+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: MACbbs (/forum-513.html)
+---- Forum: Mid-American Conference Talk (/forum-472.html)
+---- Thread: BCS simulated standings through Oct 30th (/thread-796784.html)
BCS simulated standings through Oct 30th - MaddDawgz02 - 11-02-2016 09:52 AM
This is just hardcore proof right here how much of a whack job that committee did. Back in 2012 I developed a pretty rigorous BCS calculation system, both to calculate current scores and to predict next weeks. Here is just the raw BCS calculation of what it would have looked like this week. Everything is the exact same that would have gone into the BCS with one exception, the AP poll I substituted for the Harris poll. Other than that Coaches Poll and all 6 BCS computers are intact. Look how far WMU jumps in the old system! This is a much better representation in my opinion. Hopefully for WMU fans that Boise problem getting to the conference championship game does prevent them from getting in, but this shows it shouldn't even be close!
Just taking that 1/3 computer component of the old BCS system, WMU would have been ranked number 8 which is why they make such a big jump to 13 in the overall standings.
Top 10 computer ranked teams 1) Alabama 2) Clemson 3) Michigan 4) Washington 5) Ohio State 6) Texas A&M 7) Louisville 8) Western Michigan 9) Wisconsin 10) Auburn
![[Image: bcs_oct31.png]](http://www.godawgz.com/bcs_oct31.png)
BCS simulated standings through Oct 30th - indianasniff - 11-02-2016 10:41 AM
When we lived under BCS did we not all agree it sucked. Just saying
Not saying the current system is better but..,,
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: BCS simulated standings through Oct 30th - kreed5120 - 11-02-2016 11:29 AM
Yeah, BCS was god awful. No matter what they do someone will always complain.
RE: BCS simulated standings through Oct 30th - UofToledoFans - 11-02-2016 11:31 AM
If there was no G5 champ inside the top 16 we had no G5 access bowl team... So i like this system. Keep winning Broncos
RE: BCS simulated standings through Oct 30th - george14 - 11-02-2016 11:34 AM
(11-02-2016 10:41 AM)indianasniff Wrote: When we lived under BCS did we not all agree it sucked. Just saying
Not saying the current system is better but..,,
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When we all lived under no instant replay or reviews did we not agree it sucked? Just saying
Times change and we expected fairness. Just like replay, we didn't expect these clowns to still get things wrong routinely, nor did we expect games to literally extend 30 minutes. We expected some delays but also more accuracy and efficiency. We got neither, really.
The point is, the BCS was bad for the natty at times but this system is more corrupt with how teams get there now. At least with computers there was an element of removing bias. Now, you will have humans being biased. There is not a chance in hell 2012 NIU would be above #20 with the current system. But the computers helped them out. Having a 4 team playoff helps, yes, but it essentially forces a bias toward the P5. The fact that Oklahoma State is 5 spots ahead of WMU is all I need to see. They are 5-2 with a loss to a team that WMU throttled, while WMU is 8-0. TA&M above WSH is another screwjob.
RE: BCS simulated standings through Oct 30th - Bronc33 - 11-02-2016 11:54 AM
the BCS calculations were fine. The issue was there was no playoff. They should have just added the playoff to the BCS.
RE: BCS simulated standings through Oct 30th - george14 - 11-02-2016 01:00 PM
(11-02-2016 11:54 AM)Bronc33 Wrote: the BCS calculations were fine. The issue was there was no playoff. They should have just added the playoff to the BCS.
100%
BCS simulated standings through Oct 30th - indianasniff - 11-02-2016 01:07 PM
Butt crack sweat should not be a topic on this board
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: BCS simulated standings through Oct 30th - Okie Chippewa - 11-02-2016 02:34 PM
The current committee members appear to weigh WHO a team has played to a much greater degree than HOW a team has played. That kind of weighting is detrimental to G5 teams EVERY time.
RE: BCS simulated standings through Oct 30th - Bronco'14 - 11-02-2016 05:22 PM
(11-02-2016 01:00 PM)george14 Wrote:(11-02-2016 11:54 AM)Bronc33 Wrote: the BCS calculations were fine. The issue was there was no playoff. They should have just added the playoff to the BCS.
100%
Right.
The other issue, as stated, was that if a G5 team didn't have a certain ranking, too bad.
Now they're forced to take a G5 team.
RE: BCS simulated standings through Oct 30th - MaddDawgz02 - 11-02-2016 06:08 PM
(11-02-2016 05:22 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:(11-02-2016 01:00 PM)george14 Wrote:(11-02-2016 11:54 AM)Bronc33 Wrote: the BCS calculations were fine. The issue was there was no playoff. They should have just added the playoff to the BCS.
100%
Right.
The other issue, as stated, was that if a G5 team didn't have a certain ranking, too bad.
Now they're forced to take a G5 team.
Yeah but it's always always going to be an AAC or MWC team In the old system the Broncos would have had a strangle hold on this ranked at 13 while now they will probably be jumped by the MWC champ just because of a corrupt commitee