Jump to content
IGNORED

If there ever was a year where College football needed a playoff format, this could be that year... The BCS is broken.


Beachcomber
Note: This thread is 4133 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Originally Posted by dsc123

I agree with you except for ND.  They played a harder schedule than Bama, Kstate, and Oregon and didn't take the #1 spot until they all lost.

Nope. Sagarin strength of schedule rankings have ND at 21, behind Bama (19) and K State (14).

Tyler Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by dsc123

I dont know that you're right about that.  That doesn't happen in any other sport.  You don't see the Tampa Bay Rays fans complaining that they got screwed out of the playoffs and that they deserve to be there.  They won 90 games.  They are really talented.  But they didn't win as many games as the other teams.  There's no debate.  Only college football.

College football is really unique in that its really the only sport that "best" team isn't simply determined by your record.  Its really record plus public opinion of your team's talent.  In every other sport, you play your games and at the end of the year, the teams with the most wins get in.  But in college football, due mostly to historical quirks, that's not what we have.  I think that's fine, actually, but if we're going to have a playoff, why are we preserving this strange win-plus approach? Ditch the polls and do it like everybody else.

My proposal kept (but minimized) the polls.  I would actually get rid of them completely.  Maybe expand to 8 and give some of the lesser conferences automatic bids.  That would do a lot for parity.  Teams in the Mountain West would send a team to the playoffs each year.  They only have to be the best in that conference, and go on a run in the playoffs, to win the championship.

It's impossible to compare college and pro sports. In the MLB, there is considerably more parity, more games (reduces the impact of fluke games), and far fewer teams. In college football, there are (currently) 124 FBS programs (not to mention all the FCS schools). That means, at best, a given team could play 10% of the teams in FBS. Not apples to apples at all.

That's why it's impossible to determine the "best" team by record alone.

Tyler Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

Nope. Sagarin strength of schedule rankings have ND at 21, behind Bama (19) and K State (14).

I guess its subjective, but prior to the championship games, I think it was true.  There was an article on yahoo that broke it down, which I posted earlier. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--sec-rout-of-notre-dame-far-from-guaranteed-205348035.html

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by dsc123

I guess its subjective, but prior to the championship games, I think it was true.  There was an article on yahoo that broke it down, which I posted earlier.  http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--sec-rout-of-notre-dame-far-from-guaranteed-205348035.html

I'm going by end of the year rankings. And I would take whatever Pat Forde says with a very small grain of salt. He also says in the article that he "doesn't foresee a blowout".

Tyler Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

I'm going by end of the year rankings. And I would take whatever Pat Forde says with a very small grain of salt. He also says in the article that he "doesn't foresee a blowout".

That's what we call an ad-hominem attack.  Its a logical fallacy because the identity of the author is not indicative of whether the statements are true.

For example, I shouldn't discrediting everything you say just because of your LSU avatar.  Just because you're an LSU fan doesn't mean that you're going to tout the superiority of the SEC over everyone else right?  I mean, you're proabably a smart guy.  You recognize that half the SEC sucked this year and that LSU lost a bowl game to the ACC and Florida lost to a Big East team, and that most of LSU's wins came against the likes of Idaho, North Texas, Washington, Towson, and SEC teams having bad years.  If I were to make an ad-hominem attack, I might say that nothing you say is of any value because the only way you can justify LSU being ranked 14, despite being what, 3-3 against teams that aren't terrible, would be to pump up the idea of SEC Superiority.

But that wouldn't be fair, and it wouldn't have any relevance to whether the Pat Forde article makes sense, so I don't say those things.

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by dsc123

That's what we call an ad-hominem attack.  Its a logical fallacy because the identity of the author is not indicative of whether the statements are true.

For example, I shouldn't discrediting everything you say just because of your LSU avatar.  Just because you're an LSU fan doesn't mean that you're going to tout the superiority of the SEC over everyone else right?  I mean, you're proabably a smart guy.  You recognize that half the SEC sucked this year and that LSU lost a bowl game to the ACC and Florida lost to a Big East team, and that most of LSU's wins came against the likes of Idaho, North Texas, Washington, Towson, and SEC teams having bad years.  If I were to make an ad-hominem attack, I might say that nothing you say is of any value because the only way you can justify LSU being ranked 14, despite being what, 3-3 against teams that aren't terrible, would be to pump up the idea of SEC Superiority.

But that wouldn't be fair, and it wouldn't have any relevance to whether the Pat Forde article makes sense, so I don't say those things.

Not exactly an ad hominem argument. My comments were based on his statements (both in that article and in the past), not his character or actions. A better example of an ad hominem argument would be the one that you spelled out against me, in that you would attempt to discredit me based on my fan allegiances, rather than my statements. Or if I said "Don't believe what Pat Forde says, he went to Missouri."

In the interest of full disclosure, I do believe that the SEC is the premier football conference, and has been for the past 7 years. I am a graduate of LSU, and a die-hard fan. However, I'm perfectly capable of removing my purple-and-gold glasses and seeing the college football landscape as others see it. Hence the lack of pro-LSU or pro-SEC comments from me.

Tyler Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by dsc123

That's what we call an ad-hominem attack.  Its a logical fallacy because the identity of the author is not indicative of whether the statements are true.

For example, I shouldn't discrediting everything you say just because of your LSU avatar.  Just because you're an LSU fan doesn't mean that you're going to tout the superiority of the SEC over everyone else right?  I mean, you're proabably a smart guy.  You recognize that half the SEC sucked this year and that LSU lost a bowl game to the ACC and Florida lost to a Big East team, and that most of LSU's wins came against the likes of Idaho, North Texas, Washington, Towson, and SEC teams having bad years.  If I were to make an ad-hominem attack, I might say that nothing you say is of any value because the only way you can justify LSU being ranked 14, despite being what, 3-3 against teams that aren't terrible, would be to pump up the idea of SEC Superiority.

But that wouldn't be fair, and it wouldn't have any relevance to whether the Pat Forde article makes sense, so I don't say those things.

But the gist of the article isn't facts ... it's his very loose interpretation of them.  For example:

"Ninth-best opponent: Notre Dame hosted Pittsburgh (66th) and won by three in triple overtime. Alabama hosted Western Kentucky (82nd) and won by 35. Georgia visited Kentucky (92nd) and won by five. Most impressive of the three: Notre Dame."

Seriously?  Beating the 66th best team in the country in triple overtime is more impressive than beating the 82nd best team by 5 touchdowns?  Seriously?  How do you come to that conclusion?  Nevermind the fact that he's basing his entire argument on margin of victory.  And there are several close ones that he gives to Notre Dame.  ND beat #113 by 38, Ala beat #127 by 33, and Ga beat #127 by 36, and he conveniently gives the edge there to ND as well.  Why?

This is false advertising.  It's clearly an opinion piece, but it's disguised to look like a scientific argument.  And then you factor in what actually happened on Monday, and it kinda blows Forde's argument out of the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

But the gist of the article isn't facts ... it's his very loose interpretation of them.  For example:

"Ninth-best opponent: Notre Dame hosted Pittsburgh (66th) and won by three in triple overtime. Alabama hosted Western Kentucky (82nd) and won by 35. Georgia visited Kentucky (92nd) and won by five. Most impressive of the three: Notre Dame."

Seriously?  Beating the 66th best team in the country in triple overtime is more impressive than beating the 82nd best team by 5 touchdowns?  Seriously?  How do you come to that conclusion?  Nevermind the fact that he's basing his entire argument on margin of victory.  And there are several close ones that he gives to Notre Dame.  ND beat #113 by 38, Ala beat #127 by 33, and Ga beat #127 by 36, and he conveniently gives the edge there to ND as well.  Why?

This is false advertising.  It's clearly an opinion piece, but it's disguised to look like a scientific argument.  And then you factor in what actually happened on Monday, and it kinda blows Forde's argument out of the water.

