BCS Theoretical Situations or What if's Site?
- Thread starter Blue-Mush
- Start date
Quality like Miami and VaTech right?
Ah when Miami and VT both left they were both quality teams. Everybody has down years. In fact the only reason the big east was a BCS conference is because of those teams, specifically Miami.
Last edited:
lonewolf63afo
Veteran X
VT circa 99 was a lot different than this rutgers team. For starters, VT was winning on a regular basis for a better part of the 90s. Plus, they had the hype machine known as michael vick. plus, vt didnt have to deal with as much garbage about the league being weak.
This rutgers team has very little going for it. two years ago it was 4-7 or something, and everyone is down on the big east. they wont get their shot.
You are just proving whats wrong with the BCS and you are showing the same bias that is going to keep Rutgers out of the NC game.. You aren't looking at the team THIS year for what it is. You are looking at the schools history instead of what matters--the football team they have this year. Wake Forest has never been a good team, but guess what? They have a good team this year. Being shitty in the past doesn't make them any less of a team this year.
Not beating any quaility non-conference teams and only beating in conference teams, in a conference that is not up to par with the others does make you shitty no matter year it is.
However you are proving what is wrong with the BCS when you are only looking at thier record and not who they played.
They will not win out.
Blue this is from a statistics guy on a private Longhorn forum, it was posted last night after the game.
His summary-
tonight was huge for the program. Without Louisville's loss, we had a very, very slim shot....and I can't emphasize that enough. But, there's still some work to be done. Right now, Texas, Auburn, Florida & USC are doing their happy dance b/c we're the frontrunners for that 2nd spot in the MNC game. So, who stands where? And, what does each team need in order to get to the game? Here's my breakdown....
USC: USC needs the least to get to the MNC, but their run is probably the most improbable, as they have to run the tables on Oregon, Cal, Notre Dame & UCLA, then have one of Auburn or Florida lose a game (which would happen if Auburn ended up in the SEC CG.
Texas: Texas simply needs (1) Michigan to drop at least 2-3 spots in the human polls, (2) Tennessee, LSU & Arkansas to beat up on each other (meaning, we don't want any of these teams to run the table, especially Arkie), (3) Arkie to not lose 2 of 3 games (which would put Auburn in the SEC CG), & (4) USC to lose a game. All of those things are probable, so Texas is in a good position.
Florida: Florida needs either (1) Auburn to lose AND Tennessee & LSU to run the tables, (2) Arkie to lose 2 games & then beat a 1-loss Auburn in the SEC CG or (3) Arkie to win out & then beat them in the SEC CG. If numbers 1 or 2 play out, Florida has the edge on the MNC. If #3 happens, then it's a horse race. But, as you can see, they're putting all their hope on Auburn to lose a game they shouldn't, Tennessee & LSU to win all their remaining games inspite of their poor play, & Arkansas to continue to overachieve mightily. Then, they have to go out and beat either the only team that's beaten them or beat a team that has beaten Auburn, Tennessee & LSU.
Auburn: Auburn has to have Arkansas lose 2 games & then they need to beat Florida in the SEC CG in order to have a chance. Without that, they're D-E-A-D!
Michigan (or tOSU): Michigan will still have an edge on us in most of the computer polls due to the Big 10 having a higher relative SOS than the Big XII. But, they'd need to fall no lower than 5th in the human polls to have a shot and no lower than 3rd to guarantee they hang onto #2.
After tonight's loss by Louisville, expect Florida, Auburn & USC to benefit slightly more than Texas. All 3 of those teams trail Louisville in every human & computer poll, while Texas is neck & neck w/ Louisville in both human polls & trails them in all but 1 computer poll. However, if we go out and simply dominate KSU, we should (especially if the other 3 teams struggle) establish ourselves as the solid #3 in the human polls. However, if USC has a good game against Oregon, they could gain on us in the human polls. Of course, I don't expect USC to run the tables w/ their schedule. One thing to keep in mind though, Rutgers is just barely behind USC, Auburn & Florida in the computer polls, so it's quite possible (actually probable) that they'll jump the 3 of them. But, since we trail them in 5 of the 6 computer polls, this doesn't damage us a bit. So, depending on Rutger's move in the computer polls, we actually could make a BIG leap in the polls, as we'd pass Louisville, but Louisville & Rutgers would simply swap spots ahead of our competitors in the computer polls.
