Somebody apparently missed the memo: The BCS exists because the polls aren't good enough.

Why is it that so many people cannot accept the fact that LSU and OU had had the two best seasons? When compared to USC, LSU and OU both had better records and tougher schedules.

It is a fact: the polls were wrong on December 7. The BCS was created to correct the (obvious) wrongs of the polls. Why give them more influence?

Not exactly. If this were simply the case there'd be a playoff by now. Instead the BCS exists because 1) with the classic bowl-conference relationships it was difficult to resolve even simple cases of multiple candidates for #1, and 2) because the bigger conferences saw there's money to be made in touting a perceived higher value to your product. Further the BCS does this by exploiting the polls - How could it exist without them?



A fact? Seems to me the votes were properly made and counted. Don't worry, there's a long line of schools and fans content with shared titles in football, and an even longer line of schools who'd love to be in that position. It's part of the fun and appeal. But here's one for consideration: It is a fact that enough people believe USC may have had the better team that the powers that be are changing the system in hopes (yet again) of ensuring the match-up desired is the one received.

That's my point--votes. If it's my opinion that the sky is purple, my opinion is wrong. The voters were wrong. If not, explain why they were right.

Record--LSU's was better.
SOS--LSU's opps had a better record. LSU's opps' opps had a better record.
Quality wins--The best teams LSU beat were better than the best teams USC beat.

The goal of the opinion poll writers is not to vote for the team with the best record, or that played the best schedule, but to vote for the best team. I find it interesting that you single out the writers, you're goal is obviously to discredit the poll that didn't vote for LSU, and say the Coaches' poll was the right one. However, the coaches' poll would not have voted for LSU, either, had they not been forced to. Both polls thought that USC was the better team.

If the goal is to bring in the teams with the best record, we could have had a Boise State/Miami (Ohio) championship. If the goal were to bring in the team with the best schedule we could have had a South Carolina vs. Florida championship. The goal was to choose the two best teams, and there's indication that USC and LSU were those.

It is obvious that the BCS is considered to have failed in choosing Oklahoma and LSU. That's a far more provable "fact" than the polls were wrong. The writers voted for who they thought the best team was and the coaches' were not allowed to. The best case of a bad situation happened and we had a split. Not the first, not the last.

Based on something other than a combination of their records & strentgh of schedule? What was so great that USC did that overcame LSU's superiority in these fields? What made them "the better team?" Their location?
Then how/why did three coaches manage to vote for USC?


Both had better records and tougher schedules than USC. Why should USC be allowed to lose a game and go to the championship game, but not OU?
I'd maybe believe you if anybody could show me some numbers supporting their theory.

Six of seven of the computers used determined LSU was #1, and the sheer possibility of the polls being wrong or misguided or archaic isn't even introduced by the media.

Unfortunately, the new BCS has taken a step backward, a step nearer to the idea that democracy decides championships. That is stupid.

Okay guys, this thread is getting a little too heated. Either play nice, or this thread will get locked. >:(

I didn't say USC was the better team, I said it was obvious the voters thought they were. That's why USC was cleaning up in the polls until the coaches were forced to vote for USC.





Why should OU be allowed to lose a game and go to the championship and not USC? Each had an equal claim, but people wanted to see USC instead of Oklahoma. Since they had equal claim, why not give the people what they want?

What theory are you talking about?






Computers are computers. They measure facts and figures, but are limited in what they can do. The BCS systems were completely neutered when they were not allowed to use margin of victory at all. The results of them can not be taken serious then.

How much of a factor does the idea that you have to lose a game to lose your ranking factor in? I, for one, think that is the biggest reason USC never dropped.




Because they had a better record against a tougher schedule.





"What they want"--I can't think of a really intelligent-sounding way to say "because that's not what it's about." In 1994, people wanted to see Dallas and SF in the SuperBowl, but the league's alignment saw to it that the winner would play the Pitt/SD winner.

In my opinion, this is about numbers and numbers only. Democracy, or "what the people want," should play no factor. On-the-field factors (and sanctions) should be the only thing that determines these things.





Some of us don't like margin of victory. I believe you come out of a game with a W or an L, and that's it. But, if MOV has to be used, it should be used as a ratio instead. IE, outscoring your opponents 100-50 should be the same as outscoring them 400-200. This rewards good defense as much as it rewards good offense.

You do not have to lose to drop. That's happened many times. Miami dropped out of #1 in 2002 and 2001 after wins.





"Tougher" schedule is a matter of opinion. I don't believe that a "tougher" schedule should play more of a role than the selection of the better team.





The NFL strict system for determining who gets there. College football is a different animal all together. In College Football it's opinion that selects the teams, on-field factors can not determine it because you need opinion to judge that. With 120 teams playing radically different schedule, there is no way to pluck two teams out of it and to make it "fair". Since there is no fair way to determine it, if you have teams with equal claims, give the people what they want.





