Gilbert Quinonez
Click Here for more articles by Gilbert Quinonez Â
Rage against the machine! That’s the NCAA’s new philosophy
towards the Bowl Championship Series.
The BCS is the infamous system that Division I college football
uses to provide fans with a championship game. Division I college
football is the only sport in the NCAA, and the rest of the world
for that matter, not to use a playoff system to determine its
champion but a complex system of numbers only stat geeks like me
can enjoy.
Last week, the NCAA decided to perform their yearly tinkering
with the BCS formula, which is like using invisible tape to try to
repair a flat tire. It’s hardly a solution.
Computer rankings make up about one-fourth of the BCS formula.
Four of the eight computer rankings last year used margin of
victory as a component, and they were blamed for the fiasco that
occurred. Nebraska was killed by Colorado, 62-36, late last season.
The Cornhusker Massacre seemingly gave Oregon a chance to play
Miami in the championship game. However, Nebraska finished higher
in the BCS rankings, so they got the Rose Bowl berth.
Oregon’s not playing in the Rose Bowl was blamed on the
computers that had margin of victory components. The programmers of
those computer rankings were asked to change their formula. Jeff
Sagarin and Peter Wolfe complied; David Rothman and Herman Matthews
did not. Rothman and Matthews will be replaced by the New York
Times rankings.
First of all, I don’t believe margin of victory should be
used to judge a team’s greatness, as I am not including
margin of victory into my attempt at creating my own computer
rankings. Scores aren’t always indicative of how good a team
is, as Oregon’s five wins by seven points or less showed.
However, as long as the human voters in the Associated Press and
ESPN/USA Today coaches’ polls use margin of victory to judge teams,
the computers should be able to also. One of the main reasons
Oregon was so highly thought of after Nebraska’s loss was the
margin of victory in the Colorado-Nebraska game, was it not? Also,
I’m sure many voters might look at a 51-7 Nebraska-Central
Florida score and marvel at Nebraska’s excellence.
The BCS is just trying to boost its image by eliminating
computer rankings. How good can a system be if it has to be altered
every year due to public backlash at it? Just incorporate a playoff
system already. Of course, that would cause the NCAA to turn down
guaranteed billions of dollars. That won’t happen anytime
soon.
I love how the NCAA excuses their stupidity and greediness (also
known as the BCS) by claiming that they care about their
student-athletes playing fewer games. That is why more and more
teams are going from the traditional 11-game schedule to play 12,
or even 13 games. Yes, the NCAA cares.
Ңbull;Ӣbull;Ӣbull;Ӣbull;Ӣbull;
In other stat geek news tidbits:
The NCAA has banned Cal’s football team (1-10 last year)
from appearing in a bowl game. Yes, the NCAA is making a big
statement by banning a 1-10 team from a bowl.
Poor Matt Barnes. He was drafted and traded to the Cleveland
Cavaliers. Cleveland finished 29-53 last year, 14th place in the
pathetic Eastern Conference. Also, the average high in Cleveland is
40 degrees during basketball season.
The Montreal Expos acquired all-star pitcher Bartolo Colon from
the Cleveland Indians in exchange for the terrible Lee Stevens and
a bunch of prospects. The Expos are my new favorite team.
They’re only five games out of a playoff spot, and this team
was supposed to be contracted before the season started. Since when
do the Expos take away good players from other teams?