Simulated BCS -- For shizz and giggles
- Thread starter B.A.R.
- Start date
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
Could have been a tricky year for this if a few things play out
Bama beating georgia
Tennessee loses to someone
Michigan/ohio state in an ot thriller?
Clemson loses in acc ship
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
Man, I really loved the BCS and I really hate what it is now.
I forget all the details, but after 2003, they changed the BCS formula because the humans weren't getting the results they wanted. So did they add an additional weight on the human poll or add an additional human poll to have more influence over the computers. The computers were great, they used 6 I think, and you throw out each computer's high and low score and averaged the remaining for to try and get any wide variance out of it.
They are only using 5 computers here. They are missing Anderson, but I just looked and Anderson doesn't have ratings for this year yet.
I forget all the details, but after 2003, they changed the BCS formula because the humans weren't getting the results they wanted. So did they add an additional weight on the human poll or add an additional human poll to have more influence over the computers. The computers were great, they used 6 I think, and you throw out each computer's high and low score and averaged the remaining for to try and get any wide variance out of it.
They are only using 5 computers here. They are missing Anderson, but I just looked and Anderson doesn't have ratings for this year yet.
guaranteeed
Pretty much a regular
Isnt one of them just a fan? Billingsley I think, everyone else was an algorithm created and he just ranked teams?
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
I do not know.
If this is his current ranking, he has some numbers like Clemson has a 311.009 rating so there must be some formula.
www.cfrc.com
The computers were often criticized, but if there was ever an outlier, that outlier was eliminated as they eliminated a teams highest and lowest score of any computer ranking and averaged the other 4. So even if there were some flaw in the Billinsley, any team drastically out of line with the others wouldn't be factored. Or they could just replace the Billinsley and go with any number of dozen of ranking that are out there. Massey's web page shows links to like 50!
If this is his current ranking, he has some numbers like Clemson has a 311.009 rating so there must be some formula.
CFRC Encyclopedia
The College Football Research Center has been part of the online sports community since the early days of the internet. Today, powered by Ryan McVay Technologies, the new CFRC is bigger, better, and more user-friendly than ever! Find your favorite team and browse the hours away in the All-Time...
www.cfrc.com
The computers were often criticized, but if there was ever an outlier, that outlier was eliminated as they eliminated a teams highest and lowest score of any computer ranking and averaged the other 4. So even if there were some flaw in the Billinsley, any team drastically out of line with the others wouldn't be factored. Or they could just replace the Billinsley and go with any number of dozen of ranking that are out there. Massey's web page shows links to like 50!
gps_3
Head of Alabama Department of Decision-Making
I thought it was 2011 that broke the BCS because the computers said the two best teams were LSU and Alabama.
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
I miss Michigan and Nebraska both being champs
I miss Colorado and Georgia Tech both being champs
That stuff delivered much more exciting drama than this idiotic set up
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
@gps_3
2001 Nebraska played Miami after Nebraska lost to CU in the regular season finale which moved Nebraska back several spots in the BCS. But while sitting home during Big Xll tithe game week, after it was all said and done they were again #2 in the final standings and people were pissed. Then in 2003 it really came to a head when OU had just lost to Kansas St in the Big Xll title game yet still we're in the top 2 and set to play LSU. USC was the AP National champ that year. Which there weren't supposed to be anymore split champs in the BCS era.
All of that would've been avoided so simply if they would have one little criteria, only conference champions are eligible. Then you skip Nebraska in 01 and it's Colorado. And in 2003 you skip Oklahoma and it's USC instead.
But they changed the methodology. I'd have to look, exactly but I seem to remember they reduced the weight of the computers and increased the weight of the human polls. All they had to do was keep it the same and use the results of actual games and award winners of those games rather than losers.
2001 Nebraska played Miami after Nebraska lost to CU in the regular season finale which moved Nebraska back several spots in the BCS. But while sitting home during Big Xll tithe game week, after it was all said and done they were again #2 in the final standings and people were pissed. Then in 2003 it really came to a head when OU had just lost to Kansas St in the Big Xll title game yet still we're in the top 2 and set to play LSU. USC was the AP National champ that year. Which there weren't supposed to be anymore split champs in the BCS era.
All of that would've been avoided so simply if they would have one little criteria, only conference champions are eligible. Then you skip Nebraska in 01 and it's Colorado. And in 2003 you skip Oklahoma and it's USC instead.
But they changed the methodology. I'd have to look, exactly but I seem to remember they reduced the weight of the computers and increased the weight of the human polls. All they had to do was keep it the same and use the results of actual games and award winners of those games rather than losers.
Last edited:
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
I feel like MW does, we don't necessarily need to have a system that delivers us Michigan vs Nebraska or Colorado vs Georgia Tech (or UCF vs Clemson)...
The emphasis on the playoff and national title has undermined the structure of the game, it is the be all end all and really nothing else matters. Give lip service to the importance of winning one's league, but it doesn't mean anything. The playoff is all that matters now and it is only getting worse with every idea of expanding it.
But money rules and money wants more games between more big name teams and you know money ruins lots of things. We get more games to watch and bet on, oh yay. Why not just make it a year round sport then, more games to watch and bet must be better right? When you want more of something when it is over, is a good thing, it is makes it special. Like a concert, you play for 4 hours and even my favorite band, I'm kind of over it at a certain point. You play for 2.5 hours and you're like man that was amazing. Over saturation and flooding the market with more and more longer and longer, in my opinion atleast has diminishing returns to this particular fan.
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
Specifically why none of these Spring/Summer leagues will ever survive. There's always too much of something at a point. Covering NFL 365 days a year has led me to not watch anything other than the games themselves, and the same can be said about CFB.
Paralysis by over analysis is a real thing. Hell when the Cards finally made the SB in 2009 I didn't watch one thing during the week outside of media day because it's unique. I don't need to hear a million different ways team A can beat team B and vice versa.
Growing up it was fun thinking about football for an entire week...now I do wagers and have to try to care when someone wants a discussion mid week. Outside of that, the adrenaline is reserved for actual games. In the same way ESPN brought sports into our daily lives, they've figured out a way to ruin them with all the fluff we never asked for. Same can be said about these stupid mini CFB tournaments.
RetroVK
This claim is disputed
Explain to me how the system works where TCU would be 7 and Clemson 5. I am not concerned about who is better or who would win but how they could be ranked higher by a computer. TCU had beaten teams ranked in the top 20 four consecutive weeks, plays in a tougher conference and Clemson's best win is an overtime win at Wake Forest (two quality wins vs Cuse and NCSU at home). I don't understand. I will never understand.
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
Will always be the cat chasing the tail
UCF beat Georgia because Georgia for some reason didn't care about that game
Hope you're flaunting that UCF Natty lid today!
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
It would have to be asked to the representative(s) of the specific ranking to explain how or why that would be the case. TCU beat four consecutive top 20 teams you say...what if the computer in question did not respect those specific teams and in fact did not have them as beating four top 20 teams? Maybe the computer views or viewed Syracuse and Wake forest or North Carolina St as superior to the likes of Oklahoma or Kansas or Kansas State.
It's a fair question that always deserved answered. I can't answer it, nobody here can. But I'm content knowing there is an answer that can be given.
And then, as I said earlier, if that ranking is an outlier, the BCS would eliminate it anyway, if among the 6 computers the BCS were using, if TCU's lowest rank was 7th, it would be thrown out and not averaged. So it doesn't matter in the overall formula.
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
Here are the final BCS rankings for 2003 and 2004.
They went from using 7 computers in 2003, to 6 in 2004. In 2003 they dropped a teams worst rank among the 7 and averaged the remaining 6. In 2004 they dropped a teams worst and best rank among the 6 and averaged the remaining 4.
They dropped a strength of schedule component and they dropped a quality win component
I also believe they told the computer rankings to not take into account margin of victory in their rankings. Jeff Sagarin specifically created a new ranking without MOV, but would still publish the one the BCS no longer used with MOV.
They went from using 7 computers in 2003, to 6 in 2004. In 2003 they dropped a teams worst rank among the 7 and averaged the remaining 6. In 2004 they dropped a teams worst and best rank among the 6 and averaged the remaining 4.
They dropped a strength of schedule component and they dropped a quality win component
I also believe they told the computer rankings to not take into account margin of victory in their rankings. Jeff Sagarin specifically created a new ranking without MOV, but would still publish the one the BCS no longer used with MOV.
Attachments
RetroVK
This claim is disputed
I agree with margin of victory not mattering at least.
I am an American at heart. I believe in equal opportunity. I don't believe in central controlled systems that just get to decide things. Set up a clear set of rules that all participants can use in the same ways to succeed, objectively not subjectively, on the field of play. That is the only system that will ever be acceptable to me. Until we have that, all of the champions in college football are mythical champions in my estimation. Mythical champions are fine but I am not going to pretend they are real.
