[OutsiderFan]

(influenced by hopelessly biased media types)

OutsiderFan, you don't know what you are talking about. There are three components to the BCS rankings: the coaches' poll, the computer rankings, and the Harris Interactive poll. Only the last group has anything at all to do with "media types," and they are a tiny minority among the other members, who include former players, coaches and administrators. (An even tinier minority when you filter out people like Gil Brandt, whose media position -- NFL.com analyst -- is the result of a long career in football itself, as a personnel guy for the Dallas Cowboys.)

Here's a New York Times story on half a dozen Harris voters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/sports...d=all&_r=0

Obviously that's anecdotal. But here's a link to the entire list of voters.** Clearly the New York Times story is a lot closer to capturing the essence of these voters than the idiotic dismissal of them as "hopelessly biased media types."

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/conten...CID=869530

It is comically stupid to say this BCS selection process is biased and the new playoff selection system won't be. What makes Ty.rone Will.ingham or Condi Rice or Archie Manning or Pat Haden immune to bias? Anything that involves voting by human beings entails bias. And the idea that a newspaper reporter is more biased than the U..S.C. athletic director is patently absurd.


** This list may be a year out of date -- it doesn't include Tommy Vardell, for instance, who I think I read is a voter now -- but there's no reason to think the Harris composition is materially different now.

Why take issue with a point that isn't materially important to the larger issue being raised? No matter how or why Stanford and Oregon are being so disrespected (and by extension the Pac-12 conference) by whoever or whatever is behind the BCS rankings, the fact is, by objective measures like ESPN's formula, Stanford and Oregon are better teams, based on overall record against better competition, than Michigan State or Oklahoma. 

Do people reading this believe Larry Scott should stay quiet and not speak up for his employer?  Would it be wrong for him to get on ESPN and sports talk radio to point out the fact the Pac-12 plays nine conference games, and that the three conferences ranked ahead of the Pac-12 only play eight?  Should he point out how if Stanford played four OOC patsies they'd have just one loss, and Oregon would too, just like Auburn and Alabama?  It is completely ridiculous for Michigan State to be considered a better team than Stanford, based on the accomplishments of the two teams this season, when those accomplishments take into account the difficulty of their schedules.

Am I wrong to think Larry Scott has a duty to call out this nonsense and try to educate those who influence perceptions in college footbal, no matter if it is from biased members of the media, or isn't, or whether it might be replicated on a future selection committee? 

[OutsiderFan]

(influenced by hopelessly biased media types)

OutsiderFan, you don't know what you are talking about. There are three components to the BCS rankings: the coaches' poll, the computer rankings, and the Harris Interactive poll. Only the last group has anything at all to do with "media types," and they are a tiny minority among the other members, who include former players, coaches and administrators. (An even tinier minority when you filter out people like Gil Brandt, whose media position -- NFL.com analyst -- is the result of a long career in football itself, as a personnel guy for the Dallas Cowboys.)

Here's a New York Times story on half a dozen Harris voters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/sports...d=all&_r=0

Obviously that's anecdotal. But here's a link to the entire list of voters.** Clearly the New York Times story is a lot closer to capturing the essence of these voters than the idiotic dismissal of them as "hopelessly biased media types."

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/conten...CID=869530

It is comically stupid to say this BCS selection process is biased and the new playoff selection system won't be. What makes Ty.rone Will.ingham or Condi Rice or Archie Manning or Pat Haden immune to bias? Anything that involves voting by human beings entails bias. And the idea that a newspaper reporter is more biased than the U..S.C. athletic director is patently absurd.


** This list may be a year out of date -- it doesn't include Tommy Vardell, for instance, who I think I read is a voter now -- but there's no reason to think the Harris composition is materially different now.

Why take issue with a point that isn't materially important to the larger issue being raised? No matter how or why Stanford and Oregon are being so disrespected (and by extension the Pac-12 conference) by whoever or whatever is behind the BCS rankings, the fact is, by objective measures like ESPN's formula, Stanford and Oregon are better teams, based on overall record against better competition, than Michigan State or Oklahoma. 

Do people reading this believe Larry Scott should stay quiet and not speak up for his employer?  Would it be wrong for him to get on ESPN and sports talk radio to point out the fact the Pac-12 plays nine conference games, and that the three conferences ranked ahead of the Pac-12 only play eight?  Should he point out how if Stanford played four OOC patsies they'd have just one loss, and Oregon would too, just like Auburn and Alabama?  It is completely ridiculous for Michigan State to be considered a better team than Stanford, based on the accomplishments of the two teams this season, when those accomplishments take into account the difficulty of their schedules.

Am I wrong to think Larry Scott has a duty to call out this nonsense and try to educate those who influence perceptions in college footbal, no matter if it is from biased members of the media, or isn't, or whether it might be replicated on a future selection committee?