College Football/BCS discussion: Does the BCS give undue weight to SOS?

[Brotherjohn]

Don’t the BCS standings give undue weight to Strength of Schedule (SOS)?

First, the BCS formula works in SOS (as calculated by opponents’ and opponents opponents’ records). But THEN, the BCS formula also includes the team’s average ranking in 7 computer polls. But those computer polls ALSO figure in SOS. So SOS is worked in by the computer polls and then the BCS on top of that.

It seems to me that if the computer polls use strength of schedule as a major determinant in their rankings, and the BCS also uses these computer polls as a major determinant in their rankings, then the BCS is unduly weighting their formula towards SOS.

The more logical way, I would think, would be to simply use the computer averages and the “human” poll averages. The BCS could still give the “Quality Win” points, a point for each loss, etc. if they feel that is valuable. There is also room for debate regarding inclusion of point differentials, but that is another issue.

In a sense, one could view the inclusion by BCS of ANY factor other than simply averaging the polls as redundant, because, presumably, some or all of these polls (especially the “human” polls) already weigh in all factors in considering who the best team is. But the “double-inclusion” of SOS, it seems, is just not logically sound.

[11 Bravo]

1. Absolutely!

Let's see. USC hammers (an admittedly weak) Arizona team by around 30 points. Ohio State sneaks past Purdue by 3. For that the Buckeyes pass the Trojans in the BCS standings? Ridiculous!

[VermontDem2004]

2. Ok

Ohio State beat Purdue by 3, USC beat Arizona by 45, Purdue beat Arizona by 52 points. Not that ridiculous, USC's lone loss came to Cal, Ohio State's lone loss came to Wisconsin who has a better record who also played a tougher schedule. Both USC and Ohio State have only 1 loss and Ohio State is only ahead of USC by less then a point, but that can all change if OSU loses to Michigan.

[walkon]

4. Championship Myth

Until there is a play off system any Div. I "champion" is bogus.

[VermontDem2004]

5. The regular season is a playoff

Here is a crazy idea for teams like LSU and USC, go undefeated so you don't have to worry about this. Oklahoma is undefeated so far and look at where they are at, #1.

[Brotherjohn]

8. Well, yes. Oklahoma doesn't have to worry.

But OSU has not gone undefeated, and they don't have to worry about this, either (yet). But it's not only because of their accomplishments. It's also because of the BCS formula.

I agree with your point about OSU and USC. They are so close that flip-flops in position will occur, and a close win against a strong team should count for at least as much as a big win against a weak team.

My problem is that if the BCS is going to try to be add some subjectivity to the process, they should avoid making major logical flaws like working the same factors into the formula twice.

[frylock]

41. another crazy idea for teams like USC..

schedule teams like San Diego State, so as to maintain that perfect season. Also, make an effort to ensure that you play your first 5 games at home.

The regular season is the playoff.. gimme a damn break. This is the only major sport that doesn't have a legit playoff system. Why is that? Is the schedule to grueling for the kids? Hell, they scrimmage the whole 6-8 weeks they are waiting for these stupid bowl games. The only reason they prefer to retain this BCS BS is because the schools and the conferences get huge buck$.

[OldSoldier]

3. The BCS isn't supposed to be logical!

The BCS is designed to do one thing: prevent Brigham Young University from being National Champion ever again.

The BCS is run by the commissioners of the Big 10, Pac 10, ACC, SEC, Big 12 and Big East, and the Athletics Director of the University of Notre Dame. If your school is outside of those seven entities, it will never be the national champion.

[jeter]

9. You think BYU deserves to be in the National Championship?

They play crap teams. What about Army or Navy? Should they be there because they defeated Dartmouth?

I like the BCS. It's only fair to compare one teams strength of schedule vs. another.

The fairest way would be to have a playoff system. But since that doesn't seem likely, then the BCS is second best.

