Playoff Guru: BEST OF THE GURU

Showing posts with label BEST OF THE GURU. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

In Defense of the Pac-10

When it comes to propaganda and publicity, the Pac-10 is woefully ill-prepared in this arms race. Of all the BCS conference, no one undersells itself better than the Pac-10.

If USC isn't such a media darling and hated around the country for its glitz and glam (not to mention excellence), the Pac-10 would be completely unheard of. Out of sight, out of mind. It's a pity because you can make a reasonable argument that the Pac-10 really is the best conference in college football, perhaps 10 years running.

But in the BCS Era, the college football cognoscenti (the self-anointed ones, that is) have been lapping it up at the SEC trough. And the last three seasons, coming on four, an SEC team has been crowned the BCS national champion.

That isn't so much affirmation of SEC's superiority as the sign that it's adroitly winning the media war. If the old Confederacy wasn't able to conquer America, its rightful descendants have made sure that the South indeed has risen, again.

Don't blame the SEC for understanding and leveraging the system to its maximum benefit. But do blame the Pac-10 for not doing its job.

The SEC has an exclusive contract with CBS, which in essence becomes its mouthpiece and lobbyist (see Florida vs. Michigan, 2006). It has a new 15-year deal with ESPN, which also shepherds the nascent SEC Network. The Pac-10, on the other hand, is just a rumor.

Of all the conferences in the ABC/ESPN umbrella, the Pac-10 has arguably the worst deal. Except for the occasional USC prime time games, all Pac-10 games on ABC are regionally televised, which meant they are never seen east of the Rockies. The Pac-10 also plays on Versus (which isn't on DirecTV nowadays) and Fox Sports Net, which is a regional alliance, not a national presence.

Unfortunately for the Pac-10, lacking TV exposure is merely part of its failure to communicate.

Do you know that the Pac-10 teams play nine conference games each? Yep, they play a true round-robin, which means that of all the BCS conferences, the Pac-10 plays the toughest schedule by default because it plays the most conference games. And don't just take my word for it, Jeff Sagarin has the goods.

According to Sagarin's data, of the top 19 schedules this season, nine belong to Pac-10 teams, with five in the top 10, including Oregon at No. 6 and USC at No. 7. How many SEC teams are in the same range? Two: Georgia at No. 10 and LSU at No. 17. You have to go to No. 25 to find Alabama and No. 42 for Florida. (And these numbers will only get worse for the top SEC teams.)

Alas, there's the unmentionable. Part of the SEC's success is that its best teams almost never play anybody outside of conference. And with only eight conference games, they fatten up their records on overmatched opponents at home.

Look at the schedules from 2006-2009, a period where an SEC team has played for the BCS title and USC has been shut out (we're treating 2009 as fait accompli):

Florida
Troy
Florida International
Charleston Southern*
Hawaii
Miami (Fla.)
Citadel*
Western Kentucky*
Troy
Florida Atlantic
Central Florida
Southern Mississippi
Western Carolina*
+ Traditional rival Florida State

LSU
UL-Lafayette
Washington
Louisiana Tech,
Appalachian State*
North Texas
Troy
Virginia Tech
Middle Tennessee State
Louisiana Tech
UL-Monroe
Arizona
Fresno State
+ Traditional rival Tulane

Alabama
Virginia Tech
Florida International
North Texas
Chattanooga*
Clemson
Tulane
Western Kentucky
Arkansas State
Western Carolina*
Florida State
Houston
UL-Monroe
Hawaii
UL-Monroe
Duke
Florida International

(*I-AA opponent at the time when the game was held)

So here's the break down. Over the past four years, in Florida's 12 OCC games excluding its annual rivalry game with FSU, it has played just one BCS conference team (Miami). The rest is mostly against I-AA roadkill (4) and hapless Sun Belt squads (4). It's a little better for LSU (12 games: 3 BCS, 1 I-AA, 5 Sun Belt) and Alabama (16 games: 4 BCS, 2 I-AA, 7 Sun Belt).

Contrast that to USC's schedule since it last played for the BCS title:

Ohio State
San Jose State
Ohio State
Virginia
Idaho
Nebraska
Arkansas
Nebraska
+ Traditional rival Notre Dame

Out of those eight games, six were against BCS opponents, and each was a home-and-home series. For the record, USC is one of only three teams (UCLA and Notre Dame are the others) that have never played a game against I-AA teams.

The point here is not necessarily that the SEC's elite teams are overrated. It simply states the fact that they take the path of least resistance. And for the most part, they get rewarded handsomely for it after trotting out the convenient (and false) disclaimer that "just playing in the SEC is tough enough."

The point here also is to say that the Pac-10 does its conference members a disservice for not disseminating the fact that annually, the conference on average plays a tougher schedule than anyone else and that it has also fared better against other BCS conference teams than anyone else over the past decade.

Why is this the case?

In the BCS Era, when college football has become a national game, the Pac-10 has stayed mostly regional and provincial. But don't blame this on geography. The time difference isn't an issue any more as most games are now finished well before midnight Eastern. Do blame it on apathy and a lack of ingenuity, and that starts with the conference headquarters in Walnut Creek.

The Pac-10 likes to call itself the conference of champions, but the reality is nobody gives a flying hoot how many women's underwater squash titles or NACDA Directors' Cups (do you even know what that is?) your conference has won. The thing that really matters is the crystal ball, and the Pac-10 has only one to show for it - besides being routinely shut out of a second BCS bowl berth by an inferior conference such as the Big Ten.

The irony of all this is that unlike most other conferences, the Pac-10 universities play in some of the biggest media markets. Two in Los Angeles, two in the San Francisco Bay Area, Phoenix, Seattle. Only Washington State is in the middle of nowhere. There is no shortage of media outlets (print, online, radio, television, whatever) to get the word out. Yet, other than USC, the rest of the Pac-10 might as well be playing in Belarus.

In the 11 years of the BCS, only twice has the Pac-10 received two BCS berths. And none since 2002, when the Trojans finished as co-champs and played Iowa in the Orange Bowl. Cal came close in 2004, but was cheated out of a Rose Bowl berth by Mack Brown. This may finally be the year that the conference gets that coveted second BCS spot, but probably only because USC is nudged out of the Rose Bowl.

If the Trojans work their way back into Pasadena (not at all inconceivable, all they need is an Oregon loss to Arizona for a three-way tie), then will the Pac-10 still claim that second BCS bowl slot? Probably not.

It's time for the Pac-10 to seriously consider what kind of player it wants to be in college football. In the meantime, it should probably hire a PR firm, as the WAC did. When it comes to publicity, the Pac-10 needs all the help it can get.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

An Interview with Richard Billingsley

Of the six computer ratings in the BCS formula, the Billingsley Report is unquestionably the most controversial. And of the seven programmers (Anderson & Hester count as two), Richard Billingsley is undoubtedly the most opinionated and colorful. The Billingsley Report has been part of the BCS since its second season, 1999, but the data goes all the way back to 1869, to Princeton vs. Rutgers, the first college football game ever played.

