- 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: College Football Live says LSU won't even win SEC West this year.
Posted on 5/23/12 at 2:07 pm to cbree88
Posted on 5/23/12 at 2:07 pm to cbree88
Remember - BAMA didn't even win the SEC West last year until they won the national championship. Both BAMA and LSU will be top 5 teams again this year so this is a pretty meaningless statement.
0
Posted on 5/23/12 at 2:30 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
No, its stated goal is to match the two highest ranked teams. Which it does every year.
Correct. But Bama got to #2 mostly because the media/voters simply thought they were one of the best teams, without much further analysis.
When confronted with Okie States' great wins, including curb-stomping OU (a former #1 team) to win their conference, many simply respond Bama passed the "eyeball test" because they're the "best", in other words, don't confuse me with the facts. If #2 is going to be decided by simple feelings, we might as well go back to the old poll system.
quote:
If you're going to insist that someone show you where the BCS's stated goal is to match the two best teams, then you also should show us where the BCS's stated criteria are SOS, best wins, etc.
K, here's one that discuss a couple:
LINK
Note that it speaks of SOS and number of losses, not quality of losses.
After 2003 when media darling USC was left out, the human factor was enhanced so that it can overwhelm any half-way objective computer factors. If I'm not mistaken some voters put Okie State as low as #5 (!) after they won their conference, and the collective human rankings lifted Bama to #2. But with many, it all simply began with who's the "best", and as I say, if we're going to do that we might as well just do away with the BCS altogether.
This post was edited on 5/23/12 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 5/23/12 at 3:02 pm to TexasTiger1185
quote:
They are pathetic because they think we may not win the west?
No. ESPN is pathetic because they sold their soul in the journalism world to sensationalize the living frick out of every story to try and gain an interesting edge. There used to be a degree of expert analysis but that went out the window once Disney bought them out.
Posted on 5/23/12 at 3:05 pm to Thunder Tiger
quote:There was plenty of analysis, more than I could stand at the time. You just disagreed with the method of analysis so you discount it.
Correct. But Bama got to #2 mostly because the media/voters simply thought they were one of the best teams, without much further analysis.
quote:"Facts" can be manipulated. For example, you cite OSU whipping a former #1 team as a "great win." I would say that beating a 3-loss team at home is merely a "good win," and at that still not as good as Bama whipping a 3-loss team (PSU) on the road and a 2-loss team (Arky) at home. BTW, what are all OSU's other "great wins"? Baylor and...?
When confronted with Okie States' great wins, including curb-stomping OU (a former #1 team) to win their conference, many simply respond Bama passed the "eyeball test" because they're the "best", in other words, don't confuse me with the facts. If #2 is going to be decided by simple feelings, we might as well go back to the old poll system.
quote:That's one dude's interpretation, and it is by no means official. All he's really saying is that the computers take SOS into account.
K, here's one that discuss a couple:
quote:Number of losses have not been an official factor in years. And note that it doesn't say anything at all about quality of wins, either. That doesn't even help your argument; it's just irrelevant.
Note that it speaks of SOS and number of losses, not quality of losses.
quote:It all started because everyone thought the human polls had too much bias, so we added all the computer stuff. Then everybody got pissed because the mathletes gave us some results that didn't make sense to people who actually watch football games, so we lessened the importance of the computers. It's a never ending cycle, somebody is always going to feel slighted, there will always be tweaks as long as it's around.
After 2003 when media darling USC was left out, the human factor was enhanced so that it can overwhelm any half-way objective computer factors. If I'm not mistaken some voters put Okie State as low as #5 (!) after they won their conference, and the collective human rankings lifted Bama to #2.
quote:I'd have no problem going back to multiple human polls and simply arguing with my buddies about who the "real" champion is. Shouldn't it just be about who is the "best" anyway? Without a really inclusive playoff system (such as all conference champions plus some at-large bids, as in basketball or baseball), any attempt to "objectively" determine a champion is a farce.
But with many, it all simply began with who's the "best", and as I say, if we're going to do that we might as well just do away with the BCS altogether.
This post was edited on 5/23/12 at 3:11 pm
Posted on 5/23/12 at 3:35 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
There was plenty of analysis, more than I could stand at the time. You just disagreed with the method of analysis so you discount it.
Not that I heard. When any analysis began the "eyeball test" came out. Moreover, you just as obviously discount any analysis in favor of OSU over Bama.
quote:.
BTW, what are all OSU's other "great wins"? Baylor and...?
TCU went 11-2, finished #13, and beat Boise State. OSU steamrolled most teams and didn't just beat Baylor - they hammered them by 35.
quote:
That's one dude's interpretation, and it is by no means official. All he's really saying is that the computers take SOS into account.
Here's another that I believe is official and specifically analyzes "beating quality opponents" and SOS (go to the bottom):
LINK
Where's the link showing that a "better loss" is caclulated?
quote:
And note that it doesn't say anything at all about quality of wins, either
See above.
quote:
Without a really inclusive playoff system (such as all conference champions plus some at-large bids, as in basketball or baseball), any attempt to "objectively" determine a champion is a farce.
Agreed.
This post was edited on 5/23/12 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 5/23/12 at 4:15 pm to Thunder Tiger
You're probably not smart enough to realize it, but gravitiger is pulling your proverbial pants down and giving you a spanking. 
But this thread reminds me why I hate so many LSU fans. Not only are a lot of you just buttfrick stupid, but you're so obsessed by this tiny-dick inferiority complex, that you lose all sense of logic in a weird, masochistic effort to distort yourself into your all too familiar victim pose. When will you realize just how fricking unbecoming it is?
But this thread reminds me why I hate so many LSU fans. Not only are a lot of you just buttfrick stupid, but you're so obsessed by this tiny-dick inferiority complex, that you lose all sense of logic in a weird, masochistic effort to distort yourself into your all too familiar victim pose. When will you realize just how fricking unbecoming it is?
This post was edited on 5/23/12 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 5/23/12 at 4:15 pm to Thunder Tiger
Oops
This post was edited on 5/23/12 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 5/23/12 at 4:18 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
You're probably not smart enough to realize it
I'm smart enough not to double post a-hole.
Posted on 5/23/12 at 4:52 pm to cbree88
quote:Lots of unknowns on both sides. LSU had a killer schedule last year and came out unbeaten in reg. season and SECCG. This year, the schedule cools off a bit, so we don't have that going for us in the national media.
At the end of College Football Live they predicted that Alabama will be better than LSU this year and will play for the national title. They said Alabama will be DOMINANT on offense this year.
Alabama will always be Alabama; but will LSU rise to the occasion in 2012?
Posted on 5/23/12 at 5:06 pm to Thunder Tiger
quote:How is that possible when you keep referring to the "better loss" analysis? Isn't that another one?
Not that I heard. When any analysis began the "eyeball test" came out.
quote:No I don't. I did my own little analysis and I thought Bama was the better team and deserved to go. A "totality of the circumstances" inquiry, if you will.
Moreover, you just as obviously discount any analysis in favor of OSU over Bama.
quote:Try again, OSU didn't even play TCU last year. Bama steamrolled just as many teams as OSU did. No one even gave them a ballgame except LSU. OSU nearly lost to aTm and KSU.
TCU went 11-2, finished #13, and beat Boise State. OSU steamrolled most teams and didn't just beat Baylor - they hammered them by 35.
quote:Once again, that is just that one computer algorithm that is included in the BCS formula. It's not an official BCS statement, or anything close to it. There is no official set of criteria, other than the mathematical formula that calculates the totals based on the various polls. I'm not even saying that SOS and quality wins shouldn't matter, only that they shouldn't just be considered in a vacuum.
Here's another that I believe is official and specifically analyzes "beating quality opponents" and SOS (go to the bottom):
quote:I'm not the one who brought up anything about a "better loss." That's some argument someone else made that you are trying to attribute to me.
Where's the link showing that a "better loss" is caclulated?
This post was edited on 5/23/12 at 5:13 pm
Posted on 5/23/12 at 5:15 pm to cbree88
no matter, because Bama didn't last year and look how ESPN took care of them 
Posted on 5/23/12 at 5:31 pm to Thunder Tiger
quote:
After 2003 when media darling USC was left out, the human factor was enhanced so that it can overwhelm any half-way objective computer factors
I've never understood, why USC was the "media darling" in 2003, but not in 2007 or 2008.
