tOfficial Auburn Superthread

[TROJAN-MAN]

What does that have to do with 41?

 

[4down20]

Nothing. If you remember our conversation, it had nothing to do with 1941, either. It was about bias in the polls. I must have missed where you said that the bias was for 1941 and 1941 alone because otherwise the above comment makes no sense at all.

Well my point was that the AP poll was biased in it's early days. It's gotten better as time has gone on. Way better today than back in 41 for example.

I don't know when Alabama got that, but I do know there was general bias towards the coasts. That's not to say other teams never got ranked high or whatever, just that those other teams were generally treated better.

I don't think there is any evidence you would accept after discussing 41, you're going to believe whatever you want to believe and just make excuses.

 

[boxedlunch]

Well my point was that the AP poll was biased in it's early days. It's gotten better as time has gone on. Way better today than back in 41 for example.

So the bias was completely gone in 1942 when Alabama was voted in the final top 10 with 3 losses? Help me out here, you've not stated who was biased against what or outside of 1941, even when. Northwestern getting some top 10 votes with 3 losses in 1941 was apparently a sign of bias, but Alabama actually finishing in the top 10 with 3 losses in 1942 apparently means the bias had ended. I guess. Give me a hint.

 

[4down20]

So the bias was completely gone in 1942 when Alabama was voted in the final top 10 with 3 losses? Help me out here, you've not stated who was biased against what or outside of 1941, even when. Northwestern getting some top 10 votes with 3 losses in 1941 was apparently a sign of bias, but Alabama actually finishing in the top 10 with 3 losses in 1942 apparently means the bias had ended. I guess. Give me a hint.

Saying 3 losses at this time without being in comparison to the other teams has no meaning.

 

[4down20]

In 1942, who was going to complain about Alabama being #10 with 3 losses? Texas @ #11 with 2 losses? That's hardly very far off.

#9 Michigan, 7-3
#10 Alabama, 7-3
#11 Texas, 8-2

There was no #20 team with a better record.

How is that even close to being like Alabama(8-2) being #20 while 5-3 Northwestern is #11?

Really?

 

[boxedlunch]

And what exactly is it that you think I believe? Since I've not stated it, I wonder how you feel you can comment on it. I'm asking you for concrete reasons for what you believe and all you are giving me is gut feelings or things that aren't all that strange. You've not offered an ounce of evidence that could be chalked up to biased, unless you are biased to that opinion in the first place.

Believe me, if you give me evidence of bias, I will sweep it up. I've been looking for it for years and every time someone states there is bias, I get the same sort of non-proof you're offering me. The only thing people ever say is that since they disagree with the results, it must be biased. That's not good enough for me.

 

[4down20]

And what exactly is it that you think I believe? Since I've not stated it, I wonder how you feel you can comment on it. I'm asking you for concrete reasons for what you believe and all you are giving me is gut feelings or things that aren't all that strange. You've not offered an ounce of evidence that could be chalked up to biased, unless you are biased to that opinion in the first place.

Believe me, if you give me evidence of bias, I will sweep it up. I've been looking for it for years and every time someone states there is bias, I get the same sort of non-proof you're offering me. The only thing people ever say is that since they disagree with the results, it must be biased. That's not good enough for me.

If you just wanna go "la-la-la-la can't hear you", then what is the point?

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

LOL, I bet those douche bags will no call 2004 their too

 

[boxedlunch]

In 1942, who was going to complain about Alabama being #10 with 3 losses? Texas @ #11 with 2 losses? That's hardly very far off.

#9 Michigan, 7-3
#10 Alabama, 7-3
#11 Texas, 8-2

There was no #20 team with a better record.

How is that even close to being like Alabama(8-2) being #20 while 5-3 Northwestern is #11?

Really?

So, Alabama finishing behind a Washington State team in 1941 with a worse record = bias. Alabama finishing in front of a Washington State team and an UCLA team in 1942 with the same record = non-bias? Finishing in front of a Penn State team in 1942 with a better record means that there's a bias somewhere.

How many posts into this conversation and you STILL haven't stated what the bias is.

 

[boxedlunch]

If you just wanna go "la-la-la-la can't hear you", then what is the point?

I want you to state a case. Is that too much to ask for. Instead of giving me your argument, ie. who's bias and what are they bias about, you're telling me what I think, even though I've not stated it.

 

[boxedlunch]

I'm sorry, you did state that the polls were biased for the coasts. That's fair.

Why are the biased to the coasts? What do you have to support that? How does Northwestern fit into that?

 

[boxedlunch]

And while were at it, where's the proof that the coasts didn't play better football, if they did indeed get ranked higher. I could state that because 3 SEC teams finished in the top 5 of the polls in 2013, that means the polls were biased to the SEC. However, that ignores that ranking these teams that high was probably appropriate. That teams got treated better is not proof that they should not have been treated better.

 

[4down20]

So, Alabama finishing behind a Washington State team in 1941 with a worse record = bias. Alabama finishing in front of a Washington State team and an UCLA team in 1942 with the same record = non-bias? Finishing in front of a Penn State team in 1942 with a better record means that there's a bias somewhere.

How many posts into this conversation and you STILL haven't stated what the bias is.

Washington State was 6-1-2 in 1942.
UCLA was 5-3 in 1942
Penn St was 6-1-1

How are these better records than 7-3?

Furthermore, I've stated over and over that there was a bias towards the coastal schools where the majority of writers were located.

 

[4down20]

I'm sorry, you did state that the polls were biased for the coasts. That's fair.

Why are the biased to the coasts? What do you have to support that? How does Northwestern fit into that?

Chicago is where many sports writers and thus voters were from. Not exactly "coast", but still pretty much east coast in terms of writers.

 

[4down20]

And while were at it, where's the proof that the coasts didn't play better football, if they did indeed get ranked higher. I could state that because 3 SEC teams finished in the top 5 of the polls in 2013, that means the polls were biased to the SEC. However, that ignores that ranking these teams that high was probably appropriate. That teams got treated better is not proof that they should not have been treated better.

You mean like how Alabama won so many Rose Bowls that made it where only (now) Big10 and Pac schools could play in it after 1946?

You are aware that the southern teams weren't given any respect at all until 1926 when Alabama won the Rose Bowl?

 

[4down20]

And as for coastal bias. We'll look at 1942. Stanford comes in ranked #12 with a 6-4 record. All 4 losses were to teams ranked below them and they never beat a ranked team. Alabama comes in #10 that same year with a 7-3 record as we mentioned. Yet, all 3 of those losses came to top10 teams and Alabama beat #7 Tennessee as well. Yet that only earned them 2 spots ahead of a west coast team.

UCLA was ranked #13 right after Stanford, yet they had a similiar story. 3 losses to unranked teams and #13.

The entire SEC was 43-2-3 that year against non conference. LSU didn't even get ranked despite going 7-3, beating a few ranked teams(SEC teams) and also beating teams that in turn beat Stanford and UCLA. But those west coast teams get ranked, and LSU with a better record and better wins - nope.

And just to add to how bad the polls were back then, UCLA was ranked below Stanford and yet UCLA beat Stanford that year.

Not that it matters, but Alabama also won the Orange Bowl that year over #8 Boston College, and finished 8-3. But as established already, the final AP poll came before bowl games so didn't count.

Do I really have to go year by year like this?

 

[boxedlunch]

Washington State was 6-1-2 in 1942.
UCLA was 5-3 in 1942
Penn St was 6-1-1

How are these better records than 7-3?

Furthermore, I've stated over and over that there was a bias towards the coastal schools where the majority of writers were located.

I've been told that fewer losses = better record. Except for UCLA, they have a higher winning percentage.

Now this is why I'm asking for proof. You state that the majority of writers who voted were from the coasts. Do you have proof of this, or is this something you imagined? Why do the east coast writers vote for the west coast teams?

 

[boxedlunch]

Chicago is where many sports writers and thus voters were from. Not exactly "coast", but still pretty much east coast in terms of writers.

Proof that this is where the voters came from? I've always felt this theory was passable, but theories are just theories for me. Where's the tangible proof? Why do Chicago writers vote for the coast teams and the coast writers vote for Chicago teams? Is there any proof they shouldn't?

 

[boxedlunch]

You mean like how Alabama won so many Rose Bowls that made it where only (now) Big10 and Pac schools could play in it after 1946?

You are aware that the southern teams weren't given any respect at all until 1926 when Alabama won the Rose Bowl?

The closest Rose Bowl to 1941 was the 13-00 loss an undefeated Alabama team had to Stanford.

Now, I'm going to ask you how know that Southern teams weren't given any respect until 1926. I know that it popular lore surrounding the 26 Rose Bowl game, but outside of that, I can't find much information otherwise and suspect that's been overdone.

 

[boxedlunch]

And as for coastal bias. We'll look at 1942. Stanford comes in ranked #12 with a 6-4 record. All 4 losses were to teams ranked below them and they never beat a ranked team.

FWIW, Notre Dame finished in front of Stanford and those are one of the teams they lost to.


I'll look at the rest later, as it looks like you might be giving substance, but is really your impression that there's a coastal bias when one west coast team finished in front another? Your saying the because UCLA finished in front of two other West Coast teams, they polls must have a West Coast bias. At the very least, your theory needs modifying.