Sports from the point view from the guy that holds the clipboard for the guy that holds the clipboard.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

BCS Defender: Gloats

Yes, I am going to gloat.  I am going to wallow in the joy that my argument is gaining traction and that the points I have been making are sound and rational.

It started with St Mary's, my new favorite college basketball team not named Duke.

"Go to BCS. Go to something where there's a standardized number how you figure out who's in, who's not," Bennett said

This warms my heart. Take that 10 people locked in a backroom with no accountability!

And then my local boys over at NESN start really looking at it seriously.

It may seem like a crazy suggestion, but wouldn't a BCS-like ranking system combining human and computer polls do the best job of seeding? The flaw with the BCS as it pertains to college football, generally, isn't how the system ranks the teams, but the fact that only the top two are included. The rankings, in truth, seem pretty fair, and -- most importantly -- we know how they work. They aren't the concoction of some "committee" evaluating the teams in a short period of time.

*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*   We have a winner folks.  The best and worst of both systems summed up in one short paragraph.  The tide has turned, and I was sitting at the harbor waiting for everyone's thought processes to come to port.  Welcome my friends.  Now we can have some real honest discussions.

I am opposed any type of one style fits all system.  Basketball, Football, and whatever else we may talk about, are different sports and should be looked at differently.  Especially when you look at number of games in a season.  But each system has it's strengths and weaknesses.

Maybe we see the NCAA tournament adopt a system where they pick the enterants, the #1 seeds, then a computer ranks the rest and they can swap schools around per the guidelines (up or down 1 seed, teams in same conference seperated, etc...).  Computers and humans working together!

I'll say it again, because more people need to read it, One system is open, one is closed.  One is accountable, one is not.  One has all the information laid out, the other has backroom deals.  Neither is perfect, but maybe people can start to accept that the BCS has it's validity and the NCAA Tournament is at least as flawed as any system.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

BCS Defender: Selection Sunday

Imagine the tone of an article that described the quarters of the ten people who selected the BCS were sequestered in.  The article itself would be in the shape of a pitchfork and it would come to you already on fire.  But when describing the ten people that pick the NCAA tournament, it's all flattery and ass kissing.

So let's take a quick look at the BIOs of the ten people who get to decide the field for the NCAA tournament, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS and with no accountability.

Moving back to the first link. Can you again imagine the outrage if we were told to accept that there is no bias, and that the committee member leaves the room when talking about their team begins, if we were dealing with the BCS instead of the Big Dance?  Some crazed SEC fan would track down the hotel and call in a bomb threat. But for basketball, it's all cool, we are all jealous, and completely buy into the fact that the person gets up and leaves the room!  I cry bullshit.  There's no way they leave the room.  None.

And look at the BIO's.  All of these people are active AD's or conference comissioners, and we expect there to be no bias.  Does Dan Beebe leave the room anytime a Big 12 team is mentioned? Can we get some recent retirees?  A ref, a coach, a former player, people with a little distance, yet who still have relevant experience with the game.   It gets better.  That site, Bracketology, with all the up to date and current information, still has last year's committee listed.  That's how much the Big Dance gets away with.  Wikipedia has an updated list.

So say what you will about the BCS.  But you have to admit that it's process is more open, more honest, and more accountable than the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament.  Because if the BCS choose it's teams this way, someone important would end up getting shot. But for basketball it's ok to have 10 people behind closed doors and answerable to no one, pick the field. Complain about polls, complain about computers, but computer errors have been caught and corrected, and every coach has to answer for that last USA Today poll.  Do these 10 people ever have to answer even one tough question about their choices?  No, they don't even answer any questions.

And that is just the selection process.  I did not even talk about this asinine 68 team field.  They are giving an advantage to two 5 seeds to benefit ratings for a TV Network.  So two of the #1 seeds get to play a team that's already played a game, and two #5 seeds get the same treatment.  Please stop and think about that, and tell me that makes sense, never mind is anywhere near the word fair.  The questions are: if a #5 seed deserves an advantage that 15 teams better than it did not get? and if a #5 seed is a legit title contender?

Why do people hate the BCS want college football to adopt a system like this?  The BCS is not perfect, but it some very clear advantages to it.

Contributors