BCS Conferences tell others...Don't push it...

[pphilfran]

This should get things stirred up...

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/12/09/jim-delany-warns-non-aq-leagues-dont-expect-more-than-youre/

NEW YORK – Inside The W Hotel in Manhattan on Wednesday morning, they sat side-by-side on a platform. Five of the most powerful men in college athletics -- the conference commissioners from the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-10, Big 12 and Big East. Also part of the panel was Western Athletic Conference commissioner Karl Benson.

Although Benson was seated with the group at IMG Intercollegiate Athletics Forum, it's very obvious: Benson and his league are clearly viewed as an outsider by the big boys.

And college football's behemoths -- the automatic qualifying BCS conference commissioners -- vow they'll keep it that way.

They indicated that after providing the non-automatic qualifying leagues unprecedented financial reward and access to the BCS bowls in the past, enough is enough. They flat out said if those leagues try to get even more there could be dire consequences.

"Don't push it past this because if you push it past this, the Big 12's position is we'll just go back to the old (bowl) system," Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe told FanHouse. "You're getting the ability to get to places you've never gotten before. We've Jerry-rigged the free market system to the benefit of those institutions and a lot are institutions that don't even fill their stadiums."

Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott had the same message.

"The six (BCS) conferences have bent over backwards and tried to be politically correct to their own detriment, probably further than they had to, maybe should have," Scott told FanHouse.

However, it was Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany who wanted to make the automatic-qualifying BCS leagues' point loud-and-crystal clear.

During the forum, Delany emphasized how he already had testified before Congress three times. He discussed the congressional pressures, media pressure and public pressures that he and the other commissioners have faced defending the BCS system. He often referenced "BCS-defense fatigue" and having to be "politically correct" when discussing the smaller conferences.

At times, Delany was a mixture of Col. Jessup ("You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!") and Network's Howard Beale ("I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore").

Delany sat between SEC commissioner Mike Slive and Scott, the Pac-10's new commissioner. Only a few feet to Delany's right sat Benson, but they may have been located on opposite sides of the Earth -- much like their polar opposite views of the BCS.

At least on two occasions during the forum, Delany interrupted Benson to hammer his opinion home.

"The BCS has provided greater access," Benson said. "Look at 120 schools, 11 conferences and to establish opportunities for those student-athletes. To play on the big stage, we've been to the big stage. ...

"The problem," Delany interrupted, "is your big stage takes away opportunities for my teams, to play on the stage they created in 1902."

Responded Benson: "I think the group of five (non-automatic qualifying BCS conferences) has established value in the last five years."

"The notion," Delany said, "that over time by putting political pressure on, it's just going to get greater access, more financial reward and more access to the Rose Bowl, I think you're really testing. I think people who have contributed a lot have, what I call, 'BCS defense fatigue.'

"If you think you can continue to push for more money, more access to the Rose Bowl, or Sugar Bowl. I have tremendous respect for Boise and TCU. ... I think they are tremendous teams that can beat any team in the country on a given day. I think the only question is, 'Does one team's 12-0 and another team's 12-0 equate?' And that's where the discussion plays out, not whether or not they're elite teams or deserving access to the bowl system.

"I'm not sure how much more give there is in the system."

The BCS began in 1998 when the Big Ten, Pac-10 and Rose Bowl agreed to join the SEC, Big 12, ACC and Big East and Sugar, Fiesta and Orange bowls to ensure a No. 1 vs. No. 2 national title game each season.

In the 13 years since the BCS expanded access to the bigger paying BCS bowls for teams in the non-automatic qualifying conferences (WAC, Mountain West, C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt) and increased the revenue those leagues received. Last season, the five non-automatic qualifying BCS leagues divided $24 million with the Mountain West receiving $9.8 million and the WAC $7.8 million.

However, the Big Ten and SEC each received $22.2 million and the Big 12, Pac-10, ACC and Big East each received $17.7 million.

"I think the system does provide access and opportunity for a team like Boise State or TCU to play in the championship game," Benson said. "But we've also proven that it's a lot easier to get to No. 4 than it is to get to No. 2."

Benson said he supports the BCS, but wants even more access and more revenue. This is not a popular subject with Delany.

"We gave up the Rose Bowl, the SEC gave up access to the Sugar Bowl, others were included but they never had access to any of this before," Delany said. "You have to understand who brought what to the table. Who's continuing to give and who's continuing to get."

Delany, then, not so subtly drew a line in the sand.

"The only thing I would say, if you think you (the non-automatic qualifying leagues) can continue to pressure the system and we'll just naturally provide more and more and more," Delany said. "I don't think that's an assumption that our presidents, athletic directors, football coaches and commissioners necessarily agree with.

"Karl (Benson) says we like this contract and we want more. Well, we've got fatigue for defending a system that's under a lot of pressure. The pressure is for more. It's never enough."

Last year, non-automatic qualifying teams Boise State and TCU received BCS bowl berths. This year, TCU earned an automatic bid to the Rose Bowl because the Rose lost Pac-10 champion Oregon to the BCS title game. Delany didn't hide his displeasure that Stanford, the Pac-10 runner-up, was not allowed to replace Oregon instead of TCU.

The current BCS system runs through 2013. If the automatic-qualifying leagues are pressured to give the smaller leagues more money and more access to the bowls, they said they likely would go back to the bowl system before the BCS. That means, the bowl games would align with the most attractive conferences and be free to pick whatever team they wanted -- i.e. you would never see a WAC and Mountain West team selected for one of the big four bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange).

The current BCS formula limits a conference to have only two teams in a BCS bowl. Delany said he would like to see that restriction lifted. This year, for instance, the Big Ten had three of the top nine teams in the final BCS rankings but because of the two-bid per conference rule, No. 9 Michigan State was sent to a non-BCS bowl while Wisconsin (Rose) and Ohio State (Sugar) went to BCS bowls.

Delany said he and Slive are in favor of allowing a third team from a conference to earn a BCS bowl berth, but isn't sure how the system and its 10 bowl berths would be restructured to allow that. Beebe also told FanHouse he would be willing to look at it, but would have to examine how it applies.

"I think the conferences should be allowed to have three bids," Delany said. "If the SEC has three teams in the top eight, the bowl system would be well served, the public would be well served. But that comes at a cost to something else. Mike (Slive) and I could suggest -- I would support Mike's motion, but we can't get a third vote.

"You can discuss it until the cows come home. The only way the system works is if everyone is willing to play the game. It doesn't work if I take my ball and go home. It doesn't work if the Big East takes its ball and goes home. Does it work if Mike (Slive) takes his ball and goes home?

"This is nothing but an interlocking of contracts that are negotiated."

Those contracts, though, may not be renewed if the non-automatic qualifying leagues keep asking for more. And from Delany's tone: this isn't a threat, but a promise.

Brett McMurphy is a national football writer for FanHouse. Contact him at [email protected] and please follow at Twitter.com/BrettmcmurphY

[AggieGirl2005]

Delany is scary. That's all I have to add to this.

[fadada1]

i've never liked the "automatic" conference tie in. clearly, it's ALL about money. no more, no less. anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.

case in point - tell me that UCONN deserves to be in a BCS game over boise state (even with a loss), nevada, stanford.

i'm not sure what is so difficult about taking the top 8 (now 10) teams in the BCS ranking (regardless of conference), and having them play. 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, 5 vs. 6, etc...

seems that would be in the "spirit" of giving all those deserving an opportunity (as the commisioners seem to want to promote... as long as it's in their best interest), and the most exciting way to have a bowl season.

just my $.02

[jumperstop]

They've got a point. Reminds me of the Colin Cowheard radio show clip I heard. He's complaining about BSU and TCU saying "You're like the fat girl who gets invited to the dance, you should just be happy we even invited you. Stop complaining about which bowl you're going to"...something like that.

[jumperstop]

i've never liked the "automatic" conference tie in. clearly, it's ALL about money. no more, no less. anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.

case in point - tell me that UCONN deserves to be in a BCS game over boise state (even with a loss), nevada, stanford.

i'm not sure what is so difficult about taking the top 8 (now 10) teams in the BCS ranking (regardless of conference), and having them play. 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, 5 vs. 6, etc...

seems that would be in the "spirit" of giving all those deserving an opportunity (as the commisioners seem to want to promote... as long as it's in their best interest), and the most exciting way to have a bowl season.

just my $.02

Sounds good to me, they would just need to make sure that the match-ups within that top 10 are good. I don't care to see Michigan State and Wisconson again.

[pphilfran]

i've never liked the "automatic" conference tie in. clearly, it's ALL about money. no more, no less. anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.

case in point - tell me that UCONN deserves to be in a BCS game over boise state (even with a loss), nevada, stanford.

i'm not sure what is so difficult about taking the top 8 (now 10) teams in the BCS ranking (regardless of conference), and having them play. 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, 5 vs. 6, etc...

seems that would be in the "spirit" of giving all those deserving an opportunity (as the commisioners seem to want to promote... as long as it's in their best interest), and the most exciting way to have a bowl season.

just my $.02


I don't care one way or another...it is simple for you to believe in the change because you think that way is best...

Others think it is just as simple to keep is as it is...

You are right, it has always been about money...

The bowls were started so they could generate money (tourism) to the host city...

Those bowls put their games during the Christmas/New Years weeks so that they could milk the most out of the holiday system...

And now those organizations and leagues are feeling pressure to change the thing that they built...so someone else can hog in on their money..

It is a very complex situation with many undercurrents...

[GDC]

It's just like anything else. There are 5-6 fat cats sitting around somewhere who control the sstrings on all this. They are not about to give up their paydays.

[badger]

The ones who benefit most are the ones that have the least to lose.

Really, I'd love to scrap the bowls for some playoff action that doesn't tie in to these bowl games that are mostly money-losing ventures, but hell, this should be give and take, and what exactly is the MWC and WAC giving up while the Pac 10 gives up its Rose Bowl berth this season to TCU, while the Big 12 gives up its Fiesta Bowl berth to TCU and Boise last season, while the BCS gives up a berth to Sugar Bowl to Hawaii? While Utah takes a BCS berth to the Fiesta and Sugar bowls?

[SoonerLB]

Football is to be played on a football field, not computers, and there is no excuse for not having a playoff system to determine a champion on the field of play. Every December seems to be spent defending the BCS and bowl committees instead of just playing football games.
Playoffs dang it, stop the insanity! ;)

[pphilfran]

It's just like anything else. There are 5-6 fat cats sitting around somewhere who control the sstrings on all this. They are not about to give up their paydays.

What if you were one of those fat cats that had spent a lifetime building something up....and then some newcomer comes in and wants a piece of your pie?

You are saying you would just give it up without a fight?

[pphilfran]

Most of you don't understand the situation...before you can offer true solutions you must understand the thoughts of the other side...

The bowls were not put in place to choose a national champion....they were put in place to make a destination for teams and fans...

And now we want to take those destinations and turn them into a playoff...

Currently this is out of the NCAA's hands...they have little to do with the bowls...the big bowls are the ones with the money...and the ones with the money do the choosing....

It is not nearly as simple as many make it...

Like I said....I don't care one way or another...

[AlboSooner]

Even if you implement a playoff, you will need a type of BCS system to determine who gets in. The success rate of the BCS formula in determining number one vs. number two, is very high. The problem is that people will take a one year anomaly, and make an argument against the BCS.

[badger]

So, who do we invite to the playoffs then?

The same teams that would get invited to the BCS? So four-loss UConn gets to go over LSU, Michigan State and other, better teams?

Just the top conference champions? This year, there were three Big Ten champions, two of which never played each other.

Just the top-ranked teams? How many, then? Four? Eight? 16? What's to stop midmajors from loading their schedules to guarantee undefeated seasons (just call it the 'boise state effect')

Playoffs are not the final answer, it just opens up for more questions.

[Jacie]

i've never liked the "automatic" conference tie in. clearly, it's ALL about money. no more, no less. anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.

case in point - tell me that UCONN deserves to be in a BCS game over boise state (even with a loss), nevada, stanford.

i'm not sure what is so difficult about taking the top 8 (now 10) teams in the BCS ranking (regardless of conference), and having them play. 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, 5 vs. 6, etc...

seems that would be in the "spirit" of giving all those deserving an opportunity (as the commisioners seem to want to promote... as long as it's in their best interest), and the most exciting way to have a bowl season.

just my $.02

Sounds nice in theory but the reality is that for this to work one of the Big Six must surrender their BCS bid that year and once a precedent has been set, it would likely be the situation more years than not. Based on current events, the Big East would be the conference that would be shutout of the BCS. That would then cause them to withdraw from the agreement. No big loss, you say? Then you are ignorant of what the conferences went through to get this far. Like it or not, they are part of the balancing act that makes the whole thing work. It is a house of cards and you can't pull out one without upsetting the entire structure and bringing it down. That is why Delaney and the rest are adamant about not giving up anymore to the non-qualifyers. There is no more room to give, either in money or bowl slots. It would be ludicrous to suggest one of the BCS conferences sacrifice for the rest of them. Ain't gonna happen.

[sooner_born_1960]

"You have to understand who brought what to the table. Who's continuing to give and who's continuing to get."
The whole article can be boiled down to that quote.

