- 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: Big 10 Commish - 2011 Bama wouldn't make playoff
Posted on 5/13/12 at 1:14 pm to Zamoro10
Posted on 5/13/12 at 1:14 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
The rating schedules by pollsters in their voting has always been a fallacy.
Play Sam Houston State, Yale, the Sorbonne, SE Louisiana Lady of Immaculate Finishing School - no one cares as long as you go undefeated.
When is the last time a 2-loss team was ranked ahead of a one-loss team from a Major conference?
Its only a fallacy when you use an extreme example that is completely made up, like you've done here, to prove your point. In 2007 Kansas at 11-1 was ranked below LSU, VT, OU, and UGA who all had 2 loses. Think their schedule that had 0 wins over ranked teams wasn't at least a factor?
Clearly overall record is a much bigger factor. But if a team played a schedule like the one you've laid out, I'd being will to bet that team would be lowest ranked of the teams with the same # of loses.
Despite the hand ringing by both sides, teams will still play some big OOC games. Some because they are rivals, but usually for money, like the kick off classic in Dallas.
The biggest factor in there being fewer cross sectional games is the expansion of conferences and conference schedules. As late as 1987 the SEC was playing 6 conference games. Leaving 5 open dates. Along with playing Texas A&M every year starting in 86: LSU played 86: ND, 87: OSU 88 OSU and Miami 89 FSU.
When the SEC expanded the conference slate to 7 in 88: Florida dropped Miami and Auburn stopped playing FSU among other casualties.
Going foward I would not be surprised to see old rivals renewed after the bad blood from conference expansion has waned. Teams like Texas and A&M, OU and NU, MU and KU etc. There will always be a few big OOC games, no matter what method they use to determine the NC.
This post was edited on 5/13/12 at 1:22 pm
1
Posted on 5/13/12 at 3:35 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Just in case anyone is interested, here is the lowest ranked team that would have made a 4 team playoff of conference winners only each year since the BCS started with their record. No one had more than 2 losses.
98: #5 UCLA 10-1
99: #4 Alabama 10-2
00: #4 Washington 10-1
01: #8 Illinois 10-1
02: #4 USC 10-2
03; #7 Florida State 10-2
04: #6 Utah 11-0
05: #6 Notre Dame 9-2*
06: #6 Louisville 11-1
07: #4 Oklahoma 11-2
08: #6 Utah 12-0
09: #4 TCU 12-0
10: #5 Wisconsin 11-1
11: #10 Wisconsin 11-2
That is pretty compelling. i still think there should be an out to include the #1 ranked team in the BCS and ideally would like a six team playoff including two at larges... but overall the conference champs proposal is interesting and would be good for football.
It is hard to come up with a fair argument against this in general when there is no team that it would deprive of a fair opportunity if this rule were established up front and clear to everyone.
In spite of some very smart campaigning on teh part of Nick Saban the BCS wasn't really set up to match up #1 vs #2 IMO... arguing that it does intentionally misrepresents BCS method for BCS purpose. The hope from the people who came up with the BCS (aside from making money) was to fix the years in which the best teams in the country did not have a chance to settle the championship on the field.
I would not quite go so far as to argue a rematch should never happen for a BCS championship - but I would argue it is an option of absolute last resort . The team who lost the first game isn't entitled to a do over when that will devalue regular season results that should feel like "do or die", and are unfair anyway when voters will favor name teams if they lose but consider the results good if their favored team wins.
The thing that has been special, interesting and great about college football has been the urgency of winning every single game - seeking out rematches because we didn't care for the first result flies in the face of that and ends up with an unclear result on the year anyway (because that just ties the year's results and begs for a rubber match).
Posted on 5/13/12 at 3:42 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
That should shut up secfan and govtide.
Wait, are trying to say you know what you're talking about now? Tell me again about those three FSU teams.....
Oh, and tell me again how its harder to beat a team the second time?
But frick no. 9 of those years have a team in it that shouldnt be. and 03 FSU and last year wisconsin are a fricking joke.
Posted on 5/13/12 at 3:46 pm to molsusports
quote:
In spite of some very smart campaigning on teh part of Nick Saban the BCS wasn't really set up to match up #1 vs #2 IMO... arguing that it does intentionally misrepresents BCS method for BCS purpose
this may be the dumbest thing ive ever read.
From the BCS coordinator:
"The purpose is pretty simple, and that is to provide the #1 and #2 ranked teams the opportunity to play each other in a national championship game"
This post was edited on 5/13/12 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 5/13/12 at 3:47 pm to secfan123
quote:
Oh, and tell me again how its harder to beat a team the second time?
Wasn't your stat that in a rematch the team taht won the first time only won 50% of the rematches?
If we think the first result has any predictive value at all doesn't your stat support his argument? After all, presumably the first win means the team that won is at least more likely to be a better team - if they only split the rematches then that would seem to support his argument.
Posted on 5/13/12 at 3:48 pm to secfan123
quote:
this may be the dumbest thing ive ever read.
that's probably just more evidence you never proof-read your own posts
Posted on 5/13/12 at 3:50 pm to molsusports
quote:
Wasn't your stat that in a rematch the team taht won the first time only won 50% of the rematches?
If we think the first result has any predictive value at all doesn't your stat support his argument? After all, presumably the first win means the team that won is at least more likely to be a better team - if they only split the rematches then that would seem to support his argument.
wow. you really are an idiot.
Posted on 5/13/12 at 3:51 pm to molsusports
quote:
that's probably just more evidence you never proof-read your own posts
From the BCS coordinator:
"The purpose is pretty simple, and that is to provide the #1 and #2 ranked teams the opportunity to play each other in a national championship game"
you're an idiot. Yiou dont know more about the BCS than the coordinator. Get some new material.
Posted on 5/13/12 at 3:54 pm to secfan123
quote:
"The purpose is pretty simple, and that is to provide the #1 and #2 ranked teams the opportunity to play each other in a national championship game"
He's obligated to defend his method because when you talk about the purpose that gets much harder and points out the problems in the method. Saying it is about #1 vs #2 allows people who are so inclined to make it all about opinion - and while that empowers them and makes them happy it really doesn't address the purpose.
The purpose was to add legitimacy to the process by which college football has decided upon a championship. Years like 94 and 97 esp made the BCS an appealing prospect because it would allow the great games that would have never otherwise happened.
Posted on 5/13/12 at 3:56 pm to secfan123
quote:
Wasn't your stat that in a rematch the team taht won the first time only won 50% of the rematches?
If we think the first result has any predictive value at all doesn't your stat support his argument? After all, presumably the first win means the team that won is at least more likely to be a better team - if they only split the rematches then that would seem to support his argument.
wow. you really are an idiot.
you average at least an insult a post - if you were comfortable just making a point you wouldn't have to resort to that.
Posted on 5/13/12 at 3:58 pm to molsusports
quote:
you average at least an insult a post - if you were comfortable just making a point you wouldn't have to resort to that.
if i wasnt talking to a moron i wouldnt have to call you an idiot. If it were a burden to play a team in a rematch, then it would be more of an advantage than a coin flip. the fact that you cannot grasp this, or the fact that you think you know more about the purpose of the bcs than its coordinator, leads me to the only conclusion possible. You're a dumbass.
Posted on 5/13/12 at 4:00 pm to secfan123
let's break this down a little.
do we agree that?
1) if a team is better than another they are likely to win the first time they face each other?
do we agree that?
1) if a team is better than another they are likely to win the first time they face each other?
Posted on 5/13/12 at 4:00 pm to molsusports
quote:
He's obligated to defend his method because when you talk about the purpose that gets much harder and points out the problems in the method. Saying it is about #1 vs #2 allows people who are so inclined to make it all about opinion - and while that empowers them and makes them happy it really doesn't address the purpose.
