- 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: Did the LSU-Alabama Rematch Really Kill the BCS?
Posted on 7/11/18 at 3:39 pm to jlovel7
Posted on 7/11/18 at 3:39 pm to jlovel7
quote:
Now we just have bullshite arguments about "quality losses" and it's 13 people who decide the polls rather than a few dozen journalists. I think this get said a lot, the BCS formula but just with a 4 team playoff would've been much better. I'm not a fan of the committee
Quality of loss only became a thing in 2011 and frankly I think the committee is way better than the coaches poll and that other stupid poll. The committee is way more flexible and does not do a poll til mid season so they aren’t beholden to their initial rankings the way the pollsters usually are. I wouldn’t mind adding a formula component but if you look at the 4 playoffs would any have been different?
1
Posted on 7/11/18 at 3:39 pm to LouisianaLonghorn
quote:computers only spit out what humans program them to.
Computers are impartial. A selection committee can be biased.
If a human thinks margin or victory is important, they'll program that in. If not, it's out. Same goes for a host of other variables, and how much weight, if any, to give them.
And I think it's silly to denigrate the selection committee. They can take all the data and discuss at length. Much like the March Madness committee, who most people believe does a great job.
I'd take a committee of serious people, that review all the data for weeks, to a formula spit out by a computer.
Posted on 7/11/18 at 3:43 pm to bisceaux
It killed it. And continuing to find ways to let Alabama in despite not winning their division will kill the current format. The season is more and more meaningless leading to less interest.
Mark my words.....
And get off of my lawn!!
Mark my words.....
And get off of my lawn!!
Posted on 7/11/18 at 3:43 pm to atltiger6487
quote:
I'd take a committee of serious people, that review all the data for weeks, to a formula spit out by a computer.
It boggles my mind that people really think a “computer” formula is some objective truism. I wouldn’t mind if they had it as some part of the process as long as it’s transparent.
Posted on 7/11/18 at 3:45 pm to bisceaux
Yes. That was the final nail in the coffin. They announced the formation of a playoff about a month later.
Posted on 7/11/18 at 3:46 pm to atltiger6487
quote:
And I think it's silly to denigrate the selection committee. They can take all the data and discuss at length. Much like the March Madness committee, who most people believe does a great job.
I'd take a committee of serious people, that review all the data for weeks, to a formula spit out by a computer.
That’s why the BCS rankings combined both.
It combined two human polls with six computers using very unique and complex algorithms to balance out the bias of the human element with the objectivity of the computers.
And the polls were given more weight.
Margin of victory was a factor in some of the computers, but objective strength of schedule was virtually always the most important factor in the formulas, with many using opponents winning percentage and opponents opponents winning percentage to truly try to figure out who did the best against the best competition.
This post was edited on 7/11/18 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 7/11/18 at 3:46 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:agreed. The committee takes their job seriously. THe polls have been a joke for decades.
Quality of loss only became a thing in 2011 and frankly I think the committee is way better than the coaches poll and that other stupid poll. The committee is way more flexible and does not do a poll til mid season so they aren’t beholden to their initial rankings the way the pollsters usually are. I wouldn’t mind adding a formula component but if you look at the 4 playoffs would any have been different?
And by the way, there IS such a thing as a quality loss.
For example, if LSU loses to Bama on the road by 3, and Bama finishes undefeated and ranked no. 1, well that's absolutely a quality loss.
A loss to Troy at home and a 30-pointer to Miss State AREN'T quality losses.
It's not just wins and losses, it's how you play that shows how good or bad you are. A 1-point win over La Tech isn't the same as a 40 point blowout. It just isn't.
By the same token, if LSU wins by 1 point over several cupcakes, then those aren't quality wins. Yes, they're wins, but too many close wins over bad teams indicates that we're not that good.
Got to look at everything, not just the W-L record.
This post was edited on 7/11/18 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 7/11/18 at 4:05 pm to atltiger6487
The committee will always have human bias and error present. There is no way to get rid of it. That’s why I wish they could come up with some objective criteria for selecting the teams.
The CFB is NOT a true playoff. It is an invitational, in the words of Danny Kanell.
The CFB is NOT a true playoff. It is an invitational, in the words of Danny Kanell.
Posted on 7/11/18 at 4:14 pm to bisceaux
quote:
LSU had escaped Tuscaloosa with a 9–6 overtime victory...
"Escaped"...
Posted on 7/11/18 at 4:16 pm to atltiger6487
quote:
Got to look at everything, not just the W-L record
Yes, but imo many ONLY looked at quality of loss in 2011. Of course losing to the #1 team by 3 in OT is a “better” loss than losing to a 7-5 team that was a 28 pt underdog. But in the end both are loses. And should QOL trump all other factors? Like 1 loss was at home vs the road on a short week, winning your conference, playing more higher ranked teams etc.
