Started By
Message
The BCS computer models had SMU, Indiana, and Boise
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:01 pm
All ranked ahead of Alabama, USCE, and Ole Miss at the end of the 12 game regular season.
Interesting. So I guess SOS didn’t matter in the BCS era either?
Interesting. So I guess SOS didn’t matter in the BCS era either?
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 3:06 pm
15
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:02 pm to Lgrnwd
There you go blowing holes in their arguments
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:03 pm to Lgrnwd
The BCS was built on even more outdated principles than today of giving teams the benefit of the doubt when they didn’t play quality opponents.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:07 pm to Lgrnwd
quote:
The BCS computer models had SMU, Indiana, Boise and ASU
All ranked ahead of Alabama, USCE, and Ole Miss at the end of the 12 game regular season.
SMU, Boise and Indiana were because 1 loss vs 3 will make up that difference.
Arizona State was not in front of Alabama or South Carolina. And SMU dropped behind Alabama with their 2nd loss.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:09 pm to Lgrnwd
F+ had bama above SMU, Indiana, Boise and ASU (That is FEI & SP+ together)
LINK
FEI had bama above them except Indiana
LINK
SP+ had Bama above them all (rankings behind paywall)
BCS isnt the only computer rankings out there, that one is very dated and based on a very different landscape in CFB as well
LINK
FEI had bama above them except Indiana
LINK
SP+ had Bama above them all (rankings behind paywall)
BCS isnt the only computer rankings out there, that one is very dated and based on a very different landscape in CFB as well
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:11 pm to Dallaswho
quote:
The BCS was built on even more outdated principles than today of giving teams the benefit of the doubt when they didn’t play quality opponents.
Ok, so the AP and Coaches polls sucked at ranking teams so they went to the BCS, then apparently the BCS sucked at ranking teams so they went to a “Playoff Committee”, and now they apparently suck at ranking teams.
So now what?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:17 pm to Lgrnwd
quote:
Ok, so the AP and Coaches polls sucked at ranking teams so they went to the BCS, then apparently the BCS sucked at ranking teams so they went to a “Playoff Committee”, and now they apparently suck at ranking teams.
So now what?
Having a combination of computer rankings + some human element would be a great idea. Going 1 way or the other seems like a bad idea.
We've got enough really good advanced stats out there to rank teams pretty effectively. Should make a conglomeration of a few of those, weight that 50% then maybe have a committee be the other 50% of the weight in their human rankings.
I can understand wanting to keep the human element around but there will ALWAYS be built in bias in human rankings. Especially when we're talking about ADs and such from respective universities. How can you expect guys with current and past big allegiances to be completely impartial with the way they vote?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:21 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Ok my mistake on ASU then. The point still stands with Boise, SMU, and Indiana being ranked higher after a 12 game season even in the BCS era.
The screaming that “SOS no longer matters!” is over dramatic hogwash. The fact is SOS was taken into account pretty much the same as it has been, going all the way back to BCS era. It isn’t some new phenomenon meaning the new playoff system sucks
The screaming that “SOS no longer matters!” is over dramatic hogwash. The fact is SOS was taken into account pretty much the same as it has been, going all the way back to BCS era. It isn’t some new phenomenon meaning the new playoff system sucks
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:35 pm to Lgrnwd
quote:
All ranked ahead of Alabama, USCE, and Ole Miss at the end of the 12 game regular season.
Well that's objectively false.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:37 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
BCS isnt the only computer rankings out there
But it is very specifically mentioned in the subject.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:37 pm to Lgrnwd
quote:
The screaming that “SOS no longer matters!” is over dramatic hogwash. The fact is SOS was taken into account pretty much the same as it has been, going all the way back to BCS era. It isn’t some new phenomenon meaning the new playoff system sucks
Well Alabama would be in the playoff under the BCS era and SMU would not, so it clearly is not the same.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:37 pm to skrayper
While you’re right about it being false, you posted the final one after the conference championships. OP specified at the end of the regular season (for some reason)
Still false though
Still false though
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:38 pm to magildachunks
quote:
There you go blowing holes in their arguments
Sucks he made it all up though.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:43 pm to CNB
quote:
While you’re right about it being false, you posted the final one after the conference championships. OP specified at the end of the regular season (for some reason)
Still false though
That makes less sense.
I could see SMU possibly falling, but why would ASU fall behind Alabama after winning their conference championship?
Found the rating pre-championship games:
Seems like OP is just a liar.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:51 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Final BCS rankings after the Conference Championships:
Here is the full simulated BCS rankings via BCSKnowHow.com:
1. Oregon Ducks — 1.000
2. Georgia Bulldogs — 0.9500
3. Notre Dame Fighting Irish — 0.9037
4. Texas Longhorns — 0.8603
5. Ohio State Buckeyes — 0.8112
6. Penn State Nittany Lions — 0.7972
7. Tennessee Volunteers — 0.7172
8. Indiana Hoosiers — 0.6880
9. Boise State Broncos — 0.6577
10. Arizona State Sun Devils — 0.6266
11. Alabama Crimson Tide — 0.5752
12. SMU Mustangs — 0.5630
Here is the full simulated BCS rankings via BCSKnowHow.com:
1. Oregon Ducks — 1.000
2. Georgia Bulldogs — 0.9500
3. Notre Dame Fighting Irish — 0.9037
4. Texas Longhorns — 0.8603
5. Ohio State Buckeyes — 0.8112
6. Penn State Nittany Lions — 0.7972
7. Tennessee Volunteers — 0.7172
8. Indiana Hoosiers — 0.6880
9. Boise State Broncos — 0.6577
10. Arizona State Sun Devils — 0.6266
11. Alabama Crimson Tide — 0.5752
12. SMU Mustangs — 0.5630
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:52 pm to CBandits82
.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:05 pm to skrayper
No liar here bro. Here is the final rankings after the conference championship games. In this one SMU dropped 1 spot behind Alabama after picking up an extra loss in the extra game they had to play
247
I specifically only mentioned the rankings before championship games in order to fairly compare apples to apples since the 3 SEC teams in question didn’t have to play that extra game.
247
I specifically only mentioned the rankings before championship games in order to fairly compare apples to apples since the 3 SEC teams in question didn’t have to play that extra game.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:19 pm to Lgrnwd
quote:
Interesting. So I guess SOS didn’t matter in the BCS era either?
You would be correct after the BCS committee came to the conclusion that SOS gave the SEC an unfair advantage and had the computers recalibrated.
Recalibration happened several times.
So the weight SOS carried in a BCS model depended on which "updated" computer models you were using.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:20 pm to D500MAG
A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:58 pm to Lgrnwd
quote:except it didnt. it was the best system we have had so far. they should readopt the BCS but with the committee taking the place of the polls, and use that to populate the playoff irrespective of conference championships. auto bids it nonsense when they conferences are so different in strength
then apparently the BCS sucked at ranking teams
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News