Started By
Message
re: The BCS computer models had SMU, Indiana, and Boise
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:23 pm to joshnorris14
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:23 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
They still exist, and I'm not sure what restrictions you are referring to.
So you don't remember all the controversy about margin of victory? It was banned from being used by the computers in the early 2000's. IIRC they were only allowed to use 14 points max.
And then they are constantly changing their models. The formulas aren't published. You can get a general sense of what they value etc, but they are all different formulas, and if you've ever created a model before, then you know you are constantly tweaking and changing things trying to improve it.
Furthermore, a big reason why SoS is important is because of computers and the general lack of data from a result of having 12 games and 100+ teams. You need links between conferences and you need teams to be tested in order to accurately rank them. When a team doesn't participate among the better teams, it makes it difficult to rank them accurately. And when conferences do not play each other, it makes it difficult to rank them as well. It's probably the most difficult of all sports to rank.
We need good games to create good data so that we can have good results.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 5:25 pm
0
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:23 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Pedo State and the Domers above Georgia? Seems like the BCS computers are more BS than anything else.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:24 pm to Lgrnwd
How about we try again with pre-2004 BCS simulation
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:25 pm to 49 to nada
quote:
Pedo State and the Domers above Georgia? Seems like the BCS computers are more BS than anything else.
The final BCS makes sense. The OP was quoting one from a week ago for some reason.
The final would have had Oregon vs Georgia in the BCS, which is what it should be.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:33 pm to Lgrnwd
quote:
The only thing I changed was the Arizona St part and I acknowledged that mistake. The point still stands without Arizona St.
In the op I specifically referred to the BCS formula rankings from before the Championship games because that was when all the teams in question had played the same number of games.
Well, the over-ranking of teams on weaker SoS due to not having losses was a popular debate of the BCS and the whole "BCS Buster" thing.
However, since it was only the top2 that mattered for the NC and the others were more about bowl assignments, it was never an issue on the same level.
If it had been selecting more than 2 teams, things would have been more heated.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:36 pm to 3down10
quote:
The final BCS makes sense. The OP was quoting one from a week ago for some reason.
I did it for a good reason. Because that was when all teams in question played the same number of games(12). That is the fairest way to compare.
The point of all this wasn’t about who “deserves” to be in playoff. It was to point out the fact that playoff committee took SOS into consideration pretty much the same as it was in the past.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:46 pm to Lgrnwd
quote:
I did it for a good reason. Because that was when all teams in question played the same number of games(12). That is the fairest way to compare.
The point of all this wasn’t about who “deserves” to be in playoff. It was to point out the fact that playoff committee took SOS into consideration pretty much the same as it was in the past.
The extra games gives those teams the advantage because it makes their schedules more difficult, not easier.
It's the entire reason the SEC added South Carolina and Arkansas back in 1992 so they create the game. By rule you had to have 12 teams and 2 divisions in order to have the game. The SEC added those 2 teams not for money, but to increase the odds of the conference winning national championships.
SMU's SoS jumped 20 spots as a result of playing Clemson for example. From #84 all the way up to #61. Instead of being 3 times easier than Alabama's, it's less than 2.5 times easier.
So I really don't see a good reason to not include such games for the sake of those with the weaker schedules. It should be a bonus...unless it's a loss.
And what you are highlighting is really a long term issue with low IQ sports writers and their votes. The majority of them are incapable of understanding SoS, or don't put in the effort. They only look at SoS when the records are even, and that's part of the issue.
I mean go back to the early 80s and look at some of those NC teams.
To be fair, it is tough to judge how you treat a team with a tough SoS and a few losses to a team that has a weak SoS and less/no losses. But you can sure as hell do it when the gaps are huge.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 5:50 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:47 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.
So by the Bama argument, just schedule one or two good teams every year, ensure that you beat them, then you can lose the rest because “you beat the good teams”.
You can’t reward a team for getting boat raced by bad teams regardless if you won against a good team or not. Thats called an “inconsistent team” and an “inconsistent team” is not a good team.
