(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.