[NU Sports] Big Ten and the BCS ...

[Michael Vance]

Let me preface this by saying that as a Big Ten fan, I have wanted a 
dOSU-Michigan rematch from the start.  The only downside to that would 
be Wisconsin still getting shut out of the BCS (more on that rule 
later), but that would happen anyway, even if OSU faced someone else in 
the title game and Michigan was in the Rose Bowl (or another BCS game).

And let me also say that while I love reading everyone's commentary, 
especially Stephen's, I get a little annoyed with hearing how the BCS 
sucks without hearing any constructive, realistic suggestions for 
alternatives.  Just saying, "Let's have a playoff" doesn't come anywhere 
close.  More on that later, too.

With those two things in mind, here is "Michael's 
Probably-Controversial-and-Unpopular Rebuttal to Stephen and Defense of 
the BCS and the Voters."

SjT (Stephen J. Truog) wrote:
> Remember that when Michigan ended their season, they
> were the #2 team in the BCS. You'd think that ending
> your year in the top 2 would guarantee a BCS title
> game bid.
Except that everyone else hadn't finished their regular seasons yet.  At 
the least, comparisons have to be made between the 12-game regular 
seasons of each team.  It's not USCs and Florida's faults that Michigan 
had their schedule wrapped up before they did.
> But then the "anti-rematch" hype kicked in and after
> USC trounced a highly overrated Notre Dame team (by
> slightly less than Michigan trounced ND ... IN SOUTH
> BEND!), the hype machine said that CLEARLY Southern
> Cal was the #2 team in the country now and deserved
> the shot.  
I don't think it was necessarily all that clear, but there is something 
to the notion that Michigan had their shot and that if there are two 
*very comparable* teams, that the one who hasn't had a chance yet should 
get it.  Also, if you look at SC's schedule top-to-bottom, it was 
stronger than Michigan's, mainly on the basis of the non-conference 
slate.  Admittedly, their one loss was not as "high-quality" a loss as 
Michigan's and their victory over the one common opponent was, 
statistically, not quite as strong as Michigan's.  But the ND victories 
were both dominant, which is what matters.  The degree of dominance, 
once you reach a certain point, is irrelevant.
> So Michigan was dropped, despite not losing, to #3.
> Still well ahead of Florida in the polls.
>
> But then that awesome USC team lost. So now the hype
> machine kicks in again and that Florida team that they
> dismissed a week ago as not even being #3 or even in
> the debate with that awesome USC team is suddenly more
> deserving because of their schedule (which was the
> same schedule they had a week ago).
>
> So if the BCS drops Michigan behind Florida for a
> SECOND TIME without Michigan having lost a game, then
> we really need to scrap this crappy system for good.  
This is where the disparities of conference championship games and the 
human element of polls kick in.  These are the two biggest flaws to the 
BCS ratings as they stand right now.  How do you factor in an extra game 
against what should be a high-quality opponent when comparing to a team 
that doesn't have such a game?  And remember, there was a huge backlash 
against the computers a few years ago which precipitated the change in 
the formula to emphasize the polls more.  But the computers are at least 
objective in the sense that they do not change their criteria in 
mid-season.  Whenever you have humans making the decisions, they can 
change their mind about what's important from week to week.  Choose your 
poison, but don't complain when it hurts you.
> They had a chance to put in the "conference champs
> only in the title game" clause TWO TIMES after the Big
> XII debacles where Nebraska and Oklahoma were blown
> out of their season finales and still got into the
> championship.
This is one of other the eternal debates in the BCS.  If the ratings 
somehow put a non-champion higher than a champion, either because of 
non-conference performance or because of an upset in the conference 
championship game, who should be the conference's representative?  
Should the higher-ranked team get an at-large spot?

(Note: Everything above was written in the early afternoon, before I had 
to break for a Christmas shopping trip.  From this point forward, it's 
written after the BCS announcement show.  I don't think that it changes 
any of the points I originally intended to make, but in the interests of 
full disclosure, I thought I'd mention it.)

The BCS needs to decide which one it values more highly between overall 
ranking and conference champion status and be consistent about it.
>  But they didn't. And Michigan's loss, by
> 3 points in Columbus, is far less embarassing than
> Oklahoma's debacle vs. KSU or the Buffalo massacre for
> Nebraska. 
>
> So dropping Michigan TWICE when the Wolverines didn't
> lose a game just because you don't want a rematch of a
> 42-39 game isn't giving the current system any
> credibility.
>   
I think that credibility is only lost with Wolverine and maybe other Big 
Ten fans.  That seems to be exactly the prevailing rationale among 
pollsters and a large part of the college football fan base.  And as I 
said above, when you have humans making the decisions, you have to allow 
for the fact that they can (and often do) change their minds about 
what's important.  How many people voted Republican in 2004, primarily 
because of terrorism, security, and Iraq, only to turn around and vote 
Democratic for those same reasons in 2006?
> Neither is keeping an 11-1 Wisconsin team ranked in
> the top 5-6 out of the BCS because of a silly league
> rule.
>   
That's not a league rule, that's a BCS rule.  As a matter of fact, it's 
the overriding principle that precedes all of the automatic selection 
rules.  (See the quote from collegebcs.com below.)  Remember. the BCS is 
designed to make money for the power conferences, but not too much money 
for any one conference.  By prohibiting more than two teams from the 
same conference from BCS bowls, this ensures that too much money doesn't 
go to one place.  If Arkansas won the SEC title game on Saturday by a 
slim margin, you've possibly got LSU in the same position as Wisconsin 
or Florida with two losses but one of them in an extra game.
> The Big Ten really needs to rid themselves of this BCS
> BS and return to the Rose Bowl tradition until there's
> a playoff.
>   
The problem isn't so much the concept of a playoff.  It's how to fit a 
playoff in to the existing bowl games (the people who control the money 
won't allow it any other way) without going any further into January 
(the academic argument, along with competing with basketball and the 
NFL, which lays claim to Saturday football after January 1.)  Remember, 
the bowls began as, and to a certain extent still are, a way for local 
chambers of commerce to get people to take their holiday vacations to a 
particular locale.  They want people there for a day or two before 
and/or after the game to spend money.  Holiday travel plans generally 
need to be made in advance.

I know, there's the argument that the other divisions manage to pull it 
off, but those aren't neutral field games.  One of the teams involved 
plays host, I believe (but am unsure, so correct me if I'm wrong) all 
the way to the championship game.  You have to do that to get much of a 
crowd.  I'm curious what the average visiting fan attendance is at 
DI-AA, II, & III tournament games.  I'm guessing it's pretty small until 
the championship, barring geographical proximity between the two schools.

Bottom line: The academic (and basketball) interests won't allow 
football to go any farther into January, and the money interests won't 
let the current bowl system die.  Unless and until someone figures out a 
compromise that both of those can agree to, there will be no playoff.  
Period.
> BTW - exposing more idiocy of the BCS ... if Arkansas
> and Rutgers had won today (which was close to
> happening), you would have had an 11-1 Louisville and
> 10-2 LSU team in the BCS top four but neither having
> the automatic berth for their conferences.
See the above question about the BCS needing to decide between 
conference champion status and overall ranking.  That's partially 
resolved by some of the rules below, but not completely.
> With one of
> the three remaining at-large berths (after Michigan's
> in the title game) taken up by Boise State by the
> rules, you'd think that it would mean the Tigers and
> Cards were the other two BCS at-large teams. But I
> have a feeling Notre Dame at an overrated 10-2 mark
> and #10 in the BCS would have been taken instead. BCS
> BS.
>   
 From Jerry Palm's collegebcs.com ("AQ conference" = Automatically 
Qualifying conference, i.e. Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Big East, Big XII, Pac-10):

"There are ten spots in the five BCS bowl games (Rose, Fiesta, Orange, 
Sugar and the title game). Under no circumstance may a conference place 
more than two teams in the BCS games. With that in mind, the following 
teams automatically qualify for one of those spots. (In order of 
preference. All ranking criteria refer to the final BCS standings unless 
otherwise noted.)

   1. The top two teams in the rankings. Those teams are assigned to the
      title game.
   2. AQ conference champions, /regardless of ranking/. *Exception:* If
      the #1 and #2 teams are from the same conference and neither is
      the champion, then the champion of that conference will not
      participate in the BCS.
   3. The highest-rated champion of a non-AQ conference if it either
      ranks in the top 12 /or/ is ranked in the top 16 and also ranked
      ahead of one of the champions of an AQ conference.
   4. Notre Dame, if it finishes in the top eight.
   5. The #3 team, if it is a member of an AQ conference and there is
      still an open spot.
   6. The #4 team, if it is a member of an AQ conference and there is
      still an open spot."

By rules 5 and 6, the #3 and #4 teams automatically get in over Notre 
Dame unless ND is in the Top 8.  So in the situation that you propose, 
ND would be playing in Jacksonville again.  But if LSU or Louisville had 
been #5, they could realistically get bumped by ND.
> About the only good thing about Florida's jumping
> Michigan would be that the BCS lineup would actually
> be somewhat entertaining ...
>
> TITLE: Ohio St. vs. Florida - The two winners of the
> top two conferences ... hard to dispute that.
>
> ROSE: USC vs. Michigan - A classic Granddaddy rivalry.
>
> SUGAR: LSU vs. Notre Dame - Road game for the Irish
> and the good times may indeed roll for the Tigers.
>
> ORANGE: Louisville vs. Wake Forest - Not quite the
> Cinderella Bowl it'd have been with Rutgers, though
>
> FIESTA: Oklahoma vs. Boise State - Go Underdogs!
>   
Congratulations on nailing the BCS lineup!  And you're right, they 
should mostly be great games.  The alternatives if Michigan was in the 
title game are definitely worse, even if it was only Florida in the 
Sugar Bowl and LSU in the Rose Bowl with nothing else changing.  Plus we 
get a Big Ten/Pac-10 Rose Bowl, as it should be.
> There's gonna be some rightful cries for change from
> one area of the country tomorrow. It's hard to argue
> against Florida getting a shot ... but it's also a
> joke if the voters drop Michigan two times despite the
> Wolverines not losing just because they don't want a
> rematch.
The easiest change is one that the Big Ten can make unilaterally.  
Change the schedule to have it end Thanksgiving weekend instead of the 
weekend before.  I think that the Wolverine's biggest problem was "out 
of sight, our of mind."  Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a good 
idea.  I think that it's great that we let our players and coaches be 
with their families on the holiday weekend.  But I think it hurts us 
with the pollsters in situations like this.

I think that the current system is about as good as you're going to 
get.  They may tweak the formula again to strike a different balance 
between the polls and the computers, but the closest you'll ever see to 
a playoff is the so-called "plus 1" setup where you play the regular 
bowls and then the #1 and #2 teams after that play for the title.  But 
then you'd have to add another game to equal the concession to the 
non-BCS conferences that was made this year.

-Michael