Oops, my mistake.
This is where I think the subjective element of the polls work better. It is easier for group of humans to see domination rather than a poll calculating it.
Oh, and OU not winning it’s conference championship and thus being left out is another fair way to do it as well (so there isn’t an ‘only’).
Where was Oklahoma’s strength of schedule?
The highest ranked team Oklahoma beat was Texas.
The highest ranked team USC beat was Washington State.
Washington State just owned Texas.
Hmm…
WSU is better than anyone Oklahoma played this year, with the possible exception of Kansas State (who lost to Texas).
Using computer strength of schedule is much, much worse than letting humans decide.
When it comes down to Notre Dame deciding the national champ by winning or losing an insignificant game, you should realize there is a problem.
That’s not fair. Not every conference has a championship game. USC and Michigan didn’t have a chance to lose a conference championship game, Oklahoma had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by having to play that extra game. LSU, on the other hand, probably wouldn’t be playing for the national champioship if it hadn’t had the extra game.
So? No one forced the Big XII or SEC to have a conference championship. They did it for the MONEY and now they have to deal with the consequences of it. I think it is plenty fair!
Not true. LSU actually lost BCS points by beating Georgia again, since you don’t get extra credit for beating a team twice. A third loss dropped UGA in the BCS, meaning LSU lost their quality win bonus from beating them the first time.
Oklahoma’s strength of schedule was 11th in the country. USC’s was 37th. You have to look at the entire schedule, not just one game. I agree that USC’s schedule should have been tougher based upon previous years but them’s the breaks.
I’m not sure what you mean by “computer strength of schedule”. OU finished higher than USC in the computer poll average and in strength of schedule. USC finished higher in the AP and Coaches’ polls. Let’s stop blaming the computers. They don’t decide anything. There are humans deciding the algorithms that determine the rankings, just like with the polls. The only difference is that the computer models are determined before the start of the season.
I agree about living with the consequences. I was laughing when Oklahoma lost the Big 12 championship. It’s just that everybody’s playing by different rules, it makes deciding these things on strength of schedule is, I don’t know, unbalanced.
Have a playoff or go back to the old way. Neither of those is perfect, either. But the BCS seems to take the worst of both.
By the way, those were some ugly oranges in that bowl at the Orange Bowl trophy presentation.
Why? Humans are biased, computers are at least objective. Computers don’t ignore a really good LSU team like the ESPN-led media has done all year. Computers don’t care which school is located in a big media market.
Exactly. The main problem is that these teams play SUCH varying schedules that you can’t really evaulate how other teams would do in a ‘tougher’ conference. Maybe USC would have gone 12-1 in the Big XII, but we can’t be sure. It’s because there are soooo many teams in 1-A football. That makes strength of schedule a bit flawed.
At least with conference championship winners, you are taking the winners of a group where most teams play each other, and then setting them off against other winners of their groups.
Agreed.
I didn’t know that. So LSU and Oklahoma would both have been better off without the conference championship games. And one won and one lost. Gotta love the BCS.
Really? By what standards are the computers objective? With people you know that they can be biased and you can possible see it, but do you know how the software was written for these computer polls?
From this story. Doesn’t seem too objective IMO.
I hope that the inevitable split national title is the last nail in the BCS coffin. My solution- get the champions from every conference plus enough at large teams to make a field of 16. Use the traditional New Years bowls as round I of a playoff. Then you’ve got 8 teams that can play three more weeks to get a national champion. Have a football championship orgy weekend- NCAA finals on Saturday and Super Bowl on Sunday. Keep the existing fleabag bowls as consolation for the 17th and worst teams.
While it is true that computer rankings are arrived at using formulas and software imputted by mere humans, computers are at least consistent. Once a formula is arrived at, that’s the formula that the computer objectively uses. That being the case, computer rankings have decided advantages over human football polls, which tend to favor what’s happened most recently over what happened way back in September.
What we should be quibbling about is what factors to use in computing a fair ranking formula. A tweek I’d be in favor of is that when two teams have the same record and have played head to head, the winner of the head to head matchup gets ranked above the loser, even if the game happened on Labor Day weekend and the winner won by a point in quadruple overtime. Human pollsters are too easily swayed by their own ignorance and biases. It seems to me that if every state can arrange to have high school teams ranked by computer and organize a playoff system, then major college football should be able to do that to. Get rid of the bowls and the polls.
The problem is that all possible systems are flawed.
-
Old school: align the conferences with their traditional bowls. If you get a consensus #1 out of the polls: hooray. If you get a #1 vs #2 matchup: even better. If not, oh well…leads to interesting debates.
-
BCS: specifically designed to make split championships impossible. Oops. And as a side-benefit, we get travesties like Oklahoma in the Rose Bowl, and Miami vs. FSU in the Orange.
-
Playoff: yay, great. Let’s junk the tradition, color & pagentry of college football so we can argue bracketology.
I vote for Old School. What is so god-awful wrong about having difference of opinions about who’s #1?
jsc1953, while I sympathize with your desire to go back to the pre-BSC haphazard system, I don’t see it happening. I think the trend is towards a playoff system.
Sadly, Z-R, I think you’re right.
Things haven’t been the same since the Southwest Conference broke up. (sigh).
They are not “penalizing” USC for their schedule, they are rewarding LSU and OU for playing schedules that turned out to be more rigorous.
The computers are objective in the sense that if you put certain data into their formulas, you get certain results. Hype doesn’t go into the formula. And yes, the NYT poll has some funny results, but that’s because it gives recent games more weight. But its only one poll that makes up 1/8 of a teams computer ranking. All the different polls tend to give a pretty good balance when taken together.
If there was a playoff, then having a human selection committee like basketball has would be a good idea. But just going by the polls is insane, if you ask me. Coaches don’t see any other teams play, they are busy worrying about their team and their opponent for that week. And writers see the team they cover, and that’s about it. Meaning, when they hear on ESPN every day about how USC is so great, they don’t bother to question it. I prefer a computer over that.
So, it didn’t bother you that the teams that are playing in the Suger Bowl were decided by the outcome of the Boise State - Hawaii game?