New BCS Qualifying Standards

[mountainman]

Sorry guys.

I must unknowingly be logging myself out as I flip from program to program. Those were my two posts; the one about taking the 'plus 1' a step further and my apologies to colorado if my postings are annoying him.

Dag-gum computers often times don't do what you want them to do .... instead they do what you tell them to do.

[mountainman]

colorado ..... ole buddy ...... that's the point ..... all these proposals and systems that are either in place or have been thought up have holes.

That's what I mean by correctness. Just trying to "pick the dog with the least fleas" that promotes excellence in college football.

*************************************************************
Edit:

Well, dag-gum colorado ...... you just edited out the most important point of these discussions and debates that have been going on for months and will continue for many more months.

You said it, you nailed it, you got it right ............. and you edited it out.

[colorado_loves_football]

colorado ..... ole buddy ...... that's the point ..... all these proposals and systems that are either in place or have been thought up have holes.

That's what I mean by correctness. Just trying to "pick the dog with the least fleas" that promotes excellence in college football.

*************************************************************
Edit:

Well, dag-gum colorado ...... you just edited out the most important point of these discussions and debates that have been going on for months and will continue for many more months.

You said it, you nailed it, you got it right ............. and you edited it out.

No, I didn't edit it out, I did a 'post-edit' which I've done frequently, and to address your scenario more 'fairly' I'm going to assign a 'probability' to it, my right, as a 'proponent' of a playoff, of BCS teams.
Your scenario, believe it or not has only something like a .02% chance of ever happening. I did the math, I'm not making this up.
The chance two teams from the same conference both qualify for the BCS is only around the order of 50%, if that. It happens infrequently, is my point, so unless you can find more 'appropriate' data I'm sticking to that number, 50% chance both teams make the BCS.
Then for those two teams to meet in a 'hypothetical' championship, they both necessarily have to win their games leading up to that, or in other words, 50% of winning each game, mutiplied by the number of games they play to get there, 3 for Ohio St, and 2 for Penn St.
So, if you multiply all those numbers together (that's how averages work), that gives you the likihood they both get to the championship game, or something around 1.5% but I'll make it 2% to make it 'fair'.
That means, the likelihood two teams from the same conference both make it to the BCS 'championship' should happen something like once every 50 years.
Now, your scenario also includes the provision one team win both games.
The probability of that happening is 1/4, statistically-speaking, but it's probably higher if one team is clearly superior to the other, but I'll stick with the 1/4 anyway. That actually favors the chance one team wins the third game, that is athletically 'inferior' so it evens out, statistically.
What that means, is you have to take the 1.5% divide it by 8 to get the likelihood one team wins the N.C. after having lost twice to the conference champion. If my math is correct that averages to something like .02 of 1% or in other words once every 500 years!
So, your scenario, although possible is very unlikely to happen, if at all.
That's statistics, not something I 'dreamt' up to support my side.
If you can find evidence that the probability that a two teams from the same conference both legitimately qualify for the BCS to be greater than 50-50, then I have to 'amend' results to reflect that.
But even if it happens every year, or 100% of the time, that still means there's only a small chance (something like 1/250) it will happen.
That's not very good odds, my friend, unless you plan to live to be 500 years old. Methusela might witness it, but it's not likely to happen in our lifetimes.

[Spence]

RT, I understand your point about Auburn and it is valid. 1-AA opponents weigh you down when they may be no less the "sure win" as say Ohio State playing Indiana the last few years. Still you have to draw the line somewhere and if a 1-AA team was good enough to play at the D-1 level they would try and work their way into 1-A.

Lets assume that the BCS works well and will always work to perfection. All the woulda coulda shoulda makes my head hurt. Play-offs could be instituted and made to work. Play-offs would be good for the top 8 or 10 teams in the country. Play-offs would be good for the traditional powers of college football because they would have the most chances at the play-offs every year. Play-offs would give you one, true national championship.

Play-offs would kill the bowls because of the money that would have to be paid to support the play-offs. They would kill the bowls because they would have to be played regionally instead of having teams travel across country for one game. They would take needed money and television exposure away from the mid-majors. They would kill recruiting by the mid majors because the top player the mid majors get now would try to walk-on at the bigger programs to get a chance at exposure.

CLF, playoffs wouldn't be set up like you want them to be, they would be set up the exact same way as the BCS is set up now. If they wanted to give wider access to the mid-majors they already would have done it.

Sometimes we don't have one. "true"national champion in CFB. It doesn't hurt the sport not to have one. It creates controversy and gets people interested. CFB is the most popular college sport for a reason.

[Jason G]

I haven't been on here too much lately but I have a comment on the original premise of this thread.

In general I think the new BCS rules are an improvement as they pertain to non-BCS conference schools. My main concern, though, is what happens if two non-BCS conference champions meet the criteria or even go undefeated. The new rules, as posted by mountainman, to start this topic, specifically said one non-BCS conference school would be eligible.

I'm not real sure about how things would work in this scenario. Does anyone else know how this could play out?

[mountainman]

Hey, Jason G. How you been? Good to hear from you.

My original post speaks of "automatically qualify". They are saying that one non-bcs conference champion will get an automatic bid, just as the champion of a BCS conference does, if they meet either of the two criteria mentioned.

I'm guessing that if there were two non-bcs conference teams that met the criteria the highest ranked one would receive the automatic bid while the other would become a member of the pool of eligible teams and it would be up to the bowl selection committees of the individual bowls to determine which team from the pool would be invited.

There is a difference between an automatic bid and the pool of eligible teams. By the way, undefeated is not mentioned as a qualifier.

[mountainman]

colorado, do you recall what you wrote? It was at the end of the post you edited.

It was brilliant, a gem, the NOVA of all the discussion and debate about playoffs, BCS, Plus 1 and double hosting that has been going on for months now.

I was about to heap praise on that statement, but when I returned it was gone. That statement cut to the heart of the debate and could have advanced the discussion to a new and quantifiable level.

But alas, it's been edited out. Do you recall the statement?

[Spence]

I'm guessing that if there were two non-bcs conference teams that met the criteria the highest ranked one would receive the automatic bid while the other would become a member of the pool of eligible teams and it would be up to the bowl selection committees of the individual bowls to determine which team from the pool would be invited.

There is a difference between an automatic bid and the pool of eligible teams. By the way, undefeated is not mentioned as a qualifier.

If the two undefeated non BCS were ranked high enough they would go. There are four "at large" spot available. If ANY school is ranked in the top 2 they should play for the national championship. If Any school is ranked in the top 6, they should play in a BCS game.

I'm not or have never been against a mid-major playing in the championship game or a BCS game. What I have said from the beginning is that if you have played well enough to be ranked among the top teams in the country, you should be in the BCS. It isn't about records, because records can be deceiving. It is about ranking. Ranking based on who you have played and how well you did against them.

Sorry for the rant. Sometimes it is made out like those of us who defend the BCS are anti mid major and that isn't the case. If you have played well enough to merit being in the game you should be there.

The only really unfair thing about the BCS is the automatic bids for conference champs. I don't advocate removing them because it is the best way to measure the conference's strength. Getting to play in a BCS game because you are highly ranked(top 6 to 10) isn't unfair at all in my opinion.

[mountainman]

The automatic bids to the BCS conference champs are at the insistence of the host bowl cities.

There the ones guaranteeing the money that I believe goes to a $17 million per team minimum this coming year (14 million last year). In return they want some assurance that 15-20 thousand tourists (a.k.a. fans) are going to come to the game from each team and that the TV ratings are going to be high enough to help pay some of that $34 million guarantee.

[Spence]

The automatic bids to the BCS conference champs are at the insistence of the host bowl cities.

There the ones guaranteeing the money that I believe goes to a $17 million per team minimum this coming year (14 million last year). In return they want some assurance that 15-20 thousand tourists (a.k.a. fans) are going to come to the game from each team and that the TV ratings are going to be high enough to help pay some of that $34 million guarantee.

I know it is all about feeding the monster, but it doesn't necessarily make it fair. I don't know that it has to be fair as long as they can get at least 6 of the best teams in the country in the games. I'm all for people making money. I'd like to make a little more myself.

[Spence]

No question money has a lot to do with it.

[mountainman]

Hey, Irish88.

I had the same question about the difference and here was the response from one of the university presidents who is a member of the NCAA Presidential Study Group, convened by NCAA director Myles Brand, examining the future of intercollegiate athletics:

"The cost, the intensity, the injury rates. I just think it's perceived as having a distinction."

[mountainman]

Here's another site about playoffs that I've studied, rolltide:

http://www.sportsfansofamerica.com/Fans ... yoffs1.htm

[colorado_loves_football]

Mountainman has already posted the criteria being utilized by the BCS for qualifying purposes. A 'non-BCS' team needs to finish the year ranked #12 or higher to gain 'automatic' entry into the BCS. Should two, or more teams meet that standard, it's possible both are admitted, but since we already know that only ten teams are represented, my 'guess' is only one team is assured entry, the other has to be 'awarded' a bid through BCS ranking.
But, we also know that there is a provision in place for a team ranked #16 or higher, 'non-BCS' should a conference champion qualify that doesn't meet 'automatic' qualifying standards, or in other words, outside the top-12. My guess is this provision was adopted in part due to how Pittsburgh qualified in 2004, but Louisville was denied a bid. I doubt anyone thought it would ever happen again, but it did, in short order.

Should co-champions be assured a BCS bid? That's what happened this year with Ohio St. and Penn St. A conference championship game woudl have selected a Big Ten reprentative, and Ohio St. still would have been eligible as an 'at large' team, regardless, so I prefer the conference championship arrangment. Virginia Tech likely would have also been included in some fashion, had Oregon not also been ranked highly in the BCS, so it's possible they go, over Oregon, had Oregon say lost their conference championship game. Ranking takes precedent, I believe.

In 2004 several 'non-BCS' teams were knocking on the BCS door.
After all the 'automatic' bids were awarded, only two remained, but applied to this year, both Louisville and Boise St. likely would have bee represeted, so one need only look to that year to see how several 'non-BCS' teams might qualify. All three were ranked in the top-ten, so my 'guess' is that might be sufficient for any 'non-BCS' team to be assured a bid.

Notre Dame needs to finish #8 or higher but I think that's just fancy surface coating, because most bowls would love to take them every year, if possible. It's my assumption that a 'non-BCS' team would take precedence, but multiple qulifiers (BCS or otherwise) would likely be passed over in favor of Notre Dame, if they meet the standard (#12), but again that's just my opinion. They were assured a bid, this year, because they had 9 wins and were top-ten. Outside of that, I'm not sure they go over Oregon, it's kind of a toss-up.

#1 and #2 are both 'assured' automatic entry into the 'championship' game regardless of conference affiliation. But, to my knowledge that has only happened once, Brigham Young would have qualified in 1984.
But last year might again be utilized for comparison purposes. Three teams, Boise St., Utah, and Louisville were ranked top-ten, and Louisville likely would have been ranked much higher but for a loss to Miami, FL.
Had they gone undefeated, it's possible, but highly unlikely, two 'non-BCS' teams meet 'championship' criteria. USC would have had to lose to Cal, and Oklahoma needed to lose to Texas, but then both Cal & Texas would necessarily have needed to lose, otherwise they are the representatives, but it's not an 'impossible' arrangement, as I had assumed it to be.
Speaking of 'impossible' arrangements, I need to amend something I posted earlier, regarding Mountainman's hypothetical scenario, two teams from the same conference meet for the national title.
The chances of that happening are a lot better than I implied, I used 'fuzzy' math, unfortunately.
Assuming both teams meet BCS standards the probability both teams 'meet' in the Championship of the order of 35%, not bad, but what's the probability both teams are selected? I never got an estimate on that, but assuming it's 50%, then it drops substantially. Rather than 1/25 years of team A beating team B after having lost to team B twice, it now becomes 1/50. Or, the probability is about 2%, statistically relevant.
But not altogether likely either. Still, he is correct there is a 'loophole' in my proposal that would give a team a national championship, even after losing to the eventual runner-up, twice previously. So it isn't as 'perfect' as I had hoped it might be.

[mountainman]

[quote="rolltide"]because you have to be able to win when it matters./quote]

This statement really stuck with me. I intended to acknowledge this statement when you posted it rolltide, but I got a little distracted. I realize this may be somewhat out of the context in which you were speaking, but it makes a good point.

To me, every game during the regular season matters. Some may carry more weight, but all matter. By measuring a team over the course of the entire season that team's character, integrity, depth, ability to overcome adversity, ability to adjust to different styles of play, execution, etc., etc. are better measured. To me, these things and others, as well as wins, are equal elements that need to be tested and demonstrated when deciding a champion.