Funny Letter about the BCS | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Funny Letter about the BCS

B

breckenridge55

K-STATE PHIN
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
1,114
Reaction score
0
Age
36
Location
Weston, FL
This is a letter I wrote to the maker of the Anderson & Hester rankings. I was very pissed off that my Kansas State Wildcats are ranked so low, after beating USC, and losing the two games they lost to ranked teams by 7 points combined. They were #16 in this ranking, Florida State was #14.


Anderson & Hester,

I am absolutely amazed by your rankings, as it just
makes absolutely no sense to me.

How in the world is Kansas State ranked behind Florida
State AND Michigan?

First off, and most importantly, they obviously have a
better record. Michigan has 3 losses and Florida
State has 4 losses.

Secondly, it says that teams are being rewarded for
beating quality opponents. Well, Kansas State is 1-1
against your top 10, Michigan is 0-3, and Florida
State is 0-2. Does that not say something? Not only
that, but Kansas State didn't beat like the #10 team.
They beat the #5 team. They have the same record and
Kansas State beat USC, it would make sense that
K-State would be ranked ahead of USC, but that isn't
even the dumbest part of these rankings.

Also, you can go ahead and tell me that Kansas State
plays teams like Kansas, Baylor, and some D1-AA
school. Fine. But Florida State plays Duke, North
Carolina, and Wake Forest. Those teams are just as
pathetic.

So why would a team like Kansas State, who is 2 games
better than Florida State and a game better than
Michigan, and who has more quality wins, ranked behind
them?

Heck, you can even look at FSU's and K-State's only
common opponent, Iowa State. FSU beat them by one
measly yard. Kansas State won by 51 points. And it
wasn't like they just piled it on. They played 2nd
stringers the entire 2nd half and still dominated Iowa
State's first stringers.

These ratings are a disgrace, juts like the BCS.
Kansas State dominated every team they played except
in their two losses, in which they lost by a combined
7 points, and both were to ranked teams.

This is exactly why the BCS is totally dumb. Why have
stupid computers rank the teams? They don't watch the
games, and they think that just because Florida State
plays Miami and Notre Dame, they are amazingly good.
Florida State didn't beat them, so who cares if they
played them, they didn't win. It's better to kill a
sorry team than to lose to a good one. I mean at
least you won.

It's also the big school conspiracy. Just because
they are Florida State, everyone thinks they are great
every single year. HELLO!?!?! They lost 4 times!
Kansas State gets no respect, just like all the other
small schools who used to be bad in football. If you
don't have a dynasty or a huge fan base, you don't get
anywhere these days. They even had to make a rule for
Kansas State, because no BCS bowl was man enough to
take them just because they lost one game in the Big
12 Championship in overtime.

And it isn't just Kansas State. It's just that
K-State is the only team where it would matter in
terms of bowl games. Marshall behind Iowa State?
Puhhhhhleeeease. Marshall is 9-2, Iowa State is 7-6.
I don't care who you play. Any team that is 4 games
better on a 13 game (or 11 game) season should be
ranked ahead of them.

What's the point of going playing these great teams if
you lose them all? It seems to me that you take
strength of schedule so heavily, that you could play
the toughest schedule in the nation, go 0-11 against
it, and still be ranked ahead of a 7-4 team who played
the worse schedule in D1-A football. This is an
absolute joke, and I am not even a Kansas State (or
Marshall) fan. Just an avid college football watcher.
Please explain this junk to me, because it makes no
sense right now.

Thank you
 
Good letter. I liked the part when you mentioned Kansas State.
 
All of it was about K-State, lol. I'm a K-State fan. That was the reason I wrote the letter. lol

Also, I got a reply. I'm going to post it in a second.
 
Brett,

Florida St. has played 8 current top-40 teams and has
a winning record in those games (5-3). Michigan has
played 6 current top-40 teams (including 3 top-10
teams) and has a .500 record in those games (3-3).
Kansas St. has played 3 current top-40 teams and has a
losing record in those games (1-2). Furthermore,
Kansas St. has posted a full 40% of its wins vs.
current non-top-100 teams.

Iowa St. has played 6 teams in the current top-FIFTEEN
(!). Marshall has played 0. Do you really think
Marshall would have been likely to have beaten 2 of
those top-15 teams (which is what the Thundering Herd
would have needed to do to avoid surpassing Iowa St.'s
6 losses)?

Your statement, "I don't care who you play," is quite
telling. Kansas St. coach Bill Snyder willingly,
consciously, and defiantly schedules extraordinarily
weak non-conference opponents every year, but then he
wants the Wildcats to receive credit as if they'd
beaten good teams. Kansas St. has beaten 1 (USC)
top-40 team. That's a great win, but when you're
otherwise 0-2 vs. the top-40 (and 4-0 vs. the
non-top-100), that's not much of an accomplishment.
K. St.'s padded record (amassed vs. the easiest
schedule played by any top-20 team) fools the poll
voters every year--but it can't fool the objective
computer rankings.

AndersonSports
 
The greatest part of this response I believe, is the last sentence, LMAO.

It fools a poll voter who watches every game and whose life and job revolve around college football, but it doesn't fool a computer who just puts a bunch of useless numbers together to come out with a ranking?
 
One more thing, he says that Kansas State is 1-2 in games against the top 40. What he fails to realize, is that K-State is also 1-2 against the top 15. He makes it sound like K-State sucks by saying top 40, but that's because they didn't play anybody from #16 to #40 in the polls. He's trying to trick me into thinking he's right. But it's real stupid. If he wants to give me a stat that stupid, then I'll give him this stat. Kansas State is 10-2 against all teams in the top 200, Florida State is 8-4 against all teams in the top 200. There.
 
Originally posted by breckenridge55
The greatest part of this response I believe, is the last sentence, LMAO.

It fools a poll voter who watches every game and whose life and job revolve around college football, but it doesn't fool a computer who just puts a bunch of useless numbers together to come out with a ranking?
Click to expand...


Poll voters don't watch all the games B55. Many coaches admitedly have SID's or other staff members do their polls and many writers in the AP poll never see games played outside the ones on network TV.

Both systems are badly flawed.
 
In the New York Times computer poll in October, they had ND number 1 and Texas out of the top 25 at a time where Texas was undefeated. Computer polls are bull****.
 
Originally posted by RobertHoover
Poll voters don't watch all the games B55. Many coaches admitedly have SID's or other staff members do their polls and many writers in the AP poll never see games played outside the ones on network TV.

Both systems are badly flawed.
Click to expand...
i think refereeing is badly flawed! can give some people inflated egos!:p :lol:
 
Originally posted by dolfan06
i think refereeing is badly flawed! can give some people inflated egos!:p :lol:
Click to expand...



College ref's have always been spotty 06. I'm sure thats what your refering to.
 
But the AP Writers probably watch as much, or more football than me. Or else I should vote, lol. And that's a lot more games then the computers watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom