No Cupcakes

[Rockerbraves]

What I meant by Consensus #1, was that they were #1 in both the AP and Coaches Poll. Those are facts are they not?

 

 

Not consensus #1. USC didn't come close to grabbing all the first place votes even in the AP, much less the Coaches poll. Don't even think they got the majority.

Edited October 9, 2006 by Rockerbraves

[madman34698]

I think everyone agrees there should be a playoff. The way it is set up now, any team in a good conference can schedule cup cakes in 3 games, play 8 conference games. if they go undefeated, they can play for the title. Why should Michigan,USC or Maimi play tough nonconference games. Lose one and you may be done. Whats worse, is when you lose the game. FSU, loses to Miami first game of the season, they have 10 weeks to climb the polls and jump over teams that lose during the year. Before you know it, they are the highest rated 1 loss team. If FSU goes 10-0, but loses to FLorida last game of the year they will fall behind atlreast 2 or 3, one loss teams. Just the way the system is set up. I guess you should save the cup cakes till the end of the year. Many leagues have title games, which is a bad idea, gives any undefeated team yet another game thats a must win, beofre you go to the BCS game. Most of the time its agaist a team you they already beat. ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY, AND THE PLAYERS GET ZERO

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Not consensus #1. USC didn't come close to grabbing all the first place votes even in the AP, much less the Coaches poll. Don't even think they got the majority.

 

 

Whatever, they were #1 in both polls. And that is a fact. Keep slanting it anyway you want too, about votes or points, they were #1 in both polls on December 7th, 2003.

[Rockerbraves]

Whatever, they were #1 in both polls. And that is a fact. Keep slanting it anyway you want too, about votes or points, they were #1 in both polls on December 7th, 2003.

 

 

I'll agree to that fact and that USC won the popularity contest conducted by the AP writers after LSU earned their National Championship on the playing field. Geez...just imagine the controversy if Oklahoma would have been left out that year. Little question prior to their Big 12 conference championship there was much talk that this Sooner team might be the best team ever. As proof they were over a TD favorite in the National Championship Game that year. Even Tiger fans might have questioned their title.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Rockerbraves

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Yeah, but what happened? They lost in the title game, and lost handily. There wouldn't be near as much controversy if Oklahoma got left out. Computers don't voice there opinions, and the only ones that thought they deserved to be there, were Okalhoma fans (Can't argue with them, I'd feel the same way about my Hawkeyes in the same position). How do I know this, because both the Media AND the Coaches had USC ranked 2 spots ahead of them. And if you took an opinion poll of most fans, I'm pretty sure they felt that USC and LSU were the 2 teams that should face off. And once again, my slam dunk argument, the one that sums it all up, is that all of our points are moot, because the NCAA recognizes both teams as national champions. And not only that, but the NCAA doens't arbitrarily decide which national chamionship is more prestigous. It just says National Champions: USC AND LSU. The prestige is an entirely different debate. Your originial argument is that it sucks that the BCS took the SOS component out because people felt USC got jobbed. Well SOS is not out of it, its very much in, since computers look at that. But like I said, SOS cannot be truly determined. Texas Tech is getting the same credit for beating 5-1 Texas A & M as Ohio State is for beating 5-1 Texas at the moment. Teams will run up the score on nothing opponents, because it impresses computers. You sit here and talk about popularity contests, well if LSU didnt finish 2nd in those popularity contests, then they would have been the ones to get jobbed. So the popularity contest as you call them, helped LSU too. The whole thing is, people love the BCS when it benefits there team, but when they don't they cry foul.

[Rockerbraves]

Keep in mind I used to be known to book a few bets for extra cash so I'm pretty respectful of the odds makers knowledge of the game since I counted on them. I also know from your previous post that you don't believe that Vegas odds are any indication of which team is the better team, but the fact is Oklahoma was favored over LSU (7 to 8) and would have been even a bigger favorite over USC (9 &10) that year. That said, Oklahoma wasn't exactly a team totally undeserving.

 

Imagine if Ohio State were to run the tables easily this year including a double digit win over Michigan then lose a (mythical) Big 10 conference championship to say your Iowa team. Would you totally eliminate Ohio State from the equation of playing for the National Title if the teams behind them also had a loss?

 

Conference Championship Games can work for and against teams. In LSU case it worked in their favor that year since they got another quality win in 2003 while USC sat idle. I couldn't really support a National Championship game knowing that the odds makers would highly favor a team not participating over both teams that were playing in the championship that year. Especially if that non participating team manhandled their bowl opponent that same year like USC did in that Rose Bowl.

 

The bottom line line is this: Prior to the championship game Oklahoma according to my most reliable source Vegas was still the number one team going into the bowls. Yeah, that might not be fair to the TCU's, Boise State's and Tulane's but that's my opinion.

 

Enjoyed the debate.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Rockerbraves

[Coffeeman]

I think a loss late in the year vs. an inferior team hurts worse in the voting than an early loss. It makes sense - you're supposed to have your s-hit together late in the year, and building momentum for the bowls. It should also make a difference where and how you lost also - that is, away vs. home, by a lot or a little in OT, etc.

 

And it all does get into the BCS voting via the minds of the voters - the computers might not have all those things built into their algorithms, but the mind is a wonderful thing...

[LiL10(s)ArEaJoKe]

BTW if you forgot 7 pts to me is not handly. You really need to look at who the three teams in question lost to. USC lost to Cal (8-6) that year; that was very poor, Hell K-State beat em in week 1 that year. LSU lost to the Gators and went on to win the SEC. OU lost to KState (whcih was the BigXII champ, with an 11-4 record). KState lost to TheOSU by 7(in their bowl game) so to say they sucked just is not true. Based on the teams the above mentioned teams lost to, I do believe that the right two teams played each other that year.

 

You can say what what you like, but you know this to be true, just go look at those three teams schedules that year, and look at who they beat and lost to, then look at the team they lost to schedule(s). KState was ranked #10 by your beloved pole prior to running into theOSU. Hell Cal wasnt even ranked. The gators lost to Iowa in their bowl, they entered the bowl game ranked 17th. So lets get off the quality win and look and see if its a QUALITY loss. OU and LSU both had losses to ranked teams. USC's loss was to an unranked team. So I say to hell with quality wins if all the teams involved got beat, its all in the numbers, all you have to do is look.

 

Side note I do agree that the only way a true winner will be crowned is after a playoff!!!!

[Rockerbraves]

I think a loss late in the year vs. an inferior team hurts worse in the voting than an early loss. It makes sense - you're supposed to have your s-hit together late in the year, and building momentum for the bowls. It should also make a difference where and how you lost also - that is, away vs. home, by a lot or a little in OT, etc.

 

And it all does get into the BCS voting via the minds of the voters - the computers might not have all those things built into their algorithms, but the mind is a wonderful thing...

 

When you are #1 every team you face is an inferior team.

 

Come on Coffeeman even Hillbillies from the SEC know that.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Rockerbraves

[Coffeeman]

OK - throw that whole phrase out and focus on the word 'loss'. Does that mean you agree with my point?

 

To clarify, I would make a distinction between losing to a ranked team vs. an unranked team, but even that's a little muddy until the end of the year. Sometimes teams are ranked at the time you play them, but then fall out towards the end of the year.

 

I guess my 'system' would be performed only after the last regular season game is played, and it would be iterative. That is, start with the last poll results, then evenly apply a positive point system for wins that includes variances based on margin of victory (with a 25 pt. cap,) vs. ranked teams, less points vs. unranked teams, more points for wins on the road vs. wins at home, etc. For unranked teams, I'd further distinguish between those with ultimately a winning vs. losing record. Then apply a similar point system with negative points for losses (with the same variances just mentioned, using 'margin of loss' instead of victory.)

 

In this scenario, it would be fairly applied to all the BCS hopefuls, and my comment about a late loss would be 'hidden' within the voting component, since we know it happens in their minds, subconsious or not.

 

What do you think of that??

Edited October 11, 2006 by Coffeeman

[Rockerbraves]

OK - throw that whole phrase out and focus on the word 'loss'. Does that mean you agree with my point?

 

To clarify, I would make a distinction between losing to a ranked team vs. an unranked team, but even that's a little muddy until the end of the year. Sometimes teams are ranked at the time you play them, but then fall out towards the end of the year.

 

I guess my 'system' would be performed only after the last regular season game is played, and it would be iterative. That is, start with the last poll results, then evenly apply a positive point system for wins that includes variances based on margin of victory (with a 25 pt. cap,) vs. ranked teams, less points vs. unranked teams, more points for wins on the road vs. wins at home, etc. For unranked teams, I'd further distinguish between those with ultimately a winning vs. losing record. Then apply a similar point system with negative points for losses (with the same variances just mentioned, using 'margin of loss' instead of victory.)

 

In this scenario, it would be fairly applied to all the BCS hopefuls, and my comment about a late loss would be 'hidden' within the voting component, since we know it happens in their minds, subconsious or not.

 

What do you think of that??

 

 

CLARIFY? Keep in mind Coffeeman, us hillbillies don't really know all that arithmatic stuff. In short, would your system have place USC or Oklahoma in the national championship vs. LSU? If Oklahoma I agree. If not then you might need to go back to the chalkboard and redo those variances things.

[Coffeeman]

Now why did you have to go and ask me that? I think it will be very, very close, but now I'll have to go do it in Excel. When I have time - could take a few days....