This is getting interesting. If USC loses to Oregon and Florida struggles, I'll feel a lot better! USC is our biggest threat b/c the could pass us by simply winning out.
His summary-
tonight was huge for the program. Without Louisville's loss, we had a very, very slim shot....and I can't emphasize that enough. But, there's still some work to be done. Right now, Texas, Auburn, Florida & USC are doing their happy dance b/c we're the frontrunners for that 2nd spot in the MNC game. So, who stands where? And, what does each team need in order to get to the game? Here's my breakdown....
USC: USC needs the least to get to the MNC, but their run is probably the most improbable, as they have to run the tables on Oregon, Cal, Notre Dame & UCLA, then have one of Auburn or Florida lose a game (which would happen if Auburn ended up in the SEC CG.
Texas: Texas simply needs (1) Michigan to drop at least 2-3 spots in the human polls, (2) Tennessee, LSU & Arkansas to beat up on each other (meaning, we don't want any of these teams to run the table, especially Arkie), (3) Arkie to not lose 2 of 3 games (which would put Auburn in the SEC CG), & (4) USC to lose a game. All of those things are probable, so Texas is in a good position.
Florida: Florida needs either (1) Auburn to lose AND Tennessee & LSU to run the tables, (2) Arkie to lose 2 games & then beat a 1-loss Auburn in the SEC CG or (3) Arkie to win out & then beat them in the SEC CG. If numbers 1 or 2 play out, Florida has the edge on the MNC. If #3 happens, then it's a horse race. But, as you can see, they're putting all their hope on Auburn to lose a game they shouldn't, Tennessee & LSU to win all their remaining games inspite of their poor play, & Arkansas to continue to overachieve mightily. Then, they have to go out and beat either the only team that's beaten them or beat a team that has beaten Auburn, Tennessee & LSU.
Auburn: Auburn has to have Arkansas lose 2 games & then they need to beat Florida in the SEC CG in order to have a chance. Without that, they're D-E-A-D!
Michigan (or tOSU): Michigan will still have an edge on us in most of the computer polls due to the Big 10 having a higher relative SOS than the Big XII. But, they'd need to fall no lower than 5th in the human polls to have a shot and no lower than 3rd to guarantee they hang onto #2.
After tonight's loss by Louisville, expect Florida, Auburn & USC to benefit slightly more than Texas. All 3 of those teams trail Louisville in every human & computer poll, while Texas is neck & neck w/ Louisville in both human polls & trails them in all but 1 computer poll. However, if we go out and simply dominate KSU, we should (especially if the other 3 teams struggle) establish ourselves as the solid #3 in the human polls. However, if USC has a good game against Oregon, they could gain on us in the human polls. Of course, I don't expect USC to run the tables w/ their schedule. One thing to keep in mind though, Rutgers is just barely behind USC, Auburn & Florida in the computer polls, so it's quite possible (actually probable) that they'll jump the 3 of them. But, since we trail them in 5 of the 6 computer polls, this doesn't damage us a bit. So, depending on Rutger's move in the computer polls, we actually could make a BIG leap in the polls, as we'd pass Louisville, but Louisville & Rutgers would simply swap spots ahead of our competitors in the computer polls.
This is getting interesting. If USC loses to Oregon and Florida struggles, I'll feel a lot better! USC is our biggest threat b/c the could pass us by simply winning out.
everybody acts like they know how the BCS formulas work, when in reality the formulas are not made public. I think perhaps 1 or 2 of the computer formulas are made public, but for the most part the computer component is a "secret." I think they're afraid we'll all find out it's totally asinine.
Everyone knows exactly how the BCS formula works - it's that the computer poll methodologies are typically not revealed.
