tOfficial Auburn Superthread

[bonham]

Pathetic..does this actually make people feel like they won a championship?

 

[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. 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?

If you go year by year, get it right. The SEC went 43-12-3 in non-conference quite different from what you posted. This included 18 games against teams that would not have been considered in the top division in 1942. The SEC went 12-0 against non-IA independents, 3-0 against the SIAA, 2-0 against the Louisiana Intercollegiate Conference, 2-0 against the PCC, 9-1-2 against the SoCon and 10-8-1 against I-A independents, which included a bunch of military teams, and a few others that are now FCS teams. The schedule was not a murder's row, so don't act like it was so great.

LSU had non-conference wins against Northwestern State, 4-5-1 Texas A&M, Georgia Pre-Flight and Fordham. The only convincing win they had was Mississippi State, who had an even less impressive non-conference slate.

However, I guess you're going to have to explain your theory again, because Auburn got ranked after a 6-4-1 season, with a loss to that 7-3 LSU team. Was the poll biased for Auburn or not LSU. Auburn is neither in Chicago, or on a coast. If it's coastal bias, how does on team get ranked, but not the other. The best you can say is the poll was messed up, which is correct, but not proof of "bias".

Let me explain what I'm looking for. I've heard the theories, and I don't disagree that they theories are possible. What I'm looking for is tangible proof, not discontent that the poll disagreed with you opinion. In my opinion, I think LSU should have been ranked over Auburn, but in no way can I attribute that to bias because there is no evidence as such, and it makes no sense. The coastal bias theory does make sense, but what your offering is definately nothing tangible and nothing I can use to convince people, unless they have brain of a turnip.

If the poll were bias to Washington State in 1941 and against Alabama, it makes no sense that the same bias did not exist in 1942. That's not proof of anything other than inconsistancy, which can be attributed to ranking different football teams. If there's a coastal bias, how does UCLA get the bias over other coastal teams? That doesn't fit the theory and doesn't make sense. If the voters were from mostly the same part of the country, where's the proof? I've heard that theory, but never seen anything that would serve as proof. I know that sometimes urban legend kicks in, and people repeat incorrect stuff without proof all the time. How do I know this is not the case here? Few, if any, have researched polls more than I have, and I've never gotten a sniff of actual proof that this is the case. I don't discount the possibility, but I've yet to see anything that even is slightly convincing that it actual happened. That's what I'm looking for, actual evidence, not "but this team was so much better and didn't get ranked" stuff that happens in polling even today. That's a difference of opinion, not proof.

 

[The Crimson King]

Pathetic..does this actually make people feel like they won a championship?

do you even understand what's being talked about?

 

[BamaTee1]

Whoa! Me thinks Boxedlunch and 4down20 should start their own thread! How can you even discuss this subject without any eye test and only numbers? Looking back years from now someone might interpret Boise St., Utah, Hawaii, Cincinnati, and other teams undefeated seasons as top flight teams if you only look at records and scores! FSU whipped #7 Miami this year and everyone knew they were NOT the 7th best team. Probably barely a top 25 team yet 50 years from now it will look like a great win for FSU. Carry on!

 

[4down20]

If you go year by year, get it right. The SEC went 43-12-3 in non-conference quite different from what you posted. This included 18 games against teams that would not have been considered in the top division in 1942. The SEC went 12-0 against non-IA independents, 3-0 against the SIAA, 2-0 against the Louisiana Intercollegiate Conference, 2-0 against the PCC, 9-1-2 against the SoCon and 10-8-1 against I-A independents, which included a bunch of military teams, and a few others that are now FCS teams. The schedule was not a murder's row, so don't act like it was so great.

LSU had non-conference wins against Northwestern State, 4-5-1 Texas A&M, Georgia Pre-Flight and Fordham. The only convincing win they had was Mississippi State, who had an even less impressive non-conference slate.

However, I guess you're going to have to explain your theory again, because Auburn got ranked after a 6-4-1 season, with a loss to that 7-3 LSU team. Was the poll biased for Auburn or not LSU. Auburn is neither in Chicago, or on a coast. If it's coastal bias, how does on team get ranked, but not the other. The best you can say is the poll was messed up, which is correct, but not proof of "bias".

Let me explain what I'm looking for. I've heard the theories, and I don't disagree that they theories are possible. What I'm looking for is tangible proof, not discontent that the poll disagreed with you opinion. In my opinion, I think LSU should have been ranked over Auburn, but in no way can I attribute that to bias because there is no evidence as such, and it makes no sense. The coastal bias theory does make sense, but what your offering is definately nothing tangible and nothing I can use to convince people, unless they have brain of a turnip.

If the poll were bias to Washington State in 1941 and against Alabama, it makes no sense that the same bias did not exist in 1942. That's not proof of anything other than inconsistancy, which can be attributed to ranking different football teams. If there's a coastal bias, how does UCLA get the bias over other coastal teams? That doesn't fit the theory and doesn't make sense. If the voters were from mostly the same part of the country, where's the proof? I've heard that theory, but never seen anything that would serve as proof. I know that sometimes urban legend kicks in, and people repeat incorrect stuff without proof all the time. How do I know this is not the case here? Few, if any, have researched polls more than I have, and I've never gotten a sniff of actual proof that this is the case. I don't discount the possibility, but I've yet to see anything that even is slightly convincing that it actual happened. That's what I'm looking for, actual evidence, not "but this team was so much better and didn't get ranked" stuff that happens in polling even today. That's a difference of opinion, not proof.

So in your opinion, the only way it can be biased is if all reality goes out the window.

 

[boxedlunch]

Whoa! Me thinks Boxedlunch and 4down20 should start their own thread! How can you even discuss this subject without any eye test and only numbers? Looking back years from now someone might interpret Boise St., Utah, Hawaii, Cincinnati, and other teams undefeated seasons as top flight teams if you only look at records and scores! FSU whipped #7 Miami this year and everyone knew they were NOT the 7th best team. Probably barely a top 25 team yet 50 years from now it will look like a great win for FSU. Carry on!

I'd don't think I got my point across. I'm looking for "proof", not support for the theory. If you look at a team and were they finished and think it's off, how do you automatically assume "bias"? Only if you presuppose bias would you draw that conclusion.

Polls have done a ton of things that seem flaky through the years, but some of them can make sense on some level. Some of them seem to make no sense at all. You can put up a ton of examples of things that don't look right, but why assume bias. Every example he's brought forth has support the argument, but had a counter argument easily apparent. You can't "prove" bias to anybody with that unless they come in with the preconceived notion that there is bias.

I'd love to have something tangible to support that argument, but I've just never seen it, and I've look. The problem is, most people are more comfortable assuming their team got screwed for off the field issues rather than people having a valid opinion against their team. Most people who bring out the bias argument are in that camp.

 

[boxedlunch]

So in your opinion, the only way it can be biased is if all reality goes out the window.

The only way you can prove bias is if you measure voters from a certain area predominately vote for teams in their area (both provable and true), prove that most voters come from specific areas (probably not provable), and show that they let the bias get in the way of their voting.

The problem is, we don't know the breakdown of the voters and though people assume they were from certain areas, that could all be speculation.

 

[4down20]

The only way you can prove bias is if you measure voters from a certain area predominately vote for teams in their area (both provable and true), prove that most voters come from specific areas (probably not provable), and show that they let the bias get in the way of their voting.

The problem is, we don't know the breakdown of the voters and though people assume they were from certain areas, that could all be speculation.

Dude, there are limits to how far bias can go.

 

[boxedlunch]

Dude, there are limits to how far bias can go.

Ah. And they are all in your mind, I suppose.

How am I supposed to use that in a serious argument?

 

[4down20]

Ah. And they are all in your mind, I suppose.

How am I supposed to use that in a serious argument?

I don't even care anymore. If you think 5-3 Northwestern deserves to be ranked #11 and 7-2 Alabama should be ranked #20, then that's all on you.

It's become evident to me in this discussion that you can only see in black and white. So I'm done with it.

 

[boxedlunch]

I don't even care anymore. If you think 5-3 Northwestern deserves to be ranked #11 and 7-2 Alabama should be ranked #20, then that's all on you.

It's become evident to me in this discussion that you can only see in black and white. So I'm done with it.

I never said this was about who "deserved" to be ranked, I asked about bias. As long as I can find a good reason why pollsters would rank Northwestern #11, which I did, I'd be pretty stupid to automatically assume they were ranked that way due to bias. Not only is that not proof, it's not even a good argument. The reasons they were ranked #11 could be many. To just assume one and claim it as fact doesn't cut it.

 

[4down20]

I never said this was about who "deserved" to be ranked, I asked about bias. As long as I can find a good reason why pollsters would rank Northwestern #11, which I did, I'd be pretty stupid to automatically assume they were ranked that way due to bias. Not only is that not proof, it's not even a good argument. The reasons they were ranked #11 could be many. To just assume one and claim it as fact doesn't cut it.

You can assume anything you want always, that's exactly why I'm not going to continue the discussion with you. Because you will always and forever be able to do that. So if that's what you want to believe, then fucking believe it. Your anal demands for "proof" have shown that you want to believe the AP poll has never had biased and never will. So fuck it, keep on thinking it and I'll think you are stupid.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Auburn vs Kansas State Moved To Thursday

And that is why larger SEC programs don't like to play home and home and why Jay Jacobs (Auburn AD) sucks because he should have put in the contract we would not play on a Thursday.

 

[outofyourmind]

is this the first game of the year??

 

[boxedlunch]

You can assume anything you want always, that's exactly why I'm not going to continue the discussion with you. Because you will always and forever be able to do that. So if that's what you want to believe, then fucking believe it. Your anal demands for "proof" have shown that you want to believe the AP poll has never had biased and never will. So fuck it, keep on thinking it and I'll think you are stupid.

What I believe and what I can prove are two different things. You totally miss that, as you're the one who is going to believe what they are going to believe and I choose to believe what I can support.

 

[Wild Turkey]

No our 3rd game but 4th week of the season.

 

[outofyourmind]

I wouldn't have any problem with it if it were the first weekend, but the 4th week of the season is pretty lame. Is this something that KSU did, or was it an ESPN thing, or both

 

[4down20]

What I believe and what I can prove are two different things. You totally miss that, as you're the one who is going to believe what they are going to believe and I choose to believe what I can support.

Whatever, if you think it's more plausable that #11 Northwestern with a 5-3 record just happens to be ranked above #20 Alabama with a 7-2 record and there is no bias, then that's fine.

You said yourself you hear about it all the time about bias, but yet nobody is going to believe me and everyone else is going to think it's totally legit! All because nobody has signed confessions by the writers.

 

[WhiteMamba]

And that is why larger SEC programs don't like to play home and home and why Jay Jacobs (Auburn AD) sucks because he should have put in the contract we would not play on a Thursday.

Nice. Isn't it fun!

Welcome to the club of Thurs night bullshit football games.

Oregon has had several since they started winning and I hate that day and time slot.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I wouldn't have any problem with it if it were the first weekend, but the 4th week of the season is pretty lame. Is this something that KSU did, or was it an ESPN thing, or both

My guess is KSU an SEC vs Big 12 game is a no brainer for a Sat night game on ESPN or Fox (since it's a big 12 game).