Posted: December 5, 2005 11:53 am
Rankings don't match up with the other two polls.weirdo0521 wrote:...What is screwed up about the other games?Brown Eyed Girl wrote:...but the rest of it is pretty screwed and always has been.
Page 4 of 4
Posted: December 5, 2005 11:55 am
But the Big East has been around for less than 30 years. And I think it's the only conference to ever have 3 teams in the Final Four in one year.land_shark3 wrote:I covered both for you; last 5 and overall through the history of the tournament.MelliJellyBean wrote:I think we are talking about the NEW Big East Basketball Conference, aren't we?
Posted: December 5, 2005 11:56 am
'tis the season to get mad at the BCS, I guess. *sigh* I hope they figure out a better way. Would playoffs really be a good idea?? (I'd love to see more games and it'd be more exciting -December madness? haha)land_shark3 wrote:Rankings don't match up with the other two polls.weirdo0521 wrote:...What is screwed up about the other games?Brown Eyed Girl wrote:...but the rest of it is pretty screwed and always has been.
Posted: December 5, 2005 12:39 pm
land_shark3 wrote:Rankings don't match up with the other two polls.weirdo0521 wrote:...What is screwed up about the other games?Brown Eyed Girl wrote:...but the rest of it is pretty screwed and always has been.
That's where the computers and Strength of schedule become a factor. And Conference champions. All the parties set it up this way, so nobody really can complain. Not much difference between the polls though.
AP Top 25
1. USC (56)
2. Texas (9)
3. Penn State
4. Ohio State
5. Notre Dame
6. Oregon
7. Auburn
8. Georgia
9. Miami (FL)
10. LSU
USA Today
1. USC (55)
2. Texas (7)
3. Penn State
4. Ohio State
5. Oregon
6. Notre Dame
7. Auburn
8. Georgia
9. Miami (FL)
10. LSU
Harris Interactive
1. USC (99)
2. Texas (14)
3. Penn State
4. Ohio State
5. Notre Dame
6. Oregon
7. Auburn
8. Georgia
9. Miami (FL)
10. LSU
BCS
1. USC
2. Texas
3. Penn State
4. Ohio State
5. Oregon
6. Notre Dame
7. Georgia
8. Miami (FL)
9. Auburn
10. Virginia Tech
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/polls
Posted: December 5, 2005 12:51 pm
Except for the fact that BCS is a statistics program that was created by a person who doesn't even watch football. It does not take into account rivalry and/or emotion going into a game or coming off a game. More importantly, it does not note which players were active and which ones were injured.weirdo0521 wrote:That's where the computers and Strength of schedule become a factor.
UGA lost to FL and it hurt them. The BCS does not note that UGA did not have their starting QB in. LSU beat Auburn. The BCS does not show that it was because of 5 missed field goals or that one Auburn player ran for over 200 yards in this game. It just shows the score. If you want to do a true statistical ranking system, you have to use more than score and strength of schedule.
The big difference is who goes and who doesn't. Both live person polls show Miami at 9 and give Auburn the invite. The BCS decided that those two are backwards.weirdo0521 wrote:Not much difference between the polls though.
Posted: December 5, 2005 12:56 pm
I don't think human voters note those things either. UGA lost FL and voters dropped them down not just computers. A loss is a loss a win is a win no matter how you wan't to factor it. The BCS does use the human polls also.land_shark3 wrote:Except for the fact that BCS is a statistics program that was created by a person who doesn't even watch football. It does not take into account rivalry and/or emotion going into a game or coming off a game. More importantly, it does not note which players were active and which ones were injured.weirdo0521 wrote:That's where the computers and Strength of schedule become a factor.
UGA lost to FL and it hurt them. The BCS does not note that UGA did not have their starting QB in. LSU beat Auburn. The BCS does not show that it was because of 5 missed field goals or that one Auburn player ran for over 200 yards in this game. It just shows the score. If you want to do a true statistical ranking system, you have to use more than score and strength of schedule.
The big difference is who goes and who doesn't. Both live person polls show Miami at 9 and give Auburn the invite. The BCS decided that those two are backwards.weirdo0521 wrote:Not much difference between the polls though.
I don't follow you an the Miami/Auburn issue.
Posted: December 5, 2005 1:03 pm
AP: Auburn #7 / Miami #9weirdo0521 wrote:I don't follow you an the Miami/Auburn issue.
Coaches: Auburn #7 / Miami #9
BCS: Miami #7 / Auburn #9
Posted: December 5, 2005 1:11 pm
I meant about the invite....neither of them made itland_shark3 wrote:AP: Auburn #7 / Miami #9weirdo0521 wrote:I don't follow you an the Miami/Auburn issue.
Coaches: Auburn #7 / Miami #9
BCS: Miami #7 / Auburn #9
Posted: December 5, 2005 1:37 pm
Which is even more confusing. I mean if you are going for a true placement system, 4 BCS bowl games mean the top 8 battle it out.weirdo0521 wrote:I meant about the invite....neither of them made itland_shark3 wrote:AP: Auburn #7 / Miami #9weirdo0521 wrote:I don't follow you an the Miami/Auburn issue.
Coaches: Auburn #7 / Miami #9
BCS: Miami #7 / Auburn #9
Posted: December 5, 2005 1:37 pm
I'd say this is the 4rth time they got it right. I forgot about 98.weirdo0521 wrote:I think this is the best they have done so far...What is screwed up about the other games?Brown Eyed Girl wrote:I'm happy
For once it actually worked out that the two best teams will play each other for the NC...but the rest of it is pretty screwed and always has been.
FSU/UT in 1998. UT was undefeated and FSU had one loss early in the year. I don't remember anyone complaining about FSU being there although K-State Ohio State and UCLA all had one loss too and I suppose a legit argument as well.
FSU/VT in 1999. FSU and VT were dominant all year and undefeated making it easy for the BCS.
FSU/Oklahoma 2000. Miami should have been there instead of FSU in my opinion.
Miami/Nebraska in 2001.
Nebraska got killed in the conference championship.
If I remember right, Oregon should have been in the NC game to take the beating.
Miami/Ohio State in 2002. Again, they both were undefeated and made it rather easy.
LSU/Oklahoma in 2003. Oklahoma got killed in the conference championship game. It should have been USC/LSU.
USC did not even play in the BCS title game and still won the BCS Championship
OKlahoma/USC in 2004
Continuing the trend, another Big 12 team gets killed in it's confenerence championship game and still makes it to the BCS title game.
This year with with USC and Texas both undefeated it's back to easy for the BCS
4 out of 8 aint bad
Posted: December 5, 2005 1:39 pm
Think about it, you would never get that agreement. ...It takes out the conference champion, no one would agree to it.land_shark3 wrote:Which is even more confusing. I mean if you are going for a true placement system, 4 BCS bowl games mean the top 8 battle it out.weirdo0521 wrote:I meant about the invite....neither of them made itland_shark3 wrote:AP: Auburn #7 / Miami #9weirdo0521 wrote:I don't follow you an the Miami/Auburn issue.
Coaches: Auburn #7 / Miami #9
BCS: Miami #7 / Auburn #9
Posted: December 5, 2005 1:51 pm
But it would certainly end the Co-champion problems of the last few years.weirdo0521 wrote:Think about it, you would never get that agreement. ...It takes out the conference champion, no one would agree to it.
Posted: December 5, 2005 1:54 pm
It only happened once.....And it happened in the pre BCS days tooland_shark3 wrote:But it would certainly end the Co-champion problems of the last few years.weirdo0521 wrote:Think about it, you would never get that agreement. ...It takes out the conference champion, no one would agree to it.
Posted: December 5, 2005 1:56 pm
???weirdo0521 wrote:It only happened once.....And it happened in the pre BCS days tooland_shark3 wrote:But it would certainly end the Co-champion problems of the last few years.weirdo0521 wrote:Think about it, you would never get that agreement. ...It takes out the conference champion, no one would agree to it.
LSU - 2003 Co-Champion
Auburn - 2005 Co-Champion
I don't know about LSU, but I know Auburn players received a National Championship ring.
Posted: December 5, 2005 2:21 pm
LSU won the BCS Championship (coaches Poll) USC won the AP that year.land_shark3 wrote:???weirdo0521 wrote:It only happened once.....And it happened in the pre BCS days tooland_shark3 wrote:But it would certainly end the Co-champion problems of the last few years.weirdo0521 wrote:Think about it, you would never get that agreement. ...It takes out the conference champion, no one would agree to it.
LSU - 2003 Co-Champion
Auburn - 2005 Co-Champion
I don't know about LSU, but I know Auburn players received a National Championship ring.
Last year USC was a unanimous champion AP and BCS last year. What championship did Auburn win? Undefeated yes. SEC Champs yes. National Champion no. Just because the coach orders rings doesn't mean you are a champion.
Posted: December 5, 2005 2:54 pm
However, effective 12/21/04, the AP Poll was removed from the BCS rankings. The BCS Championship game placed #1 USC versus #3 Oklahoma. All polls had Auburn at #2, but somehow they were not invited to the Championship game.weirdo0521 wrote:Last year USC was a unanimous champion AP and BCS last year. What championship did Auburn win? Undefeated yes. SEC Champs yes. National Champion no. Just because the coach orders rings doesn't mean you are a champion.
Posted: December 5, 2005 5:00 pm
Strength of schedule is what hurt Auburn. They were # 3 in both polls at the end of the year. #1 USC played #2 OU. After the bowls, #1 SC #2 Auburn #3 OUland_shark3 wrote:However, effective 12/21/04, the AP Poll was removed from the BCS rankings. The BCS Championship game placed #1 USC versus #3 Oklahoma. All polls had Auburn at #2, but somehow they were not invited to the Championship game.weirdo0521 wrote:Last year USC was a unanimous champion AP and BCS last year. What championship did Auburn win? Undefeated yes. SEC Champs yes. National Champion no. Just because the coach orders rings doesn't mean you are a champion.
Posted: December 5, 2005 11:08 pm
To go along with my point that a playoff system will probably never work... a longer season and more games will contribute to this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls05/n ... id=2248992
41 percent of bowl teams miss academic standardsAssociated Press
ORLANDO, Fla. -- This year's bowl-bound college football teams are struggling to meet the NCAA's new academic standards, with 41 percent falling below minimum requirements and almost half lacking a 50 percent graduation rate, according to a survey released Monday.
The 56 Division 1-A football teams headed to bowl games have a lingering problem of too many student-athletes failing to complete their studies, said Richard Lapchick, the University of Central Florida professor who authored the annual report.
"The key is admitting students who are qualified to be in that school," said Lapchick, who heads the DeVos Sport Business Management Program at UCF.
This is the first year Lapchick has used the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate, known as APR, to measure the bowl-bound schools' academic progress. In past years, the study has relied solely on graduation rates.
Developed last year, the NCAA's new academic standard awards APR points based on how many scholarship student-athletes meet academic eligibility standards. A cutoff score of 925 means an estimated 50 percent of those student-athletes are on track graduate.
Starting this year, NCAA schools that regularly fall below the 925 score can lose scholarships, face recruiting restrictions and miss postseason play.
In a dry run of the system last year, more than 90 percent of Division I teams across all sports had passing scores. According to Lapchick's report, only 33 of the 56 bowl-bound teams -- 59 percent -- got above the 925 cutoff.
"Obviously we would like to see those statistics higher," said NCAA spokesman Bob Williams. "But this is a process that the NCAA member institutions are going through to change behavior and essentially ensure the student athletes, coaches and everyone involved in collegiate athletics understands that academic achievement and academic performance is just as important as athletic performance."
While the APR figures give schools an up-to-date assessment of how they're doing, the graduation rates are still useful in showing the disparity in the graduation rates between black and white student-athletes, Lapchick said.
Two-thirds of the bowl-bound schools graduated less than half of their African-American football student-athletes. By comparison, 49 percent of the bowl-bound schools failed to have a 50 percent graduation rate overall for those players, according to Lapchick's report.
Lapchick praised Northwestern University and Boston College for doing the best job of graduating football players. Both teams graduated at least 78 percent of all football student-athletes and at least 74 percent of African-American football student-athletes.
Two conferences, the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Big East, had every one of their bowl-bound schools receive an APR score higher than 925, and all the teams in both conferences were in the top 25 of APR rankings for bowl-bound schools.
The Pacific 10's five schools chosen for bowl games scored less than 925.
The NCAA should be aiming to have two-thirds of the schools make the 925 cut when the next round of APR figures are released early next year, Lapchick said.
"I'm really hopeful that the next time the APR scores come out, it will show the expected improvement because of the sanctions that can be imposed on the schools," Lapchick said. "The APRs have gotten the schools' notice and attention."
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls05/n ... id=2248992
41 percent of bowl teams miss academic standardsAssociated Press
ORLANDO, Fla. -- This year's bowl-bound college football teams are struggling to meet the NCAA's new academic standards, with 41 percent falling below minimum requirements and almost half lacking a 50 percent graduation rate, according to a survey released Monday.
The 56 Division 1-A football teams headed to bowl games have a lingering problem of too many student-athletes failing to complete their studies, said Richard Lapchick, the University of Central Florida professor who authored the annual report.
"The key is admitting students who are qualified to be in that school," said Lapchick, who heads the DeVos Sport Business Management Program at UCF.
This is the first year Lapchick has used the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate, known as APR, to measure the bowl-bound schools' academic progress. In past years, the study has relied solely on graduation rates.
Developed last year, the NCAA's new academic standard awards APR points based on how many scholarship student-athletes meet academic eligibility standards. A cutoff score of 925 means an estimated 50 percent of those student-athletes are on track graduate.
Starting this year, NCAA schools that regularly fall below the 925 score can lose scholarships, face recruiting restrictions and miss postseason play.
In a dry run of the system last year, more than 90 percent of Division I teams across all sports had passing scores. According to Lapchick's report, only 33 of the 56 bowl-bound teams -- 59 percent -- got above the 925 cutoff.
"Obviously we would like to see those statistics higher," said NCAA spokesman Bob Williams. "But this is a process that the NCAA member institutions are going through to change behavior and essentially ensure the student athletes, coaches and everyone involved in collegiate athletics understands that academic achievement and academic performance is just as important as athletic performance."
While the APR figures give schools an up-to-date assessment of how they're doing, the graduation rates are still useful in showing the disparity in the graduation rates between black and white student-athletes, Lapchick said.
Two-thirds of the bowl-bound schools graduated less than half of their African-American football student-athletes. By comparison, 49 percent of the bowl-bound schools failed to have a 50 percent graduation rate overall for those players, according to Lapchick's report.
Lapchick praised Northwestern University and Boston College for doing the best job of graduating football players. Both teams graduated at least 78 percent of all football student-athletes and at least 74 percent of African-American football student-athletes.
Two conferences, the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Big East, had every one of their bowl-bound schools receive an APR score higher than 925, and all the teams in both conferences were in the top 25 of APR rankings for bowl-bound schools.
The Pacific 10's five schools chosen for bowl games scored less than 925.
The NCAA should be aiming to have two-thirds of the schools make the 925 cut when the next round of APR figures are released early next year, Lapchick said.
"I'm really hopeful that the next time the APR scores come out, it will show the expected improvement because of the sanctions that can be imposed on the schools," Lapchick said. "The APRs have gotten the schools' notice and attention."