- 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 10:13 am to josh336
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:13 am to josh336
quote:
USC lost to a bad Cal team
USC lost on the road in triple OT to a team who at least won their bowl game. We got dominated by a subpar FL team at home, who looked like crap during the season & definitely in their bowl game.
2
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:13 am to josh336
quote:
Not winning their conference is very flawed logic. That should have nothing to do with a team making it or not making it to the Championship. If LSU and Florida are playing in the SEC championship game, and LSU is 12-0 and Florida is 11-1 with a loss to LSU, then beats LSU in the SEC championship game, do you really think LSU (12-1) shouldn't get the shot at the title against FLorida over a 10-2 team like Ohio State?
I'll never understand the logic of not using the most playoff like result in choosing who advances. This said, I don't have a problem with a non-champion advancing as long as the champion advances. In other words, neither 2001 Neb or 2003 OK should have advanced. However, in a two team playoff situation, the non-champion has to have a very compelling case to go before another conference champion...like everyone else having more losses like the situation you describe.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:20 am to BabyTac
quote:
College football has the best method hands down for determining the best team for that season. The entire body of work is taken into account and teams that sucked it up for parts of the season aren't given opportunities or hand outs at the end of the year. Basketball has it wrong. Yes, the NCAA tourney is exciting, but why should the 64th ranked team in the nation be given a shot at a team that worked it's butt off all year and is one of the best teams. Basically a tournament or playoff deminishies the regular season in my opinion. I would say at the end of the season the winner of the BCS national title game is usually the best team that year. I can't think of many instances where that could be wrong.
If a playoff diminishes regular season, what does that say about the regular season? Regular season is the fat girl, who's only important is b/c the fine ones are not there. Handouts? If anything a playoff eliminates handouts b/c you have to prove it on the field in an elimination environment. Regular season in CFB you can just lose 1 or 2 to subpar teams, then still win a NC like in '03 and 07
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:23 am to BabyTac
quote:
College football has the best method hands down for determining the best team for that season. The entire body of work is taken into account and teams that sucked it up for parts of the season aren't given opportunities or hand outs at the end of the year
simply appalling statement
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:24 am to tiger in the gump
If Team A has a better record and a tougher schedule than Team B, and Team A gets the nod, Team B didn't get shafted.
If Team A has the same record and a tougher schedule than Team B, and Team A gets the nod, Team B didn't get shafted.
Those two facts alone kill this thread.
If Team A has the same record and a tougher schedule than Team B, and Team A gets the nod, Team B didn't get shafted.
Those two facts alone kill this thread.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:25 am to tiger in the gump
It's a popularity contest.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:28 am to xiv
quote:
If Team A has a better record and a tougher schedule than Team B, and Team A gets the nod, Team B didn't get shafted. If Team A has the same record and a tougher schedule than Team B, and Team A gets the nod, Team B didn't get shafted. Those two facts alone kill this thread.
+1. I can't think of single instance where a team left out had a tougher schedule and same record as the teams that made it. That includes Auburn, although I admit they couldn't do better than go undefeated.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:32 am to lsumatt
quote:It can be argued that VT had a tougher schedule than LSU in 2007. My system said so, but LSU had significantly more points in the "quality win" section, and that's why I had LSU #2 in December.
+1. I can't think of single instance where a team left out had a tougher schedule and same record as the teams that made it. That includes Auburn, although I admit they couldn't do better than go undefeated.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe there was one of the six BCS computers that had VT ahead of LSU.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:34 am to lsumatt
Auburn really is the only school I can think of that's had a legitimate complaint. They played a pretty tough schedule, but USC and OU started out the season 1 and 2 and both went undefeated. Which has clearly been a unique situation.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:35 am to tiger in the gump
quote:
USC lost on the road in triple OT to a team who at least won their bowl game. We got dominated by a subpar FL team at home, who looked like crap during the season & definitely in their bowl game.
But, LSU had more wins against higher ranked teams; both LSU's and USC's losses were in mid season; Florida ended the season ranked; Cal didn't. I still think there is a pretty strong argument for USC over OU, but not over LSU. LSU's overall record was simply better than USC's.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:37 am to jmath23lsu
quote:
USC and OU started out the season 1 and 2 and both went undefeated. Which has clearly been a unique situation.
USC and OU starting out as 1 and 2 had nothing to do with AU ending up 3rd.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:41 am to tiger in the gump
quote:
Regular season in CFB you can just lose 1 or 2 to subpar teams, then still win a NC like in '03 and 07
And in a play off system you could possibly lose 3 or more regular season games and still win the NC. How is that really any better to determine anything but who is the hot team for the playoffs? If the national champion is supposed to be the best overall team, a playoff doesn't guarantee anything, unless you have a system like pro baseball or pro basketball or with a best of multiple games series. A lesser team can prevail to knock off a better team in one game, but that doesn't prove who is the overall better team. The best team may get knocked out early in a one and done system. The current system tends to avoid that problem until the very last. Playoffs in football are simply overrated. It isn't the only way to get a legitimate national champion.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:42 am to Indiana Tiger
USC and OU starting out as 1 and 2 and going undefeated has almost everything to do with Auburn not getting into the top two.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:43 am to Indiana Tiger
quote:
Handouts? If anything a playoff eliminates handouts b/c you have to prove it on the field in an elimination environment.
You prove it on the field in an elimination enviornment. It's called the regular season. Why should a team that runs the table or is obviously the most dominant have to keep extending its season and keep playing games for the sake of all the teams that didn't get the job done? I'm guessing you voted for Obama.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:45 am to tigerinridgeland
quote:
still think there is a pretty strong argument for USC over OU, but not over LSU. LSU's overall record was simply better than USC's.
your right, i dont think anyone ever said usc should be their over LSU, it was OU that shouldnt have been there
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.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:49 am to xiv
quote:
If I'm not mistaken, I believe there was one of the six BCS computers that had VT ahead of LSU.
Actually, most of them did and I would agree that Va Tech probably had a slightly tougher schedule. But that's why I like a balance of subjective and objective polls...those two teams were too close and 48-7 is a helluva tie breaker.
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 10:52 am to Indiana Tiger
quote:
USC and OU starting out as 1 and 2 had nothing to do with AU ending up 3rd.
It definitely had something to do with it. There was very little AU could have done to jump those teams in the human polls.
But...almost every computer poll on the planet (which rarely have any sort of preseason bias) had AU 3rd also because they had a weaker schedule.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 10:55 am to xiv
quote:
If Team A has a better record and a tougher schedule than Team B, and Team A gets the nod, Team B didn't get shafted. If Team A has the same record and a tougher schedule than Team B, and Team A gets the nod, Team B didn't get shafted.
By you saying this you already disqualified yourself with knowledge of the BCS. The first few BCS formulas wasn't just SOS rank but ,quality wins,AP/Coaches poll,8 CPUs, & loss (+1 to BCS score). The modern BCS formula even takes less account of SOS, with the Coaches & Harris poll. Have you seen who's on the Harris poll, do you really think they could tell you who had a better schedule? Have you seen how the coaches vote, do you really think it's consistent with schedule difficulty?
Page 2 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News