Air Force has a great football program, as well as a good basketball program. Navy also has a great football program. And both bring a decent fanbase. What's the point of admitting a different school with comparable on-field success, lower academics and prestige, and less fans? Air Force brings much more to the table than Boise Community College or SMU, that's for sure.
2011/2012 NCAA Football Thread
- Thread starter Jagger69
- Start date
- Status
Air Force has a great football program, as well as a good basketball program. Navy also has a great football program. And both bring a decent fanbase. What's the point of admitting a different school with comparable on-field success, lower academics and prestige, and less fans? Air Force brings much more to the table than Boise Community College or SMU, that's for sure.
Is the college football system flawed? Yes. I don't think anyone is debating that. But I don't know if I blame it on the polls.
Take 2004 for example. OU got crushed by Kansas in the conference championship game, and then when the polls came out they had OU 3 or 4. But the computers had OU #1. Thus, leaving USC out of the title game when the BCS rankings came out.
So it's the BCS you should be angry with, not necessarily the polls.
Since then, the BSC committee has claimed to have tweaked the system so something like that never happens again. But who truly knows?
Dan Beebe is out and the Big 12 may have come up with a way to keep the conference from imploding:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-conferencerealignment
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-conferencerealignment
Texas is still stubbornly refusing to do away with the Longhorn network. Oklahoma & company should give them an ultimatum:
Drop the network, or leave the league.
or
Keep the network, and get NO share of the Big 12 TV deal.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-big12-texas
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
The Big East is looking at Navy and Air Force.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-conferencerealignment-bigeast
Now that it appears that the remaining Big 12 members will stay put, will the SEC go after a Big 12 team. The only one that makes sense is TCU, but I doubt that.
Drop the network, or leave the league.
or
Keep the network, and get NO share of the Big 12 TV deal.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-big12-texas
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
The Big East is looking at Navy and Air Force.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-conferencerealignment-bigeast
Now that it appears that the remaining Big 12 members will stay put, will the SEC go after a Big 12 team. The only one that makes sense is TCU, but I doubt that.
You're conflating/confusing different things.
The BCS is a poll comprised of many inputs...many of which are other polls and computer models.
BTW, I'm not angry at either case. In fact, I personally favor the poll system over a playoff/conf champ scenario. After all, that is what separates the game of college football from many of the other competitions out there and what makes it (more) exciting.
What I'm saying though is if you want to avoid the fuss and confusion, you must have one system or the other.
Imagine if pro football had in addition to conf. standing qualifiers for the playoffs it had a poll system too which sought to be a deciding factor in who plays whom. That system would be equally fraught with inconsistency.
The more college football moves toward a playoff (which is what's happening with the emergence of more and more conf. champ games) the more confusing bowl match ups and results will be because of the persistent influence of polls.
Then we don't even want to include the stupid conference/bowl tie ins into the equation.
Conclusion: We either need a system which pits conference champions together for an ultimate goal of playing them off for the championship without influence of polls. OR the system needs to scrap conf. championship games and/or their impact on what goes on with the bowls/national championship in favor of a strict poll system. You can't have both (and have it yield consistent results)..which is what we have now.
We know ultimately there will be some playoff (one day) that and the acres of money conf. champ. games generate ensure conf. champ games are here to stay. But polls have a vested interest in staying relevant too so things will never get fixed. All we can hope for is they get lucky against BCS busting more often than not.
^^^^
No, I'm not confused. I was saying the human polls didn't put Oklahoma in the national championship game after the Big 12 championship. It was the computers and the BCS formula that did. The human polls (or voters) made a statement by not putting OU in the top two (top two goes to the title game) after that game. I don't think the voters were aware the computers and the BCS formula were going to put OU in regardless.
In 2001, Nebraska was #4 in the human polls. Still got in the title game because of the computers/BCS formula.
So I stand by my statement by saying I blame the BCS and their formula, by comprising 3 polls (including an idiot computer).
