BCS Newsroom

Kevin Weiberg Transcript from BCS Meetings

April 25, 2005

BCS Coordinator Kevin Weiberg's Statements from BCS meetings in Phoenix.

We spent most of the day focused on issues related to the BCS standings formula. We had a number of presentations from either groups currently affiliated with the standings formula or might have some willingness and interest in helping us in areas like the creation of a new poll, if we decide to go down that path. We heard today from the Division I-A AD's association and the National Athletic Directors Association as well as the National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame. Grant Teaff visited with us about his views relative to the coaches poll and issues related to it on a going forward basis, and also his thoughts about where we've been over the course of several years with the BCS standings and the coaches poll involvement. We had had a chance to hear from two representatives from the Football Writers Association.

There wasn't really a whole lot of time today for separate discussion. We'll get into more of that tomorrow afternoon after we hear from out bowl partners and our television partners. We have representatives from ABC and FOX present tomorrow as well as the bowls. We have some current year business to take care of with our bowl partners and with our television partners as well. So not all of that time will be devoted solely to the BCS standings formula.

There were no conclusions drawn today. There were a lot of opinions stated, and a lot of good questions asked. I don't really feel a strong consensus one way or the other at this juncture in terms of the BCS standings, but we weren't intending to reach that point today. This was more an opportunity for some input from various groups to allow us to take that in and think about it for a couple of days.

How feasible is it to replace the AP poll?

I don't think it is not feasible at this juncture. Clearly, we would have to understand some more details about it. We had some ideas presented to us today about things like who might such a group of voters be, where would they come from, issues related to transparency, some of the same things we faced with the coaches poll. I think one of the key questions is who makes up the voting panel. Is it current active people? Is it former coaches or administrators or perhaps even former athletes? Who would that group be? And what is the critical mass needed to have a poll that would be useful and workable. Those are the kinds of things we heard about today.

Based on what I heard, depending on how large a group you would want to structure, it certainly would be possible to create such a group.

Why wouldn't you do it?

Anytime you create something new, everyone is going to put a lot of scrutiny on it in terms of its results, how it functions. The issue of credibility I think would be one that would be focused on with that new element more so perhaps than some of the existing elements that have been part of th system, just because it's new. I think there's other things we have to think through other than whether or not you can have a panel of new voters and create a new poll.

Was the conversation today strictly limited to a possible replacement poll? Is there any talk about the committee approach?

There's talk about the full range of options. We have not had time at this juncture to get into details about a committee structure for example. That will come later.

Was there any talk about automatic qualifications?

We did not spend any time on that today other than to acknowledge its on our agenda. More likely than not, we'll get into some of that later tomorrow or even on Wednesday. Just so you know, we've already done a fair amount of work on that piece so there's probably less to be done with that here.

On the coaches possibly releasing their final ballots:

What Grant has said to us is that he wants to understand what we plan to do with the standings formula and I think part of his decision or the coaches decision in releasing their final votes will be contingent on what we end up doing. With that in mind, I don't think we have a hard and fast answer to your questions at this point. It depends what elements we have as part of the standings formula. For example, if we're going to go down the path of the committee where the coaches poll was simply an additional piece of data, I don't believe at that juncture there would be any relationship to what we do with a committee and what they choose to do with their issues of transparency. So in part, it depends on what we end up in deciding to do here.

I think it would be good to come out of here with a direction. I'm hopeful that we can narrow the options here. By that I mean if people are primarily interested in a committee approach, we'll know that that is a direction we're seeking to work on more fully. If on the other hand, that options is going to be taken off the table for whatever reason, then we'll know we're focused on a standings formula that is somewhat similar to what we've had. Then the issues really strictly becomes will there be a replacement poll or will we go forward with some combination of the elements that are currently part of the structure such as the coaches poll and the computers. That's the key thing I'd like to see accomplished here on this topic, to come out of here with enough direction that we could that we could then focus over 30 or 60 days on the final structure.

What's the timing?

You need some time for it to be digested, to answer questions and to be active. Certainly, if we're going to go down the path of creating a new poll then those entities have to get started quickly.

The component parts of creating a new poll probably include the technology that is needed to make it happen, staffing issues. So I think there is some urgency relative to that piece if that is where we are headed.

Would the BSC consider just using the coaches poll and the computer rankings?

I think it's possible. It's not an option we've taken off the table. It would depend on how the component parts are weighted. I don't believe that's one we have excluded at this point.

Would the BCS consider using just the coaches poll?

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. That's something we will have to consider the next several days. We've been through this long enough now to know that there are weakness associated with human polls. Those were obvious last year. Transparency for the final votes could address some questions it doesn't purely address all the questions. Having some balance in a formula that includes a computer element that helps address some of the weaknesses of a human poll, whether it's the coaches on its own or two different polls, still could be desirable. I think those are the things we'll have to walk through.

It's possible, assuming we would have the agreement of the coaches association, to make use of their final 1 and 2. That would be a possibility.

Is integrity a focus here?

The answer to that is yes.

Is that the downside in creating a new poll?

I think the same issues are going to be there relative to transparency of votes. At the end of the day, this is my personal belief, I still think human beings analyzing this, given the system we have, a ranking system, are best suited to make judgments about who the top two teams are at the end of the year. From my own personal bias, there may be a role for a computer element, but the human element remains the right element in terms of weighting the system. We have other issues to address, like transparency, that would hopefully help.

Is the BCS considering using just the coaches poll and the computers?

I think that the way we have approached this is to first look at whether or not there is a possibility of a replacement poll. Once you get past the point of saying yes or no to that questions, the question really becomes focused on can the existing elements stand on their own in some combination, or do we need to move down the path of the committee type of approach. I don't believe that idea has been ruled out.

Were the two proposals different?

They were somewhat similar although they had different components. I don't want to get into too much in describing what those components were. There are different ways to construct an additional poll, different voters, different ways to factor in regional voting, things of that kind.

Would the BCS consider scrapping the system and going back to the old bowl structure?

There was some sentiment along those lines when we were going through our television negotiations. I certinaly had some of that in my own conference -- the presidents, chancellors, a few athletic directors. I do think if that were to happen, if we decide the system wasn't feasible, and we've committed to a new four-year contract so we're moving forward, but if we decided it just doesn't work, I think it will more likely go down the path of returning to the old structure, the old bowl system, prior to the BCS.

What the timeline on the new standings?

In terms of setting the standings formula, at the latest July 15. We need to determine how to match up the top two teams. Other elements are important—top six for the conferences that don't have automatic access annually this coming year. So a ranking system is needed, whether it's the coaches poll on its own or some combination.

<a href='http://www.bcsfootball.org/news.cfm?headline=88' target='_blank'>BCS 1st day Meetings in Arizona</a>