(12-04-2013 01:36 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Good golly! Go back to the MAC then! Sheesh! Rules have been there since 2005.

The problem is CUSA didn't follow those rules. They changed the rules once they realized Marshall would end up with a BCS ranking and Rice would not. Why do you think Marshall fans are upset? If CUSA had followed their rules they set up in 2005 none of this discussion would be happening.

Do you really think it fair to have the third tiebreaker as the team with the highest BCS ranking but when they found out Marshall was going to be ranked and Rice wasn't that a new formula was created that night to give the game to Rice? That is total BS. I really can not believe how any fan from any school in this conference could be ok with that. If it were your team getting screwed Im sure you wouldn't be happy with it. Why would Marshall fans.

(12-04-2013 11:05 AM)RiceFight Wrote:  http://csnbbs.com/thread-665337.html

Can this put an end to the attendance smack? Marshall only averaged 4k more than us this season. ECU's really the only one who can talk.

Marshall doesn't use artificial numbers. In any event I do agree that attendance should in no way be used to determine who hosts the championship game. I think results on the field is the best way. It would not be fair to penalize a team that performs well on the field because they do not have very good fan support. If you get the job done on the field, you should be rewarded regardless of attendance.


I will say with all the controversy surrounding CUSA changing the tiebreak formula to give Rice the game, it will create more excitement and you will see an increase in attendance and greater TV ratings because of it.

(12-04-2013 01:36 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Good golly! Go back to the MAC then! Sheesh! Rules have been there since 2005.

Until the conference administration tells us all, in an official statement, Herd fans have every right to air their grivences here. What would you suggest they do?

If it's Marshall this year, who's to say it won't be your school next year.

(12-04-2013 04:14 PM)sportsphantom1 Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 01:36 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Good golly! Go back to the MAC then! Sheesh! Rules have been there since 2005.

The problem is CUSA didn't follow those rules. They changed the rules once they realized Marshall would end up with a BCS ranking and Rice would not. Why do you think Marshall fans are upset? If CUSA had followed their rules they set up in 2005 none of this discussion would be happening.

Do you really think it fair to have the third tiebreaker as the team with the highest BCS ranking but when they found out Marshall was going to be ranked and Rice wasn't that a new formula was created that night to give the game to Rice? That is total BS. I really can not believe how any fan from any school in this conference could be ok with that. If it were your team getting screwed Im sure you wouldn't be happy with it. Why would Marshall fans.

Very good post. It shouldn't just be Marshall fans upset with this. Its not a Marshall thing, its a league thing. This article right here is all you need to know about this situation.





http://www.wvgazette.com/Sports/Marshall/201312020209

The computer rankings count for one-third of the BCS formula, with the USA Today Coaches Poll making up one-third and the Harris Poll making up the other third.

Marshall received votes in the two polls, an unexpected byproduct of its 59-28 dismantling of East Carolina last weekend. It didn't fare as well in the computer rankings, roughly 10 spots below Rice on average.

Neither team had an average in the top 25, a fate that scored Louisville and Fresno State a zero in that particular category. Both of those teams made the BCS's latest top-25 rankings, however, on strength of the "human polls."

By that barometer, it seemed to some that Marshall and Rice should score a similar zero in the computer factor. With Rice not receiving any poll votes, that would give the Owls a 0.0 composite score, compared to a 0.0041 for Marshall.

But C-USA "extended" the computer formula to base the rankings on a 1-through-125 basis, a method that gave Rice a hefty 0.628 on the computer factor - a number higher than BCS 10th-ranked Michigan State. MU's number was a lofty 0.55, but Rice's 0.78 was high enough to earn home field this weekend.

The methodology, clearly a departure from what the BCS uses to determine the top 25 teams, was not communicated in advance to the general public.

In the Sagarin ratings, Rice was listed at 54 vs. Marshall's 56, a result Sagarin himself disputes.

"I was NOT contacted at all by anyone from Conference USA nor anyone else about this," Sagarin said Monday via e-mail.

Sagarin compiles, with explanations, four different sets of numbers. The BCS uses the "PURE_ELO" number, in which only winning and losing matters. Sagarin's main ranking is simply known as "RATING," and he also uses a "DIMIN_CURVE" and a "PREDICTOR" index.

"You'll note that they evidently used my ELO ratings even though the explanation over the ratings says that the more accurate rating for predicting who will win is NOT the ELO," he said. "So Rice ends up as the home team even though I have Marshall as the better team in all three of my score-based ratings: RATING [53 to 72], DIMIN_CURVE [61 to 74], PREDICTOR [47 to 72]."

That's not his biggest objection, though.

"The ultimate insult is they got Jerry Palm [of CBS Sportsline] - who has no connection with me or my rating system - to advise them on how to use the computer ratings," Sagarin said.

"I guess they thought it would be dumb to actually ask the programmers who created the ratings."

One has to wonder if the roles had been reversed, if the Rice fans would be so damn whiney.

(12-04-2013 04:36 PM)gdunn Wrote:  One has to wonder if the roles had been reversed, if the Rice fans would be so damn whiney.

Yeah, you just wouldn't notice because there aren't as many.

(12-04-2013 04:36 PM)gdunn Wrote:  One has to wonder if the roles had been reversed, if the Rice fans would be so damn whiney.

Man you are thick. This has nothing to do with anything other than transparency. These people 'supposedly' represent the entire conference, for them to arbitrarily take it upon themselves to change the rules (assumedly to suit themselves) what does that say about the next time an important decision comes up. Are we all going to be looking around to see who's back's being scratched? I sure hope not.

Point is, it's just a bad foot to be stepping off on as we attempt to rebuild this conference. Just tell us how the decision was made so we can debate the merit. The more they obfuscate, the more my skin begins to crawl; this is no way for conference leadership to behave.

And you guys doubt me when I say that C-USA is now as Mickey Mouse as the Belt.

(12-04-2013 04:52 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  And you guys doubt me when I say that C-USA is now as Mickey Mouse as the Belt.

Go to bed son, the grown-ups need to talk.

I would like to thank everyone that posted today for providing my daily dose of 'The View' on steroids sans the marshall maxi-pad set

(12-04-2013 04:51 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 04:36 PM)gdunn Wrote:  One has to wonder if the roles had been reversed, if the Rice fans would be so damn whiney.

Man you are thick. This has nothing to do with anything other than transparency. These people 'supposedly' represent the entire conference, for them to arbitrarily take it upon themselves to change the rules (assumedly to suit themselves) what does that say about the next time an important decision comes up. Are we all going to be looking around to see who's back's being scratched? I sure hope not.

Point is, it's just a bad foot to be stepping off on as we attempt to rebuild this conference. Just tell us how the decision was made so we can debate the merit. The more they obfuscate, the more my skin begins to crawl; this is no way for conference leadership to behave.

oh, horsesnit. "transparency" is the excuse for going premenstrual about the venue for the CCG. it just sounds better than "having a temper tantrum". "transparency" is a weasel word to provide cover for people that are wetting their pants for less than noble reasons.

I'm just disgusted with the level of feigned horror at the location of a freaking football game. the world has a lot of horrifying problems, but the fact that the conference had to pick a venue between two teams with infinitesimal separation is NOT one of them.

(12-04-2013 05:12 PM)EagleX Wrote:  oh, horsesnit. "transparency" is the excuse for going premenstrual about the venue for the CCG. it just sounds better than "having a temper tantrum". "transparency" is a weasel word to provide cover for people that are wetting their pants for less than noble reasons.
I'm just disgusted with the level of feigned horror at the location of a freaking football game. the world has a lot of horrifying problems, but the fact that the conference had to pick a venue between two teams with infinitesimal separation is NOT one of them.

feigned horror? or real concern?

And I like the way you attack others points of view with descriptions like 'pre-menstrual', 'pants wetting' and 'feigned horror', when all we're really trying to do is have a discussion about an awkward decision the conference has made.

If you have something to add, why don't you tone down the rhetoric and provide some insight (if you have any).

(12-04-2013 04:51 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 04:36 PM)gdunn Wrote:  One has to wonder if the roles had been reversed, if the Rice fans would be so damn whiney.

Man you are thick. This has nothing to do with anything other than transparency. These people 'supposedly' represent the entire conference, for them to arbitrarily take it upon themselves to change the rules (assumedly to suit themselves) what does that say about the next time an important decision comes up. Are we all going to be looking around to see who's back's being scratched? I sure hope not.

Point is, it's just a bad foot to be stepping off on as we attempt to rebuild this conference. Just tell us how the decision was made so we can debate the merit. The more they obfuscate, the more my skin begins to crawl; this is no way for conference leadership to behave.

So which one was ranked in the Top 25?

(12-04-2013 04:36 PM)gdunn Wrote:  One has to wonder if the roles had been reversed, if the Rice fans would be so damn whiney.

No, Reading, math, and critical thinking skills are actually required to get into Rice.

(12-04-2013 05:32 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  If you have something to add, why don't you tone down the rhetoric and provide some insight (if you have any).

Did you read the Conference USA press release? It's on the site.

(12-04-2013 04:51 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 04:36 PM)gdunn Wrote:  One has to wonder if the roles had been reversed, if the Rice fans would be so damn whiney.

Man you are thick. This has nothing to do with anything other than transparency. These people 'supposedly' represent the entire conference, for them to arbitrarily take it upon themselves to change the rules (assumedly to suit themselves) what does that say about the next time an important decision comes up. Are we all going to be looking around to see who's back's being scratched? I sure hope not.

Point is, it's just a bad foot to be stepping off on as we attempt to rebuild this conference. Just tell us how the decision was made so we can debate the merit. The more they obfuscate, the more my skin begins to crawl; this is no way for conference leadership to behave.

Exactly to the point. Great post. This has nothing to do with Rice or whether Rice would be whiney about something. It has nothing to do about that. I has to do with the conference itself and how they come up with this decision. It could have been Southern Miss, ECU FIU or whoever that this happened to. Just happened to be us.

(12-04-2013 04:14 PM)sportsphantom1 Wrote:  They changed the rules once they realized Marshall would end up with a BCS ranking and Rice would not. Why do you think Marshall fans are upset?

Marshall didn't end up with a BCS ranking. The conference office indicated BEFORE THE GAME that it would come down to computer rankings.

Marshall fans are upset because the assumed that some non-official ranking on the CBS website would be used by the conference, instead of actual consultation with the BCS.

The BCS director certified to CUSA that Rice was ahead of Marshall based on a fair application of the BCS methodology in the even that no teams we ranked (i,e, in the top 25).

This is disconcerting as a conference. Sounds a lot like NAScar, make up the rules as you go along. I have no doubt the G5 conferences would of had this figured out before the season started.

(12-04-2013 06:42 PM)Fiftysix Fortytwo Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 04:14 PM)sportsphantom1 Wrote:  They changed the rules once they realized Marshall would end up with a BCS ranking and Rice would not. Why do you think Marshall fans are upset?

Marshall didn't end up with a BCS ranking. The conference office indicated BEFORE THE GAME that it would come down to computer rankings.

Marshall fans are upset because the assumed that some non-official ranking on the CBS website would be used by the conference, instead of actual consultation with the BCS.

The BCS director certified to CUSA that Rice was ahead of Marshall based on a fair application of the BCS methodology in the even that no teams we ranked (i,e, in the top 25).

Provide me a link that show me where CUSA stated it would come down to computer rankings. Also provide me a link on the CUSA website that states they would solely use computer rankings as the deciding factor. You wont find that because CUSA says that BCS rankings would be the final determination.

The bottom line is this.....instead of just continuing down the line until they hit either us or Rice in standard BCS format, they decided to change it completely and extend it out to 125 before doing the math. I've worked in business all my life. Own my own business and understand how math works and how numbers can be manipulated. There was absolutely no need to extend that to 125 like they did. Doing so changes those numbers drastically. Prime example being that by doing this Rice ended up with a 0.628 computer factor that was equivalent to what 10th ranked Michigan State got.