[MeMyself&Me]

Football is to be played on a football field, not computers...

Yah know what I like about the computers? They only use data from football played on the field.

[IndySooner]

Even if you implement a playoff, you will need a type of BCS system to determine who gets in. The success rate of the BCS formula in determining number one vs. number two, is very high. The problem is that people will take a one year anomaly, and make an argument against the BCS.

Any legitimate playoff will USE a BCS type system as a helpful tool (like the RPI) for a selection committee.

[AlboSooner]

Any legitimate playoff will USE a BCS type system as a helpful tool (like the RPI) for a selection committee.
Then you shift the debate from the number one and number two, to who should get in. You widen and broaden the debate. A team like Boise, who remains fresh all year, will have an un-fair advantage against the teams who play against NFL prospects every Saturday.

[delhalew]

Yah know what I like about the computers? They only use data from football played on the field.

Computer polls beat biased human polls every time.

[MamaMia]

The current BCS formula limits a conference to have only two teams in a BCS bowl. Delany said he would like to see that restriction lifted. This year, for instance, the Big Ten had three of the top nine teams in the final BCS rankings but because of the two-bid per conference rule, No. 9 Michigan State was sent to a non-BCS bowl while Wisconsin (Rose) and Ohio State (Sugar) went to BCS bowls.

I think its only fair that the top 10 teams play in the 4 BCS bowls and the National Champion game. I don't think any conference, including ours, should get an automatic bowl game.

In the original system, didn't SOS count for more in the computer ranking, and if so, why was it changed?

I also believe that the coaches votes should be made public from the beginning of the voting process. They should be open to scrutiny and held accountable for how they voted.

[IndySooner]

This is the beginning of the end for the BCS. The Commissioners are starting to fight. The problem is, they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. I GUARANTEE that the WAC and MWC Commissioners are loving Delany, Slive and Beebe sticking their collective feet in their mouths.

Dan Wetzel's book is beginning to look more and more right every the minute. Oh, and it also outlines a playoff system that would satisfy EVERYONE.

http://abladeofplasticgrass.blogspot.com/

[yermom]

i still say the Rose Bowl got screwed in the TCU deal

there's no logical reason Stanford shouldn't be there, and TCU would still be in Glendale or Miami

the 3 team thing won't be as much of a problem, possibly now with their divisional setup, but punishing a conference for having 3 good teams might have been a better idea when there were only 8 slots to fill. still, things are going to be tight when none of those 3 are in the championship game

but, the Big 12 has been on the wrong side of that at least twice, even with a championship game

[fadada1]

Sounds nice in theory but the reality is that for this to work one of the Big Six must surrender their BCS bid that year and once a precedent has been set, it would likely be the situation more years than not. Based on current events, the Big East would be the conference that would be shutout of the BCS. That would then cause them to withdraw from the agreement. No big loss, you say? Then you are ignorant of what the conferences went through to get this far. Like it or not, they are part of the balancing act that makes the whole thing work. It is a house of cards and you can't pull out one without upsetting the entire structure and bringing it down. That is why Delaney and the rest are adamant about not giving up anymore to the non-qualifyers. There is no more room to give, either in money or bowl slots. It would be ludicrous to suggest one of the BCS conferences sacrifice for the rest of them. Ain't gonna happen.

it is good in theory, but so is the current system. which, if you ask boise st. and tcu, who were passed over in the rankings all year, doesn't work either.

fact is, nothing is ever going to perfect.

[IndySooner]

Then you shift the debate from the number one and number two, to who should get in. You widen and broaden the debate. A team like Boise, who remains fresh all year, will have an un-fair advantage against the teams who play against NFL prospects every Saturday.

Boise would only get in if they won their conference, more than likely. A one-loss team from that conference would not get in without a championship. Nevada would represent the WAC in a 16-team playoff.

It's simple. All 11 conferences are represented with 5 at-large bids. This year, the Big 10 gets three teams in. In years past, that would have been the Big 12.

It's a very simple, good, reasonable solution that would generate MUCH MORE revenue for the universities than the current solution. The players might not get grab bags, though.

[pphilfran]

I think its only fair that the top 10 teams play in the 4 BCS bowls and the National Champion game. I don't think any conference, including ours, should get an automatic bowl game.

In the original system, didn't SOS count for more in the computer ranking, and if so, why was it changed?

I also believe that the coaches votes should be made public from the beginning of the voting process. They should be open to scrutiny and held accountable for how they voted.

SOS was already built into the computer systems...having it as an additional calculation caused SOS to be weighted to much...

[IndySooner]

SOS was already built into the computer systems...having it as an additional calculation caused SOS to be weighted to much...

Come on, Phil. The truth is that when the Big 10 and SEC started getting hurt by the SOS of the Big 12, they changed the system. Nebraska and Oklahoma getting in despite not winning the conference changed the SOS portion of the system.

Then, when OU got in over Auburn and SC, everyone decided the computers had too much of a say, and gave the power back to the human polls.

It's a corrupt system, bottom line.

[MamaMia]

SOS was already built into the computer systems...having it as an additional calculation caused SOS to be weighted to much...

What percentage did SOS use to carry and what did it change to?

[IndySooner]

What percentage did SOS use to carry and what did it change to?

It was a completely different system. Lowest score was best. SOS was one of a bunch of factors. There was also a bonus for beating a top-10 team that they removed when we got in over SC.

[IndySooner]

Truth is that SOS carries VERY little weight for a team in a BCS Conference now. The computers use them, but the polls will take an undefeated team in a BCS Conference over a Boise State every time, no matter what. The computers have VERY little say in the system today.

[yermom]

What percentage did SOS use to carry and what did it change to?

that's hard to say, but it was kinda used twice in the calculation, once in the computers, then again in the final tally

i thought the old formula was cool... the quality wins were interesting

[yermom]

Truth is that SOS carries VERY little weight for a team in a BCS Conference now. It can't be used in the computers, and the polls will take an undefeated team in a BCS Conference over a Boise State every time, no matter what.

they ditched margin of victory, but not SOS

[IndySooner]

they ditched margin of victory, but not SOS

My bad, you're right. The computers actually weigh on SOS quite heavily. Not sure where I was on that one!

[MamaMia]

I remember reading an article a while back about how the BCS was going to make the SOS count for less of a percentage. I just don't remember the specifics. I wish I would have saved that piece. It was in USA Today.

[SoonerNutt]

To me, you have two seperate issues

1) Money

2) Championships

Is it fair that the little guys have virtually no path to a BCS championship? No

Would it be fair for conferences full of tiny schools that don't invest in their football programs to leach even more money from a system they do little to support? No.

Is there a way to reconcile these two issues in a fair way? I don't know.

[yermom]

I remember reading an article a while back about how the BCS was going to make the SOS count for less of a percentage. I just don't remember the specifics. I wish I would have saved that piece. It was in USA Today.

after 2007, it's obvious it's all a sham with the computers. the voters really choose who plays if it's close

[MamaMia]

after 2007, it's obvious it's all a sham with the computers. the voters really choose who plays if it's close

Then why was the BCS formed?

[IndySooner]

Then why was the BCS formed?

That's the million dollar question.

[tcrb]

I liked the old bowl system better anyway.

[Jacie]

I liked the old bowl system better anyway.

Which old bowl system do you like better?

The one that is really old where there were some in December plus the glut of games on New Year's Day that overlapped so that you could not possibly watch them all or the more recent version where anyone with corporate sponsorship and access to a football stadium can host a bowl game such that there are more slots than eligible teams?

[fadada1]

That's the billion dollar question.

fixed

[GDC]

The whole article can be boiled down to that quote.

Yes

[yermom]

Then why was the BCS formed?

it's still better than having undefeated Auburn playing in the Sugar Bowl and undefeated Oregon in the Rose Bowl then arguing about which undefeated team is the best after they both win

[Leroy Lizard]

Most of you don't understand the situation...before you can offer true solutions you must understand the thoughts of the other side...

The bowls were not put in place to choose a national champion....they were put in place to make a destination for teams and fans...

And now we want to take those destinations and turn them into a playoff...

Currently this is out of the NCAA's hands...they have little to do with the bowls...the big bowls are the ones with the money...and the ones with the money do the choosing....

It is not nearly as simple as many make it...

Like I said....I don't care one way or another...

This.

The FANS want a playoff, but they don't call the shots because their interests are not geared towards their schools or games.

I would add that this should serve as a message to Obama and his desire to investigate the BCS. Okay, you found the BCS in violation of the law. No more BCS and we go back to the old bowl system that gave teams like TCU no chance at all. And it will be your fault.

[Leroy Lizard]

This is the beginning of the end for the BCS. The Commissioners are starting to fight. The problem is, they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. I GUARANTEE that the WAC and MWC Commissioners are loving Delany, Slive and Beebe sticking their collective feet in their mouths.

Dan Wetzel's book is beginning to look more and more right every the minute. Oh, and it also outlines a playoff system that would satisfy EVERYONE.

Everyone? Pffft, not even close.

[soonerinkaty]

Some sort of organized gang rape they had going on there.

[Leroy Lizard]

Some sort of organized gang rape they had going on there.

They call it "business." :D

[sperry]

after 2007, it's obvious it's all a sham with the computers. the voters really choose who plays if it's close


The computers decided that we would play for the championship the very next year. Texas was higher in the polls by a slim margin the final week, but the computers pushed us ahead and into the Big XII title game.

[ocsooner]

just my $.02

obviously, not enough. You need a few million more $;)

[pphilfran]

The computers decided that we would play for the championship the very next year. Texas was higher in the polls by a slim margin the final week, but the computers pushed us ahead and into the Big XII title game.

Let's not let facts get in the way...

The Sooners always seem to make out like bandits...we get in they change the rules...we still get in so the change the rules...yet we still get in again...

[MamaMia]

The computers decided that we would play for the championship the very next year. Texas was higher in the polls by a slim margin the final week, but the computers pushed us ahead and into the Big XII title game.

So, did Texas whine about it and thats why they made changes? :confused:

[yermom]

The computers decided that we would play for the championship the very next year. Texas was higher in the polls by a slim margin the final week, but the computers pushed us ahead and into the Big XII title game.

the computers had Texas ahead of us for a week, but we were ahead of them in all of the human polls after they lost to Tech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_rankings

[SpankyNek]

SOS really only accounted for just over 1% of the original formula.

The Old System:

POLL AVERAGE
Ranking in Coaches Poll (Not Points)
+
Ranking in AP Poll

Total and divide by 2 for poll average (Best possible is 1.0 for topping both)

COMPUTER AVERAGE
Ranking in Computer Polls (Eliminate top and bottom rankings)
Add Remaining 4 rankings and divide by 4 (Best Possible is 1.0)

SOS
The NCAA SOS numbers are used (66 2/3% Opponent record and 33 1/3% opponent's opponent record)

Top SOS is scored at .04, 2nd at .08 3rd at .12,....)

(Notice that the gradations are in 4/100 point increments...this means that the 33% of the formula is actually only reflected in composite score at (33 X .04) or roughly 1.2%)

These three components are then added together to form a subtotal score.
(Poll Average + Computer Average + SOS) = BCS Subtotal


Then (This is where the schedule really came into play for the big boys) deduct QUALITY WIN COMPONENT.

In addition teams were penalized 1 full point for losses.

(BCS Subtotal - Quality Win Points + 1 pt per loss) = BCS Score
This score is determined by awarding a victory over BCS #1 a 1.5 deduction descending to a victory over BCS#15 a .1 point deduction.

This was a bit more complicated, but far more realistic system...the computer comprised nearly half of the formula, and on the field victories were awarded in a fashion that I find more appealing than the current system which merely penalizes a team for losing.

[MamaMia]

the computers had Texas ahead of us for a week, but we were ahead of them in all of the human polls after they lost to Tech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_rankingsYeah, I think I remember now. That must have been the year Texas hired a banner plane to hoover over us all at the Bedlam game. That was so rude to both teams and to the great state of Oklahoma.

They made changes because of them?

[IndySooner]

SOS really only accounted for just over 1% of the original formula.

The Old System:

POLL AVERAGE
Ranking in Coaches Poll (Not Points)
+
Ranking in AP Poll

Total and divide by 2 for poll average (Best possible is 1.0 for topping both)

COMPUTER AVERAGE
Ranking in Computer Polls (Eliminate top and bottom rankings)
Add Remaining 4 rankings and divide by 4 (Best Possible is 1.0)

SOS
The NCAA SOS numbers are used (66 2/3% Opponent record and 33 1/3% opponent's opponent record)

Top SOS is scored at .04, 2nd at .08 3rd at .12,....)

(Notice that the gradations are in 4/100 point increments...this means that the 33% of the formula is actually only reflected in composite score at (33 X .04) or roughly 1.2%)

These three components are then added together to form a subtotal score.

Then (This is where the schedule really came into play for the big boys) deduct QUALITY WIN COMPONENT.

This score is determined by awarding a victory over BCS #1 a 1.5 deduction descending to a victory over BCS#15 a .1 point deduction.

This was a bit more complicated, but far more realistic system...the computer comprised nearly half of the formula, and on the field victories were awarded in a fashion that I find more appealing than the current system which merely penalizes a team for losing.

The system was 100x better at first. It's unreal how they have ruined it.

[MamaMia]

The system was 100x better at first. It's unreal how they have ruined it.

I guess if you're Texas and you whine about something, they'll change it for you?

[yermom]

SOS really only accounted for just over 1% of the original formula.

The Old System:

POLL AVERAGE
Ranking in Coaches Poll (Not Points)
+
Ranking in AP Poll

Total and divide by 2 for poll average (Best possible is 1.0 for topping both)

COMPUTER AVERAGE
Ranking in Computer Polls (Eliminate top and bottom rankings)
Add Remaining 4 rankings and divide by 4 (Best Possible is 1.0)

SOS
The NCAA SOS numbers are used (66 2/3% Opponent record and 33 1/3% opponent's opponent record)

Top SOS is scored at .04, 2nd at .08 3rd at .12,....)

(Notice that the gradations are in 4/100 point increments...this means that the 33% of the formula is actually only reflected in composite score at (33 X .04) or roughly 1.2%)

These three components are then added together to form a subtotal score.
(Poll Average + Computer Average + SOS) = BCS Subtotal


Then (This is where the schedule really came into play for the big boys) deduct QUALITY WIN COMPONENT.

(BCS Subtotal - Quality Win Points) = BCS Score
This score is determined by awarding a victory over BCS #1 a 1.5 deduction descending to a victory over BCS#15 a .1 point deduction.

This was a bit more complicated, but far more realistic system...the computer comprised nearly half of the formula, and on the field victories were awarded in a fashion that I find more appealing than the current system which merely penalizes a team for losing.

you also got a point for each loss

[SpankyNek]

the computers had Texas ahead of us for a week, but we were ahead of them in all of the human polls after they lost to Tech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_rankings

Actually here were the rankings:

Nov 30 (After ut lost to tech)
-----Harris---USA
OU---4-------2--(1.8255 pts combined)
UT---3-------3--(1.8338)

Dec 7th (After Big XII CG)
-----Harris---USA
OU---2-------1--(1.9272 pts combined)
UT---3-------3--(1.8558)

It was the computers that got us into the BIG XII CG, but we were overall #1 after that.

[SpankyNek]

you also got a point for each loss

You are correct, sir.

Edited.

[yermom]

ok, yeah the polls were split that week, Texas' whining had gotten to the Harris voters and we dropped from the week before

but still, that was just for the division, not the national championship game

[allanace16]

SOS really only accounted for just over 1% of the original formula.

The Old System:

POLL AVERAGE
Ranking in Coaches Poll (Not Points)
+
Ranking in AP Poll

Total and divide by 2 for poll average (Best possible is 1.0 for topping both)

COMPUTER AVERAGE
Ranking in Computer Polls (Eliminate top and bottom rankings)
Add Remaining 4 rankings and divide by 4 (Best Possible is 1.0)

SOS
The NCAA SOS numbers are used (66 2/3% Opponent record and 33 1/3% opponent's opponent record)

Top SOS is scored at .04, 2nd at .08 3rd at .12,....)

(Notice that the gradations are in 4/100 point increments...this means that the 33% of the formula is actually only reflected in composite score at (33 X .04) or roughly 1.2%)

These three components are then added together to form a subtotal score.
(Poll Average + Computer Average + SOS) = BCS Subtotal


Then (This is where the schedule really came into play for the big boys) deduct QUALITY WIN COMPONENT.

In addition teams were penalized 1 full point for losses.

(BCS Subtotal - Quality Win Points + 1 pt per loss) = BCS Score
This score is determined by awarding a victory over BCS #1 a 1.5 deduction descending to a victory over BCS#15 a .1 point deduction.

This was a bit more complicated, but far more realistic system...the computer comprised nearly half of the formula, and on the field victories were awarded in a fashion that I find more appealing than the current system which merely penalizes a team for losing.

Bears repeating. I don't even think this was that hard to figure out what you needed to do to be in, it was just hard to calculate. And while SOS was explicitly defined in the formula, it was also implicitly reiterated with quality win (have to play someone hard and win to get that bonus) and then it was in the computer formulas too. But when the Pac 10 was crap and it was painfully obvious that it was gonna be SEC-Big 12 for a while, the whining kicked in. Then apparently Auburn feels the Citadel is all the powerhouse Texas is (actually maybe they are now :D ) so they felt screwed in 04 and now all we have is this sham. CHANGE IT BACK!

