Started By
Message
re: Lost and forgotten: The BCS Rankings
Posted on 6/24/19 at 11:40 am to I Bleed Garnet
Posted on 6/24/19 at 11:40 am to I Bleed Garnet
You can't really argue with this
quote:bringing more naturally motivated competition.
just everyone fighting for the final 2 spots
0
Posted on 6/24/19 at 11:40 am to southernboisb
quote:
A large fault was "the coach's poll" which could be seen as biased as to how teams were ranked.
The rumor back in 2004 was that Bob Stoops and his brother both ranked Auburn very low on their ballots to ensure Oklahoma stayed ahead of Auburn for the final poll.
The old BCS system was fine, however it needed transparency.
1. Make all human poll ballots public
2. Provide transparency with the computer polls by releasing the formula methodology.
The BCS system worked in terms of the nuts and bolts, but there was no transparency to make sure there wasn't funny business going on with coaches or media types personally voting certain teams low in order to manipulate the rankings. There was also a lot of trust put in the computer polls to make sure they weren't tweaking their formulas to achieve a certain result. There was no checks to make sure they were being honest.
Had the BCS just instituted a level of transparency, the old system would have been just fine and it would be remarkably better and more "fair" than the current committee system.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 11:40 am to TarnishedWisdom90
quote:
condalisa rice fits into making these selections
She doesn’t and hasn’t for the last 3 years
Posted on 6/24/19 at 11:42 am to BHMKyle
Instead of Coaches Poll use the AP poll for the BCS
Posted on 6/24/19 at 11:47 am to I Bleed Garnet
quote:
condalisa rice fits into making these selections
quote:Thank you!
She doesn’t and hasn’t for the last 3 years
Personally, I had no issue with Rice. I mean any of her decisions could've easily been thwarted by the likes of RC Slocum, Manning, Beamer, Bobby Johnson, Alvarez, Jeff Long, Tom Osborne, and any number of geezers during their term.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 11:48 am to RT1941
I have it on good authority that Saban wanted the computer polls done away with. They were not factoring in the Saban effect.
The humans will factor that in and include Bama every year.
The humans will factor that in and include Bama every year.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 11:49 am to RT1941
quote:
Personally, I had no issue with Rice.
Yea if anything she has the least agenda of any of them
You know for damn sure the former coaches or current/former ADs are going to vote in favor of a team from their conference regardless of resume and if a team is good
Posted on 6/24/19 at 12:17 pm to AndyWoods
Should've expanded to 4 like Slive proposed in 08. Only the ACC commish supported him though so now we have a committee of "experts" instead.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 12:18 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
The rumor back in 2004 was that Bob Stoops and his brother both ranked Auburn very low on their ballots to ensure Oklahoma stayed ahead of Auburn for the final poll.
Auburn was also behind them in the computers though. Not playing an AQ OOC did them in.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 12:19 pm to NorthshoreTiger76
quote:
BCS top 4 would have been fine
This.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 12:24 pm to I Bleed Garnet
quote:
condalisa rice fits into making these selections
She doesn’t and hasn’t for the last 3 years
I'd also argue she's smarter and more football knowledgeable than 99.9% of this board. But yeah, she was a problem on the committee.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 12:36 pm to AndyWoods
Would have preferred top 4 BCS to the committee, and would have liked to see the BCS come to an agreement with the AP to re-establish the AP as a human poll instead of the Harris.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 2:38 pm to AndyWoods
Selection committee can weight the most important factors like potential for TV viewership. Computer formula just determined the best teams.
BCS formula was way better than CFP committee for getting the right teams in, but they wanted the ability to maximize viewership by hand-selecting the teams.
BCS formula was way better than CFP committee for getting the right teams in, but they wanted the ability to maximize viewership by hand-selecting the teams.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 3:02 pm to QuackAttack716
quote:
Would have preferred top 4 BCS to the committee, and would have liked to see the BCS come to an agreement with the AP to re-establish the AP as a human poll instead of the Harris.
What was wrong with the Harris Interactive poll?
Originally, the BCS was 50% polls/50% computers. Then they changed it to 33% media, 33% coaches, and 33% computers after USC got left out.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 4:33 pm to I Bleed Garnet
quote:
I preferred the BCS and how it used to be
Hey buddy ! To me this selection committee has some reasonable plausibility of agenda driven bias.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 4:35 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Why were they ever done away with?
reasons
2003 NC
2004 NC
SEC dominance
2011 NC
Don’t forget 2007 with 2 loss LSU
Posted on 6/24/19 at 4:45 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
reasons
2003 NC
2004 NC
SEC dominance
2011 NC
Don't forget the 2007 NC.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 5:03 pm to AndyWoods
The BCS rankings resulted in #1 and #4 playing for the title in 2001 and #2 and #3 playing for the title in 2003.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 5:03 pm to deltaland
quote:
Don’t forget 2007 with 2 loss LSU
The 2007 season was so ridiculous, no poll was going to get #1 vs. #2 right.
Posted on 6/24/19 at 5:11 pm to Korin
quote:
Auburn was also behind them in the computers though. Not playing an AQ OOC did them in.
Very true. However at the time I remember thinking it was a total cop out excuse the media used to justify putting the two higher profile programs into the Title Game. Had Auburn played an FBS like Arkansas State instead of FCS The Citidel, would it really have mattered?
If you looked at the Final Regular Season AP Poll, here were the opponents played by the three teams in question:
AUBURN: #8 Georgia; #12 LSU; #15 Tennessee, #15 Tennessee,
USC: #4 California; #9 Virginia Tech; #21 Arizona State
OKLAHOMA: #6 Texas; #22 Texas A&M; #23 Texas Tech
Auburn played and defeated FOUR AP Top 25 teams that year compared to both Oklahoma and USC playing and beating THREE such teams..... yet somehow the fact they played The Citidel OOC means its an easier schedule? That's flawed logic.
I imagine had it been the other way around the media would have found a different angle to look at, but the Citidel was an easy scapegoat for them to try to justify Auburn's exclusion.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News