THE ONLY 'PLAYOFF' THAT WORKS

(Guru's note: This proposal has been slightly amended after great feedback and additional considerations. I believe this is now the most plausible proposal to modify the framework of the BCS.)

The BCS annual meeting is set to take place next Monday in Pasadena, where the commissioners are expected to hobnob and mostly wring their hands before declaring the BCS a "success."

There will be a couple of issues. The pesky Mountain West has a proposal and it wants to be heard. It will be, but just like the last words from a death-row inmate, it's not going to make any difference. And there's the congressional pressure, but with re-election coming up in 18 months, that may be played off by a pledge for "more studying."

But sooner or later, the BCS will have to deal with this. As it nears the conclusion of its third four-year contract, the public is fed up with a system that provides very little satisfaction in crowing a true champion. The concept of a "national champion" in Division I-A is as mythical as ever, as none of the past three BCS champions may lay an undisputed claim to the title.

It doesn't have to be this way.

The Guru has devised a "playoff" scheme that creates minimal conflict with the current regime and may be implemented immediately. The concept is tested against the 11 past BCS seasons, which proved that it would have stifled any controversy in the course of determining a true champion. The beauty of this proposal is in its simplicity.

So here it is:

1. Add two games to the current format - national semifinal games played on campus sites the week after the last regular-season games are played and BCS standings are released.

2. The semifinalists will be the four teams meeting the following criteria -

• a) The four highest-ranked conference champions, provided that they're in the top six of the final BCS standings.*

• b) Any team that finished in the top two but failed to win its conference.

• c) In case of a conflict between a) and b), b) takes precedence over the lowest-ranked conference champion.

* Conference champion may be from any conference, regardless of BCS affiliation. In the case of conferences without a championship game, a co-champion is accepted and no tiebreaker needs to be applied. Notre Dame belongs in this group as well.

3. The higher seeds host the lower seeds on campus sites, with the winner advancing to the national championship game, to be played one week after New Year's Day.

4. All bowl games and their affiliations stay in tact. The losing semifinalists are guaranteed a spot in one of the BCS bowls, in accordance with their conference affiliations. Second-place teams may be invited in place of the semifinal winners, as it is the case now with the top two teams.

That's it. And here's the historical data on how this system would've worked over the past 11 seasons:

2008: No. 6 Utah (MWC champion) at No. 1 Oklahoma (Big 12); No. 5 USC (Pac-10) at No. 2 Florida (SEC)  ** No. 3 Texas and No. 4 Alabama did not qualify

2007: No. 4 Oklahoma (Big 12) at No. 1 Ohio State (Big Ten); No. 3 Virginia Tech (ACC) at No. 2 LSU (SEC)

2006: No. 6 Louisville (Big East) at No. 1 Ohio State (Big Ten); No. 5 USC (Pac-10) at No. 2 Florida (SEC)  ** No. 3 Michigan and No. 4 LSU did not qualify

2005: No. 6 Notre Dame at No. 1 USC (Pac-10); No. 3 Penn State (Big Ten) at No. 2 Texas (Big 12)  ** No. 4 Ohio State and No. 5 Oregon did not qualify

2004: No. 6 Utah (MWC) at No. 1 USC (Pac-10); No. 3 Auburn (SEC) at No. 2 Oklahoma (Big 12)  ** No. 4 Texas and No. 5 California did not qualify

2003: No. 4 Michigan (Big Ten) at No. 1 Oklahoma (at-large); No. 3 USC (Pac-10) at No. 2 LSU (SEC)

2002: No. 4 USC (Pac-10) at No. 1 Miami (Big East); No. 3 Georgia (SEC) at No. 2 Ohio State (Big Ten)

2001: No. 4 Oregon (Pac-10) at No. 1 Miami (Big East); No. 3. Colorado (Big 12) at No. 2 Nebraska (at-large)

2000: No. 4 Washington (Pac-10) at No. 1 Oklahoma (Big 12); No. 3 Miami (Big East) at No. 2 Florida State (ACC)

1999: No. 4 Alabama (SEC) at No. 1 Florida State (ACC); No. 3 Nebraska (Big 12) at No. 2 Virginia Tech (Big East)

1998: No. 5 UCLA (Pac-10) at No. 1 Tennessee (SEC); No. 4 Ohio State (Big Ten) at No. 2 Florida State (ACC)  ** No. 3 Kansas State did not qualify

A quick review of the data reveals the following:

* Controversies over the past three years, as well as in 2004 (when there were four unbeaten teams), 2003 (three one-loss teams), 2001 and 2000 (when a No. 2 team was beaten by a No. 3 team during the season), would have been quelled as all teams in question would be semifinalists and could settle things on the field.

* Twice, a non-BCS conference champion - Utah in 2004 and 2008 - would've made the playoffs. Notre Dame qualified in 2005.

* Two at-large teams - Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003 - made the field.

* Conference breakdown - Pac-10 (9), Big 12 (9, including 2 at-large bids), SEC (8), Big Ten (6), Big East (5), ACC (4), MWC (2), Notre Dame (1).