With the 2009 BCS Standings set to debut on Sunday, the Guru decided to have a chat with Mr. Billingsley this week in a no-holds-barred, hour-long phone interview. This is what he had to say:

Guru: Why are you a college football fan?

Billingsley: I can honestly say it came by naturally. I was born into a football-crazy family. My grandfather and parents were big college football fans and I remember being a fan as a young child at 5-6 years old. I'm literally a fan before the game was on TV. It really boggles my mind that college football has gone from being on the radio to black-and-white TV to to color TV and now to every outlet you can think of. The first football game that left an impression on me was in 1957, it was Notre Dame beating Oklahoma that ended (the Sooners') 47-game winning streak. I was born in Oklahoma and still live here. I remember the entire state in such shock over that loss, literally like someone had died in the family. That made such an impact on me because I figured if it's that important to adults, there must be something to it, so I was hooked.

Guru: How did you get into the rankings business?

Billingsley: I was interested in college football rankings, such as the AP and the UPI - the coaches poll back in the old days - at a very young age. Back then, the polls came out on Tuesdays. The voting was done so late on Sundays it didn't meet press deadlines, so the rankings did not come out until Tuesdays in the papers. I'd run home from school looking at those polls in the newspaper and most of the time, I'd go 'man, did these guys watch the same games as I did? This is not right. There has to be a better way of ranking teams.' Even when I was a teenager, I thought they were not paying attention to strength of schedule and playing favorites with traditional powerhouse schools. I didn't think these should be tolerated. So I sat down one day and started tinkering with my own mathematical formula.

Guru: When did you first publish your rankings?

Billingsley: I first ran it for a couple of years, in 1968 and '69. In 1970 it was published for the first time, by a local neighborhood newspaper in Houston. I did that for years. It was just a hobby, something I printed out for friends, family and coworkers. It wasn't until 1994, when I started wondering who'd been No. 1 in my system back in the 1920s, and I thought I could find out, and run my system through those years if I had all the information I needed. So I sat down and wrote letters to every Division I school's SID (Sports Information Director), asking for their football records as far back as they have them. And every SID responded and sent me their press guide. That was my starting place. What I did not realize I'd come up against was that there's a vast amount of discrepancies between schools - not only did they not agree on the date, but the score, or in one instance, who won the game. But eventually I pieced everything together like a jigsaw puzzle. I started in 1869, everything from that point through the current year. I finally finished it in 1996 - it took me two years to do all that. One of my friends would tell me: 'you're either the most dedicated college football fan or you lead the most pathetic life of any man.'

Guru: And how did your rankings get into the BCS?

Billingsley: When I finished the project, I was pretty pround of what I had done and I took the results and mailed it to Richard Campbell, the director of statistics for the NCAA. He said it was amazing and he'd like to publish this in the NCAA records book. It was in the 1996 records book, and it was the first time ever I had gotten any recognition. And then the real break came in 1999, when Roy Kramer (then BCS chair and commissioner of the SEC) wanted to expand the computer rankings from three to seven. His deputy Charles Bloom called me and said we got your name from the NCAA and would like to see your work. And for the first time, my rankings were included in 1999. The fact is, in the six computers, there are the most time-tested brilliant mathematical minds - everybody but me, I'm not a mathematician - but one of the requirements is the BCS needed to see 10 years of rankings on a week-by-week and see how far back can you go. (Bloom) was amused that I had such a vast amount of information. How I ended up getting in the BCS was probably because they were impressed with my research.

Guru: You had to alter your formula after the BCS required that margin of victory (MOV) be dropped as a component. How did you feel about that?

Billingsley: That happened after the 2001 season, but I had actually agreed to take (MOV) out before the BCS requested us to take it out. It had become so obvious to me during the 2001 season that the coaches were using the scores of the game to manipulate the computers. It was the most unsportsmanlike thing I've ever seen in my life and I wanted no part of it. I agree that using MOV gives you a better predictor for future games, a more accurate predictor. But with it or without it, it has never changed my top two teams at the end of the season.

Guru: Your system tends to produce rankings quite distinct from the other five BCS computers. Why is that?

Billingsley: My system is probably more different from the other computer systems. The other five guys are looking at it from a purely mathematical standpoint - don't get me wrong, I applaud their systems and I have tremendous respect for what they do. But my system is not purely mathematically based. My rankings are based on rules that are put in place from a fan's perspective, things I think that are important to rank college football teams. My rankings are closer-ly related to human voters, an improved AP poll, if you will. It reacts to games more like a human voter but does it without biases like the name of team, the conference they play in, etc. It's mainly concerned with with wins, losses, strength of schedule (SOS) and head-to-head results. The core of my system is not something you see in most computers. It's not necessarily better - in purely mathematical terms, it's not as good - but the public relates very well to the system.

Guru: So how do you respond to the accusation that your system is a 'one-man poll'?

Billingsley: My response is that it's a 100 percent computer-generated formula, there's no personal input on a week-by-week basis. Anyone can duplicate the system if they have the program. Other than that I wrote the program, I have no influence.

Guru: But you do have a preseason ranking. Isn't that inherently biased?

Billingsley: In my system, you carry the rankings from one season to the next, exactly from last season's final rankings. You must have a starting position. Both Sagarin and Massey use that philosophy, the only difference is I found a way to do it without MOV and still have a pretty accurate system. Some people think before the season, everybody should start out equal, but my answer to that is it looks fair on the surface to start everyone equal, but it's not logical because we know for a fact that all teams are not equal, so how can we ignore that? It's more fair if Idaho starts out the same as Southern Cal. It's fair to Idaho. But is it fair to USC? In my mind, (to start out teams equally) skews any hopes of an unbiased SOS. That's why my SOS is dramatically different from what other computers are showing you.

Guru: Does it bother you that your rankings get tossed at a disproportionally high rate every week?

Billingsley: I certainly know my rankings give a different perspective. I know there are those out there like to say, 'look, Billingsley gets thrown out more than other computers, so it must not be any good.' My reponse is this: My computer program is more correlated to human votes than other computers, so of course it gets thrown out more often. But that's what the BCS was tying to accomplish. They don't want me to be like the other computers, they want a different perspective. It doesn't bother me that my rankings get thrown out more often, but it bothers me that people don't understand why,

Guru: Do you get disgruntled fans writing you as a result?

Billingsley: I do get hate mail from fans but you can't satisfy everybody. It's always from the fans of a few teams feeling that they're getting the shaft. If they love your ranking, they won't write, so 90 percent of the mail is bad. When this happened 10 years ago it broke my heart. But over the years, it just rolls off my back. I have always tried my best to respond to every email I get, but I finally have to post a message that says that I won't respond to anything with vulgarity. I've gotten some disgustingly vulgar email - those people really are not fans, they're just disgruntled human beings. You may not agree with me but at least you can be respectful.

