[Husker] The fed bringing the heat on the BCS

[Andrew Smith]

A few thoughts on this subject:

We HAVE a playoff - it just has fewer teams (2) than some people want. 
It's helpful, for those who like a playoff, to view it this way since it 
changes the discussion from being about a significant change (no playoff 
to having one) to being about gradual change (increasing the number of 
teams beyond 2).

While sometimes there is a consensus "best team" even after they suffer 
a playoff/championship loss (e.g., Georgetown-Villanova as mentioned by 
David Strong), that's not the norm especially in a sport with so few 
data points (12-14 games per team).  I expect that even the most 
accurate (at predicting bowl winners) computer system would have a 
margin of error such that few if any years produced a clear "best team" 
before the bowls were played.  So although a good computer analysis of a 
season's games is usually more accurate in determining whether A is 
better than B than their actual head-to-head result, "settle it on the 
field" is necessary as a end of year tie-breaker for determining the 
"best team".

Though there will be many definitions of "best team", it's still useful 
when discussing the optimal number of teams to have in a playoff. 
However you define "best team", there are competing forces:
* The fewer teams you have in a playoff, the more likely the best team 
will be left out.
* The more teams you have in a playoff, the more likely the best team 
will be eliminated in an upset.
Given a numerical value of the variability in teams' performances, the 
optimal number of teams could be calculated.  Unfortunately I have 
neither the time nor training to do so. 

My personal preference for number of teams is 4 since:
* Most years, peoples' various "best" teams are usually confined to 
around 4 teams or less.  I don't recall any years when the "best" teams 
went beyond 8.
* With more than 4 teams, it will often be the case that some normally 
competitively played regular season games are no longer must-win games 
and the top teams could rest their stars in preparation for the playoffs.
* With more than 4 teams, the cost of travel for the teams and tickets 
for their fans become a problem.

While there will always be complains, I think if the BCS simply expanded 
the playoffs from 2-4, most of the complaining and the level of passion 
behind them would dissipate.

Andy


David Strong wrote:
>> From: Ken Oliver <ksterling at mindspring.com>
>>     
>
>   
>> Before you have a playoff vs. BCS discussion, you have to
>> decide what you want to determine from it. 
>>
>> I want to decide who the best team in the country is. 
>>
>>     
>
> You want to decide who the best team in the country is and you think the existing process is good for that?  
>
> Anyway, the purpose of any championship game or tournament or anything is not to determine who the best team is.  It is to determine who wins the championship.  In the 1985 NCAA Men's basketball tournament, the Villanova Wildcats played the Georgetown Hoyas in the championship game.  Georgetown had already beaten Villanova 3 times that year, easily every time.  No one, not before the game, not after the game, would ever say that Villanova was a better team than Georgetown.  But that night, Villanova played the game of their lives, beat Georgetown, and won the National Champhionship.  It was glorious.  So who was the better team?  Who cares.  Who was the national champion?  The Villanova Wildcats.  In the same tournament, when the North Carolina State Wolfpack outplayed, and Jim Valvano outcoached, a remarkably superior Houston team, it was a game for the ages.  Who was the better team?  Not the team that won the national championship. Who was the
>  champion... NC State.
>
> You want to determine who the best team is?  Maybe elections and computers are for you.  I'll take the game.
>
> Dave
>
>
>       
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>
>