I seem to say this every year on this day

'07 Football NCS Football95

Number two-ranked West Virginia just lost to Pitt (just as USC lost to UCLA last year). Number one-ranked Mizzou followed that by losing to Oklahoma.

As I sit here and watch ANOTHER final day of the college football season unfold with unfathomable results, I can only imagine how AWESOME – uh, I mean MEANINGLESS today’s football games would have been if we had that all important “playoff” for which so many fans think that they desperately long.

A little after 11pm ET, ABC’s Brent Musburger and Kirk Herbstreit commented that today could be the “BCS’ worst nightmare” and the system is literally imploding today. Conventional wisdom would agree with them. I do not.

You see, days like today and seasons like this season are exactly WHY college football is so wonderful. If a playoff existed heading into today’s games, then imagine how unimportant and unremarkable today’s events would have been. Heck, West Virginia probably would have played all of their back ups to rest their starters and lost their game with Pitt on purpose. (Why can’t fans ever recognize that behavor is not static when environments experience significant change?

College football continues to prove that every week is a playoff and fans just keep forgetting that if a playoff system existed the regular season wouldn’t be nearly as excited as we have today.

The events of this year is expose the crux of the BCS’ REAL PROBLEM – the selection of the TWO teams to play for the National Championship.

The problem with the BCS is NOT that more teams need an opportunity to play for a national championship after having an entire season to rise to the top of the polls. The problem with the BCS is that they need a more specific, precise and scientific formula for choosing the two teams to square off in the Championship Game.

If the BCS would construct a single, universal, scenario-tested, scientific computer formula then why would you need to select more than two teams after every team in the country has played 12 regular season games?

Contrary to popular opinion, the current system does NOT really utilize a computer program to analyze data to rank the teams. The current system actually uses a computer to sort the heavily weighted rankings of humans along side with various independent computer rankings, some of which are weak and based on misguided weightings of data that create stupdid rankings. The result is a diluted mess whereby the subjective polls outweigh everything and invariably is going to create controversy.

If a single computer program existed to analyze RESULTS from the field – not the subjective opinions of humans – then college football would achieve the kind of CONSISTENT ANALYSIS and OBJECTIVE RANKINGS for which we all want.

Take a look at this discussion about the reality of how “Strength of Schedule” is neglected under today’s current situation. People like to talk about SOS, but the reality is that even a ‘consideration’ of SOS is grossly subjective unless some kind of objective and consistent measurement criteria is applied. If a solid, accurate and UNIVERSAL computer program was used to analyze actual performance on the field and not various subjective human opinions then factors like strength of schedule would really matter than the system could accurately choose the two best teams in the country

I don’t care what teams that other people ‘THINK’ are better than each other. This means NOTHING. If the pundits were actually right about their selections, then the rankings would actually never change. I believe that the actual PERFORMANCE of team’s on the field should be all that matters. If #1 beats #10 by 1 point and #2 beats #10 by 50 points, then #2 has PERFORMED better than #1. It’s not that difficult. But, it doesn’t work that way in today’s world when the #1 could be a ‘loaded’ USC team with 25 first rounders on the roster that everyone knows is the ‘best team’.

Should the National Championship be awarded to the ‘best team’ or the ‘team that has performed the best’?

The construction of the computer formula would not be easy, but it would not be impossible. One current mistake that I would like to see fixed is the impact of WHEN a team loses. If all teams play 12 games per year, why does it matter more that a team just within the last month instead of in the first month? It’s absurd. The ONLY reason this problem currently exists is because of the imperfections of humans. Yet, they are the ones that complain about the rankings. The relative performance as judged by a team’s ENTIRE BODY OF WORK during the season should be criteria for judgement.

Every school, fan and media member in the country would know the criteria and the formula used to rank teams. Records (“Wins”) would obviously still be the driving factor, but strength of schedule, margins of victory (capped at something like 30 points), location of games and other criteria would/could play a major role in the rankings. For example, if a team went undefeated, but played one of the weakest schedules in America then they have nobody to blame but themselves if they can’t achieve a #1 or #2 ranking.

Allow me to give you a hypothetical example to make my point of the problems with the current system and how a computer could fix it –

Consider that Ohio State begins the season ranked #1 in the country and Minnesota begins the season picked last in the Big Ten with no expectations. Consider that it is one of those seasons in the Big 10 where the two teams do not play each other but they play identical Big 10 schedules.

