For those of you who complained about the BCS being flawed because of inscrutable computer formulas and poll voting that smacked of random monkeys, boy, are you in for a pleasant surprise.
I keed, I keed. You’ll get this and you’ll like it.
BCS executive director Bill Hancock said Tuesday it may be more than a year before the committee has all the tools with which it’ll make its decisions — a list that will presumably include some sort of computer metric similar to RPI to judge strength of schedule.
It’ll then be up to each individual committee member, he said, to determine how much weight to place on each of those criteria.
“I don’t think there will be one particular tool that is more important than the others,” Hancock said on “The Tim Brando Show.” “I think it’ll come down to common sense.”
What could be clearer than that?
Get The Picture 
Common, sense? Nothing could scare me worse than the use of that word when spoken by pretty much anybody in charge of anything anymore.
It doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
We have had several discussions about the variance in the computer models, my conclusion is until the computers arrive at similar ratings, they are no different than the variety of opinions one hears. Would you trust calculators if every one gave a different answer?
I am not minimizing the difficulty of accomplishing the task but it seems if everyone started at the same point the interaction of 2500 games should shake out to similar conclusions. Someone explained it here one day and it seems the beginning inputs are why the results can vary so widely. And the beginning inputs have right back at the problem we have always had: human opinions….just like the polls. If Computer X has a bias toward the PAC 12, it will ultimately rank teams higher than Computer Y which has an ACC bias because of the perceived starting strength of teams in that area.
If my memory is off on this, someone please correct. I am not saying computers are not helpful in evaluating the thousands of overlapping game results, but at some point it always has human intervention/bias.
LikeLike
So we’re going with the, “whatever factor ESPN is harping on the most in early December this year,” method. Great.
LikeLike
Common sense= what will give me and mine the most money and fuck every body else
LikeLike
Is this new process perfect? No. Is it worse than the garbage we have now? No.
LikeLike
Let’s wait until we see what happens at least in the first year of the new system before making such a declaration. At least under the old method the BCS had to take the #2 team. Looks like with this “factoring in winning the conference championship” business the committee can, and probably will, pass over a deserving team to get to a less deserving team for “mumbo jumbo” reasons. On the CSS “Talkin’ Football” show last week the panel all felt that if the new system had been in place last season Bama would have not even been selected as one of the 4 teams to be in the playoff and, like it or not, Bama proved itself to be the best team in the country last year. Under this new committee system we are going to have a “national chump” instead of a “national champ” some years.
LikeLike
Alabama wouldn’t have been left out last year if the 4 team format was in place, even using the committee selection method. Would they have been the #2 “seed”? Maybe…maybe not. If I had to bet on what would’ve happened, I’d put my money on Oklahoma State being the #2 and Bama being the #3. But Bama would have been included. (Oregon most likely would have been the #4 over Stanford since they whooped Stanford on the road and won the Pac-12).
We’ll see how it goes. I don’t see how it can get worse considering that most years are a disaster with the format we have now.
With all that being said, could potential blunders by the committee lead to another expansion? That’s very possible.
LikeLike
Your certainty is adorable. The logical fallacy you are employing is called, “begging the question.”
It goes like this. The new system will be better than the BCS because the new system will be better than the BCS. QED.
LikeLike
I agree Macon, it will be similar to what we have seen with legitimate arguments. All we have done is reduced the number of credible complaints. Having four teams included is certainly better than two, but the same weaknesses remain, imo.
LikeLike
The failure of this new playoff model to adequately address the selection methodology is galling. It’s the critical element and they just punted on it. I’m not surprised, because there isn’t a good way to do it, but the hamfisted selection committee solution is so obviously doomed that’s its sad. It will be money that drives the next round of playoff expansion, but it will be massive discontent with the selection process that allows that to happen. Second verse, same as the first.
LikeLike
I was watching “Around the Horn” on ESPN, and one of the pundits was saying that the RPI for college football should only include non-conference games because it would be unfair to punish a team for its conference schedule. Amazingly, the other reporters seemed to agree with this sentiment. If this occurs, the SEC is screwed. Under this logic, Boise State had the toughest schedule strength in the nation.
LikeLike
I don’t buy what the morons on talkin football say. Bama would not have been left out of the top four in any viable scenario.
I’m content with the thought that a selection of four teams will almost always include the two best teams in college football. It will also include one or two teams that many believe don’t belong. And some years, one of those teams will win. So what? That’s better than a system where only two teams ever have a chance to be champ and many years there are not a clear cut top two.
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike