Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

selmaborntidefan · Jul 14, 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

What this has exposed is the reality of how UTTERLY MEANINGLESS any pre-November ranking truly is. This was not always true. Back in the day if you began in the top five and went unbeaten, you were going to a really high paying bowl game and might possibly win the national title. That system was inherently wrong and endowed the voters with a mantle of infallibility they never possessed because they often had to decide who was number one with competing resumes but no game. When you only have to get the top four, you can actually make a mistake, and it will play out fine on the field IF it was a mistake.

selmaborntidefan · Jul 14, 2018

Valley View said:
IMO expanding the playoff is only going to benefit teams who most likely don't deserve to be there in the first place.

Valley View,

I see you're newer here, but this almost sounds verbatim like it was lifted from krazy's passionate arguments in favor of the BCS in 2011. Seriously, it's like it's a word-for-word quote of an accurate point he made over and over again.

And his central point was absolutely correct - expanding this to 8 or 16 teams as patently absurd.

selmaborntidefan · Jul 14, 2018

81usaf92 said:
You are combining all arguments into 1, and not accurately illustrating the 3 people who said 6’s opinion.

I think all 3 said pretty clearly that they would only be in favor of 6 if Super conferences happen and not do it now.

To be fair to teamplayer, I didn't exactly pick up on that nuance in this particular thread, but I also didn't read every single word very carefully, either.

There will always be debate, but to me the best thing is we have not had anything resembling 1966 or - if one is a fan of Syracuse - 1987.

I'm reading Bill James's 2001 book that ranks MLB players by position as well as the top 100 all-time ("Historical Baseball Abstract"). He goes into a lot of details with different stuff, and the part I was reading yesterday he pointed out about changes in baseball (he pointed out this happens in every sport) that created things we accept now as obvious but weren't part of the growing process of the games. He cites - using KU college basketball as an example (he's from Lawrence, KS) - college b-ball adding the three second lane violation and the three-point shot as ways to offset automatic dominance by the tall guys (even though the sport is still mostly a tall guy sport). What he touched in some detail is the length of games nowadays and how there was no way in 1880 for the original baseball rule writers to realize that the stolen base would become a valuable asset, leading to pitchers throwing 857 times to first base to keep the runner close. He also then notes that the pre-2018 rule on mound visits came about because at one time there wasn't one. Managers could visit the mound 30 times per game. Of course, when games began at 1 pm during the day and there were no lights.......they had a lot of ties and "never completed" games.

My central point being the need to fix obvious problems. College football, of course, has been way too slow addressing the problem of crowning an undisputed champion, but they have gotten there.

Here's a funny one for you. Back in 1990, the World Cup was on, and there were an unusually large number of games that ended in a shootout. In fact, BOTH semi-finals ended with the penalty shootout. More than one American (including some sportswriters) whined and complained about it, "This is a stupid way to determine a winner of the world championship." To which my reply (with my strong European soccer background from youth guiding me): "Yeah, what they should do instead is have about 60 people VOTE on the top 20 teams, set up exhibition games where the top two teams don't even play each other, and then when they end with the same record or about the same, let the 60 people VOTE on who wins the championship. THAT would be the American way, right?"

And most of them got it. At least the one person who didn't, all I had to do was say, "Hey, at least they actually determined the winner on the field. It isn't the best way, but at least each team gets a fair and equal chance."

selmaborntidefan · Jul 16, 2018

RollTide_HTTR said:
Maybe. But you're going to have to beat a bunch of good teams to do so. And at that point maybe you do deserve it

I "get" this argument, but it goes back to B1G's repetitive and accurate assertion: the parity gap in college football is a completely different animal from the NFL.
In the NFL - even before Plan B or free agency - two teams could be 6-10 and 4-12 and make the Super Bowl the very next year while the preseason favorite could slip
from 12-4 to 7-9 (1981 btw - 49ers, Bengals, and Falcons).

College football has always been "the eye test" up to a point. Nobody seriously suggests 1998 Tulane was in the same universe as the Vols team that won the national title. In fact, Tommy Bowden - the HEAD COACH at Tulane, mind you - even said that while his team's unbeaten season was a great accomplishment, he had coached in the SEC, and objected to the idea that Tulane was within ten zip codes of the Vols as a team. (One only wishes the clown car from UCF would do the same). Bowden said he himself could not vote his team number one or even argue they belonged in a playoff because he had observed the SEC grind firsthand.

So your point is conceded. YES, if UCF got into the CFB playoff, it is certainly possible they could have beaten UGA and Alabama in back to back games, and this would elevate their schedule as well as make them champions. The problem, of course, is that we can look at what we see on the field and figuring out at least two and usually three (and sometimes all four) teams is not very difficult. UCF nor anyone else (Boise St, Utah, TCU in the pre-Big 12 days) "deserves" to get into the playoff because they routed a schedule that Alabama's second-string would have gone undefeated against.

(Note: I realize you did not specify UCF, I just use them as the most recent thing).

The argument against expansion in CFB is that the gap between teams 1 and 16 in CFB is MILES longer than the gap between the NFL's 1 and 32. Hell, the gap in the SEC is Alabama/Auburn/Georgia and then a long descent to whoever is next best. In 2016, when we came within a play of beating Clemson, we were unbeaten but there wasn't a single other team in the SEC with FEWER than four losses.

While it's theoretically possible for a Boise St to win the big two games, they ought to have to actually play someone to get there, too.

81usaf92 · Jul 16, 2018

selmaborntidefan said:
I "get" this argument, but it goes back to B1G's repetitive and accurate assertion: the parity gap in college football is a completely different animal from the NFL.
In the NFL - even before Plan B or free agency - two teams could be 6-10 and 4-12 and make the Super Bowl the very next year while the preseason favorite could slip
from 12-4 to 7-9 (1981 btw - 49ers, Bengals, and Falcons).

College football has always been "the eye test" up to a point. Nobody seriously suggests 1998 Tulane was in the same universe as the Vols team that won the national title. In fact, Tommy Bowden - the HEAD COACH at Tulane, mind you - even said that while his team's unbeaten season was a great accomplishment, he had coached in the SEC, and objected to the idea that Tulane was within ten zip codes of the Vols as a team. (One only wishes the clown car from UCF would do the same). Bowden said he himself could not vote his team number one or even argue they belonged in a playoff because he had observed the SEC grind firsthand.

So your point is conceded. YES, if UCF got into the CFB playoff, it is certainly possible they could have beaten UGA and Alabama in back to back games, and this would elevate their schedule as well as make them champions. The problem, of course, is that we can look at what we see on the field and figuring out at least two and usually three (and sometimes all four) teams is not very difficult. UCF nor anyone else (Boise St, Utah, TCU in the pre-Big 12 days) "deserves" to get into the playoff because they routed a schedule that Alabama's second-string would have gone undefeated against.

(Note: I realize you did not specify UCF, I just use them as the most recent thing).

The argument against expansion in CFB is that the gap between teams 1 and 16 in CFB is MILES longer than the gap between the NFL's 1 and 32. Hell, the gap in the SEC is Alabama/Auburn/Georgia and then a long descent to whoever is next best. In 2016, when we came within a play of beating Clemson, we were unbeaten but there wasn't a single other team in the SEC with FEWER than four losses.

While it's theoretically possible for a Boise St to win the big two games, they ought to have to actually play someone to get there, too.

I still maintain if we went to 4 16 team super conferences and everyone else who didn’t make the 64 team league went FCS, you would solve a lot of problems. You would solve the conference champ and at large bid arguments

TomFromBama · Jul 16, 2018

selmaborntidefan said:
TomFromBama said:

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.

Click to expand...

The one that involved subjective human beings voting as 2/3 of the formula?????????

Yea, the one where EVERY Poll Ballot was DISCLOSED, and the public KNEW how every individual poll voter ranked the teams, AND that one where all the formulas were set IN ADVANCE and PUBLICLY DISCLOSED.

