FanNation - The Republic of Sport

I have been saying for weeks that the BCS formula has now watered down the computers too much by giving it only one third weight, and giving clueless biased media writers two thirds. There is absolutely no point in having any computer component if the goal is to simply make the BCS poll mirror the media polls. Then what is the point of having computer rankings? The computer rankings should be there to balance out the agendas and the biases, like all the kiss **** media writers who are desperate to put USC in the BCS title game no matter who they lose to every year.

They need to make the computer polls worth at least 50% so they mean something. And again, take away any media polls until after the 4th week.

The writers (AP poll) have no input into the BCS. The human polls are the Coaches poll and the Harris poll, made up of former coaches, players, ADs, and yes, some members of the media.

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 02:19 PM ET  10.27 by maomatt

The writers (AP poll) have no input into the BCS. The human polls are the Coaches poll and the Harris poll, made up of former coaches, players, ADs, and yes, some members of the media.

thus, the designation media polls. And we all know how silly the coach's poll is. Coaches don't see any games but the one they are in, and the game film of the team they play that week. Most have thier SIDs vote for them. The Coaches poll is even more unreliable than the writers poll. Yet another reason why the computers should carry more weight.

The computers have been forced to be watered down too. They used to be free to use whatever formula they chose, but then BCS decided to drop things like strength of win. So if you have a proprietary formulat that works and BCS forces you to change it, the computers can't be all that great either.

they also got rid of the quality win bonus a few years ago for some unknown reason. You used to get a point for beating a top 10 team. Now they don't do that either. The whole strength of schedule factor is being minimized when, if anything, it should be emphasized. All this due to the extreme overreaction when USC was ranked third because of the computer factor the year Oklahoma got beat in the Big 12 Championship. As usual, they vastly overreacted and over corrected.

Considering all of the teams Penn State beat that don't even have winning records (which is most of them), I think you can safely say that the voters want to give JoePa a nice send-off into retirement--presuming he retires, that is. Penn State is good... just not as good as Texas or Alabama... or even USC. Oh well, the more the polls put undeserving teams into BCS championships, the soon the BCS will be replaced with a playoff system. :D

In years gone by long ago the BCS (Beauty Contest System) could have worked in some years. When Bama, Texas, USC, Michigan, Ohio State, etc could stack all the top scholarship players they wanted and some just to keep the other team from getting them. After the season and the bowl games you could pretty much pick two from the small list of teams.

Now with limited scholarships and incredible competition for top athletes there is way to much parity to pick two schools and call the winner a champion. Yes, the winner of the BS bowl is a champion, but so are the winners of a few other bowls also and they should be justly rewarded. Last year LSU, Georgia and USC should have all been awarded championships because they all equally deserved it. This year again there will be 2-3 schools after the bowl games equally deserving. When two schools are picked from a list of 4-6 equally deserving schools the illigitamacy of the system is exposed. The only group of people who give the system any credibility at all are the fans of the fortunate winners of the Beauty Contest System. This justly creates intense anger and dissention among all other college football fans around the country who know that particular team is not The champion. Equal maybe to a couple others, but not the one and only. Therefore the lunacy of calling one a champion is rediculous.

Again we will not have a major college football champion.

If we can not have a playoff then please just go back to the way it was. It is a much better system with all the parity now. The top bowls will match the top teams and after the bowls sift it out give the top teams a trophy. Between all the polls out there all the deserving teams should get a trophy from somebody. You just can't leave deserving schools out of it. College football fans are rabid and will not tolerate this much longer before it all blows up. I see it coming now.

Either come up with a fair system to have one champion or spread it around.

Can you imagine the most anticipated, most profitable and most watched sporting event in the history of the world is not happenning. What if the top 8 teams were put into a playoff system throughout December using the existing bowl system making many bowls really mean something instead of just one. Instead of the WHOCARES.COM BOWL in mid December we have the SEC-Big 12 champs, Big 10-Pac 10 champs, ACC champs and a couple of other top teams all competing for a title. Then it is simple, win your conference and play for the big prize.

