Monday, December 07, 2009

BCS - Fail


I have no particular beef with the title game selection of Alabama v Texas. But I have a real issue with the conventional wisdom that says that Texas plays from a "real conference" and therefore, plays a tougher schedule.

See the attached breakdown of each of the five undefeated teams resumes with their ratings (courtesy of the Sagarin ratings). The reason I used the Saraging ratings for this is 1) all D1- and D1AA teams are included and 2) Each teams is evaluated on the exact same standard and not some arbitrary rating by a sports writer who's seen all of 20 games this year.

You'll see on this schedule the tremendous non conference schedule Texas put together (UTEP, La.- Monroe, Wyoming, Central Florida).

But Gordon, they play in a tough conference.

Really? Who's the big name dropper Texas put a beating on this year? Oklahoma at 23? Texas Tech at 31? They wouldn't have even played Nebraska had it not been for the extra playoff game. If you take that game out, their schedule is just as comparable as TCU's or UC's.

I know it sounds like sour grapes for a guy who's team that didn't get in but it really isn't. I'm fully aware that there were 5 undefeated teams this year; three had to sit out. I probably would have picked Texas as well.

This is an indictment of the entire BCS system. Do you think that a team like Alabama, who scheduled North Texas State, Florida International or Tn.- Chattanooga is going to make room for a Boise State or TCU so they can beef up their resume?

These schools raid all the cupcakes on the hostess truck so they can pad their schedule with wins. Then they roll the dice in conference play.

That's why it needs to be settled on the field not in the board room of a cartel known as the BCS schools. Instead , we don't get Boise or TCU against the traditional powers, they get to play themselves just to make sure they don't upset the cartel. You'd think this caball of academics would be appalled at the whole "rich get richer" quality of college football. But it's one thing when it's a Wall Street bank, they have no skin in that game.

At least the Bearcats get to play against one of those powers even though they are technically one of the BCS schools.

This week, I'll lay out my 16 team playoff format which actually incorporates the current bowl system.

But this system is a total scam. And just like Bartman says, it's akin to figure skating where reputation trumps actual performance.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Cincinnati actually has the highest computer average (algorithm that does strength of schedule, winning margins, etc).

Alabama 1.00
Cincinnati 0.93
Texas 0.92
Florida 0.91
TCU 0.84
Boise St. 0.78

Jeremy

Anonymous said...

Also:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AvnmGvgwP_uA.dLF0E5PDzkcvrYF?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

rakeback said...

I think its pointless to argue over which undefeated team is best instead of letting their play decide it on the field.
The BCS clearly only cares about making money, otherwise how do you explain that this is the only sport in div 1,2,or 3 that doesnt have a playoff system to determine its champion.

gordon gekko said...

Anon #1 - Hey I'll that.

Anon #2 - That's actually what I intend to propose with the sites located at bowl sites.

Anon #3 - When in doubt answer money and you'll be right 99% of the time. I believe a playoff system will generate millions in more revenue. The problem is that it be spread amongst 120 teams instead of 60.