Bowl formula leaves many fans confused
Posted: Wednesday June 10, 1998 07:18 PM
| |
"This system is very clear cut and objective," says Kramer (AP) |
MONTGOMERY, Alabama (AP) -- Try to imagine the cigarette smoke
swirling as Bear Bryant -- sitting with the equations in one hand,
calculator in the other -- pores over the numbers to figure whether
Alabama will play in the title game.
Doesn't really register, does it?
Kind of like this new Bowl Championship Series formula -- an
attempt to take what used to be a simple, albeit imperfect, poll
system and make it part of a complex mathematical equation that
tries to assure the real No. 1 and No. 2 play for the championship.
"It would help if I understood it at all," said David
Nicholls, a Birmingham attorney who was a manager on Bryant's
football teams in the mid-1970s, back when Bryant had a major
influence on bowl pairings. "I guess it uses polls and computers
and all that. But why not just have a playoff, which is the only
real way to do it?"
That debate is for another day. Right now, football fans should
be more worried about figuring out this new formula.
"I read the format and then had to read it again," said Chad
Gentry, a former sports anchor now working as an insurance
salesman in Birmingham. "I don't know if I'm stupid. But I think
their thinking is, as long as they can keep everyone totally
confused, nobody will question the matchup in the national
championship game."
That's not quite how Roy Kramer, the chairman of the Bowl
Championship Series, saw it.
In a nutshell, his new system combines four factors to determine
the rankings: The Associated Press and coaches polls; computerized
ranking systems; strength of schedule and overall won-loss record.
Sounds simple, but the details are where the confusion begins.
Kramer's system includes references to "maximum adjusted
deviation," "quartiles" and the vaunted "opponents' opponents
winning percentage."
He took nearly 10 minutes to explain it during a teleconference
Tuesday -- after which he conceded the new method didn't really lend
itself to a simple glance at the newspaper or an argument with
buddies over a pitcher of beer.
In its attempt to provide an ironclad No. 1 vs. No. 2, the
system seems to take all the fun out of the debate and guesswork
that goes along with determining a champion.
That doesn't bother everyone, however.
"I think it will improve the game," said Sheila Rich, a
football fan in Mobile who works for a telephone answering service.
"It's better than the previous method. That was too arbitrary."
Sometimes arbitrary is more interesting, though. Those who
remember Alabama's fate in the mid-1960s will attest to that.
In 1964, the Crimson Tide was ranked No. 1 in The Associated
Press poll the week before the bowls began. Bryant's team lost
21-17 to fifth-ranked Texas in the Orange Bowl, but won the
national title anyway because 1964 was the last year the AP named
its national champion the week before the bowl games.
The next year, the Crimson Tide headed into bowl week ranked No.
4. It ended up winning the national championship after beating No.
3 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl while No. 1 Arkansas and No. 2
Michigan State both lost their postseason games. Under the new
system, Alabama would have almost certainly been shut out of title
consideration.
But things might have been different in 1966, when Alabama
finished No. 3 despite an 11-0 record. Notre Dame and Michigan
State finished ahead of the Tide because they had been unbeaten and
ranked 1-2 all season, even after they played to a 10-10 tie.
The addition of overtime two years ago and Kramer's new system
next season will surely avoid a repeat of that scenario. It might
also take away some of the fun of wondering about what might have
been.
"This system is very clear cut and objective," Kramer said.
"It's not any more complicated than trying to figure how a
football writer decides whether a team is No. 9 or No. 4."
Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
| 
