Zoom, shouldn't Hawaii be #1?

[aufan59]

Hawaii is undefeated in non-exhibition games, and holds the best record in I-A.

Seems like if you stuck to what you believed in, you would be ranting on how Hawaii should be #1. But you are just a Big 12 homer on a mission.

[ZOOMBAG]

I guess you don't read for comprehension very well down at Auburn....no surprise there. It takes about a 50-60 point or so SOS differential to equal one loss in most power ratings. Hawaii had a 1-2 loss differential there. KU did not. Also Hawaii did not have an MOV rating to overcome SOS weaknesses the way Kansas did.

But I guess you don't comprehend the posts where I REPEATEDLY spell that out. So go back and re-read, in detail, and try and glean the logic. But then you SEC types aren't to quick on the uptake of the logic thing I suppose....

And I'm an MWC homer, AFA grad. I live in Iowa. I have no connection to the big 12...

[GatorGrad]

Zoom - Don't you root for Nebraska? Also, CJ has an objective ranking formula. Did he have Kansas #1 too?

[Bucs90]

So, Zoom, based on your logic, rank the Big 12 teams for me?

[Lincoln Tower]

He has no connection to the Big 12, save an unnatural and somewhat creepy affinity for Tom Osborne....

[ZOOMBAG]

His rating is not based on any particular statistical theory. Sagarin didn't have KU #1 either but at least he can back his rating with his application of theory and proofs behind his weighting factors.

Mine is just an opinion, not a raw number crunch, but it an opinion based on the common logic most sports use to seed post season teams....won-loss record, then various tie breakers for identical records. SOS is never a factor in those, just raw number like points for, points against, common opponents, record with a division, etc.... Things that would work just fine for college football, too.

[ZOOMBAG]

Go check the standings. That';s how they "rank".

[ZOOMBAG]

I just read his book....and found it enlightening...

[Bucs90]

OK Zoom. In the standings, OU is #1 in the Big 12. Missouri is #2. Kansas would be #3.

So, how then is Kansas #1 in the nation?

[Lincoln Tower]

LOL. Don't try and use logic when discussing football with ZOOM. Too much for him to handle.

[Bucs90]

Well, I'm just trying to be objective. Which team had the "best season"? And all 3 teams had the same goals back in August:

1. Win the division
2. Win the Big 12
3. Win the BCS National Championship

Oklahoma accomplished 2 goals. Missouri accomplished 1. Kansas accomplished 0. Yet Zoom would rank the teams 1. Kansas 2. Missouri 3. Oklahoma.

Maybe I'm just one of the ignorant people he speaks of.

[Lincoln Tower]

Well Kansas won a bowl game, and in ZOOMs eyes that obviously means everything.....

[ZOOMBAG]

The national championship was completely different from a conference title race and embodies the entire season plus bowl games.

OU won the Big 12 by a completely different set of rules than a national championship is decided. In the conference they had divisional races and the winners of those met in a playoff game. OU won that, but that is completely unrelated to the national championship which is nothing but a run of 12 or 13 games.

Teams win titles all the time that neither win their division or conference.

[ZOOMBAG]

Divisional, conference and national titles have no dependancy. That just more college level idiocy and brainwashing at work. Teams in all sports at every level win league or world titles without winning their divisions or their conferences....

KU 12-1
MU 12-2
OU 11-3

It is that simple. Nothing hard about it.

[ZOOMBAG]

It had a 1/13th relevancy. Same as their game against Florida-Atlantic and Central Michigan did. No more, no less.

KU 12-1
everyone else XX-2 or worse.

That's all that matters because the all the point stupid college fans like to consider simply don't matter in the REAL sporting world when it comes to determining champions.

[Lincoln Tower]

Then you'd have to admit that the Browns are better than the Steelers. The Browns and the Steelers both finshed the regular season at 10-6 with the Steelers beating the Browns 2x. OU and Missou finished the regular season at 11-2 and OU won 2x.

[ZOOMBAG]

I am one of the few purely LOGICAL posters here. You people keep trying to relate unrelated topics, which is, of course, illogical.

The degree of meaning for a bowl game has nothing to do with making a case why Kansas should get the final #1 ranking. Two completely and totally unrelated threads of discussion.

[GatorGrad]

I am one of the few purely LOGICAL posters here.


LOL...now THAT is funny. Thanks for the laugh...I needed it!

[Lincoln Tower]

Missouri and Kansas finished their regular season slate with the same records and Missouri beat Kansas. Tell me what logic says Kansas is better. Certaintly not on field results. Must be some "perception" of yours.

[ZOOMBAG]

Missouri lost twice. That they played and extra game is irrelevant.

KU 12-1
Missouri 12-2.

KU wins.

[Lincoln Tower]

Playing an extra game IS relevant. In your opinion it isn't, but you've never given any justification onto why it isn't.

[ZOOMBAG]

No it is not. The BCS could care less it takes the SEC, Big 12 and ACC and extra game to get to the their "title game". They used to explicitly count losses that added to you score (a low score was better) and a conference title game loss or a loss in the former preseason "classics" counted every bit as much as a regular season loss. Teams play a different number of games in most other college sports, including baseball, bball and hockey and RPI doesn't care either.

If LSU or Virginia Tech or Missouri doesn't like the fact they have to play an extra game, they can petition their conference to stop the conference title game or they can leave and join the SunBelt or go independent if they want to.

No, it is IRRELEVANT.

KU 12-1
Others XX-2 or worse.

That's all that matters.

[Lincoln Tower]

RPI also doesn't rank teams based on record. It does so using SOS as a component. If all DIA wins were the same, the Xavier at 12-3 (#8 rpi) wouldnt be ahead of Mississippi State at 13-0 (#20 rpi) and Washington State at 13-0 (#30 rpi).

Who you play matters. It always has.

BTW - Are you trying to justify the fact than extra game and loss does matter by saying the BCS used to agree? LOL!!!

EDIT - The RPI rankings I cited were accurate as of the games of Wedensday. They could've changed by now.

[ZOOMBAG]

RPI is not a rating at all. It's a completely different animal than a simple best to worst rating is. And it is a VERY simplistic forumula and not really scientifically derived at all. That is why is usually quite diferent than most computer raitings of basketball, including Sagarin.

[Lincoln Tower]

Then why bring up the RPI if it has nothing to do with what you are arguing?

[Bucs90]

Zoom, you said "Teams win titles all the time that neither win their division or conference."

Name the last time it happened in college football. Last time a non-conference champion won the MNC?

See, your "logic" is simply "illogical" because it is not consistent. So, what you are saying is this:

Missouri beat Kansas. They had identical records, but Mizzou beat them head to head. Thus, on morning of the Big 12 Championship, Missouri was better than Kansas because they had the same record, but Missouri beat them head to head. Kansas regular season is OVER. Missouri is BETTER because they beat Kansas head to head.

Then Missouri loses in the Big 12 CCG that Kansas failed to qualify for. And then, because Missouri lost to Oklahoma, all of a sudden Kansas becomes better than Missouri? So Missouri can say "Well, this morning we were better than Kansas because we pounded them on the field. But since we lost to OU today while Kansas sat at home, now we are no longer better than Kansas."

That is the most backward, illogical thinking I've ever heard of. Zoom, is LSU better than the New Orleans Saints? I mean, SOS doesn't matter. LSU has a far better record. So, by your logic, LSU is better than the Saints. It doesn't matter who each team plays against, right?

So, let me get this right, since YOU are the only logical person here. You are saying that on the day of the Big 12 Championship game- Missouri woke up that day and they were BETTER than Kansas because they had equal records and beat them head to head. Then, while Kansas sat at home, Missouri lost to OU- and became NO LONGER BETTER than Kansas as a result.

Could it not be said that if Missouri didn't have to play OU TWICE that they would still only have 1 loss and be better than Kansas? Or if Kansas had to play Missouri twice they'd lose and have 2 losses? Playing a team that is better than you will give you 2 losses. Bottom line is the best team in the Big 12 is OU, followed by Missouri, followed by Kansas.

You have your "logical" poll, but the Big 12 proved those standings by pure on-field play. Logic doesn't need to even be applied if the situation was solved on the field. OU is better than Missouri. Missouri is better than Kansas.

That is all that matters. If you don't agree, refer back to the game film.

[Bucs90]

But, once again, I just ask you- please- rank all the teams in the Big 12, according to YOUR logic poll, not the Big 12 standings. Use YOUR logical poll and rank each conference's teams. Thats all I'm asking. Please, inform this ignorant SEC fan.

[Bucs90]

Zoom, also can't help but notice you've avoided the Hawaii thing. Your "logical" top 7 didn't include Hawaii. Now, you have 2 loss UGA, LSU, WVU, OU all listed above Hawaii.

But, then, you say ALL THAT MATTERS is wins and losses. So.....why is UGA ranked over Hawaii? Why is WVU ranked over Hawaii? Please explain. This ignorant SEC fan doesn't understand.

I want to embrace your purely logical rankings, but to do so, you need to explain why you have Kansas #1 because nothing matters but wins and losses, but also have Georgia ranked over Hawaii. But if wins and losses were all that mattered, Hawaii would be ranked over Georgia. Your are inconsistent on this.

So, your REAL logical rankings should be:

1. Kansas 1 loss
2. Hawaii 1 loss
3. LSU 2 losses
4. Ohio State 2 losses
5. WVU 2 losses
6. Missouri 2 losses
7. Georgia 2 losses
8. OU 3 losses

Do I have it right, oh great logical one?

Right? Thats purely logical, based on wins and losses.

[CJHawkeyes]

Bucs90,

I think you are exaggerating Zoombag's argument. Except where subjectivity is used, every team sport ranks teams best to worst record. Based on records, Kansas had a better season than Missouri. It does not matter which team is better. The year Baltimore won the Super Bowl, they finished second in their division despite beating the champion twice because the champion finished the regular season with a better record. Also, I don't think Zoombag is suggesting ranking teams that compete at different levels against each other.


That said, I think ranking college teams by records is an infinitely better idea than using opinions that consider many things that have no logical relevance where determining the winner(s) of a competition is concerned. However, I don't agree with Zoombag, if I understand his argument, that ranking teams by records is the only way. Since schools are responsible for their schedules, it is certainly fair to consider SOS when determining the value of a team's season. I don't think SOS proves one team is better than another and I would never suggest that it does. Under my system, LSU's record versus LSU's schedule is worth more than Kansas' record versus Kansas' schedule. Under another system, the opposite may be true. It is simply a matter of those in charge deciding the manner on which they prefer to determine the value of each team's season. Unfortunately, for now, they have chosen the worst idea in sports history.........polls.

[GatorGrad]

Good explanation, CJ. I agree with everything you just said. Not sure why Zoom thinks that it would not be possible for an objective ranking system to put LSU's record/schedule ahead of KU's. You have to put significant weight on SOS in college football due to the # of teams and scheduling dynamics.

[ZOOMBAG]

That is "undefined" The Big 12 already has 100% objective rules for determining it's champion.

College football as a whole, does not. I just defined a set. And mine is as valid as anyone else and based on the research of an MIT PhD Mathematician..

[ZOOMBAG]

Read my posts, you simply missed it.

[ZOOMBAG]

I consider SOS, just not at the ridiculous level most brainwashed college fans do. SOS is only a VERY MINOR contributing factor based on Sagarin's findings. Average Margin of Victory is actually a more significant factor than schedule strength, but both are very small compared to simply winning. Winning trumps all, and by a very LARGE margin.

It takes somewhere between 50-60 SOS rankings to equate to a loss. Hawaii down near the bottom of the SOS ratings probably equates to about 2 losses. Good MOV can cancel out bad SOS. IN KU's case it does in Hawaii's case it does not. Thus I have Hawaii down near the #10 level with some of the three loss teams.

Next year I plan on posting an objective formula similar to yours so all can follow how a 100% OBJECTIVE rating would work.

[Lincoln Tower]

I consider SOS, just not at the ridiculous level most brainwashed college fans do. SOS is only a VERY MINOR contributing factor based on Sagarin's findings. Average Margin of Victory is actually a more significant factor than schedule strength, but both are very small compared to simply winning. Winning trumps all, and by a very LARGE margin.

It takes somewhere between 50-60 SOS rankings to equate to a loss. Hawaii down near the bottom of the SOS ratings probably equates to about 2 losses. Good MOV can cancel out bad SOS. IN KU's case it does in Hawaii's case it does not. Thus I have Hawaii down near the #10 level with some of the three loss teams.

Next year I plan on posting an objective formula similar to yours so all can follow how a 100% OBJECTIVE rating would work.

Thats another number I guess that is attributed to Sagarin. Once again, neither I, nor anyone else on this board have read his justifications. You spouting out his numbers means nothing because we have no idea what his justifications are. Until we can all read his stuff you opinions are as "stupid" as anyones on this board.

Please, give me a copy of this. You can't imagine that we will take Sagarin's word without seeing any of his work.

[ZOOMBAG]

Because most computer ratings rate SOS GROTESQUELY too high. And they cannot back it up with statistical analysis. Now Sagarin still has LSU #1 but KU is a close #2 and the difference is a top 10 SOS for LSU and 74 for KU and in his system KU's MOV is only a little better than LSU's so KU still fell just short. Maybe if I put a pencil to it, I'd come up with the same result, but I did not.

The purpose of the posting was that having KU #1 is a perfectly plausible conclusion just as it was the last time I ran you people around the flagpole concerning KU being #1. And SOS simply doesn't matter that much and "who they beat" damn sure doesn't matter to me or Sagarin or Massey or any of the other truely SCIENTIFIC ratings out there.

[ZOOMBAG]

And just a note for a few seasons ago when Sagaring was being interviewed by ESPN trying to explain why SOS was way to highly considered in college football, he gave and example of a typical prediction his ratings provide (PREDTIVIE SYSTEM is what he has). Two teams, one 9-1 the other 8-2, the first with and SOS in the 60's the second in the teens with similar MOV factor the 9-1 would be favored by 3.5 at home .5 at a neutral site and the 2 loss team at their home by 2.5. Most fans would have the 2 loss team fairly heavily favored in all venues.... (BTW that was close to Virginia Tech in 1999 where they managed a #2 ranking with 64 SOS even though two one loss teams had top 10 schedule rankings....

Bottom line, SOS is a VERY SMALL factor.

[GatorGrad]

It takes somewhere between 50-60 SOS rankings to equate to a loss.

What is this based on? Why can't 20-30 SOS rankings equate to a loss?

Next year I plan on posting an objective formula similar to yours so all can follow how a 100% OBJECTIVE rating would work.

So you're going to come up with the rules for an "objective" raking system? I can't wait!

:rolleyes:

[GatorGrad]

Because most computer ratings rate SOS GROTESQUELY too high. And they cannot back it up with statistical analysis. Now Sagarin still has LSU #1 but KU is a close #2 and the difference is a top 10 SOS for LSU and 74 for KU and in his system KU's MOV is only a little better than LSU's so KU still fell just short. Maybe if I put a pencil to it, I'd come up with the same result, but I did not.

Wait...so after all of that, Sagarin actually has LSU #1? So if Sagarin is the god of college football rankings according to you, why did you have LSU #3 in your poll? You're just too funny.

[ZOOMBAG]

That's what Sagarin basically uses for SOS. He has a very complex system but it boils down to SOS, by itself, equating about 55 to one loss. But that can be offset by average MOV and home-away. A team with a 70 SOS but a top 10 margin of victory average essentially cancels out. What that says is that great teams beat the crap out of bad teams. KU beat their OOC schedule by over 40 points a game, which is about what you'd expect ANY of the top 10 teams in the BCS to have done against the same schedule (Ohio St, of course....did NOT)....

[ZOOMBAG]

Another way of saying that is that a #5 team beating four teams in the 11-20 range by an average of 3 points a game is roughly equivalent to that same team beating four teams in the 100-120 range by an average of 50. The result are statistically the same for purposes of ranking or say predicting the result against the #6 team The prediction would be the same for both scenarios.

[Don]

Thats another number I guess that is attributed to Sagarin. Once again, neither I, nor anyone else on this board have read his justifications. You spouting out his numbers means nothing because we have no idea what his justifications are. Until we can all read his stuff you opinions are as "stupid" as anyones on this board.

Please, give me a copy of this. You can't imagine that we will take Sagarin's word without seeing any of his work.

Zoomie has already told all of us that Jeff has a Ph.D. in Math from MIT. So what else is there to discuss? We can all take everything Jeff puts out as gospel!

[Lincoln Tower]

Problem with that is RUTS makes you look better than you are, or not so doing it makes you look worse than you are. I know you will call it too "politically correct" but sportsmanship is and always will be a part of amateur athletics.

Kansas ran up the score on SeLa and FIU. FIU was the last place team in the Sun Belt, which basically makes it 1AA caliber. When I say RUTS the score, I mean playing stares well into the fourth quarter.

tOSU played Youngstown State. It is Tressel's former school and we would never beat them my 50-60 points. He beat them by 32. If he wanted to, he could've beaten them by 60 (like UK did SeLa), which would move tOSU OOC MOV to the mid 30s.

And I knwo it is not 100% scientific, but since when were sports science? There is always some subjectivity somewhere.

[Lincoln Tower]

Zoomie has already told all of us that Jeff has a Ph.D. in Math from MIT. So what else is there to discuss? We can all take everything Jeff puts out as gospel!

I am more than halfway to masters in Math, and I obviously love football. I'd love to read it. When I have time, I dabble in sabermetrics (VORP and the like).

When his USA Today paper came out, I was in 8th grade, and didn't receive the USA Today. The scientific thing to do would be to read his paper and correct any errors he might have instead of just taking it on faith.

EDIT - Darn, I meant WPA, not VORP. When I am at a game, I can probably guess what a certain play amounts to in WPA terms. VORP is obviously more complicated.

[Don]

The scientific thing to do would be to read his paper and correct any errors he might have instead of just taking it on faith.

WHAT????

LT, he HAS a Ph.D for MIT!!! He doesn't make mistakes! Show some faith!!

P.S. On a side note I would like to remind us all that Mathematics is NOT a science. Nothing that Jeff is doing is "scientific" whether or not his logic flawed.

[CJHawkeyes]

I must admit that I don't get why there needs to be a scientific basis for the rules to a competition. While I don't question Sagarin's mathematical expertise nor am I familar with his claims, his system is predictive and, therefore, has no business to being used to determine the winner(s) of a competition. For starters, a predictive system does not guarantee that all wins are greater than all losses. I presume that losing by one point to the top team is worth more towards a team's predictive value than beating the worst team by one. Based on his results, it certainly appears that winning is less important under his system than mine. Furthermore, while I agree that many college football fans weigh SOS too heavily, I don't know what it means to say that SOS is insignificant. Insignificant with respect to what? Again, the rules I devised are only meant to determine the winner(s) of a competition. The factors involved in my system are as significant as I wish them to be.

[Bucs90]

Does MIT have football? Case closed.

CJ, you said " Kansas had a better season than Missouri. It does not matter which team is better. The year Baltimore won the Super Bowl, they finished second in their division despite beating the champion twice because the champion finished the regular season with a better record. Also, I don't think Zoombag is suggesting ranking teams that compete at different levels against each other."

I think this logic may be over my head a bit. So, it doesn't matter who is better on the field. It doesn't matter who won the division. It doesn't matter who won the conference. It only matters who finished with the best record.

So, lets say Alabama plays 4 1-AA teams, goes 11-1, but loses the conference to LSU, who plays 4 OOC BCS teams- lets say USC, Ohio State, VT, and Texas, and they lose 2 of them, but win the West and the SEC. By that logic, Alabama still had the "best season"?

Zooms logic rewards cowardice for one, by awarding teams who beat cupcake schedules and punishing teams that play tough OOC teams.

The NFL is ultimate parity. They have an equal pool of opponents, thus, record alone is enough. CFB does not.

NCAA Basketball doesn't go on record alone. For example, the Big South Conference gets one auto-bid to the NCAA tournament. They send the team that wins the conference tourney, NOT the team with the best record.

Point is there hasn't been a non-conference champ to win the MNC. Only 1 to my knowledge has even played for it (01 Nebraska). Zooms "logic" would say Kansas is better than Missouri and OU, both of whom were better on the field, and Hawaii is better than Georgia, who pounded them on the field.

But, if Zoom is gonna argue his "logical" poll is NOT a reflection of how teams would fare if the actually played, and is not predictive, then what is the "logic" of that poll?

Why can't I use Zoom's logic to say the Kansas Jayhawks would beat the Miami Dolphins? Exact opposite records. Neither played common opponents, just as Kansas and LSU didn't. Both played the same sport. Using his logic, that is a deduction that can be made, unless his logic is inconsistent.

[CJHawkeyes]

Does MIT have football? Case closed.

CJ, you said " Kansas had a better season than Missouri. It does not matter which team is better. The year Baltimore won the Super Bowl, they finished second in their division despite beating the champion twice because the champion finished the regular season with a better record. Also, I don't think Zoombag is suggesting ranking teams that compete at different levels against each other."

I think this logic may be over my head a bit. So, it doesn't matter who is better on the field. It doesn't matter who won the division. It doesn't matter who won the conference. It only matters who finished with the best record.

So, lets say Alabama plays 4 1-AA teams, goes 11-1, but loses the conference to LSU, who plays 4 OOC BCS teams- lets say USC, Ohio State, VT, and Texas, and they lose 2 of them, but win the West and the SEC. By that logic, Alabama still had the "best season"?

Zooms logic rewards cowardice for one, by awarding teams who beat cupcake schedules and punishing teams that play tough OOC teams.

The NFL is ultimate parity. They have an equal pool of opponents, thus, record alone is enough. CFB does not.

NCAA Basketball doesn't go on record alone. For example, the Big South Conference gets one auto-bid to the NCAA tournament. They send the team that wins the conference tourney, NOT the team with the best record.

Point is there hasn't been a non-conference champ to win the MNC. Only 1 to my knowledge has even played for it (01 Nebraska). Zooms "logic" would say Kansas is better than Missouri and OU, both of whom were better on the field, and Hawaii is better than Georgia, who pounded them on the field.

But, if Zoom is gonna argue his "logical" poll is NOT a reflection of how teams would fare if the actually played, and is not predictive, then what is the "logic" of that poll?

Why can't I use Zoom's logic to say the Kansas Jayhawks would beat the Miami Dolphins? Exact opposite records. Neither played common opponents, just as Kansas and LSU didn't. Both played the same sport. Using his logic, that is a deduction that can be made, unless his logic is inconsistent.

No, it doesn't matter who is a better team and I don't think Zoombag is suggesting a better record makes for a better team. If the rules are best to worst record, Kansas has had a more valuable season, end of story. It does not matter that Missouri beat Kansas any more than it matters that Baltimore beat Jacksonville twice in my example. Baltimore still finished second according to the rules. Of course, if I-A were going to rank teams by records, I would imagine there would be limits on who teams could schedule. I doubt anyone gets to schedules four I-AA opponents.

Again, I'm not suggesting that teams must be ranked by their records. How any sport determines its winners is a matter of choice. My point is that a team can have a more valuable season than another no matter who might be the better team. There are countless examples of teams that have beaten those ranked above them. Finally, I don't think you can use Zoombag's argument with respect to Kansas and the Miami Dolphins because I think he is only applying his argument to teams that compete at the same level and are actually competing for the same goal.

[CJHawkeyes]

But, if Zoom is gonna argue his "logical" poll is NOT a reflection of how teams would fare if the actually played, and is not predictive, then what is the "logic" of that poll?

BTW, the standings of a competition should not reflect how teams would fare if they played and should be not be predictive.

[ZOOMBAG]

I was using the ranking system virtually ALL team sports at every level use to seed teams in playoffs.

Won-loss record

Record against common opponents

PF-PA with common opponents

Other tie breaking factors like overall PF-PA or opponent's won-loss record.


Some leagues use record in their division/conference as a tie breaker for at large considerations and relative seeding.


So merely using the common rating mechanisms EVERYONE ELSE uses in other sports.

[ZOOMBAG]

MOV is always implemented as a diminishing rate of return to account for RUTS.

[ZOOMBAG]

Ranking teams OBJECTIVELY is a MATHEMATICAL proposition. You don't have to know ANYTHING about the target activity to rate it's performance you just need data and the basic rules of play

Case closed for real.

[Blue Hen]

MIT does have football, btw. The fight'n Engineers play in a 1,600 seat stadium........and all the players can count to 10 and speak coherently.

[ZOOMBAG]

True. It is a COMPETITION against a FIXED SET OF RULES.

There is no such thing as "best team" since that cannot be defined absolutely.

[Bucs90]

But Zoom, the BCS MNC is a competition against a fixed set of rules. It's just that we don't like the rules.

By your logic, conference championships mean nothing. On field victory means nothing. By your logic, the Big 12's top 3 is the exact opposite of how it played out:

On field results:

1. OU
2. Missouri
3. Kansas

By Zoom logic:

1. Kansas
2. Missouri
3. Kansas

I just want you to say how can your "logic" be valid when on field results clearly show otherwise. UGA pounded Hawaii, yet you rate Hawaii higher. And of course the Big 12 top 3 scenario. What is the point of a ranking if it doesn't reflect predictive results of an on-field competition, doesn't reflect results of on-field play that has already occurred and doesn't take into account anything other than raw statistical wins and losses?

[CJHawkeyes]

But Zoom, the BCS MNC is a competition against a fixed set of rules. It's just that we don't like the rules.

By your logic, conference championships mean nothing. On field victory means nothing. By your logic, the Big 12's top 3 is the exact opposite of how it played out:

On field results:

1. OU
2. Missouri
3. Kansas

By Zoom logic:

1. Kansas
2. Missouri
3. Kansas

I just want you to say how can your "logic" be valid when on field results clearly show otherwise. UGA pounded Hawaii, yet you rate Hawaii higher. And of course the Big 12 top 3 scenario. What is the point of a ranking if it doesn't reflect predictive results of an on-field competition, doesn't reflect results of on-field play that has already occurred and doesn't take into account anything other than raw statistical wins and losses?

The BCS formula does not qualify as a fixed set of rules by a longshot. Also, the standings of a competition are not meant to predictive. They are meant to be retrodictive. They simply rank teams best to worst performance based on games played according to the relevant rules. This doesn't mean the rules must rank teams strictly by record. However, if teams are ranked by records, Kansas' season is more valuable even if the on-field results convince everyone that someone else is better. Besides that, you appear to be using the conference standings to justify how those teams should be ranked in the national standings. Different competitions with different rules. Finally, teams have always finish higher than teams they have lost to. Kansas finishing higher than Oklahoma and Missouri based on all games is nothing out of the ordinary.

[ZOOMBAG]

No, the voters have no single set of rules, none at all.

Next point?

[Bucs90]

I'm waiting for your 1st point? What "other rules" trump what actually happened on the freakin' field. OU proved ON THE FIELD it is better than Missouri. Missouri proved ON THE FIELD it is better than Kansas.

Any "ranking" "rating" or "poll" listing these 3 teams in any other order is simply ignorant. What happened on the field is exactly what the Big 12 standings show.

I hate the BCS rules. But the rules are what they are. And winning one's conference is nearly mandatory to be considered #1 under those rules. Kansas failed to do that. It failed to even win it's division. When Zoom shows my how a team that FAILED to reach it's two major concrete undebatable goals, and can still be said to have the "best season", then I'll reconsider.

Until then, I will have trouble considering anything he says as "logical".

[CJHawkeyes]

Sorry, but those two concrete goals have no relation to the national title race. A conference title is "nearly" mandatory by default precisely because an undefeated or one-loss season is nearly mandatory. There are countless number of scenarios that allow for a non-champion to rank higher than a champion. It happens all the time. I'm not arguing that Kansas should be #1. I just don't understand why you think winning a single game or winning an 8-9 game competition based on one set of rules precludes another team from winning a separate 12-13 game competition based on another set of rules.

[Bucs90]

Yes, they have a direct relation. As much as we may not like it, winning the conference affects public opinion. And public opinion drives the BCS system. So, yes, it is a direct relation.

Look at the Conference Championship as sort of a political primary for football. If you don't win it, you have almost no chance to win the bigger one.

A 12-13 game competition based on what? Just looking at who won the most games is hardly a competition unless we have the "Best Record National Championship".

I look at the 12-13 games as having a common final goal, a ring. And the path to a ring has many steps, including a division and conference championship.

But thats just me. I tend to place a high emphasis on what happens on the field. Kansas only had 1 real chance of a loss, Missouri, and they lost bad. Missouri played 3 BCS bowl teams, OU, Kansas, Illinois, in it's regular season. OU twice.

So, explain this. By Zooms rules Missouri finished below Kansas. Why? Kansas BENEFITTED by losing it's division because it avoided playing OU, while Missouri was PENALIZED for winning the division because it had to play OU AGAIN thus likely ending the year with 2 losses and finishing behind Kansas in the "Zoom Logic Poll".

Tell me the logic in that? Basically, all Zoom logic can say is "Here is a list of teams in the order of the teams who had the most wins. It is meaningless, pointless, carries no weight, is not predictive and does not reflect results of games in which the listed teams played each other."

Then again, maybe I just think a team's season is judged on winning rings, not just winning the most games then choking at crunch time.

[CJHawkeyes]

The only argument I'm making is that I see nothing wrong with one set of rules favoring Kansas based on 12-13 games just because another set of rules favors Oklahoma and Missouri based on 8-9 games.

[Bucs90]

The only thought I'd concede is to label that as a "Most Often Successful Poll".

Yes. Every team goes into every game with intentions to win. So, throw importance and crunch time out the window, and you could have a rating to show which team was successful the highest % of times. A meaningless and pointless stat to me, as high value performance in crunch time situations. But that is the only explanation for that "logic" and it would not show any type of "best" or "better" label as it would often reflect opposite results of what happened in the crunch time.