because eliminating margin of victory keeps there from being embarassing blowouts. It's working too, as there hasn't been an embarrassing blowout in the last 24 hours at least according to my calculations.
Won't that lead to teams trying desparately to get as many points as possible against the Baylor's and Kansas's of their respective conferences? Is a team that beats Baylor 98-0 with their starters playing late into the 4th really that much better than the team that let up in the 2nd quarter and beat them 49-7? As long as they are able to keep teams from running up scores(Impossible), then you are right...margin of victory would definitely fix the problem. I'm not saying that I know how to fix the BCS(Hell, I've been campaiging, unactively of course, for a playoff system since I started following college football), but I do know that TCU isn't anywhere near the caliber of a top 10 team. I watched some of the Louisville game, and that simply is not top 20, much less top 10, football. Scraping by the Houston's and Tulane's of the world(We beat the snot out of Tulane, and they won by 3; Yet, they could very possibly be ranked ahead of us in the BCS by year's end) does not justify their ranking. I don't know...increase the influence of Strength of Schedule? Re-introduce the margin of victory? What I really don't understand is how the sportswriters continue to rank TCU so high. Have none of them seen the team play? Do they go by some modified point system? Geez...Now I sound like a frog-hater. I really have nothing against them. They are a solid team...maybe even top 25 material soon, if they can use this season to land some big(ger) recruits. They are definitely more big 12-worthy than Baylor. I just don't want to see a more qualified team(Especially my team) miss out on a BCS bowl.
Why is LSU ranked so high? They're SOS is not-so-hot, either (63rd), but they're sitting pretty at 4th in both the polls going into this weekend. By the same token, why was Miami so low in the polls when they've played a tougher schedule than Florida State. Same with Ohio State for that matter. The interesting thing to me is that several of these teams that TCU is beating will be considered BCS caliber next year. What will change? Their playing West Virginia, Rutgers and Temple, I guess, is more challenging than playing TCU, etc. One could ask why TCU has been ranked so low. The computer rankings that the BCS uses in their formula would be good enough for 8th. If anything, the polls are dragging them down in the BCS.
Won't that lead to teams trying desparately to get as many points as possible against the Baylor's and Kansas's of their respective conferences? Is a team that beats Baylor 98-0 with their starters playing late into the 4th really that much better than the team that let up in the 2nd quarter and beat them 49-7? When victory margin was counted a few years back, they simply had a limit of 21 points. If you win 21-0, it's the same as 77-0. Solved the running-up-the-score problem pretty well.
That's fairly arbitrary, though. Seems like it should either count or it shouldn't, rather than having a half-way solution that sort-of counts it and sort-of doesn't.
The SOS is an average...LSU may not have to prove it week in and week out, but they have beaten some very solid teams in Georgia and Auburn, and they will have to beat two more very good teams in Arkansas and Ole' Miss. Any one of those 4 games is more meaningful than TCU's big win over Louisville. Miami is being hurt by the timeliness of their losses, IMHO. Had they lost at the beginning of the season, and reeled off 6-8 big wins to finish the season, they would probably be in the top 6 as we speak. I don't agree with FSU being ahead of Miami(Head - to - head is huge, IMO), but two straight losses at this point in the season will hurt you. OSU is a one loss team...of course they're ranked so high. If you notice, they have the easiest schedule among all undefeated/one loss teams(That's right...all 4 of them), and they are the lowest-ranked. You're right, though(I'm assuming that you agree with me on this in general terms)...The BCS is a sham. I desparately want a playoff. I think that, right now, Texas would have a chance against any teams outside of Norman and SoCal. Major, your solution seems to make perfect sense. I wish it were implemented. It would knock both of the teams that I think are too highly-ranked(TCU and OSU) down a few spots.
Taking out margin of victory was idiotic. Why? Because the predictive value of computer rankings w/margin of victory included is better than without. How can anybody dispute the fact that this means they're more accurate? Sorry, I thought the BCS was meant to pit the best teams against each other - not make people play nice.
The fact that game tape exists is irrelevant. The problem is the lakc of reps that defenses have w/the offense. If they had as many reps defending that defense as a normal one, it'd get torn apart and be less effective than teh standard offense. And no, your argument that the same is true of any successful scheme just isn't true. A # of elite college teams run very conservative offenses. Sure, there are usually a few wrinkles - but those are a hell of a lot easier for defenses to prepare for than Tech's O. If every team ran Michigan's offense... I still think Michigan could run it successfully. Perhaps not as successfully, but it would still be effective. That's just not true of Tech. If every O ran like that... the D's would make quick work of them in time. On the talent issue... I think they're mostly decent players. TBH, I think Tech's scheme makes it difficult to tell. The receivers definitely seem to run good routes and have good hands... which si most important in that system. Their speed, elusiveness, etc, is harder to tell. Symons throws a decent ball, but his arm isn't spectacular, and he's prone to making mistakes when he gets rattled. Good qb, great #'s... and all that.
Is the triple option a gimmick offense. Was it gimmicky when everyone ran it. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either of you but I do find it interesting that most people label Tech's offense gimmicky when it probably isn't much different from a lot of the spread offenses being run nowadays.
Haven, good point on the use of victory margin in prediction. One minor point though, if teams know victory margin is overly weighted some teams will purposely run up scores which will likely decrease future prediction. Personally, I think you could just take victory margin and apply the log or squart root to it and that would be fine. This would result in some weighting of margin of voctory but reduce the influence of really high, anomolous, scores as well as the incentive to run up scores against B programs (e.g., like 77-0 scores). MrPaige--I don't have a big problem with an arbitrary point either (like 30 or above)--the whole system of weighing this and that is arbitrary. I just think the log or sqrrt would yield better prediction and accomplish much of the same thing. On Tech-UT: I think UT will be fine as long as Reese ins't a dumbass again and tries to cover guys like Welker with slow LBs. 6 DBS, 1 DJ and 4 guys who can ferociously rush the passer. Mix in the occasional blind side saftey or corner blitzes too. Remember OU demolished that Tech offense playing like that even with what's his name QB for Tech last year (who I think was really better than Symons). Finally thank god we lost to Arkansas early. Otherwise UT might really be lined up to play OU again and UT's lines just are not good enough to put up a fight. This way (with UT out of the picture) maybe someone like USC can beat OU so Stoops really doesn't get a stranglehold on recruits. USC (and truth be told even LSU & OSU) is much better at consistently pressuring QBs than UT, they match-up much better versus OU. Personally I think if USC wins out they have got a good chance, OSU and LSU's chances would be slim--but still a lot better than UT's.
Just read my definition of gimmicky . Triple option wouldn't be gimmicky if everyone did it. Being gimicky, under my definition, isn't a matter of running a particular formation/playcalls, etc... but on relying primarily on their novelty value for their success (and the lack of experience a D has in defending it). You're taking it as a pejorative - but it's not completely. As to tech's O being different from the fashionable spread O's - well, Tech does run a spread O - just taken to the extreme end. Wasn't that true of the way the BCS used to allow margin of victory? I thought the highest margin considered was 35 points, or something like that.
The thing is that Tech's offense will continue to be successful against a majority of teams. Their D will get better probably (it can't get much worse), and they are starting to get even better talent for the O.
VJ- The weakest schedule? WTF are you looking at? OSU beat NC State ( a 3 loss team), Bowling Green (a top 25 team), and Washington a very respectable Pac-10 team. And that is the non-conference. Now throw in the tougest conference (top to bottom) and one loss on the road. So please expalin to me how that schedule is weaker than LSU's? Look at the SOS OSU has one of the toughest 10 schedules in the country. OSU plays actual good D1 opponents, maybe other schools should schedule competive games as well.
Well the Big 10 has 3 schools in the top 11 of the BCS standings can any other conference claim that (OSU #3, Michigan #9, Purdue #11) Add in Minnesota 9-2, MSU who was in the top 12 until OSU beat them this weekend at 7-3, Iowa at 7-3 and Wisconsin at 6-4. I would throw those 7 up against any other conferences top 7. I don't have the rankings in front of me but looks like 6 of these guys are in the top 25 this year. I don't think the Big 12 or SEC can claim as many in the top 25 this year.
Maybe not this year, but I hate people always talking about how great the Big 10 is. Stick those teams in the Big XII or SEC and they wouldn't look so good. Teams in the Big XII and SEC play themselves out of Top 25 rankings. BTW Minnesota is not very good, Iowa wasn't a top 10 team, and Wisconsin is eh. Purdue is alright, Michigan is good but underachieves, and OSU finds a way to win, but I don't want to get started on them. Big XII is on a down year. SEC is weird. Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Ole Miss are all good teams, but Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, and South Carolina are pretty good too.
Tozai- I agree the Big 10 has been consistently behind the SEC and Big 12 until maybe last year (Iowa and OSU were both very good last year and the rest of the Big 10 ddid well in the bowls). So yes I agree over the last 5-7 years teh Big 10 is at best the 3rd best conference behind the SEC and Big 12.
I booked my round trip flight and hotel in Vegas for New Year's Eve. We plan on renting a car in Vegas and driving to either Pasadena or Tempe, depending on which bowl we end up in.
