- 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 7/17/09 at 10:13 am to TheDoc
Posted on 7/17/09 at 10:13 am to TheDoc
quote:
HOW did va tech have a tougher schedule than LSU in 2007?
Almost all the computers had Va Tech over LSU (barely). When two teams have have the same record its SOS that makes the difference in the computers.
It was razor thin for sure. They played eachother, both won their BCS conference. The edge went to Va Tech because they played Boston College twice, which was a top 10-15 team. LSU played a mediocre (by SECCG standards) in the Championship game.
2
Posted on 7/17/09 at 10:22 am to lsumatt
quote:
Almost all the computers had Va Tech over LSU (barely). When two teams have have the same record its SOS that makes the difference in the computers.
It was razor thin for sure. They played eachother, both won their BCS conference. The edge went to Va Tech because they played Boston College twice, which was a top 10-15 team. LSU played a mediocre (by SECCG standards) in the Championship game.
Plus they had to play LSU. LSU didn't.
Posted on 7/17/09 at 10:23 am to Tiger Phil
quote:
The assumption is that the SEC is better than all the other conferences, and therefore there exists an inherent scheduling advantage in playing in the SEC.
I was afraid my statement might be misconstrued as such. It was more of an assessment than an assumption. Just looking back over the decade I could find no year where I thought the Big XII was better than the SEC. But I definitely don't assume it will be that way every year.
quote:
This kind of thing can happen again if we adopt the philosophy that the SEC is tough enough, why schedule challenging OOC games? That's exactly what cost Auburn that year. Contrarily, it is was saved us in 2007 - our victory over Virginia Tech.
Couldn't agree more. In fact, I've been pretty critical of LSU's OOC scheduling. What happened to Auburn could have easily happened to us in 03 had the cards not fallen right. Our OOC schedule that year was not much better than theirs the following year.
Posted on 7/17/09 at 10:24 am to lsumatt
quote:
Almost all the computers had Va Tech over LSU (barely). When two teams have have the same record its SOS that makes the difference in the computers.
This is true for undefeated teams, but it is only generally and directionally true for teams with the same # of losses. This rule of thumb gets less accurate with increasing losses. The quality of loss starts to matter more. VaTech had better losses than we did and I think the computers gave them the split decision for that reason. While the SOSs were probably close, I would give the edge to LSU due to the magnificent performance of the SEC that year.
Posted on 7/17/09 at 10:55 am to TigersRock
quote:"Best team" and "champioin" aren't the same. Oklahoma was the best team in the Big XII in 2003; they were 8-1 vs. Big XII teams. Kansas State, however, was the champion by virtue of winning the conference's championship game.
ow can you be the best team in the nation when you're not even the best in your conference?
Posted on 7/17/09 at 10:56 am to xiv
quote:
Oklahoma was the best team in the Big XII in 2003
+1
Posted on 7/17/09 at 11:00 am to TheDoc
quote:You really oughtta do some math before snarking. VT's opponents had a better combined 1A record than did LSU's opponents. VT's opponents' opponents had a better combined 1A record than did LSU's opponents' opponents.
ETA: lsumatt, you are no doubt a supreme poster when it comes to the BCS, but HOW did va tech have a tougher schedule than LSU in 2007?
Most computer systems, including mine, put a little extra weight on victories over top teams. LSU's victory over VT was a "quality win" in virtually every system; VT, while their schedule as a whole was arguably tougher, didn't have a victory as good as LSU's over VT.
This post was edited on 7/17/09 at 11:02 am
Posted on 7/17/09 at 11:05 am to lsumatt
lsumatt, is that you who facebooked me?
Posted on 7/17/09 at 11:06 am to lsumatt
There is another issue with the "you must win your own conference" debate. The BCS can't tell the conferences how to crown a champion. If you make that a rule, then the SEC/Big12, etc. just change their rules to make it more BCS friendly. Hell, The Big12 might still have a "championship game" and then say "our official champion is the team with the highest BCS rating"
In essence, OU had to play by harder rules than USC in 2003 as far as "conference champion was concerned". USC didn't have to worry about a one game counting more than the others (if they had the best record, they were champs). Also, they could have tied with 2 other teams and still been "BCS-eligible" in the conference championship scenario
In essence, OU had to play by harder rules than USC in 2003 as far as "conference champion was concerned". USC didn't have to worry about a one game counting more than the others (if they had the best record, they were champs). Also, they could have tied with 2 other teams and still been "BCS-eligible" in the conference championship scenario
Posted on 7/17/09 at 11:06 am to xiv
quote:
is that you who facebooked me?
yeah
Posted on 7/17/09 at 11:08 am to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:
I was afraid my statement might be misconstrued as such. It was more of an assessment than an assumption. Just looking back over the decade I could find no year where I thought the Big XII was better than the SEC. But I definitely don't assume it will be that way every year.
Not even 2000, 2002, 2004, or 2005?
Posted on 7/17/09 at 11:10 am to Tebow4ReElection
quote:These were down years for the SEC (2005 was the worst SEC year in my lifetime) thanks in part to sanctions put on Alabama and Kentucky. The Big XII, however, was having its best two-year stretch ever.
2004, or 2005?
Posted on 7/17/09 at 11:12 am to lsumatt
quote:Add that to the fact that not every team is in a conference, and you've got virtually no good argument for requiring a team to win its conference to get into the BCSCG. Leaving this rule out is one good thing the BCS has done.
