BCS Top 10

[chavisut]

I should have phrased that differently. I can understand not being high on the hire. However, to act like he is doomed to fail while Kiffin is destined for greatness seems reached.

 

[wheaton4prez]

If they're in the East, then 10-2 is a very reasonable expectation. If they were in the West, 9-3, 8-4 could be the expectation.

With Tennessee's schedule, I'd see Oregon, Florida, Alabama, and LSU as losses.

I'd give them LSU. But, I otherwise agree.

Let's take a look at Boise State's BCS record over the last 10 years.

2000 - Arkansas (6-6, L 38-31); Washington State (4-7; L 42-35) - non-BCS record 10-0
2001 - South Carolina (9-3; L 32-13); Washington State (10-2; L 41-20) - non-BCS record 8-2
2002 - Arkansas (9-5; L 41-14); Iowa State (7-7; W 34-16) - non-BCS record 11-0
2003 - Oregon State (8-5; L 26-24) - non-BCS record 13-0
2004 - Oregon State (7-5; W 53-34) - non-BCS record 11-0
2005 - Georgia (10-3; L 48-13); Oregon State (5-6; L 30-27); Boston College (9-3; L 27-21) - non-BCS record 9-1
2006 - Oregon State (10-4; W 42-14); Oklahoma (11-3; W 43-42) - non-BCS record 11-0
2007 - Washington (4-9; L 24-10) - non-BCS record 10-2
2008 - Oregon (10-3; W 37-32) - non-BCS record 11-1
2009 - Oregon (10-3; W 19-8) - non-BCS record 13-0

Total record - 113-16
Total record against non-BCS opponents - 107-6
Total record against BCS opponents - 6-10

What a bunch of world-beaters. Boise State had more wins against 1-AA opponents (8-0) than against BCS opponents, who they played twice as often.

This illustrates the reason why past records should never enter any logical debate about whether or not a current team should play for the NC game. If you draw a line for which games to count, you're just cherry-picking the data. Besides, it's not the same players (or even coaches a lot of the time).

Boise State can have 50 undefeated years in a row and it shouldn't get them into the NC game if their SOS remains as low as it has been relative to other teams.

I believe that the human polls are what should sort that out. I'd rather not put more power into the hands of computer programmers. In a way, the polls do factor it in every time a vote is cast. If Boise State looked like absolute garbage against San Jose State and only beat them by a touchdown, I'd have to assume that they would slip quite a bit with voters.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Computer programmers don't have any power. They make an objective formula that treats every team the same. The voters in the official polls do have power and have been shown to abuse it based on various allegiances or plain incompetence.

The computer formulas are really not as complicated as many think. There's no reason why they can't have one of them with a transparent methodology and adjust if need be. The flaw in the formula in 2001 was that coaches realized they could game the system by running up scores. Instead of instituting the easy fix to place a cap on points counted, we jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire by removing the counting of points entirely. The current system is worse than the 2001 version.

No way UF beats BSU with the way they are playing.

If BSU were in the SEC east this year they would be going to to Championship game.

I think UF would beat BSU this year if it was one game amongst a regular SEC schedule.

I don't think I'm making that much of a stretch here.

Obviously these things are impossible to know, Boise has never had that week in and week out grind that you do with the SEC. One injury can change the whole fortune of some of these teams.

But would anybody here not find it at least somewhat reasonable to say that Boise's best team ever would win the worst SEC East ever? That's all I'm trying to say.

I think it would be reasonable to say that you think they "could" win. That's not as strong a claim as to say that they "would".

I do think it's unreasonable to claim that BSU would win the SEC East because despite BSU having a great record against mostly cupcakes, nobody has ever seen how they would perform with a much more difficult SOS. Having a few marquee wins during a 4 year period is not evidence of winning in a complete D-1 schedule.

I think that most who follow college football will agree that a season is more like a marathon than a sprint. It's several dice rolls where several of their opponents would at least win 3 out of 10 times they play them. In BSU's case, they would beat most of their opponents 29 out of 30 times they play them. It's not the same thing. Not the same ball-game.

 

[milohimself]

Oh well.

W4P, I have been listening to Duck fans complain non-stop all day today about the BCS rankings. What are you thinking?

 

[FREE EARL]

Oh well.

W4P, I have been listening to Duck fans complain non-stop all day today about the BCS rankings. What are you thinking?

He thinks Oklahoma is overrated, and this is his top 10 and reasoning below.

I think that the rankings should be 100% objective, based on points. So, my ranking follows Sagarin's points only column:

#1 Oregon
#2 Stanford
#3 TCU
#4 Boise State
#5 Alabama
#6 Missouri
#7 Oklahoma
#8 South Carolina
#9 Florida State
#10 Nebraska

These rankings may be shocking to some. But, they are all supported by how teams performed on the field against opponents of various strengths. For example, Auburn needed over-time to beat 3-3 Clemson and LSU only beat 2-4 UT by 2 points, bringing their ratings down. At the same time, teams that have one or even two losses are not necessarily worse (on average) than undefeated teams. For example, South Carolina who gained a lot of merit by beating Alabama by 14 (who had been blowing everyone out).

The only thing I would change is to add a cap on points counted. That might make some adjustments for teams with lots of cupcakes (including Oregon this year). But, I don't think it applies as much for this example because the purpose of the cap would be to discourage running up scores. Since doing that doesn't count and coaches know that, it shouldn't have been a factor this year. Although, some personalities are probably more inclined to run up scores than others and that could skew the results some.

 

[wheaton4prez]

Oh well.

W4P, I have been listening to Duck fans complain non-stop all day today about the BCS rankings. What are you thinking?

I'm not sure if you were interested in my top 10. But, Bumi went ahead and pasted it over from another board for some reason. Thanks?

As long as Oregon is #1 or #2, I'm good. Though, I do think that the BCS ranking system is flawed in many ways. You don't?

He thinks Oklahoma is overrated, and this is his top 10 and reasoning below.

Why do you feel the need to post what I've written onto other boards? I've been posting on sports related forums for some time and have never seen someone care so much about how another user is perceived.

 

[chavisut]

Stanford at 2, and Auburn out of the top 10. I wouldn't want anybody to see that poll either.

 

[milohimself]

Why do you feel the need to post what I've written onto other boards? I've been posting on sports related forums for some time and have never seen someone care so much about how another user is perceived.

Apparently you don't spend much time around here.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[wheaton4prez]

Stanford at 2, and Auburn out of the top 10. I wouldn't want anybody to see that poll either.

He got it from a public forum. I would have posted the same top 10 here. I don't care that anyone sees it. Apparently, Bumi does though.

The predictor column on Sagarin's site can be shown to have a better rate of predicting future results of match-ups than any of the win-based or human rankings. So, I stand by those rankings as being supported by statistics and objective merit.

Apparently you don't spend much time around here.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Does Bumi post responses for other people often? Or, are there others?

 

[milohimself]

More like hatvol and fill in the blank.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[FREE EARL]

Why do you feel the need to post what I've written onto other boards? I've been posting on sports related forums for some time and have never seen someone care so much about how another user is perceived.

It's a simple copy and paste. Doesn't take much effort, no need for self flattery.

 

[tvolsfan]

The predictor column on Sagarin's site can be shown to have a better rate of predicting future results of match-ups than any of the win-based rankings. So, I stand by those rankings as being supported by statistics. For example, I agree with them that Stanford would probably beat Auburn, despite their records.

And Alabama would likely kill them. Those rankings are crap.

 

[milohimself]

And Alabama would likely kill them. Those rankings are crap.

The "who would beat who" game doesn't work. The only method that works properly for ranking is comparing the accomplishments a team has had in that particular season. Who has beat who and who would beat who follow respectively in importance.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[FREE EARL]

Does Bumi post responses for other people often? Or, are there others?

Why are you so offended? :ermm:

 

[droski]

and stanford has beaten whom exactly?

 

[chavisut]

The "who would beat who" game doesn't work. The only method that works properly for ranking is comparing the accomplishments a team has had in that particular season. Who has beat who and who would beat who follow respectively in importance.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Agreed. If I was going to take one team against any other team, it would be Bama. They shouldn't be number one though.

 

[FREE EARL]

The "who would beat who" game doesn't work. The only method that works properly for ranking is comparing the accomplishments a team has had in that particular season. Who has beat who and who would beat who follow respectively in importance.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

His poll sucks. Stanford above a no loss Auburn team with a superior schedule? Hell, Stanford at #2? Those are "smh" rankings.

 

[FREE EARL]

and stanford has beaten whom exactly?

This.

Please respond to this post.

 

[milohimself]

and stanford has beaten whom exactly?

I'm not saying where they should be ranked. Take who has performed the most impressively first. If you can't tell between two choices, take who has the more impressive win. If you still can't decide then choose who would beat who on a neutral field.

Not saying picks have to go this way, but there needs to be some semblance of logic if you're making a ballot or list.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[tvolsfan]

Agreed. If I was going to take one team against any other team, it would be Bama. They shouldn't be number one though.

Which is why those rankings are stupid. Auburn shouldn't be ranked behind Stanford, despite the Sagarin ratings say.

 

[tvolsfan]

The "who would beat who" game doesn't work. The only method that works properly for ranking is comparing the accomplishments a team has had in that particular season. Who has beat who and who would beat who follow respectively in importance.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Which is why it's laughable that Auburn is behind Stanford. Wheaton responded by saying that it's okay, because Stanford would probably beat Auburn. I was just saying that even if it's making some sort of an attempt to determine who is a better team, the rankings still suck.

 

[FREE EARL]

Which is why those rankings are stupid. Auburn shouldn't be ranked behind Stanford, despite the Sagarin ratings say.

This.

I don't give a damn what the "Sagarin" ratings say, placing Stanford at #2, and having a two loss South Carolina team in the top 10 is just... I don't have the words.

His poll makes BOP's look good. And that's saying something.

 

[FREE EARL]

Which is why it's laughable that Auburn is behind Stanford. Wheaton responded by saying that it's okay, because Stanford would probably beat Auburn. I was just saying that even if it's making some sort of an attempt to determine who is a better team, the rankings still suck.

And I want to know why exactly he has Stanford beating Auburn. Who has Stanford beaten?

 

[cotton]

I'm still not above saying that MOV needs to be taken into account.

I never understood why they took it out completely. Beating a team by 1 is not the same as beating a team by 49.

Capping it makes more sense at, say, 17 or 21. If you got beat by that many, you got spanked. Any more is just more spanked.

I don't know, Wyoming can get a two for one deal with Texas. Yeah, that's right. Texas, during the '09 season, played Wyoming in Laramie.

UT played at Wyoming a couple of years ago in Nashville.

 

[KingNick865]

I never understood why they took it out completely. Beating a team by 1 is not the same as beating a team by 49.

Capping it makes more sense at, say, 17 or 21. If you got beat by that many, you got spanked. Any more is just more spanked.




UT played at Wyoming a couple of years ago in Nashville.

I think Wyoming moved that game due to the fact that they could make more money playing in Nashville than at Laramie.

 

[KingNick865]

If we're going off of most talented team...

1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma
4. LSU
5. Florida
6. Miami(FL)


After that, couldn't really decide