Favorite sons...

[isuquinndog]

They tried that with college football and every one lost their minds.

 

[jbird]

Emphasis on Q1 and Q2 pretty much boxes mid majors out, because P 5's get to play each other TWICE during the regular season, including having one of those opportunities on their home court.

 

[ISU86]

They tried that with college football and every one lost their minds.

The sad part is, they come up with a rating, but then decide to subdivide the ranking into arbitrary portions (quads). If the formula is complete and good, no need to add some arbitrary sections to try and fortify the results.

Someone(s) decided simply looking at who you played/beat (and who they played/beat) was not good (translate: providing the desired results) enough, they added NET Efficiency (difference of points scored and allowed per 100 possession). Who cares? When did losing or winning become a beauty pageant. If we win 1-0 or 99-98, it's a W; if a team has a great efficiency but cannot get W's, does not matter how efficient they are.

 

[gobirds85]

The sad part is, they come up with a rating, but then decide to subdivide the ranking into arbitrary portions (quads). If the formula is complete and good, no need to add some arbitrary sections to try and fortify the results.

Someone(s) decided simply looking at who you played/beat (and who they played/beat) was not good (translate: providing the desired results) enough, they added NET Efficiency (difference of points scored and allowed per 100 possession). Who cares? When did losing or winning become a beauty pageant. If we win 1-0 or 99-98, it's a W; if a team has a great efficiency but cannot get W's, does not matter how efficient they are.

Preach my brother.

 

[Yogi]

I think we should just put everyone in the IHSA did that for yeas with more teams than there is in div 1. every team starts in a district of 4 teams after these disticts let the ncaa seed the champs and play it off

 

[isuquinndog]

The sad part is, they come up with a rating, but then decide to subdivide the ranking into arbitrary portions (quads). If the formula is complete and good, no need to add some arbitrary sections to try and fortify the results.

Someone(s) decided simply looking at who you played/beat (and who they played/beat) was not good (translate: providing the desired results) enough, they added NET Efficiency (difference of points scored and allowed per 100 possession). Who cares? When did losing or winning become a beauty pageant. If we win 1-0 or 99-98, it's a W; if a team has a great efficiency but cannot get W's, does not matter how efficient they are.

They didn't like the computer results (well fans didn't) and the big money teams weren't as good by the computer than what humans said so they made changes until they got the teams they wanted in the BCS.

 

[isuquinndog]

Great article on it: Bring Back the BCS Computers