BCS Standings (10/24)

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  fan_from_texas;531963 wrote:Any sort of logarithmic function removes this. As long as the returns diminish (and perhaps are capped at 28 points or so), you're not going to see people running up the score. E.g., winning by 28 is not four times as good as winning by 7, and winning by 56 may only be 1.1 times as good as winning by 28--the returns diminish drastically. I don't think we'd see people running up the score anymore than they do now to impress the pollsters, who definitely take MOV into consideration.

  
  True, didn't think of that, but it makes sense. That is a simple solution to that problem that hopefully the computer nerds can implement.
• JU-ICE

  I am going with a Michigan State - Oregon title game. If both end up undefeated it will make all the conference championship game irrelevant.
• fan_from_texas

  ptown_trojans_1;531976 wrote:True, didn't think of that, but it makes sense. That is a simple solution to that problem that hopefully the computer nerds can implement.

  
  The computer nerds have been pushing for it for as long as the BCS has been around. It's the coaches who oppose it, primarily because they don't understand the math behind it.
  
  All oddsmakers everywhere use MOV because it dramatically increases the validity of predictions. If you leave it off, you hurt the accuracy of the system and end up with weird results. Of course, the schools that suffer the most are non-AQ schools, because MOV is the only way they can really demonstrate their competitiveness. Boise State/TCU are treated by the computers as if they just squeak by each team on their schedule.
• enigmaax

  fan_from_texas;531998 wrote:Boise State/TCU are treated by the computers as if they just squeak by each team on their schedule.

  
  But so are other schools. Should it really matter that Oregon beat New Mexico by 72? Does that alone make really demonstrate how good/great they are? And those are the types of teams that Boise and TCU would be beating by ridiculous scores to demonstrate their worth, which I say doesn't demonstrate their worth at all because half of the country could do the same thing against that schedule.
• fan_from_texas

  enigmaax;532056 wrote:But so are other schools. Should it really matter that Oregon beat New Mexico by 72? Does that alone make really demonstrate how good/great they are? And those are the types of teams that Boise and TCU would be beating by ridiculous scores to demonstrate their worth, which I say doesn't demonstrate their worth at all because half of the country could do the same thing against that schedule.

  
  If MOV isn't considered, then the strength of schedule becomes even more important. If all W are treated the same regardless of score, this really hurts teams in bad conferences.
  
  E.g., say Team A and B are both exactly as good as each other. A plays in a tough conference, B plays in a bad conference. A wins every game by 3 points. B wins every game by 40 points. If they switched conferences, they'd get the exact same results.
  
  If a computer model treats all Ws as Ws, A ends up much higher because they're playing a tougher schedule. B ends up much lower, because they need to win each game by 40 points to demonstrate how good they are. Remember, we know each team is exactly as good as the other, yet a system that treats all Ws the same would put A far above B. If you don't consider MOV, a computer model would predict that A would drill B in a game, even though we know (in this hypo) that they'd tie.
  
  Now, whether B is as "deserving" as A is a different story--the goal of a system may not be to match the two "best" teams but the two "most deserving" teams. Under that theory, A and B may be equally good, but A may be more deserving by virtue of its schedule.
• enigmaax

  fan_from_texas;532090 wrote:If MOV isn't considered, then the strength of schedule becomes even more important. If all W are treated the same regardless of score, this really hurts teams in bad conferences.
  
  E.g., say Team A and B are both exactly as good as each other. A plays in a tough conference, B plays in a bad conference. A wins every game by 3 points. B wins every game by 40 points. If they switched conferences, they'd get the exact same results.
  
  If a computer model treats all Ws as Ws, A ends up much higher because they're playing a tougher schedule. B ends up much lower, because they need to win each game by 40 points to demonstrate how good they are. Remember, we know each team is exactly as good as the other, yet a system that treats all Ws the same would put A far above B. If you don't consider MOV, a computer model would predict that A would drill B in a game, even though we know (in this hypo) that they'd tie.
  
  Now, whether B is as "deserving" as A is a different story--the goal of a system may not be to match the two "best" teams but the two "most deserving" teams. Under that theory, A and B may be equally good, but A may be more deserving by virtue of its schedule.

  
  I get what you're saying and I do think that this system is and has to be about the "most deserving".
  
  I disagree that not including MOV is punishing a team in a bad conference because I don't think a 40 point win necessarily "proves" that team is better than a team who beats better teams by 3 or whatever. I also understand why coaches wouldn't want MOV to count for anything because then you could just as easily have a great team be punished for "struggling" to a 45 point win when another team beat that same team by 65. At that point, are those 3 extra TDs by reserves really proving who is better?
• fan_from_texas

  enigmaax;532099 wrote:I also understand why coaches wouldn't want MOV to count for anything because then you could just as easily have a great team be punished for "struggling" to a 45 point win when another team beat that same team by 65. At that point, are those 3 extra TDs by reserves really proving who is better?

  
  No, and those 3 extra TDs would have essentially no impact on the calculation. Beating a team by 45 would count more than beating the same team by 3, but beating them by 65 vs 45 would no no measurable impact.
• Al Bundy

  If you go strictly on point differential, it favor teams that are better on offense and poor on defense. If Team A beats Team B 77-47 and Team C beats Team B 20-0, should Team C be penalized because they may have a different style of play? Often you see teams take a knee or let the clock run when they could score again. Depending upon how you set up the formula, maybe a team up by 10 tries to score late to stretch it to 17. You could have onside kicks in some strange situation especially if the BCS is close, and it is the last week. I understand the math of what you are trying to do (I do stats work for a living). I just don't like the idea of factoring in margin of victory.
• cats gone wild

  Dont know how LSU falls that far when they lost by one touchdown to the new #1 BCS team, "at" Auburn. Same with the other polls. If they got beat 42-24, then sure I could see the point.
• enigmaax

  Al Bundy;532183 wrote:If you go strictly on point differential, it favor teams that are better on offense and poor on defense. If Team A beats Team B 77-47 and Team C beats Team B 20-0, should Team C be penalized because they may have a different style of play? Often you see teams take a knee or let the clock run when they could score again. Depending upon how you set up the formula, maybe a team up by 10 tries to score late to stretch it to 17. You could have onside kicks in some strange situation especially if the BCS is close, and it is the last week. I understand the math of what you are trying to do (I do stats work for a living). I just don't like the idea of factoring in margin of victory.

  
  Yes. The bottom line is winning and losing. A team that can play it safe, pound the ball, and eat up clock with a 14 point lead shouldn't have to alter its style of play to try and keep up with some insane offense that is willing to trade 60 points of its own for 28 by its opponent.
  
  I also understand the diminishing returns and all that...its just that point margin isn't necessarily what the game is about as long as you're getting a W. Where do you draw the line? How much is enough? The style points judgment can be accounted for by the human voters, which is why I think the system achieves a nice balance between emotions and unbiased math.
• OQB

  

  Rick Reilly of ESPN goes off!!! Please read this article, do you agree with him?
  
  http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=5725597
• ytownfootball

  

  OrrvilleQB;532655 wrote:Rick Reilly of ESPN goes off!!! Please read this article, you will more than likely agree with him....
  
  http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=5725597

  
  Reilly quote that says all you need to know about his "reasoning" or lack thereof:
  

  The team that has 13 fewer wins over the past five seasons than Boise State.

  I don't agree with him whatsoever.
• enigmaax

  OrrvilleQB;532655 wrote:Rick Reilly of ESPN goes off!!! Please read this article, you will more than likely agree with him....
  
  http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=5725597

  
  Ha ha. Yeah, the basis of the argument is what they did in the last five years. Or the team they beat last year. Or the team they beat this year that lost to an FCS school. Or the team they beat this year that has three losses. Or the other teams they beat that are a combined 9-22. Oh but wait, they destroyed one team that almost beat a team who almost beat another team. All compelling arguments, indeed.
• OQB

  

  But we will never know because Boise will never get the chance..
• ytownfootball

  

  And whose fault is that?
• enigmaax

  ytownfootball;532710 wrote:And whose fault is that?

  
  Boom.
• pinstriper

  Boise was upset last year that they HAD to play TCU instead of one of the BIG BOYS....kinda funny that they get upset that they are looked upon as a lesser team and given no respect, when they looked upon TCU as a lesser team and gave them no respect.
• karen lotz

  

  I don't think they were looking at TCU as a lesser team. They had just played them the previous bowl season and wanted a shot at one of the supposed "big boys" from a BCS conference. Same goes for TCU. They are trying to show that they can play with the so called big boys, but they are matched up with Boise. It was clear that the BCS wanted as little controversy as possible. If both TCU and Boise State played and beat teams from BCS conferences in BCS bowl games, how would that look for the system?
• pinstriper

  OrrvilleQB;532655 wrote:Rick Reilly of ESPN goes off!!! Please read this article, do you agree with him?
  