* Recent trends - USC would've been in six of the last seven playoffs, missing only 2007; SEC champion would've been in the field also in six of the last seven, missing only in 2005; Oklahoma would've been in four of the last six; and Louisville was the only Big East team to make it after Miami and Virginia Tech left for the ACC.

For emphasis, here's why this plan should be strongly considered by the commissioners and needs to be put in place as soon as possible:

1. It's logistically sensible: In contrast to most "playoff" proposals, this does not take on unreasonable logistical and travel cost. Only two teams are doing the extra traveling, with games played at home venues that can easily sell out on short notice.

2. It doesn't upset the BCS apple cart: The BCS standings can use a tweaking, but the pressure on the existing system should be relieved considerably - with four teams in the mix instead of just two. It also should minimize voter meddling in creating the "championship matchup."  Look at the historical data, just about every team worthy of a shot at the championship that season would've been in the "playoff."

3. It keeps the bowl structure in tact: The current bowl infrastructure stays completely in tact with just one exception: All non-BCS bowl matchups are announced at the same time as they do now, but BCS bowl lineups will be revealed after the semifinals, creating an extra week of excitement and suspense.

4. It preserves the meaning of regular season: It rewards conference champions, but also gives non-champions a chance, with a bar set high at the top two slots. As you can see with the historical precedents, it's possible for a non-champion to still qualify, but champions of all conferences have a fair chance of reaching the "playoff," whether they're in a BCS conference or not. It behooves teams to schedule tough and win their conference.

5. It creates attractive matchups: In two of the last three seasons, you would've seen USC playing Florida in the semifinals - in the current scenario, the Trojans have never faced an SEC team in a BCS bowl. The title game would have even more meaning and legitimacy because whoever emerges as the winner would be crowned as the true champion.

POST A COMMENT

THE MOUNTAIN WEST PROPOSAL

On Wednesday, the Mountain West Conference presented the BCS commissioners with a new proposal to tweak the BCS system. And it wants the proposal fast-tracked - to take place as soon as the 2010 season, when the new TV deal with ESPN kicks in.

Flush with success from the 2008 season - culminating with Utah's undefeated run and No. 2 ranking in the final AP poll - the Mountain West also managed to get the backing of a few congressmen. Its proposal seeks to use as much of the existing infrastructure as possible, with a few add-ons.

You can read the entire proposal, but here's the highlight:

• Amending the automatic qualifier standard (so the MWC could be let in, of course)

• Adding a fifth bowl to the rotation

• Creating national semifinals, to be played a week after the New Years Day bowls

• Pitting the semifinal winners in the national championship game, played a week later

• Using a committee to select the 10 BCS teams (and ditching the BCS standings, putting the Guru out of business)

The MWC wants the proposal discussed at the BCS meeting next month. And ACC commissioner John Swofford, no doubt under some political pressure, said the proposal will get a "full airing."

So what's going to happen?

Nothing. Or not much, other than that there will be "continued discussions" about a new format. There are simply too many things at work here against this proposal, or any other proposal.

First, the BCS conference schools and Notre Dame, the big power brokers, like the way things are right now. And so do the smaller conferences that probably will never get a shot at a BCS bowl in the system proposed by the MWC, especially the WAC, the forefather of the MWC that has benefited enormously from the current BCS arrangement.

Second, there is no real political will behind this. The nation is in crisis, college football is not going to be a priority in an environment where unemployment is about to hit 10% and the Dow Jones is heading toward 6,500. Any politician talking too much about this risks being viewed as out of touch with reality. That's why you're not going to see much of a reaction out of any senators, let along President Obama.

Finally, that the proposal comes from the Mountain West actually de-legitimizes it. This sounds too much like a grievance filing immediately after one has been wronged. The MWC conveniently picked and chose whatever data suited its argument. As you can see from this table compiled by our friend Ben Prather, the MWC really is the seventh-best conference over the past four years, when objective and more robust data were used.

But putting aside all the machinations of the BCS, does the MWC proposal have merit?

Not much. Certainly not enough to warrant its adoption.

Beyond the arbitrary automatic qualification process, adding a fifth bowl is wasteful and unnecessary. But the biggest problem is having an eight-team playoff. It's simply impractical from a logistical standpoint. It's even more impractical when you try to jam it in at the end of the bowl season.

Keep in mind the number of people that need to be moved around for these bowl games. Going to one bowl game is a huge expense, even in a healthy economy. Going to the equivalent of three bowl games in three consecutive weeks will bankrupt most people, those who are stupid enough to try it. Given the current economic climate, that's a deal breaker right there.

The most ludicrous part of the proposal, however, is the concept of a 12-man committee. This idea is considerably worse than the BCS standings. To have 12 people, each with a vested interest, to vote on the teams that would divvy up nearly $100 million is insane. Even the coaches poll, fraught with conflict of interest, is far superior to this model - and that is merely one-third of the BCS standings. Just imagine the horse-trading that'd go on in that committee room.

At the end, the BCS commissioners will kick this proposal around, spew out a few platitudes, and feed it down the shredder when everybody else leaves the room.

Unfortunately, that's where it belongs.

POST A COMMENT

THE BEST OF BCS VIDEOS

Is this really how the BCS championship matchup was decided? Well, truth sometimes is stranger than fiction.

Thanks to our friends at the Global Sports Fraternity.

And if you really miss the BCS ... you're not alone. Will Forte loves the BCS, too.

But Hitler, evidently, does not. (Warning: Der Fuhrer's language is a bit rough)

POST A COMMENT

BLACK COACHES - DISTINCT, ALMOST EXTINCT

When DeWayne Walker was named to head the New Mexico State football program on New Year's Eve, he became a member of a very distinct group - so distinct that it's almost extinct.

Walker became just the seventh African-American to head a Division I-A (or Bowl Subdivision) football program, out of 120. And of the seven, only one - Miami's Randy Shannon - coaches in one of the so-called BCS conferences. Do the math - six percent of DI-A coaches are black, and barely one percent (1 out of 67) in the BCS conferences plus Notre Dame.

In a sport where more than 50 percent of the athletes are minorities, this is downright atrocious.

Yet beyond the usual indignation of the hand-wringing variety, it barely raised eyebrows. Rivals.com published its top 10 college football stories of 2008 – this didn't make the list.

While the NFL has made a concerted effort to hire more minority coaches through the "Rooney Rule" - to good effect, college football has all but yawned about this glaring inequity. After the 2008 season, there have been 20 coaching changes, and just four of these head jobs went to black candidates.

It's ironic that universities, perhaps the most liberal and progressive institutions in America, are so behind the times when it comes to hiring for their most glamorous jobs. The head football coach often is the most well-known member of the university community, the de facto face of the university. While colleges aren't afraid to raid each other - or even the business world - for some of the best and brightest minority faculty members, they are reticent to take chances with the head ball coach.

This speaks volumes to just who controls the purse strings at big-time college football programs. The powers-that-be inside the ivory towers ultimately defers to the well-heeled boosters with millions to dispense with. College presidents talk a good game, but at the end, money speaks loudest.

So if you think the BCS gives college football a bad name, you should check with the BCA first.

POST A COMMENT

WHY SHOULDN'T UTAH BE NO. 1?

After impressively dismantling Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, Utah should deserve consideration as the top team in the AP poll. And you know something? Utah SHOULD BE No. 1 in the final AP poll.

The Utes finished the season 13-0, becoming the first team to go undefeated twice in the BCS era. In beating the Tide, 31-17, in what was essentially a home game for their SEC foe, the Utes completed their resume and it stacks up favorably against any team in the country.

Let's take a look:

1. Utah is the only undefeated Division I-A team in 2008. That in itself should mean something.

2. Utah's strength of schedule is more than competitive - it should finish in the top 30. The Mountain West had a banner year both in the regular season and bowl season. Yet, the Utes went unbeaten in that conference. They defeated six bowl teams, including two (Alabama and Texas Christian) that will finish the year ranked in the Top 10.

3. In head-to-head comparisons, Utah has the edge over both USC and Florida. The Utes beat Oregon State, the team that handed the Trojans their only loss. They beat Alabama more decisively than Florida, which played the Tide on a more neutral setting. Oklahoma did win more impressively than Utah as both teams faced TCU at home.

4. The strength of western football has been vindicated by the Pac-10 and Mountain West going a combined 8-2 in the bowl season, with victories over the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC and WAC. Utah played within the western environment, which has been unfairly underrated by the pollsters throughout the season. That should be readjusted.

Back in 1984, when BYU became the last non-BCS conference team to finish first in the AP poll, the Cougars had a considerably weaker resume. They defeated only four teams with a winning record, and their non-WAC schedule consisted of Pittsburgh, Baylor, Tulsa and Utah State. BYU defeated a 6-6 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl, 24-17. That was the only Wolverines team in 40 years (1968-2007) not to finish with a winning record.

Utah is better than BYU 1984. It's better than its own 2004 version, which also went undefeated and beat Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl. That team, too, benefited from a subpar schedule, with only four opponents finishing with winning records. The Big East champion Panthers were also not respected, getting thrashed by Utah, 35-7, to finish 8-4.

This year's Utah team competed with some of the nation's best teams and won every game. Despite going into New Orleans as a double-digit underdog, the Utes thoroughly dominated an Alabama team that had trailed but 45 minutes in the entire season. Utah scored four minutes into the game and never relinquished the lead; and in the process, racked up 349 yards, shut down the vaunted 'Bama running game and sacked quarterback John Parker Wilson eight times.

That, was championship football.

The AP voters have a choice. They don't need to vote Utah No. 1 as a protest against the BCS. They simply need to discard some of their preconceived notion and bias against Utah. If they do that, then they'll realize there's a pretty case to be made for the Utes.

But will they?

