We’re frankly all out of breath from railing against college football’s Bowl Championship Series (a.k.a. Bull Championshit) …
We’ve bashed the BCS literally dozens of times now, and yet they keep awarding that annoying crystal egg each year to whichever team wins a computer-generated national championship game of the two (not necessarily) best teams in the nation. Seriously, we wanna smash that thing into a million pieces and sweep it down a Bourbon Street gutter, people.
The NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB along with every other major NCAA sport settle the question of “Who’s No. 1″ the old-fashioned way – based on the demonstrated skill level of the competitors within the arena of athletic endeavor.
Which is as it should be …
But not college football, which insists on subjecting fans to this annual statistical farce in an effort to protect the “sanctity” of a corporate-driven bowl system that grows increasingly irrelevant with each new “Corporate Whore.com Bowl” that gets added to the postseason schedule.
And guess what? The BCS doesn’t even work.
Seriously, some 22-year old college student from the Great Northwest has come up with a formula that more accurately predicts who the nation’s best teams really are. Her name is Maggie Wigness, and she’s a math major/ computer science whiz at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.
From the Oregonian:
She applied her algorithms to games played between 1998 and 2008 and discovered her formula was 60 percent accurate in determining college rankings versus the BCS at 56.6 percent.
Her algorithms and the BCS’ are similar in that they consider the game date (those played later in the season are usually more difficult), location, outcome and strength of the opponent, among other factors. Wigness’ and BCS’ formulas differ in the weight their algorithms give each category. Hers is a bit more accurate than the BCS.
On top of that, when Wigness threw in a formula that factored in specific plays in games, such as interceptions and third-down conversions, the accuracy shot up to more than 70 percent.
“We didn’t expect to see such poor results using the BCS (system),” said Michael Rowell, assistant professor of mathematics at Pacific. “It was surprising to us to see how little it took to do a better job.”
He’s surprised? Seriously?
A blindfolded monkey amped up on Rep. Joe Wilson’s caffeine pills could do a better job ranking teams than the BCS.
Pacific University, incidentally, will field a football team for the first time in 2010.
Oh, and the school is not to be confused with the California-based “University of the Pacific,” which gave up its football program in 1995. True Gamecock fans will recall that this Pacific served as USC’s season-opening opponent thirty years ago during George Rogers Heisman Trophy-winning season.
The Gamecocks won that contest 37-0.
All of that is beside the point, though.
College football should pick its top eight teams and play ‘em off.
No matter how perfect a computer gets it, there’s no substitute for deciding a winner the way God intended it …
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' September 28, 2009 at 2:58 pm
It’s worth noting that when Pacific gave up its football program in 1995, it was under the leadership of Bill Atchley — President of Clemson from 1979-1985.
By Against a Playoff 100%! September 28, 2009 at 4:02 pm
So, William, who decides which 8 teams are eligible? The one thing College Football has going for it is controversy. The BCS or what ever system they use is better than a Playoff. A playoff isn’t going to satisfy anyone. Which poll do you use? Which poll do you not consider? Who decides?
Anyone who wants a College Playoff system is going to complain. Shut Up and quit b*tch*ng.
By Billy Bob September 28, 2009 at 5:46 pm
So what is she 70% accurate on??? You gotta know what 100% is to know how accurate she is and THAT’S the whole freakin’ argument in the first place.
By Toyota Kawaski September 29, 2009 at 8:13 am
great article Man-d