Bill James: Boycott the BCS

Inky_Wretch · Jan 7, 2009

Says "statisticians, quantitative analysts, and all related professionals should have the dignity, the self-respect, and the common sense to have nothing to do with the BCS."

http://www.slate.com/id/2208108/pagenum/all/

Big Circus · Jan 7, 2009

Bill James is an idiot. Everyone knows that Florida was the most feared BCS team this year. [/crossthread]

Fenian_Bastard · Jan 8, 2009

Yeah, thanks, Bill.
When it comes to entertainment, statisticians are the first people with whom I check. Always.
Go away now please.

dooley_womack1 · Jan 8, 2009

Does he have a take on whom the Pythagorean national champion is?

2muchcoffeeman · Jan 8, 2009

I was about to post this. It has a lot of valid points, no matter what you think of James.

1. That there is a profound lack of conceptual clarity about the goals of the method;
2. That there is no genuine interest here in using statistical analysis to figure out how the teams compare with one another. The real purpose is to create some gobbledygook math to endorse the coaches' and sportswriters' vote;
3. That the ground rules of the calculations are irrational and prevent the statisticians from making any meaningful contribution; and
4. That the existence of this system has the purpose of justifying a few rich conferences in hijacking the search for a national title, avoiding a postseason tournament that would be preferred by the overwhelming majority of fans.
Click to expand...

There are several things that a ranking system could do. It could rank teams based on their accomplishments over the course of the season—whom they played and whom they beat—or it could rank them based on the probability that they would win against a given opponent. It could rank teams based on how they have played over the course of the season, including perhaps in some early-season games against teams that were not quite sure who their quarterback was, or it could rank them based on how strong they are at the end of the season. It could rank the teams based on consistency, or it could rank them based on dominance.

Which of these is the goal of the BCS system?

Nobody has any idea. It's never been debated. There is a perception among the people who are in charge of this monkey that if you just turn the rankings over to a computer, the computer will figure those things out. The reality is that it can't. It is very difficult to objectively measure anything if you don't know what it is you are measuring.
Click to expand...

There are two ways to get around this problem. First, the NCAA could pass a unanimous or nearly unanimous resolution, promising not to try to steal the proceeds of a national title contest and give the money to small schools, deserving nephews, or the church poor box. The BCS could then dissolve and be replaced by an NCAA Football Tournament involving eight to 16 teams, and the big football schools would wind up with just as much money or a little more.

Or, if that doesn't work, we can pass a law creating a new National Collegiate Sports Collaborative and requiring all schools receiving federal funding to join and participate. And if we have to do that, we'll decide how to split the money.

You don't actually have to pass the law; just bring it up in the House of Representatives and get 150 votes, and the BCS schools and the NCAA will work out their differences faster than Christiane Amanpour can get to a war zone.
Click to expand...

Ace · Jan 8, 2009

I agree with Bill James. I think the BCS is killing themselves finally by insisting that every other bowl mean nothing and by spacing them out over 12 weeks so no two games are on the same day.

Get rid of this obsolete rigged popularity contest and start a playoff already.

Boom_70 · Jan 8, 2009

I sat avoid hedge funds . They were created by statisticians. If James had any dignity he would not be working for John Henry - a hedge fund operator

Batman · Jan 8, 2009

1. That there is a profound lack of conceptual clarity about the goals of the method;
2. That there is no genuine interest here in using statistical analysis to figure out how the teams compare with one another. The real purpose is to create some gobbledygook math to endorse the coaches' and sportswriters' vote;
3. That the ground rules of the calculations are irrational and prevent the statisticians from making any meaningful contribution; and
4. That the existence of this system has the purpose of justifying a few rich conferences in hijacking the search for a national title, avoiding a postseason tournament that would be preferred by the overwhelming majority of fans.
Click to expand...

Thanks for checking in, Bill, but you're a little late to the party with that argument. He's basically saying that the BCS formula is hard to understand (duh!) and people want a tournament. What a novel freakin' notion!

There are several things that a ranking system could do. It could rank teams based on their accomplishments over the course of the season—whom they played and whom they beat—or it could rank them based on the probability that they would win against a given opponent. It could rank teams based on how they have played over the course of the season, including perhaps in some early-season games against teams that were not quite sure who their quarterback was, or it could rank them based on how strong they are at the end of the season. It could rank the teams based on consistency, or it could rank them based on dominance.

Which of these is the goal of the BCS system?

Nobody has any idea. It's never been debated. There is a perception among the people who are in charge of this monkey that if you just turn the rankings over to a computer, the computer will figure those things out. The reality is that it can't. It is very difficult to objectively measure anything if you don't know what it is you are measuring.
Click to expand...

There are two ways to get around this problem. First, the NCAA could pass a unanimous or nearly unanimous resolution, promising not to try to steal the proceeds of a national title contest and give the money to small schools, deserving nephews, or the church poor box. The BCS could then dissolve and be replaced by an NCAA Football Tournament involving eight to 16 teams, and the big football schools would wind up with just as much money or a little more.

