If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Blind resume test for the five NCAA BCS Championship contenders. I figured no one had been fighting over this for like, an hour, so what the heck, let's drag it back up again, right?   (mrsec.com) divider line 175
    More: Obvious, BCS, NCAA, BCS championship, Gus Malzahn, ACC Championship, Harris Poll, RPI, Southern Cal  
•       •       •

2089 clicks; posted to Sports » on 05 Dec 2013 at 8:42 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-05 08:03:35 AM
You know what people dont fight over? Who the NCAA basketball national champion is.
 
2013-12-05 08:04:57 AM

I_C_Weener: You know what people dont fight over? Who the NCAA basketball national champion is.


Who the Div III football champion is.

And any numbet of other championships decided as God intended.
 
2013-12-05 08:19:05 AM
Ahhh, December. When the sports tab turns into a mix of the politics tab and the entertainment tab, circa "Twilight"
 
2013-12-05 08:44:03 AM

I_C_Weener: I_C_Weener: You know what people dont fight over? Who the NCAA basketball national champion is.

Who the Div III football champion is.

And any numbet of other championships decided as God intended.


No one fights over the D1 champion either.
 
2013-12-05 08:44:27 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Ahhh, December. When the sports tab turns into a mix of the politics tab and the entertainment tab, circa "Twilight"


TEAM BCS PLAYOFFS
 
2013-12-05 09:06:30 AM
The four team playoff next year is a step in the right direction. A 12 team playoff would be the ideal format IMO.

Top four get a bye. 5-8 host 9-12 on campus.

1-4 host the winners on campus.

Semifinals and finals are held like bowls (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta...whatever).
 
2013-12-05 09:09:31 AM
Let's see...Auburn, Alabama and Missouri. SEC teams.

I'm betting at least one team will be an SEC team.

It's just pure coinkdinky that 4 of the top 5 programs are in the South. No corruption there.

/although I have to say Penn State and USC carry the weight for the rest of the nation in corruption
 
2013-12-05 09:10:40 AM
images.mmorpg.com
 
2013-12-05 09:15:40 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Let's see...Auburn, Alabama and Missouri. SEC teams.

I'm betting at least one team will be an SEC team.

It's just pure coinkdinky that 4 of the top 5 programs are in the South. No corruption there.

/although I have to say Penn State and USC carry the weight for the rest of the nation in corruption


Ding ding ding. Although, "mrsec.com" kinda gave it away.
 
2013-12-05 09:24:31 AM
Well if you can't trust MrSEC.com who can you trust?
 
2013-12-05 09:25:07 AM

Patronick313: The four team playoff next year is a step in the right direction. A 12 team playoff would be the ideal format IMO.

Top four get a bye. 5-8 host 9-12 on campus.

1-4 host the winners on campus.

Semifinals and finals are held like bowls (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta...whatever).


This has been a plan of mine, advocated in my profile until I stopped giving a shiat. I had a few more tweaks.
* Any major conference champion or unbeaten minor conference champion is an automatic bid.
* No more than two at-large bids to a conference.
* Most importantly: Only automatic bids can get a bye. So if you lose your conference championship game, you have to play an octofinal.
 
2013-12-05 09:32:27 AM
MrSUX
 
2013-12-05 09:38:08 AM
MrSEC.com, taking the 'blind' out of blind testing.
 
2013-12-05 09:42:28 AM
So it was written by an SEC blog... how many non-Missouri fans are actually surprised by Mizzou's stat line there?
 
2013-12-05 09:47:37 AM

RminusQ: Patronick313: The four team playoff next year is a step in the right direction. A 12 team playoff would be the ideal format IMO.

Top four get a bye. 5-8 host 9-12 on campus.

1-4 host the winners on campus.

Semifinals and finals are held like bowls (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta...whatever).

This has been a plan of mine, advocated in my profile until I stopped giving a shiat. I had a few more tweaks.
* Any major conference champion or unbeaten minor conference champion is an automatic bid.
* No more than two at-large bids to a conference.
* Most importantly: Only automatic bids can get a bye. So if you lose your conference championship game, you have to play an octofinal.


That's an important one (and as such would NEVER be in the actual system).  We're going to end up with a much better system but instead of biatching about which two teams should get in (and why one of them should automatically come from the SEC) we'll argue about who should get a first round bye and why 3 SEC teams should all have a first round bye... better, but we'll still get to biatch and moan.
 
2013-12-05 09:49:19 AM
I picked, from best to worst: C (Auburn), D (FSU), E (Missouri), B (Alabama), A (Ohio St.)

Turns out removing the names does make it clearer where Ohio St. belongs.  They just won't like the direction.
 
2013-12-05 09:50:21 AM
I see they have conviently left out the most important criteria, number of losses.
 
2013-12-05 09:51:20 AM

meanmutton: I see they have conviently left out the most important criteria, number of losses.

 
2013-12-05 09:53:04 AM
It's actually a very thoughtfully written article and I agree 100%.  If Auburn wins this week they should most def. be in the title game.
 
2013-12-05 09:59:23 AM

RminusQ: Patronick313: The four team playoff next year is a step in the right direction. A 12 team playoff would be the ideal format IMO.

Top four get a bye. 5-8 host 9-12 on campus.

1-4 host the winners on campus.

Semifinals and finals are held like bowls (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta...whatever).

This has been a plan of mine, advocated in my profile until I stopped giving a shiat. I had a few more tweaks.
* Any major conference champion or unbeaten minor conference champion is an automatic bid.
* No more than two at-large bids to a conference.
* Most importantly: Only automatic bids can get a bye. So if you lose your conference championship game, you have to play an octofinal.


I hate the idea of teams which come in as far down as 3rd in their conference getting a shot at the national championship while you're excluding teams which have won their conference title.

Also, what will this do?  You're still going to have arguments because it's still using the same flawed, inherently subjective system.
 
2013-12-05 10:00:49 AM

BiffDangler: It's actually a very thoughtfully written article and I agree 100%.  If Auburn wins this week they should most def. be in the title game.


It's a rationalization that excludes the single most important reason why Auburn doesn't deserve to be in that game.
 
2013-12-05 10:03:57 AM

meanmutton: BiffDangler: It's actually a very thoughtfully written article and I agree 100%.  If Auburn wins this week they should most def. be in the title game.

It's a rationalization that excludes the single most important reason why Auburn doesn't deserve to be in that game.


A loss isn't a loss if it happens in the SEC or something....
 
2013-12-05 10:06:44 AM

meanmutton: It's a rationalization that excludes the single most important reason why Auburn doesn't deserve to be in that game.


Yes, they made the mistake of playing more than two top 50 teams in the course of the season.
 
2013-12-05 10:11:19 AM
Based on the information give, I'm leaning toward C and D. But I already know who D is.
 
2013-12-05 10:14:16 AM
Hopefully that will change with college football going to a new playoff system in which teams will be selected by a panel of experts

"Experts" like Condoleeza Rice, for example.
 
2013-12-05 10:18:01 AM
They forgot 'number of losses'. Which, since two of the five have zero losses, renders every bit of the rest of that meaningless.
 
2013-12-05 10:23:44 AM
8 teams.  SEC, Big #, Pac 12 and ACC conference winners + 3 wildcards, chosen with the BCS formula, max 1 wildcard per conference.  Seed by BCS standings.

For 2012, that would give:
(1) Notre Dame*
(2) Alabama
(3) Florida*
(4) Oregon*
(5) Kansas St
(6) Stanford
(12) FSU
(NR) Wisconsin

2011:
(1) LSU
(2) Alabama*
(3) Oklahoma St
(4) Stanford*
(5) Oregon
(7) Boise St.*
(10) Wisconsin
(15) Clemson

2010:
(1) Auburn
(2) Oregon
(3) TCU*
(4) Stanford*
(5) Wisconsin*
(6) Ohio St
(7) Oklahoma
(13) VT

Make it longer than 3 rounds and you're increasing the likelihood of injury to a player on a team that's actually a championship contender in a game against a team that really has no business being in the bracket.  Even as it is, some of these teams aren't serious contenders (2012 Wisconsin, I'm looking at you)
 
2013-12-05 10:27:07 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Let's see...Auburn, Alabama and Missouri. SEC teams.

I'm betting at least one team will be an SEC team.

It's just pure coinkdinky that 4 of the top 5 programs are in the South. No corruption there.

/although I have to say Penn State and USC carry the weight for the rest of the nation in corruption


So...you disagree with reality? Can you provide some stats for other teams not considered in TFA ?
 
2013-12-05 10:28:21 AM

meanmutton: I hate the idea of teams which come in as far down as 3rd in their conference getting a shot at the national championship while you're excluding teams which have won their conference title.

Also, what will this do?  You're still going to have arguments because it's still using the same flawed, inherently subjective system.


Someone in an earlier thread proposed a system that gives a playoff spot to every conference champion and then nothing to anyone else.  Give the current AQ conference champions byes in the first round.  Everyone gets a shot, but if you lose enough to miss your conference championship, you're done.

This doesn't  quite fix everything, since there are still some subjective elements that go into how conference championship games are set up.  (For some reason, C-USA uses the BCS rankings to determine who goes to the championship game, but that doesn't work well when no teams are in the rankings, but your own coach can vote for you in the poll to boost your chances.)  It's still a good system, though.

My favorite part?  Screw Notre Dame!
 
2013-12-05 10:29:00 AM
They seem to have forgotten a very important stat, winning percentage
 
2013-12-05 10:29:28 AM

Fizpez: RminusQ: Patronick313: The four team playoff next year is a step in the right direction. A 12 team playoff would be the ideal format IMO.

Top four get a bye. 5-8 host 9-12 on campus.

1-4 host the winners on campus.

Semifinals and finals are held like bowls (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta...whatever).

This has been a plan of mine, advocated in my profile until I stopped giving a shiat. I had a few more tweaks.
* Any major conference champion or unbeaten minor conference champion is an automatic bid.
* No more than two at-large bids to a conference.
* Most importantly: Only automatic bids can get a bye. So if you lose your conference championship game, you have to play an octofinal.

That's an important one (and as such would NEVER be in the actual system).  We're going to end up with a much better system but instead of biatching about which two teams should get in (and why one of them should automatically come from the SEC) we'll argue about who should get a first round bye and why 3 SEC teams should all have a first round bye... better, but we'll still get to biatch and moan.


I think if you want automatic bids you have to go more than 12 teams. I just want the best 12 teams in the country, I don't care if they're all Pac-12. 12 best teams fighting it out for the title. The 13th best team has a lot less to gripe about the a 5th place team would under the current system. 

/I do agree any minor conference unbeaten gets in, though.
 
2013-12-05 10:32:25 AM

NetOwl: meanmutton: I hate the idea of teams which come in as far down as 3rd in their conference getting a shot at the national championship while you're excluding teams which have won their conference title.

Also, what will this do?  You're still going to have arguments because it's still using the same flawed, inherently subjective system.

Someone in an earlier thread proposed a system that gives a playoff spot to every conference champion and then nothing to anyone else.  Give the current AQ conference champions byes in the first round.  Everyone gets a shot, but if you lose enough to miss your conference championship, you're done.

This doesn't  quite fix everything, since there are still some subjective elements that go into how conference championship games are set up.  (For some reason, C-USA uses the BCS rankings to determine who goes to the championship game, but that doesn't work well when no teams are in the rankings, but your own coach can vote for you in the poll to boost your chances.)  It's still a good system, though.

My favorite part?  Screw Notre Dame!


(that was my idea and I'm happy that you like it)
 
2013-12-05 10:48:38 AM
Team F

Opp. Win Percentage- .6738
Total margin of victory- 204
Margin of victory per game- 17
Current BCS top 25- 6
Top 25 at time- 5
Top 50 BCS- 7
Sub 75 BCS- 5

That's right, your 6-6 Mississippi State Bulldogs should be playing for the national championship. They played 6 top 25 BCS schools... sure they lost them all, but that's beside the point, however they did beat #37 ranked Bowling Green by 1 point. But they beat the crap out of Troy and Alcorn State to pump up their margin of victory stats.
 
2013-12-05 10:55:24 AM
Why did the Blind stop?
 
2013-12-05 11:00:11 AM
Huh, Alabama's resume looks surprisingly weak when put into that context.

It appears that I got a Mizzou/FSU title game using their methodology (which, as others have pointed out, is flawed).  That sounds about right.
 
2013-12-05 11:06:44 AM
The only fair way to determine a champion is a 16 team double elimination format
 
2013-12-05 11:10:35 AM

I_C_Weener: You know what people dont fight over? Who the NCAA basketball national champion is.


No one argues over who the BCS Champion either - the rules are pretty clear, and a champion is outright crowned ever year.  Both methods are terrible at determining the best team that year.
 
2013-12-05 11:11:16 AM

RminusQ: Patronick313: The four team playoff next year is a step in the right direction. A 12 team playoff would be the ideal format IMO.

Top four get a bye. 5-8 host 9-12 on campus.

1-4 host the winners on campus.

Semifinals and finals are held like bowls (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta...whatever).

This has been a plan of mine, advocated in my profile until I stopped giving a shiat. I had a few more tweaks.
* Any major conference champion or unbeaten minor conference champion is an automatic bid.
* No more than two at-large bids to a conference.
* Most importantly: Only automatic bids can get a bye. So if you lose your conference championship game, you have to play an octofinal.


Yeah but that like makes sense and stuff man. The conference commissioner dudes will not abide.
 
2013-12-05 11:24:45 AM
According to this guy, lowly Ohio State is #6, behind 2 SEC teams!
http://minkeynet.net/~pfleming/fcfcr/tfs30-fbs.out
 
2013-12-05 11:35:18 AM

Ponzholio: Team F

Opp. Win Percentage- .6738
Total margin of victory- 204
Margin of victory per game- 17
Current BCS top 25- 6
Top 25 at time- 5
Top 50 BCS- 7
Sub 75 BCS- 5

That's right, your 6-6 Mississippi State Bulldogs should be playing for the national championship. They played 6 top 25 BCS schools... sure they lost them all, but that's beside the point, however they did beat #37 ranked Bowling Green by 1 point. But they beat the crap out of Troy and Alcorn State to pump up their margin of victory stats.


You win this thread.
 
2013-12-05 11:39:09 AM

SmackLT: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Ahhh, December. When the sports tab turns into a mix of the politics tab and the entertainment tab, circa "Twilight"

TEAM BCS PLAYOFFS


TEAM THIRD WAY -  BOWLS SHOULD RETAIN TRADITIONAL INTER-CONFERENCE MATCHUPS WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF THERE NOT BEING A CONSENSUS NATIONAL CHAMPION - LET THE VOTERS DECIDE
 
2013-12-05 11:43:58 AM

mikaloyd: The only fair way to determine a champion is a 16 team double elimination format


No, that leaves too much room for flukes.  The only fair way is a 16 team tournament made of seven game home-and-away series like the NBA has.  That format takes lucky flukes out of the equation except with regard to injuries.  It also has the bonus of allowing the casual fan to ignore the regular season and the playoffs and just tune in for games 4 through 7 of the finals.  If they do it my way, nobody will have to sit around speculating what might happen or listening to talk shows or any of that angst... we can be sure it will be settled on the field and just skip over all the drama. It would be just exactly like every other sport. Wouldn't that be great without all the suspense and excitement?  Mmmm mmm good like a bowl of plain white rice with nothing on it, not even butter or salt.  Delicious!  More please!
 
2013-12-05 11:57:30 AM
16 team playoff with every conference winner in it.
 
2013-12-05 11:59:30 AM

Ponzholio: Team F

Opp. Win Percentage- .6738
Total margin of victory- 204
Margin of victory per game- 17
Current BCS top 25- 6
Top 25 at time- 5
Top 50 BCS- 7
Sub 75 BCS- 5

That's right, your 6-6 Mississippi State Bulldogs should be playing for the national championship. They played 6 top 25 BCS schools... sure they lost them all, but that's beside the point, however they did beat #37 ranked Bowling Green by 1 point. But they beat the crap out of Troy and Alcorn State to pump up their margin of victory stats.


Where did you get your data?  I tried to do the same thing (finding any ridiculous team)
 
2013-12-05 12:08:09 PM

satanorsanta: Ponzholio: Team F

Opp. Win Percentage- .6738
Total margin of victory- 204
Margin of victory per game- 17
Current BCS top 25- 6
Top 25 at time- 5
Top 50 BCS- 7
Sub 75 BCS- 5

That's right, your 6-6 Mississippi State Bulldogs should be playing for the national championship. They played 6 top 25 BCS schools... sure they lost them all, but that's beside the point, however they did beat #37 ranked Bowling Green by 1 point. But they beat the crap out of Troy and Alcorn State to pump up their margin of victory stats.

Where did you get your data?  I tried to do the same thing (finding any ridiculous team)


http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/344/mississippi-state- bu lldogs
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings/bcs ,

And some scratch paper and my trusty TI-85 calculator.
 
2013-12-05 12:13:54 PM

Khellendros: I_C_Weener: You know what people dont fight over? Who the NCAA basketball national champion is.

No one argues over who the BCS Champion either - the rules are pretty clear, and a champion is outright crowned ever year.  Both methods are terrible at determining the best team that year.


Haven't they had split national champs like 12 times?
 
2013-12-05 12:14:18 PM

Mid_mo_mad_man: 16 team playoff with every conference winner in it.


Uh no.  Some four loss, mid-conference champion has no business being in a bracket to determine the national championship.  Using a regional and monetary designation (conference) to show who's the best is, at best, arbitrary.  The current system is actually better than that, and our current system is awful.

A mix of simple statistical models and human ranking (more weighed on the former) to create a small elite group of 6 or 8 teams to play for it all is the way to go, if your goal is to actually determine the best team.  I've never seen a team ranked 13th or 14th by any poll or composite model that had a regular season that demonstrated that they deserve to be in a playoff for a national championship.  And I've seen way too many 3 and 4 loss conference winners that should be playing in the Chewy's IceCream and BBQ Bowl, not for the trophy.

Keep it small, simple, and limited to elite teams that had stellar regular seasons against quality opponents.
 
2013-12-05 12:18:41 PM

asimplescribe: Khellendros: I_C_Weener: You know what people dont fight over? Who the NCAA basketball national champion is.

No one argues over who the BCS Champion either - the rules are pretty clear, and a champion is outright crowned ever year.  Both methods are terrible at determining the best team that year.

Haven't they had split national champs like 12 times?


Not since they instituted a single championship game in 1998.  Before that, there was no BCS champion, just half a dozen polls and newspapers that chose their own champion.
 
2013-12-05 12:24:08 PM

Khellendros: Mid_mo_mad_man: 16 team playoff with every conference winner in it.

Uh no.  Some four loss, mid-conference champion has no business being in a bracket to determine the national championship.  Using a regional and monetary designation (conference) to show who's the best is, at best, arbitrary.  The current system is actually better than that, and our current system is awful.

A mix of simple statistical models and human ranking (more weighed on the former) to create a small elite group of 6 or 8 teams to play for it all is the way to go, if your goal is to actually determine the best team.  I've never seen a team ranked 13th or 14th by any poll or composite model that had a regular season that demonstrated that they deserve to be in a playoff for a national championship.  And I've seen way too many 3 and 4 loss conference winners that should be playing in the Chewy's IceCream and BBQ Bowl, not for the trophy.

Keep it small, simple, and limited to elite teams that had stellar regular seasons against quality opponents.





Every conference needs at least one team. It isn't the lower conference teams fault they can't play better teams. It's the power conference teams fault. If your even remotely good you won't get a game. March Madness is great because of everyone having a title chance. Football would improve with the same thing.
 
2013-12-05 12:31:45 PM

I_C_Weener: You know what people dont fight over? Who the NCAA basketball national champion is.


They argue every year about why some lesser teams get in that played nobody's but another big conference team gets left out with a better SOS.

And nobody gives a rats ass about lesser football divisions, even most of their stadiums are half empty.

That being said, if UGA had kept winning then Mizzou would have had their signature win but fark that, they're too new to fake advantage of the SEC power!
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report