Haven't lost in 4 years and can't make BCS title game

[maddguuns]

I don't know if the conference prestige plays that heavily. a couple seasons ago in my dynasty, when I was with Buffalo, still in the MAC at the time, I went 13-0, finished #2 and played #1 Boise St. There were two other undefeated teams: Florida at 13-0 and Ohio St. at 12-0. The BCS ranking weren't even close. Boise had something like a .997, I was around a .925 and then the other two were .800-ish.

I think the game may over-weigh margin of victory. Boise was first in the nation in ppg at some absurd number like 58 ppg. In week 9, when I first got ranked, I decided to go all out and started dropping 70+ on everyone. I jumped quick too: at 8-0 I was #25, 9-0 #18 after beating CMU by 60+, 10-0 #12 after beating Temple by 50+, 11-0 #7 after beating a final score of 70-0, and 12-0 #4. After the conference championship, I moved to #2, jumped ahead of OSU and UF for some reason. I scored 80+ in the conference championship.

I don't know, it's screwy.

[antdawg9]

Bumping this thread because I completely agree that the game has a flawed polling logic. I'm UNC in our OD and I have been dominating my competition this year. I've played a pretty tough non conference schedule as only one non conference opponent was unranked. Also we are in year 2022 and as of now, the ACC is probably the toughest conference besides the big 10. Miami is a power, VT, GT, and FSU are consistantly in the top 25 and Maryland is also pretty good. Most other conferences have maybe 2 or 3 teams that's any good. But after getting up to number 2 in the country I have been dropping in the polls. The final straw was when a player in my OD who uses Oregon just jumped me in the polls. The PAC-10 is beyond horrible at this point and outside of USC, only Stanford is higher than a C+. He also played a nonconference schedule of UL-Lafayette, Western Kentucky, and Army. And as you would expect, they are still horrible at this point. The bad thing is he is barely been winning his games. He only won 17-0 against WKU and has struggled against bad teams all year. But he manages to jump me in the polls. It's ridiculous.

[Bullet Sponge]

In my online dynasty Boise State won the first national championship, and Texas the second. Right now Notre Dame is #1. I guess I've escaped the SEC/Alabama curse.

[Isura]

I saw Central Michigan go 12-0 and play in the Sugar Bowl (they finished 3rd in the BCS). They dully lost to Alabama 45-0 in the Sugar Bowl. The BCS formula is definitely not implemented correctly.

[sleepyeagle]

Yeah, strength of schedule is not as important as margin of victory. I have a MTSU dynasty (sun belt) and I'm consistently in the top 15-25 just because of the beating I put on other sun belt teams.

At the same time, I'm running a Miami dynasty and it's MUCH harder to move up in rank because I can't blow out all my opponents. In fact, I can beat teams who are ranked higher than me and still fall in rank unless I beat them by like 20 points.

[jello1717]

Quote: Originally Posted by Isura

I saw Central Michigan go 12-0 and play in the Sugar Bowl (they finished 3rd in the BCS). They dully lost to Alabama 45-0 in the Sugar Bowl. The BCS formula is definitely not implemented correctly.

What is wrong with this? This example is as good of an example of the BCS working correctly as you can get. If there's a Non-AQ school ranked #3, they're guaranteed to get a BCS birth.

[TheShizNo1]

BCS if flawed itself, therefore I see no problem.

[Bullet Sponge]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheShizNo1

BCS if flawed itself, therefore I see no problem.

The game is supposed to be an accurate representation of college football. So it should use the BCS formulas for its BCS rankings, flawed or not. This is yet another thing they did right in last gen (they showed the ranking, win-loss record, your strength of schedule, and the corresponding BCS number generated by the computer i.e. .998822 or whatever).