Klatt & Cowherd float CFP Conspiracy

Posted 16 day(s) ago by OUReality7762 Views 178 Replies
Results 151 to 179 of 179
Page 4 of 4 2 3 4
  1. #151
    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    didn't say there was anything wrong with it....espn is all about money.....they can do what they want to make more of it...
    just pointing out the poll is a sham at this point....means nothing.....
    I agree it means nothing, just don't see it as a sham. Sports is part of the entertainment industry, so it's not just bottom line rankings and whose in. There is entertainment value in the intermediate polls.

  2. #152
    Originally Posted by Velo Sooner View Post
    I agree it means nothing, just don't see it as a sham. Sports is part of the entertainment industry, so it's not just bottom line rankings and whose in. There is entertainment value in the intermediate polls.
    entertainment value = sham

  3. #153
    Originally Posted by tcrb View Post
    A four team playoff is fine. But we need to go back to the computers... What we have now with this committee is a sham.
    which have us at 11 or so (avg).

    https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

  4. #154
    Originally Posted by Velo Sooner View Post
    Then why is Baker now the undisputed favorite to win the Heisman if nobody outside CST understands how good he is?
    All viable alternatives lost twice and/or missed a bunch of time

  5. #155
    tcrb's Avatar
    Posts
    6,659
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Behind enemy lines

    Originally Posted by blackfrancois View Post
    which have us at 11 or so (avg).

    https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
    Maybe I'm missing something at that link but it looks like we are at #8 across the board. Behind Miami, Wisconsin, and PSU. Miami and whisky are undefeated and there are still four games to be played. Hard to argue with those rankings. Also, I don't know if the formulas at that site are what would be used or if they are the same as in the early years of the BCS, and it really doesn't matter. My point is that I'd much rather remove the humans from the formula because I know that bias comes into play then.
    Computers aren't perfect either because the formulas can be manipulated to some degree. But a computer based ranking system negates the media hype and favoritism.

  6. #156
    Originally Posted by blackfrancois View Post
    which have us at 11 or so (avg).

    https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
    Good thing there are 4 more games.

  7. #157
    BoN's Avatar
    Posts
    702
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Champaign, IL

    Originally Posted by tcrb View Post
    Maybe I'm missing something at that link but it looks like we are at #8 across the board. Behind Miami, Wisconsin, and PSU. Miami and whisky are undefeated and there are still four games to be played. Hard to argue with those rankings. Also, I don't know if the formulas at that site are what would be used or if they are the same as in the early years of the BCS, and it really doesn't matter. My point is that I'd much rather remove the humans from the formula because I know that bias comes into play then.
    Computers aren't perfect either because the formulas can be manipulated to some degree. But a computer based ranking system negates the media hype and favoritism.
    The computers don’t like us because our defense is garbage statistically. OU is not a complete team.
    The following users like this post: soonergrad


  8. #158
    Originally Posted by tcrb View Post
    A four team playoff is fine. But we need to go back to the computers determining who gets in based on LEGITIMATE SOS. No polls until five games have been played. Not some committee that is biased towards their favorite team or conference. Computers don't hear the constant hype and campaigning on espn or fox. Computers are unbiased and are not influenced by the human polls. What we have now with this committee is a sham.
    Again on the dead horse, you can fool the computers using SEC scheduling. Rack up points and YPP against teams that have +3 freebie wins [minus the occasional hilarious upset] while minimizing true road games and opportunities for the competition.

    The computers by and large predate the BCS. They had to take margin of victory out of the BCS equation because the big wigs didn't want it, but now it is back in.

    Looks like the Sooners are #7 in the main BCS computers http://www.colleyrankings.com/foot20...bcsLike10.html


    Originally Posted by OKIRISHFAN View Post
    2nd or 3rd best? What if USC wins the PAC 12? What if Miami wins the ACC? What if MSU wins (or even beats tOSU and PSU)?
    Technically they would still be 2nd best, one game doesn't really alter the power rankings.

    Case in point, Massey has:

    1. Bama
    2. ND
    3. UGA


  9. #159
    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    entertainment value = sham
    football = entertainment value, therefore ?

  10. #160
    Originally Posted by AppalachianSooner View Post
    All viable alternatives lost twice and/or missed a bunch of time
    And he has been a finalist twice and he has been in everyones top 1, 2 or 3 all season long. Claiming that Baker is not known or appreciated nationally is just nonsense.

  11. #161
    Originally Posted by Velo Sooner View Post
    football = entertainment value, therefore ?
    don't be stupid....

  12. #162
    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    don't be stupid....
    Like that said in Meet the Parents, It's just a game, Focker.

  13. #163
    Originally Posted by blackfrancois View Post
    which have us at 11 or so (avg).

    https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
    My own computer poll has OU at 9 after last weeks games. It doesn’t matter though. It’s not designed to look ‘right’ at this point. I’m sure every one of those other computer polls that are published are the same in those regards. Lots of movement to be made in computer polls from now until the end of the regular season. Fairly certain if OU wins out, they’ll be high enough to get in, particularly if it was the four highest ranked conference winners like I think it should be.

  14. #164
    Originally Posted by Rufus T Firefly View Post
    How does a 4 team playoff increase the importance of the season?! You answered your own question, it would consistently (not just on rare occasions) allow 2 loss teams in the playoffs. That sucks! How many 2 loss teams have been in the 4 team? How many 5-8 ranked teams at season's end have 2 losses in the Playoff era? Would a 16 team playoff decrease the regular season's importance? Of course, with each addition, more slugs get in, and the regular season is weakened.
    First of all I never advocated for 16. I actually prefer 12 (all conference champions and only 2 open spots for mulligans), but I am ok with 8 (which most people want) so long as the committee is abolished and there are parameters for AQ. Secondly, conference winners are hardly slugs. They deserve a spot over runner up teams, because they actually are champions on the field of play, instead of champions of eye test.

    Having a committee makes the regular season less important than an expanded playoff, because if you are still alive with a chance to win your conference and make it in, more games matter than they do now. The magnitude of a few games does not outweigh the excitement of several.

    I like how you try to spin it like LSU did not win the 2007 NC. Or that previous seasons don't count so that we have to use a 3 year sample size. That is BS reasoning, because previous seasons are the catalyst for moving to a playoff format, although it is currently not big enough at all to decide it on the field and not in a committee room.

    The last 10 years of BCS and CFP end of season rankings:
    The '07 season would have produced three 2-loss teams in a 4 team playoff. In case you were wondering, there would have been no 3-loss teams if there was an 8 team playoff.
    The '08 season would have allowed 8 teams with either 1 loss or undefeated. Also #9 Boise State was undefeated.
    The '09 season had 5 undefeated teams (3 mid majors) and #5 Florida lost in SEC CCG to Alabama as their only loss. Only 2 teams in the 8 team slate had 2 losses, both won their conference.
    The 2010 season had 3 undefeated teams ranked top three. 1-loss Stanford, 2-loss Oklahoma (conference winner), and 2-loss Arkansas all finished top 8. Three teams in the Big Ten finished with 1 loss (only 1 was outside top 8).
    The 2011 season is a good example for 4 teams. 3 teams in top 8 were runners up in conference and the other was 1 loss Boise.
    The 2012 season had 4 SEC teams finish in the top 8, but Ohio State was not eligible because of bowl ban (12-0). The SEC had 6 teams finish with 2 losses that season. Most of these teams did not play each other in cross division matchups. The only other 2 loss team was conference winner Stanford.
    2013 season had 6 teams finish with 1 loss or undefeated. The only 2 loss teams would have been conference winner Stanford and SEC conference championship game loser Missouri.
    2014 had 2 teams that shared conference crown not make it with 1 loss (hahahahaha TCU and Baylor, I loved they didn't get in. Only time I liked the 4 team method). 2 division runner ups finished with 2 losses. No great argument for 8, better case for 6.
    2015 had a decent argument for both 4 and 8. No conference winner with 1 or fewer losses was left out. Stanford had 2 losses, but played a better schedule than others. Two 1 loss teams and 2-loss Notre Dame would have rounded out the top 8.
    2016 was the worst case for eight teams. 3-loss Wisconsin would have made it. Only major issue last year was Ohio State making it in without winning their conference over Penn State. Both PSU and Oklahoma were 2 loss conference winners.

    Get rid of the committee. Get rid of the 4 team playoff and expand to a reasonable number. Let teams earn it by beating the other conference champions.

    Oklahoma has never won an AP championship with a loss. Think about that. How can you claim you are the best unless you are unbeaten, or beat every other team with an argument? How can you do that if you exclude other teams based on bias of a committee and not on the field? You do one, or the other, or you are not a real champion. Only way to do the second is in an expanded playoff. And the first is an outdated concept, especially having seen the great 18-0 Patriots lose a Superbowl to the 6 seed Giants. Both were conference champions btw. See how that works. You aren't the best, just because you did better in games 1-18.

  15. #165
    Originally Posted by Humblepie View Post

    Oklahoma has never won an AP championship with a loss. Think about that.
    What?
    The following users like this post: Rufus T Firefly


  16. #166
    Originally Posted by RockFlagandEagle View Post
    What?
    My mistake, we won 3. I really ****ed that one up, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant.
    3 users like Humblepie's post: Boomer2797, Chicago2.0, RockFlagandEagle


  17. #167
    Originally Posted by Humblepie View Post
    My mistake, we won 3. I really ****ed that one up, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant.
    Rest of your post was solid.

  18. #168
    Originally Posted by BoN View Post
    The computers don’t like us because our defense is garbage statistically. OU is not a complete team.
    Even the bots know Mike Is ruining this team.
    The following users like this post: soonergrad


  19. #169
    Originally Posted by Humblepie View Post
    First of all I never advocated for 16. I actually prefer 12 (all conference champions and only 2 open spots for mulligans), but I am ok with 8 (which most people want) so long as the committee is abolished and there are parameters for AQ. Secondly, conference winners are hardly slugs. They deserve a spot over runner up teams, because they actually are champions on the field of play, instead of champions of eye test.

    Having a committee makes the regular season less important than an expanded playoff, because if you are still alive with a chance to win your conference and make it in, more games matter than they do now. The magnitude of a few games does not outweigh the excitement of several.

    I like how you try to spin it like LSU did not win the 2007 NC. Or that previous seasons don't count so that we have to use a 3 year sample size. That is BS reasoning, because previous seasons are the catalyst for moving to a playoff format, although it is currently not big enough at all to decide it on the field and not in a committee room.

    The last 10 years of BCS and CFP end of season rankings:
    The '07 season would have produced three 2-loss teams in a 4 team playoff. In case you were wondering, there would have been no 3-loss teams if there was an 8 team playoff.
    The '08 season would have allowed 8 teams with either 1 loss or undefeated. Also #9 Boise State was undefeated.
    The '09 season had 5 undefeated teams (3 mid majors) and #5 Florida lost in SEC CCG to Alabama as their only loss. Only 2 teams in the 8 team slate had 2 losses, both won their conference.
    The 2010 season had 3 undefeated teams ranked top three. 1-loss Stanford, 2-loss Oklahoma (conference winner), and 2-loss Arkansas all finished top 8. Three teams in the Big Ten finished with 1 loss (only 1 was outside top 8).
    The 2011 season is a good example for 4 teams. 3 teams in top 8 were runners up in conference and the other was 1 loss Boise.
    The 2012 season had 4 SEC teams finish in the top 8, but Ohio State was not eligible because of bowl ban (12-0). The SEC had 6 teams finish with 2 losses that season. Most of these teams did not play each other in cross division matchups. The only other 2 loss team was conference winner Stanford.
    2013 season had 6 teams finish with 1 loss or undefeated. The only 2 loss teams would have been conference winner Stanford and SEC conference championship game loser Missouri.
    2014 had 2 teams that shared conference crown not make it with 1 loss (hahahahaha TCU and Baylor, I loved they didn't get in. Only time I liked the 4 team method). 2 division runner ups finished with 2 losses. No great argument for 8, better case for 6.
    2015 had a decent argument for both 4 and 8. No conference winner with 1 or fewer losses was left out. Stanford had 2 losses, but played a better schedule than others. Two 1 loss teams and 2-loss Notre Dame would have rounded out the top 8.
    2016 was the worst case for eight teams. 3-loss Wisconsin would have made it. Only major issue last year was Ohio State making it in without winning their conference over Penn State. Both PSU and Oklahoma were 2 loss conference winners.

    Get rid of the committee. Get rid of the 4 team playoff and expand to a reasonable number. Let teams earn it by beating the other conference champions.

    Oklahoma has never won an AP championship with a loss. Think about that. How can you claim you are the best unless you are unbeaten, or beat every other team with an argument? How can you do that if you exclude other teams based on bias of a committee and not on the field? You do one, or the other, or you are not a real champion. Only way to do the second is in an expanded playoff. And the first is an outdated concept, especially having seen the great 18-0 Patriots lose a Superbowl to the 6 seed Giants. Both were conference champions btw. See how that works. You aren't the best, just because you did better in games 1-18.

    Too many errors here to correct them all on a Gameday. I will say the "most people want _________" argument is a very poor way to make a case. Like I said in my original post, the tide has shifted dramatically. A lot of 8 teamers now like how it is. Would you be more wrong if you were in the minority? No, just equally wrong.

    You said you want 12 teams, that helps the point people are never satisfied. 8 isn't enough, let's go to 12. If that happened, there would be a group holding their breath until they got 16.

    Finally, as hard as it is to admit as a fan, ou didn't deserve to be in the playoff last season. Not all conference champions are created equal. Tweaks need to be made but overall the playoffs have been awesome. I also think true champions have been crowned and teams are scheduling strong OOC games (which would dry up with an expanded playoff). This is the golden age of cf!!

  20. #170
    If the fix is in on this playoff thing, do you think the same thing will happen with the Big XII championship game? Will the conference make sure that the 2-loss team does not beat the 1-loss team so as not to jeopardize the conference chances of making the CFP?

  21. #171
    Originally Posted by Lucy_Han View Post
    If the fix is in on this playoff thing, do you think the same thing will happen with the Big XII championship game? Will the conference make sure that the 2-loss team does not beat the 1-loss team so as not to jeopardize the conference chances of making the CFP?
    I personally don't think refs "fix" games ... but if the Big XII conference/refs tried to help a 1-loss team in the Big XII Championship game, I am confident they would screw it up.
    The following users like this post: Saul Good


  22. #172
    Originally Posted by blackfrancois View Post
    several of them are better than fbs. ku is a much easier opponent than at least three dakota schools. only the sec plays these kind of games late in the season.
    Kansas has a higher ceiling.
    The following users like this post: blackfrancois


  23. #173
    Personally, the only fix I am seeing right now is damage control for my Big Ten. Penn State and Ohio State dropped the ball big time. I think Iowa deserved to get into the top 25 with that win but Northwestern at 25th? Northwestern could very well win out the rest of the year with their schedule. That adds a top 25 win to Wisconsin's resume. Watch to see if Iowa drops out of the top 25. If they don't, it's in the tank. They have two easily winnable games left on their schedule. Even if they drop out this week, they probably come back in before the end of the season and that also adds another top 25 win on Wisky's schedule for the final rankings. Michigan is now at 8-2 and likely shows up again in the polls. They play Wisky next week for yet another top 25 ranking win if Wisky wins.

    Even I have to admit that Wisky is getting the path built for them in the exact fashion that Klatt spoke of for the SEC. ESPN isnt just in the business of boosting the SEC in this regard. They boost The SEC, The Big Ten and The ACC. Sorry but ESPN is not in the business of boosting the big 12. Oklahoma definitely deserves to be top 4 now but I bet they don't jump Clemson despite a much more respectable win against that TCU team. You might even see Miami get boosted past Oklahoma with a massive win against the #3 team. If you want to get truly conspiratorial then watch for Oklahoma to not move up at all as Miami passes them as well as an undefeated Wisky team that just rolled right over an Iowa team that took out Ohio State. Ohio State is probably even going to be ranked above TCU now after winning huge against Michigan State.

    Klatt is right, these rankings are easily manipulated but so have been every single rankings system used in the past and that includes the computer rankings. The computer rankings are manipulated by their completely opinionated initial rankings data. That sets the tone for the rest of it. If the initial opinion polls are off, it throws off the entire rest of the season. Eventually, we go to conference champions from the majors but that isn't happening until the true power conferences of the major conferences get exactly what they want.

    Sorry folks, but even I have to admit it when it is this obvious. That Northwestern #25 ranking made me laugh.
    2 users like He1nousOne's post: ChocoLab, SoonernVolved


  24. #174
    Originally Posted by He1nousOne View Post
    Sorry but ESPN is not in the business of boosting the big 12.
    We noticed

  25. #175
    For those wanting to go back to the BCS, here's the standings if we still used it (will say, 2 of the computers have been changed)


  26. #176
    Originally Posted by chsguy2013 View Post
    For those wanting to go back to the BCS, here's the standings if we still used it (will say, 2 of the computers have been changed)

    OU fans would be clamoring for a committee if we still used the BCS computers...

  27. #177
    Originally Posted by blackfrancois View Post
    which have us at 11 or so (avg).

    https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
    November 13, 1866. Mazatlan.

  28. #178
    Originally Posted by soonergrad View Post
    OU fans would be clamoring for a committee if we still used the BCS computers...
    Exactly, but "the committee is a fraud. They are just boosting the SEC's resume because of ESPN"

  29. #179
    Originally Posted by soonergrad View Post
    OU fans would be clamoring for a committee if we still used the BCS computers...
    the dumb ones...yes...
    if we were still using bcs....at this moment....bama and miami would rightfully hold the top 2 spots...
    still a few games to be played...

Similar Threads

  1. Cowherd's CFB Top 10
    By OKIRISHFAN in forum Football
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: August 8th, 2017, 10:19 AM
  2. A guinness ice cream float
    By azwe in forum Make Me a Sammich
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: December 27th, 2012, 03:18 AM
  3. A guinness ice cream float
    By azwe in forum The Pub
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: December 6th, 2012, 07:39 AM
  4. Colin Cowherd's top 10...
    By melbitoast in forum Football
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: November 24th, 2012, 01:05 PM

Tags for this Thread