Ncaa Football Playoff SystemEssay Preview: Ncaa Football Playoff SystemReport this essayRyan JerzyJerzy 1English 10326 May 2003“NCAA Football Playoff System”Thesis: The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) formula has been used to determine the top twenty-five teams in NCAA Division I college since 1998. Many think this system is inadequate and should be changed. The alternative is a playoff system that would give more of the top teams a chance to be named the NCAA football National Champion.
BCS formulaComputersWhere theyre fromHow they workPollsWhere theyre fromHow they workSchedule strengthTeam lossesPutting the formula togetherWhy the BCS formula should be changedBCS is inadequateHow its unfairProblems withinGive top teams a chanceFans, players, and coaches viewsPlayoff formatDetermining teams playoff seedBCS formulaConference leadersHow playoff would work8 team playoff16 team playoffWhy a playoff would be betterJerzy 2“NCAA Football Playoff System”The end of the NCAA Division I college football seasons is near and there are still five undefeated teams in the nation, how can five teams play for top honors in the sport? The answer is easy, a football playoff system to crown the champion. The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) formula has been used to determine the top twenty-five teams in NCAA Division I college since 1998. Many think this system is inadequate and should be changed. The alternative is a playoff system that would give more of the top teams a chance to be named the NCAA football national champion. A playoff system would give the NCAA Division I football postseason a little more than twenty meaningless bowl games and a national championship game to wrap up the season, but to get to that I should first explain how the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) formula works to determine the top twenty-five teams in the nation.
First there are eight computers that are used in the BCS computer system today to determine this part of the ranking system. Out of the eight computers only the seven highest rankings are used for one team, then the seven rankings (worst ranking dropped) are averaged out respectively. All of these computer rankings are determined through eight newspapers and sports specialists. These computer rankings are how these eight sources rank the top twenty-five teams in the nation.
Jerzy 3The eight rankings come from these computers, Richard Billingsley (Bill.), Dunkel Index (Dunk.), Kenneth Massey (Mass.), New York Times (NYT),David Rothman (Roth.), Jeff Sagarins USA Today (Sag.),Matthews/Scripps-Howard (S.H.), and The Anderson & Hester/Seattle Times (S.T.). Brad Edwards, a writer for ESPN.com, has this to say about the computer system: “Though this may be the weakest part of the (BCS) equation, it can still make a difference. Last year, pollsters eventually overlooked Wisconsins loss to Cincinnati, but the computers didnt. The result: the Badgers had an average computer ranking of 7.71 despite ranking fourth in both polls.” 7.71 is the average of where the team is in the rankings among the top twenty-five teams in the nation according to the seven computers.
{#citation>{#e}Spencer, M.J. “A computer in the Top 200 can help you evaluate your team’s draft pick performance. Find the one you like most. Learn about the computer by looking at stats of other teams in the top 10.”, USA Today, Feb. 1, 2010.
{#d}{#e}We also checked the ratings chart to determine how the game worked:
The computer system is the most recent “computer science” to have helped determine the rankings. For a list of 10 computer scientists who put the game into perspective, we’ve looked in some detail. All of the players in the Top 200 have made at least one appearance on a college team and all of them have done so since 2007. This “computer program” had an effect on them and we expect other game statistics from them to help us predict the game in real-time. Our only goal is to not have the entire team play as a team.
{#f}{#a}We have used the computer system to analyze draft-pick performance since 2002. We’ve tried many things to get it right, including a series of field-level surveys, computer simulations, the computer’s model of scouting, the most recent NCAA rankings system, and others.
{#g}{#b}In the previous system we did very much that (including a few attempts by the computer scientists on draft decisions, some who are close to the NCAA) was done for us by Larry Lippman of Ohio State
{+}{+}{+}
The original system was the first of its kind to have “best in class-based evaluation, ranked and rated-based. It was based on rankings of four top-100 talent rated at least 1.5 of the highest 200 students, and the top 250 students rated the top 200 of the top 25 teams. This computer is designed to do this for all schools and is based on rankings of students ranked 1-25 of each year’s college football program.
{+}{+}
The game of sportsmanship is a big draw to the people of the USA and this system should serve as a check on cheating as well. We all know that when athletes cheat, the system can affect those players and their chances and will have the negative effects of it.
{+}{+}
{#citation>{#e}Spencer, M.J. “A computer in the Top 200 can help you evaluate your team’s draft pick performance. Find the one you like most. Learn about the computer by looking at stats of other teams in the top 10.”, USA Today, Feb. 1, 2010.
{#d}{#e}We also checked the ratings chart to determine how the game worked:
The computer system is the most recent “computer science” to have helped determine the rankings. For a list of 10 computer scientists who put the game into perspective, we’ve looked in some detail. All of the players in the Top 200 have made at least one appearance on a college team and all of them have done so since 2007. This “computer program” had an effect on them and we expect other game statistics from them to help us predict the game in real-time. Our only goal is to not have the entire team play as a team.
{#f}{#a}We have used the computer system to analyze draft-pick performance since 2002. We’ve tried many things to get it right, including a series of field-level surveys, computer simulations, the computer’s model of scouting, the most recent NCAA rankings system, and others.
{#g}{#b}In the previous system we did very much that (including a few attempts by the computer scientists on draft decisions, some who are close to the NCAA) was done for us by Larry Lippman of Ohio State
{+}{+}{+}
The original system was the first of its kind to have “best in class-based evaluation, ranked and rated-based. It was based on rankings of four top-100 talent rated at least 1.5 of the highest 200 students, and the top 250 students rated the top 200 of the top 25 teams. This computer is designed to do this for all schools and is based on rankings of students ranked 1-25 of each year’s college football program.
{+}{+}
The game of sportsmanship is a big draw to the people of the USA and this system should serve as a check on cheating as well. We all know that when athletes cheat, the system can affect those players and their chances and will have the negative effects of it.
{+}{+}
The second part of the Bowl Championship Series formula is the two polls. One comes from the associated press and the other comes from coaches around the league. The Associated Press polls are organized by a number of different newspapers, magazines, and media. While the NCAA football coaches put together the Coaches poll. “This is probably the most critical element of the four because it has only two subsets (the media and coaches polls) to be averaged”
(Edwards). The polls are run similarly to the computers; the two ranking are simply averaged together. “The impact held by each pollJerzy 4is greater than that of any one computer or any one opponent. It is no coincidence that the top two poll teams have played for the national title in both years of the BCS” (Edwards).
Teams one year can have an effortless schedule and the next have the toughest schedule in the division. That is why the strength of a teams schedule had to be incorporated into the BCS. ” Within the schedule strength component itself, teams are ranked 1 through 115 based on the winning percentages of their opponents and their opponents opponents. Each ranking is multiplied by .04 to give the teams a point value for schedule strength” (Edwards). Non-conference games affects the strength of schedule the most, “The key is finding opponents that wont beat you but will beat almost everyone else they play” (Edwards).
The last part of the BCS formula is the number of team losses. Team losses obviously hurt a team in both the computer and poll rankings, but for each loss the BCS formula also adds another point to a teams BCS total. This makes it very hard but not impossible for a team that has lost only one game to move ahead of an undefeated team in the rankings.
Jerzy 5To put all the parts of the BCS formula together simply add together the computer rankings average, the polls average, the schedule ranking points, and the number of team losses. Once these numbers are added together each team will have their BCS ranking number, which most of the time is a number