Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

TomFromBama

Suspended
May 14, 2003
1,142
0
0
Lower Alabama
That's a bogus statement. We who disagree with you may be wrong, but you are presumptuous to say that we are being dishonest. I believed at the time that OSU was the right call (I don't care for OSU at all, much much less in 2014 before I became familiar with B1GTide. In fact, I wanted them out.). Yes, Baylor and TCU had a legitimate claim, but so did OSU. A choice had to be made - IMO, it was the right one. I care nothing about market value or tv ratings or OSU or the Big 10. I don't think OSU got in on market value at all but on performance (most deserving) and potential (best team). You don't even allow that the Committee, some of whom are experts, very likely could see things that you cannot. But rather you charge them with motives that you, nor anyone else, can ever know, because it supports your jaded view of their character and agenda. Is it possible that they are corrupt? Certainly, but there is no evidence to indicate that.

You have referred to your posts not garnering much respect. Well part of the reason is that you do not show much to those with whom you disagree. You charge them with dishonesty, ignoring the obvious, etc. There are other reasons but that is a tough one to overcome - and IMO, well deserved at this point.
Oh for crying out loud!!!! "If we are being honest about it" is a figure of speech and has never been remotely the same as saying, "You are a Liar". If you don't see the difference, well, I SINCERELY apologize!!!

But really - that's not what I meant, and it's not even remotely the common understanding of that off-handed phrase; which is rather frequently used in casual English discourse. It's about like saying "Frankly", which in no way implies a lack of candor on the part of any party to the discussion.

Look - You have an opinion, and you are entitled to it. Maybe some people here feel the same way towards me, .... who knows? Its sometimes difficult to tell.....

But as I've said many times, i don't post here to try to garner "fans" or get "brownie points" or gain admission to the "Cool Kids Club" or anything like that.

FWIW, and merely as an aside, the fact the we APPARENTLY AGREE that there ARE people on the committee who Can't POSSIBLY be described as "Experts" on College football is as telling indictment as could be imagined, IMO........
 

TomFromBama

Suspended
May 14, 2003
1,142
0
0
Lower Alabama
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.
My point in saying this was not so much to claim Florida Rape University (a/k/a FSU) should have been left out in 2014, though it's a decent argument, IMO. - BUT RATHER to point out the HYPOCRISY of one of THE Biggest arguments back in 2013/14 in favor of the "Double Secret Committee" - and that argument was that "Name" teams supposedly got boosted in the human polls based on REPUTATION rather than on MERIT.

We were TOLD that the Committee would be all about picking the "Best" teams regardless of "reputation".

YET - that's EXACTLY what happened in P_ayoff year 1 with FSU - they got in, at least in part, based on what they had accomplished the PRIOR year.

I don't have a HUGE problem with that - I'm just saying - its contrary to one of the popular arguments in favor of the committee model.
 

TomFromBama

Suspended
May 14, 2003
1,142
0
0
Lower Alabama
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?
To be clear, NONE of this is about "Morality" or "Ethics" or "Right and Wrong" - there's nothing More (or Less) "Moral" or "Fair" or "Right" about a 4 team playoff versus a 12 team playoff versus no playoff at all, and selecting champions by acclamation - each is equally "valid".

65 (or however many it is now) seems to be agreeable to most fans and "powers" involved in CBB. Who's to say the "Right" number in that sport is "bigger" or "smaller"?

It's simply a philosophical question: How "should" you name a champion? And what does (or should) Constitute a "Champion"?

Is it being the "Best" when viewed in terms of the entire "Body of Work" staring in August and counting EVERYTHING that happens until the final whistle of the final game?
OR
Is it about being "Hot" when it "matters" then being the "Best" IN that ONE last game, regardless of whether they were worth a darn at any point prior to the Playoffs?

College Football (until Four years ago) occupied a UNIQUE position in all of American sports (& maybe all of world sports for that matter). It was the only "major" and nationally "popular" sport where EVERY GAME MATTERED.

