Since 2004, when the BCS formula was changed to enhance the value of the human polls, here are the times when a team has finished #1 or #2 in the BCS computers and yet NOT played in the BCS Title game:

2006 Michigan (T#2)
2007 Virginia Tech (#1)
2008 Texas (#2)
2009 Cincinatti (#2)
2011 Oklahoma State (#2)
2012 Florida (#2)

So in 6 of the past 9 seasons, a team that the BCS computers said should be in the title game has nevertheless been left out. Fully half the time, the #2 computers team has failed to make the big game.

If it had been up to the computers, three of the past nine national champions would have been different for sure, because in 2008 Florida would not have gotten to play (and beat) Oklahoma for the championship (the Gators were #3 in the computers while Texas was #2 that year), and Alabama would not have won either of the past two national titles because they were #3 in the computers after the 2011 and 2012 seasons (Oklahoma State and Florida were #2, respectively), but in all these cases the human polls prevailed.

In contrast, since 2004, NO team that has finished ranked #1 or #2 in the human polls has been left out of the BCS title game.

Moral: In then end, it's the human polls, not the computers, that matter.

(11-08-2013 03:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Since 2004, when the BCS formula was changed to enhance the value of the human polls, here are the times when a team has finished #1 or #2 in the BCS computers and yet NOT played in the BCS Title game:

2006 Michigan (T#2)
2007 Virginia Tech (#1)
2008 Texas (#2)
2009 Cincinatti (#2)
2011 Oklahoma State (#2)
2012 Florida (#2)

So in 6 of the past 9 seasons, a team that the BCS computers said should be in the title game has nevertheless been left out. Fully half the time, the #2 computers team has failed to make the big game.

If it had been up to the computers, three of the past nine national champions would have been different for sure, because in 2008 Florida would not have gotten to play (and beat) Oklahoma for the championship (the Gators were #3 in the computers while Texas was #2 that year), and Alabama would not have won either of the past two national titles because they were #3 in the computers after the 2011 and 2012 seasons (Oklahoma State and Florida were #2, respectively), but in all these cases the human polls prevailed.

In contrast, since 2004, NO team that has finished ranked #1 or #2 in the human polls has been left out of the BCS title game.

Moral: In then end, it's the human polls, not the computers, that matter.

2006- the 2nd place teams were tied. idiotic and misleading to put them in this list.
2007- Va Tech was 1st by 0.25 cpu spots over LSU. LSU beat them 48-3. end of story
2009- Big East champ .25 spots ahead of undefeated Texas. enough said.
2011- Oklahoma St was actually darn close to flipping with Alabama. If OSU had been up by 2 more computer spots, they do flip.

in the other 3 years the 2nd computer team was not a conference champ while the 2nd poll team was a SEC champ. Enough said.

We've NEVER had a scenario like what is developing.

Oh and let's look at 2009....
3 Cincy 2467 1280 2.75 in computers .8878
4 TCU 2579 1336 5.00 in computers .8836

The computers DID push Cincy ahead of TCU- despite a 112 harris/56 coaches vote difference in TCU's favor.

(11-08-2013 04:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-08-2013 03:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Since 2004, when the BCS formula was changed to enhance the value of the human polls, here are the times when a team has finished #1 or #2 in the BCS computers and yet NOT played in the BCS Title game:

2006 Michigan (T#2)
2007 Virginia Tech (#1)
2008 Texas (#2)
2009 Cincinatti (#2)
2011 Oklahoma State (#2)
2012 Florida (#2)

So in 6 of the past 9 seasons, a team that the BCS computers said should be in the title game has nevertheless been left out. Fully half the time, the #2 computers team has failed to make the big game.

If it had been up to the computers, three of the past nine national champions would have been different for sure, because in 2008 Florida would not have gotten to play (and beat) Oklahoma for the championship (the Gators were #3 in the computers while Texas was #2 that year), and Alabama would not have won either of the past two national titles because they were #3 in the computers after the 2011 and 2012 seasons (Oklahoma State and Florida were #2, respectively), but in all these cases the human polls prevailed.

In contrast, since 2004, NO team that has finished ranked #1 or #2 in the human polls has been left out of the BCS title game.

Moral: In then end, it's the human polls, not the computers, that matter.

2006- the 2nd place teams were tied. idiotic and misleading to put them in this list.
2007- Va Tech was 1st by 0.25 cpu spots over LSU. LSU beat them 48-3. end of story
2009- Big East champ .25 spots ahead of undefeated Texas. enough said.
2011- Oklahoma St was actually darn close to flipping with Alabama. If OSU had been up by 2 more computer spots, they do flip.

in the other 3 years the 2nd computer team was not a conference champ while the 2nd poll team was a SEC champ. Enough said.

We've NEVER had a scenario like what is developing.

Oh and let's look at 2009....
3 Cincy 2467 1280 2.75 in computers .8878
4 TCU 2579 1336 5.00 in computers .8836

The computers DID push Cincy ahead of TCU- despite a 112 harris/56 coaches vote difference in TCU's favor.

Why on earth is it misleading to put 2006 Michigan in the list when I said they were TIED for #2?

Really, I don't see the point of your post. You keep finishing sentences with "enough said", and yet nothing that precedes them changes the fact that in 6 of the past 9 seasons, a team that was ranked in the top two by the computers FAILED to finish in the top two of the BCS standings, which sheds a lot of light on how important the computers are.

because the team they were tied with made it. obviously 2 teams tied can't make it..

there's never been a year like how this is shaping. all of the years you are referring to the better computer team was never undefeated except for 2009, when you had a Big east team going up against Texas.. Meanwhile, in 2009, as I showed you, for 3/4- the 3rd place poll team was leapfrogged for #3 due to computers.

(11-08-2013 04:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Oh and let's look at 2009....
3 Cincy 2467 1280 2.75 in computers .8878
4 TCU 2579 1336 5.00 in computers .8836

The computers DID push Cincy ahead of TCU- despite a 112 harris/56 coaches vote difference in TCU's favor.

That might be a good parallel. Baylor is going to be trying to do what Cincinnati did that year -- Baylor wants to be right behind OSU in the human polls (Cincinnati was 56 coaches points behind, and there are 60 voting coaches, meaning they were 1 full place behind in the coaches poll, about the same in Harris, 112 points/120 voters) and have a computer average that is at least 2 places better than OSU.

Baylor would need a "lead" over OSU in the computers that is at least twice as much as OSU's lead in the polls (which is what Cincinnati had) because the polls are worth two-thirds and the computers one-third.

Of course, if Bama and/or FSU don't lose, this will be an argument over who's #3. Just like in 2009.

(11-08-2013 05:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-08-2013 04:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Oh and let's look at 2009....
3 Cincy 2467 1280 2.75 in computers .8878
4 TCU 2579 1336 5.00 in computers .8836

The computers DID push Cincy ahead of TCU- despite a 112 harris/56 coaches vote difference in TCU's favor.

That might be a good parallel. Baylor is going to be trying to do what Cincinnati did that year -- Baylor wants to be right behind OSU in the human polls (Cincinnati was 56 coaches points behind, and there are 60 voting coaches, meaning they were 1 full place behind in the coaches poll, about the same in Harris, 112 points/120 voters) and have a computer average that is at least 2 places better than OSU.

Baylor would need a "lead" over OSU in the computers that is at least twice as much as OSU's lead in the polls (which is what Cincinnati had) because the polls are worth two-thirds and the computers one-third.

Of course, if Bama and/or FSU don't lose, this will be an argument over who's #3. Just like in 2009.

yep. Of course, if Bama loses, but wins SEC, that presents a whole new level to this discussion!!!!

(11-08-2013 05:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  because the team they were tied with made it. obviously 2 teams tied can't make it..

there's never been a year like how this is shaping. all of the years you are referring to the better computer team was never undefeated except for 2009, when you had a Big east team going up against Texas..

1) There was nothing misleading about 2006, as I indicated that Michigan was TIED for #2.

2) What difference does it make whether the teams ranked 1 or 2 in the computers but left out of the title game were undefeated or not? They were still ranked either 1 or 2 in the computers and yet did not make the title game. Sheesh!

well then you can say 4/9 years the teams the bcs computers said should be in the title game were the teams that were in the title game.

2007- you have Va Tech who was .25 ahead of LSU in the computers. Va Tech got curb stomped by LSU 48-3. Well duh, what do you think is going to happen?
2008- Texas wasn't a conference champion. 1.25 gap
2009- You have undefeated Big East Champ .25 ahead in the computers of a undefeated Big 12 Texas team. Well duh.
2011- gap was only .5 spot. If it had been 1.25 gap, they flip. Problem for OSU was there was no one else that could get wedged in between and 2/6 computers had Alabama ahead of OSU.
2012- gap was 1.25 spots. Florida wasn't a conference champion. Alabama was- in the same conference. Well duh.

So in 2 of the 5 times, it's a conference champion issue(in 2006- Florida conference champ, Michigan not).
2007- more of a head to head issue.
2011 was a lot closer than you think.

You refuse to acknowledge the other part of 2009 where TCU got passed by Cincy because of the computers. Or even this week in the computers.

To act like the computers are meaningless- that's a complete and utter joke. Just because they haven't decided one yet doesn't mean they can't. The 5 years you bring up wouldn't have been the right year. This scenario this year is where the computers could easily make a difference.. If we have FSU, Ohio St, and Baylor undefeated, and Alabama, Stanford, Oregon, Clemson, Missouri or Auburn(one of them beating Alabama in the SEC title game)- I think it'd be hard for some teams not to get wedged between Ohio St and Baylor.

Oh and by the way, heard Brad Edwards from ESPN. He thinks Baylor has a decent shot to pass Ohio St eventually.

(11-09-2013 12:07 AM)stever20 Wrote:  well then you can say 4/9 years the teams the bcs computers said should be in the title game were the teams that were in the title game.

2007- you have Va Tech who was .25 ahead of LSU in the computers. Va Tech got curb stomped by LSU 48-3. Well duh, what do you think is going to happen?
2008- Texas wasn't a conference champion. 1.25 gap
2009- You have undefeated Big East Champ .25 ahead in the computers of a undefeated Big 12 Texas team. Well duh.
2011- gap was only .5 spot. If it had been 1.25 gap, they flip. Problem for OSU was there was no one else that could get wedged in between and 2/6 computers had Alabama ahead of OSU.
2012- gap was 1.25 spots. Florida wasn't a conference champion. Alabama was- in the same conference. Well duh.

So in 2 of the 5 times, it's a conference champion issue(in 2006- Florida conference champ, Michigan not).
2007- more of a head to head issue.
2011 was a lot closer than you think.

You refuse to acknowledge the other part of 2009 where TCU got passed by Cincy because of the computers. Or even this week in the computers.

To act like the computers are meaningless- that's a complete and utter joke. Just because they haven't decided one yet doesn't mean they can't.

About the 2006 tie: Even if you toss that out, it is still 5 out of 9 years that a team picked by the computers to play in the title game failed to make the title game. Also, I acknowledged the dual-nature of a tie in the original post when I said that teams ranked #2 had failed to make the title game "fully half of the time", which in 9 seasons means 4.5 times, with that .5 being the split-difference for 2006. That's a fair way to describe it, because counting both Michigan and Florida as #2 for 2006 means there have been 10 teams ranked #2 in the computers the past 9 years, and 5 have failed to make the title game, or 50% of them. Half. Nothing misleading about that.

Also, you keep analyzing each of those years and talking about stuff like who was or wasn't a conference champ, or which conference they were the champ of, or how many computer points separated teams in a given year. That's all fine and dandy, but none of it changes the fact that in those years, teams ranked in the top 2 by the computers still failed to make the title game.

Finally, as for TCU and Cincy in 2009 or what is happening in the current BCS standings this week, that is irrelevant, because my point is only concerned with who finishes #1 and #2 in the BCS standings, not #3 or any other position, and only in the final BCS standings, not mid-year, because it is only #1 and #2 in the final standings that determine who plays for the title.

Of course you are correct in a technical sense: the computers are 1/3 of the BCS formula and thus it is mathematically possible for the computers to put a team into the title game over another team that is higher-ranked in the human polls. So if you want to bash me for being absolutist and saying the computers can't possibly matter, then your pedantic point is taken.

But "can't possibly" and "likely" are whole different things, so this doesn't detract much from my main point, which that this has never happened, and the fact that it has never happened is not a coincidence: The point of the 2004 re-weighting of the BCS formula was to prevent exactly what you think is likely this year, namely for the computers to put a team into the title game in spite of the human polls. The system was changed due to what happened in 2003 when USC, #1 in the human polls, did not make the title game because of a lower computer score. There are many aspects of the BCS that have failed over the years, but that 2004 change is one that has worked perfectly: The human polls determine who plays in the title game, even to the extent of overruling the computers, which has happened quite frequently.

In the end of course, we shall see one way or the other. But past history tells us it is MUCH more likely that if it turns out that the computers and human polls differ, it will be the human polls overruling the computers, not vice-versa.

(11-08-2013 05:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  because the team they were tied with made it. obviously 2 teams tied can't make it..

there's never been a year like how this is shaping. all of the years you are referring to the better computer team was never undefeated except for 2009, when you had a Big east team going up against Texas.. Meanwhile, in 2009, as I showed you, for 3/4- the 3rd place poll team was leapfrogged for #3 due to computers.

I think Quo's point is that the computer polls don't make any difference.

It's possible that this year, if there are 3-4 unbeaten power-conference champions, the AP and HArris polls will split, with the computers breaking the tie. But if the AP and HArris both have the same #2, Quo's list indicates that it doesn't matter what the computers say.

If someone wants to pull out the BCS formula and show the math about how a #3 AP/#4 Harris Baylor beats out a #2 AP/Harris Florida State, that's a contribution.

If FSU trips up along the way somewhere, that throws this long involved discussion right out the window as so much garbage.

actually, if FSU trips up somewhere along the way, it makes this discussion 100% relevant. Only if Alabama and FSU win out is it meaningless.

(11-09-2013 10:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  actually, if FSU trips up somewhere along the way, it makes this discussion 100% relevant. Only if Alabama and FSU win out is it meaningless.

Yes, it is clear that FSU has slipped in to the position previously occupied by Oregon, that of just needing to win out in order to play an unbeaten Bama in the title game. FSU doesn't need to win by any showy amounts, like Bama they just need to win and their spot is assured, nothing OSU or Baylor can do about it.

Fortunately for FSU, they don't face anyone remotely as good as Stanford. Unfortunately for 'bama, they do. The Iron Bowl isn't going to be easy. And since it's at the end of the year, Auburn will be playing their best for their new head coach.

The most likely BCS Championship game matchup could be FSU-Baylor. We shall see.

If the Buckeyes do manage to luck out and get into the BCS Championship, I pity them. They aren't worthy - or ready - against either Alabama, FSU, or Baylor.