The Real Problem with the BCS Formula

by Jamesmouton

It's never too early to discuss the BCS, and any time the BCS is mentioned there is instant controversy. Many fans of college football would love to see the BCS dismantled and the Division 1 Bowl Subdivision turn to a playoff system to determine its National Champion. The biggest problem with the current BCS system, they say, is the inclusion of computer polls. But what many don't understand is that the six computer polls used in the BCS formula are stripped down, unbiased, "politically correct" versions of the computer ratings. That is to say they do not include any measurement of margin of victory or scoring margin. The problem with this is that most of the computer polls used were originally calculated and developed using some type of margin of victory. Here is the problem.

Currently, the Northern Iowa Panthers look like the sleeper in the race to the BCS Championship game! Looking at Jeff Sagarin's current ratings, you'll see that Northern Iowa is ranked at #56. In case you are unaware, Northern Iowa plays in what is now called the Division 1 Championship Subdivision, or as most know it to be called, Division 1-AA. Now the fact that the Panthers, a Division 1-AA team, is rated #56 is not at all surprising. Northern Iowa is 5-0, with 4 straight wins on the road, and one of those wins coming at Division 1 Iowa State. But where things really start to get strange is when you look at what Sagarin calls his ELO-CHESS rankings, or the unbiased rankings used by the BCS. ELO-CHESS does not measure any type of scoring margin and are strictly based on wins and losses. Northern Iowa, what Sagarin's true rating considers the 56th best team in the nation, is ranked #6 when scoring margin is removed. That means the BCS would look at Jeff Sagarin's ratings and think that the Northern Iowa Panthers are the sixth best team in all of college football! Obviously, we have a problem. Now I realize that it is early in the season, and with the more games UNI plays against Division 1-AA opponents, even if they continue winning, the more they will fall down these ratings, but this should be an eyeopener that the current BCS formula is flawed. How does a Division 1-AA team who has played the 135th toughest schedule to this point look like a top 10 team to any computer? When you remove scoring margin, you are handicapping these computer polls from doing what they were originally developed to do.

The BCS does not want to include any type of scoring margin due to the fear of coaches "running up the score" on their opponent. First of all, this already happens on a weekly basis. Under the current system, and any system we choose, coaches will always have the thought of scoring a few more points in order to impress the pollsters. This is going to happen whether those pollsters are human or computers. The art of "running up the score" has been around long before computer polls, and will always be a part of college football so long as there are polls. But margin of victory, with strength of schedule, is the truest way to determine the quality of teams who do not play head-to-head. For example, Team A defeats Team B handily by three touchdowns. Team C defeats the same Team B on a last second field goal. Shouldn't Team A be rewarded for playing better in a game against a like opponent?

The Solution. Why not have margin of victory be included into the equation of these computer polls but with a cap or limit? That is to say, if a team wins by 20 or more points it is considered a 20+ point win. So a 20-point victory is measured the same as a 45-point win. That will appease those who are concerned about teams "running it up", but it will also reward a team that wins by 20 more than a team that wins by 1. Obviously no system is perfect, and just by adding a scoring margin element the computer polls are not going to all of a sudden be able to predict everything. But with the way these computer polls are currently derived, the BCS formula cannot possibly do what it was developed to do. Just think of a game between Northern Iowa (currently #6 in Sagarin's "unbiased" formula) and Oklahoma (38th in that same "unbiased" formula), then try to tell me that there isn't a major problem with the current BCS formula, that could be fixed very easily.

Read more at The Big Ten Chronicle

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

789 days ago

Score 2

The problem with including margin of victory is that some games are closer than the score suggests, and other games are not as close as a score might suggest.

But I think you could develop a system with different levels of winning based on margin of victory:

Less than 3 points and/or overtime: level 1 3 to 6 points: level 2 7 to 9 points: level 3 10 to 13 points: level 4 14 to 20 points: level 5 21+ points: level 6

With the game of football, a 4 point lead and a 5 point lead are essentially the same late in a game. Both are overcome by two field goals or a touchdown. But at the same time, there's a huge difference between a 3 point lead and a 4 point lead.

Permalink | Reply

CheezerAll-Star

789 days ago

Score 2

There are flaws with any methodology, including yours.

To talk to your Team A, Team B, Team C example. What if Team B had njured players against Team A, but not Team C? What if Team A beat them at home and Team C beat them on the road? The variabilities are endless.

Granted, my comments are a series of "what-ifs", but my point is that there are flaws with any ranking system. Especially with football because of the small number of games played in a season.

Permalink | Reply

IlliniEdVarsity

789 days ago

Score 3

Personally I think the biggest flaw in the BCS is the fact that it uses polls that have preseason rankings. I am not a huge fan of preseason polls and beleive that the polls should only come out around 5-6 weeks into the year. That would allow the country to get a better idea of who is a good team and who is not. With teams being ranked from the onset, you are hindered if you are not in the top 25. The channces of you actually competeing for hte crown is greatly reduced. Every team should be allowed to start with a clean slate and give it a few weeks to see how things fall out. USC is given an unfair advantage over every other team because they are #1. Who is to say that if things were treated equally from the onset of hte season and no preseason polls were used that USC wouldnt be third right now. I am using USC as an example, I dont think they should be third.

Permalink | Reply

JamesmoutonWaterboy

789 days ago

Score 3

Could not agree more with you on the Preseason Polls. They are completely useless and whack everything out for the entire year. For example, the only reason Wisconsin is rated higher than other undefeated teams (Kentucky, S Florida, Boston College, etc.) is because they were rated higher in the Preseason, and most "pollsters" refuse to drop a team unless they lose, irregardless of how bad they look.

Permalink

CheezerAll-Star

789 days ago

Score 2

I'm not a big fan of pre-season polls either. Heck UM was #5 weren't they?

Permalink

IlliniEdVarsity

789 days ago

Score 3

Actually, you cited the exact example I was thinking of. Wisconsin is ranked fifth in the country and for some reason they are 2.5 point dogs to my Illini. Now, I know point spreads mean nothing, but can you tell me any other time when a #5 ranked team was playing an unranked team and wasnt favored at all let alone by atelast 10 points?

Permalink

Doctor CoachWaterboy

789 days ago

Score 1

best article i have read on the subject in quite some time. Thisis part of the reason SI's Rick Telander stopped covering College FB

Permalink | Reply

Oh No RomoDraft Pick

789 days ago

Score 1

Only one logical way to solve the BCS Bruhaha. Royal Rumble

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #1

787 days ago

Score 0

The problem with the BCS is EVERYTHING. They're not doing one thing right. Like this article mentions, it's a joke that computers don't use margin of victory. Sure margin of victory can be misleading, but it's obviously better than not using it at all. And obviously a cap needs to be applied, somewhere around 21-28 points.

But the human polls are just as big of a problem, because of the fact they're based partially on preseason expectations like somebody else said, and also because it's the frickin coaches that vote! Sit back and think about that for a second, it makes no sense. You're having active coaches vote to rank their competitors teams. The coaches that vote fall into three categories:

1)Coaches that don't do the poll themselves. Some of these coaches don't even know where the teams rank in what is supposed to be their poll (see Tressel not knowing where Texas ranked in "his" poll last year). And this is clearly a problem because we don't know who is writing the polls for them or what they know about football. 2)Coaches that are submitting ignorant polls. These coaches have no idea how good other teams are, outside of maybe their own conference. They don't watch them play, they don't study them, they don't know anything about them. The coaches that do vote themselves are basing their opinions on what they hear from other people. 3)Coaches that should be fired. If there are any coaches that have any clue about who the top 25 teams should be based on first hand knowledge, they're clearly not doing their job. They're supposed to be preparing their teams for their next game not studying other teams they're never going to play.

But at the end of the day, the only solution that's really fair to everyone is something that's never going to happen. And that's having the NCAA form a selection committee that determines which teams play for the national title every year. And the key is don't limit them to a set number of teams, because the number of teams that can claim they're the best is different every year...if it's two, there's no problem, have one game. If it's four, have a two round playoff. If it's three or five they can decide which team gets a bye. It's simple really, but unfortunately will likely never happen.

Permalink | Reply