home

The BCS: A Travesty Of A Mockery Of A Sham

In one of the more remarkable moments of the Absurdist play that is our annual Bowl Championship Series, the President of THE Ohio State University (which has largely distinguished itself by being pummelled by the SEC champion in BCS national championhip games) recently stated that non-BCS automatic qualifier schools are not worthy of playing in the BCS national championship game. Oookaay. Whatever, Buckeyes.

Opinion driven, as opposed to performance driven, assessments of college footbsll teams is the modus operandi of the BCS. That and protecting the big bowls. In an attempt to blunt the charge of a fixed system, the BCS added computer rankings to its formula. But that was deemed flawed because, we were told, it encouraged running up the score. As opposed to a poll voter system. Yeah whatever. This year, the REAL computer rankings, as opposed to the gerrymandered version that the BCS has installed, provide the following rankings going into today's games:

1. Oregon
2. Boise State
3. Stanford
4. TCU
5. Alabama
6. Ohio State
11. Auburn

Those are the Jeff Sagarin "PREDICTOR" rankings, which Sagarin describes as "the best single PREDICTOR of future games." You will notice that both Boise State and TCU lead Auburn and Ohio State in these rankings. But the BCS chooses to not use these rankings, instead using a strength of schedule formula which favors the big conference teams. In that system, Auburn is Number 1.

But championships should not be decided by opinions and "PREDICTORS," they should be decided on the field. College football needs a playoff system. It deserves a playoff system. And it is clearly in the interest of the institutions in terms of money.

As Dan Wetzel notes, the arguments presented by the moneychasing Gee (the highest paid college President of a public university ever and who has now presided over 8 institutions and is notorious for trying to turn institutions of higher learning into moneymaking ventures) undermine the premise for the BCS. Wetzel writes:

What he’s arguing is that an arbitrary system based on mass opinion and computer formulas that are not mathematically sound (per actual mathematicians) isn’t a good way to select the two teams that should play for the title. [. . .] What he’s arguing is that the BCS is bunk.

This isn’t really surprising. His comments were poorly thought out, ill-timed and unnecessary, but Gee isn’t stupid. He’s a learned, intelligent man. His base sense of logic tells him what almost everyone long ago realized – the BCS is an absurd system. He just wasn’t clever or prepared enough to avoid tacitly admitting it.

In truth, the BCS isn’t about crowning a champion in college football, it was just a tool created so private bowl games could continue to operate (and profit handsomely from) college football’s postseason. By further entrenching themselves as the postseason operators, bowls continue to take hundreds of millions annually from the pockets of actual colleges. This is why no other sport would allow such a set up. What business outsources its most important and profitable product?

The BCS is about protecting the profits of bowl games and nothing else. It’s about money, money and only money. It’s why the BCS employs PR people, Washington lobbyists and multiple law firms to maintain the status quo and create water muddying arguments.

(Emphasis supplied.) Protecting a system that takes money from the colleges and gives it to the bowl games is incredibly negligent from the people who run the colleges, like Gordon Gee. As Wetzel writes:

Gordon Gee argues against the base interests of his university and community. Not with any actual facts, mind you, but with general feelings, shallow reasoning and a strange preference for mixed up mysteries. When your argument is based on such things, it’s little surprise it unravels. So he wound up shredding the logic the BCS formula claims to be built on and all but inviting a federal inquiry. He’s a smart man speaking foolishly. Bizarre? Yes. Defending the indefensible tends to cause such behavior.

The next time your local university of college has to cut a sport because of financial considerations, remember it is people like Gordon Gee who are the reason why.

My picks today are Boise State (-14) over Nevada(3 units), Oregon (-19) over Arizona (2 units), Alabama (-4) over Auburn (5 units), Pitt (-3) over West Virginia, Louisville (-3) over Rutgers, and Ohio (-3) over Kent.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Evening Thread: Winding Down With Music | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    We all hate Gee's opinions on playoff systems. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Buckeye on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 07:56:10 AM EST
    This is his second term at Ohio State.  When he was at Ohio State before, he insulted everyone's intelligence as to why he did not want a playoff using excuses like:

    1.  It will take away from the studying time of college students and increase the amount of travel especially during exam times (no mention of the fact that our BB team travels more in one season than the football team does in 4 - most of that travel during exam time).

    2.  We should not lengthen the season, too much of a beating on the players and coaches.  Yeah right...if we had a playoff (say 8 teams), the four that lose in the first round would not play an additional game (that would be in effect their bowl game).  4 teams would have their season extended one game and the winning 2 teams extended 2 games.  How often is that going to be us?  Maybe once every 5-10 years?  One or two extra games?  What was even more insulted about this explanation was that as he was saying this, he was adding games to our schedule (kick off classic, a 4th preseason game, etc.) and took away our buy week with a game.  Under Gee's first term at Ohio State, we went from playing 10 games to 13 while protesting against a playoff because he did not want to lengthen the season.

    3. He said he does not want to turn college football into a farm league for the NFL.  This is still an extra curricular activity at college he would say.  But he was always trying to grow the Big Ten by adding teams and a playoff.  He supported the SEC doing it while at Vanderbilt and supported the Big Ten's adding Nebraska and a playoff game (Big Ten Championship).  

    here are other examples.  I do not know what is more infuriating, Gee's lying or the credit he gives our intelligence.

    Gee should just admit that he does not and will not support a playoff because the current system guarantees...GUARANTEES...a giant paycheck at the end of the season for the big conferences (whether they deserve it or not).

    I take one exception with your post though...we have distinguished ourselves in many ways that have nothing to do with the SEC.  Nodoby else is having much success against the SEC right now either (I know Utah beat Alabama a few years ago which is to the point of your post, but nodoby is doing well against that conference).

    Tressel has a winning record in BCS bowl games, against, teams ranked in the top ten (he has a winning record against teams ranked IN THE TOP 2), as well as a NT.

    Ohio State (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 08:11:18 AM EST
    has a fine football program, one of the best ion the country. Tressel is, with Ferentz, Meyer, Saban, and Peterson, among the finest coaches in the country.

    My line was a cheap shot. But really, it was directed at Gee, who is not good enough for Ohio State, which deserves better than that hack.

    Parent

    How can anyone leave out (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 10:52:48 AM EST
    Michigan @ OSU--the game of every season?

    Parent
    Tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 11:24:56 AM EST
    is another day.

    BTW, Ohio State is going to kill Michigan.

    Parent

    Ah, tomorrow. (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 12:25:55 PM EST
    Wisconsin already beat both of them (none / 0) (#51)
    by badger on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 11:32:51 PM EST
    31-18 over OSU, 48-28 over UM and and creamed Indiana 83-20 (Yes, that's a football score).

    Parent
    Lest we forget, Michigan beat Florida (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 10:51:42 AM EST
    w/i recent memory at the Capital One Bowl.

    Parent
    Your recent memory (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 04:19:08 PM EST
    is more recent than mine. That was 2003.

    Parent
    Michigan beat Florida (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 06:25:09 PM EST
    in the Capital One Bowl Jan 1, 2008.

    Parent
    Damn (none / 0) (#43)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 06:33:00 PM EST
    my memory was thinking Outback Bowl.

    Like I said about my memory...

    Parent

    Ha. (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 07:26:43 PM EST
    Wow (none / 0) (#3)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 08:40:04 AM EST
    Letting emotions get in the way of judgement and your perennial hard on for the Big Ten is showing again.

    You're incorrect when you state that the computer ratings use margin of victory in their programs.  Margin of victory factor was removed this season.  And about Sagarin; my Michigan State Spartans were ranked number 2 nationally in the Sagarin ratings before the Iowa game.  I'm an old Spartan but I didn't buy that rating for a minute.

    The statement Gordon Gee made regarding the week to week gauntlet the teams in the major conferences endure is correct IMO.

    The TCUs and Boise States simply aren't subjected to the in conference fratricide that teams in major conferences, all major conferences, endure.

    When the Pac-10 and Big Ten expanded this year why didn't the Pac-10 bring in Boise State?  What's up with that?

    Inasmuch as a national championship playoff is concerned, (I'm guessing that you're in favor of a playoff) every one of the schemes I've heard are packed with serious flaws.

    So tell us about your revolution, we'd all love to see the plan.

    I agree that the week in week out (none / 0) (#6)
    by Buckeye on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 10:30:06 AM EST
    schedules of some bigger conferences is tougher than the smaller ones.  But so what?  

    The Big East?  They get an auto bid to the BCS and I believe Utah, Boise, TCU would compete very well in that conference.  How about the ACC?  VTECH will probably win that conference and they lost earlier in the year to...?  Boise State. Big 12 conference is not great this year. The Big Ten has hardly lit the field on fire with depth in the conference beyond Ohio State.  One of the reasons I believe tOSU has struggled in bigger bowl games recently is the lack of adequate competition in the conference.  In 2002 I believe we had the mental and physical toughness to beat Miami - coming from behind in a double OT game - because we survived a brutal conference that year (Big Ten was 6-1 in bowl games with 3 teams finishing in the top 10).  

    Boise State tries to schedule better teams in the preseason and most decline.  The few that do get beat (i.e. Oregon, Oregon State, Virginia Tech).  Boise and other smaller conference champions have also performed very well in bowl games (remember the OT game against Oklahoma? Or Utah beating Bama?).  It is impossible to know how well Boise would do in the Big Ten or the Big 12 but I suspect very well.  They would get beaten up in the SEC as would most teams in the Big Ten/ACC, Big East, Pac 10, etc.  I also suspect they would do very well in a playoff system.  

    The problem is that under the current BCS cartel, they get locked out of any opportunity to even try for reasons that have nothing to do with what happens on the field.  It is not fair and it hurts the game.  The point of the OP is that the guy slamming the strength of a team like Boise State is the President of a college that watched his team get throttled by the SEC.  Could Boise had done any worse against Florida than the Buckeyes?

    Parent

    That loss (none / 0) (#29)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 03:45:11 PM EST
    to Boise State by 3 points was followed up by a V Tech loss the 1-AA James Madison by a wider margin.

    Since then V Tech has settled down and hasn't been beaten.  The same two, Boise State and V Tech play today and we'd probably see a different outcome.

    Teams change as the season wears on; look at Wisconsin for proof of that.

    Please tell me what Gee's remarks about Boise State have to do with Ohio State losing to the SEC in two national championship games, especially since you've went on about the greatness in the SEC?

    Inasmuch as fairness is concerned I'd like to point out that Boise State and TCU are nos. 3 and 4 in the BCS standings trailing only two undefeated teams and one of those teams is in the SEC you laud.

    I see no unfairness whatsoever.  You might have a case if Boise State and TCU were ranked nos. 14 and 15 below 11 teams with one loss, but, that's NOT the case.  

    The story on the ground destroys your charges of unfairness, etc.

    All Gee did was express an opinion, an opinion held by many, many people.

    Now we have the typical blow-up about the BCS.  Some people will never be happy and I doubt a playoff would satisfy them.  I've yet to hear an  even remotely sensible playoff plan that would not harm college football or for that matter not involve some sort of poll to determine the participants.  We even hear bitching about the NCAA plyoffs because a committee chooses the 64 participants.  Every year we hear whining because so and so was left out or that team A was left out and had a better record than a conference champ that was automatically included.

    It seems to me that you and BTD are angry only because others have a different opinion.

    Parent

    The fact that one team losing to another (none / 0) (#47)
    by Buckeye on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 08:50:29 PM EST
    on one game does not mean they cannot beat them later is a really weak argument.  When Gee snarks about Boise's schedule, we should simply ignore the fact that they beat a team that won a conference Gee thinks is just so superior to Boise's because VTECH could perhaps beat them now?  You cannot ignore that.  And I disagree, I do not think VTECH would beat Boise now.  VTECH is undefeated in the ACC because the conference stinks this year.  It also means we cannot have a champion ever.  If we replayed the NCAA tournament over again, how many times would the same team win?  Who knows?  Who cares, you get one shot at it and that is why it is fun.  Same with the NFL playoffs. I think we could beat Wisky right now on neutral field, but we only got to play them once, that is the only criteria we have to measure how the two stack up, and we got beat.  

    My point about Gee is that he does not have room to talk about who belongs in a championship game due to strength of schedule when we got destroyed in back to back title games.  It would be hard for Boise to have done worse in either of those games than we did.  

    As to the unfairness of TCU and Boise, they keep getting jumped in the polls by other undefeated teams due to the arguments against them you are making.  But, that is not to the point.  If Oregon and Auburn are both undefeated and play for the title, very few people would complain. I certainly would not.  But the problem is these teams are not getting respect and getting left out of title games even if they are the only teams undefeated.  This has happened before and it could happen this year.  That is what Gee is implying - they do not belong in the discussion at all due to the conference they play in.

    There is also nothing wrong with using polls to determine teams in a playoff if enough teams are included and everyone gets a shot.  If we pick 8 teams and a 9th place team complains, big deal.  They had no claim to a title game anyway, so whatever controversy arises would be trivial in comparison to the controversy that exist today.

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 07:34:32 AM EST
    Sorry.  V Tech would kill Boise State if they played today.

    And what's this:

    My point about Gee is that he does not have room to talk about who belongs in a championship game due to strength of schedule when we got destroyed in back to back title games.  It would be hard for Boise to have done worse in either of those games than we did.

    Ohio State losing two games against the SEC has NOTHING to do with Gee's opinion.  You have NO point.

    My opinion is that Boise State and TCU shouldn't be rated nos. 3 and 4 because they don't play the level of competition that major conference teams are subjected to week in week out.  According to your "logic" I have nothing to say because my Spartans lost bowl games to the SEC and Big Twelve the last two years.

    I don't know where you get any of that.

    If anyone has a legit complaint it's teams like LSU who play a brutal schedule but are ranked below Boise State and TCU.

    The rest of your argument is just as whacky.

    You complain about the BCS poll but then state that a poll could be used to pick 8 teams and go on to say that everyone would be happy.

    So I have to ask, what are you really pis$ed off about?

    Parent

    It is so easy to say (none / 0) (#61)
    by Buckeye on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 05:13:14 PM EST
    "VTECH would kill Boise today" because the game will never take place.  When VTECH actually played Boise, they got beat.  Do you have any idea how bad the ACC is this year?  That conference record is not terribly meaningful.  A lot teams say they would beat Boise if they had another shot at them (Oklahoma the year they won the Big 12, Oregon the year they won the Pac 10 and went to the Rose Bowl, VTECH who will probably win the ACC, Oregon State who will go to a bowl game).  There is a lot of silliness around discounting Boise and you are following it by excusing beating the champion of a conference that you think is so much more worthy of a title shot.

    When you say

    You complain about the BCS poll but then state that a poll could be used to pick 8 teams and go on to say that everyone would be happy.

    So I have to ask, what are you really pis$ed off about?

    you do not understand the problem with the current system.  It is not necesarily the "polling" that is the problem people have.  Its that only two teams are picked at the end of a regular season.  Most of the time, there is controversy over who those two teams should be.  Furthermore, $ factors into it since the system is set up to benefit the bigger conferences.  

    There has never been controversy that the team ranked 9th should be in a NT game which is why I used that one example.  It may not be a bad idea to develop a playoff system that achieves more clarity without overhauling the bowl system, devaluing the regular season, or otherwise jeopardizing the status quo that BCS honchos work so hard to defend.  Keeping the current polling may be the only way to convert to something like a playoff or plus one system.  Would there still be some controversy?  Perhaps, the 9th ranked team could claim they should be in the 8 game playoff if that is what is created but that type of controversy would not be nearly as bad as Auburn going undefeated and not even given a shot at the title.  But that does not have to be the playoff system either.  

    The problem people have with the current system is that if for example TCU goes undefeated, they will not get a shot at the titele game.  Or, let's take TCU out of it (assume they lose a game like Boise did).  Let's also assume Oregon loses but Auburn wins.  We could all agree Auburn belongs in the NT game, but who plays them?  We will could have 3 or 4 one loss conference champions...who gets to play in the NT game and get the trophy?  Wisconsin/MSU/tOSU?  Oregon?   This has happened many times.  Pollsters have to sit around and pick the teams with a computer that has been tweaked over the years to essentially follow the human polls.  It is asinine.  Under the current system, there's no right answer for picking two of the four or five team in the hunt; under a different system, the teams could solve the quandary themselves.

    That is why most people think the current BCS is incompetent and corrupt.


    Parent

    A good argument (none / 0) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 05:56:01 PM EST
    until you said this...

    "Pollsters have to sit around and pick the teams with a computer that has been tweaked over the years to essentially follow the human polls."

    Both human polls had Boise 3rd. The computer polls had them 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

    Both human polls had TCU 4th. the computers have them 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

    and the Buckeyes, 7th and 8th by the humans...the computers have them 6, 9, 10, 11, and 15.

    To say they imitate the human polls would be wrong.

    Parent

    What they have been trying to do was eliminate (none / 0) (#63)
    by Buckeye on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 08:04:27 PM EST
    instances such as 2001 when Nebraska got blown clean out of their stadium by Colorado, losing not only the Big 12, but the Big 12 North (effectively finishing third in the conference), and end up in the title game.  Oklahoma did essentially the same thing losing their conference to KSU but ending up in the NT game.  The computers have been tweaked to prevent wild disparity from human polls.  Using your examples above, averaging the computer scores would rank the teams fairly close to where the humans have them.  That, plus being only a third of the score gives them a BCS score similar to human polls.  So, a 2001 Nebraska ranked as low as 6th or 7th in the human polls would not end up 2nd in the BCS due to computers.  

    I agree they do not follow the human polls perfectly but they have been tweaked to limit these types of problems.

    Parent

    Easy, yeah (none / 0) (#64)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 04:23:45 PM EST
    Furthermore, $ factors into it since the system is set up to benefit the bigger conferences.

    The system is set up for network profits.  The schools go along for the money.  TV is an important source of revenue.  Years ago the NCAA resticted the number of games that a team could appear on TV.

    If you want to talk about benefitting the major conferences I should point out something else you've missed or ignored or never considered.

    The major conferences have a much, much greater following.  Conferences made up of teams from lower population areas just don't have the year in year out following.  The number of alumni from the major conferences dwarf that same demographic in the conferences from lower population areas.  The major conferences also have more followers who never took a class on the campus of the team they follow.  This latter group is probably the most numerous of all.  Idaho may love Boise State but Idaho has a very small population.  In short very few people care what happens to Boise State or New Mexico or Nevada or Wyoming, etc.

    People who really care about and love college football don't get worked up over the BCS because their interest is in their team and their conference.  Personally I care more about how we do against Michigan and Notre Dame than anything else.  Those are the games I remember for a lifetime.

    Now I'm familiar with college football, I've been following college football for 59 years and know very well that most years, since teams have played 11 and now 12 games per season, there are usually only two or three undefeated teams.  Decades ago when college teams played a 9 game schedule there were more undefeated teams.

    This year only 3 undefeated teams remain and two of them (Oregon and Auburn) have to play one more game.

    So I wonder what happens to your ideas when there are 9 teams with 1 loss and only one undefeated team.

    I have a feeling that whatever happens, if your favorite underdog isn't included you'll scream corrupt, the "system" must be changed, etc.

    You're getting jerked up about nothing.

    Parent

    Well, you are arguing different issues now (none / 0) (#66)
    by Buckeye on Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 06:26:14 PM EST
    but okay, let's examine what you wrote above.  Yes the bigger conferences have a bigger following because they have bigger programs with a lot of tradition for one thing.  That is why they always have and still would make up over 80% of any post season playoff system, whatever would be devised.  That is not an argument to exclude a mid major team or two if they are good enough to get into the mix.  When the conference poobahs have gotten together to discuss whether they should change the post season, the biggest issues they fight over is how to guarantee the conferences get their annual check every year and ensure it is split among the big conferences in some even fashion.  Most schools have these checks factored into their annual budgets as the bowl revenue a conference gets is futhher split throughout the schools in the conference.  TV contracts complicate it further as many contracts extend over 5+ years.  Playoff systems have been contemplated that would not unfavorably impact the importance of the regular season, but the above are the reason the President's of bigger conferences work aggressively to block them.  It has nothing to do with anything Gee is talking about.

    People who really care about and love college football don't get worked up over the BCS because their interest is in their team and their conference.  Personally I care more about how we do against Michigan and Notre Dame than anything else.  Those are the games I remember for a lifetime.

    This is just wrong.  I have been watching college football for over 40 years and talk about football to many many people.  Just about everyone I know cares a great deal about the problems with how college football picks its champion. If you don't, fine.  But you are the outlier.  It is debated/complained about every year on TV, internet sites, countless editorials, sports announcers...hell even books have been written about it.  Perhaps one of the reasons you do not care is that MSU has not been in the hunt for a NT hardly at all (certainly not in the last 20+ years).  If you were a fan of a team that has gotten jobbed out of a title shot maybe you would feel differently.  Ask any Auburn fan as just one example how they felt at the end of the 2004 season.  Did they care about how their team did against Bama, LSU, Tennessee, etc.?  Yes.  They also screamed bloody murder when they were never given a shot at winning the title and wanted to kill the BCS.  I know a few Auburn fans and several said it ruined the season for them.  Another example, college football fans were in an uproar when Nebraska in 2001 got a shot at the crystal ball despite getting blown out the last game of the year at home by historic proportions (defense giving up 62 points and losing by five tds was the worst beating the history of Nebraksa football) and finishing third in their conference...just to turn around and get blown out by Miami in a dull NT game that was over by halftime...and on and on.  4 out of every 5 years there is significant controversy about who should play in the title game.

    I have a feeling that whatever happens, if your favorite underdog isn't included you'll scream corrupt, the "system" must be changed, etc.

    This is just dumb.  I have not written anything to justify what you wrote above.  I am not in love with any team other than Ohio State, just want to see the sport I love have a more competent and less corrupt way of picking a champion.  If we are going to bother having a NT game, crown a team the champion for the season, give that schools the biggest check, etc. let's at least have a way of allowing the teams in the hunt to fight it out on the field.  And I am not alone.  The majority of college football fans have been "jerked up" over this for quite a while, you are the exception.

    Parent

    Thanks Bub (none / 0) (#68)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 11:03:38 PM EST
    This is just dumb.

    You might try a bit of civility.

    Perhaps one of the reasons you do not care is that MSU has not been in the hunt for a NT hardly at all

    And condescending at that.

    You've been screaming at a fever pitch throughout this thread. I'm telling you that no matter what kind of method is used to choose participants in a national championship game, some people will be angry.

    The "plan" you alluded to, like BTD's "plan," is ridiculous.

    You call the BCS corrupt.  Prove it.  You've presented not a shred of tangible evidence.

    Finally, if you understood anything about college football and really love your Buckeyes your principle interest would be in the regular season games and the Rose Bowl.

    And by the way.  Are you anything but a casual fan if you don't know what's going on this minute regarding the BCS.  Haven't heard a syllable from you about what's happening now.

    Parent

    Again, you are changing what we are debating. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Buckeye on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 07:17:08 AM EST
    I do not feel that I have been screaming at all, especially at a fever pitch???  Just in a debate but I guess that is a matter of opinion.  And if you think anything I wrote constitutes a lack of civility then you should read how you have responded to posters in this thread.

    Tangible proof or not knowing what is going on right now in the BCS?  Well, I linked a book by Stewart Mandel that I have read as one source of money is corrupting a lot things in college football including the BCS.  You should read it.  You will understand this issue a lot better.  

    Parent

    And I was not trying to be condescending against (none / 0) (#70)
    by Buckeye on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 08:42:18 AM EST
    your team.  I have a great deal of respect for the coaching staff at the top 2 sports - FB and BB.  Izzo is among the top 2 or 3 coaches in the country IMO.  Dantonio is also like and respect.  He was our defensive coordinator when we won the NT in 2002.  He did a hell of a job at Cincy giving Kelly a finished product that he leveraged to help him get the ND coaching position.  Dantonio has now brought MSU its first Big 10 title in 20+ years.

