Want to read a good rant by one of the BCS computer analysts?
Then click here to see Richard Billingsley stick up for the role of computers in the BCS.
He also gives it pretty good to a couple media members.
The real reason for my taking the time to share these few but precious thoughts is because this past weekend I witnessed Craig James of ABC sports ignorantly blast the BCS computers on national television for the umpteenth time, and this morning I read a commentary on Fox Sports web site by Pete Fiutak questioning why the BCS even has more than one computer formula in the standings. Combined, these two statements prompted me to reply about the lack of integrity in journalism in general, and personally to these two men, although I certainly recognize this act is perpetuated dozens of times daily in the media.
Observations of this nature were to be expected in the initial years of the Bowl Championship Series because the BCS itself was a new experience for college football, but ladies and gentlemen, this is 2006. This is the 9th season in the existence of the BCS, an organization in which the great majority of fans recognize is without a doubt a positive participant in college football, light years ahead of the old Bowl system. Say what you will about the formula, but at least acknowledge that matching #1 and #2 team in a championship game is better than watching #1 and #2 play in separate Bowls, which is what college football had from the inception of the Associated Press Poll in 1936 until the BCS in 1998. I’m just weary of the fact that the media refuses to do their job by investigating aspects of the BCS before they carelessly and thoughtlessly impart information that is ridden with misinformation. This only serves to undermine not only the BCS, but college football as a whole. The BCS is a part of college football. Computers are a part of the BCS. Get over it. If you don’t understand the intricacies of the formula by now, whose fault is it? YOURS!
No comments yet.