Playoffs: Selection Part I

Evolutionary biology describes selection as the passing of the most deserving traits from one generation to the next; the ones that benefit the cause if you will.  College football could certainly serve to benefit from the upcoming evolution of its postseason.  So which traits would benefit college football the most in postseason play?  Conference champion?  Final ranking?  Minimum number of wins?  I’ll delve into these questions in a series of posts looking at the BCS formula, its flaws, and my selection method for the four team playoff.

Part 1: The Current Formula

The BCS selects the top two teams using a formula that utilizes three components - the Harris Interactive Poll, USA Today Coaches Poll, and six computer rankings.  The three components are then averaged (with the average of six computer rankings acting as one component) to provide the BCS Top 25.  This selection has not been without controversy year after year and there’s no better representative of that controversy than the 2003-2004 national championship game featuring LSU and Oklahoma.  Oklahoma was routed in the Big-12 championship game by Kansas State 35-7, but still finished ahead of USC, top in both the AP and Coaches Polls.  The rest is history with LSU beating Oklahoma and USC dismantling Michigan.  The outrage was so bad that three coaches broke their contractual obligation to vote USC number 1 over the mandated vote for LSU, and the BCS decided to eliminate strength of schedule from the computer polls.  Let's breakdown each of these sources of controversy individually.  First up? The Harris Poll.

Harris Poll
The Harris Poll was included after the AP Poll decided it wanted no part in crowning the champion in a sport that it covered.  They wanted objectivity and argued the BCS "threatened to undermine the independence and integrity of the poll".  Thus, the Harris Poll was introduced in 2005 and has received a bit of criticism after its inclusion.  The Harris Poll selects the voters from a random drawing of nominations submitted by the 11 FBS conferences - essentially the BCS.  Now the Harris Poll says these nominations are of former players, athletic directors, former media, etc., but fails to state the qualifications for nominations.   Here's a breakdown of the 2011-2012 Harris Poll voters and their link to college football.  Several of these voters are in industries outside of college football, leading one to question what exactly qualifies you to be a voter?  Well, you have to know the right people.  After all the BCS is just an elitist club, run by a select few watching the rest clamor to gain access.  Want to join the club?  Easy!  Bring your checkbook, check your logic at the door, and grab the kool-aid on your way in.  Just viewing the voting distribution leaves one to question whether these voters truly watch the games or not.  But that's neither here nor there.  Since its inception the Harris Poll has provided identical top four teams as the AP Poll, essentially providing the BCS with a one to one swap and negligibly, if at all, impacting the BCS standings.  Now onto the absurdity that is the inclusion of the USA Today Coaches Poll.


The Coaches Poll
 I have absolutely no issue with the coaches poll itself, but I have a very large issue with a system that allows its coaches to have a say in the games for which they can be selected.  Conflict of interest anyone?  The current argument that it is virtually impossible for one coach to drastically affect the overall BCS standings is suspect.  It ignores the business aspect of college football.   Make no mistake, college football is a business.  It’s not the fact that one coach can influence the standings; it’s the fact that several can.  Conferences rely on the BCS payouts of its participants to help stop the bleeding of non-BCS bowl participants within their conference.  Without this subsidization, many schools would be in the red for playing mid to low tier bowls.  This provides an incentive of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for select coaches, not privileged to a BCS bowl, to vote their peers ahead of other, more deserving schools.  When do coaches even have time to study and watch teams from around the nation?  Simple answer?  They don’t.  They get their sports information directors to cast their votes.  But back to the possibility of the coaches voting for themselves… this past season Nick Saban voted his Alabama Crimson Tide #2, while he voted Oklahoma State #4.  I'll let that digest for a moment.  Hard to put down wasn’t’ it? Everyone else in the nation is debating Alabama and Oklahoma State in some order at 2 and 3, yet Saban doesn’t even vote Oklahoma State top three?  What were you watching Nick Alabama SID?  Can we really fault the coaches though? If they are voting, they're looking out for their best interests and if they aren't, it's easy to forgive considering they are running big time college programs.  On to the last component – the mysterious computer rankings.


Computer Rankings
The BCS formula is comprised of six computer rankings with all but one choosing not to disclose their formulas, making this arguably the most controversial component.  The lack of transparency, especially after CBS Sports’ Jerry Palm discovered a mistake in one of the polls, is the source of this controversy.  People fear what they don't understand and the general public doesn't understand the computer rankings.  Not only are the formulas not disclosed, there's no system of checks and balances.  No oversight.  Nothing.  Mistakes similar to the one found by Jerry Palm could be made all the time, and no one would know!  Luckily, the mistake didn’t affect the overall BCS standings, but who's to say that they couldn't in the future.  Although unlikely, it's not impossible for all six computer rankings to be incorrect in the final poll, leading to the wrong National Championship matchup.  The fact that this is a possibility is the issue, and correcting the issue couldn't be easier.  Just reveal the formulas!  Proprietary concerns?  Alright, that should be easy enough.  Copyright it, patent it, do whatever you need to ensure the authors retain all intellectual property rights.  Just make the damn formulas transparent!

So there it is in all its glory, the problem overshadowing college football, the BCS formula!  Now that we know what’s wrong with the current formula, part II will look at how I propose to correct it, eliminating what we know of as the BCS and revamping the selection process.