First off: I am for a playoff.
Second: don’t count on this being the death-knell of the BCS. For one thing, what are we all talking about? Big Time College Football, that’s what. And why? Because of the BCS.
Plus, the frustration may not be so high after the games are played. What if OU beats LSU and USC loses to Michigan (neither of which is far-fetched)—then will the BCS screw-up seem as bad? Of course, if USC blows out Michigan and LSU destroys OU, then the griping will reach a fevered pitch (and rightfully so).
However, the whole thing brings to mind the flaws in the human polls (not that I am a big fan of the computer polls). The problem, however is two-fold: 1) most of the coaches only really got to see this week’s games, and not the whole season, thus putting an over-emphasis on one set of games versus the whole season, and 2) is the point of the poll to determine the best team overall, or the best team at the end of the season? From my POV it should be a measure of the whole season. USC lost to Cal for crying out loud, an unranked team. Sure, it was an early loss, but LSU lost to Florida and OU lost to K-State, both ranked teams. Plus, USC’s strength of schedule is 37th (OU’s is 11th and LSU’s is 29th), they play in a softer conference than either OU or LSU, and didn’t have to play in a championship game. Had I been voting for those three 1-loss teams I would have ranked them #1 LSU, #2 OU and #3 USC. Because to me the issue of judging three 1 loss teams is to judge them based on that loss, althought with trying to weigh the value of their wins. OU beat the team that ended the season 5th in both polls (Texas) and Oklahoma State (22), LSU beat Georgia twice (which finished at 11th) and Mississippi State (17). The only team USC beat that finished in the top 25 was Washington State (14).
So while I think that the BSC is inferior to a playoff (by quanta) and that the whole IA polling system should be replaced, I am not of the opinion that the wrong two teams are playing for the title.
Cross-posted at PoliBlog
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
College Football
Comments (2)
Probably true, although the... (Below threshold)1. Posted by James Joyner | December 8, 2003 10:39 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Probably true, although the fact that USC is ranked #1 in both polls is a rather thorny issue.
The problem with the polls is that they're generally incremental. Losses late hurt more than losses early, since teams that lose HAVE to move down according to time honored tradition, while possibly inferior teams generally move up when teams ahead of them lose.
Any system, to include a playoff, will have problems. But a playoff does seem to generate less controversy. There have certainly been years when the best team in the NFL didn't win the Super Bowl. But no one talks about that, because it's "settled on the field."
1. Posted by James Joyner | December 8, 2003 10:39 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on December 8, 2003 10:39
2. Posted by Steven | December 8, 2003 10:43 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Of course, my point is that human polls are flawed in the first place: which is why the BCS was created in the first place. Indeed, one could argue (and I note this as Devil's Advocate) that this year proves the value of the BCS in that it corrects for an inflated ranking for USC. Right now it seems to me that the current seeding of USC, LSU and OU in the AP and Coaches Poll are about who was best this past weekend, not who was best this season.
2. Posted by Steven | December 8, 2003 10:43 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on December 8, 2003 10:43