Or, if that doesn't work, we can pass a law creating a new National Collegiate Sports Collaborative and requiring all schools receiving federal funding to join and participate. And if we have to do that, we'll decide how to split the money.

You don't actually have to pass the law; just bring it up in the House of Representatives and get 150 votes, and the BCS schools and the NCAA will work out their differences faster than Christiane Amanpour can get to a war zone.
Click to expand...

[/quote]

Ranking them based on who they played and who they beat is kind of what they do now, genius. It's why schools like Utah will never sniff a national championship. Because PEOPLE don't think they play anyone worthwhile over the course of the season. It's odd that a guy who has built his living on turning sports into one big math equation comes back to the idea that you still need people to watch games and figure out who's good and who isn't.

And redistributing the windfall from the BCS to the smaller schools? "A new National Collegiate Sports Collaborative"? When did American college sports become the old Soviet Union?
Oh, and good luck on all of this, Bill. Gordon Gee laughs in your direction -- and then spits in your face for good measure as he's getting on the plane to Pasadena.

Fenian_Bastard · Jan 8, 2009

Jesus, who the fuck cares?
Give me 38-31 and I'm happy.

Angola! · Jan 8, 2009

Batman said:

1. That there is a profound lack of conceptual clarity about the goals of the method;
2. That there is no genuine interest here in using statistical analysis to figure out how the teams compare with one another. The real purpose is to create some gobbledygook math to endorse the coaches' and sportswriters' vote;
3. That the ground rules of the calculations are irrational and prevent the statisticians from making any meaningful contribution; and
4. That the existence of this system has the purpose of justifying a few rich conferences in hijacking the search for a national title, avoiding a postseason tournament that would be preferred by the overwhelming majority of fans.
Click to expand...

Thanks for checking in, Bill, but you're a little late to the party with that argument. He's basically saying that the BCS formula is hard to understand (duh!) and people want a tournament. What a novel freakin' notion!

There are several things that a ranking system could do. It could rank teams based on their accomplishments over the course of the season—whom they played and whom they beat—or it could rank them based on the probability that they would win against a given opponent. It could rank teams based on how they have played over the course of the season, including perhaps in some early-season games against teams that were not quite sure who their quarterback was, or it could rank them based on how strong they are at the end of the season. It could rank the teams based on consistency, or it could rank them based on dominance.

Which of these is the goal of the BCS system?

Nobody has any idea. It's never been debated. There is a perception among the people who are in charge of this monkey that if you just turn the rankings over to a computer, the computer will figure those things out. The reality is that it can't. It is very difficult to objectively measure anything if you don't know what it is you are measuring.
Click to expand...

There are two ways to get around this problem. First, the NCAA could pass a unanimous or nearly unanimous resolution, promising not to try to steal the proceeds of a national title contest and give the money to small schools, deserving nephews, or the church poor box. The BCS could then dissolve and be replaced by an NCAA Football Tournament involving eight to 16 teams, and the big football schools would wind up with just as much money or a little more.

Or, if that doesn't work, we can pass a law creating a new National Collegiate Sports Collaborative and requiring all schools receiving federal funding to join and participate. And if we have to do that, we'll decide how to split the money.

You don't actually have to pass the law; just bring it up in the House of Representatives and get 150 votes, and the BCS schools and the NCAA will work out their differences faster than Christiane Amanpour can get to a war zone.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ranking them based on who they played and who they beat is kind of what they do now, genius. It's why schools like Utah will never sniff a national championship. Because PEOPLE don't think they play anyone worthwhile over the course of the season. It's odd that a guy who has built his living on turning sports into one big math equation comes back to the idea that you still need people to watch games and figure out who's good and who isn't.

And redistributing the windfall from the BCS to the smaller schools? "A new National Collegiate Sports Collaborative"? When did American college sports become the old Soviet Union?
Oh, and good luck on all of this, Bill. Gordon Gee laughs in your direction -- and then spits in your face for good measure as he's getting on the plane to Pasadena.
[/quote]

I don't think he is being serious with that, I think he is saying congress could threaten them with it and it would force the BCS and the NCAA to come up with something better.

dooley_womack1 · Jan 8, 2009

The hell if something as relatively trivial as the BCS should be considered by Congress for a nanosecond. The steroids hearings were bad enough.

JakeandElwood · Jan 8, 2009

Anyone arguing against the BCS is pretty much automatically making a good point.

Log in or Sign up

Bill James: Boycott the BCS

Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

Big Circus Well-Known Member

Fenian_Bastard Guest

dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

Ace Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Batman Well-Known Member

Fenian_Bastard Guest

Angola! Guest

dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

JakeandElwood Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Bill James: Boycott the BCS

Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

Big Circus Well-Known Member

Fenian_Bastard Guest

dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

Ace Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Batman Well-Known Member

Fenian_Bastard Guest

Angola! Guest

dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

JakeandElwood Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches