-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter Oh8ch
- Start date
Buckeyefrankmp;1473501; said:
I think that's a pretty loose definition of "hot" teams... if you lose in the third week of the season, and it's your only loss, I'm more likely to credit a season long "body of work" and not "being hot" for the last 8 weeks....
ar⋅bi⋅trar⋅y
/ˈɑr
Show Spelled [ahr-bi-trer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -trar⋅ies. ?adjective 1.subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
They might as well decide to play the NCAA tournament at any point in time, and they might decide to include any number of teams. There is no intrinsic value in selecting 4, 8, 16, 32, or 64 teams. The decision to take 64 has nothing to do with competitiveness or discerning the "best" team... it has to do with creating the illusion of fairness - inviting mid major schools who have "no chance" to get pole axed by UConn as a 16 seed - while not actually creating fairness (leaving plenty of room for "at large" teams who didn't win their conferences... as if they objectively "deserve" (which they don't... they subjectively "deserve" a chance because they're perceived as good teams... and they often are good teams... further illustrating that the best team doesn't always win.... and the best team doesn't always win their own conference... )
Upvote
0
Buckeyefrankmp;1473536; said:
It was the part of your post that I bolded and you responded to, so yes. Like me, he's pointing out the apparent contradiction in your statement that a team that loses late in the year can't make it into the BCS Title game.
Upvote
0
Besides the issue of whether or not a playoff is even theoretically better at determining a champion, I still await anyone outlining for me a principled system which solves anything that the BCS does not.
There are more formulas for playoffs then the 3 systems I evaluated...
Give me one the meets the goals you playoff proponents advance....
If Texas deserves something, show me how we can accommodate them without inviting ... Sun Belt Champion Troy.... etc..
I tire of the ridiculous assumption that there is something more meritorious about playoffs... Prove it.
There are more formulas for playoffs then the 3 systems I evaluated...
Give me one the meets the goals you playoff proponents advance....
If Texas deserves something, show me how we can accommodate them without inviting ... Sun Belt Champion Troy.... etc..
I tire of the ridiculous assumption that there is something more meritorious about playoffs... Prove it.
Upvote
0
BB73;1473541; said:
9:00 this morning is such a long time to remember. Yes, in a worse case scenario as in 2007 a team with two loses can get into the BCS title game. I stand corrected.
Upvote
0
Thanks, BB73...
"We're not the BCS, where the polls and the power ratings and all of that ridiculous stuff matters. This is a legitimate sport."
Calling "power ratings" ridiculous might sound as if it's a strong "argument" but actually its a conclusory remark. Why shouldn't the quality of the teams you've played and beat matter? Sure, in the NBA, every team plays pretty much the same schedule... but in the NCAA any team necessarily doesn't play against over 100 teams. So.. if Ball State goes undefeated against a schedule that is 110th in terms of strength, they "deserve a shot?" Why? Doesn't this encourage Ohio State, Texas, USC, Florida et al to schedule as weak a schedule as possible? Sounds like a "legitimate sport" to me.....
"If this were the BCS, I'd have to be lobbying," he said. "In the BCS, an undefeated team doesn't get a chance to win a championship. I'm just glad we're in a legitimate sport where it's decided on the court, not one where it's a beauty pageant, where preseason rankings matter as much as anything to winning a championship. It's the most ridiculous thing in sport."
Tulane was undefeated in 1998... I don't hear them being bandied about as having been "screwed" from "settling it on the field"
Didn't Stanford settle it on the field that they're better than USC in 2007? Or, maybe we put a little too much emphasis on what's actually being "settled"
He does make a valid point about pre-season rankings being problematic. But, can't that be remedied by not allowing a "poll" until week 8 or such? Like.. say.. the BCS does? (Though I will admit that polling is subject to several biases.... that bias is "checked" by the computers..)
PS =- again, I admit that the playoffs are a legitimate way to crown a champion.... I simply argue its no more legitimate than the BCS and comes with unintended consequences if implemented.
"We're not the BCS, where the polls and the power ratings and all of that ridiculous stuff matters. This is a legitimate sport."
Calling "power ratings" ridiculous might sound as if it's a strong "argument" but actually its a conclusory remark. Why shouldn't the quality of the teams you've played and beat matter? Sure, in the NBA, every team plays pretty much the same schedule... but in the NCAA any team necessarily doesn't play against over 100 teams. So.. if Ball State goes undefeated against a schedule that is 110th in terms of strength, they "deserve a shot?" Why? Doesn't this encourage Ohio State, Texas, USC, Florida et al to schedule as weak a schedule as possible? Sounds like a "legitimate sport" to me.....
"If this were the BCS, I'd have to be lobbying," he said. "In the BCS, an undefeated team doesn't get a chance to win a championship. I'm just glad we're in a legitimate sport where it's decided on the court, not one where it's a beauty pageant, where preseason rankings matter as much as anything to winning a championship. It's the most ridiculous thing in sport."
Tulane was undefeated in 1998... I don't hear them being bandied about as having been "screwed" from "settling it on the field"
Didn't Stanford settle it on the field that they're better than USC in 2007? Or, maybe we put a little too much emphasis on what's actually being "settled"
He does make a valid point about pre-season rankings being problematic. But, can't that be remedied by not allowing a "poll" until week 8 or such? Like.. say.. the BCS does? (Though I will admit that polling is subject to several biases.... that bias is "checked" by the computers..)
PS =- again, I admit that the playoffs are a legitimate way to crown a champion.... I simply argue its no more legitimate than the BCS and comes with unintended consequences if implemented.
Upvote
0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1473538; said:ar⋅bi⋅trar⋅y
bɪˌtrɛri/
?adjective 1.subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
Arbitrary. Like the BCS formula where 2/3 of it is voting by people who do not watch the teams play or do not even vote themselves.
Secret ballots*will ruin*integrity of USA Today coaches' poll - Andy Staples - SI.com
Upvote
0
Buckeyefrankmp;1473552; said:
I have consistently argued that the BCS' biggest failing has been tweaking itself right out of legitimacy. I agree that polls are not a very exacting tool, but because there are so many teams at issue, I cannot think of a better tool (save for Lordjeff's proposal to re-align the whole thing)...
In any case, the computers do provide at least some check on human bias.
You also assume Harris voters don't watch the teams play, so it's really only 1/3 of the process (The Coaches) under which your objection applies... incidentally, I agree with removing the coaches from the process
But, back to the real issue I want to talk about....
Outline you plan.. it's easy to sit back and take potshots at the BCS... what's your proposal?
Upvote
0
TheIronColonel
Hall of Fame
Van Gundy's comparison is also fairly laughable. In football, best case scenario you play the same team twice in a season. It's not Basketball, where you have a playoff with a 5 or 7 game series to determine the winner. That's why you can comfortably say Team A is better than Team B if Team A wins the playoff series. Not so with football. Case in point: Stanford over USC.
Upvote
0
matcar
Mostly banned
TheIronColonel;1473556; said:
Couldn't agree more. Football playoffs in no way determine the "best" team, because it's a one game scenario and we all know about "any given Sunday"... Playoffs merely mean that a team was rolling along and had the right luck/preparedness. I'm a Steeler fan, but I don't necessarily think that they were the best team in the NFL in 2005. Likewise, I don't think that the Giant's were the best team two years ago. Football playoffs are fine, but they are no more the measure of the "best" team out there, it's just a different way of determining a champion.
Upvote
0
TheIronColonel
Hall of Fame
From a statistical point of view, a playoff really isn't appreciably better than the BCS. The sample size of head-to-head matchups isn't sufficient to determine which team is truly the "best". That's a red herring. The advantages of a playoff are 1) perceived legitimacy and 2) more awesome, Armageddon-type games around New Years. At worst, a playoff is as good as the BCS; at best, we get a few more cataclysmic showdowns between mega-programs (who wouldn't have wanted to watch a playoff with Oklahoma, USC, Florida, and Texas?).
Even if we had a playoff, people would complain about the seeding or game location or weather or color of the grass. On the other hand, it could potentially be much more entertaining. That's where I find the appeal.
Even if we had a playoff, people would complain about the seeding or game location or weather or color of the grass. On the other hand, it could potentially be much more entertaining. That's where I find the appeal.
Upvote
0