POST A COMMENT

REMAKING THE BCS FORMULA

Part I of the Troubleshooting the BCS Series

After another season of high-wire acts, the temptation of course is to blow the BCS to smithereens and start over. But that's neither practicable nor desirable.

It's not practicable because the current BCS contract does not run out until after the 2013 season, so any wholesale change toward a playoff now or in the foreseeable future is just not reality based. It's not desirable because without thoroughly considering all the issues - logistics and otherwise - any move made in haste would only invite more disaster.

There is something that could be done - immediately - about the BCS within the framework of the current structure. It's possible to implement changes even before the next season, as the BCS has proved to be quite nimble when it comes to making up stuff as we go - witness this past season's sudden decision to allow three conference teams to be included in BCS bowl games.

When the commissioners gather for their annual meeting in April, instead of patting each other on the back and passing out vapid congratulations, they would be better off re-examining the BCS. And the best place to start would be the formula that creates the BCS standings.

The formula in its current form has survived since 2004, with the only change being that the Harris Poll replaced the Associated Press poll before the 2005 season. The current formula, created in the aftermath of the USC-LSU split championship in 2003, places overwhelming emphasis on the human polls. This is troubling because the most unstable and subjective part of the formula, naturally, is the human polls. And even more troubling is the utter lack of transparency of these two polls.

That, and a few other things, may be fixed rather quickly and easily. So here's how:

1. Bring transparency into the polls - Neither the coaches poll nor the Harris poll reveals its weekly voting results until the final week of the regular season, when the final BCS standings are released. Any system that's worth its salt demands accountability. Imagine if your congressman never had to reveal how he voted until the last bill of his term. That just won't do.

It's easy enough for the BCS to demand the Harris poll make its ballots public every week. The BCS commissioned the Harris poll, therefore owns it. If any voter objects to this new guideline, then see you later. There will be plenty of people willing and able to vote in the Harris poll.

The coaches poll is the more thorny issue. For years the coaches have resisted making their ballots open to the public and it took a near act of congress to get them to reveal the final poll. And since the BCS champion ultimately is merely the coaches poll champion, there's not a whole lot the BCS can do about it, right?

Not really. I believe there is a creative solution. The BCS commissioners can simply issue an ultimatum to their coaches to open the ballots, or else risking to have their votes become even more irrelevant. I'm sure the Black Coaches & Administrators will be more than happy to step in with their own poll. The BCA is not happy with college football's hiring practices - and rightly so - but this will be a way to increase its visibility. For the BCS, this will be a public relations coup. So if the coaches don't play ball, simply have their poll replaced by a new BCA poll.

2. Eliminate tiebreaker madness - What happened in the Big 12 Conference this year is simply unacceptable. The BCS formula was never conceived to determine anything but the top two teams for the BCS title game. The easy thing to do here is for the commissioners to police their own conferences to make sure the BCS formula will never come close to being any sort of a tiebreaker ever again.

3. Allow margin of victory back in the computers - Following the 2001 season, in a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, MoV was purged from all computer rankings ostensibly to discourage teams from running up the score. The problem is, the human voters didn't get the memo. The first fallout from this decision took place in 2003, when Oklahoma, after gotten blown out by four touchdowns in the Big 12 championship game, still stayed No. 1 in the BCS standings thanks to the computers now unable to distinguish a one-point loss from a 28-point rout.

Computer programmers should write their own formulas. The BCS has no business telling what these guys should do. It should demand to audit the results throughout the season, but leave the programming to the professionals. After all, all computer programs had built in a safeguard against excessive scoring, with either 21 points or 28 points as the threshold.

Computer rankings become much more pure and accurate when margin of victory is taken into consideration. Just think about this for a moment: If you were betting your house on a game, would you dare to look at only a team's won-loss records but not how much they won and lost by?

4. Re-calibrate the computer ratings - One of the dumbest things about the BCS formula is it mixes percentages with ordinal numbers. For the human polls, it counts actual votes for teams instead of rankings; but for computers, it uses the rankings only. So when a team falls from 2nd to 3rd in the computers, the consequences are disastrous; but when a team falls from 2nd to 3rd in the polls, it could be just about a dead-heat, as far as the BCS standings are concerned.

The BCS should keep the human part of the formula the way it is but normalize the computer rankings so they become compatible with one another numerically. An easy way to do this is to fix the top team at 1.000 and derive percentages for other teams based on their respective computer scores.

I checked all six BCS computer systems and found that their scores are fairly uniform. Teams ranked 10th score about .86 to .92 points and teams ranked at No. 25 score about .74-.81. What this does is that it stabilizes the system and reduces the wild swings toward the end of the season when a games not even involving the principals holds such sway as the Cincinnati-Hawaii game did at the end of the 2008 regular season.

5. Re-balance the formula - If steps 1-4 are taken, then we can move on to this, which should bring objectivity back to the formula and take some pressure off the voters. I mean, if we're just gonna let the voters decide everything, why even bother with a formula - we can just use the AP poll instead. After all, since the adoption of the current formula, the AP has produced the same top two teams every season anyway.

