It's the College Football thread!

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't remember the exact reason. I thought it was because of the running-up-the-score issue, but you could be right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is the ESPN article on it:

http://espn.go.com/ncf/news/2002/0621/1397538.html

The Bowl Championship Series -- college football's lightning rod for controversy since its inception in 1998 -- is veering off in yet another direction on its elusive search for the perfect formula to provide a No. 1-vs-No. 2 national title game.

BCS coordinator Mike Tranghese (also commissioner of the Big East Conference) has notified the founders of the eight computer rankings that make up one fourth of the BCS formula that in order to be included in this year's rankings, the computers must no longer use margin of victory in their formulas.

At least one of the computer experts -- David Rothman -- has already declined to change his formula. Herman Matthews, founder of the Matthews/Scripps Howard rankings -- has followed suit.

And according to Matthews, two others -- Jeff Sagarin of USA Today and Peter Wolfe of the Los Angeles Times -- are unlikely to change their formulas as well.

"I just don't think I'm going to change my rankings,'' Matthews said Thursday after receiving the following e-mail from Tranghese:

"My apologies for the informality of this writing, but I am in San Francisco at the CCA (Collegiate Commissioners Association) Meetings and wanted to get this to you in a timely manner.

"The BCS Board has asked me to extend to you the opportunity to continue as part of the BCS poll.

"One condition of your continuance in the BCS will be the elimination of Margin of Victory in your calculations.

"Please inform me by no later than 3:00 p.m. on Monday, June 24 of your willingness to continue with the BCS without the use of Margin of Victory as a component ... '

Rothman was less than diplomatic in his response.

"Sorry, but I don't sign my name to something which isn't the very best I can do. Not only do I use margin of victory to some extent, but the BCS should accept no computer system that would give a tie in the case of:

A 10, B 6.

B 9, C 6.

C 7, A 6.'

"Since most humans polled would agree that the correct ranking is A, B, C in this test. The current efforts to remove margin of victory are only going to degrade the computer's image, as human participants will continue to do the best they can, utilizing all information that can be ascertained, including margins.''

Three computer rankings do not take into account margin of victory -- Seattle Times, Richard Billingsley and Wes Colley -- while Ken Massey has agreed to change his formula to eliminate margin of victory. All four will apparently remain in the BCS formula.

Started in 1998 by SEC commissioner Roy Kramer, the BCS has produced four consecutive undefeated national champions (Tennessee, Florida State, Oklahoma and Miami). But the last two years the system has been mired in chaos over who should be playing the top-ranked team in the BCS 1-2 national title game.

In 2000, Florida State (11-1) got the nod to play Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl despite Miami (10-1) beating the Seminoles during the season. The Sooners' 13-2 victory did little to quell the controversy, fueled by many coaches who believed the Seminoles' larger margin of victory landed them in the title game.

Last year a string of late-season upsets led to the closest final BCS standings ever. Nebraska (11-1) got an invitation to the Rose Bowl by a tiny margin over Pac-10 champion Oregon (10-1) and Colorado (10-2), a team that routed the Cornhuskers, 62-36, in the regular season and claimed the Big 12 championship.

Miami's 37-14 romp over Nebraska in the Rose Bowl only solidified the opinion of critics who said the 'Huskers had no business playing in a national title game when they couldn't even win the Big 12.

Matthews said removing margin of victory from his rankings produced even more statistical nightmares. He ran his formula -- minus margin of victory -- after this year's bowl games. Miami remained No. 1 but Tennessee, No. 2 prior to the bowls, fell to No. 3 despite a 45-17 victory over Michigan in the Citrus Bowl. The bowl loss actually moved Michigan up in the amended rankings from 20th to 18th.

"It is clear that such a move lowers the accuracy of the rankings as well as predictions,'' Matthews wrote in a response to Tranghese. "It is surprising that you would bow to the demands of a public that knows so little about these matters and has reacted to a great extent on emotions fueled by perceived injustices.

"The concern of coaches who wish to avoid running up scores is commendable but unnecessary. Virtually all systems using MOV also use a diminishing returns principle that prevents excessive increase of ratings in such cases.''

Matthews later pulled out of the BCS rankings.

It sounds like it may have been both. Running up the score and because of grumblings of Nebraska in 2001 and FSU in 2000 shouldn't have made it to the title game.

I'm sure the heads of the BCS probably were under fire to change something after those years.

[Drake Tungsten]

Man, that was a pretty dumb reason to cripple the computer polls. I doubt MOV of victory even had much of an impact on Nebraska's trip to the Rose Bowl in 2001.

That's the problem with the BCS, though; the people who run it care too much about what their critics have to say. The original formula was good, but it's been jacked up over the years in response to incessant criticism. Not a smart thing to do, as they'll never placate the anti-BCS critics and they're just ruining their own system trying to do so.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
7. UCLA

We're still No. 7 despite last Saturday's squeaker in a game we should have won easily?!?

I guess this makes up for the time during the early 70's when No. 1 rated Texas was supposed to beat us by 3 touchdowns but had to win on the last play of the game and then we dropped in the polls.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess this makes up for the time during the early 70's when No. 1 rated Texas was supposed to beat us by 3 touchdowns but had to win on the last play of the game and then we dropped in the polls.

That is the nature of college football polls.

[Deity Dude]

Originally poster by Deity Dude

7. UCLA

Originally posted by Zkribbler


We're still No. 7 despite last Saturday's squeaker in a game we should have won easily?!?

I guess this makes up for the time during the early 70's when No. 1 rated Texas was supposed to beat us by 3 touchdowns but had to win on the last play of the game and then we dropped in the polls.

Tell me which team with 1 or more losses you would rank ahead of a team that:

... is undefeated
... beat a top 25 team
... and plays in a major conference.

[reismark]

*punt*

[DanS]

Speaking of punts, has anybody else noticed a decreasing use of punts this year -- a process started by Charlie Weis? Or have I just been watching ND games?

Weis won't punt if he's within the opponent's 40 or when he's inches to go. I haven't seen the math on this (I suspect that Weis has), but the philosophy seems to make some sense.

[Guynemer]

I haven't noticed it, Dan. But then again, as a Michigan fan, I'm used to a much more conservative approach... pooch-punting from the 33 yard line...

Anywho:

1. Texas (3) 48
2. USC (2) 47
3. Virginia Tech 40
4. Georgia 35
5. Alabama 26
6. UCLA 15
6. Texas Tech 15
8. Miami 13
8. Notre Dame 13
10. LSU 12

ARV: Penn State 6, Florida State 3, Ohio State 2.

[DanS]

I think I saw that pooch punt. Into the end zone for a touchback. Net 13 yards. I think that's Weis's point. Why punt when there's any chance at all that you can get the first down?

[korn469]

well after some early mistakes VT's rolling against the terp's tired defense!

Go Hokies!!

[Deity Dude]

Did u see ND get the first down against State (thats Michigan State for all of you who might think it means NC St or Alcorn St or whatever) on something like 4th and 16. It was very demoralizing.

[Moral Hazard]

As refers to state. I live in PA and lived in State College for a year and never heard Penn State refered to as just State or Penn; only rarely was the team called PSU. After all We Are Penn State.

The announcers were occasionally calling Michigan State just State; when they were playing Ohio State. Never heard any other school just referred to as State, but I really haven't spent much time down south.

Anyway my top ten
1. USC (I really hope UCLA takes them down, but I doubt it)
2. Texas (2-4 are interchangeable)
3. Virginia Tech
4. Georgia
5. Texas Tech (5-7 are interchangeable)
6. Alabama
7. UCLA
8. Notre Dame
9. Miami (I'm still banking on them beating Va Tech)
10. Penn State (We will probably only lose one more game , Michigan State and lose it badly. Northwestern's spread offense gave our defense fits. Then again Michigan St. might not decide to keep playing.

[DanS]

To Imran, re big games. Arizona State with one loss and USC undefeated. Result? ABC regional coverage. Fast forward one week with ND with one loss versus USC undefeated. Result?

10/20/2005

NEW YORK (AP) - Southern California's last-second win over Notre Dame was seen by 30 million viewers, making it the most watched regular-season college football game in nine years.

NBC's coverage of the top-ranked Trojans' 34-31 victory on Saturday earned a 6.7 national rating, which tied it with the Ohio State-Notre Dame in 1996 for the highest-rated Fighting Irish game on the network in more than a decade. The games are tied for the fourth-highest rating in the 15 years NBC has been broadcasting Notre Dame football.

In addition to turning the Irish around on the field, Charlie Weis is also helping their TV ratings. NBC's first two broadcasts have averaged a 5.3, 66 percent better than the 3.2 average after the first two broadcasts last season.

The only difference was ND. Heck, even College Gameday went to both places! That's why I don't think it's idle talk to say that the ND game is the most important or second most important game for everyone on ND's schedule. Ask any USC fan which game was the big game and which one wasn't.

By the way, you better believe NBC got a steal of a deal this year for its mere $9 million.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's why I don't think it's idle talk to say that the ND game is the most important or second most important game for everyone on ND's schedule.

Again, you are making the fallacy of equating ratings with importance. Sorry, I ain't drinking from that Kool-Aid well.

USC fans would say the ND game was the bigger one because they were RANKED HIGHER than ASU, which is what I've been saying is the measure of an important game.

I believe ND v. Michigan got higher ratings than Texas v. Ohio State, but if you claim that the prior was a bigger game than the latter, then I say you are smoking crack.