I would be complaining... If you are not the best team in your conference you don't get the right to try and claim best team in the country.
See Nebraska vs Miami...
George Wine
- Thread starter DesertClone1
- Start date
I would be complaining... If you are not the best team in your conference you don't get the right to try and claim best team in the country.
See Nebraska vs Miami...
I was going to same something about how you're letting your biases dictate what you think. Then I saw you already did it for me. :smile:
Fact: nobody likes the FBS championship selection system. Fact: it's not going to change, at least not dramatically, and not anytime soon.
You want fairness?
1. Eliminate all conferences
2. Randomly select 12 FBS-only opponents for all 120 teams.
3. Play ALL games at randomly selected neutral sites
4. Eliminate all bowls.
5. Take the 8 teams with the best winning record for the playoffs. Ties decided by a coin flip.
5. Play an 8 team, 3 week playoff at the end of the season.
Then you have your champion, fair and square. And a thoroughly horrible college football season.
This is true.
Keep in mind that Wine was/is a Hayden Fry boot licker. The greatest buffoon in the college athletic SID scene was always more than happy to run ISU down even when we weren't playing them. It was Wine and his lackey Phil Haddy that released Troy Davis' Wonderlic test result to the Iowa media during a game at Kinnick which wasn't against ISU. Just another reason to hate on the Hawkeyes...
Unfortunately, the guy gets to vote for some reason.
Pretty sure he fathered Jon Miller.
Murphy giving him hell on his radio show. Good on ya Keith...
Last edited:
I don't think that's correct. Even if OKSt's BCS score was higher than Alabama's, they'd move from the Fiesta Bowl to the National Championship Game. You can't assume that KSU would have been selected to the Fiesta (certainly not over Bama) as a result. The Big 12 still only gets 1 team into the BCS.
So the payout difference would be (NCG payout) - (Fiesta payout) / 10 teams = ISU's share.
Blame the other BCS bowls, or KSU for not being as popular as Michigan, for that.
There is no difference for being in the NC game versus a BCS bowl. Money isn't the big issue here. It is the overhype of the SEC. Put 2 SEC teams in the NC game so the SEC has to win the NC again. The best thing we can hope for is for Bama to win a squeaker in another 9-6 game. And Okie State to blow out Stanford. A split championship could be the result.
Thanks for the clarification...I wasn't sure. That means there's no revenue loss to ISU, as cycfan1 suggested.
I think a split championship is unlikely, whatever the results. If ALL the teams were undefeated, or had one loss, then that might be possible. But if Bama avenges its only loss of the season, they're the champs. If OKSt. couldn't convince enough voters to elevate them to #2 at the end of the regular season, no win over Stanford (no matter how large) would push them over Bama in the polls. They'd be #2.
Paternity test?
- You are.......the father!
-- Oh hell no, to Jon Miller? (Maury Show)
I've long been an advocate for more emphasis on the computer rankings, you can clearly tell from the computer rankings what kind of bias there is from human voters. Computers have no bias, one of the worst instances is how losing in the final weeks hurts much more than it does if you lose early.
If Oklahoma State loses in the first week of Big 12 play to Iowa State, they drop down to 6-7 spot like they did. But, they win out the rest of their games while others ahead of them lose later, including Alabama; where does Oklahoma State end up? Likely a #2 spot, as if Oklahoma State is #3 when Alabama loses then voters say Oklahoma State is the better team because the Alabama loss is fresher in their minds. Voters have a bias on when you lose, among other biases.
Computer rankings don't care when you lose, they are always looking at your entire resume, the entire season and that is what the National Championship is supposed too be; the two best teams from the entire season.
Do you still need a human input? Probably, trusting a complete computer formula will probably have a few years where it gets you into trouble due to circumstances the computers can't see (human element). So you keep a portion human element, but 2/3rds is just too much. Proposed solution:
1/3rd Computer Rankings -- same computer formula's as current system
1/3rd Computer Rankings -- computer algorithms that take into account margin of victory & other details that current ones do not
1/3rd Human Voters -- not sure if Coaches or Harris, or perhaps an average between the Harris, Coaches & AP would be best suited here to let everything average out a bit more (more voters less likely a coo that hurts a team more than it should)
If Oklahoma State loses in the first week of Big 12 play to Iowa State, they drop down to 6-7 spot like they did. But, they win out the rest of their games while others ahead of them lose later, including Alabama; where does Oklahoma State end up? Likely a #2 spot, as if Oklahoma State is #3 when Alabama loses then voters say Oklahoma State is the better team because the Alabama loss is fresher in their minds. Voters have a bias on when you lose, among other biases.
Computer rankings don't care when you lose, they are always looking at your entire resume, the entire season and that is what the National Championship is supposed too be; the two best teams from the entire season.
Do you still need a human input? Probably, trusting a complete computer formula will probably have a few years where it gets you into trouble due to circumstances the computers can't see (human element). So you keep a portion human element, but 2/3rds is just too much. Proposed solution:
1/3rd Computer Rankings -- same computer formula's as current system
1/3rd Computer Rankings -- computer algorithms that take into account margin of victory & other details that current ones do not
1/3rd Human Voters -- not sure if Coaches or Harris, or perhaps an average between the Harris, Coaches & AP would be best suited here to let everything average out a bit more (more voters less likely a coo that hurts a team more than it should)
I was not able to listen. What did Gottlieb and Murphy say specifically?
Have there been any follow up comments from this wine idiot?
I would disagree. Anything possible. Those in the SEC Lovefest could end up splitting their votes between Bama and LSU since LSU HAS already beaten Bama @ Bama. A Squeaker between those teams and a blowout of #4 Stanford might be the impetus needed to propel Okie State to getting more votes. It seemed like there were a LOT of SEC ties to voters in all the polls. Doesn't seem like equal numbers from each voting segment.
