BCS Changes

[DCBuckFan]

Sorry if this has already been posted, I didn't see it.. if it has I will delete.


http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/11499894.htm
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=v1></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2><TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=0 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Fiesta first, poll is next

Expanded BCS format needs new human vote

[size=-1]By Bob Baum[/size]
[size=-1]Associated Press[/size]

PHOENIX - The Fiesta Bowl organization was awarded the first national college football championship game under the new, expanded Bowl Championship Series format on Tuesday, and the BCS schools worked to find a new poll to help select the teams that will play for the title.

Beginning with the 2006 season, there will be a new game to determine the BCS national champion, a contest separate from the four existing BCS bowls -- the Fiesta, Orange, Sugar and Rose. In essence, it means that two more schools will qualify for a BCS game.

As is the case under the current system, the teams that finish first and second in the BCS rankings will play for the championship.

The first title game under the new format will be played Jan. 8, 2007, at the Arizona Cardinals' new stadium set to open in the fall of 2006 in Glendale, Ariz. The Fiesta Bowl will be played in the same stadium a week earlier, on Jan. 1. The stadium also will be the site of the 2008 Super Bowl.

The formal announcement of the Fiesta selection came only hours after Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano signed legislation that would require the stadium authority to grant use of the new facility for college football. The bill also turns sales-tax revenue from ticket sales and other transactions of the BCS games over to the Fiesta Bowl.

The provisions will mean about $1.75 million in revenue, Fiesta Bowl executive director John Junker said.

BCS coordinator Kevin Weiberg, commissioner of the Big 12 Conference, stopped short of saying the Fiesta would have been bypassed had the bill not become law.

The announcement means the sites for the championship game will continue in their current rotation -- Fiesta, Sugar, Orange and Rose. In all cases, the sites will host the national-title game a week after their regular bowl games.

The second of the three days of BCS meetings centered on finding a replacement for the Associated Press poll as part of the formula to determine the two teams that play for the championship.

As of the end of last season, the Associated Press withdrew permission for using its poll in the BCS calculations. That left the ESPN-USA Today coaches' poll as the lone human-voting poll. The BCS has promised a decision on the new formula by July 15, but Weiberg said it could be done sooner.

Weiberg said the number of people voting in the new poll has yet to be determined. The new poll preferably would not start until early October, he said.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[BB73]

Weiberg said the number of people voting in the new poll has yet to be determined. The new poll preferably would not start until early October, he said.

It will be very interesting to compare the first rankings of the new poll to what the AP and coaches polls have at the time, to see how different the rankings that are generated only after a few games are played really are.

 

[FKAGobucks877]

So basically this does absolutely nothing but add another BCS game. Now why doesn't that surprise me?

 

[OSUBasketballJunkie]

They just keep going around in circles with this thing........get a playoff system or leave it alone.

 

[BB73]

The coaches agreed to have their last poll made public. I thought I'd toss the news into this thread. It's good that they're not doing it every week, there would be far too many fingers being pointed, and ESPN-type soap opera reporting about who is sdrewing who in the rankings. But having the final poll released makes the coaches more accountable.

si.com

Coaches final vote will be public

California coach Jeff Tedford got what he wanted: From now on, balloting in the final regular-season coaches poll will be made public.

Grant Teaff, executive director of the American Football Coaches Association, said Thursday the decision was best for the game. The change comes after a public outcry last season, when the Golden Bears lost a shot at a Bowl Championship Series game, in part because they got dropped in the final coaches poll.
Tedford and Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen have said voting should be made public. Tedford was on vacation Thursday and unavailable for comment.

Though most coaches didn't want to release the votes because of the scrutiny it would bring, Teaff said they decided to vote for the change to quell any "uncalled-for controversy."

"Our coaches were under no obligation to do this," said Teaff, a former coach at Baylor. "The good news is that somebody out there thinks that transparency is good for the system, and our coaches said, 'OK we hear you and we're going to join in and do our part."'

Teaff added there are no circumstances in which the group would allow their in-season voting to be made public. The coaches poll helps determine the teams that will play in the BCS championship game.

"The in-season polls are just a barometer," Teaff said. "The final poll that determines the two teams that play in the national championship seems to be the one everyone wants to know about."

Kevin Weiberg, the Big 12 Conference commissioner and BCS coordinator, has said voting by coaches has taken on greater importance since The Associated Press asked to have its poll removed from the formula used to determine BCS matchups.

However, Teaff said that viewpoint had no effect on the coaches' decision. He said the group discussed the issue at its meeting in January and then voted in a survey sent out in late February.

Last season, California finished fourth in the coaches poll, but six coaches inexplicably dropped them below No. 6 on the final ballots -- four at No. 7 and two in the eighth slot.

In the previous week's poll, nobody picked Cal lower than sixth. The vote came after Cal's 26-16 win at Southern Mississippi on Saturday night -- a close game, but a tough road contest that wasn't in doubt in the final minutes.

The BCS drop caused Cal to miss out on the school's first Rose Bowl in 45 years. The Golden Bears got a meeting with Texas Tech in the Holiday Bowl instead, while Texas got into the Rose Bowl.

Texas coach Mack Brown initially was against making the coaches' votes public, but said Thursday he will continue to participate next season if asked. He said it's appropriate that just the final regular-season votes are released.

"I've always been a firm believer that the polls start too early in the season and that we shouldn't be voting on a Top 25 before October," Brown said. "By then, we have more information to work with in determining who the best teams are."

In December, Tedford said, "One of the worst things that could happen is the votes being kept secret. If we had it to do all over again, I would hope that we'd make them public."

Auburn also got left out of the championship game despite finishing undefeated. The Tigers finished No. 3 in both polls, and settled for the Sugar Bowl while Oklahoma and Southern California -- both undefeated -- played for the national championship in the Orange Bowl.

The BCS has announced it will establish a replacement for the AP poll, which started in 1936 and is the longest-running poll in college football. The AP poll makes its votes public.

Previously, the AP and coaches' polls each counted for one-third of the BCS formula, with computer rankings accounting for the final third. BCS officials want another human poll to keep that formula intact.

Teaff said the coaches have unanimously supported the concept of a championship game because they do not want to go back to the old system where there was a "so-called mythical championship, which did not have the two best teams playing."

The BCS, which includes the Fiesta, Rose, Orange and Sugar Bowls, will expand to five games and 10 teams starting with the 2006 season. The No. 1 vs. No. 2 BCS title game will be played a week after the bowls and rotate between the four existing sites.

A total of 62 coaches vote in the USA Today/ESPN poll.

<!--startclickprintexclude-->

 

[FKAGobucks877]

I actually think all of the coaches polls should be made public. Not so much to see who is screwing who, but more as a deterrent to stop the screwing altogether. You know those shady bastards like Pete Carroll and Larry Coker skew their votes as much as possible.

 

[Dryden]

I actually think all of the coaches polls should be made public. Not so much to see who is screwing who, but more as a deterrent to stop the screwing altogether. You know those shady bastards like Pete Carroll and Larry Coker skew their votes as much as possible.

The problem with that is that the polls will become bulletin board material for opponents. Just imagine John L Smith holding up JT's Top-25 in the MSU locker room and saying, "You guys see this? They think that Michigan is a better team than we are, and we even beat them!"

Also, I would imagine that most coaches in the country don't want to spend their press conferences defending or explaining their Top-25 picks.

For me, the system of coaches voting is flawed altogether and should be either fixed or scraped. My first problem is that only some coaches get votes, not all 119 D1A coaches. What? So some coach of some otherwise inconsequential Sun Belt team can't say who he thinks the best teams in the country are? The other problem I have with the coaches poll, whether the voting is anonymous or not, is the temptation to manipulate your ballot based on upcoming opponents. Heck, if I were JT my first ballot would have Miami OH ranked #1. My second ballot would rank Texas #1. My third would have SDSU #1. Etc ...

That would sure help the strength of schedule part.

 

[BB73]

Also, I would imagine that most coaches in the country don't want to spend their press conferences defending or explaining their Top-25 picks.

The other problem I have with the coaches poll, whether the voting is anonymous or not, is the temptation to manipulate your ballot based on upcoming opponents. Heck, if I were JT my first ballot would have Miami OH ranked #1. My second ballot would rank Texas #1. My third would have SDSU #1. Etc ...

That would sure help the strength of schedule part.

Totally agree with your first point, there would be way too much discussion of each coach's vote every week.

Although your second comment points out a potential for abuse since only the last ballot is publicized.

 

[LloydSev]

SOS is based upon the the ending year's results correct.... as in, if we play Texas and they'd 1-0... we don't get SOS based on the 1-0, but on the 9-2 correct.. ?

 

[Zurp]

SOS is based upon the the ending year's results correct.... as in, if we play Texas and they'd 1-0... we don't get SOS based on the 1-0, but on the 9-2 correct.. ?

Using last year's BCS formula, strength of schedule was not directly tied in with the BCS. It was only 2 human polls and 6-7 computer polls. However, the strength of schedule, I believe, is part of the computer polls. ALL computer polls? I don't know. I would guess so. How much of a part? I don't know. And I can only guess that the computers count strength of schedule based on final records, not at-the-time-you-played-them records, like you said, LS.

The problem that I have with making coach's polls public is when a specific team finds out how their coach voted. If JT picks OSU #5 and Texas #2 the week before Texas, what is he telling his players? It's one thing to tell your players to work hard and play hard and not let up because the other team isn't going to take it easy, and isn't going to let up. That's motivating your team. But when everyone knows that you are publicly stating that you believe the other team is better than your team, I think that's offensive to your team. How can a team respect their coach, when they don't believe he respects them?

 

[LloydSev]

The problem that I have with making coach's polls public is when a specific team finds out how their coach voted. If JT picks OSU #5 and Texas #2 the week before Texas, what is he telling his players? It's one thing to tell your players to work hard and play hard and not let up because the other team isn't going to take it easy, and isn't going to let up. That's motivating your team. But when everyone knows that you are publicly stating that you believe the other team is better than your team, I think that's offensive to your team. How can a team respect their coach, when they don't believe he respects them?

Well said.

 

[methomps]

I actually think all of the coaches polls should be made public. Not so much to see who is screwing who, but more as a deterrent to stop the screwing altogether. You know those shady bastards like Pete Carroll and Larry Coker skew their votes as much as possible.

Pete Carroll actually declined an invitation to be a voter because he didn't want to get involved with that trainwreck of a poll. More to the point, the way they are doing it now is the best for the poll. The majority of the season should be about football, not asking coaches why they voted one way or another.

For me, the system of coaches voting is flawed altogether and should be either fixed or scraped. My first problem is that only some coaches get votes, not all 119 D1A coaches. What? So some coach of some otherwise inconsequential Sun Belt team can't say who he thinks the best teams in the country are? The other problem I have with the coaches poll, whether the voting is anonymous or not, is the temptation to manipulate your ballot based on upcoming opponents. Heck, if I were JT my first ballot would have Miami OH ranked #1. My second ballot would rank Texas #1. My third would have SDSU #1. Etc ...

The biggest problem with the poll is the way they allocate votes. A conference gets 1 vote for every 2 programs (I don't know whether they round up or down for your ass-backwards conference ). So the Pac10 gets 5 votes and the SEC and B12 get 6 each. That isn't too bad until you consider the second part: a conference also gets an additional vote if they had 4 ranked teams the year before. This presents two problems: (1) conferences with more votes are more likely to get a 4th team ranked and (2) 4 ranked teams is only 33% of the SEC, but it is 40% of the Pac10.

Once you get that extra voter (giving conferences like the SEC 7 votes), life is much easier.

 

[BB73]

The biggest problem with the poll is the way they allocate votes. A conference gets 1 vote for every 2 programs (I don't know whether they round up or down for your ass-backwards conference ). So the Pac10 gets 5 votes and the SEC and B12 get 6 each. That isn't too bad until you consider the second part: a conference also gets an additional vote if they had 4 ranked teams the year before. This presents two problems: (1) conferences with more votes are more likely to get a 4th team ranked and (2) 4 ranked teams is only 33% of the SEC, but it is 40% of the Pac10.

Thanks, thomps. Didn't know that about how they choose the voters.

 

[Sport]

The BCS is Bullshit Choice Selections!!!!

Change this, Change that, Ya know with the BCS - It'll never be fixed. There will always be that one factor that changes everything and will cause it to not be fair to the best teams. IMO which has been stated numerous times but a playoff system mite solve the issue. But no one is ever going to be happy. But if lesser divisions can have a playoff system then why the hell can't D1. Is it the hands that be that are being hard headed or is it the obvious reasons? Power, Money, Greed! A chance to move the puzzle pieces where they are wanted not where they actually fit? Is it that the playoff system is flawed in a way that I just don't know?

This topic gets me livid everytime its brought up because its based on $$$$$$. Throw the damn money out the window, it will be made anyway!!!!!! Hell, you get the best teams playing one another people will show up! And money will be made, thats why universities build football programs!!! To be the best, To be Champions, To build Tradition and Dominence! A teams record will show that!!! Its been proven. If a lesser team faces a greater team then the results will show for that game who is the best, regardless!!! The other teams will be eliminated isolating only the best teams. Hell why don't the BCS predict Conf Champions!!!!????

The only good thing I have to say is that it has been fairly reasonable with the last couple years but the championship game just seems to be lacking the two best teams in certain scenarios.

My apologies for my rant! But I don't believe in the current BCS system or coaches poll and its due mostly to the contraversy surrounding it and all the gray area's that noone (not even coaches) understand, including my ignorance to the selection criteria! But it seems instead of focusing on the game itself and the integrity of the game, we are letting media and revenue generating sources dicatate everything! What the hell is the sense in having a f*****g program if education & football isn't the main priorities?

 

[BB73]

ESPN is pulling their name from Coaches Poll, since the votes aren't public, except for the last week's. They have so much integrity. :tongue2:


sportsline.com

ESPN decides to pull out of coaches poll

ESPN withdrew from the college football coaches poll Tuesday, the second major news organization to say it didn't want to be a part of the Bowl Championship Series' weekly rankings.
The cable sports network said it no longer wanted its name attached to the rankings unless all ballots were made public, not just the final ones. USA Today will continue running the poll, which helps determine who plays for the national championship.

In December, the Associated Press told the BCS to stop using its media poll in its weekly formula.

"Coaches have the perfect right to conduct their voting the way they see fit," said Vince Doria, ESPN's vice president and director of news. "We just feel, in our best interests here, we couldn't reconcile having our name on the poll and being able to cover any controversy that might arise."

Unlike the AP voters, the coaches' ballots have always been secret. ESPN asked this year that they be public, but the coaches agreed only for the final regular-season poll. Doria said the sports network wanted it for the entire year.

"We just felt that to be as ethical as we possibly could in this situation, that's what we needed to do," Doria said. "This wasn't a case of us questioning the ethics of the coaches or the validity of the voting. These things tend to create controversy. When there is some vetting to be done, it needs to be done thoroughly and we didn't feel it could be done."

Doria said ESPN notified USA Today and the coaches' association of its decision, but not the BCS.

"There will still be a coaches' poll, and it will be used by the BCS, but we don't have a comment on ESPN's decision," said Bob Burda, spokesman for BCS coordinator Kevin Weiberg.

The AP poll and the coaches poll had been the major components of the BCS rankings.

However, the AP said such use was never sanctioned and had reached the point where it threatened to undermine the independence and integrity of its poll.

ESPN had sponsored the coaches' poll with USA Today since 1997.

Doria said the network became uncomfortable last season, when California lost a shot at a major bowl after dropping in the final coaches poll, causing a public outcry and debate among fans.

The Golden Bears finished fourth in the coaches poll, but six coaches dropped them below No. 6 on the final ballots -- four at No. 7 and two in the eighth slot. In the previous week's poll, nobody picked Cal lower than sixth.

The final vote came after Cal's 26-16 win at Southern Mississippi -- a close game, but a tough road contest that wasn't in doubt in the final minutes.

The drop cost Cal its first Rose Bowl bid in 45 years. The Golden Bears instead went to the less glamorous Holiday Bowl while Texas went to the Rose Bowl.

"In essence, that was really the determining factor," Doria said. "The poll was more than something that is there primarily for fans to discuss and debate. It was a determinant element in the BCS poll."

Monte Lorell, managing editor for sports at USA Today, said he was surprised at the sport network's decision.

"As recently as a week or so ago, my understanding was that if the coaches were to move to the level of transparency that ultimately they did, that that would satisfy ESPN," Lorell said.