[SpankyNek]

If we want a simple solution for the formula, I would propose this:

Poll Average

Position in each poll added together and divided by 2
(This eliminates the discrepancy between the computer and human element, as aggregate scores are not considered in the computers...only ranking position)

Computer Average
The position in ALL 6 computer polls divided by 6
(All teams should face the same criterion....anomalies are eliminated this way)

Formula:
(Poll Average + Computer Average)/2

[Leroy Lizard]

If we want a simple solution for the formula, I would propose this:

Poll Average

Position in each poll added together and divided by 2
(This eliminates the discrepancy between the computer and human element, as aggregate scores are not considered in the computers...only ranking position)

Computer Average
The position in ALL 6 computer polls divided by 6
(All teams should face the same criterion....anomalies are eliminated this way)

Formula:
(Poll Average + Computer Average)/2

You can't eliminate an anomaly by averaging; you have to remove it from the set.

I suggest throwing out the highest and lowest ranking, and averaging the remainder.

BTW, that poll which gets discarded the most would be most suspect.

[PLaw]

The Cotton Bowl definitely needs to get into the BCS rotation at the 2013 contract negotiations. That addition affords ten spots and everybody should be happy.

BOOMER

[fadada1]

i say we divide everyones pole/poal/poll average by itself, the add pi. once that number is formulated, run a post hoc multiple comparison procedure, form a regression analysis, predicting which 3 teams (including auburn) will get screwed out of a BCS championship game - assuming you have won your conference's division. oh, be sure you are an automatically qualifying conference.

[SpankyNek]

You can't eliminate an anomaly by averaging; you have to remove it from the set.

I suggest throwing out the highest and lowest ranking, and averaging the remainder.

BTW, that poll which gets discarded the most would be most suspect.

The only problem in doing this, is that each team is then being ranked (possibly) by different criterion.

If all teams are subjected to the same six scores, then none could be an anomaly as the criteria are set before the season starts.

Now if we can only get the BCS to disclose the formulas, so we ALL know what the rules are.

[Soonerfan88]

I have to side with the AQ conferences on this one. They are AQ conferences because they have been playing football for a long time, many over 100 years. During that time, they have continued to invest in their programs and create the product that is now making so much money. Why should they let the WAC, with their small stadiums, limited viewership, substandard facilities and unmotivated boosters get an equal share in everything?

Boise State didn't even have a football team until 1968 and only moved into D1A in 1996 (which BTW is ten years after they first installed that stupid blue field which should automatically disqualify them from any serious conversation). Their stadium still only holds 32,000 yet in 2009 they only sold out 2 of 7 home games. I do acknowledge that the AQ teams make more in tv & bowl money which can make facilities upgrades more difficult. However, BSU has played multiple games on ESPN the past few years and been to 2 BCS bowls yet it wasn't until this fall that they even began to make plans for upgrades, which will still leave their capacity under 45,000, and it's stuck in the planning stage because they've only raised ~$8M so far.

If my group of friends created a company and did 95% of the work, resulting in a very healthy bottom line, why should we have to start sharing those profits equally with every new hire off the street?

[Leroy Lizard]

The only problem in doing this, is that each team is then being ranked (possibly) by different criterion.

If all teams are subjected to the same six scores, then none could be an anomaly as the criteria are set before the season starts.

Now if we can only get the BCS to disclose the formulas, so we ALL know what the rules are.

Good point, but I'm not sure that bothers me. If a team ranks #4, #5, #4, #3, #6 and #16 in the six polls, I'm not sure the criteria used to rank the team is reasonable. If our concern is each computer may have an extraneous criterion that surfaces occasionally when ranking teams, then throwing the high and low rankings would take care of this problem.

For an extreme example, suppose teams are given extra points for playing on a blue field. This anomaly doesn't significantly appear in any of the rankings except for one team. However, for this team this computer ranking would get tossed, so playing on the blue field doesn't help it. Each team would get rankings tossed aside based on criteria that tended to single this team out more than the others. I think that is a good thing.

[Lawton4Life]

Quality wins got dropped because there was no bonus for beating a good team twice..and if you beat them twice you could lose your bonus point because they dropped below where you get the point for beating them in the first place.

[texaspokieokie]

Yeah, I think I remember now. That must have been the year Texas hired a banner plane to hoover over us all at the OU-OSU game. That was so rude to both teams and to the great state of Oklahoma.

They made changes because of them?

the main thing was that it made the crowd nervous when the plane began to "hoover".