It is time for the Truth!

• Zombaypirate

  fan_from_texas;523327 wrote:Did you bother reading the link I posted at all? Are you familiar with how ELO ratings work? They don't have any bias as far as starting point for teams--everyone starts the season the same. Teams that win against quality opponents (which are teams that play well against other teams) move up, while teams that don't play well move down. It doesn't matter if they're in the WAC or the SEC. It's an interative process. It's the same idea that Vegas uses, which is why their point spreads are so accurate. It's not like Alabama gets bonus points for being Alabama--all teams have the same starting point, then diverge based on results.
  
  For a more technical explanation, read this:
  
  
  The fact that good teams end up on top isn't reflective of bias; it's reflective of reality. This isn't circular at all.
  

  Really?
  
  Are you really trying to defend this?
  
  It is total bias.
  
  Massey had Alabama above S.Carolina this is reality? Reality? really? Here is reality for you.
  
  S.Carolina 35 Alabama 21
  
  There is slap in the face of reality.
  
  
  You are talking nonsense, utter nonsense.
• ytownfootball

  

  superfluous
  
  over using a new word lessens it's impact
  
  In short chief...
  

  It does not matter if 50 teams could go undefeated with that schedule, as that means absolutely nothing.

  If you don't see the flawed logic in this statement then there's no hope for you to understand anything fft is showing you.
  
  and fyi...the computers are only 1/3 of the equation so your "reality" is addressed.
• Zombaypirate

  ytownfootball;523415 wrote:superfluous
  
  over using a new word lessens it's impact
  
  In short chief...
  
  
  
  If you don't see the flawed logic in this statement then there's no hope for you to understand anything fft is showing you.

  
  You fail, not I.
  
  If you do not think that it is possible that a smaller conference can put forth the best team then I am not sure what to tell you.
  
  There is no failed logic in my statement.
  
  Allow me to explain. So what if 50 teams could win that conference does that mean that they are better than Boise St? Ummm No it does not. It only means that 50 teams could win that conference which tells us nothing.
  
  Perhaps we should just go back to the AP telling us who the best teams are?
  
  Yeah, High school football should give up the harbins PLAYOFF system. Those small weak conferences could never produce State champions let the AP and computers decide.
  
  No way a GCL team loses to inferior conferences............................. Oh Wait..... umm yes sometimes a small conference team is just too good.
• ytownfootball

  

  Zombaypirate;523423 wrote: There is no failed logic in my statement.
  
  Allow me to explain. So what if 50 teams could win that conference does that mean that they are better than Boise St? Ummm No it does not. It only means that 50 teams could win that conference which tells us nothing.
  
  Perhaps we should just go back to the AP telling us who the best teams are?

  
  Allow me to retort.
  
  No, it doesn't mean those fifty teams are "better" than Boise St....that's not the question. The question is, who deserves the title shot/ranking more? Those fiddy teams that play a tougher schedule or the ONE that just happens to have Boise's schedule? This is PARTICULARLY true when considering pre-season rankings, which of course Boise was "gifted" at #3.
  
  At seasons end though, the BCS does about as well as anything in determining who should be where, and if Boise ends up there by virtue of how well their defeated opponents perform, then fine...otherwise GTFO. Obviously not returning to the AP so put that out of your little mind.
• fan_from_texas

  Zombaypirate;523405 wrote:Yes, I read it and it is very circular as you admit with this quote. Teams that win against quality opponents (which are teams that play well against other teams)
  
  Who are the quality opponents? You are talking nonsense.
  
  So teams with winning records are greater than those with losing records. ELO is worthless superfluous crap.

  
  "Quality opponents" are teams that improve their rating by beating other teams. It's an iterative process--do you understand what that means? Each team starts with the exact same rating. That's not circular--it's as level as you can get. You "become" a quality opponent by playing "above" your current rating. If a team outperforms its rating, it's rating improves (and the opposite if it underperforms). Each game provides more information, as it clarifies not only how good the team is, but how good its opponents are by adding a data point. This isn't "circular" and it isn't randomly determining which teams are quality opponents--in week 1, everyone is the exact same, regardless of whether they're San Jose State or Alabama. But if Alabama blows out teams that play well, and San Jose State loses to teams that play poorly, then in week 8, a team stands to gain more points by beating Alabama than San Jose State--Alabama "becomes" a quality opponent based solely on its play.
  
  What part of this are you not following? You don't seem to be disputing the math; you seem to misunderstand the fundamental basis of Sauceda/ELO ratings. Their retrodictive validity--as well as their predictive validity--are off the charts. They're more accurate than the human polls. What part of this is confusing or controversial? You're not actually making any arguments here; you're repeating a mantra over and over again, hoping that eventually people get tired of debating it with you.
• fan_from_texas

  Zombaypirate;523411 wrote:Really?
  
  Are you really trying to defend this?
  