  http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=5725597

  
  What Reilly and most of the other reporters/writers/story creators don't realize is that most college football fans don't watch for Boise St...they watch for the Ohio States and the Alabamas and the USCs and the Texas', they view Boise St. as a nice litte story, and if they can beat an OK in a bowl game, then great...but they aren't a threat to ever play in the Championship because they don't deserve it, and they're not good enough to play there. The real college football fans know this form the beginning, so they could give a shit, and don't keep trying to create a story ALL YEAR LONG about it. Let Boise play Ark, South Car, FL, TN, LSU, and AUB all in one season, with all of them having a bye week before the game...then we'll see how good they are. Or they could play San Jose State, Lou Tech, Idaho, and whoever else they play. It's not an argument to even be had, and Reilly and those professional sports reporters/writers don't unerstand that. It's not the NFL, and that's why it's so great.
• ytownfootball

  

  pinstriper;532726 wrote:Boise was upset last year that they HAD to play TCU instead of one of the BIG BOYS....kinda funny that they get upset that they are looked upon as a lesser team and given no respect, when they looked upon TCU as a lesser team and gave them no respect.

  
  Being 4 months older than your 10 year old cousin doesn't give you a reserved seat at the adult table at Thanksgiving.
• karen lotz

  

  Rick Reiley is a fucking moron. He needs to go back to writing a column that SI sticks inside the back cover of each issue. As bad as ESPN has gotten recently, he is worse.
• Al Bundy

  OrrvilleQB;532704 wrote:But we will never know because Boise will never get the chance..

  
  Boise (and all other colleges) create their schedules. Maybe Boise would be better off going independent and willing to play a monster schedule. When Miami and Florida State wanted to join the big boys in the 80's they would schedule anyone, and it took their program to big time levels.
• enigmaax

  Al Bundy;532806 wrote:Boise (and all other colleges) create their schedules. Maybe Boise would be better off going independent and willing to play a monster schedule. When Miami and Florida State wanted to join the big boys in the 80's they would schedule anyone, and it took their program to big time levels.

  
  Oh no, I can answer that one for you because I've been saying it for the last five years. That just isn't feasible. Nobody could do that in this college football world. Except BYU.
• Little Danny

  

  pinstriper;532740 wrote:What Reilly and most of the other reporters/writers/story creators don't realize is that most college football fans don't watch for Boise St...they watch for the Ohio States and the Alabamas and the USCs and the Texas', they view Boise St. as a nice litte story, and if they can beat an OK in a bowl game, then great...but they aren't a threat to ever play in the Championship because they don't deserve it, and they're not good enough to play there. The real college football fans know this form the beginning, so they could give a shit, and don't keep trying to create a story ALL YEAR LONG about it. Let Boise play Ark, South Car, FL, TN, LSU, and AUB all in one season, with all of them having a bye week before the game...then we'll see how good they are. Or they could play San Jose State, Lou Tech, Idaho, and whoever else they play. It's not an argument to even be had, and Reilly and those professional sports reporters/writers don't unerstand that. It's not the NFL, and that's why it's so great.

  
  Your post is what irritates me and most people who do not root for the "big boys". Based on your logic everyone else might as way take their ball and go home and leave it all up to about 10-15 teams to play for the national championship every year. That is complete BS and what is wrong with college football. If TCU, Boise or freaking BFE U. are undefeated, then they desere a shot to play whomever for the national title.
  
  If your rationale applied to college basketball, then Butler would have been told to stay home last year while the NCAA had a tournament of UK, Duke, UCLA, North Carolina, Kansas, Michigan State, Indiana, Georgetown , Syracuse and UCONN.
• ytownfootball

  

  Little Danny;532821 wrote:Your post is what irritates me and most people who do not root for the "big boys". Based on your logic everyone else might as way take their ball and go home and leave it all up to about 10-15 teams to play for the national championship every year. That is complete BS and what is wrong with college football. If TCU, Boise or freaking BFE U. are undefeated, then they desere a shot to play whomever for the national title.
  
  If your rationale applied to college basketball, then Butler would have been told to stay home last year while the NCAA had a tournament of UK, Duke, UCLA, North Carolina, Kansas, Michigan State, Indiana, Georgetown , Syracuse and UCONN.

  
  Were the BCS an NCAA sanctioned entity your points would have merit but of course it is not.
  
  NCAA basketball tournament is an apple...BCS national championship is an orange.