The BCS Methodology means Lingo that allows for no transfer of information to the average intelligence. If you have ever had to read or try to read and understand the criteria of the BCS you know exactly what I mean.
I spent some time today looking over the BCS web site and trying to come up with a rationale and reason for the madness. What is it that makes me feel it's not fair, and why some think it is the answer we all deserve and have been waiting for.
Okay, let's look at this from last year's point-of-view as a reference to drive my point home.
First, the Simple:
What is the BCS?
According to the bcsfootball.org web site it states the BCS is
"The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a five-game arrangement for post-season college football that is designed to match the two top-rated teams in a national championship game and to create exciting and competitive match ups between eight other highly regarded teams in four other games. “
Okay, so basically it's an attempt by some to make sure that the match up of the NC game and all other spots are filled with qualified and quality teams. According to my reading of what they do and do not do...it mainly sounds like you have someone who has no clue writing the regulations. You have automatic berths to ensure some BCS games. For example: Notre Dame only has to be ranked eighth in nation, and no matter what they get invited to a game. The SEC champions get one for that winner. I know it saves one position for the conferences that are organized and grouped together as followed 11 NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision ("FBS") (formerly Division I-A) conferences, the director of athletics at the University of Notre Dame, and representatives of the bowl organizations. The conferences are Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, Pacific-10, Southeastern, and Western Athletic. When you have explicit guidelines on automatic berths...I think it's fair that there should be standardized evaluation methods in which all 120 members are selected on.
Currently, the BCS has received much scrutiny because of the way it turned out last year. Albeit, a very unlikely year they realize. But what happens when you have years like that? Maybe there is no error proof or fool proof system, but you could start by standardizing methods of selection. Nothing about it should be implied, and the situation should not be allowed to dictate itself.
The biggest error and fallacy of the current model is that too much is left for human manipulation. Right now you have differences in the number of games played. Not all schools have conference championship games. However, what you do have is the means to implement a change to where everyone plays X number of games. Postseason should be used for conference only decisions. It should not play into your points unless all teams have participated in a similar situation. Until you do this, there is no way to equalize the opportunity for all involved. I also searched the web site to find out what criteria they use and the certain characteristics they assign number values to and to no avail this was not something I could find.
The easy remedy to this is:
1. All teams must play the exact amount of games, or if they do not then they are cited in deduction from overall points that are allowed for this data. Right now, those who play more games take the risk. If the No. 4 team plays one less season game, then it should be duly noted that they get X less points or even certain points removed.
2. Conference Championships - Each conference should be mandated to play a championship series. Since one of the automatic berth rights goes to the one that wins the championship of the SEC east/west game.
3. If points are going to be deducted for a loss in post season play it should be assessed to all parties that are contenders. Those who do not have to play in a conference championship or post season play should also receive the same deduction or penalty equal to or more than the one who lost during the game. Certainly the loser of the Championship game for the conference should not be hurt in ways those who did not get the privelage to play. The disadvantage now is placed on the losers of that game and those who were not even considered eligible by their conference to play in that game. So those who do not play should at least have some penalty equal to the losing teams penalty. Honestly, the best way to handle this is to make all standards of eligibility requirements based on regular season games. That is until all participants play in post season games that can be fairly assessed in a uniform manner.
4. Every game lost during regular season should be equally weighted. This losing in the first half of the season as opposed to the end of the season is controversial even to the one on the winning side.Especially if post season is where the loss occurred. The easiest thing would be equal weighted point deduction on regulated season and no determination made on any post season play.
If you were only able to change the four above, much of what happened last year would not have happened.
The 12-13 games that are scheduled as part of the season regardless to what time in the season you lost them should be the same. Florida lost to No. 25 ranked Ole Miss. Alabama lost to no one. However, Florida beat Alabama in the SEC Championship, which is not a preseason scheduled regulated game for all teams.
So how can they justify the points hit because clearly going into the year, that game was not an option but a reward for hard work. So, that may be another change for the BCS to consider.
All selection criteria should be equal and allow for no human interface or involvement by manipulation of those numbers. If a loss counts for 25 points to a team early in the season, then it should be the same to a team that loses the last game of the season.
This deduction should be taken into account for that week's numbers and deducted from that week's numbers and then added to the composite score. Equally weighted meaning that all teams should be assessed on the same criteria and assigned the same points for all factors coining the final number.
There is no way to even say what's fair until the teams play the same amount of games. If postseason conference championships are going to factor into the equation then it should be factored to every team. Teams that do not play should be cited with equal to or more loss of points as the losing team of their conference.
The SEC has often hurt itself by its strength, in that we knock each other out of some of the more notable recognitions. We have traditionally been the strongest conference, and when you play so much in your own conference games, the good and often best teams stand the chance to have to have season ending games on any given Saturday. This was really a factor several years ago.
There are many more changes I can see that clearly need to be changed. I think the BCS needs to post a list of determining factors. Post them and the points assigned based on a points system...because clearly you don't give these guys too much leeway.
It became clear to me last year that it is not good to give them any manipulation room. So, if we can't have a playoff system...then why can we not use a matrix that assigns points to every team in the same way.
Penalized points the same. Standard. Equal Chance. Up front and clear. If a team wants to win a championship, then they have the opportunity to know what they need to do, and they do it. Pretty Simple….
Like the new article format? Send us feedback!