Next, elements of the computers were being double counted in 2003. They were counting more of them and will separate formulas for SOS and quality wins, it was repetitive. The current formula is better and would have probably had LSU and USC play each other.
This post was edited on 5/23/12 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 5/23/12 at 5:36 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
How is that possible when you keep referring to the "better loss" analysis? Isn't that another one?
Yes, it's another invaid "analysis" used to my knowledge for the first time last year.
quote:So did I, and I thought OSU was nearly as good and deserved to go. We either both discounted contrary views or neither of us did.
No I don't. I did my own little analysis and I thought Bama was the better team and deserved to go. A "totality of the circumstances" inquiry, if you will.
quote:My bad, mixed up teams. OSU still hammered Baylor and OU and won their conference.
Try again, OSU didn't even play TCU last year.
quote:
Once again, that is just that one computer algorithm that is included in the BCS formula. It's not an official BCS statement, or anything close to it. There is no official set of criteria, other than the mathematical formula that calculates the totals based on the various polls. I'm not even saying that SOS and quality wins shouldn't matter, only that they shouldn't just be considered in a vacuum.
You earlier asked:
"If you're going to insist that someone show you where the BCS's stated goal is to match the two best teams, then you also should show us where the BCS's stated criteria are SOS, best wins, etc."
It may not be stated criteria, but they are part of a formula that in part determines BCS rankings. Conversely, no part of BCS formula concerns the "best" team, or quality of losses. And I was asking rhetorically where's the quality of loss link for all those who can't wait to rely on this non-factor.
This post was edited on 5/23/12 at 6:21 pm
Posted on 5/23/12 at 5:36 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
this thread reminds me why I hate so many LSU fans. Not only are a lot of you just buttfrick stupid, but you're so obsessed by this tiny-dick inferiority complex, that you lose all sense of logic in a weird, masochistic effort to distort yourself into your all too familiar victim pose. When will you realize just how fricking unbecoming it is?
its been on full display in a couple of threads today
Posted on 5/24/12 at 10:18 am to Thunder Tiger
Sorry, your posts are becoming more and more illogical and I have too much work to do today.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 1:22 pm to LSUAlum2001
quote:
The national champion will be decided in baton rouge in november, I have no doubt about that.
Just like it was decided on Nov 5th last year?
In a way I think it was. LSU and Bama showed that they were the best two teams in CFB. LSU's win set them up to carry the #1 ranking into the BCSNC. Alabama had a fight to get back to the game and could not control their own destiny. A few other teams had to slip up along the way.
I hope the same thing happens this year and both teams meet in BR for a huge battle to again show all of CFB who the best two teams are. No way I can guess who will win but I do think LSU should be the higher ranked team for now.
One of the things that pisses me off about the 2011 season is the revisionist history that many people outside the SEC create. Before the NC game, the talk was about how LSU was clearly the #1 team in the country and many thought OSU should be ranked ahead of Alabama. After the game many of those same people say Alabama was the best team but OSU should have had the shot to show they were better than LSU. Personally I think LSU would have kicked their asses all over the field but seeing something like the link below does make you laugh at their theories.
2011 SEC vs. Big 12 Champions
Matchup Win% Avg Score
OSU Cowboys 55.9 34.3
LSU Tigers 44.1 32.4
LINK
This post was edited on 5/24/12 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:13 pm to cbree88
quote:
Last time I checked AJ Mcarron is still their quarterback and he is nothing more than and average QB
Dude played lights out in BCSNCG, and I think set the tone for their domination of us.
Posted on 5/24/12 at 2:21 pm to Thunder Tiger
quote:
After 2003 when media darling USC was left out, the human factor was enhanced so that it can overwhelm any half-way objective computer factors. If I'm not mistaken some voters put Okie State as low as #5 (!) after they won their conference, and the collective human rankings lifted Bama to #2
quote:
Correct. But Bama got to #2 mostly because the media/voters simply thought they were one of the best teams, without much further analysis.
Andy Staples of SI.com wrote an article on very questionable final voting, saying a pall was cast over the BCS title game rematch leaving few people happy, and to blame voters who "protected the status quo". He also noted that voters who "couldn't be bothered to notice even massive blowouts played a key role in deciding who will play for the national title", and questioned why several voters put OSU anywhere from 4-6.
I guess Staples also has "tiny-dick inferiority complex."
LINK
Page 8 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News