ESPN reports that Stanford's head football coach David Shaw stated that the BCS system for ranking teams is "flawed". Shaw said, "[t]o have a one-loss Pac-12 team behind a one-loss ACC team (Virginia Tech) means that the computer values the ACC more than it values the Pac-12. Which I don't believe is the case. I don't think that's accurate."
Let's take this criticism of the current BCS system from a different viewpoint.
How can Houston be currently ranked #8 in the BCS with zero losses and be behind a one loss Stanford team (among others)? Why is no one asking this question?
Anyway, back to Shaw's statement about the BCS being "flawed". It seems that coach Shaw has taken exception with the computer rankings. Coach Shaw has publicly questioned the use of quality wins or quality losses. On the positive side, my model does not have any adjustment for "quality wins or losses". On the negative side, my model does not have any adjustment for wins or losses at all, but rather on four on-field events: acquiring possession of the ball, maintaining possession of the ball, the ability of moving the ball forward, and scoring efficiency. No the model does not take into account a team's strength of schedule, as this does not statistically impact winning percentage of NCAA FBS schools. I will write on this in much more detail after the conclusion of the NCAA FBS post-season.
Given that Stanford is currently ranked 6th in the BCS and coach Shaw is questioning this ranking, he would not be a fan of this model - which has Stanford currently as the #12 most productive team in the nation. Stanford is behind Wisconsin, Michigan State, Oregon, Oklahoma, Georgia and South Carolina all with two losses.