The Problem With the BCS
 

This is something my friend and I were discussing while watching the Boise/Va Tech game yesterday.

The computers get blamed for nearly all of the BCS rankings problems. After all, how can a computer fairly judge all 117 eligible schools and determine who deserves to play in what game?

I say the opposite. How can we let incredibly biased media members and coaches have such an influential impact on the rankings and determine who plays in what game? The computers have no favorites. They may have different formulas, but each team is judged without bias, emotion, or how much attention they've received or how many times they've had televised games.

After USC complained their way into an AP National Championship (of which LSU was robbed, BTW. But hey, at least they won the game that mattered and got the crystal trophy), the media members and coaches used it as a launching point to have the BCS formula rewritten in order to more heavily weigh the human vote.

None of these voters watch every game, every weekend. Very few, if any, vote impartially (especially coaches, whose best interests are with their TEAM and not with being a fair voter). What games they choose to watch heavily factor in on where they place a team.

So what do you guys think? We're unlikely to get a playoff system anytime soon, and nobody seems satisfied with the current system? How could we make it better?

I say eliminate the preseason poll completely. There's no need to even start ranking teams until October, at the earliest. Also, I'm still ok with the coach and media polls, but I think they should have a much, much smaller influence in the BCS formula than the computer rankings.

Totally agree that teams should not be officially ranked until later in the season.

The only reasonable solution is a playoff, that is the only way to make sure ensure that every team gets a shot at the title.

I'd keep the polls, take the top 8 and seed them into a playoff bracket. Sure, making the finals would have kids playing 2 extra games, but thats more money for the greedy bastards so they should like it.

It makes it fair for everyone, and gives even more significance to running the table in the playoffs after surviving the regular season. And it doesn't really diminish the regular season much because it is still very difficult to finish the regular season in the top 8.

Since they want to be stubborn for whatever reason, keep it how it is. I like the computer's level of involvment, because they humans can take into account factors the computer doesn't.

And I don't mind the preseason rankings, as long as they're fluid. Theres no reason Bama should be #1 until they lose just because they started #1. The preseason rankings are just to create hype and get hits before college season starts.

Exactly, the computers are so much less biased than the human voters. The fact that we can possibly have three or four deserving title contenders and only two are chosen, mostly based on who a bunch of guys who only watch one or two games per week want to see play.

The computers starting coming under fire because the media wanted 11-1 USC to be in the Title game over 12-1 LSU and OU a few years ago. The problem wasn't the computers. They simply picked 12-1 teams over an 11-1 team.

Sucks for USC, the Pac 10 should have had a title game and is moving to having one.

Totally agree YFS. I think the coaches poll is every bit as the media poll. Not only their bias towards their own team, but their ignorance (of other teams). I mean how closely Urban Meyer paying attention to how Iowa is doing, or how closely is Joe Paterno following TCU? How can we expect the coaches to be able to make the most educated national rankings when their job is focus almost exclusively on the teams on their schedule? The reality is we can't.

I've read alot of coaches just have an assistant do the poll anyway. The human polls are very biased. If we went to a more computer oriented poll it would make strength of schedule more relevant.

There are a million reasons to go back and forth on this, so ill just bullet everything and just skim it quick:

8 team playoff: what if there are two or three teams vying for that last spot? someone is still gettin screwed. bowls get screwed up and possibly slightly less money comes in (why theyre so scared to do it). absurd thought that the regular season will become less important.

My solution: A Flexible Playoff

How it works: After the last weekend of the season, while taking computer polls and people polls into account, a committee meets (idk who, someone can help fill this in) and decides on the number of teams who are vying for the National Title
1) an undefeated team is in the playoff. no ifs ands or butts
2) the committee votes on how many teams should be in (the USC/Texas Bush/Young year would be just two for example because they were the only two undefeateds and were clearly and visibly head and shoulders above the competition)
3) 8 teams is the MAX. if its six, top two teams according to the computers get a bye. if its 8 teams, allow one weekend of no NC tourney games so the players can take finals. 4 teams just plays out over two or three weeks (to allow teams rest)
4) if two+ teams have the same record, points allowed while playing the top 4 teams on their schedule is the tie breaker (to not encourage running up the score or discourage teams from playing their backups in blowouts against crap teams). strength of schedule could be the second tiebreaker to encourage teams to actually challenge themselves.
5) teams not involved in the tourney play bowl games as usual.


Im sure im missing some of the finer points but i can add them.

But what do you all think?

I could rant for days on this. The system is broken and will only be fixed with a playoff.

Sometime in the not too distant future, the conferences will control the playoff, as there will be something like 4 conferences of 16 teams. Each winner plays for the NC. The rest of the schlub teams will be left to whine.

Conferences will slowly add schlub teams if they prove themselves worthy, leading to unbalanced conferences. Whoopidee doo.

Look for the first step to happen after the Big12 completely implodes.

Way I look at it is if there is an 8 team playoff and you allow yourself to be close and miss out its probably your own fault. Not like were ever gonna see 9 teams go undefeated and have one really get screwed.

Exactly. We've seen three teams make a case for a national championship. Hell, last year we saw four. You might even argue five or six (the LSU/OSU year). However, we've never seen nine teams with a legitimate national championship case.

The problem with the BCS is that TWICE already teams have played in the national championship game that didn't even win their own conference...

Both times it was Big-12 teams getting in that didn't even win the Big-12 conference...

The computers won't be influenced by all the hype from the media... only the media voters... SOS will always win out in the end...

I believe the computer had undefeated Boise rated the same as 10-3 Oregon last year...

The LSU OSU year was crap. I still can't believe OSU lost to Illinois and got put in a title game, basically just because of the market.

Then its definitely in everyone best interest to have a strong schedule, which should only go to further improve college football.

Well... while a playoff system seems ideal but, we have to realize that these athletes are still students at the same time. The games will basically rape them scholarly.

These playoff games would be during their christmas breaks, time they typically have off anyway.

Seems to work out well for every other level.

While they might be biased, Media members can look at that game last night and determine that Boise State just wasn't impressive in their win. It looked more like VT just f***ed themselves for a quarter and then Boise St didn't even look like they belonged. VT outscored Boise by 2TDs after giving up 17 (and should have given up more had it not been for great defensive play the first screwup)

I actually like the BCS the way it is, but think there needs to be some improvements. If anything, I think there should be big penalties for teams who play non-BCS teams or "teams not likely to be worth anything".

edit: It's hard to quantify "impressive" without legitimizing "running up the score"

LSU doesn't need to play Louisana Lafeyette. Nor does Ohio State need to play Toledo, nor does USC need to play San Jose State. Those games could be Florida, Texas, Boston College.

Somethings not right with the human element if two closely matched and Top-25 teams play a competetive game that goes into overtime with the home team winning.The losing team drops completely out of the rankings.

Meanwhile an unranked team beats up on an FCS school and moves into the Top-25.

What incentive is there for a team to play a tough non-conference schedule when defeating cupcakes has nearly as much reward and far, far, far less risk?

I don't know... How the hell did Alabama lose 7 first place votes after beating up on a cupcake? One of Boise's cupcakes to be exact... that everyone is so impressed by them beating every year. I would love to know what those 7 media voters saw in week one that prompted them to believe that Boise was more deserving of the #1 ranking than Bama...

All Bama did was skull **** one of Boise's conference cupcakes with backups and 3rd stringers from the 2nd quarter on....

Meanwhile, VT after spotting Boise 17 points and taking their best shot, STILL almost won the game... and we can sit here and talk all night about one play here or one play there that would've done it...

I think realistically any system that is put in place will be flawed in some way. I like the idea of an 8 team playoff the best but there will still be problems.

Will the playoffs be seeded?

Does 8 play 1, 7 play 2 etc. Because if so then there will still be the problem with the seedings being biased. Last year a lot of people argued that either TCU or Boise should have been number 2 but they ended up 3 and 4, meaning in essence they would face better teams in the playoff structure than Texas who ended up ranked 2.

The last spots in will also be based off biased systems.

While we can all agree that there is a minimal chance of there being more than 8 legitimate national championship contenders, it is harder to argue that teams from aroung 6-10 are easily separated. For example if there are 4 undefeated teams, four one loss teams and two 2 loss teams in the top ten it may seem easy to leave out the two 2 loss teams. But would, for instance, one loss Miami be in the playoff over 2 loss LSU?

As long as there is a poll of media, coaches etc the chance of the end result being biased will always be there and may not be resolved.

I agree that the preseason poll should be eliminated and would go so far as to eliminate a coaches poll. The coaches of all of these teams have so much more on their plates than to sit down and rank teams without showing some kind of bias for their own.

If they're the best team in the nation, that won't matter.
I'd much rather see the 9th place team get left out than the 3rd place team.

The whole idea of the coaches poll mattering a joke, these guys dont pay attention to everyone. They might glance at a couple box scores but its basically just about whether or not you win.