Top Schools of the BCS Era

[Miller]

There is consistency. I give the title to the championship game winner or the conference winner that wins the conference tie-breakers and receives the BCS berth. I didn't want to give points to co-champions, because it rewards the Big Ten's silly dodgeball schedule.

So now you are rewarding the joke of a BCS system you hate? Big Ten does not break the tie for the conference title....they award co-titles....the BCS system breaks the tie for their system (yep, same system you call a joke one minute then reward the next). And you reward co-titles in which they don't play for a NC.....then don't for co-titles in which they don't play for a CT.....hmmmm....where was the consistency again?

Look ,you have a biased system that rewards attributes that you personally like and discounts the things you don't....that is great, and fun to debate and discuss...and interesting to see...but don't act like it is free of political bs and bias.....it's filled with it.

 

[Sgt John]

Dodgeball schedule?

Im assuming that means a schedule where there are 3 Big 10 champions like this season?

 

[Miller]

Dodgeball schedule?

Im assuming that means a schedule where there are 3 Big 10 champions like this season?

He is referring to the Big 10 current conference schedule in which it is a rotating schedule and you do not play everyone each year. They only play 8 conference games each year paired with 4 NC games. Of course, this all changes this year. Not sure how that is Dodgeball as no one is dodging anyone, it is a rotating schedule though.

 

[mudloggerone]

:xpopcorn:

 

[Kingdome]

So now you are rewarding the joke of a BCS system you hate? Big Ten does not break the tie for the conference title....they award co-titles.

Again, I use the CONFERENCE tie breaker. You know, the conference rules the sets up who plays in the Rose Bowl if there is a tie. I award points to the #1 conference champion. It would be b.s. to do anything different, other than perhaps discount Big Ten championship values when the SEC for example has one champion, and one champion only.

Look ,you have a biased system that rewards attributes that you personally like and discounts the things you don't....that is great, and fun to debate and discuss...and interesting to see...but don't act like it is free of political bs and bias.....it's filled with it.

think about this logically for a sec:

SEC only rewards one title each year, so over the last 10 years there were only 10 champions. In the wacky Big Ten, they dodge 2 of the 11 teams each year which sets up a system where this smaller conference has had 16 champions in the last 10 years. See the problem? Why reward the Big Ten over the SEC, just because of a different system? To make it fair, I only gave points to the #1 conference champion in the Big Ten, Pac-10, and Big East.

 

[Kingdome]

He is referring to the Big 10 current conference schedule in which it is a rotating schedule and you do not play everyone each year. They only play 8 conference games each year paired with 4 NC games. Of course, this all changes this year. Not sure how that is Dodgeball as no one is dodging anyone, it is a rotating schedule though.

The Big Ten was the only BCS conference without a round robin or a playoff, hence the term dodgeball schedule, where the possibility exists of two teams going undefeated in the conference.

 

[Miller]

Again, I use the CONFERENCE tie breaker. You know, the conference rules the sets up who plays in the Rose Bowl if there is a tie. I award points to the #1 conference champion. It would be b.s. to do anything different, other than perhaps discount Big Ten championship values when the SEC for example has one champion, and one champion only.

You mean the tiebreaker for the BCS.....the BCS system you feel is BS and should not be rewarded.....Again, the Big Ten DID NOT have a tiebreaker for their CHAMPIONSHIP, they give out officical co-champions.....kinda like the bs split titles......

think about this logically for a sec:

SEC only rewards one title each year, so over the last 10 years there were only 10 champions. In the wacky Big Ten, they dodge 2 of the 11 teams each year which sets up a system where this smaller conference has had 16 champions in the last 10 years. See the problem? Why reward the Big Ten over the SEC, just because of a different system? To make it fair, I only gave points to the #1 conference champion in the Big Ten, Pac-10, and Big East.

I don't disagree with you....I have no issue with how you did it (I agree with only rewarding ONE team, not b/c you don't like nthe confrence, but b/c you can only have ONE champion), only with the inconsistent nature in which you did it. You refuse to reward a co-big 10 champ but have no issue rewarding a co-national champion....get on one side of the fence or the other. The SAME BCS system that you use to break the confrence tie is used to determine a SINGLE champion. You had no problem using that system to break the big 10 and only reward one, yet refuse to use that system to decide the national champion just b/c you "feel" USC was the better team.

