PonyFans.com

You've probably heard already about this guy. He is an alumnus of Cal and is pushing a resolution in the state legislature to end the BCS. He really needs to take off the blinders though. Here is a quote:

Ackerman blamed Cal's loss on last-minute lobbying efforts by Texas officials.


"Politicking and campaigning have no place in college athletics," he said. "Teams should be judged on their performances on the field and not by the success of their PR campaigns."

Human poll rankings (susceptible to politicking and campaigning):
Cal 4/4
Texas 5/6

Computer rankings (not susceptible to politicking and campaigning):
Cal 6/8/6/6/5/6 = 6
Texas 5/4/4/4/4/4 = 4

Looks to me like the system worked. The impartial computers were included in the formula because the human voters are often not impartial. If the polls were completely objective and split their #1 rankings, we could just take the #1 team from each poll and have them play for the national championship.

Yep, the BCS computers got it right this year. The BCS is considering a committee to choose the teams for the bowls to avoid the poll problems. When will it ever end? Only a playoff would be fair.

I know I am confident that a computer programmed by man doesn’t have any bias. Why, there was no bias towards the Big 12 when Nebraska got absolutely crushed by Colorado in the Big 12 championship game yet STILL played for the National Championship that year. No bias towards the Big 12 that an embarrassed Nebraska keeps a high ranking and undefeated (and PAC 12) Oregon gets left out. And of course there is no computer bias in last years pick of humiliated OU getting to keep, keep mind you, its #1 Ranking after KSU destroyed OU in the Big 12 championship. And who got left out once again? That's right, a PAC 12 team USC. And this year another Big 12 team suddenly pushes a PAC 12 team out of the BCS...again.

Computers are only as good as the programmers that program computers. Lets face reality for once. The computers the BCS uses have a programming bias. The Big 12 has some mythical hold over the computer that other conferences do not have. If computers are always right, then global warming is real, the Wright brother’s plane would never have flown and we would be wondering what kind of president President-elect Kerry would make.

Just a quick note, the Colorado Nebraska game was not the Big 12 title game. That ended up being between Texas and Colorado, which Colorado won.

ponyte wrote:Why, there was no bias towards the Big 12 when Nebraska got absolutely crushed by Colorado in the Big 12 championship game yet STILL played for the National Championship that year. No bias towards the Big 12 that an embarrassed Nebraska keeps a high ranking and undefeated (and PAC 12) Oregon gets left out.

Nebraska was still a better team. They played a tougher schedule and had a better record. Oregon was actually 4th that year, not even 3rd. If Oregon's loss to Stanford had happened the last week of the regular season (like Nebraska's), there would have been much less whining. Humans just tend to forget what happened last month or even last week.
Oregon's (10-1) schedule strength: 31 (win over #12 Washington St.)
Nebraska's (11-1) schedule strength: 14 (win over #11 Oklahoma)

ponyte wrote: And of course there is no computer bias in last years pick of humiliated OU getting to keep, keep mind you, its #1 Ranking after KSU destroyed OU in the Big 12 championship. And who got left out once again? That's right, a PAC 12 team USC.

Once again, OU played a much harder schedule. The point of the computers is that one loss is one loss, whether it is week 1 or week 13.
Oklahoma's (12-1) schedule strength: 11 (win over #6 Texas)
LSU's (12-1) schedule strength: 29 (0 quality wins)
USC's (11-1) schedule strength: 37 (0 quality wins)

ponyte wrote: And this year another Big 12 team suddenly pushes a PAC 12 team out of the BCS...again.

Maybe it's because the Big 12 is consistently better as a conference.

ponyte wrote: Computers are only as good as the programmers that program computers.

Finally you said something true! However, the formulas that they use are statistically sound and some of them are even public knowledge. I promise, nowhere in them does it say "calculate the rankings, then bump everyone in the Big 12 up a spot."

ponyte wrote: Lets face reality for once.

Agreed.

ponyte wrote:The computers the BCS uses have a programming bias. The Big 12 has some mythical hold over the computer that other conferences do not have. If computers are always right, then global warming is real, the Wright brother’s plane would never have flown and we would be wondering what kind of president President-elect Kerry would make.

