Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

B1GTide · Jul 12, 2018

81usaf92 said:
I think Selma is talking about being AP #1 in game 6 is meaningless, not games.

Sorry, that makes sense.

selmaborntidefan · Jul 12, 2018

B1GTide said:
Those games are not meaningless. It is just more difficult to see the value. But ask any Buckeye fan how meaningless their games were last year. A poorly played game cost us a shot at the title. But well played games against everyone except Auburn kept Alabama in the hunt. Flip any win to a loss from the top 4 teams and they are out of the playoff. So every game mattered last year, even if it is more difficult to see it.

I didn't say the GAMES are meaningless. I said the RANKINGS are meaningless.

And I should qualify that.

Pre-season rankings used to be the be-all, end-all. It's actually good they are not. However, until the final two weeks of the season they go from meaningless to virtually meaningless to means something.

All the games matter more now than they did before, but the BCS was a substantial improvement.

selmaborntidefan · Jul 12, 2018

B1GTide said:
Those games are not meaningless. It is just more difficult to see the value. But ask any Buckeye fan how meaningless their games were last year. A poorly played game cost us a shot at the title. But well played games against everyone except Auburn kept Alabama in the hunt. Flip any win to a loss from the top 4 teams and they are out of the playoff. So every game mattered last year, even if it is more difficult to see it.

Alabama being RANKED #1 at the ATM game in and of itself is meaningless.

The game is still important, but it's actually irrelevant if we're number one or number 15 in September. Well, 15 would be bad if we start number one but anyway.

selmaborntidefan · Jul 12, 2018

81usaf92 said:
I think Selma is talking about being AP #1 in game 6 is meaningless, not games.

Correct, but when I looked at it, I understand why B1G thought I was saying something else.

Redwood Forrest · Jul 13, 2018

selmaborntidefan said:
I didn't say the GAMES are meaningless. I said the RANKINGS are meaningless.

And I should qualify that.

You got caught in the old Redwood snare of "let me say that again." I do that at least once a day and can never seem learn the lesson that not everyone knows what I mean.

But back to the question at hand. I have figured out to solve the Brando problem. We need to draw four conference champions from the ten FBS conferences (a winning record is optional). This would assure no partiality and give us a really exciting playoff instead of the status quo.

GrayTide · Jul 13, 2018

Since the select committee doesn't start its rankings until so late in the season, why not have them meet and do its rankings after the season and after the conference championship games. One meeting after the entire season is completed where they every team's body of work for the season in front of them. Saves time and money and should be more efficient. Way too easy

selmaborntidefan · Jul 13, 2018

GrayTide said:
Since the select committee doesn't start its rankings until so late in the season, why not have them meet and do its rankings after the season and after the conference championship games. One meeting after the entire season is completed where they every team's body of work for the season in front of them. Saves time and money and should be more efficient. Way too easy

Why not have them meet on Skype and not fly them into Dallas?

I mean, really.

selmaborntidefan · Jul 13, 2018

Redwood Forrest said:
You got caught in the old Redwood snare of "let me say that again." I do that at least once a day and can never seem learn the lesson that not everyone knows what I mean.

But back to the question at hand. I have figured out to solve the Brando problem. We need to draw four conference champions from the ten FBS conferences (a winning record is optional). This would assure no partiality and give us a really exciting playoff instead of the status quo.

Krazy and most of the fans here realize what Brando doesn't seem to realize: the increase of teams in the post-season NECESSARILY dilutes the regular season. I recall years ago when the dude who used to fill in for him on his CBS Sports Radio show (I never did learn the guy's name even though I was on the show as a caller once) said that CFB has the best regular season of any sport, but the most wretched post-season in providing a satisfying conclusion. He didn't seem to think through that any sort of expansion BY DEFINITION was going to dilute the regular season.

I think FOUR is absolutely perfect. Four does what it is supposed to do: it gives the regular season substantial meaning but ensures we never have anything occur like 1966 Alabama, the 1983 bowl game train wreck, the 1984 national champion BYU winning it without playing a single decent team, or 2004 Auburn. And to me that's really ALL it was supposed to do. Never again will have the 2000 debacle of three one-loss teams and the head-to-head results meaning LITERALLY nothing. Krazy is correct - the entire argument was ALWAYS about the THIRD team, never the FOURTH team.

Brando's suggestion of an eight-team playoff chosen by a Blue Ribbon panel (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) will reduce the meaning of the season.

Let's go back to 2011. I choose that year because it seems to be the fulcrum of all discussion of the changeover. The whole stink centered on "why Alabama over Okie State, Alabama 'had their chance.'" But what I think is amusingly LOST in the whole argument is that the very same people who at the time were saying "four-team playoff" were ripping Alabama for "not winning their conference." Yet #4 Stanford was ranked ahead of Oregon.....who blew them to shreds, 53-30.

Nobody pointed out, "Hey, if we DID have a four-team playoff then your whole conference championship whine is meaningless."

No, the whole thing was REALLY about Okie State. But even during the BCS era, their problems weren't above causing other problems contradicting what they claimed they wanted to solve.

And why would we have needed an eight-team playoff in 2011?

1) LSU - nobody argued this
2) Alabama - very few argued this
3) OK State - or this (the only beef was 2 vs 3 in all honesty)
4) Stanford - but they already lost to Oregon - BADLY - so why did they deserve consideration? At least OK St lost in overtime on the road...
5) Oregon - they'd already lost to LSU - decisively (in fact, by about the same margin at they beat Stanford) - so why did we need another game?
6) Arkansas - again, they'd already lost to BOTH 1 AND 2 by 24 points each time....so why?
7) Boise St - the bizarre part is that if they hit the field goal vs TCU, their schedule is still just as awful and yet media smoke blowers would actually argue THEY should be one of the top four teams......
8) Kansas St - they lost consecutive games to OU and Okie State......why would we need a playoff for them, either?

And the irony? If they had some sort of conference champions argument, Wisconsin would be in the mix. Two-loss Wisconsin. Wisky won the Big 10.

HOW did they win the Big 10? In a (wait for it) rematch with Michigan State........and would have been touted by the very same people angry over an Alabama-LSU.....rematch.....

Four is plenty, and I hope it never expands. Indeed, the committee? Excellent job. Every year.

Tideflyer · Jul 13, 2018

GrayTide said:
I still do not like the Playoff Committee, just use the BCS formula as before and let it select the best 4 teams.

Down with this. Still don`t really understand what would have been wrong with setting up the playoff this way.

81usaf92 · Jul 13, 2018

selmaborntidefan said:
Krazy and most of the fans here realize what Brando doesn't seem to realize: the increase of teams in the post-season NECESSARILY dilutes the regular season. I recall years ago when the dude who used to fill in for him on his CBS Sports Radio show (I never did learn the guy's name even though I was on the show as a caller once) said that CFB has the best regular season of any sport, but the most wretched post-season in providing a satisfying conclusion. He didn't seem to think through that any sort of expansion BY DEFINITION was going to dilute the regular season.

I think FOUR is absolutely perfect. Four does what it is supposed to do: it gives the regular season substantial meaning but ensures we never have anything occur like 1966 Alabama, the 1983 bowl game train wreck, the 1984 national champion BYU winning it without playing a single decent team, or 2004 Auburn. And to me that's really ALL it was supposed to do. Never again will have the 2000 debacle of three one-loss teams and the head-to-head results meaning LITERALLY nothing. Krazy is correct - the entire argument was ALWAYS about the THIRD team, never the FOURTH team.

Brando's suggestion of an eight-team playoff chosen by a Blue Ribbon panel (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) will reduce the meaning of the season.

Let's go back to 2011. I choose that year because it seems to be the fulcrum of all discussion of the changeover. The whole stink centered on "why Alabama over Okie State, Alabama 'had their chance.'" But what I think is amusingly LOST in the whole argument is that the very same people who at the time were saying "four-team playoff" were ripping Alabama for "not winning their conference." Yet #4 Stanford was ranked ahead of Oregon.....who blew them to shreds, 53-30.

Nobody pointed out, "Hey, if we DID have a four-team playoff then your whole conference championship whine is meaningless."

No, the whole thing was REALLY about Okie State. But even during the BCS era, their problems weren't above causing other problems contradicting what they claimed they wanted to solve.

And why would we have needed an eight-team playoff in 2011?

1) LSU - nobody argued this
2) Alabama - very few argued this
3) OK State - or this (the only beef was 2 vs 3 in all honesty)
4) Stanford - but they already lost to Oregon - BADLY - so why did they deserve consideration? At least OK St lost in overtime on the road...
5) Oregon - they'd already lost to LSU - decisively (in fact, by about the same margin at they beat Stanford) - so why did we need another game?
6) Arkansas - again, they'd already lost to BOTH 1 AND 2 by 24 points each time....so why?
7) Boise St - the bizarre part is that if they hit the field goal vs TCU, their schedule is still just as awful and yet media smoke blowers would actually argue THEY should be one of the top four teams......
8) Kansas St - they lost consecutive games to OU and Okie State......why would we need a playoff for them, either?

And the irony? If they had some sort of conference champions argument, Wisconsin would be in the mix. Two-loss Wisconsin. Wisky won the Big 10.

HOW did they win the Big 10? In a (wait for it) rematch with Michigan State........and would have been touted by the very same people angry over an Alabama-LSU.....rematch.....

Four is plenty, and I hope it never expands. Indeed, the committee? Excellent job. Every year.

I think at most there should be 6, but never 8. I can’t think of one time in history where I thought the 8th team was deserving of a shot at the title, but I can think of a few times when I thought #5 was. 2007 UGA was probably the best team in the country after the first weekend in October and had the same amount of losses as LSU, but one bad weekend against Fulmer’s last good team was the difference between playing for a national championship because I really think UGA would’ve blasted LSU in SECCG especially with Ryan Perilloux as the starter because Matt Flynn was unavailable.

Final BCS standings December 2007
1. TOSU
2. LSU
3. VT
4. OU
5. UGA
6. Mizzou
7. USCW
8. Kansas

B1GTide · Jul 13, 2018

81usaf92 said:
I think at most there should be 6, but never 8. I can’t think of one time in history where I thought the 8th team was deserving of a shot at the title, but I can think of a few times when I thought #5 was.

I agree - for me, 6 would be perfect. IMO, it would be even better than 4 for a few reasons:

* Every game would mean even more because getting the #1 or #2 seed gets you a bye in the tournament. It gets back to the BCS era with respect the importance of the games
* It would allow for every P5 conference champion to make it if they all deserved it.
* It allows more room for a second team from the same P5 conference when deserved.

RollTide_HTTR · Jul 13, 2018

I really wish we could get rid of the Big 12 or whoever and create 4 super conferences. IMO that would make a 6 team playoff even more appealing.

TomFromBama · Jul 13, 2018

B1GTide said:
To be clear - they have NO mistakes. None. Get back to me when they make one.

Of course not! The "Double Secret Committee's" ACTUAL job is to pick the four teams Projected to generate the BEST TV RATINGS.

ESPiN is in the room with them, TELLS them what the projected ratings are for each matchup, and they select and seed the Four teams to achieve the best expecteded TV ratings. They've been "RIGHT" every single time!

ONLY the fans think actual football "Merit" has more than a passing influence on the selections! (Obviously - no matter how popular Notre Dame is, the committee CAN'T pick a 3-4 loss team.... That's just NOT going to happen, it would BLOW their Cover!!!)

Honestly, TCU? Baylor??? TINY TV footprints!!! That's why they sat at home in 2014!

O$U and Alabama have the biggest TV impacts these days - O$U thanks to a huge fanbase that wants to see them Win - Alabama thanks to 95% of all CFB fans who want to see us LOSE!!!! LOL!!!! :biggrin:

That's why O$U got IN back in 2014, and why it was a coin toss this past December - even though they had two losses. - thankfully, our Hate-base is bigger than O$U's Fan-base, and we got in!!!!!

ACTUAL Spy Foto of "Double Secret Committee" seeking approval from ESPiN for final P_ayoff selections!:

TomFromBama · Jul 13, 2018

Redwood Forrest said:
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.

Uh... You say it like there's something WRONG with the best teams playing for the Title???

Obviously, ESPiN and the P-5 commissioners AGREE WITH YOU. That's why we abandoned a relatively objective, relatively Transparent system for a SECRET system that's utterly Subjecting and completely Non-Transparent.

NoNC4Tubs · Jul 13, 2018

TomFromBama said:
SI talks to some of the people behind the Computer Polls used in the former BCS calculations.

https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/07/11/bcs-computer-rankings-polls-formula-sagarin-billingsley
The Computer Poll Uprising: Creators of the BCS's Most Controversial Component Look Back

I won't lie, I was a fan of the BCS system, and IMO the formula NEVER made a single mistake AFTER the last major "Corrections" following a pretty big mistake in 2003. But after that - I think the BCS got it "Right" every time.

I still think it would have made PERFECT sense for the new playoff to simply expand to 4 teams but STILL USE the same PROVEN formula to pick the 4 teams. Instead, "we" chose a secret committee that meets behind closed doors. "The American Way" - total Non-Transparency.

Anyway, mildly interesting read, IMO.

Awesome post, Tom!

I have always thought that expanding the BCS formula to include four teams would come the closest to a perfect solution. But that would have made too much sense...

NoNC4Tubs · Jul 13, 2018

B1GTide said:
FWIW, they computer polls were also secret - the actual formulas were not released, even to the BCS committee. So the whole "behind closed doors" CFP argument seems odd since you support the computer rankings.

Isn't their a place somewhere on the web that still maintains the formula? It seems to me that the Committee secretly uses the old BCS formula to make their final decisions anyways...

GrayTide · Jul 13, 2018

Not a fan of 6 teams. #3 and #4 have to play the extra game which at that time of the year is somewhat unfair while #1 and #2 would enjoy a two week rest. OTOH, I do think a #5 and #6 would have a claim for inclusion. So, it should stay at 4 teams or expand to 8 so no team has the advantage of two weeks off.

B1GTide · Jul 13, 2018

TomFromBama said:
Of course not! The "Double Secret Committee's" ACTUAL job is to pick the four teams Projected to generate the BEST TV RATINGS.

Wait, so the BCS would have picked the same teams, but the committee is doing this for TV ratings, not because they were the best teams?

NoNC4Tubs · Jul 13, 2018

CrimsonForce said:
I'm pretty sure the committee has picked the same 4 teams that the BCS formula would've picked in every playoff. So, the outcome has been the same but just with a little more drama..

Exactly!

NoNC4Tubs · Jul 13, 2018

KrAzY3 said:
The BCS selection only used the computers as one aspect of their selections though. I actually liked the inclusion of the polls, they followed a sort of logic and reason that we could all understand. I mean most weeks before the polls came out we could have a pretty good idea of where teams would be ranked because we understood how it worked. That's always been harder to follow with the committee. It also preserved the historical importance of the polls (which predate most other methods of selection champions for major sports in America), yet another thing we've seen devalued under the current scheme (along with bowl games).

The role of the computers though, was literally to guarantee logic was part of the equation. If the polls got too emotional, ranked a team too high or too low because they just lost, or something that didn't necessarily make sense, the computers would step in and correct them, point out where the numbers say the rankings should be. This didn't just work on the final poll, it helped keep the polls in check throughout the season.

While the committee hasn't made any egregious errors yet, the biggest issue is there is nothing at all to keep them in check. Should they do something illogical, there's nothing to point them back in the right direction like the computers did for the BCS.

The flaw with the AP Poll was exposed when a sportswriter purposely left Alabama off of his final ballot and cost us a National Title in the Seventies...

Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!