I never said it wasn't an opinion piece.  I said strength of schedule is subjective, and this article makes a good argument that ND played a tougher schedule.  The ultimate point of the article was to show that ND had shown more than the others throughout the season.  That can be true regardless of what happened last week.  ND played better than Bama over the first 12 games of the season, even if they weren't the most talented team.

and to geauxforbroke, that's how you discredit the article.

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Wait?

A post a pic of the most interesting aspect of the BCS Game, and this is the discussion?

With legs up to her armpits?

  • Upvote 1

Ping G400 Max 9/TPT Shaft, TEE EX10 Beta 4, 5 wd, PXG 22 HY, Mizuno JPX919F 5-GW, TItleist SM7 Raw 55-09, 59-11, Bettinardi BB39

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by dsc123

I never said it wasn't an opinion piece.  I said strength of schedule is subjective, and this article makes a good argument that ND played a tougher schedule.  The ultimate point of the article was to show that ND had shown more than the others throughout the season.  That can be true regardless of what happened last week.  ND played better than Bama over the first 12 games of the season, even if they weren't the most talented team.

Fair enough, but I choose to disagree with Forde's conclusion in regards to the schedule strengths, because he makes soom broad assumptions.  Although, to be fair, I do have to acknowledge that my disagreement is clouded by information (Monday's result) that he did not have at the time of the article.

If I'm honest with myself and rewind to Sunday, I had also been sucked into believing that ND had a puncher's chance. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by dsc123

I never said it wasn't an opinion piece.  I said strength of schedule is subjective, and this article makes a good argument that ND played a tougher schedule.

And I disagreed with the opinions of the author, then pointed out that the author has a history of making broad assumptions and making somewhat outrageous predictions (to be fair, that's what he's paid to do). Then you launched in with an (incorrect) explanation of how my argument was invalidated because of my bias against the author.

Back to my original statement: historical powerhouses will always receive higher rankings than similar teams with similar records against similar opponents. I'm not condemning the bias towards these teams, merely pointing it out.

Tyler Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

Back to my original statement: historical powerhouses will always receive higher rankings than similar teams with similar records against similar opponents. I'm not condemning the bias towards these teams, merely pointing it out.

I totally agree with this.  And I've always thought the solution was to stop allowing the human polls until later in the season, but I don't think that will work anymore.  Alabama and SC (or whoever) will start next season at the top and if they never lose, it will be next to impossible for anybody to pass them.  My old thinking was that if you didn't have the preseason rankings, then people would wait to form their opinions after 5 or 6 games, and the historical bias wouldn't factor in.  But that seems silly now, because it's not like the voters wouldn't still be forming opinions in the preseason and throughout the first few weeks, they just wouldn't be writing them down.

PS ... Des is right though ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

Back to my original statement: historical powerhouses will always receive higher rankings than similar teams with similar records against similar opponents. I'm not condemning the bias towards these teams, merely pointing it out.

I don't disagree with this .  I do think that ND doesn't necessarily qualify, because I think they have just as many haters as they have fanboys.  But I guess that's a minor quibble.    This is part of why they should scrap the polls altogether.

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Attention all BCS bashers!!!  I know it's pretty much time to let this thread die since, you know, it's not college football season anymore, but I have one more item.  If you have read some of my past posts, you know I'm one of the few who don't mind the BCS and don't think we really "need" a playoff.  A lot of you say the "BCS sucks" and I disagree, etc, etc.  Well, I think you guys win because ...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/one-bcs-computer-still-ranks-notre-dame-no-185628284--ncaaf.html

One of the computers that the BCS takes seriously into its equations has Notre Dame as their number one team to end the season.  Holy crap!!  Pretty sure that takes the cake.

That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Attention all BCS bashers!!!  I know it's pretty much time to let this thread die since, you know, it's not college football season anymore, but I have one more item.  If you have read some of my past posts, you know I'm one of the few who don't mind the BCS and don't think we really "need" a playoff.  A lot of you say the "BCS sucks" and I disagree, etc, etc.  Well, I think you guys win because ...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/one-bcs-computer-still-ranks-notre-dame-no-185628284--ncaaf.html

One of the computers that the BCS takes seriously into its equations has Notre Dame as their number one team to end the season.  Holy crap!!  Pretty sure that takes the cake.

