I will say this about conference championship games. Anyone who thinks they are some sort of terrible burden is tripping. Let's not forget that if neither USC nor LSU had played a conference championship game it would be USC with the better computer and SOS rankings as it was last week before LSU got to factor in GA again. Alternatively, had USC played and beaten WSU in a conference championship game then USC would have gotten enough of a bump to have stayed number two. If the situation were not such that LSU had the chance to better their BCS numbers in a CCG and USC didn't then LSU would be in the Rose otherwise. Of course they can be detrimental but let's not ignore the beneficial side.
This worth quoting in full. Great point. It's a HUGE advantage in SOS to be able to play the second-best team in your conference again. If you're gonna lose, better it be to one of the top teams in the country - the computers don't care about margin, but they very much care who you lose to. And if you win, you not only beat one of the top teams, you might get quality win points too. I don't think it's a coincidence that the last BCS controversy was also about a (non-championship-playing) Pac-10 champion getting left out in the cold, in favor of a conference-championship-losing former #1.
"If we're in that position, it speaks for itself,'' Stoops said. "Our strength of schedule, our quality wins, everything they take into consideration, indicates that we've earned our way.
"We've had 13-14 straight weeks of being No. 1, carrying that burden the entire year, and playing pretty well. In the end, we're No. 1 in the BCS. I find no shame in that."
And CoD will appreciate his CCG whining:
"Other guys shouldn't be sitting home relaxing, (while) you've got a couple of conferences playing championship games," Stoops said. "Let's get everybody to play one if you want to include it in the BCS structure. To be fair, that would be the case. But I don't know if anybody's real concerned about being fair. It's just the way it is."
*sniffle* *sniffle*
Looks like Bob skipped the BCS ceremonies to get the sand out of his vagina.
grover, you'd be the first one in line to offer him a wetknap and an oral inspection, if he were coaching at texas. that pussy starts smelling pretty good when he puts your team in the position to win NCs just about every year. admit it, you want to bear his children, you softy you.
Uh oh, we're busting out the "texass"! Bet it was hard to type all that doing the horns down.
hehe, actually it was an honest typo. i love texas, hate ut. see, i've edited it above just for your love. by the way, i prefer to wear my big red foam hand the reads "ut sucks my balls" when i do my typing.
Without a conference championship game the ratings this week would have been about the same as last week. Oregon State would have been factored in to USC in the computers and polls without much effect given that OSU is a slightly above average 6-4 (7-5) #40ish type team. Throw in a few other minor factors, Hawaii, Notre Dame, etc. USC would have definitely been ahead though. Yes, LSU did lose the QW bonus put they more than made up for it in other areas. The factors that benefitted LSU at USC's expense:
SOS: +1.00 for LSU as they go from 2.12 to 1.12
SOS: +.04 because since LSU passed USC they stopped USC from moving up the one spot in SOS they otherwise would have with no SEC CCG.
Computers: +1.17. It gets messy but basically if there were no championship game then at worst USC has a computer ranking of 2.33 and LSU has one of 2.67. That's worst case for USC, it could have been an even bigger advantage for them but I don't know that they would have pass LSU in a couple polls for certain. Instead with the championship games included (also with a slight benefit in one poll since LSU passed OK due to OK CCG loss) LSU has a 1.83 computer ranking and USC has a 2.67 computer ranking. LSU gains .84 and by virtue of LSU also being knocked down below LSU (and Miami Ohio getting a boost from 10-1 BGSU in the MAC CCG in one poll) USC loses .34. So you have at least a 1.17 or 1.18 benefit depending on when you round the numbers.
That is a total benefit of 2.21 minus the lost .4 QW bonus. So a net gain of 1.81. Could maybe have been a little more if USC would have passed LSU in the Seattle Times or even possibly Sagarin.
Bottom line is that LSU's 1.53 deficit from last week would have been slightly higher with no CCGs and USC's win over Oregon State plus the other games small impacts on SOS and SOS in the Computers. With my math USC would have won by maybe 1.65 points or so. However when you factor in the 1.81 benefit to LSU from playing and winning the SEC CCG they wind up ahead by .16. To make it even more dependent on CCGs, it actually depended on the Big 12 CCG as well as the SEC CCG. Without the OK loss LSU does not pass OK in Ken Massey's computer poll and so they lose .17 in the computer average and USC goes to the Sugar by .01. One last thing, while it made no difference in the rankings because the worst computer poll number is thrown out, due to the MAC CCG Miami Ohio got to factor in a second game with 10-1 BGSU and move past USC into third in Sagarin and bump USC to fourth.
Comments
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I will say this about conference championship games. Anyone who thinks they are some sort of terrible burden is tripping. Let's not forget that if neither USC nor LSU had played a conference championship game it would be USC with the better computer and SOS rankings as it was last week before LSU got to factor in GA again. Alternatively, had USC played and beaten WSU in a conference championship game then USC would have gotten enough of a bump to have stayed number two. If the situation were not such that LSU had the chance to better their BCS numbers in a CCG and USC didn't then LSU would be in the Rose otherwise. Of course they can be detrimental but let's not ignore the beneficial side.
This worth quoting in full. Great point. It's a HUGE advantage in SOS to be able to play the second-best team in your conference again. If you're gonna lose, better it be to one of the top teams in the country - the computers don't care about margin, but they very much care who you lose to. And if you win, you not only beat one of the top teams, you might get quality win points too. I don't think it's a coincidence that the last BCS controversy was also about a (non-championship-playing) Pac-10 champion getting left out in the cold, in favor of a conference-championship-losing former #1.
Originally posted by Towel
It's a HUGE advantage in SOS to be able to play the second-best team in your conference again.
Beating Georgia twice cost LSU Quality Win points. They would've had .6 taken off their final score if there were no conference championship games.
I'm not seeing how it helped them.
Originally posted by groverat
Beating Georgia twice cost LSU Quality Win points. They would've had .6 taken off their final score if there were no conference championship games.
I'm not seeing how it helped them.
They gained a full point on SOS. 2.16 last week, 1.16 this week.
Week by week BCS
Originally posted by applenut
please take a look at opponents
thank you.
OU knew they would get into the title game no matter what happened so they didn't go out and play.
Originally posted by BR
OU knew they would get into the title game no matter what happened so they didn't go out and play.
to be fair BR, OU was focused, they just got out coached and out played. it's that simple. you don't over look a team like K-state.
Originally posted by groverat
Bob Stoops' is fickle.
From ESPN:
Stoops said the teams that play for the national title should at least have won a conference championship.
Stoops is changing his tune:
"If we're in that position, it speaks for itself,'' Stoops said. "Our strength of schedule, our quality wins, everything they take into consideration, indicates that we've earned our way.
"We've had 13-14 straight weeks of being No. 1, carrying that burden the entire year, and playing pretty well. In the end, we're No. 1 in the BCS. I find no shame in that."
And CoD will appreciate his CCG whining:
"Other guys shouldn't be sitting home relaxing, (while) you've got a couple of conferences playing championship games," Stoops said. "Let's get everybody to play one if you want to include it in the BCS structure. To be fair, that would be the case. But I don't know if anybody's real concerned about being fair. It's just the way it is."
*sniffle* *sniffle*
Looks like Bob skipped the BCS ceremonies to get the sand out of his vagina.
grover, you'd be the first one in line to offer him a wetknap and an oral inspection, if he were coaching at texas. that pussy starts smelling pretty good when he puts your team in the position to win NCs just about every year. admit it, you want to bear his children, you softy you.
Originally posted by groverat
Uh oh, we're busting out the "texass"! Bet it was hard to type all that doing the horns down.
hehe, actually it was an honest typo. i love texas, hate ut. see, i've edited it above just for your love. by the way, i prefer to wear my big red foam hand the reads "ut sucks my balls" when i do my typing.
Beating Georgia twice cost LSU Quality Win points. They would've had .6 taken off their final score if there were no conference championship games.
I'm not seeing how it helped them.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/abcspo...ankings?week=7
Without a conference championship game the ratings this week would have been about the same as last week. Oregon State would have been factored in to USC in the computers and polls without much effect given that OSU is a slightly above average 6-4 (7-5) #40ish type team. Throw in a few other minor factors, Hawaii, Notre Dame, etc. USC would have definitely been ahead though. Yes, LSU did lose the QW bonus put they more than made up for it in other areas. The factors that benefitted LSU at USC's expense:
SOS: +1.00 for LSU as they go from 2.12 to 1.12
SOS: +.04 because since LSU passed USC they stopped USC from moving up the one spot in SOS they otherwise would have with no SEC CCG.
QW: -.4 as GA falls from #7 out of the top ten
Computers: +1.17. It gets messy but basically if there were no championship game then at worst USC has a computer ranking of 2.33 and LSU has one of 2.67. That's worst case for USC, it could have been an even bigger advantage for them but I don't know that they would have pass LSU in a couple polls for certain. Instead with the championship games included (also with a slight benefit in one poll since LSU passed OK due to OK CCG loss) LSU has a 1.83 computer ranking and USC has a 2.67 computer ranking. LSU gains .84 and by virtue of LSU also being knocked down below LSU (and Miami Ohio getting a boost from 10-1 BGSU in the MAC CCG in one poll) USC loses .34. So you have at least a 1.17 or 1.18 benefit depending on when you round the numbers.
That is a total benefit of 2.21 minus the lost .4 QW bonus. So a net gain of 1.81. Could maybe have been a little more if USC would have passed LSU in the Seattle Times or even possibly Sagarin.
Bottom line is that LSU's 1.53 deficit from last week would have been slightly higher with no CCGs and USC's win over Oregon State plus the other games small impacts on SOS and SOS in the Computers. With my math USC would have won by maybe 1.65 points or so. However when you factor in the 1.81 benefit to LSU from playing and winning the SEC CCG they wind up ahead by .16. To make it even more dependent on CCGs, it actually depended on the Big 12 CCG as well as the SEC CCG. Without the OK loss LSU does not pass OK in Ken Massey's computer poll and so they lose .17 in the computer average and USC goes to the Sugar by .01. One last thing, while it made no difference in the rankings because the worst computer poll number is thrown out, due to the MAC CCG Miami Ohio got to factor in a second game with 10-1 BGSU and move past USC into third in Sagarin and bump USC to fourth.
equations should not decide this......
to win in sport you must beat the other.
only way to have a true national champion is through play-offs. this way is focking stupid