Topic: What the hell happend!!!!

[STEPHENS24]

????????

[marshallz13]

I'm at a loss!

[herdadreh]

Pardon me, but WHAT THE FARG???????????????

Bill Clinton said, that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Conference USA said, who hosts depends on what WE determine the meaning of the term "BCS Rankings" is.

I mean, is this a load of horse$#!+ or what? Does this make sense to anyone? "everyone knows" what the BCS rankings are, but NOOOOOOOOO, we meant these other contrived rankings that are not the actual BCS rankings, but we are going to call them the BCS rankings.

I mean, come on. Seriously? What am I missing here?

I am quite good at math. Someone explain me the unsuitability, from CUSA's perspective, of what the rest of the world knows as the BCS Rankings for use as the , errrr, for lack of a better term, BCS Rankings.

The only thing I can figure is CUSA figures (has knowledge maybe, I dunno) we solicited votes so they decided to change the formula. Horse$#!+. People vote based on their own reasons, good or bad or influenced or not. Tough crap.

[ijw]

Tonight, the cusa higher ups decided that the BCS formula that is applied to all the schools past the top 25 is not really the BCS. 

[whf]

I am as disappointed as anyone on here about the results, but I got to believe C-USA was hoping and praying we'd come out on top of this process.  Remember, this game is a national TV game where the conference is hoping to hype the two teams AND the whole conference. They've got to be crapping in their pants about the expected turn out in Houston for this game.  Maybe Rice will surprise us and get 20K for the game.  At this point we should be hoping for a LOW turnout; we don't need to add actual fan advantage for them.

[_sturt_]

Ummmm... maybe karma?

Lesson learned, guys?!?

Truth is, I was persuaded, too... but the deeper truth is... even knowing it's split 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3... there's still a question of how the formula accounts for differences in the rankings... not knowing that, it's plausible that a higher computer ranking difference of, say, 5 slots, is still more substantial than a difference of 20 slots in either or both polls.

[sleeinwv]

This is (bleep)....final BCS standings are on cbs sports and we are ranked higher.

[ShawHerd]

The computer rankings was grossly in favor of Rice to the point that it overcame the other two polls. It obviously was not weighted evenly between the three ranking polls.

http://www.conferenceusa.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/120113aac.html

[herd2win]

Complete garbage....how in the world can the rules be changed at the last minute?

[The E-Man]

Ummmm... maybe karma?

Lesson learned, guys?!?

Truth is, I was persuaded, too... but the deeper truth is... even knowing it's split 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3... there's still a question of how the formula accounts for differences in the rankings... not knowing that, it's plausible that a higher computer ranking difference of, say, 5 slots, is still more substantial than a difference of 20 slots in either or both polls.

Karma for what? _sturt_, I like you, but this is not the time and place for that intellectual bullsh*t you are laying down. We just got fu*cked!

[_sturt_]

Ummmm... maybe karma?

Lesson learned, guys?!?

Truth is, I was persuaded, too... but the deeper truth is... even knowing it's split 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3... there's still a question of how the formula accounts for differences in the rankings... not knowing that, it's plausible that a higher computer ranking difference of, say, 5 slots, is still more substantial than a difference of 20 slots in either or both polls.

Like I said...

http://www.conferenceusa.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/120113aac.html

[Banshee]

I tend to agree that CUSA smelled a rat w/ MU jumping sooo much by killing ECU.  said Palm. "It doesn't match the formula I use for my ratings on CBSSports.com, which serve a different purpose, but I believe it was absolutely appropriate and fair." Damned odd wording to me.  It's good enough for the entire BCS formula, but needed to be changed for determining the site of our game.  Curious to say the least.  Not to be forgotten, CUSA HQ is in Texas....

[_sturt_]

Karma for what? _sturt_, I like you, but this is not the time and place for that intellectual bullsh*t you are laying down. We just got fu*cked!

E-man, I suppose I should've clarified that the reference is to my caution this morning when STEPHENS24 posted a thread titled "SEE YOU SATURDAY AT THE JOAN!!!"...

Ya know, I hated to be right about this one... in fact, I was wrong along with everyone else after I was right... but regardless... it's just another reminder to not get ahead of ourselves and assume stuff that can't really be assumed.

[The E-Man]

I tend to agree that CUSA smelled a rat w/ MU jumping sooo much by killing ECU.  said Palm. "It doesn't match the formula I use for my ratings on CBSSports.com, which serve a different purpose, but I believe it was absolutely appropriate and fair." Damned odd wording to me.  It's good enough for the entire BCS formula, but needed to be changed for determining the site of our game.  Curious to say the least.  Not to be forgotten, CUSA HQ is in Texas....

Who's to say, someone is getting some money under the table? We are talking about Texas home of the quick draw.

[svherd]

This is why the NCAA is phasing out computers in these type situations. Computers are worthless I determining the best teams. The human element is the only way to determine which team is better. Idiots are CUSA!

[_sturt_]

I tend to agree that CUSA smelled a rat w/ MU jumping sooo much by killing ECU.  said Palm. "It doesn't match the formula I use for my ratings on CBSSports.com, which serve a different purpose, but I believe it was absolutely appropriate and fair." Damned odd wording to me.  It's good enough for the entire BCS formula, but needed to be changed for determining the site of our game.  Curious to say the least.  Not to be forgotten, CUSA HQ is in Texas....

OH, PLEEEZE.

Don't start this conspiracy stuff. Makes all of us Herd fans seem like a bunch of Capricorn One idiots.

[greenblazes]

This tie breaker is very odd and so is that press release with quite from Palm. I don't understand how they can use bcs rankings if there really aren't "official" bcs rankings for teams past 25. I've tried for an hour to do math and my head hurts.

Instead of engaging in this Mickey Mouse BS, they should just flip a damn coin.

[_sturt_]

A big part of the reason I was questioning the "See you in The Joan" conclusion this morning is that it's always been out there that no one actually has been able to 100% crack the BCS calculation, and the BCS gods made a point to not publicize the calculation ever since it began.

Palm's calculation is one of those attempts to crack it, and evidently he's been close enough previously to its results that CBS picked up on it. But one would assume that as you look lower and lower in his rankings, any flaws in his calculation in comparison to the real deal are going to be more glaring.

[Olen]

A big part of the reason I was questioning the "See you in The Joan" conclusion this morning is that it's always been out there that no one actually has been able to 100% crack the BCS calculation, and the BCS gods made a point to not publicize the calculation ever since it began.

Palm's calculation is one of those attempts to crack it, and evidently he's been close enough previously to its results that CBS picked up on it. But one would assume that as you look lower and lower in his rankings, any flaws in his calculation in comparison to the real deal are going to be more glaring.

CUSA didn't use the BCS formula -- when it expanded the computer rating calculation from a base 25 (positions 1-25) to a base of 125 (positions 1-125), and it didn't adjust the human polls accordingly, which are based only on base 25 positions, then the computers were over-weighted, and did not follow the 1/3-1/3/-1/3 breakdown (Coaches/Harris/Computer Average).  This "adjustment" was not known until 9 pm this evening.  To say that the "BCS rating" will settle the home field tie-breaker was inaccurate (or deceptive).

It is what it is -- MU must go to Houston and club the Owls.

[phillyherdfan]

What I can't figure out is the relative weighing between the 3 elements (Harris, coaches, computer polls).  Why are the computer polls so heavily weighted... Enough to overcome two goose eggs for Rice and why each one is weighted at .00xx for ours.

Anyone have any insight, or is this the mystical BCS calculation BS?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[_sturt_]

CUSA didn't use the BCS formula -- when it expanded the computer rating calculation from a base 25 (positions 1-25) to a base of 125 (positions 1-125), and it didn't adjust the human polls accordingly, which are based only on base 25 positions, then the computers were over-weighted, and did not follow the 1/3-1/3/-1/3 breakdown (Coaches/Harris/Computer Average).  This "adjustment" was not known until 9 pm this evening.  To say that the "BCS rating" will settle the home field tie-breaker was inaccurate (or deceptive).

It is what it is -- MU must go to Houston and club the Owls.

Olen, at the risk of seeming argumentative to some (... I know you know better... )... on what are you basing your conclusion of this "adjustment" you're citing? The press release makes no such assertion... it says that the same calculation for 1-25 was extended... and, that Hancock affirmed the numbers provided.

[_sturt_]

What I can't figure out is the relative weighing between the 3 elements (Harris, coaches, computer polls).  Why are the computer polls so heavily weighted... Enough to overcome two goose eggs for Rice and why each one is weighted at .00xx for ours.

Anyone have any insight, or is this the mystical BCS calculation BS?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You want a serious attempt? I'll give it a try... but it's just a try... that is, the human poll numbers might be the percentage of votes cast for us divided by the total number of votes cast. In the big picture, our share of votes is not all that different from Rice's.

And even then... how do you translate that number to one that is standardized to constitute 1/3 of the whole?

It's clearly a more complicated thing to work out than simply saying 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3.

[phillyherdfan]

You want a serious attempt? I'll give it a try... but it's just a try... that is, the human poll numbers might be the percentage of votes cast for us divided by the total number of votes cast. In the big picture, our share of votes is not all that different from Rice's.

And even then... how do you translate that number to one that is standardized to constitute 1/3 of the whole?

It's clearly a more complicated thing to work out than simply saying 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3.

That is exactly it Stuart.  Found a great link here that breaks down the calculation.
http://statsinthewild.com/ncaa-football-2/bcs-review/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Olen]

Olen, at the risk of seeming argumentative to some (... I know you know better... )... on what are you basing your conclusion of this "adjustment" you're citing? The press release makes no such assertion... it says that the same calculation for 1-25 was extended... and, that Hancock affirmed the numbers provided.

My eyes are crossed from looking at this stuff - I may get back at it tomorrow (or may just drop it since there is nothing to be done now but get ready for Rice in Houston), but here is what the explanation states:

COMPUTER RANKINGS (Based on 125 teams, highest & lowest dropped)   Total   % of 500 pts

The calculation was based on 125 (and not 25).

Hope that makes sense.

[Olen]

The weighting is catty-wampus - MU was 29th out of 125 in the Coaches Poll, and 31st out of 125 in the Harris Poll, and probably mid-60s on the computer average, Rice was shut out of both polls and had a 52/125 computer average, but based on CUSA's formula, Rice rates higher than Marshall.  It doesn't add up.

See the problems?  The retort is that the coaches and Harris polls don't rank each position 1-125, while the computers do -- but that is the big problem, there is not a one-to-one correlation, and therefore the weighting is thrown off.  MU's 29th and 31st positions out distances Rice's best computer ratings by at least 12-15 positions (I think), yet Rice's computer ratings accounted for more. 

Screwy.