Well, the author misleads a bit - it's not like there are dozens and dozens of professors spilling into the streets to protest the BCS. Technically, he lists one: James Beniger, an associate prof. They mention the Wolfe computer (and they have to list him as "Harvard-educated" to lend any credence to his view, I suppose) and the fact that it's run by an infectious disease specialist. Finally, they talk to Geert Ridder, who says that though "...the system is a good tool, computer operators can't validate their models without a playoff." He then further admits bias, but doesn't seem to think it's the end of the world. So we have 1 professor that doesn't like it...and he claims the following: "When you want to know the outcome of one team beating another team, statistics really don't help." LIES. Absolute fabrication. Let me take a look at the statistics for UL-Lafayette and Oklahoma before they were to play a game. Guess what I might be able to do? Predict a winner, that's for sure. What else are you going to use? Vegas uses statistics, the analysts use statistics, sportswriters/fans/coaches use statistics...all to predict a teams strengths and weaknesses. Why, even the polls are ultimately a "statistic," since the team accorded the #1 ranking is not necessarily the #1 team, only the team that received the most #1 votes, usually dispensed without much analysis or rigor. Oh yeah, THAT'S the way to go! This story is poorly-written, and it tells me nothing of great interest - only that some USC professor doesn't like the BCS results. And that's NEWS. Nope, no bias here...move along.
Well you just answered your own question you want a playoff because the BCs is flawed and then there would be no teams complaining except #5 which you say so what? Well so what now? why doesn't so what make sense now? same system same BCS for a 4 or 8 team playoff? so what? so USC got left out so what??? #3 gets left out so what? # 9 gets left out so what? always going to be someone left out you said it yourself. Nothing wrong with the BCS other than the points spread thing should be brought back into it. I just wanted to point out to you that your scenario is no different than it is now. Some one still gets left out. Same as now. I would favor a 4 team playoff however. It wouldn't make the #5 team feel any better than USC did this year BUT it might make less headlines since the team would have a couple of losses probably.
Because we are not simply dealing with a single disgruntled school. There are people who don't give two shits about LSU, OU or USC who do not believe the current way of deciding championships resolves the issue sufficiently. It's not about pleasing every school. It's about satisfying fans of the game. The NCAA Basketball Tournament doesn't please every school BUT it pleases fans of college basketball. NO ONE questions the the legitimacy of the champion because the 65th best team should have gone. The 65th best team might be pissed but that's another matter. And let's PLEASE be honest. If Hawaii had won and Syracuse had lost, we likely would not have edged USC in the BCS. It was VERY close. I don't believe for a single second that the attitude of this board in that situation would be that the BCS worked. You know perfectly well that's not what we would be saying.
Chinese, You can believe what you want. Had Syracuse & Hawaii lost, I would have accepted the results - and I can say that honestly and confidently. I knew what the results would be if those were the circumstances, and I know that I would have been upset but not surprised. And, I would have been upset that it didn't work out our way (we should have beaten Florida), NOT that the system didn't work. From an analytical standpoint, I put good faith in the BCS' intent, because of how nebulous the rankings can be and how shrift the voters are to many teams (LSU included). I would have been MORE upset (and still am, frankly) that many AP voters didn't rank LSU #1 following the SECCG. You may be right about a playoff. You may be right about the ultimate goal being to satisfy the fans. But it's hard to tell with the smugness.
Yep I thought the same thing. How in the World LSU was not #1 after the SECCG makes you wonder about the Bias in the AP Voting.
Why should the AP suddenly do anything other than what they have done for decades now? A team wins while the team ahead of them loses and they move up. And why the distinction between AP voters and the BCS? The former is a large part of the later. And I'm not sure who's smugness you're referring to but I'll disregard it as it's an irrelevant point either way.
Chinese - First, the "smugness" comment was about you, and for that - I'm sorry - just me being an ass. But I would disagree with smugness - from either pro-playoff or pro-BCS camp - not being relevant. One of the most infuriating aspects of this entire conversation IS the smugness, especially by the analysts/writers/pundits. Both sides are SO sure they're right, and the only driving point is one that you sort of touch on - making sure the results are controversy-free. I think that goal results in the "for the fans" approach you advocate. Regardless, I regret my comment. Please accept my apologies. Moving on... The distinction between the AP and BCS is an important one, because one decides who plays in the title game and one does not. And I'm not sure the AP is a "large" part of the BCS, since poll rankings (and those are an average) do account for 1/4 of the formula, but no more than the other 4 components. And for the polls, since it's an average, one could argue that the AP counts for 1/8 of the entire formula. The AP didn't exactly fall into line with predictability - the fact that LSU gained a significant number of 1st place votes (also in the coaches) following the SECCG is evidence that the AP voters didn't just move USC up - the Trojans simply received more 1st place votes. Personally, I think LSU made a stronger statement with their finish than USC, and so did other voters. You're still right about not much changing, and the AP just "doing what they do." I defend the BCS, not as the best solution, but for having a defined set of rules in which it operates, allowing as little bias as possible to influence the ultimate result. and for quantifying what writers and coaches cannot. I willingly admit BCS bias on behalf of the conferences (MAC can only get at-large bid, for example), but that has nothing to do with the actual formula. Ultimately, I want a controversy-free solution. I am still not sure a playoff is the most pragmatic resolution, but I'm not sure everyone will ever be happy... Still interesting food for thought - thanks for the good posts.
The thing is we are talking about the National Championship. This year, LSU, USC, Oklahoma, and maybe Michigan have an actual claim to being the best. If you have the top 4 or top 8 teams deciding it on the field, the teams with the most legitiment arguement to being No. 1 are given the chance. When you are No. 5, unless there are 5 one loss teams or something, has no claim to the title. So who cares if they're happy. If we make it 8, then I think the no. 8 team has no real claim at being the best, much less the No. 9 team. So who cares if they are left out, at least you are giving more legit teams a chance.
Even a playoff would not make everyone happy. That's part of what makes it interesting. The fact that we are talking about this means LSU's program is doing great things for the fans. So maybe the BCS is doing what it needs to in selling commercials all year long instead of mid October and November Bottom line We are in the Sugar as #2 playing for #1. How sweet it is!!