You get the idea. I don't want to hear about who is #1 until they play for it or spread it around to all the deserving schools. The media can start by not creating this pick two scenario and should be inclusive of all the top bowl teams having a shot. This would create tremendous excitement in all the bowls when they are actually playing for something. Then pick after the bowls and spread it around! Right now we have about 35 WHOCARES.COM Bowls and one the media calls a champion. Everyone else in the country calls it the illigitimate BEAUTY CONTEST SYSTEM. Football ain't no beauty contest!

California beat Michigan State, but they are ranked below the Spartans nonetheless. This kind of stuff always happens. But since there is no tourney play in football, why should H2H matter, anyway?

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 03:26 PM ET  10.27 by Bullschlitz

If we can not have a playoff then please just go back to the way it was. It is a much better system with all the parity now. The top bowls will match the top teams and after the bowls sift it out give the top teams a trophy. Between all the polls out there all the deserving teams should get a trophy from somebody. You just can't leave deserving schools out of it.

What do you mean the "way it was"? Each bowl still gives out trophies for winning the bowl. How was it better before?

The BCS should do away with the coaches poll. How many coaches coaching at 2:30 on Saturday even get a chance to watch the other games that day, let alone the ones you know they are missing being played at the same time?

Also, there is a bias. We know there is in the coaches poll when Auburn's coach ranks Alabama at about 13th, right after Alabama beat Georgia and when most others had them at #2 after beating UGA. There are coaches out there sandbagging Alabama because they dislike Coach Saban or because they are in direct competition with Alabama. This happens to other schools as well. I'm just familiar with some of the shenanigans in the SEC.

The BCS is better than what it used to be because you get a #1 vs #2 whereas in the old bowl system you had #1 vs #5 and other absurd mismatches for clarity sake. But, when coaches deliberately sandbag another team due to direct competition with them in recruiting and other things, the system breaks down again.

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 03:53 PM ET  10.27 by ChunkyChuck

What do you mean the "way it was"? Each bowl still gives out trophies for winning the bowl. How was it better before?

He has a point. It was better before because frequently ALL the major bowls had a say in the national championship picture. ALL of them potentially affected who the final national champion was. Take 1977 for example. #5 Notre Dame obliterated undefeated and #1 ranked Texas in the Cotton Bowl 38-10. #6 Arkansas smashed #2 Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl. #3 Alabama beat #8 Ohio State in the Sugar Bowl. #13 Washington beat #4 Michigan in the Rose Bowl. ND won the national title because of their dominating performance over previously unbeaten Texas on virtually their home turf. The point is, ALL the bowl games had bearing and implication on the final vote. Nowadays, there is no way a 5th, 4th or even 3rd ranked team can claim the national title via a bowl game. The system has minimized the importance of all the bowl games but one.

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 03:52 PM ET  10.27 by MarvelousMcP

California beat Michigan State, but they are ranked below the Spartans nonetheless. This kind of stuff always happens. But since there is no tourney play in football, why should H2H matter, anyway?

Good catch. You're right....both teams have two losses. Cal should generally be ranked over Michigan State, like Maryland should generally be ranked over Cal. One thing working against Cal right now is that it has played less games. So Cal's record (5-2) is less impressive than the other teams sitting at 6-2 or 7-2. Cal's regular season schedule goes into December, and once they catch up in number of wins, the voters will hopefully sort it out properly (although sooner would be better).

Head-to-head matters logically, but more practically it matters in the AP poll because it is an AP Guideline to pay attention to head-to-head results. If done right, the whole college football season is a less formal playoff.

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 04:17 PM ET  10.27 by Klee Irwin

Nowadays, there is no way a 5th, 4th or even 3rd ranked team can claim the national title via a bowl game. The system has minimized the importance of all the bowl games but one.

Actually, there is still a way -- it's the AP Poll. The same poll that awarded the national championship in your 1977 example still awards a national championship every year. We still have potential for split-national championships each year. Instead of Coaches' and AP, now it is BCS and AP. The AP has been naming them since 1936, and as the longest running poll, it will always be important for historical record keeping. I'm sure the schools, coaches and players wouldn't refuse to accept an AP Championship. The only question is if the fans still consider it important. The BCS brand is very strong right now with the fans and media.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 04:35 PM ET  10.27 by Pollspeak

Actually, there is still a way -- it's the AP Poll. The same poll that awarded the national championship in your 1977 example still awards a national championship every year. We still have potential for split-national championships each year. Instead of Coaches' and AP, now it is BCS and AP. The AP has been naming them since 1936, and as the longest running poll, it will always be important for historical record keeping. I'm sure the schools, coaches and players wouldn't refuse to accept an AP Championship. The only question is if the fans still consider it important. The BCS brand is very strong right now with the fans and media.

yeah, the AP was the de facto "official poll" ever since it started in 1936, and it is important, but the problem now is that the NCAA now recognizes the college football national champion as the one that wins the BCS title game. So we still can have theoretical split titles and already did with USC a few years ago, but the fact remains that the BCS system emphasizing one game has simply hurt and minimized the other bowl games, which is a huge mistake imo.

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 03:26 PM ET  10.27 by Bullschlitz

Last year LSU, Georgia and USC should have all been awarded championships because they all equally deserved it.

Bullshlitz is right. Not his opinion, but the name. Honey, Georgia didn't win their conference OR their division. Placing 4th in your conference and arguing for a "Championship" sort of nullifies the respect that goes along with winning. I mean do you want to stop keeping score and just hand out trophies to all 119 teams in D1-A?

This Mike DeArmond guy is a real imbecile. USC has played 5 BCS conference teams WITH winning records and he ranks the team USC beat by 30 points with 2 losses and NO quality wins ahead of them? Somebody harppon this dude.

Interesting and insightful post - enjoyable reading as well. Appreciate that you took the time to respond to the two comments that actually contribute to the discussion. Keep up the good work!

Klee Irwin, Yes that was my point. The other bowls are meaningless with no excitement.

Sandy Underpants, You are obviously a kid who knows nothing about college football! I could give a rip about UGA or USC, but I make a living knowing college football and those two teams should have been in the mix last year. Your comment makes my post crystal clear. Thanks.

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 04:21 PM ET  10.27 by Pollspeak

Head-to-head matters logically, but more practically it matters in the AP poll because it is an AP Guideline to pay attention to head-to-head results. If done right, the whole college football season is a less formal playoff.

Your quote here intrigues me immensely. If head to head is an actual guideline to the AP poll, can you explain how in the 1993 season, with Notre Dame and Florida St both at 11-1 records, and with Notre Dame owning a head to head victory over heavily favored Florida St in the "Game of the Century", 90s version, the AP writers voted Florida St over Notre Dame for the number one spot in the final poll?

QUOTE(#18):

Originally posted 07:41 PM ET  10.27 by Klee Irwin

Your quote here intrigues me immensely. If head to head is an actual guideline to the AP poll, can you explain how in the 1993 season, with Notre Dame and Florida St both at 11-1 records, and with Notre Dame owning a head to head victory over heavily favored Florida St in the "Game of the Century", 90s version, the AP writers voted Florida St over Notre Dame for the number one spot in the final poll?

Unfortunately, I don't know how long those guidelines have been in place. They may not have existed in 1993. However, I do know there was no organization dedicated to enlightening the public about voting habits like Pollspeak does today.

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 06:49 PM ET  10.27 by Bullschlitz

You are obviously a kid who knows nothing about college football! I could give a rip about UGA or USC, but I make a living knowing college football and those two teams should have been in the mix last year.

You said that USC, UGA and LSU all should have been awarded championships. Championships aren't given, they're earned. And if UGA can't win their own DIVISION then they shouldn't be playing for a championship. If you make your money watching college football, I think your parents will throw you out of their basement before you get the money together to move out on your own.