The BCS Worked

[Scooch]

These are completely different animals. The NBA/NFL have playoffs that every team equally has a chance to qualify for based on how they perform in the season. Even in the NCAA Tournament has automatic tournament bids for every conference so every team controls their destiny to some extent. In college football PRESEASON rankings can affect how teams can qualify for the BCS Championship. In 2004, Oklahoma and USC were 1-2 in the polls THE ENTIRE year and even though Auburn went 13-0 thru the SEC they never passed either of those teams in the polls which were 2/3s of the BCS rankings. The only good thing the BCS did was get the B1G/Pac-12 out of their Rose Bowl shell and guarantee whatever two teams the BCS spit out as 1-2 would play for the NC title. The BCS didn't get it right and was way too subjective rather than objective. The fact that 2 polls are 2/3s of the system makes things impossible to be done without bias. For the NCAA tournament you have subjectivity in who gets in, but for the most part none of the last 5 teams in the NCAA tournament ever wins the NC title. The top teams win the tournament and they are established over the course of a season.

What part of "arbitrarily decided" did you not understand?

 

[sufandu]

Nonsense. The BCS was designed to remove the subjectivity that went into determining champions under the prior system, as well as to compensate for the two best teams often not playing each other due to conference bowl affiliation obligations.

The BCS formula has been much criticized--but at the end of the day it was just math. If people don't like the evaluative criteria or the weighting certain factors had, then they could be changed. And that happened often. Now, you could certainly argue about whether the wrong factors were weighted too heavily, but at the end of the day the two "best" teams as calculated by that year's mathematical model were identified and matched up.

I don't have an issue with a playoff system. It will probably be more exciting, it just won't necessarily guarantee that the "best" teams meet up in the NC game every year. Marsh's points above say it all, IMO. But I think you are going to see even worse politics than ever before in the polling system to jockey teams into that top 4. Imagine having an awesome season and being ranked the #5 team, but missing out on the NC playoffs? Especially if human subjectivity is part of how participants are determined [especially given conference bias, media bias, the impact of being rated highly to begin the season, etc.]. 4 is too few. 8 is probably too few; have a tough time justifying two top ten teams being left out of the playoff. Will be interesting to see how it plays out the first few years.

Did it remove subjectivity when the human polls still carried the most weight?

 

[Scooch]

Here's my point. If you want to crown the best college football team, then the BCS was the best system. If you want an entertaining and fun system, then a playoff is the way to go.

No.

You know how you crown the "best" team? Have all 121 FBS teams play one another and the one with the best record gets to be champion.

Outside of that, it's all some degree of being arbitrary.

 

[RF2044]

Did it remove subjectivity when the human polls still carried the most weight?

Funny you should bring that up--because that example kind of proves the point I make above.

The original mathematical models did NOT weigh the human polls nearly as heavily, and people complained, so they adjusted the relative impacts of the weighting--thereby reintroducing too much human subjectivity into the mix.

Again, that isn't a flaw in the model / approach, it is a flaw of weighting those specific factors too heavily. The inputs and their weightings were tweaked every year.

 

[sufandu]

Funny you should bring that up.

The original mathematical models did NOT weigh the human polls as heavily, and people complained, so they adjusted the relative impacts of the weighting--thereby reintroducing too much human subjectivity into the mix.

Again, that isn't a flaw in the model / approach, it is a flaw of weighting those specific factors too heavily. The inputs and their weightings were tweaked every year.

Of any component, didn't the human polls carry the most weight all along? This past season the harris poll was 1/3, coaches poll 1/3, and computer 1/3. Do you know the breakdown of previous years. I had always heard that they adjusted factors like margin of victory, but I was always under the impression that the human polls always were weighted 1/3 each.

 

[Delmar]

Nonsense. The BCS was designed to remove the subjectivity that went into determining champions under the prior system, as well as to compensate for the two best teams often not playing each other due to conference bowl affiliation obligations.

The BCS formula has been much criticized--but at the end of the day it was just math. If people don't like the evaluative criteria or the weighting certain factors had, then they could be changed. And that happened often. Now, you could certainly argue about whether the wrong factors were weighted too heavily, but at the end of the day the two "best" teams as calculated by that year's mathematical model were identified and matched up.

