Bowl Games

[Spence]

Ahh...I think your right...I think it was called "Quality Wins"

Thanks!!

The 'quality wins' component was a bonus given to teams for beating ranked opponents. It was based upon the final ranking of the team(s) beaten.

A factor in the quality win bonus is it was only awarded once per opponent. In 2003 (if I'm not mistaken its last season on the BCS formula) it worked against LSU by beating your Dogs twice that year knocking them back in the polls both times and only got credit for beating them once (in regard to the bonus). After the SEC CG, LSU's quality win bonus was almost negligble. LSU would have had a better bonus if anyone other than Georgia would have represented the East in the CG.

They bumped quality wins because they said the computers already figured them in and humans should have already figured them in. SOS is a better gauge.

[ktffan]

It's not like they fell flat on their face, ktffan.

But who knows which teams really should have gone? Oklahoma got absolutely blow out in their last game of the season. Getting blow out disqualfies them in my mind, but then the computers weren't allowed to view it as a blow out.

this is true!! Under the 2002 season BCS, the blowout loss to kansas might have changed history if the comptuer formula's from the previous season had been used.

It was after the 2002 season that SOS was done away with...Im 95% sure about that....

Can anyone prove the opposite???

This is a good point about "playing" with the rules every year, to get the BCS computers to "legitimize" the human polls.

The BCS rankings were ill-thought out from the begining. First of all, in the SOS measure they credit you with any losses your opponent or your opps opps have against any I-AA teams, but don't credit you with the wins. What anybody failed to consider intially, is that if you play a I-AA team that makes the playoffs, you'd get penalized under the initial system. Making the playoffs means they are a better team, not worse. If your opponent went to the playoffs, won 3 games and lost in the final, you'd get credited with the 1 loss and not the three wins. That you played the runner up would only hurt you and only if your opponent won the championship would it not hurt you and it couldn't help you in any way.

So, quickly, that little snafu was corrected and we moved on. After the first two match-ups matched the media polls and the media's opinion, everybody patted themselves on the back and proclaimed the match up as the "right" one so nothing was done (except adding a few computers to counter the grumbling of 'West Coast Bias') as the "right" one, therefore the formula had to be changed.

This is where the quality win component was added. What was the justification for this component? You see, if it had been in place the prior year, the #1 and #2 teams in the wire service polls would have played for the championship, and everybody knows that that was the "right" match-up. Growing dissatisfaction about teams getting computer poll bonuses for running up the score caused them to force a 21 point MOV cap on the computers (but not the humans).

Now, 2001 was a really interesting year. Not only was the #4 team selected to go to the "championship" game, but this team also got blown out in their last regular season game and failed not only to win their conference, but failed to play in the CCG. This was an outrage of epic proportions. Interestingly, it was the quality win component that pushed Nebraska out of reach of the #2 teams, as last years "correction" proved to be a problem. Also a factor, but never metioned was the SOS oddball way of rewarding teams that play in soft scheduling conferences. What really made this interesting was when a prominate media member set out to manipulate the system and members of the coaches poll shamelessly changed their rankings in an effort to do so. The coaches' poll, that has always had a shaky reputation took another hit. Changes were made to reduce the impact of the quality win component and MOV was removed from the computers completely making them far less affective.

In 2002, we were obliged with two undefeated teams an no controversy, therefore it was declared that the BCS "worked". A flaw in the thinking fo the BCS did emerge, though, as somebody figured out that since the AFCA did not rank teams on probation, they would not figure into the rankings and give teams "quality win" points.

In 2003, disaster struck again and the media poll approved #1 and #2 teams did not get in. This prompted a total overhaul in the system, as quality wins and SOS was removed. Plus, the effect of the computers was reduces, as those were throwing off the standard by which this was measured, the human polls.

Changes the next year were nominal, as the media approved teams made it in. I think that if the BCS is going to call the "correct" teams the teams that are #1 and #2 in the wire service polls, they should just use the wire service polls and end the hypocrisy.

[billybud]

Thanks KTFFan for that recap....

I have been suspicious of polls that are not transparent. It comes from having an AP voter in West Virginia leaving FSU completely off his poll one year to alow WVU to move up....and when I heard that Mack Brown admitted to lobbying his fellow coaches to vote for Texas (along with Cal's subsequent dip in the poll) I got even more suspicious. This is a horrible practice, especially where conferences divide bowl earnings..."Vote for my team, it's good for the conference"...its a direct conflict...and I am sure there is some conference loyalty in voting.

[mountainman]

There are obvious shortcoming to both the human and computer polls. Whether it's an AP writer in West Virginia or an inappropriate calculation in the computer polls those are things that we're going to have to put up with until a better way to make these determinations surfaces.

What I see in the future and the ground work being layed for is the plus-1 format.

