The BCS Formula of 2004
The new formula has but three components. It's certainly easier to look at than previous versions. The Associated Press poll and the ESPN/USA Today Coaches' poll each count for one-third of the formula, with the combination of the six included computer polls completing the formula.
Of course, it's not as simple as being ranked third in the AP poll, fourth in the Coaches' poll, and a consensus seventh in the computer rankings. In each of the human polls, the number of votes a team receives of the total possible (1,800 in the AP poll, 1,500 in the Coaches' poll) is taken as a percentage. For the computer polls, 100 points is possible, obtained from four of the six polls (high and low rankings are thrown out), with more points obtained with higher rankings. The three percentages are then added together and divided by three to derive a BCS points average, with higher averages equaling a higher position in the BCS ranks.
The omission of schedule strength and quality wins raised some eyebrows, but the BCS committee claims that the polls, most especially the computers, take the idea of schedule strength and quality wins into account already. But, essentially, the BCS hoped that this formula would never permit a team, like Southern Cal last year, to hold a high position in the human polls, but miss out on the national title game. The BCS continues to hold their polls until mid-October. But what really does the delay in BCS rankings do?
Human Failures
The cottage industry of preseason analysis and predictions is the first failure of legitimacy of any poll, and by extension, any formula based upon that poll. Every year, the media races from major college football program to major college football program in an effort to tell the public what they can expect in the season upcoming. And, in their final analysis, the media provides the public with a preseason poll. The preseason polls are based on little more than program reputation, past performance of specific players, injuries, returning personnel, and personal preference.
The biggest problem with preseason polls is the program reputation aspect. A smaller program that hasn't won much, or plays mediocre competition year after year, starts way behind in the race for a high position in the human polls despite having great potential. By comparison, a potentially mediocre team whose history includes a great deal of success has a shorter road to travel en route to the elusive BCS bowl bid.
So, while the official BCS Rankings don't first become available until mid-October every season, they shouldn't be perceived as free from the prejudices of the human polls' unwillingness to take smaller programs seriously, or, in the mind of this writer, the more egregious error of official human polls, their unwillingness to dramatically move teams based on their performance over a series of weeks.
That is, if Miami enters the season ranked No. 8, and wins each of their first four games in unspectacular manner, it is unthinkable in human polls to actually drop them out of the top-10, despite most evidence suggesting that the Hurricanes aren't better than the 12th team in the nation. Indeed, a mediocre Miami team is more likely to rank higher after a few bad wins than drop.
How do we solve this problem? It's not a simple matter. No one wants to give up the preseason poll. However, pollsters should be made to start from scratch with the month of October, after every program in the nation has several games under their belts, giving everyone an opportunity to see what they can do early on. Indeed, pollsters should be so bold as to conduct this act of fairness on their own.
2004's Potential BCS Busters
As October begins, one BCS conference is without an undefeated team. The Big 12, Big 10, and Pac-10 each have three undefeated teams heading into October play. The SEC and ACC each have two undefeated teams. In the other five conferences (we shan't call them non-BCS anymore, the new formula being "fairer" and all), a total of five teams remain unbeaten. The highest ranked comes in at No. 11 in both human polls, remarkably high, all things considered, going into October. Utah handled two BCS conferences, a much-improved Texas A&M squad, and a similarly improved (but still quite bad) Arizona team. After Utah?
While the two human polls disagree on who comes next, there's little doubt that the respect factor falls off greatly. Both human polls list Louisville at No. 20, despite having something of a history as a relatively strong team, despite the fact that UofL will be a BCS team next season. Boise State is 19th in the coaches' poll, 21st in the media poll. And the remaining two undefeated non-BCS teams?
Southern Mississippi missed out on the media's top-25 by only a few votes, ranking No. 26, while the coaches' poll lists them at No. 28. Navy, on the other hand, comes in at No. 31 according to the media, and a dismissive 41st in the coaches' poll.
The problem? Would these teams rate so low if the polls opened this week, and the initial expectations and impressions were dashed with yesterday's garbage? Utah is the only team that stands a realistic chance of obtaining one of those coveted BCS bowl bids, and yet, could finish undefeated and still be nudged out by a one-loss BCS conference team.
More than likely, Utah and Louisville will finish undefeated or with one loss, win their respective conferences, and take one another on in the Liberty Bowl, the BCS door never slammed closed because it had never been open in the first place.
Leave a Comment