CajunMan
Boudin blanc
No longer registered
Level: 93
   
Posts: 1020/2483
EXP: 7977496
For next: 75344
Since: 2.1.02
From: Give me a Title shot!
Since last post: 580 days
Last activity: 379 days
|  #1 Posted on 6.12.04 1510.33
Reposted on: 6.12.11 1510.37 | Does the Big 12 run the BCS? Nebraska loses it's Conference title game but some how gets in the big game a couple of years ago. Oklahoma loses it's conference title game but some how gets in the title game. This year not only does Oklahoma find it's way back to the BCS title game with a weak schedule but Texas gets their way almost after choking to Kansas. Cal got screwed and Auburn fell victim to a very cr@ppy system run by Big 12 nerds. Talk about glass ceiling.
The only solution is a playoff system to end the controversy year after year. Face it the BCS is fixed.
| Promote this thread! |             | Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 122
Posts: 4373/4700
EXP: 20296318
For next: 341754
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 750 days
Last activity: 547 days
| #2 Posted on 6.12.04 1542.33
Reposted on: 6.12.11 1542.57 | Uh, Oklahoma is # 2 and Texas # 4 in the BCS. Given the fact that the human polls are 2/3 of the forumla, this was pretty much a given.
Incidentally, I think Utah has a bigger beef than Cal because Utah is undefeated with a good non-conference schedule. | Roy.
Pepperoni
Level: 62
Posts: 600/1040
EXP: 1947932
For next: 36765
Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State
Since last post: 1838 days
Last activity: 308 days
| #3 Posted on 6.12.04 1555.02
Reposted on: 6.12.11 1556.56 | You could say that the Big 12 runs the BCS, as the head of the Big 12 is also the head of the BCS. Up until 2 years ago, the SEC head Roy Kramer ran the BCS (and was basically the founder of the whole BCS). Were you complaining about the BCS bias then?
Look, it's a (multi) computer system, and unless somebody's put some weird variable into the equation, I'm pretty sure that it's not biased. Doesn't ESPN and other outlets have their own computers that use the same formulas? They've all projected the same rankings (basically). You can say that the system sucks, but it's not biased. Texas and Oklahoma are good teams. As Grimis said, look at the human polls. You can maybe argue bias there (I never understood how no matter how bad ND and PSU were, they always got votes the first few weeks of the season the past few years), but not a computer system. Unless the BCS computers have developed emotions, in which case, God help us all. | Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 127
Posts: 2459/5064
EXP: 23235562
For next: 491069
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 14 min.
| #4 Posted on 6.12.04 1625.10
Reposted on: 6.12.11 1625.30 | Let us compare non-conf games (overall, conf, non-conf)
Oklahoma beat:
Bowling Green (8-3, 6-2, 2-1); MAC was (10-33) in non-conf
Houston (3-8, 3-5, 0-3); CUSA was (14-21) in non-conf
Oregon (5-6, 4-4, 1-2); Pac-10 was (19-11) in non-conf
Oklahoma's non-conf teams were a combined 16-17, and 3-6 in non-conf games
Texas beat:
North Texas (7-4, 7-0, 0-4); Sun Belt was (9-27) in non-conf
Arkansas (5-6, 3-5, 2-1); SEC was (25-12) in non-conf
Rice (3-8, 2-6, 1-2); WAC was (17-17 in non-conf)
Texas' non-conf teams were a combined 15-18, and 3-7 in non-conf games; their only loss was to Oklahoma
Cal beat:
Air Force (5-6, 3-4, 2-2); MWC was (16-16) in non-conf
New Mexico State (5-6, 4-3, 1-3); Sun Belt was (9-27) in non-conf
Southern Miss (6-5, 5-3, 1-2); CUSA was (14-21) in non-conf
Cal's non-conf teams were a combined 16-17, and 4-7 in non-conf games; their only loss to USC
Auburn beat:
LA-Monroe (5-6, 4-3, 1-3); Sun Belt was (9-27) in non-conf
The Citadel (Div I-AA)
LA Tech (6-6, 5-3, 1-3); WAC was (17-17) in non-conf
Auburn's non-conf teams were a combined 11-12, and 2-6 in non-conf games
If one compares the quality of non-conf wins, Auburn and Cal are the odd teams out.
| dunkndollaz
Boudin blanc
Level: 93
Posts: 1405/2466
EXP: 7895080
For next: 157760
Since: 3.1.02
From: Northern NJ
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
|  #5 Posted on 6.12.04 1857.22
Reposted on: 6.12.11 1858.06 | | Cal & Texas both faced one bowl bound non-conference team this season and coincidentally, Southern Miss and North Texas face off next week in the New Orleans Bowl - why not let the winner of that game determine who goes to the Rose Bowl ? It makes about as much sense as the BcS does..... | BigVitoMark
Lap cheong
Level: 75
Posts: 1338/1509
EXP: 3678468
For next: 148453
Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada
Since last post: 2858 days
Last activity: 2768 days
| | ICQ: |  |
| |
| #6 Posted on 7.12.04 1920.33
Reposted on: 7.12.11 1920.34 | Is the BCS rigged? No, I don't think so. There's a good case to be made that the coaches poll is biased, though, and as a factor in determining the BCS rankings I suppose there is a link. If you have some Big XII coaches (this I heard on the radio, I can not find a print source to reference) voting Cal out of the top eight, allegedly to help the conference get the payoff from Texas getting into the BCS, there is a problem. Hard to pin that on the BCS itself, though, since the computer can only play with the info it is given.
I don't care to hear a whole lot of crying about Cal, though. As long as you've got Auburn, a team that went unbeaten through the SEC and not having a shot at a national championship, everyone else's bellyaching can take a number and wait in line. | Whitebacon
Boudin blanc
Level: 93
Posts: 1650/2448
EXP: 7800152
For next: 252688
Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA
Since last post: 26 days
Last activity: 16 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | ICQ: |  |
| |
| #7 Posted on 7.12.04 1926.34
Reposted on: 7.12.11 1929.04 | | My problem with Cal not being in the Rose Bowl has little to do with the BCS, it's the fact that the game isn't going to be Pac-10 vs Big Ten like it should be. | Net Hack Slasher
Banger
Level: 98
Posts: 2772/2805
EXP: 9574113
For next: 80274
Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind
Since last post: 3070 days
Last activity: 1490 days
| #8 Posted on 11.12.04 0410.11
Reposted on: 11.12.11 0411.02 | | Why can't they just have the traditional bowl games and then have ranked 1 and 2 teams play in one added game in the end of all the bowl games... Heck it would make the other top Bowl games have more importance as there's multiple games could effect who will play in the championship game. | ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 75
Posts: 1092/1488
EXP: 3698709
For next: 128212
Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL
Since last post: 87 days
Last activity: 18 hours
| #9 Posted on 11.12.04 1004.14
Reposted on: 11.12.11 1005.04 | Originally posted by Zeruel
Let us compare non-conf games (overall, conf, non-conf)
Oklahoma beat:
Bowling Green (8-3, 6-2, 2-1); MAC was (10-33) in non-conf
Houston (3-8, 3-5, 0-3); CUSA was (14-21) in non-conf
Oregon (5-6, 4-4, 1-2); Pac-10 was (19-11) in non-conf
Oklahoma's non-conf teams were a combined 16-17, and 3-6 in non-conf games
Texas beat:
North Texas (7-4, 7-0, 0-4); Sun Belt was (9-27) in non-conf
Arkansas (5-6, 3-5, 2-1); SEC was (25-12) in non-conf
Rice (3-8, 2-6, 1-2); WAC was (17-17 in non-conf)
Texas' non-conf teams were a combined 15-18, and 3-7 in non-conf games; their only loss was to Oklahoma
Cal beat:
Air Force (5-6, 3-4, 2-2); MWC was (16-16) in non-conf
New Mexico State (5-6, 4-3, 1-3); Sun Belt was (9-27) in non-conf
Southern Miss (6-5, 5-3, 1-2); CUSA was (14-21) in non-conf
Cal's non-conf teams were a combined 16-17, and 4-7 in non-conf games; their only loss to USC
Auburn beat:
LA-Monroe (5-6, 4-3, 1-3); Sun Belt was (9-27) in non-conf
The Citadel (Div I-AA)
LA Tech (6-6, 5-3, 1-3); WAC was (17-17) in non-conf
Auburn's non-conf teams were a combined 11-12, and 2-6 in non-conf games
If one compares the quality of non-conf wins, Auburn and Cal are the odd teams out.
Actually, when you take a look at these numbers, you can make the case that California should have won out over Texas, if you look at non-conf. alone.
Looking at overall records of non-conf opponents, Cal's had a winning pct. of .485, while Texas was only .455. Then looking at those teams own conference records, Cal's had a winning pct. of .545, while Texas's was only .522. Now looking at those teams own non-conference records, Cal's had a winning pct. of .364, while Texas's was only .300.
The only category in which Texas's non-conference opponents come out ahead of California's is those opponent's conference's overall non-conf record. In this case, it's only .379 for Cal's opponent's conf's non-conf. record, while Texas was .477.
Still, taken as a whole, and strictly by the numbers for non-conf. foes, I think this makes a better case for California than it does Texas. | Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 127
Posts: 2468/5064
EXP: 23235562
For next: 491069
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 14 min.
| #10 Posted on 11.12.04 1111.58
Reposted on: 11.12.11 1112.01 | Confrence records are moot becuase the SOS of the conference will always be .500.
Non-conf is the way to go.
| Quezzy
Knackwurst
Level: 103
Posts: 1694/3145
EXP: 11366459
For next: 104986
Since: 6.1.02
From: The Moon
Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 13 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #11 Posted on 12.12.04 1653.31
Reposted on: 12.12.11 1659.03 | | I don't believe you can judge everything by numbers. Sure Auburn had a weak non-conference schedule but they played the best conference schedule by a much wider margin. They played 3 teams that finished 9 - 2, played one of them again in the SEC Championship, beat a rival Alabama and Arkansas who ARE better than 6 - 5 and 5 - 6 teams as their record would suggest. If either of those teams plays in another conference those are two more 8 win teams. Plus Auburn just looked impressive. They played easy non-conference games but beat them badly like they should, and they beat teams badly that they shouldn't have too. They completely destroyed both Tennessee and Georgia, the two best teams in their conference while Oklahoma had trouble with both OK State and Texas A&M. Plus Oklahoma's "Conference Championship game" was a joke. | | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
