What years did the BCS get it wrong

[4down20]

Yes, I know that. All the more reason Texas should have played them again, no? But you're completely missing my point anyway.

Then which top4 BCS team did Texas lose to as you previously claimed?

 

[ericd7633]

Then which top4 BCS team did Texas lose to as you previously claimed?

Texas Tech finished 4th in the computers in the FINAL BCS Standings.

 

[4down20]

Texas Tech finished 4th in the computers in the FINAL BCS Standings.

Alabama finished 4th.

And Texas Tech went on to lose to...Ole Miss, the same team Florida lost to in 2008.

 

[ericd7633]

Alabama finished 4th.

And Texas Tech went on to lose to...Ole Miss, the same team Florida lost to in 2008.

Not in the computers.

 

[4down20]

Not in the computers.

Oh I see, you've taken to cherry picking.

 

[ericd7633]

Oh I see, you've taken to cherry picking.

Not at all. I clearly stated that in the previous thread from the previous page. Go back and check if you would like.

 

[4down20]

Not at all. I clearly stated that in the previous thread from the previous page. Go back and check if you would like.

You took some stats and made them to be important while claiming the other stats as not being important.

That is cherry picking.

Do you need to only include the computers for LSU in 2011 to come up with some fictional ranking?

 

[iowajerms]

In 2006, #1 undefeated Ohio State faced off against #2 undefeated Michigan, and the game ended up being a 3-point victory for Ohio State. It was the final game these teams played in the season.

BCS had LSU facing Ohio State in the Championship. I bet Michigan was not even considered.

In 2011, #1 undefeated LSU faces off with #2 undefeated Alabama, and the game ended up being a 3-point victory for LSU.

BCS had LSU facing Alabama in the Championship.

Of course, we can look at it hindsight and say "LSU beat Ohio State" and all, but I believe the selection is before the game. What if Oklahoma State went in and made the LSU pass defense (which was their weakest part of the D) look bad? We will never know. What if Michigan had a rematch vs Ohio State and won the 2nd time? We will never know.

I'm not saying they got it wrong in 2006. I personally believe they got it right in 2006 and they were wrong in 2011, but that's not the point I am trying to make here. I am just saying there is inconsistency with the exact same situation in these 2 seasons.

 

[ericd7633]

You took some stats and made them to be important while claiming the other stats as not being important.

That is cherry picking.

Do you need to only include the computers for LSU in 2011 to come up with some fictional ranking?

Lol. I haven't done that at all. Please give me an example

 

[4down20]

In 2006, #1 undefeated Ohio State faced off against #2 undefeated Michigan, and the game ended up being a 3-point victory for Ohio State. It was the final game these teams played in the season.

BCS had LSU facing Ohio State in the Championship. I bet Michigan was not even considered.

In 2011, #1 undefeated LSU faces off with #2 undefeated Alabama, and the game ended up being a 3-point victory for LSU.

BCS had LSU facing Alabama in the Championship.

Of course, we can look at it hindsight and say "LSU beat Ohio State" and all, but I believe the selection is before the game. What if Oklahoma State went in and made the LSU pass defense (which was their weakest part of the D) look bad? We will never know. What if Michigan had a rematch vs Ohio State and won the 2nd time? We will never know.

I'm not saying they got it wrong in 2006. I personally believe they got it right in 2006 and they were wrong in 2011, but that's not the point I am trying to make here. I am just saying there is inconsistency with the exact same situation in these 2 seasons.

If Alabama and LSU had played in the SECCG/final game of the season, there wouldn't have been a rematch.

That's a pretty big detail you are pretending doesn't matter.

 

[4down20]

Lol. I haven't done that at all. Please give me an example

Only counting the computer results and not the entire results = cherry picking.

Do you need to do that with LSU in 2011? No, you can look at humans or computers and get them as #1.

Why do you need to do that with Texas Tech in 2008? Because if you do the same thing, you don't get the result you want. So you need to focus in on only 1 thing and present it as being what matters.

That's textbook cherry picking.

 

[ericd7633]

Only counting the computer results and not the entire results = cherry picking.

Do you need to do that with LSU in 2011? No, you can look at humans or computers and get them as #1.

Why do you need to do that with Texas Tech in 2008? Because if you do the same thing, you don't get the result you want. So you need to focus in on only 1 thing and present it as being what matters.

That's textbook cherry picking.

Why the hell would I bring in the human voters when strictly talking about resumes? I'm talking about SOS, Great wins(top 25), good wins(top 50 wins) and quality of loss. And again, I'm not cherry picking, I said Bama's loss was slightly better. I for one don't think there is much difference in the #4 computer team and the #1 computer team but that's just me. And add to the fact Texas 2008 had better wins and a better SOS than Bama 2011 did. But since you're so hell bent on believing Bama deserving it in 2011 you must feel Texas deserved it in 2008, right?

 

[4down20]

Why the hell would I bring in the human voters when strictly talking about resumes? I'm talking about SOS, Great wins(top 25), good wins(top 50 wins) and quality of loss. And again, I'm not cherry picking, I said Bama's loss was slightly better. I for one don't think there is much difference in the #4 computer team and the #1 computer team but that's just me. And add to the fact Texas 2008 had better wins and a better SOS than Bama 2011 did. But since you're so hell bent on believing Bama deserving it in 2011 you must feel Texas deserved it in 2008, right?

