BCS Scoring System?

[DudeAnon]

I had made this point on twitter, but I will repeat it here. What do you guys think of NCAA adopting a similar scoring system as the BCS?

If you look at ESPN. Their own metric has Xavier at #22 but Lunardi predicts us as a 10 seed. I am not saying either prediction is right or wrong, but it seems ridiculous that we have to guess at which factors actually matters. I know it will kill Selection Sunday excitement, but it will be fairer (in most instances.)

So what do you all say, BCS scoring system or nah?

For reference, "The BCS relied on a combination of polls and computer selection methods to determine relative team rankings"

[Edrick]

A transparent formula that the committee would have to lean heavily (if not totally) on that rewarded what you wanted rewarded and is known by all before the fact would be better for everyone.

Christ, Sagarin is already kind of that in that it rewards backwards-looking results (like RPI) as well as forward-looking (like Pomeroy or its 'Predictor')

Humans are both dumb and biased, this is absolute.

[Hall2012]

I can definitely see the benefits of this as it gives every team a very clear picture of where they stand. After all of the automatic bids are secured, the at larges are determined very simply by going in order down ranking list of remaining teams. Everyone would have a good idea of where the cutoff between in and out is (although it's slightly due to bid thieves). My biggest with it is that teams will start scheduling to game the system. Is SOS a big factor? If so, that's a major disadvantage to a potentially great team stuck in a major conference. Is overall record far more important than SOS? Then major conference teams are going to be scheduling cupcake city out of conference every year. Some teams already schedule with the sole focus of maximizing their expected RPI, even with it not being the be all end all.

Also, I'm a bit of a traditionalist and really like the excitement of Selection Sunday with the bubble teams watching to find out their fate at the same time as everyone else. It'll still be cool to hear your team's name called, but not quite as exciting when the entire field is already known ahead of time.

So I wouldn't be that upset if this happened, but I vote no.

[Bill Marsh]

I had made this point on twitter, but I will repeat it here. What do you guys think of NCAA adopting a similar scoring system as the BCS?

If you look at ESPN. Their own metric has Xavier at #22 but Lunardi predicts us as a 10 seed. I am not saying either prediction is right or wrong, but it seems ridiculous that we have to guess at which factors actually matters. I know it will kill Selection Sunday excitement, but it will be fairer (in most instances.)

So what do you all say, BCS scoring system or nah?

For reference, "The BCS relied on a combination of polls and computer selection methods to determine relative team rankings"

What this simply shows is that Lunardi certainly should not be on the committee.

[sciencejay]

I vote no. The BCS formula was (in its last days) one third each human poll and one third of the average of five computer polls. Humans (coaches especially, but even sports writers) don't see very many games, so their opinions and rankings are limited at best and biased at worst.

I would like to see a transparent system where SOS, RPI, etc all factor in, but a committee meets regularly during the season and starts to publish rankings with one month to go in the regular season (similar to the current football playoff system but with an increased computer input--I always liked the drop the top and bottom ranking and average the remainders that the BCS system used). SOS and RPI could be determined by utilizing 6 different algorithms each and dropping the high/low values for each team and averaging the rest. No one algorithm is 'right' so that way the playing field might be more even.

I think that the playoff committee published its rankings for several weeks gave everyone an idea of where they stood. Of course, TCU and Baylor felt like they got screwed (and did depending on your perspective), but in football the arguments are now about who's fourth best in the nation whereas in basketball, the arguments would be about who's 45th - 55th in the nation.

Think of the added excitement the last month of the season when team X thinks it's on the outside looking in and must kick it in to make the field. That kind of happens now, but it's all conjecture--no one knows what the committee will think about a particular team, so team X may or may not have been on the bubble (or may never had a chance to get in without winning conference tourney).