  It is total bias.
  
  Massey had Alabama above S.Carolina this is reality? Reality? really? Here is reality for you.
  
  S.Carolina 35 Alabama 21
  
  There is slap in the face of reality.
  
  
  You are talking nonsense, utter nonsense.

  
  If Alabama and South Carolina played tomorrow, what do you think Vegas would say about the outcome? I guarantee that Vegas would say that Alabama is the better team. If the teams play 10 times, Alabama may win 9 of them. South Carolina won this one. Do you think that the one victory makes them a "better" team? More deserving, perhaps, but that's not the same thing as "better" if the objective is to determine how teams will perform head-to-head.
  
  Your argument is ridiculous. Example:
  A beats B. B beats C. C beats A. Which team is best? According to you, there's absolutely no way to determine which team is better because they all beat up on each other. According to you, Vegas (and pollsters) would have zero way to differentiate them. That's ridiculous--maybe A is the best team and had a terrible game against C, but in a re-match, A would be a 2 TD favorite. So which team is better?
• fan_from_texas

  ccrunner609;523531 wrote:first of all, who goves afuck what Vegas thinks........they were wrong in the only game they are playing this year. Alabama had their chance and lost, in the light of reality, S.Carolina is better. THey proved it on the field.

  
  Auburn beats South Carolina. South Carolina beats Alabama. If Alabama beats Auburn, which of the three is the best? If the only thing that matters is head-to-head matchups--which you seem to suggest above--then how do you determine which team is better? Under your proposal, you couldn't say that any of the three is any better than the other two. But that flies in the face of logic; we know that if they matched up again (e.g., SEC championship), most people would be betting on Alabama over South Carolina, even though the first game went the other way.
  
  A head to head win is very important, but it's not the ultimate in predictive validity of how good a team will perform in the future. This isn't rocket science. It's called an upset--that means a team that typically would lose pulls off a win as a result of the natural chance/variance that's part of any athletic competition. The "best" team doesn't always win. Winning a game demonstrates which team played best on a particular day, but it doesn't settle which team is better on a going-forward basis.
  
  This shouldn't be that tough of a concept to grasp. Professional gamblers understand this. The BCS computers understand this. Analysts understand this. But some small subset of the OC really struggles with the concept.
• ytownfootball

  

  but it doesn't settle which team is better on a going-forward basis.

  This is where people lose it...
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Is James Madison better than Virginia Tech?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  This is the debate that gets people confused. Virginia Tech is better than James Madison. Alabama is better than South Carolina. Just because those teams played over their heads and pulled off the upsets doesn't mean they are better. A couple years ago, New England was the best team in the NFL. They lost to a Giants team in the Super Bowl that played the game of their lives, but they weren't better than New England.
• fan_from_texas

  I think part of the confusion here is the difference between "best" and "most deserving." An undefeated team is likely to be "more deserving" than a 5-loss team, but the 5-loss team may be a better team that was plagued by injuries or bad luck. "Best" is understood by asking "if we took these two teams to a neutral field tomorrow, who would win?" That's what Vegas is measuring. That's what the computers measure. If they met head-to-head at the end of the season, the 5-loss team might be a strong favorite. That means they're better, but not more deserving.
  
  The polls, in large part, are evaluating "most deserving," not "best."
  
  Edit: I should clarify--the BCS computer focus more on retrodictive validity (i.e. how the ratings score looking back over the course of the season), while Vegas is more predictive.
  
  ----
  I see that Cleveland Buck gets my point and has provided some good examples. VT is clearly "better" than James Madison, even though they lost head-to-head. Vegas would make VT a big favorite if they played tomorrow. VT is a better team on a going-forward basis, fluke loss aside.
• fan_from_texas

  There's apparently no reasoning with some people, particularly when it's impossible to tell whether they're being serious or facetious.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Cool, so James Madison is better than Virginia Tech.
• fan_from_texas

  ccrunner609;523715 wrote:I agree, people just dont understand that when teams get beat by others that means they arent as good as the team that beats them. Its like proving it on the field doesnt count. Simply amazing.

  You must really get off on the College Football Victory Chain Linker. For example, in 2008, Florida really wasn't the national champion--Mount Union was. In case you don't remember,
  
  Mount Union beat
  Bethel MN who beat
  UW-Eau Claire who beat
  SW Minnesota St who beat
  Concordia-St Paul who beat
  Augustana SD who beat
  Western Washington who beat
  UC-Davis who beat
  Northeastern who beat
  Hofstra who beat
  Furman who beat
  Georgia Southern who beat
  Appalachian St who beat
  Michigan who beat
  Florida
  
  
  They proved it on the field. QED.
• sjmvsfscs08

  ccrunner609;523410 wrote:you do realize that they arent better then S. carolina dont you?