Losing a close game, on the road, IN WEEK 2, against a National Powerhouse (like Nebraska was in 1977), MIGHT mean the difference between a National Championship Trophy and a runner up button. - which was the case for Alabama in 1977.
OR - for USCw, a fluke loss in October to an un-ranked Conference team, even though you beat the #1 ranked team just a couple weeks earlier, could be the difference between a consensus title vs. a split title. - it was for USCw in 1978.
Just as Alabama's early loss to that same USCw team in September 1978 was the difference for us between a consensus vs. a split title.

Every game mattered, even if the degree it mattered might vary from game to game and from year to year.

All I'm saying is, my PERSONAL PREFERENCE was any of the "Bad Old Systems" of the past. Even though Alabama ended up on the short end of the stick MANY, MANY times (Esp. in the Poll era) - I still felt like it was more fun for the fans.

Others disagree. And that's fine.

But for me, when a TWO Loss team can still count on a shot at a National Championship by winning their conference Title (or simply by being popular enough with the pollsters and the TV networks) - IMO what that means is that the Regular Season IS JUST NOT THAT IMPORTANT.
And when a THREE loss team can still get a shot at a NC, then IMO we are in "NBA Terrirotry" and the regular season means Practically NOTHING.

I just find that system less interesting - that's all.
 

TomFromBama

Suspended
May 14, 2003
1,142
0
0
Lower Alabama
I assume you're talking about the BCS here? Asking for clarification.
Yes, the BCS. Which, as I may have mentioned once or twice... ;) WAS IN FACT about as "objective" as could be imagined in the evaluation of something so VERY Subjective and difficult to evaluate as College Football.




That's because there is no formula. More on this in a moment.
And yet - the BCS IN POINT OF FACT DID HAVE A FORMULA.

No, it was not "Perfectly" objective, but it WAS very Transparent, (Which means it was subject to AUDIT to Test whether it's being applied fairly).

Objectivity is important, IMO, because ANY time you mix Large amounts of MONEY with Human Beings and SECRECY, you can be assured that Mischief WILL occur. We seem to understand this in the realm of Politics - hence the "sunshine" laws that we find in EVERY STATE and in the Federal Government.

Yet we seem to lose site of this FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE of human behavior when it comes to sports......



You mean it was ESPN that told the committee to pick Michigan State over Ohio State in 2015?
That's an odd choice for a network to make and harm its own interests.
Do you mean the same 2015 Michigan State team that lost only One game, by One Point, on the road, and didn't lose after the first week of November, then Beat O$U on the road AT Columbus, then won their Division AND the B1G Conference Championship Game, and in the process won TWICE against Top-5 ranked teams in their last three games of the regular season?

THAT Mich State team?

Yea, that's the one....... ;)



1) We know every single person on the committee.
2) We did not necessarily know who exactly was voting in the BCS. A lot of coaches have the SID or someone else do the vote in their name.
Regarding the BCS - we knew EXACTLY who was voting in the AP Poll, and how they voted. Then when the AP decided to stop participating, we knew the same thing for the Harris Interactive Poll.

We also knew exactly which Computer Polls were being used, and EXACTLY how the computer "consensus" was calculated.

Your complaint applies only to the "Coaches" Poll - BUT EVEN THERE - we knew that every final ballot WAS DISCLOSED. Maybe "Joey" the GA in the SID department is the guy actually filling out the ballot for "Coach" at State U. But "Coach" also knows that "HIS" ballot (at least his final ballot) WILL BE PUBLISHED, and if he votes his rival extra low out of spite, he's at least going to be exposed as having done it.....
That a "Darn" sight MORE Accountability than any member of the "Double Secret Committee" faces!!!!

I'm reminded of a novel I read some years ago. Part of the story was set inside a penitentiary. The prisoners set up their own informal "Prisoner's Court" to settle disputes rather than settling grievances by stabbing the other guy. The prisoners selected three judges, and the "judges' agreed in advance that every decision would be 2-1.

That way no one would be motivated to kill any of the judges, because they could never be sure which one voted against them.......




Here's the problem (and it's not just with you, Tom, it seems to permeate this board): the problem is that there IS NO FORMULA that can tell us in advance what will happen except if you're a major conference team and go undefeated, you go to the playoffs. A lot of fans and pundits don't seem to grasp the hard to grasp idea that the stated criteria of the CFB playoff committee ONLY is invoked if......

well, here's the key instruction:

. . . . .

You can't have a "formula" because as even the committee says, it's ART, not SCIENCE.
Look, I don't DISAGREE with what you are saying here - You are Right, SO FAR AS IT GOES.

But here's my point - IMO it is BEYOND RATIONAL DISPUTE that the decision about who gets "IN" versus who is left "OUT" - regardless of whether the "Bracket" is 2, or 4, of 65 - is a Decision with Multi-MILLION DOLLAR CONSEQUENCES - Perhaps even into the Hundreds of Millions if you include all the TV and marketing revenue. Do you agree?

But the premise you are forwarding is that we should trust 13 people, working under a cloak of absolute SECRECY, in a body that I (half) Jokingly call the "Double Secret Committee": A body that discloses NOTHING about it's process, it's rationale, it's rules, it's practices, or anything else OTHER than it's DECREES.

And that this SECRET System is just as Trustworthy, if not more so, than the BCS System - which included the opinions of
- SIX independent Computer Models,
- 19-20 NAMED Coaches (who we all "know") AND
- an Expert panel - not of 13 people working in secrecy, but of 115 NAMED Experts (who we all "know"), voting on ballots which were disclosed, in a poll operated by a KNOWN and RESPECTED Professional Market Research Company.

We could TEST the Coaches poll AND the Harris interactive Poll to see if the BCS calculated the right result for each team. We could also see if any specific Coaches or Harris "Experts" were making absurd votes.
We could test the Computer results in much the same way. And we knew the FORMULA already had a mechanism to limit the effect of absurd computer results.
AND,
We could TEST the final BCS poll to see if they tabulated and weighted each of the three components properly.

If some component or individual voter was out of whack, OR if some nefarious character in the back room of the BCS decided to CHANGE the actual BCS results for any reason, these things could be easily detected.

Compare that to the Committee.

Oh wait - that's right - we can't do ANY of that, can we. ALL we can do is "TRUST THEM"...... :biggrin2:

See my point?
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
I'm done Tom. Life is too short to follow the inconsistencies you keep presenting here.

You keep screaming about money, but the fact is that the committee chose Michigan St over Ohio St. If the head to head result mattered then your money argument regarding selection is moot.

You keep referring to a secret committee and yet we know every single person on the committee and those with a school affiliation have to sit out discussions involving their conference.

You keep saying the BCS had a formula, was better, etc, but you ignore the inconsistencies when I point them out. The committee you're disparaging actually took into account Mich St beating Ohio St; the computers plus voters did NOT take into account Miami beating Florida State in 2000 (or for that matter Washington beating Miami). The reason ignored the Penn State over Ohio State argument in 2016 is because - unlike computers programmed by humans - they actually watched the game and knew: a) it was a fluke; b) Penn State got blown out by Michigan as well.

I was for a four-team BCS, but I've already explained why they didn't give us that.


All I have to point out is this: the BCS flopped in year six when they picked Oklahoma for the national championship game, the height of absurdity. Well, Nebraska in 2001 was, actually, but that wasn't really the BCS' fault. Six years is twelve selections at two slots per year. The committee has already filled 16 slots - and hasn't screwed up like the BCS.

That data alone tells me which works better.

I'm done with the whole thing on this discussion because no matter what any of us here say:
a) the BCS is dead and never coming back
b) the playoff will inevitably expand.....might be 30 years from now, but it will
c) the teams the committee has chosen prove conclusively that nobody here regardless really knows how to predict their choices
d) nobody here has a clue who our starting QB is this fall no matter what they think or what their logic or "source" tells them
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
College Football (until Four years ago) occupied a UNIQUE position in all of American sports (& maybe all of world sports for that matter). It was the only "major" and nationally "popular" sport where EVERY GAME MATTERED.
I think Tidefans needs to put a new rule on the forum rules alongside the mentioning posts rule - "Anyone who uses the hackneyed cliche about 'every game mattered' gets an Aubie avatar until the Second Coming.

Use the SAME logic you're using below and then try to tell me how I can't use that same argument for the playoff...



Losing a close game, on the road, IN WEEK 2, against a National Powerhouse (like Nebraska was in 1977), MIGHT mean the difference between a National Championship Trophy and a runner up button. - which was the case for Alabama in 1977.
But Miami lost the opener, 28-3, in 1983 and won the national title....they even jumped a team that beat the team that beat Miami, played a tougher schedule, and went into the games ranked higher.

And part of what hurt us in 1977 that a lot of fans here don't want to talk about is SoS...

OR - for USCw, a fluke loss in October to an un-ranked Conference team, even though you beat the #1 ranked team just a couple weeks earlier, could be the difference between a consensus title vs. a split title. - it was for USCw in 1978.
Just as Alabama's early loss to that same USCw team in September 1978 was the difference for us between a consensus vs. a split title.
You kinda forgot the part that Arizona St may not have been ranked when they played, but they ended the year at 19, so it's not like they were a bad team.

Every game mattered, even if the degree it mattered might vary from game to game and from year to year.
But how is this different NOW? What game doesn't matter NOW that mattered before?

Can you look with a straight face and say the 2003 Oklahoma-Kansas State game mattered AT ALL?
If OU won, they played for the national title.
If OU lost, they played for the national title.

How can anyone who uses this "every game counts" argument say it mattered? "Oh, but that meant that Kansas St won the Big 12 title." OK, but we can use that reductionist approach to every single game.


But for me, when a TWO Loss team can still count on a shot at a National Championship by winning their conference Title (or simply by being popular enough with the pollsters and the TV networks) - IMO what that means is that the Regular Season IS JUST NOT THAT IMPORTANT.
the 2007 LSU Tigers say, "Hi, Tom!!!"


And when a THREE loss team can still get a shot at a NC, then IMO we are in "NBA Terrirotry" and the regular season means Practically NOTHING.

I just find that system less interesting - that's all.
Can you give me the name of a single three-loss team that has ever even been considered for the CFB playoff? I can't think of one.

How many two-loss teams? Basically, Auburn last year and perhaps Ohio State, even though the committee made it clear that they didn't spend very long on that issue.

And Auburn's case was totally unique in that it involved a rematch of a one-loss and a two-loss team AND...what you had below them was not close enough to overcome the perception.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
But really - that's not what I meant, and it's not even remotely the common understanding of that off-handed phrase; which is rather frequently used in casual English discourse. It's about like saying "Frankly", which in no way implies a lack of candor on the part of any party to the discussion.
I may have overreacted to the "To be honest..." comment. But it seemed in keeping with my view of your attitude toward other posters, which was my primary point. And you certainly do continuously question the honesty and integrity of the CFP Committee without the slightest evidence. Actually you don't just allege, but accuse them of making their choices based on money or name (I assume you indirectly mean money.). People who are chosen partly on their reputation for integrity. IMO, they have demonstrated it. On what basis? By primary proof - the choices they have made.

FWIW, and merely as an aside, the fact the we APPARENTLY AGREE that there ARE people on the committee who Can't POSSIBLY be described as "Experts" on College football is as telling indictment as could be imagined, IMO........
Regarding the inclusion of non-expert members of the Committee, neither do I consider any media members to be experts when they participated in the BCS. And frankly many coaches abdicate their selections to their SIDs, i.e., propagandists :). To be fair they probably do make the choice themselves for the selection that matters. But how much time are they willing or are able to put into it? IMO, not enough to validate their potential as an expert. Nor do I consider computer models to be expert. Who provides the analysis for the algorithm? That is who is providing the computers' "expertise" to the process. My guess is that the logic includes almost no sophisticated analysis of teams. Probably some combo of w/l and SOS. In contrast all of the Committee members are very well versed in college football, though I only consider the coaches as experts, however flawed they may be. All of the members study the season in detail, unlike few participants in the BCS did. There were probably some of Harris poll coaches who studied in detail, but no other participants. Their input would have been a % of 1/3 of the selection input vs 100% on the Committee.

As an aside: I do share your aversion to multiple loss teams being included that has been expressed in other posts. Though I can buy an occasional exception like 07 LSU, 17 pre SECC game AU, 17 OSU if there had been no Bama, etc. Though it would have pained me to see any win it. To this point there have been none selected.
 
Last edited:

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
There's been discussion about the Big 64 (not to be confused with the 7Up Double Gulp).


SEC - 14
Big 10 - 14
Big 12 - 10
ACC - 15
Pac 12 - 12

There's 65 teams for you. Football only. We create four monster conferences and exclude Rutgers.

16 teams each - East, Southeast, Midwest, West

GENERAL OVERVIEW - you'd have to move some teams but...
Southeast - current SEC minus Missouri plus Ga Tech and Louisville and TCU
East - current ACC setup minus Ga Tech and Louisville plus Maryland and Penn State and WVA
Midwest - current B1G minus Rutgers, PSU and Maryland plus Iowa St, Kansas, K State, Colorado, Missouri
West - current Big 12 minus WVA and TCU plus the Pac 12 minus Colorado (and whatever I've left out)

Split them into two divisions each.

Reduce the regular season we currently have by two games. (We'd eliminate the Colo St and Fresno games from last year).
That leaves you with ten games.

Seven game round robin in your own division.
One cupcake game (mercer, whoever, keep those schools going)
One cross division game, rotates. Two consecutive years, home and home. Teams will have option to play at neutral site if both agree.
One game that is determined by the previous year's final ranking (incentive to not lose) - for example, the season ends and Kansas is 0-11
again. #64 Kansas plays next September on the road at #1 Alabama. This would keep some of it interesting fighting for rankings down there
around 27 to 35 since it's the difference in a home game and a road game.
"Relegation" - not in the classic sense but in the sense that the bottom two teams with a combined two-year record flip divisions. For example,
after the home and home of the first two years, Ole Miss moves to the East and plays an East schedule and rotation is determined for the next
two years based on who hasn't played.

The season must end the week before Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving weekend is conference championship weekend. Hell, you can play one each day - Th/F/Sat/Sun.

The four winners are automatically in the playoffs. Yes, even if 7-6 South Carolina beats unbeaten Auburn (2010), the Gamecocks go.
Enter the committee. Committee chooses the FOUR OTHER TEAMS. There's no conference champ "requirement" because they're in. The
committee picks the four best teams not in the tournament and seeds them. (The conf champs are seeded 1-4).The opening round is held at the home campus of the higher seed. The opening round game is held on the Saturday AFTER final exams (around December 14) and is the official kickoff to the bowl season.

The semi-finals are like now; the losers of the first round may also be selected for bowl games. If the Capitol One Bowl wants Team X who lost, they can select them. Keeps the bowls around and about as useless as they already are.

Championship the Monday week after January 1 weekend. Just like now.

You can even have the committee selection show with the buffoons sitting there like game show contestants on "Hollywood Squares" so everyone knows how they vote. Doesn't matter. Points are totaled and you have seeds 5-8 playing road games. To make it better, we can have the committee do the vote where they compile the totals (they know who 1-4 has to be just not where ranked) so none of this "I'd like to see X play Y."


