November 20, 2007
BCS votes to adjust at-large pool
Commissioners of the six BCS football conferences have voted to expand the BCS at-large process from 14 teams to 18 teams in an attempt to stave off the possibility that the BCS bowls are unable to fill their ten slots.
The BCS is worried that the loser of the ACC championship game will fall below the top 14, leaving an insufficient number of teams available in the at-large pool.
Since only two teams from each BCS conference can play in BCS games, the current logjam of teams from just a few conferences in the standings meant a real possibility that the pairings could not be completed.
If no team from a non-BCS league meets the criteria, then the four BCS at-large spots can be filled by teams that won at least nine games and finished in the top 14 of the final standings.But here's the potential problem this season: Only two teams from one BCS league can play in BCS bowl games.
There are currently four Big 12 teams, three SEC teams and three Pac-10 teams ranked in the top 14 of the BCS standings. Two ACC teams and one team from both the Big Ten and Big East are among the top 14.
The rule change does not affect the non-BCS conference teams, which are permitted a maximum of one team per season in a BCS bowl.
"I don't think [the new rule] really has an effect on Boise State or Hawaii," WAC Commissioner Karl Benson said Monday night. "This isn't anything that reduces or eliminates Boise State's or Hawaii's chances of getting into the BCS. Obviously, if they get into the top 12, it's still guaranteed."
No. 17 Illinois, which finished its season with a 9-3 record, would figure to benefit most from the rules change. The loser of the ACC championship game also might be eligible for a BCS at-large berth under the new rule.
Comments:
posted on November 20, 2007 2:41 PM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue
said:
Mr2Bits - You might get your Zook bowl, but you better look south to Tampa or Orlando, because it is not going to happen anywhere else.
While the Illini might possibly maybe make it into the BCS picture under certain hypotheticals, there's nothing within reason that would lead anyone to conclude that Florida would be selected over LSU and Georgia/Tennessee.
Gator Boys said:
posted on November 20, 2007 3:04 PM — 66.231.136.11 — link — abuse?
Not true Kev. Its actually pretty easy. UK beats UT and LSU beats UGA in the championship game. ORRRRR GT beats uga and LSU beats UT in the championship game. The first one is more likely.
P.S. ORRRRR LSU loses to Arkansas, UT loses to UK and UGA beats LSU in the championship game. But thats not very likely
Gator Boys said:
posted on November 20, 2007 3:04 PM — 66.231.136.11 — link — abuse?
Not true Kev. Its actually pretty easy. UK beats UT and LSU beats UGA in the championship game. ORRRRR GT beats uga and LSU beats UT in the championship game. The first one is more likely.
P.S. ORRRRR LSU loses to Arkansas, UT loses to UK and UGA beats LSU in the championship game. But thats not very likely
posted on November 20, 2007 3:18 PM — 150.176.192.1 — link — abuse? said:
Tell me I am wrong in my reading of the qualifications:
Automatic: any of the following
1) BCS #1, #2
2) The six BCS conference champions
3) At most one Mid Major team finishing
A) in the BCS top 12 or
B) in the BCS top 16 and ahead of a champion
4) Notre Dame if it is in the BCS top 8
5) If a spot remains, BCS #3
6) If a spot remains, BCS #4At Large: all of the following
1) 9 wins
2) in the BCS top 14
3) no more than two schools from any conference may play a BCS Bowl.If the ten spots can not be filled, the top 14 will be expanded by 4, to 18 then 22 etc, and reevaluated until all 10 spots may be filled.
The WAC commisioner is correct to point out that this does not reduce the WAC's chances of gaining BCS eligibility. It actualy increases them.
If Hawaii or Boise State end up in the top 14 and only 3 other BCS conferences having a second team in the top 14, they will be the only eligible team, and cheap thier way into the BCS.
This rule actually is to adress the infintesimal possibility that neither Boise State or Hawaii end up in the top 14, and three BCS conferences have only one non champion team in the top 14.
If that happens, Illinois will likely go to a BCS bowl.
Autigerman said:
posted on November 20, 2007 9:03 PM — 64.136.49.228 — link — abuse?
MR2bits
I agree with you that they would love to see Florida and Illinois but i dont see that happening.
Georgia with a win over Georgia tech will likely be in the Sugar Bowl.
And if LSU wins out they will be in the Championship game, and since SEC can only have two teams in that would leave Florida out.However Big ten #2 goes to capital one bowl and they could meet Florida there.
Still would be a great game i agree.
hrposon said:
posted on November 20, 2007 9:08 PM — 98.200.123.115 — link — abuse?
If you think the BCS system is corrupt, here's what you can do.
Contact your Senators, tell them that ABC/ESPN's promotion of big market college teams is scandalous and the NCAA is a monopoly, run by TV.
Don’t forget to mention a simple eight team playoff of conference champions would be fair to all.
