[NU Sports] BCS ...

[Michael Vance]

At 12/5/2004 06:19 PM, SjT wrote:
>Then you get the title game ... an unbeaten SEC team who beat three top 10
>teams in the SEC and was only really challenged in the final minutes of
>one game. Plus, the lack of matching the other two unbeatens (Utah and
>Auburn) against each other ... this system really has sucked the fun and
>life out of the old bowl system without giving us a true championship in 5
>of the 7 years.

OK, while I empathize with Auburn, I still have to ask the question: In the 
absence of a playoff, how do you resolve this issue?  If you have three 
teams with legitimate claims to the title game, how do you get a "true 
champion" within the bowl system?

Heck, in the *really* traditional bowl system, each of the three major 
conference undefeateds would be playing in separate games.  Oklahoma would 
be the Big 8 (now Big XII) champ in the Orange Bowl, Auburn would be 
playing in the Sugar Bowl, and U$C would be in the Rose Bowl. Either the 
Orange or Sugar would probably have invited Utah to create a matchup of 
unbeaten teams, and the other probably would have invited Cal or Texas, or 
maybe VaTech or Miami.  But our "true champion" would be U$C is they win 
the Rose Bowl against Michigan, or Oklahoma if they win their bowl and U$C 
loses.  The only chance Auburn has is if both U$C and OK lose.

>Ugh -- I like how the BCS spin doctors are out again saying how this is
>the reason we have the system to break a tie (how come that sounds just as
>hollow now as it did last year when no one brought it up?:) ) ... or how
>it's the best we can do and better than the old system (debatable at
>best:) ).

I'm sorry, but given the basic assumption of the BCS, that it is both 
desirable and possible to produce a true national champion within the 
framework of the bowl system, I agree with them.  There will always be 
years when you need some sort of tie that needs to be broken to place teams 
in the championship game.  Whether it's among three unbeaten teams for the 
two slots or between two or more one-loss teams for the #2 spot, you have 
to have a way to seed them.

You can debate whether the formula is correct.  (I think that they're close 
now. I'd like to see the polls at %50 and the computer rankings at 
%50.  The earlier systems overemphasized certain factors, like losses and 
strength of schedule, that were already taken into account by the polls and 
computers.  But I digress).  And you can debate that basic assumption.  But 
if you accept that assumption (I didn't say you had to like it, but the 
presidents aren't giving us a whole lot of choice), you also have to accept 
the reality that a formula has to exist for seeding the championship game.

Since it's only one game and two teams, I think it's better that the 
formula is out there in public for all to see before the season 
starts.  Can you imagine the uproar if a "selection committee" decided that 
U$C should play Auburn instead of Oklahoma?  Or if they decided that U$C 
should be left out (again)?

In a sense, that's what happened to Cal.  The "selection committee" of 
writers and coaches gave Texas a few more points this week and look at the 
controversy.  Formal selection committees work for larger tournament 
fields, but for something this narrow, you need an objective formula.  It's 
bad enough that the formula has such a large subjective component.

So given the above stated basic assumption of the BCS, including the 
implication that a playoff is out of the question, I challenge anyone to 
come up with something better.  And don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan 
of the BCS.  I think that tradition is one of the things that makes college 
football so much better than the NFL.  But I'm struggling to come up with a 
better system, given the hand that the presidents and conferences have 
dealt us.


Michael, CAS '91
mailto:michael at vance.com