• 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!

gost8

Living and loving life
  • The BCS will strictly be done off the computers and coaches "poll"... correct? It seems to me that with the BCS not allowed to use the AP poll to help determine its rankings, will cause a higher probability for split national championships. (Which IMO suck) 2 teams being the "champion" is bullshit.
     
    Looks to me that the whole BCS scenario is STILL very much up in the air gost8.



    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBC_BCS_CHANGES?SITE=NNCO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    Apr 20, 4:41 AM EDT

    BCS to Work on Yet Another Formula

    By RALPH D. RUSSO
    AP Sports Writer

    NEW YORK (AP) -- Bowl Championship Series officials are set to meet in Phoenix next week, again faced with the task of coming up with a new way to determine which teams will play for a national title.

    The BCS reworked its standings formula last year, simplifying the equation and putting more emphasis on The Associated Press Top 25 and the coaches poll. But the increased scrutiny on poll voters and the importance of every vote spawned new controversies and criticism.

    The AP asked the BCS to stop using its poll after last season, leaving the BCS in need of another component to insert into its calculations. The AP media poll and coaches poll each counted for one-third of a team's points in the BCS standings last year. A compilation of computer rankings made up the final third.

    BCS officials were generally pleased with the scaled-down formula and would prefer not straying far from it this year.

    "There was a comfort level with nature of the formula," BCS coordinator and Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg said Tuesday in a phone interview.

    But that would mean creating another poll to take the spot occupied by the AP, and where that poll would come from is one of the items on the agenda next week.

    "We know we have a coaches poll and computer poll folks who have worked with us in the past, but we have not eliminated any options," Weiberg said.

    Introducing a selection committee made up of former college football administrators and coaches - possibly even some media members - into the process has also been discussed.
    Interactives

    "How you populate a committee or a poll for that matter is an important issue," Weiberg said. "Under a committee approach, you probably need fewer participants than you do in a poll structure."

    It's unlikely the BCS would convert to a system solely reliant on a selection committee.

    "There could be a hybrid I suppose," Weiberg said. "What I mean by a hybrid, you could still use elements of the old structure - coaches polls, computers, perhaps a new poll - and couple that with a committee approach and have that standings piece be out there on a weekly basis with a committee providing oversight. Maybe a committee's function would be voting on a 1-2 matchup at the end.

    "There are a lot of different ways you can structure it. All of them have different weaknesses and probably different strengths."

    The next week's meetings will include commissioners from all 11 Division I-A conferences and will run from Monday though Thursday.

    Weiberg said there's no urgency for the BCS to complete its work by the end of those meetings.

    "I do believe it's an important meeting though in a sense that we need to have some direction as we go forward so we can moved toward trying to finalize something in, ideally, 60 to 75 days," he said.

    Last year, the BCS unveiled its new formula in mid-July.

    The BCS was faced with something of a worst-case scenario last year when Southern California, Oklahoma and Auburn all finished the regular season unbeaten. The system, which was implemented in 1998 and has been tinkered with almost every year since, is devised to match the consensus top two teams in the nation. USC and Oklahoma earned those spots and played in the Orange Bowl for the BCS title last season. The Trojans beat the Sooners to finish No. 1 and Auburn, which completed a 13-0 season in the Sugar Bowl, ended up No. 2.

    Only expanding the BCS system to make it more like a playoff would have given Auburn a chance to play for a national title and there appears to be no chance of that happening in the near future.

    The other BCS controversy involved Texas and California. The Longhorns passed Cal in the final BCS standings after gaining ground for several weeks even though the Bears were winning their games.

    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.
     
    Upvote 0
    3yardsandacloud said:
    Looks to me that the whole BCS scenario is STILL very much up in the air gost8.



    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBC_BCS_CHANGES?SITE=NNCO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    Apr 20, 4:41 AM EDT

    BCS to Work on Yet Another Formula

    By RALPH D. RUSSO
    AP Sports Writer

    But that would mean creating another poll to take the spot occupied by the AP, and where that poll would come from is one of the items on the agenda next week.

    "We know we have a coaches poll and computer poll folks who have worked with us in the past, but we have not eliminated any options," Weiberg said.

    Introducing a selection committee made up of former college football administrators and coaches - possibly even some media members - into the process has also been discussed.
    Interactives

    "How you populate a committee or a poll for that matter is an important issue," Weiberg said. "Under a committee approach, you probably need fewer participants than you do in a poll structure."

    It's unlikely the BCS would convert to a system solely reliant on a selection committee.
    Reading this article seems to favor my point. No matter what the BCS decides to do. The AP is going to give their National Championship to whatever team ends up number one in their poll. Now that the AP will have no influence over the BCS poll there seems to be a better chance the two polls could be different. Especially if the BCS decides to stick with just the computer polls and the coaches "poll" which are quite often very different from the AP poll. The BCS has been lucky, for the most part, since it started. The reason I say this is because everytime there looks as though there will be a controversy at the end of the season, one of the undefeated teams get upset by someone. Then the BCS committee wipes the sweat from their brow and says, "see I told you our system would work." You could even argue that Auburn should have taken Oklahoma's spot last year. The BCS will be fine as long as there are clear cut teams that should be playing for their NC, but the first year their are no undefeated teams we will see it unravel. Let's face it... the coaches "poll" is a farce. There is no way that with the votes being kept secret that all the coaches vote for who they really believe is deserving for that particular spot in the poll. Many don't even vote. I am not saying I blame them. If I coached tOSU, I don't have time to sit down and figure out why I should vote Texas ahead of Cal for the Rose Bowl or Auburn ahead of Oklahoma or vice versa. I think about ten of us could sit down and figure out a better plan than what is and has been out there for deciding who has the best team in the nation. (Notice I didn't say teams.)

    As BN27 said.

    BuckeyeNation27 said:
    theres nothing wrong with a system that is changed every single year.....nothing at all.
    I couldn't have said it better.
     
    Upvote 0
    We have gotten to a point where it would almost be better to return to the old way of doing things. Everyone was willing to give up traditional bowl matchups with the hope of seeing a No. 1 vs. No. 2 every year. That is not happening.
     
    Upvote 0
    Well, hell, guys! Let's try for a bit of public-spirit and community focus. Let us help our fellow human beings.

    Let's offer these buggers a Buckeye Planet poll in place of the AP. We'll have no difficulty reaching a consensus #1 and that would be a great load off their minds.
     
    Upvote 0
    "it would almost be better to return to the old way of doing things"

    Well, if the AP still plans on releasing a year-end media poll (with designated champ), independent of the BCS, then we are back to exactly where we started. Split national championships, a fact of life in CFB.
     
    Upvote 0
    KevinBuck said:
    "it would almost be better to return to the old way of doing things"

    Well, if the AP still plans on releasing a year-end media poll (with designated champ), independent of the BCS, then we are back to exactly where we started. Split national championships, a fact of life in CFB.

    He means back to where we started by using the "classic" tie ins.

    Big Ten v Pac Ten in the Rose, for example.

    I think that's what he meant anyway.
     
    Upvote 0
    Okay, I see--I've actually been hoping for that since the BCS started. Split titles are part of what make CFB so great; in what other sport is there actually debate over who should've been the champ X number of years ago? I love the open-endedness: Playoffs leave no room for discussion and are just too... final.
     
    Upvote 0
    While the AP poll has been a component of the BCS in past years, it has always been independent. The AP has never been tied to the BCS champion. They could at anytime pick a champion different than the BCS. In fact, the BCS NEVER actually requested permission to use the AP poll in their calculations. So, I don't see much difference either way. I personally think that the AP requested that the BCS STOP using their poll so it wouldn't get diluted (lose prestige) by it's association with the BCS.

