BCS Rankings Missed a Variable


Do you ever wonder what goes through the minds of the human subjective voters when they rank the FBS teams 1 through 25? Since the human subjective voters are two-thirds of the numerical data used to determine who are the best FBS programs “supposedly”;  what did the human cognitive minds miss when ranking their FBS programs 1-25?

Upon further review of this weeks “BCS” rankings, I examined how many of the “Top 10” BCS/FBS programs already played a ranked or previously ranked team within the USA Today Coaches Poll, to determine the significance and accuracy of the current BCS Top 10 rankings. Future scheduled games do not count towards ranked teams played since the rankings are subject to change on a week to week basis.

1. Alabama(SEC)- number of ranked or previously ranked teams played to date(2). Michigan and Arkansas with a combined record of (7-6); but yet ranked unanimously number 1 in all the polls.

2. Florida(SEC)- (1) LSU (6-1). Definitively an un-balanced ranking among all the polls between subjective voters ranked between 3 through 4.

3. Oregon(PAC 12) (1) Arizona(3-3). Unanimously ranked 2 in both human subjective voters.

4. Kansas State(B12)- (3) Miami(Fla.), Oklahoma, and Iowa State(12-6). Split decision within the human subjective voters being ranked 3 and 4.

5. Notre Dame(IND)- (4) Michigan State, Michigan, Miami(Fla.) and Stanford(16-10). Unanimously ranked number 5 among both human subjective voters  and computer polls.

6.  LSU(SEC)-(3)Auburn, Florida and South Carolina(13-6). Unanimously ranked number 6 among both human subjective voters and computer polls.

7. South Carolina(SEC)-(2) Georgia and LSU(11-2). Split decision within the human subjective voters between ranked 8 and 9.

8. Oregon State(PAC 12)- (3) Wisconsin, UCLA and Arizona(13-7).  Split decision within the human subjective voters between ranked 8 and 11.

9. Oklahoma(B12)-(3) Kansas State, Texas Tech and Texas(15-3). Split decision within the human subjective voters between ranked 7 and 10.

10. USC(PAC 12)- (1) Stanford(4-2). Split decision within the human subjective voters between ranked 9 and 11.

I can significantly determine that the human subjective voters are not being as investigative as need be to rank their FBS programs 1 through 25. What I can possibly determined is that the human voters are using a biased base format in their subjective rankings.  With a plethora of money on the line at the end of the regular season, voting alliances are possibly formed to possess a misrepresentation of reality due to the fact of the money involved.

“College football is in need of change…….” cfbpoexpert

 


Categorical variables examined and 1996?


I have been asked about my research on which categorical variables I examined and why I selected the year of 1996. In reverse order, I selected the year 1996 due to the fact that it was the starting point of when the BCA(Bowl Coalition Association) was formed. Two years later the BCA became the BCS. That’s where the numerical data starts, once the path of determining a national champion in college football changed.

The categorical variables in which I investigated and researched for my book and theory, are variables within variables which then became exponential within each variable.   My objective was to somehow prove that a 16-team playoff format at the FBS level could effectively be executed, congruent with the current bowl season/system without eliminating any bowl games.  From that theory, I can definitively say that a 16 team playoff format can work. Below is a small sample of the multiple categorical variables I examined, researched, analyzed and compared, which led to support my theory, findings and objective.

  1. Non-Conference Scheduling practices.
  2. # of home and away non conference games scheduled per FBS Program and Conference.
  3. # of wins and losses earned within their non conference schedule per FBS Programs and Conferences.
  4. # of non conference games scheduled vs. BCS, NON-BCS and FCS opponents.
  5. # of non conference games won  or lost vs. BCS, NON-BCS and FCS opponents.
  6. Ranked all 120 FBS programs based on each of those variables above.
  7. Examined and ranked all 120 FBS programs on the total number of wins and losses earned from 1996-present.
  8. Examined, analyzed and ranked all FBC conferences and programs scheduling habits among FCS programs.
  9. Examined and investigated each of the 6 computerized BCS programs to determine validity and which variables are used to  calculate a number within their system.
  10. Analyzed, Examined and investigated the USA Today Coaches poll to and its subjectivity to credibility.
  11. Examined the affects of position differences associated with each FBS team ranked within the USA Today Coaches Poll.
  12. Examined the historical differences associated within the coaches poll comparing how many BCS coaches vote vs. Non-BCS coaches who vote to determine if there is a significant advantage.
  13. Examined the position differences within the coaches poll associated with winning, losing, dropped out and Idle.
  14. Within #13 I examined how position difference is affected  when playing a BCS (home or away), Non-BCS(home and away) and FCS (home and Away).
  15. Examined if there is a possibility of voter bias within the USA Today Coaches poll with the assistance of peer reviewed journal articles to support my findings.

I hope that helps answer a few of the questions asked of me on twitter. Please feel free to tweet me or follow me  @cfbpoexpert, email me at cfbpoexpert@gmail.com , leave me a comment here after a post and keep reading this webpage.

The next post will be either be the fictional 1996 playoff teams or fun facts…..


The BCS did they get it right?


Did the BCS get the first computerized poll right or is something wrong or missing?

Upon further review of the 1st poll, something is most definitely missing and evidently wrong. If we examine the poll under a microscope we reveal the facts. 50% of the SEC is represented in both the BCS and USA Today coaches poll. Is that fair or is that vested interests based upon the significant advantage that the BCS coaches have in the USA Today Coaches Poll over the number of Non-BCS coaches whom vote?

