Rank the BCS Champions. (1 Viewer)

[jott]

College Football News' rankings of Greatest Teams (article predates the last 2 seasons):

http://web.archive.org/web/20060614...om/Almanac/CFN_Formula/CFN_FormulaAllTime.htm

 

[MLU]

I stopped reading that article when it listed UL Lafayette in the quality wins for 2005 Texas...

Horrible.

 

[Waymer]

2001 Miami is #1 as many have said. From there the debate starts.

 

[jott]

I stopped reading that article when it listed UL Lafayette in the quality wins for 2005 Texas...

Horrible.

Read the definitions. The definition of a "Quality Win" is defeating a team with a winning record...and Texas beat ULL 60-3 that year and ULL was 6-5. An "Elite Win" is a win over a team with 2 losses or fewer. Texas' elite wins that year were USC and @ Ohio State. This is an objective formula and it's applied the same to all of the teams as opposed to subjective rankings that are prone to biases.

 

[MLU]

I read the definitions. It changes nothing.

 

[bop]

Read the definitions. The definition of a "Quality Win" is defeating a team with a winning record...and Texas beat ULL 60-3 that year and ULL was 6-5. An "Elite Win" is a win over a team with 2 losses or fewer. Texas' elite wins that year were USC and @ Ohio State. This is an objective formula and it's applied the same to all of the teams as opposed to subjective rankings that are prone to biases.

No matter how you spin a victory over a 6-5 ULL team it still wont be a "quality" win.

 

[jott]

No matter how you spin a victory over a 6-5 ULL team it still wont be a "quality" win.

How can you "spin" the application of a definition???

 

[Waymer]

How can you "spin" the application of a definition???

I think the point they are trying to get to is that the actual definition isn't that great. ULL went 6-5, yeah...but who did they have to beat to get there? Is beating a 6-5 ULL team more or less impressive than beating a 5-6 Kentucky team or a 5-6 Maryland team...or something along those lines. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. These are case by case bases and applying such a broad definition can skew things one way or another.

Not all records are created equal. Spin was simply a bad word choice.

 

[B-Rich]

All I have to add is this-- on that list of BCS Champions, the only one that appears twice is L.S.U.

 

[jott]

I think the point they are trying to get to is that the actual definition isn't that great. ULL went 6-5, yeah...but who did they have to beat to get there? Is beating a 6-5 ULL team more or less impressive than beating a 5-6 Kentucky team or a 5-6 Maryland team...or something along those lines. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. These are case by case bases and applying such a broad definition can skew things one way or another.

Not all records are created equal. Spin was simply a bad word choice.

Quantitative analyses have their problems just like subjective analyses (bias, inconsistent application, etc.). The credit for beating any single team with a winning record has a very small impact on the resulting conclusion. The overall rating factors in things such as winning percentage, point differential, victories over opponents with 2 or fewer losses, as well as adjustments for bad losses/wins. Most of the top 10 teams had a similar win credited to them (heck, Hawaii was listed twice) and Texas got dinged for BEATING Rice.

I just think that this analysis brings more to the discussion and it shouldn't be dismissed merely because we can find a single flaw that may reinforce a preconceived conclusion.

 

[Waymer]

Quantitative analyses have their problems just like subjective analyses (bias, inconsistent application, etc.). The credit for beating any single team with a winning record has a very small impact on the resulting conclusion. The overall rating factors in things such as winning percentage, point differential, victories over opponents with 2 or fewer losses, as well as adjustments for bad losses/wins. Most of the top 10 teams had a similar win credited to them (heck, Hawaii was listed twice) and Texas got dinged for BEATING Rice.

I just think that this analysis brings more to the discussion and it shouldn't be dismissed merely because we can find a single flaw that may reinforce a preconceived conclusion.

Oh, I don't disagree with you...that's why I said sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But, then again some truly great teams may be ranked lower simply because they didn't play as hard a schedule. Does that mean, they aren't as good a team? Not necessarily.

When all is said and done, all we are left with is our opinions.

 

[JimEverett]

Its a silly way to quantify things. I mean why should a win over a team with 3 or fewer wins count against a team? Why does point differential figure so prominently with no regard (except for the wins of an opponent as a separate category) for the quality of the opponent?

And, what really seems wrong to me, a loss counts less than a tenth of point against a team (in a 12 game schedule a loss counts as -0.083)? So if Team X beats a 3-9 team by 10 points it counts more against them (in fact 3x as much against them) then Team Y who lost to a 4-8 team? That makes no sense.

 

[MLU]

>>Its a silly way to quantify things.

Exactly. It credits a team for playing a 6-5 Sun Belt team that a 4-7 Big XII/SEC team probably pasted. Not worth reading even if I can live with that particular team being ranked that high.

 

[Treybad]

Well, it would be alot easier had the right teams been invited too all the BCS Championship games.... Had LSU beaten USC in 2003 or vice-versus, I would favor the 2003 BCS Champion over the rest without even thinking about it..... Not too mention when USC won there was a undefeated SEC team.....