Compare that to today, when "subjective human beings" are (allegedly) 100% of the "formula" - except THERE IS NO FORMULA! At least not any "Formula" that's publicly disclosed.
AND all ballots are SECRET.
AND the Committee NEVER discloses how any member voted, how many votes were taken, who (if anyone) changed their votes,
OR what role ESPiN had in influencing the Committee, how much data was provided - SECRETLY - to the committee on TV ratings projections,
etc.,
etc.,
etc.

Look, there's a million "gray areas" that are open to debate, and the debates are fun!

But honestly, the level of TRANSPARENCY of the BCS relative to that of the "Double Secret Committee" scam is an OBJECTIVE FACT.

Note, I never claimed the BCS was Absolutely "objective"! That's IMPOSSIBLE in CFB! That's only possible in a league like the NFL or MLB, etc.. They can use simple MATHEMATICS to make OBJECTIVE Playoff selections - CFB can't.

12 "mid major" wins are NOT Equal to 10 P-5 wins. Heck, even all P-5 wins aren't equal to all other P-5 wins - we all know this.

Just sayin'.....

B1GTide · Jul 16, 2018

81usaf92 said:
I still maintain if we went to 4 16 team super conferences and everyone else who didn’t make the 64 team league went FCS, you would solve a lot of problems. You would solve the conference champ and at large bid arguments

While I really like this idea, IMO it is like wishing for unicorns.

TomFromBama · Jul 16, 2018

UntouchableCrew said:
TCU in 2014 was a really good team (that completely undressed and humiliated Ole Miss in their Bowl Game) that ended up 6. I don't know if they "deserved" the playoff, but they certainly would have been a dangerous team had they made it. Frankly I think they were way better than Florida State that year.

Good point, and 2014 might be a decent example. So I agree.

But I also agree that FRU totally had NO BUSINESS in the P_ayoff that year - the ACC was paper thin, and statistically FRU was the ultimate "paper tiger."

So we can make the argument for 6 - the 4 that got in, PLUS TCU and maybe Baylor, maybe someone else - BUT - at the saem time, who's to say how either TCU or Baylor would have fared in the P_ayoffs? WE can NEVER really know for sure.

Who's to say O$U would have beaten TCU?
Who's to say we don't play better and beat O$U IF we could have drawn a "Bye" in round one with FSU? etc. etc. endless things we can't ever know.

But in it's own way - 2014 proved to me that the P_ayoff deal was a scam.
FSU got in 100% on "Name" and record (SAME as it would have been in the BCS, so how was this any "Better"???) - they only played ONE legit Top-10 team all year, and that was a 2 point squeaker. You can make the argument that "on paper" O$U had the better "Resume" coming in, and O$U was supposedly the 'Bubble" team, right?
O$U got in on their Market Value, if we are being honest about it. Sure, we can look back with hindsight and make the ex post facto argument - but no one knew any of that in December - all we knew is O$U was on a VERY HOT STREAK against (Lets be honest) mostly suspect competition.

TomFromBama · Jul 16, 2018

selmaborntidefan said:
NoNC4Tubs said:

Awesome post, Tom!

I have always 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...

Click to expand...

And we'd have that except......Boise State and TCU......2010.........

Respectfully, I'm not sure I see your point?

The week 15 BCS Poll in 2010, the one that set the Title game (and would have set the Playoff had their been one) Was:
1 - barn - 13-0* - SEC Champ*
2 - Oregon 12-0 - PAC Champ
3 - TCU - 12-0 - Big-12 Champ
4 - Stanford - 11-1 -PAC runner up.

#5 was 11-1 Wisconsin, B1G co-champ with #9 Mich. St. (even though Mich.St won head to head).

Boise St. was ranked #10 - 11-1, having lost to WAC champions Nevada (though the WAC declared them "co-champs")

Are you suggesting #10 Boise St. should have been in a field of 4 vs. Stanford OR Wisconsin?

B1GTide · Jul 16, 2018

TomFromBama · Jul 16, 2018

selmaborntidefan said:
It's not any different, no, but then there will be TWO whines:

1) who didn't make it AND
2) seeding

The "anti-playoff" folks were dead on right about one thing: it will EVENTUALLY expand in an effort to try and appease somebody.

Baseball expanded their playoff in 1969. What was good was we went from 2 pennant races to 4.

They expanded it in 1994 - and we went from four to ZERO.

And then in 2012, they added the "Let's make sure the Yankees-Red Sox-Dodgers make the playoff" game.

My argument from the beginning was that Mammon, having won full control of the game, will DICTATE that "Pandora's Box" never be closed. So while they will COUCH it in terms of "appeasing everyone", in reality the expansion(s) will simply be an attempt to generate more money.

Nearly every major sport in the WORLD that has a "Playoff" has EXPANDED their playoff at some point - some sports multiple times.
The NCAA Men's basketball tournament began with EIGHT (8) teams and the SOLEMN PROMISE that there was Zero Intent to diminish the great important of conference titles.

Seriously, you can look it up.

Basically, the 4 team P_ayoff scam has diluted the regular season (even if only so slightly) such that the "TOP" money-generating teams USUALLY get one "Mulligan" and can still make the _racket.

By the time we get to EIGHT teams (and I'm sure we WILL), Two loss teams will be COMMON in the P_ayoffs, and the "Argument" will be whether a THREE loss Ohio $tate, Alabama or Notre Dame "Deserves" to be in the Field of 8.

81usaf92 · Jul 16, 2018

TomFromBama said:
Respectfully, I'm not sure I see your point?

The week 15 BCS Poll in 2010, the one that set the Title game (and would have set the Playoff had their been one) Was:
1 - barn - 13-0* - SEC Champ*
2 - Oregon 12-0 - PAC Champ
3 - TCU - 12-0 - Big-12 Champ
4 - Stanford - 11-1 -PAC runner up.

#5 was 11-1 Wisconsin, B1G co-champ with #9 Mich. St. (even though Mich.St won head to head).

Boise St. was ranked #10 - 11-1, having lost to WAC champions Nevada (though the WAC declared them "co-champs")

Are you suggesting #10 Boise St. should have been in a field of 4 vs. Stanford OR Wisconsin?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Fiesta_Bowl

TomFromBama · Jul 16, 2018

81usaf92 said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Fiesta_Bowl

Another ex post facto argument - no one can possibly consider events in the future when making a decision, because the future events didn't happen yet.

And this argument also depends on transitive properties that don't exist. Would Boise have beaten TCU if TCU cared about the game???

(See Alabama and Utah in the 2008/09 Sugar Bowl) - it proves NOTHING.

TomFromBama · Jul 16, 2018

selmaborntidefan said:
I'm not sure if this is a lame attempt to be the inverse of Stephen Colbert's character or if you really don't have access to other sites...

Now, how many examples do I have to get to prove this is just flat out wrong?

Once would be sufficent! And I'm still Waiting!!! LOL!!!!

selmaborntidefan said:
Remember - you said ANY era:

No. That's NOT what I said. I said - and I quote: "In Almost any year of ANY prior era,". Words do have meanings.

selmaborntidefan said:
Associated Press Pre-Bowl Champions
1950 Oklahoma lost the last game to Bryant's Kentucky team - still won it all
1951 Tennessee did the same
1964 Alabama did the same

Ok, my fault for not being more precise, but NOW you are totally making an APPLES AND ORANGES Augment, and I gotta call you on it, because you are using games played AFTER THE NC WAS SELECTED, and you know you it. This is a rhetorical FAIL, and you know it is.

selmaborntidefan said:
AP Post-Bowl Champions
1993 - Florida State lost to Notre Dame head-to-head (while you did put in the caveat of the other teams having similar losses, the fact remains that BC beating Notre Dame didn't somehow turn the FSU loss into a win.....but it did in the polls)

ONE example in what? 40 something years???? FAIL yet again!!!

selmaborntidefan said:
UPI Pre-Bowl Champions
1973 - no words even necessary, lost the last game

Once again, a disingenuous argument because you KNOW the UPI selected their NC before the bowl games were played.

