College Football - Week of 9/8

[soccer10k]

then why have conferences at all?

 

In what sport?

 

college football

 

I really don't see where you're going with this.

[Derwood]

then why have conferences at all?

 

In what sport?

 

college football

 

I really don't see where you're going with this.

 

if conference champs "shouldn't" get a playoff berth if they have 3 or 4 wins, why have conferences at all in a playoff system?

[soccer10k]

then why have conferences at all?

 

In what sport?

 

college football

 

I really don't see where you're going with this.

 

if conference champs "shouldn't" get a playoff berth if they have 3 or 4 wins, why have conferences at all in a playoff system?

 

I don't know and don't care because I wouldn't be in favor of a playoff system that would be large enough to accommodate all the conference champions. I could get behind a plus-1 system and a 4 team playoff. Nothing more.

[Derwood]

then why have conferences at all?

 

In what sport?

 

college football

 

I really don't see where you're going with this.

 

if conference champs "shouldn't" get a playoff berth if they have 3 or 4 wins, why have conferences at all in a playoff system?

 

I don't know and don't care because I wouldn't be in favor of a playoff system that would be large enough to accommodate all the conference champions. I could get behind a plus-1 system and a 4 team playoff. Nothing more.

 

with the teams determined how?

[soccer10k]

then why have conferences at all?

 

In what sport?

 

college football

 

I really don't see where you're going with this.

 

if conference champs "shouldn't" get a playoff berth if they have 3 or 4 wins, why have conferences at all in a playoff system?

 

I don't know and don't care because I wouldn't be in favor of a playoff system that would be large enough to accommodate all the conference champions. I could get behind a plus-1 system and a 4 team playoff. Nothing more.

 

with the teams determined how?

 

Well I'd prefer it if the system stayed the same.

 

But if there was a four team playoff you take the top 4 in the BCS. Make a special provision that if a team from a non-BCS conference goes undefeated and finishes the year ranked in the top 8 in the BCS then they will take the place of the No. 4 team.

[Derwood]

i wouldn't mind the BCS so much if it would disregard subjective polls and just determined things based on RPI, etc.

[CubColtPacer]

i wouldn't mind the BCS so much if it would disregard subjective polls and just determined things based on RPI, etc.

 

The one problem with this is-there is no incentive for margin of victory. Is a 1 point win worth the same as a 30 point win? If yes, then computer rankings are just fine. If a blowout adds value to a teams win, then something has to be done to account for that.

[Derwood]

i wouldn't mind the BCS so much if it would disregard subjective polls and just determined things based on RPI, etc.

 

The one problem with this is-there is no incentive for margin of victory. Is a 1 point win worth the same as a 30 point win? If yes, then computer rankings are just fine. If a blowout adds value to a teams win, then something has to be done to account for that.

 

they removed margin of victory from the computer portion of the BCS. the voters, however....

[CubColtPacer]

i wouldn't mind the BCS so much if it would disregard subjective polls and just determined things based on RPI, etc.

 

The one problem with this is-there is no incentive for margin of victory. Is a 1 point win worth the same as a 30 point win? If yes, then computer rankings are just fine. If a blowout adds value to a teams win, then something has to be done to account for that.

 

they removed margin of victory from the computer portion of the BCS. the voters, however....

 

Exactly, which is what I meant. If you think margin of victory is completely unimportant (to use an example, the ND comeback wins over UCLA and Michigan State last year would be worth as much as if they beat them 80-0) then the computer rankings are sufficient. If you think there should be a difference put in to equate "how well" a certain team played against another team, then it becomes more complicated.

[Mephistopheles]

A true playoff system eliminates the problem of bias in polls. It eliminates polls altogether. Most true playoff systems that have been proposed have some variation of every conference winner going (sometimes just every current BCS conference winner) and perhaps some wildcard-type teams. I see no way to rig that. No way.

 

As for lesser playoff systems (top 4 playoff, etc), there would still be polls and thus would not clear up the problem of bias. Love it or hate it, so long as there are polls there will be bias built in. The only way to get bias out of the system is to take away opinion.

 

I see no way for the "good ole boys" to rig a true playoff system, though.

 

I don't need to see an 8-4 2005 Florida State team getting into any sort of a playoff system. I also don't need to see a two or three loss team winning the national championship.

 

Then you're blind. If there was a playoff last season the most likely winner had two losses (USC).

 

I guess USC shouldn't have lost to Oregon State and UCLA then. Beat UCLA and they get into the title game. Tough luck. Same goes for Michigan (though they only had one loss). If they beat OSU, they're in the title game. Same goes for LSU. Beat Auburn and they get into the SEC title game where they get their shot at a rematch with Florida. Too bad they didn't. That's how it goes.

 

 

It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.

[B]

It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.

 

Yeah, it does.

[Mephistopheles]

It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.

 

Yeah, it does.

 

No it doesn't. The comment "Yeah, it does" only makes you wrong.

[dew1679666265]

It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.

 

Yeah, it does.

 

It doesn't change the fact that they were the most talented. They just didn't use that talent as well as other teams did.

[Andy]

It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.

 

Yeah, it does.

 

No it doesn't. The comment "Yeah, it does" only makes you wrong.

They were the best team in the nation. They also lost two games, one of them a completely inexcusable loss to Oregon State and the other a loss to a team that lost 5 games. They did not and should not have gotten a shot at the national title.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Andy

[Mephistopheles]

It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.

 

Yeah, it does.

 

It doesn't change the fact that they were the most talented. They just didn't use that talent as well as other teams did.

 

It doesn't even mean that.

[imb]

The best team at the end of the year doesn't always end up No. 1

 

Does anyone think that by January, Ohio State was a better team than USC? No way. But they were higher ranked, because they hadn't lost all season. A playoff would eliminate that little problem.

[Mephistopheles]

It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.

 

Yeah, it does.

 

No it doesn't. The comment "Yeah, it does" only makes you wrong.

They were the best team in the nation. They also lost two games, one of them a completely inexcusable loss to Oregon State. They did not and should not have gotten a shot at the national title.

 

Again this isn't true. You've guys convinced yourself of an absurd lie. You're over emphasizing Ws and Ls which makes most polls a complete joke. You don't do it to nearly the same degree in baseball. If a team goes 30-20 over the first 50 games it does not make them a better team than the team that went 25-25 over the first 50 games.

[Mephistopheles]

The best team at the end of the year doesn't always end up No. 1

 

Does anyone think that by January, Ohio State was a better team than USC? No way. But they were higher ranked, because they hadn't lost all season. A playoff would eliminate that little problem.

 

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions.

[Andy]

It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.

 

Yeah, it does.

 

No it doesn't. The comment "Yeah, it does" only makes you wrong.

They were the best team in the nation. They also lost two games, one of them a completely inexcusable loss to Oregon State. They did not and should not have gotten a shot at the national title.

 

Again this isn't true. You've guys convinced yourself of an absurd lie. You're over emphasizing Ws and Ls which makes most polls a complete joke. You don't do it to nearly the same degree in baseball. If a team goes 30-20 over the first 50 games it does not make them a better team than the team that went 25-25 over the first 50 games.

You're right. I'm overemphasizing Ws and Ls. You know, I bet there's a 4-8 team somewhere that outscored their opponents for the year - let's give them a bite of the apple.

[imb]

The best team at the end of the year doesn't always end up No. 1

 

Does anyone think that by January, Ohio State was a better team than USC? No way. But they were higher ranked, because they hadn't lost all season. A playoff would eliminate that little problem.

 

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions.

 

No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on.

 

In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home.

[dew1679666265]

It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.

 

Yeah, it does.

 

It doesn't change the fact that they were the most talented. They just didn't use that talent as well as other teams did.

 

It doesn't even mean that.

 

How do you explain them losing to two inferior teams then? You said USC was the best team last year, so how did they lose to Oregon State and UCLA without not maximizing their talent?

[Mephistopheles]

The 10% hypothesis I alluded to earlier. If UCLA and USC played 10 games against each other. How often would USC win? Probably 7 times. So that 30% chance that they were outplayed happened. It doesn't change the quality of the team.

[dew1679666265]

The best team at the end of the year doesn't always end up No. 1

 

Does anyone think that by January, Ohio State was a better team than USC? No way. But they were higher ranked, because they hadn't lost all season. A playoff would eliminate that little problem.

 

Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions.

 

No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on.

 

In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home.

 

Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS.

[Mephistopheles]

It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.

 

Yeah, it does.

 

No it doesn't. The comment "Yeah, it does" only makes you wrong.

They were the best team in the nation. They also lost two games, one of them a completely inexcusable loss to Oregon State. They did not and should not have gotten a shot at the national title.

 

Again this isn't true. You've guys convinced yourself of an absurd lie. You're over emphasizing Ws and Ls which makes most polls a complete joke. You don't do it to nearly the same degree in baseball. If a team goes 30-20 over the first 50 games it does not make them a better team than the team that went 25-25 over the first 50 games.

You're right. I'm overemphasizing Ws and Ls. You know, I bet there's a 4-8 team somewhere that outscored their opponents for the year - let's give them a bite of the apple.

 

11-2 is different from 4-8. Let's not be stupid. Of course you can always do some p testing...

[dew1679666265]

The 10% hypothesis I alluded to earlier. If UCLA and USC played 10 games against each other. How often would USC win? Probably 7 times. So that 30% chance that they were outplayed happened. It doesn't change the quality of the team.

 

I'm not saying the qualityof the team changed. Just that they played below their best - hence UCLA outplaying them.