Les Miles creates new stats category

[coralpro]

Les Miles on an ESPN interview said his team was undefeated in 60 minute games and it took extra overtimes for his guys to even lose, so the way he sees it they are undefeated in regulation game time. Maybe he was bucking for a rise in the ranks to get ahead of the top 2. Not sure but it sure sounded like he is 8-0-2 in regulation games and that should be held above his 0-2 losses in multiple overtime losses. I think the guy is starting to lose it. Maybe overtimes are not a good thing if someone has to admit someone beat them.

[TwillDog]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Les Miles on an ESPN interview said his team was undefeated in 60 minute games and it took extra overtimes for his guys to even lose, so the way he sees it they are undefeated in regulation game time. Maybe he was bucking for a rise in the ranks to get ahead of the top 2. Not sure but it sure sounded like he is 8-0-2 in regulation games and that should be held above his 0-2 losses in multiple overtime losses. I think the guy is starting to lose it. Maybe overtimes are not a good thing if someone has to admit someone beat them.

I heard the same thing and had to pull a Homer Simpson... D'OH! While I appreciate him standing up for his troops, a loss is a loss. Great, they were both in triple overtime, but that ain't enough to move the Tigers back to a championship game...
Plus a triple OT loss to an unranked opponent doesn't impress anyone...
They've earned their spot, and he should be happy that they are still a top 10 team. Honestly, as I told Waz, I'm kind of looking forward to him going to Michigan. Don't like his smug overconfidence. Hopefully things will fall as I hope and LSU can lure Tommy Tuberville from Auburn. He wanted the LSU job years ago when he left Ole Miss. He's done well splitting recruits with Alabama, and to a lesser extent, Georgia. I would be interested to see what he could do with a school that doesn't split top recruits to anyone locally...

[Wazmankg]

College OT is a farce. It's a perversion of the game. It's phony contrived excitement. The fact that a loss was in 3OT should be considered preferable to a loss where say a team was already out of it by the end of the 3rd quarter against an unranked opponent.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

College OT is a farce. It's a perversion of the game. It's phony contrived excitement. The fact that a loss was in 3OT should be considered preferable to a loss where say a team was already out of it by the end of the 3rd quarter against an unranked opponent.

Funny, you would say that. What happened to a win is a win and a loss is a loss. Wins where a team has to constantly come from behind in the fourth quarter shouldn't count as real wins then. Should they? I mean it is not like being comfortably ahead in the third quarter and not have to rely on luck to catch a team up. Maybe those wins should only count as a half win.

[TwillDog]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

College OT is a farce. It's a perversion of the game. It's phony contrived excitement. The fact that a loss was in 3OT should be considered preferable to a loss where say a team was already out of it by the end of the 3rd quarter against an unranked opponent.

I agree with the losses theory - I do believe a triple overtime loss, to ANYONE, is preferable to a regulation loss by anyone. You battle and stay in a game, that counts for something. But a loss is a loss, and Miles can't say that because he was tied at the end of regulation that his team is really 10-0-2. Had they won the games in triple OT, I'd say they deserved better, regardless of who they played. I would be disappointed if they won in triple OT and got dropped because they didn't win in regulation...

[TwillDog]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Funny, you would say that. What happened to a win is a win and a loss is a loss. Wins where a team has to constantly come from behind in the fourth quarter shouldn't count as real wins then. Should they? I mean it is not like being comfortably ahead in the third quarter and not have to rely on luck to catch a team up. Maybe those wins should only count as a half win.

What does that have to do with a win is a win? You are perverting the words to create your own logic...

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by TwillDog

I heard the same thing and had to pull a Homer Simpson... D'OH! While I appreciate him standing up for his troops, a loss is a loss. Great, they were both in triple overtime, but that ain't enough to move the Tigers back to a championship game...
Plus a triple OT loss to an unranked opponent doesn't impress anyone...
They've earned their spot, and he should be happy that they are still a top 10 team. Honestly, as I told Waz, I'm kind of looking forward to him going to Michigan. Don't like his smug overconfidence. Hopefully things will fall as I hope and LSU can lure Tommy Tuberville from Auburn. He wanted the LSU job years ago when he left Ole Miss. He's done well splitting recruits with Alabama, and to a lesser extent, Georgia. I would be interested to see what he could do with a school that doesn't split top recruits to anyone locally...

Hearing it made me think "I bet the guys thought I told him to say that".
I don't think Tuberville will leave Auburn now. I'm not sure if Miles will leave LSU but I think you will see the program drop some over the next couple of years if he stays. Pellini I'm sure will be a head coach but not for sure if it will be Nebraska or not. Texas Tech got their replacement and Baylor got Briles from Houston so Nebraska is the only job left open in the Big 12.

[J.D.]

Les Miles is not Nick Sabin. LSU Tigers 2007 is not the LSU Tigers of 2003 or even 2006.

This years team is not as good talentwise as last years team. 2006 saw LSU getting beat by better teams then this years team.

Like a poster earlier, LSU had to battle back in most of their games against ranked teams. the only dominance was against VT and other lesser teams.

Michigan, You can have Miles!

J

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by TwillDog

What does that have to do with a win is a win? You are perverting the words to create your own logic...

Because is a person can look at the logic that their team didn't lose in regulation trying to make their team sound better then they are implying the other team didn't win the game in regulation. Basically it comes down to winning or losing by the rules established and not breaking it down by saying something like "yes, but we won the first half". Make sense?

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Funny, you would say that. What happened to a win is a win and a loss is a loss. Wins where a team has to constantly come from behind in the fourth quarter shouldn't count as real wins then. Should they? I mean it is not like being comfortably ahead in the third quarter and not have to rely on luck to catch a team up. Maybe those wins should only count as a half win.

I don't think they should be considered 10-0-2. But I do think the nature and margin of a teams losses are fair game for assessing their season. Suppose Michigan had beaten OSU. I think I'd have to consider them to be the worst 2 loss ranked team due to their loss to App State & blowout loss to Oregon.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Because is a person can look at the logic that their team didn't lose in regulation trying to make their team sound better then they are implying the other team didn't win the game in regulation. Basically it comes down to winning or losing by the rules established and not breaking it down by saying something like "yes, but we won the first half". Make sense?

This from a guy who makes a case for his teams loss because they played well the 1st 3 series' and the last half of the 4th quarter after the game had been decided.

[TwillDog]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

This from a guy who makes a case for his teams loss because they played well the 1st 3 series' and the last half of the 4th quarter after the game had been decided.

Thanks, Waz! You beat me to it!

[TwillDog]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

I don't think they should be considered 10-0-2. But I do think the nature and margin of a teams losses are fair game for assessing their season. Suppose Michigan had beaten OSU. I think I'd have to consider them to be the worst 2 loss ranked team due to their loss to App State & blowout loss to Oregon.

Absolutely agreed! Quality of losses has to account for something. But while LSU's losses were in 3OT, one to a then ranked opponent, I think the BCS favors hot teams in a what have you done for me lately thought process, and sees Georgia and Va. Tech as hotter. I will give them GA since LSU didn't play them this season and they did beat a still ranked Kentucky. I don't like that head to head didn't come into play, since LSU did beat Va. Tech, but they are ranked below them...

[stlcard_25]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

College OT is a farce. It's a perversion of the game. It's phony contrived excitement. The fact that a loss was in 3OT should be considered preferable to a loss where say a team was already out of it by the end of the 3rd quarter against an unranked opponent.

I agree with the shoddy OT system. They really should go to a system where both teams get it once, off a kickoff. First team to score, then hold the other team wins. The 25 puts everyone in FG range to begin with.

That said, OT losses are preferable to regulation losses, but only when two teams have the same number of losses. I would still place LSU ahead of a team like, say, Oklahoma who lost two in regulation to unranked teams.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

I don't think they should be considered 10-0-2. But I do think the nature and margin of a teams losses are fair game for assessing their season. Suppose Michigan had beaten OSU. I think I'd have to consider them to be the worst 2 loss ranked team due to their loss to App State & blowout loss to Oregon.

Any team on any given day can get blown out by a team and it doesn't mean they are a bad team. Many things can factor into a lop sided loss. As far as App St. is concerned, that was a very good team that finished 10-2. Michigan really never had what I would refer to as an impressive victory this year except possibly 1 so a close game to Ohio St. can say different things. One has to consider the rivalry but then one could also say that Ohio St. wasn't that impressive over a Michigan team that really never lived up to what we expected them to have. A lot of Michigans woes were inconsistency on offense due to injuries. As I pointed out before and many want to argue this point but when the offense has problems then 99 percent of the tiem the defense will also. I thought Michigan faired pretty well against Ohio St. considering the defense was on the field a bunch. I also read from that, Ohio St.s offense wasn't that potent as well.

We can always say that a lopsided win was a more impressive victory but then the naysayers will always say they didn't have a defense. Same can be said about close wins. Was it because of mistakes or was one offense just not consistent or perhaps both depending on how bad the winning margin was projected.

Personally I would like to see the games be decided on vegas point spreads for ranking evaluation. If a team plays above their predicted point spread then they rise in the rankings and if they don't they stay at their ranking nomatter who loses above them. This would make teams have to perform well to climb and those that didn't would get passed by good playing teams. In reality this would allow for teams that maybe had two or three losses early and go the problem corrected to climb quickly if they play strongly. You get the team that plays the best instead of a team with less losses that has squeeked bye.

[J.D.]

Ive watched most of LSU' play this year. They havent impressed me at all. I was glad to see them go to #1 the first time, but then they turned around and got beat by Kentucky. They go #1 again and get beat by Arkansas.
Then again, there havent been any real top notch play by anyone else this season either.

[stlcard_25]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Personally I would like to see the games be decided on vegas point spreads for ranking evaluation. If a team plays above their predicted point spread then they rise in the rankings and if they don't they stay at their ranking nomatter who loses above them. This would make teams have to perform well to climb and those that didn't would get passed by good playing teams. In reality this would allow for teams that maybe had two or three losses early and go the problem corrected to climb quickly if they play strongly. You get the team that plays the best instead of a team with less losses that has squeeked bye.

Gambling controlling anything when it comes to amateur athletics is not something I'd want to see. Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that nothing goes on...I just hope for something better.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by stlcard_25

Gambling controlling anything when it comes to amateur athletics is not something I'd want to see. Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that nothing goes on...I just hope for something better.

The point is the gambling institutions use the very same computers that the BCS uses as well as more and more criteria in the inputted software. According to the BCS info I've read they removed strength of schedule this year from the computers but yet we still here that the computers don't like OU or whomever because of strength of schedule. I even went to a site that has the different computers used for the rankings and some of them say opponents ranking is calculated. Some don't. We need a system that can fairly rank teams like the bookies have to value performances and with that we take away bias. You could still have personal polls for grins and giggles but for matching up the best teams let the real info make the decision.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by coralpro

We need a system that can fairly rank teams like the bookies have to value performances and with that we take away bias.

I'm not a gambling man but it's my understanding that bookies put the betting line at a number that attracts bettors to both teams. How does that have anything to do with a team's abilities or ranking?

[TwillDog]

ABSOLUTELY NOT! No vegas linesmaking should ever be involved in college football - the NCAA is messed up enough as it is! Lines are for bettors only; none of that should be involved in the ranking of college teams. That's a slippery slope to illegal activity creating national championships...

Let's leave Appalachian St. out of this discussion - we've appreciated their victory over Michigan, and we know what Michigan is, but to put their record up for consideration playing 1AA is irrelevant to our discussion of ranking...

I think placement in the BCS rankings without concern for strength of schedule is ludicrous. So Hawaii should be #1? That

Personally I would like to see the games be decided on vegas point spreads for ranking evaluation. If a team plays above their predicted point spread then they rise in the rankings and if they don't they stay at their ranking nomatter who loses above them. This would make teams have to perform well to climb and those that didn't would get passed by good playing teams. In reality this would allow for teams that maybe had two or three losses early and go the problem corrected to climb quickly if they play strongly. You get the team that plays the best instead of a team with less losses that has squeeked bye.

This method would mainly reward blowout wins, and negate tough fought games.... oh, wait, I see... this would benefit playing weaker schedules and ridiculous offensive numbers, regardless of defense, like in the Big 12.... makes sense now... still wouldn't much help OU, which lost as a prohibitive favorite against TTU...

According to the BCS info I've read they removed strength of schedule this year from the computers but yet we still here that the computers don't like OU or whomever because of strength of schedule. I even went to a site that has the different computers used for the rankings and some of them say opponents ranking is calculated. Some don't. We need a system that can fairly rank teams like the bookies have to value performances and with that we take away bias. You could still have personal polls for grins and giggles but for matching up the best teams let the real info make the decision.

Again using OU for comparison is bad, because contrary to your belief, they did not play a power schedule this season. The bookies value money - that is all their system is based on. Set the line to create the action, and make their money. Their lines are far more contrived than the BCS rankings. Case in point - Philly and 25 over the Patriots? That should never happen - but it created action for the books...

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

I'm not a gambling man but it's my understanding that bookies put the betting line at a number that attracts bettors to both teams. How does that have anything to do with a team's abilities or ranking?

It's generally far closer than bias. They generally go off the odds that most people are approx. 70 percent wrong when given a choice of two answers. No one can know for sure how bad a team might lose or win but they use a lot of data inputted to come up with their margins. The type of info used would be closer to being exact on coming up with a better comparative rating system. The computer set up would factor in all the critical and pertinent data but not have to float any margins to get peoples money moving. I said use the type of data inputs they use but you don't go by the bookies computers in setting the performance quality of the game, you use the BCS computer which doesn't feed data to booking agents or use their computer in the BCS category just to get online buyers for their info on betting.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by TwillDog

ABSOLUTELY NOT! No vegas linesmaking should ever be involved in college football - the NCAA is messed up enough as it is! Lines are for bettors only; none of that should be involved in the ranking of college teams. That's a slippery slope to illegal activity creating national championships...

Let's leave Appalachian St. out of this discussion - we've appreciated their victory over Michigan, and we know what Michigan is, but to put their record up for consideration playing 1AA is irrelevant to our discussion of ranking...

I think placement in the BCS rankings without concern for strength of schedule is ludicrous. So Hawaii should be #1? That

Personally I would like to see the games be decided on vegas point spreads for ranking evaluation. If a team plays above their predicted point spread then they rise in the rankings and if they don't they stay at their ranking nomatter who loses above them. This would make teams have to perform well to climb and those that didn't would get passed by good playing teams. In reality this would allow for teams that maybe had two or three losses early and go the problem corrected to climb quickly if they play strongly. You get the team that plays the best instead of a team with less losses that has squeeked bye.

This method would mainly reward blowout wins, and negate tough fought games.... oh, wait, I see... this would benefit playing weaker schedules and ridiculous offensive numbers, regardless of defense, like in the Big 12.... makes sense now... still wouldn't much help OU, which lost as a prohibitive favorite against TTU...

According to the BCS info I've read they removed strength of schedule this year from the computers but yet we still here that the computers don't like OU or whomever because of strength of schedule. I even went to a site that has the different computers used for the rankings and some of them say opponents ranking is calculated. Some don't. We need a system that can fairly rank teams like the bookies have to value performances and with that we take away bias. You could still have personal polls for grins and giggles but for matching up the best teams let the real info make the decision.

Again using OU for comparison is bad, because contrary to your belief, they did not play a power schedule this season. The bookies value money - that is all their system is based on. Set the line to create the action, and make their money. Their lines are far more contrived than the BCS rankings. Case in point - Philly and 25 over the Patriots? That should never happen - but it created action for the books...

