coaches should not vote

First and foremost, the coaches should not be allowed to have a say in who gets to play in the BCS games. Most of the week coaches spend time preparing for their next opponent, which for at least 70% of the time, are conference foes. Secondly, how much football, other than their game, do you think the watch on Saturdays? I would assume very little especially small market teams. But when it comes to the BCS, the USA TODAY Coaches poll counts for 33% of the total. Why? Not to mention most of them don't see the games. So who vote for the coaches? Several years ago, Joe Paterno publicly stated that le lets one of his assistants vote for him because he didn't have the time to fill out the ballot. "I don't know why we vote," South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier reportedly said. "I guess we vote because college football is still without a playoff system. I really believe most coaches do not know a whole lot about the other teams." For the most part coaches do vote on party (conference) lines. There is so much money involved when a conference gets an extra team in a BCS Bowl game, and all of the teams split the money, not equally though, but even you team went 0-12, you get a check. The Bowl Championship Series will distribute about $142.5 million of revenue from its five bowl games, with 81 percent of it — $115.2 million — going to the big six conferences.

The majority of the rest — $24 million — goes to the coalition conferences: Mountain West, Western Athletic, Conference USA, Mid-American and Sun Belt. Sound a little uneven? Not really, says BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock. Schools from those big six conferences accounted for eight of the 10 teams in the BCS bowls, so those conferences should take roughly 80 percent of the total payout. “It’s a fair and appropriate distribution of the revenue,” Hancock said. FULL BOWL SCHEDULE AND PAYOUT - http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bowl_games_bowl_schedule.html A few years ago, the Bleacher Report filed a report on how the BCS had to strip a couple of coaches from voting. Definitely an interesting read. You could easily argue that writers are biased and have agendas too, as seen this years especially by ESPN, as they ignore the hell out of the status of the Big East and their automatic bid. One thing is for sure, the BCS is not designed to choose a championship matchup. It is nothing more than a system to prevent the inevitable playoff bowl games, which for whatever reason make the powers that be, think that playoffs will cut into their tax-free profits. Here is a link to a template that is used to just fill in teams as they finish for the select bowl game. The funny thing about this template, it was prepared back in August - before the season even started. Thus, you could use this template for years to come. Heck, you can fill it in for the 2015 season. The current system is based on two-thirds human opinion (polls), the other third features a combination of six computer formulas, which quantitative analysts have declared mathematically unsound and their own proprietors admit are not as accurate as they could be. The kickers is five of the computer formulas are top secret, even from the officials at the BCS (wink wink). BCS executive director Bill Hancock likes to referee to the formula as "one part science, two parts art." Come on man... Now we've identified the problem, let's solve the problem... 1. simply put, a playoff system! 2. if number one is scrapped, a simple, public formula that would allow every team to know what they need to do from the beginning of the season. 3. a small selection committee (no more than 9 people - preferred 7), who go on public record of how they voted. This is similar to the NCAA basketball tournament selections, where that group meets and provides their thoughts and opinions somewhat openly, but most importantly, they are accountable. 4. No team with more than 2 losses should be able to play in any BCS game even if they have an automatic bid. 5. A plus one solution... more to come on this one. DISCLAIMER: If multiple conferences leaders have two losses as well (i.e., SEC has two teams with two losses yet, they are first in their conference, same for ACC, Big Ten, etc...) As I stated above, bowl games are about money. Can you imagine if LSU and Bama actually repeat to play in the BCS National championship? That's $18,000,000 for one game!!! Then other SEC teams like Arkansas get into other money bowl games like Cotton Bowl ($3,625,000) and/or Sugar Bowl ($17,000,000), and/or Chick-fil-A Bowl ($3,967,500 ACC; $2,932,500 SEC). That's a ton of money for one conference isn't it? To see the break-down of cash visit http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bowl_games_bowl_schedule.html Did you know that the BCS doesn't take into account the margin of victory? So if Boise State wins 70-3 it means the same as a 7-3 win. The BCS states... sportsmanship! so if that's the case, how do you mathematically equate sportsmanship into an equation? But this doesn't stop coaches from running up the score in order to get other two-thirds (human portion) of the vote. UC Irvine mathematics professor Hal Stern published a lengthy takedown of the BCS by in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis. He argued the laws of math may not matter to – or even make sense to – the BCS administrators. Anyone wonky enough to rank college football with math, though, does get the sanctity of numbers – and he believes the pocket-protected should take a drastic measure. “I am advocating a boycott of the Bowl Championship Series by all quantitative analysts,” Stern wrote. “Stern’s analysis was clearly right,” said Bill James, the baseball statistics maven whose work was highlighted in the book and movie Moneyball and backs Stern’s call for a BCS boycott. “This isn’t a sincere effort to use math to find an answer at all. It’s clearly an effort to use math as a cover for whatever you want to do. “It’s just nonsense math.” Then there is the Harris Poll, created by the BCS when the AP demanded that its weekly rankings no longer have anything to do with the process, consist of 115 votes nominated by a particular conference, many with strained ties to the current game. Even further, it's reported that this 115 voters consisted of retired referees, sports information directors, former players and coaches plus a bunch of media folks. And this group is known for not watching the games, thus, they struggle often to see the smaller market teams and forget to vote. We would love to hear from you on your opinion, but our is, the process is utterly ridiculous. The bottom line is the players and coaches deserve to settle things on the field in a playoff, but if this never comes to pass, then a simple, explainable system is due the American people. in addition, the current formula is nothing more than nonsense math and an unsound popular vote that gets polished up by television and money. So, if we don't get a playoff system, BCS, please stop insulting our intelligence.

Tweet

Here is your opportunity to stop hating the media and actually become it!
We are always looking for additional people to submit stories, scores, stats, photos, video, etc...