• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

BCS formula changes...again

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
jlb1705

jlb1705

hipster doofus
Bookie
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=maisel_ivan&id=1839834

What a joke! How many times are we going to go through this crap? It's funny how every time they "fix" the formula, they basically overcompensate for the perceived flaw of they previous year's outcome. This practice only leads to more mayhem.

Why did they even bother to move from a completely subjective system to the present system when every year the system is criticized and picked apart by the very methods that had been discarded?
 
This is a bad thing for tOSU. The pollsters value the high-powered offenses, and the teams that run up the scores. Plus, strength-of-schedule is now diminished and teams will schedule more patsies.

Here's what they should have done, just for the next 2 years, when they can't yet have more than 2 teams.

Left the BCS formula alone. It was tinkered with for years to get where it was.

The #1 team in the BCS is the first choice.

If the #1 team in the Coaches poll is different, they're the opponent. (this solves the problem of the coaches awarding the trophy to someone they didn't rank #1 - or at least a team that beat their #1 in the BCS Bowl)

If the #1 team in the Coaches poll is the same as #1 in the BCS, but the #1 in the AP poll is different, the #1 AP team is the opponent.

If the same team is #1 in BCS, Coaches, and AP, the #1 BCS team plays the #2 BCS team.
 
Upvote 0
Let's see, in next year's BCS, we'll take the square root of the team's median rank for the past 10 years, corrected for media inflation, and then subtract 1/5 of the total margin of victory, and add 1/11 of the total margin of defeat, and then take the summation of the total points scored in the fourth quarter plus total points scored while already ahead by more than 2 touchdowns, and divide it by the number of victories the other 5 BCS conferences had, minus the total number of victories the opponents of the teams on your schedule had, and then add 3/16 of the number of field goals kicked outside the 20 yard line, and subtract 1/2 the field goals kicked inside the 20 yard line, and then take either the number of games played against teams who were ranked in the top 50 by the CFN poll, or the number of teams that were ranked in the top 25 of the sporting news preseason magazine that your opponents played over the last 2 years, and then divide that number by the total points scored in conference games minus 1/14 of the points scored in non-conference games, except if they were against top 28 teams, in which case they count 3/14.


That ought to do it...why is this a problem?
 
Upvote 0
It's a joke. Only when two and only two teams are undefeated will there be no (legitimate) arguments. Otherwise, there's bound to be some outcry, whether it's FSU getting jobbed due to lack of a quality win component, Oklahoma getting in after losing their conference championship, or Oregon getting left out in favor of a crappy Nebraska team. They should just accept the fact that the BCS formula is not going to be perfect (everybody else already knows it anyways) and either suck it up and deal with it, or come up with something resembling a playoff once and for all.
 
Upvote 0
I kinda hope it'd just go back to the old system. It's still all the same BS, but at least it's not BS pretending to be something legitimate. I don't see the harm in having a split title, anyway. I think that'd be better than a playoff. A playoff is not a season championship, it's a tournament championship, which means somebody could lose 2 or 3 game during the season and still become "National Champion" over some team whose only loss just happened to be their last one. If you think the way the timing of losses affects the outcome of the championship is bogus now, just imagine if you add a single elimination tournament to the end of this crazy mess.
 
Upvote 0
oh ive got an idea, how about we just scrap the entire season, and hold a 128 team double elimination tournament, the most games any one team would have to play would be 15, and most would play less, keeping the presidents happy, the teams eliminated early that didnt get to play many games could play some sort of exhibition schedule to make some money while the rest of the tournament was concluded. then no one can complain about any polls or complain about not getting to prove it on the field... heh or maybe not
 
Upvote 0
Bucklion said:
Let's see, in next year's BCS, we'll take the square root of the team's median rank for the past 10 years, corrected for media inflation, and then subtract 1/5 of the total margin of victory, and add 1/11 of the total margin of defeat, and then take the summation of the total points scored in the fourth quarter plus total points scored while already ahead by more than 2 touchdowns, and divide it by the number of victories the other 5 BCS conferences had, minus the total number of victories the opponents of the teams on your schedule had, and then add 3/16 of the number of field goals kicked outside the 20 yard line, and subtract 1/2 the field goals kicked inside the 20 yard line, and then take either the number of games played against teams who were ranked in the top 50 by the CFN poll, or the number of teams that were ranked in the top 25 of the sporting news preseason magazine that your opponents played over the last 2 years, and then divide that number by the total points scored in conference games minus 1/14 of the points scored in non-conference games, except if they were against top 28 teams, in which case they count 3/14.


That ought to do it...why is this a problem?
Click to expand...
LMFAO!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Upvote 0
Here's an example of how last year's results would be plugged into the new formula, from Stewart Mandel at SI.com. The average of 3 numbers yields the final score.

AP votes % of maximum (out of 1,625)
Coaches' votes % of max (out of 1,575)
Computer rankings, #1=25, #2=24, etc. Eliminate highest & lowest, then total (out of 100)

1. LSU......AP...1,580 out of 1625........(.972)
........Coaches..1,516 out of 1575.......(.963)
.......Computers 24, 24, 24, 25, 24, 24 (.960)
.....final average of those 3 numbers........=.965

2. USC.....AP....1,595 out of 1625......(.981)
........Coaches..1,542 out of 1575......(.979)
......Computers 23, 23, 23, 23, 22, 23 (.920)
.....final average of those 3 numbers.......=.960

3. Okla.....AP....1,491 out of 1625......(.918
........Coaches..1,449 out of 1575......(.920)
....Computers 25, 25, 25, 24, 25, 25 (1.000)
...final average of those 3 numbers.........=.946

So in the new scenario, LSU would have played USC last year, since .965 and .960 are the 2 highest totals.

Each individual voter can reduce a team's total by lowering their ranking. There's real importance to each voter in both polls, and I believe that's dangerous.
 
Upvote 0
D-III expnaded their playoffs to 24 teams not too long ago (top four get a bye the first week.) Playoffs start thanksgiving weekend and are done before the start of winter quarter - and (the horror!) they play on finals week.
 
Upvote 0
If I understand the new formula correctly (Been half paying attention to the radio as I've worked today) there is now officially no reason for the BCS at all. I'm of the mindset that the computer polls are more reliable. (AP voters don't watch every game, and base a lot on tradition and scores (IMO) and Coaches, obviously are otherwise occupied and thus do the same (IMO)) Yet, they discount the "unbiased" polls? If they're not going to do a playoff, then they need to pick a damn system and stay with it. I personally feel USC was better than OU last year, but I'm not shedding any tears that they didn't get the Sugar. If they would have beat Cal they would have. If they had had a stronger sched, they would have. (I'm not trying to say USC scheduled patsies on purpose, but that's the way it worked out) Such is the system. Teams shoudl deal with it. (In that respect, I liked how PC handled it last year)

Mili - I totally agree it's dangerous... especially when you have that dude last year who admitted to leaving OSU off his ballot simply because he didn't approve of how the Clarett system was handled... Not the product on the field, but how the AD conducts business... and that is just plain bullshit.
 
Upvote 0
Like JT and others have said - the season is a playoff. In order to successfull select a playoff field, you'd need to do something similar to what it'd take to successfully fill out the BCS field in the current system. Why not just get the selection process right, and not diminish the importance of the regular season?
 
Upvote 0
travishamockery


The worst part of last year's poll was Oklahoma finishing 3rd. It's the first time in history that a team finished that high after losing their last two games of the season. I think the Bucks would have beaten Oklahoma just as badly as LSU did.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top