BCS Blew Another Chance
by Matt James
9/20/05
11:22 am edt
The AP's decision to
not allow its poll to be used as part of the BCS, coupled with
the BCS's desire for voter transparency, would have been the
perfect opportunity for the BCS to become a true alternative
to the polls by allowing the computers to take control.
Instead, a new and unproven poll - the Harris Poll - was established
and instantly given one-third weight in the BCS standings. The
Coaches Poll remains as a second component. The average results
of six computer rankings comprise the third component.
Can anyone seriously believe for a minute that the "new
BCS" is better?
Why do we care what 100 people think? Wouldn't we really
be happier with some simplistic semblance of fact rather
than a convoluted amalgamation of fact and opinion? I submit
to you that we would indeed all be happier with the former, if
given the chance to choose.
There's the rub. The voters don't want to be rendered useless
so they campaign for the opportunity to participate. The voters
are the writers and coaches who want control for they fear the
unfettered truth.
Hence, the voters paint computers as the evil component concocted
by mathematics geeks who know nothing about college football.
But the evil resides elsewhere.
The Coaches Poll, the AP Poll and the Harris Poll are all the
same - subjective opinions with no organized basis in fact. The
polls are essentially a random assessment - an idiot stew, if
you will. My goodness people, they are the very same print columnists
and television commentators that all of us rag on every week.
They are the coaches that we complain don't know what play to
call at a crucial moment of the game. Yet, the majority of us
trust those same "morons" to not mess up a top 25 list
later that night.
We need to get a grip! It is time to realize that those voters
are no different from us. You can write down a
top 25 list any day of the week. But if you wrote it down and
threw it away, you would write down a different list the
next day. You'd be wrong both times, too, because both attempts
were just guesses.
Unlike us humans, computers "see" every single game
every single week, don't have to fill out a ballot in a rush,
can't be afraid to vote their conscience, and ultimately offer
an unbiased view of who is better than who, measuring each team
on the same set of criteria. The computer will tell you the same
thing on Tuesday that it told you on Sunday, right down to the
umpteenth decimal point. Its' answer won't change until the next
set of games are played.
Computers let the on-field results do the talking, don't care
where a team is geographically located and can't know if a team
is in an urban metro market or an isolated rural town.
Computers can't be called on the final weekend of the season
by a coach and begged to switch their vote. It can't choose to
manipulate the rankings on the final weekend to alter the results.
A computer's actions can be monitored and verified.
Whether you, or I, or any human being likes the computers findings
is unimportant. They are not supposed to support our opinion.
They are supposed to deliver the raw, honest truth.
At the end of the day, if there were no human polls and only
an averaging of computer rankings to digest, we might all be
amazed at how many people would take a deep breath, sigh, and
utter to themselves - "hmmm, so that's the way it
is".
To borrow a phrase from Robin Williams, "Reality. What a
concept."
Writers would still write that computer rankings are concocted
by mathematics geeks who know nothing about football. TV announcers
would still state lies and rumors about what factors the computers
weigh. Coaches would still lose games with the prevent defense.
But they would no longer be able to screw up the BCS. |