Now why did you go and get my hopes up like that? There is no "mythical hold," there is no computer bias, and the rankings that they produce are correct according to predetermined formulas. They are not modified mid-season to aid Texas and hurt Cal. Oh yeah, and THERE IS NO PAC 12!

Ahh, the great delusions continues. If one assumes that one conference is better than another, then an inherent bias is easily justified without solid evidence to support the bias. The power of assumption and myth once again prevails. And this assumption is based on a belief that statistical calculations are superior to direct competition.

The BCS based its rankings on a computer program. Unfortunately, the programmers have a similar bias as many in the public…that some conferences are better than others. The computer is not designed under Rawl's "veil of ignorance'. The programmers know full well who pays them and have specification designed to meet a predictable outcome. It is designed by programmers hired by the BCS with an inherent bias to support the BCS cartel. Within the cartel are power brokers more adept at preserving their self interest than others. This follows Rawls premise that all people are mutually self-interested, rational, and similar in needs, interest and capacities. Given that, people will act and design a system to meet their needs, not the needs of the whole. In other words, the BCS will act in its own self interest and design a system to meet its needs. The BCS designs a system that does not the needs of the whole.

For the BCS to survive, the consuming public must assume that the system is fair, equitable and just and that the outcome will reasonable reflect who is truly the best. It is none of these and each year more and more the BCS shows the system is not equal, equitable, and just. Explain how clearly undeserving teams like Pitt end up in the BCS? Slowly the consuming public becomes disillusioned with the system that clearly meets the needs of the BCS but not the needs of the consumer. This is best manifested by the only recourse many have to address grievances against a monopoly (The BCS is a cartel that functions as a monopoly) and that is through government intervention. This is the ultimate example of a market failure. And this is happening in California and to some extent in DC.

However, many still cling to the myth that some conferences are better than others and somehow a computer can distinguish the differences. Welcome to the global warming of college football. The only way to prove one team is better that another is through direct completion. A computer can not take into account all the variables that are inherent in a football game. It can only take into account the statistics of teams. This limited picture does not take into account the regression to the mean, wide variation of individual performance and the incalculable of a game. The BCS is dependant on a statistical result using the computer instead of a competitive result. For this to work, one must assume that statistical results are infallible when compared to direct competitive results.

This is the bases for the BCS’s existence. That a cartel designed system can use a statistical model and design a system that is accurate is also a leap of faith. Monopolies act in their own self interest. I do not accept the premise of the argument that a statistical result is better that a competitive result. Therefore, I do not accept the premise that the Big 12 is mystically better than other conferences because a computer and common myth suggest that it is better. Prove the theory that the Big 12 is superior to the Pac 10 or any other conference through competition, not wishful thinking.

ponyte wrote:Explain how clearly undeserving teams like Pitt end up in the BCS?

They won a BCS conference. Those were the rules, set out at the beginning, known to everyone.

ponyte wrote:Therefore, I do not accept the premise that the Big 12 is mystically better than other conferences because a computer and common myth suggest that it is better. Prove the theory that the Big 12 is superior to the Pac 10 or any other conference through competition, not wishful thinking.

How about this:
Big 12 non-conference record (IA only): 24-9 (72.7%)
PAC 10 non-conference record (IA only): 19-11 (63.3%)

Big 12 non-conference record (vs top 25): 1-2 (33.3%)
PAC 10 non-conference record (vs top 25): 2-5 (28.6%)

Big 12 teams in top 25: 4 (plus 3 receiving votes) (33%)
PAC 10 teams in top 25: 3 (plus 0 receiving votes) (30%)

Big 12 teams bowl eligible: 7 (58.3%)
PAC 10 teams bowl eligible: 5 (50%)

And the kicker...
Head to head: Big 12 3 - 0 PAC 10


It's not that I like the BCS, I don't. I think it's a stupid idea. Statistical computations aren't better than direct competition. Unfortunately, all 117 teams can't play each other. But the BCS does exactly what it is supposed to do. It's not supposed to put the top 8 teams in the big bowls. That would be too easy for the Utahs and Boise States out there. It's supposed to select #1 and #2 based on a combination of human and computerized assessments. Beyond that, it's secondary objective is to ensure that the BCS conference champs don't get knocked out of the big money bowls (see Pitt). Mission accomplished.