Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow (/thread-6288.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow (/thread-6288.html)
Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - OutsiderFan - 12-08-2013
The final projected BCS rankings:
1. Florida State
2. Auburn
3. Alabama
4. Michigan State
5. Stanford
And ESPN projects Oklahoma to play Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Where to start?
Let's start with this: Stanford has more wins against Top 25 teams than any team in the country. The Pac-12 has eight teams that were at one time ranked in the Top 25 and three that were in the Top 10, including #2 and #4 at one point. Stanford beat all three of those teams ranked in the Top 10, plus ASU twice; once ranked #15 and once ranked #11. Stanford lost to a 9-3 team after the emotional high of beating the team everyone had in the BCS CG, on a last second FG after dominating the game, and lost one in the final seconds at 5,000 elevation.
Michigan State lost to Notre Dame, and is champion of a terrible conference that only played eight conference games. How many Top 25 teams did Ohio State and Michigan State beat combined before playing each other? Three. And of those three, only Wisconsin is in the Top 25, barely, at #23. Stanford is the only Team in the final BCS Top 25 with more than two wins against the final BCS Top 25, with four. And oh by the way, the other three teams in the final BCS rankings from the Pac-12 each have at least one win over the BCS Top 25. The only other teams in the BCS Top 25 with two wins against the final BCS Top 25? Alabama and Auburn.
Yet despite all this, the B1G champion is ranked higher than the Pac-12 champion? This is important, because in a playoff system using the BCS rankings (influenced by hopelessly biased media types) the Pac-12 would be shut out of the playoff when it has by any measure, at least the second most difficult conference in the country, and is the only conference among the B1G, ACC, and SEC that plays NINE conference games.
To pick Oklahoma over Oregon to play Alabama in the Sugar Bowl is as preposterous and as much of an outrage as Stanford being ranked behind Michigan State. I hate Oregon, but the Pac-12 deserves the right, and frankly, College Football needs a Pac-12/SEC matchup in the post season to allow the Pac-12 to shed the ridiculous bias it faces from the college football poll voters. Oklahoma will get smoked by Alabama. Oregon and Alabama would be a great game.
In any event, Stanford will be able to go into the Rose Bowl playing the "Rodney Dangerfield card" once again. Maybe a victory over Michigan State will pay dividends for the Pac-12 at this time next season!
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - yvonne - 12-08-2013
Wow. Just wow.
What does Stanford have to do to earn respect?
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - shinsengumi - 12-08-2013
(12-08-2013, 07:38 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:What does Stanford have to do to earn respect?
Not lose to a team like Utah?
Fwiw, I think we might have enough of a computer edge to remain above MSU. Not that it matters, this year at least.
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - FarmBoy - 12-08-2013
The playoff will be chosen by a committee. I would hope that committee wouldn't blindly take the top 4 ranked teams (the BCS ranking will no longer exist, right?) I would hope that when they got in a room, they would realize that in a 4 team playoff, you can't include both Alabama and Auburn. THe committee has enough national representation, that SEC homers won't be able to carry the day (I hope.)
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - scorecard - 12-08-2013
(12-08-2013, 08:03 AM)shinsengumi link Wrote:Not lose to a team like Utah?
Fwiw, I think we might have enough of a computer edge to remain above MSU. Not that it matters, this year at least.
I'm so happy that this BCS garbage is going away. The BCS meant that we basically had to go undefeated to make the national title game. If teams had the same number of losses, the SEC was essentially automatically granted at least 1 participant in the national title game, and in some cases both teams.Â
Remember when LSU and Alabama played to a 9-6 "Game of the Century" and we had to see them play it again because the SEC was just that good. Either Oklahoma State or Stanford as 1-loss teams would have been a great matchup of styles and told us something about how good the SEC really was, but we never got to see it. People still rate that Alabama team as being one of the great defenses ever, but I think Luck, Taylor, Decastro, Martin, Fleener, Ertz could have done some damage. They are doing some major damage in the NFL after all.
Even if we had beaten Utah and had just 1 loss to SC, we wouldn't have jumped Auburn, and probably would still be behind Alabama as well. No matter how tough our schedule is, the perception is that a 1-loss SEC champion is still better than us. Frankly, even if we had gone undefeated, you would have complaints that Auburn or Alabama was better. At least we will have a fairer shot at getting into a playoff next year, and finally proving it on the field.Â
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - stupac2 - 12-08-2013
The BCS rankings have very little relevance to how the committee will rank teams. I think that the committee will put a lot more weight on the advanced statistical metrics like FEI or ESPN's Championship Drive, all of which love us.
