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. choppack1 12/03/2007 at 10:32 PM #

    I find this debate really appropriate for the society we live in today.

    It’s stoked by the “drive-by” media…It’s totally manufactured. By virtually all indications, college football is still steadily growing. College football certainly isn’t in trouble. It’s not like people have stopped going to big-time college football game and are flocking to Division 1AA instead.

    Since there hasn’t been a tangible negative impact on the game, it’s easy to see why the powers that be haven’t implemented a playoff. Because make no mistake about it, creating a playoff system is a profound change to college football.

    Right now, college football is a unique sport. The bowl system is part of college football today. It’s a reward that the elite teams and scores of other mediocre teams are given…The college football fans that pack stadiums aren’t used to ending the year on a down note year after year. College football teams – like the NC States of the world, get these rewards a lot and it’s certainly part of the reason why we went from a school that had 35K attending most games to a school that had 50K attending most games.

    What would a playoff due to the NC State’s of the world? How would impact our program? How would impact the scores of schools for whom a bowl game is a “solid” season?

    A playoff changes that. And perhaps this is the biggest problem I have w/ those advocating a playoff. They need to admit the truth – the bowl system will be relegated to NIT status. Some bowls feel like that today – but most don’t. And you never know, the “bowl system” may be a big part of the reason college football grows. It’s a non-stressful, enjoyable way to end a season for half of those who are invited.

    So, understand that advocating a playoff is advocating the further minimization of the bowl system and is advocating something that could actually hurt college football (and could easily hurt football at NC State.)

    If you’re OK w/ that – be all about the playoff. If you’re not OK w/ those things, then you should think twice about a playoff.

  2. redfred2 12/04/2007 at 12:31 AM #

    Chop, great post!!!

    So, what you’re saying is that maybe there is still room for something that’s old and very traditional, and yet different from all else around? Nah, can’t be. This the new age, everything needs to be finite and totally justified by numbers. Forget about all the tradition, hell, there were never any real college football champions in the past anyway. Burn the record books and start anew, copy “the pro’s”, grab that NFL cookie cutter pattern and make this thing legit. It needs to be so that every bean counter in the world can sink his teeth into it and analyze the hell out of it before it is any close to correct. There’s no need for emotion, no room for error in this at all, just get the numbers to line up and roll with it.

    Then, we can all sit back silently waiting for the first playoff game to begin. Of course, our team may not make the playoffs for awhile, but what the hell, nothing lost anyway. I’ll bet those other games, the lowly and forgotten bowl games, will probably still be able to draw sufficient crowds. Probably enough of the player’s parents and family members would attend so that the bowl commitees can scrape together the money to pay both team’s bus fare out and back anyway.

  3. bTHEredterror 12/04/2007 at 4:57 AM #

    That was a good post chop.

    I propose this as a possible alternative/add-on. You can use the bowls as play-off destinations. They couldn’t be the final round, but next to last, or preferrably next to next in this scenario…..

    Start with 16 teams in a first round say second week of December. The winners are in the BCS bowls pitted against each other, in whatever fashion is worked out with the bowls. Give Rose first shot at a Big 10/Pac 10 match-up, if it materializes after the 1st round, etc. The losers are in the second tier of 8 bowls, with those Bowls having the option to select at-large teams to matchup with them.

    The four BCS winners go to a Final Four setting, with a Saturday-Thursday schedule maybe. This would destroy classes for that week and extend the season about 2-3 weeks, but I don’t wanna hear it, cuz the Universities already do it to B’Ball players.

    This would give the NCAA a small entry into the process no doubt, as they would be the ones deciding what “Host City” is involved in the Final Four.

    It would lessen somewhat the “prestige” of the Bowls being able to say the Championship was played there. So what? It was alright for 50 years to not crown a national champ, alright for 50 more to never truly decide it any way, and only partially decide the last ten years.

    The lower bowls are NIT now whether you like to admit or not, and just like Pack fans filled up Reynolds in the NIT, I would expect us to pack the Meineke (NIT) Bowl if we got in. When we won the Meineke Bowl a couple of years ago, after the midseason turnaround, what it effectively did was extend a coach’s tenure that left the program bereft of OL and QB talent. We did end up w/ TOB thru the process, but that was good fortune.

  4. Packaholic1 12/04/2007 at 7:55 AM #

    “UGa didn’t win their conference or even their division. ”

    Not required by the BCS to play in the national championship game. It was known the week before that Georgia wouldn’t be playing for the SEC title, but pollsters still voted them #4, ahead of both LSU and TN.

    Just pointing out the silliness of the system…

  5. Packaholic1 12/04/2007 at 8:09 AM #

    “So, understand that advocating a playoff is advocating the further minimization of the bowl system …”

    Actually, a playoff system that used the bowls as the first round would not do that. The winners of the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta would meet in the semifinals and those winners in the NC game. This would require only 2 total additional games over what we have now.

  6. Mike 12/04/2007 at 10:35 AM #

    For those advocating the traditional bowls be the early rounds of a playoff, it will not work. The bowls and cities need the travel revenue, and in football, the travel will not be there for 3 or 4 weeks. This plan would also virtually eliminate the corporate tie ins – the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl wants people talking about it for a month leading up to the game. There would be no corporate tie in with only 6 days of promotion.

    All comes back to the almighty grrenback, no matter how you look at it.

  7. noah 12/04/2007 at 11:01 AM #

    Once again, I truly wonder what world you people have been living in.

    Yes, it’s shocking…shocking…to discover that people often do things for money. (Hmm? What? Oh, yes, my paycheck…thank you.)

    If you want tradition, I suggest you follow crewing. Harvard and Oxford first met in 1869. One million people showed up along the banks of the Thames to watch two four-man teams row boats along a four-mile course.

    There are no five-star recruits. There are no official visits. There are no cheerleaders or street-agents. There is no BCS or TV timeouts. No one is ever accused of using HGH or steroids.

    Just….eight guys rowing boats along the river. They are superb athletes. They are superb students. Many of the past participants went on to glorious heights in the Olympics, the Royal Navy, the US Navy, and in various academic pursuits.

    The BBC covers it, so there are no commercials….and something like 10 million people watch the race.

    There’s your f-ing tradition.

  8. VaWolf82 12/04/2007 at 11:16 AM #

    Yes, it’s shocking…shocking…to discover that people often do things for money. (Hmm? What? Oh, yes, my paycheck…thank you.)

    Ah yes, the shocking truth.

    Baseball didn’t use to have playoffs. There were the pennant races and then the World Series. I wonder what could have ever persuaded baseball to change to a play-off format?

    For those advocating the traditional bowls be the early rounds of a playoff, it will not work.

    But unfortunately the fact that it isn’t a workable solution, doesn’t it keep from being suggested over and over again.

  9. Mike 12/04/2007 at 2:11 PM #

    So true VaWolf, but we continue to see people suggest it like it has never been thought about before, like it is their original idea.

  10. bTHEredterror 12/04/2007 at 3:23 PM #

    Better than suggesting……no ideas.

  11. noah 12/04/2007 at 3:26 PM #

    The current system is not broken. No, it’s not pro football. No, it’s not March Madness.

    It still makes an obscene amount of money and the same people who keep bitching about how awful it is never seem to turn it off.

    So…yes, suggesting something that won’t work IS worse than sitting quietly.

  12. bTHEredterror 12/04/2007 at 3:53 PM #

    I disagree.

    At the intiation of any current “institution” there were those who felt it was a fruitless propostion. And change is always uncomfortable for any institution.

    Perhaps I was incorrect to read this as a speculative venture, and not provide a full blown business plan. Just because it likely won’t be done, either for financial pragmatism, traditional comfort, or short sightedness, doesn’t mean it is impossible.

    And you are absolutely right, I’m not offended enough to stop going to games, I doubt anything would happen to change that. I misspoke saying it was broke. But rusty and showing wear, I would assert.

    In this era, with scholarship limits and parity, I expect there to be even more cloudy championship chases in the near future. I’m sick of listening to coaches call ESPN on BCS night to politic their way in, or buying #1 votes from peers and former bosses to get there by hook or by crook.

  13. noah 12/04/2007 at 6:34 PM #

    It’s not what YOU want. I get that and I respect that.

    But remember — technically, there was no national championship in football until the NCAA put the BCS in place. The national championship trophy we’ve got for 1983 says, “NCAA Division One Men’s Basketball Champions” (or something like that).

    The trophy that Michigan won in 1997 is from Sears.

    The NCAA didn’t recognize a national champion until the BCS. So let’s not pretend that things were perfectly clear and have suddenly grown muddled.

  14. bTHEredterror 12/04/2007 at 7:49 PM #

    Agreed.

    Though, it is about what I want, and the rest of the world will do well to realize this.

    And I think I agree with your prior statement about tradition, its not important when it doesn’t represent anything substantial.

    Logistical and fiscal interference aside, I took the post as an opportunity for one of those flights of fancy, to which I’m well-suited. You know. All opinion and no fact.

    I (grudgingly) provided one option, admittedly not unique or ground-breaking. Just an acceptable option in my world.

    And yes the sky is blue here, too.

  15. Packaholic1 12/04/2007 at 7:59 PM #

    Like Henry Ford told his engineers when they said the V-8 engine wouldn’t work, just keep working on it. May take a few years, but sooner or later, you’ll get it (hopefully before the current system screws State).

  16. choppack1 12/04/2007 at 11:47 PM #

    Packaholic – our chances are better under the current system for a national title. Simply put, we only have to win all of our regular season games, a championship title and the bowl game. In a playoff format, we’d have to get in to the playoff, then we’d have to win several games in a row.

    Think about this – who are the winners and losers of any playoff system?
    You think State’s a big winner in a playoff system? Certainly not the middling bowl games. Certainly none of the middle-tier teams in the BCS conferences or the teams in non-BCS conferences. IF you like tOSU, Michigan, OU, USC, LSU, Florida – hey, good system.

    Like I said, if you’re OK w/ a significant change to college football and throwing the current bowl system on the trash heap – support the playoff. College football won’t be the same – it may be better, it may be worse, but it won’t be the same. Personally, I don’t think you would have seen the growth in football you’ve seen at NC State in the last 20 years w/ a playoff system.

    If college football does decide to go down this road – and eventually, they may need to, hopefully, they’ll make it big enough to include a lot of teams. A friend of mine had a format and I’ve stolen from his idea:

    Reduce the college season by 1 or 2 games. 32 game playoff. The first round – and possibly the second are at the higher seeds home field. You break 2-3 weeks for exams, then you play 3 remaining sets of games at nuetral/regional sites. This would allow a bowl system for losers of the first 2 rounds and/or “bubble” teams w/ adequate time for folks to make travel arrangements. The big kicker here is the elimination of conference championship games and the elimination of at least 1 home game.

  17. Packaholic1 12/05/2007 at 4:56 PM #

    “Packaholic – our chances are better under the current system for a national title. Simply put, we only have to win all of our regular season games, a championship title and the bowl game.”

    Ask Auburn if that’s how things work out in the BCS.

  18. redfred2 12/05/2007 at 11:46 PM #

    Hey, how about allof those who still loves the bowl system, and college football in general, over here. And everyone who wants to change it, over there, watching the NFL or the NBA instead.

    I like just a little separation between the amateur and pro ranks, and I also like the traditional differences myself, so I’d love to see a just a few of them left intact.

    Or maybe we should expect to see LOI’s with trade clauses attached sometime soon?

  19. bTHEredterror 12/08/2007 at 1:39 AM #

    Enjoy all those great bowl games.

1 2 3 4

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. StateFans Nation » Blog Archive » BCS System Attracts TV Viewers - 12/05/2007

    y8Yb9i Very good article.Thanks Again. Really Great.

Leave a Reply