    My point was that MSU has not been a part of the pollsters jockeying around teams at the end of the season to determine who plays in the NT game.  That is why you may not be as sensitive to it as others (I don't know that, which is why I used the words "perhaps" and "maybe").  I know a lot of ND fans who used to raise hell about the bowl system in college football but they rarely complain now (it has been 20+ years since it has mattered - they have bigger probelms right now).

    Parent

    That's what I wrote (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    "You're incorrect when you state that the computer ratings use margin of victory in their programs.  Margin of victory factor was removed this season."

    Except it was removed many seasons ago.

    As  for my plan, I've given it on a number of occasions - 6 conference champions (to be determined by past performance, to wit, you can lose your AQ status) plus 2 at large.

    7 games of playoffs. We can even use the existing bowls.

    Parent

    Then (none / 0) (#30)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    why did you say that margin of victory was in the computer rankings?

    Your plan doesn't account for the fact that a given team's followers probably can't afford to travel for more than one post season game.  Oh and who picks the 2 at large teams?

    Go back and try again your plan doesn't cut it.

    Parent

    Because it used to be (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 05:13:32 PM EST
    Ergo, my disdain for the idea that it being in the computer rankings was the reason for teams running up the score.

    To wit, the human polls look at the scoring margin too, as they should actually.

    You want to stop folks from running up the score? A playoff would do that.

    Parent

    Huh (none / 0) (#37)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 05:26:06 PM EST
    "Ergo, my disdain for the idea that it being in the computer rankings was the reason for teams running up the score."

    Weak.  You SAID that the margin was in the computer rankings.

    When did I say that I objected to running up the score?

    Parent

    I did not say that (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 06:19:07 PM EST
    I said it was, past tense.

    BTW, what do you care about this if, as you say, there is so much more important to think about?

    Parent

    BTW, my plan works fine (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 05:15:51 PM EST
    Teams have been traveling to away games and conference championship games for some time now.

    but here you go - First round is at the top 4 ranked teams home stadiums.

    How do we rank them? The way we do now - use the BCS ranking.

    That's how the 2 at large team get chosen as well.

    So either it works for the BCS and thus for my playoff or it does not work at all.

    But of course it works.

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#38)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 05:37:23 PM EST
    you rioped the BCS as a big sham so now you're saying that it's OK to pick your two at large teams and to allow automatic bids for conference champions.

    I also want to know about playing a game in Madison in December or January and you said that the bowl games would be incorporated in your system.

    Even if the first round is played at the highest ranked team's stadiums (decided by that dreaded poll) there are still 2 more rounds.  By the time you get to the championship game it's all over for the home folks.

    I'm NOT defending the BCS for choosing participants in a national championship game.

    I don't care for a national championship game at all.

    I think it's silly to believe that we MUST have a national champion.  It just knocks me out when I hear people make that statement.

    There're a hell of a lot more important must haves in this country than a national championship game.

    I prefer the bowls only.  End the season with many winners.


    Parent

    Totally fine (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 06:18:00 PM EST
    You know who does not get to complain? A team that does not win its conference.

    What's the issue?

    Parent

    college football and other sports (none / 0) (#4)
    by Merle on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 08:55:50 AM EST
    I'm a sports fan in general but I have never gotten interested in this ranking issue.  It seems to me that it's consistent with our compulsion--in sports and other things--to be able to name the BEST of something, anything, at any given time or for all time. Who is the best player, which is the best team, this year, or ever.   I think it's actually impossible to do this in an absolute sense, but we are driven, perhaps by the need of the media to fill air time and create interest, to name the best, the greatest, of everything.
     In addition, I suspect that  betting and the pervasive sports gambling culture (about which I know almost nothing) drives this BCS controversy, just as it seems more and more to drive the world of sports like professional football. It's annoying to me that so much of TV and radio discussion and fan interest in the NFL now focuses ultimately on either the betting odds or fantasy leagues (which seems to be another form of gambling).

    What we're seeing (none / 0) (#5)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 09:56:52 AM EST
    in the whole BCS - national championship thing is the TV network driven quest for a "true" national champion.

    The attempt to change a beautiful regional game into a national, winner take all, contest in the quest for more TV network profits.

    It's driven universities to spend outrageous sums of money on sports and fed into the diseased notion that there can only be one winner in the whole of the land.  Sound familiar?

    Parent

    Exactly. Let's let the Rose Bowl (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 10:56:02 AM EST
    be the [former] Rose Bowl.  

    Parent
    What is the point of football? Competition. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Buckeye on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 11:14:56 AM EST
    The game has also been national for many decades now.  What is so diseased about asking for a system that allows a competition to end with an undisputed winner?  It works just fine for every other sport but college football.

    Parent
    That explains a lot. "What is the (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 12:28:07 PM EST
    point of football"?

    Parent
    The original (none / 0) (#31)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 03:57:02 PM EST
    intent of school sports was for an opportunity to broaden the life experience and provide student entertainment and esprit de corps.

    Parent
    Puhlease. It may have started that way, (none / 0) (#48)
    by Buckeye on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 08:57:44 PM EST
    but any athlete and fans of teams want to compete to win, want to know how they stack up against other teams, and want to win championships.

    Parent
    Per Wiki re Capitol One (formerly (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 09:18:52 PM EST
    Citrus) Bowl:

    Payout US$4,250,000 (As of 2006[update])


    Parent
    i will be stunned (none / 0) (#13)
    by Turkana on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 11:55:20 AM EST
    if oregon covers the margin.

    and any oregon fan knows the bcs is b.s. the ducks should have been in the 2002 title game. and despite some sloppy play the last couple of weeks, and a tough game today, i like their chances against boise and tcu, neither of which has the athletes to stay with them, or auburn, which has a defense just waiting to be shredded.

    Your comment (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 12:00:15 PM EST
    does not make sense to me.

    If Oregon at home can not dominate a mediocre Arizona team, it is hard to argue that they can dominate Auburn, Boise or TCU on a neutral field.

    Parent

    arizona (none / 0) (#17)
    by Turkana on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 12:28:12 PM EST
    has one of the best defenses in the country. auburn doesn't, and their secondary is a sieve. boise and tcu don't have the athletes.

    Parent
    Auburn's defense is weak (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 12:57:30 PM EST
    Arizona's is average.

    A dominant team dominates Arizona at home tonight.

    I am picking Oregon to do that.

    Heck, I'm doubling my bet now.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#24)
    by Turkana on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 01:10:59 PM EST
    i hope you're right. also keep in mind that lamichael james practiced hard monday, but not the rest of the week. the state of his ankle is not clear. but the ducks do have depth, and barner also can dominate a game. but we'll see...

    Parent
    Canards as usual (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 10:09:14 AM EST
    not only pull away in the 2d half, they demolish the opponent.  And Arizona -- quality QB and solid D, plus recent history of playing the Ducks very tough -- was hardly a pushover creampuff.

    One more game to go for the Ducks before they prove they are indeed the best team in the land.  Very fun to team to watch --depending on the camouflage color of their home jerseys and other  factors affecting the clarity of tv viewing ...

    Parent

    i hate some of their uniforms (none / 0) (#60)
    by Turkana on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 10:19:36 AM EST
    like the yellow helmets. yesterday's uniform is beautiful to watch. they had me worried in the first half, then made it look easy...

    Parent
    Oregon wins 48-29 (none / 0) (#52)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 01:39:47 AM EST
    which, I think, means they covered the margin, yes? And what is meant by the units that appear in parethesis after the team name? What does (3 units) reference?

    Yeah, Ducks. Now it's on to the Civil War.

    Oh, and Boise State goes down to defeat. Also, yeah.


    Parent

    A push (none / 0) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 09:47:37 AM EST
    the 19 point margin of victory means no winner and no loser on either side of the Oregon/Arizona 19 point spread. Three units just means the bet would be triple the normal. In this case BTD never mentions dollars so consider his normal bet per game as X dollars, and puts 2X on Oregon, 3X on Boise and 5X on Alabama.

    In football betting though, today is another day.

    Go Gators

    Parent

    Good questions. I too (none / 0) (#57)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 09:51:15 AM EST
    would like to know.

    College football used to be so simple -- the players run and throw, block and tackle, the coach gets too worked up on the sidelines, the cheerleaders wave their pom-poms, the fans whoop it up in the stands, and the agents, schools and networks make off with millions.  All very simple and easy to understand.

    But no, now we have "margins" and "spreads" that have to be "covered" or not, and now something about "units".  It's like Jimmy the Greek crossed with Alan Greenspan.

    I hope we get answers to some of these pressing questions.

    As for next week in Oregon, I hope the war is indeed civil, and that the Waterfowl emerge to take their rightful place in the championship game.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 09:59:12 AM EST
    Waterfowl over Water Rodents so the great Northwest can be in the National Championship Game.

    Parent
    Here's my thought. Let's ask Jeralyn (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 12:30:32 PM EST
    to design the best means to determine a national college football champion.  Maybe on site judges and caller votes?

    All those Bristol Palin wackadoodles... (none / 0) (#20)
    by magster on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 12:50:41 PM EST
    ...would flood the lines for their favorite SEC team no matter the quality of team from the rest of the nation.

    Parent
    On the contrary (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 04:38:33 PM EST
    They'd vote for a team that had no business being involved in the first place. Think Idaho Vandals.

    Parent
    Great (none / 0) (#41)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 06:23:38 PM EST
    Best comment so far.

    Tea baggers do support the worst.

    Parent

    How anyone can care so (none / 0) (#19)
    by observed on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 12:31:11 PM EST
     much is a riddle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Everyone knows Top Chef is all that matters.

    Great title. Had to google (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    to determine whether I'd heard/read it before.

    Segue: title (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 01:16:10 PM EST
    Umm (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 01:07:43 PM EST
    "Those are the Jeff Sagarin "PREDICTOR" rankings, which Sagarin describes as the best single PREDICTOR of future games."

    Well congratulatons to Jeff for thinking his system is better than the next guy's. Problem is, his BCS computer rankings don't say that. Note the last one on the list

    Following are the actual computer rankings of those that are included in the BCS Poll as of last Sunday:

    Jeff Anderson-Chris Hester
    1 Auburn
    2 Oregon
    3 TCU

    Richard Billingsley
    1 TCU
    2 Oregon
    3 Boise

    Colley Matrix
    1 Auburn
    2 TCU
    3 LSU

    Kenneth Massey
    1 Auburn
    2 Oregon
    3 Boise

    Peter Wolfe
    1 Auburn
    2 Oregon
    3 TCU

    Jeff Sagarin
    1 Auburn
    2 Oregon
    3 LSU

    Apparently (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 03:11:38 PM EST
    Apparently, some of you do not understand English or click links.

    I will not explain to you what you are not understanding because I think it would be pointless.

    Parent

    Understand exactly what you are saying (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 04:02:58 PM EST
    and exactly what Jeff is saying. He likes to put out multiple computer rankings with a variety of results and is quite happy to have the BCS use one of his programs.  If he's lucky one of them might be accurate each week.

    For the record, I have no problem with the BCS and don't care if the top two are chosen by the AP, USA Today, any of the multitude of computer generated rankings, or a combination of all of the above. And I have always and will always enjoy the Bowl Season.

    Parent

    BCS buster (none / 0) (#27)
    by Banzel on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 03:12:23 PM EST
    Go Tide! (Never in a million years did I think I would say such a thing.)

    That should have been "Roll Tide". (none / 0) (#28)
    by Banzel on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 03:13:16 PM EST


    Anyway (none / 0) (#44)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 06:34:58 PM EST
    Great game in the SEC today and those are two awfully good football teams.

    I hope Arizona - Oregon is as much fun to watch.

    Oregon (none / 0) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 07:24:48 PM EST
    uniforms blend into the Autzen Stadium field tonight almost as much as Boise in Iowa

    Parent
    I was gonna say. (none / 0) (#55)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 09:33:13 AM EST
    It's tough enough to be able to catch either Boisé or Orégone on the teevee what with the overhyped and overrated SEC covered non-stop by one network and one well-known sports channel, but when you do manage to get the Woodsmen or the Canards on the tube, you find it's tough to actually watch the game.

    There's the home team uniform camouflage matter, then at Autzen and Boisé they seem to be using 25W bulbs in the stadium instead of the large tv-friendly klieg lights most stadiums installed about 45 years ago.

    Either that or the networks are trying to save money on coverage out west by using cheapo tv cameras last used when Keith Jackson and Bud Wilkinson were calling games.

    Parent

    It looked like (none / 0) (#65)
    by cal1942 on Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 04:26:45 PM EST
    they were wearing knee length sweat pants.  

    Parent
    When did they move... (none / 0) (#67)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 07:05:12 PM EST
    ...Boise to Iowa?  

    Parent
    A defense of the BCS (none / 0) (#50)
    by abdiel on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 10:18:48 PM EST
    I think haranguing the BCS as a profit maker is facetious. To put it another way, the BCS provides post-conference games that people want to see. We use the teams' performance during the season to provide track records for what would be the best games.

    But your anger at Gee is very misdirected. You shouldn't be angry at the Ohio States of college football. You should be angry that the system rewards mediocre championships over merit and a 6-4 UConn team is now in control of their destiny in the Big East. But no conference would agree to the BCS if there was a chance they would get nothing in the post-season, which is why March Madness has bloated into a grotesque monster.

    It should also be noted that a playoff doesn't actually cure the biggest travesty this season, which is the exclusion of Stanford. Expand it to 8 team, and now Michigan State and Oklahoma State finds themselves screaming that they deserve a spot as one-loss teams.

    I don't know what (none / 0) (#54)
    by cal1942 on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 07:56:27 AM EST
    you're hearing or imagining.  Michigan State hasn't complained about a thing.

    They want to win the Big Ten Championship and haven't said anything about their number 10 ranking in the BCS poll.  

    There's no noise around here about State's position vis a vis Wisconsin and Ohio State in the BCS.  The national media is whipping it up but you won't see that in the local media or hear anything on the streets in these parts about the number 10 ranking.

    Parent

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 17, 2018 at 09:10:03 AM EST