Started By
Message
The BCS drama has been much ado about nothing since 2003.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:01 am
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:01 am
From 1998-2003 the BCS formula was pretty complicated, involving human polls, computer polls, strength of schedule, quality win components, etc.
It basically made it so that the BCS standings could differ substantially from the human polls, which of course came to a head in 2003 when the #1 team in both human polls came in #3 in the final BCS standings.
So starting with 2004 the formula was majorly simplified, 2/3rd the human polls, 1/3 an average of 6 computer polls.
Since that change has been implemented the #1/#2 teams have never differed in any of the three major human polls (AP, Coaches, Harris) and those teams have played in the title game every year.
For all the bitching about the computers, they are effectively meaningless unless the human polls somehow disagree or are super close.
#1/#2 in the human polls goes to the championship game with the computer polls acting as a "tiebreaker" in case the human polls are super close.
So the BCS has been working fine every year, if you have a problem with the final teams, blame the voters, not the computers.
The two biggest flaws of the BCS system and the two that will be corrected:
There can be more than 2 legitimately deserving teams.
The non-championship BCS bowl matchups often suck.
These issues should hopefully go away next year.
It basically made it so that the BCS standings could differ substantially from the human polls, which of course came to a head in 2003 when the #1 team in both human polls came in #3 in the final BCS standings.
So starting with 2004 the formula was majorly simplified, 2/3rd the human polls, 1/3 an average of 6 computer polls.
Since that change has been implemented the #1/#2 teams have never differed in any of the three major human polls (AP, Coaches, Harris) and those teams have played in the title game every year.
For all the bitching about the computers, they are effectively meaningless unless the human polls somehow disagree or are super close.
#1/#2 in the human polls goes to the championship game with the computer polls acting as a "tiebreaker" in case the human polls are super close.
So the BCS has been working fine every year, if you have a problem with the final teams, blame the voters, not the computers.
The two biggest flaws of the BCS system and the two that will be corrected:
There can be more than 2 legitimately deserving teams.
The non-championship BCS bowl matchups often suck.
These issues should hopefully go away next year.
4
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:03 am to IAmReality
tl;dr & 2004 is all I've got to say.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:03 am to plazadweller
quote:The ONLY year the BCS didn't work
2004
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:04 am to plazadweller
Human beings, poll voters, picked the teams in 2004.
Be mad at them if you think the wrong teams were picked.
Be mad at them if you think the wrong teams were picked.
This post was edited on 10/31/13 at 11:05 am
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:11 am to IAmReality
quote:
Human beings, poll voters, picked the teams in 2004.
Be mad at them if you think the wrong teams were picked.
there were 3 viable teams in 04' only two could have been picked, someone was going to get shafted, it is what it is
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:12 am to genro
quote:
The ONLY year the BCS didn't work
It didn't work in 2003, either. LSU and USC should have played in the NC.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:13 am to lsufan251875
Which is why it got tweaked.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:22 am to lsufan251875
quote:Both lost a game, so neither would've had a right to complain had they been shut out of the title game
It didn't work in 2003, either. LSU and USC should have played in the NC.
This post was edited on 10/31/13 at 11:22 am
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:22 am to JuiceTerry
The title games of 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011 were all a joke.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:24 am to RandySavage
quote:bullshite. I have no sympathy for teams that lost one or more games.
The title games of 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011 were all a joke.
If you go undefeated, you should be guaranteed a chance.
If you don't, you may still get a chance but you'll be lucky if you do. All bets are off.
That's a perfect system to me. And the BCS was almost perfect.
I like putting a value on winning every single game. It's why college football has the best regular season of any sport at any level.
This post was edited on 10/31/13 at 11:25 am
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:25 am to plazadweller
quote:
2004 is all I've got to say.
It worked in 2004.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:28 am to IAmReality
quote:
These issues should hopefully go away next year.
Will have to expand to 8 teams and the playing of sub-bcs teams eliminated before the controversy is really impotent. 4 spots with 5 major conferences fighting over is going to be a political nightmare.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:31 am to BlackPawnMartyr
quote:
4 spots with 5 major conferences fighting over is going to be a political nightmare.
yup and four spots more than likely open up to at least one loss and possibly multi loss teams. then you go into who has the best losses or best wins
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:47 am to Tuscaloosa
quote:
It worked in 2004
As much as I hate to admit it, the SEC should have been left out that year as it was way down and we never should have been undefeated. LSU beat us. That XP leverage call was BS. We got ours before the system dies. It's all good.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:48 am to Dice410
quote:
LSU beat us. That XP leverage call was BS
at most they would have tied it and gone to OT
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:51 am to IAmReality
Meh.its still the most subjective title in all of American sports. The way the voters choose the participants changes pretty much every year. One year it's better resume, best win, then it's best loss, and then we even get the great and unbiased "EYEBALL" test.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:52 am to Rickdaddy4188
quote:But enough about the NCAA Basketball tournament already
Meh.its still the most subjective title in all of American sports. The way the voters choose the participants changes pretty much every year. One year it's better resume, best win, then it's best loss, and then we even get the great and unbiased "EYEBALL" test.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:53 am to NYCAuburn
But I don't think we would have scored again on their defense. Especially the way Tubby and Al were calling such a conservative game.
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:56 am to Dice410
quote:
But I don't think we would have scored again on their defense. Especially the way Tubby and Al were calling such a conservative game.
They werent scoring either, Our D was stout as well
Posted on 10/31/13 at 11:56 am to RandySavage
quote:
The title games of 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011 were all a joke.
how was 2007 a joke? who should have played instead of LSU?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News