The purpose was to add legitimacy to the process by which college football has decided upon a championship. Years like 94 and 97 esp made the BCS an appealing prospect because it would allow the great games that would have never otherwise happened.
It actually does. IT started out by garaunteeing the highest independent the highest conference team and evolved from there. Its only purpose was to pit number 1 vs number 2. Your paranoid ramblings do not change that fact.
Posted on 5/13/12 at 4:02 pm to secfan123
quote:
Its only method was to pit number 1 vs number 2. Your paranoid ramblings do not change that fact.
Posted on 5/13/12 at 4:05 pm to molsusports
quote:
let's break this down a little.
do we agree that?
1) if a team is better than another they are likely to win the first time they face each other?
Youre assuming upsets never happen. Was Kentucky better than LSU when they beat them in 07? Was Stanford better than USC when they beat them in 07?
The simple fact is, that if it were a burden to play a team again, there would be more than a coin flips difference to the second outcome.
Posted on 5/13/12 at 4:08 pm to molsusports
quote:
Its only method was to pit number 1 vs number 2. Your paranoid ramblings do not change that fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you should read a dictionary. Purpose applies to what it does. Pitting 1 vs 2. Method applies to how it does it. Polls, computer rankings etc.
Posted on 5/13/12 at 4:09 pm to molsusports
quote:
let's break this down a little.
do we agree that?
1) if a team is better than another they are likely to win the first time they face each other?
Still waiting your response to this.
The point should be clear I would have thought... we understand that all things being equal the better team will win a single game at least most of the time. Let's say that happens 70-80% of the time... if the rematch seems to result in the same team winning the second time only 50% of the time that is actually a very provocative finding.
Because it amounts to taking what we thought was the same coin - a coin that we expected a particular result 70-80% of the time... and significantly changing the likelihood of repeating that result.
That is a very provocative finding. If nothing changed you would expect the same team that won the first time to win the second time in a clear majority of the cases. What you have described is a coin that gives one result the first time and then changes its probabilities on the second toss.
This post was edited on 5/13/12 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 5/13/12 at 4:13 pm to H-Town Tiger
To each his own H-town but I've rarely seen a team penalized in the polls outside of the perceived "weak sisters" (Boise and the like) and outside of the original computer formula.
You used to see it a lot in major polling going back to the 60's and 70's. Ever since BYU in 1984 going undefeated has meant everything. Again, I am not talking about BCS formulas but major polling.
You used to see it a lot in major polling going back to the 60's and 70's. Ever since BYU in 1984 going undefeated has meant everything. Again, I am not talking about BCS formulas but major polling.
Posted on 5/13/12 at 4:16 pm to secfan123
heading out for now for mother's day - look forward to reading your insults at a later hour
Posted on 5/13/12 at 4:17 pm to molsusports
quote:
Still waiting your response to this.
you got a response to this. IT wasnt what you wanted to hear so you closed your eyes, put your hands over your ears and started yelling "nanananananananan"
quote:
The point should be clear I would have thought... we understand that all things being equal the better team will win a single game at least most of the time. Let's say that happens 70-80% of the time... if the rematch seems to result in the same team winning the second time that is actually a very provocative finding.
Because it amounts to take what we thought was the same coin - a coin that we expected a particular result 70-80% of the time... and significantly changing the likelihood of repeating that result.
It depends. If the teams are relatively equal in strength, then each should win about half the time, not 70-80 percent.
quote:
That is a very provocative finding. If nothing changed you would expect the same team that won the first time to win the second time in a clear majority of the cases.
No, you wouldnt. In a contest of two teams relatively evenly matched, you would expect a coin flip. This is precisely what has been shown to occur in the second game. If the loser had an advantage, it would show itself more than in a mere coinflip.
Page 9 of 11
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News