Annual Complaint Against Stupid System
The conference championships are completed and it's not that one year Vince Young played USC, so the BCS's answer is a stupid one. Yes. Yes, it is that time again.
this "On Notice" board from 2006 is remarkably apropos today save for the hatred directed at random SEC mediocrities who failed to beat Florida
If the BCS hadn't popped out of its mother in midair above a dorsal fin, this would be the moment when it jumped the shark. Since it did we have to invent a new term for a terrible thing everyone hates reaching maximum troll. The BCS just Clay Travised all over us.
Anyway, every year at this time I pull out the MGoPlayoff proposal. I don't do this in any real hope it will make a difference, since anyone who could assemble our current system will botch a playoff just as badly. I don't really know why I do it. Maybe it makes me feel better—yes, there is a hypothetical version of college football that makes a goddamn lick of sense.
The goal!
CREATE A SINGLE TEAM WITH THE DEFINITIVELY BEST RESUME. College football is unique amongst sports in that the national title is essentially decided by eyeballing it. The only thing the BCS changed was to take the one team people used to eyeball and turn it into two. Hinton:
What we should be asking instead is, why does college football and college football alone insist on wedging itself into this ridiculous corner year after year? When did we concede to leave the results of a sport to a cacophonous, ill-informed debating society? How have we convinced ourselves that dragging statistics and resumés and eyeball tests to the podium — along with preconceived biases that trump them all — can possibly deliver a satisfying answer?
Obviously, it can't. Any answer to an unanswerable question is the wrong answer.
Literally every observer who has ever laid eyes on the Bowl Championship Series has mocked it as an absurd anachronism, and continues to mock it to this day. Rightly so. Every sane observer within the sport has mocked it as an absurd anachronism. Seriously: Voting on the better football team? Are we still doing this? We're really going to do it again? Deferring to polls and algorithms in a competition that keeps score? Why are we still doing this?
Because of the unique structure of college football, a playoff can be constructed to be inherently satisfying. That is: you can make something that always leaves one team alone atop a pile of skulls no one else in the country can match. This is obviously not the case right now.
The key components!
RESTRICTED FIELD. No 9-3 teams. Maintain as much of the importance of the regular season as possible. Keep out anyone who could win three straight and still reasonably have an AP vote go against them.
HOME GAMES. Helps with attendance, prevents people from having to travel multiple weeks, helps maintain importance of regular season, makes the guys at the bottom wade through a tougher task and helps bolster their pile-of-skulls argument.
BYES. Again, importance of regular season and pile-of-skulls argument.
NO AUTOBIDS, MAX TWO TEAMS PER CONFERENCE. Autobids can suck it. So can third place teams in their own conference. Also no first round intraconference matchups.
FINAL AT THE ROSE BOWL. Iconic. Would become one of the great traditions in American sports.
This year's version based on the final BCS standings:
1. LSU vs winner of 4. Stanford and 7. Boise State
2. Alabama vs winner of 3. Oklahoma State and 5. Oregon
Arkansas is left out because of the two-teams-per-conference rule; Boise and Oregon flip to prevent a conference matchup. The first two games would be this weekend with the second round on January 1st (2nd this year) and the final a week after. Anyone outside of the final four can go to whatever bowl they want, so this hardly touches the bowl system. The net result is removing one BCS bowl in favor of the playoff.
An eight team version of this is less ideal but also acceptable; that would see Kansas State and Wisconsin on the road in the first round against the SEC teams. Autobids are awful. Clemson and West Virginia can win three straight games here and still not be as worthy as LSU.
The pointlessness of existence!
Don't bother telling me it's not happening. I know.
After the jump: blogpoll ballot time. Sure to endear me to Alabama fans even more.
Here you go. No deltas because I forgot to vote last week while I was bathing in the sweet feeling of not wanting to throw up after the last game of the season.
