[Husker] The fed bringing the heat on the BCS

Wed Feb 3 01:44:27 CST 2010

Maybe there wouldn't be upsets, but those games would be a hell of a lot of
fun to watch.

Here's a question for the bowl supporters: do you enjoy March Madness? How
would you feel if instead of a 64-team tournament, the champion was
determined by a 3-game series between the top two teams, as rated by a
BCS-like formula? Or even a tournament with the top 4 teams, or 8? Or even
no tournament at all, with the top rated team declared "champion." Would you
prefer that to March Madness? Why do we never hear anyone clamor for such a
thing?

Aaron

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Andrew Smith <arossman at earthlink.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>