Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Tennessean)   BCS to revise formula, utilizing a cutting-edge technology called "polls"   ( divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

7467 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 May 2004 at 12:24 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

102 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

2004-05-12 01:32:10 PM  
2004-05-12 01:32:50 PM  
Go Trojans!

/USC fan
2004-05-12 01:33:44 PM  
No playoff, no BCS, here is what you do to A) Make the bowls count more B) Make the purest (and at 23, I am one) happy, and C) Put some excitement back into finding a national champion
1)Cut down the number of bowl games to about 15. That means 30 teams go to a bowl game, which is more than fair
2) Bring back the old allignments with bowl games and confrence champions, with a few changes (I'd say ACC champ to Orange, SEC to Sugar, Big 12 to Fiesta, and Big 10 vs. Pac 10 in Rose, Big East is a non factor, maybe send them to Gator Bowl.)
3) Make a couple more allignments (SEC East Representative vs. ACC Runner up in Citrus Bowl, SEC West rep vs. Big 12 South Rep in Cotton, Big 12 North rep vs. Pac 10 runner up in Holiday, Sgt. At Arms trophy winner vs. Confrence USA winner in Liberty Bowl, etc.), but for the most part, everything else is cut throat competition for teams. This would certainly create some exciting games.
4) At the end, let the polls decide a national champ. Hell, people will be pissed, but it will also make college football the talk to the nation for much longer than just a one off championship.

Ok, I'll sit back and let you guys pick me apart.
2004-05-12 01:34:08 PM  
Wasn't the BCS created because the polls "were crooked" in the public opinion? Now we're going back to the polls because the computers were able to throw out emotion and give an unbiased result. I'd like to see if the new system would have changed the matchups for past title games.

Sorry if this has been posted but I didn't see it while reading everything.
2004-05-12 01:36:40 PM  
This will hurt Florida State :( We seem to do better in the mathmatical stuff and poor in the polls.
2004-05-12 01:36:48 PM  
I liked the strength of schedule and quality wins
components of the system. I'm okay with eliminating
the losses component. You already get penalized for
losing by dropping in the polls and computer rankings.
That element equated losing to F$U with losing to
Rice. Each cost you a point in the BCS, which doesn't
make sense. Taking out the losses component reduces
the penalty on teams for playing a tough opponent.

That leads to why I like the strength of schedule
component. The system ought to distinguish between a
team that schedules top teams for nonconference games
from one that schedules patsies. Yeah, I'm looking at
you Kansas St.

Also, strength of schedule helps teams that are in
conferences that are stronger top to bottom. This
saved LSU last season. If I remember correctly,
because Virginia Tech stood them up, they had to play
James Madison. This really hurt their strength of
schedule. Their SEC schedule was so tough, however,
that it largely made up for that. Now, it needs to be
tweaked. I know that it hurt LSU that they played UGA
again in the SEC Championship because you can't get
credit for beating the same team twice. I would like
to see some sort of change there, but don't eliminate
that component.

If you beat a team that is in the top 10 at the end of
the season, that should be rewarded. I liked the
quality wins component. Though I am less passionate
about this than the strength of schedule part. Having
the quality wins component and eliminating the losses
component encourages big name teams to play each

I understand that you can't always control strength of
schedule. You may get Notre Dame or UCLA on there and
think they should be good, but when the year comes,
they suck. Or maybe your conference is way down on a
given year. But teams schedule weak opponents hoping
they will be weak when they play them and they should
be punished. Also, if you play ND on a year they only
win four games, then that should be reflected as not
being as big a win as beating them when they win ten
2004-05-12 01:38:44 PM  
Joe Cowboy So what would you have done a couple years ago when it was clear that Ohio St. and Miami should meet for the title? They played their game, a winner was named. They were still the top 2 teams in the polls (I believe). Do they play again? What if Miami won that second game? Do we now play ANOTHER game? +1 is a rediculous idea that would only be fair if there were 2 or 4 teams with a legit claim at the title. If there were 3, what if 2 of them played each other and the third played a lower team. Is that fair? Who decides who gets the crappy team? +1 isn't the answer.

