If USC wins, there WILL be 2 legitimate National Champions.

[Brotherjohn]

(EDITED Title of Thread)
LSU or Oklahoma will be Coaches' champ, and USC will be AP champ.

All arguments over which will be the "real" National Championship aside, it's really that simple: a split national championship, just as has always been possible (because the BCS has no effect on the AP poll, I don't know why they ever thought they were preventing such an occurrence; it could very easily have happened in 2 or 3 of the last few years, too).

I understand USC's complaint that, yes, the BCS "forces" the coaches poll to vote the winner of the BCS 1-2 game as No. 1. That seems unjust. But that was the the decision of the Coaches' Poll/organization. In agreeing to be a part of the BCS, they agreed to award their trophy according to the BCS formula, and not just according to their poll, as they had in the past. They agreed to relegate their poll to just a portion of a system which determines who plays for the National Championship. They agreed to award their trophy to the winner according to this apparently more objective (I'm not saying more correct) system. They made this agreement, and the 6 major conferences agreed to it, including the PAC 10.

I'm not saying the BCS is perfect. FAR from it. But the only thing that changed with the BCS is the method by which the Coaches' National Championship would be decided.

The BCS does not guarantee a "National Championship Game" in the AP Poll (1 vs. 2). The Rose Bowl is not a "NC Game" because USC is not playing No. 2. At the same time, we never had a guaranteed "NC Game" before BCS, based on either poll. Also at the same time, the BCS only guarantees a "National Championship Game" (1 vs. 2) according to the BCS ratings, and therefore only for the Coaches' trophy (again, their decision).

So there's really not a controversy any more than there used to be in the past, in that the Coaches and Media might disagree, and we'd have a split National Championship. It does prove, however, that the BCS does not work in acomplishing its main goal.

[dkamin]

1. Isn't it

the case that if USC wins, there will be a split, regardless of who wins LSU-Oklahoma?

[Brotherjohn]

4. Yes. That's what I meant.

[Emboldened Chimp]

2. This is so DUMB!

Why don't they just play each other for the title? This is why I hate college football.

[rocktivity]

5. BCS is so dumb that even I was able to figure out that it's dumb

I don't follow college football much, and I still don't understand how you can rank teams before the season even starts. But for nearly two years now, I've heard the complaints and warnings that the BCS system was doomed to end up creating precisely the situation we have now. The critics were blown off as naysayers, and the supporters are now trying to divert the blame. It's all so terribly--Republican.


rocknation

[Brotherjohn]

6. I agree. But c'est la vie. That is not the system in place now.

It'd be easy. Use the same system, or even change it a bit if you want. Take the Top 4 and have them play in 2 bowls as the semifinals (seeded 1-4 and 2-3). Have a third Bowl serve as the National Championship Game. Same as now, but a 4-team playoff instead of 2. Rotate which bowls get which games. Again, same as now, except 3 bowls a year get to take part in the "playoff" instead of 1.

The AP poll is still independent, though, and they still award their own trophy not tied to the BCS. However, if this sort of system is implemented, I'd think, after the Finals game, the AP poll would usually agree with the BCS results. I doubt if AP would have a team not included in this BCS Top 4 that would merit passing one of those Top 4 after such a playoff. They may still, occassionally, have a No. 2 or 3 who is not even included in the BCS Top 4. In that case, if that team wins its bowl, there is the possibility of a split championship. But it will be MUCH less likely, and as long as the AP is independent of the BCS/Coaches Poll, there will ALWAYS be the possibility of a split national championship.

[NewGuy]

3. If the BCS methodology is correct...

USC should have no chance of winning because they have not played a tough enough season be ready for their opponent. The BCS weights strength of schedule pretty highly. I think they are right to do so. If you can beat the best 12 out of 13 times that is inherently better than beating the also rans 12 out of 13 games. Also, you should be better prepared for your bowl game having been honed on the whet stone of competition.

[Brotherjohn]

8. I agree that more objective criteria such as SOS should be included.

But that is what the Coaches' organization has agreed to do, in making their poll part of a system that incorporates such statistics on top of just their poll. They have also decided to institute a playoff (2 teams only) based on this system.

But the AP has not. And the fact of the matter is that today (as always) there are 2 National Championship trophies awarded: one by the AP and one by the Coaches. So there WILL be co-national champs if USC wins.