MGoBlog Ballot - Week 15
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | LSU Tigers | -- |
| 2 | Oklahoma St. Cowboys | -- |
| 3 | Oregon Ducks | -- |
| 4 | Stanford Cardinal | -- |
| 5 | Boise St. Broncos | -- |
| 6 | Wisconsin Badgers | -- |
| 7 | USC Trojans | -- |
| 8 | Alabama Crimson Tide | -- |
| 9 | Arkansas Razorbacks | -- |
| 10 | Clemson Tigers | -- |
| 11 | Kansas St. Wildcats | -- |
| 12 | Michigan St. Spartans | -- |
| 13 | Michigan Wolverines | -- |
| 14 | Virginia Tech Hokies | -- |
| 15 | Baylor Bears | -- |
| 16 | Georgia Bulldogs | -- |
| 17 | Nebraska Cornhuskers | -- |
| 18 | Oklahoma Sooners | -- |
| 19 | Penn St. Nittany Lions | -- |
| 20 | Southern Miss. Golden Eagles | -- |
| 21 | West Virginia Mountaineers | -- |
| 22 | Houston Cougars | -- |
| 23 | Cincinnati Bearcats | -- |
| 24 | Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets | -- |
| 25 | Notre Dame Fighting Irish | -- |
SB Nation BlogPoll College Football Top 25 Rankings »
ALABAMA. Admittedly, this is a protest vote, but Nick Saban voted Oklahoma State #4. Die in a fire.
If I had a real vote that affected anything I'd burn it in the name of not having a divisional rematch for the title game. Save your arguments about putting the "best two teams" on the field. We have no idea who the best two teams are. Alabama's schedule is weak, they didn't strangle Penn State with the authoritah Wisconsin did, and their best win is against Arkansas, which seems like a paper tiger itself. The only thing we know about Alabama is they lost to LSU at home and a rematch literally cannot produce a satisfying outcome.
If this doesn't destroy the BCS, nothing will. It won't.
BIG TEN FUTZERING. Yeah, MSU above Michigan. It's razor thin now but going 1-1 against Wisconsin in the way they did is a net asset Michigan does not have. Wisconsin, meanwhile, has to be sick to their stomach about the back to back Hail Mary incidents, either one of which going the other way would probably have gotten them to the title game.
BAYLOR! Your guess is as good as mine, man. I had them 9th, and then 20th, and I gave up. Hypothetically: is this what Michigan looks like if Rodriguez is around for year four?
CLEMSON? Oh, Clemson. What the helling hell. I find you to be so very Clemson.
YOU TRY TO FIND SOMEONE OTHER THAN ND FOR THE LAST SPOT. Go ahead.
[UPDATE: Well done. I left South Carolina and TCU out. South Carolina slots in at 14, TCU at 20, and GT and ND disappear.]
December 5th, 2011 at 7:36 PM ^
Why is it AAB's (and others who watch college football) enjoyment that really needs to be satisfied? I would think that the players deserve a system that is closer to fair (accurate) than present.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:49 AM ^
WTF happens if Alabama beats LSU by a slim margin? Is there any way that LSU could still win the championship in the computers? Or, if not, could Alabama be crowned the champion with weaker statistics (like strength of schedule, etc.)? This whole thing is f-cked.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
Exactly.
What if Alabama beats LSU 9-6 in overtime?
Doesn't LSU's identical victory trump Alabama's because it occurred in Tuscaloosa?
Oh please let this happen.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:58 AM ^
No. It's the NCG for a reason. Is Wisky's 3 pt win over MSU in the CCG negated by MSU's 6 pt win in the regular season?
I'm all for the regular season being of the utmost importance, but why call it a championship game if the outcome can be overruled by something in the regular season?
December 5th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
If the NCG only is more important because we call it the NCG, and not for any other reason, then the system is broken. That's why we need a playoff - so we can call the most important game the NCG instead of having a game that's the most important because we call it the NCG.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:06 PM ^
This hits the nail on the head.
December 5th, 2011 at 7:37 PM ^
Solid.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^
I generally accept the BCS for what it is - an institution that is never going to be changed by people like us and will probably never change. But this year is my breaking point. I hope to little baby jesus that Alabama wins 13-3 and quasi-dominates, at least enough to overcome their lack of "stats" relating to strength of schedule, etc. It will then all fall on the human voters, I think, right? F- them all. Brian's idea of burning the ballot in protest is a great one.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^
i like to think of Jesus as a mischevious badger...
December 5th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^
If that happens, LSU almost certainly wins the AP championship. Alabama wins the BCS because the coaches/harris voters are obligated to vote the winner of the BCS game as #1.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^
The AP voters could (and, hopefully would, just to p*ss everyone off) vote LSU as #1 and the AP MNC if they lose a close game to Bama.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^
Oklahoma St would probably be the computer champion
December 5th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
The problem with trying to come up with a system that "creates a single team with the definitively best resume," is that there's always a scenario where the system would fail.