Guru: What would you do to change the current BCS formula?

Billingsley: A couple of things. First, the weight between computers and humans should be 50-50. That's the way it was and then it changed because of an overreaction to that particular season (2003). In this formula, we're ignoring SOS - 33 percent is not enough weight to accurately describe SOS. The voters just don't have the capacity to gauge SOS the way they should, even if they had the inclination to do so. There is a difference, from a mathematically standpoint, between a 47th-ranked team and 48th but (the voters) cannot give us that distinction. That's why computers should have more weight. Second, they need to stop throwing out the high number (among the computers). They can throw out the low number but keep the high number. The reason I'm saying that is the six formulas we have now are narrowed down from hundreds of computer and it's the best we have, so we really shouldn't toss out two more in every ranking. For example, last season, I continuously had USC higher than other systems and at the end of the season, guess where they ended up? So my question is, why is it that the Trojans are not allowed to get the benefit of a system that gives them a higher rating?

Guru: Aside from the formula, do you want to see the BCS changed in any way?

Billingsley: I'm a fan of the BCS, but not because I'm a part of it. I think this system is the best way to bring together a No. 1 and No. 2 and keep the integrity of the season intact. I'm not a fan of a playoff. I prefer the way it is. In some seasons, the plus-one would make a lot of sense but it doesn't in every season. So whatever we do it's got to fit every season, that's what people forget. If you make a change based on one season's result, you're making a mistake. Any change that takes place should be made over a long period of investigation and research. We don't need a plus-one. If I have one criticism (for the BCS), it's that in the early years they made too many changes based on a knee-jerk reaction. But in their defense, they didn't have a choice. It was something we were all experiencing for the first time.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

What to Do About BYU?

In 1984, BYU went 13-0 and won the national championship - the last consensus national title for any school not in the current BCS conferences. What's largely forgotten is that the Cougars played only four teams that finished with a winning record, the best being Air Force's 8-4.

That won't be the case this year.

Should BYU go undefeated this regular season, its 13th game should be for the BCS national title, because its schedule would be worthy for it.

After upsetting Oklahoma, 14-13, at Cowboys Stadium last night, the Cougars should be ranked in the top five of the polls, the most critical element comprising the BCS standings formula. If they fail to crack the top five, then the Mountain West Conference's mounting grievances against the BCS will have the fiercest argument yet.

Consider -

* Despite being listed as a neutral-site game, last night's affair was a de facto OU home game, with Norman only 200 miles away and the Metroplex a natural habitat for OU alums.

* Never mind that Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford was hurt on the final play from scrimmage in the first half. When the 2008 Heisman winner was playing, OU managed only 10 points.

* In the fourth quarter, after OU got the ball on a turnover at the BYU 27, it failed to score a touchdown to put the game away. The Cougars stuffed the Sooners six times inside the 10 (three times inside the 2) to force a field goal.

* Despite having two 1,000-yard rushers in the backfield, the Sooners ran for only 118 yards. They were outgained by nearly 100 yards as BYU held the ball for almost 38 minutes.

It's unfortunate that Bradford got hurt, but don't kid yourself that OU would've won that game going away had he stayed healthy. BYU earned that victory, fair and square - injuries are part of the game.

BYU should be in the top 5 after this victory, and its remaining schedule is strong enough for the Cougars to make a case for the BCS title game should they stay undefeated. They play Florida State, TCU and Utah, all three teams currently in the AP top 20. By contrast, Florida, everyone's favorite to repeat as BCS champions, will play only two teams that will be in the top 20 in next week's poll (and please spare me the 'but SEC is the toughest conference in the galaxy' fallacy*).

Certainly the season just got started and BYU can easily suffer a loss (or two or three) along the way and render this whole debate moot. But at this point in time, with what's already done, the Cougars deserve recognition as a top 5 team.

One other side effect from BYU's upset win: Two nights ago, Boise State seemed poised to claim a BCS spot, after beating Oregon and with a favorable schedule ahead. But with BYU's victory, the Broncos may finish the regular season undefeated and not get a BCS bowl berth for a second consecutive season.

That would hurt a lot more than a LeGarrette Blount sucker punch.

*In the realm of logic, this is called "begging the question." It usually goes like this:

SEC Apologist: The SEC has the best teams in the country.
SEC Skeptic: How do you know?
SEC Apologist: Because week-in and week-out they have to play the toughest teams in the country.
SEC Skeptic: How do you know these are the toughest teams?
SEC Apologist: Because they play in the SEC, the toughest conference in the country.

This is not to say that the SEC doesn't have good teams, it's just that the league has its bottom feeders like all other leagues. And since top SEC teams get to feast on these weaklings, the argument that their schedules are tougher than any other doesn't hold water.

Do you know when's the last time Florida played a nonconference game against a BCS conference team outside of the state of Florida? Try 1991, at Syracuse, in a 38-21 loss. But this will be the topic for another day.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Ten Years of BCS: 2006

BCS had its dream season in 2005. Too bad it had to wake up for 2006.

Throughout most of the year, it looked as if the BCS would have its first intra-conference rematch, pitting Ohio State against Michigan. The Big Ten's bitter rivals matched each other game-for-game on a collision course of unbeatens while other contenders fell away.

Then on the eve of the 1-vs.-2 showdown at the Horseshoe, Bo Schembechler, Michigan's legendary coach (and former Ohio State assistant), passed away.

The two teams joined battle with raw emotions, if very little defense. The surprisingly high-scoring game was more or less decided by Michigan linebacker Shawn Crable's late hit on Ohio State QB Troy Smith late in the game. The Buckeyes won, 42-39.

But Michigan stayed at No. 2 in the BCS standings even after the game, making a rematch in Arizona a real possibility. Then the Wolverines began to fall, week after week, without playing a single down.

First, they were passed by USC, after a thrashing of overrated Notre Dame at the Coliseum. And then, just as when it appeared that the Trojans would play in its third consecutive BCS title game, they suffered a monumental choke job against UCLA at the Rose Bowl. Michigan's rematch with Ohio State was on again.

Only for a few hours, as it turned out. After Florida dispatched Arkansas, with some difficulty, in the SEC Championship Game, the Gators leapfrogged the Wolverines (is that physiologically possible?) and got the coveted date with the Buckeyes.

Ruining the rematch turned out to be a good thing in this sense: Both Ohio State and Michigan proved to be ... frauds. The Buckeyes were mauled by Florida in a game that was never close after Ohio State scored on the opening kickoff. Michigan was likewise annihilated by USC in the Rose Bowl.

Florida got its first national championship under Urban Meyer, thanks to a lucky break - USC losing against a 20-point underdog UCLA - and a massive voter defection (more on that later). But at the end, very little argument may be made about the Gators' legitimacy as the BCS national champion.

This was also the first year of the double-host format, where the bowl hosting the BCS national championship game also would have its regular bowl game. With this arrangement, teams qualifying for BCS bowls would increase from eight to 10.

The main beneficiary of this change was supposed to be non-BCS conference teams, now with better access to BCS bowls. And undefeated Boise State took full advantage.

In the same University of Phoenix Stadium that was to host the BCS title game, Boise State shocked and enthralled college football fans with its delightful 43-42 overtime win over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. The Broncos tied the game on a hook-and-ladder, won the game on a Statue of Liberty, and capped it off with a marriage proposal as running back Ian Johnson got down to one knee in front of girlfriend Chrissy Popadics on national TV.

She said "yes!"

Final BCS Standings: 1. Ohio State, 2. Florida, 3. Michigan, 4. LSU.

Alternative Methods -

Using 1998-2003 (BCS I) Formula: 1. Ohio State, 2. Michigan, 3. Florida, 4. LSU.

Using human polls only: 1. Ohio State, 2. Florida, 3. Michigan, 4. LSU.

Plus One: Ohio State vs. USC; Florida vs. Michigan.

Controversy: Michigan fans won't soon forget how fickle voters defected from their team. After losing to Ohio State, the Wolverines were still comfortably ahead of both USC and Florida in both the Coaches and Harris polls. But that soon changed.

Entering the final week of the regular season, Michigan was ahead of Florida by 86 points in the Harris Poll and 40 points in the Coaches Poll. But after Florida's win over Arkansas, the Gators went ahead of Michigan by 38 points in the Harris Poll (a swing of 114 points) and 26 in the Coaches Poll (a swing of 66 points). In both cases, the voters were determined to avoid a Michigan-Ohio State rematch. With Florida and Michigan dead even in the computer rankings, the voters' wish carried the day.

BCS Formula Review: With the formula now set, the only revelation of 2006 was that the Harris Poll proved to be no better (or worse) than any other human polls. The Harris voters, like the coaches (and the writers in the AP poll) defected from Michigan to push, first USC, then Florida, into the BCS title game. As the human polls now comprise two-thirds of the BCS formula, essentially the computer rankings are rendered meaningless in a tight race.

Analysis: Did the right team win the BCS championship? Perhaps. But had USC not inexplicably gagged against a team that it beat, 66-19, the year before and had won seven straight against, Florida would never have made it to the title game. There would've been protests from both Michigan and Florida after USC presumably walloped Ohio State.

The two best teams of the season, as indicated by bowl results, never got to play each other. USC blew its chance at a third national title in four years, but the Trojans and Gators would never have gotten a chance to play each other anyway. Not with Ohio State being insulated in the Big Ten and going undefeated.

History would repeat itself in 2007 ... and 2008.

Monday, August 24, 2009

Why the AP Poll Still Matters

The Associated Press top 25 was released over the weekend. And it didn't make much of a splash aside from that Florida got an unprecedented 58 of 60 first-place votes.

But don't be fooled. Even in the BCS Era, the AP Poll still matters. A lot.

Ever since the AP asked (or more accurately, demanded) out of the BCS standings after the 2004 season, the most venerable and prestigious college football poll seemed to have taken a backseat. To the coaches poll, for sure. But also to the Harris Poll, which was founded for no other reason than to replace AP in the BCS standings.

On so many levels, however, the AP Poll is still very influential:

1. It has more credibility than any other poll: The AP poll began in 1936, long before the coaches poll (1950) and never mind the Harris poll (2005). It has released a weekly ranking with a final poll without interruption, through war and peace. Its voters' identities are disclosed to the public, as are their ballots. Contrast that with the decidedly non-transparent process of the Coaches Poll.

The Associated Press continues to crown its champions, regardless of other polls or arrangements. It's been around long before the BCS and it might outlast the BCS. There's always a possibility that the BCS may disband after the next contract runs out - even if it's a slim one. But the AP Poll? It'll always be there.

2. It's still used by most of the media: Don't forget, the AP is the media poll. All print publications and most of the electronic media use the AP poll as a reference. The purpose of the BCS standings is to produce two teams for the BCS national title game and other BCS bowl games, as evidenced by its lack of a season-ending standings. Case-in-point: Utah finished No. 2 in the AP Poll and No. 3 in the Coaches Poll last season. Guess which one was always cited in this spring's BCS discussions?

3. The Harris Poll is basically an AP Poll surrogate: Never mind that the Harris Poll doesn't come out until late September and its voters are supposedly keeping an open mind by watching a few weeks' worth of games before they vote.

Make no mistake, Harris voters are greatly influenced by the AP poll. They can't help it. They have to start somewhere.

AP Poll Archive (one of the Guru's most favored go-to sources) did the research. And as you can see, there's not much of a difference between Harris Poll rankings and the AP ones. In fact, in its four seasons of existence, there has been just three minor variations in its final regular-season top 10, and none among the top four. In 2008, the two polls had identical top 10s at the end of the regular season.

4. AP still crowns a champion: Who was the national champion in 2003? The majority of the country would acknowlege a split, with many siding with USC over LSU (to the eternal consternation of Tigers fans). Last year, had Oklahoma defeated Florida in the BCS title game, the AP might've crowned Utah as the champion over OU, who would've been the BCS champion.

For as long as AP crowns its own champion, there is always a possibility of a split title. And the AP champion would be every bit as legitimate as the BCS champion. Look at it another way - The BCS merely produces a champion for the Coaches Poll, one that by all counts an inferior one to the AP Poll.

This list of national champions will always be the one that shows up in your hometown newspaper (unless you're in Louisiana) - for as long as newspapers exist. That's why the AP Poll still matters.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Congress Can't 'Fix' the BCS

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) made a lot of noise earlier this year about reforming the BCS. He even wrote an op-ed in Sports Illustrated. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) went as far as introducing a bill to ban the use of "national championship" by the BCS. Even President Barack Obama (D-World) has promised (or threatened) to "throw his weight around a little bit."

But don't hold your breath. The BCS isn't going anywhere and it's not going to change much.

And that's a good thing in this sense: You do not want the United States government messing with college football.

For those of you who skipped your high school civic classes or didn't care much for polisci in college, here's a quick primer: The U.S. is a federal republic, its government is represented by people from all 50 states, each with its own disparate interest. These representatives don't work for you or me or the United States as a whole, per se. They work for their state, their district and their constituents.

But most of all, they work for themselves to make sure that they get re-elected.

That's why there's all the grandstanding about the BCS when the timing is convenient. When there's nothing going on, it's a cheap way to get some media attention. And since the BCS is about as popular as the Third Reich, it's easy to kick around the BCS and score brownie points.

You do notice, though, that none of these politicians, from Obama on down, offered anything remotely resembling a "solution" to the BCS problem, right?