I already stated their schedule turned out to be weaker than it was projected when OU set it up years ago. Tulsa is the only team that has received votes towards the top 25 of the four played.
You are taking it the wrong way in using the Vegas style of points spread I was referring to. It would be done by a BCS computer solely for that particular purpose. Its ratings wouldn't come out until after the game so it could not be used for gambling purposes. This crud about a hard fought win is a bunch of bull. The teams were either supposed to be close or they weren't. If they weren't and a team wins they would get credit for a win and not drop but they would not climb. It showed they did manage to win but they didn't play up to their potential. The Big 12 was not the reason I used this scenerio. As you say teams have to play defense as well or they can't attain the spread predicted. If one team scores 45 points and is supposed to beat the other team by 28 and yet the other team scores 42 then they won but they would not climb. It would be no different than if a team in the SEC, for your benefit, say was supposed to beat a team by 3 and they scored 17 and the opposing team scored 15. They won playing what could be a hard fought defensive game or a terrible offensive game but they could not move upward either because their defense gave up scores in the red zone or the offense just didn't play well enough. It would be a ranking system that could work in all conferences and teams would be rewarded by very good play as they should and be downgraded for poor play with average play not rewarded or penalized. Seems like the perfect solution to me.

[Leaguegolf]

This is turning into Blah, Blah, Blah, for me. The game of football is about more than just stats. There's thousands of reasons a favored team can lose to an underdog, or two power house defenses can play to a 42-41 game, or two potent offenses can play a 13-10 game. Numbers are just numbers and while they sometimes tell the story, they rarely tell the whole story. That's just football and I don't need computers and POST GAME analysis to tell me what happened. Emphasis on POST GAME since there have been so many games that didn't turn out quite as predicted by the so-called guru's...er....experts.

As long as there's voting in college football, there will always be controversy and discussion. That's exactly the point and exactly what college football wants. Why not just watch the games, argue about who's team is better, and enjoy the process? Why does the grass always have to be greener?

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

This is turning into Blah, Blah, Blah, for me. The game of football is about more than just stats. There's thousands of reasons a favored team can lose to an underdog, or two power house defenses can play to a 42-41 game, or two potent offenses can play a 13-10 game. Numbers are just numbers and while they sometimes tell the story, they rarely tell the whole story. That's just football and I don't need computers and POST GAME analysis to tell me what happened. Emphasis on POST GAME since there have been so many games that didn't turn out quite as predicted by the so-called guru's...er....experts.

As long as there's voting in college football, there will always be controversy and discussion. That's exactly the point and exactly what college football wants. Why not just watch the games, argue about who's team is better, and enjoy the process? Why does the grass always have to be greener?

In your own words, "There will always be controversy". Getting it right is the whole point to this scenerio. People can always say this team or that is better, but when you use the proper rating system it can eliminate the "bias factor" and give us a more quantitative comparison. This would tend to take out the what ifs, the system could judge the teams then on performance quality and take out the we played poorly but still won or we played great but they got some lucky breaks. It wouldn't be a cure all to everything that can occur on the field but it would give a more rational and truthful rating system, IMHO.

[essurfer]

Guess you can rationalize anything. As far as undefeated teams there is only one Hawaii and they should be in the championship game

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by essurfer

Guess you can rationalize anything. As far as undefeated teams there is only one Hawaii and they should be in the championship game

They beat Boise St. which I give them credit for and looked good doing it, but OU would be undefeated if they played 12 North Texas's instead of 1 and that wouldn't prove anything. They have a good offense but don't have the defense to compare to most of the larger schools. If they play a top team in the bcs game and lose badly then they will continue to be thought of as just a unique offense on an island that doesn't play any top foes. Their win over Boise St. didn't leave the impression with most that they are a number 1 type of team though, IMHO. I believe they are a good team but not great.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by coralpro

In your own words, "There will always be controversy". Getting it right is the whole point to this scenerio. People can always say this team or that is better, but when you use the proper rating system it can eliminate the "bias factor" and give us a more quantitative comparison. This would tend to take out the what ifs, the system could judge the teams then on performance quality and take out the we played poorly but still won or we played great but they got some lucky breaks. It wouldn't be a cure all to everything that can occur on the field but it would give a more rational and truthful rating system, IMHO.

