- 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 12:46 pm to tiger in the gump
Posted on 7/16/09 at 12:46 pm to tiger in the gump
quote:
2003 - OU should've never been
Too hard to say USC should've, eh?
quote:Best matchup to date imo.
2005 - two undefeated(doesn't mean it worked)
quote:With a 41 to 14 final? bullshite.
2006 - USC and FL one loss, and OSU didn't look like it shouldn't been in it
This post was edited on 7/16/09 at 12:47 pm
0
Posted on 7/16/09 at 1:28 pm to Tiger Phil
quote:
But the reason is that they did not perform in a game that counts more than other games.
It doesn't count more than other games. I stand by statement that OU played a tougher schedule. Also, OU knew that could tank that game...maybe a different team shows if they HAD to win? I don't know.
quote:
nor is it allowed to consider margin of victory or margin of defeat,
They don't inlcude margin of victory either. OU was stomping teams all year long. If MOV is a factor it helps OU.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 1:30 pm to lsumatt
Fresno St. really wasn't the best baseball team last season.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 1:33 pm to lsumatt
Given the rules, OK deserved to be in. IMO, the rules should have been changed after 2001 Neb to stop them from going.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 1:39 pm to lsumatt
quote:
It doesn't count more than other games. I stand by statement that OU played a tougher schedule. Also, OU knew that could tank that game...maybe a different team shows if they HAD to win? I don't know.
That's my point. That game decided who would be the Big XII Conference Champion, so it meant more than any of their regular season games. According to the guidelines of the BCS, it could not count more.
But it should have.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 1:52 pm to Tiger Phil
quote:
That's my point. That game decided who would be the Big XII Conference Champion, so it meant more than any of their regular season games. According to the guidelines of the BCS, it could not count more.
IMO, it's not about counting more; it should be disqualifying unless the champion advances. I find it absurd that the team the conference puts forward as its best sits while its second advances. The only time I would wince at this is if OK had lost on the last play of the game due to an obvious ref error.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 2:05 pm 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?
It is not flawed logic if it is used as a tie-breaker....for example if in your senario Ohio State is 11-1, then, as much as I hate to say this, they deserve to get in before LSU...now in saying this, I do not think this is fair until every conference adapts a conference championship game!
Posted on 7/16/09 at 2:10 pm to tiger in the gump
does 19-7 mean dominated to you?
granted our offense was AWFUL!
granted our offense was AWFUL!
Posted on 7/16/09 at 2:18 pm to tiger in the gump
quote:
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
Ever watch the nfl
Perfection ain't easy chump...ESPECIALLY in the SEC...
also...did you know that when Tampa Bay won the Superbowl few years back they lost to the Saints for 2 of their 4 losses....i believe the saints only won 6 games maybe less that year. SO playoffs mean you couldn't lose to subpar? You need better arguments sir!
Posted on 7/16/09 at 2:54 pm to Tiger Phil
The BCS gets it right most of the time. But its far from perfect...
FSU lost to Miami, Miami lost to Washington. So really, Washington should have gone based on head to head competition.
Without a doubt it should have been Oregon
Yep it should have been LSU vs. USC. I don't think anyone would have had a problem if that was the matchup (besides Oklahoma)
I disagree, this is where margin of victory would have come into play. Auburn dominated everyone they played in 2004 besides LSU so you really couldn't ask much more from them and imo looked like the best team. USC almost lost a few games and so did Oklahoma, Auburn was only in danger once during the season against LSU and maybe for a little while against Tenn. in the SECCG. ALso remember this was the first year the BCS changed its rules, everyone wanted to see Oklahoma and USC. But Auburn would have given USC a great game that year.
In 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 the BCS got it right, so the system is improving.
quote:
2000 - OU and FSU. Everyone likes to say that Miami was shafted, but they lost to Washington, who was #4 in the final BCS. Here it was a hard choice, and this would have been a perfect year for a 4-team playoff.
FSU lost to Miami, Miami lost to Washington. So really, Washington should have gone based on head to head competition.
quote:
2001 - Miami and Nebraka. Agreed. Nebraska should not have been in. It should have been Oregon.
Without a doubt it should have been Oregon
quote:
2003 - LSU and OU. Agreed. OU, again, as a team that didn't win its conference, should not have been in.
Yep it should have been LSU vs. USC. I don't think anyone would have had a problem if that was the matchup (besides Oklahoma)
quote:
2004 - USC and OU. The BCS had to make a determination to pick 2 out of 3 undefeated teams, and based on the information and data we had, it made the right choice. Auburn played absolutely no one OOC that year.
I disagree, this is where margin of victory would have come into play. Auburn dominated everyone they played in 2004 besides LSU so you really couldn't ask much more from them and imo looked like the best team. USC almost lost a few games and so did Oklahoma, Auburn was only in danger once during the season against LSU and maybe for a little while against Tenn. in the SECCG. ALso remember this was the first year the BCS changed its rules, everyone wanted to see Oklahoma and USC. But Auburn would have given USC a great game that year.
In 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 the BCS got it right, so the system is improving.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 2:58 pm to Tiger Phil
nm
This post was edited on 7/16/09 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 7/16/09 at 3:11 pm to tiger in the gump
quote:
BCS works __% of the time? 27%
That's awesome you give us all this nice info with no solution....and I don't just mean a playoff answer I need details and logistics and monetary figures. If you give me all that information I guarantee you I can come up with a reason why your idea is worse that what is currently in place. Well worse in the eyes of the networks and schools anyway probably not worse in the eyes of the fan.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 3:48 pm to LSU316
The biggest flaw that needs to be fixed with the BCS is getting rid of the coach's poll. The AP or another sports writers poll should take its place. No way do the coaches have time to watch and evaluate 25 - 30 teams each Sunday. Also there is a definite conflict of interest.
By and large, the BCS works and generates a lot of interest in the sport. It ain't going anywhere.
By and large, the BCS works and generates a lot of interest in the sport. It ain't going anywhere.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 3:57 pm to Chimlim
quote:
I disagree, this is where margin of victory would have come into play. Auburn dominated everyone they played in 2004 besides LSU so you really couldn't ask much more from them and imo looked like the best team. USC almost lost a few games and so did Oklahoma, Auburn was only in danger once during the season against LSU and maybe for a little while against Tenn. in the SECCG. ALso remember this was the first year the BCS changed its rules, everyone wanted to see Oklahoma and USC. But Auburn would have given USC a great game that year.
Overall USC had the greatest margin of victory. OU and AU were essentially the same. USC had a couple of 1st half season close games, and AU had a couple of late season close games. The AL game was a real killer. AU had just tied OK in the AP poll and had momentum, but that brought a lot of focus on AU's overall schedule strength. Regardless of that being a rival game, AU had to step up big in that game and they didn't. The TN victory wasn't all that impressive either.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 5:28 pm to Indiana Tiger
In 2004...
AU played 4 teams ranked in the final BCS top 25, those teams with an average ranking of 10.25.
USC played 3 teams ranked in the final BCS top 25, those teams with an average ranking of 10.7.
OU played 4 teams ranked in the final BCS top 25, those teams with an average ranking of 17.5.
No matter how you slice it, the one team that should not have been left out of the NCG that year was Auburn, playing as many or more ranked teams and playing higher ranked teams. All season long, ESPN kept repeating the mantra of "the game America wants to see" when talking about USC vs OU...how "wonderful" was that? Auburn should have been in it, and had as good a chance as any to win it. In hindsight, definitely better than OU's chance that year.
AU played 4 teams ranked in the final BCS top 25, those teams with an average ranking of 10.25.
USC played 3 teams ranked in the final BCS top 25, those teams with an average ranking of 10.7.
OU played 4 teams ranked in the final BCS top 25, those teams with an average ranking of 17.5.
No matter how you slice it, the one team that should not have been left out of the NCG that year was Auburn, playing as many or more ranked teams and playing higher ranked teams. All season long, ESPN kept repeating the mantra of "the game America wants to see" when talking about USC vs OU...how "wonderful" was that? Auburn should have been in it, and had as good a chance as any to win it. In hindsight, definitely better than OU's chance that year.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 6:51 pm to RelocatedPelican
quote:
AU played 4 teams ranked in the final BCS top 25, those teams with an average ranking of 10.25.
USC played 3 teams ranked in the final BCS top 25, those teams with an average ranking of 10.7.
OU played 4 teams ranked in the final BCS top 25, those teams with an average ranking of 17.5.
If the BCS is perfectly correct with this data, why can't you accept the overall BCS as perfectly correct?
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.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 7:33 pm to tigerfighter
quote:
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.
If there was an explicit SOS component, AU would have fallen even further behind. AU has the weakest SOS. When you have undefeated teams, the only thing the BCS computers can really use to separate the teams is SOS. AU was 3rd in all BCS computer polls. In fact they were 3rd in practically every computer poll. AU OOC sched sucked! Relative to recent standands, the SEC sucked! The SEC scheduled few good teams OOC and lost to all of them. They also lost to a number of mediocre teams. I think the best team they beat had a record like 7-5, possibly 8-4 (I don't remember off the top of my head). Overall conference strength effects AU's SOS and the SEC didn't help them.
Posted on 7/16/09 at 8:20 pm to Indiana Tiger
Well good teams AU beat
LSU 9-2
Tenn(2x) 9-2
UGA 9-2
All reg season records b/c the selection commitee would not have included bowl wins
OU reg season best wins
Ball state 8-3
Texas 10-1
so the only thing that hurt AU was the Citadel b/c they are an FCS team instead of BCS team
LSU 9-2
Tenn(2x) 9-2
UGA 9-2
All reg season records b/c the selection commitee would not have included bowl wins
OU reg season best wins
Ball state 8-3
Texas 10-1
so the only thing that hurt AU was the Citadel b/c they are an FCS team instead of BCS team
This post was edited on 7/16/09 at 8:22 pm
Posted on 7/16/09 at 8:32 pm to xiv
quote:
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.
I can't believe people on LSU boards actually post this.
2007. USC #1, LSU #2.
USC beats Washington by 3.
LSU beats Tulane by 25.
LSU jumps USC in the AP poll.
Did you read the whole comment? I specifically said the 2007 was an atypical year specifically because there was only one team with one or no losses. I also said that 2007 was the 1st year I remember that the AP voters did not move teams up and down in lock step.
I would hope that 2007 represents a watershed in breaking the tradition, but the fact is 2007 is an exception to the historical treatment of teams by the voters. Can you provide examples, other than an extremely rare exception in 2007, which I specifically pointed out as being exceptional (reinforcing the observation that there is little historical precedent, to say that pollsters don't move teams in lock step reflexively.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News