The computer components are people's individual formulas that typically were released for a long time before the BCS adopted them (Jeff Sagarin, Anderson & Hester, Richard Billingsley, Colley Matrix, Kenneth Massey and Dr. Peter Wolfe) - it is their choice whether they release the methodology or not.
This, for example, is the methodology of Massey http://www.masseyratings.com/theory/massey.htm
Sagarin generally explains the methodology but not the formula.
This guy Massey's SOS formula bothers me a lot. It's just wrong. He says that there are teams rated "great, good, average, bad, pathetic." Simply put, he says in HIS opinion a schedule against teams "good, good, good, average" is better than a schedule against teams "great, great, good, pathetic." Here's the link to his retarded thinking process. http://www.masseyratings.com/theory/sched.htm
He didn't say that was how he ranked the teams, he restricted the teams to 5 distinct types of teams rather than all 113 to explain how probability and the expected win value plays into the strength of schedule. It simply is a way to explain the revaluation of strength of schedule as teams win and lose (it adjusts the expected win value as the year goes along and revalues each team based on all the results).
A little closer reading of the page would help you
specificallyclueless.
bcs/computer polls have absolutely nothing to do with teams in the non championship bowl game, with a few exceptions(non conf champ in top 4 bcs, notre dame rule).
after conference champions get their bids, bowls decide for themselves who they want to play in the bowls. if they want more money and viewers then so be it, its their bowl.
i'll admit i'm not the smartest math guy on the planet, but I do know football pretty well. And what I gathered from his example really made me think about how these computer polls are really influenced by their creators. His example explains why the Pac10 is 1,2,3 in strength of schedule this year. Which, to the common football fan we all know is absurd. The "good, good, good, average" model seems to work in their favor. USC is #1 in SOS and who have they played? Notre Dame, Oregon, Cal, and UCLA aren't even added into their SOS formula yet. I could be thinking about Sagarin's ratings, but the point remains the same. How is that possible?!?!?! How can a computer say that Southern Cal has had the hardest schedule and their hardest games are YET to be played?He didn't say that was how he ranked the teams, he restricted the teams to 5 distinct types of teams rather than all 113 to explain how probability and the expected win value plays into the strength of schedule. It simply is a way to explain the revaluation of strength of schedule as teams win and lose (it adjusts the expected win value as the year goes along and revalues each team based on all the results).
A little closer reading of the page would help you
1. They are listed 5th according to his website. (current schedule)
My guess would be the Home/away thing, they played Arkansas away, a massive boost that probably balances out the three teams that don't have a winning record on their schedule at the moment. Then against Nebraska and @Oregon State pushes it up. Why does Oregon State push it up? Because two of their three losses came against a 9-0 and 8-1 team (plus now the 8-1 USC victory)
An Arkansas loss would drop them greatly, and the Oregon-Oregon State game will probably knock them down further.
As for your issue about great - bad and average average.. it makes sense to me personally for a schedule where nearly everyone on it is around or above .500 to be ranked higher than one where a quarter of the teams have 3 or fewer wins. This beckons to mediocrity vs parity argument, in short the Expected win value of a schedule with a portion of utter failures tends to be higher than one with a lot of teams around .500 because of the probabilities of victories involved.
I think it will balance itself out with the final few games, just like I think the ACC SOS will shoot up at the same time as all the 1 and 2 loss teams play each other.
For reference, currently on an unbiased SoS determination (purely w/l record of opponents), USC is 36th but based on culmulative opponents is ranked 6th.
In a nut shell, the expected win values change if (for example) Arkansas loses to either Tennessee or LSU, Oregon State loses to Hawaii, and Nebraska loses to Texas A&M.
The quality of a team is determined by their expected wins vs their actual wins, their expected wins are determined by the quality of their opponents. It seems circular, but essentially as you add in more results - it gets mapped better and better.
Essentially, as the sample size increases, the SoS becomes more accurate. You may not agree with the numbers based on your particular bias, but mathematically the concepts are sound.