Would you take a shot at defining "bias factor" please. It's a term you use a lot, in fact it's at the heart of many points you've tried to make, and I don't think you've ever clearly quantified it.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by coralpro

In your own words, "There will always be controversy". Getting it right is the whole point to this scenerio. People can always say this team or that is better, but when you use the proper rating system it can eliminate the "bias factor" and give us a more quantitative comparison. This would tend to take out the what ifs, the system could judge the teams then on performance quality and take out the we played poorly but still won or we played great but they got some lucky breaks. It wouldn't be a cure all to everything that can occur on the field but it would give a more rational and truthful rating system, IMHO.

Where exactly is this perfect world of yours? "Quantitative Analysis" may work in science but football isn't science and it never will be. You can throw all the numbers you want at us but in reality those numbers are just your own form of the bias you rave against.

How do you judge teams on "performance quality" when that performance is against different variables? Isn't it biased to compare OU's performance against Tulsa against USC's performance against Arizona State? There's just no common denominator other than simple stats and we all know stats don't tell the whole story.

Of course, I'd agree with everything you've ever posted..........if your system has USC finishing ahead of OU in the final rankings.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

Where exactly is this perfect world of yours? "Quantitative Analysis" may work in science but football isn't science and it never will be. You can throw all the numbers you want at us but in reality those numbers are just your own form of the bias you rave against.

How do you judge teams on "performance quality" when that performance is against different variables? Isn't it biased to compare OU's performance against Tulsa against USC's performance against Arizona State? There's just no common denominator other than simple stats and we all know stats don't tell the whole story.

Of course, I'd agree with everything you've ever posted..........if your system has USC finishing ahead of OU in the final rankings.

What is the performance against different variables? Each team has to play offensively and defensively on the same field. When you take into account yds gained per rush, yards gained per pass, first downs, scoring inside the red zone, punt net average, net yds returning kicks, home field advantage, weather, turnover ratio, 3rd down conversion rate, plus a few more you have the ability to look at a teams performance. In general the red zone scoring will be a tell tale of a teams performance level if the stats are all relatively the same in most other areas. These inputs have nothing to do with your bias or my bias or anyones opinion. They are merely crunch numbers on the way a team performed.

In no way was my reference about Tulsa used to compare USC's victory against Arizona St. OU played OSU which is a whole different team and was the one relative to the comparison.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

Would you take a shot at defining "bias factor" please. It's a term you use a lot, in fact it's at the heart of many points you've tried to make, and I don't think you've ever clearly quantified it.

Bias factor would come from coaches or individuals having had ties with a conference or particular school they rate above other schools merely for that reason. It could also be caused by extreme dislike for a school or conference as well. I dislike USC but it doesn't prevent me from evaluating their performance fairly. As previously mentioned I placed USC back in my top 10 even before the analysts on the sport shows moved them up. Teams have to be compared by statistical comparison or you open up the system to bias. That was the reason the BCS was created in the first place. The problem was they used watered down versions of computers analysis or comparisons that don't really justify performances except in a small range of data. The betting versions supplied by many of the same companies have a large full scale data collection system that rates the teams with a power rating. Those systems have no bias unless the programmer so chooses to alter inputs.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by coralpro

What is the performance against different variables? Each team has to play offensively and defensively on the same field. When you take into account yds gained per rush, yards gained per pass, first downs, scoring inside the red zone, punt net average, net yds returning kicks, home field advantage, weather, turnover ratio, 3rd down conversion rate, plus a few more you have the ability to look at a teams performance. In general the red zone scoring will be a tell tale of a teams performance level if the stats are all relatively the same in most other areas. These inputs have nothing to do with your bias or my bias or anyones opinion. They are merely crunch numbers on the way a team performed.

I meant "performance against different variables" to mean that it's a whole lot easier to be successful against the type of athlete that plays for Tulsa than it is to be successful against the type of athlete that plays for a top 10 program. Numbers accumulated against vastly weaker opponents (most non-conference schedules) carry the same weight as numbers against top ranked teams. They're just numbers and that's my point. You can throw all the numbers into an unbiased computer and you still come out with who has the best numbers (regardless of who those numbers were earned against) not who the #1 team is.

Here's an example of numbers telling any story you want them to tell.........OU has a fairly well rated run defense. Teams have had much more success passing on them than running on them. Is that because OU's run defense is so good, or because their pass defense is lousy and teams would rather pass than run against them?

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

I meant "performance against different variables" to mean that it's a whole lot easier to be successful against the type of athlete that plays for Tulsa than it is to be successful against the type of athlete that plays for a top 10 program. Numbers accumulated against vastly weaker opponents (most non-conference schedules) carry the same weight as numbers against top ranked teams. They're just numbers and that's my point. You can throw all the numbers into an unbiased computer and you still come out with who has the best numbers (regardless of who those numbers were earned against) not who the #1 team is.

Here's an example of numbers telling any story you want them to tell.........OU has a fairly well rated run defense. Teams have had much more success passing on them than running on them. Is that because OU's run defense is so good, or because their pass defense is lousy and teams would rather pass than run against them?

I understand your question but OU does set their defense up to defend the run first, hopefully making teams pass. With the speed of the backs they hope with a good pass rush they will cause more turnovers.
A better example would have been was LSU's defense really good or were they playing weak offenses. Stats kept over a period of games will show how opposing offenses did against certain defenses on that rating scale so one can evaluate that data more closely correct. One would also have to take into account possession time and number of playes ran. If one teams holds the ball a bunch their defense may look much better than it really is. There are a lot of vairables as you like to call them but as input data to a computer it takes out the guessing and puts a number to the facts.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by coralpro

There are a lot of vairables as you like to call them but as input data to a computer it takes out the guessing and puts a number to the facts.

Those numbers are often inflated and unrealistic. Especially when earned against teams added to the schedule to pad those numbers and gain a win. Red zone numbers against Tulsa aren't the same as red zone numbers against USC.

[TwillDog]

Back to what League said earlier, this is all just blah blah blah... There is no "better" or perfect system, including a playoff. CP, you can tout the numbers all you want for the ratings system. I have put up numbers as well, but not to illustrate who should be top ranked, but to illustrate points. The numbers you tout will be biased as well because humans play the game, not computers. Everyone else has valid arguments as to why it wouldn't work. Any association with gambling interests, however you paint it, will prove to be a negative. Whether it's pre-lines being set or not. There will never be a way to realistically use numbers because all teams don't play the same competition. All teams would basically have to play the same teams to be realistically fairly rated.
You talk about red zone offense and defense... what about teams like Hawaii that don't spend much time in the red zone? Once again you would have a bias toward teams that don't have many red zone appearances as opposed to those who are always in the red zone. 5 of 5 ends up being better than 27 of 30, but which team do you believe in more? And if you say it's better to make more trips to the red zone, then you are biased against teams that have high powered offenses and score from distance... either way, it's no good...
Once again numbers can definitely be used to paint certain pictures, but they can NEVER tell the entire story. You want to take luck out of the equation... that's silly for you to even say. It was UNLUCKY that OU's QB went down in the game against TTU. I say they should still have won that game because their defense should have picked up the slack - you say with that QB in they would have won (silly, but for the sake of this argument lets run with it, shall we?). Well that would go AGAINST your theory of taking luck out of the equation - bad luck counts too.
Also, you couldn't find enough people to eliminate bias factory. You claim to be the guru of the numbers, until you start in on OU, where the numbers mean little, and "bad breaks" or "one or two bad plays" is the difference in the game. There you give off the distinct impression of a homer, where the numbers that are in front of you DON'T tell the story, but the game itself is the story - you contradict yourself. But, what's new?

And before you set in on us (or me) picking on OU games in particular, YOU are the one who continually brings up OU's superiority and dominion over the land...

[Leaguegolf]

Are you sure you don't have some Guru blood in you TwillDog? That was a enlightening post.

[TwillDog]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

Are you sure you don't have some Guru blood in you TwillDog? That was a enlightening post.

Thanks, League - you know I try. Coming from you, I consider that a compliment of high regard!

And trust me - no guru blood here... just a love for the game - and apparently a love of debating...

[Leaguegolf]

This whole thread has been fun (at least for me) because I know that there's no possible way to rank teams 100% fairly and I love giving Coralpro grief over his love for his Sooners. He makes it so easy that it almost takes all the fun out of it. Notice I said "almost."

I've never cared much who was ranked where. I simply enjoy the better regular season match-ups and look forward to watching the top bowl games. The only thing I'd do to change the current system is to add a Plus One game. That would placate most everyone.........unless OU wasn't involved.

I'm waiting to see how our ProV1 bet pans out. I like my chances now but I sure didn't after USC bombed against Stanford.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

Those numbers are often inflated and unrealistic. Especially when earned against teams added to the schedule to pad those numbers and gain a win. Red zone numbers against Tulsa aren't the same as red zone numbers against USC.

The reason most all teams pick three out of four weaker opponents is to work on their overall play in real games prepping for conference play. Most of the larger schools tend to select only 1 higher level team to play prior to conference play with the exception of Notre Dame which has plenty of cush opponents schedule throughout their season but does play several of the traditionally high ranked teams. Let's see! Stanford scored how many points against USC? See there is a difference and that was injuries. Injuries would also be factored into power ratings. A healthy USC would not have lost that game nomatter how inconsistent they were. Conversely Stanford wouldn't be awarded as high a power rating for that win because it was against a team that wasn't close to full strength. If bias was used people as they did would acclaim the win as one of the greatest upset of all times but in reality they beat a team with many second and third stringers due to injuries.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

This whole thread has been fun (at least for me) because I know that there's no possible way to rank teams 100% fairly and I love giving Coralpro grief over his love for his Sooners. He makes it so easy that it almost takes all the fun out of it. Notice I said "almost."

I've never cared much who was ranked where. I simply enjoy the better regular season match-ups and look forward to watching the top bowl games. The only thing I'd do to change the current system is to add a Plus One game. That would placate most everyone.........unless OU wasn't involved.

I'm waiting to see how our ProV1 bet pans out. I like my chances now but I sure didn't after USC bombed against Stanford.

The plus 1 is not an answer although it would, in most seasons, solve the problem. If they went to plus 1 this year everone below 4th would be out of consideration which would be the reason it couldn't work. Currently there is no way that anyone could say anyone of the teams in the top 10 are more deserving than another. It can always be argued which are the best though. For all those that think Ohio St. is deserving I hope they will put a sleeve of golf balls on it should Missouri lose to OU.

[essurfer]

Originally Posted by coralpro

They beat Boise St. which I give them credit for and looked good doing it, but OU would be undefeated if they played 12 North Texas's instead of 1 and that wouldn't prove anything. They have a good offense but don't have the defense to compare to most of the larger schools. If they play a top team in the bcs game and lose badly then they will continue to be thought of as just a unique offense on an island that doesn't play any top foes. Their win over Boise St. didn't leave the impression with most that they are a number 1 type of team though, IMHO. I believe they are a good team but not great.

I know what you are saying and I agree. My reasoning is that they are undefeated and no one else is. Since all the teams are in the same "league", they should all be thought of as such. I dont think anyone thinks the Colorado Rockies were a great team but they earned their way into the World Series and win or lose, they were entitled to the experience. College football creates a caste system that is unfair to the hawaii and Boise States of college football.