Teams can't simply be ranked by strength because then the SEC would dominiate the top 10. :wink: Just kidding (kind of). Really though, determining the strength of teams is difficult, and ratings not only try to determine how strong a team is but how successful a team has been. Teams that lose aren't having as much success. It may be argued that some of the top rated teams might have lost the games that Auburn or Florida or LSU did, but that is not definite. What is definite is that Auburn, Florida, and LSU did lose the games they lost and those losses can't be ignored. I very much believe in SoS and feel that the BCS is out of whack because SoS hurt USC in 2003. That should really be changed. But at the same time, I feel like well-designed computer rankings are the single best determinant of which teams deserve to be at the top and which don't. I believe human opinion is another important component, but humans can't be as consistent as computers. The rules humans deem important for opinion voting aren't evenly considered for every team and for the entire matrix of game data over the course of the season, especially how that data changes each week and game by game. Computers aren't perfect, but in a 12 game season with 120 teams competing, they are the most consistent and consider all data evenly. Quoting Geaux Rutgers... Sometimes it's clear that a team does not perform up to its talent level or loses a game to another very good team by a very small margin. In most computer ratings, teams can go undefeated against mediocre teams and be ranked higher than great teams that are seriously tested by other great teams. A team should be punished for not performing up to its talent level. Winning against mediocre teams is less impressive (all wins and losses should be weighted) but like so many folks here claim after an ugly victory, a win is a win. I would give favor to pretty wins over ugly wins, but when comparing ugly or unimpressive wins against beautiful losses, the difference is difficult to judge. They should be closely graded, I think most would agree.
I think you're wrong. We probably shouldn't solely rely on equations and computers (and some are better than others), but they are much more consistent than opinions, including the opinions of experts.
no reason to cry about where we're ranked. We were #1 and lost. All we had to do was win out and no worries.
The winner of the ASU/Oregon game has a very good shot of jumping us. So lets pray we destroy Bama and that teh winner of the ASU/Oregon game lose another game.
And therein lies the flaw. 1) The BCS was never established to reward a conference, just teams. 2) If the SEC wants to make believers from the pollsters, then winning ooc games id the way to do it. The pollsters were in-step when the season started. You had a bunch of teams ranked right up there. The pollsters didn't let you down. The SEC had their chance to make a statement as a conference and LSU held up it's end of the bargain beating VT... but Cal beat Tn, SoFla beat Auburn, Mizzou beat Ole Miss, FSU beat Bama, WV beat MSU and SoCar barely squeaked by UNC. Then when Vandy and MSU pull upsets in conference, what are pollsters suppose to do... other than question how strong the conference really is? Look at Michigan getting beat by Happy State, then totally throttled by Oregon. They made the Big Ten a joke. It doesn't make any difference whether the Wissies, PSU, Illinois, Purdue, MSU might be even better than last year, the conference sucks, right???? Even Arkansas can get friggen demolished by Southern Cal last year, then win the SEC West. Teams are suppose to get better game by game. One can argue, I guess, that the pollster don't have a clue. It's been my experience, however, that most teams shoot their own foot, while the pollsters are out looking for the prettiest shoes.
Yes, and we did shoot ourselves in the foot. I said before the season that LSU would have to go undefeated to get to the NC. I really hope I am wrong.
What I mean is, there's no point worrying over the other teams. LSU still has to win out to have a chance. So they control their destiny. Worrying about Oregon or ASU at this point is irrelevant if we don't win the next 5. Ergo, LSU still controls its destiny. Now, after the SECCG, if LSU wins, then it may be out of LSU's hands until we know what the other top teams did. I just don't give a rats what Sagarin says at this point. WIN, WIN, WIN, WIN, WIN - then I'll bite my nails and mewl over the unfairness of polling. Can you dig it? I knew that you could. :lol:
Looks to me like the SEC has done that better than any other conference so far.:thumb: Those teams in bold, are non-BCS schools. Notice which is the only conference not to lose any of those. Notice hat the Big XII has as many losses to non-BCS schools OOC as the SEC has total OOC losses?
Someone may have already said so, but the only poll that is important is the one after the conference championship games. The computer polls, by and large, get better and better as the year progresses. Of course, with a playoff system that allowed 4, 8, or 12 teams in it the biggest arguments/complaints that we would have would be in terms of seeding.
And you have.... in total ooc games, not against other BCS leagues, but you make a valid point. My only point was the SEC had (I think) 10 chances against other BCS league team and went 5-5, with Fla/FSU, Ga/GaTech and Clemson/SC yet to come. The pollsters look at the "who beat who's" as this thing wears on. You weren't surprised when South Florida beat Auburn at home? Or Bama had a real struggle, especially offensively, against FSU? Or South Carolina barely won at UNC? I was. I think the pollsters were, too. All I'm saying is if you want to claim some kind of conference dominance, go dominate something. Otherwise, go do what Florida did to OSU last year... do it on the field. It made Florida the best team in the land. It didn't prove the SEC was the best conference any more than USC winning it proved the PAC 10 was the best conference... or when Texas won, the Big 12 was best. Again the BCS is about teams, not conferences... that's what bowls (collectively) and ooc league matchups games are for.
