The BCS isn't the problem, it's Pre Season Polls

[WaitingforKickoff]

The biggest problem I have with the system is the inconsistency of the human voters. In '06, they vaulted Florida ahead of Michigan on the grounds that the head to head match should be the overriding factor, even though Michigan was ahead in the computers, which was a composite of other criteria. This year, the voter decides that the performance against one common opponent should override other factors, including the result of the head to head matchup. Makes you wonder if the voters will look at who scored more points, or had a better run defense, or had the better recruiting classes coming in to determine who gets to play in the title game in the future.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The biggest problem I have with the system is the inconsistency of the human voters. In '06, they vaulted Florida ahead of Michigan on the grounds that the head to head match should be the overriding factor, even though Michigan was ahead in the computers, which was a composite of other criteria. This year, the voter decides that the performance against one common opponent should override other factors, including the result of the head to head matchup. Makes you wonder if the voters will look at who scored more points, or had a better run defense, or had the better recruiting classes coming in to determine who gets to play in the title game in the future.

If I could make a tweak to the voting, it would be in line with what you discuss here, as well as something Billmac and BB73 talked about.

First, I would simply take the coaches out of it. It's no secret they're not doing anything but mailing it in (though BB73's point about the final vote is valid). Likewise, I'd axe the AP, which as time goes on becomes increasingly obvious as a popularity contest and nothing more. I feel "Choosing" an opponent, in the manner you reference, is plain and simple bull shit.

I might keep the Harris poll, but I'd probably be a little more discerning in who I'd let vote... and I'd probably try and come up with a criteria for voting, rather than just saying "Rank em how you wish" There should be a "rule" "You shall rank teams in order from best to worst based on your opinion of which team would beat which other team in an imaginary match up" or some such...

Now...

I would HIRE people... yes... pay them... to do their job... and that is to watch 8 TVs every saturday... from noon til the last game (even if it's at Hawaii) to watch literally every single game, to the extent that they could physically do so... and then render their ballots based on ACTUAL knowledge, and not some box score bullshit.

FWIW, I would pay me to do this, and I would make over $300,000 a year.

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

If I could make a tweak to the voting, it would be in line with what you discuss here, as well as something Billmac and BB73 talked about.

First, I would simply take the coaches out of it. It's no secret they're not doing anything but mailing it in (though BB73's point about the final vote is valid). Likewise, I'd axe the AP, which as time goes on becomes increasingly obvious as a popularity contest and nothing more. I feel "Choosing" an opponent, in the manner you reference, is plain and simple bull [censored].

I might keep the Harris poll, but I'd probably be a little more discerning in who I'd let vote... and I'd probably try and come up with a criteria for voting, rather than just saying "Rank em how you wish" There should be a "rule" "You shall rank teams in order from best to worst based on your opinion of which team would beat which other team in an imaginary match up" or some such...

Now...

I would HIRE people... yes... pay them... to do their job... and that is to watch 8 TVs every saturday... from noon til the last game (even if it's at Hawaii) to watch literally every single game, to the extent that they could physically do so... and then render their ballots based on ACTUAL knowledge, and not some box score bull[censored].

FWIW, I would pay me to do this, and I would make over $300,000 a year.

What I had in mind was a three team playoff. The top seed in the BCS gets to sit out a week while the #2 and #3 battle for the right to move on. I'm proposing this as opposed to a four team playoff in recognition of the fact that there has not been much debate about the #1 seed but mainly about the #2.

 

[BB73]

What I had in mind was a three team playoff. The top seed in the BCS gets to sit out a week while the #2 and #3 battle for the right to move on. I'm proposing this as opposed to a four team playoff in recognition of the fact that there has not been much debate about the #1 seed but mainly about the #2.

So in your scenario, who's #3 becomes the new hot button.

I believe that the number of teams that get selected would always be equal to the ranking spot that gets the most bitching about it.

 

[billmac91]

If I could make a tweak to the voting, it would be in line with what you discuss here, as well as something Billmac and BB73 talked about.

First, I would simply take the coaches out of it. It's no secret they're not doing anything but mailing it in (though BB73's point about the final vote is valid). Likewise, I'd axe the AP, which as time goes on becomes increasingly obvious as a popularity contest and nothing more. I feel "Choosing" an opponent, in the manner you reference, is plain and simple bull [censored].

I might keep the Harris poll, but I'd probably be a little more discerning in who I'd let vote... and I'd probably try and come up with a criteria for voting, rather than just saying "Rank em how you wish" There should be a "rule" "You shall rank teams in order from best to worst based on your opinion of which team would beat which other team in an imaginary match up" or some such...

Now...

I would HIRE people... yes... pay them... to do their job... and that is to watch 8 TVs every saturday... from noon til the last game (even if it's at Hawaii) to watch literally every single game, to the extent that they could physically do so... and then render their ballots based on ACTUAL knowledge, and not some box score bull[censored].

FWIW, I would pay me to do this, and I would make over $300,000 a year.

Sounds a lot better than the current BCS structure BKB. I'd still hate seeing multiple 1 loss teams get left out of the fold, or an undefeated BCS conference team take the shaft.

No doubt, in some years a playoff would seem ridiculous compared to the BCS system. 2002-03 is a perfect example. 2 undefeated BCS schools.

But that has been the exception, not the norm. I agree your revised BCS system makes more sense, and I like the idea of hiring voters who know their shit. But at the end of the day, even if all info points to one team, it doesn't mean it's so. Ohio State had no chance against Miami. USC was the best team EVER until Vince shredded them. Florida was an 8 point dog to a great Buckeye squad.

It's why games are played on the field. I'll never be comfortable with people or computers telling me one undefeated team deserves it more than another, or a one loss team deserves it more than another one loss team. I'm not comfortable with Auburn taking the shaft b/c they played The Citadel instead of Northern Illinois or UTEP.

Let them play it out.

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

So in your scenario, who's #3 becomes the new hot button.

I believe that the number of teams that get selected would always be equal to the ranking spot that gets the most bitching about it.

That is true. However, I tend to think that the level of complaint goes down with the inclusiveness of participation. In this case, I've increased the number of teams contending for the title by one, or 50 perc. That's one less coach who will moan about it.

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

That is true. However, I tend to think that the level of complaint goes down with the inclusiveness of participation. In this case, I've increased the number of teams contending for the title by one, or 50 perc. That's one less coach who will moan about it.

actually i think you just compounded the problem, now not only is #3 an issue but i think we dont tend to bitch about #1 because its the same as two... if you let #1 get a bye that is a huge advantage and now people are pissed about 1 and 3

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

actually i think you just compounded the problem, now not only is #3 an issue but i think we dont tend to bitch about #1 because its the same as two... if you let #1 get a bye that is a huge advantage and now people are [censored]ed about 1 and 3

who's #3 would be an issue, but a smaller issue than who's #2. Adding an extra team, the next closest team into the BCS title equation would, imo, cut down the bitching by a lot. #1 gets a bye simply because they are #1, just like how the NFL has a bye week for the top seeds.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

FWIW, I would pay me to do this, and I would make over $300,000 a year.

Sign me up.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Sounds a lot better than the current BCS structure BKB. I'd still hate seeing multiple 1 loss teams get left out of the fold, or an undefeated BCS conference team take the shaft.

No doubt, in some years a playoff would seem ridiculous compared to the BCS system. 2002-03 is a perfect example. 2 undefeated BCS schools.

But that has been the exception, not the norm. I agree your revised BCS system makes more sense, and I like the idea of hiring voters who know their shit. But at the end of the day, even if all info points to one team, it doesn't mean it's so. Ohio State had no chance against Miami. USC was the best team EVER until Vince shredded them. Florida was an 8 point dog to a great Buckeye squad.

Thanks. Let me ask you this on your final remarks in the last paragraph quoted above - Who should Ohio State have gone on to face after Miami? Who was Texas supposed to play next? How about Florida? What I'm getting at is - we already have a playoff... it is 1 game, winner take all, between two teams. Where's the problem in that? None of the contestants you named, Miami - Ohio State, USC - Texas, and Florida - Ohio State were "undeserving" in their years... if SC won, and not Texas, who's complaining? If Miami won, who says "Well, gosh in an alternative universe Ohio State won a 2OT thriller, so I can't accept this"

A playoff makes the "deserving" more and more diluted. Like I said above... 4 teams... max... and maybe I can sign on to that. By the time you get to team 5, you're already moving past the teams who can stake a legit claim (well past, in my view) and by the time you get to 8 or 16, you're just throwing out games to make money, while at the same time, increasing the likelihood that there are upsets and teams like Virginia Tech (if we go conference champion approach), Penn State (if we go 8 team playoff) or Georgia (16 team) making a run.

Of that list, and considering just this season - only Penn State is close to a legit contender... and... they're not even in the conversation right now. Nor should they be. Their OOC was simply pathetic, and they lost to Iowa. Too bad, so sad. If they had beaten Iowa, even with their horrid OOC, they probably would be in right now. Which leads me to my next point....

EVERY GAME MATTERS.

In an 8 game, every game but a couple probably matter... it's not too uncommon to have a 2 loss team rated 8th (I haven't looked it up, maybe it's more uncommon than I think)... but... a 16 team.... hell, you can loose 3 or 4 games (that's 25% to 33% of your games in a 12 game season) and still go on to play for the title... I find the idea unacceptable.

I love the NCAA tourney... it's fun.... it's exciting.... 64 teams gives me more games to watch.. but.. one of these days, a truly awful team (comparatively) is gonna win that thing... Cinderella's are making the sweet 16 with some regularity already. Great story... yeah.... but... a great Basketball Team? Not so much.... Regardless... point is, I'm not looking for "the best" in basketball (mostly because I don't care about it like I do football), so the tourney isn't particularly offensive to me in that context.

But.. do the same thing in football? No way. I watch a lot of college football. A lot. And I can tell you, there is no straight faced argument that Virginia Tech (should they win their conference championship game) should be playing for a National Title. I don't understand why playoff proponents are willing to give the Hokies a chance none-the-less...

Fairness? Fuck fair... this is football, not competitive basket-weaving.

It's why games are played on the field. I'll never be comfortable with people or computers telling me one undefeated team deserves it more than another, or a one loss team deserves it more than another one loss team. I'm not comfortable with Auburn taking the shaft b/c they played The Citadel instead of Northern Illinois or UTEP.

Let them play it out.

The number of voters tends to discount individual voter bias. The Computers likewise act as a check on the overall bias of the human polls... conversely the human pollsters can make "adjustments" to the sorts of things that computers just don't "understand" about the game (some factors can't yet be programmed well enough). I guess I don't see the problem with the BCS system. It does what it's supposed to do. It's become fashionable to hate it, but I've found that most people can't articulate why, and when they are challenged on "Why" end up saying "Well, I just want a playoff, really" Point is... the problem isn't the BCS... it's people (hey, look at that... back on topic... almost.. )

As to Auburn.... I just don't feel bad for them.. not at all. They were a bubble team in the 2 game tournament... and they got left out... do you cry for the bubble teams in the NCAA tourney? No... why not? Because even if they're left out, I mean... they're not much better than 60th anyway... it's a difference of degree, auburn being thought of as a bubble team in 2004... not kind. I say "Fuck you, Auburn" Go cry somewhere else, I gotta game to watch.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

EVERY GAME MATTERS.

Ask Texas if every game matters. They beat beat Oklahoma, yet Oklahoma has a better chance of being called the best team.

Explain how Florida has a chance to be called the best team when they lost to an 8-4 Mississippi team at home while Penn State is out in the cold after losing to an 8-4 Iowa team on the road.

And I can tell you, there is no straight faced argument that Virginia Tech (should they win their conference championship game) should be playing for a National Title. I don't understand why playoff proponents are willing to give the Hokies a chance none-the-less...

Since there is not enough games between common opponents between conferences, we need to have the best team in each conference represented. Answer this, do you think Virginia Tech or Cincinnati could make a run and beat USC, Oklahoma and Texas in consecutive weeks. If you say yes, you are thinking in a basketball mind set and not a football mind set.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Ask Texas if every game matters. They beat beat Oklahoma, yet Oklahoma has a better chance of being called the best team.

they'd better answer "yes" since they went ahead and lost to TTU. Tough fucking shit, Texas.

Explain how Florida has a chance to be called the best team when they lost to an 8-4 Mississippi team at home while Penn State is out in the cold after losing to an 8-4 Iowa team on the road.

Explain? OK.. go to yahoo.com Click on sports/college football/rankings/bcs rankings

There you will see several factors which identify the answer to your question. If you want to argue that Florida is actually worse than PSU, fine by me. I'll expect some analysis of Florida's OOC v. Penn State's OOC... look at their conference slates too... I doubt you'll be impressed with PSU's beat down of coastal carolina... but.. maybe I'm wrong. (And yes, without looking, I'm sure Florida has a couple dogs on their schedule.)

Keep in mind, by the way, I'm not interested in "Fair" and without getting in to the specifics because I have to run... I'm all but certain Florida is better than PSU... likewise, SOS ratings have Fla going 11-1 against the 28th rated scheduled, PSU the 59th... you tell me which is more impressive... pointing out one loss and comparing them is a factor... but not the ONLY factor... nice try, though.

Since there is not enough games between common opponents between conferences, we need to have the best team in each conference represented. Answer this, do you think Virginia Tech or Cincinnati could make a run and beat USC, Oklahoma and Texas in consecutive weeks. If you say yes, you are thinking in a basketball mind set and not a football mind set.

I think that VT or Cincy would lose. But, guess what... what I think is irrelvant. I wouldn't have bet on Villanova in 1985 either... and yet.. they won.

Did you think Michigan would lose to Appy State, turn around and get dismantled by Oregon the following week? They returned quite some firepower (supposedly) last season...

You're opening up possibilities which I cannot accept of my champion. It's really that simple. The onus is on you to establish why Cincy or VT would be an acceptable champion, not on me to prove they'd be able to run any particular gauntlet.

I mean, essentially you're saying "Sure, they get a shot... but it'll never happen" (that an underdog wins out)... so I ask, why the urgency to include them in the first place?

 

[Gatorubet]

Explain how Florida has a chance to be called the best team when they lost to an 8-4 Mississippi team at home while Penn State is out in the cold after losing to an 8-4 Iowa team on the road.

They'll have beaten the undisputed number one team in America to win their Conference title on the last day of the regular season. It is universally recognized that it is better to lose early than lose later in the season, and better to win big late over a quality opponent than to do so early, both situations that favor Florida over Penn State. Whether that recency and primacy bias is valid is a separate discussion.

Also, see one of the roughly four thousand BP posts about the existence of anti-Big 10 bias after several years of conference big game disappointments.

 

[billmac91]

Thanks. Let me ask you this on your final remarks in the last paragraph quoted above - Who should Ohio State have gone on to face after Miami? Who was Texas supposed to play next? How about Florida? What I'm getting at is - we already have a playoff... it is 1 game, winner take all, between two teams. Where's the problem in that? None of the contestants you named, Miami - Ohio State, USC - Texas, and Florida - Ohio State were "undeserving" in their years... if SC won, and not Texas, who's complaining? If Miami won, who says "Well, gosh in an alternative universe Ohio State won a 2OT thriller, so I can't accept this"

What I was trying to articulate is: If by some chance they do have a playoff, there will be some years were the BCS formula would have made more sense. Like in 2002-03. 2 undefeated teams. In that scenrario, the media and fans will be screaming there shouldn't be a playoff.....

But most of the years, we have been left with mutiple undefeateds, or multiple 1 loss teams. Most years, there should be some type of playoff, to allow all deserving teams a chance at the title. And I hate voters and computers telling us who the 2 teams to play are, and who the teams being left out are. I'm not comfortable telling Auburn, USC, or tOSU "tough luck".

 

[Steve19]

Explain how Florida has a chance to be called the best team when they lost to an 8-4 Mississippi team at home while Penn State is out in the cold after losing to an 8-4 Iowa team on the road.

Well, because if you look at the Sagarin predictor, Iowa is #11 and Mississippi is #13, eh, uh, because Iowa's Sagarin SOS is #53 and Mississippi is #40.

Uh, I guess there isn't much in it when I look at all the computer ratings. Uh, why is that?