For all the BCS' faults (and there are plenty), it does have one thing right: A team should not need to win its conference in order to play for the national championship. In his first piece for SB Nation, Bomani Jones explains why.
Dec 1, 2011 - Before we get to a weekend of college football that will, invariably, infuriate what seems like everyone, ask yourself a question before you ultimately look foolish.
Does the BCS make more sense than you do?
If that's the case, it's not your fault. As college football fans, we've tried futilely to balance the historical machinations of polls with good sense. We come up with answers. But by the time we do, there's a chance we've forgotten what the question was in the first place.
Follow @sbnation on Twitter | Like SB Nation on Facebook | Sign up for our Newsletter
In the end, for once, it's those three crooked letters that have it right. Or, at least, as right as anything can be in something where sense is in short supply.
It sounds like a copout, but it's true: the Bowl Championship Series is designed to do little more than pit what it deems the top two teams in the country in a national championship game. As shady as this enterprise is, that part is crystal clear.
There's no systematic way to do this, but the pollsters and computers give it the college try every year. It's all for show. It gets people screaming on television. That's fun and all, but not enough to obscure this transparent money grab for the major conferences, and the plan is clearly to grab all the money without sharing. But for all its flaws, the creation of the BCS did something never done before: it guaranteed a game each team knew would determine the national championship.
That's the deal everyone involved in the quantitative portion of the program - the "coaches" who vote in their poll, the hundreds of Harris Poll voters and number crunchers - signed up for. Say whom they think is No. 1 and No. 2, then go back to whatever they're doing.
The problem, of course, is people really, really care about who should or shouldn't play for a pretty crystal football. With so much to overlook to enjoy college sports without feeling greasy, the lack of a "true champion" is one injustice too many to swallow. That's the only explanation for the uprising of 2006, when Michigan spent a month and a half ranked No. 2 and wound up shut out of the national championship game. That was the year Florida beat Arkansas in the SEC Championship and Michigan, its regular season over after losing 42-39 on the road to No. 1 Ohio State, woke up the following Monday trying to figure out how they got worse when no one was looking.
Did Urban Meyer really prove something by outwitting Houston Nutt with a more talented roster?
The question we heard then is the same as the one we're hearing this season: how can a team play for the national championship if it didn't win its own conference?
The answer: what is this, 1974?
That was the last year the NCAA Tournament included conference champions only. After years of seeing highly-ranked teams left out of the Big Dance year after year, the field had to expand, even if it diminished the significance of conference tournaments. Consider what a financial boon those weekends were before the age of massive television contracts, it was a pretty staggering statement on how ridiculous the single-bid tournament was. And if the NCAA thinks something is ridiculous, it's gotta be dumber than a sack of hammers.
What's truly the big deal about winning a conference? Or, more importantly, what's so bad about losing it to the best team in the country?
That was the question I had five years ago, and it's the same one I have now, as Alabama heads into the final weekend of the season ranked No. 2 with no one to play. Their chances of making the title game are better than Michigan's were in 2006, if only because finishing second in the SEC West carries more weight than second in the Big Ten.
But the mere fact this question comes up at all illustrates the most annoying thing about the annual hand-wringing over determining a national champion in college football: we don't even know what the hell we're trying to figure out. Should the most accomplished teams play for the title? The ones most likely to win head-to-head matchups against any given team? These are the same questions that make preseason polls irrelevant, yet they persist through the only polls and indices that matter: the final ones.
The correct answer is the most amorphous: the best two, which is exactly what the polls and computers are designed to determine. They don't need to be tinkered with to generate a desired outcome. The BCS, like it or not, decides who plays for the championship. The pollsters are there to vote for the best teams, and being the best has little to do with winning a conference.
If it did, then why isn't Alabama ranked behind Oklahoma State? Or even division champions like Georgia and the juggernaut that is UCLA?
Winning a conference is a shiny item on a checklist, and it might have something to do with being the best team in the country. But it has nothing to do with being second, especially if the best unit is in a team's division.
If it all sounds confusing, then I understand why a playoff would sound good to you. Its virtue is its simplicity. Set it up, name the stakes, and the thinking is done. A tournament bracket isn't much more scientific than using polls to decide who's best. But it's easier to understand, and all its terms are agreed upon in advance. Win and advance. Lose and go home. At the end, there will be a championship game. In that simple bargain, there's no room for argument.
There's also no guarantee you'll get the best team. That detail would matter more if people actually cared about that, though. If a team wins six games, or four series, or comes out of the loser's bracket, that team has got to be pretty good. Even if it's not the best, it's good enough to honor and revere. And the method for determining this champion is satisfying. Who could ever argue with winning?
