Subjectivity.
You know what that is? That's when everyone, even the computer, has a different conception of how things should be. Being subjective can be a good thing for any art form because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but football is not a subjective art form. Sport is measurable; sport is accurate. Football is played for 4 fifteen minute quarters with a halftime in the middle. Football has a set of easily(?) enforced rules to abide by. In other words, football is objective.
Why is the BCS too subjective? The rankings make it more of an abstract loosely-decided system. Here's an example of that happening at the end of the '08 season:
Texas is ranked ahead of Oklahoma this week because they beat Oklahoma head to head, but wait! Oklahoma is now ranked ahead of Texas because Oklahoma just beat an Oklahoma St. team that Texas already beat earlier in the season but the Cowboys were still tougher opponents than Texas A&M and the Sooners also blew out Texas Tech and they beat Texas, so now Oklahoma is going to the Big 12 championship game and probably the national title because of our kooky rankings. I love how being illogical and stirring the pot is good for college football.
In other words, the events that occurred at the end of the 2008 show exactly how subjective the rankings can be. Even the beginning of 2008 show how subjective the rankings are based: UGA fell in the polls despite being undefeated while USC jumped up in the rankings because of their stronger schedule. Now USC is being held out of the national title game because of their weak schedule? Even OU jumped UGA despite playing a weaker out of conference schedule; what's up with that? (That was a rhetorical question; I was implying that UGA got jumped by one team with a stronger out of conference schedule and another with a weaker out of conference schedule which seems to be a contradiction.) Seeing Oklahoma on the cusp of going to the national title and USC being neglected also indicates an emphasis on interconference strength (which Oklahoma has over USC) instead of out of conference strength (USC has over OU) which I will get to later.
These voters, and computers, are killing the BCS and postseason with all of their subjective rankings. Maybe if they applied an objective standard to the rankings, then it would not be so bad. That's the essence of ranking college football though: there is no objective way that is commonly accepted. To each his own.
This is why I propose an 8 team playoff for major college football to institute objectivity into the sport. Only conference champions would be allowed to dance. The conferences should be made to iron out their stupid conference champion rules: no co-champions. Take a head to head winner for the Pac 10 and Big 11 (a.k.a. Big 10). The Big 10 would also be forced to iron out their pot-hole filled conference schedule to eliminate co-champions. This could be done a few ways by either inducting Notre Dame into the conference, probably not going to happen, or set up a championship game in case two teams who did not play each other happen to have the same conference record at season's end. In any other case, pick the conference champion based on conference record and head to head match ups. As for conferences like the Big 12 or the SEC with a three way tie, do not let the national rankings decide who gets to play in the championship game because we all saw how that ended up this season. Do something like getting the AD's of each school in that conference to vote on a three way tie; I'm sure they can think of something that is better than relying upon the subjective rankings that strangle the sport in the first place. In the case of a 2 way tie, then go with the head to head match-up again to decide. It's not that hard. It kinda seems like the people who decided on the rules for determining a conference champion acted like Elementary School teachers who want everyone to win. Sport is not about everyone being a winner. Someone loses and someone wins. Winning and losing both build character.
Having only conference champions getting an automatic bid into the playoff might hinder good out of conference games, but if money really is a factor in college football, then ABC, ESPN, CBS, NBC, and Fox Sports along with the teams involved can still entice schools to make mucho dinero off of great out of conference games in the regular season along with the playoff and non-playoff bowls. Like I said before, there seems to be a shift in emphasizing interconference strength based on Oklahoma being favored instead of USC even though USC's out of conference schedule was much better and OU has much better interconference strength, so good out of conference games are not being valued anyways.
Keep the bowls around too because I, a common place college football fan, would still love to see interesting match-ups for the 50 or so other teams that deserve to have a postseason. We could also keep the rankings around for argument fodder and to determine the seeding for the playoff, but the rankings would not determine who is in or out of the playoff, except to decide which two conference champions or independents outside of the Big 6 conferences would get to dance.
Instituting a playoff based on the rankings would cause as much controversy in college football as it does in the BCS. The subjectivity should be kept to a minimum when deciding a national champion in an objective sport.
I would greatly appreciate any kind of feedback.
**Note: I posted this on "We need a playoff for FBS/D-IA college football!" group blog, but I cannot get the blog to be public even though the group is public. (I made sure to click on the "viewable to public" option.) Fannation support has not helped me yet even though I have messaged them more than several times.
Jessica Gomes
Shanon Lersh
Men's Grand Slam All-Time Leaders
Roger Federer's Grand Slam Titles
Comments (9) Add A Comment
You can blame OU over Texas on the "Kooky" rankings.
You can also blame it on the B12 tie-breaker system (which may or may not need to be revamped - not my business).
You an also blame it on Texas scheduling a weak OOC schedule.
On the field, the teams played approx. even the way the polls ranked them.
In the end, this isn't what the BCS was meant to determine - if was the B12 that brought the BCS into the B12 south decision, not vice versa. This is no argument for a new sytem outside the B12..
I don't know that OOC is the only reason or even a reason USC is out of the NC picture. They have played many less than inspired games. OU has a win over another major conference champ to hang their hat on. Bama is the last undefeated team from the majors. FL has 2 wins over teams that finished in the top 1/3 of a major conference which has earned them a higher spot. As a UGa fan, you should know ranking is no guarantee Texas will make the title game over USC if OU loses.
PAC 10 and Big 10 do have a tie-breaker in place to determine who receives the automatic BCS invite which would be used if there was a playoff. When it matters they differentiate. When it doesn't, they award more than 1 as a benefit to their conference's member teams in terms of fund raising. The Conference exists to the benefit of its members, not some fan who doesn't like it. Conference title games have their own "Pot hole filled" problems but that's a blog, not a comment. I don't know what you are reaching for here - this is a non-issue at best.
Only 8 conference champions? Which 8 and how do you select? I hope you aren't using anything as subjective as the pollsters or the computer polls which decided between Texas and OU.
You are tossing away the results of 1/3 to 1/4 of the season. That's a lot of devaluation. That will hurt television revenues.
There are more downsides to this system than the ones I listed. The only upside is that maybe subjectivity has been minimized (you didn't note how the 8 teams are selected).
I will reiterate my primary criticism that I list for all playoff proposals:
You don't address the problems. It is not a particular format that is keeping a playoff from fruition, it is the downside. Your proposal just exasperated most of the downsides. There is no playoff bcause there are some downsides. Address those and you get a playoff. Don't and you have FN playoff format #94
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (4923)
Dude - you called me out last time. Evident from this you didn't follow up.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (4923)
It is evident. I'll digest your blog and comment later b/c I need sleep now. My friend is having a bachelor party tomorrow night, but I have all day Friday off as a "recovery" day. I'll get to everything then... hopefully.
How 'bout 'em wants…
Gainesville, GA
Total Comments (2007)
Gotta love, Prove It. Where's Silars to help you overwhelm us with blogs in comments against playoffs? ;-)
I'm all for taking the subjectivity out of the system, and conference champs is one way to accomplish that. Yet conference strength is cyclical. It always occurs that multiple teams from one conference are ranked above other conference champs.
____________________________
Objective conference champ only method: 6 BCS Conferences + Top 2 Other Conf Champs
IN- Alabama (SEC)
IN - Oklahoma (Big 12)
Out - Texas
Out - Florida (Swap AL/FL if you want)
IN - USC (PAC 10)
IN - UTAH (MWC)
Out - Texas Tech
IN - Penn State (Big 10)
IN - Boise State (WAC)
Out - Ohio State
Out - TCU
Out - Ball State
IN - Cincinnatti (Big East)
Out - Oklahoma State
Out - Georgia Tech
Out - Georgia
IN - Boston College or 25th ranked VT (ACC)
With conference champs only, you drop 2 of the top 4, 4 of the top 10, and and allow # 17 to jump in over 9 higher ranked teams.
PSUinFreeAgency
Total Comments (7136)
I've always favored a top 6 conference champs, no automatic bids, plus 2 at large:
IN- Alabama (SEC)
IN - Oklahoma (Big 12)
IN - Texas
IN - Florida (Swap AL/FL if you want)
IN - USC (PAC 10)
IN - UTAH (MWC)
Out - Texas Tech
IN - Penn State (Big 10)
IN - Boise State (WAC)
Out - Ohio State
Out - TCU
Out - Ball State
Out - Cincinnatti (Big East)
Out - Oklahoma State
Out - Georgia Tech
Out - Georgia
Out - Boston College or 25th ranked VT (ACC)
Only Tech, 3rd in the Big 12 gets left out.
PSUinFreeAgency
Total Comments (7136)
If you go with an " all the conference champs type system" then all the conferences need to have a championship game. You will still end up with system ties, two ways not a biggie...its the 3 way ones that cause all the trouble!
Objective1
Total Comments (72)
Goos question - where has Silars been hiding?
Nothing at all like that here.
I have been friends with How'Bout'Em for a while and have a lot of respect for his ideas and posts.
(OK - you can pick yourself off the floor now)
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (4923)
No you don't - you can apply a set of tie breakers. The conference title game has its own drawbacks (don't have to look far - what if Missouri wins?)
My favorite after all of the standard tie-breakers is to send it to a vote by the conference head coaches - nobody has studied these teams in detail more.
In the days before title games and everyone got to go to a bowl, this used to be common. I wouldn't be surprised to see it return in the wake of the B12 South decision.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (4923)
Having the coaches vote on it is a good idea. I was thinking to have the AD's vote on it, but no one knows each team in a conference like the coaches in that conference. Having coaches vote on a national level is a bad idea though b/c they keep track of their own team and whomever they're playing, i.e. usually conference foes.
How 'bout 'em wants…
Gainesville, GA
Total Comments (2007)
Comment
Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.