By going 50-50, the new standings also give the non-BCS teams a fighting chance. The human polls are always stacked against non-BCS teams, but the computers give them a fairer shake. And if we ever move toward at least a plus-one system involving four teams, then a team like Utah in 2008 might have a shot at qualifying.

Did I say Plus-One? Ah, you'll have to come back for Part II.

POST A COMMENT

BCS' FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Is the BCS unfair to the non-BCS conferences?

That question is a popular refrain ever since the advent of the BCS itself. While it quieted a bit after the BCS expanded in 2006 to give non-BCS teams more opportunities to qualify for a big payday, in 2008 the dissenters grew a bit louder once again.

The success of the Mountain West Conference was the primary reason for it. The MWC this season will be sending No. 6 Utah to the Sugar Bowl, the first encore performance by a non-BCS guest, as Texas Christian (No. 11) and Brigham Young (No. 16) also finished in the top 25. Only the SEC and the Big 12 could say that they had a better year than the Mountain West, when it comes to each conference's top teams.

Naturally, shouldn't the Mountain West deserve an automatic bid in the BCS, ahead of say, the ACC and the Big East?

Ben Prather, our friend at Fanblogs.com, has broken down the performances by team and by conference over each of the past four seasons. And here are his findings:

By Ben Prather (Fanblogs.com)

The champions of the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10 and Southeastern Conferences will have annual automatic qualification for a BCS game after the regular seasons of 2008 through 2013, based on mathematical standards of performance during the 2004-2007 regular seasons.

The 2008-2011 regular seasons will be evaluated under the same standards to determine if other conferences will have annual automatic qualification for the games after the 2012 and 2013 regular seasons. The champions of no more than seven conferences will have annual automatic berths.

If the BCS continues under the same or similar format, conferences will be evaluated on their performances during the 2010-2013 regular seasons to determine which conferences will have automatic qualification for the bowls that will conclude the 2014-2017 regular seasons.

The evaluation data includes the following for each conference (1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year, (2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and (3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.

Conference agreements with bowls will continue. The Pac-10 and Big Ten champions will host the Rose Bowl if their teams are not in the BCS national championship game. Likewise, the Southeastern Conference champion will host the Sugar Bowl, ACC champion will host the Orange Bowl and Big 12 champion will host the Fiesta Bowl.

(CLICK HERE FOR COMPLETE ANALYSIS DATA)

METHODOLOGY

Estimates of the BCS Conference Criteria

Criterion 1: The ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year.

For each year the BCS points of the highest team is used, rather than the 1-25 ranking value, to increase resolution and produce more consistent results.

Criterion 2: The final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year.

For each year and each team the average of the 6 BCS computers is found, removing the highest and lowest value. This value is scaled so that #1 is 1 and the lowest team is #0. These values are then averaged to generate a conference average.

A conference of average teams should not have any BCS value, so the values where translated to let 0.5 represent a BCS value of 0. To produce values commensurate with the other two components this average was divided by 0.2. This value is truncated below 0.

Criterion 3: The number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.

No conference has ended the season with over 5 teams in the BCS top 25 since the current formula paradigm was established in 2004, but 6 teams have appeared at various times during the seasons. Dividing the number of top 25 teams each year by 5 produces a value that is in good agreement with the other two components.

Each conference has values for all three criteria over a four year period. The current BCS value of a conference can be estimated by taking the average of all 12 values. The average for each year can be used to examine trends and the average for each component shows where a conference's strengths and weaknesses are.

A BCS value of 1 corresponds to the BCS ideal. A BCS value of 0.5 represents a marginal BCS value. A BCS value of 0 represents an unacceptable value.

The BCS Ideal conference would typically the #1 team, have a BCS computer conference average that would place in the top 35 and places teams in the BCS top 25 each year.

A marginal BCS conference would average a top team with 0.5000 BCS points, roughly #14, have a BCS computer conference average that would place near #48 and places 2.5 teams in the BCS top 25 each year.

An unacceptable BCS conference would have top teams that do not earn any BCS points, hava a BCS computer conference average that would place in the bottom 60 and place no teams in the BCS top 25 any year.

A BCS value of 0.5 by this method is seen to be a reasonable borderline for determining BCS automatic qualifications.

Estimates of BCS Values for Individual Teams

Which teams contribute the most to a conferences BCS value? Which teams would increase the BCS value of a conference the most?

Since a conference considering BCS eligibility will need to have a positive computer average a negative value by a team will hurt the conference, thus the 0 limit on criterion 2 needs to be removed. Other than this, the values can be used to measure each team's BCS value according to the same formulas used to measure the conferences.

A value over 0.5 indicates the team consistently performs at a BCS level. A value between 0 and 0.5 indicates that a team contributes to a conference's BCS value but is short of the BCS standard. A value under 0 indicates that a team is not performing at an acceptable level for BCS consideration.

