The Tide made it by topping Oklahoma State, which ranked 2 in the computers. Everyone hated the all-SEC rematch, TV ratings tanked, and like five months later , the Playoff was officially announced.
The computers tried to give us Oklahoma State! Bleep blorp! In , the Playoff works exactly the same as it did in a dozen or so people go into a room, spit out rankings to ESPN, and send one member forth to briefly not explain anything to Rece Davis.
Until the Playoff expands. Or gets sued for only including four or five conferences. Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from.
By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. Reddit Pocket Flipboard Email.
Tennessee won the first BCS title game. Getty Images. Banner Society illustration. The computers [laser gun noises] This was the big revolution. Each loss adds 1 point to the total. Decision-makers just wanted to pick something and stick with it for a while. Why these specific conferences? What about the others?
Well, all conferences had an opportunity to earn automatic qualifications during a four-year evaluation during the seasons. The above mentioned were the five that met the criteria. The champion team from each AQ-conference will automatically earn a trip to one of the five BCS bowl games -- at least until , when their contract ends. The AQ conferences have contracts with bowl organizers and T.
The biasness of the BCS system creates an enormous challenge for any team in the seven non-AQ conferences to reach a championship game. These standings are an intricate portion of the BCS.
Each computer ranking uses different algorithms in its formula. Out of the six computer rankings, the highest and lowest rankings for each team are dropped and then divided by the remaining total by the maximum points. The average of all three parts totals is than taken to produce the BCS standings. Even if Boise State and TCU go undefeated this season there is no absolute guarantee that either will go to the national championship if Auburn and Oregon go undefeated.
Or even if Alabama bounces back Why? People complain that these teams don't have the right or have't earned the right to be ranked in the top five. All teams begin the season rated the same. After each week, the entire season is re-analyzed so that the new ratings best explain the observed results.
Actual game scores are not used, but homefield advantage is factored in, and there is a slight de-weighting of early season games. Over the years, the BCS has gotten criticized for fine-tuning its formula.
Recent changes have simplified the system for the better and removed extraneous redundancies. The current setup is a good balance of the traditional human polls, which the fan base is most comfortable with, and the objective computer component. Over the years, the two methods have tended to converge as the computers have revealed to the human voters the dangers of regional bias and misunderstanding of schedule strength. There will always be controversy when the formula must split hairs between 2 and 3, but the system is stable and beginning to be accepted by the media and fans.
Peter Wolfe not to be confused with Peter Wolf or Peter and the Wolf is keeper of the final computer ranking system to be reviewed here. His model relies on maximum likelihood estimation. Wolfe points out that the method he is using is often referred to as a Bradley-Terry model , which was first proposed by Bradley and Terry in He also points to Ford , Elo , and Keener The model is associated with paired comparisons where items two at a time are presented to a judge who chooses the superior item.
Over the course of many paired judgements, data is collected as used to ranked the objects based on the collection of judges paired decisions. This is easily applied to sports where two teams play against one another and superiority is based on who wins the game rather than a judge. Wolfe fits this model by using any data that arises from teams that can be connected by schedules.
He also allows for a home field advantage in his rankings. Many of the details of this method are publicly available, and, depending on how home field advantage is handled, I believe these rankings could probably be recreated very closely if you had access to all of the data Are NAIA results easy to get?
Wolfe also provides on his website a fantastic resource containing a bibliography of college football rankings systems maintained by David Wilson. An interesting note on this page is:. Stern includes a brief discussion of the Sagarin rankings, which he shows to be highly correlated with least-squares.
At the conclusion of the talk, Stern presents several references for useful publications on sports statistics.
Before I summarize, one important aspect of the BCS computer rankings that seems notably suspect to me is that not all ranking systems are using the same data as input. This means that, in the words of a friend from grad school, theoretically a game in front of family and friends on a Saturday in a farm town in Kansas on a Saturday in October could potentially determine who gets to go to a BCS bowl and who gets left out.
Now to summarize…. Sagarin, Colley, Massey, and Wolfe all release at least some details of their rankings systems and all seem to be based on some sort of mathematical principle of varying degrees of statistical legitimacy. As far as I can tell, Colley is the only one of the computer rankings that releases full details of his method, and for this he should be commended.
Or as Ed Feng puts it in this SI article :. Millions of BCS dollars are at the mercy of five black-box algorithms. Also, along those same lines, Jerry Palm says :. We should all be grateful to Colley for having a system that is open, accountable and verifiable. The BCS owes us an entire system that is open, accountable and verifiable.
According to Anderson and Hester, their method has many desirable properties, but many of these properties are impossible to verify as they, like most of the others, do not release their methodology. Further, they do not appear to have any substantial mathematical or statistical background that would make them particularly well suited for being included in the BCS computer rankings please correct me if I am wrong about this.
This method is almost entirely a mystery as very few specific details of this method are released. Finally, there is Richard Billingsley. They are a farce set-up by the BCS to give the appearance of legitimacy. The voters got what they wanted: Alabama in the BCS championship game. The same thing happened in They voted Alabama into the title game against LSU.
And yet the voters got what they wanted: Alabama in the BCS championship game. So, is the BCS good? Does it work? What does it accomplish? At the very least, it is absolutely an improvement over the old school bowl system prior to the BCS.
So what does the BCS definitely do? Sagarin, Massey. Of course, all of this is moot in when they finally move to a play-off system for determining the national championship. Hopefully, choosing four teams will be less of a controversy than picking only two teams, and the BCS can worry about more important issues.
Like paying the athletes who are risking brain trauma and debilitating injuries for almost no compensation at least publicly while coaches, schools, television, and just about everyone else involved makes money off of their hard work.
Skip to navigation Skip to main content Skip to primary sidebar Skip to secondary sidebar Skip to footer Stats in the Wild. BCS Methods Review The BCS Every year, undergraduate super fans follow every pass, every defensive stop, and every concussion of the season attempting to will their team to a national championship. Share this: Share Twitter Facebook.
Like this: Like Loading Leave a comment Trackbacks 1 Comments 4.
0コメント