Bill Hancock refrained from saying “never” as he still praises the Bowl Championship Series as a “brilliant mathematical system.” Despite being viewed today as a lackluster attempt at enhancing college football’s postseason, there were no meetings or deliberations like those held by the current College Football Playoff and NCAA Tournament selection committees. In the earlier days of the BCS, Hancock would receive weekly emails containing computer rankings, which were a crucial part of the BCS formula in conjunction with national polls and strength of schedule components to determine the national championship game from 1999 until the introduction of the CFP in 2014.
Having retired recently after serving as the CFP executive director since its inception, Hancock adamantly opposes reverting to such a system again, emphasizing the importance of the human element that the BCS lacked. He acknowledges recent discussions within the Big Ten and SEC that suggest a potential return to a more data-driven approach, similar to what is seen in March Madness selections. With the ongoing debate over the format and metrics used in the College Football Playoff, the question arises whether college football should incorporate more objective metrics, similar to those employed in college basketball.
Ken Pomeroy, a notable figure in college basketball analytics, points out the disparity between the criteria used in college football and basketball, expressing surprise at the limited objective evaluation in football despite the existence of various rating systems. Matt Morris, ESPN’s director of analytics, notes that while the CFP selection committee had access to certain metrics like ESPN’s Football Power Index and Strength of Record, there is still a lack of comprehensive data like that used in college basketball due to the smaller sample size of games in football. The ongoing discussions among conference commissioners regarding the CFP format and potential changes highlight the need for a more robust and transparent system that balances both objective metrics and human judgment.
Basketball vs. football: Challenges in using metrics for playoff selection
Michigan State’s Kevin Pauga, known for creating the Kevin Pauga Index for the NCAA Tournament, highlighted the differing impact of game results in college basketball (3%) versus football (8.5%). Pauga emphasized the ease of generating adjusted efficiency numbers in basketball compared to football due to data availability. Despite efforts to predict College Football Playoff (CFP) outcomes, ESPN analyst Morris acknowledged the complexities of forecasting committee decisions, particularly considering the subjective “eye test.” The NCAA men’s hockey tournament has adopted a metrics-based selection process, contrasting the larger landscapes of football and basketball. While some advocate for data-driven decision-making, others, like former Final Four director Hancock, argue for the value of human judgment informed by data in playoff selection. Ultimately, uncertainties persist in the realm of collegiate sports postseason inclusion. For more sports insights, follow Mark Giannotto on social media @mgiannotto or reach out to him at mgiannotto@gannett.com.
