Results 41 to 80 of 239
Thread: The BCS is a SHAM!
12-06-2011, 09:44 AM #41
The computer rankings are a much better indicator of where a team should be ranked than any of the polls (the coaches poll being the worst due to the inherent biases built in) that use the "eye test" especially since most people don't actually get to use their eyes on more than a handful of games each week.Slowsilver: They did a study at Baseball Prospectus and found out that bionic parts increase WARP23 by 6.7% on average. Back in the steroid era, steroids only increased WARP23 by 4.6%
12-06-2011, 09:49 AM #42
They are just trying to figure out a way to not lose any money which is why IMO they will never get rid of the bowl games...the bowls will be a consolation...even the Rose bowl, but to win it all will have added meaning when all is said and done.
It is ALL about money...flat out."And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity and force."
12-06-2011, 09:53 AM #43Slowsilver: They did a study at Baseball Prospectus and found out that bionic parts increase WARP23 by 6.7% on average. Back in the steroid era, steroids only increased WARP23 by 4.6%
12-06-2011, 09:58 AM #44MotownSports Fan
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- NW OH
12-06-2011, 09:59 AM #45Slowsilver: They did a study at Baseball Prospectus and found out that bionic parts increase WARP23 by 6.7% on average. Back in the steroid era, steroids only increased WARP23 by 4.6%
12-06-2011, 10:05 AM #46
12-06-2011, 10:05 AM #47
2012 Adopted Tiger -- RHP Luis Marte
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Delta Township
- Blog Entries
12-06-2011, 10:34 AM #48
12-06-2011, 10:35 AM #49
...but you could have an eight team playoff where the higher ranked teams have home games. You play those games during the week at their home stadium. That would guarantee tickets would be sold and there would be good attendance - I for sure would buy tickets to see MSU host a playoff football game in December...yes, "student-athletes" would miss more school...but seriously who cares...
Then on the weekends and over the holidays you have the other bowl games that fans are used to attending.
This would, however, completely kill the whole concept of a Rose Bowl...you would never have the top Big Ten/Pac 12 teams in there...Obama '12
2012 MSU Football Unofficial Adopt-A-Spartan - Larry Caper
12-06-2011, 10:38 AM #50
Close doesn't really matter, if they are #2 they are #2. We don't know what would happen in an OSU-LSU matchup. We already know what happened in an Alabama-LSU. If the result of the next game changes at best we now have two #1's.
12-06-2011, 10:43 AM #51
Is the NC a "post season" game or just the final "regular season" game?
If you consider it the post season, then the winner on Jan 9th is the National Champion. If there is a rematch in the Super Bowl, the team that won the regular season matchup doesn't get to share the trophy should they lose in the championship.
Conversely, if you view it as the final regular season game, whats the ****ing point?Every time you play a hand of you poker you wanna run through a mental check list. Head Position Hand Position Neck Position Breathing Posture. More than 25 items. It's a lot. And that why I've come up with a handy mnemonic device. Just one word: HPHPNPBPECMSPAMDCPAFTSTTL. It's easy.
12-06-2011, 10:57 AM #52
If the #3 team wins the championship game, are you advocating crowning them, or will they share the title with LSU?
12-06-2011, 11:05 AM #53
You could have a four team playoff that doesn't kill the bowl system. It wouldn't be much of a playoff but it could work. You could also extend the season farther into January and get it done as well. But anything that covers 3 weeks or more (6+ teams) is going to conflict with and draw attention away from the bowl games.
I think any playoff system kills the Rose Bowl. Really, the BCS put the Rose Bowl on life support already (not necessarily a bad thing IMO).
12-06-2011, 11:14 AM #54
Problem with playoff as well is, if the national championship game is at neutral site, fans only have a week or two (probably two - have to imagine they have two week window to built anticipation between semi final and championshiop) to buy up their school's allotment. They'd all be bought in the end, but it'd just be a little hectic. That's probably a small issue though - the Super Bowl is always full.Obama '12
2012 MSU Football Unofficial Adopt-A-Spartan - Larry Caper
12-06-2011, 11:15 AM #55
We don't know what will happen in Alabama-LSU. We do know what already happened. A re-match puts priority on the order of the victories (the first win counts for less than the second) which is silly. We have dramtically less information about the LSU-OSU matchup (no head to head, zero common opponents)
We also have more evidence that LSU is better than Alabama than we do that Alabama is better than OSU. That means that not only is the LSU-Alabama "championship" game silly from the start, but it also means we've passed up an option that is at least as reasonable in order to get the silly game.
12-06-2011, 11:20 AM #56
12-06-2011, 11:33 AM #57
12-06-2011, 11:47 AM #58
You keep all the other major bowls, but the significance of the bigger ones will lose a little cache..when 4 or 8 of the best teams will be playing in the playoff....so a team like Michigan that continually went to the Rose Bowl would on some years end up making the top 8 and playing for the national title, but if they lose then they get nothing, but if they are say the 9-15 or so and end up playing in the rose bowl and win then you still have the rose bowl, but it will just not mean as much as it does now....it will still mean something...just not as much.
It adds more excitement for the national title because if you lose you get nothing, but if you win...man it would mean soo much more IMO."And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity and force."
12-06-2011, 11:57 AM #59
Other than that you essentially are saying exactly what I said. The minor bowls go away, the major bowls become the NIT (though you just say they don't mean as much). How has the NIT held up since the NCAA tournament started out.
I'm not saying this as a good or bad thing. I'm pretty ambivalent about the bowls overall. But I don't think both can coexist in any way beyond the way the NIT and NCAA tourney do now.
12-06-2011, 12:14 PM #60
It adds teams to the mix of the other lower end bowl games and makes the actual champion more exciting. I do not think those things will lead to the BCS becoming the NIT...simply because of the number of teams that will still be involved in the BCS...you are only taking out 4-8 teams."And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity and force."
12-06-2011, 12:22 PM #61
It seems weird that a team that not only couldn't win its conference, but also it's own division is in the national championship game. I understand why they are there, but it just seems strange.
I am of the group that says Alabama had its chance and failed. Someone else should get a shot. That said, I understand that this is the system being used now and that's why it happened.
If I was a voter and had to make a selection, even if I thought Alabama was No. 2, I would've been extremely tempted to alter my ballot to encourage another team having a shot.
Until there's some playoff system that gives at least all teams in a conference a shot to be in the tourney when the season begins (that means bids to the conference champions), I'll probably think there really won't be a true national champion. Even this year, if LSU wins, you can argue they weren't even given the right representative to play (of course that isn't their fault).
11 auto bids, five at large bids (probably all going to BCS conference teams) - the easiest way to create a system that allows every team in a conference to have a shot at a national championship. You don't win your conference, from the SEC to the Sun Belt, don't complain. You had your chance. And that system even allows for openings for the schools that want to stay independent like Notre Dame. They just reduce their chances of making it by staying an independent, their own doing."Only Lions fans can predict a victory when their starting quarterback has a broken arm." -unknown
"I'm going to go the Pistons' game tonight and watch Sheed jack up threes." -unknown
12-06-2011, 12:23 PM #62
I have no real beef with the view, but it seems to me you don't need this match-up to make that distinction or argument.
Also, just because LSU beat Alabama once does not necessarily mean Alabama is a worse team than LSU.
Besides, why is it even surprising #3 is closer to #2 than #2 is to #1? The former two each have a loss and the latter has none. I'd almost always expect that in such a case #2 is closer to #3 independent of whether the #2 team lost to #1 or not.
I also have a hard time with the logic that says LSU >> Ala > OSU, therefore if Alabama beats LSU, LSU and Alabama should share the title, but if OSU played LSU and won, OSU should win the title outright.
If you think Alabama should share the title with LSU if they won by virtue of LSU being so much better in the regular season, then I'd say you should also think OSU should share the title if they won.
I also don't see how it is silly to think it is possible the best two teams in the country are in the same conference.
Last edited by Mr. Bigglesworth; 12-06-2011 at 12:29 PM.
12-06-2011, 12:26 PM #63
The Patriots will be happy to know that they are now 1/2 Super Bowl champs from when they "lost" to the Giants.Every time you play a hand of you poker you wanna run through a mental check list. Head Position Hand Position Neck Position Breathing Posture. More than 25 items. It's a lot. And that why I've come up with a handy mnemonic device. Just one word: HPHPNPBPECMSPAMDCPAFTSTTL. It's easy.
12-06-2011, 12:32 PM #64
The biggest difference is that the NIT has been pushed towards oblivion because of NCAA Tourney expansion. This wouldn't happen with the Bowls.
The biggest playoff they'll ever get would be 8 teams. Use the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, and Orange Bowl to play those 8 teams. The other bowls would be great pre-playoff entertainment! They wouldn't actually compete. Just make sure they're all completed by 5:00 EST on New Year's Day. They are now, mostly, anyways.
Alabama - Clemson in the Orange -- January 1st
Oregon - Wisconsin in the Rose -- January 1st (or 2nd this year)
LSU - WVU in the Sugar -- January 2nd
OSU - Stanford in the Fiesta -- January 2nd
Then on the 7th or 8th play two semifinals, seeding the winners of the four bowls, culminating in a real NCG on the 15th of January. Are you telling me this wouldn't be awesome?
12-06-2011, 12:33 PM #65
I think all you have to do is look at college basketball and you'll see bowl games will never go away, especially if you make the final rounds of the playoffs the actual major bowl games.
"Everyone" knows the NCAA tourney is everything for basketball and the others don't matter, yet I think there are three other tourneys besides the NCAA tourney now. If you invite teams, teams will come.
There will always be teams that want to finish the season in a bowl game if they don't make an eight- or 16-team tourney. Even at 16 teams, there could be teams that can be argued are among the top 10 in the nation that wouldn't make the tourney. You play those games on days opposite of the tourney. I figure all tourney games will be Saturdays. Play them Thurday, Friday night. People will watch it because it's college football. No one is going to deny that opportunity. I don't care if they are an SEC team, a Big 10 team, a MAC or a Sun Belt team, they'll take the opportunity, even if the games don't have the payout they do now. Heck, even now you sometimes see schools argue they take a loss going to bowl games. That wouldn't change.
And, whatever bowls are not tied to the tourney probably will get better matchups for their bowls because of the tourney. If you have seven bowls tied to eight teams, or 15 bowls tied to 16 teams (depending on the tourney size), suddenly the pool of teams remaining for the other bowls are pretty darn good. Usually it takes 14 teams to fill seven bowls, not eight. Even bowls like the Little Ceasars Bowl should get better teams."Only Lions fans can predict a victory when their starting quarterback has a broken arm." -unknown
"I'm going to go the Pistons' game tonight and watch Sheed jack up threes." -unknown
12-06-2011, 12:42 PM #66
12-06-2011, 12:43 PM #67
It is reasonable to give (one of the top five teams in the country) the title outright if they beat the (team most fans believe to be the best team) in the championship game (because it will be the result of an on-the-field 60-minute contest).
To continue, if each of the three teams finish the season with exactly one loss, then I don't see any objective means of anointing a "clear-cut #1 best team in the country" which is what the BCS was supposed to do all along! That's why the BCS is a SHAM!
12-06-2011, 12:49 PM #68
12-06-2011, 12:49 PM #69
And I do agree with you in the coaches poll. Coaches have a lot more on there mind then sitting down for a few hours and looking over game tape of other teams and setting up a rankings sheet.
12-06-2011, 12:49 PM #70
12-06-2011, 12:50 PM #71Every time you play a hand of you poker you wanna run through a mental check list. Head Position Hand Position Neck Position Breathing Posture. More than 25 items. It's a lot. And that why I've come up with a handy mnemonic device. Just one word: HPHPNPBPECMSPAMDCPAFTSTTL. It's easy.
12-06-2011, 01:02 PM #72
The minor bowls would still mean as much as they mean now IMO. Just cause a team made the rose bowl this year instead of the NC game doesn't mean those teams shouldn't be happy about the rose bowl.
12-06-2011, 01:06 PM #73
OK lets use this as an example. Lets say Bama has there one loss to LSU this year. The next closest team in the BCS rankings has 3 losses. Does that mean because Bama already got to play LSU once and there only loss is against them that the three loss team should be in the NC game over Bama? I know that's not the case this year but what if it was would you still feel the same way.
12-06-2011, 01:13 PM #74
12-06-2011, 01:16 PM #75
However, yes the idea of a single game championship that includes one team (team 2 if we want to make this more general) that already lost to the other (team 1) while playing and less difficult schedule than team 1, but excludes a team that is virtually indistinguishable from team 2 (call them team 3) is silly. This years championship game is silly. That is not meant to imply that any championship game would be silly or that a matchup of team 1 and team 3 would be silly.
LSU >> Ala >= OSU
I have a hard time with any logic that ignores the rest of the season in favor of a single game. If OSU beats LSU they finish with the same record (not exactly due to the SEC championship, but Alabama also missed that game) and a head to head win. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that head to head wins are more valuable than other wins when comparing two teams directly. What I'm saying is that if OSU beats LSU I'm comfortable saying OSU's season long resume is better than LSU's, even with the loss to ISU and specifically because of the head to head win. Alabama, on the other hand, is 1-1 against LSU, with the same record minus the championship game again but I'm willing to overlook it and call them even. You could argue that even with a loss LSU still has the better resume, probably in both cases.
12-06-2011, 01:17 PM #76
12-06-2011, 01:19 PM #77
b. I believe the individual with whom I was arguing thinks the evidence points to Alabama being the 2nd best team in the country. The debate was whether or not the fact they lost to #1 earlier in the season should preclude them from participating in the national championship game, not whether or not they are #2.
There are a number of solid things to critique the BCS for - I don't think this is one of them.
12-06-2011, 01:22 PM #78
Oklahoma lost (on the road) to the #3 team according to the computers. I'm not sure how the #3 team defeating the #5 team shows a problem with the computer rankings.
The computers saw VTech as overrated compared to the polls. And then they lost to the team the computers (and one poll) viewed as the #20 team. A #20 beating a #5 is rare. A #20 beating a #10 is not.
12-06-2011, 01:22 PM #79
12-06-2011, 01:31 PM #80
Either way, my position is not that Alabama is clearly the #2 team, it is that they are indistinguishable from OSU as the #2 team and even if you think they are the #2 team (a reasonable though, but not a given) there isn't any reason to put them in the championship game. The individual you were arguing with (me) has significantly more faith in the computer polls than the human ones and the computer polls have OSU at #2, but the numbers are so close that I don't care to argue the difference between the two teams.
By Hongbit in forum College SportsReplies: 35Last Post: 11-20-2003, 09:10 AM