No, I'm not confused. I was saying the human polls didn't put Oklahoma in the national championship game after the Big 12 championship. It was the computers and the BCS formula that did. The human polls (or voters) made a statement by not putting OU in the top two (top two goes to the title game) after that game. I don't think the voters were aware the computers and the BCS formula were going to put OU in regardless.
In 2001, Nebraska was #4 in the human polls. Still got in the title game because of the computers/BCS formula.
So I stand by my statement by saying I blame the BCS and their formula, by comprising 3 polls (including an idiot computer).
Last edited:
You favor people arbitrarily choosing who comes out on top in a sport to teams actually seeing who's best on the field and you find that more exciting?
rwill, it was polls against a quasi playoff. Meaning poll aggregates were pitted against what happened in a quasi playoff (conf. champ game)...
The inconsistent results were consistent with the intertwining of the two systems.
You can't separate the 'human' polls (AP/USA Today) from the BCS poll when the BCS poll is comprised of those polls among other factors.
'Human polls" :1orglaugh
Did you know that Michigan was so far ahead of Nebraska at the end of the 1997 season that the only way for Nebraska to even win the BCS (Poll) Championship even though they won the actual game was for 2 voters in the USA Today/Coaches poll to vote Michigan 3rd (behind a 1 loss FSU)...I give you voters Danny Sheridan and Phillip Fulmer.
You favor people arbitrarily choosing who comes out on top in a sport to teams actually seeing who's best on the field and you find that more exciting?
It's not arbitrary and as far as more exciting. There is a reason why every game during a college football season is of high interest because it can make or break a season. Fair or not...it's exciting.
Sorta like a sudden death hockey match.
rwill, it was polls against a quasi playoff. Meaning poll aggregates were pitted against what happened in a quasi playoff (conf. champ game)...
The inconsistent results were consistent with the intertwining of the two systems.
You can't separate the 'human' polls (AP/USA Today) from the BCS poll when the BCS poll is comprised of those polls among other factors.
'Human polls" :1orglaugh
Did you know that Michigan was so far ahead of Nebraska at the end of the 1997 season that the only way for Nebraska to even win the BCS (Poll) Championship even though they won the actual game was for 2 voters in the USA Today/Coaches poll to vote Michigan 3rd (behind a 1 loss FSU)...I give you voters Danny Sheridan and Phillip Fulmer.
It's not arbitrary and as far as more exciting. There is a reason why every game during a college football season is of high interest because it can make or break a season. Fair or not...it's exciting.
Sorta like a sudden death hockey match.
Ok, I wasn't aware of the incident in 1997 (I was only 10yrs old).
I'm totally aware that the BCS was created to prevent a media biased poll. But if we went by the 'human polls', rather than the computers/BCS system, we would have much more accurate system (especially the last 10 years).
Do we need conf championship game? Probably not. But it might help your computer ranking/strength of schedule.
Like I said before, the system is flawed. We need a playoff.
Doubtful. There is no such thing as accuracy in polling...not even near accuracy. A bunch of people can generally agree on maybe the top 3 three teams in any sport...then the rest is educated guesswork IMO. Computers can get somewhat more accurate/consistent BASED on what though..? Human polls. Think about it..how would a computer inherently have a basis for determining the best 25 teams without some reference sample? Computers can get a general consistency but with many flaws because computers don't take into account humans are playing the games week in and week out.
I just showed you the problem with human polls and the '97 bias of Sheridan and Fulmer. Bias and the fact that voters don't have the opportunity to see enough to judge adequately (ESPECIALLY coaches who have votes but usually 'mail in' their votes via some water boy or whatever) by the time they are required to vote hampers the credibility of coaching votes. Press voters are a little more credible but some of their biases make them not much more credible.
Only if every team played the same number of games and every conference had them. Otherwise teams who play more games can get a winning pct. advantage over other teams. Like the case in '06 with Florida jumping Michigan. Though Michigan's only loss was on the road to the number 1 team....UF got the benefit of the additional game, boosting their winning pct. and strength of schedule.
The polling system for as flawed as it is, is responsible for adding to the excitement of the end product.
