Any predictions on the BCS this week? Mine are: 1. Oklahoma 2. UCLA 3. Nebraska 4. Miami 5. Texas 6. V-Tech 7. Florida Oklahoma gets a huge boost because of the "bonus points" from beating Texas. I don't think any of the other schools will have real bonus points yet. Some of the computers are truly f#@ed up. From the Chronicle: <I>Get this: The poll put out by David Rothman, a seismic-risk statistician, has Division II Grand Valley State ranked No. 18, ahead of Colorado (19), Florida State (25), Auburn (26), Fresno State (29) and Texas A&M (30). </I> This should be fun.
Well, never mind. Hate to spoil the fun, but apparently there's a site that gets these things pretty close to right: http://www.collegebcs.com/
Your predictions seem to be on the money to me. I'm not worried about Nebraska and Oklahoma because one of them will drop behind Miami. UCLA, on the other hand, does worry me. They have to lose to somebody, and preferably the sooner, the better. The computers are a joke. Telling me that a Division II team is better than any Division I-A team regardless if it's Colorado, Florida State, etc. should be a red flag to the BCS braintrust that their system stinks and doesn't work.
Well, here's a nice article coming from someone who is intimately involved with the BCS and their computers, Richard Billingsley. http://espn.go.com/ncf/s/bcscontroversy.html This article is so laughable in the way he's defending these computers, that it's the best laugh I have had in weeks! The computer polls lost all respect with me when they have a Division II team ranked in the top 30 and over schools like Florida State and Colorado. Since keeping up with college football in 1980, let's look at the national champions: 1980 Georgia 1981 Clemson 1982 Penn State 1983 Miami 1984 BYU 1985 Oklahoma 1986 Penn State 1987 Miami 1988 Notre Dame 1989 Miami 1990 Colorado & Georgia Tech 1991 Miami & Washington 1992 Alabama 1993 Florida State 1994 Nebraska 1995 Nebraska 1996 Florida 1997 Nebraska & Michigan 1998 Tennessee 1999 Florida State 2000 Oklahoma Let's see, that's over 20 years and there has been only 3 split champions. Sure looks like your grandfather's system was a real bad one! *giggle*
I have to agree with that article to some extent. Why are Washington State and Maryland any worse than Miami, UCLA, Oklahoma, Nebraska, or VTech? Because people didn't expect them to be good, their accomplishments are ignored in the polls. A Florida team who lost to an unranked team is ranked in the Top 10 because people thought they should be good. Meanwhile, an undefeated Maryland team that has beaten a ranked team is not even in the top 10. Manny, on your list, how many other teams went undefeated or had the same record as the national champions but were simply ranked #2 and never had a chance to compete for the national title because the polls favored another team? Didn't Penn State go undefeated several years back but end #2 in both polls? It wasn't a split national title -- they never got the chance to prove themselves. That's the reason for the BCS. The computers aren't perfect, but neither are the human polls. That's why the BCS combines the two to try to come up with a fair mix. Is it perfect? Hell no. However, I do think it's better than just the polls or just the computers. Unfortunately, nothing except a playoff system would generate an ideal result.
I don't think many people disagree with that Manny. What many people have a problem with is that generally, if you lose a game early, and not ranked high enough, you're out of it. Many times, a young team could lose early in the year, but gel towards the end. For them, the season doesn't mean much more than a meaningless bowl. However, if there's a playoff, these teams have a great shot at proving themselves again.
10. Washington St. 9. Tennessee 8. Maryland 7. Michigan 6. Texas baby 5. Virginia Tech 4. Miami 3. UCLA 2. Nebraska 1. Oklahoma sportscenter just announced it big gap between miami and ucla
shanna: You are right about Penn State a couple of years back not even getting a chance to share with I think, Nebraska. Penn State was forced to play in the Rose Bowl (I always thought they made a mistake going to the Big 10) and had to play a less-than-impressive Oregon team, but yea, that sucked that they didn't get at least a split. As for your point about Maryland and Washington State, I think alot of it has to do on 2 things: 1) Their position in the polls at the beginning of the season 2) Their reputation About the only good thing that I see about the computers is that they are not supposed to distinguish on reputation. I guess my whole gripe with the article is that Billingsley is hardly an impartial observer on the situation. His poll along with Sagarin's is one of the main computer polls and I believe one of the ones used every year. Of course, he's gonna defend the BCS and the computers. You would think that ESPN would get someone who's not tied into the BCS to discuss this issue. Not trying to be melodramatic here, but this is analogous to having Martin Bormann defend the practices of Nazism. I don't mean that to be a controversial statement, but how can Billingsley be objective when his poll is one of the computer polls? Rocketman95: I agree with you 100 %. A perfect example was in 1989 when Florida State lost to Southern Miss (with Brett Favre) and Clemson in their first 2 games. They then reeled off 10 straight wins including a 24-10 thumping of my Canes. Yet, they were 10-2 and Miami was 11-1 with victories over Notre Dame and Alabama in their last 2 games. Miami was given the National Championship, but you can better believe that no one wanted to play the Noles at the end of that season. There's no doubt in my mind, that FSU would have been the National Champions that year if there had been a playoff. Unfortunately, for all college football fans, the NCAA just won't get with the times and do this. It's a tremendous shame that they have to be this stupid.
For the record, I am for a playoff. I got to thinking that since I posted the list of national champions since 1980, it may give the impression that I was not in favor of a playoff. However, that list was posted to show how few times there were split national champions using the system that "your grandfather" knew. The article definitely implies, IMO, that this system was a terrible one and you would get the feeling that there were split champions all the time, but this is proof that is not the case. As shanna pointed out, it's still wasn't perfect because of the Penn State example. Also, remember 1984? BYU goes 13-0, barely beats a 6-5 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl and gets the national championship because they were the only major unbeaten left. Do you think that they would have gotten to play in the BCS title game if they had the BCS back then? Probably not.
