CUSA officials do what they can to make sure Texas is hosting the CUSA championship. Rice doesnt get any votes in the polls that make up 2/3 of a teams BCS ranking so instead of factoring that in, CUSA says to h#ll with the BCS ranking formula lets make up our own ranking that places Rice higher and gives them the championship game. Unbelievable.

LMAO

I'm ok with that.

Yep, the formula obviously favored Rice because it knows Rice is in Texas. Totally. Makes sense... Lol

bad marshall fans are making good marshall fans look bad...reign it in...


of course, there is also a rice, mn...so maybe the conference should move the hq's to minny....hmmmm....

I'm upset that we don't get to host too, man, but this just means Marshall has to win on the road. They earned it and we as Marshall fans shouldn't take that away from them. To all the Rice fans, .

You would get a lot more mileage out of your conspiracy theory if you accused the conference of doing whatever it could to keep the CCG out of WVA.

I mean, it's total bullsnit either way, but the thing was in Tulsa last year . . . That would seem to blow your theory to hell right there.

The level of butt hurt amongst some Marshall fans on this board is astounding...

(12-01-2013 10:07 PM)sportsphantom1 Wrote:  CUSA officials do what they can to make sure Texas is hosting the CUSA championship. Rice doesnt get any votes in the polls that make up 2/3 of a teams BCS ranking so instead of factoring that in, CUSA says to h#ll with the BCS ranking formula lets make up our own ranking that places Rice higher and gives them the championship game. Unbelievable.

Wow, just wow.

In all honesty I can see the beef Marshall fans have about how this went down unless the formula to be used was already in writing somewhere. When they say BCS Ranking then they should use the same formula used for the BCS Rankings….Not sure why they would say BCS ranking and then change the formula. So in fact it was not the BCS Ranking that determined who hosted the Championship game…It was some bastardized version of the BCS Formula.

(12-01-2013 10:15 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  In all honesty I can see the beef Marshall fans have about how this went down unless the formula to be used was already in writing somewhere. When they say BCS Ranking then they should use the same formula used for the BCS Rankings….Not sure why they would say BCS ranking and then change the formula. So in fact it was not the BCS Ranking that determined who hosted the Championship game…It was some bastardized version of the BCS Formula.

That's all most of us are saying.

(12-01-2013 10:15 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  In all honesty I can see the beef Marshall fans have about how this went down unless the formula to be used was already in writing somewhere. When they say BCS Ranking then they should use the same formula used for the BCS Rankings….Not sure why they would say BCS ranking and then change the formula. So in fact it was not the BCS Ranking that determined who hosted the Championship game…It was some bastardized version of the BCS Formula.

Yeah... Exactly. Not sure why people are defending this or are not understanding why some Marshally fans are rightfully upset.

(12-01-2013 10:19 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 10:15 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  In all honesty I can see the beef Marshall fans have about how this went down unless the formula to be used was already in writing somewhere. When they say BCS Ranking then they should use the same formula used for the BCS Rankings….Not sure why they would say BCS ranking and then change the formula. So in fact it was not the BCS Ranking that determined who hosted the Championship game…It was some bastardized version of the BCS Formula.

Yeah... Exactly. Not sure why people are defending this or are not understanding why some Marshally fans are rightfully upset.

I am by no means a Marshall fan but I know what is fair and the way this went down is downright BS…Marshall was screwed. There was a written list of tie breakers and in the Rice vs Marshall scenario it is listed as coming down to the BCS Ranking yet they did not use the BCS formula to break the tie. If this happened to ECU I would hope that our athletic department was raising hell over the matter….Again, if there are some by-laws or written documentation that spells out the use of the formula they resorted to in this matter then that is fine but short of that being the case Marshall was shafted.

Also I am not saying that this was done as a deliberate act to have Rice host but when something like this is done it opens the door for people to think in that manner…It just makes no sense why they did not use the actual BCS formula in this situation. Maybe they had a valid reason for doing this but they gave no good explanation except giving a quote from the person who helped them come up with some sort of ranking that does not use the same formula as the BCS rankings saying it was fair.

Either Marshall or C-USA or both didn't do a good enough job explaining what "BCS Ranking" meant in the tiebreakers. What makes it frustrating is that we've only been talking about the possibility of this coming down to a BCS Ranking since Friday. We go all weekend hanging on every word, checking every poll, tweet, etc. just to read at 9pm on Sunday that the tiebreaker formula was different than what we thought it was.

People will probably be even more upset if the final rankings come out and we're ranked ahead of Rice.

I can accept the formula is different. Doesn't make it any less disappointing.

It doesn't excuse disrespecting Rice, their fans and their team either.

(12-01-2013 10:37 PM)MUTeke Wrote:  Either Marshall or C-USA or both didn't do a good enough job explaining what "BCS Ranking" meant in the tiebreakers. What makes it frustrating is that we've only been talking about the possibility of this coming down to a BCS Ranking since Friday. We go all weekend hanging on every word, checking every poll, tweet, etc. just to read at 9pm on Sunday that the tiebreaker formula was different than what we thought it was.

People will probably be even more upset if the final rankings come out and we're ranked ahead of Rice.

I can accept the formula is different. Doesn't make it any less disappointing.

It doesn't excuse disrespecting Rice, their fans and their team either.

Well for me the term BCS Ranking is self-explanatory, not sure how there could be any confusion or debate on how that is determined. There is a set formula for BCS Rankings so it would only make sense that this would be the formula used. Very confusing to me how and why they would use a different formula.

I think this thread nails it. Banosky and CUSA screwed this up! If they knew they were using a revised version of the BCS rankings this should have came out way before 9:00 tonight.


As to Rice congrats on winning the West and I hope to see some of you on Saturday.

(12-01-2013 10:15 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  In all honesty I can see the beef Marshall fans have about how this went down unless the formula to be used was already in writing somewhere. When they say BCS Ranking then they should use the same formula used for the BCS Rankings….Not sure why they would say BCS ranking and then change the formula. So in fact it was not the BCS Ranking that determined who hosted the Championship game…It was some bastardized version of the BCS Formula.

What?

Again: Human Poll + Human Poll + 4 computer polls.

Rice: 0+0+.628 =.628 (guess what made up 1/3 of that number and what made up 2/3 of that number?)
Marshal: .0038+.0064+.55 = .5702 (again, 1/3 of that number = Computers, 2/3 = HUMAN)

Again, if you really think that .0102 is worth arguing over... wow..

if anything Marshall should be asking

Anderson & Hester Rice (49) Marshall(63)

Why they rated Rice so much higher and Marshall so much lower, because that's the poll that cost Marshall the home-game. Not C-USA.

(12-01-2013 10:40 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 10:37 PM)MUTeke Wrote:  Either Marshall or C-USA or both didn't do a good enough job explaining what "BCS Ranking" meant in the tiebreakers. What makes it frustrating is that we've only been talking about the possibility of this coming down to a BCS Ranking since Friday. We go all weekend hanging on every word, checking every poll, tweet, etc. just to read at 9pm on Sunday that the tiebreaker formula was different than what we thought it was.

People will probably be even more upset if the final rankings come out and we're ranked ahead of Rice.

I can accept the formula is different. Doesn't make it any less disappointing.

It doesn't excuse disrespecting Rice, their fans and their team either.

Well for me the term BCS Ranking is self-explanatory, not sure how there could be any confusion or debate on how that is determined. There is a set formula for BCS Rankings so it would only make sense that this would be the formula used. Very confusing to me how and why they would use a different formula.

There is no self-explanatory BCS rankings for the teams in question because they are designed to only rank the top 25. The fault lies in the CUSA for not explicitly explaining that and those that assumed they understood the rankings without actually asking the correct questions.

The fact that people assumed something and were later proven to be incorrect is not at the fault of the grand conspiracy of the CUSA. If you are going to cast stones, cast them at those who are feeding you this information without actually verifying if it is actually correct.

Here's the thing, there is no official BCS ranking for Marshall, Rice or anyone past #25. The BCS only puts out a ranking for the top 25 teams. Period.

It was retarded by the conference to base a tie breaker on something that doesn't exist. That's why they were running around the last two days consulting with people to try and cover their azzes and had to calculate it themselves. They screwed up because their formula does not equally weight the two human polls and the computer number.

(12-01-2013 10:17 PM)MUTeke Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 10:15 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  In all honesty I can see the beef Marshall fans have about how this went down unless the formula to be used was already in writing somewhere. When they say BCS Ranking then they should use the same formula used for the BCS Rankings….Not sure why they would say BCS ranking and then change the formula. So in fact it was not the BCS Ranking that determined who hosted the Championship game…It was some bastardized version of the BCS Formula.

That's all most of us are saying.

I understand being upset, but the conference's definition of BCS ranking was unfortunately, and irresponsibly vague (it had a parenthetical that said something like, e.g. computer rankings). Earlier today we were saying how stupid it seemed that we were 10 or so spots ahead of Marshall last week, and we both won- but if they got 1 or 2 votes in 'others receiving votes' they would somehow vault to 20 spots ahead of us. That's nonsense. Now I understand that was because the poll votes are overweighted for teams not in the actual top 25. I see how they corrected that and why Rice is hosting and it appears to me to be true to the spirit of the tiebreaker-- but I agree they totally messed up the message. There should never have been any doubt about who was hosting. Record against common opponents, net points against common opponents, etc.- but something more easily measurable and straightforward.