- 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: I like Delany's proposal Re: Conference Champions
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:05 pm to M Le Rip
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:05 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
So you're still admitting that Delaney's system opens the door for #1 and #2 getting shut out. Sorry, but that's a door that needs to be closed.
Are you are fricking lawyer?
Only lawyers and idiots (opps redudant) fret over extremely unlikely to happen, but theotically possible scenarios, that have never come anywhere close to happening ever before.
quote:
but it probably won't be logistically possible
so you just admitted its possible, got to close that hole brother. And what if coin lands on its side?
quote:
You are saying its possible the #1 and #2 team could have not won their conference. Lots of things are possible. We can't cover all of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking the top 4 covers that one.
but it doesn't cover why Texas in 04 should go over Cal just because a popularity contest says so.
What about 2008, Bama goes over USC and Utah (who beat the shite out Bama in the Sugar Bowl 20/20 hindsight, but still)? How is that not a hole? Why is 11-1 USC losing on the road to Or St worse than UF losing at home to OM?
There are plenty of possible holes.
The big difference between you and me is I am giving you things that HAVE ACTUALLY happened. You have no problem with the hole of leaving teams with identical records out based on a poll, but instead are focused on something has never happened and is very remote. That's not seeing the forest for the trees chief. Your top 4 still leaves plenty of holes, you are just hung up on rankings as if they are facts and not just opinions. Leaving Alabama out in 2011 is no worse than leaving USC out in 2008.
1
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:07 pm to M Le Rip
Last Post
The goal IMO is to eliminate down to the #1 team. The 4 team playoff is just using regular season tournament results.
If it was all just SEC teams I would have just rather declare the conference champ the national champion. I would not give the other teams a mulligan.
Obviously if two teams had similar records, but one was the conference champion and the other a conference runner up. I would bring in the conference champ since we can atleast admit the conference runner up was eliminated by its own conference champion (who should already be in the 4 team playoff).
The goal IMO is to eliminate down to the #1 team. The 4 team playoff is just using regular season tournament results.
If it was all just SEC teams I would have just rather declare the conference champ the national champion. I would not give the other teams a mulligan.
Obviously if two teams had similar records, but one was the conference champion and the other a conference runner up. I would bring in the conference champ since we can atleast admit the conference runner up was eliminated by its own conference champion (who should already be in the 4 team playoff).
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:14 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:When the BCS was being devised, here's a few conversations I see that could have happened.
Are you are fricking lawyer?
Only lawyers and idiots (opps redudant) fret over extremely unlikely to happen, but theotically possible scenarios, that have never come anywhere close to happening ever before.
Rip: What if Miami beats FSU, and they end up with the same number of losses, and their SOS's are nearly identical, but FSU ends up #2 and Miami ends up #3?
H-Town: Like THAT would ever happen.
Rip: What if USC is ranked #1 in both polls, but they end up #3 in the BCS because of their computer ranking?
H-Town: Like THAT would ever happen.
Rip: What if a team is #1 by such a high margin that they tank their final game and still stay #1?
H-Town: Like THAT would ever happen.
Rip: What if an SEC goes undefeated and is #3 in the standings?
H-Town: Like THAT would ever happen.
Rip: What if Team A beats Team B (same conference), and they end up being #1 and #2?
H-Town: Like THAT would ever happen.
A LOT of stuff is extremely unlikely. And a lot of extremely unlikely shite happens. So let's cover those holes.
quote:I just did with the coin flip.
so you just admitted its possible, got to close that hole brother.
quote:Smart arse.
And what if coin lands on its side?
quote:Well I'm against the polls, and I've made that clear, so I'm with you on that. I'm a computer guy. (I'll overlook the fact that the computers had Texas over Cal anyway, but that's beside the point.)
but it doesn't cover why Texas in 04 should go over Cal just because a popularity contest says so.
quote:Assuming that we were going by a computer formula or series of formulae, and all of this was made public, then what's the problem?
What about 2008, Bama goes over USC and Utah (who beat the shite out Bama in the Sugar Bowl 20/20 hindsight, but still)? How is that not a hole? Why is 11-1 USC losing on the road to Or St worse than UF losing at home to OM?
quote:So you're still telling me that your system keeps the door open for the possibility of excluding #1 and #2.
There are plenty of possible holes.
The big difference between you and me is I am giving you things that HAVE ACTUALLY happened.
quote:Wrong, explained a few lines above.
You have no problem with the hole of leaving teams with identical records out based on a poll,
quote:It's bitten the BCS in the arse numerous times.
but instead are focused on something has never happened and is very remote.
quote:Alabama 2011 #2
That's not seeing the forest for the trees chief. Your top 4 still leaves plenty of holes, you are just hung up on rankings as if they are facts and not just opinions. Leaving Alabama out in 2011 is no worse than leaving USC out in 2008.
USC 2008 #5
If leaving 2011 Alabama out is no worse than leaving out 2008 USC, then 2 = 5.