Now, I'm sure 1/2 the board can come up with a dozen objections, but I think what I said here is eminently reasonable. It settles it on the field, it even guarantees every "conference" at least one bid (even if they're undeserving flacks), and you think the ratings wouldn't pop for that Turkey Day thing? Granted, you would probably run into the NFL thing, but you could still put 2 on Saturday and be fine. Or 2 on F and 2 on Sat.


This proposal will henceforth be known as the Selma Compromise.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
There's been discussion about the Big 64 (not to be confused with the 7Up Double Gulp).


SEC - 14
Big 10 - 14
Big 12 - 10
ACC - 15
Pac 12 - 12

There's 65 teams for you. Football only. We create four monster conferences and exclude Rutgers.

16 teams each - East, Southeast, Midwest, West

GENERAL OVERVIEW - you'd have to move some teams but...
Southeast - current SEC minus Missouri plus Ga Tech and Louisville and TCU
East - current ACC setup minus Ga Tech and Louisville plus Maryland and Penn State and WVA
Midwest - current B1G minus Rutgers, PSU and Maryland plus Iowa St, Kansas, K State, Colorado, Missouri
West - current Big 12 minus WVA and TCU plus the Pac 12 minus Colorado (and whatever I've left out)

Split them into two divisions each.

Reduce the regular season we currently have by two games. (We'd eliminate the Colo St and Fresno games from last year).
That leaves you with ten games.

Seven game round robin in your own division.
One cupcake game (mercer, whoever, keep those schools going)
One cross division game, rotates. Two consecutive years, home and home. Teams will have option to play at neutral site if both agree.
One game that is determined by the previous year's final ranking (incentive to not lose) - for example, the season ends and Kansas is 0-11
again. #64 Kansas plays next September on the road at #1 Alabama. This would keep some of it interesting fighting for rankings down there
around 27 to 35 since it's the difference in a home game and a road game.
"Relegation" - not in the classic sense but in the sense that the bottom two teams with a combined two-year record flip divisions. For example,
after the home and home of the first two years, Ole Miss moves to the East and plays an East schedule and rotation is determined for the next
two years based on who hasn't played.

The season must end the week before Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving weekend is conference championship weekend. Hell, you can play one each day - Th/F/Sat/Sun.

The four winners are automatically in the playoffs. Yes, even if 7-6 South Carolina beats unbeaten Auburn (2010), the Gamecocks go.
Enter the committee. Committee chooses the FOUR OTHER TEAMS. There's no conference champ "requirement" because they're in. The
committee picks the four best teams not in the tournament and seeds them. (The conf champs are seeded 1-4).The opening round is held at the home campus of the higher seed. The opening round game is held on the Saturday AFTER final exams (around December 14) and is the official kickoff to the bowl season.

The semi-finals are like now; the losers of the first round may also be selected for bowl games. If the Capitol One Bowl wants Team X who lost, they can select them. Keeps the bowls around and about as useless as they already are.

Championship the Monday week after January 1 weekend. Just like now.

You can even have the committee selection show with the buffoons sitting there like game show contestants on "Hollywood Squares" so everyone knows how they vote. Doesn't matter. Points are totaled and you have seeds 5-8 playing road games. To make it better, we can have the committee do the vote where they compile the totals (they know who 1-4 has to be just not where ranked) so none of this "I'd like to see X play Y."


Now, I'm sure 1/2 the board can come up with a dozen objections, but I think what I said here is eminently reasonable. It settles it on the field, it even guarantees every "conference" at least one bid (even if they're undeserving flacks), and you think the ratings wouldn't pop for that Turkey Day thing? Granted, you would probably run into the NFL thing, but you could still put 2 on Saturday and be fine. Or 2 on F and 2 on Sat.


This proposal will henceforth be known as the Selma Compromise.
Not bad. I’m sure someone is going to say “ If Alabama is 9-0 going into the iron bowl then why should they try so hard and risk injury? The REGULAR SEASON SHOULD MATTER!” If your system has conference champs being seeds 1-4 then the season clearly does matter because you could potentially be going across the country for the first round in a true road game instead of having someone coming to your house.
 
Last edited:

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.