Plenty could, actually. But if we've learned anything from Tim Tebow, trying to do so will only leave you frustrated.
But other than LSU and Houston, Alabama has won as much as anyone, and looked more impressive in the process than everyone but LSU. But since they won't get to clobber Georgia in the SEC Championship, conceived for television rather than competition, they're not No. 2?
Would you also like to slash the field of the NCAA Tournament? Because that's what it sounds like.
This is not a defense of the BCS, nor is it in opposition of the playoff (we'll get to that another day). No sane person believes eyeball tests are sufficient to determine which of three 11-1 teams is superior to the other. What is asked of everyone involved in the BCS is nearly impossible, and it's hard to believe in something bereft of any logical or principled foundation. That's a big reason so many see the BCS as a scourge on college athletics. That's like saying the flu caught a cold, but that's neither here nor there.
Now in its 14th season, the BCS has unequivocally given us a matchup of the two best teams in America four times. When results seemed strange, like Florida State making the 2000 title game over the Miami team who defeated it, the formula changed in hopes that, if only for a moment, people would stop complaining. It's on-the-fly planning at its worst, which does nothing for the infinitesimal credibility the BCS has. The last thing it needs is voting in that same vein.
But one thing that hasn't changed about the BCS, even after the embarrassments of having Nebraska in the 2001 title game and Oklahoma in the 2003 contest: there is no requirement that a team win its conference to play for the national title.
Bad PR won't make the BCS disappear, but it has always motivated it to enact rules that will spare them from going through that embarrassment again, whatever that embarrassment was. But even after being shamed twice by Big 12 "also-rans" on its biggest stage, even after seeing its process hijacked in 2006, there remains a good chance of an LSU-Bama rematch in New Orleans.
Why? Because there's no good reason to stop the rematch from happening. And if the friggin' BCS can figure that out, then what's so hard to figure out?
74 comments
5
Jan 10
2
Jan 10
1
Jan 10
5
Dec 7
2
Dec 5
1
Dec 5
5
Dec 5
11
Dec 4
1
Dec 4
Comments
Good stuff and welcome to SBNation
I think the BCS is ok and is doing it’s job. It just happens to be an impossible job. Not everybody can be happy and most wont be until there’s a playoff.
CincyJungle.com Contributor for the NFL Draft
Follow me on Twitter @JoeGoodberry for Bengals & NFL Draft talk
by Joe Goodberry on Dec 1, 2011 10:13 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Good stuff
I honestly though, don’t want to see what people deem to be the two best teams in america.
I understand why the BCS is here and won’t go anywhere outside an external force applied because of the money. I’ve come to terms with that.
I don’t think that only conference champions should have a shot and the title either. Especially when the top team is in the same division of the same conference.
I do believe that the top 4 teams should have a shot and playing for the national title in a tournament. I want to see the most accomplished teams play for the championships, not what polls deem to be the ‘best’ teams. Heck, I wouldn’t mind if it was still the BCS, just add a game, plus one.
I love the Steelers.
by tannofsteel84 on Dec 1, 2011 10:29 AM EST reply actions
If you want to see the most accomplished,
I presume you also support LSU-Alabama.
"Lattimore, as the kids can say, can ball, and sometimes does it to the extent one might say [he] is out of control in his balling." - Spencer Hall
by GwinnettGamecock on Dec 1, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
... I'm pretty sure OSU wins the "most accomplished" title hands down if they add a win over Oklahoma to their resume
Alabama basically only played nine games against real opponents, and that’s generously counting Ole Miss as “real.” In nonconference, they played one real opponent, one team that went 4-4 in the MAC, one team that went 3-4 in the Sun Belt, and an FCS opponent. “Pathetic” doesn’t begin to describe it.
One of the very worst aspects of the BCS is the degree to which it rewards creampuff scheduling (since teams generally move down in the polls when they lose, and rarely make significant gains when they win, “not losing” is the best thing you can do to stay highly ranked). In doing so, it deprives teams of incentive to provide fans with quality nonconference matchups.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Dec 1, 2011 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
Welcome to SB Nation... glad to have you aboard!
But you’re completely wrong. :-)
In just 2007, the “must be a conference champion” rhetoric was used to exclude what would have been a #2 Georgia team from the final poll in favor of a #7 LSU team that jumped up to #2 solely on the basis that they won the SEC Championship Game.
Now, a few years later, that unspoken rule doesn’t matter anymore?
