USC No. 1 -- and plans to stay that way

NCAA lug heads ^ | 12-7-03 | By Ivan Maisel

[Dog Gone]

I don't blame the BCS rules, I think they are about the best one can come up with. I fault a system that forces the BCS to attempt the impossible.

That is probably true, but it must also be true that the designers of the BCS rules never envisioned that a team that had about twice as many #1 votes in both polls at the end of the season would be eliminated from the BCS championship. They did intend to land my hypothetical 747 without mishap.

Now, I will grant you that it's possible that no set of rules could ever be devised to eliminate major controversy. You've suggested that and I can't disagree. A playoff system seems the best way to me, and the scenario mentioned by Diddle E. Squat sound like an improvement, if not the complete solution.

I can't accept the proposition that the current rules are fair, especially when you add the completely undemocratic notion that the college coaches are obligated to name the BCS championship winner the national champion. Why even hold a vote when you've dictated by law who the winner must be?

[LisaMalia]

To put it bluntly, the voters in the coaches poll have will every right to vote USC as the national champions if USC beats Michigan. If this were not the case, why will a vote even be taken after the Sugar Bowl

This is not easy for me..but I have to say, after all this whining by USC.....GO MICHIGAN!!!!!!!

[Dog Gone]

I think this season ought to give those conferences with and without a conference championship game pause for thought.

Should the Pac-10 really add a championship game to their schedule, just because some other bigger conferences do? Or should they add some weak teams from the WAC or Conference USA to make it bigger, and get hammered in strength of schedule ratings just to please some people?

[connectthedots]

I don't think USC is whining. They simply recognize that idf they beat Michigan, they will be the national champions in the eyes of virtually everyone, except the winner of the Sugar Bowl.

[LisaMalia]

I don't think USC is whining

I guess you don't frequent the same sports message boards I do. Believe me, they're whining.

[connectthedots]

I 2was referring to the USC team; not their fans.

[LisaMalia]

I 2was referring to the USC team; not their fans.

Good to know USC (as a team) is satisfied with being in the Rose Bowl.

[bonesmccoy]

That's only part of the equation... the issue is who writes the code and agress upon the formula used.

Any ideas on that one?

[bonesmccoy]

Why should Pac-10 create an extra game... we have never had a problem with "Co-champions" because there are clear cut regulations on the rankings.

None of the Pac-10 regs include computers voting instead of people.

[bonesmccoy]

We're not "satisfied"... we're just happy to have the acknowledgement that our team is NUMBER ONE!

[DugwayDuke]

No, not snotty at all. The solution was rather too obvious to believe I was onto something unique and I was just being a bit smartelechy.

If there is a bright line in this cloud, perhaps it will be that a serious play off will come of it. (And, then, everyone can get down and their knees and once again give thanks that there is something known as Oklahoma football. There I go again.) These BCS rules were always a compromise between those who wanted a game pitting #1 and #2 and those who wanted to uphold the sacred traditions of the bowl games (meaning they made a lot of money and didn't want their rice bowl broken). Maybe this has produced enought people enough to break a few bowls.

But really, the modern football fan does owe OU thanks for filing the law suit that got the NCAA out of scheduling TV games and got rid of that rule that prohibitted teams from being on TV only once a year. Of course, the NCAA did get even with a least one, if not two probations...

[DugwayDuke]

I'm not sure what you mean, only the BCS only considers the current results from the two human polls. All previous results are not factored in.

[DugwayDuke]

"I can't accept the proposition that the current rules are fair, especially when you add the completely undemocratic notion that the college coaches are obligated to name the BCS championship winner the national champion. Why even hold a vote when you've dictated by law who the winner must be?"

They are only "fair" in the sense that they are known in advance and equally applied to all. Any system that tries to limit the playoffs to two teams will, almost by defintion, be unfair to at least one or probably more teams.

I doubt the coaches will even vote. But, if you want it to be democratic, I'm sure there will be a few hundred web sites that allow everyone to express their opinions. Maybe that's what we need, instead of a national play off, a national referendum.... You think Algore might be available to count the ballots?

[DugwayDuke]

I'm not sure if it's seven or eight computer rating systems that are considered. I think the lowest one is thrown out for each time. I don't know exactly how many are considered "proprietary" but there is at least one, so if you want the code, I guess you are out of luck. I imagine a bit of webwork and you might at least compile the factors used in each rating but lacking the weighting scheme, I doubt that would be all that satisfying.

