Coming full circle

Man, Rece Davis tipping his cap to the BCS?  Gotta give him credit for saying something Mickey would frown upon.

Well, you can’t have a 30-minute weekly show interviewing a computer now, can you?

16 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs, ESPN Is The Devil

16 responses to “Coming full circle

  1. Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

    It’a amazing how many people keep forgetting how many times the BCS put at least one wrong team in the final game.

    Nebraska in 2001.

    Oklahoma in 2003 and 2004.

    Ohio State in 2007. Even if they had only one loss, both Georgia and USC were better.

    The mathematical formulas were only as infallible as the men who created it. Meaning it was pretty damn fallible.

    I’ll take the playoff over the BCS every single time.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think the Senator prefers a BCS-type selection process for the 4 teams over what we have now. That’s certainly my position.

      I would be interested to know what the ratings have been for these “Who’s In?” shows. I think I’ve watched two in the whole time that the playoff has been in place – the first rankings in 2017 because I knew we would be #1 and the final rankings in 2017 to confirm where we would be.

      Like

      • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

        And again, with these formulas, they’re created by a person. They’re not gifted to us from on high. And none of these formulas, no matter how in depth, can account for every single variable to include logical variances between conference strength. It’s how we got terrible Big 12 and Big Ten conferences putting their unworthy conference champion into the final game over far better teams in the 00’s only to get blown out by the better team.

        The BCS was a sham.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes. Give me advanced stats and fixed formulas over a bunch of people taking their hats off before voting the status quo.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

          Who creates the formulas?

          This idea that they’re better or infallible is a joke.

          Like

          • Who’s claiming they’re infallible?

            What college football should be chasing is a goal of making the process transparent and devoid of the appearance of conflicts of interest. Publish the formulas and if there must be a human element, it should be designed more akin to what we do with the Mumme Poll than sticking a few wise men in a room and pretending they’re not following an agenda.

            Liked by 5 people

    • LMAO. The BCS’ problem wasn’t the computers. It was letting the Coaches Poll have a say.

      And using the 2007 season as an example is even funnier. Totally chaotic season in which seven or eight teams could have made a national title claim. That Georgia team lost at home to a shitty South Carolina squad and got blown out at Tennessee (not to mention barely scraping by against Vanderbilt).

      Structurally, the difficulty the BCS had was fitting a season with three contenders into a one-game final. The more I watch what we have now — and what we’ll get soon enough — I prefer that difficulty to the CFP putting in teams that don’t merit a chance for a title shot because they’re somehow “deserving”.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

        So OU was better than USC in 2003 and better than Auburn in 2004? The Suckeyes were better than us or USC in 2007? What about Nebraska in 2001?

        The “computers” were routinely wrong and sometimes even more so than the polls.

        Again, these formulas were never “right” and they could never account for every variable.

        Like

        • Corch, I understand your position. Here’s what I would propose:
          1) Use the human polls which would not come out until mid-October. The law of large numbers of pollsters sort of neutralizes bias. It also eliminates the bias of the preseason polls.
          2) Use a set of the computer rankings including some of the newer rankings like Connelly’s SP+. Drop the highest and lowest rankings and come up with an average.
          3) Have a component that weights a conference championship (yes, the Gof5 winners get that as well).
          4) Measure strength of schedule.

          Publish the formula and use it to determine the 4 teams.

          Any playoff system that isn’t champions only is going to have flaws. I just want transparency over what we have now.

          Liked by 1 person

          • What is not transparent about the current system? Right now we know the 2021 CFP participants are the SEC, ACC, and B1G Title winners plus a 1 loss Bama, Notre Dame, OU, or undefeated Pac12 winner based on Herbstreit’s eyeball test…in that order.

            Liked by 1 person

        • To answer your question about 2007

          2007 would have made for a awesome eight-team playoff.

          Like

          • akascuba

            2007 is the season that keeps giving. That may have been the only season an 8 team playoff was warranted. Also my favorite season to date.

            The flip side is as the playoffs expand a team like 2007 UGA which was at seasons end playing better than anyone in the land honestly did not deserve to be in given the totality of the seasons work. Those two loses were inexcusable for a team to be crowned NC of college football as we know it. Yes on January 1st 2008 UGA could have beaten anyone that one day.

            It’s a matter of when not if the playoffs expand. When teams that have multiple bad loses become NC the regular season is meaningless. I don’t see how to stop that money train that is Disney from turning CF into the NFL minor leagues. Now that you can legally gamble on CF the continued expansion is unstoppable. There is too much money to be made.

            I hope Kirby hurries up and wins a NC before it all changes.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Russ

              Everyone else had similar warts. I would damn sure celebrate a 2007 NC if we’d have had a chance.

              Now if that 2007 team had gone against an undefeated team that played consistently well all season, then I’d buy your argument.

              Like

        • 03? Probably not. 04 Auburn? Absolutely. People shit on that OU team, but that was a great, great team that got eviscerated by the best USC team of all time.

          Even 01 is tough. Who were you putting in over Nebraska? A 2 loss Florida? A 2 loss Colorado.

          The BCS sucked at deciding between #2 and #3, but I’m fine letting it decide between #4 and #5.

          I’m guessing it would do better than the committee.

          Like

  2. Hobnail_Boot

    The only 2 methods that make sense:

    1) Have a flexible system that recognizes each season produces a different number of true NC worthy contenders and sets a field accordingly.

    2) P5 splits away from G5, reconfigures into four 16-team conferences (add Notre Dame, boot Rutgers), and has a champions-only playoff at the end.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. TN Dawg

    If one believes this season makes the case for the BCS, it probably makes an even stronger case for the old vote system.

    Bama is the only undefeated to play a full season in the Power 5.

    Let them thrash ND in the Sugar Bowl and call it done. Nobody else would have any legitimate claim to the title really.

    Oklahoma could play in the Orange Bowl against Georgia.

    Clemson in the Gator Bowl against Florida.

    OSU go out and play Oregon.

    You’d still have interesting games but no real argument about who the consensus champ was unless ND bear Bama, in which case the National media would probably award ND the title.

    Liked by 1 person