To be quite blunt, if Georgia got screwed because they weren’t the national champion, but were still one of the two best teams in the country, I don’t see any good reason why Bama shouldn’t be excluded for the same reason.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Dec 1, 2011 10:31 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Should be "weren't the SEC champion" in the last paragraph...
… but you get the idea.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Dec 1, 2011 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, but you see, ESPN did not have nearly as much invested in the SEC in 2007
And so there was no need to do mental contortions to explain why it’s OK to not win your conference (or even division), if a team passes their nebulous “eye test” (the same eye test that was convinced Florida State was a top-5 team, for example).
by Synaesthesia on Dec 1, 2011 10:45 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That was different
The question there was: “if we can only choose one from two relatively equal teams in the same conference, should we choose the conference champion or the team who didn’t win its division?”
This year, the question is: “can the second best team in the country be from the same conference as the best team in the country?”
If I had to choose between LSU and Alabama, then LSU is clearly the correct choice. But that’s not the issue, you’re asking me to choose between Bama and Oklahoma State, and if the your decision for which team is #2 is based on the fact that LSU plays in the SEC West and not the Big XII, then you’re not choosing based on which team is best, you’re choosing based on outside, largely arbitrary factors.
by rugman11 on Dec 1, 2011 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Stop talking sense.
"Lattimore, as the kids can say, can ball, and sometimes does it to the extent one might say [he] is out of control in his balling." - Spencer Hall
by GwinnettGamecock on Dec 1, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
But if you’re asking me to choose between Bama and Ok State, and if your decision for which team is #2 is based on the fact that Bama plays in the SEC West and not the Big XII, then you are also not choosing based on which team is best, you’re choosing based on outside, largely arbitrary factors.
I don't believe in dibs, or love at first sight, or love, or best friends, or doing things.
by marktgarten on Dec 1, 2011 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
Totally different scenarios
Georgia finished behind Tennessee in the East that year, not the undisbuted #1 team in the country. And because Ohio State had already locked up one spot, it was between LSU or Georgia, one or the other. Whereas this year, it’s both. As far as resumes are concerned, LSU and Georgia were about even, except that LSU actually won their conference. Whether you think Georgia was better or not is irrelevent.
by Bamabrave4 on Dec 1, 2011 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
And Alabama's and OkSt's will be about even (assuming a Bedlam win)
except that OkSt won their conference (a stronger one, on the whole, than the SEC this year) and Alabama did not.
I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left-hand side.
Bradley-Terry rankings for college football and basketball: because there aren't enough computer rankings already.
by SpartanDan on Dec 1, 2011 9:02 PM EST up reply actions
Strong than the SEC?
No, the Big 12-2 is not stronger than the SEC this year.
But I do support OSU over Alabama if OSU beat’s Oklahoma, but only the grounds that they won their conference. After all, beating Oklahoma is not great feat. Just ask Texas Tech.
by Jwnelson on Dec 2, 2011 12:51 AM EST up reply actions
Most of the BCS computers disagree
The SEC is somewhat top-heavy this year; there’s a pretty serious drop-off after LSU and ’Bama, and then a cliff after Arky / SC / UGA.
by drothgery on Dec 2, 2011 1:08 AM EST up reply actions
Awesome piece.
by akbrown15 on Dec 1, 2011 10:39 AM EST reply actions
ESPN fired you?
Clearly you are doing something right
by NU Wildcat Offense on Dec 1, 2011 10:54 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
lots of ppl have fired me
not this time, though.
by Bomani Jones on Dec 1, 2011 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
you'll never understand
how southern Jewish guys feel about Hank.
by Mark Mandingo on Dec 1, 2011 12:36 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Haha on behalf of someone who has lived in Alabama his whole life
I truly apologize for Paul Finebaum, Bomani. That guy is everything that is wrong with college football, especially here. Trust me, that show doesn’t portray all of us down here.
by Bamabrave4 on Dec 1, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
don't worry
my mother’s lived in hsv for the last 15 years. i’m good with the state of alabama.
by Bomani Jones on Dec 1, 2011 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
great article
I never thought about the BCS in this regard, great article.
Be the Change you wanna see in the world
by Jermaine E. Cooper on Dec 1, 2011 10:59 AM EST reply actions
Welcome!!
Just wish there were no rankings until later in the season. Preseason thoughts have too great an effect on the final standings.
by NJ Chiefs Fan on Dec 1, 2011 11:03 AM EST reply actions
Welcome
Follow me on twitter! | Mountain West Connection | SB Nation Denver
by Jeremy Mauss on Dec 1, 2011 11:51 AM EST reply actions
I want to argue about the difference b/t the NCAAT and the BCS
is the number of games that teams play and how all the teams in a conference play each other but I can’t seem to put it down in solid writing
Better to have died a small boy than to drop this football - John Heisman FromTheRumbleSeat
Twitter, twitter, twitter
by Winfield Featherston on Dec 1, 2011 12:56 PM EST reply actions
Conference titles
Everything.
This isn’t the pros. College football isn’t one giant league, it is a loose confederation of several independent leagues. Asking what’s so important about winning your conference is like asking what’s so important about winning the English Premiership.
It matters because it is winning a title against almost all of the times you have historical ties to. It matters because winning the conference is the one thing you can control. It matters because, unlike other American sports, the regular season counts for something.
Arguing for the BCS on the grounds that conference titles don’t matter is like writing a column on why you don’t like college football. Which is fine, but please don’t tell those of us who do love it how to do things, when it is apparent you don’t share that love.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
I self-indulgently tweet @ATVSPoseur
by Poseur on Dec 1, 2011 1:02 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
With 120 football teams, there is very little evidence available for comparison
OSU and Alabama have played completely different schedules, so there is no direct way to compare them in a contest of who is “better”.
However, in this case, we know for sure that Alabama is not as good as LSU, because they have already played. We don’t know if OSU is better than LSU, though, because they have not played each other, nor do they have similar schedules for comparison.
So the best way to determine who is ‘best’ in the land is to match up with someone who you have not already played.
The BCS isn’t set up to determine who the second best team in the country is. It is set up to determine who the #1 team is. They have decided that they only need one game to determine this, so in order to determine if they actually have the best team in the nation, they need them to play someone they haven’t already played, or who isn’t from their conference (similar schedules for direct comparison).
And that is why OSU (or Stanford or Virginia Tech) should get in over Alabama. Because if LSU plays Alabama again, it won’t affirm that they are the national champions of anything. It will only re-affirm that they are SEC (West if they lose to Georgia) champions.
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 1, 2011 1:34 PM EST reply actions 7 recs
Oh, and good first column.
Despite my obvious disagreement with your premise, it was well thought out and articulated.
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 1, 2011 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well put.
My objection to an LSU-Alabama title game is also to the “rematch” part not the “not a conference champion” part, and that’s the best statement I’ve seen for that position.
Saying that Alabama should make the championship game is basically arguing that they deserve a second chance before Oklahoma St., Virginia Tech, Stanford, Houston, etc. even gets a first chance. Under those circumstances, every team not in the SEC, has a perfectly legitimate argument that the only reason they didn’t win a national championship is that the fix was in and they weren’t even given a chance to compete.
by grmann on Dec 1, 2011 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Best argument against Alabama that I have heard
However, I counter that by reenforcing what Bomani wrote. It is about the two best teams playing for the National Championship based off who we think is the best. There is no possible way that we could ever actually line up all 120 teams without them all playing each other, so it becomes based off of perception. Which could be the flaw with the BCS itself. But denying Alabama a chance for the National Championship just because the opposing team happens to be LSU is unfair to Alabama, and that seems to be the only reason people have a problem with Alabama playing for the NC. You can’t adjust the system that we have just because we already played them. We are #2 for a reason, and putting Oklahoma State ahead of us just because you don’t want to see a rematch would be manipulating the system, and underscoring the point of it.
by Bamabrave4 on Dec 1, 2011 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
I agree that by the rules of the system, Alabama deserves the title appearance,
and that it is the system that is flawed.
But that doesn’t mean I think it is the right outcome. Which was my point.
What my objection with this story (and another one by Bill Connelly) is the argument that the BCS is somehow getting it right.
No, they are not. Sure, they are getting it right based on the system requirements they themselves put into place, but if the system they have put into place is flawed, that doesn’t make it the objectively correct outcome.
And that is what I am arguing here. Because I know I have no influence on the actual outcome of all this, I am arguing the merits of the system, not whether this is the correct scenario according to the system already in place.
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 1, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Furthermore, I suppose this means that you thought Michigan should have had another shot at Ohio State in 2006?
Because otherwise you are just being logically inconsistent and cherry picking arguments that support your team.
And we all know how that turned out for Ohio State. Does anybody dispute that Florida was National Champion in 2006? No.
The same thing could happen to LSU, but we would never know if they just played Alabama again. And if Alabama wins? How does that work? Are they national champions? How is that fair to LSU, who already beat the Tide @Alabama?
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 1, 2011 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
if Michigan was the second best team in the nation at the time
Sure.
They weren’t, and it was somewhat clearer to see (given computer rankings and whatnot, as well as who the other one-loss teams were), but if they were, sure.