Lets look at the SEC in the Top 10 of the BCS poll:

Alabama #1 in the BCS (6-0) record of opponents already played(19-19), and still needs to play an FCS opponent scheduled at the end of the season. Of those 6 games played only 3 possess winning records. FACT: Since 1996 , Alabama possesses the highest non-conference scheduling rate with a  90.1% home field advantage in non-conference games scheduled. Alabama 55 home games and 6 away games. Alabama 2 national championships. Alabama has only played 4 non-conference BCS programs away. Ask yourself this Q? Why didn’t Alabama play Michigan in Ann Arbor? I know that answer… do you.

Florida #2 (6-0) record of opponents already played(21-18), and still needs to play an FCS opponent scheduled at the end of the season. Of those 6 games played only 3 possess winning records and 1 is at 50%. FACT: Since 1996, Florida possesses the 6th highest non-conference scheduling rate with an 83.3% home field advantage in non-conference games played.  Florida 50 home games and 10 away games. Did you know that  Florida has NEVER left the state of FLA for non-conference game since 1991 and that was at SYR. Prior to that, it was 1989 at Memphis. Florida 2 national championships.

LSU#6 (6-1) record of opponents already played(19-19) and already played their FCS opponent. Of those 7 games played only 2 possess winning records and 1 is at 50%. Since 1996, LSU possesses the 4th highest non-conference scheduling rate with an 85.2% home field advantage in non-conference games played. LSU 52 home games and 9 away games. Did you know that since 1996, LSU has scheduled 37 Non-BCS programs at home and only 1 Non-BCS program away. LSU 1 national championship.

South Carolina#7 (6-1) record of opponents already played(21-24) and still needs to play an FCS opponent scheduled at the end of the season. Of those 7 games played only 3 have winning records. Since 1996, South Carolina possesses the 18th highest non-conference scheduling rate with a 76.7% home field advantage in non-conference games played. South Carolina 46 home games and 14 away games. South Carolina 0 national championships.

 

Now lets look at the remaining top 5 of the BCS:

Oregon #3 (6-0) record of opponents already played (16-17) and already played their FCS opponent. Of those 6 games played 2 possess winning records and 2 are at 50%. Since 1996, Oregon possesses a non-conference scheduling rate of 71.7% in home field advantage in non conference games played, which is ranked in the top 1/3rd of FBS ranked teams. Oregon 38 home games and 15 away games. Did you know that since 1996, Oregon has played more non-conference BCS programs away than home.

Kansas State#4(6-0) record of opponents already played (15-15) and already played their FCS opponent. Of those 6 games played 3 possess winning records. Since 1996, Kansas State possesses the 7th highest non-conference scheduling rate with an 81.6% home field advantage in non-conference games played. Kansas State 49 home games and 11 away games. Did you know that since 1996 Kansas State has played an even amount of non-conference games with BCS opponents home and away.

Notre Dame #5 (6-0) record of opponents already played (22-16) and NEVER schedules an FCS opponent. Of those 6 games played 4 possess winning records and 2 are at 50%. Since 1996, Notre Dame possesses a non conference scheduling rate of 66.6% in home field advantage in non-conference games played, which ranks in the top 1/3rd of FBS ranked teams. Notre Dame 42 home games and 21 away games. Did you know that since 1996, Notre Dame has significantly played more BCS games non-conference games home and away than every SEC team by more than 200% or more.

With this information, I did not count the records of any FCS programs played due to the fact that FCS programs do not play for the BCS title. How can you count something that does not have the fair opportunity to play for the BCS title.  As for determining Notre Dames non-conference games, ask me. What does this mean….. It means that the SEC is more than likely receiving a significant voting bias by the human polls and manipulating the computers polls with scheduling advantages. Here is a funny FACT and missing from the BCS poll. Ohio U is (7-0) this year and not ranked in the Top 25 of the BCS or USA Today Coaches Poll, but is ranked 25th in AP poll. Ohio U. plays by the same rules as the rest of the FBS programs but not considered as a credible program. Right now they are the #1 seed in my 16-team playoff format. They have not lost any games this year. We will see how that plays out as the season progresses.

The Poll should be read:

  1. Notre Dame
  2. Florida
  3. Kansas State
  4. Oregon
  5. Alabama

What will be posted next.. stay tuned…..and follow along.


Me… Why the Research into a Playoff Format?


As a sports enthusiast enjoying all sports from early childhood, I continued that passion into coaching basketball  for 15+ years and earning a M.S.E. in Athletic Administration and Sports Management at an accredited institution from Western New York.  Many will wonder why football, since I coached basketball for so many years. I always wondered why college football at the highest level of play never had a traditional playoff format, but was respectful of the traditional bowl games. My investigative work started in an Ethics of Sport class with a 15-minutes presentation on the Ethics of the BCS system. From that 15-minute presentation,  turned into 5+ years of investigative research on how college football at the FBS level could effectively implement an “improved and fair” 16-team traditional playoff format congruent with the current bowl system. My investigation eventually turned 500+ pages of statistical data, 10 legal pads of notes and comments, reading 35+ peer reviewed journal articles, reading 8 published academic books and reading 2 published sports books related to the topic. Then cross referencing the majority of that information against the 120+ FBS college football websites to verify and validate the information as correct.  The analysis of that information allowed me to examine at  least 32 categorical variables which in turn, became a book. My investigation revealed some significant and interesting  findings that relates to a need for a change in college football for a traditional playoff format.  Over the remaining course of this college football season, I will offer clear investigative facts about college football  since 1996. Many of you will either re-think your position on college football or climb on board to support my research and purchase my book.

 

During my posts, I will never directly call out a sports analyst or sports organization by name. However, I will quote what they said and use educationally sound findings to prove their theory or thought as not accurate.