Started By
Message
Remember when we let the BCS decide the national championship game?
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:05 pm
This is the current BCS rankings.
15
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:06 pm to anc
The BCS was an excellent system that almost always got it right. Those rankings through 5 weeks are meaningless and obviously don’t reflect the accuracy it would show after a full season.
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:14 pm to anc
1) these are not the BCS rankings
2) I would like to see them though
The BCS Formula
Harris Interactive Poll (1/3)
Coaches Poll (1/3)
6 Computers (high/low dropped) (1/3)
No way Georgia is 17th based on that formula.
2) I would like to see them though
The BCS Formula
Harris Interactive Poll (1/3)
Coaches Poll (1/3)
6 Computers (high/low dropped) (1/3)
No way Georgia is 17th based on that formula.
This post was edited on 10/3/23 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:20 pm to anc
The beauty of the BCS composite system is that it smoothed out the human irrationality and adjusted empirically from week to week.
But that's boring, so instead we get a flawed human committee beholden to no metrics who can adjust and readjust on the fly in order to drive media narratives and public perception.
The BCS ranking system was fine, they just should have let more teams vie for the championship.
But that's boring, so instead we get a flawed human committee beholden to no metrics who can adjust and readjust on the fly in order to drive media narratives and public perception.
The BCS ranking system was fine, they just should have let more teams vie for the championship.
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:22 pm to anc
Georgia too high.
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:24 pm to BigBro
quote:
1) these are not the BCS rankings
They're the rankings on MCubed.net. Not sure what their criteria is, or why the OP tried to pass them off as the BCS?
Mcubed.net rankings
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:25 pm to Marktastic86
quote:
hey're the rankings on MCubed.net. Not sure what their criteria is, or why the OP tried to pass them off as the BCS?
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:29 pm to Marktastic86
quote:
They're the rankings on MCubed.net.
I knew I recognized that background
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:40 pm to MoarKilometers
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/college-sports/2023/10/141352/fake-bcs-rankings-if-they-existed-2023-wk-5
here's a link of a guy at least making an honest attempt at replicating the bcs today.
TEAM RECORD BCS RANK BCS AVERAGE AP POLL AP AVG COACHES COACHES AVG COMPUTER COMPUTER AVG
GEORGIA 5-0 1 0.9172 1 0.9684 1 0.9931 5 0.7900
TEXAS 5-0 2 0.9044 3 0.9200 4 0.8631 1 0.9300
MICHIGAN 5-0 3 0.9020 2 0.9265 2 0.9394 4 0.8400
OHIO ST 4-0 4 0.8946 4 0.8755 3 0.8781 1 0.9300
PENN ST 5-0 5 0.8224 6 0.7917 6 0.7756 3 0.9000
FLORIDA ST 4-0 6 0.7802 5 0.8620 5 0.8588 8 0.6200
WASHINGTON 5-0 7 0.7640 7 0.7826 8 0.7494 7 0.7600
OREGON 5-0 8 0.6790 8 0.7181 9 0.6988 8 0.6200
ALABAMA 4-1 9 0.6656 11 0.5942 10 0.6225 6 0.7800
here's a link of a guy at least making an honest attempt at replicating the bcs today.
TEAM RECORD BCS RANK BCS AVERAGE AP POLL AP AVG COACHES COACHES AVG COMPUTER COMPUTER AVG
GEORGIA 5-0 1 0.9172 1 0.9684 1 0.9931 5 0.7900
TEXAS 5-0 2 0.9044 3 0.9200 4 0.8631 1 0.9300
MICHIGAN 5-0 3 0.9020 2 0.9265 2 0.9394 4 0.8400
OHIO ST 4-0 4 0.8946 4 0.8755 3 0.8781 1 0.9300
PENN ST 5-0 5 0.8224 6 0.7917 6 0.7756 3 0.9000
FLORIDA ST 4-0 6 0.7802 5 0.8620 5 0.8588 8 0.6200
WASHINGTON 5-0 7 0.7640 7 0.7826 8 0.7494 7 0.7600
OREGON 5-0 8 0.6790 8 0.7181 9 0.6988 8 0.6200
ALABAMA 4-1 9 0.6656 11 0.5942 10 0.6225 6 0.7800
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:44 pm to anc
This is most definitely NOT simulated BCS rankings. Its a list of undefeated teams. Stop getting your information from Facebook
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:49 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:
The BCS was an excellent system that almost always got it right.
Gotta disagree. It only got it right when things fell perfectly and only two teams were really candidates. A situation any "system" could have picked.
But there were some monster screw ups.
2001, and 2003 were the main ones. 2007 was a total cluster. There were others where team the team #2 was questionable relative to other possibilities. 2008 is a good example. And Auburn fans are forever bitching about 2004 after OU laid a monstrous egg in the final.
The one good thing about 12 teams is that among the top teams, nobody will be left out for no good reason. Although there will again be ridiculous hair splitting at 12/13 among probably five or even more teams. Deep down, the one that gets in knows they really didn't deserve it.
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:51 pm to Gunga Din
quote:
2008 is a good example. And Auburn fans are forever bitching about 2004 after OU laid a monstrous egg in the final.
We were bitching long before that. Auburn played more top-10 teams that year than USC and OU combined.
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:52 pm to BigBro
quote:
1) these are not the BCS rankings 2) I would like to see them though
You’re correct.
The correct BCS ranking are in this article
Top5
UGA, Texas, Mich, Ohio St, Pedo St
Miami at 17
ETA: some of the polls and computers used to determine the BCS are now out of commission. So this is a Frankenstein formula used for BCS rankings.
This post was edited on 10/3/23 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 10/3/23 at 3:58 pm to anc
No way this is right.
Posted on 10/3/23 at 4:28 pm to wesfau
quote:I remember the Stoops leaving Auburn off his top 25 to help get Bob Stoops in 2004. It may not have mattered but it showed how some people shouldn't have a say. Especially coaches whose teams it matters to.
But that's boring, so instead we get a flawed human committee beholden to no metrics who can adjust and readjust on the fly in order to drive media narratives and public perception.
Posted on 10/3/23 at 4:35 pm to anc
This is the correct link for BCS rankings
If you are too lazy to click:
#1 Texas
#2 Michigan
#3 Georgia
#4 Oregon
#5 FSU
If you are too lazy to click:
#1 Texas
#2 Michigan
#3 Georgia
#4 Oregon
#5 FSU
Posted on 10/3/23 at 4:40 pm to Rabern57
quote:
I remember the Stoops leaving Auburn off his top 25 to help get Bob Stoops in 2004. It may not have mattered but it showed how some people shouldn't have a say. Especially coaches whose teams it matters to.
Sure. But with an expanded field Auburn would have been in...despite that human bias. The computers mitigated the human element almost enough...but there were only 2 spots to fill so the margin for error was too slim.
Posted on 10/3/23 at 4:56 pm to anc
The BCS was fine. It didn't determine who played in the natty, it just ranked the teams and did a pretty good job at it most often. Humans decided that only two teams counted.
Posted on 10/3/23 at 5:10 pm to anc
Bring back the BCS formula. Top 4 in a playoff.
Posted on 10/3/23 at 5:12 pm to anc
BCS = king
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News