The fact is that you can’t reasonably make great arguments for any team other than OKST right now as far as who is the #2 team in the nation was. In Michigan’s year you very easily could. That’s the real issue. If Oregon hadn’t lost then maybe you could argue. If OKST wins against Oklahoma you almost have a good argument, but that remains to be seen. But as of now? OKST has a worse loss and not significantly better wins. It’s that easy.
by kalon on Dec 1, 2011 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Um...
OSU has 5 wins in the BCS Top 25. Alabama has 2.
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 1, 2011 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
Top 25 isn't that big a deal
Once you get past the top 15 it’s tough.
I do agree that OKST’s wins are better than Alabama’s. It’s the loss that’s tough to shake. Losing by 3 at home in overtime thanks to largely kicking issues is a big difference from losing to a 20+ point underdog, even if it was on the road. That’s what makes people a bit reluctant to back OKST; I don’t think they want another LSU blowout of an inferior team.
by kalon on Dec 1, 2011 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
Why is OKST an inferior team?
That game was also in overtime, and featured an end-of-regulation missed field goal by OKST that, on replays, looks very questionable as a “missed” field goal. In other words, “largely kicking issues”.
Sure, they should have took care of business in OT by not letting ISU score and by not turning the ball over, but the point is it was on the road, to a decent Iowa State team (Paul Rhodes has a major upset in each of his seasons as coach, and the Clones are 6-5 right now and played Oklahoma close in Norman). On the same night they learned of great tragedy for OKST.
Yes, you still need to go out and win the game, I’m not excusing that, but there is no reason to claim that OKST is an inferior team without any way to actually compare the two teams. I am not convinced that LSU could play OSU’s schedule and still walk away undefeated. Maybe they wouldn’t lose to Iowa State, but maybe they would lose to OU, or KSU, or Texas, or Baylor.
And if you only want Top 15, well, OSU (if they win Bedlam) will have two top 15 wins, and Alabama will have 1. 2 > 1 last time I checked.
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 1, 2011 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
This is where we are different, my friend
“I am not convinced that LSU could play OSU’s schedule and still walk away undefeated. Maybe they wouldn’t lose to Iowa State, but maybe they would lose to OU, or KSU, or Texas, or Baylor.”
To me there is no way LSU loses to any of those teams. You seem to be on the side of “well we will never know unless we give them a chance” whereas I’m more of a “I think you can tell based off of their performances” kind of guy. I understand my view aires much more on the hypothetical side of just assuming they are better, but that is the system we have.
by Bamabrave4 on Dec 1, 2011 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
Also, why should it matter if they don't "want another LSU blowout of an inferior team"
This isn’t supposed to be about who will play the closest game. It is about who deserves to play as #1 and #2.
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 1, 2011 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
Alabama already had their shot.
They lost to LSU at home. If every game counts and every week is a playoff then Alabama has been eliminated.
Elway is in, Zimm is in, Little is FINALLY in but don't forget: Randy Gradishar, Steve Atwater & Terrel Davis
by BlueNOrangeNIdaho on Dec 1, 2011 3:44 PM EST up reply actions
Evey game counts. Until we arbitrarily decide it doesn't
by CMDR on Dec 1, 2011 3:47 PM EST up reply actions
Except that's not the case
That’s what we’d like to think it kind of is, but that’s not what it actually is.
by kalon on Dec 1, 2011 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
Uh
Err, no. The BCS’s stated goal is to make sure the #1 and #2 team in the nation play, and as such determine who each of those teams are. That’s their sole reason for existing. One of the reasons that there are computers and separate polls is to make sure that polls are not the only arbiter of who is the best in the nation and that early losses aren’t so rewarded compared to late.
I happen to agree that it would be better to have two teams that haven’t played each other, but the notion that the BCS is bound to determine who is the best team in the country is categorically and obviously false. That’s not their stated goal and hasn’t ever been. It’s simply to get the two highest ranked teams together. That’s all.
by kalon on Dec 1, 2011 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
I looked it up, and...
You’re right. From the BCS website:
I guess I was just blinded by all the talk about determining who number one was, that it made me think that that was what all this arguing was about.
Why call it a national championship then? What an utter farce.
That just strengthens my believe that we need a playoff.
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 1, 2011 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
It's a national championship
Simply because the ESPN poll is contract-bound to vote the winner of the game the #1 team in the nation. Note the AP is NOT so bound and has differed in other years, such as in 2004 when USC was excluded from the game.
This is actually a big knock on the BCS compared to the old system; the old bowling system would never, not in a million years, have two teams from the same conference play. You’d occasionally get rematches in bowl games but those were at least OOC games.
I do think that we’ll be getting a playoff fairly soon, at least on some form. With conferences becoming less and less relevant and more malleable you either need a playoff or a much better reason for excluding teams than what we have. Something like RPI.
by kalon on Dec 1, 2011 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
I was meaning, how have they proved themselves as being "national"
I understand that the Coaches Poll (not ESPN) is contract bound to vote the winner as #1, but there is also the BCS National Championship that gives a trophy, so even if the Coaches weren’t forced to vote that way, they could still be considered National Champions.
I also know that the Media votes however the hell they want. The point of my argument was that supposedly the BCS determines the national championship, that is the fundamental assumption people operate under, but their stated mission goal is not that at all. They just want to put #1 vs #2 based on their flawed system.
I do hope we get playoffs soon, and think it probably is on the horizon, but that isn’t going to stop me from railing against it every year.
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 1, 2011 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
The BCS championship trophy is the Coaches' Poll trophy
There’s really no such thing as a BCS Champion, just a Coaches’ Poll champion. There is a BCS Championship Game in the post-2005 BCS, but in the 1998-2005 BCS, it was just the Orange / Sugar / Fiesta / Rose Bowl that happened to match up the #1 and #2 teams in the BCS rankings.
by drothgery on Dec 1, 2011 7:43 PM EST up reply actions
The fundamental problem with this argument
is that better teams lose to worse teams all the time. If Team A is slightly better than Team B, it obviously does not have a 100% chance of winning, or even close. Luck, bad days, unusually outstanding performances— the reasons why underdogs sometimes win are the same reasons why you watch the game in the first place. Even just looking at this situation, it’s quite possible that Alabama is actually better than LSU— they outplayed LSU in that game.
There is no consistent way to support a title matchup of the two “best” teams and not favor an Alabama-LSU rematch. I encourage you to abandon all hope of doing so and instead ask the far more interesting and, IMO, ethically appropriate (insofar as it does not arbitrarily favor rich, established programs to the same degree) question of which two teams had the best seasons.
By that metric, it’s fairly clear that Alabama is not deserving of a title game spot. (Though, if it actually was, I wouldn’t be averse to giving it a second shot at LSU.)
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Dec 1, 2011 7:23 PM EST up reply actions
Interesting
I’m curious, who do you think is more deserving than Alabama in that metric?
by Bamabrave4 on Dec 1, 2011 8:10 PM EST up reply actions
Oklahoma State, easily.
Five wins (assuming one this week, otherwise this is all moot) over ranked teams to Alabama’s two – for that matter, Alabama won’t have five wins against winning teams, much less ranked ones. If your wins are that much better, you can overcome a worse loss. (Frankly, I think it’s much more important to reward good wins than punish bad losses; to be the best, you have to beat the best, not merely avoid losing to the mediocre, so if it’s close I’d rather give the shot to a team that has demonstrated that they can beat good teams than one that routinely eviscerates bad ones but doesn’t beat the good ones.)
I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left-hand side.
Bradley-Terry rankings for college football and basketball: because there aren't enough computer rankings already.
by SpartanDan on Dec 1, 2011 9:10 PM EST up reply actions
I find it interesting to think a Michigan State guy
Would think that Oklahoma State is easily better than Alabama but that aside, I see what you are saying. I wouldn’t say that Alabama “doesn’t beat the good ones” considering we blew out a top ten Arkansas and a ranked Penn State team (pre-Sandusky madness).
by Bamabrave4 on Dec 1, 2011 9:29 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know who's better. Sample size and all that.
But (if OkSt wins Bedlam) I do know who had the better regular season, and it ain’t Alabama. One thing I do on the side is maintain a pair of computer ranking systems; by one of them, Alabama’s fourth-best win (Mississippi State) is on par with what would be OkSt’s eighth (Louisiana-Lafayette). In the other, Alabama’s second (Penn State) is on par with what would be OkSt’s sixth (Texas). You’re damn right I’m picking that as the more deserving resume, even with a worse loss.
I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left-hand side.
Bradley-Terry rankings for college football and basketball: because there aren't enough computer rankings already.
by SpartanDan on Dec 1, 2011 11:57 PM EST up reply actions
Why would a Michigan State fan have any partisan interest in the matter at all?
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Dec 2, 2011 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
This
This is a vital point. It’s essential for teams to be tangibly rewarded for scheduling up and playing high-level competition. Those rewards directly translate into more interesting games on your TV sets.
As it stands currently, the BCS incentivizes the kind of pathetic scheduling that Alabama engaged in this year (an FCS team and two teams that, believe it or not, actually rank well BELOW said FCS team in the Sagarin rankings).
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Dec 2, 2011 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
Ridiculous...It defies logic.
If you aren’t the best team in your conference then you can’t be the best team in the nation, if the only thing putting you position for the claim is how some yob votes. Alabama already lost this game and every game counts right? Due to a lack of playoff, there should be a stipulation that only conference champions can play for the BCS title. Would it screw Alabama this season…absolutely. Perhaps they should argue for a playoff so the second chance is earned rather then given to them.
Elway is in, Zimm is in, Little is FINALLY in but don't forget: Randy Gradishar, Steve Atwater & Terrel Davis
by BlueNOrangeNIdaho on Dec 1, 2011 1:58 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
The second chance was earned
By way of every other possible contender failing to get the job done while we continued to win with ease.
by Bamabrave4 on Dec 1, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
You're not wrong.
And go ahead and mail that trophy to LSU if Okie State goes in. They’ll get curbstomped.
by Durdens Wrath on Dec 1, 2011 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
Which is why KSU was curbstomped by OU in 2003.
Followed by a beat-down of LSU in the title game.
We should always just decide champions based on media hype. When have they ever been wrong?
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 1, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
It's not exactly media hype
LSU has played a ridiculously hard in-conference and out of conference schedule and won.
Yes, one game can be different. Football is a lot more luck-based than most would care to admit. At the same time given the information we have it’s much clearer that Alabama is a stronger team than OKST. From who beat whom, who lost to whom and by how bad to what conferences are stronger/weaker, there is a lot of evidence. It’s not just media hype.
by kalon on Dec 1, 2011 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
I beg to differ.
The Big 12 is arguably a very close second best football conference. OSU, in getting to 10 wins, has ahd to beat 5 top 25 teams. Alabama has had to beat 2. I don’t understand how this means that Alabama has a better resume than OKST.
In 2003, OU also had the most objectively sound resume for being the best team in the country. They beat a whole lot of teams by quite a bit, including: (not sure if ranking is end-of-season or at time of play)
OSU #22 by 52-9
Texas #5 by 65-13
@Alabama by 20-13
UCLA by 59-24
So, my point being, there is no point in declaring LSU national champions just because they would be playing OKST. It IS media hype, because they are declaring the season over before it is actually over.
Would you like some Freys with that?
by ChrisP Wildcat on Dec 1, 2011 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
Georgia Southern.
Nice, tough late season game there.
Elway is in, Zimm is in, Little is FINALLY in but don't forget: Randy Gradishar, Steve Atwater & Terrel Davis
by BlueNOrangeNIdaho on Dec 1, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions
This is coming from a Boise fan?
Haha that is funny
by Bamabrave4 on Dec 1, 2011 5:20 PM EST up reply actions
My rooting preferences aside
You’re point was Alabama “earned” the second chance by watching other teams lose…and by beating such power houses as Mississippi State & FCS Georgia Southern. At least the losses by Oklahoma State, Stanford and Oregon were to D1 schools.
Elway is in, Zimm is in, Little is FINALLY in but don't forget: Randy Gradishar, Steve Atwater & Terrel Davis
by BlueNOrangeNIdaho on Dec 1, 2011 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't say what we did was extremely impressive
But yes, while we continued to take care of business, the other contenders did not. And I’m not sure what you mean by saying that “at least the losses by Oklahoma State, Stanford and Oregon were to D1 schools”, because our’s was too.
by Bamabrave4 on Dec 1, 2011 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
The old "timing of loss" argument.
Please tell me that’s a joke.
I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left-hand side.
Bradley-Terry rankings for college football and basketball: because there aren't enough computer rankings already.
by SpartanDan on Dec 1, 2011 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
Could you point me in the direction of who was making that argument?
by Bamabrave4 on Dec 1, 2011 9:31 PM EST up reply actions
Perhaps I misinterpreted.
But “we kept winning after we lost, everybody else screwed up” sounded that way to me.
I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left-hand side.
Bradley-Terry rankings for college football and basketball: because there aren't enough computer rankings already.
by SpartanDan on Dec 1, 2011 11:58 PM EST up reply actions
What I meant was
Everyone else blew their opportunities. Not that they lost late in the season, therefore, they blew their opportunities.
by Bamabrave4 on Dec 2, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
The solution: take opinion out of college football rankings.
Does it matter when an NFL team loses-early or late in the year? No.
Does it matter by how much an NFL team wins or loses games? No.
What matters is what happens on the field when two teams play. Not what happens between the ears of voters. In fact, coaches prly shouldnt vote. Coaches know their opponents, but rarely have the time or inclination to watch, at length, teams they do not play against that year.
The entire system is whack. And while Im ranting, cut the length of games while we’re at it. Too many damn commercials.
Proud mini-Saban.
by Tidee Whitee on Dec 1, 2011 3:19 PM EST reply actions
The problem (or, at least, one of the largest of several dozen problems)
is that 10% of a full round robin schedule, mostly in isolated groups (the SEC has a grand total of two games against the Big XII and Big Ten combined before the bowls), is nowhere near sufficient to determine the two best teams with anything resembling certainty. Some years it’s barely sufficient to distinguish #1 from #9 (2008 – Florida, Alabama, USC, Penn State, the Big XII South triumvirate, Utah, and Boise all had legitimate arguments).
I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left-hand side.
Bradley-Terry rankings for college football and basketball: because there aren't enough computer rankings already.
by SpartanDan on Dec 1, 2011 9:15 PM EST up reply actions
Just throwing out some facts:
OkState has a stronger SOS than Alabama.
OkState has beaten more winning teams than Alabama.
OkState has beaten more BCS Top 25 teams than Alabama.
1 loss conference champion > 1 loss 3rd place team even if they are in the SEC
Conference results matter because the regular season is supposed to matter. If every game doesn’t really count, then everyone else might as well be masturbating.
by CMDR on Dec 1, 2011 3:32 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
There's no such thing as 3rd place in the SEC
The only standings that exist (or are in any way meaningful) are within divisions.
Alabama finished 2nd in the SEC west. Georgia won the SEC east. Alabama had a better SEC record than Georgia, but they had few common opponents.
Having said that, I’m still in the anti-rematch camp.
by drothgery on Dec 1, 2011 7:49 PM EST up reply actions
The argument re: non conference champs misses a major point
I am a Maryland fan … the 1974 ACC Men’s Basketball Championship, NC State vs. Maryland, was one of the best basketball games ever and it was the final push that made the NCAA expand the basketball tournament to include at-large candidates. It was certainly the right thing to do.
But your article glosses over one major issue.
In basketball (and other NCAA sports), all of the conference champions get a spot in a playoff tournament. It isn’t a matter of picking non-champions INSTEAD OF conference champions. It’s a matter of picking non-champions IN ADDITION TO conference champions.
The current system continues to exist, despite logic, because bowl committees do everything they can to convince school coaches, ADs and presidents that a playoff couldn’t possibly work, or that it would destroy all bowls, or other nonsense. The schools and conferences would make much more money with a playoff than they do with the BCS. It’s a load of bull.
A playoff does not need to destroy the bowl games, it can work with them. It’s not hard to figure out how. The BCS is a glorified beauty contest that has built-in conflicts of interest, unverifiable computer rankings, and is based on preexisting biases. It is an awful way to decide a “national champion.”
Nobody claims that the best regular-season team always becomes the national champion. That’s not the point. The point is that they, and all of the conference champions, along with the best of the rest, should have a shot in a playoff tournament.
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
Recommended reading: Death to the BCS
by mdak06 on Dec 2, 2011 8:47 AM EST reply actions
I see no reason to justify a flawed BCS system
with faulty logic.
I was getting ready for a reasonable argument, but you jumped the tracks to basketball. Unless you are prepared to argue a playoff in football as in b-ball to determine a true national champion, you lost this one.
Only twice since the BCS and its predecessors were established in 1992 have we have a non-conference champion play for the national championship – only Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003. Both werer undefeated entering their championship, but upset. Seventeen of the nineteen years we have had two conference champions play for the title.
We have never had a non-divisional winner play for the NC. Alabama may be a top four team, but that seems to be an argument for a playoff.
As an Irish fan, we have heard for years that teams need to join a conference and go through the rigors of winning our conference to get a chance to play in a BCS bowl or play for the National Championship. This year proves the lie to that, I guess. You don’t even need to play in your conference championship.
by Michael Collins on Dec 2, 2011 10:24 AM EST reply actions
2001 Nebraska
Of course, no one believed that one made sense; Oregon was #2 in both major polls, and Colorado actually won the Big 12 (and had just stomped Nebraska to get to the Big 12 Championship Game).
by drothgery on Dec 2, 2011 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
If the SEC were structured like the BCS
LSU would play Alabama for the conference championship. Why wouldn’t you want the top two teams in your conference to play for the title?
by Michael Collins on Dec 3, 2011 12:36 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed