Reason #1522 the BCS is moronic

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Exactly. I think it would be more fair to have less human poll element, but the conspiracy theorists seem to favor human polls, so they should be satisfied with the current rankings system.

Ranking System. Here's my suggested ranking system. 100% computers. Use MOV and take a 30 computer average. Publish a list of rules for computers that will ensure fairness: home/away factors, etc. Let a team of auditors examine each computer model to make sure they comply with the rules and vote for the 30 top models.

16 team playoff rendering human polls moot, ala college basketball. Playoff aside, I'll support all computers. At least pusses like Boise St (Sagarin - 39) and Hawaii (41) couldn't get away with the crap they're pulling.

I guess I just don't get why pollsters are so stupid. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

[jay santos]

If you're concerned about fairness for BCS bowls, ask yourself this: in the 50 year history prior to 2004, how often did current non-BCS schools play in the top four bowl games: Rose, Sugar, etc. (they changed over time so you can't say Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta)? I know from the time 1980-2004, that number was ZERO. So, non-BCS went from NEVER playing in high profile bowls to playing in them every other year. You also might complain about access to championship game, but I think BYU would have made the championship game by current rules in 1984. A couple more losses for top teams in 2004, and Utah might have been in the game.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

16 team playoff rendering human polls moot, ala college basketball. Playoff aside, I'll support all computers. At least pusses like Boise St (Sagarin - 39) and Hawaii (41) couldn't get away with the crap they're pulling.

I guess I just don't get why pollsters are so stupid. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

I'm campaigning for our anger to be directed at the bowls, not the BCS specifically. The bowls are the root of all evil. BCS has actually tamed the evil and made it a little more palatable for all.

The guys running around in gold or red jackets pretending they have power in this whole thing--that's who we should want to assassinate.

Kill the bowls.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by jay santos

If you're concerned about fairness for BCS bowls, ask yourself this: in the 50 year history prior to 2004, how often did current non-BCS schools play in the top four bowl games: Rose, Sugar, etc. (they changed over time so you can't say Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta)? I know from the time 1980-2004, that number was ZERO. So, non-BCS went from NEVER playing in high profile bowls to playing in them every other year. You also might complain about access to championship game, but I think BYU would have made the championship game by current rules in 1984. A couple more losses for top teams in 2004, and Utah might have been in the game.

the 4 bowl games didn't have $17M payouts for starters, they were all contractually obligated, but it didn't financially ruin us to go to the Holiday Bowl.

Again, BYU 1984 and Utah 2004 made an effort to play some good teams, something BSU and Hawaii have just foregone altogether. All I'm saying is don't reward them for playing no one.

Hawaii at 14 in the BCS is receiving ZERO points from the computers, and rightfully so. They are far and away the most OVERRATED team in the country, maybe in the past several years. Again, their highest quality win came against #106 La Tech. If they get in, they'll get blown out, and ruin the whole thing for all of us.

[Indy Coug]

Any computer poll that is used has to be mathematically verified as having some minimum level of predictive value.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

the 4 bowl games didn't have $17M payouts for starters, they were all contractually obligated, but it didn't financially ruin us to go to the Holiday Bowl.

Again, BYU 1984 and Utah 2004 made an effort to play some good teams, something BSU and Hawaii have just foregone altogether. All I'm saying is don't reward them for playing no one.

Hawaii at 14 in the BCS is receiving ZERO points from the computers, and rightfully so. They are far and away the most OVERRATED team in the country, maybe in the past several years. Again, their highest quality win came against #106 La Tech. If they get in, they'll get blown out, and ruin the whole thing for all of us.

You said I was wrong on all counts but then didn't say where I was wrong.

Hawaii getting in the BCS should make the anti-BCSers thrilled. Or are you making the case that non-BCSers should receive less of the pie?

The effect of the BCS championship game has been to make all bowls less compelling, including other BCS games. Nobody ever cared about the Holiday Bowl but now they don't even care about the Orange Bowl.

I think if you took bowl profits, you wouldn't find that the non-BCS share is any different now than it was 30 years ago. Bowls have never been that profitable. Half the bowls--which are the ones BYU has generally played in--barely pay out enough to cover expenses.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

Please tell me which of these teams is the best (Current Sagarin Rankings used):

Hawaii's schedule is absolutely hilarious. UNLV is the toughest team they've played. Let me repeat that - UNLV is the toughest team they've played. There are probably 75 teams in the country that would be undefeated against that schedule, including BYU. And about 70 of those teams wouldn't have gone to overtime with San Jose St or La Tech.

The WAC is a joke and the BCS is idiotic.

But I thought the WAC was better than the MWC! Kind of stupid how the best team Hawaii has played all year is one of the worst from our conference.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You said I was wrong on all counts but then didn't say where I was wrong.

I think if you took bowl profits, you wouldn't find that the non-BCS share is any different now than it was 30 years ago. Bowls have never been that profitable. Half the bowls--which are the ones BYU has generally played in--barely pay out enough to cover expenses.

I don't buy that. 30 years ago the highest paying bowls paid out maybe 5 times what a lower tier bowl paid. Now it's 15 times. That's the power of monopoly.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I don't buy that. 30 years ago the highest paying bowls paid out maybe 5 times what a lower tier bowl paid. Now it's 15 times. That's the power of monopoly.

Right now non-BCS gets a share of BCS money even for not playing. It doesn't really matter if the Rose Bowl pays out 5 times Vegas Bowl vs 15 times, if you're talking profit, and the lower tier bowl is unprofitable in both cases.

The reality is MWC/WAC has never gotten any significant revenues from either TV contracts or bowl revenues. People wanted to see USC-Michigan 30 years ago and they still want to see them today.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You said I was wrong on all counts but then didn't say where I was wrong.

Hawaii getting in the BCS should make the anti-BCSers thrilled. Or are you making the case that non-BCSers should receive less of the pie?

If Hawaii makes a BCS bowl, barring a miraculous victory, the monopolists will argue that access is too easy for non-BCS teams, and they'll be right. There have been a handful of deserving non-BCS teams over the last 10 years who have deserved a shot. Outside of Utah and Boise St they haven't received one. Boise St probably didn't deserve one last year based on their schedule, but fortunately for them and us, they proved that at least on one New Year's Day they could hang with a top-15 team. They certainly gave us no indication they could DURING the season, as they played absolutely no one.

I get the feeling if I could interview one of these "anonymous" pollsters (which is a whole 'nother thing that's stupid about polls - there's no accountability - but I digress), the conversation would go like this:

Me - Where did you rank Hawaii this week?

Moron - 11th.

Me - So you think they're better than Tennessee?

Moron - no

Me - Florida?

Moron - no

Me - Cal?

{and on and on - I think you get the point}

Me - So why did you rank them ahead of all those teams?

Moron - because they're undefeated and those teams have lost multiple games.

Me - So how would Tennessee do against Utah St and N Colorado?

Moron - they'd dominate.

Me - {silently rolling eyes, putting 2 fingers to my head, and symbolically pulling the imaginary trigger to end it all.}.

It's just stupid to say the least. No one believes they're the 11th best team, yet they rank them there?????