There is another issue with the "you must win your own conference" debate. The BCS can't tell the conferences how to crown a champion. If you make that a rule, then the SEC/Big12, etc. just change their rules to make it more BCS friendly. Hell, The Big12 might still have a "championship game" and then say "our official champion is the team with the highest BCS rating"
Posted on 7/17/09 at 11:17 am to xiv
quote:
Leaving this rule out is one good thing the BCS has done.
And especially with the current setup (2/3 being controlled by voters) it is very, very difficult for a conference-loser to make it. They would have to be awesome to overcome that.
Even in 2003, the voters put OU as low as ethically possible (below all the 1-loss teams) and their SOS, quality wins, etc. were so good, they finished above USC and LSU
Posted on 7/17/09 at 11:25 am to xiv
One of the problems I have with these SoS rankings is the way they come about. Teams are normally losely linked to every other team by 3-4 games ( I actually wrote a graph application to plot it out ). Football shows us time and again that just because Team A beat Team B and Team B beats Team C, it does not mean that Team A will beat Team C. Its a flawed system, but alas, what can you do?
The other problem I have with the SoS components is when you get to a team that is a 'significantly' lower ranked team than another. For instanct, LSU should walk all over Washington to start the season, but is Washington better than say, Syracuse? Honestly, do the differences between those teams matter? In most SoS formuals, every team is ranked and things could theorhetically come down to the 'difference' in playing a Washington or a Syracuse team. I honestly would like to see a team's opponents broken down into teirs: elite, good, average, poor, very poor. Whatever. Auburn may not have gotten screwed in 2004 if it was done this way.
The other problem I have with the SoS components is when you get to a team that is a 'significantly' lower ranked team than another. For instanct, LSU should walk all over Washington to start the season, but is Washington better than say, Syracuse? Honestly, do the differences between those teams matter? In most SoS formuals, every team is ranked and things could theorhetically come down to the 'difference' in playing a Washington or a Syracuse team. I honestly would like to see a team's opponents broken down into teirs: elite, good, average, poor, very poor. Whatever. Auburn may not have gotten screwed in 2004 if it was done this way.
Posted on 7/17/09 at 11:31 am to RelocatedPelican
quote:
In most SoS formuals, every team is ranked and things could theorhetically come down to the 'difference' in playing a Washington or a Syracuse team. I honestly would like to see a team's opponents broken down into teirs: elite, good, average, poor, very poor. Whatever. Auburn may not have gotten screwed in 2004 if it was done this way.
The old "SOS" formula was sort of like that. Its still a good eye ball measurement of a teams SOS, but is no longer used by BCS.
Some sort of SOS is used by all the computers. But their formulas are more complex and do exactly what you suggest. Beating team #75 is not worth much more than beating team #110 (or beating OPEN DATE for that matter).
quote:
Football shows us time and again that just because Team A beat Team B and Team B beats Team C, it does not mean that Team A will beat Team C.
The football computer polls used by the BCS aren't intended to be "predictive", they are intended to objectively compare resumes.
Posted on 7/17/09 at 11:37 am to xiv
quote:
All the math and actual logic that lsumatt brings to the table, and you accuse him of preferring what you call a beauty pageant?
Shitty post, tigers.
How so? The BCS is a beauty pageant. Every team's destiny is tied to the whim of voters. Yes, I know there are the computers but that's on 1/3 of the formula.
Posted on 7/17/09 at 11:43 am to tigers
I think the voters as a whole deserve more credit than what they are given. They are usually easy to predict because they are very logic based (again as a unit). In 2007, LSU had to jump several teams the last week, but logically it made sense they would jump Georgia and Va tech for example.
And the computers carry enough weight to matter. The voters could have done almost nothing to get USC or OU in the NC game in 2007, regardless of any "whim"
And the computers carry enough weight to matter. The voters could have done almost nothing to get USC or OU in the NC game in 2007, regardless of any "whim"
Posted on 7/17/09 at 11:59 am to lsumatt
quote:
There is another issue with the "you must win your own conference" debate. The BCS can't tell the conferences how to crown a champion. If you make that a rule, then the SEC/Big12, etc. just change their rules to make it more BCS friendly. Hell, The Big12 might still have a "championship game" and then say "our official champion is the team with the highest BCS rating"
If this had been in place in 2001, FL would have been named the SEC champion and would have gotten the Sugar; TN would most certainly have received the at-large bid; and LSU prob the Citrus. Do you seriously think this kind of crap would be put up with for a fairly rare occurence? Could the CGs survive? I think this is a lot of hyperbole for effect.
I'm not worried about nonCG conferences implementing this either. I don't think a team with a worse conf record getting the BCS bid will go over big with them either. Not worried about ND. If it actually proved to be an unfair advantage to be independent, something could be done to negate it.
Not winning your championship should be disqualifying if your conf champion doesn't also go. I don't care if it happens to a team with the record of OK. I view the entire season as a playoff and winning the conf is just the first round.
This post was edited on 7/17/09 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 7/17/09 at 12:04 pm to lsumatt
quote:
And especially with the current setup (2/3 being controlled by voters) it is very, very difficult for a conference-loser to make it. They would have to be awesome to overcome that.
Agreed although Mich was close a few years back
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News