ANALYSIS

BCS Automatic Qualifications

The data would indicate that the current BCS automatic qualifications are distributed properly. The Big East, at 0.6058, is the closest conference to the 0.5000 standard. Adding Boise State would close almost half the gap between the MWC and the standard, bringing them from 0.2627 to 0.3722. Notre Dame, viewed as a conference of one, barely meets the standard.

BCS Value: Annual and Component Breakdown

In almost all cases the conferences aligned themselves above or below the 0.5000 standard each year consistent with their status in the BCS.
The MWC in 2008 is the only conference from 2005 through 2008 to cross above the threshold without an automatic qualification. The Big East in 2005, PAC 10 in 2008 and ACC in 2006 are the only conferences with an automatic qualification to fall below the threshold, in order of the lack in the given year.

The WAC is the sole exception to the agreement between current automatic qualifications and performance in the components, consistently placing its top team in the BCS radar.

BCS Value: BCS Caliber Outsiders and BCS Deadweights

Boise State and TCU are the only teams from outside BCS conferences to have a BCS value over 0.5000. BYU, Utah, Hawaii, Navy, Tulsa and Central Michigan contribute some BCS value to their conferences, listed in order of BCS value.

Duke, Syracuse, Washington, Iowa State, Mississippi State, Baylor, Washington State, Mississippi, Stanford, Illinois, Vanderbilt and Kansas State are BCS deadweights, hindering their respective conference's BCS value, listed in order of the deficiency.

Trends

Taking the average from 2006 through 2008 shows where a team stands going into next year, when the 2005 values will be dropped. This is a good estimate for the direction a team is going.

While some shuffling of the conferences is expected, none are expected to cross the 0.5000 threshold. The Big East should move away from the threshold, possibly jumping the PAC 10 and ACC who are expected to reduce in value. The WAC could jump ahead of the MWC as the lead outsider.

BYU is expected to move into BCS a caliber value, while TCU is expected to drop down to an asset short of the BCS standards. Air Force, East Carolina, Ball State and Houston are positioned to move into having BCS value.

Mississippi and Illinois are in a good position to lose their deadweight status. Colorado, Minnesota, NC State and North Carolina are at risk of earning deadweight status.

Merits of This Estimate of BCS Value

These results are consistent with the BCS's current alignments and popular attitudes towards conferences. Additionally, the exceptions resonate with popular opinions for the instances involved.

This would indicate that this methodology is a sufficient model of the BCS's actual methodology using the criteria they have specified.
 

POST A COMMENT

BCS GOT IT RIGHT ... RIGHT WHAT?

It's the dumbest question in sports. Yet, the moment the final BCS standings were published, it would be the first question tossed to the commentators, coaches, fans on the web, space aliens in captivity, whomever with a pause.

The proper answer to that question is another question: What do you mean by right?

If by "right" you mean the BCS averted yet another PR disaster, then you may say yes. If by "right" you mean the BCS avoided a potentially embarrassing intra-conference rematch, then, yes again. But if by "right" you mean the BCS got the "correct" matchup in the still-mythical championship game, then you're out of your mind.

There is no such thing as a "right" matchup. Just as last year, just as in 2006, just as in 2004, just as in nearly every year of BCS's existence, the BCS merely facilitated an expedient outcome that semi-placated the mostly ignorant commentariat and some half-witted fans.

That was never more evident since last night, when pundits and columnists opined that the results of the SEC and Big 12 championships guaranteed a Oklahoma-Florida title matchup. Far from it. Without understanding the fine prints of the formula, one could not possibly make such pronouncements. In fact, the Guru crunched numbers all evening and really agonized over it before making the call.

Should've just followed the lead of the idiots. They slept better anyway.

If I sound somewhat bitter, it's because I am. A man who just pulled off a perfect 15-for-15 in the BCS projections should be rejoicing, not recriminating. But the fact is that while I can intelligently and half-heartedly defend the system, I will no longer choose to do so.

The BCS dodged a major bullet, but the powers-that-be are too stupid to realize it. They'll merrily show up at their April meeting puffing out their considerable chests and making grand proclamations. And do absolutely not a damn thing to fix a system that's beyond broken.

In the BCS, disaster is always just around the corner. Justice is seldom, if ever, served. The truth is that college football today really isn't all that different from the era of grand alliances. Yes, the BCS does put together some matchups that wouldn't have been allowed under the old tie-ins. But the bottom line is that just as in 1990, 1991, 1997 or almost every other year or so, the concept of a "national champion" remains as ever elusive and mythical.

That brings us the real question: Do we really want a system that produces a "true" national champion? Before you jump to answer in the affirmative, think about this for a moment. For all its flaws, the bowl system has its advantages. To be sure, it keeps more in spirit with the Christmas season than a cut-throat, one-and-done "playoff" concept.

But if we must crown a real champion (I suppose that's the American way), then there needs to be a plan. I will not be a critic who simply decries what's broken but offers no solution. In fact, the Guru does have a concept, tested against historic data and workable within the logistic challenges, that will prove to be superior to the current scheme we have.