So again....

Look ,you have a biased system that rewards attributes that you personally like and discounts the things you don't....that is great, and fun to debate and discuss...and interesting to see...but don't act like it is free of political bs and bias.....it's filled with it.

 

[Kingdome]

You mean the tiebreaker for the BCS.....the BCS system you feel is BS and should not be rewarded.....Again, the Big Ten DID NOT have a tiebreaker for their CHAMPIONSHIP, they give out officical co-champions.....kinda like the bs split titles......

Again, CONFERENCE TIEBREAKER:

Rose Bowl. Unless ranked No. 1 or No. 2 in the final BCS poll, the conference champion shall participate in the Rose Bowl. The championship shall be determined on the percentage basis of conference games (tie games counts ½ win and ½ loss). If there is a tie for the championship, the Rose Bowl representative will be determined as follows:

1. An ineligible team shall not be considered in the standings for determination of the conference representative.
2. If there is a tie for the championship, the winner of the game between these two teams shall represent the conference.
3. If there is still a tie, or if the tied teams did not play each other, the representative shall be determined on the percentage basis of all games played.
4. If there is still a tie, the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings shall be the representative.
5. If more than two teams tie for the championship, the same selection procedures shall be followed with the following exceptions:
1. If three teams are tied, and if one team defeated both of the other teams, then that team shall be the representative.
2. If three teams are still tied, and if two of the three teams defeated the third team, the third team is eliminated, and the remaining two teams shall revert to the two-team tie procedure.
3. If three teams are still tied, and there is a tie game between two of the three teams, or if two or all three of the teams did not play each other, the representative shall be determined on a percentage basis of all games played.
4. If three teams are still tied, and one of the three teams is eliminated through the percentage basis of all games played, the remaining two teams shall revert to the two-team tie procedure.
5. If three teams are still tied, and all three teams have the same winning percentage of all games played, the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings shall be the representative.
6. If four or more teams tie for the championship, the following selection procedure shall be followed:
1. If one team defeated each of the other three teams, then that team shall be the representative.
2. If two of the four teams defeated each of the other two teams, the latter two teams shall be eliminated, and the two remaining teams shall revert to the two-team tie procedure.
3. If three of the four teams defeated the fourth team, the fourth team is eliminated, and the remaining three teams shall revert to the three-team tie procedure.
4. If there is a tie game between two of the four teams, or if two of the four teams did not play each other, the representative shall be determined on a percentage basis of all games played.
5. If one of the four teams is eliminated through the percentage basis of all games played, the remaining three teams shall revert to the three-team tie procedure.
6. If all four teams are still tied and have the same winning percentage of all games played, the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings shall be the representative.

I don't disagree with you....I have no issue with how you did it (I agree with only rewarding ONE team, not b/c you don't like nthe confrence, but b/c you can only have ONE champion), only with the inconsistent nature in which you did it.

There is no inconsistency. I reward one per conference per year and use the CONFERENCE'S (caps again so you finally figure out I am using conference tiebreaker rules) own tiebreaker system.

You refuse to reward a co-big 10 champ but have no issue rewarding a co-national champion....get on one side of the fence or the other.

Co-Natl. Champions does not favor one conference over the other, while the Big Ten giving out 1.6 titles per year greatly skews the numbers in their favor over the larger SEC etc. which only gives out one per year.

 

[Miller]

You continue to use the Big Ten's BCS Tiebreaker....not the Conference Title Tiebreaker.....they do not have one, they issue Co-Champions, hence the discussion to begin with.

Method to Determine Big Ten Conference Automatic Representative to Bowl Championship Series

That is the rule you cited.

But anyways, I agree with what you did, but if your going to use the BCS (and the tiebreaker to determine the BCS), stay consistent with it. USE IT! Not just when you like the results......

And this comment makes no sense....

Co-Natl. Champions does not favor one conference over the other, while the Big Ten giving out 1.6 titles per year greatly skews the numbers in their favor over the larger SEC etc. which only gives out one per year.

Your right, it doesn't favor one conference over another....but since we are not talking about the best conferences, it is important to point out it favors two teams over the rest. If it skews the numbers to have more than 1 conference champ per year.....it would definitely skew the numbers when you give out 2 NT's some years and sometimes you don't....so for 1 year you award 2 titles.....and all other years just 1, it skews everything as you just doubled the points (which in your scoring giving out 100 more pts one year has a much bigger impact than an extra 5 pts on the years that the Big Ten would have split). If you are going to do it, you should split the award just like they split the title and award 50 (in your system) to each team. Otherwise awarding 200 pts for champions one season and 100 in all other seasons throws the entire balance of your system off.......I still say if you use the BCS system for EVERYTHING else which you seem to, not using them for the one year you didn't like the result seems inconsistent, but we all know you feel USC was the best that year and continue to award them as such despite not playing for the title.

 

[Kingdome]

You continue to use the Big Ten's BCS Tiebreaker....not the Conference Title Tiebreaker.....they do not have one, they issue Co-Champions, hence the discussion to begin with.

Again, I award the points to the team that wins the conference tie breaker. You can call it the BCS tie breaker all you want, but these rules existed prior to the BCS as these are the continually revised Big Ten Rose bowl tie breaker rules.

If it skews the numbers to have more than 1 conference champ per year.....it would definitely skew the numbers when you give out 2 NT's some years and sometimes you don't.

Come on man, this shouldn't be difficult to figure out. I am trying to make this fair. A co-Natl. title does not discriminate against any team. It is equal for everyone. If I were to award co-champion conference points, the teams that are in the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 would be at an unfair disadvantage. To make it fair, 1 conference champion per conference per year.

 

[Miller]

A co-Nat Title is absolutely not equal to all! You are rewarding the same thing twice.....how is that fair? So a team that wins the Nat title outright is given the same weight as two teams who did not......certainly not fair IMO. Again, if you wanted to be fair and reward the split, then fine, split the points awarded so that in each season the same reward is given for the NT....neither earned the title in both the AP and the BCS (though the AP was part of the BCS at the time) so give each the 1/2 they have claim to.

Anyways, we keep going in circles here and it's all opinion anyways. You have yours and I have mine. Good discussion as always King.

 

[Sgt John]

Very good arguments made by both sides. Good reading, and something I think Id like to see you two do more of on other topics.

 

[Kingdome]

A co-Nat Title is absolutely not equal to all!

Sure it is. Why screw one of the national champions because of a silly, broken system?

Again, if you wanted to be fair and reward the split, then fine, split the points awarded so that in each season the same reward is given for the NT....neither earned the title in both the AP and the BCS (though the AP was part of the BCS at the time) so give each the 1/2 they have claim to.

Why screw the teams because of a broken, unfair system? Instead of doing that, how about I penalize Ohio State by making Big Ten titles worth less since there are more of them? That makes more sense than your silly idea of screwing over a National Champion.

Anyways, we keep going in circles here and it's all opinion anyways. You have yours and I have mine. Good discussion as always King.

We shouldn't be going in circles, because I am being fair and consistent while you want me to bend the rules to favor the Big Ten over teams in other conferences. Your whole tangent about Co-Natl. champions is silly, and has nothing to do with the fact that awarding full points to co-conference champions skews the system in the favor of conferences without a title game, which isn't fair.

 

[Miller]

Sure it is. Why screw one of the national champions because of a silly, broken system?

B/c you can only have ONE champion, and if you want to be fair and equal as you claim you would award the same EACH year for a NT. Neither won the title outright, neither should be awarded as such if you want to recognize the split title.....split means just that.....

Why screw the teams because of a broken, unfair system? Instead of doing that, how about I penalize Ohio State by making Big Ten titles worth less since there are more of them? That makes more sense than your silly idea of screwing over a National Champion.

So again, more inconsistency on your end....so again, if you have a co-confrence champ that should not be recognized or it should be pentalized b/c there are more of them....BUT if you have a co-nan't champ then we just turn the other way and act like they both won it all......with no pentalty b/c there is more of them???? Do you even read what you write???