If Ohio State and Minnesota beat each Big Ten team by the identical margin of victory who do you think would be ranked #1 in the country at the end of the year? What if OSU played an embarassing non-conference schedule and Minnesota played a particularly difficult non-conference schedule. Do you think that today’s Einstein-voters would rank Minnesota ahead of OSU who started the season #1? If they PERFORMED identically against the conference schedule, why wouldn’t Minnesota’s PERFORMANCE merit a higher ranking than OSU?

What if Oklahoma also ended the season undefeated and ended the season ranked #2? Minnesota would be more deserving to play OU than OSU yet would be boxed out by today’s ridiculous rankings. If we had a single computer formula there would never be a fear of this playing out and there never COULD be a situation where the more deserving team was discriminated against.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

'07 Football NCS Football

95 Responses to I seem to say this every year on this day

  1. BJD95 12/02/2007 at 10:46 AM #

    To me, it’s patently obvious that getting the calculus wrong as to team 16 vs. 17 is less unfair than getting 2 vs. 3 wrong.

  2. ADS95 12/02/2007 at 11:34 AM #

    I don’t think there was anything meaningless about today’s games, since even if there were a playoff, seeding would be important.

    We all know the importance of #1 seeds in the NCAA tournament, as it grants those teams an easier road into the sweet 16. By the same token, West Virginia last night would have been playing for the chance at the #1 overall seed for a postseason tournament. Same for Missouri and Oklahoma.

    Also VaWolf – you really believe than Auburn in 2004, who went undefeated through the SEC, was a fraud? They beat four ranked teams, and four SEC schools finished in the BCS top 25. Certainly you can make an argument for leaving them out, but saying they were the fraud of the group is overboard, IMO.

  3. Packster 12/02/2007 at 11:35 AM #

    Not on topic but O’Cain is being thrown around in the N&O today as a possible Duke coaching candidate.

  4. Lunatic Fringe 12/02/2007 at 12:15 PM #

    Astrail touched on my problem with the BCS system. I live in SC so I get a lot of Clemson-SC talk. They have been having a debate for weeks on what game is/was bigger for Clemson…Clemson-BC or Clemson-SC. I understand rivalries and the hatred between the schools, but it is not even close in my opinion…Clemson-BC had the most impact for Clemson.

    It was HUGE for Clemson, because the BCS system uses this years performance to determine next years rankings and the rankings are so important to the determination of the “championship” game.

    For instance, let’s pretend Clemson won vs. BC, loss to SC, beat VT in Jacksonville, and than went on to a BCS bowl. Clemson (with many returning starters) would have been in the top 10 starting next season (provided no embarrassing loss in the bowl). The way it is now they will probably be top 15-20 team.

    The power of being in the top 10 means that you can have an “uh oh” game (or even two like LSU) and still be in the thick of the hunt for the National Championship. Anyone outside the top 10 needs to have a perfect season to even get a shot & nothing is guaranteed even with a perfect season.

    My problem with the BCS is that the performance of the previous year ways in too heavily with the determination of a national champion this year. A playoff would at least give more teams the opportunity to prove they are worthy for the title rather than pigeon-holing them from the start.

  5. redfred2 12/02/2007 at 12:30 PM #

    Does anyone here think that Pitt is a better football team than WVU? Well, they were yesterday. So, what does tell us if there is a single elimination playoff, just like that game yesterday, has one game E V E R totally ensured that the better team won? Isn’t also just as likely that sometimes the better team will lose in a playoff format also?

    So it’s playoffs, based totally on computer analysis? Sounds great, let’s make the compuet generated criteria so air tight that every university will have to hire it’s own crack team of specialized BCS lawyers in order to pour over the documents and make sure they weren’t somehow wronged. Phah!

    The current system, if you want to call it a “system”, is admittedly flawed in that in certain years no team/teams separate themselves convincingly enough to build a general consensus, so there no real way to determine who is the best overall. BUT, that is COLLEGE FOOTBALL, always has been, that’s why we’re having this disscussion right now, and that’s why college football is alive and well. Go watch the Carolina Panthers (or maybe not) if you’re deadset on a playoff system.

    Just leave college/amateur football alone already.

  6. Astral Rain2 12/02/2007 at 12:56 PM #

    A 5-6 team, or whatever Pitt’s record was, would never be in the playoff.

    I think my method leaves it on the field. Everyone at the start of the year would have a shot- gotta win your conference, or be the best non-conference winner overall to get in. The best team doesn’t win the Super Bowl always, or any other games. Do you really think say, the St.Louis Cardinals last year were the best baseball team? What if the 73 Mets won the World Series? They were 83-79!

    I could even see a “bonus championship game” for the 8th slot between the two top non-BCS schools+ Notre Dame.

  7. bTHEredterror 12/02/2007 at 1:20 PM #

    “To me, it’s patently obvious that getting the calculus wrong as to team 16 vs. 17 is less unfair than getting 2 vs. 3 wrong.”

    I agree. If you’re best argument is “we are at least the 16th best team”, there are likely a couple games where you weren’t. I can stand Boston College screaming “We were 16th, no fair”, or even Florida at #9 getting left out. LSU standing at #3 and watching VT or Georgia play in a national title game though, would be unacceptable. And this might just happen.

    VaWolf82-IMO the mistakes were ’99 VT over Nebraska, ’03 Oklahoma over USC, and ’04 Oklahoma instead of Auburn, primarily due to how strong the SEC was that year. ’98 was a toss-up like this year, so, there are 5 out of 10 years where a playoff would have been a better alternative.

  8. redfred2 12/02/2007 at 1:25 PM #

    Did anyone watch Rich Rodriquez after the loss to Pitt, and the all of the emotions that were tied to that one football game? I definitely felt for the guy, and he knew it was over, but he did NOT whine or complain about it at all. It was a hard pill for the WVU players and Coach Rodriquez to swallow, but he knew and readily excepted that fact just as every other coach in a similar situation has done before him. That is why every game counts, especially late in the year when your team is supposed to be fully developed. WVU couldn’t, and no one can, just take a week off late expecting to coast into the playoffs while still having a right to challenge for the national championship.

    Flawed as it may be, that IS collegiate football, and that is GOOD.

  9. bTHEredterror 12/02/2007 at 1:39 PM #

    “Just leave college/amateur football alone already.”

    Yeah, why go from 48 to 64 teams? Why add a wild card in baseball. For that matter, why even have a BCS. Just let the bowls pick who they want and the writers can decide the champ. I’ve heard all the purist talk, and it rings hollow.

    This isn’t a don’t fix what ain’t broke argument, cuz its broke. The fact our fathers had to put up with it too, doesn’t mean it was a tradition that was ever good for the game. Will it be okay if it doesn’t change? Sure, but it will be better if it does.

    I never bought the argument that half the bowl teams got to end their season with a warm fuzzy win either, same logic would say UNC had a better season than us because they won their last game.

    Don’t get me wrong, I like the argument every year about who is deserving and who isn’t. But I would rather be talking about the great first round matchup between Kansas and Ohio St, or maybe Georgia and Oklahoma.

    And if the “best team” slips up in a one and done scenario then guess what? They were never the best team.

    Only D1 decides their champion in a board room, influenced partially by techno-jargon from computers, all other levels play it on the field.

  10. VaWolf82 12/02/2007 at 1:43 PM #

    Also VaWolf – you really believe than Auburn in 2004, who went undefeated through the SEC, was a fraud?

    Fraud may be a little strong. They may have even been one of the two best teams that year. The problem is that they didn’t prove it because their overall strength of schedule was substantially lower than USC and Oklahoma.

    You could probably make an argument that it is impossible for Hawaii to match the SOS from one of the BCS conference champions. However, the same argument doesn’t hold for Auburn. They chose to play a weak OOC schedule. That choice ended up costing them a chance to play for the national title.

    As BJD95 has pointed out, sometimes playing a weak schedule helps you because your record ends up better than anyone else (remember BYU in the 80s?). It just didn’t work out for Auburn that year.

  11. VaWolf82 12/02/2007 at 1:54 PM #

    One thing that I want to be clear on. I am not opposed to a Div 1 playoff. It’s just that I don’t find most of the arguments supporting a playoff to be that compelling…and some are down right silly.

    It is also fair to point out that most of the arguments supporting the status quo are not that compelling either. The one that it would take the athletes away from school is particularly silly.

    I am pretty much a pragmitist. Most athletic departments are supported entirely from football and men’s basketball. If any one thinks that changes will be made to football without a convincing argument regarding finances is just wrong.

    One substantial difference between FB and BB (as I understand it), is that the money from the NCAA tournament goes to the NCAA and is then distributed to the schools. The “problem” with this system (from the BCS conference perspective) is two fold….the NCAA keeps a good chunk of change from CBS on TV rights and the NCAA gives money to schools that contribute little/nothing to the overall product.

    The key difference in FB is that the NCAA is not involved in the bowl process and does not have their fingers into the financial pie. I would bet a large sum of money that the BCS conferences will block any change that lets the NCAA take a piece of the FB pie.

  12. RabidWolf 12/02/2007 at 2:13 PM #

    Hawaii is undefeated, so…….why not? I’d sure like to see whether any of the “Top teams in the nation” could slow down the 500 YPG passing attack of June Jones and the Warriors. (NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!!) How would THAT look for the BcS!?!?

  13. Dr. BadgerPack 12/02/2007 at 2:39 PM #

    My two cents…

    The conference championship games aren’t really part of a playoff if teams that don’t even make this game can be considered for the title game. That’s easily fixable by installation of a rule stating if you don’t win your conference championship, you don’t play for the national championship.

    Part of the problem could be fixed by not coming out with a single, solitary poll until about week 8. People laugh when Spurrier votes Duke 25 in his preseason poll and say he should lose his vote. Seriously though, after week 1 he probably will be able to select a “better” #25 than any voter who came up with a “real” poll to begin with. Furthermore, to expose voters who don’t have a damn clue, any human poll should be released with written justification for votes and this justification should be released. If you demonstrate you don’t know what you’re doing, you’re replaced by someone who can.

    Of course, the initial post’s suggestion of 1 universal computer ranking completely solves the problem of pollster idiocy (it would then be a problem of academic/programming idiocy). The main reason this would be frowned upon is the human love of controversy generated by multiple polls.

    While schools would really, really balk at this idea, the SOS problem could be mitigated by the NCAA, if the NCAA were to introduce random scheduling. It would probably be an easy enough excercise to generate “numerically equivalent” schedules for each 1A institution based on an unreleased but strictly monitored preseason evaluation system. It would probably be slightly easier to place teams if, at least preseason, schedules were equivalent. That coupled with a week 6 or 8 initial ranking system (or 1 computer model) would probably generate the best chance of fairly ranking teams.

    Finally (well, maybe not, but I don’t want to write a full-blown essay here), Since football is SUCH a small sample-size sport, with multiple 10+ team conferences, why not do away with conferences all together? With equal rated preseason schedules, this would generate more of a regular season “tournament” style and would not penalize conferences like the SEC as much. This would also allow for 13 regular season games if they so choose. Obviosly, there are MAJOR problems with this proposal which I won’t get into– these are readily apparent. But, I suppose it at least bears mention as a “wild idea” and is one I don’t think I’ve seen before.

  14. RabidWolf 12/02/2007 at 4:50 PM #

    One of the main reasons I hate the BcS….all the freaking speculation and conjecture. If this then this unless this but then again this….if I hear a bunch of talking haircuts trying to act like they can accurately break this BS down one more time, I think I’m gonna start to puke blood.

    If you just use the polls and rankings, then you’re gonna have a 2-loss Georgia team playing for the title!!! How they gonna explain that one away?!?! Should UH (Hawaii) be in a BCS bowl game since they’re undefeated, or will they be a victim just because they play in the WAC(k) conference? The Boise State syndrome strikes again! I’m not gonna try to think about the BcS possibilities, mainly because I don’t want me freaking brain to pop out my nose, so….whatever happens happens and we can all bitch about it later.

  15. stlouiswufpacker 12/02/2007 at 4:52 PM #

    # RabidWolf Says:
    December 2nd, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    Hawaii is undefeated, so…….why not? I’d sure like to see whether any of the “Top teams in the nation” could slow down the 500 YPG passing attack of June Jones and the Warriors. (NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!!) How would THAT look for the BcS!?!?

    It would be a repeat of last nights Mizzou/OU game most likely. A top tier program has the athletes up front to rush 4 or 5 guys and get to the QB, while dropping 6 or 7 guys in coverage. Hawaii would be competitive only if they got some help in the form of turnovers I think. At least last night Mizzou had some form of a rushing game to give the Sooners something else to contend with. Does Hawaii have a running game?

  16. Mike 12/02/2007 at 4:56 PM #

    The playoff is every week. Most teams have their destiny in their own hands. Yes Hawaii is undefeated, but I saw them play a couple and they would have done well to finish 8-4 in our weak ACC.

    The compelling argument for a playoff is TV – I would watch 2 teams at 8-4 to see who plays my team next week. As it is now, I will not watch two mediocre 8-4 teams in the XYZ Bowl. The only people whi watch those now are alums, friends and family. If they were in a playoff, more would watch. Dont beleive me? Look at BB – we watch all the games no matter who is playing because we follow our brackets and our teams.

    Money will not allow this to happen. Like VaWolf said, the NCAA distributes in BB, but the conferences do in FB. A playoff will destroy the bowl games (rabid fans will not travel 4 weeks in a row) and the bowls cannot survive with travelling fans. The cities cannot support the bowls without corporate sponsors. Corporate sponsors will not support the football NIT (bowls outside the playoff).

  17. Mike 12/02/2007 at 5:00 PM #

    Speaking of money – did the Big East try to influence the officials in the game last night. Several questionable calls against Pitt in the final moments trying to give WVU another chance.

    I am not usually a conspiracy theorist, but I was wondering. How much did WVU losing cost the conference? What is the difference between the BCS title game and a BCS bowl? I think about $10mil.

    Now, I am not saying any Big East person called the game officials on the phone late in the game and told them to give WVU another chance. I do think it is possible they had a little discussion before the game to let them know the importance of WVU winning the game. Just a thought.

  18. RabidWolf 12/02/2007 at 5:01 PM #

    UH has about 970 yds rushing this season, but as we all know, the pass threat (and Brennan is DEFINITELY a threat) can really open up the rush. If you rush 4 and run a draw or delay…it could be off to the races! I’m just saying it may be time to give them a shot. They could very well get blown out, and then we’ll all know whether they are really good, or a beneficiary of a weak ass conference. Just give them a shot!

  19. RabidWolf 12/02/2007 at 5:06 PM #

    BTW….Brennan has 8 of UH’s 16 rushing TD’s this year. 73 rushes for 65 yards.

    Kealoha Pilares 61 362 5.9 3

    Leon Wright-Jackson 33 219 6.6 2

    Daniel Libre 22 183 8.3 0

    Tyler Graunke 21 11 0.5 3

    Modest rushing attack, but you still have to respect it.

  20. RabidWolf 12/02/2007 at 5:07 PM #

    sorry, I’m not that good a graphs and whatnot, but you get the idea.

    that’s rushes, yds, avg, td’s

  21. RabidWolf 12/02/2007 at 5:10 PM #

    sorry about the separate posts, but thought you might like to know, Graunke is the backup QB.

    Brennan is a “modest” 337 for 472 (71.4%) 4174 yds 38 TD’s 14 INT.

    not too shabby

  22. Ismael 12/02/2007 at 5:39 PM #

    If a football playoff is a “bad idea” then so is march madness, sheesh.

  23. highstick 12/02/2007 at 8:37 PM #

    Mike, I heard it earlier this week “that the Big East would never let “what happened, happen” because of how much it would cost the Big East. A friend of mine was there last night and that was the quote he’d gotten earlier in the week!

  24. redfred2 12/02/2007 at 9:00 PM #

    “Yeah, why go from 48 to 64 teams?”

    I don’t know, you tell me, WHY? I can name a multitude of reasons why it happened, but if you’re talking about improving the overall product, forget about it. 64 teams put less (funny that word, that also sounds like a name, came up) emphasis on the entire regular season, less on the conference tournaments, waters it all down, and allows some very mediocre teams with very mediocre schedules to claim some kind of victory by just making an appearance.

    Now, if you can devise a way that a football team can play at 4:00pm on one afternoon, then play again the next afternoon at 1:00pm, then your comparison to a playoff system in basketball could actually be reasonable. Time won’t allow it any other way. I could go into about the differences between developing a football team versus a basketball team, how the shear numbers that should mean that a fundamentally sound football team should be less flappable then a good BB team whose fortunes can change on the play of a single player, especially late in the season.

    Otherwise, considering the shear number of collegiate football teams involved, the logistics, time constraints and preparation that football requires, we’re back at square one. It’s up to computers and the mercy of human beings to decide who the chosen few are that are deserved enough to play for the national championship. Which is, just as it’s always been, and just as it is right now.

  25. Wulfpack 12/02/2007 at 10:29 PM #

    Just because it’s always been, doesn’t make it right. LSU is the first two-loss team to play for the championship under the BCS. Do they deserve to go? That’s not the point. The point is precisely WHO KNOWS???? The BCS is handing out a national championship to a team that it pretty much drew out of a hat, err, a computer. If you look on the espn home page, 67% of America believes that Ohio State and LSU are NOT the two best teams in college football. The only states that say they are the best are Louisiana and Ohio — shocking. This system is an absolute joke.

1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply