- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: The BCS has been more right than we think
Posted on 12/1/08 at 6:22 pm to TexasTiger08
Posted on 12/1/08 at 6:22 pm to TexasTiger08
quote:But you can only take one.
FSU should be able to lose to Miami because they had a tougher sched. No! UM won on the field. Also, Washington played a tough sched. and only lost 1 game, to Oregon on the road in Eugene. Both of those teams had as much gripe.
FSU 11-1 #2 SOS
UM 9-1 #3 SOS
UW 10-1 #6 SOS
Clear choice. Florida State. Injustice? No.
quote:Then Miami shouldn't have lost to Washington, or Washington shouldn't have lost to Oregon. It's their own fault. In the title game, there's only room for two, and they weren't good enough that year.
I think UW or UM get points on the board and win.
quote:It means "Strength of Schedule." When two teams have the same record, SOS makes the difference. That's not crap; that's common sense and good logic.
What's with the SOS crap.
quote:And they played 10 other games against opponents that weren't as strong, overall, as Nebraska's opponents.
Oregon had 1 loss to a quality opponent.
quote:No, Oregon lost to Stanford. Had they not done that, they would have gotten a title shot. They just weren't good enough that year. Nebraska had a better regular season and were, therefore, rewarded with a title shot. I've got the numbers to back me up.
Oregon was screwed
quote:No luck, just a better record vs. a tougher schedule. They were so good that they could afford to drop a game and still be #1. They earned that.
Oklahoma loses big in the conference title to Kansas State. LSU wins big over UGa in the SEC title game. USC wins outright Pac-10 title. Odd team is Oklahoma. But with their luck, of course not only do they get in, they stay #1 in the BCS!
quote:Every single game was settled on the field, and given what happened on the field in every game that every team played, OU and LSU were #1 and #2. It's as simple as that. They settled it on the field (and not in a sportswriter's laptop), and USC was #3. USC's record, considering that their schedule was considerably weaker than OU's and slightly weaker than LSU's, wasn't good enough. USC didn't take care of business on the field, so they lost out.
END RESULT: LSU outdoes Oklahoma in New Orleans 21-14 to win the BCS and USC takes care of Michigan 28-14 in the Rose to win the AP. Hmm...maybe they shoulda settled it on the field.
quote:Florida didn't win the Big Ten either. Conference championships are a moot point; they are judgments of 8 or 9 games out of a 12-game season. Whether or not you win your conference is about 75% of your season; the BCS looks at more than that (see 2003, when the BCS got it right--and I've got ALL the numbers to back me up).
Michigan also didn't win the conference, or three-way tie. They lost it on the field. And Florida proved their worth over the Bucks in Glendale anyway.
quote:You and I agree on the end result, but your logic is horribly flawed and incomplete. You're picking a game here and a game there to put a value on a team's whole season. That's not how it's done. They don't play 12 games so you can judge them on eight (or nine). All things considered, LSU and OSU were #1 and #2.
Right again. VaTech, once again, had their playoff and lost 48-7 in Baon Rouge. Oklahoma played a weak sched. and has lucked out enough, haha! Missouri lost the conf. title, USC lost to Stanford at home! WVU lost to Pitt later than LSU lost to Arky. I won't even mention ASU. The only team with a beef is Kansas because they had 1 loss, but once again...their playoff was against Mizzou, and they blew it.
This post was edited on 12/1/08 at 6:26 pm
2
Posted on 12/1/08 at 6:24 pm to xiv
So xiv are you saying that Virginia Tech was screwed last year by the bcs as they were a 2 loss team with a stronger SOS than LSU?
Posted on 12/1/08 at 7:25 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:
So xiv are you saying that Virginia Tech was screwed last year by the bcs as they were a 2 loss team with a stronger SOS than LSU?
boom!
all of a sudden what happens on the field is okay now.
BTW xiv...strength of schedule < head-to-head matchup
Posted on 12/1/08 at 7:40 pm to TexasTiger08
quote:Again, you're not considering every element applicable.
boom!
all of a sudden what happens on the field is okay now.
BTW xiv...strength of schedule < head-to-head matchup
We haven't discussed quality wins.
In 2007, OSU got to be #1 in the BCS because they had a better record vs. an average schedule. I won't argue for or against that; I'm iffy. If I'm not mistaken, VT may have had a higher SOS than LSU. LSU had a quality win, though, and VT didn't. That quality win (over VT) pushed them up.
Now why didn't that push Miami over Florida State? After all, Miami beat Florida State (and VT), and of course that FSU (and VT) victory was a quality win. Well, Florida State also had two--over Maryland and Florida. Had Maryland and Florida not fared so well during the season, Florida State's quality win points would have been smaller, and Miami would have inched ahead.
All things to consider:
Florida State: 11-1, #2 SOS, QW's over UF & MD
Miami: 10-1, #3 SOS, QW's over FSU & VT
It's a close one, but FSU got the nod. I think Miami got unlucky, not screwed.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 8:53 pm to xiv
And isn't head to head a tiebreaker? Isn't a tiebreaker used to break ties?
FSU 11-1 #2 SOS
Miami 10-1 #3 SOS
That's not a tie. FSU clearly is ahead. It's a photo finish, but it's not a tie.
The BCS got it right.
:beatdeadhorse:
FSU 11-1 #2 SOS
Miami 10-1 #3 SOS
That's not a tie. FSU clearly is ahead. It's a photo finish, but it's not a tie.
The BCS got it right.
:beatdeadhorse:
Posted on 12/1/08 at 9:15 pm to xiv
The BCS "gets it right", but on several occasions teams that actually deserve a shot get the cold shoulder. That's my problem with this system.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 9:21 pm to Ross
Ross, I'm confused. You're an Aubbie, yet you speak with such wisdom.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 9:23 pm to Ross
Here is the massive error in xiv's "logic".
You have team A who is 10-1 and has played the #15 ranked SOS and they are playing team B who has played the #12 ranked SOS and they are 11-0. Team A plays Team B and beats them. both teams are now 11-1, but Team B has a higher SOS so they are "better" in his mind. Now here is the part that is real screwed up, since Team A beat Team B, Team B is now worse off which is hurting Team A's SOS, and Team B is now better off from a SOS standpoint since they lost and Team A is 11-1 and not 10-2.
The moral of the story is that if SOS's are pretty close together then the head to head winner should win out, every single god damn time.
Let's take the SECCG this week. What if Alabama had played a tougher schedule this year and were 12-0 and UF had a played a weaker one but were still 11-1. If UF wins the SECCG are you going to claim that Bama is more deserving seeing as they both have the same record but Bama has a better SOS? No that would be fricking stupid, and that is why xiv's arguments suck balls.
I do agree that SOS should be a very strong factor, but in no way should it trump who won head to head if records are the same.
You have team A who is 10-1 and has played the #15 ranked SOS and they are playing team B who has played the #12 ranked SOS and they are 11-0. Team A plays Team B and beats them. both teams are now 11-1, but Team B has a higher SOS so they are "better" in his mind. Now here is the part that is real screwed up, since Team A beat Team B, Team B is now worse off which is hurting Team A's SOS, and Team B is now better off from a SOS standpoint since they lost and Team A is 11-1 and not 10-2.
The moral of the story is that if SOS's are pretty close together then the head to head winner should win out, every single god damn time.
Let's take the SECCG this week. What if Alabama had played a tougher schedule this year and were 12-0 and UF had a played a weaker one but were still 11-1. If UF wins the SECCG are you going to claim that Bama is more deserving seeing as they both have the same record but Bama has a better SOS? No that would be fricking stupid, and that is why xiv's arguments suck balls.
I do agree that SOS should be a very strong factor, but in no way should it trump who won head to head if records are the same.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 9:24 pm to xiv
Posted on 12/1/08 at 9:50 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:
Let's take the SECCG this week. What if Alabama had played a tougher schedule this year and were 12-0 and UF had a played a weaker one but were still 11-1. If UF wins the SECCG are you going to claim that Bama is more deserving seeing as they both have the same record but Bama has a better SOS? No that would be fricking stupid, and that is why xiv's arguments suck balls.
Using xiv's logic, Alabama should absolutely go. Gotta love it.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 10:01 pm to tigers
quote:Any post that begins this way is a waste of bytes. Also posts that begin with "So are you saying that...."
Using _____'s logic,
Winning %
SOS
Quality wins
If all three are tied, then we can use tiebreakers like head to head.
Thing is...they're never tied.
This post was edited on 12/1/08 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 12/1/08 at 10:03 pm to xiv
That is what is different between your line of thinking and mine. Given the same record then Head to head should trump SOS, except in extreme cases. Other things to consider are venue, but you do not like using it even though home-field advantage exists.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 11:10 pm to xiv
You've been backed into a corner, and you know you're wrong. Time to give up.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 11:37 pm to xiv
quote:
The BCS is designed to pick the best two teams, and it has never failed in doing that.
first of all, know the bcs is not designed to do that. its designed to pick the two best teams according to the parameters its creators set for it. the two are not the same. i also dont see how you can say it has never failed to pick the 2 best teams unless you honestly believe 2000 oklahoma, 2001 miami, 2004 usc, 2006 florida, and 2007 lsu were all completely and utterly superior to the second best team in the country, given that they all dominated their championship games. and especially since two of those teams had a loss.
secondly, explain how you can say the above, then say florida state deserved to go over miami in 2001 when miami proved they were the better team by beating florida st during the season.
or how nebraska deserved to go over colorado in 2001 when colorado won the big 12 and proved they were the better team by obliterating nebraska in the final game of the regular season. how is nebraska one of the 2 best teams in the country when they arent even one of the two best teams in their own conference?
Posted on 12/2/08 at 12:02 am to xiv
quote:
When?, and show me some numbers.
the bcs was created to form a national championship game. the purpose of a national championship game is to create 1, undisputed national champion. the alternative to this is what we had before the bcs, multiple national champions and bowl games that did not match the best teams against eachother.
given that it was created to produce 1 undisputed national champion, the bcs has failed more times than it has succeeded without a doubt.
2003 is obvious, as there were actually co champions.
2000, florida state got in when miami had an argument that was just as good, if not better.
2001, nebraska got in when oregon and colorado had arguments that were just as good, if not better.
2004, oklahoma and usc got in when auburn had an argument that was just as good, if not better.
2006: florida got in when michigan had an argument that was just as good, if not better.
2007: lsu got in when several other teams had an argument that was just as good, if not better.
2008: no matter who gets in, there are going to be teams that have arguments that are just as good, if not better.
that means the only times the bcs succeeded in fulfilling its purpose of anointing 1 single, definitive national champion were in 1998, 1999, 2002, and 2005. and in at least 2 of those years, the bcs was not even needed because there were only 2 undefeated teams, and nobody disputed the fact that they were the only teams that belonged in the championship games.
Posted on 12/2/08 at 12:05 am to xiv
quote:
So when #4 and #5 have the same record, but #4 lost its last game, does #5 get to go even though #4 has a tougher schedule?
arguing the #4 and #5 seed is not even close to the same as arguing the #2 and #3 seed. in a 4 team playoff there is a MUCH greater chance that the 2 best teams in the country will be included than in a 2 team playoff.
Posted on 12/2/08 at 12:10 am to tigers
quote:
xiv's logic
oxymoron
Posted on 12/2/08 at 12:12 am to xiv
quote:
When two teams have the same record, SOS makes the difference.
anyone with any sense would say head to head makes the difference when two teams have the same record, not SOS
Posted on 12/2/08 at 12:16 am to xiv
quote:
And isn't head to head a tiebreaker? Isn't a tiebreaker used to break ties?
yes, yes it is. ties, like the same record. which makes it even more absurd for you to say that SOS determines the better team when two teams have the same record.
Posted on 12/2/08 at 7:18 am to tigers
quote:
You've been backed into a corner, and you know you're wrong. Time to give up.
Never at any level has head to head used to "trump" anything. It is used to break ties. FSU/UM was not a tie. FSU finished ahead. Whaddya mean "backed into a corner?" I won this argument seven years ago!
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News