Question for you Football-files out there...

[CapitalFalcon]

Ok...From what I have read here and other places, they are re-jigging the BCS again for this season (I think it is this season). From what I undertstand it include a new way to calculate the rankings as well as a final bowl game after all other bowls that will pit the "undisputed" (ha ha) #1 & #2 against each other for all the marbles. Two question for you out there that are more in-the-know:

1. Is this in fact what is happening for the '04 season?

2. What are your thoughts on what this will mean for conferences such as the MAC?

[Warthog]

I don't think the extra games goes into affect this year. They did change the formula again, and that is going to happen this year, I think. They are giving more weight to the two "human" polls and less weight to the computer polls. I think this hurts teams like BG and other mid-majors because the "humans" are so slanted toward the big money congerences. Teams like BG, Miami, Boise St. can only go so far in the "human" polls because of the leagues we play in. That is why you always see teams from Big Conferences (Purdue, for example) still get ranked ahead of us even though we beat them. But in the computer polls, they basically ignore all that intangible stuff and grade the teams by how they perform on the field. I think Miami was in the top 5 of several computer polls by the end of last season. They barely sniffed the top 10 in the "human" polls.

Also, the extra game does not have two teams playing in a second bowl game. The "extra" game is where one site will hosts two games in one season. The Rose, Fieasta, Orange, and Sugar will rotate this. So there will be 5 BCS games. #1 and #2 will play in the last one, with 8 other teams playing in the four other games. By adding 2 more teams to the BCS games, it (theoretically) gives mid-majors a better shot at the big payoff. Doubt that it ever happens though.

[Falconfreak90]

From what I've read, the AP poll, USA Today/ESPN poll and computers each have 33% input to determine the top 2 teams. I believe it is starting this yr. How will it affect the MAC? Unless a MAC team goes undefeated, forget about it.

Its still about the "big boys" and their unwillingness to part with the $$$$>

[BGman2004]

The new formula starts this year, but the extra game won't start until the current BCS contract expires which I believe is After next season.

[1987alum]

Agreed that the new 33-33-33 format can only hurt the MAC. It's a shame after the conference had such a great year last year - Miami & BG were great in the national spotlight, Northern made a solid argument for a third MAC bowl bid and, despite our obvious bias, the Rockets got some national pub, too. Won't mean squat with this format, I'm afraid.

[hammb]

Not to pile on, but I'm in agreement with the masses. The tweaked formula does not bode well for the smaller conferences.

[Schadenfreude]

I'm not as pessimistic as you all.

Even if the computers aren't a huge part of the "official" formula, they still exist -- and they will continue to give MAC programs an objective look.

In other words, If Jeff Sagarin and several other computer systems rank Bowling Green or Miami in their top fives -- the media and coaches will notice. It may take a couple of weeks, but coaches and media will gradually rethink their own ballots.

That's my thought.

I think the restructuring of the BCS brings us closer to the day when we will see Falcon football played in January, despite the new BCS rating methodology.

I hope I'm right.

[1987alum]

Schadenfreude, I hope you're right, too!

[hammb]

I also hope you're right, but more times than not I have heard coaches & writers talking about how crappy the computer polls having Miami or Boise St. so high.

In fact the reason why they're doing this is to LESSEN the importance that the computer polls have on the whole thing. Since this thing was first conceived MAC teams have always been better on the computer polls than the human polls, so I really don't see how this change can actually help the MAC teams.

I certainly don't see the coaches or writers changing their votine criteria any time soon. Hell, the coaches don't even vote most of the time their assistants or something do. I mean c'mon like these guys have time to watch all the other teams. The only football they watch is film on their own team and their opponents.

[Schadenfreude]

Since this thing was first conceived MAC teams have always been better on the computer polls than the human polls,

I don't know if that's the case.

I don't have time to research it... but if you go back to 1995, when Toledo finished No. 24, I would think computer polls overrated MAC teams as often as they underrated them.

Just a guess.

[Lord_Byron]

They think it will solve their problems, but they're wrong. I hope there are three undefeated Bowl Crapionship teams at the end of the season. Then we'll see how well their precious system has prevented the perceived mess of last year.

You know what? A split 'National Champion' ain't all that bad. It's kind of fun for us to talk about and watch the greedy bastards squirm and cannibalize each other.

As far as the MAC goes, I honestly believe that they don't care one way or another how this affects us. All they care about is maximizing the revenue for their little sewing-circle at the expense of everyone else.

And the extra game-- just throwing us a bone to make it look like we've got better access. We won't. They'll keep making insidious changes that on the surface look like they are playing with us, but really they're just playing with themselves.

[Schadenfreude]

I have a little more time now.

1999: Marshall -- AP 10, coaches 10, Sagarin 13
2001: Toledo -- AP 23, coaches 22, Sagarin 54
2001: Marshall -- AP NR, coaches 21, Sagarin 34
2002: Marshall -- AP 24, coaches 19, Sagarin 53
2003: Miami -- AP 10, coaches 12, Sagarin 5
2003: Bowling Green -- AP 23, coaches 23, Sagarin 31

The MAC has put six teams in the final media or coaches polls since 1999. Only once has Jeff Sagarin's system ranked a MAC school ahead of the media or coaches.

Every computer system is a little different. But Sagarin's system is one of the oldest, and if we were looking for a system with a whacky reputation, we wouldn't start with his.

[hammb]

1999: Marshall -- AP 10, coaches 10, Sagarin 13
2001: Toledo -- AP 23, coaches 22, Sagarin 54
2001: Marshall -- AP NR, coaches 21, Sagarin 34
2002: Marshall -- AP 24, coaches 19, Sagarin 53
2003: Miami -- AP 10, coaches 12, Sagarin 5
2003: Bowling Green -- AP 23, coaches 23, Sagarin 31

I'm shocked to see that, actually Schaden. It seems as though when you look at the computer averages (which the BCS uses) the smaller schools are always ranked higher than they are in the human polls. Obviously that perception is wrong.

Is the Sagarin going to be used again this year? I know that there was talk of one of the major polls dropping out of the BCS. I cannot remember if itw as the Sagarin or the NYT poll.

Even if it doesn't effect the MAC as much as I thought it would I still don't like the change and here's why: They're trying to make it more HUMAN. The whole point of the BCS was to come up with a formula that would be more objective than just the two polls. They thought the voters were biased (they are), and they wanted to come up with something to ensure the matchup of the true #1 vs #2. Now, every year that the BCS #1 & #2 don't match exactly with the human #1 vs #2 they want to tweak the formula to make it closer to the human polls. It just seems to really defeat the purpose of the whole thing.

[Falconfreak90]

Seems the BCS is running out of excuses for denying over half of the 1-A programs a shot at the title.

[Warthog]

1999: Marshall -- AP 10, coaches 10, Sagarin 13
2001: Toledo -- AP 23, coaches 22, Sagarin 54
2001: Marshall -- AP NR, coaches 21, Sagarin 34
2002: Marshall -- AP 24, coaches 19, Sagarin 53
2003: Miami -- AP 10, coaches 12, Sagarin 5
2003: Bowling Green -- AP 23, coaches 23, Sagarin 31

I'm shocked to see that, actually Schaden. It seems as though when you look at the computer averages (which the BCS uses) the smaller schools are always ranked higher than they are in the human polls. Obviously that perception is wrong.

Dang, I am shocked as well. Great work Schade. I never would have thought that to be the case. Maybe it is different earlier in the season. You know, when the MAC teams are upsetting teams from BCS conferences, the computers only have those games to go on. Then when we start playing the MAC teams (like EMU, Kent, Akron, Buffalo, Ohio), the computer drags us down because those teams are so bad. Conversely, the human polls have us starting so low, that those early wins only serve to get us some attention. Then if we keep winning every week, they feel obligated to start ranking us because of the gaudy record we have. Who knows, guess I am just trying to justify my perception.

At any rate, I still think that if it came down to an undefeated mid-major team and a few BCS teams with one loss, the "humans" would purposely not vote for the mid-major becasue they do not want to see them in the championship. Especially in the coaches poll. The BCS coaches need to show that they are superior so they will rank their schools higher than any mid-major no matter how good that team may be. If they did otherwise, they would be losing money to the small school and admitting that this crazy championship system is flawed.