Bcs bash week

[Yz1]

I am affectionately anointing this week as BCS Bash week. On my blog, for the next four days, I will attack the cartel disguised as the Bowl Championship Series.

Mark it down: collegefootballhaven12.blogspot.com

The four part series will include the following:

1. Tuesday: The Scam
2. Wednesday: The Cover-up
3. Thursday: The Evidence
4. Friday: The Solution

I have made significant research while preparing each day's topic to ensure that I present accurate information and that I make substantiated assertions. I am not simply venting. I know your time is valuable, and I have ensured that each topic has enough substance that reading it will not be a waste of time.

Come back each day as we bash the BCS.

Mark it down: collegefootballhaven12.blogspot.com

[Yz1]

Part 1 to the BCS Bash is now posted.

collegefootballhaven12.blogspot.com

[Yz1]

Part 2 is posted.

collegefootballhaven12.blogspot.com

[Yz1]

Part 3 is now posted.

collegefootballhaven12.blogspot.com

[MikeWaters]

brother, you are missing the boat.

the way you define how strong a conference is, is by looking at how much support and interest there is for a conference. And how do you know what that is? You look at the fan support, the athletic department budgets, and the TV ratings.

The US population is concentrated in the East, with a lot on the West Coast as well.



You see where all that open space is? Yeah, that's the MWC and WAC.

There's a certain gravitas and real politik missing from your analysis. Who cares what the winning percentage is for the conference champions. That's not important if the strength of the conference is different.

I don't know how you can discuss this without showing, for example, the conference Sagarin ratings.

Fail.

[Yz1]

Thanks for reading, somehow I am not surprised that you think I failed.

I understand the impact that population and money distribution has, and that is what I am trying to point out. The current system has no merits to stand on and it is driven completely by politics and geography. However, if I simply say that without countering the cliche excuses used by the BCS, then I am no better than a four year old arguing with my friend about who's dad is stronger.

I don't follow your logic, "Who cares what the winning percentage is for the conference champions. That's not important if the strength of the conference is different." That is like saying, "Who cares if Boise State can beat Alabama. That's not important because their geographical location is different." Football is a game played on a field, why should gravitas and politik matter. That is what I am fighting for.

As for the Sagarin rankings, I looked them up, but as I stated in part 2, those are all biased, and unreliable, too. "That's why we play the game." Anyways, conferences don't play conferences. Teams play teams, and conference champions play conference champions in the BCS. It has never been and never will be about a complete conference. Part 4 deals with this more, if you haven't read it yet.

[MikeWaters]

Why are computer rankings biased, if they don't use any preset starting rank or poll?

If different teams have different SOS, then their winning percentage is not comparable. That is, I think it is easier to get a conference loss in SEC than in the WAC. I could be wrong, however.

[Yz1]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Why are computer rankings biased, if they don't use any preset starting rank or poll?

If different teams have different SOS, then their winning percentage is not comparable. That is, I think it is easier to get a conference loss in SEC than in the WAC. I could be wrong, however.

I will confess that I don't know much about how computer rankings are computed, but I know that a computer can only do what a human tells it to do. Whatever the formula is, at some point human bias comes into play. What real evidence is there that a 3-9 SEC team is any better than a 3-9 WAC team?

My guess is that 40 times, recruiting ranks, height and weight measurements, and maybe even what high school you are from, are incorporated somewhere. The problem is that football is the ultimate team game and has way too many intangibles. Coaching, the mentality of 18-24 year old young men, how well a team gells, discipline are all factors that can make a difference in a game, but those can't be measured or predicted. Not even the NFL, with 3-4 years more "data" on each player and unlimited resources can accurately evaluate who the best players are.

As for the SOS, I consider this another college football fallacy. Looking at the Sagarin rankings you referenced, Boise State, Idaho, and New Mexico State had SOS of 96, 95, and 94, respectively last year, and their records were 14-0, 8-5, and 3-10, respectively. If SOS was legitimate, there would be some correlation between the win-loss record and SOS. If SOS was legitimate, TCU would have comfortably beat Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl. So much trust is being put in the SOS/computers that many people dismiss what they actually see on the field.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Yz1

I will confess that I don't know much about how computer rankings are computed, but I know that a computer can only do what a human tells it to do. Whatever the formula is, at some point human bias comes into play. What real evidence is there that a 3-9 SEC team is any better than a 3-9 WAC team?

My guess is that 40 times, recruiting ranks, height and weight measurements, and maybe even what high school you are from, are incorporated somewhere. The problem is that football is the ultimate team game and has way too many intangibles. Coaching, the mentality of 18-24 year old young men, how well a team gells, discipline are all factors that can make a difference in a game, but those can't be measured or predicted. Not even the NFL, with 3-4 years more "data" on each player and unlimited resources can accurately evaluate who the best players are.

As for the SOS, I consider this another college football fallacy. Looking at the Sagarin rankings you referenced, Boise State, Idaho, and New Mexico State had SOS of 96, 95, and 94, respectively last year, and their records were 14-0, 8-5, and 3-10, respectively. If SOS was legitimate, there would be some correlation between the win-loss record and SOS. If SOS was legitimate, TCU would have comfortably beat Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl. So much trust is being put in the SOS/computers that many people dismiss what they actually see on the field.

I will say this diplomatically: you need to educate yourself, if you think your opinion should matter.