Say what you will but there is excitement generated when teams play to the polls and have to generally avoid loses to have a chance to win it all.
Creating a circumstance whereby in season games are less meaningful (through playoff) takes away from some of the "game's" excitement. I know everyone is clamoring for a playoff but be careful what you wish for as the game will change. I would expect a playoff will be no more exciting than the combo of conf champ. and bowl games we have now.. but the regular season will definitely lose a bit of excitement IMO.
People like the college football game because it's different...but they don't seem to understand what the difference is that makes it better.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Sorry about the duplications in my original list guys. I was really in a hurry and copy-and-paste got the best of me.
North Carolina at Georgia Tech
Western Michigan at Illinois
USC at Arizona St.
San Diego St. at Michigan
Florida St. at Clemson
Rice at Baylor
LSU at West Virginia
Florida at Kentucky
Arkansas at Alabama
Virginia Tech at Marshall
Vanderbilt at South Carolina
Oregon at Arizona
Nebraska at Wyoming
Oklahoma St. at Texas A&M
South Dakota at Wisconsin
Tulsa at Boise St.
North Carolina at Georgia Tech
Western Michigan at Illinois
USC at Arizona St.
San Diego St. at Michigan
Florida St. at Clemson
Rice at Baylor
LSU at West Virginia
Florida at Kentucky
Arkansas at Alabama
Virginia Tech at Marshall
Vanderbilt at South Carolina
Oregon at Arizona
Nebraska at Wyoming
Oklahoma St. at Texas A&M
South Dakota at Wisconsin
Tulsa at Boise St.
So, if you trust the computers more than humans, why did you say this?
Nebraska got in because of the computers, not the human polls.
And then I have you another example of Oklahoma incorrectly making it to the title game because of the computers.
So, I just proved to you the human polls have been more accurate in their top two.
Yes, there's advantages and disadvantages to having a conf title game. UM was on the wrong side... but the again, they just got beat by Ohio State. It would have been unfair for OSU to play UM.... again.
Yes, the polling system does add some excitement, but that doesn't make it fair. More teams should be able to compete for the title at the end of the season. Preferably an 8 team playoff.
But if not a playoff, a plus one system. You can have the excitement of the polls, along with the bowl games as well.
I don't 'trust' computers more than humans. I think it's a veritable fact though that computers will render more consistency ....(that isn't a substitute word for correct or accurate...just consistent results based on inputs)..For example, Sheridan and Fulmer knew in order to effect a result in the point system they had to make a particular vote. The vote was based on a bias. The input generated a predictable and expected result based on a formula.
Most humans will give you a predictable response based on an input...Like I know no matter what I say...you will have a response tending to be opposite..:1orglaugh But while most human responses are predictable.... they aren't always objective or consistent reflections of input.
I already stipulated that in the overwhelming majority of cases humans can render high degree of accuracy in a scenario involving a top 3 or 4 in my last post.
:dunno:I don't know how it wouldn't have been fair if we're just going by a system. I believe if Michigan had another game or Florida didn't have an extra game Michigan (or any other team in the same position as Michigan) could and probably should have gone on to a rematch. After all, at that point in the season Michigan had lost to the undefeated, no. 1 team while Florida's loss was to a 2 loss, no. 9 team. Sensible right?
In some ways it's fair in some ways it isn't...it just makes the 'game' (sport) have a more exciting..meaningful regular season. People decry the lack of a playoff or 'winning it on the field' but that distinction is one of the reasons the game has so much intrigue.
I already stipulated that in the overwhelming majority of cases humans can render high degree of accuracy in a scenario involving a top 3 or 4 in my last post.
But you only gave me ONE scenario when that happen. I gave you TWO. Meaning the computers have been more inaccurate.
Just because humans are more capable of manipulating the votes, that doesn't mean we can't rely on the human polls. Should we have computers elect our presidents as well?
There's been more glaring evidence against the computers since the BCS system.
I sincerely hope that all of you are very, very wrong.
