[NU Sports] BCS ...

[Michael Vance]

At 12/6/2004 01:13 AM, sjtruog at jorsm.com wrote:
> > 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?
>
>Just because the old system and the present system both spit out the same
>bogus results doesn't mean you have to pick one or the other. There has to
>be a better way, and Urban Meyer pretty much said that everyone knows what
>to do but they're afraid to say it -- playoff.

But my question was in the context of accepting -- reluctantly, perhaps 
only forcibly -- the basic premise of the BCS, that it is both desirable 
and possible to produce a true national champion within the framework of 
the bowl system.  The presidents have shown no inclination toward backing 
down on the issue of a playoff.  So my question remains: is it possible to 
make this system work?  Or is that basic assumption so flawed that it's 
impossible?

>But again, if we have to pick either/or between present and old ... I'll
>vote for the old system.

I'm with you there.  As I said, tradition is a big part of what separates 
the college game from the NFL.

> > 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
>
>Why not? It's worked well in basketball. Yeah, there's some controversy
>every year, but not the stupid kind like the BCS contains (the NCAA
>pairings get people talking and is fun controversy that disappears when
>games start ...

That's because the field is so large in the basketball tournament that no 
one could rationally argue that any snubbed team has a decent 
shot.  They're arguing for pride and for a slice of tournament 
revenue.  Once the games start, most of those bubble teams, had they been 
included, would be out the first weekend.  Not so when you're talking about 
a two or four (or possibly even eight) team field.

>the BCS is frustrating and keeps lingering to next year as
>an annoyance like something everyone realizes is broken but no one wants
>to fix). A committee could take into effect things like BCS rankings,
>strength of schedule, quality wins, performance down the stretch, etc.

All of those factors are already included in the BCS rankings, because they 
all influence the polls and the computer rankings to some extent.  You're 
forgetting that the versions of the BCS formula that included those factors 
separately produced some much worse results than this year.  Including SoS, 
quality wins, and losses as separate components overemphasized them.

>Right now, we basically have SC vs. OU because SC and OU were #1 and #2 in
>preseason and Auburn was #18 or #20.
>
>Can you make a case to exclude OU or SC? Probably not. But you can sure
>make a case for including an unbeaten SEC team that's defeated three top
>10 teams and only had one close call ... back in September. A team that's
>been dominant on offense and defense and been consistent week after week.

A team whose SoS was heavy at both ends.  Louisiana Tech (5-3 WAC, 6-6 
overall), Louisiana-Monroe (4-3 Sun Belt, 5-6 overall) and Citadel (a 
2-5/3-7 I-AA team) do a lot to offset the wins over Tennessee, UGa, and LSU 
in terms of average SoS.  It doesn't make the individual efforts of those 
wins any less impressive, but it's the week-in week-out grind of tough 
(usually conference) games that shows the true mettle of a team.  Auburn 
had their game against Citadel between their games against LSU and 
Tennessee.  You could argue that having an easy game is better than an off 
week because it keeps the team focused without expending too much effort.

>look at the seven
>BCS years and it's far easier to find four deserving teams than to limit
>it to just two.

No argument for that.  :-)

> > 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.
>
>Like I said, I don't think you have to pick Bad Option I *OR* Bad Option
>II ... why not aim higher?

I'd love to.  But I'm still trying to figure out a way to make it work 
given what the presidents are giving us.

>But if you want to reform the B(C)S, a couple suggestions ...
>
>- Get rid of the Big East's automatic bid

I'm not sure when this will happen, but I think that it eventually 
will.  But if they stick with the current rule, it'll take at least three 
more years, possibly four.

>- Institute a selection committee of conference and bowl reps to decide
>the BCS bowls. They will take polls, computer rankings and everything else
>into advisement, and the BCS Poll can still be used to determine who gets
>a bid, but let someone with sense decide matchups, so we could at least
>have Auburn  vs. Utah this year. Or avoid things like the Miami-FSU
>rematch (ugly game) last year ... the coaches didn't want it, the bowls
>didn't want it, but they were stuck with it.

The individual bowls' selection committees will never let their power be 
supplanted by another committee.  If they were really interested in doing 
what was right for college football instead of what was right for their 
individual bowls, then these matchups would already be occurring.  I think 
that they accepted the rotating NC game and rotating selection order that 
goes with it because there was no other way to do it.  But they still have 
the power every four years, and they still have it each year when it's 
their turn to pick.

>- Add some requirement about winning a league title as necessary for being
>in the title game

I honestly thought they had implemented this one, but a look at the BCS 
Media Guide proved otherwise.  I agree.  Although at the moment, the 
official rules, as spelled out in the media guide, even allow for the 
possibility of both #1 and #2 being at-large teams.  "At-large" includes 
teams from non-BCS conferences, but we all know the likelihood of that 
would be slim.  I think the only way we could've gotten there this year 
would have been if USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and possibly Cal had all lost 
their final games, vaulting Texas and Utah into the top two spots.  Even if 
USC had gotten blown out and either OK or AU lost in a squeaker, so that 
one of the latter two remained at the #2 spot, they wouldn't be conference 
champs.  Still, entertaining to think about.  :-)

>- And I like your idea of 50% poll and 50% computer for the formula ...
>but they need to also factor in things like SOS and quality wins that they
>took out

I've argued against this above already.  The only reason they should do 
this is if they think that the current crop of computer rankings don't take 
them into account enough.  And if that's the case, then find different 
computer rankings.

Incidentally, how much would it have affected this year if they counted all 
of the computers instead of dropping a team's best and worst?

>ROSE: Michigan vs. Cal - Pasadena's happy, great game (and sorry Jim, but
>I think Texas is a much tougher matchup for Michigan than Cal)
>FIESTA: Virginia Tech vs. Texas - Good game and fans thrilled to be in BCS
>SUGAR: Auburn vs. Utah - The "other" unbeatens
>ORANGE: Oklahoma vs. USC - Our "title" game

Which, while I agree this is a better field of games, still doesn't solve 
the Auburn issue.  Not without a...

>..."plus one" format couldn't hurt ... it'd be easy to implement and
>could pave the way to a playoff later.

"Plus one" is the closest that we're ever going to get to a playoff, and I 
don't see it coming anytime soon.  It was supposedly considered this past 
spring, but I don't think it's going to see the light of day again unless 
the bowls successfully use their $$$ leverage somehow.

>I love college football - it's still far more exciting than any other
>sport and the regular season does indeed mean more than anywhere else ...
>I like controversy and discussion as much as the next guy. But like I
>said, the BCS isn't generating the fun buzz March Madness does. It's more
>of an annoying visit from an unwelcome guest every year that keeps getting
>worse with age.

I agree that it's really screwed things up for the average alumni fan.  But 
the money that has been generated by the corporate interests is what has 
kept it alive more than anything.  They know that a lot of alumni will keep 
coming, but if they don't, the corporate skybox set will snap up the 
tickets, just like the Super Bowl.  For every alum who decides to stay home 
because he (or she) is just sick of the system, there's a salesperson out 
there who will use tickets to the NC game as leverage to close a deal.

I think that we're in agreement in principle on what *should* be done.  But 
as long as the presidents maintain their position on a playoff, we need to 
either go back to the old system, or figure out how to tweak this one to 
the point where it works more often.  I'm not convinced that it didn't work 
this year.  The arguments for both Oklahoma and Auburn are all pretty 
convincing.  You're right, the main thing in Oklahoma's favor is that they 
started at #2.  With the polls, meeting high expectations is better than 
shattering lower ones.  That's always been true; it has nothing to do with 
the BCS.


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