My understanding is that there will be a committee to select the schools. If so, that means Louisiana Tech could just as easily be chosen as the Big East champion if the rules were in effect for this season.

I am sure the BCS rankings will still exist in some form, simply because those polls are already done anyway, and it is simple to computate. Whether they mean anything is the question.

There will be a committee with presumably a representative from each FBS conference. And yes, a committee could theoretically pick Louisiana Tech or anyone else over the Big East champ. Imagine the debate if Rutgers were a 1 loss Big East champ and Kent State was a 1 loss MAC champ this year with Kent State having beaten them head-to-head. We'll see if they provide weekly rankings or not (or at least tiers of teams) - I hope that they do if only to make sure no one gets "WTF?!" surprises whenever they announce the pairings.

(11-13-2012 04:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There will be a committee with presumably a representative from each FBS conference. And yes, a committee could theoretically pick Louisiana Tech or anyone else over the Big East champ. Imagine the debate if Rutgers were a 1 loss Big East champ and Kent State was a 1 loss MAC champ this year with Kent State having beaten them head-to-head. We'll see if they provide weekly rankings or not (or at least tiers of teams) - I hope that they do if only to make sure no one gets "WTF?!" surprises whenever they announce the pairings.

Yes they could take a Louisiana Tech @ 11-1 over a Rutgers @ 10-2 but something in the back of my mind tells me the Bowls/TV really wouldn't like that too much if it is that close.

(11-13-2012 05:12 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 04:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There will be a committee with presumably a representative from each FBS conference. And yes, a committee could theoretically pick Louisiana Tech or anyone else over the Big East champ. Imagine the debate if Rutgers were a 1 loss Big East champ and Kent State was a 1 loss MAC champ this year with Kent State having beaten them head-to-head. We'll see if they provide weekly rankings or not (or at least tiers of teams) - I hope that they do if only to make sure no one gets "WTF?!" surprises whenever they announce the pairings.

Yes they could take a Louisiana Tech @ 11-1 over a Rutgers @ 10-2 but something in the back of my mind tells me the Bowls/TV really wouldn't like that too much if it is that close.

Ditto for a future 11-1 SMU, Memphis or Houston and a 10-2 ECU or BYU.

(11-13-2012 04:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Imagine the debate if Rutgers were a 1 loss Big East champ and Kent State was a 1 loss MAC champ this year with Kent State having beaten them head-to-head.

I don't think there would be much of a debate under that scenario....unless Kent State lost much later in the season.

I would almost rather have a BCS type ranking used as the selection criteria over a selection committee.

The BCS rankings aren't perfect, but at least you know what you're dealing with ahead of time.

(11-13-2012 06:07 PM)3601 Wrote:  I would almost rather have a BCS type ranking used as the selection criteria over a selection committee.

The BCS rankings aren't perfect, but at least you know what you're dealing with ahead of time.

This. And as much as I hate what the BCS rankings stand for, it's a good aggregate system for the overall ranking system of teams except for a few minor, visible cases.

(11-13-2012 06:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 06:07 PM)3601 Wrote:  I would almost rather have a BCS type ranking used as the selection criteria over a selection committee.

The BCS rankings aren't perfect, but at least you know what you're dealing with ahead of time.

This. And as much as I hate what the BCS rankings stand for, it's a good aggregate system for the overall ranking system of teams except for a few minor, visible cases.

My only issue with the BCS rankings in general is that they were used to determine just 2 teams to play for the national title. If they were used to determine the top 4/8/12/whatever I wouldn't really have any problem with them. They take into account human polls and then have another part to outweigh some of their inherent biases.

(11-13-2012 06:18 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 06:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 06:07 PM)3601 Wrote:  I would almost rather have a BCS type ranking used as the selection criteria over a selection committee.

The BCS rankings aren't perfect, but at least you know what you're dealing with ahead of time.

This. And as much as I hate what the BCS rankings stand for, it's a good aggregate system for the overall ranking system of teams except for a few minor, visible cases.

My only issue with the BCS rankings in general is that they were used to determine just 2 teams to play for the national title. If they were used to determine the top 4/8/12/whatever I wouldn't really have any problem with them. They take into account human polls and then have another part to outweigh some of their inherent biases.

Yea...but are the BCS rankings better or worse than a selection committee? I say better, but that's just opinion.

The rankings formula could be tweaked again. It's been changed more than once during the life of the BCS. For example, I don't think it currently takes into account margin of victory, but it did at one time.

(11-13-2012 06:07 PM)3601 Wrote:  I would almost rather have a BCS type ranking used as the selection criteria over a selection committee.

The BCS rankings aren't perfect, but at least you know what you're dealing with ahead of time.

I agree. I understand the main value of the selection committee in the sense that it can understand the context of the situation. Last year had a prime example where Stanford was #4 in the BCS rankings while Oregon was #5 even though Oregon beat Stanford head-to-head and won the Pac-12 championship. That was a "you know it when you see it" problem that only a selection committee can resolve since it can't be defined in any formula or even addressed in a rule ahead of time.

However, as you least you can see the BCS rankings week-to-week and know exactly where you stood at any point in time. IMHO, the Big East would have been better served by a BCS-type ranking instead of a selection committee because the main argument that the Big East has stronger SOS than the rest of the G5 conferences might be clear in a computer ranking, but doesn't necessarily show up in the "eye test" that most humans naturally apply.

(11-13-2012 06:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 06:07 PM)3601 Wrote:  I would almost rather have a BCS type ranking used as the selection criteria over a selection committee.

The BCS rankings aren't perfect, but at least you know what you're dealing with ahead of time.

I agree. I understand the main value of the selection committee in the sense that it can understand the context of the situation. Last year had a prime example where Stanford was #4 in the BCS rankings while Oregon was #5 even though Oregon beat Stanford head-to-head and won the Pac-12 championship. That was a "you know it when you see it" problem that only a selection committee can resolve since it can't be defined in any formula or even addressed in a rule ahead of time.

However, as you least you can see the BCS rankings week-to-week and know exactly where you stood at any point in time. IMHO, the Big East would have been better served by a BCS-type ranking instead of a selection committee because the main argument that the Big East has stronger SOS than the rest of the G5 conferences might be clear in a computer ranking, but doesn't necessarily show up in the "eye test" that most humans naturally apply.

Good point.

Didn't the BCS at one time have a weird rule that controlled odd situations like that? I know that they tweaked the rules over time as weird stuff happened.

Both will be used.

The committee will use the "BCS Type" rankings to help guide them with their decisions.

(11-13-2012 06:20 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 06:18 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 06:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 06:07 PM)3601 Wrote:  I would almost rather have a BCS type ranking used as the selection criteria over a selection committee.

The BCS rankings aren't perfect, but at least you know what you're dealing with ahead of time.

This. And as much as I hate what the BCS rankings stand for, it's a good aggregate system for the overall ranking system of teams except for a few minor, visible cases.

My only issue with the BCS rankings in general is that they were used to determine just 2 teams to play for the national title. If they were used to determine the top 4/8/12/whatever I wouldn't really have any problem with them. They take into account human polls and then have another part to outweigh some of their inherent biases.

Yea...but are the BCS rankings better or worse than a selection committee? I say better, but that's just opinion.

The rankings formula could be tweaked again. It's been changed more than once during the life of the BCS. For example, I don't think it currently takes into account margin of victory, but it did at one time.

I agree I think the BCS poll would be better than a selection committee, just because I don't really trust any selection committee to be unbiased, and I don't trust them to watch enough games to accurately judge teams.

(11-13-2012 06:26 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  Both will be used.

The committee will use the "BCS Type" rankings to help guide them with their decisions.

That's my concern. The BB committee has always been inconsitent with their use of the RPI as a tool in helping them select. It seems like some years they treat the RPI as gospel and other years they totally ignore it.

They're gonna pick names out of a hat. But all the slips of paper have the same names on them.

(11-13-2012 06:26 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  Both will be used.

The committee will use the "BCS Type" rankings to help guide them with their decisions.

THIS^^^ but with a greater leaning on SOS so that a team can't go 12-0 with a SOS of 100 and make it. this will make it almost imposable for someone from the WAC, MAC etc. to sneak in, even if they load up on a good OOC their conf. will hold them back.

(11-13-2012 05:20 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 05:12 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 04:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There will be a committee with presumably a representative from each FBS conference. And yes, a committee could theoretically pick Louisiana Tech or anyone else over the Big East champ. Imagine the debate if Rutgers were a 1 loss Big East champ and Kent State was a 1 loss MAC champ this year with Kent State having beaten them head-to-head. We'll see if they provide weekly rankings or not (or at least tiers of teams) - I hope that they do if only to make sure no one gets "WTF?!" surprises whenever they announce the pairings.

Yes they could take a Louisiana Tech @ 11-1 over a Rutgers @ 10-2 but something in the back of my mind tells me the Bowls/TV really wouldn't like that too much if it is that close.

Ditto for a future 11-1 SMU, Memphis or Houston and a 10-2 ECU or BYU.

If Memphis was 11-1 we would have a bigger turnout than ECU. SMU might as well even though they are limited at home games in their on-campus stadium. When they were consistently good they filled up the Cotton Bowl for their games.

Personally, I'd much prefer a transparent BCS ranking system composed of at least some verifiable quantitative factors, as opposed to a smoke-filled backroom selection committee with an agenda and the ability to screw us over...

At the end of the day, the spot should be awarded to the highest ranked champion, period. Obviously, SOS should be a major component.

(11-13-2012 06:56 PM)MrMemphis Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 05:20 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 05:12 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 04:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There will be a committee with presumably a representative from each FBS conference. And yes, a committee could theoretically pick Louisiana Tech or anyone else over the Big East champ. Imagine the debate if Rutgers were a 1 loss Big East champ and Kent State was a 1 loss MAC champ this year with Kent State having beaten them head-to-head. We'll see if they provide weekly rankings or not (or at least tiers of teams) - I hope that they do if only to make sure no one gets "WTF?!" surprises whenever they announce the pairings.

Yes they could take a Louisiana Tech @ 11-1 over a Rutgers @ 10-2 but something in the back of my mind tells me the Bowls/TV really wouldn't like that too much if it is that close.

Ditto for a future 11-1 SMU, Memphis or Houston and a 10-2 ECU or BYU.

If Memphis was 11-1 we would have a bigger turnout than ECU. SMU might as well even though they are limited at home games in their on-campus stadium. When they were consistently good they filled up the Cotton Bowl for their games.

No you wouldn't.