SDSU can win this game, and I think they will. Better offensive numbers, and better options at WR, RB and probably even QB. I know I'll probably catch some flack for claiming that Lindley is a better QB than Robinson, but I think Robinson hurts his team sometimes by choosing to keep the ball himself rather than get it to an open receiver.
We shall see.
I'm sorry rwill. I have simply failed you in my effort to get the point across.
FTR, I was driving a to analyze either on their per se accuracy but their consistency. Computers will obviously yield more consistent results (whether the results are accurate or inaccurate) than that of the fickle human. That doesn't mean the results of a computer will be more correct (better)...just that it will give you consistent results according to what algorithms and scenarios it's programed to compute.
Neither are particularly reliable for judging the best 25 teams...humans aren't reliable because their analysis in my view beyond the top 3- (no higher than) 5 amounts to educated guesswork. The computers aren't because they are based on what humans program into them.
I don't know what you thought you read in all this rwill...my overarching point was simply having a poll system with a system approaching a playoff is going to continue to create dysfunction.
Unless we have one or the other...there will still be plenty of :bang:
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Offensive numbers are often skewed by competitive factors so I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in much statistical data at this stage of the season. That said, I, for one, won't be significantly surprised if the Aztecs win either. If the game were being played in San Diego, I would actually be tempted to pull the trigger for SDSU myself. It's just hard for me to visualize them coming into Ann Arbor and taking out the Wolverines. It's an extremely difficult environment for an opposing team. 10-point road dogs rarely win but it does occasionally happen so....good luck to you.
As far as your comments about Robinson, I would agree that he sometimes hurts his team with his bravado but to compare his physical talent to Lindley is absurd quite frankly. Are his overall QB skills better than Robinson's? Honestly, I don't know enough about him to make that judgement but I have seen Robinson do some pretty amazing things so it would be tough for me to imagine Lindley actually being superior to him. If Lindley leads his team to victory tomorrow, I'll gladly eat my words as I have no love lost for Michigan that's for sure.
What compels you to say that, t-rock? Air Force and Navy have been very competitive for quite some time....certainly playing at a D1 level on a consistent basis. In fact, over the past decade one could make a legitimate argument that Air Force has been been significantly better than Colorado....and yet the PAC-12 just added them to the conference. I think Air Force would make a nice addition to the Big 12 if Missouri does indeed leave.
some of the potential visions of the Big 12 are not far fetched anymore...wouldve been 10 years ago...but geography has been thrown out the window in favor of money. If certain schools are going to bring money to a conference cause of the market theyre in or the fan interest they produce, than any conference will take them. The Big East NEEDED TCU because they generate good publicity for the conference that has been pitiful for the last 5 years, there you go..geography thrown out the window. Its not inconcievable to see Air Force and Boise in the Big 12. The Pac 12 began the process of doing away with geography when they added mountain schools.
I'd like to see Boise join the Pac 12, but given that they only like to play one decent team per year, I doubt it'll happen.
As for the Big East, that conference was already suffering, even with the addition of TCU, and now that Pitt and Syracuse have abandoned ship, that conference is on the brink of collapse, so I'd like to see TCU jump to the SEC, but only if Texas A&M actually does leave the Big 12. Having TCU come along with A&M would cement the SEC presence in the Texas TV markets and give the SEC a round number of 14. Actually, I'd prefer neither one join the SEC, but it seems the super-conferences are inevitable, so it's probably pointless to fight it.
The Aztecs can certainly win this game. As far as the statistics being in San Diego State's favor, those don't mean much, cuz Michigan's played a tougher schedule. Notre Dame and Western are both better teams than anyone SDSU has played. SDSU lost two great receivers, Sampson and Brown, so asserting San Diego State has better receivers is making a big statement. That said, Lindley is a better quarterback as you said than Denard Robinson (though Robinson is clearly the better "football player"). And the Aztecs will have the best player in the game, RB Ronnie Hillman. But with the game in Ann Arbor, I have to give the advantage to UM.
- Status
Similar threads
