Famous NCAA Dynasties

[mountainman]

I've re-read the topic and still cannot determine what I missed .... must have been something ..... could have been that I was looking for a point that wasn't there ......

Well, that's not the first one I've missed and I'm pretty certain it won't be the last ....... time to move on.

Maybe there's a problem or issue lurking out there that is not apparent.

[Spence]

Penn State put up points on the weaker Big Ten teams but the Ohio State vs Penn State game was a 17-10 battle...

Ohio State also put up a lot of points on some of the same teams...

31 on Iowa

35 on Mich St

41 on Indiana

45 on Minnesota

40 on Illinois

48 on NW

When Ohio State or Penn State met a good defense...it was lower scoring....like OSU's 22 on Texas, 10 on PSU....

Ohio State's problem wasn't moving the ball. Ohio State's problem was lack of fundamentals. Ohio State had 29 fumbles last year.

Miami(Ohio) 2 fumbles
Texas - 3 fumbles
San Diego St - 1 fumble
Iowa - 6 fumbles
Penn State - 3 fumbles
Michigan State - 6 fumbles
Indiana - 1 fumble
Minnesota - 0 fumbles
Illinois - 1 fumble
Northwestern - 1 fumble
Michigan - 3 fumbles
Notre Dame - 2 fumbles

Ohio State probably had the most talent on the field this year as they have had since the late 60's or early 70's, the just didn't take care of the football very well. They were lucky the defense was as good as it was or we would have lost a lot more games then 2.

Good defense's usually slow down good offense's, but the comparison you used with Penn St. and Ohio State isn't a good one. Penn State played good solid fundamental football, Ohio State did not.

[ktffan]

Ditto .... :?

Guess I must have missed some things.

There's no way that you can ranked 119 teams playing 12 games when most of them not only don't play each other, but don't even have common opponents. Any system is going to suffer from insufficient info.

People like to ride the wire service polls, but over the last 10 years, when an AP ranked team played an unranked team, the ranked teams won 85.9% of the games. When an AFCA ranked team played an unranked team they won 85.6% of the games. At 85+%, you have to figure that the wire service polls have something going for them. Therefore, I'll tell you that the wire service polls are not a bad system. Obviously, there are many problems, most steming from pre-season rankings, but at 85%, I'm not going to tell you it's a bad system. One of the main weaknesses of the wire service polls is that people are unable to calculate large amounts of information. One thing I like about wire service polls, as I said above, is that it takes several opinions and combines them and is not reliant on a single opinion, as in any computer poll.

The computer polls are good in that they can process a lot of information and are unbiased in a single year (although computer polls are not unbiased). The main drawback of computer polls is that it takes the opinion of a single person and spits it out plus computers don't watch football and have a hard time with intangibles.

The BCS combines both and gives teams that do well in either category their due, which helps them out if they are strong in the weak area of the particular poll. I do like the way the BCS combines a lot of opinions, but I'm not impressed with computer polls because if you don't like one, you can probably find another that suits you. Having written computer polls, I'm not impressed with the output you get and I'm not going to give up my opinion to another person's if the person's opinion looks screwball. I'm more inclined to accept the opinion of a group of people if it looks screwball and so I do have less issues with the wire service polls, if that's clear enough. In short, I trust wire service polls more, although I don't know that either are accurate, as who's to know what's right and what's wrong?

[mountainman]

Thanks for the perspective, ktffan.

[Spence]

There's no way that you can ranked 119 teams playing 12 games when most of them not only don't play each other, but don't even have common opponents. Any system is going to suffer from insufficient info.

People like to ride the wire service polls, but over the last 10 years, when an AP ranked team played an unranked team, the ranked teams won 85.9% of the games. When an AFCA ranked team played an unranked team they won 85.6% of the games. At 85+%, you have to figure that the wire service polls have something going for them. Therefore, I'll tell you that the wire service polls are not a bad system. Obviously, there are many problems, most steming from pre-season rankings, but at 85%, I'm not going to tell you it's a bad system. One of the main weaknesses of the wire service polls is that people are unable to calculate large amounts of information. One thing I like about wire service polls, as I said above, is that it takes several opinions and combines them and is not reliant on a single opinion, as in any computer poll.

