Wetzel again blasts the BCS for some fuzzy math

He's wrong about one thing: The BCS doesn't prevent margin of victory from being considered. It prevents 1/3 of its formula from counting it. All voters are free to consider margin of victory, and that includes 2/3 of the formula.

 

I am a strong and longtime advocate of a playoff. Nothing that happened this year changes my mind on that. But the 2011 season reveals, not for the first time, that the endless arguments about the teams in the BCS championship game are really a red herring to disguise the system's real weakness (from a spectator viewpoint) and injustice, the automatic conference bids. Nobody wants to see the Big East champ in ANY bowl, let alone a BCS bowl. And, BTW, if those same conferences want to suck up the money from a conference championship game, simple justice should make it a rule that a team that loses said game is out of the BCS bowl money. Period. Is that unfair? Yes. It's no more unfair than making folks watch UConn lose by nine touchdowns.
Several of the BCS rumored matchups besides the title game look pretty good. Michigan-Houston would be fun. The Rose Bowl looks OK.
If and when the antitrust suit comes, the commissioner of the Big East is likely to be the first (hostile) witness for the Justice Dept.

 

He didn't say that. He said the BCS does not allow margin of victory to be part of any computer formula. He was questioning how accurate a formula can be given the small bodies of work from a large field of participants if you don't include victory margin.

He notes that teams still routinely up scores to impress human voters.

 

Right. But I think he was saying the computer formulas don't allow for margin of victory. You're right, though. The way he wrote that sentence was confusing and appears wrong. We all know what he meant.

 

You don't understand the constant bitching about it?

You yourself said it's far from perfect. So why should anyone accept the BCS and its many flaws when a better system could be put in place? Of course people are going to bitch. You, yourself claim you don't support the BCS.

As it is, the BCS undermines the fairness, morality and ultimate objectives of sport. You like the current system because it allows TCU to play in the Rose Bowl. I would like a system that allows TCU to compete for a national championship.

 

"As such, a 70-3 victory counts the same as a 7-3 win."

That statement is false or misleading. Either way, it's sloppy.

And I agree with him on almost everything. Michael_Gee's comment about the inevitable antitrust suit is also right. People forget that the Supreme Court, 27 years ago, used the lack of a playoff against the NCAA.

I just think he hurts his otherwise strong argument by making a pretty weak margin of victory claim (it's only been limited by 1/3), at most.

 

My only comment on the subject is that if Georgia wins the SEC (and I don't think it will), it's illogical (IMHO) to have two other teams from the same conference play in the BCS title game.

 

It's neither false nor misleading if you read the context. He is in the middle of pointing out flaws in the BCS's use of the COMPUTER FORMULAS. And in the computer formulas, you aren't allowed to give more credit for 70-3 than you are 7-3.

You'd have a point only if you take the paragraph completely out of the context of the larger story.

Perhaps he could constantly repeat throughout his list of problems with the computer formulas that he is talking about the computer formulas. But to me, that would make for redundant, wordy, sloppy writing.

 

Anyone who thinks a playoff isn't as much crap as the BCS has never covered a division with a playoff.
Just this year, I saw two teams share a conference championship with matching 6-1 records. Team A's lone loss was to Team B at home by 30 points. Team B lost by one point on the road to the next to last place team. There are no automatic qualifiers. Team A went to the playoffs. Team B did not. I've seen teams go 10-1 and not make the playoffs because of Earned Access that put in a 7-4 team.

No system is perfect. People claim a playoff allows it to be settled on the field. That's false, too, because there is a chance a fluke play or a bad call allows for upsets.

I would personally like to see it be a requirement that only conference champions play for the national title - in all sports. If you can't even lay claim to being the best in your conference, how can you lay claim to being the best in the country? Everyone knows the 3-4 place team in the SEC would wear out the conference champ from the WAC or whatever league, but it should still only be open for conference champs.

 

Shoeless, HUGE difference between a team getting to be team No. 68 in a 68-team field or 20 in a 20-team field and being just one of two allowed into a national championship game. HUGE, huge difference. Anybody with a reasonable hope of a national title in basketball or FCS football will make they playoffs unless they exclude themselves (see Ivy League and SWAC in football). When you are getting to the bubble teams in these tournaments to me you are looking at teams that should feel very fortunate to be part of the process, if they are indeed invited to take part.

In other words, nobody ever argues that the 69th team in the NCAA tournament selection was not given a fair shot.

 

I'm the wicked stepmother when it comes to these things. Cinderella has no business at the dance. Two terms I hate "this is a great story" and "playing great right now."

I think a champion should be the best over a season, not a few weeks. Can anyone honestly say the St. Louis Cardinals were the best team in baseball this year or were they best team in October that slipped in only because someone else sucked monumentally in September?

 

All those jerks should quit going on and on and on about Penn State and Jerry Sandusky, too.