I would prefer an objective standard like winning your conference to be the qualifier with just 4 teams. If they took just the top 4 conference winners (no auto bid for a specific conference) it would be objective
Posted on 7/11/18 at 4:27 pm to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
Margin of victory was a factor in some of the computers, but objective strength of schedule was virtually always the most important factor in the formulas, with many using opponents winning percentage and opponents opponents winning percentage to truly try to figure out who did the best against the best competition.
The strength of schedule variable was actually diminished in the formulas after USC bitched to the heavens about being left out in 2003. Margin of victory was also phased out.
And that was my biggest problem with the BCS. They tried to retroactively tinker with it every time it created a controversy just to placate everybody. All they had to do was mandate a qualifier that only conference champions were eligible for the championship game and it would've cleared up a lot of issues.
I'm sure the committee tries their best, but it's nothing more than another, glorified human poll. While more sports are moving towards more advanced analytics in evaluating players and teams, college football's current system basically bought an old car and put a new shiny body on it.
Posted on 7/11/18 at 4:31 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:now I agree with an objective system would be best, but that's impossible with 130 teams in 10 conferences, plus a few independents.
I would prefer an objective standard like winning your conference to be the qualifier with just 4 teams. If they took just the top 4 conference winners (no auto bid for a specific conference) it would be objective
So I'd like the playoff expanded to 8 teams. Power 5 champs get auto bids, plus 3 at large. That way, the committee is only deciding 3 bids to non-conference winners and we use objective criteria (conference champs) for 5 of the 8 bids.
Posted on 7/11/18 at 4:34 pm to nvasil1
quote:
The strength of schedule variable was actually diminished in the formulas after USC bitched to the heavens about being left out in 2003
It was basically being double or arguably triple counted though. The BCS formula had a separate SOS formula and all the computers factored it and yes so do the humans. Or Hawaii would have been #1 in 2007.
I understand the desire for some truly objective formula but its not a race where 1 person crosses the finish line first. Who the best team is was and always will be 100% subjective. There is no magic formula. The best you can do is include multiple teams and have them play. I think 4 is a good # rarely are there more than 4 with a legitimate argument. For all the griping about the committee what difference do you think some magic formula would have produced?
Posted on 7/11/18 at 4:39 pm to atltiger6487
quote:
So I'd like the playoff expanded to 8 teams. Power 5 champs get auto bids, plus 3 at large. That way, the committee is only deciding 3 bids to non-conference winners and we use objective criteria (conference champs) for 5 of the 8 bids.
I still don’t see why you object so much to the committee? What did they get so horribly wrong? I personally would quibble with Bama last year and Ohio St in 2016 but both would easily be in an 8 teamer. I also don’t like auto bids for certain conferences plus with that scenario assuming we’d still have CCGs you could easily have situations where a team would better off not playing in the CCG.
Posted on 7/11/18 at 4:39 pm to bisceaux
No. It just killed the LSU dominance of the 2000s
Posted on 7/11/18 at 4:46 pm to bisceaux
The LSU-Alabama rematch helped put a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths that helped bring about the 4 team playoff, at least for a lot of folks outside the SEC.
And last year's UGA-Bama game may bring about an expanded 6 or 8 team playoff.
Plus, while it made sense at the time, the seeding was off with Clemson at #1, as they were shown to be the weakest of the 4 teams there.
And last year's UGA-Bama game may bring about an expanded 6 or 8 team playoff.
Plus, while it made sense at the time, the seeding was off with Clemson at #1, as they were shown to be the weakest of the 4 teams there.
Posted on 7/11/18 at 4:47 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
For all the griping about the committee what difference do you think some magic formula would have produced?
I’m not griping about anything that has happened. Yet. (Although I would add that the seeding has been blatantly in Alabama’s favor the past four years)
But for the fifteen years of the BCS there were only three or four real controversies as well. Hell, even before the BCS a split title was a rarity. Most years are pretty cut and dry.
But when there is a controversy, and one will inevitably pop up, my guess would be that a formula similar to the BCS would have come up with the right answer where the committee gets it wrong.
This post was edited on 7/11/18 at 4:56 pm
Posted on 7/11/18 at 5:01 pm to Bucks2TigerFan
I love having an all SEC natty. I wish it was like that every year
Posted on 7/11/18 at 5:14 pm to bisceaux
OK St and Alabama should have played, then the winner should have lost to LSU after LSU had the Alabama-length bye.
Posted on 7/11/18 at 5:31 pm to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
If they had simply kept the BCS ranking system and expanded to four teams it would have perfect.
Been saying this since 2013.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News