Started By
Message
re: Alabama Schedule Thread
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:09 am to Tuscaloosa
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:09 am to Tuscaloosa
quote:
Why should losses against tGOAT be counted against tGOAT when calculating opponent win percentage?
Why should losses be counted when calculating win percentage?
Oh I don't know.
0
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:10 am to Kcoyote
quote:
And yet multiple people in here bitched about adding an undefeated Clemson to the record with 14 wins. Do you not see the problem with that?
Maybe because both skew the numbers when they are compared to teams that weren't guaranteed two top 4 opponents to end the season. Jesus dude, you should probably just refrain from starting winning percentage threads going forward.
This post was edited on 1/17/16 at 12:12 am
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:12 am to RB10
Again that removes all the head-to-head losses for opponent's of all the previous national champions in NCAA history. So literally all it does it make everyone look better, and Alabama is still better than all of them.
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:13 am to Nado Jenkins83
LSU shouldn't have to play UF. It's not fair
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:14 am to Kcoyote
quote:
Again that removes all the head-to-head losses for opponent's of all the previous national champions in NCAA history. So literally all it does it make everyone look better, and Alabama is still better than all of them.
All well and good. It's still not their actual winning percentage, like you're representing it to be.
And again, only two national champs were guaranteed two top 4 match ups at the end of the season. Do you need me to explain why that skews the numbers too?
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:16 am to RB10
Wasting your time. They earn their national reputation as the most stupid fan base
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:21 am to RB10
quote:
So, you're calculating winning percentage while removing 14 losses.......
Do you really need me to explain why that's stupid?
I do. The same standard is used across the board. So if you're comparing the national champion from this year to the national champion from any other given year, both will benefit (or suffer, since removing those numbers actually has a disproportionate effect the more games a team loses) from the same formula. It's apples to apples. So explain why it's so important to put losses to the team in question back into the formula. The rationale for removing them seems pretty straightforward -- it rewards teams for beating tougher opponents, mathematically. What's your rationale for claiming it's stupid?
quote:
Maybe because both skew the numbers when they are compared to teams that weren't guaranteed two top 4 opponents to end the season. Jesus dude, you should probably just refrain from starting winning percentage threads going forward.
So let me get this straight...the fact that a team beats two top 4 opponents is somehow a demerit when arguing quality of opposition? Is this what you're arguing? Yes, the playoffs allow for more guaranteed tough opposition. Thing is, they have to beat two top four teams for it to matter in the formula, since the discussion is for national champions only.
This post was edited on 1/17/16 at 12:25 am
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:24 am to randomways
quote:
The rationale for removing them seems pretty straightforward -- it rewards teams for beating tougher opponents, mathematically. What's your rationale for claiming it's stupid?
There is no rationale for removing losses when calculating winning percentage.
It throws the numbers off when you remove losses. How do you people not grasp that?
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:25 am to Kcoyote
quote:
the highest opponent combined winning percentage of any national championship team in NCAA history.
solid bait
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:27 am to randomways
quote:
So let me get this straight...the fact that a team beats two top 4 opponents is somehow a demerit when arguing quality of opposition? Is this what you're arguing? Yes, the playoffs allow for more guaranteed tough opposition. Thing is, they have to beat two top four teams for it to matter in the formula, since the discussion is for national champions only.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
I said it skews the winning percentage of a champions opponents in the playoff era compared to those that weren't guaranteed top opponents to end the season. I haven't even mentioned the merit of the accomplishment, much less tried to lessen it.
Comparing the playoff era champs to the BCS era doesn't cause an issue. Comparing it to the old bowl system when teams that "won" the national title sometimes played team with mediocre records in their bowl games causes major issues. It skews the numbers heavily in the favor of the playoff era team
This post was edited on 1/17/16 at 12:33 am
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:28 am to RB10
Removing head-to-head for Ohio state's opponents last year, their opponents went 113-63 for a winning percentage of 64%
Just for some reference.
Just for some reference.
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:31 am to Kcoyote
quote:
emoving head-to-head for Ohio state's opponents last year, their opponents went 113-63 for a winning percentage of 64%
Stop calling this "winning percentage". For the last time, it's not their winning percentage when you remove losses from the record.
It's just some weird criteria you've made up.
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:32 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
They earn their national reputation as the most stupid fan base
Bama is not the fanbase that
A. Hates the coach that gave them a NC in 2003
B. Wants to fire the coach that gave them an NC in 2007 and has the best all time record at the school.
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:37 am to RB10
FSU's opponents' records with removing head-to-head for FSU opponents in 2013 was 96-74, or a percentage of 56%.
Removing the Clemson game from Alabama's schedule and putting Alabama's number at 71%, it still doesn't come close.
I'll continue because it upsets you.
Removing the Clemson game from Alabama's schedule and putting Alabama's number at 71%, it still doesn't come close.
I'll continue because it upsets you.
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:38 am to Kcoyote
quote:
'll continue because it upsets you.
And I'll keep calling you an idiot because you don't actually know what winning percentage is.
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:44 am to RB10
2012 Alabama: 95-68, 58.2%
lower than 71%.
lower than 71%.
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:45 am to RB10
quote:
And I'll keep calling you an idiot because you don't actually know what winning percentage is.
5 outta the last 5 equals 100% since 2011
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:51 am to NATidefan
2011 Alabama: 100-52, 65.7%, still lower than 71%
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:51 am to Tuscaloosa
quote:
it with an opponent win percentage of 71%? TIA.
That's never been done. Bama's opponents winning percentage was 68.
Posted on 1/17/16 at 12:54 am to RB10
quote:
That's never been done. Bama's opponents winning percentage was 68.
Hint: That number is still better than any team in NCAA history.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News