I agree that the media poll may not be objective enough. But I also think strictly computerized polls are maybe TOO objective (no common sense; no program can factor in all the variables). To say that USC does not deserve the NC if they win the Rose Bowl would be saying no team that has ever won the AP National Championship ever deserved it because that poll is too biased. The same can be said of the Coaches' poll pre-BCS. Then there's the BCS today, which no one can say is perfect.

The fact is that there are 2 National Championships, and it will remain that way until the AP comes to some sort of agreement with the BCS, or the BCS comes up with a better system (more teams in a playoff?) that will result in a more unanimous champion.

[Awsi Dooger]

18. That is overstating the SOS difference to an absurd degree

It's hardly best vs. also rans. In fact, USC's SOS was rated significantly higher than LSU's prior to the final weekend, when only the SEC's additional conference title game allowed LSU's SOS to overtake USC's. If the Pac-10 had a similar game, with USC playing a rematch with Wash St, the Trojans' SOS would be superior acording to the all-knowing BCS, and USC would be in the Sugar Bowl.

Also, if either Notre Dame had defeated Syracuse, or Hawaii beat Boise St last Saturday, USC's SOS would have been rated sufficient to place the Trojans ahead of LSU in the BCS formula. The final margin was 16/100 of one point, so don't pretend the SOS margin was substantial. If ANY of USC's opponents had won a single additional game, the Sugar Bowl matchup would be altered.

[NewGuy]

19. Strength of Schedule look

LSU played 4 teams that were ranked in the top 25 at the time LSU played them. USC played only 1 team that was ranked in the top 25 at the time they played them.

My point was that the national championship is not likely to end the year split as USC will likely get stomped by Michigan, a team that has had its skills honed by competition against 4 top 25 teams during the season. That is why the BCS factors in SOS.

The last split championship was between Nebraska and Michigan 5 or 6 years ago. Anyone who watched Michigan beat the number 4 team in the nation by less than one score, while Nebraska demolished the number two team by 3 or 4 scores would have a tough time telling you why that championship was split. The poll system of establishing a national champion is flawed. The BCS has published criteria, if a team fails to win the BCS championship it is because they were not the best against those criteria. Someone; the athletic director setting up the schedule, the coach deciding to put in his second string and so not pulverizing the other teams, or the players not winning enough games has screwed up.

[AntiCoup2K4]

7. Only because the BCS is so blatantly biased against the PAC 10 conference.

USC (or any other PAC 10 team) could have a 12 - 0 record for 5 consecutive years and they would never get the championship.

I'm reminded of the 1991 season when the UW Huskies blew absolutely everyone off the field and the best they could get was "sharing" the title with the perpetually over-rated Miami Cocaines. :grr:

[Brotherjohn]

9. Well, I don't love the BCS either. But you can't argue that the BCS is...

... is biased against the PAC 10 and deny the possibility that the human polls are biased FOR them. After all, other than the human poll contribution (which all voted USC #1), every BCS component is computer and statistic-based.

I suppose the computer programs are biased against the PAC-10? I think it's much more (or at least as) likely that the human polls are biased towards the PAC-10... but actually and more realistically, to bigger markets in general.

I tend to lean towards the human polls myself, but I do think a little more objectivity could be in order. If the BCS has just taken the average of the computer polls and the average of the human polls, and not tried to re-add in their own version of the computer data (thus giving SOS and other things undue weight), we'd have USC-1, LSU-2, and OK-3. That, I think, is their mistake. But I don't think the BCS has people in back rooms trying to come up with formulas that they know will hurt the PAC-10, or are telling the NY Times, Sagarin, and others to do the same.

[Awsi Dooger]

17. Grap the rosters of the 1991 Miami and Washington teams

And good luck if you could find 5 Huskies who could start in Coral Gables. Miami defeated #1 FSU in Tallahassee, which was ten times anything Washington managed that season. Even the Michigan squad you vanquished in the Rose Bowl was crap. Washington was an excellent team, but Miami deserved every bit the shared title.

And I noticed that the Huskies were predictably AWOL a year later, while Miami again went unbeaten in the regular season and played for the championship, like 8 times since 1983. Sounds like the very definition of perpetually overrated, as does 36 first round draft picks. And if the top two in the last regular season poll was a criteria for playing in the title game, Miami would have been in it an additional two times.

How did those Huskies fare this season, while Miami is heading to yet another major bowl? Oh yes, I remember Washington was somewhat competitive at home vs Nevada, and did manage to score a touchdown at Cal, while holding the Bears slightly below 60.

[UrbScotty]

10. Michigan will see to it that there will only be one, though.

Big Ten ALWAYS beats the Pac-10!

ALWAYS!!!!!

[Braden]

13. um. actually since 1947 when the Big 10 vs. PAC-10 champions

exclusively played in the Rose Bowl the Big Ten is 28-27 vs. the Pac Ten.

not exactly ALWAYS.

[Braden]

11. if #1 wins their final game they are still #1

its the ways it's ALWAYS been in college football.

[Brotherjohn]

12. Well, yes, always... in the past.

But the Coaches have agreed that they will start picking their winner another way, as of 5-6 years ago. That is simply reality and the rules as they stand today.

Without the Top 4 or 8 actually playing, the championships (AP and coaches, and yes, computer) are just based on guesses anyway. The Coaches have just decided to change the way they "guess", in that their poll will only be a part of it, and that computer-based data will also contribute to determining a No. 1 and a No. 2, and then those teams will decide on the field.

I'm not saying the BCS is great, and I'm not saying they didn't screw up this year. But one could make the case that their newly added "objectivity" results in a more valid "guess" than the prior situation of just Coaches voting (or than the AP poll). In addition to this, there's the fact that they are making their "guesses" for No. 1 and No. 2 prove it on the field. At least it guarantees a 1 vs. 2 game using some ratings system, which wasn't done before (God, am I defending the BCS?! That was not my intention.).

Again, I am not saying that the BCS is great. I am just saying that the current system still results in two valid national champions that may or may not always be the same. That is no different from how it has always been.

I guess what people have to understand is that the Coaches' trophy is no longer awarded based on just their poll. It is awarded based on the BCS rankings, and the winner of the 1-2 game. That being the case, USC IS No. 1 in the running for the AP National Championship, but they ARE ONLY NO. 3 in the running for the Coaches' National Championship. They are NOT No. 1 in the running for the Coaches Championship, and that is because of how the Coaches have decided to determine their champion. When you say they are No. 1 in both polls, that is irrelevant, because the Coaches' National Championship is no longer determined by its poll.

[Braden]

14. I agree. Computers should be used as a tool to make decisions

they should NEVER be used to make the decision.

The AP voters will not change their #1 if SC wins. Some of the coaches might not "Vote" the BCS title game winner as #1 out of protest we shall see.

I am very familiar with the how the BS works.

oops left out the C.

[Brotherjohn]

15. I never meant to imply you didn't understand the full workings of the BCS

(shouldn't one get a doctorate for that, BTW?)

See my updated post above, too. I guess my main point is that the methodology for determining of the Coaches' championship has changed, and the poll is no longer as relevant except in that it plays a part in picking 1-2. So it's kind of pointless for USC to argue that they are No. 1 in the Coaches' poll. It means about as much now as arguing they are No. 1 in the Sagarin ratings.

I sympathize with them. As an LSU fan, I think it should be LSU-USC. But at the same time, I don't buy the "AP is the only REAL championship" line. I also don't think they are in any worse a situation than LSU-OK. If it is split, perhaps that's the way it should be, since we are not playing them, and they are not playing us. Both can now legitimately claim a portion of the NC.

We'll see how the BCS methodology holds up over time, though (I suspect not too well).

As far as never using computers to make a decision, if they are factored in in any way, they will always arguably be making the decision. If they feed in only about 1% (vs. human polling), they still could make the difference (look how close it was this year). I do think they have undue influence now, though, since the BCS also factors in "computer" type numbers that the computer polls have already factored in once.

Here's an idea. Take the average of the human polls. Of average in computer polls if you want, too (but just once). If there's a tie, go to old-fashioned (non-computer based, yet still objective) tiebreakers.
1) Head-to Head
2) Number of losses
3) Record against common opponents
4) Top 25 teams beaten (add up the numbers of the teams beaten; lowest number wins)

Whatever.... Only resort to complicated numbers games if there is a tie. ONLY then.

[Braden]

20. no I misread something and got a burr in my saddle over this

I like your idea. I still think its funny that we use the comparing number of losses criteria. That in itself is pretty funny. I remember back in 1990 0r so Florida State lost their first two games, then ran the table including a 44-28 Romp over Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl. But they had two losses so even though they beat Florida and Miami, then Nebraska. no Shot at the title.

I would like to see the voters sit down and analyze SOS, Margin of victory, Road vs. Home records and keep it human.

I guess there is no one answer. I Hope LSU and USC win. It will bring about a swift revamp of the horribly flawed system we have.

[screembloodymurder]

16. If USC wins they're #1

period.