Considering the fact that several are used and one is thrown out, the lines of code for the individual computers probably aren't all that influential anyway. It really is a kind of consensus of the computers anyway.

Besides there is a lot of bias in the human polls as well as I've mentioned earlier. (The voting sportswriters are concentrated in LA/NY/Chicago for a regional bias and the coaches have been documented as voting to pump up their opponents and bring down their rivals.)

[hoyaloya]

I'm assuming all here discussed and considered:

(1) 3 teams have 1 loss. USC played a considerably weaker schedule than OU and didn't have to play a conference championship game. Their only real basis for staking claim to No. 1 is they lost earlier in the season than the other 2.

(2) We have no playoff system. If they were to play on Saturday, Las Vegas would almost certainly make OU the favorite over USC (throwing out the notion of "USC is the best team right now).

(3) If we had no BCS, USC would be playing Michigan in the Rose Bowl. LSU would be playing OU in the Sugar Bowl. Imagine that, either OU or LSU would have better records than USC (one would win the Sugar Bowl) but because USC lost on ?Sept. 17? and either LSU or OU lost later, USC would win the title. With that kind of system going . . . if I were a college coach I'd just start scheduling my games in August . . . against schools like the Sisters of Mercy. Conferences would then be incentivized to move all of their big games to the beginning of the year. Boring.

(4) Humans, by nature, are not dispassionate observers. Be it bias or whatever motivates them, human NCAA FB poll voters have pretty awful track records at picking the "best teams." Since 1970, 15 of the 33 teams voted by humans as No. 1 going into the bowls LOST in their bowl game. Since the beginning of the BCS, 4 of the 5 BCS No. 1s have won the national championship game.

If one were to step back and think about this rationally, one would realize the BCS has done the impossible this year. The BCS has matched 1 v 4 on No. 1's "home field" and 2 v 3 on No. 2's "home field." All any of the 1 loss teams have to do is win their game to share the championship. THAT IS AS GOOD AS IT CAN BE WITHOUT A PLAYOFF.

[DugwayDuke]

Thanks for trying to bring some logic to what has been a mostly emotional affair. That said, some comments:

"Imagine that, either OU or LSU would have better records than USC..."

Both OU and LSU already have better records than USC. The USC mafia chooses to ignore the fact that both LSU and OU are 12-1 and USC is only 11-1, ie, all three have one loss but only LSU and OU have 12 wins.

"against schools like the Sisters of Mercy. Conferences would then be incentivized to move all of their big games to the beginning of the year. Boring."

Correct, look at the non-conference schedules of all the major powers, rather weak. But, of course, the BCS attempts to factor that out with the quality of wins and schedule strength factors. BTW, the schedule is what bit USC. Two of USC's opponents lost on Saturday tipping the balance from USC to LSU.

"Humans, by nature, are not dispassionate observers. Be it bias or whatever motivates them, human NCAA FB poll voters have pretty awful track records at picking the "best teams.""

Oh, bite your tounge (or the computer equivalent). Haven't you learned from this thread that it was the dastardly computers who brought on this "fiasco". Of course, the thought that the human pollsters who made USC their number one might be a tad bit biased is often discarded. Why should they be given more consideration than, other, less emotional, ratings?

"If they were to play on Saturday, Las Vegas would almost certainly make OU the favorite over USC (throwing out the notion of "USC is the best team right now)."

Well, when one has to put real money on the line, it does seem to restore a bit of balance, doesn't it? I would be willing to bet that if the KSU/OU game were to be replayed, KSU would be the underdog again too.

"If one were to step back and think about this rationally, one would realize the BCS has done the impossible this year. The BCS has matched 1 v 4 on No. 1's "home field" and 2 v 3 on No. 2's "home field." All any of the 1 loss teams have to do is win their game to share the championship. THAT IS AS GOOD AS IT CAN BE WITHOUT A PLAYOFF."

Thank you for pointing that out. I guess I should withdraw my opinion that the BCS failed at an impossible task. When one looks at it in that perspective, they did do rather well didn't they? But it wouldn't have worked out that way without the computer or strength of schedule ratings that have been so savaged here, would it?

But, I guess, I can still cling to my opinion that the BCS was given an impossible task. That of seleting two teams in a manner that would lack controversy.

Once again, thanks for bringing out some rather good points.

[SoCal Pubbie]

You have to have twelve schools in a conference. That's why there's talk of Notre Dame going to the Big Ten (11) and them having a game, same with the ACC with those teams moving from the Big East. There's a little about it here, but you have to dig through the article:

http://cbs.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/6440276.