Tuesday, November 30
More Useless BCS Info
Monday’s BCS rankings have the Horns .0013 points behind Cal in the standings, making a switch between the #4 Bears and #5 Longhorns more probable than seemed possible a week ago. Still, some voters will have to change their minds for Texas to be BCS-bound. In fact, the standings are so close, that a switch by as few as three voters could give the Horns the edge. Here’s hoping that Southern Mississippi gives Cal all they can handle…
Interestingly, under last year’s BCS formula, the Horns would be ahead of Cal in the standings. Last year’s formula weighted the computers more heavily, but after voter-ranked #1 USC failed to make the title game because the computers put them at #3 (behind OU and LSU), the BCS formula was altered to weight human opinion more heavily. As things stand today, the Horns are ranked #4 by five of the six computers, and #5 in the last. Cal is ranked #6 in five of the six computers and #10 in the last. Another year, another BCS snub for Texas. (We could avoid this nonsense if we would just beat OU...)
Not confused yet? Here’s some more useless information for you. If the BCS used the same formula that it used in 2001, Cal would still be ahead of Texas, but they might even be ahead of Auburn. Why? The old computer formulas were allowed to use margin of victory in their rankings (and Cal scores very, very high when you count margin of victory). After Nebraska’s ridiculous slide into the title game in 2001, margin of victory was forbidden from use in computer rankings. Were margin of victory still permitted, and were computer rankings still weighted as heavily, Cal would be pushing Auburn very hard for the #3 spot.
In the end, we always come back to the same thing: there’s no formula for picking the best teams. It should be decided on the field.
--PB--
Interestingly, under last year’s BCS formula, the Horns would be ahead of Cal in the standings. Last year’s formula weighted the computers more heavily, but after voter-ranked #1 USC failed to make the title game because the computers put them at #3 (behind OU and LSU), the BCS formula was altered to weight human opinion more heavily. As things stand today, the Horns are ranked #4 by five of the six computers, and #5 in the last. Cal is ranked #6 in five of the six computers and #10 in the last. Another year, another BCS snub for Texas. (We could avoid this nonsense if we would just beat OU...)
Not confused yet? Here’s some more useless information for you. If the BCS used the same formula that it used in 2001, Cal would still be ahead of Texas, but they might even be ahead of Auburn. Why? The old computer formulas were allowed to use margin of victory in their rankings (and Cal scores very, very high when you count margin of victory). After Nebraska’s ridiculous slide into the title game in 2001, margin of victory was forbidden from use in computer rankings. Were margin of victory still permitted, and were computer rankings still weighted as heavily, Cal would be pushing Auburn very hard for the #3 spot.
In the end, we always come back to the same thing: there’s no formula for picking the best teams. It should be decided on the field.
--PB--
