- 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
Changing nothing but team names, what happens?
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:16 pm
For all those that think the committee got it right, do we still think they pick the exact same if this were the two teams discussing:
Ohio St becomes Minnesota, with same exact resume
Baylor becomes Texas, with same exact resume
Ohio St becomes Minnesota, with same exact resume
Baylor becomes Texas, with same exact resume
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:17 pm to lsupride87
Did Minnesota win 59-0? They're in
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:17 pm to TH03
quote:Yes
Did Minnesota win 59-0?
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:18 pm to lsupride87
Did Texas not play an extra game, but Minnesota did, risking a loss and their playoff spot against a ranked opponent?
Same results brah.
Same results brah.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:18 pm to TH03
No they aren't.
Eye test would apply.
Eye test would apply.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:19 pm to lsupride87
quote:
For all those that think the committee got it right, do we still think they pick the exact same if this were the two teams discussing:
Ohio St becomes Minnesota, with same exact resume
Baylor becomes Texas, with same exact resume
Anyone who thinks this wouldn't affect things at least a little is naive.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:20 pm to Indfanfromcol
quote:I disagree. We are all human. I think ESPN is pushing Texas, and the committee cant help but be influenced about what outsiders are saying. That is just how i feel
Same results brah
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:35 pm to lsupride87
Minnesota would be in and people wouldn't be bitching nearly as much. People are upset that Ohio State got in, but they cannot make a case they it was undeserved.
I hate OSU as much as the next guy, but no part of me believes TCU or Baylor are better teams than OSU. I cannot stress how dominant the championship game was last night. It was one of, if not the best wins in CFB this year.
I hate OSU as much as the next guy, but no part of me believes TCU or Baylor are better teams than OSU. I cannot stress how dominant the championship game was last night. It was one of, if not the best wins in CFB this year.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:36 pm to lsupride87
I said this last night. It's true. Name brand won out.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:46 pm to lsupride87
School - winning % - opponents' winning % - opponents' opponents' winning %
School1 0.923 0.571 0.535
School2 0.917 0.464 0.520
School3 0.917 0.491 0.532
Now you tell us which one gets picked over the other two. Go ahead.
School1 0.923 0.571 0.535
School2 0.917 0.464 0.520
School3 0.917 0.491 0.532
Now you tell us which one gets picked over the other two. Go ahead.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:49 pm to lsupride87
quote:Feelings don't count, and your feeling that Ohio State, a member of a conference whose championship game was on Fox, got chosen because ESPN is pimping Texas, two of whose opponents played on ESPN yesterday, is insanely stupid, misguided, and uninformed.
I disagree. We are all human. I think ESPN is pushing Texas, and the committee cant help but be influenced about what outsiders are saying. That is just how i feel
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:54 pm to ballscaster
All three teams have an argument. My point is we will always pick the argument of the brand name team. This year, the argument was champ game to help brand name team. In 2011, it was about best loss, conference champ meant nothing. We will always move the goalpost to support the team name that sounds better
This post was edited on 12/7/14 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:56 pm to lsupride87
quote:And it's an uninformed point. Can you tell me any time when a team got in the BCS title game or CFP playoff when someone else with a better record and tougher schedule got screwed? I bet you can't.
All three teams have an argument. My point is we will always pick the argument of the brand name team.
quote:You don't know what you're talking about. I know this because you're saying the same shite ESPN is saying.
In 2011, it was about best loss, conference champ meant nothing.
Alabama and OSU had the same record. Their SOS were a hair apart, advantage to the Pokes. Margin of victory didn't count in the computers as per BCS rules, and that's why OSU had a slight computer advantage. Alabama scored almost 5x as much as its opponents; OSU scored less than 2x as much as its opponents. Had MOV counted, Alabama would have been a unanimous computer #2. The fact is that Alabama's 11 victories were better than OSU's 11 victories, and Alabama's one loss was better than OSU's one loss. All things considered, there's nothing wrong with Bama at #2. So many of you are so in the dark about this. I might as well listen to Jesse "I can't tie a Windsor knot for the life of me" Palmer instead of you.
This post was edited on 12/7/14 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 12/7/14 at 1:59 pm to ballscaster
quote:Auburn. Suck my balls bitch
And it's an uninformed point. Can you tell me any time when a team got in the BCS title game or CFP playoff when someone else with a better record and tougher schedule got screwed? I bet you can't.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 2:02 pm to lsupride87
quote:You might want to provide the year.
Auburn. Suck my balls bitch
Posted on 12/7/14 at 2:04 pm to lsupride87
Oklahoma and USC each had a higher SOS than Auburn in 2004.
Had you said "1983," you'd have the best argument in the world, but you have no idea what I'm talking about, of course, so I suggest you do some research before continuing arguing your uninformed, juvenile, misguided, hollow argument.
Had you said "1983," you'd have the best argument in the world, but you have no idea what I'm talking about, of course, so I suggest you do some research before continuing arguing your uninformed, juvenile, misguided, hollow argument.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 2:08 pm to ballscaster
quote:no, they didn't. Auburn was higher then both before the championship game. Auburn still finished higher then Oklahoma even after Oklahoma played #1 in the championship game. So you lie I see
Oklahoma and USC each had a higher SOS than Auburn in 2004. Had you said "1983," you'd have the best argument in the world, but you have no idea what I'm talking about, of course, so I suggest you do some research before continuing arguing your uninformed, juvenile, misguided, hollow argument.
Posted on 12/7/14 at 2:16 pm to lsupride87
quote:You have no idea what you're talking about, my friend. Oklahoma and USC were #1 and #2, respectively, in the computers on Selection Sunday. Being that all three had the exact same winning percentage, the only thing that could separate the three in the computers (before the votes are even tallied) is SOS, be it interpreted through opponents' and opponents' opponents' record, home/away/neutral, or a combo of the both of them. The math gave us 1OU 2USC 3AU, and the polls gave us 1USC 2OU 3AU. AU was in the top 2 by no comprehensively mathematical accounts I've ever seen, and thanks to the Massey Composite, I've seen hundreds and actually informed myself instead of watching ESPN. The only thing that put AU in the top 2 was eye tests like yours
no, they didn't. Auburn was higher then both before the championship game. Auburn still finished higher then Oklahoma even after Oklahoma played #1 in the championship game. So you lie I see
Rank Team AP Coaches Computers BCS
1 USC 1 1 2 .9770
2 Oklahoma 2 2 1 .9681
3 Auburn 3 3 3 .9331
4 Texas 6 5 4 .8476
5 California 4 4 6 .8347
6 Utah 5 6 5 .8181
LINK
This post was edited on 12/7/14 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 12/7/14 at 2:24 pm to lsupride87
I'm actually shocked that Baylor/TCU didn't get in. I thought the whole point of the playoffs was so that the "little guys" got the same opportunity to win a championship as the media darlings? I thought for sure in the inaugural season of the playoffs they would put in at least one team that might not have the brand recognition but earned their way into the playoffs.
In the end, we end up with four teams from the same group of championship-contending teams we always have.
In the end, we end up with four teams from the same group of championship-contending teams we always have.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News