85% ranked against unranked does sound impressive. My question would be when the ranked teams play each other how often does the higher ranked team beat the lower ranked team?

I'm not against the AP poll or the coaches poll. I think they probably shouldn't have 2/3 weight, but I do think they do a good job adjusting. If you look at most relevant computer polls they look a lot like the wire service polls. Which means that most are using the same criteria.

As to how biased computer polls are, I guess that would depend on whether the guy who wrote the formula went about it. If he did it without having a specific conference or team in mind and tried to make it as objective as possible it would be OK. There are good computer polls and bad ones, just as their are good poll voters and bad ones. The BCS puts several computer polls together to try to fix that. All in all I think the BCS does a pretty good job at getting the best teams in position to play in the bowls. It doesn't mean they always get it right, but they do get it right most of the time.

[mountainman]

All things considered, and by all things I mean the colleges and universities, the NCAA, the regular season fans, the TV guys, and the cities that host the bowls, I believe the BCS does a good job too.

[billybud]

The better ranking systems seem to correctly predict the winner of the game from .75 to .71 percent of the games. There seems to be some "movement" from year to year in sytems ranking....

In 2004, Sagarin topped computer programs in prediction...his program correctly called the winner of the most games....and with a correct call percentage of .7561 ...Massey was #6 http://tbeck.freeshell.org/fb/results2004.txt

In 2005, Sagarin fell in the rankings to #32 and The Pigskin Index was numero uno with a .73176 correct call... percentage.. http://tbeck.freeshell.org/fb/results.txt

2003...Sagarin was tied for tops...

2002...Massey top...Sagarin 12...etc..

An interesting note is that Massey BCS and Wolfe...incorrectly picked the winner in one third of their picks in 2005....not too inspiring for BCS BOYS.

[mountainman]

Hey billybud, what do you mean by "not too inspiring for the BCS BOYS"?

[billybud]

I am not against human polls like the AP or Coaches because they are not far off the better computer polls...

BUT...I do think there needs to be "transparency"....some accountability in voting....sometimes politics affects the voting...

We, in Tallahassee, went wild one year when it was revealed that a West Virginia AP voter left a top 10 FSU completely off his poll, thereby bumping up WVU....

In Florida last year, a voter was fired by the newspaper because she admitted leaving a top team off her poll entirely to better influence another team. The AP voters aren't necessarily spread evenly by conference....In the past, the Big Ten, because of the market area, has had more AP voters from papers covering that conference than did the old Tobacco Road ACC. At one time, the state Florida had one voting AP member..for the Miami Herald. Articles noted how the Gators expected support from the SEC "voters" since they felt little love in Miami...

Coaches polls are indeed "riggable"....Mack Brown, in 2004, was open about calling his fellow B-12 coaches and pleading for help to get to the BCS bowl..This kind of lobbying could be....."Hey guys, more money for the conference, publicity, vote me up and the other guy down." Texas made a late surge to win a Rose Bowl bid over California.

Vote...but not in secret...votes must be open to examination and discussion to ensure voting intgerity.

[billybud]

Mountainguy...what I mean is that Massey and Wolfe are two of the systems used by the BCS...and In 2005 were two of the poorest in prediction.

[mountainman]

Thanks for clearing that one up for me, billybud.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't necessarily 'object' to how the BCS does it's 'ranking' but I would prefer a model that is more objective, than what they utilize.
Aren't there something like 8 computers applied? It's no wonder there isn't a 'concensus'. They should apply the most reliable computer model, and use it. Even their computer ranking lacks objectivity.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree, entirely that 12 games are insufficient to effectively 'rank' teams. Usually by that time, it's generally pretty clear who's good, and who isn't. But I do agree that it's next to impossible to know with absolute certaintly how each team compares, against another.

One thing I do believe, is that it's possible to select a 'concensus' national champion, within the BCS, through a competitive arrangement. In fact, if the BCS were to apply that approach, I think there would be 'agreement' as to who is #1, every year, especially if they apply my model.

The Liberty Bowl, generally, has been a 'championship' of 'non-BCS' teams, since the BCS's inception. Utilizing it as a 'fifth' bowl, and allowing the champion an 'at large' bid to the BCS, would not only preserve tradition, but also give the BCS a 'competitive' arrangement of teams.

That's what's been missing since the BCS was initiated. It works to a degree, but it doesn't select a 'true' national champion, and likely never will, either. It worked last year, but that wasn't a typical year.

I believe the BCS is making some progress. There will be a 'competitive' ranking of conferences, giving the 'non-BCS' component some hope. That could make the BCS into what I would like it to be, a representative BCS.

[mountainman]

The BCS uses 6 computer systems. It then throws out the high and low results of those 6 and averages the results of the remaining 4.

[billybud]

We, as Americans love champions. We have a desire to have some team declared as #1, aqnd declared without dispute.

But...I love college football because every game in the season is meaningful...unlike basketball where it's about getting an invite to "the dance". We all watch other conferences and other teams because their win or their loss has impact upon your team...

When a Top 10 team loses a game, the entire fabric of football feels the tremors...the season is dynamic for every game is a play off and any loss may be an elimination...there are great "playoff" games.

FSU/Miami....USC/Cal.....Ohio State/Michigan...Texas/Oklahoma....and on and on....I love the regular season...

Sure, some teams are hotter at the end of the season...particularly young teams and teams with freshmen QB's.....as much as I love FSU, I'd hate to see a team with four losses in a playoff (and I believe FSU would have played tough with anybody last year at the end...they just didn't earn a shot by winning all season). You must play from the opening game to the final quarter of the bowl...that's what I love.

[Derek]

I don't necessarily 'object' to how the BCS does it's 'ranking' but I would prefer a model that is more objective, than what they utilize.
Aren't there something like 8 computers applied? It's no wonder there isn't a 'concensus'. They should apply the most reliable computer model, and use it. Even their computer ranking lacks objectivity.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree, entirely that 12 games are insufficient to effectively 'rank' teams. Usually by that time, it's generally pretty clear who's good, and who isn't. But I do agree that it's next to impossible to know with absolute certaintly how each team compares, against another.

One thing I do believe, is that it's possible to select a 'concensus' national champion, within the BCS, through a competitive arrangement. In fact, if the BCS were to apply that approach, I think there would be 'agreement' as to who is #1, every year, especially if they apply my model.

The Liberty Bowl, generally, has been a 'championship' of 'non-BCS' teams, since the BCS's inception. Utilizing it as a 'fifth' bowl, and allowing the champion an 'at large' bid to the BCS, would not only preserve tradition, but also give the BCS a 'competitive' arrangement of teams.

That's what's been missing since the BCS was initiated. It works to a degree, but it doesn't select a 'true' national champion, and likely never will, either. It worked last year, but that wasn't a typical year.

I believe the BCS is making some progress. There will be a 'competitive' ranking of conferences, giving the 'non-BCS' component some hope. That could make the BCS into what I would like it to be, a representative BCS.

If the Liberty bowl is the championship game for Non-BCS conferences, what difference does it make to anything if it's made a BCS game?

I think we all agree that the non-bcs conferences are not national championship caliber teams. Period. They would get killed by USC, Texas, Penn State, Ohio State, Georgia, West Virginia, FSU.

How does the BCS being a representation of the "true" national champions by adding team's that dont fit the bill.

Is this about representation or re-distributing money to schools that feel left out? The payout's being 14 million at the "Liberty Bowl" instead of less than a million, being the incentive.