I am an American at heart. I believe in equal opportunity. I don't believe in central controlled systems that just get to decide things. Set up a clear set of rules that all participants can use in the same ways to succeed, objectively not subjectively, on the field of play. That is the only system that will ever be acceptable to me. Until we have that, all of the champions in college football are mythical champions in my estimation. Mythical champions are fine but I am not going to pretend they are real.
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
Anybody can make their own BCS ranking, it is actually very simple. A computer ranking of 1 is transfered to a numberic value of 25. 2 is 24, 3 is 23 and so on. So if they had 6 computer rankings for a given team it could look like this:
25, 25, 23, 21, 24, 25
That would be three #1, one #2, one #3 and one #5. One of the 25s would get dropped as the highest and the 21 would get dropped as the lowest. The remainder would be averaged: 25+25+23+24 = 97 or .970
The human polls they used the points vs points possible. There are 1525 points possible (61 voters x 25). So if Alabama received 1523 of a possible 1525 their score for the BCS formula would be represented as .9986. If the third place team had 1488 points of a possible 1525 their number would be .9757.
If you have two human polls you do this for both, although the AP might have 1525 possible, some other poll, the coaches or the Harris Interactive which replaced the AP might have 1500.
Then you have a score like the AP above .9986 + another human poll, let's say .9793 + a computer average of .970 = a BCS average of .9826
That's how you do it.
25, 25, 23, 21, 24, 25
That would be three #1, one #2, one #3 and one #5. One of the 25s would get dropped as the highest and the 21 would get dropped as the lowest. The remainder would be averaged: 25+25+23+24 = 97 or .970
The human polls they used the points vs points possible. There are 1525 points possible (61 voters x 25). So if Alabama received 1523 of a possible 1525 their score for the BCS formula would be represented as .9986. If the third place team had 1488 points of a possible 1525 their number would be .9757.
If you have two human polls you do this for both, although the AP might have 1525 possible, some other poll, the coaches or the Harris Interactive which replaced the AP might have 1500.
Then you have a score like the AP above .9986 + another human poll, let's say .9793 + a computer average of .970 = a BCS average of .9826
That's how you do it.
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
I agree fully and completely which I why I so very strongly feel that only conference champions should be eligible to compete for any college football national title.
Every team can set their goal to win their league. Some teams have a better chance than others, but everyone knows, you win the league, you advance to a playoff. No smoke filled rooms no committees. That is as fair as it gets. Period.
Now, we do not have an equal division of football. We have 131 teams I believe all under the same classification. They are equal as defined by the NCAA as FBS, but they are in fact very unequal. So how does one handle this?
To be fair and to be equal, it would require some reclassification of the teams because South Alabama is not equal to Alabama, nor is Kent State to Ohio State. Until that problem gets solved, nothing can really be determined as fair.
And there are too many conferences currently in FBS for an equal number of playoff spots. Unless you say the AAC, ACC, Big Ten, Big Twelve, CUSA, MAC, MWC, PAC12, SEC and Sun Belt, could you take the champion from each league, some 10 teams, it's not a right amount unless there is some kind of weird bye or something.
Truth be known, South Alabama should not be competing for the same goals as Alabama. Just as North Alabama is not competing for the same goals as Alabama.
The FBS needs broken up. I don't know if the expansion and realignment is a means to that end, but that creates a host of other problems for the issue at hand.
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
And really the root of the problem, when you or I say "set up a system"...well who's setting up the system? The TV companies. And what is in their interest? Right. I don't specifically know the exact details of the 1980s supreme court case that stripped the NCAA of their powers, but that's where this all started.
RetroVK
This claim is disputed
Perhaps the rigged system is part of the reason kent st is not ohio state or south alabama is not alabama. If you know you cannot win a national title unless you play in certain conferences, of course other conferences will suffer competitively. Maybe if the playing field were more even, we would see more competitive football overall, more big games, more drama AND actually have the ability to declare a real champion based on objective measures.
I am pretty sure Utah was the best team in the nation one year subjectively (I cannot know) and they never even got a chance to play for a title despite being perfect.
I remember the year Texas whipped Oklahoma, had only 1 loss (errr the night game at TX Tech) and Oklahoma somehow went to a BCS title game instead. Not only was it subjective but the actual game they played against each other was counted for less than the game Texas lost to Texas Tech. It will never make sense to me. Then we have the teams getting advantages from not playing in conference title games ... and on and on and on.