That's because they don't have one. And they don't know college football well enough to even come up with one.

You do also notice that the people who complain the loudest about the BCS tend to be representing the latest aggrieved party in the BCS saga. Yes, Hatch is all hot because Utah got screwed last year. Barton is pissed because similarly Texas got shut out of the BCS title game (but he went to A&M, so go figure).

In 2007, the loudest critic of the BCS was University of Gerogia president Michael Adams. He was sore because the Bulldogs didn't get their shot at the crystal ball. Guess what? This last offseason you didn't hear a peep from Dr. Adams, presumably because UGA still got its fat BCS check even though its team, ranked No. 1 in the preseason, more or less went in the tank.

So here's a prediction: You won't hear too much from Sen. Hatch next spring - unless BYU becomes the next BCS victim.

When it comes to the BCS, the best you can hope for is that it'll do the right thing not because of government regulation, but because of the market forces. We still live in a nation with an economy that's fueled by capitalistic endeavors (for now, anyway). And make no mistake, college football and the BCS are big business. So at the end, money talks.

Money talked in the 1990s, as Bowl Coalition morphed into Bowl Alliance and then the BCS. It's not a perfect system, but it's at least marginally better than the old bowl regime. The best two championship games of the BCS Era (2002 and 2005) wouldn't have happened without the BCS. There will come a time - maybe in the next 5-10 years - that there will be so much money on the table for the BCS to adopt some sort of a Plus-One or pseudo-playoff system. You can count on that.

What you can't count on is government efficiency, that's why you want it to stay the hell away from college football. The U.S. government is pretty stretched. It's now running the car industry and many of the big banks. Soon, it'll own healthcare, then energy, and before you know it, you and me, too.

Besides, at a time where there is a real fear of inflation, with runaway budget deficits, continuing high unemployment and negative growth in GDP, not to mention nuclear threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, why is anybody in government even talking about college football?

That's why we want our congressmen and senators to butt out. To mind their own business. To take care of business. In the case of the BCS, we don't need their help to "fix" it.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Ten Years of BCS: 2005

Without a doubt, in the short history of the BCS, 2005 was its crowning achievement. It was its best season. It was its most controversy-free season. And it ended with its best game, in the best setting possible for a college football game - the Rose Bowl.

It was a dream season for the BCS.

USC, after winning back-to-back AP national titles, was back for an unprecedented three-peat. It had a Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback who surprised everyone by returning for his senior season. It had a soon-to-be Heisman-winning running back. It had NFL first-round picks up the ying-yang on offense. But its defense was somewhat suspect.

No matter, the Trojans blew through the schedule by outscoring everybody. They won a thriller in South Bend when their Heisman combo Matt Leinart-Reggie Bush orchestrated a final second touchdown to beat Notre Dame. They escaped Fresno State when Bush produce a career worth of highlights in a single game, piling up 513 total yards. USC rolled into the Rose Bowl for the national championship with a 34-game winning streak after destroying UCLA, 66-19.

Keeping on the Trojans' heels was No. 2 Texas, led by junior quarterback Vince Young, a Heisman hopeful himself. The Longhorns were ranked right behind USC the entire season, and were a juggernaut in their own right. After getting by Ohio State in Columbus in the second game of the season, Texas scored at least 40 points and won by double-digits every game. The Longhorns claimed their date with USC by atomizing Colorado in the Big 12 title game, 70-3.

In this BCS perfect season, everything fell into place. Penn State, the only other team that might otherwise had a claim on the title game, was done in by Michigan's Mario Manningham, who caught a TD pass on the game's final play to thwart perfection for the Lions. Alabama, the last unbeaten team besides USC and Texas, bowed out of the race on Nov. 12 after a loss to LSU.

The national championship game was a classic. The Trojans jumped ahead. The Longhorns took the lead by halftime. USC regained control in the second half and was one play away from finishing off its three-peat. On fourth-and-2 at the Texas 45, with 2:13 remaining and Texas out of timeouts, the Trojans elected to go for a first down instead of punting to protect a 38-33 lead.

Bush, the Heisman winning back, was on the sideline. The Trojans loaded up the left side of the line and ran Lendale White off tackle. It was a play full of machismo. USC had run this play three times in crucial situations in this game and prevailed each time. It dared Texas to stop it.

The Longhorns did. White was stuffed a yard short and Young got the ball back. He methodically drove Texas downfield, scoring the game-winner on fourth-and-5 with 19 seconds left. Texas ended the Trojans' reign and won its first national title since 1970.

Final BCS Standings: 1. USC, 2. Texas, 3. Penn State, 4. Ohio State.

Alternative Methods -

Using 1998-2003 (BCS I) Formula: 1. USC, 2. Texas, 3. Penn State, 4. Ohio State.

Using human polls only: 1. USC, 2. Texas, 3. Penn State, 4. Ohio State.

Plus One: USC vs. Ohio State; Texas vs. Penn State.

Controversy: There was little regarding the BCS. The title game was only slightly marred by instant replay malfunction, which allowed a disputed Texas touchdown to stand in the second quarter. Young's knee was down on the play before he lateraled the ball to Selvin Young, who ran 12 yards for the score to put Texas ahead, 9-7. The play was not reviewed because the equipment wasn't working.

BCS Formula Review: After the controversy of the previous year when Texas leapfrogged California for a Rose Bowl berth, the BCS made another tweak with the formula, out of necessity. A number of AP voters were besieged by angry fans who found fault with their ballots. As a result, the AP sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that the AP poll be removed from the BCS formula.

The BCS hastily contracted Harris Interactive to furnish a replacement poll, which debuted in 2005. The poll features over 100 voters who are former athletic directors, coaches and players, as well as members of the media. Unlike the AP poll or the coaches poll, the Harris Poll does not have a preseason poll and isn't released until four weeks into the season; and it also does not have am end-of-season final poll.

With the installment of the Harris Poll as part of the standings, the BCS formula would remain unchanged to this day. The 2009 season will be the fifth consecutive with the exact same BCS formula.

Analysis: The USC-Texas game was easily the most-watched BCS championship game and its most thrilling, thanks to the star power of both teams. And the BCS deserved credit for making it happen. Under the previous bowl regime, USC would've played (and most likely, beaten) Penn State in the Rose Bowl whereas Texas would've faced (and also beaten) either one-loss Oregon or two-loss Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl.

The 2006 Rose Bowl also marked the end of the phase I of the BCS bowl rotation. After two consecutive cycles of playing four BCS bowls with eight berths, the BCS, partly under pressure, would expand to a "double-host" setup following the 2005 season. An extra game would be added to allow more access for non-BCS teams. And a championship game was added, to be played a week after the traditional New Year's Day bowl games.

Monday, April 20, 2009

The Only 'Playoff' That Works

(Guru's note: This proposal has been slightly amended after great feedback and additional considerations. I believe this is now the most plausible proposal to modify the framework of the BCS.)

The BCS annual meeting is set to take place next Monday in Pasadena, where the commissioners are expected to hobnob and mostly wring their hands before declaring the BCS a "success."

There will be a couple of issues. The pesky Mountain West has a proposal and it wants to be heard. It will be, but just like the last words from a death-row inmate, it's not going to make any difference. And there's the congressional pressure, but with re-election coming up in 18 months, that may be played off by a pledge for "more studying."

But sooner or later, the BCS will have to deal with this. As it nears the conclusion of its third four-year contract, the public is fed up with a system that provides very little satisfaction in crowning a true champion. The concept of a "national champion" in Division I-A is as mythical as ever, as none of the past three BCS champions may lay an undisputed claim to the title.

It doesn't have to be this way.

The Guru has devised a "playoff" scheme that creates minimal conflict with the current regime and may be implemented immediately. The concept is tested against the 11 past BCS seasons, which proved that it would have stifled any controversy in the course of determining a true champion. The beauty of this proposal is in its simplicity.

So here it is:

1. Add two games to the current format - national semifinal games played on campus sites the week after the last regular-season games are played and BCS standings are released.

2. The semifinalists will be the four teams meeting the following criteria -

a) The four highest-ranked conference champions, provided that they're in the top six of the final BCS standings.*
b) Any team that finished in the top two but failed to win its conference.
c) In case of a conflict between a) and b), b) takes precedence over the lowest-ranked conference champion.

* Conference champion may be from any conference, regardless of BCS affiliation. In the case of conferences without a championship game, a co-champion is accepted and no tiebreaker needs to be applied. Notre Dame belongs in this group as well.

3. The higher seeds host the lower seeds on campus sites, with the winners advancing to the national championship game, to be played one week after New Year's Day.

4. All bowl games and their affiliations stay in tact. The losing semifinalists are guaranteed a spot in one of the BCS bowls, in accordance with their conference affiliations. Second-place teams may be invited in place of the semifinal winners, as it is the case now with the top two teams.

That's it. And here's the historical data on how this system would've worked over the past 11 seasons:

2008: No. 6 Utah (MWC champion) at No. 1 Oklahoma (Big 12); No. 5 USC (Pac-10) at No. 2 Florida (SEC) ** No. 3 Texas and No. 4 Alabama did not qualify

2007: No. 4 Oklahoma (Big 12) at No. 1 Ohio State (Big Ten); No. 3 Virginia Tech (ACC) at No. 2 LSU (SEC)

2006: No. 6 Louisville (Big East) at No. 1 Ohio State (Big Ten); No. 5 USC (Pac-10) at No. 2 Florida (SEC) ** No. 3 Michigan and No. 4 LSU did not qualify

2005: No. 6 Notre Dame at No. 1 USC (Pac-10); No. 3 Penn State (Big Ten) at No. 2 Texas (Big 12) ** No. 4 Ohio State and No. 5 Oregon did not qualify

2004: No. 6 Utah (MWC) at No. 1 USC (Pac-10); No. 3 Auburn (SEC) at No. 2 Oklahoma (Big 12) ** No. 4 Texas and No. 5 California did not qualify

2003: No. 4 Michigan (Big Ten) at No. 1 Oklahoma (at-large); No. 3 USC (Pac-10) at No. 2 LSU (SEC)

2002: No. 4 USC (Pac-10) at No. 1 Miami (Big East); No. 3 Georgia (SEC) at No. 2 Ohio State (Big Ten)

2001: No. 4 Oregon (Pac-10) at No. 1 Miami (Big East); No. 3. Colorado (Big 12) at No. 2 Nebraska (at-large)

2000: No. 4 Washington (Pac-10) at No. 1 Oklahoma (Big 12); No. 3 Miami (Big East) at No. 2 Florida State (ACC)

1999: No. 4 Alabama (SEC) at No. 1 Florida State (ACC); No. 3 Nebraska (Big 12) at No. 2 Virginia Tech (Big East)

1998: No. 5 UCLA (Pac-10) at No. 1 Tennessee (SEC); No. 4 Ohio State (Big Ten) at No. 2 Florida State (ACC) ** No. 3 Kansas State did not qualify

A quick review of the data reveals the following:

* Controversies over the past three years, as well as in 2004 (when there were four unbeaten teams), 2003 (three one-loss teams), 2001 and 2000 (when a No. 2 team was beaten by a No. 3 team during the season), would have been quelled as all teams in question would be semifinalists and could settle things on the field.

* Twice, a non-BCS conference champion - Utah in 2004 and 2008 - would've made the playoffs. Notre Dame qualified in 2005.

* Two at-large teams - Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003 - made the field.

* Conference breakdown - Pac-10 (9), Big 12 (9, including 2 at-large bids), SEC (8), Big Ten (6), Big East (5), ACC (4), MWC (2), Notre Dame (1).

* Recent trends - USC would've been in six of the last seven playoffs, missing only 2007; SEC champion would've been in the field also in six of the last seven, missing only in 2005; Oklahoma would've been in four of the last six; and Louisville was the only Big East team to make it after Miami and Virginia Tech left for the ACC.

For emphasis, here's why this plan should be strongly considered by the commissioners and needs to be put in place as soon as possible:

1. It's logistically sensible: In contrast to most "playoff" proposals, this does not take on unreasonable logistical and travel cost. Only two teams are doing the extra traveling, with games played at home venues that can easily sell out on short notice.

2. It doesn't upset the BCS apple cart: The BCS standings can use a tweaking, but the pressure on the existing system should be relieved considerably - with four teams in the mix instead of just two. It also should minimize voter meddling in creating the "championship matchup." Look at the historical data, just about every team worthy of a shot at the championship that season would've been in the "playoff."

3. It keeps the bowl structure in tact: The current bowl infrastructure stays completely in tact with just one exception: All non-BCS bowl matchups are announced at the same time as they do now, but BCS bowl lineups will be revealed after the semifinals, creating an extra week of excitement and suspense.

4. It preserves the meaning of regular season: It rewards conference champions, but also gives non-champions a chance, with a bar set high at the top two slots. As you can see with the historical precedents, it's possible for a non-champion to still qualify, but champions of all conferences have a fair chance of reaching the "playoff," whether they're in a BCS conference or not. It behooves teams to schedule tough and win their conference.

5. It creates attractive matchups: In two of the last three seasons, you would've seen USC playing Florida in the semifinals - in the current scenario, the Trojans have never faced an SEC team in a BCS bowl. The title game would have even more meaning and legitimacy because whoever emerges as the winner would be crowned as the true champion.

Friday, March 6, 2009

The Mountain West Proposal

On Wednesday, the Mountain West Conference presented the BCS commissioners with a new proposal to tweak the BCS system. And it wants the proposal fast-tracked - to take place as soon as the 2010 season, when the new TV deal with ESPN kicks in.

Flush with success from the 2008 season - culminating with Utah's undefeated run and No. 2 ranking in the final AP poll - the Mountain West also managed to get the backing of a few congressmen. Its proposal seeks to use as much of the existing infrastructure as possible, with a few add-ons.

You can read the entire proposal, but here's the highlight:

Amending the automatic qualifier standard (so the MWC could be let in, of course)
Adding a fifth bowl to the rotation
Creating national semifinals, to be played a week after the New Years Day bowls
Pitting the semifinal winners in the national championship game, played a week later
Using a committee to select the 10 BCS teams (and ditching the BCS standings, putting the Guru out of business)

The MWC wants the proposal discussed at the BCS meeting next month. And ACC commissioner John Swofford, no doubt under some political pressure, said the proposal will get a "full airing."

So what's going to happen?

Nothing. Or not much, other than that there will be "continued discussions" about a new format. There are simply too many things at work here against this proposal, or any other proposal.

First, the BCS conference schools and Notre Dame, the big power brokers, like the way things are right now. And so do the smaller conferences that probably will never get a shot at a BCS bowl in the system proposed by the MWC, especially the WAC, the forefather of the MWC that has benefited enormously from the current BCS arrangement.

Second, there is no real political will behind this. The nation is in crisis, college football is not going to be a priority in an environment where unemployment is about to hit 10% and the Dow Jones is heading toward 6,500. Any politician talking too much about this risks being viewed as out of touch with reality. That's why you're not going to see much of a reaction out of any senators, let along President Obama.

Finally, that the proposal comes from the Mountain West actually de-legitimizes it. This sounds too much like a grievance filing immediately after one has been wronged. The MWC conveniently picked and chose whatever data suited its argument. As you can see from this table compiled by our friend Ben Prather, the MWC really is the seventh-best conference over the past four years, when objective and more robust data were used.

But putting aside all the machinations of the BCS, does the MWC proposal have merit?

Not much. Certainly not enough to warrant its adoption.

Beyond the arbitrary automatic qualification process, adding a fifth bowl is wasteful and unnecessary. But the biggest problem is having an eight-team playoff. It's simply impractical from a logistical standpoint. It's even more impractical when you try to jam it in at the end of the bowl season.

Keep in mind the number of people that need to be moved around for these bowl games. Going to one bowl game is a huge expense, even in a healthy economy. Going to the equivalent of three bowl games in three consecutive weeks will bankrupt most people, those who are stupid enough to try it. Given the current economic climate, that's a deal breaker right there.

The most ludicrous part of the proposal, however, is the concept of a 12-man committee. This idea is considerably worse than the BCS standings. To have 12 people, each with a vested interest, to vote on the teams that would divvy up nearly $100 million is insane. Even the coaches poll, fraught with conflict of interest, is far superior to this model - and that is merely one-third of the BCS standings. Just imagine the horse-trading that'd go on in that committee room.

At the end, the BCS commissioners will kick this proposal around, spew out a few platitudes, and feed it down the shredder when everybody else leaves the room.

Unfortunately, that's where it belongs.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

The Guru's Report Card (Through 2008)


	Accuracy	Perfect Top 5	Note
2006
Final	84%		Only Top 10 Projected

2007
Week 1	93%	YES
Week 2	83%		Worst Performce Ever; Missed #2
Week 3	90%	YES
Week 4	93%	YES
Week 5	94%	YES
Week 6	99%	YES	Best Performance in '07; Perfect Top 10
Week 7	90%
Final	95%		Perfect (5-for-5) on BCS Bowl Matchups
SEASON	92.1%

2008
Week 1	90%
Week 2	97%	YES
Week 3	90%		Missed #2 - Second Time Ever
Week 4	91%	YES
Week 5	98%	YES	Perfect Top 9
Week 6	96%		Missed #2 - Second Time in 2008
Week 7	97%	YES
Final	100%	YES	Perfection & (5-for-5) on BCS Bowls
SEASON	94.9%

Monday, January 5, 2009

Black Coaches - Distinct, Nearly Extinct

When DeWayne Walker was named to head the New Mexico State football program on New Year's Eve, he became a member of a very distinct group - so distinct that it's almost extinct.

Walker became just the seventh African-American to head a Division I-A (or Bowl Subdivision) football program, out of 120. And of the seven, only one - Miami's Randy Shannon - coaches in one of the so-called BCS conferences. Do the math - six percent of DI-A coaches are black, and barely one percent (1 out of 67) in the BCS conferences plus Notre Dame.

In a sport where more than 50 percent of the athletes are minorities, this is downright atrocious.

Yet beyond the usual indignation of the hand-wringing variety, it barely raised eyebrows. Rivals.com published its top 10 college football stories of 2008 – this didn't make the list.

While the NFL has made a concerted effort to hire more minority coaches through the "Rooney Rule" - to good effect, college football has all but yawned about this glaring inequity. After the 2008 season, there have been 20 coaching changes, and just four of these head jobs went to black candidates.

It's ironic that universities, perhaps the most liberal and progressive institutions in America, are so behind the times when it comes to hiring for their most glamorous jobs. The head football coach often is the most well-known member of the university community, the de facto face of the university. While colleges aren't afraid to raid each other - or even the business world - for some of the best and brightest minority faculty members, they are reticent to take chances with the head ball coach.

This speaks volumes to just who controls the purse strings at big-time college football programs. The powers-that-be inside the ivory towers ultimately defers to the well-heeled boosters with millions to dispense with. College presidents talk a good game, but at the end, money speaks loudest.

So if you think the BCS gives college football a bad name, you should check with the BCA first.

Saturday, January 3, 2009

Why Shouldn't Utah Be No. 1?

After impressively dismantling Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, Utah should deserve consideration as the top team in the AP poll. And you know something? Utah SHOULD BE No. 1 in the final AP poll.

The Utes finished the season 13-0, becoming the first team to go undefeated twice in the BCS era. In beating the Tide, 31-17, in what was essentially a home game for their SEC foe, the Utes completed their resume and it stacks up favorably against any team in the country.

Let's take a look:

1. Utah is the only undefeated Division I-A team in 2008. That in itself should mean something.

2. Utah's strength of schedule is more than competitive - it should finish in the top 30. The Mountain West had a banner year both in the regular season and bowl season. Yet, the Utes went unbeaten in that conference. They defeated six bowl teams, including two (Alabama and Texas Christian) that will finish the year ranked in the Top 10.

3. In head-to-head comparisons, Utah has the edge over both USC and Florida. The Utes beat Oregon State, the team that handed the Trojans their only loss. They beat Alabama more decisively than Florida, which played the Tide on a more neutral setting. Oklahoma did win more impressively than Utah as both teams faced TCU at home.

4. The strength of western football has been vindicated by the Pac-10 and Mountain West going a combined 8-2 in the bowl season, with victories over the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC and WAC. Utah played within the western environment, which has been unfairly underrated by the pollsters throughout the season. That should be readjusted.

Back in 1984, when BYU became the last non-BCS conference team to finish first in the AP poll, the Cougars had a considerably weaker resume. They defeated only four teams with a winning record, and their non-WAC schedule consisted of Pittsburgh, Baylor, Tulsa and Utah State. BYU defeated a 6-6 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl, 24-17. That was the only Wolverines team in 40 years (1968-2007) not to finish with a winning record.

Utah is better than BYU 1984. It's better than its own 2004 version, which also went undefeated and beat Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl. That team, too, benefited from a subpar schedule, with only four opponents finishing with winning records. The Big East champion Panthers were also not respected, getting thrashed by Utah, 35-7, to finish 8-4.

This year's Utah team competed with some of the nation's best teams and won every game. Despite going into New Orleans as a double-digit underdog, the Utes thoroughly dominated an Alabama team that had trailed but 45 minutes in the entire season. Utah scored four minutes into the game and never relinquished the lead; and in the process, racked up 349 yards, shut down the vaunted 'Bama running game and sacked quarterback John Parker Wilson eight times.

That, was championship football.

The AP voters have a choice. They don't need to vote Utah No. 1 as a protest against the BCS. They simply need to discard some of their preconceived notion and bias against Utah. If they do that, then they'll realize there's a pretty case to be made for the Utes.

But will they?

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Remaking the BCS Formula

Part I of the Troubleshooting the BCS Series

After another season of high-wire acts, the temptation of course is to blow the BCS to smithereens and start over. But that's neither practicable nor desirable.

It's not practicable because the current BCS contract does not run out until after the 2013 season, so any wholesale change toward a playoff now or in the foreseeable future is just not reality based. It's not desirable because without thoroughly considering all the issues - logistics and otherwise - any move made in haste would only invite more disaster.

There is something that could be done - immediately - about the BCS within the framework of the current structure. It's possible to implement changes even before the next season, as the BCS has proved to be quite nimble when it comes to making up stuff as we go - witness this past season's sudden decision to allow three conference teams to be included in BCS bowl games.

When the commissioners gather for their annual meeting in April, instead of patting each other on the back and passing out vapid congratulations, they would be better off re-examining the BCS. And the best place to start would be the formula that creates the BCS standings.

The formula in its current form has survived since 2004, with the only change being that the Harris Poll replaced the Associated Press poll before the 2005 season. The current formula, created in the aftermath of the USC-LSU split championship in 2003, places overwhelming emphasis on the human polls. This is troubling because the most unstable and subjective part of the formula, naturally, is the human polls. And even more troubling is the utter lack of transparency of these two polls.

That, and a few other things, may be fixed rather quickly and easily. So here's how:

1. Bring transparency into the polls - Neither the coaches poll nor the Harris poll reveals its weekly voting results until the final week of the regular season, when the final BCS standings are released. Any system that's worth its salt demands accountability. Imagine if your congressman never had to reveal how he voted until the last bill of his term. That just won't do.

It's easy enough for the BCS to demand the Harris poll make its ballots public every week. The BCS commissioned the Harris poll, therefore owns it. If any voter objects to this new guideline, then see you later. There will be plenty of people willing and able to vote in the Harris poll.

The coaches poll is the more thorny issue. For years the coaches have resisted making their ballots open to the public and it took a near act of congress to get them to reveal the final poll. And since the BCS champion ultimately is merely the coaches poll champion, there's not a whole lot the BCS can do about it, right?

Not really. I believe there is a creative solution. The BCS commissioners can simply issue an ultimatum to their coaches to open the ballots, or else risking to have their votes become even more irrelevant. I'm sure the Black Coaches & Administrators will be more than happy to step in with their own poll. The BCA is not happy with college football's hiring practices - and rightly so - but this will be a way to increase its visibility. For the BCS, this will be a public relations coup. So if the coaches don't play ball, simply have their poll replaced by a new BCA poll.

2. Eliminate tiebreaker madness - What happened in the Big 12 Conference this year is simply unacceptable. The BCS formula was never conceived to determine anything but the top two teams for the BCS title game. The easy thing to do here is for the commissioners to police their own conferences to make sure the BCS formula will never come close to being any sort of a tiebreaker ever again.

3. Allow margin of victory back in the computers - Following the 2001 season, in a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, MoV was purged from all computer rankings ostensibly to discourage teams from running up the score. The problem is, the human voters didn't get the memo. The first fallout from this decision took place in 2003, when Oklahoma, after gotten blown out by four touchdowns in the Big 12 championship game, still stayed No. 1 in the BCS standings thanks to the computers now unable to distinguish a one-point loss from a 28-point rout.

Computer programmers should write their own formulas. The BCS has no business telling what these guys should do. It should demand to audit the results throughout the season, but leave the programming to the professionals. After all, all computer programs had built in a safeguard against excessive scoring, with either 21 points or 28 points as the threshold.

Computer rankings become much more pure and accurate when margin of victory is taken into consideration. Just think about this for a moment: If you were betting your house on a game, would you dare to look at only a team's won-loss records but not how much they won and lost by?

4. Re-calibrate the computer ratings - One of the dumbest things about the BCS formula is it mixes percentages with ordinal numbers. For the human polls, it counts actual votes for teams instead of rankings; but for computers, it uses the rankings only. So when a team falls from 2nd to 3rd in the computers, the consequences are disastrous; but when a team falls from 2nd to 3rd in the polls, it could be just about a dead-heat, as far as the BCS standings are concerned.

The BCS should keep the human part of the formula the way it is but normalize the computer rankings so they become compatible with one another numerically. An easy way to do this is to fix the top team at 1.000 and derive percentages for other teams based on their respective computer scores.

I checked all six BCS computer systems and found that their scores are fairly uniform. Teams ranked 10th score about .86 to .92 points and teams ranked at No. 25 score about .74-.81. What this does is that it stabilizes the system and reduces the wild swings toward the end of the season when a games not even involving the principals holds such sway as the Cincinnati-Hawaii game did at the end of the 2008 regular season.

5. Re-balance the formula - If steps 1-4 are taken, then we can move on to this, which should bring objectivity back to the formula and take some pressure off the voters. I mean, if we're just gonna let the voters decide everything, why even bother with a formula - we can just use the AP poll instead. After all, since the adoption of the current formula, the AP has produced the same top two teams every season anyway.

By going 50-50, the new standings also give the non-BCS teams a fighting chance. The human polls are always stacked against non-BCS teams, but the computers give them a fairer shake. And if we ever move toward at least a plus-one system involving four teams, then a team like Utah in 2008 might have a shot at qualifying.

Did I say Plus-One? Ah, you'll have to come back for Part II.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Top 10 Questions for 2010 Season