B.C.S. Formula Works Just Fine

By JOE DRAPE

The Bowl Championship Series ranking formula was designed to give something to everybody. The human polls are counted along with computer rankings, the strength of schedule is factored in, and teams are penalized for losses and credited for victories over better teams. As it has the past three years, the system worked. Can anyone honestly say undefeated Miami versus Nebraska (11-1) is not the best matchup for the national title game?

Now Colorado Coach Gary Barnett and the Buffaloes' faithful are trying to say it is not.

Yes, Colorado (10-2) beat the Cornhuskers handily and went on to win the Big 12 championship.

The Buffaloes also lost two games, one to Fresno State, a fine team with a future pro quarterback in David Carr. But Fresno State did not even win the Western Athletic Conference title; Louisiana Tech did. The Bulldogs posted an 11-2 record by beating league teams like Tulsa, Southern Methodist, Nevada and San Jose State - a group that finished with a combined 11-34 record.

The Buffaloes are beating their chests about holding off Texas, 39-37, in the conference championship game, but the Longhorns rolled over Colorado by 41-7 earlier in the season. One loss in a season when there are not two undefeated teams is understandable; rewarding two losses would be absurd.

Colorado did not earn a trip to the Rose Bowl. If the Buffaloes beat Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl and Nebraska upends top-ranked Miami in the title game, shame on any voter in the Associated Press news media poll who decides that Colorado (11-2) is more deserving of the No. 1 ranking than Nebraska (12-1).

Oregon (10-1), on the other hand, has a right to feel slighted. The Ducks can also be heartened that a Miami-lose, Oregon-win scenario might earn them the A.P.'s top ranking.

The Ducks, who only lost to a very good 9-2 Stanford team, are ranked No. 2 in both the A.P. and USA Today/ESPN coaches polls. The strength-of-schedule and computer component of the B.C.S. formula did Oregon in. The won-lost records of opponents and opponents' opponents don't lie. For Oregon, those numbers add up to the nation's 31st-toughest schedule compared to Nebraska's 14th-ranked schedule.

Even if you dislike or don't understand the computer rankings, they account for only 25 percent of the B.C.S. formula. Oregon was ranked as high as No. 2 by one computer, and as low as No. 8 by another. Both were thrown out, as the formula requires, and the remaining six computer service rankings were averaged. Oregon's average-point total was 4.83, which means the computers rated it as the fourth- or fifth-best team in the nation.

The math is essentially the short way of telling you what an hour of reviewing Oregon's season game recaps spell out: the Ducks struggled to beat decent but hardly great opponents.

Six of their games were decided by 7 points or fewer. In four games, the margin was 3 or fewer. The Ducks had to persevere against Wisconsin (5-7), Southern California (6-5), U.C.L.A. (7-4) and Oregon State (5-6).

Without the moral authority of the No. 2 ranking in the human polls, Oregon Coach Mike Bellotti and the Ducks' fans would assume the same gracious (and silent) posture as the coaches and partisans at Illinois and Maryland, both also 10-1. They would celebrate their fine season at a high-profile bowl game, regret their single loss and admit that a down year in their respective conferences cost them a trip to the big game.

And how about that moral authority? After Tennessee lost to Louisiana State last Saturday, the coaching colleagues of Nebraska's Frank Solich changed their votes in favor of Barnett and Colorado to try to keep the Cornhuskers out of the title game.

Say what you want about computers and formulas, but doesn't it bother you that the human component of the B.C.S. formula is the only one that can willfully corrupt the integrity of the standing?

Beyond Colorado and Oregon, the loudest whining is coming from the college playoff proponents, many of whom are A.P. poll voters. Fortunately, they too account for 25 percent of the B.C.S. standing.
.   .   .  
So far, university presidents have emphatically shot down any playoff structure. Wisely, in my opinion. Would the last three weeks with losses by Nebraska to Colorado, Oklahoma to Oklahoma State, Texas to Colorado, Florida to Tennessee, and Tennessee to L.S.U. have been as urgent or dramatic if you knew many of these teams were going to tee it up again in a week or two and commence a round-robin?

Of all the major sports, only college football offers a regular season that matters. Expanded playoffs in the pro sports and even the N.C.A.A. men's basketball tournament give fans cues when to pay attention. In college football, you pay attention from August on because the playoff is under way.

The B.C.S. standing was created to ensure that the best two teams met in a title game, which wasn't always guaranteed. Tennessee-Florida State? Virginia Tech-Florida State? Oklahoma-Florida State? The past three B.C.S. title games resulted in an undisputed national champion.

Cut through all the noise, and in Nebraska you'll find a team that won 11 straight by 10 points or more. Yes, Nebraska's loss was ugly and it came in the season finale, which pollsters, for some reason, have historically found abhorrent. Yet Nebraska has one fewer loss than Colorado and has faced better competition than Oregon.

You may not like the B.C.S. formula, but it is fair. Whether you calculate by abacus or algorithms. Whether you argue it with barroom gusto or classroom decorum, the B.C.S. made the right game.

Copyright 2001 by The New York Times

Top