Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters - Page 2
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 152
  1. #14
    BamaNation Hall of Fame KrAzY3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    7,969

    Re: Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

    Quote Originally Posted by RedWave View Post
    And honestly, we don't know what kind of multipliers or algorithms is going on behind the scenes to get to those numbers. They could arrange the formulas in any number of ways in order to favor one side versus the other. Ask any financial analyst to run a projection and he can give you different any number of answers based on what he thinks you want the answer to be (ask me how I know). The same could be done with the BCS formula.
    The BCS formula actually couldn't be changed. From what I recall for most of the BCS it was a simple formula, one third from one poll, one third from another poll, one third from computers. The BCS just took that data and then used them in a formula. Now, the computers hypothetically could be altered in some way, but there was a fail-safe for that. I believe there were 6 computers, but the automatically removed the highest and lowest ranking for each team. So, if one of the computers was rigged in some way, it would be automatically excluded. Also, since we could predict to a large extent what the computers would do, any major aberrations would be noted. The same can't be said for committee members, they have more power, but we have way of telling if they are up to any shenanigans, or any way of excluding them from the process if they are. We don't even know their votes, and there's no system to exclude aberrant voting as far as I am aware.

    Quote Originally Posted by B1GTide View Post
    To be clear - they have NO mistakes. None. Get back to me when they make one.
    I find myself in complete disagreement with that statement. Their final results I have no major issues with, but they have made mistakes. Big ones... their ranking Auburn over Alabama last year was atrocious. Now, we have the benefit of hindsight so we know Alabama was the champion, who beat three teams that beat Auburn, while Auburn suffered four losses. So, of course it's easier to tell how absolutely absurd that ranking was, but it was wrong when they did it. I argued that very thing here.

    The problem was the committee took two teams with similarities in their schedule, one with two losses and one with one loss, and simply because the team with two losses was better for one week they ranked the two loss team ahead of the one loss team. That's nonsense, it erased the fact that LSU beat Auburn and Alabama beat LSU, it made that loss simply not count and it was not just a mistake, but a huge mistake. I can't think of the BCS doing that at any point for the entire time they existed, I can't think of a two loss team being ranked ahead of a one loss team with that much in common (I mean they both played in the same division), so... sorry but yeah, the committee screwed up badly. They ranked a two loss Auburn ahead of a one loss Alabama team, which ended up being a four loss Auburn and a championship Alabama team. Their bad. It was a bad move that looks even worse with the benefit of hindsight.
    Apologies if I said anything that could be construed as a personal insult.
    "Everybody that chooses to go to the game should stay there and support the team for the game." - Nick Saban

  2. Advertisement
  3. #15
    BamaNation All-SEC
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Arlington, Tx
    Posts
    1,381

    Re: Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

    Quote Originally Posted by tusks_n_raider View Post
    The committee has picked the correct 4 teams all 4 years with ZERO mistakes.

    Their #4 pick has been validated TWICE by ultimately winning the NCG.

    Last year was certainly entertaining for me. I knew they would pick us #4. There was no logical argument for the alternative.... yet so many people were freaking out about it.

    I'm not going to dig up the old threads but if anyone is so inclined to search you will see dozens of posts by me trying to reassure everybody before the selection that the committee was on the up and up and would make the right decision. It fell on deaf ears mostly but I tried...lol

    I'm more than happy with the Playoff committee and have no urge for the BCS to ever come back.

    Now the New CFP NC Trophy is another matter.... THAT thing STILL looks gawd-awful. The Crystal Ball is 100000000X's better.
    While I certainly agree with the part in bold, I believe the fans of Baylor, TCU, Penn State, and Ohio State (and possibly a few others) would not say the same. From our perspective, having not yet missed a playoff, we think they got it right every time. And even though we won out this year, I could see an Ohio State fan making the argument that, given the opportunity, they could have done the same. Penn State could claim they would have done much better in the playoff than Ohio State did the year PSU got snubbed, and how could we prove they were wrong? Baylor/TCU, while I don't either had much of a chance, how can we definitively state that they wouldn't have earned their spot given the opportunity? But this will always be true, regardless of the method of choosing or the number of teams taken.

  4. #16
    BamaNation All-SEC PA Tide Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Lancaster, PA
    Posts
    1,545

    Re: Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

    What happened this past season seemed to validate the BCS. Many people thought the BCS was flawed the year it was Alabama-LSU. Everyone thought "How could any team play for the championship when they didn't win their division?" But the BCS got it right and we won, so last season the committee picked us after not winning the division and we won again proving the committee also got it right. The committee and the simulated BCS rankings are almost identical. I remember last season I posted the final BCS rankings that put us #4 just moments before we were picked by the committee. I always liked the BCS when it was being used and continue to have a favorable opinion of it.

  5. #17
    BamaNation All-American
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    2,838

    Re: Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

    Quote Originally Posted by RedWave View Post
    While I certainly agree with the part in bold, I believe the fans of Baylor, TCU, Penn State, and Ohio State (and possibly a few others) would not say the same. From our perspective, having not yet missed a playoff, we think they got it right every time. And even though we won out this year, I could see an Ohio State fan making the argument that, given the opportunity, they could have done the same. Penn State could claim they would have done much better in the playoff than Ohio State did the year PSU got snubbed, and how could we prove they were wrong? Baylor/TCU, while I don't either had much of a chance, how can we definitively state that they wouldn't have earned their spot given the opportunity? But this will always be true, regardless of the method of choosing or the number of teams taken.
    I think that's really the key. There is no perfect system where everyone is happy. The best you can do is to reflect and consistently attempt to make the system better.

  6. #18
    BamaNation Hall of Fame JBama_in_PCOLA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Andalusia, Alabama via Pensacola, Florida United States
    Posts
    38,197

    Re: Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

    Quote Originally Posted by GrayTide View Post
    I still do not like the Playoff Committee, just use the BCS formula as before and let it select the best 4 teams.
    They probably just use it and look smart afterwards.


    The artist formerly known as JBama_in_PCOLA

    from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  7. #19
    BamaNation Hall of Fame B1GTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    17,186

    Re: Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    T
    I find myself in complete disagreement with that statement. Their final results I have no major issues with, but they have made mistakes. Big ones... their ranking Auburn over Alabama last year was atrocious. Now, we have the benefit of hindsight so we know Alabama was the champion, who beat three teams that beat Auburn, while Auburn suffered four losses. So, of course it's easier to tell how absolutely absurd that ranking was, but it was wrong when they did it. I argued that very thing here.
    The CFP is there for a single purpose - get the final ranking correct. They have never erred in that. The other weeks that they offer their rankings are to please the masses, many of whom are wearing tin foil hats imagining all sorts of things. Those releases are totally meaningless and not a part of their charter.

  8. #20
    BamaNation First Team UntouchableCrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    991

    Re: Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

    Quote Originally Posted by B1GTide View Post
    The CFP is there for a single purpose - get the final ranking correct. They have never erred in that. The other weeks that they offer their rankings are to please the masses, many of whom are wearing tin foil hats imagining all sorts of things. Those releases are totally meaningless and not a part of their charter.
    +1

    Judging them based on anything but the final rankings is totally pointless -- all of the rankings up to the final one are just for the benefit of ESPN and talking heads everywhere.

  9. #21
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Redwood Forrest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Boaz, AL USA
    Posts
    9,885

    Re: Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

    The BCS system HAD TO TAKE the top two teams in 2 polls and computers. HAD TO.

    The CFP committee can PUT ANY FOUR teams they want to put in. ANY Four.

    That is the difference.
    I do not believe in atheists, therefore they do not exist.

  10. #22
    BamaNation Hall of Fame KrAzY3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    7,969

    Re: Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

    Quote Originally Posted by B1GTide View Post
    The other weeks that they offer their rankings are to please the masses, many of whom are wearing tin foil hats imagining all sorts of things. Those releases are totally meaningless and not a part of their charter.
    Ok, so tell me this. If Auburn doesn't lose to Georgia, at what point exactly would they have corrected their mistake?

    Also, since you are using the as long as they got it right in the end argument... why do we need a playoff again? I can't think of a single year the BCS got the champion wrong.
    Last edited by KrAzY3; July 12th, 2018 at 03:56 PM.
    Apologies if I said anything that could be construed as a personal insult.
    "Everybody that chooses to go to the game should stay there and support the team for the game." - Nick Saban

  11. #23
    BamaNation All-American tusks_n_raider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,836

    Re: Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    Ok, so tell me this. If Auburn doesn't lose to Georgia, at what point exactly would they have corrected their mistake?

    Also, since you are using the as long as they got it right in the end argument... why do we need a playoff again? I can't think of a single year the BCS got the champion wrong.
    Auburn was already #2 at that point. If they beat UGA again then they probably stay at #2 (11-2) SEC Champions.

    The Final 4 would have been:

    1) Clemson
    2) Auburn or Oklahoma
    3) Oklahoma or Auburn
    4) Alabama

  12. #24
    BamaNation All-SEC
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Arlington, Tx
    Posts
    1,381

    Re: Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

    Quote Originally Posted by tusks_n_raider View Post
    Auburn was already #2 at that point. If they beat UGA again then they probably stay at #2 (11-2) SEC Champions.

    The Final 4 would have been:

    1) Clemson
    2) Auburn or Oklahoma
    3) Oklahoma or Auburn
    4) Alabama
    Not necessarily. Because at that point, you have put a two-loss conference champion into the playoff (Auburn) and would have a tough time excluding another two-loss champion (Ohio State). I think if Auburn won the SEC Championship, the two-loss excuse goes away for both of those two teams and the one-loss Alabama gets left out of the playoff.

  13. #25
    BamaNation All-American
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    2,838

    Re: Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

    Quote Originally Posted by KrAzY3 View Post
    Ok, so tell me this. If Auburn doesn't lose to Georgia, at what point exactly would they have corrected their mistake?

    Also, since you are using the as long as they got it right in the end argument... why do we need a playoff again? I can't think of a single year the BCS got the champion wrong.
    Because a playoff is more fun

  14. #26
    BamaNation All-American
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,974

    Re: Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

    Quote Originally Posted by RedWave View Post
    Not necessarily. Because at that point, you have put a two-loss conference champion into the playoff (Auburn) and would have a tough time excluding another two-loss champion (Ohio State). I think if Auburn won the SEC Championship, the two-loss excuse goes away for both of those two teams and the one-loss Alabama gets left out of the playoff.
    It's not just that OSU had 2 losses, it was the nature of the 2. A 2 TD+ loss at home to OU, a 31 point loss in Nov to a 7-5 Iowa team. They had a couple of good wins.

    Auburn lost a close game to Clemson on the road, and a close loss to a 9 win LSU on the road. Then late in the year they beat the number two and one team at home 2 out of 3 weeks. If they had beaten UGA in the SECC game, they would have had 3 top 6 wins the last 4 weeks of the season. I.e., there would have been little comparison between the two 11-2 records.

    IMO, there was no 2-loss excuse, when they looked at AU they determined that they belonged, when they looked at OSU they determined they did not belong. IMO, they were right in both cases.

    I'm with those who believe that losses matter a great deal. I believe the CFPC does as well. But sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances that need to be considered (something the BCS computers would have unlikely been able to do). And AU's late season performance coupled with the type of losses, close on the road, one against a great team, the other vs a good 9 win team, merited them special consideration. I don't care for AU at all, but I try to give credit where it is due.

    I don't care for OSU, but respect them and believed that they deserved to be in the playoff the year before, but not last year, even with Bama's somewhat weak schedule. IMO, Bama would have made it in over OSU because the CFPC would have come to the same conclusion and they proved to have the courage to do the "right" thing, not the PC thing.
    Last edited by BamaInBham; July 12th, 2018 at 05:11 PM.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

TideFansStore.com: Get YOUR gear!

[CLICK] GET BAMA Calendar