Why the First 2012 BCS Rankings Won't Be All That Shocking
Initial BCS Standings are around the corner, debuting this Sunday, and with them will come the standard pissing and moaning with respect to where teams stand. However, while the complaining will be as prevalent as ever, the actual spots where teams reside will be about as predictable as it has always been.
Yahoo! columnist Pat Forde, in his Forde-Yard Dash, talked about the disparity in the rankings of the computers. Unfortunately, some folks still do not understand the BCS nearly enough to get the point that wonky computer rankings do not mean shocking BCS standings. No matter how clear BCS Football has made its point, people still seem to forget that there are three components to the BCS:
The Standings include three components: USA Today Coaches Poll, Harris Interactive College Football Poll and an average of six computer rankings. Each component will count one-third toward a team's overall BCS score.
Are you prepared to be outraged by the BCS Standings?
So when Forde pointed out that the five computers were trending in very different ways, people got a bit more alarmed than necessary. Once the six computer rankings are averaged and then combined with the Harris Poll and the Coaches Poll, we'll be left with a picture that looks a lot like what we are already expecting to see.
In the initial standings from a year ago, LSU and Alabama were, combined, No. 1 in just two of the total 12 computer rankings, with one No. 1 ranking apiece for the six available slots. LSU was 4th in the Colley Matrix and 5th in the Massey computer, yet it still took the top spot. So, Alabama, currently with one No. 1 poll in computers, is pretty much in line for that one.
Before you gear up to get outraged, take a deep breath. It's Week 1 of the BCS Standings, and as mad as you wish you were, save it for something that matters. Teams are going to rise and fall, and as teams lose and win, things will shake themselves out.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?