The Ohio State Conspiracy Theory--How Nick Saban did it?

selmaborntidefan said:

Klatt was consistent in that he said there was no right choice among the three........of course, this makes his very objection frivolous beyond reason.

Click to expand...

He essentially said that the committee was wrong because it was not possible to get it right. In his world view, the 3 were inseparable. The problem with people like Klatt - they are not capable of seeing the validity in the opinions of those who disagree with him.

The correct way to phrase what he said would be, there is no wrong choice among the three. But if he stated it that way he would have to get behind Alabama and that simply does not fit his agenda.

BamaInBham said:

IMO, it was to create a system that spread the wealth, literally and figuratively, and to avoid spectacular failures like 2001 and 2003; also the near catastrophe of 2009 when UTx kicked a 46 FG, snapped with one second left, thus avoiding a Bama vs Cinn matchup for the NC.

Click to expand...

None of this sounds like a good thing. They're supposed to put in the teams that did the most in the regular season to warrant playing for a championship. Not spread the wealth, championships in no way should be about money or the matchup, and you seem to be applauding that.

BamaInBham said:

IMO, the CFPC is superior to both the polls and BCS. It is better than the polls because one of the polls is comprised of sports media who do not have the time, inclination or expertise to examine all of the relevant games or understand fully what they are seeing.

Click to expand...

I agree with the notion that not all the voters were well informed, but I completely disagree that this invalidates the results as a whole. For one, the BCS formula trained the voters in a similar fashion to what the committee is doing now. They kept the voters in check and kept them from being too erratic with how they voted. The combination of two polls and a multitude of voters also kept a lot of things at bay. The fact that the computers were intractable though, was the best part. That added far more integrity to the process, and you seem to have disliked that sort of integrity. Why did Oklahoma get in, in 2003? The computers liked them better. Why did the computers like them better? Probably had something to do with playing one more difficult game than USC and having the same record. That stuff matters, and computers could not be swayed into pretending certain things don't matter.

You seem to be in favor of a process that can overrule what should actually happen, because you see certain outcomes as "failures" or "catastrophes" even if they are in fact what should actually happen.

B1GTide said:

The correct way to phrase what he said would be, there is no wrong choice among the three.

Click to expand...

Of course part of the problem is that would still be completely incorrect. I think you know me well enough to know I don't have anything in particular against Ohio State and have argued for their inclusion in the past. But Ohio State and USC should not have even been close to Alabama, both of those teams clearly were the wrong choice. I do fear we are venturing towards a point in time where they will talk down wins and losses enough that people cease to be able to differentiate, but I think that will be a sad day.

B1GTide said:

Are there really degrees of crazy? Crazy is crazy. Once you cross that line, the rest is just about entertainment value.

Click to expand...

Of course there's different degrees of crazy, it's just wether it's our, your or their crazy. Add in the varying degrees of "hawt" and things get real interesting

KrAzY3 said:

Of course part of the problem is that would still be completely incorrect.

Click to expand...

As I said, it is based on his view that they were inseparable. You are arguing with the convinced.

Snuffy Smith said:

My wife is thanking all her Aubie friends for allowing us to stay home and heal up before the Sugar Bowl.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Don't take this the wrong way but I like your wife's balls. :biggrin2:

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

KrAzY3 said:

None of this sounds like a good thing. They're supposed to put in the teams that did the most in the regular season to warrant playing for a championship. Not spread the wealth, championships in no way should be about money or the matchup, and you seem to be applauding that.

Click to expand...

There's a significant difference between "reason for creation of the CFPC" and criteria used to select the teams.

I agree with the notion that not all the voters were well informed, but I completely disagree that this invalidates the results as a whole. For one, the BCS formula trained the voters in a similar fashion to what the committee is doing now. They kept the voters in check and kept them from being too erratic with how they voted. The combination of two polls and a multitude of voters also kept a lot of things at bay.

Click to expand...

The fact that the computers were intractable though, was the best part. That added far more integrity to the process, and you seem to have disliked that sort of integrity. Why did Oklahoma get in, in 2003? The computers liked them better. Why did the computers like them better? Probably had something to do with playing one more difficult game than USC and having the same record. That stuff matters, and computers could not be swayed into pretending certain things don't matter.

Click to expand...

I don't call inflexibility integrity - it is inflexibility. You assume that the computers were correct, which I do not. OU was beaten at a neutral site 35-7 in their last game before the final selection was made - 35-7 and it wasn't that close. It was late in the year meaning that they had not improved over the course of the season. They had to pull a trick play to beat their big OOC game, 4-9 Bama, by one score. USC's lone loss was 3 points to Cal on the road. They both beat one team in the regular season that ended ranked: Wash St 9, Texas 12. That's what computers can do to you. They are far from infallible, in fact, I trust media polls more than computers, which are little more than a very limited extension of human thought.

You seem to be in favor of a process that can overrule what should actually happen, because you see certain outcomes as "failures" or "catastrophes" even if they are in fact what should actually happen.

Click to expand...

The debate is "what should actually happen". You assume computers are correct and poll voters equivalent to the CFPC. I do not. The CFPC is not "overruling what should happen", but IMO, determining "what should actually happen".

The committee and the BCS have selected the exact same teams for the playoffs each year so far. I don’t see how folks can argue for one over the other right now when they are producing the same results.

Personally, I never had a problem with the BCS and I think it got it right almost every year. I also think the committee, through 4 years, has gotten it right each time.

My main issue with the CFP is with the members of the management committee and the selection committee. The management committee is made up of 10 conference commissioners and the AD from ND. I don’t like ND getting the same voice as entire conferences. I’m sick and tired of the special treatment that ND gets. Having rules that mention them by name, special provisions just to get them in the playoffs. It is time for everyone to stand up against ND and tell them to grow up and get in a conference or just go away.

I don’t like current power 5 ADs being on the selection committee. 3 people had to leave the room this year because of connections with OSU, 23% of the committee. That’s way to much influence from one university. Now, it hasn’t affected their result so far but, it has the potential to quickly turn biased and political in a blink of the eye.

Bring back BCS but make em pick 4 not 2 problem solved, both sides get what they want.................. NOT!!!! there will be arguments no matter how they do it, it is what it is. Let the discussion continue, it always will. Some team will always feel left out no matter the system. For any fan base that feel shorted I have 100% solution, schedule good quality teams, beat them all and you will get in not matter the system. Once you lose 1 or 2 games, you forfeit the right to complain about system. I was fully prepared to accept being skipped after IB loss, my previous posts say it loud and clear. I am happy we are in, but in sports there are no guarantees.

CrimsonNagus said:

The committee and the BCS have selected the exact same teams for the playoffs each year so far. I don’t see how folks can argue for one over the other right now when they are producing the same results.

Personally, I never had a problem with the BCS and I think it got it right almost every year. I also think the committee, through 4 years, has gotten it right each time.

My main issue with the CFP is with the members of the management committee and the selection committee. The management committee is made up of 10 conference commissioners and the AD from ND. I don’t like ND getting the same voice as entire conferences. I’m sick and tired of the special treatment that ND gets. Having rules that mention them by name, special provisions just to get them in the playoffs. It is time for everyone to stand up against ND and tell them to grow up and get in a conference or just go away.

I don’t like current power 5 ADs being on the selection committee. 3 people had to leave the room this year because of connections with OSU, 23% of the committee. That’s way to much influence from one university. Now, it hasn’t affected their result so far but, it has the potential to quickly turn biased and political in a blink of the eye.

Click to expand...

Beside the reasons listed in the previous post, a concrete example are the disastrous years of 2001, 2003 and a catastrophic 2009 which would have yielded UTx, Bama, Cin (played 4 P5 teams and was scorched for 51 by UF in the bowl and it wasn't that close), TCU (pre P5, who played 2 P5 teams that year). Because of the inordinate weight of wins vs losses given by the computers, in spite of schedule, we almost had 2 teams who played a total of 6 games against P5 opponents - Cin and pre P5 TCU. Yes, the BCS possibly got it right 13 out of 16 years, but the other 3 years would have been bad or awful. That's part of the reason for the CFPC, to avoid those anomalous years. There were probably other years that the BCS would have yielded a bad team or 2, I only checked 6 of the 16 years.

BamaInBham said:

It was late in the year meaning that they had not improved over the course of the season.

Click to expand...

This is the type of stuff I absolutely despise. The regular season matters or it doesn't. What matters is that they lost and how they lost, not when it happened. That's such a load of crap otherwise, I mean can you lose the first three and be the best team after that and get in? The truth is we don't know with the committee, but we darn sure know what a computer would think. I can't stand the idea that it's how good a team is at the end of the season, why play the other games then?

Stop picking which games matter, they all should matter. A lot of people hated the computers because they couldn't warp them to buy into nonsense like when the game was played means something, or winning a conference means something, or that injuries mean something. The results of every game should have the potential to hold the same weight! Not be biased towards when it was played, or if it's part of a tie breaker, or if a team lost their quarterback. All that drivel that is polluting the process, the computers would not acknowledge. But if you want to pick and choose all that stuff, if you think you should eliminate some results and favor others, by all means have a small group of people sitting around deciding what does and doesn't count. Just understand that you have given them the power to both ignore some results and put far too much weight on others. For instance Auburn never had any business being ranked #2, but hey they won at the right time of the year and they lost at the right time of the year. You know, until that third loss...

KrAzY3 said:

This is the type of stuff I absolutely despise. The regular season matters or it doesn't. What matters is that they lost and how they lost, not when it happened. That's such a load of crap otherwise, I mean can you lose the first three and be the best team after that and get in? The truth is we don't know with the committee, but we darn sure know what a computer would think. I can't stand the idea that it's how good a team is at the end of the season, why play the other games then?

Stop picking which games matter, they all should matter. A lot of people hated the computers because they couldn't warp them to buy into nonsense like when the game was played means something, or winning a conference means something, or that injuries mean something. The results of every game should have the potential to hold the same weight! Not be biased towards when it was played, or if it's part of a tie breaker, or if a team lost their quarterback. All that drivel that is polluting the process, the computers would not acknowledge. But if you want to pick and choose all that stuff, if you think you should eliminate some results and favor others, by all means have a small group of people sitting around deciding what does and doesn't count. Just understand that you have given them the power to both ignore some results and put far too much weight on others. For instance Auburn never had any business being ranked #2, but hey they won at the right time of the year and they lost at the right time of the year. You know, until that third loss...

Click to expand...

No one is saying that every game doesn't matter or that the regular season doesn't matter. Who said anything about ignoring or eliminating results ? Actually, it's you who wants to ignore pertinent factors you don't like. You pick and choose specific statements and draw extreme conclusions to enhance your POV.

You're wrong in you view of computers' capabilities as well as your assumptions about the motives of those who don't have the same view of them as you. You seem to assume they are some kind of impartial judge - they are not. They are very limited and inflexible extensions of the human mind, incapable of the nuance needed to evaluate something as complex as a college football season engaged in by teams from across the country, most of whom do not play each other. Their outputs too are biased; bias and ignorance introduced by the individuals who establish the rules, which are then exacerbated by interpretation and translation into logic by deeply flawed individuals like me . I grant you that they are consistent, you get the same results every time you submit the same inputs. The same results, whether right or wrong or close or not in the ballpark or ...

Note before I begin my criticism proper my respect for you so that what may come across as harsh isn't intended personally towards you.

KrAzY3 said:

Why did Oklahoma get in, in 2003? The computers liked them better. Why did the computers like them better? Probably had something to do with playing one more difficult game than USC and having the same record. That stuff matters, and computers could not be swayed into pretending certain things don't matter.

Click to expand...

Actually, that didn't "really" have anything to do with it at all.

Just last week you argued about precedent, a concept pretty much all of us agree with. In that case we had the (and I agree with) questionable ranking of a two-loss Auburn team TWO spots ahead of unbeaten Wisconsin.


Can you tell me how many times and through how many polls there was EVER a team that was number one in the polls, that team lost a blowout by four TDs.....and was STILL number one in the polls? It's happened ONE time......it was Oklahoma in 2003, who everyone seems to forget not only didn't even win their division but was STILL number one after a 28-point loss.

That has happened ONE TIME, and it was beyond absurd that it ever happened.


Furthermore, I would argue that the BCS simply does NOT agree with your argument here since even they monkeyed with the computers and changed the formula enough that we would have gotten the match we should have. Remember...it wasn't a case of USC or Oklahoma, it was a case of USC or LSU........


I wrote about this back in April.


Now, I WILL acknowledge you are RIGHT on one key issue here.....OU DID play the strongest schedule that year. That much is true. But the pure insanity of the whole deal is that the OU-USC game (wouldn't we all look at Saban differently now.....and indeed, does he even leave LSU in 2004?) was ruled out by:
a) Boise State beating Hawaii
b) Syracuse beating Notre Dame

Those two results combined with LSU having to play UGA in a rematch lifted LSU, which wasn't really the issue. No, the REAL issue was we had a poll that for the only time in human history kept a team at #1 despite that team not only losing but getting absolutely blown to smithereens.

And let's be honest....OU's schedule wasn't substantially more difficult than either LSU or USC.

Look at LSU'S OOC schedule that year: ULM, Arizona, W Illinois, and La Tech. WIU was a I-AA school and the other three combined for a record of 8-28. The SEC that year wasn't overly good, either, as LSU's lone loss was to a FIVE-loss Florida team.

Oklahoma's OOC was I-AA (then) N Texas, 4-9 Alabama, 9-5 Fresno, and 6-7 UCLA.

USC played 8-5 Auburn, 4-8 BYU, and 9-5 Hawaii.


COMMON OPPONENTS
USC 23 Auburn 0 (at JHS)
LSU 31 Auburn 7 (at BR)

USC 45 Arizona 0
LSU 59 Arizona 13

USC 47 UCLA 22
OU 59 UCLA 24

OU 20 Alabama 13
LSU 27 Alabama 3


I think too many folks were knee-jerk critics of the BCS. Someone the other day (don't know the name, sorry) basically said that the MISTAKE the BCS made right off the bat was that they tried to please everyone rather than defend the system as it was. In response to the exclusion of Miami after the Hurricanes' head-to-head victory over Florida St, the BCS removed the points differential aspect and it was THIS change that caused the computers to view Oklahoma's blowout loss to K-State as exactly the same as USC's triple OT loss to the Aaron Rodgers-led California Golden Bears.

And that was a decent Cal team.......they played K-State MUCH closer than Oklahoma did for sure.

In other words, changes made early by the BCS in an effort to quiet critics CAUSED this problem. 2003 was, in all honesty, the only case....I repeat, the ONLY case....where we can justifiably say, "Yes, the BCS got one of the two teams wrong." Folks like to say that the BCS "usually got it right." Despite my criticisms of the situation, I would argue that only TWICE did they NOT get it 100%.....2001 and 2003. And you can't blame the BCS for 2001 since the only reason Nebraska made the game was because Colorado vs Washington St was cancelled due to 9/11.

Again for the record.....I'm sitting there thinking a four-team BCS in and of itself solves even THAT particular problem. In my view, the only REAL reason for a four-team playoff is in the event you have 3-4 unbeaten P5 teams.



As far as the Double Secret Committee (har har).......let's be honest and admit they've done a pretty outstanding job in the only poll that actually counts. The rest of it, quite frankly, is window dressing. Only ONE of their 16 selections could be questioned as possibly wrong (Ohio St over TCU in 14), and maybe we have to admit they saw something we didn't since the Buckeyes won out.

The real conspiracy theory is Urban threw those games so he would not face Saban. His ticker cannot take it. Where would he run to if Nick ran him out of OSU? bahahahahhahahahahaha now that is a wild theory. :eek2: