College Football - Championship Week

[Guest]

Oh, my bad. Still a 12 point-loss. One of your three.

 

You're right. A 12 point loss in a game where Tebow couldn't run because of his shoulder and was sacked six times because of this. He's been sacked six times the entire rest of the season (!). Granted, the defense gave up 42 points, but the Gators would have scored 40 or so with a healthy Tebow, more than likely so the 12 point difference isn't very telling but keep pretending it is if you want.

 

This place's fixation on losses is laughable. A game between two opponents is a probabilistic outcome. Just because team X is better it does not mean they will win 100% of the time. Wins and losses in college football mean less than wins and losses in baseball. This is a statistical truth and can not be refuted.

I'm going to need some explanation. The best baseball teams almost never win 60 percent of their games and the worst don't often win under 40. Meanwhile, in college football, there are normally plenty of two-loss or fewer teams and plenty of two-win or fewer teams. From what I've seen, college football, more than any other sport in America, is the most likely to have the better team win a game.

 

Your on the right track. This quote is true: "From what I've seen, college football, more than any other sport in America, is the most likely to have the better team win a game." The problem is that wins and losses don't accurately measure which team is better. If you assume that the Gators are the number 2 team in the country, based on their schedule the most likely outcome is 2 losses. They would be expected to lose 2 games 32% of the time. They would be expected to lose 3 or more games 27.8% of the time!

 

So they score 40 with Tebow they still lose by 2

 

And a two point loss tells us nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's means about the same as winning by two points...

 

Except for the fact that they lost. Which means they didn't win. Which is the whole point of the game.

[Keener98]

Oh, my bad. Still a 12 point-loss. One of your three.

 

You're right. A 12 point loss in a game where Tebow couldn't run because of his shoulder and was sacked six times because of this. He's been sacked six times the entire rest of the season (!). Granted, the defense gave up 42 points, but the Gators would have scored 40 or so with a healthy Tebow, more than likely so the 12 point difference isn't very telling but keep pretending it is if you want.

 

This place's fixation on losses is laughable. A game between two opponents is a probabilistic outcome. Just because team X is better it does not mean they will win 100% of the time. Wins and losses in college football mean less than wins and losses in baseball. This is a statistical truth and can not be refuted.

I'm going to need some explanation. The best baseball teams almost never win 60 percent of their games and the worst don't often win under 40. Meanwhile, in college football, there are normally plenty of two-loss or fewer teams and plenty of two-win or fewer teams. From what I've seen, college football, more than any other sport in America, is the most likely to have the better team win a game.

 

Your on the right track. This quote is true: "From what I've seen, college football, more than any other sport in America, is the most likely to have the better team win a game." The problem is that wins and losses don't accurately measure which team is better. If you assume that the Gators are the number 2 team in the country, based on their schedule the most likely outcome is 2 losses. They would be expected to lose 2 games 32% of the time. They would be expected to lose 3 or more games 27.8% of the time!

 

So they score 40 with Tebow they still lose by 2

 

And a two point loss tells us nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's means about the same as winning by two points...

 

With you any Florida loss tells us nothing, and basically any SEC loss tells us nothing. Would you please tell me when a loss does mean something?

[Jon]

As much as the polls try to determine the best teams, in the end, it's like all sports. It's not about the best team. It's about the team that wins.

[SouthSideRyan]

Kansas sucks.

 

BTW, did you guys see the number 2 in the Sagarin ratings? I'll give you guys a hint: They don't have one or two losses.

 

good thing some guy in USA Today's rankings have no actual effect on the real world

 

Except one of his polls is used for the BCS Computer rankings...

 

Florida's top five in all scientific polls that involve SOS and score as well as other things. It should be certain that theyre one of the top five teams in the country.

 

Then why'd you rank them 6?

[CubColtPacer]

I understand what meph is trying to say. At the same time, most fans want the BCS to be like other sports. Other sports don't crown the best team, they crown the most deserving team. When you're talking about who is deserving to play for the national title, it has to be about wins and losses first, then schedule second, then margin of victory third.

 

Sure, Florida might be one of the best 5 teams in the nation. They aren't one of the 5 most deserving teams though, and I believe most people would rather have the most deserving teams than necessarily who is the best in BCS games. Otherwise, the point of the games in the first place is lost. If rankings aren't based on wins and losses first, then the drama of a close game becomes almost nil, and that's what people love about college football. For example, the LSU-Arkansas game on Friday. If you're going to rank LSU about the same either way (because they've played a hard schedule and it was an OT game), then there is no reason for fans around the nation to really care about the game.

Edited November 26, 2007 by CubColtPacer

[Mizzou]

Oh, my bad. Still a 12 point-loss. One of your three.

 

You're right. A 12 point loss in a game where Tebow couldn't run because of his shoulder and was sacked six times because of this. He's been sacked six times the entire rest of the season (!). Granted, the defense gave up 42 points, but the Gators would have scored 40 or so with a healthy Tebow, more than likely so the 12 point difference isn't very telling but keep pretending it is if you want.

 

This place's fixation on losses is laughable. A game between two opponents is a probabilistic outcome. Just because team X is better it does not mean they will win 100% of the time. Wins and losses in college football mean less than wins and losses in baseball. This is a statistical truth and can not be refuted.

I'm going to need some explanation. The best baseball teams almost never win 60 percent of their games and the worst don't often win under 40. Meanwhile, in college football, there are normally plenty of two-loss or fewer teams and plenty of two-win or fewer teams. From what I've seen, college football, more than any other sport in America, is the most likely to have the better team win a game.

 

Your on the right track. This quote is true: "From what I've seen, college football, more than any other sport in America, is the most likely to have the better team win a game." The problem is that wins and losses don't accurately measure which team is better. If you assume that the Gators are the number 2 team in the country, based on their schedule the most likely outcome is 2 losses. They would be expected to lose 2 games 32% of the time. They would be expected to lose 3 or more games 27.8% of the time!

 

So they score 40 with Tebow they still lose by 2

 

And a two point loss tells us nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's means about the same as winning by two points...

Hahaha, are you serious? A two point loss means the same thing as a two point win? How drunk are you right now?

 

Hey guys, win or lose, who cares. Let's just not lose by too much. Keeping the score close is what matters. :roll:

[Derwood]

They would be expected to lose 2 games 32% of the time. They would be expected to lose 3 or more games 27.8% of the time!

 

funny, i thought they lost 3 games 100% of the time this year

[Vanilla Ice]

With you any Florida loss tells us nothing, and basically any SEC loss tells us nothing. Would you please tell me when a loss does mean something?

 

When Kansas loses to Missouri, Ohio State loses to Illinois, West Virginia loses to South Florida.

[SouthSideRyan]

Let's focus on what's important here. How these games affect U of I's BCS chances.

 

To start you've got the winner of Mizzou/OU + loser of that game/KU taking 2 spots

 

You've got winner of LSU/Tennessee + loser of that game/Florida/Georgia taking 2 spots

 

You've got West Virginia

 

You've got Ohio State

 

You've got the winner of the PAC 10 (For ease and realism let's say USC beats UCLA)

 

You've got the winner of Va Tech/BC

 

That's 8 spots accounted for

 

The only title game that matters for U of I's BCS chances is the ACC Title game. With a BC win, Va Tech likely takes an at large spot and leaves just one at large open. With a VA Tech win, BC likely drops out of the top 14 and leaves 2 spots open and removes itself from consideration.

 

Hawaii right now is top 12 in the BCS thus locking itself into a BCS slot. I believe they'll keep top 12 status unless they lose to Washington. If they lose to Washington, they're out. If they beat them they're in.

 

If Arizona beats ASU, ASU is out of BCS contention. If ASU wins, they remain in the running.

 

If UCLA pulls off a miracle and beats USC, USC probably remains top 14 and steals an at large spot.

 

So in summary you are to go out and buy a hat and hoodie for Va Tech, Washington, Arizona, and USC. LSU beating Tennessee guarantees U of I a top 14 spot, but I'm confident enough in one of BC, Hawaii, or ASU losing to push us in anyway.

 

We certainly don't need all the right outcomes. Washington over Hawaii or Arizona over ASU would probably enough. We may not need any real upset help and could get the pick straight up over ASU(which is pretty much what it would come down to if all the favorites win), but it sure would be nice to get locked in and just worry about what warm weather site I'll be celebrating New Year's.

[snoodmonger]

I understand Meph's point to a sense. At the same time, most fans want the BCS to be like other sports. Other sports don't crown the best team, they crown the most deserving team. When you're talking about who is deserving to play for the national title, it has to be about wins and losses first, then schedule second, then margin of victory third.

 

Sure, Florida might be one of the best 5 teams in the nation. They aren't one of the 5 most deserving teams though, and I believe most people would rather have the most deserving teams than necessarily who is the best in BCS games. Otherwise, the point of the games in the first place is lost. If rankings aren't based on wins and losses first, then the drama of a close game becomes almost nil, and that's what people love about college football. For example, the LSU-Arkansas game on Friday. If you're going to rank LSU about the same either way (because they've played a hard schedule and it was an OT game), then there is no reason for fans around the nation to really care about the game.

 

Exactly. I don't think anyone doubts UF is very good. But you have to play your way to the top. They lost 3 games--against high-end competition for sure--but they still had the three losses.

[imb]

This thread is awesome, because of what I have learned here today, OU is No. 1 in the nation and on its way to the Superdome!

 

Yeah, Florida lost, but Tebow had a bum shoulder, so I'll look past that loss. Well too bad sonny jim, they still have two more losses. We had Bradford out for over three quarters and barely lost on the road at Texas Tech. It's clear that had he been healthy, like he is now, we would have won that game.

 

NUMBER 1 BABY

[imb]

My real point, by the way, is that BCS bowl games and the actual championship game is not about finding the best teams in the nation and putting them there.

[SouthSideRyan]

I overlooked the fact that Georgia is #4 in the BCS. If they hold that spot, they're locked into a BCS. Sorry Timmy.

[Derwood]

i think if Oklahoma loses to Missouri, they'll be out of the BCS. just a hunch

[imb]

i think if Oklahoma loses to Missouri, they'll be out of the BCS. just a hunch

 

No, it doesn't matter, because when we lost to texas tech, bradford was injured.

 

That means that we're really just a one-loss team, so if we lose to Mizzou, we will "technically" have three losses, but there will be an asterisk next to it because our most important player was injured during one of the losses. So we will still get an at-large bid.

[Guest]

i think if Oklahoma loses to Missouri, they'll be out of the BCS. just a hunch

 

No, it doesn't matter, because when we lost to texas tech, bradford was injured.

 

That means that we're really just a one-loss team, so if we lose to Mizzou, we will "technically" have three losses, but there will be an asterisk next to it because our most important player was injured during one of the losses. So we will still get an at-large bid.

 

I propose a USC-Oklahoma championship game. You've provided the reasons for OU, let me do USC.

 

John David Booty played with a broken finger in his throwing hand against Stanford. If he had been healthy, they win that game. Said broken finger also kept him out of the Oregon game. That means USC is undefeated!!!

[Mizzou]

Guys, Jeremy Maclin missed all of last year with a knee injury. With him, we would have went undefeated. So basically, Mizzou should have won the National Title in 2006.

[Derwood]

Penn State was fully healthy and lost 4 games. So, um....

[SouthSideRyan]

Penn State was fully healthy and lost 4 games. So, um....

 

Morelli wasn't injured? He sure played like he was.

[Derwood]

Penn State was fully healthy and lost 4 games. So, um....

 

Morelli wasn't injured? He sure played like he was.

 

i wasn't counting brain damage

[Guest]

Guys, Jeremy Maclin missed all of last year with a knee injury. With him, we would have went undefeated. So basically, Mizzou should have won the National Title in 2006.

 

Have you guys competely missed the fact that wins and losses are irrelevant?

[Mephistopheles]

Except for the fact that they lost. Which means they didn't win. Which is the whole point of the game.

 

The difference does not mean anything when it comes to telling us which team is better. It really does not. This is not a difficult concept. Wins and losses have almost no predicative power in college football, even less than they do in major league baseball.

 

With you any Florida loss tells us nothing, and basically any SEC loss tells us nothing. Would you please tell me when a loss does mean something?

 

I'm telling you that the score means more than who won or lost. And don't even spew the crap about the score shows who won and who lost. You're not dumb. You know what I mean.

 

They aren't one of the 5 most deserving teams though, and I believe most people would rather have the most deserving teams than necessarily who is the best in BCS games.

 

Deserving is subjective. What makes an inferior team more deserving than a superior team? Remember these rankings are based on how well the teams played...

 

Hahaha, are you serious? A two point loss means the same thing as a two point win? How drunk are you right now?

 

When it comes to how good two teams are. Beating a team by 2 points is worth about as much as losing by 2 points. A few points either way in a college game are kinda random. It's not like we're talking about two touchdowns up is the same as two touchdowns down, it's not. We're talking about a field goal either way. There's a lot of volatility in that. There's a reason it works out this way...and it has nothing to do with the SEC, Big XII, Big Ten or Mangino's waist size.

 

Exactly. I don't think anyone doubts UF is very good. But you have to play your way to the top. They lost 3 games--against high-end competition for sure--but they still had the three losses.

 

Is three losses on their schedule all that different than one loss on Kansas'? (Answer: No). Schedule matters.

 

My real point, by the way, is that BCS bowl games and the actual championship game is not about finding the best teams in the nation and putting them there.

 

I have not said anything about Florida going to the NC game....

 

That means that we're really just a one-loss team, so if we lose to Mizzou, we will "technically" have three losses, but there will be an asterisk next to it because our most important player was injured during one of the losses. So we will still get an at-large bid.

 

Guess who is number one in the ratings where Florida is number two....

[snoodmonger]

Exactly. I don't think anyone doubts UF is very good. But you have to play your way to the top. They lost 3 games--against high-end competition for sure--but they still had the three losses.

 

Is three losses on their schedule all that different than one loss on Kansas'? (Answer: No). Schedule matters.

 

That depends on what we're trying to evaluate. Are we evaluating where each should be in the polls using the current system? If so, then yes, 3 losses is very different from one loss.

 

Are we trying to determine who would win if they actually played? Then your argument is relevant. But I don't see the purpose of engaging in that argument, because if they did play and Kansas won, you'd still say UF was better because, according to the #s, UF is still a better team.

[Mephistopheles]

Are we trying to determine who would win if they actually played? Then your argument is relevant. But I don't see the purpose of engaging in that argument, because if they did play and Kansas won, you'd still say UF was better because, according to the #s, UF is still a better team.

 

We're trying to determine the most likely outcome of a game between the two teams. If Florida and Kansas played and Kansas beat Florida handedly, then Florida would likely fall behind Kansas in such algorithms. The games do matter. If Florida and Kansas played and Kansas won by one point, nothing would likely change. If they won 45-14, then there'd be a huge change and rightfully so.

 

But enough about me winning this argument with relative ease, let's talk about this:

[snoodmonger]

Are we trying to determine who would win if they actually played? Then your argument is relevant. But I don't see the purpose of engaging in that argument, because if they did play and Kansas won, you'd still say UF was better because, according to the #s, UF is still a better team.

 

We're trying to determine the most likely outcome of a game between the two teams. If Florida and Kansas played and Kansas beat Florida handedly, then Florida would likely fall behind Kansas in such algorithms. The games do matter. If Florida and Kansas played and Kansas won by one point, nothing would likely change. If they won 45-14, then there'd be a huge change and rightfully so.

 

But enough about me winning this argument with relative ease, let's talk about this:

 

Lol, give me a break.