Wetzel's bias ruins potentially informative BCS article, book

It would be nice to see an in-depth article about the computer ratings used in the BCS. Most people are very curious as to how they work, and since each computer rating is as important as roughly 14 pollsters, it would give some insight into what factors rank one team ahead of another. This is something that most college football fans know very little about. A large organization like Yahoo! Sports would be capable of doing a quality, comprehensive job with such an article.

They tried, but of course since Dan Wetzel was involved, what little insight we get is lost in the haze of vitriol directed at the BCS, and indirectly at the computer ratings and the men who created them. 'Death to the BCS: Nonsense Rules is one long, anti-BCS rant, pretty much the same as everything Wetzel writes on the subject, interspersed with interesting snapshots of the people who created several of the computer rating systems.

A further look reveals that the article is an excerpt from a full-length book, one which I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would read. The few who love the BCS (is there anyone?) wouldn't want to read it; the majority who hate the BCS already know why they hate it. What possible insight is there in a book whose objective is to slam the BCS?

The excerpted article shows how painful a read the book must be. Every time an objective, interesting fact tries to get in the way, the authors storm in with opinion and more BCS denigration. Along the way there are a few bizarre moments:

• They say that it is "hypocrisy" for the computer algorithms to be forbidden to use margin of victory, while allowing the voters to consider it. Come again? Does Wetzel favor sequestering the voters, and feeding them only win/loss information? Criticize the BCS for crippling the computers, sure, but to compare what they can use vs. what the humans are "allowed" to use is beyond silly. If anything, non-biased look at the situation would see that since the pollsters are almost certain to notice margin of victory, it's already accounted for in 2/3 of the system, and that human intelligence has the ability to know when to value a large margin of victory and when to dismiss it. But if your goal is to slam the BCS, you can turn anything into another trashing point.
• They cite an analysis of the computer rankings' predictive ability, which concluded it was low. Of course, the purpose of rankings is not necessarily to be predictive. That's only one facet of a rating system. Any year-end rating system should be based on how well teams in fact performed, not a guess as to how they would do if the games were played again.
• They take quite some time to slam Richard Billingsley, who has the rating algorithm most different from the others. Particularly interesting is how much hatred they have for his "carry-over" over ratings from one year to the next. Apparently they think this is foolish and stupid. Perhaps it lacks intellectual rigor, but by the end of the season the starting points are almost meaningless. And even if starting point did make a difference...has Wetzel looked at the pre-season AP poll, and how close it resembles the final AP poll from last season? Teams move up or down a few spots here and there, and that's it. Alabama was #1, they remain #1. Boise State moved just from #4 to #3, despite having 20 starters back. Texas fell only a few spots despite losing a 4-year starting quarterback. So where is the disdain for their fellow sportswriters?
• They mis-identify the problem with allowing the use of margin of victory, saying it was about "sportsmanship." That's not the whole truth. The real problem is that the system could be "gamed" by teams running up the score, and thereby put the focus on how much a team wins by. Which in turn could jeopardize players' health and allow less participation by the reserves. It's a legitimate point: do we really want to see teams trying to win by as much as they possibly can, against even the worst of competition? And most "solutions" to the M.O.V. problem create an unfortunate side effect whereby even playing a weak team will cause a team's rating to fall; it's better to not play the game at all. (For the record I'm in favor of using margin of victory; I think there should be ratings that use it and ratings that don't.)
• Wetzel hates the computers mainly because all he knows about them is their association with the BCS. The truth is that the computer ratings have made pollsters far more intelligent. Teams that would have been rated too high before the computer rating era are now left closer to where they belong. And vice versa. But writing an article or book that gave credit to the computer ratings for increasing insight into college football, and as a worthwhile tool to consider when evaluating teams and their schedules? That would give tangential credit to the BCS, which is verboten.

A few years ago Wetzel showed off his 16-team playoff brackets, and the 2nd round had something very telling: an expected matchup between Oklahoma and Texas Tech. Of course, the teams had played just weeks earlier, resulting in a 65-21 Oklahoma win. So Texas Tech gets a second chance? And if they win by a point, that's ok?

It's results like that which make a playoff system potentially worse—yes, even worse—than the BCS itself. What Wetzel is saying by presenting that matchup with a straight face is: the regular season does not matter at all. A 44 point win? Thrown in the trash heap. Play it again.

A well-constructed playoff would be great. But what are the odds that we'll get that? When even professional BCS-haters like Wetzel come up with horrifically stupid systems to replace it, imagine what the real powers that be will construct. And don't say making a playoff system is easy and obvious. So is making a BCS system, and look how they messed that up. Given a very simple job—determine the top two teams—they ignored the obvious: use the AP and Coaches poll only, like we'd been doing for decades. Instead they made a convoluted system with all sorts of extraneous variables, and got weird results that didn't match what everyone wanted: the top two teams in the polls.

They tweaked the system by simplifying it, and today's formula is the best one so far (which doesn't say much). The next logical step would be to get rid of the computers except in case of a tie. It's taken them 12 years and they aren't even at the obvious place they should have been in 1998. How long will it take them to whip a playoff system into shape?

Hate it, slam it, wish it would go away, but the BCS is what we've got right now, and I and many others would like to read interesting, informative, unbiased, and non-vitriolic articles about how the system works. We'll have to wait for those articles, though, because they aren't being written. Instead we get full-length books that preach to the choir about hating the BCS. It's a shame, because reading between the glut of bias there are some intriguing moments even in the short article. The reader is doomed, however, to only getting one viewpoint on the subject, one that colors everything written within.

Comments

[Thomas Kohr @SKOHR]

I bought the book, read it, and thoroughly enjoyed it actually. Yes it was terribly biased which was kind of tough to get through at times but the writers were able to shed light on some of the more egregious corruption by the keepers of the BCS, or the group they term, the "Cartel."

People should really read this book so the arguments against the BCS can be more productive than, "a playoff would be better." This book will help EVERYONE understand why a playoff would be better.

For example the influx of money generated would allow corrupt Bowl commissioners to continue earning their $500,000 paychecks while earning enough money to pay for ALL of the sports teams that have been cut from colleges over the past 10 years due to budget constraints. By upping the earning power of college football from $250 million under the current system to a conservative estimate of $800 million colleges wouldn't have any of their current budget constraints. Especially the schools funded by strapped for cash state governments.

[SportsRatings]

Thanks for the info, Thomas. I'm just tired of Wetzel's constant harping on the same stuff over and over.