I believe that the decision makers realize the shortcomings of the current and past methods of determining the teams to play for the national title and are letting the system itself prove its shortcomings. In my mind, they had little choice but to go about it this way considering the landscape of college football while trying to preserve and make better what the game had evolved too. There task, as I see it if I were in their place, would be not to destroy what college football had become while trying to make it better. There were and still are many considerations. No simple task.

By the way, West Virginia was left off a coach's ballot last season. I believe it was Coach Tuberville's ballot. I don't think it was intentional, just an ovesight, but things like that do happen on occasion. Just like the Harris Poll last season where, early on, many of the voters did not submit a ballot.

[Eric]

I'd agree with that. Their almost both as faulty. Usually, I agree with most polls though. They're a good indicatior on how respected your team is.

[colorado_loves_football]

Now, 2001 was a really interesting year. Not only was the #4 team selected to go to the "championship" game, but this team also got blown out in their last regular season game and failed not only to win their conference, but failed to play in the CCG. This was an outrage of epic proportions. Interestingly, it was the quality win component that pushed Nebraska out of reach of the #2 teams, as last years "correction" proved to be a problem. Also a factor, but never metioned was the SOS oddball way of rewarding teams that play in soft scheduling conferences. What really made this interesting was when a prominate media member set out to manipulate the system and members of the coaches poll shamelessly changed their rankings in an effort to do so. The coaches' poll, that has always had a shaky reputation took another hit. Changes were made to reduce the impact of the quality win component and MOV was removed from the computers completely making them far less affective.

In 2002, we were obliged with two undefeated teams an no controversy, therefore it was declared that the BCS "worked". A flaw in the thinking fo the BCS did emerge, though, as somebody figured out that since the AFCA did not rank teams on probation, they would not figure into the rankings and give teams "quality win" points.

In 2003, disaster struck again and the media poll approved #1 and #2 teams did not get in. This prompted a total overhaul in the system, as quality wins and SOS was removed. Plus, the effect of the computers was reduces, as those were throwing off the standard by which this was measured, the human polls.

Changes the next year were nominal, as the media approved teams made it in. I think that if the BCS is going to call the "correct" teams the teams that are #1 and #2 in the wire service polls, they should just use the wire service polls and end the hypocrisy.

Actually 2001 wasn't as much an 'aberration' as one might be inclined to believe.

Nebraska was undefeated going into their final game, against Colorado. Both teams knew what was at stake, and unfortunately for Nebraska, Colorado was ready for them, as evidenced by the shellacking they gave them. But, Nebraska fought back, second half. But for a defensive breakdown, they maybe even beat Colorado.

There were a lot of variables accompanying the Nebraska selection other than where they stood in the BCS. They also had the Heisman Trophy winner in Eric Crouch. The Rose Bowl likely wanted Nebraska, over Colorado & Oregon. And as lopsided as the Rose Bowl was, there's no guarantee it would have been any closer had Colorado (or Oregon) been selected. I actually 'forgive' the BCS somewhat for doing what they did, that year. Nebraska never made it to the championship game. You can't apply the same argument to Oklahoma, 2003.

Colorado beating Texas maybe gave them an 'edge' over Nebraska. Probably the 'fair' thing would have been for Oregon to go, over either one. Colorado had previously lost to Texas, and barely won, in the Big XII championship. The Fiesta Bowl is supposed to be the Big XII 'host', so Colorado going there was fine. But, who would they have played?

So, there maybe is basis for what the BCS did. It was a good 'plus-one' scenario, however, had such an arrangement been in place.

[Derek]

Thanks KTFFan for that recap....

I have been suspicious of polls that are not transparent. It comes from having an AP voter in West Virginia leaving FSU completely off his poll one year to alow WVU to move up....and when I heard that Mack Brown admitted to lobbying his fellow coaches to vote for Texas (along with Cal's subsequent dip in the poll) I got even more suspicious. This is a horrible practice, especially where conferences divide bowl earnings..."Vote for my team, it's good for the conference"...its a direct conflict...and I am sure there is some conference loyalty in voting.

Exactly! This is why I dont like Human polls.

Let's settle on a computer formula that works "best" and leave the human polls out after week 6.

Is it gonna be perfect?? NOPE. But the human polls will not be either, and have more biased views and be more susceptible to the very things your talking about.

Everyone knows the formula and nothing backroom about it.

The only other alternative is a playoff.

[colorado_loves_football]

Exactly! This is why I dont like Human polls.

Let's settle on a computer formula that works "best" and leave the human polls out after week 6.

Is it gonna be perfect?? NOPE. But the human polls will not be either, and have more biased views and be more susceptible to the very things your talking about.

Everyone knows the formula and nothing backroom about it.

The only other alternative is a playoff.

One reason there are two human polls, and one computer poll (averaged) is to prevent what happened in 2003. I would prefer an arrangement where one human poll (coache's) and one one computer poll were averaged together.