I’d give Bama a chance to beat any other college team out there, but also judging by how they played against bad teams like Vandy and Oklahoma, I’d also give them about the same chance of losing to any team out there on any given day.
The fact is, Milroe is not a QB. He’s just not. I don’t care how much they dress him up as one, he’s horrible. If he couldn’t run, Bama would have barely made a bowl game this year. Honestly, they probably would have had a better season if they just ran the damn triple option this year. That’s how bad he is. And their defense is very sub par and hit and miss.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:49 pm to Lgrnwd
The BCS isn't a terrible ranking system BUT they can improve on it to match today's landscape
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:08 pm to 3down10
quote:
They are not equal in strength or anywhere close to it.
By law, they are. They are equal partners.
quote:
What are they teaching in schools these days?
That if you want multiple parties to agree to a deal, they all have to benefit. You're a fool if you think you can get the ACC to sign on to a deal without a guarantee. It's not about football, it's about business.
As soon as the B1G and SEC break away to form their own league and play for their own championship, they would be open to anti-trust action.
quote:
And even if they were, treating schools equally is not the same as pretending all schools are equal or as if they have to pretend 1 conference is equal to another.
You have a lot to learn about business.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:18 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
By law, they are. They are equal partners.
What law?
quote:
That if you want multiple parties to agree to a deal, they all have to benefit. You're a fool if you think you can get the ACC to sign on to a deal without a guarantee. It's not about football, it's about business.
Well, they do benefit. It's a voluntary system, that's why they do it to begin with. However, that does not mean you have to please everyone, nor does it mean you have to bend to everyone's knee/will. I have no idea why you think such things.
quote:
As soon as the B1G and SEC break away to form their own league and play for their own championship, they would be open to anti-trust action.
If it happens it will be with an exemption from congress like the NFL, MLB etc have. What do you think they mean when they ask congress to get involved and help?
quote:
You have a lot to learn about business.
I'll let my partners of 25 years know.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:21 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:22 pm to wablty
He didn't make a mistake he posted the one from when the OP said.
quote:
All ranked ahead of Alabama, USCE, and Ole Miss at the end of the 12 game regular season.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 6:23 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:24 pm to Temple of the Dog
Oops. My bad. I assumed folks would be talking about the latest iteration since that's, y'know, the most germane to selection comparison.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:30 pm to SummerOfGeorge
So hypothetically, if Mizzou had held on at USCe..and finished 10-2..weaker schedule acknowledged...we would have been in? As the 11th seed? Even though we got shut out in Tuscaloosa? Is that right? According to the BCS? Or would we have been behind BAMA as the 12th since we lost?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:33 pm to wablty
quote:
Oops. My bad. I assumed folks would be talking about the latest iteration since that's, y'know, the most germane to selection comparison.
That one is posted later I think.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:41 pm to SummerOfGeorge
So hypothetically, if Mizzou had held on at USCe..and finished 10-2..weaker schedule acknowledged...we would have been in? As the 11th seed? Even though we got shut out in Tuscaloosa? Is that right? According to the BCS? Or would we have been behind BAMA as the 12th since we lost?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 7:17 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
Having a combination of computer rankings + some human element would be a great idea.
That was literally the BCS.
It awarded points based on ranking on three systems weighted equally.
The Coach’s poll. The AP poll (replaced by Harris after the 2003 debacle), and the computers, which was an average of a series of models that excluded the highest rank and the lowest rank)
Your BCS rank was the average of the three.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:17 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:you're a fricking idiot
They're all equal in strength.
You think SMU can't beat Alabama? I bet you thought Vandy couldn't beat Alabama either. You're thinking of a by-gone era before NIL and free agency leveled the playing field.
But more importantly, the conferences are all equal in strength as far as the NCAA is concerned. This is required by law, otherwise it'd be an anti-trust violation.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:20 pm to magildachunks
quote:
There you go blowing holes in their arguments
Apparently not. That said I’m not upset Bama is not in. But this playoff set up is abysmal.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News