Dancing with the BCS

When you woke up on Sunday, did you really think that Oklahoma State was going to be playing for the national championship? (Link to a related conversation on our message forums)

While I hate to admit this, I can’t stop thinking about how much the BCS system reminds me of Dancing With the Stars (please feel free to rip on me in the comments below). In Dancing With the Stars, the viewers are told that their votes – along with the judges’ scores – decide who stays and who leaves. So ultimately, America’s vote doesn’t necessarily count at all while the judges/show decide who to keep based on one thing — ratings.

Sound familiar?

I know that there is an actual BCS formula that is used, but it is difficult for me to imagine that the BCS committee isn’t just a 4-man scramble golf tournament where they all decide, after 5 hours of golf and twice as many beers, who should play in the national championship. Do I have a solution to the current system? Heck no. This is ‘Murica, where we aren’t motivated enough to change the things that we control and complain about the things we can’t.

On the same note, the BCS twitter feed is “Every Bowl Counts.” Well, with 35 bowl games being played this year, I don’t think I could agree less. I’m not even that concerned about the bowl system’s fairness like some people (link)

The sole purpose of the bowl system in general and the BCS in particular is to make money. A lot of money, most of which is split between the bowls, their sponsors, a certain four-letter television network and six specific conferences that comprise the college sports version of the privileged one percent.

So stop squawking about how Nick Saban voted Oklahoma State behind Stanford in the coaches poll to ensure his Alabama team got another shot at LSU for the “title.” Or how little guys like Boise State and TCU keep getting jobbed.

As corrupt as it is, this is the system they all signed up for. Unless somebody grows a conscience, steps forward and changes it, it’s the system we’re stuck with.

Until then, accept it for what it is and move on. Like the disclaimer at the bottom of those old parlay sheets that used to float around college campuses and offices from coast-to-coast used to say:

“For entertainment purposes only.”

Although the exorbitant number of bowls has benefited NC State in recent years, I don’t think that 6-6 teams should be rewarded for limping through the season. Again, do I have a solution? Absolutely not. But, I thought it might be something you would like to discuss.

Along the lines of our bowl conversation, you can click here for ESPN’s bowl rankings and a little commentary on the national championship. Additionally, ESPN has ranked the ACC’s bowls in this entry.

On the fun side of the ledger, this link has some great information on the extra benefits ‘swag’ provided by the ACC’s bowls.

N.C. State (Belk Bowl): Estimated $400 shopping spree at Belk’s flagship store in Charlotte, Fossil watch.

As always, please feel free to check our message forums for a variety of current topics and conversations!

'12 Football College Football

19 Responses to Dancing with the BCS

  1. ncsumatman 12/06/2011 at 7:31 PM #

    If osu played lsu, what’s the spread? If Alabama plays lsu, what is it then? America’s vote was Alabama, just not yours.

  2. Wufpacker 12/06/2011 at 8:44 PM #

    Not mine either.

  3. UpstateSCWolfpack 12/06/2011 at 10:06 PM #

    There should be at the very least, a plus one system. I think the best thing would be the top 8 play. That would add two games for the eventual teams playing in the final game. There should no bowl tie-ins for these games, no AQ, and no limit on conference teams. The FCS has a playoff, so there is no reason that an additional two games is going to get in the way for FBS teams. I mean, when does LSU or Bama cared a whole lot about football players getting an education? And I don’t have a problem with, this year as an example, the SEC with 3 teams in the playoff from the SEC and 0 from the ACC. I want to see the best team win the championship. The polls are flawed, and will always be flawed, but I don’t see anyway else of determing who the top 8 teams would be. The rest of the bowls continue as usual, and two or three of these bowls could actually become part of the playoff system. It is funny to me that now the Big 12 is in favor of a plus one since Ok St. got left out of the title game, but in the past they were against it. I also think it is a joke that VT got the Sugar, it is great for the ACC with the extra money coming their way, but in the end VT brings more fans then Boise. If we want a true champ, then we need a system that gives it to us. If they market this right, a college playoff that leads to a College Super Bowl, would bring in huge money, and could one day rival the NFL Super Bowl.

  4. pack76 12/06/2011 at 10:38 PM #

    Alabama is not my vote either! A four team playoff would work as well.

  5. choppack1 12/06/2011 at 11:35 PM #

    Let the fans pick?? Really?

    Basically, having the fans pick is no different than having the writers pick. The coaches absolutely shouldn’t have a say.

    You know my problem w/ the BCS? It isn’t that they try to get a Number 1 vs. Number 2 – I think that’s great. My problem is that they consider to give greater value to biased parties than they do the objective computers.

    I don’t have a problem with Alabama being in this game. They lost a game in overtime to the Number 1 team in the country. Oklahoma State lost a game to Iowa State. I wanted to mock Iowa State – but they had a pretty good schedule – of course, they had a lousy conference record.

    If you think that Oklahoma State should be in this game, you need to be arguing to reduce the influence of voters in the BCS and increase the role of computers. Of course, you won’t hear the media talk about this. They like to say ” A computer picked X” – when it’s really the media and the coaches that are skewing this damn thing.

    I’d like to see a couple of items happen to improve college football – and none of them involve a playoff or the even sillier “plus one” formula.

    1. Use “Pomeroy-esque” calculations to determine the BCS standings.
    2. Include a projected record for BCS contention based on strength of schedule. The projected schedule would be based on the results of the teams the previous year and their projected ranking in the upcoming year. If by some chance this number was equal, the “tie-braker” would be the team that had the tougher schedule at the beginning of the year. Basically, you say NC State goes undefeated – how many teams would it rank ahead of if they all had zero losses. (In our case, since our out of conference schedule was below average, it wouldn’t be too many.)

    I actually think the second item would do wonders. First off, it would create much-needed transparency. Fans and pundits would stop their whining – because sorry, Boise State – you will always be the last one in the dance as long as you play in a crappy conference. Of course, this year – it would have still been close – but OSU would have had a better chance vs. computers than they did vs. AP voters and coaches.

  6. Wufpacker 12/07/2011 at 12:23 AM #

    I’d be good seeing how things played out for a few years without the writers or the coaches having a hand in it.

    At the very least, one side or the other would have more ammo for their argument. If there was still controversy, the pro-playoff folks could say “we told ya so”…and presumably vice versa.

    It would also promote a climate where possibly the bigger programs might want to begin scheduling only one another, thus cutting the visibility of lesser programs like ours. It would likely also eventually cause more turbulence in the already jostled conference landscape. Just food for thought.

  7. Tau837 12/07/2011 at 1:18 AM #

    The right solution for crowning a champion is an 8 team playoff that includes the 6 BCS conference winners and 2 wild cards, with a committee (similar to basketball) to choose the wild cards and seed the teams. It should be clear by now that a formula will always fail because it cannot account for context, hence the need for a committee.

    One minor step in the current system that would be an improvement IMO is to establish a requirement that no team can play in the championship game unless it wins its conference. How can a team be the national champ when it did not even win its conference and there is a 2 team playoff? It makes no logical sense.

    The right solution for the rest of the bowls is to reduce their number and require 7+ wins against FBS teams to qualify. No 6-6 teams, no 7-5 teams with wins over the subpar division.

  8. NCSUknappster 12/07/2011 at 1:29 AM #
  9. PackerInRussia 12/07/2011 at 2:46 AM #

    “the BCS twitter feed is ‘Every Bowl Counts.'”

    Actually, one of the benefits of the current system, in my opinion, (and I’m open to change, though doubtful there will be any unless conferences keep growing) is that every regular season game counts. The bowls, although fun and a nice bonus for players, fans, etc., are meaningless unless it’s for the national championship or you get a big $$ bonus for winning.

    So, if Alabama wins, they’re national champions based on the fact that they won the 2nd game of a 2-game series and didn’t even have to win a conference championship. Not knocking whether they deserve to be there, but I’d hate to be the one trying to explain why they’re more deserving of being crowned “champs” than LSU. Unless you are content to say that they won the “championship” game which makes sense. What would the BCS be without controversy, though, right?

  10. Wulfpack 12/07/2011 at 6:56 AM #

    It’s the system we have, and it ain’t changing any time soon. So we have to deal with it. Guess what? People still watch. Millions of them.

    As far as proposed formats, I just don’t think you can automatically award the conference winners a spot. What if 6-7 UCLA had knocked off Oregon? Why does WVU automatically get a spot for winning their shitty conference? There are going to be years where the conference champion is undeserving. Just make it a top 10 or 15 in the BCS ranking requirement. Seed the teams and have a playoff. Have a bunch of crappy bowls to start the bowl season off, then have your quarterfinals, then semi’s, with a few more sprinkled in there (it’s the same way it is today). It would work.

  11. Six Pack 12/07/2011 at 9:29 AM #

    I forgot who said it abve, but I agree that Va Tach should not be in the Sugar Bowl. However, I disagree that Boise St. should be there instead. Kansas St. is the team that really got the shaft.

    I don’t see why a playoff system could not be set up with 16 teams. All the bowls that currently exist could bid ($) on an opportunity to host the National Championship and whoever has the highest bid hosts the game. After that, the bids place the bowls in the semifinals, quarterfinals and 1st round. No bowl could host more than one game. Any bowl not having a top 16 bid could still host a match up of teams not participating in the 4 round playoff. If not enough bowls are interested in participating in the 16 team playoff, then the higher seeded teams host the playoff games until the bowls that did participate in the process show up in the later rounds. The winners of the ACC, SEC, Big 12, Big 10 and PAC 12 all get an automatic bid to the playoff.

  12. Tau837 12/07/2011 at 9:37 AM #

    “Actually, one of the benefits of the current system, in my opinion, (and I’m open to change, though doubtful there will be any unless conferences keep growing) is that every regular season game counts.”

    IMO this is a weak argument against a playoff system. Above I proposed an 8 team playoff that would include the 6 BCS conference champions and 2 wild cards. One thing I forgot to add is that I think no more than 1 of the wild cards should be able to come from a BCS conference. In a system like this, every regular season game is still important, because a BCS team has to win its conference to be assured of making it, and a non-BCS team has to be the best of all non-BCS teams to make it. And it is humans making the selections of wild cards, so things like what Saban did wouldn’t matter. And the committee would be able to appropriately weigh things like strength of schedule, margin of victory, etc.

    “The bowls, although fun and a nice bonus for players, fans, etc., are meaningless unless it’s for the national championship or you get a big $$ bonus for winning.”

    And this would be no different in a playoff system than it is now. I would argue that the playoff games would be more compelling than the collection of BCS games is now.

    “I’m open to change, though doubtful there will be any”

    Unfortunately, I agree.

  13. Tau837 12/07/2011 at 9:42 AM #

    “As far as proposed formats, I just don’t think you can automatically award the conference winners a spot. What if 6-7 UCLA had knocked off Oregon? Why does WVU automatically get a spot for winning their shitty conference? There are going to be years where the conference champion is undeserving. Just make it a top 10 or 15 in the BCS ranking requirement.”

    I think you live with occasional exceptions (like the UCLA-Oregon possibility) because typically it is appropriate to reward the BCS conference champions, both because it generally ensures a quality group of teams and because it generally ensures that all geographic regions are represented.

    The WVU/Big East question is more valid, and it’s possible which conferences get automatic bids should be adjusted over time, but I suspect those issues will be self correcting. If the conferences ended up condensed into 4 super conferences, obviously two conferences would go away, and their auto bids would go away with them. Otherwise, the conference strength will tend to be cyclical and when necessary self-correcting, like the Big East adding Boise and other teams now to stay alive.

  14. Tau837 12/07/2011 at 9:49 AM #

    “I don’t see why a playoff system could not be set up with 16 teams… the bids place the bowls in the semifinals, quarterfinals and 1st round. No bowl could host more than one game.”

    IMO there are multiple reasons why 8 teams is better.

    1. In the current system, there tends to be a team or two with an argument that it was unjustifiably excluded from the championship game. It is pretty unlikely that would be the case in a 8 team playoff, so there isn’t the same compelling rationale to go to 16 teams.

    2. The “too many games” arguments relating to physical toll and academics gains credibility in a system with 4 rounds of games.

    3. Most importantly, you cannot use neutral sites for four rounds of games. Fans of the teams involved could not possibly travel for so many games due to expense and logistics. I don’t even think it is reasonable to use neutral sites for 3 rounds; I think the first round would be home games for the top 4 seeds, and the semifinals and championship would be at current BCS bowls on a rotating basis.

    This is why I mentioned seeding by a committee for the 8 team playoff. That’s another thing to play for during the regular season and thus another incentive for each school to schedule tough opponents and win all of its games in addition to the need to win its conference or secure the only wild card available to it.

  15. Tau837 12/07/2011 at 10:05 AM #

    So IMO a playoff that would work would be the following:

    – 8 teams, consisting of the 6 BCS conference champions, and two wild cards, only one of which could be a BCS team
    – Committee choosing the wild cards and seeding all teams
    – Wild card cannot be a top 4 seed
    – First round would be home games for the top 4 seeds, and the semifinals and championship would be at current BCS bowls on a rotating basis

    Look at what the playoff bracket might look like this year:

    (8) WVU at (1) LSU
    (7) Clemson at (2) Oklahoma State
    (6) Boise State at (3) Oregon
    (5) Alabama at (4) Wisconsin

    To underline the importance of the regular season in this system, current BCS teams Stanford, Michigan, and Virginia Tech would not have made it, nor would highly ranked teams Arkansas, Kansas State, or South Carolina.

    IMO that would be much more compelling than what the BCS has provided us with this year, and it would have made the regular season that much more exciting.

  16. VaWolf82 12/07/2011 at 10:08 AM #

    The NCAA controls post-season playoffs and thus the money would get spread throughout Div 1. You don’t really expect the BCS schools to vote for a system that reduces their income….do you?

  17. onedagpack 12/07/2011 at 10:56 AM #

    Not everything is a democracy now…

    Not a criticism just a reality.

  18. lush 12/07/2011 at 11:23 AM #

    playoff is not going to happen, but a “final 4” or “plus 1” could.

    they already have 4 bcs bowls, and then a bcs championship. why not take 6 conference champions, and 2 at large teams to play in the sugar, orange, fiesta, and rose.

    the bcs formula comes into play for the 4 remaining winners. under that scenario this year, we would end up with the winner of lsu / bama v. the winner of stanford / osu in the bcs championship game.

    its not perfect, but its a lot better than the current system, and you have to play your way into the final game.

  19. MISTA WOLF 12/08/2011 at 9:37 AM #

    8 team playoff using the big bowls for it’s games ( Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Gator, and Capital One Bowl) while having the national championship game rotate between the 4 premier bowls. Top 8 ranked teams in the nation.

Leave a Reply