- 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
0
Posted on 8/3/08 at 3:09 am to Zamoro10
quote:
2004 USC > 2001 The U
and what supposedly was the best USC team ever lost to Texas
Posted on 8/3/08 at 5:41 am to Volvagia
quote:
Maybe it is just me not paying attention, but I have not seen another team hobble across the end of the regular season only to be OMFG good for the bowl game like LSU.
Did you see Oregon last year?
Posted on 8/3/08 at 7:22 am to coldhotwings
quote:
playoffs > BCS > coaches poll > AP poll
BCS = coaches' poll. That is how the winner of the BCS CG is becomes national champion (coaches' votes)
This post was edited on 8/3/08 at 7:24 am
Posted on 8/3/08 at 7:24 am to coldhotwings
quote:
playoffs > BCS
Link?
Posted on 8/3/08 at 7:26 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
BCS = coaches' poll. That is how the winner of the BCS CG is becomes national champion (coaches' votes)
They are contractually tied, but they are still two seperate bestowers to titles.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 10:16 am to Zamoro10
quote:
2004 USC > 2001 The U
Wrong. 2001 Miami is quite possibly the greatest team of all time, 2004 USC is not. I'm not even convinced 2004 USC was better than 2004 Auburn, but I guess that's all just sour grapes.
2001 Miami had one close game all year, against #14 Virginia Tech, which they won by two points. They blew everybody else out by an incredible margin.
2004 USC had close games against: A game they should have lost against Virginia Tech (10-3), a six point win over a good California team (10-2), an eight point win over a mediocre Oregon State(7-5), a game that they won by five points against a very bad UCLA team (6-6), and a three point win over a horrible Stanford (4-7).
This post was edited on 8/3/08 at 10:28 am
Posted on 8/3/08 at 10:18 am to xiv
quote:
I think that Math > Democracy when ranking college football teams. If the math says that Team A > Team B, I'll trust that over sportswriters' opinions.
Thanks, I needed that on a hungover Sunday morning.
So who created the formula that shows which football team is the best, Newton, Pythagoras? You do realize that democracy as you put it is 2/3 of the current BCS formula that determines who plays in the BCS CG.
According to Math wouldn't a team that won 92.3% of its games be better than a team that wins 85.7% of its games?
I'd prefer to see a 4 team playoff, but the BCS > an 8 team playoff because You are more likely to the best team as the champion rather than just the hottest team.
This post was edited on 8/3/08 at 10:19 am
Posted on 8/3/08 at 10:27 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:Doesn't matter. If there is a transparent mathematical formula or series of formulae, from then on it's all on the field. Teams know whom they need to schedule, they know they don't need to "impress" anyone with "style points," and we'll never have to worry about bias for undeserving teams.
So who created the formula that shows which football team is the best, Newton, Pythagoras?
quote:I see that you have come up with a formula that takes the number of wins a team has and divides it by total number of games played. It is a very simple formula; some intelligent people put more thought and factors into it.
According to Math wouldn't a team that won 92.3% of its games be better than a team that wins 85.7% of its games?
Posted on 8/3/08 at 10:39 am to xiv
quote:
without the BCS, USC would be the 2003 national champion.
Yep.
quote:
Without the BCS, USC would also be the 2007 national champion after beating the shite out of #1 Ohio State in the Rose Bowl.
Nope, the reason they didn't play tOSU in the BCS CG in Tempe is because they had 2 loses. Florida moved up to #2 in both polls, and Michigan with only was 1 loss was also ahead of USC. Good chance Michigan plays Florida in the Sugar Bowl under the old pre BCS/BA system. After USC beats tOSU in Rose Bowl at 3 CST, the winner of the Sugar Bowl would be the MNC.
USC would have been the MNC in 2005 without the BCS after skullfricking Penn State and denying CFB fans the greatest game of all time. Or course without that epic performance in the 2006 RB, maybe VY goes back to Texas and they win the 2006 MNC? Who the hell knows.
This post was edited on 8/3/08 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 8/3/08 at 10:55 am to H-Town Tiger
The only way to get rid of controversies will be a playoff.
The NCAA basketball tourny crowns a champ every year. The only controversies are perhaps a team may feel slighted. These slighted teams are not legit contenders and thus don't cause a controversy when it comes to the overall championship.
The NCAA basketball tourny crowns a champ every year. The only controversies are perhaps a team may feel slighted. These slighted teams are not legit contenders and thus don't cause a controversy when it comes to the overall championship.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 11:00 am to xiv
quote:
I see that you have come up with a formula that takes the number of wins a team has and divides it by total number of games played. It is a very simple formula
Its still math, you said Math > democracy in CFB.
quote:
some intelligent people put more thought and factors into it.