I think margin of victory is only useful up to around 16 points. However, the one and only advantage that computers have over people who actually watch the games is that they can crunch a bunch of numbers. When you have only 12 or so games to judge a team when comparing them to 116 others that not only don't share a common opponent, but possibly not even their opponents share a common oppponent, you need to use everything possible. If a team has a close game with a bad team, that's important info. If a team blows out a good team, that's important info. The only way a computer ranking system can have any accuracy at all is to use all the information available. Like it or not, but Margin of Victory is the only way to separated the close teams. When it was removed completely from computers it neutered them past the point of usefulness.

I am in totally agreement with the polls counting 80 percent and the computers used as a balance.

SOS and win and loses are factored into the computer rankings with about as much weight as those polls should receive.

All of these issues are just one way of avoiding a playoff.

If a playoff occured, how many of the old BCS teams rankings would have performed in the same manner to reach the final BCS games or championship games.

Use college basketball as a example of a sport that has a playoff and you can see that not every team having SOS and quality wins perform in the playoff and reach the same ranking that match SOS.

It easy to state scientific facts and use SOS and quality wins on paper. The real test would be on the field of play.

With the margin of accuracy with the polls should come close to matching a true playoff bacause not all those SEC teams with great SOS are going to perform that well in a playoff. Again, look at the SEC performance in college basketball. The SEC last year had the best SOS in college basketball and look how the conference performed in the playoff.

No wonder the big BCS conferences do not want a playoff. There true SOS may really show.

LSU outscored its opponents 475-154 (+321, 3.08/1 ratio), while USC outscored its opponents 534-239 (+295, 2.23/1 ratio).

Better record, tougher opponents, tougher schedule, more impressive scoring margin. However you look at it, LSU had the better season. When we all have grandkids, LSU--not USC--will be remembered as the champion.

Nobody (and I've been on the USC boards, too, and they are god-awful at math) has been able to give me some numbers supporting the voters' theory that USC was the best team in the land.

The polls were wrong. The BCS didn't fail in producing a champion; the AP simply voted for the wrong team.

Guys I think we are missing the point. Oklahoma was rated number 1 in the BCS due to SOS.

This was proof that SOS higher ranking does not gurantee the winner on the field.

Since Oklahoma lost to LSU and Southern Cal won the Rose Bowl, it seems to me that the polls were correct and the SOS proved flaws.

The old BCS formula using SOS would have been ok if the winner would have been presented the championship trophy and the teams would not have to play the game on the field. Again what looks good on paper does not always work out when teams play on the field. This is the primary reason that sports is so fun and intestesting. If everything was as predictiable as SOS, would we keep watching or just let the computers play and select the winners.

The BCS definatly moved in the right direction by removing the SOS. Now if we can just move a little more closer to a playoff there will be not need for SOS other than for polls and selling newspapers.

The point seems to me to be that the national champion of College football is on a fairly regular basis decided by OPINION more than on the field of play.

Regardless of what the BCS does, this will continue to occur on occassion.

The BCS is attempting to make changes that will eliminate this, and they have taken steps in the right direction. It amazes me that with so much at stake that the people who "run" this don't see the inherent statistical anomalies they continuously create. It also becomes somewhat funny to hear fans like Toot spout these same stats as "facts" on how their team is somehow better.

"Lies, d**n Lies, and Statistics" (Disraeli or Twain...who said it first?)


LSU had a better record?
Can't argue with that 13-1 is statistically better than 12-1. ;)

LSU had tougher opponents?
LSU combined record of opponents 86-67
USC combined record of opponents 80-67
Wow! Clear margin here favoring LSU! ;)

Opponents Opponents...
LSU 1061-861 .552
USC 997-831 .545
Obviously another clear mandate for LSU! ;)

BCS rank SOS out of 117 schools...
LSU #13
USC #20
LSU obviously scheduled FAR superior opponents.

I'm certain LSU beats USC in the College Football 2004 video game also... ;)

Most of us who are just fans of College Football bemoan the fact that these two teams didn't get to decide the national championship because of the flaws in the BCS statistical system (which will ALWAYS exist). Fans with a rooting interest (like Toot) will find a way to move their team to the top...more power to you, but please don't tell us that these are FACTS.

(Aside to DawgandDuck...there is no problem with argument and healthy discourse...I respect and value the views of LSUToot as a member of the forum...this doesn't mean I have to agree with what is said, nor should it mean I can't argue with him...along with others here...nobody in this thread has been disrespectful in any way...no need to OVERmoderate)
8-)

There are 2 very big problems with the polls (along with some minor ones). The problems don't always work in the same direction, but both distort the results. First is preseason poll bias, that whoever starts the season ahead is likely to stay ahead. Second is the last loss bias. Whoever loses last is out of luck. If you took the arguments above and threw in OU before the Sugar Bowl, you would most likely conclude, as the computers did, that OU should have been #1 and that both polls were wrong. OU did lose their last game to KSU convincingly (as LSU did to Florida), but they still would have been 3rd in both polls if they had lost by one point.

It would be interesting if the BCS gave out what their studies determined the top 12 teams would have been over the last 15-20 years under last year's method and the new method.