re: College Football Live says LSU won't even win SEC West this year.

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

"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...?

quote:

---

K, here's one that discuss a couple:

---

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.

quote:

---

Note that it speaks of SOS and number of losses, not quality of losses.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

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