ESPN discussed the system last night in the Bowl selection special.They made some very strong points both for and against it. They named some match ups and teams that have emerged that wouldn't have happened without it.
The overall consensus is that it worked but relied too much on non-human factors (computers). I remember all the 'BS' puns made when it first was implemented. Another good point that Reece Davis made was that they tinkered with the formula in the beginning which made it lose credibility and became perceived as weak. A good warning for the incoming system.
One interesting stat that was a punch in the arm for HOKIE NATION was that in the 16 years of its existence, of the 125+ programs eligible to compete in the National Championship game, only 15 teams ever competed. That's some pretty elite company over that span! GO HOKIES!
What are your thoughts on the BCS in general?
Comments
It did a decent job at figuring out the most deserving teams to play in the National Championship. The big drawback is that the most deserving and the "best" were always different teams.
I could be swayed either way into liking it, or hating it. But as a fan of the game, it was something that we just had to deal with for the last 14 years.
Always? How about in '99?
I'd say it was the case only when it produced controversial results - i.e. 2000, when Miami should have gone over FSU.
Agree- I should have said "most of the time" different teams. But for example - Last year, Notre Dame was probably 'most deserving' since they were undefeated. However, Oregon would have been the best team, and should have been #2 (or you could argue Florida).
I thought overall it was a good system. Flawed, but good. People are always going to be pissed about being left out one way or another. People think the bias was bad in the BCS era, wait until an even smaller number of people decide who the "best" 4 teams are in the country.
You're completely right regarding the complaints by the schools being left out. Outside of FSU and Auburn, the other two team were a total toss up. Everyone assumes that Bama would have gotten in, but their resume is shit compared to Stanford's. And would the champion of the 5th best conference in football (Michigan State) really get in over the champion from the 2nd best (Stanford)? My prediction is that the playoffs will expand to 8 teams within a few years, but in the meantime, there are going to be some intense debates regarding who gets in.
I was surprised no one on the panel chose Stanford in their mock playoff bracket.
I fear to be politically correct they will reserve the 4th spot for a crappy overachieving small conference wannabe Cinderella impostor (AAC,MAC, WAC ...) - It would ruin the system if they do something like that.
It did it's job and, much more often than not, it got it right. I think the playoff we're going to next year is actually a regression. Instead of using 140 or so human voters plus 8 computer algorithms to build an actual consensus on who the best teams are, we're going to have 13 people locked in a conference room to decide among themselves which four teams should get to play for the national title. That's a big step backward, I think.
the polls will still exist and most assuredly be a factor in determining what 4 teams are picked. Actually, my concern is that the human polls might be too much of a factor.
Before I went to VT and became a huge fan, I loved the BCS. The reason being was that I loved the fact that with one loss, usually your season is done. It made CFB so dramatic. I remember all kinds of games (Fresno/USC comes to mind) when #1 almost fell to a huge underdog. I also knew that the BCS was better for college football than previous systems. People forget that at times #1 did not play #2. What a disappointment that would be. I did not want to see the BCS go- especially for a scenario where 2/3 loss teams could get in a 16 team playoff. I wanted drama.
Now, after VT, I want a 16 team playoff. I want conference champions to get in. I want VT to get a national championship. And, like it or not, the possibility of going 14-0 is far less likely than getting hot in the playoffs and winning. I kind of cringe when I say that. That isn't what college football used to be - but it is what we are going towards. The 4 team playoff, while I like the fact that being undefeated is the only way to ensure a ticket - I think it will fall flat on its face. The #5 team will cause too big of a stink and the playoff will be expanded.
In my mind, a good playoff would be 8 teams: all major conference champs and 2 at-large bids. I absolutely think you should be rewarded for winning your conference (i.e. taking care of business). Look at Alabama this year: didn't win their conference or their division. The "best" team in the nation doesn't drop a game, especially with a mistake/lapse of judgement they had.
but 'Bama would still be worthy of an at large bid (and get one) in that system,
5 + 3. What's left of the Big east does not deserve a spot
Agreed. I expect that something like this would spur more conference realignment toward four super-conferences. Then you'd have a neat system of four conference champions and four at large berths.
Does anyone else ever feel a slight twinge of remorse that we were a founding member of the Big East and one of the first teams to leave it? Don't get me wrong, it was the right move for us.
Technically, the Big East existed long before we joined. We were added for the inaugural season of Big East football, but it had existed for years as a non-football conference, and BC was the first founding member to bolt.
The Big East didn't want us anyway, WVU had to lobby to get us in. And it took a full 9 years before they welcomed us fully, we were still in the A10 for all sports but football and wrestling until 2000. I say good riddance.
Hopefully it will go to 8 teams sooner than later. Arguing 9th v 8th has a lot less impact on the big picture.
8 teams will happen before 16 so it could be a while and I agree thats where it need to be it to be a true playoff. 4 is a band aid at best.
I hated it. Most years there were at least 3 or 4 teams that had a legitimate argument about being the champion. Especially the Non-AQ schools like TCU and Boise. I still maintain that TCU would have had a very good chance of winning a a playoff in 2010 when they played Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.
I think most of my issue with it, is that it preserved the archaic bowl system and if it would have pitted the top 4 BCS teams against each other I would have been much happier with it. However, I'm still not entirely happy with the 4 team playoff, I want an 8 team. Because I don't think there has ever been any argument over who's 8th and 9th. It would essentially be a random order of the 5 best teams and 3 "misfits" just for good measure. There would be controversy but there is hardly and comparison between the Top 5 and everyone else.
'the misfits' could be reserved for non-AQ conference feel good 'Cinderella' teams like (UCF or maybe NIU this year)
the problem wasn't that there was a BCS.
The problem is that you have 125 teams in a sport you can only play once a week and only a limited number of games in a season before it just becomes a "last man standing".
Another thing that pumps the blood through the veins of college football is the endless debates.
In May we'll be talking about strength of schedule and is there a real difference between a 2 point loss and a 1 pt win if that 1 pt win is to a #37 team and the loss is to #5 when it comes to determining ranking.
We'll compare the Ohio St loss to the Alabama loss.
This debate makes the sport year round for the fans. It's unique.
One thing I never understood is why people bashed the computers so much, when the human polls were the real problem (in my opinion). There's a reason the BCS standings don't come out until the 6th or 7th week of the season-- they need enough data to make a proper ranking. That's the inherent problem in the BCS, stupid preseason polls that inflate rankings and expectations based on perception. Why are there 4-loss SEC teams in the top 25? Are they actually one of the best 25 teams in the nation? Many of them started highly ranked in preseason polls and voters are hesitant to remove them from their polls unless there is some kind of devastating loss (VT to JMU).
Agree - are voters really figuring the difference between a #17 and #18- computers give you a clear answer.
But the the computers put NIU in a BCS bowl last year and they were crushed (one example)
But then again, Boise won the Fiesta and Utah won two BCS bowls...
I think they were both better teams and didn't necessarily rely on the computers as much
Preseason polls screw up the entire season. No way to predict a team what any team will do (AUB '12,'13) K. Herbstreit is a strong proponent of polls starting in week 3-4. - But fans want polls and they maintain interest and exposure for lesser known programs. They are an essential part of the sport.
I am so excited that we are finally done with the BCS system. I think that finally we can get a shot to be back in the National Championship. FSU is carrying the ACC right now and will hopefully bring us some more credibility.
Plus the season seems so short...at least now since we are just waiting for the bowl.
I like the BCS. I've mentioned this in other threads, but I think the season end rankings are fairly accurate. My problem is the application of the rankings:
Unlike others, I would prefer to take the human factor as much out of the equation as possible. I believe that humans have natural biased, and cannot possibly watch every team play every weekend. Even if a selection committee could, I fear that teams with better recruits and teams with brand names would get preference.
I would like to see a bunch of football nerds (ie, phil steele) develop an algorithm to rank teams. Not easy, I know, but I think it could be possible. From this ranking system, the playoffs select the top 4 conference champions. Any conference champion not ranked in the top 10 (top 8, top 6, whatever the ideal number is) forfeits their playoff bid to the highest ranked non-conference winner.
Nailed it!!!
I disagree about the coaches poll.
I think they probably spend more time than any other group going over game film with a fine toothed comb.
But to his point, it is only game film of the teams that they're playing against. Now, this doesn't account for the 'other' team in the film that they're watching.
I've got no decision on the coaches poll - seems like a fun thing that CFB could rank VT #1 every damn week. hah
Except coaches have said that they don't really pay attention to anyone playing besides teams they play. Many have gone on record saying they don't even fill out their ballet and either give it to a GA or just copy a sports writers poll and they give bias to their own conference. They know the teams they're playing, but not the ones they don't. Beamer probably knows Miami and Georgia Tech like the back of his hand but knows very little about UCF or Arizona State.
Sarcasm?
Coaches spend all week preparing for their next game. They only watch tape of teams they're playing. Additionally, assuming one only votes based on the current season (sorry OSU, your undefeated 2012 shouldn't have anything to do with your 2013 ranking), a coach probably can't offer a decent opinion of the first few teams he's watched on film; if ECU is the forth game of the season for VT, Beamer will only watch 3 ECU games from this season. And you want him to vote at the end of the year based on those three games he watched?
Two weeks ago there were probably 5-10 games that affected bowl destinations for ranked (or then ranked) teams. Do you really think Beamer/Jimbo/Saban etc watches all these games? The morning after beating UF, Jimbo was watching Duke film. Today through January, he's going to be watching Auburn film. He's not going to watch any Michigan State film to decide if he should vote them 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8.
Finally, there is an inherent bias in the coach's poll... Your vote (and your colleagues/friends' vote) can leverage your ranking.
Also how many coaches do you think have an assistant fill out their poll- 20%? (speculating)
That's the 'beauty' of the selection committee. Its up to them how to decide and creating their own computer formula isn't that far fetched. It of course wouldn't be the only factor but it might sway a vote or two for determining the fourth seed.
The problem is, that the selection committee's 'formula' won't be given until the end of the year. A team should be know up front what they have to do.
Analogy: How would you feel if your teacher didn't tell you how your exams/hw assignments/participation was going to be weighed until right before the final exam?
By creating an algorithm (that's revealed to the public btw) players, coaches and fans will know exactly what their team needs to do.
I would hope so, but, again, you still have bias in this scenario. I understand that a computer program is going to be 'biased' based on how it's design (how much SOS factors in, etc), but at least the bias is given up so coaches, ADs, players and fans can plan accordingly.
In 2012 Stanford had 2 losses (both in the first half of the season on the road to two ranked teams) and Oregon had one loss to Stanford. Stanford won the PAC12, but after the game, Oregon was ranked 4 and Stanford 5, even though Stanford had won the conference AND won the H2H with Oregon (at Oregon). I think Stanford should get a playoff bid over Oregon in this scenario. The conference championship rule prevents situations like these.
Not clear on why teams would need to know the formula. They should have one goal WIN. That's the reason for the committee is to observe the season and teams as a whole. take notes and discuss. Going along with your school analogy, If a teacher gave out every minute detail of what is needed to get an A in the syllabus, why would they need a teacher or even hold class. Its the teams jobs to play the games and the committee job to determine who are the best. The polls will do a lot of the legwork for them. and until it expands we are talking about only picking 4 teams that will mostly be obvious choices.
Margin of victory and SOS will become more of facotors than with the latest BCS, but it doesnt change what teams need to do or plan for. FB's M.O has always been play the the best teams and play lights out. it has worked out for him I'd say. If a team schedules 'cupcakes' and barely beats them, it will be obvious.
If you have a final exam, don't you want to know what minimum grade you need to get an A?
The point is that Notre Dame shouldn't get a bid just because their Notre Dame. Marshall shouldn't be denied a bid just because their Marshall. Ohio State shouldn't get a bid because they went undefeated... Last season. Ole Miss shouldn't get a bid because they recruited a bunch of 5 stars. These are all things that a voters may consider that they shouldn't. A computer program won't.
Having so many on the comittee will keep special interest an prferential trestment to a minimum give it a chance the compters have been involved with the process and have proven they are imperfect lets give the committe a shot
Understanding what to expect will com in time . In a two season team will fully understand what is expected. It will be a learning process for the committee as well
I would hope that each committee member will create their own type of staff to help with researching teams, trends, schedules etc. to help them make educated choices. By doing so they would have their own 'human computers' system which could be way better than what an algorithm could do.
point #1 would solve alot of debates- I agree but-
just curious: Besides Bama- how many teams made the championship game without winning their conf.?
2001 Nebraska lost to Colorado in the Big XII Championship game and lost again to Miami in the BCS Championship game.
2003 Oklahoma lost to Kansas State in the Big XII Championship game and lost again to LSU in the BCS Championship game.
And you already know about Bama. So in 16 seasons, the BCS 3 times allowed a team who failed to win their conference to compete for the MNC. And that's three times too many in my book.
... and a simple rule would eliminate that problem (or at least make deciding who plays easier) . It would become yet another debate item. Although no one was debating for OSU to be considered national champions last year due to sanctions. The conf champ rule would have been eventually accepted. I think the likelihood of teams from the same conf playing in the NC game will be all but an impossibility with the selection committee. They will want to spread the wealth. No more SEC rematches.
I'm glad to see the BCS go but I am going to miss some of the drama it created and a few aspects of it as well. I'm really looking forward to the playoff system though. Who could disagree with more college football?
More Football! (wipes chin)
Does anyone know how the playoffs work next year? Would it have been FSU vs Michigan St and Auburn vs Alabama to determine who's in the NC? Or would Alabama been replaced by Standford or Baylor (only one school per conference in the playoffs?)
It would be a committe that picks the teams. Since Bama played Auburn two weeks ago it would probably be:
#1 FSU vs #5 Stanford
#2 Auburn vs #4 MSU
Or at least that's how I would hope it would go.
the panel on ESPN mostly had FSUvAub & ALvMSU or some version of those 4 teams.
I feel Stanford should be in over Bama
It could have gotten very messy with last year's mess in a playoff system.
The Bama could have played LSU in the title game, and then again in the first round of the playoffs, JUST to make it to the National Championship.
I'll just sit back and laugh when there are 3 out of 4 teams from the SEC in the playoff....
I've been working on examples of how the CFP bowls work based on the last three years, and have run into one major problem: The SEC has had two teams in the top three in the last three years. I also ran into the Oregon/Stanford problem twice, where the conference champion was actually ranked a spot lower than the loser of the head to head matchup.
I have to imagine that the CFP committee would take the Iron Bowl into consideration and not include Alabama, since it would be an almost immediate rematch.
But the other problem they have is where they say they will try to seed the teams so the top two don't have a huge geographic disadvantage. However, this year in the cycle, the semifinals would be the Fiesta and Peach Bowls...FSU and Auburn both have geographic claims on the Peach Bowl, but not the Fiesta.
Here's the big issue with the BCS - it fixed the problem TOO WELL.
What was the problem? The primary problem was, mainly, that bowl tie-ins prevented No. 1 from playing No. 2 too often. Eliminating the bowl tie-ins and rotating the NC game fixed that. Picking the 'correct' No. 1 and No. 2 was the secondary problem, and that problem rarely came into play before the BCS. We had three undefeateds once in the 90s.
Using computers it was clear who was 'most deserving' but no one understood the computers. Therefore when the computers disagreed with the opinion polls, everyone was mad at THE COMPUTERS, as if the opinion polls were 'correct' and and the computers existed to validate them.
That said, the biggest mistake the BCS folks made was changing the algorithm after it produced results no one liked. They did so three times, I think. The second biggest mistake was in using as many as eight different computer polls, when they simply should have commissioned the creation of ONE computer poll that weighed what they felt was important. The fact they needed as many as eight indicates they had NO IDEA what criteria were important - so they outsourced it.
It would have been interesting to live under a BCS that simply eliminated the bowl tie-ins and used the opinion polls as they did before.
No one (OK maybe 1% of CFB fans) understood how the computer polls worked in the BCS. As a goof the websites should have posted all 8 of them alongside the Coaches and AP - just to show how ridiculous it was. (They carried a lot less weight of course) I tried to figure out the whole system when it first came out. I gave up when they started changing it.
Strength of schedule is important but will be incorporated into the human factor rather than the silly formula the BCS had when it first came out.
I feel people will be pleasantly surprised with the selection committee and
will be eagerly pining for the move to 8 teams.
I mean who wouldn't want to be paid to watch college football!
GO HOKIES!
I dunno about that, especially if I lived in SEC country. I'd probably be run out of town with pitchforks when I choose a dominant undefeated non-AQ team over a 1 loss SEC team that didn't play in the SECCG.
not everyone will be satisfied- the move to 8 teams needs to happen sooner rather than later for the playoff to earn credibility.
Here's a question that hits home for the HOKIE NATION.
If the BCS system was not in place in 1999- would an undefeated Virginia Tech
team led by Michael Vick have played for a national championship?
My answer: Definitely not.
I think we would have. We had one 1st place vote in the preseason and were one of two undefeated power conference teams. We wouldn't have been crowned but we were the clear cut #2 team that year at the end of the regular season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_rankings
The human polls are semi tainted because of the BCS being in place. the mentality before the BCS was that the 'haves' will play in the the big games even if a 'have not' deserves it more. Nothing beyond the individual bowl committees had any say in who played in what bowl. VT would not have been considered number two no matter what our recordf was at the end of the season. The BCS put us in the discussion, nothing else would have.
We were a hot commodity back then after beating in the Sugar Bowl. Now, if OSU, Michigan, Miami, or a traditional power were undefeated I would agree with you. But they weren't and it was just us and FSU on top with Nebraska third. Now, if we were a 1 loss team than there is no question we're out. Also before the BCS bowl games were played and then the Champion was crowned so even in third place if we win a bowl we could feasibly move to #2 with #1 or #2 losing.
A better year would probably be 2007 when we finished championship week #3 in the BCS. If there was no BCS we would of been out of the Top 5 that year since most of the computers had us #1 and traditional powers were also up there.
I agree - if you think about it, the 99 VT team isn't too far from the '13 FSU team... I think the only exception is that this years' FSU team is absolutely loaded with NFL athletes. But the rise to the top of the polls were very similar, along with the margin of VicTory for each game (minus the WVU game in '99)
VT was on a mission in 99- despite our stellar season and record, The feeling (at least to me) was we had no business being on that field and giving a clearly superior FSU team ALL that they could handle. It was a spectacular game. The VT program became an adult in that game.
Tim Burton's Batman will get you a turkey leg every time
BCS stunk. If the new system was around in 2007 (VT #3 BCS) we would have been in the playoff. The new system is an improvement but still has issues. I want to see a system where there is no benefit to being in a "power" conference and power conferences do not have an advantage, i.e. true parity.
That was what the BCS was trying to accomplish. The only reason that the SEC is perceived as favored is because of SoS.
Although ideal, having complete parity is unrealistic and would make cfb unexciting. Its like the difference of having a 10 team league vs. a 12team league in fantasy football. The talent pool dilutes very quickly. Also smaller schools facilities are limiting. Facilities attract talent etc. At first at least the gap will grow berween the haves and the have nots with the playoffs. As the field grows the gap will close. Go Hokies
What I'm talking about is a system where if you win your conference you are in the playoffs and there are also some at-large (wildcard) selections. This is how the NFL and every professional sports league works. Why can't it be true for non-professional sports? Oops, it does for every sport except FBS college football. The whole BCS and poll system is about being able to manipulate the system off the field.
My biggest problem with the BCS is how they prided themselves on always getting #1 vs #2 in the title game. Well, no shit when you manipulate and create the polls that say who's #1 and #2.
I still don't agree that Alabama was the #2 team in December 2011.
One of ESPN's BCS experts summed up the BCS best last year: All it really did was open up the Rose Bowl and allow the Pac-12 and Big Ten to participate.