[VermontDem2004]

16. BYU will probaly never win the Mountain West championship

[Brotherjohn]

6. Yes, the BCS championship is largely mythical.

And yes, nothing would be better than a playoff system. But I'm speaking in terms of the system as it is this year.

Being an LSU fan, of course, I've got a problem with the weight given SOS. It's hurting us more than most. But it's not that I don't feel SOS should be worked in at all, it's that it's worked in too much. I feel I'm saying this with some logic and objectivity behind it. I understand that this is a subjective "science", yet the goal of the BCS is to try to make it as objective as possible.

LSU is penalized in the computer ranking average, being ranked an average of about 6th (despite being 3rd in both "human" polls). I am fine with this, and I realize that these computer polls consider things like SOS. I know LSU played La. Tech and UL-Monroe and Western Illinois. This should be taken into consideration. This puts LSU about 3-4 points behind the teams ahead of them.

But then, after this is factored in, LSU is again penalized for SOS (to the tune of more than two points behind OSU).

That's where I have the problem.

[SEAburb]

7. Team that play more home game than road games

should have points deducted.

[PVnRT]

10. For those that say it's worked in too much

If you take out SOS, then what happens? The big schools schedule a bunch of cupcakes, pump up their records *cough*Kansas State*cough*, and we end up with teams that actually go out of their way to schedule tougher non-conference opponents getting screwed because they play harder games.

Take 1997 - Michigan and Nebraska tie for the national title. Michigan deserved that title - they had a MUCH harder schedule, played better...but we relied on the polls that you guys put so much stock in, and the media gave their nod to Nebraska, who did not deserve it.

It seems to me that people complain about the BCS most when a team they like isn't ranked #2, or when one they hate is. How would you do a playoff? How do you determine which teams play? Conference champions? That's no good, because in most conferences, you don't play everyone (like Iowa and Ohio State in the Big Ten last year). Rankings? OK, which rankings? And how many teams? No matter what, someone is going to complain that their team got jobbed, unless you do a 117 team playoff.

Using a system like the BCS (which, yes, has its problems, chiefly the automatic berths given to winners of the big conferences) takes the entire season into account when determining who plays for the title, as it should be.

[underpants]

13. Correct Nebraska and Oklahoma only played one real game a year

Same with OSU and Michigan or at least it seemed like that. They almost always played each other for their conference titles and aside from the conferences not being as strong top to bottom they felt no pressure to play BIG g ames in their schedules.

[PVnRT]

15. Michgian - disagree

They always play Notre Dame, usually play a ranked Pac-10 school. I don't know about Ohio State, as I don't follow them.

Oklahoma at least has to play Texas, but Nebraska almost always manages to skate through their non-conference schedules, and if they don't play Oklahoma or Texas, their conference schedules are a breeze too.

[VermontDem2004]

17. Nebraska still always has to play K State and Colorado

[underpants]

19. Okay TWO games

WE saw what happened to the big red when the chips were down. They had huge numbers but they hadn't played many full games and had little competition.

[OKNancy]

53. According to BCS rankings, Oklahoma

has a better SOS ranking than any in the top ten.

[VermontDem2004]

14. I like the SOS simply because

teams won't rack up points by beating cupcake teams when a team like LSU who was 6-0 lost to a 3-3 Florida team.

[Brotherjohn]

22. I'm not saying take out SOS. I'm saying don't factor it in TWICE.

The computer polls already factor it in, and so do the human polls (perhaps to a lesser extent, and not as subjectively, but I'm sure most voters consider who beat who).

Regarding a playoff, I realize it would be tough to choose who plays in a playoff, but if you think the BCS is good enough to choose the Top 2 (which IS, in fact, a playoff), then why not the Top 4 or 8? Basketball includes 64 simply because it's much more feasible, physically, to play several more games at the end of the year (of course, for the $$$, too). But a line was drawn somewhere. You don't see Team No. 65 complaining they deserve to be National Champ. If they are complaining, it's simply b/c they lost a chance at some money and prestige. That's fine and dandy, but it's really about deciding who's Number 1.

See my post below for a suggested playoff format, but I find it hard to believe any team ranked below 6, unless they were undefeated (and they would be allowed in), could lay claim to being Number 1. As long as anyone who can make a legitimate claim to be the BEST team in the nation (Number 1) at the END of the regular season is included in a playoff, then no one should feel "robbed". It's not about including everyone who thinks that they might have a chance, if they happened to play their best for 5 or 6 games straight. It's about making sure you include anyone who might have a legitimate claim to be Number One, based on their regular seaon, and then giving them a chance to prove it on the field.

[underpants]

11. How did M.I.T. jump all the way up to #1 this week?

:shrug:

[Brotherjohn]

12. For the record, I just wish there was a playoff.

All of these suggestions about what should be worked in and how are just opinion. Playing on the field would settle it.

It doesn't need to be very complicated. Even use the current BCS formula for starters if you want. Currently, I think the Top 6 go to "BCS bowls", including the championship.

If they had an 8-team playoff, it would only take three weekends. They could choose the same top 6 "BCS" teams, and any undefeated teams that may not be in the Top 6 (I doubt if there would ever be more than 2, but if there were, then they would bump number 6).

No one ranked lower than 6 could rightfully say that they actually should be Number 1 (unless they were undefeated... see above).

[underpants]

18. I'm against a playoff

Several reasons:
The players have already said they would be for it IF they could get healthcare, the NCAA quickly pulled it off the table.

That is one of the reasons. The players get nothing for playing the extra games. The schools and the NCAA do but not the players. Unless you cut their seasons down to say 10 games they would be playing too much.

Secondly if you think recruiting is bad now wait until there is a championship game and no can make the "we were the best team at the end of the season" argument. Those kind of bragging rights are one of the things that make college football so great anyway.

[VermontDem2004]

20. The thing I like about the BCS is that

You have to play hard all season, if you slip up and lose twice that is your fault. Not the systems fault, if there is a playoff then there is less importance on the regular season and all the regular season would be used for is to gain seeding and position in the playoffs. Oklahoma will likely blow out Texas Tech and beat the Big XII champion and go undefeated, if USC beats Oregon State and UCLA but are bumped out because Ohio State beat Michigan, well all I have to say is they should've beat Cal in overtime. Hell they were even given a second chance in that game.

[underpants]

21. OMG I think we agree on something

With a playoff Oklahoma oculd actually still lose to Texas Tech and still be in the playoff. OSU likewise could still lose and if they play well enough they could still be in the top 8. USC LSU maybe too (I don't want to actually crunch the numbers).

Now they get a lot (probably too much) time between there last game and their bowl g ames but still what if the clear #1 team tanked it a bit to rest players (not implying gamble issues*) and they still got in. It would hurt their seeding but in years that clearly two teams are the best what would stop them?


*I have some doubts about the FSU NC State game last week.

[Brotherjohn]

24. But you are not giving USC the same "chance" you're giving OSU.

Admittedly, Cal is probably not as good as Wisconsin, but they are 6-6, and Wisconsin is 7-4 (they could end up with nearly identical records). They're both major conference teams with moderate to decent records. OSU lost and USC lost. But you are saying "USC shouldn't have lost". Why aren't you saying "OSU shouldn't have lost"? Simply because they are ranked ahead of USC due to a subjective system.

I'm not saying USC is better than OSU (I think they're very close and don't mind that they're flip-flopping in the BCS). But you need to give USC the same slack youre giving OSU.

As far as a playoff, the regular season means everything if it means getting better seeding in a playoff. If teams are using the regular season only "to gain seeding and position in the playoffs", why would that change the teams playing their hardest all year? They would do so to simply make it to the playoffs, first off, and then to get the highest seed possible. It's no different in principle form playing as hard as possible to get as high a ranking as possible. And as I point out below, with the BCS, we are already talking about a 2-team playoff.

But the problem with the BCS is that we can never be sure that the very best 2 teams are the ones playing for the National Championship. The point of a playoff is that there is NOT always a clear No. 1 nor a clear No. 2 to play them. Polls, BCS, whatever, it's all subjective. If the teams don't play each other, you're always guessing. Better to make the best guess at the top 4 or 8 teams or so, and then let them prove it on the field. As I posted below, it's not about giving EVERYONE a chance. It's about giving a chance to anyone who, after their performance during the regular season, can make a legitimate claim to being number one. It is difficult to pick the Top 1 or 2 and be sure you are including that "best team". But it is not difficult to pick the Top 8 and make sure that the one "best" team is somewhere among them.

No one can ever really KNOW who is the best (that will always be subjective). But a score on a scoreboard is objective. Make a reasonable pick at the top teams, and let them play. They're already trying to do that with the BCS. But what I'm saying it that picking only two is not a "reasonable pick". There will always be someone in the Top 3 or 4 or 5 who can make a claim at being, if not #1, then at least #2, and deserving to play #1.

[VermontDem2004]

28. I am not giving anyone more slack then the other teams

I said if USC beats Oregon State and UCLA but gets bumped because Ohio State beats Michigan(which can very well happen). USC fans would complain and all I could say to them is USC shouldn't of lost to Cal, and they were given a second opportunity to win that game. My whole point of the post which you completely missed is that Go undefeated and your there, try not to lose any games. Oklahoma is likely going to do it. Miami did it the last two years, Ohio State did it last year. It is not impossible to go undefeated, that is my suggestion to those teams. But under your system teams that lost 2 games would be given a second chance to win the national title, under the current system if you lose even 1 game you could be knocked off, that is what I like about it. It puts much more importance on regular season games.

[Brotherjohn]

33. Before posting again, let me echo the sentiments of...

... GumboYaYa below. These arguments are what make college football so fun. So I hope you're not taking anything too personally. I'm just enjoying the debate.

I still think you're cutting slack to OSU that you're not to USC, and here's why. Yes, USC had a "second chance", but they played a close enough game to at least GO to OT. A "second chance" is your characterization. I'd characterize an OT game is simply a longer game that's played until someone wins b/c it ends in a tie (the same game, not really a second chance). One could just as easily view it as: both teams lost one game, but the USC game was closer. As I've said above, though, I don't have a problem with OSU jumping them in the BCS.

I didn't miss your point about "go undefeated and you're there". Kudos to Oklahoma. If they stay undefeated, I don't think there's any question they belong in the title game. I understand your point that if you don't go undefeated, you don't really have a claim. But then why have the BCS at all? Why does OSU deserve a shot? Why not only give the trophy to the one undefeated team? (and if there are two? or none?)

It isn't always that cut and dry (even for No. 1), and this season, picking the No. 2 that gets the right to play them is much more complicated. As far as the teams that have NOT gone undefeated but have only lost one, OSU, LSU and USC all have a case to make. That's where we get down to the problems of the subjectivity in a system that simply picks one.

I agree you shouldn't take too much away from the regular season, but if you are using a system in which the goal is to determnine who has the right to play for No. 1, you need to be as sure as you can that anyone who can make a real claim at being No. 1 or No. 2 gets a shot. You don't have to pick 64 teams. You only need 8 (the most extra games someone would play is 2; they already play 1 bowl). The 2-game playoff that is the BCS already takes away from the regular season in that Okla. can go undefeated, lose one game, and not be No. 1. As you point out with the regular season, "go undefeated and you're there". The same logic goes for a playoff.

[Brotherjohn]

34. And add, on EDIT...

BEFORE YOU REPLY WITH A BIG FLAME to what I just posted, thinking I'm not getting your points at all, if you also think OSU should likewise not get upset if they get bumped by USC again, because they shouldn't have lost to Wisconsin, then I can accept your point.

It still gets complicated, though, when there are 2 or more teams with an equal claim to the championship game. If it's a year with an undefeated team, I agree that no one who isn't undefeated should get TOO upset. But I'm speaking about trying to make the system as objective as possible, and also a system that would better handle years when there are no undefeated teams or more than one. That's the goal, after all, isn't it? To handle years where the choice for Number 1 is NOT clearcut?

(heaven forbid, what if Texas tech beats Oklahoma!)

[VermontDem2004]

36. I am not flaming you

I am just responding with my points and views on the subjects. It isn't like I am saying BCS RULES!!!!!! PLAYOFF SUCKS!!!!!! USC IS OVERRATED SO THEY DON'T BELONG!!!!!!!!!! :hi:

[VermontDem2004]

35. You still sorta missed my point

I am not cutting anyone slack. My point was to the USC trojans if they beat Oregon State and UCLA but got bumped because Ohio State beat Michigan(this is hypothetical, I am not cutting anyone slack) all I have to say is to USC if you went undefeated you would be in the national championship. Same if Ohio State got bumped, they should've beat Wisconsin. What I meant was a second chance is USC had the ball first, they turned the ball over and Cal had their possession. Cal moves up closer for the field goal, then they get a field goal blocked. It has nothing to do with being in overtime. As far as the teams that have NOT gone undefeated but have only lost one, OSU, LSU and USC all have a case to make. They don't have a case to make yet, OSU still plays Michigan, LSU still plays Ole Miss, Arkansas and the Sec Championship, and USC still plays Oregon State and UCLA.

I agree you shouldn't take too much away from the regular season, but if you are using a system in which the goal is to determnine who has the right to play for No. 1, you need to be as sure as you can that anyone who can make a real claim at being No. 1 or No. 2 gets a shot. You don't have to pick 64 teams. You only need 8 (the most extra games someone would play is 2; they already play 1 bowl). The 2-game playoff that is the BCS already takes away from the regular season in that Okla. can go undefeated, lose one game, and not be No. 1. As you point out with the regular season, "go undefeated and you're there". The same logic goes for a playoff.
Not really, in a playoff you could lose two games and still be given a second chance. Plus I love watching all the bowl games and the other teams play. It gives small schools a chance to shine on national tv. But if they asked me to create a system where they would have a national championship I would've simply said take the averages of the AP and coaches poll and whoever is #1 and #2 plays each other. My biggest problem is computer rankings, some are pretty accurate others are not. 2 weeks ago one computer had TCU had #2, another had them at #25. I don't think TCU should be ranked that high or that low.

[Brotherjohn]

47. Since you're including everyone, I get your point now.

Before, you were just mentioning the hypothetical of "if USC hadn't lost" and not mentioning OSU, who also lost. But I'm clear on that now. If there's an undefeated team, ANYONE who has a loss shouldn't complain about not being in.

But if there's NO undefeated team, then we get into where we HAVE to rely on subjectives, and any number of teams can lay equal claim to being there. It isn't a requirement that you be undefeated to be National Champions, and if no one is, you can't say the a team doesn't deserve a right to make their case because they lost one (when everyone did). I think whatever system is in place should be able to work in any scenario. More than anything, I'm just interested in making such a system as subjective as possible, if one's going to use it, and I think they need to avoid obvious logical problems (like counting SOS twice, see my original post).

As far as a playoff, I was also inclined at first to say why not just take the average of the AP and Coaches polls. But very often, this might result in ties, and then what do you do? Say AP has OK-OSU-USC and Coaches has OK-USC-OSC, THEN what happens? I suppose you could go with percentage of votes or something.

But given that there's still not a cut & dry solution, I'd almost be tempted to go back to the old system. Hey, if two teams have to split the Nat'l. Championship, LET THEM!

[AWD]

30. I heard an interview....

...with a guy from CollegeBCS.com.

His best comment...."If USC doesn't get in, they have themselves to blame. Should have beaten Cal. If Ohio State doesn't get in, they only have themselves to blame. Should have beaten Wisconin. You win all your games, you don't get to cry and whine when you're a major college program. Quit blubbering and win your games, then they can't keep you out."

Nuff said on that one.

One more comment from me, though....last year, despite losing twice, USC fans all screamed about Strength Of Schedule, and how they deserved to go to the Fiesta Bowl over unbeaten OSU. Now why do you suppose that this year, SOS matters LESS to these same fans???? Could it be that they have a very weak schedule and want to ignore OSU for having a strong one???

[underpants]

31. I thought they thrown a bone last year with the Heisman

Why are they still complaining?

[VermontDem2004]

32. I agree

"If USC doesn't get in, they have themselves to blame. Should have beaten Cal. If Ohio State doesn't get in, they only have themselves to blame. Should have beaten Wisconin. You win all your games, you don't get to cry and whine when you're a major college program. Quit blubbering and win your games, then they can't keep you out."

One more comment from me, though....last year, despite losing twice, USC fans all screamed about Strength Of Schedule, and how they deserved to go to the Fiesta Bowl over unbeaten OSU. Now why do you suppose that this year, SOS matters LESS to these same fans???? Could it be that they have a very weak schedule and want to ignore OSU for having a strong one???
USC didn't even win the Pac-10 that year but they think they deserve to go to the Fiesta Bowl over an unbeaten Ohio State? That is an interesting persepctive.

[GumboYaYa]

37. On a side note.

VermontDem, did you see that LSU and ASU agreed to a home & home series yesterday. I'm excited about that one. I hope both teams are powerhouses when we meet.

[VermontDem2004]

40. Yes

First one is in 2005. Maybe Sam Keller will end up being a great QB for Arizona State, he was a hot prospect, even turned down the University of Michigan. Also Freshman Loren Wade looked good and he was just a freshman. Cornell Candidate is a solid Sophmore as well. Terry Richardson should be a great reciever years to come. It was a very disappointing season but maybe I can hope for the best years too come. Remember those 4 names on offense when ASU comes to LSU, you may not know who they are now but they are the future of the Arizona State offense. Good luck to LSU this year btw.

[GumboYaYa]

43. Thanks, I'd like to think that with the way

the team is playing now, they do not need luck, but good tidings are always welcome.

[jeter]

55. No how the playoff should work

The regular season would determine the Champions of each conference.

Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10, SEC, Big East, Mountain Conf. etc. Maybe a couple of wildcards.

Lesser Bowl Games: (Sugar, et al.)

First Round

Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl: Semi Finals

Fiesta: Final.

Or a variation of that.

Most teams added an extra game this year anyway. Go back to the 11 game schedule and with the playoffs the most you can play are 14 games. Not unreasonable. Give the players health care.

Edit: I misspelled schedule.
2nd Edit: misspelled not. I am really stupid today.

[sujan]

26. sorry

Football takes toll on your body, organizing a sweet 16 tournament like basketball would have adverse affect on the player's health.

[Brotherjohn]

27. I'd propose 8 teams, 3 games each (max). Since they already play...

... a bowl, that's only two extra games (max). It's NO extra games for half the teams (if they lose), and one extra for 2 of the rest. It would actually only be 2 extra games for the 2 teams that play for the championship.

I agree football is grueling on the body. But we're only talking zero to two extra games. And if the teams would stop scheduling 12 and 13 games a season, as many do now, then it would even be less games in some cases. Perhaps as a condition of instituting the playoff system, the NCAA could institute a maximum 11-game schedule for the regular season for all teams. If schools were upset about losing money (as they would be), they would all get a cut of the inevitable large payoffs from a playoff. (CBS pays BILLIONS for the NCAA hoops playoffs).

[GumboYaYa]

23. These things tend to work themselves out on the field.

I'm more worried about beating Ole Miss right now. IF LSU, USC. and OSU all win out, we will have a fine mess, but it will be no different than when the AP and Coaches polls decided the MNC. That's why it is the "mythical national championship."

Arguing about this stuff is one of the things that makes college football so enjoyable.

[GumboYaYa]

38. I need to add that any system

that does not put a one-loss SEC champiion LSU Tigers (from my keyboard to Gods ears, or something like that) in the MNC game is clearly flawed.

[Brotherjohn]

50. Clearly.

GOOO Tigers!

[sujan]

25. BCS should be expanded to include all 14 conferences

-1 (1 turned out to be independent), so 13

[VermontDem2004]

29. Ok so what if they do?

Not all winners of the 13 conferences will be in a BCS bowl game. There is the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl which are BCS bowl games. Just because a team is in a BCS conference doesn't mean they are playing tougher opponents so SOS will still hurt them.

[Kusala]

39. All i know is TCU is seriously overrated

undefeated my a$$. Get a real opponent and call me.

[sujan]

42. so is USC

and they got beat by Cal. Why the hell are they ranked 2nd?

[VermontDem2004]

44. Why did Ohio State lose to Wisconsin?

Wisconsin lost to UNLV, UNLV lost to Utah, Utah beat Cal. It really doesn't matter who lost to who right now. Plus what is so bad about Cal? They have been solid the last two years.

[GumboYaYa]

45. I'm a giant LSU fan, but USC is a damn good team.

I haven't seen a whole game yet, but the highlights I have seen show me an exceptionally fast defense.

[VermontDem2004]

46. Defense can be exposed

It's their offense that is amazing. I went to the USC v ASU game, Arizona State was ahead the whole game. They were up 17-10 in the third quarter, the USC's offense takes over scoring on 5 straight possessions ended up winning 37-17. I also watched the Cal game and Echemandu ran all around and through the USC defense for 140 yards I think. USC has Oregon State up next which is a game I think they will lose. Oregon State has Steven Jackson who happens to be a democrat and the Pac-10 leader in rushing for the last 2 years. With the exception of Auburn and Carnell Williams USC has only faced one other rushing threat and failed to contain him. Steven Jackson is one of the best running backs in college football, it will be a very tough challenge for USC.

[GumboYaYa]

48. I need to watch a whole game.

Most of the highlights I saw where from the Auburn game and the D shut Auburn down. Turns out that that might not be so great an achievement.

USC does have a few tough games ahead. IMO, any of the remaining one-loss teams that run the table from here on out have a great argument for the two spot.

[Brotherjohn]

49. So, all the above aside, what do you all think of the original post??

My thesis was that SOS is given undue weight, since it is a major factor in the computer rankings, which BCS incorporates, and then they also incorporate their own measure of SOS on top of that.

Agree? Disagree?

For that matter, BCS incorporates other factors (Quality Wins, losses, etc.) that the computer polls (and "human" polls) no doubt already account for. In that respect, wouldn't it just be better, if the BCS want's to include the AP and Coaches poll with computer rankings, just to leave it at that and average the three? It'd be a lot less complicated.

[GumboYaYa]

51. You are correct.

Strength of Schedule, a rather amorphous concept to begin with, has become too important in the BCS by virtue of its importance in the computer polls. More importantly, the computer polls suck. NY Times had LSU at #11 ths week. Other computer polls had USC ranked all over the place. The computers should be discounted.

[VermontDem2004]

52. I agree about computer polls

Last week one poll had TCU at #2 another had them at #25. I don't think TCU should be ranked that high or that low.

[Brotherjohn]

54. I agree with both of you about computer polls.

BCS is trying to make their standings more objective by incorporating elements of computer polls (in addition to the actual computer polls themselves). As far as these polls placing teams all over the place, I think the BCS is averaging a number of them in order to balance this out.

These are admirable goals, but I'd be inclined to trust the old-fashioned human polls. People just have a way of "computing" all these different factors that computers can't (like who beat who by how much, and what was their schedule like, etc.).

We'd still get the problem of possible disagreements, but it seems we always will. The only reason the BCS avoids disagreements is b/c "they" said we'd use only that one. "They" could have just as easily said use AP, or Coaches, or an average of both.

STILL think SOS is overemphasized, though! (grumble grumble %#&#@&%*!!) And I'll be thinking it right up until OSU loses and LSU passes USC for No. 2 (then I'll let USC think it).

[GumboYaYa]

56. It sucks for LSU b/c

they did not intentionally schedule patsies like K State. Marshall and Troy State both backed out of games. IMO b/c they knew they would be beaten badly. When we scheduled AZ they were a top ten team. How did we know they would suck this year.

Same thing goes for next year. We fulfilled our end of the home and home with Va Tech. They backed out of their end, Chickens. Now we have to scramble to find a decent team to fill that hole on our schedule.

I'm very happy about the ASU games in the next few years, but I have a feeling we will find it harder to schedule quality OOC games as people don't want to come into Tiger Stadium and get whipped.

[Brotherjohn]

57. I agree. Teams do not control their scheduling, nor do they control...

... how good the teams they schedule end up being. I remember LSU playing (and beating) a No. 3 ranked Arizona a couple of years back. I think there is a place for SOS, but it is overemphasized. Again, the polls they are using to average in already consider SOS.

The more I think about it, the more I believe they should just average the polls and not try to work in other factors (the polls already do this). If they want to include a computer poll average, too, fine. But in the end, no poll can say definitively who is really the "best" team, which is why I lean towards a playoff. The current BCS system is in fact a two-team playoff. I just think it needs to incorporate a few more teams (say, 8) to be sure that anyone who can legitimately claim to be the "best" team will get their chance to prove it on the field.

[Awsi Dooger]

58. The BCS formula is so screwed up they alter it EVERY year

No exaggeration. Without exception, the formula has been changed every season since adoption. I do an Excel BCS model every year, and it's absurd how flawed the thing is. If my sports betting models were that inept I could never hit above 40%.

If USC is screwed this season, the BCS geniuses will simply adapt the system so that the identical scenario would put USC ahead of Ohio St in the future, just like Miami vs. FSU in 2000. Once I joined a BCS internet chat and asked the person representing the BCS if computer generated models had been run that evaluated thousands or tens or thousands of possibilities, before the system was put into place to begin with. He stumbled through a laughable response that screamed the answer. "Uh, no."

Brotherjohn, I completely agree with your thesis. Strength of schedule is amazingly overrated in the BCS formula, and always has been. If poll voters were ignorant of SOS, TCU would be rated in the top two right now. It is indeed a crazy double dip, this year favoring Ohio St. And the formula conveniently ignores the timing of games in regard to SOS. USC opened at Auburn, a preseason national title pick by many. USC exposed the Tigers, deflating them for the next game and likely the rest of the season, with title hopes dashed after two weeks. So USC now is receiving basically no credit for stepping into a hostile SEC environment as a 4 point underdog and destroying a preseason top 5 foe. Since margin of victory has been brilliantly excluded from the BCS formula also, USC's lopsided win at Auburn is worth little more than Ohio St's 3 point escape at home vs San Diego St.

The New York Times ratings should have been laughed out of existence a decade+ ago. It would take paragraphs to list their absurd final rankings over the years. The Times rewards close losses to top notch foes, as opposed to lopsided triumphs over mediocre or lesser teams. If the Kansas City Chiefs were in the NCAA this year and playing an Ivy League schedule, the Times would not rank them in the top 50.

No one from USC was asserting the Trojans should replace Ohio St in the Fiesta Bowl last year, only that the Trojans were playing as well as anyone at year's end.

And the posters who propose that winning every game takes care of everything are conveniently ignoring the BCS mess if more than two teams are unbeaten. USC lost in OT, Ohio St by 7 on a long late TD pass. If both were unblemished now, I'm sure USC would be rated a strong second in the polls ahead of Ohio St, yet the SOS realities the same and Ohio St given the BCS nod ahead of USC.

The arbitrary and flawed BCS formula should only be used to resolve a dispute in the final regular season polls, not to obscenely trump the judgment of dozens of voters utilizing the greatest and most all-inclusive computer of all.