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.