I don't have an issue with a playoff system. It will probably be more exciting, it just won't necessarily guarantee that the "best" teams meet up in the NC game every year. Marsh's points above say it all, IMO. But I think you are going to see even worse politics than ever before in the polling system to jockey teams into that top 4. Imagine having an awesome season and being ranked the #5 team, but missing out on the NC playoffs? Especially if human subjectivity is part of how participants are determined [especially given conference bias, media bias, the impact of being rated highly to begin the season, etc.]. 4 is too few. 8 is probably too few; have a tough time justifying two top ten teams being left out of the playoff. Will be interesting to see how it plays out the first few years.

I will concede that the process got better as time went on. At first, the supposedly unsubjective computer ratings were way off because of, as you say, poorly weighted factors. There were some obvious mistakes that have been mentioned already in this stream. I guess I don't share your trust in data. It may be math, but somebody still has to interpret it. I don't think they ever got all that close to getting all the wrinkles out.

You are right about what lies ahead. It's likely more teams could argue that they are #4 in the country as opposed to being #2, and school, conference, and regional biases will be at play. But I think it will be very popular, and there will be pressure to go to 8 teams. That will upset the status of the whole bowl system and so who knows how that will eventually play out.

 

[RF2044]

Of any component, didn't the human polls carry the most weight all along? This past season the harris poll was 1/3, coaches poll 1/3, and computer 1/3. Do you know the breakdown of previous years. I had always heard that they adjusted factors like margin of victory, but I was always under the impression that the human polls always were weighted 1/3 each.

Not always. I believe there was some type of controversy back in 2005 [or somewhere around there--it was right around the time I moved to Minneapolis; can't remember if it was the year before or that year] that led them to recalculate the human element [i.e., polls] much more heavily. The algorithm changed every year, but that was a significant shift.

 

[sufandu]

... there will be pressure to go to 8 teams. That will upset the status of the whole bowl system and so who knows how that will eventually play out.

I'm all for that. If we want to maintain some semblance of the bowl system, declare that any team with 6-6 or better record and not in the playoff can play in a post season game (that's essentially what we have now without the playoff). We get a solid playoff and a bunch of other teams get extra practices and a trip for their players.

 

[RF2044]

I will concede that the process got better as time went on. At first, the supposedly unsubjective computer ratings were way off because of, as you say, poorly weighted factors. There were some obvious mistakes that have been mentioned already in this stream. I guess I don't share your trust in data. It may be math, but somebody still has to interpret it. I don't think they ever got all that close to getting all the wrinkles out.

You are right about what lies ahead. It's likely more teams could argue that they are #4 in the country as opposed to being #2, and school, conference, and regional biases will be at play. But I think it will be very popular, and there will be pressure to go to 8 teams. That will upset the status of the whole bowl system and so who knows how that will eventually play out.

The point of the BCS originally was to take away the interpretive element. To apply an algorithm and let the math select the best two teams and then match them up in the national championship game to duke it out. The system was supposed to do the work; nobody needed to interpret.

The problem was, people got unhappy with the results and tweaked the variables so that interpretive conditions [like polls] were more influential. Net result: it enabled people to exercise more indirect "influence" on which teams rose to the top as a function of poll voting, introducing a lot more subjectivity to what should be a straightforward objective analysis.

 

[TrickySU]

You keep saying USC was the best team like it is a fact. Two teams finished undefeated that year (actually it was 3, but I won't try and argue for Utah). No one will ever know for sure which one was better. It doesn't matter how enamored you were with Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart, no one will ever know who was better because they didn't play each other.

If you don't understand the media bias with regards to Notre Dame, there is no hope for you.

That USC team was the best team of the decade. In a one game scenario anyone can win. That's what makes sports so great. USC probably beats Auburn 8/10 times. Either way we can agree to disagree.

And your point with preseason rankings was already proven wrong when Kansas went from unranked to #2 in 2007. Auburn did it this year and Notre Dame last year. I don't care if there is SEC or Notre Dame bias. Notre Dame went undefeated and Auburn was the best 1-loss team.

At one time or another the BCS failed to do what it was claimed to do:
1. Definitively put the best to teams together: We agree that Miami may have been the best team at the end of the year.

2. It won't devalue the regular season the way a playoff does: LSU's win over Alabama was devalued by Alabama's win in the rematch, regardless of who anyone thinks was the best team. I can honestly say that.