I'd argue that this year would create the perfect scenario where your system would fail. Lets say the higher seeds win the first two rounds and then Alabama beats LSU in a nailbiter. Wouldn't LSU still be a reasonable AP champion? LSU would have wins over the #2, #4, #5 and #6 teams compared to Alabama who would have wins over #1, #3 and #6. Each team has only one loss to each other, Alabama's at home. Lets say that the WVU and Penn St. wins cancel each other out. LSU still gets an advantage in the remaining schedule on the basis of beating Georgia. How could anyone, if they're deciding just on resume, pick Alabama in that scenario?
December 5th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^
Wouldn't the playoff take away any say the polls get at that point? You could make that argument for any playoff system couldn't you? Once the playoffs start we ignore what happened before, the regular season is only for seeding at that point. Which is fine.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
But that's not what Brian stated his goal was. Brian says: "you can make something that always leaves one team alone atop a pile of skulls no one else in the country can match." He obviously is considering the regular season as well.
The problem we all have to get over is our refusal to acknowledge that "champion" and "best team" are not always synonymous. There's essentially two flawed extremes, "eyballing" it and declaring the best team as national champion, or setting up a NFL/March Madness style tournament to declare a champion, but acknowledging that the winner might not be the best team for the season. I'm honestly ok with either extreme as long as we acknowledge it as such. What bothers me is when we take a hybrid approach, i.e., the BCS, and claim it's providing a definitive way to crown the best team as National Champion. It just doesn't work. Brian's proposal is probably better than most, but he's deluding himself if he thinks that every year, the winner of a 6-team tournament would have definitevely the best resume in all of college football.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^
I was only referring to the idea that the polls would still matter once the playoffs start. The regular season is still very important important for making the playoff in the first place and for seeding in that playoff. I'm saying that after the playoff is set why is it so unreasonable for the winner of that playoff to be the champion?
December 5th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
It's not unreasonable at all. I am 100% ok with calling a playoff winner the national champion. What I have a problem with is basing the reasoning on why we need a playoff on the idea that a playoff will automatically create one team with the best resume for the entire season. In other words, the incorrect belief that a playoff will automatically crown the "best team" as champion. It just doesn't work that way. UConn was a good basketball team last year, but I don't think they were the best. The Giants were a good football team their last Super Bowl year, but hardly the best in the NFL that year. The Cardinals were a good baseball team this past season, but I don't think anyone believes they were the best in baseball.
Say what you want about a playoff, say it's more fair than a simple poll system. Say it creates a series of games where the rewards and consequences are clearly defined. Say a playoff will leave a winner "worthy" of being called a national champion. Just don't say, that winning a 6, 8, or 12 team playoff will automatically make that team "the best team in the country."
December 5th, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^
who the "best team" is. I also had no problem with UCONN winning the NCAA tournament last year with a poor conference record. You play the regular season trying to get into the tournament (hoping for the best seed possible.) Once the regular season is over, W/L records don't matter, every team knows that. It's one and done. If you can't win a round 1 game in the tournament, I don't care if you were undefeated in the regular season--you lost, go home. You knew it was one and done and you lost so you don't deserve to be the NCAA champion.
But since that's not how NCAA football works I think that it's lame to give Alabama a second shot at LSU. Hell, if Alabama is "the 2nd best team" in the country and LSU beat them, then crown LSU the champion right now.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^
As I said above, I'm ok with that too. It's just that most college football playoff proponents, Brian included, seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a playoff and a clear way to crown a champion, but then they also want to believe that this will automatically make the "best team" the champion. They seem to fall into two camps: 1) a camp that believes a playoff winner will clearly have the best resume in college football or 2) a playoff champion will have showed itself to be the best team. Neither belief is true. That's my only point.
I don't really care either way. Lose the BCS, return to traditional polling and let there be debate and very rarely a clear selection. Or, instill a playoff, call that team the champion and leave it at that. Just don't try a hybrid of the two where a very small percentage of teams are considered worthy of a tournament based on polling and then automatically declare the champion also the "best team."
December 5th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^
There is a difference between "best team" and "champion." March Madness creates a champion but doesn't determine the best team. It's the same in the pros. The NYG beat the Patriots to become the champion although almost everybody would recognize that the Patriots were the "best team" that year. Nobody argues (even a Pats fan like myself) who was the real champion that year. A playoff fairly determines who should be called champion. The BCS is a fraud since it does not accurately determine the champion with one game which usually excludes deserving participants but nevertheless fraudulently calls the winner "champion."
A "champion" is determined on the battlefield or in a game, not by popular vote. A playoff, while not eliminating all griping, would allow teams to win a real championship on the field.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^
Right. I can't think of any other competitive team sports that allows for total subjectivity in judging a champion. Logic dictates that the best and most democratic system involves as much head-to-head competition as possible. Regardless of the playoff system -- baseball, basketball, NFL -- absolutely nobody ends up questioning whether the winner deserves the trophy. This only happens in college football, whose "champions" are dictated by guesswork, money, politicking, and "traditions."
Obviously all Top 20 teams can't play one another. But the more, the better. Let people argue about seedings and/or which teams deserve spots in the top 6 or 16 or whatever -- just as they do re the March Madness tournament. No system is perfect. But a playoff system is preferable to this BCS voting nonsense. I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
YOU TRY TO FIND SOMEONE OTHER THAN ND FOR THE LAST SPOT. Go ahead.
LSU's B-team?
December 5th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^
To answer your question about Baylor:
It ranks 114th in current defense this year so yes, Baylor is probably what Michigan would've looked like with Rich Rod in year four.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^
Why do you say one of the Hail Mary passes going the other way would have gotten Wisconsin to the title game? MSU's Hail Mary pass going the other way would have meant that Wisconsin would have had a loss to 6-6 Ohio State, and now Wisconsin is Oklahoma State but with a weaker resume.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:04 PM ^
I think MSU and Wisky were tied when the Hail Mary happened. There's no guarantee Wisky win's that game in OT.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
I simply can't fathom how Alabama and LSU are in the national title game. I thought precedent had been set when Michigan and OSU weren't allowed to tee off in a rematch. Our loss to OSU (on the road, down by only three) is much more deserving that Alabama's (lost by 3, at home). And, most importantly, ALABAMA DIDN'T EVEN WIN THEIR DAMN DIVISION WITHIN THEIR CONFERENCE. And since SEC doesn't really play out of conference games worth a darn (except for LSU ... good for them), it's hard to see how they really deserve a second chance.
Also, I don't know how VT is ranked above Clemson. VT lost twice to Clemson. You'd think Clemson would be ranked higher, but they aren't. I'm happy to play them because I think we've got a great shot, but it seems like Boise St or KSU are more deserving. And how exactly is Texas ranked (5 losses!) or why is Baylor (a 3 loss team) ranked ahead of us. I DON'T GET IT.
All in all, the BCS paradigm is broke. It's a joke. An infuriating senseless one at that. Please bring on a playoff of some sort! March Madness is gripping; I don't watch more than a handful of games throughout the year but I watch ever single Tournament game. Football bowls? Tell ya what, I couldn't care less about 70% of them most years. I don't even care to watch the MNC this year. But you make it a real playoff and I'll watch every damn minute.
/ stops shaking fist
December 5th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
The argument about winning the division is a double-edged sword. Doesn't it make sense that if the top 2 teams in the nation are in the same division, only one of them can win it? Not that I agree with the rematch for the title game, I think OkSt deserves it more than Bama, but the division argument can be refuted.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:22 PM ^
The argument is that if a team isn't good enough to beat the people in their division, let alone their conference, then they shouldn't be playing for a national championship. They had their shot and failed. It may be that Alabama is the second best team in the country, but the MNC is to crown a champion ... the only way to know whether the SEC has the best team or if another conference has the best team is to have them play. That's not happening this year, so a team that really should have a shot (pick one: Stanford, Ok State, etc) isn't getting that chance.
And honestly, the only reason most people think alabama has the second best team is because that's all they talk about on ESPN. ESPN has a vested interest in the SEC. Other coaches have significant vested interests in how they vote. Playoffs, a real system mind you, take most of the politics out.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:01 PM ^
One could argue that Ok St failed against Iowa St, Stanford failed against Oregon. Basically under your argument, failing against any team other than the #1 team (which could be a really bad team and in Ok St's case was an average team) is better for your title hopes than failing against the #1 team. Seems odd.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:18 PM ^
For those conferences that have some rigor to who gets crowned, there's no reason that someone who doesn't make it out of their 'bracket' should have a second shot at a title game.
If the #2 seed loses to the #1 seed in the second round, why would you allow them a another chance in the final game just because that particular #2 is believed to be the second best in the country?
December 5th, 2011 at 1:32 PM ^
are you saying ESPN is the fox news of the college football world?
December 5th, 2011 at 1:40 PM ^
Well, now you're missing a piece of the puzzle. Sure, you don't know whether or not the SEC has the best team in the nation until they play another conference, but you also don't know whether or not they have the 2nd best team in the nation. Stanford, OkSt, etc shouldn't deserve the chance to win the National Championship if Alabama is better than they are. Of course there is no way to find out unless a playoff system is implemented, which is what we're all arguing for anyway.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^
Yes, that's right. We wouldn't know whether Alabama or Ok St is the second best team in the country (assuming that LSU wins out). Currently, the powers that be have made a pretty big assumption that Alabama is better than Ok St... maybe we should just give LSU the #1 and let Ok St and Alabama battle it out for #2.
I just had a mental image of the bracketology (and time) needed to do some World Cup style Round Robin followed by Single Elimination solution ... it's large. Very large.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:06 PM ^
precedent is for legal principles. whether or not Florida was better than Mich in 2006 has nothing to do with whether or not Alabama is better than Ok St in 2011.
I would also note that Alabama played Penn St on the road this year. The next time we go down to Athens or Fayetteville let me know.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
And great observations about the absurdities of the final BCS rankings.
9-3 Baylor ahead of 10-2 Michigan?
VT ahead of Clemson which beat them twice (both thumpings, 23-3 and 38-10)?
What the ...?
Or Stanford ahead of Oregon which beat Stanford soundly at Stanford and won their conference? Sure, Oregon had an extra loss but it was against #1 LSU.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^
And great observations about the absurdities of the final BCS rankings.
9-3 Baylor ahead of 10-2 Michigan?
VT ahead of Clemson which beat them twice (both thumpings, 23-3 and 38-10)?
What the ...?
Or Stanford ahead of Oregon which beat Stanford soundly at Stanford and won their conference? Sure, Oregon had an extra loss but it was against #1 LSU.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^
If Alabama had won that game in OT, but LSU still had victories over BCS teams Oregon and WVU, would you have the same argument about LSU not deserving a second chance? Their resume would still be close to the best in the country.
That is why the no-rematch argument is a red herring. I understand debating whether or not OSU is a better deserving one loss team than Bama, but to say Alabama should be automatically disqualified because they happen to be in the same division as another great team is ridiculous. It was a stupid argument in 2006, and remains stupid now.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^
In that scenario you'd have an Alabama team that was undefeated, and beat up on a team that had a really impressive record. I'd still make the argument that they don't deserve a second chance. My thoughts are you either go with precedent, or you make the LSU/Alabama a best of three.
Without any sort of playoff, you've got to rely on the conference games to sort out the best team amongst their cohorts. We've done that ... LSU won out. It sucks being in the same conference as a super strong team (a la 2006). However, the precedent was set ... let someone else challenge the king. Not only is it really presumptive to assume the SEC has the top two teams, but it totally makes 'championships' within conferences pointless. And now we don't even have the pleasure of seeing a matchup that crosses conferences.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^
Give me a playoff. The Wise One's proposal is infinitely better than our current popularity contest. Or grab two more to make an 8-team playoff. Whatever. All other non-major bowls can serve as college football's version of the NIT (de facto what they are today). Rotate the championship game amongst the big bowl (I prefer the Rose to host it until the End of Times, but I'm admittedly biased.)
LSU is the #1 seed this year. Everyone else in Brian's rankings from 2-8 could be tossed into in a blender and spit out in pseudo-random order. This would work in a playoff format that would make the "post-season" infinitely more exciting than it is today.
And don't even bring out the "they play too many games" argument that usually accompanies any formal playoff talk. The University of Wisconsin-Whitewater - a perennial Division 3 powerhouse - is currently 13-0 and has reached the D3 semifinals. They will have to play 15 games to win the championship.
YES.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:01 PM ^
Why not just have the NCG after all other BCS games? Have the BCS games, then whoever is 1, 2 after those play a week later just like now. Adds one more premier game for top teams and weeds out half the teams. The biggest drawback is two less bids to BCS bowls. I would say no conference autoqualifies unless team is in the top 12, top 4 autoqualify and any non-auto conference winner in the top 8? qualifies. If there are too many teams, ranking is tiebreaker.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^
Much better choice than what the BCS calculated mess came up with (7-5 Auburn and Texas in the last two spots), but as noted above, slotting South Carolina in where it should go, probably 10 or 11, and ND slides off the bottom...
December 5th, 2011 at 12:02 PM ^
TCU, or South Carolina IMO.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:03 PM ^
I prefer the no-second-chances-for-anyone playoff.
1. 5 conference champs:
SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, ACC
2. Get BSU/TCU/WVU in the Big 12 so they can have a conference championship game again.
3. Top 2 non-AQs have a "play-in" game to determine who gets the 6 seed.
4. Top two in the Harris/AP/Coaches (excluding the coaches in the freaking playoff!) get first round byes. Rankings determine home field until the championship game.
Have everyone from the Big 5 conferences to a rotating Big 10/ACC challenge style post season matchup, where the odd man out (5th conference deemed to be the weakest in that particular year, not sure what metric) is doomed to a "best of the rest" matchup post season.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:04 PM ^
They played the toughest schedule, they beat Alabama on the road, they just blew out every other good team they played. They can play the BCS title game, but the Mad Hatter and his gang have already won it, IMO.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
I really like your tournament (if you can even call it that) idea Brian, but it is interesting how it contrasts with the lower division playoff systems, especially D2, which seem to be designed to include as many teams as possible and let them duke it out, though this often leads to the same 4-6 teams (or in the case of D3, the same 2 teams) left standing at the end each year. There seems to be more parity in FCS than in divisions 2 or 3, I wonder if the number of scholarships has something to do with this.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
A college football national championship doesn't make sense, and never will make sense. There are too many variables from year to year, including issues relating to conference strength, OOC scheduling practices, and so on. Ultimately, as was pointed out, things come down to an eyeball test.
How is the BCS method of determining a national champion any more satisfying than the old method of letting the polls decide after the bowl games? We now have an all-SEC game to determine a national champion, in which one team has already lost to the other team. Really? How is this remotely "national?"
A limited playoff system involves the same criteria as the BCS system's BS computers and eyeball polls. Someone's going to be left out, and someone's going to bitch about it.
And then there's the "sportsmanship" involved in scheduling cupcake games against weak teams, a practice that has grown in the BCS era.
Does the fact that Michigan's 1997 "National Championship" team's claim was pre-BCS make it somehow less valuable? I see references to it here often enough to convince me that it meant just as much as a BCS title.
The BCS is bad for college football, and it's a real shame we're stuck with it.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
"Someone's going to be left out" is a bad argument. There is a massive difference between leaving out undefeated teams, as often happens now, and leaving out Kansas State/Arkansas/Wisconsin, as would happen in a limited playoff. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:07 PM ^
Rarely are undefeated teams left out, and if they are it's usually a 'mid-major'. I can't think of the last time an undefeated team from a BCS conference was left out.
Agree - no matter what size tourney you have you'll always have people complaining that 'so and so' didn't get in (just look at the basketball tourney). However, if you have at least 6 or even 8 teams in a playoff, you start getting into the 2 loss teams and then their ability to cry foul is not nearly as strong.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^
is not "rare." Undefeated Auburn was left out just a few years ago. Or how about undefeated Boise St. and undefeated Utah in recent years? They both won their bowl games against very good teams and were just as deserving of being called champions as the BCS winner.
December 5th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
Is the fact that neither BCS nor ESPN are good mathematicians or fact-checkers, yet their system (BCS owns it, but all the results are only published on ESPN's site) relies on accurate math (as opposed to be being able to simply looking up at the scoreboard). 2010 final results were almost a disaster in this regard. But that's not the only error of last year; most of the others are fairly minor and similar to this year's. This year's errors (at least the ones that can be checked by the public, although I don't dig into the innards of the computer poll like the 2010 item) are also fairly minor and don't affect the final outcome, but do reflect sloppiness:
- ESPN/BCS Week 10 - Messed up Arkansas total score (.7034 not .7033), computer rankings of 5 schools (Ariz St 21->22, Wisc 24->29, Ga Tech 23->24, W Va 24->29, So Miss 22->23), but not their Computer scores.
- ESPN/BCS Week 11 - Messed up Harris Poll percentage value for everyone on ESPN.com, but not total BCS AVG (due to 1 missing Harris voter); also messed up Computer AVG rankings of Stanford and Oregon (swapped numbers 7 and 8) (but not their Computer scores).
- ESPN/BCS Week 15 - Messed up Harris Poll when initially published on ESPN.com, omitting all non-BCS top 25 schools from listing and wrong rankings for Texas (25-->34 or "NR") and Auburn (24-->31 or "NR") [Fixed by 12/5]. Messed up Computer AVG Rankings for Southern Miss (24-->25), Penn State (23-->24), and West Virginia (25-->29). All the scores were correct, though, and the top 25 teams were listed as the top 25 in the correct order.
Comments