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.
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.
Why should OU be allowed to lose a game and go to the championship and not USC?
Because they had a better record against a tougher schedule.
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 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.
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.
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.