Tranghese offers new BCS plan

[PingBull]

Tranghese offers new BCS plan

Push being made for selection committee

By Mark Blaudschun, Globe Staff | December 17, 2004

Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese is pushing a plan to change the way teams are selected for the Bowl Championship Series and make the process, which has been marked by controversy since its inception in 1998, more in line with the way the NCAA picks teams for its basketball tournament.

Tranghese, who served as the BCS coordinator in 2002-03, said it is time to stop basing the bowl selections on computers and polls and for the BCS to take full responsibility for what it does.

"It's our system, we should be held accountable," said Tranghese, who has quietly and steadily pushed for a selection committee similar to the NCAA basketball tournament selection committees.

Tranghese emphasized the committee would only select the Nos. 1 and 2 teams for the championship game. He has been "working the room" trying to persuade BCS officials to create a committee that would use the BCS computer numbers and the coaches' and writers' polls as informational tools, similar to the RPI in the college basketball tournament selection process. The plan might eliminate much of the criticism of the BCS for how it does business, regarding the integrity of the coaches' poll, the uneasiness of participants in the writers' poll becoming part of the news instead of covering it, and the wariness many have of computers generating numbers at odds with what the polls say.

The plan has been picking up interest around the country. "The plan deserves consideration," said Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg, who succeeded Tranghese as the BCS coordinator. "It will be discussed. The important thing is the integrity of the system. If we have to make changes to guarantee that, we will strongly consider it."

Added Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner John Swofford: "I'm for anything which improves our credibility. And if that [committee] does it, I will be happy to discuss the concept of it."

The credibility of the BCS system, which has been adjusted several times, came under fire again this month when Texas moved ahead of California in the final BCS rankings and into a Rose Bowl berth, even though the writers' and coaches' polls ranked the Bears ahead of the Longhorns. That was the result of a new formula under which the computers are given one-third of the weight of the decision and each poll has one-third. After the Texas-California controversy, the BCS quietly ran the numbers, using a formula that was rejected last spring, in which the computers counted for only 20 percent and each poll was worth 40 percent. Those results would have kept Cal ahead of the Longhorns by .00056.

Tranghese recognizes the uneasiness with computers. "The public just doesn't trust the computers on this issue."

When Tranghese pushes the committee idea at the NCAA convention next month in Dallas, the sticking point may be in determining the committee. But that seems solvable as long as each Division 1-A conference has a voice.

It could be as simple as having the commissioners debate the merits of bowl-eligible teams, or the committee could have a revolving roster of commissioners, athletic directors, and other officials. Former Georgia coach and athletic director Vince Dooley, former Washington coach Don James, and outgoing Syracuse athletic director Jake Crouthamel are a few names that come to mind who could fill some roles in the process.

Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive, who was dismayed his league's undefeated champion, Auburn, didn't make the national championship game, is open to a committee system. "I think it's worth discussing. Given what has happened this year, I'm probably more open in my thinking than I would be otherwise."

A committee system was also favored by Boston College athletic director Gene DeFilippo and president Rev. William P. Leahy, S.J. Both supported a change in format. "I think Father Leahy and I would both like to see a playoff," said DeFilippo. "As for a committee, I think it is certainly worth exploring."

Dooley wouldn't be averse to being part of a selection comittee. "I'd be happy and honored to serve on a committee like that," Dooley said by phone this week. "I do have some opinions."

Dooley has argued for a "plus one" game after the bowls. "I felt that if you had the `Plus One Plan' in [matching the two highest-ranked bowl winners], it would solve 85 percent of your problems," he said. "But having a committee would probably take care of the other 15 percent."

A selection committee could be put in place next season with a minimum of restructuring of the BCS.

[PingBull]

sry, should have put on other board...

[Jake_Ryan]

Probably a step forward, but this doesn't solve the problem.  With a committee this year, either USC, Oklahoma, or Auburn still gets left out of the championship game.

[PingBull]

i agree, but any step forward is at least something in the right direction....

[Velcro]

Probably a step forward, but this doesn't solve the problem.  With a committee this year, either USC, Oklahoma, or Auburn still gets left out of the championship game.

There is no system that wouldn't leave one of them out of the championship game... but at least a playoff would give them all some chance.

[Bullpride08]

There is no system that wouldn't leave one of them out of the championship game... but at least a playoff would give them all some chance.

Define playoffs, and 'all some chance'.  The big misnomer of the playoff system is that it would cure all ill's.  Frankly, if it is run like the 1-AA system it would probably be even more biased that the situation in place.  Need I remind any Bulls fans about the times we're snubbed from 1-AA playoff spot.  It will always be a circumstance where the #5 team will feel it should #4, and didn't get into the 4 team play off, or the #9 team, or the #19 and #20 teams feel they got shafted.  Or how about the teams that would get leapfrogged then completely shutout of the national championship picture.

The point is it's fool harded for everyone to believe there is a seamless system that would please 100% of the people.  It just won't happen, every year there's going to be controversy, and a selection committee will make it the same way.  

The irony is the presidents that are membered in the BCS don't want to change the system- it makes them to much money.  Any other system couldn't guarantee to lock-out a certain contingent, and guarantee payouts as unequitable as are already in place.

As Gordon Gecko said, "Greed is Good."  At least when you're a BCS team because in the end everyone wins!  Also, it didn't help Auburn one bit that they didn't have a signature game until late October.  USC had already beaten Vtech, and Cal on the road before Auburn hit its first test, ditto for OK.

[Velcro]

By All soem chance... i meant those undefeateds ... obviously someone gets screwed somewhere down the line... but in this case... auburn, OK, and USC would fight it out on the field.

I don't know how big of a playoff system would work, 3 rounds would easily solve any undefeateds thinking they are good enough as there are 8 undefeateds.  

[bulls96go]

Define playoffs, and 'all some chance'.  The big misnomer of the playoff system is that it would cure all ill's.  Frankly, if it is run like the 1-AA system it would probably be even more biased that the situation in place.  Need I remind any Bulls fans about the times we're snubbed from 1-AA playoff spot.  It will always be a circumstance where the #5 team will feel it should #4, and didn't get into the 4 team play off, or the #9 team, or the #19 and #20 teams feel they got shafted.  Or how about the teams that would get leapfrogged then completely shutout of the national championship picture.

The point is it's fool harded for everyone to believe there is a seamless system that would please 100% of the people.  It just won't happen, every year there's going to be controversy, and a selection committee will make it the same way.  

The irony is the presidents that are membered in the BCS don't want to change the system- it makes them to much money.  Any other system couldn't guarantee to lock-out a certain contingent, and guarantee payouts as unequitable as are already in place.

As Gordon Gecko said, "Greed is Good."  At least when you're a BCS team because in the end everyone wins!  Also, it didn't help Auburn one bit that they didn't have a signature game until late October.  USC had already beaten Vtech, and Cal on the road before Auburn hit its first test, ditto for OK.

8 or 16 (3 or 4 rounds) no top team in a bcs conference would be left out.

could do a 7+1,  7 bcs by committee and 1 non bcs highest 2 conference champs play for 8th spot.

or 16 , 6 bcs champs top 2 non bcs conference champs

8 at large berths decided by comittee

you would never have an undefeated bcs conference champ or top 5 team not in the playoff's

all who are in the playoff's have a chance at the NC those who did not make it should have won their conference or otherwise impress the committee.

[Bullpride08]

8 or 16 (3 or 4 rounds) no top team in a bcs conference would be left out.

could do a 7+1,  7 bcs by committee and 1 non bcs highest 2 conference champs play for 8th spot.

or 16 , 6 bcs champs top 2 non bcs conference champs

8 at large berths decided by comittee

you would never have an undefeated bcs conference champ or top 5 team not in the playoff's

all who are in the playoff's have a chance at the NC those who did not make it should have won their conference or otherwise impress the committee.

Awfully concerned about the BCS aren't we?  If this is a true playoff system then you need to decide if it's going to be just another BCS game, or if you want a true playoff.

A true playoff would mean equity for all conferences, conference champs would be a premium regardless of SOS, and conference affiliation.  

All you're asking for is simple.  No playoff just have a plus-one game.  The top 4 teams play each other in two different bowls, 1v4 and 2v3.  The winners play a week later, second week in January for the championship.  Then it would still be within the BCS parameters, and still be a money hogging thing.

HOWEVER, what do you think California would say about that?  They were 4th ranked in at least one poll and didn't get into a BCS game!  

The point being is it will never happen, not unless someone can come up with $200mm in bowl payout, and make as diverse economic impact across the country as these 28 bowl games do.

[GarySJ]

The phrase "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind. I've actually begun to realize that the old, non-allied bowl system was actually better. If not for the BCS, we'd have:

Oklahoma vs Auburn in the Orange or Sugar Bowl for the mythical national title (and remember, it's always mythical -- if you don't believe me, check the NCAA record book).

USC vs Michigan in the Granddaddy Of Them All, where SC would be able to stake a partial claim to a national title with a win.

Utah, Cal, and Texas, the teams most deserving of major New Year's Day games, would have gotten them. Two of them would be facing each other in an awesome Fiesta Bowl, and the other would be in the Orange or Sugar vs. an eastern team (Virginia Tech, or maybe a Big Ten or SEC runnerup).

Alternatively, Texas could play in the Cotton Bowl, which as recently as 1994 was the dream of every kid who ever played a down of high school football in that state. Sad how the Cotton Bowl got turned from the greatest prize in southwestern football, into a consolation prize between third-place finishers. If the BCS is supposed to preserve the sanctity of the bowls, it doesn't seem to be working.

8-3 Pittsburgh have to settle for a lesser NYD prize, like one of the three Florida games. Pitt vs. Florida State in the Gator Bowl sounds like a good matchup.

Tell me that lineup isn't a thousand times better than what the BCS created... while STILL failing to answer the "true national champion" question.