I don't even like calling it a playoff. It's an invite only tournament after the season ends ... several conferences need not apply.
This subject makes my blood boil every year.
I am pretty sure Utah was the best team in the nation one year subjectively (I cannot know) and they never even got a chance to play for a title despite being perfect.
I remember the year Texas whipped Oklahoma, had only 1 loss (errr the night game at TX Tech) and Oklahoma somehow went to a BCS title game instead. Not only was it subjective but the actual game they played against each other was counted for less than the game Texas lost to Texas Tech. It will never make sense to me. Then we have the teams getting advantages from not playing in conference title games ... and on and on and on.
I don't even like calling it a playoff. It's an invite only tournament after the season ends ... several conferences need not apply.
This subject makes my blood boil every year.
2daBank
Voice of Reason
Amen brother
gps_3
Head of Alabama Department of Decision-Making
I kind of long for the days when it was truly regional and 3 or 4 teams each year could argue they were the national champions. I understand the desire to have a "true" national champion, but all we're really going to end up accomplishing is turning away from most of the things that made the sport great, and turn it into a professional league with a few super-conferences made up of the biggest brands. I'm a fan of one of those brands, so as an entertainment product I think I'll be just fine, but there's no doubt that we will sacrifice the things that separated the sport from the NFL
2daBank
Voice of Reason
I think it was last year i was in the midst of arguing something bout it and just came to the decision long as they giving us games to bet I don’t care. I’d prefer not to see 12 team playoff, I like that Uga/vols should matter next week, soon as we go to 12 it won’t. I don’t hate playoff, I’d prefer every conf champ got in, I’d also prefer teams who don’t win conf don’t magically get a chance to be deemed national champ when they wernt champ of their conf, why can’t they strive to remain the only sport the regular season matters? What’s wrong with that? I know the answer, obviously cause more playoffs = more money, but I don’t have to like it, just doesn’t seem like it makes sense to worry bout cause it ain’t ever gonna be up to me and the ppl it is up to main goal isn’t what we would like it to be.,
Of course all this superpower conf crap coming soon i guess it makes more sense to have 4-5-6 teams from one conf in the playoffs since conferences will be so big there won’t be a great way of determining conf champion as inevitably teams from same conf won’t be seeing each other I suppose. It’s all so stupid., why waste energy on it since they all just gonna do and scramble to get as much money as they can no matter what it looks like or what we think.
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
Utah 2004? If the BCS were used in a 4 team conference champion only model, Utah would've got in as the 6th ranked team. It would've been USC, Oklahoma, Auburn and Utah. Every one of those teams were undefeated. Boise State was also undefeated that year and the 4 team conference champion model would not have included them. But an 8 team conference champion only model would have. I could go that far if needed to find consensus on improving the system while still eliminating human hand picked selections.
Texas 2008? The year OU, Texas and Texas Tech all finished 7-1 in league with one loss vs the other in a 3-way tie in the South division? If you remember the Big Xll tie breaker in that situation, their 5th tie breaker was triggered and that tie breaker allowed BCS standings at the time to determine who would go to their title game. That is a Big Xll problem. Tie breakers are problematic at times. It is funny that when some of these conferences when to divisions and a title game it was supposed to be to get around awkwardness of having 3 teams tie for or share the conference title. It still happens and just wait until more leagues eliminate their divisions, like there aren't every going to be ties at the top "oh, just the two best teams are going to play for the conference title, that is brillant". Who were the 3 best teams in the Big Xll in 2008? If you are going to say Oklahoma and Texas, but then why not Texas Tech? The quest for fairness can be neverending but also never possible.
You say you do not like a central controlled system deciding things, but in fact, the reason we have such a mess is because there is no central controlled system deciding things. It should be the NCAA, but it's not and instead it is a bunch of conferences in a pissing match and media companies trying to get theirs.
Regarding Kent St and South Alabama compared to Ohio State and Alabama - we need boundaries. Not everyone can be considered the same. There is FBS, FCS, Division ll, Division lll, NAIA - teams, schools are divided into certain groups. And there should be further division and classifications that group appropriately. It can't be clean, it can't always be black and white. Not everyone is Ohio State and not everyone is Kent State. There is Cincinnati. Where do they go, in which division and classification of football should they compete? Somebody should be deciding these things and we would have a much more equitable and fair system where everyone has a legitimate shot at a national title relative to their peers.
Until then, we have 131 teams that are in fact not equal and not the same. The best way to provide access is to allow only 1 team per conference entry into a playoff. A 4 team model would offer the Group of 5 types entry, just as it would've have in 2004 with the Mountain West Champion. If that is not far enough, expand it out to 8. 8 conference champions only. But there are 10 conferences, why are you leaving the 9th and 10th conference out? Do we really need all of them though, can't we exclude a team like 2021 MAC Champion 9-5 Northern Illinois? The results on the field are going to tell us and the ranking such as the BCS can be used to pick the top 4 or the top 8 conference champions. I'd be content to make the process very exclusive and only reward the most outstanding teams with the most outstanding seasons and I think 4 conference champions does that. If you want to expand it to 8, I'll go there if they are only conference champions.
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
True
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
Also true. We can't, don't and won't control anything "they" decide to do with this thing, so on one hand, why care? I think the BCS years were really fascinating and I loved the process behind the rankings. I like to present my point of view because I feel it is unique and not represented much in the discussions that currently go on now with some 12 team playoff and the Big Ten or SEC getting 3 or 4 teams into a playoff perhaps. Really, the season ends Thanksgiving weekend for me. There are games and outcomes that happen after that, what they mean, I don't know. At it's core the regular season of college football when all the teams are playing and all the rivalries are in play and the races for divisions or conference crowns are at stake - that is what matters to me. The rest of it, eh, I don't really need it.
2daBank
Voice of Reason
They doing their best to make plenty of these games played before thanksgiving to not “matter” nearly as much. That the biggest bummer to me.
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
Which is ironic because 'their' response is that they matter more.
If the loser of a game that determines a division winner or a conference winner gets an opportunity to play for a national title in the playoff, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the result of that game where the team lost in fact did not matter because they have since advanced on to play for bigger rewards.
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
For me it boils down to something simple
I remember where I was when Testaverde threw the INT to Penn St
I remember where I was when Tommie Frazier made the best run in CFB history (at least my history)
I remember where I was when Nebraska beat Tennessee so badly that all night was about the votes
I vaguely remember any of the championship games of the last decade, often I have to look up who won. For me, this whole thing has ruined the game, there simply aren't the memories of the past
I left out games I was at, like undeserving Nebraska as s--k mentioned in 2002 "earning" the right to get pasted by Miami. That was the joke of all jokes.
I remember where I was when Testaverde threw the INT to Penn St
I remember where I was when Tommie Frazier made the best run in CFB history (at least my history)
I remember where I was when Nebraska beat Tennessee so badly that all night was about the votes
I vaguely remember any of the championship games of the last decade, often I have to look up who won. For me, this whole thing has ruined the game, there simply aren't the memories of the past
I left out games I was at, like undeserving Nebraska as s--k mentioned in 2002 "earning" the right to get pasted by Miami. That was the joke of all jokes.
2daBank
Voice of Reason
There only 5-6 sporting events I remember where I was the last 30 years! For most part I only remember cause I was at a unusual location (or at game in baseball case), not because of the game. I remember where I mostly havnt been since they started putting the semi finals on New Year’s Eve, in front of a tv! Lol.
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
The NYE games aren't memorable per se other than where I went to absolutely destroy my memory on bubbly
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
I didn't properly understand this question. In these hypothetical BCS rankings TCU is 7 and Clemson is 5. I answered it previously as if a single computer had them 7 and 5. So let me attempt.
Billingsley: Clemson #1, TCU #2
Colley: Clemson #1, TCU #3
Massey: Clemson #5, TCU #7
Wolfe: Clemson #1, TCU #4
Sagarin: Clemson #10, TCU #13
I don't know exactly how the BCSKnowHow did it because there are supposed to be 6 computers, they used 5 and I'm not sure if they still dropped the highest and lowest, but I will drop the highest and lowest and the remainder is supposed to be a % of hundred. So I will do 75 as the highest possible.
Clemson is left with a 1, 1 and 5 (25+25+21) or a .9466
TCU is left with a 3, 4 and 7 (23+22+19) or a .8533
In the human polls, the Coaches TCU has a .7638 (1184/1550) and Clemson an .8548. In the AP they have a TCU at a .7928 and Clemson at a .8614.
So the human polls are holding TCU back in this hypothetical BCS ranking and the human polls count twice while the computers get averaged and just count once. TCU is being hindered by human poll votes while Clemson is being aided by computer ranking scores and also higher scores in the human polls than TCU.
RetroVK
This claim is disputed
What I mean by centralized control is a group of people subjectively deciding who is good and who is bad. I am all for conferences creating their own rules for who their champion is so long as those rules are clear and objective.
I suppose the Texas example was a bad one the year they lost to Texas Tech but I can point to Utah, UCF etc. if need be. The point is that it is subjective however you slice it. I want it decided on the field. Anything less than that is mythical. Just my opinion and that doesn't make it right (it is though).
I suppose the Texas example was a bad one the year they lost to Texas Tech but I can point to Utah, UCF etc. if need be. The point is that it is subjective however you slice it. I want it decided on the field. Anything less than that is mythical. Just my opinion and that doesn't make it right (it is though).
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
I agree. I don't want any human involvement in selecting teams because what they think. A conference champion is a conference champion. Maybe it passes through some tie breakers along the way, but no committee or group of people need to decide upon who a conference champion is. The teams and the games determine it.
Since you and I Kyle are the ones discussing this, we would have to determine where we draw the line. 4 or 8? Some mechanism has to be used to pick the 4 or 8. I'd suggest something similar to the BCS formula. Or even better, all computer rankings and no humans.
If you want all 10, I really don't feel that is needed. So narrowing it down to 4 is what I prefer, maybe you want 8.
Independents? I would say teams can be independent if they want, but the can't be eligible to participate in the national championship playoff because they don't qualify. So that is their choice.
In reality so many things have happened the genie can't go back in the bottle. So it's kind of a waste of time other than just letting feelings be known
I addressed 2004 Utah. UCF in 2017 or 2018, I remember discussing here the second year and I'm pretty sure I supported their inclusion into a 4 team playoff. I am not going to rehash or ever defend and playoff committee rankings so honestly I forget where they were or how close of a margin they got left out by or who should've not got ininstead of them. I feel the original BCS was really good and all it needed was a little expansion and a qualifier of conference champions only to which I believe would be very fair and accessible.
Since you and I Kyle are the ones discussing this, we would have to determine where we draw the line. 4 or 8? Some mechanism has to be used to pick the 4 or 8. I'd suggest something similar to the BCS formula. Or even better, all computer rankings and no humans.
If you want all 10, I really don't feel that is needed. So narrowing it down to 4 is what I prefer, maybe you want 8.
Independents? I would say teams can be independent if they want, but the can't be eligible to participate in the national championship playoff because they don't qualify. So that is their choice.
In reality so many things have happened the genie can't go back in the bottle. So it's kind of a waste of time other than just letting feelings be known
I addressed 2004 Utah. UCF in 2017 or 2018, I remember discussing here the second year and I'm pretty sure I supported their inclusion into a 4 team playoff. I am not going to rehash or ever defend and playoff committee rankings so honestly I forget where they were or how close of a margin they got left out by or who should've not got ininstead of them. I feel the original BCS was really good and all it needed was a little expansion and a qualifier of conference champions only to which I believe would be very fair and accessible.
s--k
Goodbye to Romance College Football
The six BCS computer rankings:
Sagarin (he has multiple rankings, I don't think he actually shows the exact one requested by the BCS anymore
sagarin.usatoday.com
Billingsley
www.cfrc.com
Massey
Wolfe
-not updated for this week's results yet-
Colley
-not updated for this week's results yet-
Anderson & Hester
-not updates for this week's results yet-
Sagarin (he has multiple rankings, I don't think he actually shows the exact one requested by the BCS anymore
College football team ratings 2022 - Jeff Sagarin Ratings
Billingsley
CFRC Encyclopedia
The College Football Research Center has been part of the online sports community since the early days of the internet. Today, powered by Ryan McVay Technologies, the new CFRC is bigger, better, and more user-friendly than ever! Find your favorite team and browse the hours away in the All-Time...
www.cfrc.com
Massey
Massey Ratings - College Football : NCAA D1 Ratings
Computer ratings and rankings for CF (College Football), with links to team predictions, scores, and schedules.
masseyratings.com
Wolfe
-not updated for this week's results yet-
Colley
Colley's Bias Free Matrix Rankings
Computer Rankings for NCAA Football and NCAA Baksetball
www.colleyrankings.com
Anderson & Hester
-not updates for this week's results yet-
Last edited:
