|
Replies: 10
| visibility 1
|
All-TigerNet [14921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12314
Joined: 3/28/06
|
Here's why we haven't moved the BCS rankings: they took
Nov 4, 2012, 9:01 PM
|
|
margin of victory out of the formula in '04... Strength of schedule is killing and they computers don't know that we've beat every team in the ACC (except FSU, obviously by at least 14 points.
Two TD margin of victory is significant and they don't consider it. Is the ACC good--#### no, but we're spanking everyone.
I understand they don't want to encourage running up the score but that's a reality of the BCS system because you let polls play a part--voters like seeing blowouts. It makes no sense to exclude it but that's the biggest reason we're not getting any love from the computers. They could've fixed it by capping MOV at 30 or so--you get credit for spanking a team vs. a 3 point win but you discourage running up the score past 30.
|
|
|
|
 |
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: Here's why we haven't moved the BCS rankings: they took
Nov 4, 2012, 9:03 PM
|
|
We've beaten two winning teams all year and one is Duke who has beaten nobody.
#13 is more than fair given the schedule we've played and our loss in the one big game we had.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12314
Joined: 3/28/06
|
Louisville's beaten 2 winning teams, USuCk's beaten 3
Nov 4, 2012, 9:16 PM
|
|
(including ECU), FSU has beaten 3 (including Duke and WF) and we have as good or better margins of victory than all of them... My point was margin of victory matters and it hurts us for it to not be part of the computer formula--you think the human voters don't take that into account?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: Louisville's beaten 2 winning teams, USuCk's beaten 3
Nov 4, 2012, 9:20 PM
|
|
I think they take MOV into account relative to competition. South Carolina beat a top 10 team by 30. That's going to carry weight for a while even if you hate it.
Whereas people tend to forget about all your blowouts of bad teams when you have games against Auburn and GT that were in question into the 4th quarter.
That's how I'd look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24809]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42555
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Then what's the excuse for ND? Are the refs voting?***
Nov 4, 2012, 9:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: Then what's the excuse for ND? Are the refs voting?***
Nov 4, 2012, 9:49 PM
|
|
No they blew out Oklahoma on the road. On wins over Stanford, BYU, Michigan, Michigan State.
Stanford's better than any of our wins.
Other three are likely equal to our best win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [6]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 18
Joined: 8/11/11
|
Re: Louisville's beaten 2 winning teams, USuCk's beaten 3
Nov 4, 2012, 9:48 PM
[ in reply to Re: Louisville's beaten 2 winning teams, USuCk's beaten 3 ] |
|
> I think they take MOV into account relative to
> competition. South Carolina beat a top 10 team by 30.
> That's going to carry weight for a while even if you
> hate it.
>
> Whereas people tend to forget about all your blowouts
> of bad teams when you have games against Auburn and
> GT that were in question into the 4th quarter.
>
> That's how I'd look at it.
SCAR also got spanked by a top ten team by 33 and squeaked by a bad Tenn team at home, so what? Isn't it true that no one knows what the "formula" truly is for five of the six BCS computer rankings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 630
Joined: 6/29/12
|
If a voter cant look at a football team and see talent...
Nov 4, 2012, 9:52 PM
|
|
Then they shouldn't have a vote. You have to look at more than a resume. I can tell the difference in the NE Patriots running through a high school schedule 10-0 and a great HS team doing the same. It's called talent recognition and a computer can't do that. Thats the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 630
Joined: 6/29/12
|
Nobody is arguing in favor of our resume
Nov 4, 2012, 9:57 PM
|
|
It is a matter of whether or not we are the better team compared to say...Oregon State
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [62]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 279
Joined: 5/19/11
|
Re: Nobody is arguing in favor of our resume
Nov 4, 2012, 10:01 PM
|
|
Isn't that the same thing people argue AGAINST when it comes to the SEC?
Secondly, if a voter felt our talent is only as good as it appears because we play the teams we play, should they not hold that against Clemson?
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Not questioning Clemson's offensive talent.
But I don't think too many Clemson fans were crying for Boise State or crying for Louisville now in the same situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 630
Joined: 6/29/12
|
Re: Re: Nobody is arguing in favor of our resume
Nov 4, 2012, 11:11 PM
|
|
You actually made my second point for me. You are indeed correct. People do argue against this way of thinking when it comes to SEC teams. They argue against it because this is how SEC teams are evaluated yet when you apply the same logic to another team, ie Clemson, people such as yourself don't like it. If it is acceptable to evaluate one team using "the eyeball test" then it must be acceptable to do so for other teams as well. Not just the teams that most benefit current tv contracts, all teams. I do think you have to prove it on the field but when it comes down to deciding which win is better between VT and Washington St....the eyeball test is more effective than a computer formula.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 10
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
