2009 College Football Thread

[Philberto]

Addressing the fact that the rankings suck is probably something I should have touched, too.

Agreed.  Humans vote passions.  Let's just use data and impartial computers.

Anyone know where we could get that data?

SKO

[SKO]

Addressing the fact that the rankings suck is probably something I should have touched, too.

Agreed.  Humans vote passions.  Let's just use data and impartial computers.

Anyone know where we could get that data?

Except impartial computers aren't impartial when humans decide only Certain data can be put into them. Like, say that data isn't allowed to include things like points scored vs. points allowed, which is a decent factor in determining a team's abilities, and things get a bit sketchier.

[SKO]

Addressing the fact that the rankings suck is probably something I should have touched, too.

Agreed.  Humans vote passions.  Let's just use data and impartial computers.

Anyone know where we could get that data?

Except impartial computers aren't impartial when humans decide only Certain data can be put into them. Like, say that data isn't allowed to include things like points scored vs. points allowed, which is a decent factor in determining a team's abilities, and things get a bit sketchier.

DPD- and say the last six times those impartial computers have placed Big Ten teams in the BCS, and the last two times they've let them into the national title game, they've been 0-6. THE KOMPUTARS ARE ALWAYS RITE!

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

I look forward to the day when the institution of a college football playoff system finally brings an end all this bloodshed.

Playoffs will solve EVERYTHING.

[Dave B]

So there, tell me, based just on This year, why Iowa, which would be 12-0 and is behind Texas in every statistical category, should CERTAINLY go to the title game over a 13-0 Texas? Do explain.

Because Iowa has beaten more ranked opponents.  And most of those were on the road.

Penn State was #5 when played.  Wisconsin was #25 when played.  Ohio State looks to be in the mid teens when they play them.

Then you note that Arizona is now #22.

That's 4.

Who has Texas played?  Oklahoma at home and got a 3 point win.  Big whup.  That's it.

If Texas wins this week, they have a matching feather for Iowa's Penn State win.

When played? Well hell, lets start counting rankings from arbitrary places in the season. Oklahoma was #3 to start the year, and Texas beat them at a neutral site. Texas Tech was at #21 for a while, Missouri was #24 for a while, so you add all that up and suddenly they've played the same number of ranked teams. Also, this whole argument has been if an undefeated, 12-0 Iowa team in a weaker conference should play the national title game over a 13-0, undefeated Texas team. There's no rational argument that can be made for that. If Iowa really wanted to look like a national title contender, they could have beaten patsies like UNI or Arkansas State better than 17-16 or 24-21. The fact of the matter is that Texas has absolutely dominated in games it should have dominated, and has only looked unimpressive against Oklahoma, and believe me, if you're defending Iowa, "they only beat Oklahoma by 3 points!" is sure as hell Not the argument you want to make, because believe it or not a 3 point win over Oklahoma at a neutral site is more impressive than a 3 point home win over Arkansas State.

At least Chuck was talking about stuff that happened THIS year. You were dredging up shit from LAST year earlier.

[SKO]

So there, tell me, based just on This year, why Iowa, which would be 12-0 and is behind Texas in every statistical category, should CERTAINLY go to the title game over a 13-0 Texas? Do explain.

Because Iowa has beaten more ranked opponents.  And most of those were on the road.

Penn State was #5 when played.  Wisconsin was #25 when played.  Ohio State looks to be in the mid teens when they play them.

Then you note that Arizona is now #22.

That's 4.

Who has Texas played?  Oklahoma at home and got a 3 point win.  Big whup.  That's it.

If Texas wins this week, they have a matching feather for Iowa's Penn State win.

When played? Well hell, lets start counting rankings from arbitrary places in the season. Oklahoma was #3 to start the year, and Texas beat them at a neutral site. Texas Tech was at #21 for a while, Missouri was #24 for a while, so you add all that up and suddenly they've played the same number of ranked teams. Also, this whole argument has been if an undefeated, 12-0 Iowa team in a weaker conference should play the national title game over a 13-0, undefeated Texas team. There's no rational argument that can be made for that. If Iowa really wanted to look like a national title contender, they could have beaten patsies like UNI or Arkansas State better than 17-16 or 24-21. The fact of the matter is that Texas has absolutely dominated in games it should have dominated, and has only looked unimpressive against Oklahoma, and believe me, if you're defending Iowa, "they only beat Oklahoma by 3 points!" is sure as hell Not the argument you want to make, because believe it or not a 3 point win over Oklahoma at a neutral site is more impressive than a 3 point home win over Arkansas State.

At least Chuck was talking about stuff that happened THIS year. You were dredging up shit from LAST year earlier.

Yeah, well I got back on fucking track. Use one god damn statistic outside of opponent winning %, which I've broken down, and compute rankings which aren't allowed to use points allowed or points scored and thus really are just repeating the same line about Iowa's "strength of schedule." Ohio State was the computers' #1 in 2006 and 2007 because they ran roughshod through a weak Big Ten. They then got outscored 79-38 in national title games against one loss teams from a stronger conference. Also, those computer rankings will favor Texas if they go undefeated and win the Big 12 title game, because in 2006 Michigan ranked Ahead of Florida for the #2 spot, as both had one loss, but as Michigan sat idle and Florida won the SEC championship, the computers vaulted them ahead, because the majority of the "computer rankings" come Solely from win-loss and opponents' win-loss.

[PenFoe]

USC is better than Iowa or Texas.

Cincinnati probably is too.

[Richard Chuggar]

Oswego.

[Philberto]

Owaneco

[Shooter]

In fact, I hate the fact that Iowa State winning is helping their opponents' winning percentage. I'd just as soon see them go 0-for. It's pretty much mandated that they play the Cyclowns annually. And ISU boosts their ticket prices to something like $90 for that game in the years they host Iowa, and force ticket buyers for that game to also purchase a ticket for a November game against a shitty Big 12 opponent. So Iowa is basically subsidizing their football program. Same with UNI, who I'm sure gets a pretty good pay-out to drive a couple of hours south.

Yeah, like such a mythical beast exists.

[SKO]

USC is better than Iowa or Texas.

Cincinnati probably is too.

That may be so. Cinci's problem is the same as Iowa's though. Weak conference, no conference title game. USC isn't undefeated, so they won't vault either Iowa or Texas unless they lose. This argument was Supposed to be "undefeated at the end of the regular season Iowa vs. undefeated at the end of the regular season Texas," but it's devolved into "Texas hasn't played anyone right now and Iowa's tough schedule has somehow made it so they can't beat anybody convincingly, therefore Iowa's close wins count more than Texas' giant wins, and go Hawkeyes!"

[Ivy6]

USC is better than Iowa or Texas.

Cincinnati probably is too.

Those may be true- but that starts the argument, are you looking at which team is best, or which is most deserving?  That seems to be the main component of the Iowa argument.  I could argue that an undefeated Big 10 team deserves a chance at the national title, but I'd never argue that (in this case) they were better on a neutral field than LSU or USC or Northern Iowa.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Those may be true- but that starts the argument, are you looking at which team is best, or which is most deserving?  That seems to be the main component of the Iowa argument.  I could argue that an undefeated Big 10 team deserves a chance at the national title, but I'd never argue that (in this case) they were better on a neutral field than LSU or USC or Northern Iowa.

Yeah.  They are only better than UNI in Iowa City and LSU in Orlando.

[Slaky]

Those may be true- but that starts the argument, are you looking at which team is best, or which is most deserving?  That seems to be the main component of the Iowa argument.  I could argue that an undefeated Big 10 team deserves a chance at the national title, but I'd never argue that (in this case) they were better on a neutral field than LSU or USC or Northern Iowa.

Yeah.  They are only better than UNI in Iowa City and LSU in Orlando.

Now we're arguing about 2005.

[Ivy6]

Those may be true- but that starts the argument, are you looking at which team is best, or which is most deserving?  That seems to be the main component of the Iowa argument.  I could argue that an undefeated Big 10 team deserves a chance at the national title, but I'd never argue that (in this case) they were better on a neutral field than LSU or USC or Northern Iowa.

Yeah.  They are only better than UNI in Iowa City and LSU in Orlando.

Wait:  Last year2005?  WTF does last year 2005 have to do with anything?

I'm assuming you are kidding.



Edit: Slak has less to do today than me