I don't mind the BCS, at least we get a game for the title. Under the old system, the top teams would rarely play each other, especially if one was from the Big 10 or Pac 10 and had to play in the Rose Bowl. Although not the best answer, I believe the BCS is better than before.
2004-05-12 01:39:44 PM  
There are more living Ohio State alumni than from any other single school.

I like the BSC poll plan.

Go Bucks!
2004-05-12 01:41:19 PM  
This bull$hit is the reason why the BCS was created. My prediction is USC will be the national champion here on out for playing crappy teams. While OU has to play great teams like Texas and Kansas State. The worst team in the Big twelve can beat the 2nd best team in the PAC 10. So now I can have my slanted football championship to go with my slated news. Great, just great.
2004-05-12 01:46:34 PM  
2004-05-12 01:48:02 PM  
909, i love this quote:
"I'm a USC fan and I agree. Would have been a much better game than seeing a soft OU team getting punked by you guys."

hmmm... winning by 7 at home and letting the other team have not one, but two, shots at tying in the final minutes is "punking" them... obviously I misunderstood the term.
2004-05-12 01:50:37 PM  
I think they could have managed it fine if they had kept everything, but thrown out strength of schedule.

Strength of schedule is a good thing, but it was factored in twice - once in the SoS points, and then almost every computer ranking took it into account (as do the human polls, to a lesser degree). Which led up to the ridiculous fact that games that had nothing to do with anything around the country became the deciding factors, because they affected TWO different point values - SoS and computer ranking.

Last year, on the last day, I think Hawaii was playing...Alabama? I don't completely remember. I do remember one of the computer ranking people saying, however, that had Hawaii won that game, he'd have flip-flopped USC and LSU in his rankings (which would have resulted in LSU being shut out of the Sugar Bowl due to the closeness of the final point values). Three/four years ago, when Nebraska was in the NC game instead of Colorado or Oregon, there was a different meaningless game on the last day of the season, between two teams no one cared about, that, had it gone the other way, would have put I think Colorado (might have been Oregon) into the NC game, instead of Nebraska.

The reason those were happening is because those games not only had an effect on SoS, but a double effect as they could change computer rankings.

No one watched either of those two meaningless games (last year, or a few years back), saw a team win, and said "That's convinced me, it's true, (LSU/USC/Nebraska/Colorado) really is the #2 team in the country!"

I also think that all the computer poll algorithms should be made public. The Seattle ranking last year had Washington and Washington State ranked highly near the beginning of the season, despite losses, and no other computer poll had them that high. The various computer polls *seem* to have certain biases, and there is no reason to keep these rankings a secret from people.

Keep the quality wins, keep the losses, just ditch SoS, because it's already taken into account (or, alternatively, tell the computer ranking groups that they cannot use SoS in their rankings, and keep it).

2004-05-12 01:51:33 PM  
BCS to revise formula, utilizing a cutting edge technology called "polls"

they are gonna have polish people using computers to figure this crap out?? oh gawd.. we'll never know who won then!!!

/i got nothin
2004-05-12 01:53:48 PM  
Even though I am a fan of a big name team who gets the benefit of the doubt in preseason polls, I agree with davidshi123. It's not fair, but even if you didn't publish a poll for several weeks into the season, the pollsters bias would still be there. If Michigan and WV have "equal" seasons, Michigan will be ranked higher whether you have preseason polls or not.
2004-05-12 01:53:57 PM  
There are more living Ohio State alumni than from any other single school.

and i'm proud to be one.

