BCS - Love it or Hate it? (college football)

[Bill]

what makes the BCS a joke is the way they utilize the computer polls... the fact that TCU was effecting the overall margin was absurd... and NO the BCS has not given us 1 vs 2 each year... nebraska got in a few years ago as a #3 team over a #2 oregon.

Even worse there was they they picked a Nebraska team that had been destroyed by Colorado at the end of the year. Then that Colorado team gets easily killed by Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl, making it clear that Oregon should have played Miami.

Now, Oregon may not have beaten Miami, but that team, with Harrington at QB, was not going to be out of the game if they got down 7-0 like Nebraska was, they had faster guys at WR than even Miami had... and as Colorado figured out pretty quick.

Complete rip off. As was the Heisman vote for Couch.

[kchamber]

Prediciting whether LSU can jump USC has gotten very complicated. The differences in their ratings is razor thin in a few of the computer polls I checked. What bothers me is the way the quality win points are handled. You can only get quality win points the first time you beat a team. If LSU has to play Georgia again in the SEC championship, they'll get no bonus points for beating them again. Worse, the loss would drop Georgia in the BCS standings which will cost LSU bonus points. I don't understand why you can't get quality win points twice from the same team.

Forcing the computer polls to remove Margin of Victory from their formulas looks like a mistake. Humans will always consider a 14-0 win as better than a 14-13 win. Telling the computers that they need to treat these games the same is foolish. Ohio State would not have been so close to USC's ranking before their Michigan loss. Also good polls that refused to remove MoV, like Matthews/Scripps Howard, left the BCS and were replaced by the screwy NY Times poll, which no one seems to understand. Even BCS experts and websites can't explain it, except that it puts unnusually high weight on recent performance.

[QuinntheEskimo]

what concerns me is that everyone (humans and computers) agree USC is #2... but i foresee just enough computer weighted components that give LSU an edge by hundredths or even thousandeths of a point in the final BCS standings...
There are 2 teams (OU and USC) that are obviously heads and shoulders above everyone else- but the computers are in a primed position to give us another Neb/Ore fiasco.

[MHayes62]

And if LSU does jump USC, they will give us all the "strength of schedule" and "quality wins" rhetoric. But then in the off season, spend months ”tweaking their formula" to avoid it happening again.

[kchamber]

what concerns me is that everyone (humans and computers) agree USC is #2... but i foresee just enough computer weighted components that give LSU an edge by hundredths or even thousandeths of a point in the final BCS standings...
There are 2 teams (OU and USC) that are obviously heads and shoulders above everyone else- but the computers are in a primed position to give us another Neb/Ore fiasco.

That won't happen, at least not the way you're saying it. USC's strength of schedule is better than LSU's by almost a full point. While upcoming games against Arkansas and the SEC east champ will boost LSU's SoS will probably close the gap, I don't believe it will be enough to make LSU's schedule better than USC's. As for LSU's quality win points, they're more likely to go down than up, since either Georgia or Tennessee will have to lose another game (assuming LSU beats them in the SEC championship or Tenn. stumbles this weekend.)

If the computer polls and humans agree that USC is #2 and LSU is #3, the final calcs will look like this, assuming USC's final SoS is worth 1.5

.......Human Polls......Comp. Polls......SoS.....Qual Wins.....Losses
USC:.....2............+.........2. .....+.......1.5......-......0......+......1..=...... 6.5
LSU:......3............+.........3 ......+.....(1.5-S)..-......Q......+.....1..=......8 .5 - S - Q

where S = (LSU's SoS) - (USC's SoS)
and Q = LSU's quality win points.
and SoS = (schedule rank) X 0.04

For LSU to jump USC this way, they'd need to make up a full 2 points on USC. Even if Tennesse and Georgia somehow finished #4 and #5 in the BCS rankings (which would make Q = 1.3), LSU would need a schedule rank 17.5 positions better than USC's. Since LSU is currently 22 ranks behind USC in SoS, it's unreasonable to expect such a huge jump (40 positions!) in SoS over just two games.

LSU needs some of the computers to rank them #2 (which very likely will happen)

(i had too much fun with this)

[Shawn]

[QUOTE=Bill_in_PDX]Now, Oregon may not have beaten Miami, but that team, with Harrington at QB, was not going to be out of the game if they got down 7-0 like Nebraska was, they had faster guys at WR than even Miami had... and as Colorado figured out pretty quick.[QUOTE]

Miami had Ken Dorsey, Clinton Portis, Jeremy Shockey, Andre Johnson, Bryant McKinnie, Phillip Buchanon and Ed Ried.

Ok, Eric Crouch could possibly be one of the best NCAA QB's of all time. With a few acceptions like Danny Weurfull and Joe Montana, he's rite up there.

[Bill]

Miami had Ken Dorsey, Clinton Portis, Jeremy Shockey, Andre Johnson, Bryant McKinnie, Phillip Buchanon and Ed Ried.

Ok, Eric Crouch could possibly be one of the best NCAA QB's of all time. With a few acceptions like Danny Weurfull and Joe Montana, he's rite up there.

Again, not saying Oregon would have won, but they could have competed, which Nebraska had no chance of doing. Oregon could score points.

I guess it would be difficult for me to disagree more with your statement on Couch. He was the fourth best QB on the ballot that year.

[Shawn]

I guess it would be difficult for me to disagree more with your statement on Couch. He was the fourth best QB on the ballot that year.

In his senior year Crouch was better than Grossman, Dorsey and Harrington and the voters knew that.

[Bill]

In his senior year Crouch was better than Grossman, Dorsey and Harrington and the voters knew that.

Really?

Considering his stats were not anywhere near the best, nor did he lead the best team, I cannot reconcile that statement.

David Carr: 4299yrds passing, 42(!)TD's, 64% completion percentage. Fresno has always played a very tough out of conference schedule, but their in conference opponents are less challenging than say:

Rex Grossman: 3896yrds passing, 34 TD's but he did throw 12 INT's

Ken Dorsey: Led the very best team in the nation, against difficult opponents, 58% completion rate, 2667 yrds and 23TD's.

Joey Harrington: Played in the toughest conference in the nation (that year), against defenses all geared to stop the pass. He had 2400+ yrds, only 4 INT's, three of which were deflected off the hands of receivers. He had 23 passing TD's and 7 rushing TD's.

Then we come to Couch. He rushed for 1100 yrds and 18 TD's, as well as throwing for 1500 yrds and 7 TD's, but he threw 10 interceptions in only half the number of throws as the gentlemen listed above him. Further, many of his stats came against the usual... shall we be kind and say... crappy... Nebraska out of conference schedule, including such noteables as Troy State and Rice, not to mention their usual annual fare of Baylor, Missouri, and Iowa State.

I do give Couch credit for being a good runner. But if you wanted to go with that type of candidate for the Heisman, than Woody Dantzler of Clemson should have been the guy, as he ran for 1000 yrds and 10TD's as well as passing for 2300 and 16 TD's.

[MHayes62]

I agree completely with bill. The stats show Harrington was a better QB. The hype sourounding Crouch's 63yd catch in the Oklahoma game simply put him in the mind of Hiesman voters that year. Crouch is an outstanding pure option quarterback, certainly the best option quarterback of the bunch. But Harrington was/is a better all around QB.