Derick E. Hingle-US PRESSWIRE
Obviously, the fact that human polls comprise two-thirds of the BCS calculation model means that the powers that be are more comfortable with the final rankings (and thusly BCS bowl berths) being determined by human opinion than by computer tabulation.
That said, there's a great deal of merit in providing some sort of check on human bias, and the computer rankings are a great way to do that. The rankings might theoretically provide a note to human voters to reconsider a team's spot in the polls, although that theory is dampened significantly by Oklahoma State's inability to make the BCS National Championship Game last year despite its computer ranking being in the Top Two every single week the BCS was calculated.
Face it: People prefer their own intuition over an oblique mathematical interpretation of data. That's why there's nothing to suggest a higher level of computer influence over the playoff selection when the college football postseason goes playoff in 2014. There'll be a committee that sees lots of data and rankings, of course, but at the end of the day, it's people calling the shots.
This is no surprise. Look at college basketball, which has its own postseason selection and roughly 30 to 35 games worth of data to produce rankings of teams. That data is used for the RPI (a ranking that, like the BCS computer polls, does not factor in score) and lots of other great computer rankings.
But again: It all comes down to a selection committee there, too.
There's no perfect way to rank teams. Not in college basketball and especially not in college football. There are just way too many teams and way too few games to go by record alone. More than that, the games are just too unpredictable and contradictory to make definitive, ironclad declarations between teams unless they're so mind-blowingly obvious that they don't need to be made in the first place.
So given that any possible way to rank these teams is going to come up woefully short in the way of objective, verifiable truth, we have to do the best we can and the BCS is as close as college football can get.
Yeah, the computers not considering points is concerning. But not all points are created equal. Some are against scrubs. Some come because of flukes or bad calls. Some come in overtime when teams are practically handed points. And some swing games and are the most important points. So there's some sense in that move.
Other than that, what is there that the BCS isn't paying attention to? That's a serious question. What's the stone left unturned in a model like this? What's the fatal flaw? What delegitimizes the operation?
Again, these aren't rhetorical questions. We'd like to know what you think about the BCS, whether the opinion is positive or negative. Comment away.