Projecting the Field 1/22

[DancerHall Cat]

Re: Projecting the Field 1/22

Let a computer figure it out.

Great point! The BCS is only 1/3 computers, and we have seen how well that works out.

[jman2004]

Re: Projecting the Field 1/22

In terms of naming an actual "National Champion" there are plenty of arguments out there that the BCS (while still flawed) is better than the former system.

Are you telling me that Missouri State deserved to be left out of the tournament two years ago, with a top 25 RPI? With RPI and SOS becoming the science it is, there shouldn't be teams like that left out. It's just unacceptable in my opinion.

[DancerHall Cat]

Re: Projecting the Field 1/22

In terms of naming an actual "National Champion" there are plenty of arguments out there that the BCS (while still flawed) is better than the former system.

Are you telling me that Missouri State deserved to be left out of the tournament two years ago, with a top 25 RPI? With RPI and SOS becoming the science it is, there shouldn't be teams like that left out. It's just unacceptable in my opinion.

Whether or not the BCS is better than the old system, where we didnt even see #1 vs. #2 is a completely seperate issue.

You are advocating throwing out the human element and strictly using computers. Take a look at the BCS computer rankings at the end of the regular season.

Virginia Tech #1 and LSU #2 in the computer rankings. Both teams with 2 losses, and LSU blew out V-Tech.

USC #9 and Arizona State #8. Both teams with 2 losses and USC handled ASU in Tempe.

My point is this. If you think going to a strictly computer-based system is going to eliminate absurd results, you are kidding yourself.

[jman2004]

Re: Projecting the Field 1/22

Whether or not the BCS is better than the old system, where we didnt even see #1 vs. #2 is a completely seperate issue.

You are advocating throwing out the human element and strictly using computers. Take a look at the BCS computer rankings at the end of the regular season.

Virginia Tech #1 and LSU #2 in the computer rankings. Both teams with 2 losses, and LSU blew out V-Tech.

USC #9 and Arizona State #8. Both teams with 2 losses and USC handled ASU in Tempe.

My point is this. If you think going to a strictly computer-based system is going to eliminate absurd results, you are kidding yourself.

Not saying that. Just saying that with things like RPI supplying us with another glimpse of how well someone's body of work is, it shouldn't be ignored.

And you conveniently left out what all goes into the BCS computer rankings. V-Tech's loss to LSU came in the 2nd week of the season. Arizona State's two losses came to USC and Oregon when Oregon was ranked 4th with a healthy Dixon. USCs loss to Stanford killed them. Lots of things are involved, not just head to head. I don't know that I'd say LSU is better than V-Tech JUST BECAUSE they beat them back in early September. That's why the computer takes into effect their entire season.

The BCS could be tweaked, needs to be probably, but it's not ALL bad either.

[DancerHall Cat]

Re: Projecting the Field 1/22

Not saying that. Just saying that with things like RPI supplying us with another glimpse of how well someone's body of work is, it shouldn't be ignored.

And you conveniently left out what all goes into the BCS computer rankings. V-Tech's loss to LSU came in the 2nd week of the season. Arizona State's two losses came to USC and Oregon when Oregon was ranked 4th with a healthy Dixon. USCs loss to Stanford killed them. Lots of things are involved, not just head to head. I don't know that I'd say LSU is better than V-Tech JUST BECAUSE they beat them back in early September. That's why the computer takes into effect their entire season.

The BCS could be tweaked, needs to be probably, but it's not ALL bad either.

To my knowledge, nobody has said that the RPI should be completely ignored. As I understand it, you are saying everything else should completely be ignored.

Its funny that you bring up thinks like "a healthy Dixon." Under a system based completely on a computer, that certainly would be difficult to take into account.

I never said that LSU was better than V-tech JUST BECAUSE they beat them earlier in the season. If you want to claim that going into the bowl season, V-tech was more deserving than LSU, and ASU was more deserving than USC, that speaks volumes. If you don't, then I am assuming you would agree that a system based solely on computers wouldn't solve anything.

[dustin86]

Re: Projecting the Field 1/22

i looked on espn last night and they had drake as a 4 seed

[jman2004]

Re: Projecting the Field 1/22

To my knowledge, nobody has said that the RPI should be completely ignored. As I understand it, you are saying everything else should completely be ignored.

I've heard a number of selection committee members on tv claim that often times they don't even look at RPI. No one on here is claiming it's ignored, I wasn't calling anyone out from on here (Panther Nation). I'm just speaking in generalities.

And no, not everything else should be ignored, that's not what I'm saying, but when a team in the top 25 RPI at the end of the season is left out of a field of the nation's 65 top teams, something doesn't look right. I think there could be a way to combine the two different polls, RPI, SOS and whatever else to make it easier for teams like that to NOT GET SCREWED by human judgment. Maybe give the top 20 ranked teams automatic bids or something. I don't know.

I just know that the system could still become a better science AND keep the "human" judgment involved. Believe it or not, a computer generated system is probably going to make LESS errors when judging a teams overall body of work than a committee of 20 or so humans determining it.

[06panther10]

Re: Projecting the Field 1/22

Whether or not the BCS is better than the old system, where we didnt even see #1 vs. #2 is a completely seperate issue.

You are advocating throwing out the human element and strictly using computers. Take a look at the BCS computer rankings at the end of the regular season.

Virginia Tech #1 and LSU #2 in the computer rankings. Both teams with 2 losses, and LSU blew out V-Tech.

USC #9 and Arizona State #8. Both teams with 2 losses and USC handled ASU in Tempe.

My point is this. If you think going to a strictly computer-based system is going to eliminate absurd results, you are kidding yourself.

I would argue that you have to take the human element out of it more. A few years ago when the BCS system was mostly the computer element did a pretty fair job, but now the BSC is majority human element and that is basically the old system of just voting the national champion. At least with the computer system it had a formula that you could crack to play for the title. You had to schedule tough, and beat good teams. Now, whoever is the trendy pick leading up to the championship gets to play for it, which is basically the problem with the old timer system.

With that being said, I could not argue that the computer system is better than a playoff. That would be the only absolute true way to crown a national champion.

[DancerHall Cat]

Re: Projecting the Field 1/22

Do you think that V-tech was more deserving than LSU and ASU more deserving than USC? If not, then the human element actually improved the system in that regard.

Im not trying to advocate the BCS system. My point is this. A system which is strictly based on computers either in NCAA football or basketball will lead to more absurd results than the current system.

[jman2004]

Re: Projecting the Field 1/22

You're also talking about ONE season's results. Over the course of time, I think it would be FAR more unbiased.

It doesn't matter what WE think about who's more deserving. That's what I like about seeing computer results. They compute strength of schedule, amount of wins, strength of opponents schedules, etc. If the computer spit out that VT was SLIGHTLY better than LSU, who are we to argue. You're mind can't compute all that stuff (neither can mine). The very stuff that shows us the team's OVERALL BODY OF WORK for that particular season.

I would've been perfectly okay with a VT vs. LSU national championship game. Actually thought that's what it should've been.

[06panther10]

Re: Projecting the Field 1/22

You're also talking about ONE season's results. Over the course of time, I think it would be FAR more unbiased.

It doesn't matter what WE think about who's more deserving. That's what I like about seeing computer results. They compute strength of schedule, amount of wins, strength of opponents schedules, etc. If the computer spit out that VT was SLIGHTLY better than LSU, who are we to argue. You're mind can't compute all that stuff (neither can mine). The very stuff that shows us the team's OVERALL BODY OF WORK for that particular season.

I would've been perfectly okay with a VT vs. LSU national championship game. Actually thought that's what it should've been.

This is exaclty what I mean. At least the computer has actual facts and data to justify who is #1, I believe with the correct formula you can make that system work. With humans is purely opinion, and that is crap.

And to answer DancerHall's question about this year, Those computer results are not how they would have been a few years ago. I believe they 'tweaked' the system this past year and made such important elements such as strength of schedule alot less important. Which is why that OSU team that played the little sisters of the poor all season got to play for the title.

My point is that the computers, when used correctly, work well and most importantly are unbiased, unlike us dumb humans.