, but the circumstances were unusual because there was only one team left with one or no losses. It was the first year I can remember in which the pollsters didn't move teams up and down in lock step.
2
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:50 am to tigerinridgeland
quote:I can't believe people on LSU boards actually post this.
Looking at history, it probably did. Historically, a team that starts out ahead of another team doesn't fall behind another team until it loses. That doesn't mean that Auburn was shafted, necessarily in 2004, but Auburn could not have jumped either USC or OU under almost any set of circumstances, and there is little historical precedent to show otherwise.
2007. USC #1, LSU #2.
USC beats Washington by 3.
LSU beats Tulane by 25.
LSU jumps USC in the AP poll.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 7:15 pm to tigerinridgeland
quote:
Looking at history, it probably did. Historically, a team that starts out ahead of another team doesn't fall behind another team until it loses. That doesn't mean that Auburn was shafted, necessarily in 2004, but Auburn could not have jumped either USC or OU under almost any set of circumstances, and there is little historical precedent to show otherwise.
True but isn't that what the strength of schedule component if for. Looking back at it AU had a much harder schedule than OU yet because the pollsters decided to kept 1 and 2 the same shouldn't the strength of schedule part have been enough to switch OU in AU in the final poll before the Championship game. That's the way it's suppose to happen. Did he strength of schedule have no effect on the outcome because of the polls in the selection in 04 or did the computers screw it up either way AU 04 did get shafted.
Note: I do not want a play off, I actually prefer the current system but to say 04 AU didn't get screw is ridiculous.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News