So the BCS unveiled a new formula yesterday for determining a national champion. Instead of wankers (aka reporters from the MSM), they are going to use a consortium of former players, coaches, administrators, and may be a sampling of the media to vote in its new "Harris Interactive College Football" poll. Boy that gives me so much confidence to know stooges like Peter Dalis, Terry Donahue, Bob Davies, R.C. Slocums of the world will determine our national champion. HeismanPundit echoes the same sentiment:
We don't find this to be much of a solution at all. So, what, a bunch of media members are now replaced by former coaches, players and administrators, as well as a sampling of media? This is a big mistake, in our book, since this group is even less likely to know what they are doing than the old group of AP writers. Hell, at least the old group was made up of a bunch of nerds who were covering the sport full time.
Having worked in college athletics at one time, I can assure you that administrators, coaches and players are maybe the least qualified to know what they are doing when it comes to voting for teams in a poll.
What's more, the BCS will still retain the abysmal computer portion of the standings, which is an average of six computers rankings, only two of which have publicly transparent formulas. One of them is Billingsley, who as we can see by his rankings here is clearly less credible on college football than Barbara Billingsley of 'Leave It To Beaver' fame
There is only one solution: Either go to a playoff or go back to the old system, which more often than not got things right. We certainly can't do any worse than what is currently in place.
I need to think a little more whether I prefer the old system of the current one in place. But seriously this is really academic stuff for us - Bruin fans - with no significant implications. We can't even freaking beat those California Raisins (FSU) and Wyomings of the world - who the hell are we to worry about whether BCS or old system works for college football. We need to actually win 8 or 9 regular season games before we can think about whether BCS systems works for us. And, if we can't then we have to think about a new head coach who will get us in a position where we can think about contending for BCS games in realistic terms. Until then we really have no legit. reason to worry or to think about whether BCS is screwing UCLA. Then again ... it's early July and we are desperate for anything related college football or basketball to talk about rather than be enamored about a boring all star game that no one is going to watch.Having worked in college athletics at one time, I can assure you that administrators, coaches and players are maybe the least qualified to know what they are doing when it comes to voting for teams in a poll.
What's more, the BCS will still retain the abysmal computer portion of the standings, which is an average of six computers rankings, only two of which have publicly transparent formulas. One of them is Billingsley, who as we can see by his rankings here is clearly less credible on college football than Barbara Billingsley of 'Leave It To Beaver' fame
There is only one solution: Either go to a playoff or go back to the old system, which more often than not got things right. We certainly can't do any worse than what is currently in place.