The B12 is overdue for a strong tourney showing - perhaps this year will be it - one would hope that playing tough competition in EVERY dang conf game but 2 (Texas Tech) will make every opponent until the Sweet 16 seem like a cupcake.

Were I a 1 or 2 seed I certainly don't want to draw WVU or ISU in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8. Those two teams especially are tough matchups - WVU because of style and coaching and ISU due to talent level.

Come to think of it - I don't really want to see Baylor - who underachieves their talent because Drew can't coach - and Oklahoma, who has a Top 10 starting 5, no depth but great coaching.

Oh, and if Texas sneaks in as a play-in game winner / 12 seed... that is NOT the team I want as a 5 seed or a 1 seed.


No reason 4 of the Sweet 16 this year shouldn't be B12 teams.

ISU will be tough going into the future. The dance moves of their head coach really struck a chord with kids. It is unfortunate for Iowa that the commercial didn't show McCaffery bustin a move after his epic tear away pants moment.

The American has as many National Titles as the Big 12 does since 2000

(03-04-2015 11:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:26 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Yeah, I think we agree on this: the tourney is all that matters in determining a champion and all that matters in terms of bragging rights from a fan perspective. It is my favorite and I look forward to it every year.

But if I was a scientist set on determining the "best" team out of a group of teams and was faced with having to draw up an experiment to determine who that "best" team is, the tourney is about the worst way to determine the answer to that question. Too small of a sample of games and statistical chance has too great of an effect.

These aren't robots. It isn't about determining what you are trying to determine. That just seems strange to me. What it is about to me is who is going to show up big "In The Moment". If you want a "Best" team then you have a tournament where teams match up with multiple games such as you see in MLB and the NBA.

For me, neutral site single elimination shows us who the true champions are and make it less of an endurance situation. I want to see whom has the champion mentality more so than who has built the team with the most physical weapons.


The problem with your assertion that the regular season and computer models show us whom is the "best" is that their scheduling practices do not allow for such to be true. It allows for people to attempt to say that it does but that is wrong. There isn't enough scheduling between top teams in the top conferences. It is a false premise pushed forward by persons whom profit from it.

This may be the sort of discussion better over a beer, but I'll expand my thoughts a bit. If I was coming up with a system to determine the "best" team, it would be to have plenty of matchups with all teams over a long season, then a long series in the postseason between the teams with the two best records. Something like the MLB in days of old. The NCAA tournament just determines who is hot (and lucky) at a moment in time. It's awesome, exciting and leaves a satisfying sense of an undisputed "conclusion", but statistically it is flawed- it's format magnifies the effect of luck and chance. And from a fan perspective, I wouldn't change a thing.

Back to what brought this up originally. With college and pro sports today that are so post season oriented, it is a mistake to look at the results of the postseason and use them to disregard what happened in the regular season. The postseason is going to have upsets which is fun and makes for compelling stories. But it doesn't mean that whatever we learned in the regular season is wrong. It is just one of many possible outcomes. There is a tendency to over-interpret the results of post season play, IMO. They are what they are- an entertaining, fun, compelling, and satisfying way to crown an undisputed champion.

(03-04-2015 04:06 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:26 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Yeah, I think we agree on this: the tourney is all that matters in determining a champion and all that matters in terms of bragging rights from a fan perspective. It is my favorite and I look forward to it every year.

But if I was a scientist set on determining the "best" team out of a group of teams and was faced with having to draw up an experiment to determine who that "best" team is, the tourney is about the worst way to determine the answer to that question. Too small of a sample of games and statistical chance has too great of an effect.

These aren't robots. It isn't about determining what you are trying to determine. That just seems strange to me. What it is about to me is who is going to show up big "In The Moment". If you want a "Best" team then you have a tournament where teams match up with multiple games such as you see in MLB and the NBA.

For me, neutral site single elimination shows us who the true champions are and make it less of an endurance situation. I want to see whom has the champion mentality more so than who has built the team with the most physical weapons.


The problem with your assertion that the regular season and computer models show us whom is the "best" is that their scheduling practices do not allow for such to be true. It allows for people to attempt to say that it does but that is wrong. There isn't enough scheduling between top teams in the top conferences. It is a false premise pushed forward by persons whom profit from it.

This may be the sort of discussion better over a beer, but I'll expand my thoughts a bit. If I was coming up with a system to determine the "best" team, it would be to have plenty of matchups with all teams over a long season, then a long series in the postseason between the teams with the two best records. Something like the MLB in days of old. The NCAA tournament just determines who is hot (and lucky) at a moment in time. It's awesome, exciting and leaves a satisfying sense of an undisputed "conclusion", but statistically it is flawed- it's format magnifies the effect of luck and chance. And from a fan perspective, I wouldn't change a thing.

Back to what brought this up originally. With college and pro sports today that are so post season oriented, it is a mistake to look at the results of the postseason and use them to disregard what happened in the regular season. The postseason is going to have upsets which is fun and makes for compelling stories. But it doesn't mean that whatever we learned in the regular season is wrong. It is just one of many possible outcomes. There is a tendency to over-interpret the results of post season play, IMO. They are what they are- an entertaining, fun, compelling, and satisfying way to crown an undisputed champion.

We could just as easily over-interpret the results of the regular season, especially in football where there are so few games. There isn't an objective way to determine whether 11-1 Team A is better than 10-2 Team B, especially when they have no common opponents. Team B might have lost one game when their QB just had an unusually bad day, and lost the other on an unlucky fumble that prevented them from scoring the winning TD, and maybe Team A just had a long run of good luck and would have been 9-3 or 8-4 if their luck was "average". Or maybe not. The CFP committee and the NCAA hoops committee exist largely to create the illusion of certainty in making these "better/best" choices, but it is just an illusion.

(03-04-2015 04:06 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:26 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Yeah, I think we agree on this: the tourney is all that matters in determining a champion and all that matters in terms of bragging rights from a fan perspective. It is my favorite and I look forward to it every year.

But if I was a scientist set on determining the "best" team out of a group of teams and was faced with having to draw up an experiment to determine who that "best" team is, the tourney is about the worst way to determine the answer to that question. Too small of a sample of games and statistical chance has too great of an effect.

These aren't robots. It isn't about determining what you are trying to determine. That just seems strange to me. What it is about to me is who is going to show up big "In The Moment". If you want a "Best" team then you have a tournament where teams match up with multiple games such as you see in MLB and the NBA.

For me, neutral site single elimination shows us who the true champions are and make it less of an endurance situation. I want to see whom has the champion mentality more so than who has built the team with the most physical weapons.


The problem with your assertion that the regular season and computer models show us whom is the "best" is that their scheduling practices do not allow for such to be true. It allows for people to attempt to say that it does but that is wrong. There isn't enough scheduling between top teams in the top conferences. It is a false premise pushed forward by persons whom profit from it.

This may be the sort of discussion better over a beer, but I'll expand my thoughts a bit. If I was coming up with a system to determine the "best" team, it would be to have plenty of matchups with all teams over a long season, then a long series in the postseason between the teams with the two best records. Something like the MLB in days of old. The NCAA tournament just determines who is hot (and lucky) at a moment in time. It's awesome, exciting and leaves a satisfying sense of an undisputed "conclusion", but statistically it is flawed- it's format magnifies the effect of luck and chance. And from a fan perspective, I wouldn't change a thing.

Back to what brought this up originally. With college and pro sports today that are so post season oriented, it is a mistake to look at the results of the postseason and use them to disregard what happened in the regular season. The postseason is going to have upsets which is fun and makes for compelling stories. But it doesn't mean that whatever we learned in the regular season is wrong. It is just one of many possible outcomes. There is a tendency to over-interpret the results of post season play, IMO. They are what they are- an entertaining, fun, compelling, and satisfying way to crown an undisputed champion.

Most playoffs started because there wasn't a way to determine a champion when schedules wouldn't allow for it. For example, the baseball post-season was once just the World Series, with the leagues determining their own winners through nothing but a regular season. It was only when the leagues expanded to the point to make balanced schedules unfeasible did intra-league playoffs start. Of course, eventually money became a driving influence, and there was more and more expansion (both of leagues and playoffs). Now playoffs are basically "The American Way".

I mention this because if the goal was to truly determine the "best" team, one simple route to the fairest result would be to pare back the entrants to the NCAA tournament to conference champions. Of course, it's obviously too late to have regular season results determine those champions since most conferences have expanded so much, but it would still be a first step.

But let's face it - the NCAA tournament isn't really about finding the "best" team. Yes, it may be better than just using polls to determine a champion since play is decided on the court, but in the end it's really about brackets, brackets, brackets. In some years the best team wins, and in other years it does not. That creates excitement, compelling television, and launches millions of office pools. It's one of the best events in sports, even in those agonizing years when your team bows out before you hope they do - but it has definitely passed the point of solely being about trying to determine the best team.

(03-04-2015 04:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:06 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:26 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Yeah, I think we agree on this: the tourney is all that matters in determining a champion and all that matters in terms of bragging rights from a fan perspective. It is my favorite and I look forward to it every year.

But if I was a scientist set on determining the "best" team out of a group of teams and was faced with having to draw up an experiment to determine who that "best" team is, the tourney is about the worst way to determine the answer to that question. Too small of a sample of games and statistical chance has too great of an effect.

These aren't robots. It isn't about determining what you are trying to determine. That just seems strange to me. What it is about to me is who is going to show up big "In The Moment". If you want a "Best" team then you have a tournament where teams match up with multiple games such as you see in MLB and the NBA.

For me, neutral site single elimination shows us who the true champions are and make it less of an endurance situation. I want to see whom has the champion mentality more so than who has built the team with the most physical weapons.


The problem with your assertion that the regular season and computer models show us whom is the "best" is that their scheduling practices do not allow for such to be true. It allows for people to attempt to say that it does but that is wrong. There isn't enough scheduling between top teams in the top conferences. It is a false premise pushed forward by persons whom profit from it.

This may be the sort of discussion better over a beer, but I'll expand my thoughts a bit. If I was coming up with a system to determine the "best" team, it would be to have plenty of matchups with all teams over a long season, then a long series in the postseason between the teams with the two best records. Something like the MLB in days of old. The NCAA tournament just determines who is hot (and lucky) at a moment in time. It's awesome, exciting and leaves a satisfying sense of an undisputed "conclusion", but statistically it is flawed- it's format magnifies the effect of luck and chance. And from a fan perspective, I wouldn't change a thing.

Back to what brought this up originally. With college and pro sports today that are so post season oriented, it is a mistake to look at the results of the postseason and use them to disregard what happened in the regular season. The postseason is going to have upsets which is fun and makes for compelling stories. But it doesn't mean that whatever we learned in the regular season is wrong. It is just one of many possible outcomes. There is a tendency to over-interpret the results of post season play, IMO. They are what they are- an entertaining, fun, compelling, and satisfying way to crown an undisputed champion.

We could just as easily over-interpret the results of the regular season, especially in football where there are so few games. There isn't an objective way to determine whether 11-1 Team A is better than 10-2 Team B, especially when they have no common opponents. Team B might have lost one game when their QB just had an unusually bad day, and lost the other on an unlucky fumble that prevented them from scoring the winning TD, and maybe Team A just had a long run of good luck and would have been 9-3 or 8-4 if their luck was "average". Or maybe not. The CFP committee and the NCAA hoops committee exist largely to create the illusion of certainty in making these "better/best" choices, but it is just an illusion.

Agree totally. With so few games, football is the toughest to evaluate statistically. I do like the efficiency ratings which attempt to look at every play and drive to increase the number of evaluation points instead of just scores.

(03-04-2015 04:06 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:26 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Yeah, I think we agree on this: the tourney is all that matters in determining a champion and all that matters in terms of bragging rights from a fan perspective. It is my favorite and I look forward to it every year.

But if I was a scientist set on determining the "best" team out of a group of teams and was faced with having to draw up an experiment to determine who that "best" team is, the tourney is about the worst way to determine the answer to that question. Too small of a sample of games and statistical chance has too great of an effect.

These aren't robots. It isn't about determining what you are trying to determine. That just seems strange to me. What it is about to me is who is going to show up big "In The Moment". If you want a "Best" team then you have a tournament where teams match up with multiple games such as you see in MLB and the NBA.

For me, neutral site single elimination shows us who the true champions are and make it less of an endurance situation. I want to see whom has the champion mentality more so than who has built the team with the most physical weapons.


The problem with your assertion that the regular season and computer models show us whom is the "best" is that their scheduling practices do not allow for such to be true. It allows for people to attempt to say that it does but that is wrong. There isn't enough scheduling between top teams in the top conferences. It is a false premise pushed forward by persons whom profit from it.

This may be the sort of discussion better over a beer, but I'll expand my thoughts a bit. If I was coming up with a system to determine the "best" team, it would be to have plenty of matchups with all teams over a long season, then a long series in the postseason between the teams with the two best records. Something like the MLB in days of old. The NCAA tournament just determines who is hot (and lucky) at a moment in time. It's awesome, exciting and leaves a satisfying sense of an undisputed "conclusion", but statistically it is flawed- it's format magnifies the effect of luck and chance. And from a fan perspective, I wouldn't change a thing.

Back to what brought this up originally. With college and pro sports today that are so post season oriented, it is a mistake to look at the results of the postseason and use them to disregard what happened in the regular season. The postseason is going to have upsets which is fun and makes for compelling stories. But it doesn't mean that whatever we learned in the regular season is wrong. It is just one of many possible outcomes. There is a tendency to over-interpret the results of post season play, IMO. They are what they are- an entertaining, fun, compelling, and satisfying way to crown an undisputed champion.

I'm not disputing the regular season but the way the conferences schedule, comparing the RPI indexes and schedule rankings is far from scientific. So for you to want a more scientific manner of picking the best, it doesn't really make sense to me for you to be pushing such a heavily politicized and profit minded manner of doing it.

Every single computer ranking is based off of the initial input. That input is flawed more often than not. If the initial input is flawed then you absolutely cannot have a precise system with the computers because there is very little cross conference play.

(03-04-2015 10:26 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 10:10 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 10:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  yeah part of the reason why Big 12 SOS is so good is TCU who went 13-0 OOC playing the #348 OOC SOS. There are 351 teams so only 3 teams had a worse OOC schedule than TCU did. Bethune Cookman(349), Nebraska-Omaha(350), Troy(351). But all the SOS looks at is 13-0- which is stupid.

That's a small factor and oversimplifies things. Give us a couple losses and the RPI hardly changes at all for the league. Also, because of the weak nonconf schedule TCU's RPI is actually not that good (120s) and actually drags the conference RPI down a bit. Furthermore, the computer systems that take into account SOS but also MOV and efficiency (Sagarin and Pomeroy) are the ones that really like TCU and the Big 12.

So to single out the RPI when all computer rankings like the Big 12 is missing the big picture. It's a very strong conference this year.

All the computer rankings liked SEC football above and beyond anyone else last season as well. How did that work out for them? Did they prove it in the post season?

We'll see how good the big 12 is in the tourney. Until then, you dont have anything to point to that actually shows the big 12 is the best basketball conference. That gets proven in the tournament. That is how basketball works. The computer rankings are a joke that are good for talking points and not much more due to non-centralized schedules.

Those power rankings work for a system like the NFL where the schedules are centralized. They dont for a weak confederation system such as the NCAA and it's multiple conferences that don't play each other that much.

It must be nice to let all your feelings about the SEC out after one season.

(03-04-2015 10:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 10:26 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 10:10 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 10:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  yeah part of the reason why Big 12 SOS is so good is TCU who went 13-0 OOC playing the #348 OOC SOS. There are 351 teams so only 3 teams had a worse OOC schedule than TCU did. Bethune Cookman(349), Nebraska-Omaha(350), Troy(351). But all the SOS looks at is 13-0- which is stupid.

That's a small factor and oversimplifies things. Give us a couple losses and the RPI hardly changes at all for the league. Also, because of the weak nonconf schedule TCU's RPI is actually not that good (120s) and actually drags the conference RPI down a bit. Furthermore, the computer systems that take into account SOS but also MOV and efficiency (Sagarin and Pomeroy) are the ones that really like TCU and the Big 12.

So to single out the RPI when all computer rankings like the Big 12 is missing the big picture. It's a very strong conference this year.

All the computer rankings liked SEC football above and beyond anyone else last season as well. How did that work out for them? Did they prove it in the post season?

We'll see how good the big 12 is in the tourney. Until then, you dont have anything to point to that actually shows the big 12 is the best basketball conference. That gets proven in the tournament. That is how basketball works. The computer rankings are a joke that are good for talking points and not much more due to non-centralized schedules.

Those power rankings work for a system like the NFL where the schedules are centralized. They dont for a weak confederation system such as the NCAA and it's multiple conferences that don't play each other that much.

It must be nice to let all your feelings about the SEC out after one season.

Are you so defensive that this was all you could respond to? That was one sentence in a three paragraph post.

I don't think I'm the one with issues or overabundant feelings about the SEC. What I said was the truth and it was only one sentence.

(03-04-2015 05:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:06 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:26 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Yeah, I think we agree on this: the tourney is all that matters in determining a champion and all that matters in terms of bragging rights from a fan perspective. It is my favorite and I look forward to it every year.

But if I was a scientist set on determining the "best" team out of a group of teams and was faced with having to draw up an experiment to determine who that "best" team is, the tourney is about the worst way to determine the answer to that question. Too small of a sample of games and statistical chance has too great of an effect.

These aren't robots. It isn't about determining what you are trying to determine. That just seems strange to me. What it is about to me is who is going to show up big "In The Moment". If you want a "Best" team then you have a tournament where teams match up with multiple games such as you see in MLB and the NBA.

For me, neutral site single elimination shows us who the true champions are and make it less of an endurance situation. I want to see whom has the champion mentality more so than who has built the team with the most physical weapons.


The problem with your assertion that the regular season and computer models show us whom is the "best" is that their scheduling practices do not allow for such to be true. It allows for people to attempt to say that it does but that is wrong. There isn't enough scheduling between top teams in the top conferences. It is a false premise pushed forward by persons whom profit from it.

This may be the sort of discussion better over a beer, but I'll expand my thoughts a bit. If I was coming up with a system to determine the "best" team, it would be to have plenty of matchups with all teams over a long season, then a long series in the postseason between the teams with the two best records. Something like the MLB in days of old. The NCAA tournament just determines who is hot (and lucky) at a moment in time. It's awesome, exciting and leaves a satisfying sense of an undisputed "conclusion", but statistically it is flawed- it's format magnifies the effect of luck and chance. And from a fan perspective, I wouldn't change a thing.

Back to what brought this up originally. With college and pro sports today that are so post season oriented, it is a mistake to look at the results of the postseason and use them to disregard what happened in the regular season. The postseason is going to have upsets which is fun and makes for compelling stories. But it doesn't mean that whatever we learned in the regular season is wrong. It is just one of many possible outcomes. There is a tendency to over-interpret the results of post season play, IMO. They are what they are- an entertaining, fun, compelling, and satisfying way to crown an undisputed champion.

I'm not disputing the regular season but the way the conferences schedule, comparing the RPI indexes and schedule rankings is far from scientific. So for you to want a more scientific manner of picking the best, it doesn't really make sense to me for you to be pushing such a heavily politicized and profit minded manner of doing it.

Every single computer ranking is based off of the initial input. That input is flawed more often than not. If the initial input is flawed then you absolutely cannot have a precise system with the computers because there is very little cross conference play.

several of the computers don't use anything but the current season. I know Anderson Hester and Colley from the old BCS computers were like that. Think Wolfe was the same.

(03-04-2015 10:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 05:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:06 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:26 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Yeah, I think we agree on this: the tourney is all that matters in determining a champion and all that matters in terms of bragging rights from a fan perspective. It is my favorite and I look forward to it every year.

But if I was a scientist set on determining the "best" team out of a group of teams and was faced with having to draw up an experiment to determine who that "best" team is, the tourney is about the worst way to determine the answer to that question. Too small of a sample of games and statistical chance has too great of an effect.

These aren't robots. It isn't about determining what you are trying to determine. That just seems strange to me. What it is about to me is who is going to show up big "In The Moment". If you want a "Best" team then you have a tournament where teams match up with multiple games such as you see in MLB and the NBA.

For me, neutral site single elimination shows us who the true champions are and make it less of an endurance situation. I want to see whom has the champion mentality more so than who has built the team with the most physical weapons.


The problem with your assertion that the regular season and computer models show us whom is the "best" is that their scheduling practices do not allow for such to be true. It allows for people to attempt to say that it does but that is wrong. There isn't enough scheduling between top teams in the top conferences. It is a false premise pushed forward by persons whom profit from it.

This may be the sort of discussion better over a beer, but I'll expand my thoughts a bit. If I was coming up with a system to determine the "best" team, it would be to have plenty of matchups with all teams over a long season, then a long series in the postseason between the teams with the two best records. Something like the MLB in days of old. The NCAA tournament just determines who is hot (and lucky) at a moment in time. It's awesome, exciting and leaves a satisfying sense of an undisputed "conclusion", but statistically it is flawed- it's format magnifies the effect of luck and chance. And from a fan perspective, I wouldn't change a thing.

Back to what brought this up originally. With college and pro sports today that are so post season oriented, it is a mistake to look at the results of the postseason and use them to disregard what happened in the regular season. The postseason is going to have upsets which is fun and makes for compelling stories. But it doesn't mean that whatever we learned in the regular season is wrong. It is just one of many possible outcomes. There is a tendency to over-interpret the results of post season play, IMO. They are what they are- an entertaining, fun, compelling, and satisfying way to crown an undisputed champion.

I'm not disputing the regular season but the way the conferences schedule, comparing the RPI indexes and schedule rankings is far from scientific. So for you to want a more scientific manner of picking the best, it doesn't really make sense to me for you to be pushing such a heavily politicized and profit minded manner of doing it.

Every single computer ranking is based off of the initial input. That input is flawed more often than not. If the initial input is flawed then you absolutely cannot have a precise system with the computers because there is very little cross conference play.

several of the computers don't use anything but the current season. I know Anderson Hester and Colley from the old BCS computers were like that. Think Wolfe was the same.

And? That doesn't make schedules balanced enough. Without enough interconference game play there is no way to create a credible comparison and ranking system. It's a sham.

(03-04-2015 11:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 10:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 05:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:06 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  These aren't robots. It isn't about determining what you are trying to determine. That just seems strange to me. What it is about to me is who is going to show up big "In The Moment". If you want a "Best" team then you have a tournament where teams match up with multiple games such as you see in MLB and the NBA.

For me, neutral site single elimination shows us who the true champions are and make it less of an endurance situation. I want to see whom has the champion mentality more so than who has built the team with the most physical weapons.


The problem with your assertion that the regular season and computer models show us whom is the "best" is that their scheduling practices do not allow for such to be true. It allows for people to attempt to say that it does but that is wrong. There isn't enough scheduling between top teams in the top conferences. It is a false premise pushed forward by persons whom profit from it.

This may be the sort of discussion better over a beer, but I'll expand my thoughts a bit. If I was coming up with a system to determine the "best" team, it would be to have plenty of matchups with all teams over a long season, then a long series in the postseason between the teams with the two best records. Something like the MLB in days of old. The NCAA tournament just determines who is hot (and lucky) at a moment in time. It's awesome, exciting and leaves a satisfying sense of an undisputed "conclusion", but statistically it is flawed- it's format magnifies the effect of luck and chance. And from a fan perspective, I wouldn't change a thing.

Back to what brought this up originally. With college and pro sports today that are so post season oriented, it is a mistake to look at the results of the postseason and use them to disregard what happened in the regular season. The postseason is going to have upsets which is fun and makes for compelling stories. But it doesn't mean that whatever we learned in the regular season is wrong. It is just one of many possible outcomes. There is a tendency to over-interpret the results of post season play, IMO. They are what they are- an entertaining, fun, compelling, and satisfying way to crown an undisputed champion.

I'm not disputing the regular season but the way the conferences schedule, comparing the RPI indexes and schedule rankings is far from scientific. So for you to want a more scientific manner of picking the best, it doesn't really make sense to me for you to be pushing such a heavily politicized and profit minded manner of doing it.

Every single computer ranking is based off of the initial input. That input is flawed more often than not. If the initial input is flawed then you absolutely cannot have a precise system with the computers because there is very little cross conference play.

several of the computers don't use anything but the current season. I know Anderson Hester and Colley from the old BCS computers were like that. Think Wolfe was the same.

And? That doesn't make schedules balanced enough. Without enough interconference game play there is no way to create a credible comparison and ranking system. It's a sham.

It totally ruins your point about the computers being biased based off of previous data because there is no initial data. Everyone starts exactly the same.

(03-04-2015 11:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 10:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 05:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:06 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  This may be the sort of discussion better over a beer, but I'll expand my thoughts a bit. If I was coming up with a system to determine the "best" team, it would be to have plenty of matchups with all teams over a long season, then a long series in the postseason between the teams with the two best records. Something like the MLB in days of old. The NCAA tournament just determines who is hot (and lucky) at a moment in time. It's awesome, exciting and leaves a satisfying sense of an undisputed "conclusion", but statistically it is flawed- it's format magnifies the effect of luck and chance. And from a fan perspective, I wouldn't change a thing.

Back to what brought this up originally. With college and pro sports today that are so post season oriented, it is a mistake to look at the results of the postseason and use them to disregard what happened in the regular season. The postseason is going to have upsets which is fun and makes for compelling stories. But it doesn't mean that whatever we learned in the regular season is wrong. It is just one of many possible outcomes. There is a tendency to over-interpret the results of post season play, IMO. They are what they are- an entertaining, fun, compelling, and satisfying way to crown an undisputed champion.

I'm not disputing the regular season but the way the conferences schedule, comparing the RPI indexes and schedule rankings is far from scientific. So for you to want a more scientific manner of picking the best, it doesn't really make sense to me for you to be pushing such a heavily politicized and profit minded manner of doing it.

Every single computer ranking is based off of the initial input. That input is flawed more often than not. If the initial input is flawed then you absolutely cannot have a precise system with the computers because there is very little cross conference play.

several of the computers don't use anything but the current season. I know Anderson Hester and Colley from the old BCS computers were like that. Think Wolfe was the same.

And? That doesn't make schedules balanced enough. Without enough interconference game play there is no way to create a credible comparison and ranking system. It's a sham.

It totally ruins your point about the computers being biased based off of previous data because there is no initial data. Everyone starts exactly the same.

No it doesn't but it was cute of you to try and "ruin my point" with a straw man. There is Always initial data. Your problem is that you were mistaken in what data I was referring to as the initial data.

So you are the one with a ruined point. It was ruined the moment you started typing it.

(03-04-2015 11:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 10:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 05:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I'm not disputing the regular season but the way the conferences schedule, comparing the RPI indexes and schedule rankings is far from scientific. So for you to want a more scientific manner of picking the best, it doesn't really make sense to me for you to be pushing such a heavily politicized and profit minded manner of doing it.

Every single computer ranking is based off of the initial input. That input is flawed more often than not. If the initial input is flawed then you absolutely cannot have a precise system with the computers because there is very little cross conference play.

several of the computers don't use anything but the current season. I know Anderson Hester and Colley from the old BCS computers were like that. Think Wolfe was the same.

And? That doesn't make schedules balanced enough. Without enough interconference game play there is no way to create a credible comparison and ranking system. It's a sham.

It totally ruins your point about the computers being biased based off of previous data because there is no initial data. Everyone starts exactly the same.

No it doesn't but it was cute of you to try and "ruin my point" with a straw man. There is Always initial data. Your problem is that you were mistaken in what data I was referring to as the initial data.

So you are the one with a ruined point. It was ruined the moment you started typing it.

In some of the computer systems, there is no initial data. Everyone starts up exactly the same.

see the colley ratings preseason last year
http://www.colleyrankings.com/foot2014/r...ank00.html

now see the colley ratings end of the regular season-
http://www.colleyrankings.com/foot2014/r...ank16.html

has nothing to do with initial data. SEC didn't lose many games OOC- especially out west. That's why they were so high in the computers- not preseason bias.

You don't seem to understand. IF there is data then there HAS to be initial data. Nice chatting with you again Stever, your defense of the big 12 is empassioned as always but you aren't going anywhere with this.

Those OOC games of the SEC were weak so of course they didn't lose many AND teams grow during the season, things change. Yet those initial ooc games created the starting points for those rankings just like the preseason polls do for polls like the AP. It is the same concept. You can stop trying to defend these rankings because of what they say about the big 12. You can instead admit that they mean nothing in comparison to tournament results.

(03-04-2015 11:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You don't seem to understand. IF there is data then there HAS to be initial data. Nice chatting with you again Stever, your defense of the big 12 is empassioned as always but you aren't going anywhere with this.

Those OOC games of the SEC were weak so of course they didn't lose many AND teams grow during the season, things change. Yet those initial ooc games created the starting points for those rankings just like the preseason polls do for polls like the AP. It is the same concept. You can stop trying to defend these rankings because of what they say about the big 12. You can instead admit that they mean nothing in comparison to tournament results.

I don't know where you get that I love the Big 12. I think they are a very overrated conference and frankly probably dead man walking long term. In basketball extremely top heavy.

The point about the ratings- in football- everyone has 12 games. In some of the computers- they start with a preseason bias. In others- the only thing that matters are those 12 games, and nothing else. It can be a huge difference. We would see yearly with the BCS especially Billingsley's rating get thrown out because he included the prior years bias. Just looking at a random year, 2011, his rating in the top 18 was thrown out singularly(meaning not tied with anyone else)- a whopping 10 times. A 11th his rating was tied with 1 other computer. Top 3- 1 was unanimous(LSU), and 2/3 he was part of the 4/6 group that had Oklahoma St ahead of Alabama. To me, when you talk about preseason bias, that's what I think of.

I told my big ten Purdue homer cousin that after Self left Illinois and when his players were gone, Bruce Weber would not be able to keep it together. He thought, because Weber was a former assistant at Purdue, Weber was as good as Self. Nope.

End of the year computer rankings only use data from the same season. Many like RPI type rankings only use rankings from the same year the whole time, others use previous year's data for the first few weeks until there is enough info to do rankings based solely on the current year. For Sagarin it is after 5 or 6 weeks IIRC. But at the end, the rankings for all are solely based on current year data.