Since its not a provable truth like the pythagorean theorem, they probably had multiple ideas that the decided (ie voted on) which one was the best. Also if you can creat a formula that determines the best team, you can use those same factors to base your votes on.
quote:
If there is a transparent mathematical formula or series of formulae, from then on it's all on the field. Teams know whom they need to schedule
wow, the formula gives team the ability to see into the future and know which teams will be good and which ones will suck 4-5 years down the line or do you think they will just start scheduling teams a few months before the season starts?
In the end the formulas rarely differ much from the traditional polls anyway. The only time it was a problem was 2003, when the humans #1 was the formulas #3 and vise versa.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 11:10 am to thetempleowl
quote:
The only way to get rid of controversies will be a playoff.
a Playoff just creates a new set of problems. But its biggest flaw is it diminishes the regular season (see 2007 NFL). Looking at how teams play over the course 3-4 months and 12-16 games is more accurate at determining the best team, than how they play over 3-4 weeks and 3-4 games.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 11:13 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
a Playoff just creates a new set of problems. But its biggest flaw is it diminishes the regular season (see 2007 NFL). Looking at how teams play over the course 3-4 months and 12-16 games is more accurate at determining the best team, than how they play over 3-4 weeks and 3-4 games.
How about a six team playoff, with the #1 and #2 getting a BYE week, then after that first week, its down to four, and you just continue from there.
This post was edited on 8/3/08 at 11:53 am
Posted on 8/3/08 at 11:19 am to Ross
quote:
Ross
I agree 2001 Miami > 2004 USC, but USC beat VT 24-13 in 2004, how do you figure they should have lost that game? In 2001 Miami beat VT 26-24, if I recall, they had a pick 6, late in the game to seal it.
As for the Oregon State game in 2004, that game was at OSU and played in some fog. OSU did finish 7-5, but remember they were several missed PAT's from winning at LSU, 6 days after that crushing defeat, they go killed at Boise, who did finish 12-1. That OSU team pretty good, they just had a brutal schedule.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 11:39 am to Ross
quote:
How about a six game playoff,
too many teams and unnecessary
The more teams in the playoff, the less important the regular season is.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 11:52 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I agree 2001 Miami > 2004 USC, but USC beat VT 24-13 in 2004, how do you figure they should have lost that game?
Well, as an Auburn fan, I am not technically allowed to complain about pass interference on this board, but if I recall that game correctly, Virginia Tech had that game close, until a bad pass interference call that led to a late USC touchdown near the end of the fourth quarter.
quote:
As for the Oregon State game in 2004, that game was at OSU and played in some fog. OSU did finish 7-5, but remember they were several missed PAT's from winning at LSU, 6 days after that crushing defeat, they go killed at Boise, who did finish 12-1. That OSU team pretty good, they just had a brutal schedule.
I might concede the Oregon State was a good team, but USC is played up like an invincible force from 2004, and they almost lost that game. And UCLA and Stanford that year were both terrible, and USC nearly lost to both of them.
This post was edited on 8/3/08 at 11:54 am
Posted on 8/3/08 at 11:53 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
too many teams and unnecessary
The more teams in the playoff, the less important the regular season is.
That's why I said #1 and #2 could get a Bye week, I figured that might keep the regular season important.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 12:03 pm to Ross
A playoff does not diminish the regular season. If you have to win the conference championship to get into the playoffs, it makes the regular season and the conference championship even more important.
One could say a playoff enhances the regular season. By having conference championships make the playoffs, some teams that might otherwise be excluded from the championship picture but are legit contenders will still be playing vitally important games at the end of the season.
The early games will likewise be important for the obvious need to get to the conference championship.
Extending the football season to more games diminish the importance of any singular game. Adding a playoff does not.
One could say a playoff enhances the regular season. By having conference championships make the playoffs, some teams that might otherwise be excluded from the championship picture but are legit contenders will still be playing vitally important games at the end of the season.
The early games will likewise be important for the obvious need to get to the conference championship.
Extending the football season to more games diminish the importance of any singular game. Adding a playoff does not.
Posted on 8/3/08 at 12:23 pm to Ross
quote:
as an Auburn fan, I am not technically allowed to complain about pass interference on this board
quote:
Virginia Tech had that game close, until a bad pass interference call that led to a late USC touchdown near the end of the fourth quarter.
so that makes it 17-13 instead of 24-13? Still a USC win.
quote:
USC is played up like an invincible force from 2004,
There's always hyperbole, they did have some close scrapes, but it was still a great team. 2001 Miami and 95 Nebraska were better IMO.
quote:playing for seeding is not as important as playing for a spot in the playoffs. What diminishes the regular season is having weaker teams win the title, so the more teams you put in the playoff the greater the chance the best team in the regular does not win. I can think of several years besides 2004 (the worst case scenario) were there were 2-3 teams that could argue for being in the title game, but I can't think of any were it went 5 or 6 deep.
That's why I said #1 and #2 could get a Bye week,
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News