I seriously thought this post was going to be about Oregon likely getting screwed out of an at-large berth. I honestly couldn't care less about our ranking. Let MSU be above us! Let us be underdogs! You've seen how we play when no one expects us to win, right? Bring that on!
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - 81alum - 12-08-2013
I am happy to be going to the Rose Bowl. I am happy to be playing a traditional Big 10 team. I am happy we won a game yesterday that many expected us to lose. I am happy that Hogan had a terrific day, showing that he is back to his old form or even improving on it. I am happy that I do not care about national rankings or the corruption of the SEC/ESPN sports complex.
I am happy to be a Stanford fan today.
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - stupac2 - 12-08-2013
(12-08-2013, 09:23 AM)garvin link Wrote:Quote:(influenced by hopelessly biased media types)
OutsiderFan, you don't know what you are talking about. There are three components to the BCS rankings: the coaches' poll, the computer rankings, and the Harris Interactive poll. Only the last group has anything at all to do with "media types," and they are a tiny minority among the other members, who include former players, coaches and administrators. (An even tinier minority when you filter out people like Gil Brandt, whose media position -- NFL.com analyst -- is the result of a long career in football itself, as a personnel guy for the Dallas Cowboys.)
Here's a New York Times story on half a dozen Harris voters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/sports/ncaafootball/voters-in-the-harris-poll-take-their-task-seriously.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Obviously that's anecdotal. But here's a link to the entire list of voters.** Clearly the New York Times story is a lot closer to capturing the essence of these voters than the idiotic dismissal of them as "hopelessly biased media types."
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=869530
It is comically stupid to say this BCS selection process is biased and the new playoff selection system won't be. What makes Ty.rone Will.ingham or Condi Rice or Archie Manning or Pat Haden immune to bias? Anything that involves voting by human beings entails bias. And the idea that a newspaper reporter is more biased than the University of Second Choice. athletic director is patently absurd.
** This list may be a year out of date -- it doesn't include Tommy Vardell, for instance, who I think I read is a voter now -- but there's no reason to think the Harris composition is materially different now.
You're correct to first order, but the problem is that to second order those people's opinions are influenced by the drivel coming out of ESPN about "OMG SEC SO GOOD" with no balance about SOS or anything. The problem, of course, is that you're also correct that the committee is just as likely to be influenced by that sort of thing. However, my guess is that discussion and debate will tend to wash it out more than just voting on placement will, but who knows?
Anyway I don't think OF is entirely wrong but he's not entirely right either. There's a lot of lazy bias out there in the CFB world and it mostly works against the PAC.
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - Roberton3 - 12-08-2013
(12-08-2013, 09:23 AM)garvin link Wrote:It is comically stupid to say this BCS selection process is biased and the new playoff selection system won't be. What makes Ty.rone Will.ingham or Condi Rice or Archie Manning or Pat Haden immune to bias? Anything that involves voting by human beings entails bias. And the idea that a newspaper reporter is more biased than the University of Second Choice. athletic director is patently absurd.
Absolutely right. Going from the BCS to the new playoff system means that we're going from a system mostly determined by biased human voters to a system entirely determined by biased human voters. Taking the computers out of the picture is a step backwards. The only improvement is that now it'll be a 4-team playoff, but the selection process for those 4 teams will almost certainly be worse than the selection process for the BCS championship game now.
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - scorecard - 12-08-2013
(12-08-2013, 09:21 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:I seriously thought this post was going to be about Oregon likely getting screwed out of an at-large berth. I honestly couldn't care less about our ranking. Let MSU be above us! Let us be underdogs! You've seen how we play when no one expects us to win, right? Bring that on!
I'm with you on that one. As Skov tweeted after the ASU game, "Trolololol 4 point underdogs?!?!? Don't worry we left room on the bandwagon for ya" I'm sure they will be more than ready to play either way, but the players do get an edgy mentality by being slighted that I definitely like. And you are right, the ranking matters not one bit at this point. We are in the Rose Bowl again and that is ever so sweet.
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - tfeldstein - 12-08-2013
It looks like we will be fourth regardless.
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - stupac2 - 12-08-2013
(12-08-2013, 09:31 AM)Roberton3 link Wrote:Absolutely right. Going from the BCS to the new playoff system means that we're going from a system mostly determined by biased human voters to a system entirely determined by biased human voters. Taking the computers out of the picture is a step backwards. The only improvement is that now it'll be a 4-team playoff, but the selection process for those 4 teams will almost certainly be worse than the selection process for the BCS championship game now.
I really don't think this is a given. The reason the human polls suck so hard is that every voter is an island, they never have their views challenged by anyone, and they have less than 24 hours before games end to turn in their ballots, meaning they can't actually see all the games or consult with any of the statistical good metrics before voting. None of that will be true with the committee, which will all be in the same room, debating, and coming to a communal decision rather than averaging out opinions. That and the purported heavy emphasis on SOS (which has Saban saying the SEC needs to play 9 games) makes me pretty sanguine that the committee's output will be better than the polls.
All that said, we need at least 8 teams in the playoff, so every major conference champion can get in.
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - scorecard - 12-08-2013
(12-08-2013, 09:31 AM)Roberton3 link Wrote:[quote author=garvin link=topic=9073.msg77222#msg77222 date=1386519834]
It is comically stupid to say this BCS selection process is biased and the new playoff selection system won't be. What makes Ty.rone Will.ingham or Condi Rice or Archie Manning or Pat Haden immune to bias? Anything that involves voting by human beings entails bias. And the idea that a newspaper reporter is more biased than the University of Second Choice. athletic director is patently absurd.
Absolutely right. Going from the BCS to the new playoff system means that we're going from a system mostly determined by biased human voters to a system entirely determined by biased human voters. Taking the computers out of the picture is a step backwards. The only improvement is that now it'll be a 4-team playoff, but the selection process for those 4 teams will almost certainly be worse than the selection process for the BCS championship game now.
[/quote]
But the aspect 4 team playoff is a brobdingnagian improvement. With 5 major conferences (SEC, PAC, Big12, Big10, ACC), someone will always be left out, and there will always still be griping, but at least we will get to see those games on the field. And with the strength of the Pac12 overall (which is gaining respect and appears to be getting stronger except for maybe Cal), if we are fortunate to become Pac-12 champs again, we will undoubtedly get 1 of those 4 slots. That makes the goal much more fair, we just have to win the Pac-12 against the teams that we play against, and we don't have to win over public opinion. Being Pac-12 champ will be enough.Â
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - Leftcoast - 12-08-2013
Shensingumi got it right. If Stanford foesn't like its place in the polls then don't lose to Utah!Â
Luckily, this year it just doesn't matter. We 're going to the Rose Bowl and if we win I'll finally know what those of you around in '70 and '71 felt like.
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - Roberton3 - 12-08-2013
(12-08-2013, 09:49 AM)scorecard link Wrote:But the aspect 4 team playoff is a brobdingnagian improvement. With 5 major conferences (SEC, PAC, Big12, Big10, ACC), someone will always be left out, and there will always still be griping, but at least we will get to see those games on the field. And with the strength of the Pac12 overall (which is gaining respect and appears to be getting stronger except for maybe Low APR U), if we are fortunate to become Pac-12 champs again, we will undoubtedly get 1 of those 4 slots. That makes the goal much more fair, we just have to win the Pac-12 against the teams that we play against, and we don't have to win over public opinion. Being Pac-12 champ will be enough.
I mostly agree with you, though I think you're being slightly overoptimistic. I can easily imagine a situation where 2 of the 4 teams are from the SEC and two major conference champions get left out. But yes, a 4-team playoff is still a big improvement.
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - Hank 91 - 12-08-2013
The four-team format is nice, but it obviously won't end the controversy, and we need look no further than right here. It seems that Stanford will end up #5 in tonight's final BCS rankings. There will always be a #5 team who thinks it deserves to be included. So why not expand to eight, the number many believe to be the perfect solution? Because there will always be a #9. Even with the basketball tournament, SIXTY-FOUR teams wasn't enough, so we've expanded to 68, which always seemed ridiculous to me. (The best idea I've ever heard about the tournament was to invite everyone just to stop the complaining.)
It will always come down to this: win. I don't feel even the slightest hint of disappointment when I think of this season, because I can't wait to go to the Rose Bowl. But if Stanford had simply won those games that were there for the taking, we wouldn't be talking about this right now.
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - OutsiderFan - 12-08-2013
(12-08-2013, 09:23 AM)garvin link Wrote:Quote:(influenced by hopelessly biased media types)
OutsiderFan, you don't know what you are talking about. There are three components to the BCS rankings: the coaches' poll, the computer rankings, and the Harris Interactive poll. Only the last group has anything at all to do with "media types," and they are a tiny minority among the other members, who include former players, coaches and administrators. (An even tinier minority when you filter out people like Gil Brandt, whose media position -- NFL.com analyst -- is the result of a long career in football itself, as a personnel guy for the Dallas Cowboys.)
Here's a New York Times story on half a dozen Harris voters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/sports/ncaafootball/voters-in-the-harris-poll-take-their-task-seriously.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Obviously that's anecdotal. But here's a link to the entire list of voters.** Clearly the New York Times story is a lot closer to capturing the essence of these voters than the idiotic dismissal of them as "hopelessly biased media types."
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=869530
It is comically stupid to say this BCS selection process is biased and the new playoff selection system won't be. What makes Ty.rone Will.ingham or Condi Rice or Archie Manning or Pat Haden immune to bias? Anything that involves voting by human beings entails bias. And the idea that a newspaper reporter is more biased than the U..S.C. athletic director is patently absurd.
** This list may be a year out of date -- it doesn't include Tommy Vardell, for instance, who I think I read is a voter now -- but there's no reason to think the Harris composition is materially different now.
Why take issue with a point that isn't materially important to the larger issue being raised? No matter how or why Stanford and Oregon are being so disrespected (and by extension the Pac-12 conference) by whoever or whatever is behind the BCS rankings, the fact is, by objective measures like ESPN's formula, Stanford and Oregon are better teams, based on overall record against better competition, than Michigan State or Oklahoma.Â
Do people reading this believe Larry Scott should stay quiet and not speak up for his employer? Would it be wrong for him to get on ESPN and sports talk radio to point out the fact the Pac-12 plays nine conference games, and that the three conferences ranked ahead of the Pac-12 only play eight? Should he point out how if Stanford played four OOC patsies they'd have just one loss, and Oregon would too, just like Auburn and Alabama? It is completely ridiculous for Michigan State to be considered a better team than Stanford, based on the accomplishments of the two teams this season, when those accomplishments take into account the difficulty of their schedules.
Am I wrong to think Larry Scott has a duty to call out this nonsense and try to educate those who influence perceptions in college footbal, no matter if it is from biased members of the media, or isn't, or whether it might be replicated on a future selection committee?Â
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - 76lsjumb - 12-08-2013
(12-08-2013, 07:03 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:To pick Oklahoma over Oregon to play Alabama in the Sugar Bowl is as preposterous and as much of an outrage as Stanford being ranked behind Michigan State. I hate Oregon, but the Pac-12 deserves the right, and frankly, College Football needs a Pac-12/SEC matchup in the post season to allow the Pac-12 to shed the ridiculous bias it faces from the college football poll voters. Oklahoma will get smoked by Alabama. Oregon and Alabama would be a great game.
A part of me agrees, but another part really worries about giving the D.ucks the opportunity to disgrace themselves -- and, more importantly [since I'm okay with seeing THEM disgraced] the PAC-12 by extension-- by simply phoning it in [DAT: "...it's like whatever..." ] -- and getting walloped by the Tide. Of course, I'm sure somewhere in Eugene there's a mini-run this morning on those leftover "We Want Bama" shirts.
As for media bias, OF, you obviously weren't aware that if you even whisper that phrase, anywhere in the world, you will instantly bring down upon your head the wrath of garvin.
Personally, I'm pretty comfortable with the bias I expect Condi, Ty.rone, and Andrew's dad will bring to the table...
One other thing [if it hasn't been mentioned elsewhere]:Â Did anyone else watching the Baylor game yesterday have a brief moment of disorientation at the end when they showed the Fiesta Bowl guy on the sideline standing next to... [hey! I recognize that guy!]... (Big-12 commissioner) Bob Bowlsby?
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - OutsiderFan - 12-08-2013
There aren't words to do this justice:
http://www.pollspeak.com/component/option,com_psreport/Itemid,3/lang,en/p,54/r,V/s,25/t1,89/t2,/v,23/w,16/
Re: Larry Scott has some politicking to do tomorrow - stupac2 - 12-08-2013
(12-08-2013, 12:04 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:There aren't words to do this justice:
http://www.pollspeak.com/component/option,com_psreport/Itemid,3/lang,en/p,54/r,V/s,25/t1,89/t2,/v,23/w,16/
Bring it. Give us all the disrespect. I want everyone in the country to underrank us, to underestimate us. Us vs. the world. Bring it on.