BCS Rules Changes

[THE KOD]

The Bowl Championship Series is leaning towards yet another change in its controversial formula that will give the human polls even greater weight than BCS officials had previously planned.

In the new formula, the ranking in the two human polls will count for 80 percent of a team's total in the standings. The change will all but assure that if the same two teams are ranked 1-2 in the human polls, they will play in the BCS national championship game.

The BCS commissioners wanted to change the old formula, which included many components including strength of schedule and quality wins, because Southern California was left out of the 2003 BCS national championship game despite being ranked No. 1 in both human polls. That same formula put Oklahoma into the Sugar Bowl with LSU despite the Sooners' 35-7 loss to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game.

LSU beat Oklahoma to win the BCS national championship. The Associated Press gave its national title to USC, which beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

It marked the third time in the past four years that the BCS had endured controversy over the national championship pairing created by its formula. Thus came the call to simplify.

A BCS official close to the process said that the formula is still being tested but that the majority of commissioners were leaning towards its adoption. The new formula is expected to be announced some time in July and would go into effect for the 2004 season.

 

[Scott4USC]

Obviously a playoff would be the ultimate answer, but that isn't happening anytime soon. That being said, here are my added solutions.

1) CONFERENCE CHAMPION OR BUST: Sorry OU, but if you play in a Title game, you have to win it. Can't backdoor your way in for a 2nd shot at a bigger prize.

1A) Stoops says require ALL conferences to play one, or eliminate. I am up for that, but the NCAA is the one who prevents 10 & 11 team leagues from staging a contest. As a solution, let the Big 10, Pac 10, and the less than 12 leagues BE THE ONLY ONES TO GET A 12TH GAME. Then everyone is playing A SIMILAR TOTAL OF GAMES. Without the added boost to SOS, right or wrong, LSU would never have set foot in the Sugar Bowl (FACT).
NOT TALKING ABOUT THEIR WORTH TIGER READERS! Gained .80 by playing an extra game against UGA, and 1 more game than USC. THIS NEEDS TO BE BALANCED OUT IF NOT ELIMINATED.

2) BRING BACK MARGIN OF VICTORY: Cap this baby at 21 points, but it does help gauge a more worthy team.

3) LIKE THE RPI IN COLLEGE HOOPS, FACTOR IN LOCATION OF GAME. Sorry, but playing 4 non conference games @home, even against supposedly stronger teams IS AN ADVANTAGE. When we get close to splitting hairs, factor in that beating a NON Conference team ON THE ROAD is a bit more impressive than AT HOME all other things being equal.

5) #1 GETS AN AUTOMATIC BERTH. If a team is #1 in both human polls, THEY GET AN INVITE to the big dance. How can you call a game a NATIONAL TITLE GAME WITHOUT #1? Unless we ever go to a true playoff, you have to have a starting point that works with the HISTORY OF THE GAME. The history of the game has a #1 determined by HUMAN POLLING RIGHT OR WRONG. If a computer disagrees, it doesn't mean THAT SUDDENLY IT IS MORE VALID, OR CORRECT.

Would love to hear reasoned responses. Hitting each of these areas would still leave open the possibility of controversy. However, it would eliminate the problems encountered in 3 of the past 6 seasons. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Takes greatly appreciated

 

[Birdy]

College football used to be unique in that it was the only major sport to determine its champion to be "the best team in the nation." In other words, it was a subjective opinion.

The BCS has come along under the assumption it would determine a "true" national champion. I've got news for all the BCS bashers: that's exactly what it does.

No different from a playoff (except for the obvious), the BCS is a system designed to determine a champion -- not who the "best" team in the nation is.

Think about this: with an eight-team playoff, you could concieveably have a 10-3 team knock off an 13-0 team in the title game. 11-3 national champs, 13-1 #2, with hypothetically a third team who got jobbed along the way and finished with only one loss as well.

Now that's fine, for some. But for those who wouldn't mind maintaining the tradition of naming the college champ "the best," it's no different than what the BCS already does. LSU and Oklahoma were the teams still standing at the end. USC? Beat Cal and you won't have any problems.

My point is, we can't have our cake and eat it too. Either crown a champ -- by whatever means (BCS or playoff) -- or crown the "best" team in the nation (i.e. the polls). All I see in the above is a shift away from the supposed "reason" we have the BCS in the first place, and toward what we already had.

 

[Scott4USC]

The problem is that majority of the media and America felt USC was the best team in the nation. USC was ranked #1 both BOTH polls. Not OU or LSU. BCS is flawed. If you read my post above, you should realize why the BCS is flawed.

The BCS was designed to match up #1 vs #2 and it has not been doing that.

The good news was LSU received their 2nd National Championship Trophy and USC received their 9th. Both schools benefited although the majority including me wanted a USC vs LSU matchup. That is college football for ya!

 

[THE KOD]

The problem is that majority of the media and America felt USC was the best team in the nation.

................................................................................

Scott4usc

how can you speak for what the majority of America felt ?

Lets see there are 300 million Americans. Did you take a poll or is this just
another one of your proven facts.

you have no clue what your talking about and thats why you get razzed alot

Geeez

 

[Birdy]

The problem is that majority of the media and America felt USC was the best team in the nation. USC was ranked #1 both BOTH polls. Not OU or LSU.

And the entire point of my post was that it's impossible to employ both a subjective opinion and an objective system. We're trying to get the two "best" teams into the national title game, but we ignore that was the whole reason we felt we needed the BCS in the first place: to remove subjectivity. Well, the subjectivity is gone. LSU was #1 and Oklahoma was #2. If we don't like that, the problem isn't with the BCS but with out desire to make certain the "best" team wins. Well, the best team doesn't always win. Hence, LSU was your national champ.

BCS is flawed. If you read my post above, you should realize why the BCS is flawed. The BCS was designed to match up #1 vs #2 and it has not been doing that.

I never said the BCS wasn't flawed. I think it's stupid. I'm not defending the BCS as much as I hope to illuminate the fact that in attempting to get all "objective" with college football, we're asking to allign it with every other sport instead of maintaining one of the key factors that makes it so cool: its subjectivity, the fact that our champion is "the best" and not simply "the winner."

::shrug:: Maybe I'm not being clear. I know I can get a little eccentric at times.