George Wine

[PabloDiablo]

Well this is just some of the dumbest **** ever. Unfortunately, the Harris poll folks would have no idea about this dude's clear bias against a totally decent ISU team (makes you wonder what old Wine thinks about his hawks losing to us).

He should be ashamed of himself for not keeping up with the current ratings and standings of CFB, which is his responsibility.

I would be cheering to see Houston go down in flames so this dude could go ahead and eat his words along with his prune juice but they are playing Penn State in the ticket city bowl. Go Cougs and Case!!

 

[cyguytillidie]

FIFY. That game was at Houston.

Thats an even better loss.

 

[vortex]

There are plenty of "George Wines" out there that are voters. The system needs to be changed.

 

[sfcyclonefan]

I am just saying this makes the polls credibility slip, not that they should take votes.

I fine it harder to take them serious about being a group of "experts" when I see this ranking.

 

[Mizzoulander]

Why do we have human polls at all? Develop a computer ranking and base everything on that. Also, make the program public. No more secret algorithms that may just be gooey anyway. That gives coaches and administrations the ability to schedule how you need to get in. If you don't make it, then schedule harder noncon games.

Even if there is a controversy, it would be a lot easier to stomach if you can say the numbers back it up. With this system, now you see the corruption and ridiculous votes it is really hard to accept that this isn't about popularity and not on the field success.

I think there are some holes in this argument...

What would you have the computers rank? How would they determine what's a good or a bad loss? How much emphasis for margin of victory? Road games or home games? Early season performance vs. late season performance? How much weight do you give a OOC loss to a good team vs. a big OOC win over a weak team?

See the problem? It ALWAYS comes down to subjective judgments of people.

What you're advocating will inevitably lead to some team learning how to "game" the system, and you'll end up with some result you never expected.

Arguing over who's best in college football is part of the experience, and the decision-makers KNOW that. One more reason you'll never get a playoff.

 

[keepngoal]

interesting how much power ISU has in this whole thing and how utterly scared and intimidated some voters are of ISU.

Wine doesn't want a good ISU. Because he is afraid of a good State team ...

 

[Boxerdaddy]

Occupy Wine.

 

[Clonehomer]

Why do we have human polls at all? Develop a computer ranking and base everything on that. Also, make the program public. No more secret algorithms that may just be gooey anyway. That gives coaches and administrations the ability to schedule how you need to get in. If you don't make it, then schedule harder noncon games. Even if there is a controversy, it would be a lot easier to stomach if you can say the numbers back it up. With this system, now you see the corruption and ridiculous votes it is really hard to accept that this isn't about popularity and not on the field success.

I think there are some holes in this argument... What would you have the computers rank? How would they determine what's a good or a bad loss? How much emphasis for margin of victory? Road games or home games? Early season performance vs. late season performance? How much weight do you give a OOC loss to a good team vs. a big OOC win over a weak team? See the problem? It ALWAYS comes down to subjective judgments of people. What you're advocating will inevitably lead to some team learning how to

Form a comitee to come up with this system. We have plenty of past data to see how it would have worked. Even if the program is subjective, at least it is up front about it. We currently use computers in this BCS formula, why would this be such a worse system? I guess I'm just sick of ESPN essentially choosing who should be in the NC game with the way they report and hype up teams and conferences.

 

[Boxerdaddy]

Alabama had a weak schedule. The Big 12 was by far a better conference top to bottom but everyone is still operating under the mindset that the SEC is the best conference hands down. We have higher rankings..and one more conference game. I hope the Big12 goes 8-0 in Bowls. How awesome would that be to see KSU just house Arkansas.

 

[Cyclophile1]

Alabama had a week schedule. The Big 12 was by far a better conference top to bottom but everyone is still operating under the mindset that the SEC is the best conference hands down. We have higher rankings..and one more conference game. I hope the Big12 goes 8-0 in Bowls. How awesome would that be to see KSU just house Arkansas.

I used to be kind of on the fence, indifferent about the bowls/playoff argument. I'm with CW after this - I want things cleared up and decided on the field. If that means a playoff, then so be it. I've moved to being in favor of something like Dan Wetzel's playoff plan. Seed a 16-team tournament based on composite of computer rankings and let the chips fall. It would be great if they could could incorporate the current bowls. If ISU is ever knocking on the door of BIG things, you know we will get screwed by a subjective system.

 

[Mizzoulander]

Form a comitee to come up with this system. We have plenty of past data to see how it would have worked. Even if the program is subjective, at least it is up front about it. We currently use computers in this BCS formula, why would this be such a worse system? I guess I'm just sick of ESPN essentially choosing who should be in the NC game with the way they report and hype up teams and conferences.

What you're describing is similar to what the BCS already is: a combination of human and computer polling. And from the standpoint of simply matching up #1 vs. #2, it's been effective (if not popular).

I don't understand how a rematch of a game ABC (ESPN's corporate parent) carried last month suits their interests. If anything, Disney would WANT LSU to play OKSt. Fans hear what they want to hear in terms of "hyping" up teams. Are they going to highlight the interesting aspects of this game? Of course.

Think back to 2004 or 2008. Both OU and UT were in the Top 5 at the time of the RRS. If those games had gone into OT, and both teams won out in the Big 12, not many folks around here would be saying no to a NCG rematch, and arguing for Florida or LSU to take their spot instead.

At the end of the day, we're all homers.

 

[Boxerdaddy]

What you're describing is similar to what the BCS already is: a combination of human and computer polling. And from the standpoint of simply matching up #1 vs. #2, it's been effective (if not popular).

I don't understand how a rematch of a game ABC (ESPN's corporate parent) carried last month suits their interests. If anything, Disney would WANT LSU to play OKSt. Fans hear what they want to hear in terms of "hyping" up teams. Are they going to highlight the interesting aspects of this game? Of course.

Think back to 2004 or 2008. Both OU and UT were in the Top 5 at the time of the RRS. If those games had gone into OT, and both teams won out in the Big 12, not many folks around here would be saying no to a NCG rematch, and arguing for Florida or LSU to take their spot instead.

At the end of the day, we're all homers.

Do you realize that you are wrong with just about everything you ever say?

 

[Mizzoulander]

Do you realize that you are wrong with just about everything you ever say?

IDK...I say quite a bit. Can you be more specific? :smile:

 

[Trice]

Harris voter: 'I think the BCS is just a mess' | University of South Florida Bulls blog: USF Sports Bulletin | Tampa Bay Times

He was one of the reasons OSU got screwed. Voted OSU 6th and Houston 5th.

This is the exact reason why the system needs to be blown up. Gary Pinkel also voted OSU #4 behind Stanford, obviously as one last FU to the Big 12 on his way out the door.

I've long been an advocate of a playoff for simple fairness issues, and this illustrates why. The corruption is just too much. It favors the brand names because there's too much of a human element involved and we can't set aside our biases.

If, God willing, ISU ever puts together the type of season Oklahoma State did, we have no margin for error whatsoever. We're Iowa State, not Ohio State. We get zero benefit of the doubt. We slip up, we're out. Ohio State slips up, they might drop a couple of notches and be right back in it two weeks later as others lose.

 

[huntt26]

Poor baby. 44-41

 

[alarson]

This is the exact reason why the system needs to be blown up. Gary Pinkel also voted OSU #4 behind Stanford, obviously as one last FU to the Big 12 on his way out the door.

I've long been an advocate of a playoff for simple fairness issues, and this illustrates why. The corruption is just too much. It favors the brand names because there's too much of a human element involved and we can't set aside our biases.

If, God willing, ISU ever puts together the type of season Oklahoma State did, we have no margin for error whatsoever. We're Iowa State, not Ohio State. We get zero benefit of the doubt. We slip up, we're out. Ohio State slips up, they might drop a couple of notches and be right back in it two weeks later as others lose.

A playoff wont solve these things as long as corrupt human voters are involved. We need to go to a more computer-focused system. So many are afraid of a 'convoluted computer system', but yet RPI is so focused on come basketball tourney time.

 

[CYphyllis]

How the hell does George Wine know anything about college football if he's spending spending his Saturdays in Kinnick.

 

[bkassel]

IDK...I say quite a bit. Can you be more specific? :smile:

The first LSU/Bama game was on CBS, not ABC.

Plus, 2004/2008 would have had a conference championship game so that would cleared up some of the gray area in regards to big xii teams.

 

[Trice]

A playoff wont solve these things as long as corrupt human voters are involved. We need to go to a more computer-focused system. So many are afraid of a 'convoluted computer system', but yet RPI is so focused on come basketball tourney time.

Sure it will. At least then the debate is about seeding and maybe 2-3 teams that were fringe #16 seeds that didn't make it rather than this shi*tshow we have now.

Don't get me wrong, I agree completely that we need to remove the human element as much as possible and introduce more objectivity. But I wouldn't be satisfied if we imposed that on our current system and stopped there without blowing up the entire structure.

 

[Mizzoulander]

The first LSU/Bama game was on CBS, not ABC.

That is true...my bad. I still don't know how a rematch is in ABC's best interests, though.

Plus, 2004/2008 would have had a conference championship game so that would cleared up some of the gray area in regards to big xii teams.

Not necessarily. Say OU won, and finished 13-0 after clobbering whoever from the old North Division. And UT finishes 11-1, with one close loss to OU in the RRS. The old Big 12 could have had the exact same situation as LSU/Alabama. And they almost did, in the past.

Would we be complaining about rematches in that event? Probably not.