#1 "computer team" and "#4 computer team".

But you aren't cherry picking by taking the part of the BCS that makes up the minority of it.



And as I pointed out, the reasons for a rematch are completely different because both Oklahoma and Texas had a loss, and Oklahoma - the loser of their game was the conference champion, not Texas.

But oh yeah, that's right. Once again we aren't allowed to take that into consideration, because it doesn't go with your cherry picked data, with your cherry picked conclusions.

At any rate, it's been explained to you and if you just refuse to accept the reality, then it's on you at this point. You'll be laughed at by basically everyone because well - there is a reason why the VOTERS - not me - the VOTERS from around the entire country voted the way they did. But let me guess, it's ESPN behind it all right?

 

[iowajerms]

If Alabama and LSU had played in the SECCG/final game of the season, there wouldn't have been a rematch.

That's a pretty big detail you are pretending doesn't matter.

The point I was trying to make was the BCS was presented with the same decision 2 different years with the opposite choices made. Their mistake was being inconsistent.

Of course, the outcome goes against my point, but I feel this is one where you can't look at it hindsight. If they decided differently, the hindsight would be different

I also think
BCS > than prior to BCS
4-team tournament > BCS

 

[Wishbone]

Man football season can't start fast enough.

 

[4down20]

The point I was trying to make was the BCS was presented with the same decision 2 different years with the opposite choices made. Their mistake was being inconsistent.

Of course, the outcome goes against my point, but I feel this is one where you can't look at it hindsight. If they decided differently, the hindsight would be different

I also think
BCS > than prior to BCS
4-team tournament > BCS

But it wasn't the same, so your point is invalid.

As I pointed out, if they had been the same and Alabama and LSU had played in the final game of the year, then there wouldn't have been a rematch just like there wasn't a rematch previously.

Slightly off topic a bit - That Alabama and LSU were the best 2 teams of the SEC and didn't meet for the SEC championship because they happened to be in the same division pretty much highlights the problem with deciding things based on division/conference champions rather than best teams. If the SEC wasn't stuck with divisional champs, it could have been settled in the SECCG and the winner could have went on to play OSU.

 

[ericd7633]

#1 "computer team" and "#4 computer team".

But you aren't cherry picking by taking the part of the BCS that makes up the minority of it.



And as I pointed out, the reasons for a rematch are completely different because both Oklahoma and Texas had a loss, and Oklahoma - the loser of their game was the conference champion, not Texas.

But oh yeah, that's right. Once again we aren't allowed to take that into consideration, because it doesn't go with your cherry picked data, with your cherry picked conclusions.

At any rate, it's been explained to you and if you just refuse to accept the reality, then it's on you at this point. You'll be laughed at by basically everyone because well - there is a reason why the VOTERS - not me - the VOTERS from around the entire country voted the way they did. But let me guess, it's ESPN behind it all right?

You still don't get it apparently. I'm taking the voters out of it because them themselves are being hypocritical with the situations. Yes I know they make up 2/3 of the BCS. But when presented with the same situation they voted differently two times to favor the SEC. Which turned out in hindsight, to be the correct move. But going into the game, they propped up the team with lesser resume. Which is what i said on the earlier page. And in Texas' 08 case it is stronger than Bama's 2011 case.

 

[iowajerms]

But it wasn't the same, so your point is invalid.

As I pointed out, if they had been the same and Alabama and LSU had played in the final game of the year, then there wouldn't have been a rematch just like there wasn't a rematch previously.

Slightly off topic a bit - That Alabama and LSU were the best 2 teams of the SEC and didn't meet for the SEC championship because they happened to be in the same division pretty much highlights the problem with deciding things based on division/conference champions rather than best teams. If the SEC wasn't stuck with divisional champs, it could have been settled in the SECCG and the winner could have went on to play OSU.

I believe in 2011, if undefeated #2 Alabama lost to undefeated #1 LSU in the final game before bowl game, Alabama would still get in over OKST, with a loss to .500 Iowa State.

 

[ericd7633]

But it wasn't the same, so your point is invalid.

As I pointed out, if they had been the same and Alabama and LSU had played in the final game of the year, then there wouldn't have been a rematch just like there wasn't a rematch previously.

Slightly off topic a bit - That Alabama and LSU were the best 2 teams of the SEC and didn't meet for the SEC championship because they happened to be in the same division pretty much highlights the problem with deciding things based on division/conference champions rather than best teams. If the SEC wasn't stuck with divisional champs, it could have been settled in the SECCG and the winner could have went on to play OSU.

I agree with you that Bama and LSU were the two best teams that year. I just question whether Bama deserved it based on their resume.

 

[4down20]

You still don't get it apparently. I'm taking the voters out of it because them themselves are being hypocritical with the situations. Yes I know they make up 2/3 of the BCS. But when presented with the same situation they voted differently two times to favor the SEC. Which turned out in hindsight, to be the correct move. But going into the game, they propped up the team with lesser resume. Which is what i said on the earlier page. And in Texas' 08 case it is stronger than Bama's 2011 case.

You want to call the voters hypocrites because you are ignoring that both Texas and Oklahoma lost in 2008, that Oklahoma the loser of that game went on to win the conference. Again, you are ignoring data in order to present things as being equal when they clearly aren't, aka cherry picking.