Has the BCS failed?

[brecht]

I just have to get my two cents in on this one.

If the bcs has failed in any way, it has failed in fulfilling its original purpose: to diminish the effect of the partisan voters. weren't the computers originally intended to provide an unbiased view of who the top 2 teams were? weren't the computers supposed to make an unbiased comparison of the teams so that, at the end of the year, the voters wouldn't have to collude to find two teams to play in the nat'l title? it seems now that the computers aren't working, and IMO this is because they've lessened the influence of the computers. we're pretty much back to the same system we had before the bcs, with the oft-times ill-informed voters pinning the tail on the donkey at the end of the year to determine the NC game.

It seems there's a general distrust of letting computers decide the nat'l title game, but do you distrust the computers more than the voters? I for one don't. How are the voters supposed to know who's better, michigan or florida? they can go by their gut instinct or just take a wild guess, but my guess is that the result of the nat'l title game (should OSU win) will make the pundits second guess who was chosen. They'll say it's unfair that michigan or florida was left out just because the team that got a title shot lost. And that will only stir more drummed up controversy by the networks' own doing.

What does everyone else think? Despite not being perfect, I think the BCS still works better than anything else in the past. And as for a plus one game, I don't like the idea of a #4 team like LSU that lost twice this year to get a shot at winning a NC by winning two games at the end of the year. You just cannot cheapen the regular season like that. Look at the NFL, it's boring as hell this time of the year until the playoffs start.

One more thought (sorry this is sooo long). But i think controversy will be created any team like OSU seems to be that much better than the rest of CFB. After all, the BCS is here to decide who the best team in the country is. It's goal isn't to decide who the second best team in the country is.

 

[IrishDon103]

I think we can all agree that the BCS will be gone sooner rather than later. People have been complaining about it constantly. Last year was the only year that it really worked right...

What should we do instead? I don't know. Playoff? meh..maybe. But it doesn't matter at this point. BCS has to go.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I think it's working just fine. The only time it has come close to failure is when Auburn never got a shot at the title when they were undefeated.

 

[Sweeney6083]

YES.
Need a playoff , plain and simple.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

if Florida leaps UM to the #2 spot, then you know the BCS failed.

 

[Clotho]

That's idiotic. Sorry.

The BCS has been a resounding success. It's a money making device. And money continues to flow in. People watch. People discuss. BCS continues.

A playoff would be better for the sport; but the sport is primarily a business.

 

[knute]

Has the BCS failed?

Who cares? Ohio State vs. Florida will be a fun game to watch. Michigan had their chance.

 

[Zephyr]

Who cares? Ohio State vs. Florida will be a fun game to watch. Michigan had their chance.

That's right who cares... I am not sure if there will be any fun in watching 2 teams I very much dislike in the NC game... I do agree with Michigan, they had their chance...

 

[SillyIrish]

Who cares? Ohio State vs. Florida will be a fun game to watch. Michigan had their chance.

Exactly I could care less who goes, Florida is deserving.

 

[Pete]

I think the only place where the BCS has "failed" is how it spreads the games out, Jan. 1 used to be the greatest day of the year, just nonstop games. Now you have to wait until the 8th to watch the championship game.

 

[Clotho]

Exactly I could care less who goes, Florida is deserving.

I don't think they're deserving. But then no one is particularly deserving, unless maybe Louisville, who's not even in the discussion. Hence the need for a playoff.

Florida's second to last game of the year was against a Division 1AA team that isn't even good in division 1AA. That's unforgivable. They looked unimpressive in most of their games.

Do I think they've got a better resume than Michigan? Yea. But it really should be settled on the field. Florida doesn't blow me away. In fact they're relatively unimpressive.

 

[BGIF]

... If the bcs has failed in any way, it has failed in fulfilling its original purpose: to diminish the effect of the partisan voters.

The original purpose was to prevent a playoff system thus saving the lucrative bowl deals some of the conferences had. It's been a resounding success in that aim. To achieve that goal the BCS stated their goal was to have #1 play #2.

If the goal was to diminish the effect of the partisan voters why do they allow the coaches to have a secret ballot all season?

... weren't the computers originally intended to provide an unbiased view of who the top 2 teams were? ...

Yes and No. The computers were included in a compromise to negate regional bias. However several of the original computer systems selected were dropped over the years as bias was detected. If the intent was to avoid collusion they would have eliminated the coaches poll which clearly is a conflict of interest as the coaches not only get incentive pay for where their team is ranked but their team shares in bowl revenue from several other teams (conference revenue sharing).

... it seems now that the computers aren't working, and IMO this is because they've lessened the influence of the computers. ...

The computers are working. You may not like the results as the BCS hasn't liked their results and frequently tinkered with the computer programs selected until they got what they wanted. The BCS Committee made the computer gurus eliminate MOV (margin of victory) although the Coaches Poll and Harris Poll consider MOV.

...we're pretty much back to the same system we had before the bcs, with the oft-times ill-informed voters pinning the tail on the donkey at the end of the year to determine the NC game.

No the polls were predominately AP and UPI. When UPI (another writers service like the AP) faded USAToday (1982) came up with the coaches poll gimmick. For many years the National Champion was voted on at the end of the regular season. Bowl games were purely money making like the NY Yankees going to Japan to play a team there. The bowls were started by local Chambers of Commerce to fill hotels and restaurants. They generally got a local team (or local conference team) to bring out the local folks and a big name school to bring tourist dollars. The bowls were all in warm weather locales. The visiting team was frequently selected with the approval (behind closed doors) of the host team (to ensure they were comfortable with the opponent). Besides making money the objective was to make the local fans happy so they would come again next year.

ND didn't play in a bowl between 1925 and 1970 because the Administration though it was too much of a demand on the student athletes to play the extra game. This was a cause for split National Champions as ND could be voted NC on the basis of the regular season and then the #2 or #3 team won another game in a bowl and jumped ND in a poll that had it's final poll after the bowls were completed.

Parshegian prevailed upon the ND Administration to permit bowl participation in 1970. ND's stated goal was to play the highest ranked opponent available. And they did. When Bama played the #10 or #15 ranked opponent, ND was playing a Top 5 opponent. That's how ND won an NC in '77 jumping from #5 to #1 by knocking off the #1 ranked Longhorns. The BCS is set up to specifically exclude that from happening.

... It seems there's a general distrust of letting computers decide the nat'l title game, but do you distrust the computers more than the voters? I for one don't.

I agree. While the computer programs may be flawed they're consistent in any flaws. Some human voters vote for who they think is the best at that point in the season while others vote for who is they think will be the best at the end of the season, while others vote for who think will go unbeaten simply because they play an easy schedule (the Boise State's). Like the Heisman there is no agreement on what the criteria is, what should constitute #1 (much less #2).

The BCS isn't perfect but is better than the smoked filled rooms. Considering the conference/bowl contracts don't expect a playoff system selection to be any better. The major conferences aren't giving up their guarantee millions.

...After all, the BCS is here to decide who the best team in the country is. It's goal isn't to decide who the second best team in the country is.

No, it's not. The BCS is here to see the #1 ranked team plays the #2 ranked team. They have to designate a #1 and #2 to do that. And the coaches are mandated to vote for the winner of that game as the #1 team.

 

[tedwick]

nice post, bgif. i'd rep you, but i've got to spread it around.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Who cares? Ohio State vs. Florida will be a fun game to watch. Michigan had their chance.

They did not have their chance. They had to face OSU in the Horseshoe. They were #2 until USC LOST and Florida won another game. So Florida jumps 2 spots and UM stays the same?

BS.

UM has never had a shot at the #1 team on a neutral field as the BCS dictates.

 

[penguin]

I agree with Shamrock that January 1st used to be the best day of the year for college games...
The season is too long already.
But it's true, that the goal is primarily to make money.

Anyway, the Irish play on January 1st 2007, so it will be a good day for me. Afterward, I'll focus on basketball.