Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 106 to 111 of 111

Thread: BCS Rankings

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,132
    vCash
    1470
    Quote Originally Posted by BradyIsTheMan12 View Post
    The funny thing about it is that Sagarin has said that because of the restrictions from the BCS, he can't rank Oregon the way he actually would. He actually has Oregon 2nd, but due to margin of victory not being a component, he has to put us 5th. It doesn't really matter since Oregon can win out and make it, but it is funny that even Sagarin agrees that the computers are flawed.
    Yeah but he still has Alabama at #1. I like Sagarin and I use his rankings for my confidence pool, but the problem with a lot of computer rankings is they are for gambling. Sure Alabama might be still be the best bet to win any game in CFB but do they still deserve a shot at the title over the undefeated teams?

    By the way his synthesis has Oregon at #3. Just his pure predictor has them at 2. The pure predictor is for gambling and is more about who Sagarin predicts will win in the future and not what you've already done.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt12.htm

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    14,210
    vCash
    1500
    No undefeated team in a power conference should lose out on a NC bid to any 1-loss team.

    And MOV should only be considered when you play a highly ranked team, especially away from home.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,132
    vCash
    1470
    I'd be in favor of CFB using only computer rankings for a 4 or 8 team playoff. Because then you know schools would be scrambling to schedule games against stronger opponents to increase their chances of getting. Right now there's basically no incentive to play stronger schedules as long as you get a handful of decent games and win out you are in.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    14,210
    vCash
    1500
    ^Mike Slive has already begun laying the groundwork for that scenario, in the debate over a 9-game conference schedule in the SEC:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...e-sec-schedule
    [T]he whispers about the SEC moving to a nine-game schedule have only grown louder as the SEC network seems more and more likely and the league's television partners presumably press harder for both more SEC-on-SEC inventory -- and better SEC-on-SEC inventory -- in exchange for their mega-millions. (Alabama and Florida, for instance, will play Kentucky and Arkansas in 2013 rather than each other.)

    Those whispers won't get any quieter after Slive himself said Tuesday that he doesn't want to be "married" to an eight-game schedule that may not be in the league's best interests in a playoff-dominated future. From an al.com Q&A:
    Q: Do you see the SEC going to nine conference football games at some point?

    A: "We vetted that out in Destin. We spent a lot of time on it, and there was an overwhelming majority (against it). The only thing I would say about that is in '14-'15, when the new playoff comes and the selection committee comes, we have to at least be sensitive and alert to make sure that our model, our formula, works for us in the way in which we want it to work. You can never be married to one thing if facts dictate that something else should be done."
    Those expecting the SEC to stay at eight games will say Slive is simply covering his bases, that the only concrete detail in that answer is that the league as a whole remains opposed to nine, and that the SEC's "formula" is intended to work at eight.

    But those expecting a change will note that Slive spends more time in this answer explaining why the league might go to nine than reasons it will stay at eight, that he offers no indication he's personally oppsed to going to nine, and that he even pinpoints a date at which the league might make the switch.

    At the very least, Slive clearly doesn't believe that the league's 2012 stance on a nine-game schedule will prevent it from having a very different stance in 2014 or 2015. It's been on the table once, and it will no doubt be on the table in the future. And given all the SEC's reasons for making the switch -- ones that include the ever-rising cost of cupcakes and need to appeal to season ticket-buyers, as well as schedule-strength and TV concerns -- it seems likely it won't come back off the table nearly as quickly next time.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ja-Blam
    Posts
    7,370
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry34 View Post
    I'd be in favor of CFB using only computer rankings for a 4 or 8 team playoff. Because then you know schools would be scrambling to schedule games against stronger opponents to increase their chances of getting. Right now there's basically no incentive to play stronger schedules as long as you get a handful of decent games and win out you are in.
    On the contrary, teams might also schedule weaker competition knowing that simply going undefeated against a bad schedule is enough to get them into one of the top 8 spots...
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,132
    vCash
    1470
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    On the contrary, teams might also schedule weaker competition knowing that simply going undefeated against a bad schedule is enough to get them into one of the top 8 spots...
    I agree to a point. Going undefeated with a weak schedule might get you into the 8 team playoff but might not work for the 4 team.

    Looking at Sagarin's aggregate ranking he has A&M at #4 with 2 losses and Oklahoma at #7 also with 2 losses. Their schedules are both in the top 15. But you have FSU and Clemson with 1 loss not even close to making the top 8. I think schools seeing things like that would hurry to at least eliminate 1 or 2 of their cupcakes in September each year realizing that it doesn't do them any good to play a team that's not ranked in the top 50.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •