AP pulls out of BCS

[IcemanCometh]

Ding dong the witch is dead

[ducks]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1951112

Move takes place next season
ESPN.com news services

Apparent concern over the Bowl Championship Series process had led The Associated Press to pull its football poll from the BCS system used to select the national le game and the three other BCS bowls, The Boston Globe is reporting.

BCS coordinator Kevin Weiberg, the commissioner of the Big 12, told The Globe he has received a letter from AP indicating it wasn't comfortable being part of the process.

The move would take place starting next season. The BCS is expected to make a statement later Tuesday.

The eight teams selected for the four major bowls -- Orange, Rose, Sugar, and Fiesta -- are picked by the BCS, which uses a combination of the AP poll (voted on by writers and broadcasters), the ESPN/USA Today coaches' poll, and several computer rankings. Each segment receives a one-third weighting in picking the teams.







AP pulls out of BCS
The removal of AP poll from formula will take place starting next year

The Associated Press pulled its football poll from being used by the Bowl Championship Series to select the teams for the national le game and the three other BCS bowls.
ADVERTISEMENT


Kevin Weiberg, the commissioner of the Big 12 and coordinator of the BCS, said he has received a letter from the AP indicating it was concerned about the process and being a part of it.

"We respect the decision of the Associated Press to no longer have its poll included in the BCS standings,'' Weiberg said in a statement today. "Since the inception of the BCS, the AP poll has been part of our standings. We appreciate the cooperation we have received from the organization in providing rankings on a weekly basis. We will discuss alternatives to the Associated Press poll at the upcoming BCS meetings and plan to conclude our evaluation of the BCS standings formula, including any other possible changes by our April meeting.''

The move takes place starting next season.

The eight teams selected for the four major bowls -- Orange, Rose, Sugar, and Fiesta -- are picked by the BCS, which uses a combination of the AP poll (voted on by writers and broadcasters), the ESPN/USA Today poll (coaches) and several computer rankings. Each segment receives a one-third weighting in picking the teams.

Controversy arose this year when some voters in the AP poll moved Texas ahead of California in the final ballot. That move was enough (even though Cal stayed ahead, the margin was closer) to push Texas ahead in the BCS standings when the polls and computer rankings were combined. As a result, Texas is going to the Rose Bowl, while Cal ends up at the Holiday Bowl.

[scott]

Controversy arose this year when some voters in the AP poll moved Texas ahead of California in the final ballot. That move was enough (even though Cal stayed ahead, the margin was closer) to push Texas ahead in the BCS standings when the polls and computer rankings were combined. As a result, Texas is going to the Rose Bowl, while Cal ends up at the Holiday Bowl.

I've read it was more a function of the Coaches poll than the AP poll that booted Cal in favor of Texas.

[jalbre6]

At this rate, we might have a Writer's Champion, a Coaches Champion, and a BCS Champion next season. Weiburg needs to start floating the idea of folding the BCS before it gets even more ridiculous, which before this I didn't even think was possible.

[jalbre6]

article from Ivan Maisel...interesting stuff in boldface (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/column...van&id=1951170)

The Associated Press did the dirty work for the Bowl Championship Series. The AP's decision to pull its poll from the BCS Standings is all but a death sentence for the 7-year-old idea of the formula, which has gone through more changes in its brief life than Madonna.

Rather than use another poll in the formula, a BCS official said Tuesday night that the BCS commissioners are considering appointing a blue-ribbon committee of athletic directors and other executives to name the teams that will play in the national championship game.

The concept, although foreign to college football, is not foreign to the NCAA as a whole. Many NCAA postseason playoff participants are named by committees, including March Madness.

The commissioners understand that the credibililty of the BCS is at stake. The AP is out, and the American Football Coaches Association has refused to reveal the votes of its members in the ESPN/USA Today poll.

Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg, the current BCS chair, released a statement Tuesday saying that, "We respect the decision of The Associated Press to no longer have its poll included in the BCS Standings. Since the inception of the BCS, the AP poll has been a part of our Standings. We appreciate the cooperation we have received from the organization in providing its rankings on a weekly basis. We will discuss alternatives to The Associated Press poll at upcoming BCS meetings and plan to conclude our evaluation of the BCS Standings Formula, including any other possible changes, by our April meeting."

Weiberg was traveling Tuesday and couldn't be reached for further comment. As the BCS chair, he will give an informal State of the BCS talk at the Football Writers Association of America annual meeting on Jan. 4, the morning of the BCS championship game, the FedEx Orange Bowl.

By pulling out of the formula, the AP has come full circle. In 1998, a sufficient number of AP members didn't want their college football writers to be responsible for voting teams into the national championship game that the Division I-A commissioners developed the Bowl Championship Series formula to determine the standings used to pick teams for the BCS games.

AP members, worried about making the news instead of reporting it, felt better that their poll was only indirectly responsible for which teams received the eight-figure payout (this season: $14.4 million).

However, after the controversy in 2003, when USC finished No. 1 in both the AP and the ESPN/USA Today polls and failed to qualify for the championship game, the BCS simplified its formula to rely more heavily on the polls.

With USC, Oklahoma and Auburn all finishing the regular season undefeated, the simpler formula didn't end the controversy. The controversy, however, renewed the AP's concerns regarding making news.

An AP voter in Alabama, Paul Gattis of the Huntsville Times, was chastised for voting Auburn No. 3 by the editor of his paper -- in print. Three AP voters in Texas drew attention when they moved Texas ahead of California in the final poll, helping the Longhorns qualify for a BCS berth in the Rose Bowl instead of the Golden Bears.

[scott]

The BCS is not bad for what it was intended to do- in fact, I think it has been quite successful. The problem is not with the BCS in of itself, but the idea of having a champion determined by polls as opposed to even a 4 team playoff.

[jalbre6]

I respectfully disagree.

The BCS not only is around to determine the #1 and #2 teams and put them together, it also determines the eight best teams in the country using a flawed system. Would you rather see West Virginia in a BCS game or UC- Berkeley? Want to make it fair? Eliminate at-large bids, period. ACC, SEC, Big 12, Big East, Pac-10, MWC, Big 10 and C-USA champs make an eight team tourney. Disappointed, MAC fans? Go join the Big East or C-USA. Good-bye, Baylor. o, TCU. Good-bye, Vandy. o, Louisville. Good-bye, Temple and Rutgers. o, Notre Dame.

[/pipe dream]

[JFK]

I don't blame the writers and AP for pulling out.

Why is it that their votes have to be published and out there for everyone to kill them when they disagree and then the "Coaches" vote is kept secret.

The Coaches vote secretly and have to answer to nobody, so why should the AP be scapegoated and forced to show their cards.

I dont think this will kill the BCS those damn sons of es running that will just tweak it and put up some panel of clowns to select teams, the more they around with this piece of crap system the worse it looks and the more credibility NCAA Division 1 A football loses.

Oh by the way Division II and III in the NCAA had a couple of playoff games last week to decide the matter, imagine if you could have that at the IA level?

never gonna happen.

[scott]

The BCS not only is around to determine the #1 and #2 teams and put them together, it also determines the eight best teams in the country using a flawed system. Would you rather see West Virginia in a BCS game or UC- Berkeley?

This is a common flaw, but one not exclusive to the BCS. In the NFL this year there is the strong possibility that a sub-500 will win a wild card spot in the NFC while 3 10-6 teams miss the playoffs in the AFC. That is just the nature of the beast.

There will always been room for dispute at the margin, even with the BCS moving to 5 bowl games next year. Instead of it being the debate of #8 vs #9, it will be #10 vs. #11. The same debate will exist with a playoff system as well. It is just the nature of the beast.

I disagree however that the BCS doesn't only exist to put #1 and #2 together... that is indeed its primary objective, and all else is secondary.

But let's imagine a BCS-less world that still doesn't feature a playoff system.

USC would be playing Michigan in the Rose Bowl (Pac-10 vs Big 10) , while OU played Tennessee in the Cotton Bowl (Big 12 vs SEC) and Auburn played Virginia Tech (SEC vs ACC) in the Sugar Bowl. How would any of this be any better?

The BCS has problems, but it has done a good job within the framework of a flawed system. The BCS isn't the problem, the basis of poll-based champions is the problem.

[jalbre6]

Good call with the NFL comparison. And even better with the margin play. The March Madness picks every year show some team deserving that doesn't get to go dancin' too.

Bottom line...it will never be perfect as long as opinion factors into selection. While I agree that it is better to at least have some sort of system with the BCS as opposed to the old way, the only logical solution is the one implemented in the lower NCAA divisions...the playoff system. And even with that some school will be left wanting.

[scott]

I agree... I think the AP pulling their hat out of the ring is a step in the right direction. It is the strongest signal to date that a playoff is the only truely desired system.

Personally, I feel there are rarely more than 3 teams deserving of a shot at the National le, so a 4 team playoff would suffice for me. I'm even okay with a BCS-like ranking system to determine the top 4. This year we would have gotten the 3 who are truely deserving (USC, OU, and Auburn), and then there would have been some debate about who deserves the 4th spot. Again... to me this is okay and even preferred to the debate over who would deserve the 8th playoff spot over the 9th seed and just missing it... because in all likelyhood 4-9 don't really deserve it anyway. If the 4 team system works, then maybe eventually expand it.

Just my thoughts.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Um, Rupert Murdoch (king of media) has been leading the charge for a true playoff and NC game for a good 6-7 years now.

Fox just acquired the rights to broadcast the NC game and the rest of the big four not hosting the le game through 2011.

Put two and two together. The windfall for a college football playoff as far as advertising revenue would probably rival that of the NCAA hoops tourney.

[jalbre6]

Aggie, I really hope you're right. I remember reading about this and wondered why the Fox wanted the BCS when ABC declined. And I think the advertising revenue for a NCAA playoff would rival the NFL playoffs. Everyone wins.

[scott]

Um, Rupert Murdoch (king of media) has been leading the charge for a true playoff and NC game for a good 6-7 years now.

Fox just acquired the rights to broadcast the NC game and the rest of the big four not hosting the le game through 2011.

Put two and two together. The windfall for a college football playoff as far as advertising revenue would probably rival that of the NCAA hoops tourney.

Too bad Rupert Murdoch has absolutely no say in the affairs of NCAA football. No doubt a college football playoffs would mean big money- but BCS games without a playoffs is still big money for Fox Sports. Just because Murdoch has an affection for money doesn't mean his buying the right to broadcast games is going to result in a change to the system. You put two and two together far too quickly. The politics of the current system run deeper than the whim of Rupert Murdoch.

And PS... he doesn't have rights to the Rose Bowl.

[rr2418]

The BCS not only is around to determine the #1 and #2 teams and put them together, it also determines the eight best teams in the country using a flawed system. Would you rather see West Virginia in a BCS game or UC- Berkeley?

YES!!! If UC-Berkeley was 11-0!!

The only reason the BCS is around is so that there won't be any Berkeley's or Boise ST. or Utah's. The BCS powers want only the major schools that will bring the most TV revenue. Never mind that Boise St. went 11-0 or Utah went 11-0 or 12-0. They much rather have a 9-2 OU team vs 8-3 USC team ( it might happen one day ) then watch a 12-0 Air Force vs. 11-0 Tulane team. To put simpley, the BCS is designed to keep the rift-raft out of the picture!

[IcemanCometh]

[scott]

The only reason the BCS is around is so that there won't be any Berkeley's or Boise ST. or Utah's.

rr2418... you may recognize UC-Berkeley under it's more commonly used name... Cal.

[CosmicCowboy]

I just think strength of schedule has to be considered...The BCs is not perfect but being undefeated when you don't play any of the best teams in the country doesn't mean ...I would love to see a BCS type ranking system and then a 1-4 and 2-3 playoff right after Christmas...then have the two winners square off for the National championship after New Years...whoever comes in at #5 will of course but no system is perfect...

[samikeyp]

I would agree...it would hopefully prevent all the cupcake games played by big schools at the beginning of the season.