Standard Deviation: Have Numbers Hijacked College Football?
by Law Buckeye
on Dec 1, 2008 10:45 AM CST
6 comments
Like you, I've spent my fair share of minutes this morning sorting through the pile of editorials that flowed out of the questionable mechanics of No. 2 Oklahoma's leap of faith over No. 3 Texas to claim the Big 12 South Championship and control of its own championship destiny. This despite the Sooner's 35-45 loss to Texas on neutral ground in October.
Although the Big 12's seven step "tiebreaker" has rightfully taken the blame for the sport's latest lapse of equity, I'm not going to focus on what the provision was lacking, or how the conference will (almost certainly) amend it in the wake of the latest transgression. That issue, I think, is well covered by the SEC who had the foresight to see the potential problem, and passed this forward-looking model that, for all intents and purposes ends the debate. The Big 12 will climb on board with a similar provision this offseason and we'll never have to watch this kind of political theater again.
Or will we?
I guess it was a shootout after all. It's just, Texas was playing with a toy gun...
See, it's strange, but what troubles me the most about this disaster is the fact that the humans -- you know, those irrational, amorphous beings -- were effectively outbid by a machine.
Sure, the Coaches Poll put Bob Stoops' squad ahead by a single point -- but the AP sided with Texas, to an 8 point tune. (The AP, of course, has no bearing in the 3-part BCS calculus, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise that Boomer messed with Texas in the only measure that matters). Once the silicon circuits got their hot chips on the data, they crunched, chewed, and spit out an "objective' magnification of the Sooner's triumph.
And the truth is, I'm okay with that. Coaches and fans are inherently influenced by subjective bias. The computers are the perfect detachment.
It's just sometimes the computers don't appear to practice what they preach. If every game is supposed to count equally, why install a compounding equation that has -- as an inevitable consequence -- the potential to favor late-season achievements over early-season conquests? Maybe it's because momentum does matter. Both on the field, and in the process of bowl selection -- where committees must capitalize on the short attention spans of the viewers they depend on.
Don't think it matters? Tell me which of the following teams you think is better...
1. Michigan State or Oregon.
2. Georgia Tech or Missouri.
3. Cincinnati or BYU.
Although each set of teams has the same record, I'm willing to bet your mind naturally gravitated to the squads that are playing best at present: Oregon, Georgia Tech, and Cincinnati.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that, to a certain point. Our sport fields some 120 participants who compete in 11 conferences across a 7,000 mile geographical range. There's no way everyone can play, or come even close to playing everyone else. Which means we're forced to rely on those darn truth functional conditionals to make assumptions about similar, but unrelated items.
It's only when the algorithms defy the simple virtue of an on the field outcome with a direct lifeline to the national championship game that I get a little skiddish.
It's no big deal, I guess. Just another something a playoff would solve. Put it on the tab...
0 recs |
6 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
No. No. No.
I get that there are people who want a playoff and think that it would solve some of the inequities of college football. Those people are wrong, but I understand their arguments, wrongheaded as they are (how was that for a Scalia-like acknowledgment of opponent arguments?).
Here’s the thing, though…a playoff would do nothing to solve this problem. The playoff between these two teams already happened. ON A NEUTRAL SITE EVEN!!! Texas and Oklahoma already decided this on the field. So if they were to meet again in Tampa and Oklahoma was to win, what would that prove? That OU is the better team? That they need to play a rubber match in Pasadena?
The Big XII had a bad tie-breaker in place, and the egg is on its face today. But let’s be clear about this THREE-WAY tie, the humans weren’t “outbid by a machine.” The Coaches Poll (as you note) went for OU over Texas. Barely. The Harris Poll went for Texas over OU. Barely. The computers broke the tie and rewarded OU for playing a better non-con schedule. When push came to shove, OU was found to be superior by (gasp) beating better teams! That’s what the computers are there for – remembering things like that win over Cincy (back when the days were warm).
by Bama Hawkeye on
Dec 1, 2008 11:06 AM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
Yep. A playoff system would not fix these problems.
In fact, it would compound them—one way being the rematch variable you expounded upon above which in effect does not prove anything. Quite frankly, this situation in the Big XII south was just unfortunate, as these teams all happened to have the same ‘season’ in the same year, and only one of them gets to go.
by The ArchDawg on
Dec 1, 2008 2:01 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Call me Justice Breyer
But, I suspect Justice “Scalia” and Mr. ArchDawg are focusing on a microcosm of the real issue.
The problem here isn’t who is the better team, it’s whether or not the best teams are being given the opportunity to play for the title. You’re both correct that the Big 12 tiebreaker provision is to blame for this specific letdown. I apologize if I didn’t make that clear.
I referenced a playoff because I’m convinced that the format is better equipped to ameliorate these kinds of dilemmas in general. A playoff would broaden the threshold of access, while simultaneously streamlining the path to the game.
A broader threshold of access would ensure that poorly-drafted rules (like the Big 12 South Provision) wouldn’t threaten a team like Texas’s national campaign. If we had an eight team pool, the Longhorn’s would be comfortably seated to play for the title, limiting the consequences of the Big 12’s tiebreaker provision to specific seeding in the pool. Outliers like USC, and Penn State would be seated as well. Maybe even Boise State — if they caught a small break.
A streamlined path to the game — on the other hand — would ensure a linear, systematic, and absolute resolution every time. So when Texas drills Ohio State by 93 points in the Fiesta Bowl, USC buries Penn State by 57 points in the Rose Bowl, and Utah shocks Alabama in the Sugar — we’re not left looking at Florida’s limp victory over Oklahoma and wondering.
I admit, in the live arena of competitive sports there’s no such thing as absolute certainty. But a playoff would move the fringe margin of error from in between Nos. 2 & 3, to Nos. 8 & 9.
Ultimately, the way to prevent specific problems is to shape presiding solutions…
by Law Buckeye on
Dec 1, 2008 3:30 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
Thus rendering meaningless
the Red River Rivalry game.
A playoff will make regular season football games as important as regular season college basketball games. Quick, how many of regular season basketball games at Texas Tech are going to be remembered? Think Crabtree’s catch and run to the endzone will be?
Iowa’s win over Penn State. The country (outside of Iowa) yawns.
Oregon State beats USC. Who cares (outside of Corvallis)? The Trojans are in the tourney anyway!
In fact, a playoff makes it less likely that the best teams play for the title. Don’t believe me? How did that Cubs/Angels World Series turn out this year? And how about that 86 win Cardinal team from ‘06? Were they one of the two best teams in baseball that year? What about Florida’s NCAA Tourney win in ’06 (when they were a 3 seed)? Syracuse (also a 3 seed) upsetting Kansas in ’04?
The entire purpose of a playoff is to allow teams that are NOT the best team the opportunity to win anyway. Well, and to make money. Mostly the money, actually, but also to provide opportunity to sub-superior teams.
One of the best things about college football is that the season matters. Let’s imagine a world where Daniel Murray’s kick misses and Penn State finished 12-0. They would be in the title game. And if Florida and Oklahoma both were to win this weekend, one would be left out. Why? Because for one week, they lost. And that loss mattered. Florida and Oklahoma weren’t the best. Mississippi and Texas respectively proved it. You can’t just turn it on at the end of the season. You have to be consistent.
So don’t pretend that a playoff will be a panacea that ensures that the best team wins the title. All it will do is make it more likely that an inferior team, which profited from getting hot at the end of the year or having favorable matchups, won three games in a row. Yippee.
by Bama Hawkeye on
Dec 1, 2008 4:15 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I understand your argument, but I don’t agree with your definition of “best.”
First, comparing college hoops and professional baseball to college football is apples to oranges (not to mention that teams get hot and cold during a basketball or baseball season, but typically the cream always rises to the top—even if it’s not who everyone thought was the cream at an earlier point of the season). Quite simply, the nature of these games requires a larger sample size to determine the “best” teams (e.g. it’s much easier to lose to an inferior team). As a side note, the Cubs always fall apart, so anyone who believed they were truly the best team in baseball was drinking far too much of the Wrigley flavored kool-aid.
Your argument would posit that it is unfair that the Patriots didn’t win the Super Bowl last year; because clearly they were the best team, save that one game. You know, come to think of it, Ohio State was clearly the best team during the 2006 college football season, they were just screwed by having to compete on the field for the championship. Perhaps we should digress back to eliminating bowl games altogether and having the AP/Harris/Coaches vote on who is the best. I realize that I’m being a bit over the top with my sarcasm, but part of your argument is ultimately centered around the perception of who is the best team, rather than the reality. Once this is your thought process, then really how far off is that digression? The answer is not very.
Furthermore, claiming that a playoff makes it less likely that the best teams play for the title is faulty logic. Wouldn’t the best teams win their games? Or is your definition of “best,” based solely on perception with no regard for actual performance? Or is said performance limited to a window that you have pre-determined (e.g. the regular season)? Why not simply extend this imaginary “best” window to include the entire season (hypothetical playoff included)?
This being said, would a playoff solve everything? No. But if it were an 8-team bracket, then there would still be a sizable emphasis on winning every game, and in particular to win your conference. Which means that in essence every game still matters. Moreover, it’s not as if every mythical BCS championship game has featured two undefeated teams—so even within the current system a loss isn’t the end of a team’s championship hopes. This means that your fears that the college football season will devolve into the college basketball season are unfounded, because there are only 8 slots as opposed to 64.
One of the best things about college football is that the season matters. Let’s imagine a world where Daniel Murray’s kick misses and Penn State finished 12-0. They would be in the title game. And if Florida and Oklahoma both were to win this weekend, one would be left out. Why? Because for one week, they lost. And that loss mattered. Florida and Oklahoma weren’t the best. Mississippi and Texas respectively proved it. You can’t just turn it on at the end of the season. You have to be consistent.
So does this mean that if no teams go undefeated, then there is no national champion? As it stands only one team in a “major” conference is undefeated. Should Alabama win the SEC championship game, does this mean that they’re the de facto national champion (since no other team has proved that they were the best week in and week out)? What if they lose to Florida? Should there be an asterisk placed next to the team that wins in the BCS championship game, because they didn’t win all of their games (as well as any other past champion that wasn’t undefeated)? Or should Boise St., Ball St., and Utah start politicking to get into the BCS championship game?
I’m sorry to set up the argument with so many terse questions, but your position appears to be one based in an idealized hypothetical scenario rather than the current reality.
And finally, let’s not pretend that bowl games aren’t a gigantic cash cow for a lot of Universities. Particularly when nearly half of the FBS teams in the country attend a bowl game. Would a playoff system be a huge money generator? Of course, but so are bowl games, and the regular season for that matter. I fail to see the relevance of this point to arguing against a playoff system.
Despite my sarcasm, this post is not meant to be taken maliciously, simply as fruitful discussion.
by Estrada on
Dec 2, 2008 12:38 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well said.
I think we’ve teased out the locus of the disagreement: critics of a playoff or, (keeping with your fruitful sarcasm) apologists for the status quo, see the regular season as a piano string at hyper tension — one snip and it no longer makes sound.
Proponents of change, on the other hand, recognize that the tune will change. But, ultimately, the decrease in Saturday night football drama is eclipsed by the intensity of the crescendo.
I think we should focus on this specific aspect of the debate.
by Law Buckeye on
Dec 2, 2008 2:10 PM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
New FanPost
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
