OT - BCS to change formula, drop SOS

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sp...504/12bcs.html Amelia Island, Fla. — The controversial formula that left college football with two national champions last season is about to change again.

The new Bowl Championship Series formula, two people familiar with it say, will have just three equal parts: the Associated Press poll of sports writers and broadcasters, the ESPN/USA Today coaches poll and the average of seven computer polls.


That eliminates three ingredients of the old formula: strength of schedule, losses and quality wins.

Commissioners of the six Bowl Championship Series conferences could approve the new formula as early as today, at a meeting in Chicago. The formula will go into effect this fall.

"I think everybody agreed that we needed to simplify things," said Florida State athletics director Dave Hart, who will represent ACC commissioner John Swofford in today's meeting. Swofford will stay here as the ACC wraps up its annual spring business meetings today.

[wbatl1]

They change, again. Will it help? No, again.

[BishopMVP]

I hate how they change it every year there aren't two undefeated teams to respond to the problem from the year before. This sounds like a horrible change. Easier for the average fan to understand, but even more flawed than before. What will they do in the event of a tie (which seems much more likely now?)

[ScottVib]

What do they do with the computer polls?

They made the computer polls strip out margin of victory, will they let them add it back in? Obviously they can't pull the strength of schedule out of the computer polls. Or are they going to do so? (In which case it would be pretty foolish)

[JonInMiddleGA]

If they sat down and said "what change could we make that MiddleGA would like least", this would probably have been what they came up with.

AFAIC, what needs to be dropped from the formula are the AP & USAToday/ESPN polls.

[Franklinnoble]

I don't see why it would be so hard to have a tournament. Sure, it might be a bit troublesome to play an extra six games a year (assuming you go all the way to the title game), but I really don't think anyone would object.

[ScottVib]

64 team tourney is way too much.

16 team would be fine. If the levels with "real" student athletes can do it, why can't Division 1A? Let the remaining bowls be the "NIT".

An autobid for each conference champ and then 5 at large bids. (Or each Conference champ with X 1A victories)

[primelord]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I don't see why it would be so hard to have a tournament. Sure, it might be a bit troublesome to play an extra six games a year (assuming you go all the way to the title game), but I really don't think anyone would object.

Actually all 6 major conferences would object.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

AFAIC, what needs to be dropped from the formula are the AP & USAToday/ESPN polls.

I agree with Jon.

(I just had to see what that sounded like )

Seriously, I think that the polls have a place--people can use them to debate who they think is the best team.

But if the NCAA is serious about wanting a non-playoff system wherein it can crown a "true" D1A football champion, then that system should be completely objective (i.e. all computer polls, strength of schedule, etc.). Subjective polls should not be a part of the process.

No other sport that claims to crown a true champion uses such subjective criteria. Can you imagine if the super bowl was decided by some combination of on-field performance and what some writers decided?

Another option would be to go back to bowl tie-ins and let the NC remain "mythical." I'd be fine with that, too.

[sooner333]

Worst move ever. Basically, every change they have made has been bad, and the BCS keeps getting worse, and worse, and worse. Margin of victory needs to be in there, SOS is important. At least they didn't get rid of the computer polls. I think the reason they dropped SOS instead is because if they just dropped the computers from last year, OU would have played USC, which would have pissed people off. SOS is big because you need to play hard teams to get there. Losses were kind of a wash, I don't know if that ever really needed to be in there. Quality wins were flawed, but had some good things going for it.

Anyway, this really helps non-BCS conferences. Voter polls ignore SOS with those teams and some (not all) of the computer polls will give the benefit to a non-BCS team if they keep winning. Anyway, once one of those teams plays against a good team, and get blown out, people will be appalled and they'll change again.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Subjective polls should not be a part of the process.
... Another option would be to go back to bowl tie-ins and let the NC remain "mythical." I'd be fine with that, too.

WYS

[clintl]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I agree with Jon.


But if the NCAA is serious about wanting a non-playoff system wherein it can crown a "true" D1A football champion, then that system should be completely objective (i.e. all computer polls, strength of schedule, etc.).

You cannot have a non-playoff system AND a "true" D1A champion. They are mutually exclusive.

[sooner333]

clintl- I think you can have the BCS and determine a true champion. LSU was it last year. USC can say they think they were better...the A's could have said they were better than the Marlins as well, last year. Your OPINION is a valid one, but you try to present it as fact, which would be wrong.

[ISiddiqui]

Seriously, I think that the polls have a place--people can use them to debate who they think is the best team.

I think the polls are the only things that have a 'place'. The computer polls are simply subjective reasoning masquerading as objective (ie, the relative weight of each factor). Without a playoff, there is no true champion, so why not make it 100% clear that it is totally subjective.

I think you can have the BCS and determine a true champion. LSU was it last year. USC can say they think they were better...the A's could have said they were better than the Marlins as well, last year.

There was no 'TRUE' Champion last year. There was a BCS Champion and an AP Champion, both equally valid, FWIW. The contrast with baseball is that there is a system for deciding who is the 'true' champion and that is the playoffs. No one says that the team that has the best regular season is the 'true' champion, but plenty said USC was the 'true' champion last year (including your's truely).

[Leonidas]

Seems to me the whole point of the BCS was to take the influence away from the polls and produce something more objective. Yet every year when it doesn't turn out right all the changes made in reaction are desgined to give more influence back to the human polls.

[Buccaneer]

One gone, one more to do. All it needs to do is drop the computer scores and it will be back to real life again.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by sooner333

clintl- I think you can have the BCS and determine a true champion. LSU was it last year. USC can say they think they were better...the A's could have said they were better than the Marlins as well, last year. Your OPINION is a valid one, but you try to present it as fact, which would be wrong.

There is NO way that anyone can really tell for sure how the top teams stack up against one another without playing the games. And the typical D1A college football team plays less than 10% of other D1A football teams in the country. How can tell that an undefeated team is better than a team with two losses in a highly competitive conference if they don't play against each other? You can't.

Anyone who thinks you can pick two teams out of 117 that are, to the exclusion of the other 115, are the only two deserving of playing for the championship is delusional.

The BCS will always be a total fraud without any redeeming attributes whatsoever.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Seems to me the whole point of the BCS was to take the influence away from the polls and produce something more objective. Yet every year when it doesn't turn out right all the changes made in reaction are desgined to give more influence back to the human polls.

There's a reason. People are smarter than computers.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

One gone, one more to do. All it needs to do is drop the computer scores and it will be back to real life again.

Yeah, I think next year they'll simplify the "BCS" ranking to an average of the AP and Coaches poll.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I don't see why it would be so hard to have a tournament.

I do.

There's too much money to be lost.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I have no opinion of this until I see it in action. However margin of victory was always a fraud, it should have been margin of loss.

[Craptacular]

As someone who has viewed the BCS as an improvement over the old system, this is pathetic.

[Radii]

this is stupid as shit.

That is all.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by clintl

There's a reason. People are smarter than computers.

Are they though???

[Homer Simpson]

Saxa-maphone. Saxa-maphone....

[/]

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Worst move ever. Basically, every change they have made has been bad, and the BCS keeps getting worse, and worse, and worse. Margin of victory needs to be in there, SOS is important. At least they didn't get rid of the computer polls. I think the reason they dropped SOS instead is because if they just dropped the computers from last year, OU would have played USC, which would have pissed people off. SOS is big because you need to play hard teams to get there.

I agree that SOS needs to figure in, but it already figures into all three of the components that are left in the BCS. The poll voters factor it in, and the computer rankings factor it in. Why have it included as an additional penalty factor?

I've got more of a problem with the overreliance on polls. When the voters screw up, it's more likely they'll both screw up together and outvote the computer rankings.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Craptacular

As someone who has viewed the BCS as an improvement over the old system, this is pathetic.

I miss the old system. I miss seeing the Big 8 Champ in the Orange Bowl every year. The SWC champ in the Cotton Bowl, the SEC Champ in the Sugar Bowl, et al. I wish they would just go back to that system and let the cards fall where they may.

[Mr. Wednesday]

The real problem here, in my mind, is the continuing attempt to contort the BCS to suit conventional wisdom, rather than taking an in-depth look at what they're trying to quantify and making sure they quantify it fairly and accurately. When the conventional wisdom and the BCS disagree, the correct course of action is not to throw up their collective hands and start hacking and slashing, the correct course of action is to figure out whether a) the conventional wisdom is wrong (as it was with respect to USC), b) the BCS is considering things it shouldn't or isn't considering things it should (as may have been the case with respect to Oklahoma), or c) the BCS is looking at the right things, but not weighing them correctly.

The root of the problem is, in my mind, whenever the BCS challenges the conventional wisdom, the reflexive conclusion is to blame the BCS.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think the polls are the only things that have a 'place'. The computer polls are simply subjective reasoning masquerading as objective (ie, the relative weight of each factor). Without a playoff, there is no true champion, so why not make it 100% clear that it is totally subjective.



There was no 'TRUE' Champion last year. There was a BCS Champion and an AP Champion, both equally valid, FWIW. The contrast with baseball is that there is a system for deciding who is the 'true' champion and that is the playoffs. No one says that the team that has the best regular season is the 'true' champion, but plenty said USC was the 'true' champion last year (including your's truely).

Statement 1: Computers set their formulas before the season, they don't change. There is a set way things will be done and uses the results, and only the results, to determine the order of the teams. Human polls are decided by people who can change their system week to week based on whatever they want...they change reasoning throughout the season. I think they deserve a place because humans can see the games and make determinations, but come on...don't tell me that the computers are as subjective as the humans.

Statement 2: There is a way to determine a national champion...that would be the BCS and the winner of the BCS Championship game. The AP simply awards a trophy to who they think is the best. I could have awarded a trophy to the A's for being the best team in baseball, and nobody would have cared...the AP could probably do the same thing. The only reason people care in college football is because it is more rooted in tradition.

[WussGawd]

Big whoop. The BSCS Sucks.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

Are they though???

[Homer Simpson]

Saxa-maphone. Saxa-maphone....

[/]

Yes, they are. All computers do is make the calculations people program them to make. Why do you think we need house rules to play FOF and OOTP solo?

[scooper]

Somewhere, Bill Snyder is smiling.

[ISiddiqui]

I miss the old system. I miss seeing the Big 8 Champ in the Orange Bowl every year. The SWC champ in the Cotton Bowl, the SEC Champ in the Sugar Bowl, et al. I wish they would just go back to that system and let the cards fall where they may.

Indeed... Well said!

Computers set their formulas before the season, they don't change. There is a set way things will be done and uses the results, and only the results, to determine the order of the teams. Human polls are decided by people who can change their system week to week based on whatever they want...they change reasoning throughout the season. I think they deserve a place because humans can see the games and make determinations, but come on...don't tell me that the computers are as subjective as the humans.

And who sets what criteria are used by the computers and what weight is set on those criteria? That's right, HUMANS! It's just a different kind of subjective. Doesn't make it any less though.

There is a way to determine a national champion...that would be the BCS and the winner of the BCS Championship game. The AP simply awards a trophy to who they think is the best. I could have awarded a trophy to the A's for being the best team in baseball, and nobody would have cared...the AP could probably do the same thing. The only reason people care in college football is because it is more rooted in tradition.

Firstly, there was a National Champion WELL BEFORE anything called the BCS existed, so your statement is false. The BCS isn't the only way to determine the national champion, because then you'd have to assert that before the BCS came about there was no national champion, which would be silly. Furthermore, the AP polls have given out national champion trophies for decades and have been accepted as a national championship.

Your utterly ludicrious example of giving out hardware to the Oakland A's is in no way comparable, because no one, especially not that A's believe they are getting anything of value when you say they were the best team. On the contrary, people believe the AP champion is something of value. It is the 'internal point of view' which H.L.A. Hart spoke of. That which is valid is because it has been accepted. To say the AP championship is not legit, but the BCS one is, is having your head in the clouds. And yes, it IS rooted in tradition, because that is how legitimacy is recieved.

[albionmoonlight]

Assuming without deciding that humans are smarter than computers:

All the "computer polls" are are someone's formula to determine who the best team is the nation is based on certain criteria. The computer is only used to do complex calculations quickly--not to provide any original thought into the process.

Given the computer program, any human with a pencil and paper and a lot of time could derive the results.

Just wanted to clarify that--whatever else needs to be debated with the BCS--it is not a man v. machine debate.

(Personally, I wish that instead of computer polls, they called it "the objective ranking.")

[sterlingice]

No, but for all that people hate the computer polls and many of them are very flawed, everyone knows the formula going in so the rules don't change as the season progresses. Whereas with the polls you always seem to have ridiculous things like "well, if team A looks good next week against weak opponent and team B struggles but wins against a better team, team A can leap past team B in the polls", particularly towards the end of the season. It seems the voters are unduly influenced by flash sometimes.

SI