It’s the rare sequel that lives up to the original.  Those that surpass (The Godfather Part II, The Dark Knight) are rarer still.  Of course, with movies that’s generally because movies that inspire sequels are actually good.  At the very least, they’re popular.  In college football, apparently all it takes is that the sequel be in the best interest of ESPN.

On Saturday morning (by pure chance, as I usually don’t even watch) I had GameDay on and heard an exchange between someone and Kirk Herbstreit (that’s how much attention I was paying).  Herbstreit was asked who deserved the #2 spot besides Alabama and made a big show of not being able to produce an answer.  This was before Oklahoma State destroyed Oklahoma in what amounted to the Big 12 championship game.  The Cowboys finished the regular season with just a single loss–a double overtime stunner on the road at 6-6 Iowa State.

I thought for sure that the BCS computers would boost Oklahoma State into the national title game.  As you know, Big 12 teams have received tremendous (suspicious, even) benefit of the doubt from the machine portion of the ratings pretty much all year.  And they didn’t let me down.  Only two computers had the Cowboys at #3.  The other four had them at #2 as expected.  So what happened?

ESPN decided, in direct contrast to their no-rematch mantra in 2006 when voters fatefully picked Florida over Michigan to face Ohio State, that suddenly the only thing that mattered was “quality of loss.”  What they really decided, of course, was that their enormous TV deal with the SEC could benefit from (and perhaps even be justified by) having two SEC teams face off for the title, even though they had already played in what was at the time billed as the Game of the Century.  That the game will be on their channel is just a coincidence, I’m sure.  The “quality of loss” nonsense is just the easiest way to sell it to the voters and the public.

But is that really all that matters?  If so, then where is the argument for Boise State?  Their only loss was by one point to 10-2 TCU.  Shouldn’t they be ranked ahead of Oklahoma State too?  Stanford’s only loss is to 11-2 Oregon.  Virginia Tech has two losses, but they’re both to 10-3 Clemson.  No one is arguing for these teams, because elevating them does not achieve maximum benefit for ESPN.

How about quality wins?  Alabama beat 3 teams in the final BCS top 25 (#s 6, 22, and 25).  Oklahoma State beat 4 (#s 8, 12, 14, and 24).  If nothing else, that should even out the imbalance of their comparative losses.  Of course, then there’s that whole business of Oklahoma State actually winning their conference.  ESPN will tell you (over and over and over) that Alabama shouldn’t be punished because they play in the same division with the best team in the country.  But Michigan was punished for that in 2006, until we learned that maybe Ohio State wasn’t the best team in the country (at least not that night).  Georgia was punished similarly the following year, before ESPN was knee deep in SEC hoopla, for basically the same thing Alabama is now being rewarded for.

So what’s the answer?  Obviously, shady computers and easily-manipulated polls aren’t working.  A national title game featuring two teams from the same division is a joke, a mockery of the very idea of competition.  At this point, I’ll take ANY advancement of the postseason, even if it’s only a plus-one (which I still don’t think is enough, but at least it would solve this year’s main problem).

Next week, I’ll give you the preliminary concept for a national ranking system that does not have the trappings of the current system.  While there is no way to avoid all forms of bias, the most egregious tampering (coaches/fans having a direct impact on the standing of their team through voting) can be eliminated.  Hopefully, it will work well with all postseason concepts, although I doubt it would be that great for a two-team BCS-style format because that’s completely stupid.

Oh, and why next week?  Because there’s a game this Saturday, and in my system, EVERY game counts.

My investigation into the secret bias of the BCS computers continues with something of a revelation this week.  As the season winds down with this weekend’s conference championship games (as well as offerings from non-championship conferences), the BCS computers are grinding at full speed in their effort to boost the position of the Big 12 (and, to a lesser extent, the SEC, which doesn’t really need any help).

I linked this article in yesterday’s post for a different reason, but it’s worth pointing out Wetzel’s main complaint: that the computer formulas used to generate the standings are kept almost completely secret (only 1 of the 6 is even available to the BCS itself).  He wonders (legitimately) why we should trust that there isn’t something shady at play, and I have to agree.  It’s simple really: if there’s nothing to hide, why all the hiding?

Having compared the average ranking of each team in the human portion of the BCS standings to their ranking in the computer portion, I think I have an idea what might be up.  You might recall that the reason I started monitoring this in the first place was what I felt was an abnormally high ranking for Oklahoma State a few weeks ago.  As the digging continued, it became apparent that the entire Big 12 was being favored more heavily than any other conference in the computers.  This week, I noticed something else when examining the numbers, so I sorted them in order from most “overvalued” to most “undervalued.”  (These are generic terms to illustrate the difference in the rankings, they are not intended as an assessment of a team’s ability.)  Here are the seven most undervalued teams–the teams that receive significantly worse (at least 2 full spots) rankings in the computers than in the human polls:

Houston (-2)
Oregon (-3)
Southern Miss (-6)
Michigan State (-6)
Wisconsin (-6.5)
Virginia Tech (-6.5)
West Virginia (-8.5)

In this group, we have the probable Big East champion, the probable ACC champion, the Big Ten champion, the probable Pac-12 champion, and the Conference USA champion.  Boise State and TCU, one of whom will win the Mountain West, are undervalued by one spot each.

Every champion (or probable champion) of every automatic-qualifying conference besides the Big 12 and SEC is undervalued by at least three spots.

The contenders for the SEC crown don’t fare that much better, Georgia is undervalued by one spot while LSU breaks even, ranking #1 in all polls by virtue of being undefeated.  By comparison, probable Big 12 champ Oklahoma is overvalued by 5.5 spots, while possible champ Oklahoma State is overvalued by 2 spots.

Is the Big 12 really that much better than every other conference?  Are the computers programmed to treat Big 12 teams more favorably?  Are there even any computers at all?

First off, there is probably going to be a Poll Dancing post this week, but quite honestly, I haven’t had the time to get around to it.  But there is something I’d like to throw out for your input.  Today on Yahoo!, Dan Wetzel has a piece about what to do with the college postseason.  As we know, he favors a playoff but he offers something of an olive branch to the BCS stalwarts: an overhaul of the BCS ranking system.  Of the two ideas he suggests, I am most intrigued by the first: an open, objective computer-based system for comparing teams.  I had already started working on something like he proposes to feature here in the coming weeks, so why not take it to the next level?

That’s where you come in.  I’ve already started tweaking some initial ideas, but I’d like to know what you feel are the most important factors in determining a team’s success.  For example, I have already included third-down conversion/opponent third-down conversion, turnover margin, and points for and against.  I decided to filter these stats to include only games against FBS teams with a winning record, so blowouts of weak opponents will be ignored.

What else do you think makes a good team good?  Anything at all, even it isn’t statistical in nature, is welcome.  If there’s a way to quantify something, I’ll do my best to find it.

Ah, what a weekend of football.  The BCS machine is scrambling, trying to convince you that you want to see a rematch of two teams from the same conference (even though you apparently would have hated that in 2006) and that it would be totally cool if a team that didn’t win its division played for the national title (even though that was a most uncool proposition in 2007).  Yeah, the BCS pushers are basically going to argue for whatever nonsense makes their system look like it “got things right.”

But this year, it’s not going to, because there is no getting it right in a two-team postseason this year.  The most the BCS can hope for is getting it acceptable to most and then trying to poke holes in all of the arguments that arise afterward.  Here, then, are some of this year’s possible end-games.  Feel free to cheer for whichever of these makes you most happy.  You know what I’ll be hoping for.

Best-Case For BCS-Lovers

Thanks to the Big 12’s absurd boost in the BCS computers (now up to +8.1 spots vs. human polls on average), if Oklahoma State beats Oklahoma next week, the Cowboys can still make the BCSCG.  Additionally, if LSU wins out, they will remain #1 and the title game will seem okay to most fans.  Maybe you’ll think another team belongs there, but you can live with this.  In this scenario, Houston will need to lose to Tulsa (who is also unbeaten in CUSA play) or to Southern Mississippi in the CUSACG to ensure there are no unbeaten non-champions at season’s end.  It would also be nice if all other one-loss teams lost.

Most-Likely Scenario (Mid-Level Controversy)

Based on current betting lines, Houston, LSU, Boise State, Alabama, Virginia Tech and Stanford should all win this weekend.  Chances are Oklahoma is going to be favored over Oklahoma State based on the fact that OU’s defense is ranked 40 spots higher than OkSU’s–in other words, the Sooners are going to win.  If that happens, there will almost certainly be multiple one-loss teams following conference championship week and they will be very close in the BCS rankings.  One of them will go to the BCSCG and the rest will complain.  Those complaints become even louder if the one-loss team is Alabama unless you think 5 other AQ conference commissioners are totally fine with the SEC taking both title game spots.

Total Chaos

This begins with Arkansas beating LSU, which is pretty unlikely.  That results in a 3-way tie atop the SEC West that must be settled by BCS ranking.  How that shakes out will already be controversial since the three tied teams just happen to be the top three teams in the current BCS standings and will probably remain the top 3 as long as OU beats OkSU (they will).  Step two is whichever team ends up on top losing to Georgia the following week, opening up the door for two teams from the same division playing for the national title even though neither of them actually won that division.  Jim Delany will murder three people (possibly at random) if this happens.

Also in this scenario: Houston and all non-SEC one-loss teams win out (including bowls), creating a jumble of teams with legitimate claims to the title.  And just for good measure, all Big Ten and ACC teams murder their bowl opponents (except when cancelled out by aforementioned one-lossers; also Big Ten takes precedence over ACC when the two play each other), adding the possibility that those conferences are better than critics thought.