2011 bowl games open thread

[il Padrino Ute]

Yes, but they don't change the formula halfway through the season. Go look at the human polls from last week and this and tell me people weren't trying to game Okie State into the natl championship game by changing their views with an end in mind (an end I wanted but didn't get, btw).

Quite honestly, I don't pay attention to the human polls. I already know they're biased. But how do we know that the formula the BCS uses for the computers is not biased? The BCS refuses to tell how it's determined.

[BoylenOver]

The first 11 would be the conference champions. The 5 at-large bids could be determined with human bias, as those teams would most likely be chosen by the computers.

Okay, but how do you seed them?

[Pheidippides]

Quite honestly, I don't pay attention to the human polls. I already know they're biased. But how do we know that the formula the BCS uses for the computers is not biased? The BCS refuses to tell how it's determined.

????

A quick google search this afternoon and I was playing with numbers and scenarios. I was unaware this was a closely guarded matter of national security.

[il Padrino Ute]

Okay, but how do you seed them?

Have humans decide the seeding for the same reason as having humans choose the at-large bids. There is going to be bias in anything involved, so I'd rather that humans do it than have an organization tell us that computers are not biased.

[il Padrino Ute]

????

A quick google search this afternoon and I was playing with numbers and scenarios. I was unaware this was a closely guarded matter of national security.

While you were playing with numbers, did you use the same formula that the BCS uses?

[BoylenOver]

Ideal: 4 super-conference champions playing in a plus-one.

Second-best: Top 4 conferences playing in a plus-one. The best way to decide this is computers.

I do think more weight should be given to a conference champ over a team that didn't win their conference if the resumes are similar. But I think you're placing too much emphasis on winning the conference. UGA could've played UCLA in a semifinal this year under your system, excluding LSU, Alabama, Stanford, and Oregon.

I'm a big fan of the plus-one model. But I would rather see 1v4 and 2v3 in the BCS rankings, not "4 best conference champs".

[Maximus]

Ideal: 4 super-conference champions playing in a plus-one.

Second-best: Top 4 conferences playing in a plus-one. The best way to decide this is computers.

so in your ideal scenario teams not in super conferences should never have a chance?

[BoylenOver]

????

A quick google search this afternoon and I was playing with numbers and scenarios. I was unaware this was a closely guarded matter of national security.

I'd be curious to know how close your numbers were to the numbers released by the BCS.

[Pheidippides]

While you were playing with numbers, did you use the same formula that the BCS uses?

Yes.

[il Padrino Ute]

so in your ideal scenario teams not in super conferences should never have a chance?

The only difference today is that there are six conferences rather than 4 super conferences. They both exclude teams not in those conferences.

[il Padrino Ute]

Yes.

So, what is the BCS formula. I've searched but can't find it.

[Pheidippides]

I'd be curious to know how close your numbers were to the numbers released by the BCS.

I wasn't estimating what I thought would happen; I was seeing what had to happen in order for OSU to get in. It wasn't pretty after coach's poll.

[Pheidippides]

So, what is the BCS formula. I've searched but can't find it.

Find it yourself. I'm on my phone and don't care to teach you how to use a computer.

Within two minutes of searching this afternoon I found the formula and weighting of polls and which computer polls are used. Two minutes.

[Maximus]

The only difference today is that there are six conferences rather than 4 super conferences. They both exclude teams not in those conferences.

except there is a provision for bsu etc to get in. Why you want to keep thebcs schools are automatically more worthy in a playoff system is beyond me.

[UtahJazzFan88]

I do think more weight should be given to a conference champ over a team that didn't win their conference if the resumes are similar. But I think you're placing too much emphasis on winning the conference. UGA could've played UCLA in a semifinal this year under your system, excluding LSU, Alabama, Stanford, and Oregon.

I'm a big fan of the plus-one model. But I would rather see 1v4 and 2v3 in the BCS rankings, not "4 best conference champs".

Agree with this. People wouldn't be making a big deal out of Alabama in a 4 team playoff, even though they didn't win their division, and other conference champions would be snubbed.

I want OSU in over 'Bama, but Big 10, Big 12, and Big East (lol at this now) blocked an SEC playoff proposal in 2008.