AAC commissioner: "bring back the BCS"

[KrAzY3]

I'm taking him out of context a little bit because the full quote is this: "I never thought I'd say it, but if this continues, bring back the BCS and the computers because it would be a fairer system than what I'm seeing now,"

Coming from me it would probably seem like I'm trying to use this guy to support my argument against the committee. I'm not. I feel no sympathy. As you see him say, he never thought he'd say that. He and his cohorts welcome the committee and welcomed the playoff. Now, as @selmaborntidefan has really said all along, the one thing that committee really does is keep the riffraff out.

I don't like the committee, and I trusted the BCS more. However, those guys made their bed. They wanted this, they got this, now they're whining because it isn't doing what they want it to. Anyway, here's the full article: https://www.espn.com/college-footba...s-deck-stacked-group-5-college-football-teams

 

[AUDub]

In theory, a committee should work.

In practice? If OSU makes it in this year on the strength of half a season, the process is hot garbage.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Cincinnati played all the average to below average teams and just cannot understand why they aren't in contention.

 

[B1GTide]

Cincinnati played all the average to below average teams and just cannot understand why they aren't in contention.

They understand. I know several coaches on the staff. They completely understand. They are playing their hand and not worried about things outside of their control.

 

[Tidewater]

There is something to be said for taking the emotion/hype out of this to a degree. If a team is 10-0, but they beat a series of 0-10 teams, are they good or not? And if those 0-10 teams all lost to 5-5 teams, is the original team really good?
If a team is 9-1, and only lost to a team that is 10-0, and beat 9 teams that were 9-1, are they good?
There are a bunch of permutations and maybe only a computer can give an honest assessment of that.
That said, I would not support a "computer-only" system. There needs to be some form of eye test and human judgment.

 

[JustNeedMe81]

But at some point, this will force a discussion about power 5 conference...

 

[81usaf92]

My only issue with the rankings is that the committee is trying to protect the NY6 bowls by not punishing Florida. They already know they have a crappy Rose bowl alternate (Cotton or Fiesta), but they don’t want to put another G5 in a NY6 bowl. Honestly I don’t have a problem with 2 this year because there are a ton of teams that just do not belong in the top 15.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Really, unless / until the committee is literally picking blind (as in, judging teams based purely on record vs W/L column, ranked opponents, etc without knowing which team is which) we'll have bias.

OSU without OSU's name and reputation would not be #4. Zero chance.

 

[KrAzY3]

They understand. I know several coaches on the staff. They completely understand. They are playing their hand and not worried about things outside of their control.

The most brilliant move after the Big 10's change to the rules would have to be the Coastal Carolina/BYU game. Only problem is it backfired and turned into a shut-up game for BYU. I respect the effort though, BYU wanted to prove their ranking was too low.

Had it been Cincinnati in that game, had they found a way to fill one of the gaps with a team of similar stature, the conversation right now might be very different. Unfortunately, and I say that sincerely, it doesn't seem like that was a possibility.

 

[denver]

He's not wrong about Iowa State...the B12 is woeful so why should they be at #6? They would barely be .500 in the SEC in either division. The CFP does play favorites for the Power 5. Expand the playoffs and then no one can have an argument. 8 is enough as they say in the movie

 

[BamaInBham]

I wish that the P5 would separate from the G5. To be enraged that Cincinnati is not in the top 4 as Aresco claimed is preposterous. He is either deceitful or clueless to make such a claim. They've had a great year for their world but they've not played one P5 team. Half of the SEC or more would also be 8-0 or 7-1 vs their schedule. He refers to Parcell's quote, "You are what your record says you are." Well that works in the NFL since all teams play the same teams or same caliber. That is simply not the case in college football.

The Committee was formed to avoid the stupid conclusions that can be generated from rigid computers when confronted by complex situations. The human mind is much more flexible and thus wiser in these situations. Thankfully, the Committee has not fallen into the same trap. Cinn and especially CC don't belong anywhere near the playoff. Put them in the SEC and Cinn would do well to go 6-4 and CC 4-6.

The G5 should be grateful to have a seat at the table. IMO, the P5 has been unwise to invite them; at least without defining more clearly their secondary status. Their prosperity comes from the context built by the P5, but rather than being grateful, they give heed to the siren cry of the grouchy, whining coterie of the Brando's, Forde's, Wetzel's, et al. of the world.

 

[The Ols]

He's not wrong about Iowa State...the B12 is woeful so why should they be at #6? They would barely be .500 in the SEC in either division. The CFP does play favorites for the Power 5. Expand the playoffs and then no one can have an argument. 8 is enough as they say in the movie

It was a TV show and they had problems every week because it was too many!!!
Just separate and end this silliness...

 

[RammerJammer15]

I can understand the commissioner’s frustration, and have no problems with what he said.

I usually have a soft spot for those top G5 schools until people get to whining and taking unnecessary shots at top schools, usually led by people like Tim Brando.

 

[CoachInWaiting]

I think the BCS formula was better than the committee as well. Not perfect, but better. If the only change to the BCS had been to expand to the top 4 teams instead of just #1 vs. #2, we would have less controversy. Less, but not none. I said when the committee was announced, and I still believe that the reason for for the introduction of the human element was a fear of a recurring situation where the SEC would dominate. The SEC had taken control of the BCS, winning it like 7 times in a row...and even having an all-SEC final. It was way too likely that the final 4 would include 2 SEC teams on an annual basis and often 3. Heaven forbid there be 4 of 4.

 

[Bamaro]

I think the BCS formula was better than the committee as well. Not perfect, but better. If the only change to the BCS had been to expand to the top 4 teams instead of just #1 vs. #2, we would have less controversy. Less, but not none. I said when the committee was announced, and I still believe that the reason for for the introduction of the human element was a fear of a recurring situation where the SEC would dominate. The SEC had taken control of the BCS, winning it like 7 times in a row...and even having an all-SEC final. It was way too likely that the final 4 would include 2 SEC teams on an annual basis and often 3. Heaven forbid there be 4 of 4.

I dont have a major problem with the committee but a BCS style formula would probably be better while keeping the 4 team playoff.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

When the playoff came about, I told Mrs. Basket Case that it would eventually come back around to something similar to he BCS — which I actually thought got the selection method right. Several computers, augmented by human judgement. Objectivity from the computers, thought and recognition of the validity of the eye test from the humans.

There were three shortcomings, most of which are easily remedied. First was the lack of transparency in the computer programs.

That‘s a bit of a red herring in that there were so many programs (6? 8? I don’t remember) that even if one was flawed, its problems would have been overwhelmed by the other programs. But talking heads and the general public don’t understand that. So it looked bad, especially when those talking heads started screaming about it.

They could have required disclosure of the key points of logic in the programs — not the distinguishing details, just the key points. Don’t want to do that? Your program won’t be used, and what good is it to you now?

Second, and this one would have been incredibly easy to fix, it was only two teams. But since it ranked either 20 or 25 teams, it would have been simple to expand to 4 teams.

Third was the method of the human factor. It was polls of coaches and sportswriters. People in general don’t trust sportswriters, and coaches have a clear conflict of interest.

So I’d suggest: Eliminate the active coaches. Revamp the other poll. The current CFP committee no longer chooses the teams. Rather, it chooses the voters in the human poll. As with the current Committee, these voters could theoretically be anybody, but would be concentrated in football-related professionals. The roster of voters would be publicly known, and would rotate on 2-3 year terms, kind of like they do the Heisman voters.

In short, take the basic BCS logic, but (1) publish key data points for the computers, (2) revamp the human poll, and (3) expand to 4 teams.

So sez me.

 

[uafan4life]

I don't like the fact that any team - it just happens to be OSU - started their season with what is effectively an automatic bid when schedules are so far out of balance.

Similar to the way the AP poll handled it this year - excluding their preseason poll - I think it would be good if all polls, including the committee's rankings, omitted any teams that haven't yet played x number of games. And that number should be a minimum of four, I think.

That way, rather than having Ohio State start out in the top four and having the argument about whether they deserve to be dropped, the first argument - or even consideration - becomes about where a given team's performance in their first four games deserves to be ranked compared to other teams' performances.

We really, really, really - if at all possible - need to get completely away from considering, much less relying upon, how good we think a team is going to be as any sort of metric.

 

[TideEngineer08]

Bring back the BCS?

I don't like the Ohio State thing either. I don't like that they didn't drop Florida either. However, don't tell me Cincinnati deserves anything. Or Coastal Carolina. And for goodness sakes, we aren't bringing back the BCS.

The BCS is dead. Long live the BCS.

 

[Cruloc]

When we changed from the BCS to a committee, my first thought was....having humans making decisions will have bias, there's no way to avoid it. I have always preferred that they left the BCS intact, but just took the top 4.

 

[B1GTide]

2/3 of the BCS were human polls, so I am not sure where people think that the BCS removed humans.