This post was edited on 5/4/12 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:17 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
If at the end of the regular season, it is determined that LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, and Florida are the top four teams in the country
This is the EXACT reason why all the other Conferences dropped age old tradition to scrap it and try a playoff. You said any others should not get in because they did not beat the above? Dude, we don't play the above. No one on Gods planet really knows how good one Conference teams are compared to the next, as for the most part do not play each other all year.
For instance, no one on the planet in Truth knows scientifically whether Bama was better then Oregon last year. Now, I personally think so. So would they. But know one knows so. It is all human subjectivity. I find it funny that SEC fans are complaining and wanting the barn door wipe over for multi teams from any same Conference in when that thinking is what crashed, burned, pissed off the rest of the Nation and why we are even allowing a playoff in the first place.
The seasons goal should be finding out who is the very best single team out there. Not the 2nd best, but the single best. And if two teams battled internally, WE ALL KNOW THE LOSER HAD THEIR CHANCE. Now give other good teams from other lands a try...Stop it SEC, being greedy. You already demand corrupt, all these years, auto entry into the NC, and now your Greed for Monopoly in isolating the NC broke this whole NATIONAL system apart. What part of "National" in Championship do you people get?
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:20 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:I understand. It's just not a good system. The regular season is not a tournament. You keep saying that, and it's just incorrect. There is no elimination done until the playoff starts. Play the regular season, and then take the four who did the best and let them duke it out. That's the way to go.
Last Post
The goal IMO is to eliminate down to the #1 team. The 4 team playoff is just using regular season tournament results.
If it was all just SEC teams I would have just rather declare the conference champ the national champion. I would not give the other teams a mulligan.
Obviously if two teams had similar records, but one was the conference champion and the other a conference runner up. I would bring in the conference champ since we can atleast admit the conference runner up was eliminated by its own conference champion (who should already be in the 4 team playoff).
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:24 pm to DucksflyinPAC
quote:All true. But if we're playing under the idea that the top four according to a universally-known computer formula are the four who qualify, then it's completely fair to all, even if the top four all come from the same conference.
This is the EXACT reason why all the other Conferences dropped age old tradition to scrap it and try a playoff. You said any others should not get in because they did not beat the above? Dude, we don't play the above. No one on Gods planet really knows how good one Conference teams are compared to the next, as for the most part do not play each other all year.
quote:Taking the top four regardless of conference affiliation does exactly that.
Now give other good teams from other lands a try.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:28 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
Taking the top four regardless of conference affiliation does exactly that.
No, it doesn't. Because...
quote:
No one on Gods planet really knows how good one Conference teams are compared to the next, as for the most part do not play each other all year.
There is barely any linkage between the conferences. It is virtually impossible to distinguish between teams of similar quality in different conferences. It is nothing but guesswork.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:29 pm to Baloo
quote:But math isn't guesswork. If you tell all 120 teams exactly what the formula is, then it's up to them to figure out a way to get into that top 4. It couldn't be more fair.
There is barely any linkage between the conferences. It is virtually impossible to distinguish between teams of similar quality in different conferences. It is nothing but guesswork.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:33 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
But if we're playing under the idea that the top four according to a universally-known computer formula are the four who qualify, then it's completely fair to all, even if the top four all come from the same conference.
A)Any such Computer formula would include human polls(votes, opinion, human subjectivity, which is open to corruptions and vote buying instead of just taking The Champ from each Conference.
B)If we had it your way, and all 4 came from the SEC, it would only be opinion, (and not fact)that they were the best 4 teams. Rankings do not = for sure best's. Playing game on field does. And if had your way, that would completely END the term "National" in Champion, as there was nothing "National about it.
F_uck it. I say, all the other Conferences leave the B.S. I mean BCS. And we all the rest can have our own mini playoff of each Champ and have the title game as the Rose Bowl, the Great Grandpa of them all. And the whole SEC can cry a river: They got what their Greed with desiring not to play with others. F_uck the SEC! Leave them out in the cold.
This post was edited on 5/4/12 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:36 pm to Baloo
quote:
There is barely any linkage between the conferences. It is virtually impossible to distinguish between teams of similar quality in different conferences. It is nothing but guesswork.
This
And
Rankings = subject to Corruptions
The SEC = the land of the corrupt
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:36 pm to M Le Rip
There simply isn't enough data to make a perfect formula. I think computer polls are about 80-90% accurate, mainly limited by the lack of quality OOC games.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:37 pm to DucksflyinPAC
quote:Not in my idea. I'm a computer guy. Screw the polls.
A)Any such Computer formula would include human polls
quote:With such a small sample size, of course it's only a matter of opinion who the best teams are. But if we have a computer formula determining it, it isn't a matter of opinion who the formula's top four teams are.
B)If we had it your way, and all 4 came from the SEC, it would only be opinion, (and not fact)that they were the best 4 teams.
quote:A computer formula deals with only on-field activity.
Rankings do not = for sure best's. Playing game on field does.
quote:They were the top four of the 120 teams. Sounds national to me.
And if had your way, that would completely END the term "National" in Champion, as there was nothing "National about it.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:38 pm to M Le Rip
quote:
But math isn't guesswork. If you tell all 120 teams exactly what the formula is, then it's up to them to figure out a way to get into that top 4. It couldn't be more fair.
But would your formula include any amount of human voting? If so, it has human bias = not perfect.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:38 pm to DucksflyinPAC
quote:Of course not.
But would your formula include any amount of human voting?
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:42 pm to Baloo
quote:
There is barely any linkage between the conferences. It is virtually impossible to distinguish between teams of similar quality in different conferences. It is nothing but guesswork.
UGH no. If anything this would actually encourage more big OOC conference match-ups for conference bragging rights. If you only do top 4 conference champions, then there is no incentive to play big OOC games. Why bother risking a loss? All you have to do is win your conference and you're in. No matter if you are ranked #1, #4 or #9. It completely deincentives big match-ups.
Hell if we go that route and move forward with the illusion that all conferences is are equal, then the lower level teams in BCS conferences that rally aren't doing much there - the Vanderbilts, Ole Misses, Kansases, and Indianas will break away and form their own conference so they have a better chance of getting one of the 4 bids since it's determined blindly by conference championship status and without taking into account strength of schedule or performance on the field. I'm sorry but a 11-1 record for San Diego State just isn't the same as a 11-1 record for Alabama.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:43 pm to Baloo
quote:
I think computer polls are about 80-90% accurate, mainly limited by the lack of quality OOC games.
To which 90% of the SEC run from(quality OOC)to which gives them higher rankings. Circular logic at it's finest btw. SEC got that sh_t on lockdown.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:45 pm to TheDarkestNight
I'm not talking theoretically. OOC's HAVE gotten worse in the BCS era. When only conference titles mattered, they were better. This isn't speculation. The BCS and the resulting formulas have resulted in weaker OOC's. The regular season may "mean" more, but there are less meaningful games.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:48 pm to JPLSU1981
haven't read the full thread but have a couple questions that immediately occurred to me.
This new system is probably an improvement but has the possibility of not working in unusual years. If all the top teams with good schedules have a loss or two - it is theoretically possible for the #1 and/or the #2 to not be conference champs (either because they are independent or because their one loss ended up costing them the conference whereas the other teams lost games that did not hurt them in conference)
In that type of scenario you could have one or both of the teams you consider to be the best or second best not included in the new BCS playoff.
To save themselves this possibility the BCS should probably think about doing automatic invitations for the #1 and possibly #2 ranked team in the BCS - but I recognize even this is not necessarily foolproof - because a different team might be the #1/#2 in the AP from the BCS (and thus a split championship still possible).
In the long run I like a six team playoff in which the BCS formula is used to invite the four conference champions ranked highest in the BCS - as well as two at large bids reserved for the two teams ranked highest who are not conference champions. That is a scenario IMO that will pretty much never result in a split championship, will preserve the importance of winning your conference (conference champs host the first two rounds), and do the best possible job of including the most deserving teams in teh least possible number of games
This new system is probably an improvement but has the possibility of not working in unusual years. If all the top teams with good schedules have a loss or two - it is theoretically possible for the #1 and/or the #2 to not be conference champs (either because they are independent or because their one loss ended up costing them the conference whereas the other teams lost games that did not hurt them in conference)
In that type of scenario you could have one or both of the teams you consider to be the best or second best not included in the new BCS playoff.
To save themselves this possibility the BCS should probably think about doing automatic invitations for the #1 and possibly #2 ranked team in the BCS - but I recognize even this is not necessarily foolproof - because a different team might be the #1/#2 in the AP from the BCS (and thus a split championship still possible).
In the long run I like a six team playoff in which the BCS formula is used to invite the four conference champions ranked highest in the BCS - as well as two at large bids reserved for the two teams ranked highest who are not conference champions. That is a scenario IMO that will pretty much never result in a split championship, will preserve the importance of winning your conference (conference champs host the first two rounds), and do the best possible job of including the most deserving teams in teh least possible number of games
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:50 pm to TheDarkestNight
quote::bangbiscuit: Nailed it.
this would actually encourage more big OOC conference match-ups for conference bragging rights. If you only do top 4 conference champions, then there is no incentive to play big OOC games. Why bother risking a loss? All you have to do is win your conference and you're in. No matter if you are ranked #1, #4 or #9. It completely deincentives big match-ups.
If you take the top four conference champs, a team thinks "We've got to find a way to win our conference, and then that means we've probably basically got a 2/3 shot at getting into the playoffs." Four Sun Belt teams are added to this team's schedule.
If you take the top four teams, period, then a team thinks "We've got to find a way into the top four." Teams will be way more choosy with their OOC's. Different teams will schedule differently. A team in the ACC will make sure to have a couple quality OOC's so it doesn't get shut out because of four Citadels.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 3:53 pm to DucksflyinPAC
quote:No conference has played more teams from BCS conferences per capita in the past two seasons than the SEC. Get your facts straight, brother.
To which 90% of the SEC run from(quality OOC)to which gives them higher rankings. Circular logic at it's finest btw. SEC got that sh_t on lockdown.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News