Senators like holding hearings on wedge issues like these as they don't want to with real problems, like illegal immigration.
Can you imagine the ratings for a Hawaii-Kansas BS Championship game?U. of S. C. 1978 said:
posted on November 20, 2007 10:03 PM — 97.82.188.250 — link — abuse?
Or, you can forget about the dream of a playoff, which will not happen. Let's rally for what might be possible. My in-season playoff idea which is workable, doable, and a weeder of pretenders. Gonna toss it out again and look for ideas that improve. Not instant knee jerk dismissals. Week four ends, the AP's top 26 play week 5, #1 versus #2, #3 versus #4. Straight down the list. Do the same thing again week #7.
Hawaii would not be in consideration this year and would have been weeded out as a pretender.
It's really simple, BCS teams agree to keep weeks 5 and 7 as open, to be decided dates. Maybe weeks #6 and #8 would be better?
At any rate, the hotel rooms are all there for the last minute booking. What the big dealeo? Boosters that travel gonna have to react, Baton Rouge or New Brunswick? Los Angeles or Notre Dame?
Coin toss decides game/home locale, any future meetings rotate.Spartacus
posted on November 21, 2007 10:31 AM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
There is the real possibility that the Big 12 puts four teams (Missouri,Kansas,Oklahoma,Texas) into the Top 14. It's also real possible that the SEC (if Tennessee wins out) also has four teams (LSU,Georgia,Florida,Tennessee). The Pac-10 probably will have three (Oregon,USC,Arizona State). That only leaves three spots for three other major conferences. Ohio State is one from the Big 10. This leaves only two other possibilities for two major BCS conferences and any other non-BCS teams (Boise State, Hawaii, etc.). So, in the ACC three teams are very good (Virginia Tech,Boston College,Clemson), and at least two would not qualify. Same thing goes for the Big East with (West Virginia,Cincinnati,South Florida,Connecticut) all being solid teams.
Along with always getting chili placed onto your "Nachos Bell Grande" - ALWAYS, ALWAYS follow the money. The BCS is only about money. That's it. They are not happy about the limited amount of teams in the pool. They would never want to have to select a once beaten Kansas team over a twice beaten Southern Cal for instance. They want the "marquee teams" into those BCS bowl games. With this "crazy year" - it has made these people take notice of how much money they could stand to lose. This system was never intended to get the "Best Ten Teams" into BCS bowl games. It was intended to keep "the status quo". The parity in college football today is what is driving this decision. The "ducking" of any decent competition in OOC games is also causing a "problem". The computer systems cannot gauge conferences or teams when there isn't anything to compare. The Big East is almost impossible to gauge, as Cincinnati's thumping of Oregon State (very early on), is the only decent game that this conference has played (I could be slightly wrong about this). One of the top BCS systems has NE Omaha (10-0) rated in the Top 14. Where does that come from? Nobody wants to watch these "upstarts" play in "Major BCS Bowl games" during the holiday's just because they haven't played anybody. I am included in that group. Kansas can shove it as far as I'm concerned. Not only do they play nobody (dodging Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech), they played eight home games. Give me a break! Puleeeeaaassseee!Tommie Trojan
posted on November 21, 2007 11:17 AM — 150.176.192.1 — link — abuse? said:
#13) I actually put together a plan that would allow any teams willing to participate in such a system a dew years ago. Maybe I need to dust it off and get it going again.
The mid majors would actually have more to gain than the BCS contenders. Hawaii would have played 2 quailty games instead of two bottom of the standing teams.
The biggest winner is the BCS formula. The biggest problem with the BCS formula is that the rankings must be determined from teams with little connectivity. By pairing teams of similar strength their will be more games between the top teams to base a compairison on.
My plan incorperated allowing teams with the largest 6 stadiums to host 2 home games, every other team playing 1 home and 1 away game and allowing 6 Championship division teams that excelled the previous year to play one away game.
Some of the funds from the two home games would go to these championship division games. This elemintates the charity arguement used for justifying scheduling powder puff teams.
Instead of using a poll that only lists the top 25 I would use a Colley like computer program. For a mid season estimate the difference is less than the error in the polls.
Teams may have ligitimate reasons to want to play teams at a level above or below their actual strength. An SEC team may want a bit of a break. A WAC team may want a challenge. By allowing teams to add a differential to their rating this can be accomplished.
The cost difference associated with planning a game 4 years in advance over planning a game 2 weeks in advance is substantial. The difference in cost between 4 years in advance and 6 months in advance is less than the icreased profitability of the more competitive scheduling. Using last years results to determine who should be a good match next year is significantly more accurate than using whoever is available for negotiation for games 4-5 years from now.
By using the previous season to schedule competitive non conference games befor the conference season get under way, more measures of teams of near strength will be available for computers and pollsters to provide a valid rating of the teams for the BCS standings.
A team would not play 2 teams from the same conference. A team would not play a team they had played the year befor or are scheduled to play that year or the following year. A team could specify they do not wish to play a given team.
Teams located geographically close, or teams that have an interest in playing each other, could be favored.
With 8-9 conference games these two games would leave 1-2 games for traditional non conference rivalries.
Spartacus
posted on November 21, 2007 1:29 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
Ben Prather:
Sounds like your doin' your homework. The big problem is with the voters. And, the voters are the main source that drives the computer programs. All ratings are derived from a "hypothetical": what do the voters think? See the voters were supposed to be able to offset what the computers "can't know". The computer can't know that QB Sam Bradford was knocked out of the Texas Tech game with a concussion in the 1st series of downs. Therefore, Texas Tech goes on to beat Oklahoma 34-27. The voters somehow, in their wisdom, decide that Oklahoma must really be bad and drops them way down in the rankings. I'm sorry. If this is news to anyone: Oklahoma is just as good as they were before that game. John Booty breaks his finger in the Stanford game and throws (4) picks, Mark Sanchez has to take over for the next three (and USC loses another one to Oregon), and USC is cast into oblivion. Ohio State loses a game to a very red-hot Illinois team (on a coaches bad call), in the week prior to the Michigan game, and Ohio State is severly dropped in the rankings. There are many injuries and bad breaks that happen in all kinds of football games. But, I can assure everybody with any sense, that Oklahoma and Ohio State and Southern Cal are still Top Five football teams. Since I bet some cheese on these games - I have to know who's gonna cover and who is not. I'll take these teams over any teams in BIG GAMES just about any time. I know I'll here all these idiotic arguments about who's teams are better and so on and so on. But, the fact is: it takes more than one or two losses in this game to make you into a lesser team. Auburn with four losses can still bury somebody. Certainly, Florida with three will. People have got to understand that losing to good teams is not as bad as beating "lousy teams". After you've played enough good teams - your team becomes good. You don't get good by playing bad teams. Nebraska would roll through a weak schedule years back - only to get hammered in the Orange Bowl every single time. Same thing happens to Big 10 teams when they get to the Rose Bowl. SEC teams do very well in the Bowl season because of all the tough teams that they have played. I thoroughly beleive that this be the case. I think that Missouri will take down Kansas, only because, Missouri has already played Illinois and Oklahoma. It gives them the edge. Kansas really isn't "blooded" yet. Maybe they will be after this one.
I'm ramblin' - so it's time to shut up. But, I think that your system has merit. I think it's all screwed up right now. I don't think anybody should be rewarded for "just not losing".Tommie Trojan
posted on November 21, 2007 4:07 PM — 150.176.192.1 — link — abuse? said:
#16) Yes the humans are given 2/3 of the weight in the BCS formula because they can measure intangibles like injuries and weather that the computers can not account for.
The ratio of weight in the BCS, assuming a full 115 Harris voters, is:
9 computers = 60 Coaches = 115 Media Writers
The computers do not take the voters as input, and are independent of then for thier ratings. While simulating how hypothetical voters might vote would be one way to create such a ranking program it is not the only way.
Wolfe and Colley have no hypothetical input. Only this years won/loss information is used.
Wolfe focusses more on estimating win probabilities, Colley on a correction of the PCT to account for SOS.
Sagarin claims no hypothetical after the teams are connected, usually after the fourth week.
Billingsley uses an internally consistant measure incrementally improving with each game from the dawn of history.
Massey and Anderson/Hester don't discuss the internals of thier formula so I can't speak for them.
I have personally written ranking programs in my college days, similar to the Colley Matrix, deriving a rating where each teams ranking was it season MOV plus the average of the ranking of their opponents. This forms an algebriac sigularity that can be dealt with by replacing one of the formulas in each connected sub group with a formula setting the sum of that group to 0. (It was running about 55% vs. the spread for the few weeks I ran it, better results were obtaineed by adding a "forgetting factor" that weighted recent games more)
Spartacus
posted on November 23, 2007 1:00 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
Ben Prather:
I dig your commentary and agree with most of that. Although, the condition called "weighted" until "connected", still takes into account some form of voter bias or opinion or the results from last year. Nevertheless, the computer is, at that point, making calculations based on assumptions that this or that team should be better than this one or that one. Therefore, Michigan still outranked Appalachian State, even after that season opening win. Sagarin took seven or eight weeks before it all got "connected" this year. I think he had actually released one or two BCS computer polls that still contained that bias.
Tommie Trojan
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
gatorhippy
said:
posted on November 20, 2007 1:55 PM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse?Seriously...
This BCS sh!t gets more and more ridiculous everyday...
NCAA needs to nut up with a playoff format and do their own "dirty" work...
BTW - Just a reminder to be looking for the Gatorhippy 16 team playoff scenario in just two weeks...
;-]