go bucks!
2004-05-12 01:56:33 PM  
If the human polls took SOS into consideration, why was USC ahead of LSU or OU? Because they are incredibly SUBJECTIVE polls. People liked USC better for whatever reason and disregarded the fact they only played one quality opponent and lost to a highly inferior team while LSU and OU lost to much better teams than Cal (although OU did lose quite embarrasingly) and also beat quality teams throughout the year. I think the BCS got it right. Maybe USC will schedule more than one quality out of conference game this year (yeah Auburn was supposed to be good, but schedule 2 just in case one ends up sucking).
2004-05-12 01:57:17 PM  
The strength of schedule and quality wins would be something worth keeping had it been done right. It should only be assessed after the season, and absolutely not include any preseason ranking. You can't really tell how much of a quality win you have until the team you win has a few games under their belt, so it's hard to give it ratings after every game.

This reminds me of an article I think I read on espn. As far as games go....why play any games any more? We can just have the BCS computer systems figure out who'd beat who, what'd happen, and who's the national champion and we don't even have to play a single game. Think about it, no injuries, no unsportsmanlike conduct, no long football schedule. They can just sit down at their computer and tell us what would happen.
2004-05-12 01:58:03 PM  
The one solution that will make most people happy is a playoff system. Guess who is the one group that fights a playoff system? That's right, the BCS. The BCS has too many special interests making sure big schools stay big while raking in the money. Throw out the BCS, start from scratch, and let good teams prove how good they are.
2004-05-12 02:01:08 PM  

That's where the BCS rankings come into play. +1 is the answer. I agree that the 2002 you referred to was an oddity, where the team that lost didn't drop lower than #2, but the majority of the time that will be the case and even though you could have 3-4 teams with a legitimate shot at the title, eventually you gotta stop playing the games and declare a winner.

+1 lets the NCAA keep their money and the fans will get a clear #1.

/I agree with skinink, pay the players above board, cause you know it's happening under the table.

2004-05-12 02:03:11 PM  
Can someone explain what +1 is or hook up a link?
2004-05-12 02:05:20 PM  
+1 is just an additional game after the BCS bowls ( as was suggested for USC and LSU this year after the Sugar and Rose Bowls)
2004-05-12 02:07:56 PM  
100proof, +1 means playing an additional game after the regular BCS games and making that the National Championship.

Potential problem with +1:

After all the BCS games you may have one undefeated team and multiple 1 loss teams. Who plays the undefeated team? If the 1 loss team beats the undefeated team, are they then the champion among the multiple 1 loss teams? The title will still be disputed.
2004-05-12 02:10:20 PM  
It just gets worse... Why don't they apply this formula to all the past BCS championships and see whether it would have made sense of the past splits. I have a feeling we would have had some strange results based on the past.

And they claim Kerry flip-flops alot...
2004-05-12 02:12:56 PM  
1994 - Nebraska #1 Penn State #2 (Penn State would've won, but these were both good teams)

can i buy some pot from you???? the huskers were way better than that psu team. that psu D saw one player taken in the first four rounds of the NFL draft, and that was just a 3rd rounder. nebraska woulda run all over that team and had more than enough defensive talent on its side to grind out an easy win. i'm not sayin draftpicks are a surefire measure of talent or anything, but there's a huge freakin hole there, esp. considering that (unlike the huskers) penn state played a fairly pro-style game
2004-05-12 02:20:10 PM  
Orville Stinkoway to revise CFB attention span, utilizing a cutting edge technology called "get a real title game"
2004-05-12 02:24:37 PM  
I think the polls should count for NOTHING! if you start
each season with every team at a factor of zero, then add
points or take away points according to which teams you
beat and wich teams beat you. (add or take away points for
each game from the beginning of the season every week. For
instance On week four, one team has four wins and no losses,
it gets 10 points{1+2+3+4=10} . in addition, the four teams
it beat have a total of 12 points under this system so the team gets those points also making it 22 points.)
Then you would have the two best teams at the end of the
season no mattter what.
2004-05-12 02:25:45 PM  

2004-05-12 02:29:44 PM  
Um, Kevin is free already. Anyway

Looks like another year of watching I-AA
2004-05-12 02:35:13 PM  
This reminds me of an article I think I read on espn. As far as games go....why play any games any more? We can just have the BCS computer systems figure out who'd beat who, what'd happen, and who's the national champion and we don't even have to play a single game. Think about it, no injuries, no unsportsmanlike conduct, no long football schedule. They can just sit down at their computer and tell us what would happen.

That's totally asinine. The computer systems have nothing to work with in the absence of game data. That's why there are no preseason computer rankings, (save for the one ranking system that gives teams provisional rankings for the first four weeks based on average performance over the past 50 years). What that article really should say is: why bother playing the games if pollsters already know who's #1?
2004-05-12 02:42:25 PM  
Whoa I was just kidding. Satire. I personally don't think the BCS is the answer but since I don't have the answer I'm not qualified to be a critic.
2004-05-12 02:46:35 PM  
Just give us a damn playoff. BCS ill not produce a true champion and the human polls wount give us anyone out of florida.
2004-05-12 02:48:11 PM  
Conference champions in a playoff format. Make the conference playoffs worth fighting for again. Really, what's so special about being the Big 10 champ if you get beaten by the #3 seed from the SEC in the Alpo Bowl?
2004-05-12 02:59:33 PM  
So essentially, the BCS will return to the old system that nobody liked.
2004-05-12 03:08:59 PM  
penn state v. nebraska 1994 -

first, you ignored my caveat becuase i believe that both were very good teams, which i implied. Nebraska's team that year, could've played with almost any team in the last decade.

however, you might want to take note of the fact that in 1994 penn state had one of the best offenses in history.

their defense, although not as highly acclaimed as the huskers, was an effective unit (for example, they held ohio state - and future heiman winner eddie george - to 14 points at home).

psu played a more difficult schedule that nebraska.

the sentiments at the time, and, no doubt lingering in many fb fans, were that this was a gift to poor tom osborne who just had to win a trophy before he retired. boo farking hoo.
2004-05-12 03:12:07 PM  
Schools and conferences are guaranteed a certain amount of money if they are represented in a bowl game. You want them to give up a for sure pay day in hopes that their team plays well? Are you kidding? They might lose money. No way that'll happen.
2004-05-12 03:12:38 PM  
JoeCowboy But you'd still have those years where there were a legit 2 teams to play in the championship. Same as the "oddity" of having 3 teams claim a spot in the title game. Seems like you're just shifting the problem, just like they shifted the problem from the old polls to the BCS system. And there is still no answer as to when there are 3 teams (like this past year), do they not play each other in the 4 bowls and risk all 3 winning, and then the same argument remains? Or do you make 2 play, and then which 2? There are still too many questions.
2004-05-12 03:27:34 PM  
I like the +1 format - where you'd match 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 in two semifinal bowl games, then have the winners meet in the title bowl game. Rotate the same bowls that are rotated now for the title game.

2003 semifinals:

Oklahoma vs. Michigan


Miami vs. USC
Georgia vs. Ohio State


Miami vs. Oregon
Nebraska vs. Colorado

Notice that this would have led to many matchups that many people wanted, albeit in a semifinal rather than a final. Still, better than not at all.
2004-05-12 03:45:44 PM  
"Just give us a damn playoff. BCS ill not produce a true champion and the human polls wount give us anyone out of florida"

Sadly, the old BCS was the best system. Kept all emotion out of it. Now, if I had to chose to the new BCS or a playoff - I'd chose the playoff.
OU was undefeated in the regular season while USC lost one. Because the west coast writers say you are the best doesn't make it so. USC = HYPE
2004-05-12 04:33:26 PM  
Wild brown trout are usually found in fast running water - their noses facing up river waiting for food to come down with the flow. The best presentation, in my opinion, is to cast your fly up the flow and then quickly start to recover line. Once the line it taunt, small twitches, with the odd pull, tends to work wonders. It is not unusual to see 7-10 wild brown trout at a time following my fly down in the flow. As my fly sweeps round in the flow, well down river to my fishing position, it is then, more often than not, when it gets nailed. Wild brown trout fishing can be very, very visual - thats provided the water is clear and you own a good pair of polaroid sunglasses! In my opinion, theyre a must.
2004-05-12 04:58:32 PM  
I'm pleasantly surprised to see unFARKlike insightful commentary and intelligent discussion instead of the usual.

Just thought you'd like to know that.
2004-05-12 05:25:34 PM  
Oh great. Back to a popularity contest among the East coast sports writers.

No playoffs, no peace!
2004-05-12 05:26:34 PM  
If USC = hype then OU = OVER RATED. How do you NOT win your conference, get you @ss kicked by KSU and then get to play for the national championship? Okay, so they weren't punked, but they played a crap game. btw - that great Texas team is overrated too - see this year's cmost recent choke job.

Emotions aside - I say keep the BCS but have 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 play then have one final game.
2004-05-12 05:49:05 PM  
Air_Hadoken -- Relax, this is merely a transitory state. All will be returned to normal soon in the FARK discussion group:

"BCS to revise formula to determine winners. France surrenders. Duke sucks."

"Strong Bad R teh funny." "No, Strong Bad sux0rs" "STFU!" "No, you STFU. RTFA first, dude! Wasn't even about Strong Bad!"

And my personal favorite:

"Eww, her boobies are big, bouncy, and fake. I wouldn't hit it even though I've not actually been touched by a woman since the Clinton Administration." "...Oh, wait, this wasn't a boobies thread. Mods please delete my previous post."
2004-05-12 06:12:48 PM  
All of you are wrong.
The BCS should take the preseason rankings and have them play a game mid September to decide the national champion. This will eliminate all that pesky practice time and give the student athletes more time to concentrate on their studies.
2004-05-12 07:36:17 PM  
Fear Ohio State's defense.
2004-05-12 08:42:53 PM  
Strength of Schedule stops being evaluated when the regular season is over. Had it continued through the bowl games, it would have been obvious USC would have moved up since the "perceived" weaker PAC-10 only lost 2 bowl games, and most of the wins were against stronger opponents.

They should have all the bowls...then, run BCS one more time to determine the TWO that play the following week.

Simple, and you can still have SOS in your "formula".
2004-05-12 08:48:16 PM  
Miami vs. USC
Georgia vs. Ohio State

No. There were 2 undefeated teams that season. Those teams played each other. The better team won. End of story. I could go on a rant here about the Buckeye naysayers, but I won't.

Fear Ohio State's defense.

Silver Bullet, baybee!
2004-05-12 08:51:35 PM  
And to the earlier poster proposing that we completely realign schools into X number of conferences, you obviously have no grasp of the concept of tradition in college football. No, no, a thousand times no.
2004-05-12 10:08:04 PM  

I like the +1 format - where you'd match 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 in two semifinal bowl games, then have the winners meet in the title bowl game. Rotate the same bowls that are rotated now for the title game.

How does this work in cases like a couple of years ago, when Oklahoma beat everyone? Let's take a more obvious case, where someone goes undefeated and blasts everyone. The next team has 2 losses. Do you still line up for semis even where one team is 14-0, and the next team is 12-2? Even if the 12-2 team wins out, and the 14-0 team loses in the finals, the champ will be 14-2, and the #2 will have a better record at 15-1. It doesn't work.
2004-05-12 10:40:56 PM  
I have bad grammer so ill clarify what i said. I meant no one outside of florida will get a chance if the coaches polls are the main thing picking the championship game. Most of the human polls the last few years always have florida, florida st, and miami overrated though out the year. Which means no lsu,usc or ou teams will get anything near a shot.
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.