I won't spoil the party tonight. It will be unveiled soon enough.

In the meantime, I do want to say a heart-felt thanks to all the readers who have frequented this site this season. It's been an exhilarating ride. Whether you agreed or disagreed with me, thought I was a genius or a moron, all that's immaterial. I'm just glad that I could be a part of your college football universe for the last few months.

Going forward, I won't completely vanish in the offseason. So if you're interested, join the Guru on Facebook or subscribe to the junk here via our feed. Whatever you do: Thank You and Happy Holidays!

POST A COMMENT

FLORIDA vs. OKLAHOMA

How sure is the Guru? Let me put it this way: I wouldn't bet my kid's college money on it. But I would bet yours.

The confluence of events worked out just right for the Florida Gators on Saturday, which should secure them a place in the BCS title game. Oklahoma's spot was never in doubt as the Sooners  raced to an early lead against Missouri and kept pounding away.

What worked out for Florida is that its victory over Alabama was hard-fought, which gave the impression that it defeated a stout, undefeated, No. 1-ranked team, as opposed to a fraudulent pretender. Also, OU's victory over Missouri, while impressive and record-setting, seemed pedestrian by comparison because the Tigers' defense was so atrocious that it might as well not have shown up.

All that should add up to a preponderance of first-place votes for the Gators, helping them to make up whatever deficit in the computers against Texas, which will be left out at No. 3. The Guru projects at least a 100-point gap between Florida and Texas in the Harris Poll and probably a 40-50 point lead in the Coaches Poll. Taken together, they should override whatever residual lead that the Longhorns might have in the computer rankings.

If Hawaii defeats Cincinnati in the last regular-season game of 2008, Florida's place in the title game will be cemented.

As for Oklahoma, the crushing victory over Missouri was sufficient to keep enough first- and second-place votes for the Sooners in the human polls, allowing them maintain a comfortable cushion after adding in their superior computer ratings. There should be no concern about their being jumped by Texas in the BCS standings.

Texas's only national title hopes now rests with the Associated Press. But with the Fiesta Bowl's decision to invite two-loss Ohio State to face the Longhorns, their chances dimmed considerably. Currently, Texas is 8 points ahead of Oklahoma in the AP poll. Should Texas maintain that lead going into the bowls and the Sooners defeat Florida in the BCS title game, the Longhorns might try to make a claim for the AP crown - by virtue of their head-to-head win over the Sooners. But it's doubtful that the AP voters would buy into that now since all they can prove is beating a perennially overrated Buckeyes team.

The Fiesta Bowl's decision only reinforces that the nature of the bowl games remains unchanged. It's never about bringing together the best matchups - the BCS title game notwithstanding - but it's all about bringing the most bucks and the highest TV ratings. Even though Texas-Utah made for a more compelling game, the bowl opted to play safe by picking Ohio State.

With all that in mind, here are the Guru's BCS bowl projections:

BCS Championship: No. 1. Oklahoma vs. No. 2 Florida

Fiesta Bowl: No. 3 Texas vs. No. 10 Ohio State

Sugar Bowl: No. 4 Alabama vs. No. 6 Utah

Rose Bowl: No. 5 USC vs. No. 8 Penn State

Orange Bowl: No. 12 Cincinnati vs. Virginia Tech

And the rest of the rankings projections, with the Cincinnati-Hawaii game pending:

No. 7 Texas Tech, No. 9 Boise State, No. 11 Texas Christian, No. 13 Oklahoma State, No. 14 Georgia Tech, No. 15 Georgia.

POST A COMMENT

EXCLUSIVE: ONE-ON-ONE WITH BILL HANCOCK

Who's Bill Hancock? You ask.

He's the one and ONLY employee of the Bowl Championship Series. Mr. Hancock is the BCS Administrator, essentially, the spokesman and the face of the BCS. He doesn't have a corner office in a big building with lots of copy machines. He works out of his house in the suburbs of Kansas City, with his grandkids running around while they're visiting.

For 13 years, Mr. Hancock was the director of the Final Four of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, from 1989-2002. He left the NCAA to spend more time with his family after his son Will, a sports information director for Oklahoma State, died in the 2001 plane crash that took the lives of 10 OSU athletes and officials. Mr. Hancock returned to college sports in October 2005, when the BCS established his position.

The Guru caught up with Mr. Hancock over the Thanksgiving weekend and had a lengthy conversation with him. Here's the complete transcript of our Q&A:

Guru: Has President-Elect Obama's apparent interest in the BCS, expressed both on ESPN and on CBS' 60 Minutes, brought a lot more, or perhaps unwanted, attention to the BCS?

BH: The BCS gets lots of attention this time of the year to start with, but I don't remember getting it from the president before. We congratulate him and are deeply honored that he's a passionate fan of college football. But I don't feel this has particularly increased the demand for change.

Guru: Speaking of change, or change you can believe in, has there been any push toward a playoff or a Plus-One, anything?

BH: There's always a great deal of interest in change coming from different quarters. But the fact remains that the presidents, athletic directors, commissioners and coaches, the four core primary groups involved have not expressed a desire for change. Among those constituents there's no consensus for change. There are several individual (coaches) who feel strongly about it, but every time when the issue was put in front of the AFCA they have not been in favor of a playoff.

Guru: The new television contract with ESPN, replacing Fox, how might that benefit the BCS?

BH: The deal with ESPN is a really good thing. ESPN has so many platforms for promoting games - all their broadcast channels, the website, ESPN360, their magazine. ... Their coverage of the regular-season games is phenomenal. But I want to say that FOX has been terrific - their people are wondeful to work with. FOX did promote the BCS through NFL games and the website. They did a nice job. Obviously, ESPN's financial offer was better, and they also bring a season-long promotional platform, it's a presence FOX couldn't provide.

Guru: But are you concerned that ESPN wants to put all the BCS bowl games on cable?

BH: We know that 98 million households get ESPN over basic cable. While there are many people who don't get cable, most of the fans who are interested will find ways to watch the games. And by January 2011, (ESPN's first BCS bowl games) there will be many more people who'll have access to ESPN.

Guru: Is there any movement to alter or tweak the existing formula, which has been in place since 2004?

BH: There has not been any discussions at all about changing the formula. That topic has not been discussed nor would I expect that it'd come up (at the next meeting). It's not a factor.

Guru: What about changing the eligibility requirements for automatic qualifiers. Both the Big East and the ACC will have guaranteed slots through the 2013 season, what about the Mountain West or the WAC, given their recent performances?

BH: There has not been any push for a change on that, either. The commissioners meet every April and they review everything. At that time they will consider any changes to the existing structure if necessary, but based on my visits with them from the past several months, there's no groundswells for any change.

Guru: The BCS standings use coaches and Harris polls. But until the final ballot, the votes are secret. We have a situation this year when the standings are used to break a tie in the Big 12, yet we won't know how the pollsters voted. Are you concerned about this lack of transparency and will the BCS demand that the votes be made public every week?

BH: We have no control over the coaches poll, you'll have to visit the coaches association about that, on how they manage what they do. I will say that the commissioners talked about this issue but Harris has told us that one voter out 114 cannot affect enough change to make a difference in the standings, one voter can't make a significant difference. We think there is transparency - the only poll that matters is the last one and there is transparency.

Guru: But what about this week, with the Big 12 tiebreaker?

BH: That's a question for the Big 12.

Guru: With a lot of sports entities and franchises concerned about the financial crisis, how is the BCS positioned to weather this?

BH: I think everyone in the country is concerned about the crisis. There is no safe harbor and no one is immune - not in sports, so this is a situation that we have to follow and no one really knows how severe it's going to get. I think the BCS is on solid ground, not just on the TV side, on the other side our attendance in games has been up and we don't have any indication that the bowls are having difficulty selling tickets. That said, we won't really know how this will affect our fans, the schools and the participating teams for another month.

Guru: So it's safe to say that the BCS won't be setting up a big office and a staff any time soon?

BH: The commissioners believe the most appropriate way to run the BCS is to have a full-time administrator. Now that's in place, there's no need for a big staff. The bowls have big staffs and they and the conferences keep things moving. For an organization that's a 90-million-a-year operation, on a per-dollar budget basis we're spending our money very wisely. The BCS is as, if not more frugal, than any entity in sports. We won't need a bailout.

Guru: Obviously, you're busier now than you've ever been, fielding questions from all comers. Are you comfortable defending the BCS?

BH: You know, the more people talk about it the better, I believe it. People who understand college football and the complexities of how it's run generally are not too critical. It's the people who are the drop-in journalists, who only jump in one month out of the year, they're the ones who don't get it. My job as the administrator is to explain to people about the BCS. Whenever somebody asks me about a playoff, invariably 9 out 10, after I have a chance to lay out the situation, they'll say, 'golly, you're right, never thought about all these things.' But they can't be recorded in just sound bites when I lay them out. I don't blame people: It's a hard concept to grasp and it's clear that the devil's in the details.

Guru: It's safe to say, then, that the BCS is here to stay for awhile?

BH: I really think the BCS is good for college football. We have tremendous amount of interest in our regular season - more so than in any other sport. I ran the Final Four for 13 years and we just don't have this kind of passion in the regular season. And the BCS has moved college football from regional to national. The SEC fans are now very interested in the Pac-10. Before the BCS, that interest was there but not at the level it is today. College football is more popular than ever and we believe how our postseason is handled is a big factor in that. When you consider a change, the single biggest thing we have to think about is what would it do to the regular season. That's the great unknown and there would be unintended consequences to any change, with out a doubt. This is the crown jewel and it's too risky to just tinker with it. I think the commissioners are on the right track in being very deliberate about change. We don't know if this is perfect, so let's not tinker with it until we're sure we know how it's going to be better.
 

POST A COMMENT

OLDER POSTS