Honestly, I expected better from you. Gotta say I'm honestly disappointed.

selmaborntidefan said:
BCS
2003 - Oklahoma loses the Big 12 title game in a 35-7 rout to Kansas St...and then plays for the national championship vs LSU

Again, I have to stand on the meaning of the "Almost any other year". One example (you forgot Nebr. in 2001 - so two examples) in the entire Coalition-BCA-BCS era isn't exactly a tidal wave.

selmaborntidefan said:
In light of their SoS being higher than ours (esp once you add the Wisky game), the fact they would have won their conference, and the fact they would have a 12-1 record vs our 11-1 record, OF COURSE they would have gone, and there's not a Tide fan alive who could have reasonably claimed otherwise - and it has nothing to do with money.

.....................

You just forgot a key detail, however.......if Ohio State had beaten Oklahoma then the Sooners would have had TWO LOSSES...so even under your scenario, it is likely that Alabama gets in the playoff at the expense of OU rather than Ohio State.

You keep wanting to say team X got a "mulligan" but that only applies if other teams ALSO lose. If you have four unbeatens among the four major conferences then guess what? If UGA had beaten Auburn the first time, OU beat Iowa State, Wisky beat Ohio State......and Clemson beat Syracuse.....we wouldn't have gotten any sort of mulligan, and we wouldn't have gone in that scenario, even though everyone in the Cheeze state knows we would have pole axed the Badgers.
...................
A mulligan isn't an accurate parallel because here it's dependent on other factors.
...............
Your scenario won't work because if Ohio State beats OU then the SOONERS have two losses.

YES, I'm wrong here and you are correct. :redface:
BAD EXAMPLE on my part because OU wound up in the P_ayoffs but doesn't make it with the loss to O$U.

YOU are CORRECT in the example I gave.

Change "OU" to "Michigan State" and my example holds up.

selmaborntidefan said:
Well, let's see how often teams got - to use your word - mulligans......

1998 - Florida State (for some reason their one loss didn't count but Ohio State's did)
2000 - Florida St (for some reason their one loss didn't count but the ones by Miami, Washington, Va Tech, and Oregon St did)
2001 - Nebraska (for some reason their one loss by 26 points didn't count but Oregon's by 7 to Stanford did)
2003 - Oklahoma (for some reason their egregious loss didn't count.....)
2006 - Florida (for some reason their loss didn't count but those of Louisville and Michigan did)
2007 - LSU (they got two mulligans but Kansas only had one loss and Hawaii none)
2008 - Oklahoma (their loss to Texas didn't count but Texas's to Tech did)
2011 - Alabama (their loss to LSU didn't count but Boise St, Okie St and Stanford did)
2012 - Alabama (their loss didn't count but Oregon and K State's did)
2013 - Auburn (their loss to LSU didn't count but the ones by Alabama, Mich St, Baylor, and Ohio State did)

Well, in point of fact I was talking most about LATE losses, which is why I said, and I quote: "In Almost any year of ANY prior era, that late loss puts us OUT of the NC equation."

How many of the losses above were after mid-November?
I've said repeatedly that 2001 and 2003 were the two Grievous MISTAKES of the BCS era, So bad that resulted in changes to the BCS formula - and pretty much every sportswriter at the time criticized both.

2006 Florida lost in Mid October if memory serves?
Our losses in 2011 and 2012 were both before the last couple weeks of the season - and 2011 was by 3 in OT, not a normal "Loss".
2013 aub didn't lose in November either, did they?

selmaborntidefan said:
What happens now is there IS no actual mulligan because we're not trying to fit three one-loss teams into ONE slot.

So I disagree with your conclusion.

And that's fine. But it would be more fun and more worthwhile if you'd do it with rational arguments. Not making "Apples and Oranges" comparisons that really don't prove anything.

81usaf92 · Jul 16, 2018

TomFromBama said:
Another ex post facto argument - no one can possibly consider events in the future when making a decision, because the future events didn't happen yet.

And this argument also depends on transitive properties that don't exist. Would Boise have beaten TCU if TCU cared about the game???

(See Alabama and Utah in the 2008/09 Sugar Bowl) - it proves NOTHING.

TCU and Boise were both BCS busters, and they (along with Cincinnati) were one second away (2009 Big XII cg) from playing Alabama in the NCG. Point is the NCAA came close enough to really see a BCS buster NC to create a system that absolutely prevented it.

selmaborntidefan · Jul 16, 2018

TomFromBama said:
Good point, and 2014 might be a decent example. So I agree.

But I also agree that FRU totally had NO BUSINESS in the P_ayoff that year - the ACC was paper thin, and statistically FRU was the ultimate "paper tiger."

If you mean FSU (FRU???), you actually think we should exclude a team that is:
a) defending national champions
b) unbeaten
c) won 29 games in a row

???????

I'm sorry, but I can't go with that. The fact Oregon blew them out doesn't make them any more undeserving than blowout victims Michigan State or Ohio State.

TomFromBama said:
So we can make the argument for 6 - the 4 that got in, PLUS TCU and maybe Baylor, maybe someone else - BUT - at the saem time, who's to say how either TCU or Baylor would have fared in the P_ayoffs? WE can NEVER really know for sure.

The message sent was to the Big 12 - "don't try to game the system with specious awards like co-conference champions."

TomFromBama said:
Who's to say O$U would have beaten TCU?

Me. OSU would have killed TCU.

TomFromBama said:
Who's to say we don't play better and beat O$U IF we could have drawn a "Bye" in round one with FSU? etc. etc. endless things we can't ever know.

We were up 21-6. This historical revisionism of "we didn't play well" is ludicrous. We didn't CALL plays well and then we didn't execute, and we let a good team hang around.

TomFromBama said:
But in it's own way - 2014 proved to me that the P_ayoff deal was a scam.
FSU got in 100% on "Name" and record (SAME as it would have been in the BCS, so how was this any "Better"???) - they only played ONE legit Top-10 team all year, and that was a 2 point squeaker. You can make the argument that "on paper" O$U had the better "Resume" coming in, and O$U was supposedly the 'Bubble" team, right?

If you want to ignore 29 wins in a row and defending national champions, yes. I still hold to the notion of "to be the man, you gotta beat the man - or at least the man who did beat the man."

TomFromBama said:
O$U got in on their Market Value, if we are being honest about it. Sure, we can look back with hindsight and make the ex post facto argument - but no one knew any of that in December - all we knew is O$U was on a VERY HOT STREAK against (Lets be honest) mostly suspect competition.

They mauled Michigan State, who finished #5.
They deep-sixed #13 Wisconsin, 59-0.

And when you look at the fact that Michigan State beat Baylor, well, the love for the Buckeyes was fully justified.

RollTide_HTTR · Jul 16, 2018

TomFromBama said:
Basically, the 4 team P_ayoff scam has diluted the regular season (even if only so slightly) such that the "TOP" money-generating teams USUALLY get one "Mulligan" and can still make the _racket.

By the time we get to EIGHT teams (and I'm sure we WILL), Two loss teams will be COMMON in the P_ayoffs, and the "Argument" will be whether a THREE loss Ohio $tate, Alabama or Notre Dame "Deserves" to be in the Field of 8.

I guess I'm just not afraid of this scenario. Why is it the end of the world if a 2 or 3 loss team is in the playoffs?

81usaf92 · Jul 16, 2018

RollTide_HTTR said:
I guess I'm just not afraid of this scenario. Why is it the end of the world if a 2 or 3 loss team is in the playoffs?

Because the vast majority on here are scared that it’s a step closer to being NFL rules, and many believe college traditions would die with it.

Personally I’m open for a 2 loss team if they are deserving.

RollTide_HTTR · Jul 16, 2018

81usaf92 said:
Because the vast majority on here are scared that it’s a step closer to being NFL rules, and many believe college traditions would die with it.

It would be closer to the NFL but what traditions would die?

81usaf92 · Jul 16, 2018

RollTide_HTTR said:
It would be closer to the NFL but what traditions would die?

It’s like everything else folks get it in their mind that the world is coming to an end because of change.

Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Suspended

TideFans Legend

Suspended

Suspended

TideFans Legend

Suspended

TideFans Legend

Suspended

Suspended

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!