3. Put teams in with the best resume: This one is so subjective it's nearly impossible. What determines a better resume, good wins or bad losses? Kansas had no losses as bad, but fewer good wins than LSU in 2007, and we haven't really considered the other 2 loss teams. An eight team playoff (what I eventually hope to see) would've been ideal here. And how do we know what is a good/bad win/loss until we can look back at the season with some perspective. Texas and Baylor wins over Oklahoma this year suddenly look a little better now that Oklahoma beat Alabama.

No system will ever be without controversy. A playoff system will allow things to be settled on the field more conclusively than the BCS did. The idea that we had no idea how to implement it was a fraud (I already explained why in another post).

1. So we agree that 1 year out of 16 it may not have put the best two teams together. Even if you want to say 2004, that's only twice. No team that didn't get in during the 2007 season can complain. Teams had their chance and didn't take advantage of it.

2. Alabama and LSU were the two best teams in the country and they played in the National Championship. Overall, the regular season matters. Of course there's some regular season games that may be devalued. The point is the two best teams played in the end. You can't argue that.

3. Obviously it's going to be somewhat subjective. But you're crazy if you think that a playoff won't be.

Like you said, every system is going to have controversy. If there was a playoff and Alabama won, wouldn't that devalue Auburn's regular season win against them?

 

[sufandu]

Not always. I believe there was some type of controversy back in 2005 [or somewhere around there--it was right around the time I moved to Minneapolis; can't remember if it was the year before or that year] that led them to recalculate the human element [i.e., polls] much more heavily. The algorithm changed every year, but that was a significant shift.

I may be reading this wrong because he doesn't get into the exact specifics, but it sounds like the old formula had five components: AP poll, coaches poll, average of computers, strength of schedule, and quality win, that were all weighted evenly. The newer formula just had the first three components, but considering that human polls were 2/5's of the old formula ( even though it's two polls you could count it as 40% humans) that still weights them heavier than any one other component.

http://www.bcsguru.com/BCS_2004.htm

 

[Alsacs]

The BCS system has been tweaked a bunch of times. The best version was this last one for the past 8 years. Before Ohio State-Florida the system would subtract points if you beat one of the top 15 teams in BCS polling and computers were whacky. The BCS did the job of ending the B1G/Pac-12 arrogance that the Rose Bowl mattered more than 1 vs 2 at the end of each season. Determining 1 vs. 2 has been the controversy a couple of times, but overall the BCS defeated B1G/Pac-12 arrogance and thus I must give it credit for that.

 

[sufandu]

That USC team was the best team of the decade.

How do you know this? Did some website tell you? You're drawing conclusions based on your own opinion. Your opinions are not facts. Incidentally, you never answered the question about your age. I get the feeling that your youth is strongly influencing your opinion. My opinion is that that they weren't better than the 2001 Miami team. But rather than just state that, I'll let you look at the number of NFL probowlers and future Hall of Famers that were on that team along with some other interesting commentary:

"The 2001 Miami Hurricanes are considered by some experts and historians to be one of the greatest college football teams in college football history.[5] The Hurricanes scored 512 (42.6 points per game) points while yielding only 117 (9.75 points allowed per game). Miami beat opponents by an average of 32.9 points per game, the largest margin in the school's history, and set the NCAA record for largest margin of victory over consecutive ranked teams (124–7).[6] The offense set the school scoring record, while the defense led the nation in scoring defense (fewest points allowed), pass defense, and turnover margin.[6] Additionally, the Hurricane defense scored eight touchdowns of its own. Six players earned All-American status and six players were finalists for national awards, including Maxwell Award winner, Ken Dorsey, and Outland Trophy winner, Bryant McKinnie. Dorsey was also a Heisman finalist, finishing third.

Among the numerous stars on the 2001 Miami squad were: quarterback Ken Dorsey; running backs Clinton Portis, Willis McGahee, Najeh Davenport, and Frank Gore; tight end Jeremy Shockey; wide receiver Andre Johnson, and Kevin Beard; tackles Bryant McKinnie and Joaquin Gonzalez; defensive linemen Jerome McDougle, William Joseph, and Vince Wilfork; linebackers Jonathan Vilma and D.J. Williams; and defensive backs Ed Reed, Mike Rumph, and Phillip Buchanon. Additional contributors included future stars Kellen Winslow II, Sean Taylor, Antrel Rolle, Vernon Carey, and Rocky McIntosh. In all, an extraordinary 17 players from the 2001 Miami football team were drafted in the first-round of the NFL Draft (5 in the 2002 NFL Draft: Buchanon, McKinnie, Reed, Rumph, and Shockey; 4 in 2003: Johnson, Joseph, McDougle, and McGahee; 6 in 2004: Carey, Taylor, Vilma, Wilfork, Williams, and Winslow; 1 in 2005: Rolle; and 1 in 2006: Kelly Jennings).

Overall, 38 members of the team would be selected in the NFL Draft. As of 2012, they had earned an astonishing 41 trips to the Pro Bowl: Ed Reed (9), Andre Johnson (6), Vince Wilfork (5), Frank Gore (4), Jeremy Shockey (4), Jonathan Vilma (3), Willis McGahee (2), Chris Myers (2), Clinton Portis (2), Antrel Rolle (2), Sean Taylor (2), Bryant McKinnie (1), and Kellen Winslow II (1).

Prior to the 2006 Rose Bowl, ESPN's SportsCenter ran a special in which the 2005 USC Trojans, led by stars Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, and LenDale White, were compared with the greatest college teams of the past 50 years, as picked by sports fans voting on ESPN.com, to determine their place in history. The 2001 Miami Hurricanes were the only team picked by fans to defeat the '05 Trojan squad, reflecting the esteem with which the 2001 Hurricanes are held in the college football world.[7] Ironically, USC lost that Rose Bowl (which also served as the BCS title game) to Texas, and then had to vacate their entire 2005 season as a result of an ineligible player."

 

[Alsacs]

Just my 2 cents, but the best college football team I have ever seen in my lifetime was that 2001 Miami Hurricanes team. The talent on that 2-deep was just sick. 2005 USC was good, but their defense wasn't as dominant as Miami's was. I still have that white washing we suffered in Orange Bowl stuck in my head.

 

[Delmar]

The BCS formula has been much criticized--but at the end of the day it was just math. If people don't like the evaluative criteria or the weighting certain factors had, then they could be changed. And that happened often. Now, you could certainly argue about the mathematical inputs, whether the wrong factors were weighted too heavily, etc.

Recently I came upon a quote about a statistician as someone who, when your head is in the oven and your feet are in the freezer, will tell you that on average you are very comfortable.

 

[TrickySU]

How do you know this? Did some website tell you? You're drawing conclusions based on your own opinion. Your opinions are not facts. Incidentally, you never answered the question about your age. I get the feeling that your youth is strongly influencing your opinion. My opinion is that that they weren't better than the 2001 Miami team. But rather than just state that, I'll let you look at the number of NFL probowlers and future Hall of Famers that were on that team along with some other interesting commentary:

"The 2001 Miami Hurricanes are considered by some experts and historians to be one of the greatest college football teams in college football history.[5] The Hurricanes scored 512 (42.6 points per game) points while yielding only 117 (9.75 points allowed per game). Miami beat opponents by an average of 32.9 points per game, the largest margin in the school's history, and set the NCAA record for largest margin of victory over consecutive ranked teams (124–7).[6] The offense set the school scoring record, while the defense led the nation in scoring defense (fewest points allowed), pass defense, and turnover margin.[6] Additionally, the Hurricane defense scored eight touchdowns of its own. Six players earned All-American status and six players were finalists for national awards, including Maxwell Award winner, Ken Dorsey, and Outland Trophy winner, Bryant McKinnie. Dorsey was also a Heisman finalist, finishing third.

Among the numerous stars on the 2001 Miami squad were: quarterback Ken Dorsey; running backs Clinton Portis, Willis McGahee, Najeh Davenport, and Frank Gore; tight end Jeremy Shockey; wide receiver Andre Johnson, and Kevin Beard; tackles Bryant McKinnie and Joaquin Gonzalez; defensive linemen Jerome McDougle, William Joseph, and Vince Wilfork; linebackers Jonathan Vilma and D.J. Williams; and defensive backs Ed Reed, Mike Rumph, and Phillip Buchanon. Additional contributors included future stars Kellen Winslow II, Sean Taylor, Antrel Rolle, Vernon Carey, and Rocky McIntosh. In all, an extraordinary 17 players from the 2001 Miami football team were drafted in the first-round of the NFL Draft (5 in the 2002 NFL Draft: Buchanon, McKinnie, Reed, Rumph, and Shockey; 4 in 2003: Johnson, Joseph, McDougle, and McGahee; 6 in 2004: Carey, Taylor, Vilma, Wilfork, Williams, and Winslow; 1 in 2005: Rolle; and 1 in 2006: Kelly Jennings).

Overall, 38 members of the team would be selected in the NFL Draft. As of 2012, they had earned an astonishing 41 trips to the Pro Bowl: Ed Reed (9), Andre Johnson (6), Vince Wilfork (5), Frank Gore (4), Jeremy Shockey (4), Jonathan Vilma (3), Willis McGahee (2), Chris Myers (2), Clinton Portis (2), Antrel Rolle (2), Sean Taylor (2), Bryant McKinnie (1), and Kellen Winslow II (1).

Prior to the 2006 Rose Bowl, ESPN's SportsCenter ran a special in which the 2005 USC Trojans, led by stars Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, and LenDale White, were compared with the greatest college teams of the past 50 years, as picked by sports fans voting on ESPN.com, to determine their place in history. The 2001 Miami Hurricanes were the only team picked by fans to defeat the '05 Trojan squad, reflecting the esteem with which the 2001 Hurricanes are held in the college football world.[7] Ironically, USC lost that Rose Bowl (which also served as the BCS title game) to Texas, and then had to vacate their entire 2005 season as a result of an ineligible player."

Incidentally, I did answer your question about age saying I was 9 back in 2004 in my post made at 11:14.

I meant to say they are considered the best team of the decade according to a poll I found in a few articles, but so is Miami. There's multiple articles that will argue for either one so yes, the 2001 Miami team may have been the best in the decade. My youth doesn't mean I haven't seen videos or heard stories about those teams. I didn't mean to say it like a fact, just to prove the point that they were one of the best teams in the decade. Miami crushed everyone in 2001 including us, and I believe we were ranked fairly high too. So I'll agree with you that Miami was probably the best team of the decade, and one of the best all time. (We'll never know though because they'll never play each other ) That's besides the point though because for the 2004 USC team to be considered one of the top 2 teams in the decade, they had to be the best team in college football in 2004 which was my main point.

 

[RF2044]

Recently I came upon a quote about a statistician as someone who, when your head is in the oven and your feet are in the freezer, will tell you that on average you are very comfortable.

I'm not sure that you understand the circumstances that led to the BCS being implemented. You had conferences with unalterable bowl affiliations. You had different polls voting for different national champions based upon different subjective bias. And you rarely had top teams face each other, which mean that most national champions were crowned without the winner facing the top contender.

You can complain about the BCS all you want, but the bottom line was that it was designed to solve those issues and pit the top two teams against each other to determine the NC on the field. It was the bridge between the old bowl system and an open tournament. Some of the BCS criticism is over the top, IMO.

 

[sufandu]

Incidentally, I did answer your question about age saying I was 9 back in 2004 in my post made at 11:14.

I meant to say they are considered the best team of the decade according to a poll I found in a few articles, but so is Miami. There's multiple articles that will argue for either one so yes, the 2001 Miami team may have been the best in the decade. My youth doesn't mean I haven't seen videos or heard stories about those teams. I didn't mean to say it like a fact, just to prove the point that they were one of the best teams in the decade. Miami crushed everyone in 2001 including us, and I believe we were ranked fairly high too. So I'll agree with you that Miami was probably the best team of the decade, and one of the best all time. (We'll never know though because they'll never play each other ) That's besides the point though because for the 2004 USC team to be considered one of the top 2 teams in the decade, they had to be the best team in college football in 2004 which was my main point.

The main point I was making is that just because you or anyone else has said they are the best over any time period doesn't mean was can conclude they would beat Auburn. There have been many teams prematurely annointed as the best ever, only to lose. Prior to the Rose Bowl, the 2005 USC team was considered better than 2004 since they returned everybody, yet they lost to Texas. So, going back to the original discussion, the BCS failed that year because we can't know if USC would've beaten Auburn, regardless of how they are historically viewed.

 

[cuseincincy]

I could care less about crowning the best team. I want to crown the team that beat the other "best teams." This year shows that even going to 4 is not good enough. Who would have been picked? FSU, Auburn, Alabama and Michigan St (using the final BCS poll). But would would a committe of chosen? Probably the same 4 but what about SC, Mizzou, Oklahoma, Clemson or depending on when you select the teams Ohio St and Baylor. truth is, until they get to the same 16 that all the other divisions use they will not be truly including all the teams capable of winning the title. Here is a real tournament using this years final BCS poll:
1 FSU
16 LSU
8 Missouri
9 South Carolina
4 Michigan St
13 Ok St
5 Stanford
12 Clemson

2 Auburn
15 UCF
7 Ohio St
10 Oregon
3 Alabama
14 AZ St
6 Baylor
11 Oklahoma

Fact remains, FSU didn't have to accomplish much this year other than blowign through their schedule and beating Auburn after having a month to prepare for them. You want to crown a champion? Make them beat in succession LSU, Missouri, Michigan St and then Auburn. Now that is a champion I would crown.

 

[sufandu]

I could care less about crowning the best team. I want to crown the team that beat the other "best teams." This year shows that even going to 4 is not good enough. Who would have been picked? FSU, Auburn, Alabama and Michigan St (using the final BCS poll). But would would a committe of chosen? Probably the same 4 but what about SC, Mizzou, Oklahoma, Clemson or depending on when you select the teams Ohio St and Baylor. truth is, until they get to the same 16 that all the other divisions use they will not be truly including all the teams capable of winning the title. Here is a real tournament using this years final BCS poll:
1 FSU
16 LSU
8 Missouri
9 South Carolina
4 Michigan St
13 Ok St
5 Stanford
12 Clemson

2 Auburn
15 UCF
7 Ohio St
10 Oregon
3 Alabama
14 AZ St
6 Baylor
11 Oklahoma

Fact remains, FSU didn't have to accomplish much this year other than blowign through their schedule and beating Auburn after having a month to prepare for them. You want to crown a champion? Make them beat in succession LSU, Missouri, Michigan St and then Auburn. Now that is a champion I would crown.

Preach it! The other divisions have had a playoff for forever. There's zero reason *cough* money *cough* Division 1A (yes I used the old/correct label) shouldn't have done it a long time ago. That would've been a great playoff this year, and teams wouldn't tank because they were pouting about not getting to the bowl they thought they deserved. I say throw Central Florida in instead of one of the non-league champions. Let's see what they can do.

 

[cuseincincy]

Preach it! The other divisions have had a playoff for forever. There's zero reason *cough* money *cough* Division 1A (yes I used the old/correct label) shouldn't have done it a long time ago. That would've been a great playoff this year, and teams wouldn't tank because they were pouting about not getting to the bowl they thought they deserved. I say throw Central Florida in instead of one of the non-league champions. Let's see what they can do.

Ah yes the money, the bowl money and all that crap. Ever notice those old goats they wheel out there to give away the trophy are terrible public speakers?

 

[Delmar]

That's a pretty cynical viewpoint.

And it overlooks the circumstances that led to the BCS. You had conferences with unalterable bowl affiliations. You had different polls voting for different national champions based upon different subjective bias. And you rarely had top teams face each other, which mean that most national champions were crowned without the winner facing the top contender.

You can complain about the BCS all you want, but the bottom line was that it was designed to solve those issues and pit the top two teams against each other. And it generally accomplished that mission.

Actually, It was more an attempt to be humorous than cynical. I should use emoticons.

 

[SWC75]

Spot on. The best team never wins because the sport is afraid to actually have a team like Missouri this year or pick a team from previous years win a national title in their beloved billion dollar sport.

College Basketball may be far from perfect but in the end they have perfected a way to decide who is national champion and that is all that matters.

The last big national championship controversy in college football was in 2003. The last big national championship controversy in college basketball was in the 1930's, before there was an NCAA tournament, (or, possibly the 1940's when the NIT was considered a rival to the NCAA tournament). When a team that isn't clearly the best wins the NCAA tournament, that doesn't create any controversy, so not having the best team win is not really an issue.

The issue is that a 2 team playoff is clearly inadequate for a 123 team division. And I'm a guy who thinks there are too many teams in other playoffs. You want two things: every legitimate national championship contender that isn't on probation should be in your tournament and as few teams as possible that aren't. You can debate what a legitimate contender is but there are certainly going to be more than two of them. Even if you think the team that won is the best, it doesn't mean that there weren't other teams as good or better than the team they were playing.