We shouldn't be going in circles, because I am being fair and consistent while you want me to bend the rules to favor the Big Ten over teams in other conferences.

Everyone always goes in circles with you King, not many can see things through your King colored glasses....

Fair: Not giving 200 pts in a ranking system one year and giving 100 pts in that same system for the same event all the other years.
Consistent: Not looking at split Nat'l title as any different than split Con-Titles.

And again....I don't think you should award more to the Big Ten......I think you should be consistent though.....if you are going to award co-champs in one case, the consistent thing would be to award them in all cases.....

Your whole tangent about Co-Natl. champions is silly, and has nothing to do with the fact that awarding full points to co-conference champions skews the system in the favor of conferences without a title game, which isn't fair.

Now this has to be one of the more laughable statements you have ever typed!! My tangent about Co-Nat'l champions IS MY WHOLE DAMN POINT!!! I only brought up the conference champions to prove how biases and inconsistent your thinking and ranking was. Again, since you missed it the first few times I have written it, I agree, one conference one champion.....it is fair and consistent.....just like one season ONE National Champion.....and if you are going to use the BCS for everything else in your rankings and arguments (like using the BCS to break conference ties) then use the BCS for the Nat Titles as well and not something that was one component of the BCS that year....that would be the consistent thing to do......but here we are again, your not being consistent through this whole thing so that is OK, use what ya wish for the King Bias Index .

 

[Kingdome]

B/c you can only have ONE champion, and if you want to be fair and equal as you claim you would award the same EACH year for a NT. Neither won the title outright, neither should be awarded as such if you want to recognize the split title.....split means just that.....

That's silly. The two never played each other because of a broken system. They won a National Title and National Titles are what is the goal in this sport. You can't discount a Natl. Championship.

So again, more inconsistency on your end....so again, if you have a co-confrence champ that should not be recognized or it should be pentalized b/c there are more of them....BUT if you have a co-nan't champ then we just turn the other way and act like they both won it all......with no pentalty b/c there is more of them???? Do you even read what you write???

Quit playing stupid! Come on man, this is silly! I made my point clear before and will again (I hope):

- Co-National Champions screw nobody. No team has an advantage over the other. It is fair since any team can be a co-national champion.

- Awarding points to multiple teams in a conference unfairly skews the points in favor of select teams. In other words, some teams have a built in advantage over other teams. It is unbalanced and unfair. My solution to balance out this irregularity is to award points to the conference tie-breaking winner. Your suggestion of weighting the points lower to the average frequency may be another solution. A third idea would be to give full points to the tie-breaking winner, except in years where the tie-breaker is forced to go to the polls, and then split the points there.

Fair: Not giving 200 pts in a ranking system one year and giving 100 pts in that same system for the same event all the other years.

Year is irrelevant. I am awarding 100 points per Natl. Champion. It is the only fair way to do it.

Again, since you missed it the first few times I have written it, I agree, one conference one champion.....it is fair and consistent.....just like one season ONE National Champion.....and if you are going to use the BCS for everything else in your rankings and arguments (like using the BCS to break conference ties) then use the BCS for the Nat Titles as well and not something that was one component of the BCS that year....that would be the consistent thing to do......but here we are again, your not being consistent through this whole thing so that is OK, use what ya wish for the King Bias Index .

Again, I am not being religious to the joke BCS. I try to avoid their lunacy as much as possible, so quit accusing me of heavily relying on it. You can't screw a team out of their rightful championship because of a broken system.

 

[Kingdome]

Good news:

Big 12 the 2nd and PAc-12 will settle it on the field from now on. Too bad the Shrinking 10 couldn't ice off the Big East.

 

[Miller]

lol, the KBI says all.....and yes if you insist one calling two teams Nat Champs you should split the reward just like they split the title.....if not, use the system we have and call LSU champ, either way, it's all opinion......but to artificially inflate one year and make it more important than any other is just silly and inconsistent to me.....but if ya like it, go for it, just your opinion, nothing more....nothing less. I'll stick with my formula, you can have yours.