  
  One game hardly proves who is better. Football is unique in sports on how one game "decides" who is better. In another sport, baseball, it's 100% who is hot at the time of the series. In basketball, it's who is the best over a series. In football, it's just one game. Hockey requires a series too. NASCAR has a whole fucking "race." Golf is fickle as hell so they just use a bullshit ranking, but they get a break because Tiger exists.
  
  Those sports don't even weigh matchups between positions (except basketball) like football does. Alabama isn't golden against the pass and Ohio State can't cover a kick, but both are very good teams.
  
  Alabama is good, the best? I'm not sure but they sure as hell are in the discussion.
• sjmvsfscs08

  fan_from_texas;523730 wrote:You must really get off on the College Football Victory Chain Linker. For example, in 2008, Florida really wasn't the national champion--Mount Union was. In case you don't remember,
  
  Mount Union beat
  Bethel MN who beat
  UW-Eau Claire who beat
  SW Minnesota St who beat
  Concordia-St Paul who beat
  Augustana SD who beat
  Western Washington who beat
  UC-Davis who beat
  Northeastern who beat
  Hofstra who beat
  Furman who beat
  Georgia Southern who beat
  Appalachian St who beat
  Michigan who beat
  Florida
  
  
  They proved it on the field. QED.

  
  Was it 2003? Bowling Green beat Toledo. Toledo beat Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh beat Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech beat Miami. Miami beat Florida. Florida beat LSU. LSU won the National Championship....but Bowling Green was better?
• jmog

  Zombaypirate;522727 wrote:That is not the case at all.
  
  Hawaii is 5-2 they have a better SOS ranking over Texas? Then Boise St has a very good case.
  
  So now what is your excuse? Hawaii greater than Texas based on recored alone?

  
  You apparently did not read very well. SOS is not made up only of your record, but your opponents records, and your opponents' opponents' records (called 2nd lvl points in the Harbin rankings).
  
  Try again, you might understand next time.
• jmog

  Zombaypirate;523316 wrote:I will make this as simple as possible. From where do you start?
  
  Who is the best team? Who is second? third etc? How do they come to those conclusions? I keep hearing and have already seen here on this thread SOS.
  
  Well how do you know what schedule is the toughest? From where do you start?
  
  Where is the starting point to base who is the best team in the country? That is where it is circular reasoning.
  
  You assume that X Conference is the best. Therefore those that play X's schedule have the toughest schedule but what evidence do you have that X conference is the best conference?
  
  About the same as you have for who has the best team.
  
  At the preseason poll Alabama was listed as the top team, this is now clearly wrong and rightly so they had no business in the number one slot when they lost 9 of 11 starters on defense.
  
  The entire system is circular and flawed beyond any help. Except of course a tournament.
  
  What they have done is put conference X, Y, and Z as the best conferences and placed the teams in those conferences in the top 25 positions for the most part. So when a team loses to a team from either X, Y or Z they are just replaced by another team from conferences X, Y and Z.
  
  It is circular, they have not one single clue as to who the number one team is. I am pointing this out with my OP showing how people will use arguments to defend their positions and want things both ways.
  
  
  There are times that teams like Utah, Boise St etc rise and are superior to other teams, let them play on the field and it becomes evident.
  
  UTAH 31 Alabama former #1 team with only one loss to Florida 17
  
  It is very clear the system is flawed.
  
  I now await the rationalizations of why Alabama (who is so great) lost to little ole Utah.
  
  I can answer that question. Utah was better and should have been ranked higher.

  
  Obviously math and logic are not your strong suits. When calculating SoS you don't need rankings at all, as has been stated a number of times so far.
• jmog

  ytownfootball;523401 wrote:It appears that "style points" actually matter considerably, something that we've been told hasn't mattered or at least has been minimized a good deal.
  
  If this is true, (it is and I understand the we) then you better be running up the score on the scrubs on your schedule.

  
  Point differential has been minimized greatly in the BCS computer rankings in recent years.
• jmog

  Zombaypirate;523405 wrote:Yes, I read it and it is very circular as you admit with this quote. Teams that win against quality opponents (which are teams that play well against other teams)
  
  
  Who are the quality opponents? You are talking nonsense.
  
  So teams with winning records are greater than those with losing records. ELO is worthless superfluous crap.

  
  Either you have zero logical understanding skills, or are trying being a douche on purpose. No where in between is possible.
• fan_from_texas

  jmog;523811 wrote:Either you have zero logical understanding skills, or are trying being a douche on purpose. No where in between is possible.

  
  That's what I think, too. I'm leaning towards "being a douche on purpose," because there's no way that someone can consistently misunderstand everything that has been put on this thread (and the other BCS threads he's chimed in on).
• Gblock

  i think that they should wait until about week 6 to even do a poll
• fan_from_texas

  Gblock;523877 wrote:i think that they should wait until about week 6 to even do a poll

  
  I agree.