    The BCS's only function is to TRY and pit #1 vs #2. In that regard they've done a pretty good job. At least better that the traditional bowl tie ins could provide.

    I'm NOT a proponent for the BCS either. I like the traditional bowl match ups, but no one asked my opinion :biggrin:
     
    Upvote 0
    It was the AP's involvement in the BCS that diluted its own independence. What's the point of naming your own champ if you're participating in another system that purports to be definitive?

    As for the BCS, trying and failing to match #1 and #2 is no better than a random mix of conference champs in the elite bowls.
     
    Upvote 0
    KevinBuck said:
    As for the BCS, trying and failing to match #1 and #2 is no better than a random mix of conference champs in the elite bowls.
    Well, without the BCS, we would would have been in the Rose Bowl against Wasington St. after the 2002 season, while Miami was probably winning a home game against Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl and being declared back-to-back NC and a dynasty.

    At least the BCS gave us our shot and prevented that!
     
    Upvote 0
    BuckeyeBill73 said:
    At least the BCS gave us our shot and prevented that!
    Right. I like(d) the BCS. I, for one, don't care for split-NCs. Through 5 years, the BCS did a pretty good job of getting #1 and #2 together. Of course, there were controveries: Nebraska not even winning their division, but playing for a NC, USC being #1 in both polls, but not getting to play for a NC, and, of course, Auburn being undefeated and not getting their shot. Even if 1 vs 2 doesn't happen, 1 vs 3 or 2 vs 3 is better than 1 vs 8, 2 vs 6, and 3 vs 14, or whatever the "traditional bowls" create.

    My ideal scenario for post-season college football would be that around christmas, BCS 1 would play BCS 4, and BCS 2 would play BCS 3. The winners would then play in the last bowl game of the season. It would add one extra bowl game for only two teams in the country, and it wouldn't be played after January 4 or so. And I think that the BCS, or some system similar to it, is necessary for this to work.

    My problem with the polls is something I've stated before (maybe even on this thread): the TIMING of a team's loss is more important that to who they lost, and, maybe even more important, is the preseason polls.

    I'd better stop now, before my rant hits full speed.
     
    Upvote 0
    BuckeyeNation27 said:
    theres nothing wrong with a system that is changed every single year.....nothing at all.
    not to be the voice of dissent, but i get the distinct impression that few of the people complaining about the bcs' problems have ever worked in a cutting edge field before. making shit up as you go is the name of the game when playing with things that have never been done before. in fact, the bcs would be worlds better if the way it worked was hidden from prying eyes. far to many people who don't know what they are talking about are what is causing the problem.

    the bcs' problem is not the bcs. its with all the idiots in the media making the bcs appear to be something it clearly can never be. lets deal with reality for a few min here. bowl games aren't going away. so long as bowl games exist a playoff flat out without question no ifs ands or buts will never exist. why? bowl games bring in waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much revenue to go bye bye. the world revolves around greed. deal with it. so long as bowl games stay, there will NEVER be a true to form consensus nc. some years there will be a single undefeated team. but that sort of thing can always be argued. a +1 system doesn't always work either. it is only effective if you have 3 or 4 undefeated teams. if you have 1, 2, or 5+ undefeateds. a +1 system leaves you right back in the same split the bcs does.

    the bcs, nor any other system for that matter, can remove all controversy and truely declair an undisputed nc in every situation. what the bcs can do is limit the blatant and obvious partiality that many teams in college football enjoy and pit #1 vrs #2. which is in and of itself worlds better than we had before.

    the bcs is the best there is and likely the best we will ever have. the ap is a bunch of whiners who want more power than they should have. oddly enough, this type of mentality fits right into what i would expect from a member of the media. is there someone out there that could come up with a better system? of course! hell i could in 5 min! can anyone out there come up with a better system that everyone could agree on? i think you have a better chance of being struck by lightning twice, winning the lotto and being eaten alive by a shark in the same day...
     
    Upvote 0
    Back
    Top