That's all.

LOL... Exactly. What a joke.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

well everyone lost one game, and notre dames loss was to the #1 team in the country!

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 4133 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • I kind of figured that might be part of the problem. I’m still guilty of it myself at times and you’re a better ballstriker than I am. I imagine the temptation to go for the flag grows as you get more control over your wedges. Might want to think about shot selection, too. I don’t know how you typically play short game shots but I see a lot of people default to hitting high pitch shots from basically everywhere, to every hole location, without regard for how the green is contoured and how the ball might release depending on where it lands. I know my short game has been steadily improving from expanding my shot selection, overall. Though to be honest, part of that is from necessity because I was really struggling with pitch shots so I started hitting more chips from everywhere, but it taught me a lot more about how to play short game shots in general. NP man. We’re all learning and improving together. It is a really good tool.
    • 2 rounds this weekend, one at my home course and another course that I know well.   Played well for 3 of the 4 nines.    Ended up with an 80 and an 88.  Breaking it down by 9, it was 38, 42, 41, and a tough 47 where I somehow ended up with chipping/pitching shanks where I dropped at least 6 strokes on the last 6 holes.
    • Yikes, how time flies. Here we are, almost ten years later. After prioritizing family life and other things for a long time, I'm finally ready to play more golf. Grip: I came across some topics on grip and think my grip has been a bit too palmy, especially the left hand. I'm trying to get it more in the fingers and less diagonal. Setup: After a few weeks of playing, this realization came today after watching one of Erik's Covid videos. I've been standing too far from the ball, and that messes up so much. Moved closer on a short practice session and six holes today, and it felt great. It also felt familiar, so I've been there before. I went from chunking the bejesus out the wedges to much better contact. I love changes that involves no moving parts. Just a small correction on the setup and I'm hitting it better and is better suited for working on changes. I'm a few years late, but the Covid series has been very useful to get small details sorted. I've also had to revise ball position. The goal now is back of ball in the middle of the stance as the farthest back with wedges, and progressively moving forward the longer the clubs get. Haven't hit the driver yet, but inside left foot or at the toe I suppose. Full swing: It's not terrible. I noticed my hands were too low, so got that to work on. Weight forward. More of the same stuff from earlier days. Swing path is now out-in and I want the push-draw back. When I get some videos it'll be easier to tell. I've also had this idea that my tempo or flow/rhythm could improve. It's always felt rushed around the end of the backswing into the transition, where things don't line up as they should. A short pause as things settle before starting the downswing. Some lessons might be in order. Chipping and pitching: A 12-hole round this week demonstrated a severe need to practice, but also to figure out what the heck I’m trying to do. I stood over the ball with no idea of what I wanted to achieve. On a four meter chip! I was trying the locked wrists technique, which did not work at all. As usual when I need information, I look for something Erik has posted. I’ve seen the Quickie Pitching Video before, but if I got it back then, I’ve forgotten. After reviewing that topic, some other topic about chipping and most importantly, the videos on chip/pitch from his Covid series, I felt like I understood the concept. I love the idea of separating those two by what you are trying to achieve, not by distance or ball flight. With one method you use the leading edge to hit the ball first. With the other, you use the sole to slide it under the ball. I was surprised he said that he went for the pitch 90% of the time while playing. I’ve always been scared of that shot and been thinking I have to hit the ball first. Trying to slide the club under usually ended with a chunked or skulled shot. After practicing in the yard the last days I get it, and see why the pitching motion is more forgiving. It’s astounding how easy the concept and motion is. Kudos to Erik, David and anyone else involved for being an excellent students of the game and teachers. With those two videos, my short game improved leaps and bounds, without even practicing. Just getting the setup right and knowing what motions you are trying to do is a big part of improving. Soft hands and floaty swings feels so much better than a rigid “hinge and hold”, trying to fight gravity and momentum by squeezing the life out of the grip. At least how I took to understand the “hold” part. I also think the chipping motion will help in the full swing. Keeping pressure on the trigger finger to ensure the hands are leading the clubhead and not throwing it at the ball. I've also tried looking in front of the ball at times when chipping, which helps. That's something I've been doing on full swings for a long time, and can make a big difference on the ball flight. Question @iacas: You say in the videos that you want the ball somewhere near the middle of your stance, and that for pitching it's the same. On the videos you got a fairly narrow stance, where inside of the left foot is almost middle of the stance, but the ball looks more inside the left foot than middle of the stance. Is that caused by the filming angle or is the ball more towards the inside of the foot? I often hit chips and pitches from uphill and downhill lies, where a narrow stance would have me fall over. What is your thought process and setup for those shots? The lowpoint follows the upper body, around left armpit IIRC, so a ball position relative to the feet may not be in the same spot relative to the upper body with a wider stance. Practice: I've set up my nets at an indoors location where I can practice at home. I did a quick search on launch monitors (LM), but haven't decided on anything yet. We're probably buying a house in this area in the near future, so I may hold off a purchase until I see what I can get going there. At some point I'd love to get a proper setup with a LM that can be used as a simulator. Outdoors golf is not an option 4-6 months a year here, so having an indoors option would be great. That would also be a place to use the longer clubs. My nearest course is a shorter six hole course where I don't use anything longer than a 21º utility iron. To play longer 18 hole courses I have to drive 1-1.5 hours each way, which I will do now and then, but not regularly. The LM market has changed a lot since Trackman arrived, and more people are buying them for personal use, but it's still need to spend a lot of money for a decent one that can fi. track club path. The Mevo at £305 could perhaps be something to consider. Maybe they have lowered the price to get out units before a new model is launched? It is almost six years old, though perhaps modified since then. It's got limited data and obviously isn't an option as a simulator, but could provide some data when hitting into a net. I'd have to read more about it first. It has to be good enough to be useful for indoors practice. As long as I frequently hit balls on the range or course, I'll get feedback on any changes there.
    • I'm pretty good at picking targets with mid/long irons in hand, but yes lately I have been getting more aggressive than I should be, especially from 100-150. The 50-100 deficiency is mainly distance control, working on that mechanically with Evolvr, but the 100-150 is definitely a result of poor targets.  6,7,8 iron in my hand I have no problem aiming away from trouble/the flag, hitting a very committed shot to my target, but give me PW, GW, and some reason I think I need to go right at it (even though I know I shouldn't). Like here from my last round. 175 left on a short par 5 to a back right flag. Water short right and bunker long. Perfectly fine lie in sparse rough, between the jumper and downwind playing for about 10yds of help. I knew to not aim at the flag here, aimed 40 feet left of it, hit my 165 shot exactly where I was looking, easy 2 putt birdie.   But then there's this one. I had 120 left from the fairway to a semi-tucked front left flag. Not a ton of trouble around the green but the left and back rough does fall off steeper than short/right rough. For some reason I aimed right at this flag with my 120yd shot, hit it the exact proper distance but pulled it 5yds left and had a tough short sided chip. Did all I could to chip it to 8 feet and missed the putt for a bad bogey. Had I aimed directly at the middle of the green maybe 5yds right of the flag, a perfectly straight shot leaves me 20 feet tops for birdie and that same pulled shot that I hit would have left me very close to the hole.    So yeah I think the 50-100 is distance control and the 100-150 is absolutely picking better targets. I have good feels and am strong with distance control on those I just need to allow for a bigger dispersion.    This view is helpful. For the Under 25yds my proximity is almost double from the rough vs the fairway which reinforces that biggest weakness right now being inside 25yds from the rough. But then interestingly enough in the 25-50yds I'm almost equal proximity from fairway and rough, so it looks like I need to work on under 25yds from the rough and then 25-50 from the fairway. The bunker categories are only 1 attempt each so not worried about those.   Thanks as always for the insight, it's been helpful. I'm really liking ShotScope so far.
    • Wordle 1,053 4/6 🟨⬜⬜⬜🟨 🟨🟨⬜🟨⬜ 🟨⬜🟩⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...