[Husker] The fed bringing the heat on the BCS

[Andrew Smith]

I would be happy to return to only bowl games, but that isn't going to 
happen.
I don't believe that the best team always wins a tourney (see my 2nd 
bullet point).  I want every game to count (see my 4th bullet point).  
In any system there will be times that the "best team" going in gets 
screwed.

Your scenario mistakenly assumes that the Big-12 champ is clearly 
superior to the other teams.  It should be clear that a better record 
and head-to-head victories don't always indicate the better team.
My belief is that with so few data points (games) during a season, the 
teams that reach a 4 team playoff will almost always be rated, by even 
the best computer program, to be within the margin of error of each 
other.  Therefore any loss in the playoff would not be an upset.  You 
may disagree, but I'd bet no small amount of money that statistics would 
support me.

Andy

Steve Kauf wrote:
> What do you do in a year that - say -  the Big 12 Champ goes into this "playoff" undefeated and gets upset by a 
>
> 9-3 ACC team (seeding you know- some how someone needs to pick the final 2, 4, 6, 8, 16 teams...) and that allows a 10-2 SEC team get into the final and play a 9-3 ACC team.  The 10-2 SEC team is the champ but their losses were to the 12 -0 Big 12 champ and another  team the 12-0 team beat earlier in the year.  Just because the 'playoff' game is later in the year - Big 12 Champ gets screwed.  
> I like the current system.  Every game counts.  Not just the last 2,3, or 4 as some on the list argue for.  And look - we can still talk abou it in February.  I would like it to go back to when polls counted more and we could discuss Dual National Champs! If you think the best teams win a tourney... I think you are mistaken.     
>
> Steve Kauf 
> A husker fan deep in South Texas 
>        
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Smith <arossman at earthlink.net>
> To: husker at tssi.com
> Sent: Mon, Feb 1, 2010 8:50 pm
> Subject: Re: [Husker] The fed bringing the heat on the BCS
>
>
> 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 
>>
>>  
>>     
>  
> _______________________________________________ 
> husker site list 
> husker at tssi.com 
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker 
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>
>