- 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 8/16/10 at 12:18 pm to wrlakers
quote:
I am not against the AP.
The AP poll is an absolute jeauxke.
Posted on 8/21/10 at 12:55 am to xiv
I'd prefer a simple set of rules that determines who plays in the BCS NC game.
1. Both teams must be the outright champions of their respective (BCS) conferences or own the primary share of a conference co-championship. The special rule for Notre Dame would be that they have to own 1 of the 2 best win percentages among BCS schools going into bowl season. Politics would probably prevent non-BCS schools from being excluded de jure, but this is just what I would prefer. The non-BCS schools can just form their own division and hold their own Division I-FBS Non-BCS NC game for all I care.
2. From the teams that are still eligible after applying rule 1, the two with the highest season win percentage would be the participants in the NC game.
3. If there is a tie after applying rule 2, head-to-head results would be the first tie-breaker in the unlikely event that they exist. After that either computer polls or strength of schedule (opponents' win percentage) should be the next tiebreaker.
I would want to keep the human element out of the selection as much as possible. I'd like the individual teams ultimatley to have complete control over whether they play for the championship.
1. Both teams must be the outright champions of their respective (BCS) conferences or own the primary share of a conference co-championship. The special rule for Notre Dame would be that they have to own 1 of the 2 best win percentages among BCS schools going into bowl season. Politics would probably prevent non-BCS schools from being excluded de jure, but this is just what I would prefer. The non-BCS schools can just form their own division and hold their own Division I-FBS Non-BCS NC game for all I care.
2. From the teams that are still eligible after applying rule 1, the two with the highest season win percentage would be the participants in the NC game.
3. If there is a tie after applying rule 2, head-to-head results would be the first tie-breaker in the unlikely event that they exist. After that either computer polls or strength of schedule (opponents' win percentage) should be the next tiebreaker.
I would want to keep the human element out of the selection as much as possible. I'd like the individual teams ultimatley to have complete control over whether they play for the championship.
This post was edited on 8/21/10 at 12:56 am
Posted on 8/21/10 at 1:19 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
computers are unbiased, therefore boise, tulane, and sun belt teams get fair shakes
for this reason you have to go with polls
actually the computers knock those teams right out due to their shitty schedules
computers are way better than any poll could hope to be
Posted on 8/21/10 at 1:22 am to Tebow4ReElection
quote:
1. Both teams must be the outright champions of their respective (BCS) conferences or own the primary share of a conference co-championship.
quote:
2. From the teams that are still eligible after applying rule 1, the two with the highest season win percentage would be the participants in the NC game
So, NO teams would ever have any incentive to play tough OOC games.
Posted on 8/21/10 at 1:53 am to shel311
How many times have computers gotten the MNC game winner right?
Posted on 8/21/10 at 2:16 am to C
quote:
How many times have computers gotten the MNC game winner right?
Not sure what you mean, but the goal of the computer would be to get the top 2 teams correct, not really pick a winner.
Posted on 8/21/10 at 8:19 am to Bench McElroy
quote:Oklahoma had a better record and a tougher schedule. Why on earth wouldn't they be #1? Oklahoma wasn't the only team to lose a game that season.
The computers thought Oklahoma was better than USC in '03 AFTER they got they arse kicked in the Big 12 Championship game. Polls definitely.
Posted on 8/21/10 at 8:22 am to Gmorgan4982
quote:Completely agree.
The "computers" are opinions, though. It's math formulas. There is not even one agreed-upon "best" math formula. One guy thinks his math formula is more accurate than another guy.
But...
Let's say we went with one single computer formula, and the formula was available for all to see. Teams would know exactly what they needed to do to reach their goals. There would be no such thing as style points and popularity contests, etc... Schools would be able to take complete control of their success. Shouldn't it be up to the schools/teams and no one else?
Posted on 8/21/10 at 8:22 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:...and has been so since at least 1983.
The AP poll is an absolute jeauxke.
Posted on 8/21/10 at 8:24 am to Tebow4ReElection
quote:Absolutely not.
1. Both teams must be the outright champions of their respective (BCS) conferences or own the primary share of a conference co-championship.
1) Not all teams are in conferences.
2) A conference season is only 2/3 or 3/4 of the entire season. Teams should be judged on their whole seasons without any outsider giving any special designation to a fraction of their season.
quote:I'm already balling this up and throwing it away.
The special rule for Notre Dame
Posted on 8/21/10 at 8:27 am to shel311
quote:Thank goodness for the computers. It would have been a crime if USC would have played in the 2004 Sugar Bowl. LSU and Oklahoma each had a better record and tougher schedule than USC.
Not sure what you mean, but the goal of the computer would be to get the top 2 teams correct, not really pick a winner.
In the BCS era, only twice has a BCSCG participant not been in the top two in the computers: 2008 #2 Texas (#3 Florida got the nod) and 2009 #2 Cincinnati (#3 Texas got the nod).
Considering some of the savage injustices given to us by polls in past decades, I'd say that the computers have a pretty damn good track record.
Posted on 8/21/10 at 8:32 am to xiv
quote:
Considering some of the savage injustices given to us by polls in past decades, I'd say that the computers have a pretty damn good track record
I agree with this.
Posted on 8/21/10 at 8:41 am to Sophandros
My computers
win% + opps win% x road games/2 + neutral games/4 or .5 for road games and .25 for neutral.
win% + opps win% x road games/2 + neutral games/4 or .5 for road games and .25 for neutral.
Posted on 8/21/10 at 8:54 am to OUandLSUfan
quote:A couple of us compile our own version of the BCS on this site--wanna throw your ratings in there every week? Just send me your rankings every week and I'll do the math.
My computers
win% + opps win% x road games/2 + neutral games/4 or .5 for road games and .25 for neutral.
Posted on 8/21/10 at 9:07 am to xiv
I would do it but it would be too much work feeding the numbers into a spreadsheet or whatever. But if you want to use my formula and make the spread sheet be my guest
Posted on 8/21/10 at 10:20 am to Sophandros
It should be computer-based, to take out as much bias as possible, and even should factor in the secondary wins considered (e.g., x, who lost to y, needs to beat z by 20 points to get y into the championship game). But the computer is just a tool. Once it determines its results, a pre-agreed upon committee, perhaps one representative from each BCS conference, should be able to perform a sanity check to affirm the results or tweak by consensus, two thirds vote, etc.
For example, in 2003, a sanity check would have most assuredly replaced USC for Oklahoma. In 2004 or 2007 for that matter, the committee could have looked at the results and determined if there is sufficient reason for Auburn to replace USC or OU, or in the latter year, settled whether someone else really deserved to play for the championship more than a two triple-overtime loss LSU team.
For example, in 2003, a sanity check would have most assuredly replaced USC for Oklahoma. In 2004 or 2007 for that matter, the committee could have looked at the results and determined if there is sufficient reason for Auburn to replace USC or OU, or in the latter year, settled whether someone else really deserved to play for the championship more than a two triple-overtime loss LSU team.
This post was edited on 8/21/10 at 10:32 am
Posted on 8/21/10 at 2:59 pm to ULL Cool J
Oklahoma had a better record and tougher schedule than USC. The Trojans have no argument whatsoever.
Posted on 8/21/10 at 3:12 pm to xiv
Sorry, we normally agree. But the way the Sooners lost in the Big 12 championship game should have taken them out of the BCS championship, imo. Of course, it didn't. 
This post was edited on 8/21/10 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 8/21/10 at 3:33 pm to ULL Cool J
quote:that undermines the entire purpose of unbiased polls.
perhaps one representative from each BCS conference, should be able to perform a sanity check to affirm the results or tweak by consensus, two thirds vote, etc.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News