Postseason Constraint #9: Reduce the moral hazard of the selection processes

by utesfan100 on Feb 6, 2010 7:45 PM EST in BCS Examination Comment 0 comments

[Editor's note: This is part of a series examining the real world constraints on any proposed postseason design. For the previous entries is is best to start at the introduction of the series. This is derived from pages 85 through 87 of my plan to fix the BCS]

Often it is known that the final ballots will be close and that the votes in the final ballots will determine the national championship game participants.

Coaches represent institutions that may have significant financial interests in one or more institution involved in the dispute. They also might have personal ties or enmity with one or more of the coaches involved that might sway their vote. This presents potential conflicts of interest within the ranking system.

Strong support exists for maintaining the tradition of having the coaches’ vote for the best teams. The AFCA (who runs the coaches poll) also owns the rights to the iconic trophy associated with the BCS Championship Game.

Any design that establishes a rigid cutoff at a given spot will perpetuate this issue. The wider the field the more convoluted the potential conflicts of interests become.

This only looks at the selection of teams. The mirkyness of these selection processes are at least transparent. The selection of conferences for automatic qualifications is veiled in semi-transparent vague criteria that prevent a clear outside verifiaction from being undertaken. Even worse is the selection of bowls for BCS consideration, which is completely opaque.

When bowls are finding it difficult to remian within the legal boundaries in their attempts to sway policy makers to suport thier cause for BCS inclusion the lines of moral hazard have grown into ethical lapses and the processes should come under review.

A look at several prominent alternative designs next:

Old Bowl System

The moral hazards above were not a part of the bowl selection process. Instead, each bowl acted according to market principles to attract the teams that would generate the most revenue for the bowls.

By using third parties to select the teams, the consequences of the moral hazards intrinsic to the coaches’ poll are greatly reduced.

BCS

The BCS has had occurrences where one computer or five votes in the coaches’ poll could have changed the selection of the #2 team (2006 Florida and Michigan for example). Although this is more against the Big 12 tie-breakers - In 2008 the Big 12 South was decided by the BCS rankings, leading to coaches lobbying for votes.

Any sport where coaches are becoming campaign managers of a voting system and conferences are hiring PR firms to promote themselves to voters should find a more competitive way to settle its disputes.

A Tier Based Plus-One

The use of the current BCS rankings and a rigid cutoff at the top 4 maintains the current sources of moral hazard.

With a lower cutoff the potential for controversy is increased.

A Flexible Championship System

By using the gaps in the standings rather than a set cutoff this design significantly reduces the controversy over the selection process. It is far more difficult for a group of rogue voters to mnipulate the placement of a large gap than to swap two very closely ranked teams.

The determination of byes between closely ranked teams would likely be the largest source of controversy with this design.