Last edited:
i'll just say this. Playing "great" teams should be worth a LOT in terms of quality wins. There's a huge difference between playing Florida/Auburn than playing Washington State/Oregon State. HUGE difference. If you want to equate that to other conferences fine, but the easiest analogies are between the SEC and Pac10. USC and Cal make their living beating the #25s and #19s of the world all year long, when Florida/TN/Auburn/LSU are playing 2 or 3 top 10 teams each season.
The SEC is not inherently overrated. They have the highest payed coaches, the best recruits, and the best facilities for a reason. They have led the nation in attendance something like 40 years in a row for a reason. I'm tired of people saying that the only reason SEC teams beat "top 10 teams" is because they're overrated to begin with. That's just not true. Georgia looks like they're having a down year, and they could play with anybody in the country on any given Saturday. They could very well beat Auburn this weekend.
This year is a perfect example of why a 1 loss SEC team deserves to be in the national champ game. If Florida, Auburn, or LSU played in the BigEast it would be just like the old Miami. They would win it EVERY single year and it wouldn't even be a contest. How badly would Florida/Auburn/LSU beat Rutgers? Give me a break. That game was painful to watch last night. Louisville's offensive line was getting whipped by a bunch of D2 type players.
I'll give Rutgers' backfield credit for being good. But Rutgers' O line and Louisville's D line were both terrible, so they cancelled one another out. The QB was obviously in way over his head, but he actually played well enough to win the game.
Bottom line, West VA, Louisville, and Rutgers are about 5 spots each overrated. Although, I believe Rutgers is better than West Virginia also.
The SEC is not inherently overrated. They have the highest payed coaches, the best recruits, and the best facilities for a reason. They have led the nation in attendance something like 40 years in a row for a reason. I'm tired of people saying that the only reason SEC teams beat "top 10 teams" is because they're overrated to begin with. That's just not true. Georgia looks like they're having a down year, and they could play with anybody in the country on any given Saturday. They could very well beat Auburn this weekend.
This year is a perfect example of why a 1 loss SEC team deserves to be in the national champ game. If Florida, Auburn, or LSU played in the BigEast it would be just like the old Miami. They would win it EVERY single year and it wouldn't even be a contest. How badly would Florida/Auburn/LSU beat Rutgers? Give me a break. That game was painful to watch last night. Louisville's offensive line was getting whipped by a bunch of D2 type players.
I'll give Rutgers' backfield credit for being good. But Rutgers' O line and Louisville's D line were both terrible, so they cancelled one another out. The QB was obviously in way over his head, but he actually played well enough to win the game.
Bottom line, West VA, Louisville, and Rutgers are about 5 spots each overrated. Although, I believe Rutgers is better than West Virginia also.
It helps that most SEC teams are all in the middle of nowhere with no real professional teams competing for fanbase. That's also true for a lot of the mid-west teams, which is why you see a lot of teams there averaging 70-100k and having 40 consecutive years of sell-outs.
Best recruits is highly subjective since no one can agree on which recruits are better than others. Best facilities also fairly subjective and depends on your metrics. Highest paid coaches is not really that good of an argument for why a conference is better than another.
They can also lose to anybody in the country on any given Saturday, see: Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Colorado, etc.
As for the inherent over-rating, when you stack up on cream-puffs so that everyone starts out the season 3-0 it tends to make the later season matchups look better (8-1 vs 7-2 as opposed to 7-2 vs 6-3). It also inflates the early season rankings as other teams play each other and knock one another way down the standings while everyone else wins against cream-puffs and moves up. Those early season rankings are parlayed into perceived conferencee strength that biases the perception of the conferences for the rest of the season.
It would be much easier to adequately compare conferences if the SEC played ANYONE ELSE, the only major datapoint so far is Arkansas getting their ass kicked by USC (and vice versa); other than that, it's top-tier SEC teams beating middle and lower tier teams in other conferences.
Will your argument change if somehow the SEC goes 0-3 in the rivalry games with the ACC?
Last edited: