College Football


Churchmouse
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think Boise is very good and TCU is awesome but as good as they are, they haven't proven that they deserve to be ranked ahead of Texas or Alabama.

Is the proof hidden in some past football glory that Alabama and Texas are better? The common wisdom was that Florida would beat Alabama. Given the chance to play, Alabama proved them wrong this year.

All four of those teams are are unbeaten. Granted the SEC is a very good conference, but all four teams have the ability to go out and win bowl games. None of the BCS calculations can predict who will win. Even the Vegas line gets it wrong week to week in predictions.

Congratulations to TCU and Boise State for both being in a BCS bowl game.

BYU in the Vegas Bowl on December 22nd.

Utah in the Poinsettia Bowl on December 23rd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the proof hidden in some past football glory that Alabama and Texas are better? The common wisdom was that Florida would beat Alabama. Given the chance to play, Alabama proved them wrong this year.

No, the proof is in their won/less AND strength of their schedule that got them to this point. Those are the means for comparison. A WAC or MWC team is not going to measure up against a Big 12 or SEC team when accounting for strength of schedule. It's that simple. Of course the balance of power shifts from time to time. Remember when Army won National Championships? Not hardly the case anymore. Anyway, the MWC is gaining credibility, but they're not there yet. If you think they are, you're fooling yourself. The MWC has TCU, Utah, and BYU that are good on a consistent basis. The SEC has Florida, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, and Auburn that routinely compete at the highest levels. Additionally they have South Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Miss St., any of which in a typical year would mop the floor with the likes of New Mexico or UNLV or San Diego St., etc. You could make the same comparison in the Big 12. The conferences plain and simply are not of the same strength and that is going to show when comparing two conferences. It is simply MUCH easier for BYU or TCU to be undefeated come bowl season than Florida or Alabama or whatever.

Now, does that mean that one team is better than another? Nope. Just that that's what there is to rank order teams to determine who competes for National Championships and big bowl games.

All four of those teams are are unbeaten. Granted the SEC is a very good conference, but all four teams have the ability to go out and win bowl games. None of the BCS calculations can predict who will win. Even the Vegas line gets it wrong week to week in predictions.

Right! Remember Utah beat Alabama last year. Nobody can say for certain who will win, only predict. If you can predict accurately every time, you could make a fortune in Vegas (until they ran you out of town).

Don't forget to account for the influence of the big (money-making) conferences. Don't be fooled into thinking it's always about matching the two most deserving teams in a high profile game. Politics and economics play a HUGE part in deciding who goes to what game. Texas is very simply going to draw more revenue than TCU, period. If you think that doesn't matter, think again.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong. It depends on your perspective. From a fan perspective we want to see the two best teams play in the big game. If that's what mattered we would have a playoff and 8 teams would play to a National Championship game. But that would most likely shut out several schools from getting into bowl games. In other words, If one team plays three games, two teams that would normally play would not. Athletic directors across the nation cringe at the thought of losing out on a bowl bid.

From an NCAA perspective, that scenario that makes the most money wins. Sure, they want to have a legitimate National Champ, because an illegitimate team winning would crumble the system to the ground. But the definition of legitimate is broad. Is a one-loss SEC team a better option than an undefeated MWC team? Most think so. So, that leaves legitimacy open to debate, but hey, it's not a five-loss SEC team, so they're still good. After that, which one's gonna draw the revenue. Simple. The one-loss SEC team. End of discussion.

The BCS system accomodates for strength of schedule to allow a one-loss team from a big conference to overcome a TCU or Boise State that goes undefeated. Really, for them to get in the big game now, it will require that none of the BCS conferences have an undefeated team because they will virtually always be overcome by a one-loss team from the SEC, Big 12, or Big 10. Most people think the PAC 10 too, though I think that conference is weaker than the MWC now (another topic). And between the big three there is almost always going to be a one-loss team there that will overcome a MWC team on strength of schedule. So, if there's another undefeated team in the BCS conferences, the MWC is pretty much doomed to a game other than the National Championship.

I'm in favor of an 8-team playoff, but I know it will never happen. Only the top teams that can be pretty much assured of a bowl game anyway would approve. That's maybe a dozen or so. Then add to that BYU, Utah, TCU and Boise State who would like a shot at the title. After that, ADs everywhere would oppose it because it would likely keep them out of a bowl game sometime and they won't have that. Too much $$ at stake.

So, we just watch and realize that it's not perfect, nor is it ever going to be. Oh well, there will still be a ton of good games and we'll debate the system again next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GO DUCKS!!! I want a rematch with Boise State and see the Ducks put a woop on them this time! Oregon would kill them them this time just like they did with USC. There is no way Boise State should be in the top 10 since they haven't played anybody other than Oregon.

Yeah they would beat BSU just like last year. Oh wait....BSU beat you last year too. Are you talking about the same USC team that lost to unranked Washington and Unranked Arizona? Oregon was out-coached and out-played in every aspect of the BSU game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the proof is in their won/less AND strength of their schedule that got them to this point. Those are the means for comparison. A WAC or MWC team is not going to measure up against a Big 12 or SEC team when accounting for strength of schedule. It's that simple. Of course the balance of power shifts from time to time. Remember when Army won National Championships? Not hardly the case anymore. Anyway, the MWC is gaining credibility, but they're not there yet. If you think they are, you're fooling yourself. The MWC has TCU, Utah, and BYU that are good on a consistent basis. The SEC has Florida, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, and Auburn that routinely compete at the highest levels. Additionally they have South Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Miss St., any of which in a typical year would mop the floor with the likes of New Mexico or UNLV or San Diego St., etc. You could make the same comparison in the Big 12. The conferences plain and simply are not of the same strength and that is going to show when comparing two conferences. It is simply MUCH easier for BYU or TCU to be undefeated come bowl season than Florida or Alabama or whatever.

Now, does that mean that one team is better than another? Nope. Just that that's what there is to rank order teams to determine who competes for National Championships and big bowl games.

Right! Remember Utah beat Alabama last year. Nobody can say for certain who will win, only predict. If you can predict accurately every time, you could make a fortune in Vegas (until they ran you out of town).

Don't forget to account for the influence of the big (money-making) conferences. Don't be fooled into thinking it's always about matching the two most deserving teams in a high profile game. Politics and economics play a HUGE part in deciding who goes to what game. Texas is very simply going to draw more revenue than TCU, period. If you think that doesn't matter, think again.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong. It depends on your perspective. From a fan perspective we want to see the two best teams play in the big game. If that's what mattered we would have a playoff and 8 teams would play to a National Championship game. But that would most likely shut out several schools from getting into bowl games. In other words, If one team plays three games, two teams that would normally play would not. Athletic directors across the nation cringe at the thought of losing out on a bowl bid.

From an NCAA perspective, that scenario that makes the most money wins. Sure, they want to have a legitimate National Champ, because an illegitimate team winning would crumble the system to the ground. But the definition of legitimate is broad. Is a one-loss SEC team a better option than an undefeated MWC team? Most think so. So, that leaves legitimacy open to debate, but hey, it's not a five-loss SEC team, so they're still good. After that, which one's gonna draw the revenue. Simple. The one-loss SEC team. End of discussion.

The BCS system accomodates for strength of schedule to allow a one-loss team from a big conference to overcome a TCU or Boise State that goes undefeated. Really, for them to get in the big game now, it will require that none of the BCS conferences have an undefeated team because they will virtually always be overcome by a one-loss team from the SEC, Big 12, or Big 10. Most people think the PAC 10 too, though I think that conference is weaker than the MWC now (another topic). And between the big three there is almost always going to be a one-loss team there that will overcome a MWC team on strength of schedule. So, if there's another undefeated team in the BCS conferences, the MWC is pretty much doomed to a game other than the National Championship.

I'm in favor of an 8-team playoff, but I know it will never happen. Only the top teams that can be pretty much assured of a bowl game anyway would approve. That's maybe a dozen or so. Then add to that BYU, Utah, TCU and Boise State who would like a shot at the title. After that, ADs everywhere would oppose it because it would likely keep them out of a bowl game sometime and they won't have that. Too much $$ at stake.

So, we just watch and realize that it's not perfect, nor is it ever going to be. Oh well, there will still be a ton of good games and we'll debate the system again next year.

That is all fine and dandy, but why won't BCS teams play the top teams from MWC or WAC? It would be an easy victory for them right? And it would prove the MWC and WAC are not real competitors for the big boys. I think they look at it like the old saying about wrestling a girl - it's a no win situation: if they win, they only won a girl. If they lose, then they lost to a GIRL!

BSU beat Oregon. BYU beat Oklahoma. TCU beat Clemson.

Teams like USC get ranked because of their name, not what they have done on the field, especially this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the proof hidden in some past football glory that Alabama and Texas are better? The common wisdom was that Florida would beat Alabama. Given the chance to play, Alabama proved them wrong this year.

All four of those teams are are unbeaten. Granted the SEC is a very good conference, but all four teams have the ability to go out and win bowl games. None of the BCS calculations can predict who will win. Even the Vegas line gets it wrong week to week in predictions.

Congratulations to TCU and Boise State for both being in a BCS bowl game.

BYU in the Vegas Bowl on December 22nd.

Utah in the Poinsettia Bowl on December 23rd.

Although it will probably be a ratings loser, I'd rather watch TCU and Boise play each other than one of them play Cincinnati. I think they are both better than Cincinnati.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teams like USC get ranked because of their name, not what they have done on the field, especially this year.

If what you say is true, USC would be ranked. But they are not ranked. Because of what they failed to do on the field, they were dropped from the AP and USA and ESPN rankings.

They are still on the bottom end of the BSC rankings because of the strength of their schedule but they are behind TCU, Boise, BYU and Utah.

It's the exact opposite of what you claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is all fine and dandy, but why won't BCS teams play the top teams from MWC or WAC? It would be an easy victory for them right? And it would prove the MWC and WAC are not real competitors for the big boys. I think they look at it like the old saying about wrestling a girl - it's a no win situation: if they win, they only won a girl. If they lose, then they lost to a GIRL!BSU beat Oregon. BYU beat Oklahoma. TCU beat Clemson.

Teams like USC get ranked because of their name, not what they have done on the field, especially this year.

That's exactly right. Too much risk and very little reward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what you say is true, USC would be ranked. But they are not ranked. Because of what they failed to do on the field, they were dropped from the AP and USA and ESPN rankings.

They are still on the bottom end of the BSC rankings because of the strength of their schedule but they are behind TCU, Boise, BYU and Utah.

It's the exact opposite of what you claim.

You're kidding right? USC was ranked in the top 25 until the last week of the season when they lost their 4th game. They were in the top 10 with 2 losses. Where do you suppose a 3-loss MWC team is on the rankings? Uh, they're not in the rankings. USC certainly gets credit for being USC.

Edit: Oops, I just checked. Utah has 3 losses and is still ranked.....there goes my theory.....oh, well.

Edited by nbblood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're kidding right? USC was ranked in the top 25 until the last week of the season when they lost their 4th game. They were in the top 10 with 2 losses. Where do you suppose a 3-loss MWC team is on the rankings? Uh, they're not in the rankings. USC certainly gets credit for being USC.

Edit: Oops, I just checked. Utah has 3 losses and is still ranked.....there goes my theory.....oh, well.

Yep - my point is validated by reality. An obscure three loss Mountain West Team is ranked ahead of a 4 loss PAC 10 storied, glamour team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what you say is true, USC would be ranked. But they are not ranked. Because of what they failed to do on the field, they were dropped from the AP and USA and ESPN rankings.

They are still on the bottom end of the BSC rankings because of the strength of their schedule but they are behind TCU, Boise, BYU and Utah.

It's the exact opposite of what you claim.

They are still ranked in the BCS polls, and they are the ones that control the power.

There are 4 4-loss teams ranked in front of Utah, which has 3 losses...all of those are BCS schools.

Of the 2 loss teams BYU is the lowest ranked, and there are 2 3 loss teams ranked ahead of them...both BCS schools.

Strength of schedule is not objective, it is subjective, afterall each division has their cellar dwellers, middle and top teams. It is the BCS that determines who is stronger than who, and obviously BCS teams are naturally "stronger" than non-BCS teams.

How can non BCS teams demonstrate they are just as strong as BCS teams? by playing them. There are 5 undefeated teams this year, 2 of them are from non-BCS schools. Do they get the opportunity to play a BCS team? no. instead the get relegated to what amounts to the "kids table".

Without a playoff system, the least the BCS could have done was have #1 play #2, #3 play #4, #5 play #6. This mixes up BCS and non-BCS teams, and determines the final ranking by a win. Instead they put the 2 non-BCS teams together, and BCS strength of schedule gets to continue unchallenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without a playoff system, the least the BCS could have done was have #1 play #2, #3 play #4, #5 play #6. This mixes up BCS and non-BCS teams, and determines the final ranking by a win. Instead they put the 2 non-BCS teams together, and BCS strength of schedule gets to continue unchallenged.

Of course the BCS is handcuffed somewhat by Bowl Game agreements. For example, the PAC 10 and Big 10 champions play in the Rose Bowl, unless one (or both) is/are in the National Championship. The ACC has a similar agreement with the Orange Bowl, SEC with the Sugar Bowl, and Big 12 with the Fiesta Bowl. So those conference champions are tied to those bowls unless they are involved in the National Championship. This severely limits the ability of the BCS to match teams as you stated. In other words, if Texas was #3 and Georgia Tech was #4, they wouldn't play each other because Texas would be in the Fiesta Bowl and Georgia Tech would be in the Orange Bowl. Their opponents would be somebody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are still ranked in the BCS polls, and they are the ones that control the power.

There are 4 4-loss teams ranked in front of Utah, which has 3 losses...all of those are BCS schools.

Of the 2 loss teams BYU is the lowest ranked, and there are 2 3 loss teams ranked ahead of them...both BCS schools.

Strength of schedule is not objective, it is subjective, afterall each division has their cellar dwellers, middle and top teams. It is the BCS that determines who is stronger than who, and obviously BCS teams are naturally "stronger" than non-BCS teams.

How can non BCS teams demonstrate they are just as strong as BCS teams? by playing them. There are 5 undefeated teams this year, 2 of them are from non-BCS schools. Do they get the opportunity to play a BCS team? no. instead the get relegated to what amounts to the "kids table".

If you understood how BCS scoring worked, you'd know differently. The BCS utilizes 6 different computer analysis, each employing a different methodology. Contrary to your claim, some of the methodology is completely objective. It ranks one schools strength of schedule against anthers by computing the relative win-loss records of the top 245 teams. It also compares the strength of schedule of one conference against all other conference, purely on a won-loss basis.

The bottom line is that Utah would be higher ranked if it played a harder schedule. Any non-BCS team would be more highly ranked if they played a harder schedule (and won).

You may consider the No. 4 team playing the No. 6 team in one of the nations richest and most prestigious and elite bowls to the kids table but there are 239 or so other teams that wish that they were playing at the kids table instead of doing what they will otherwise be doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must reluctantly admit, that I ran through some statistics for each conference, and did a rudimentary strength of schedule, using only the win/loss of the opponents for the top 6 teams, and it lines up well with the BCS.

However, there still remains 5 undefeated teams, and when all is said and done, there could possibly still be 3 undefeated teams at the end of the season. Percentages and statistics can only go so far, the rest has to be earned on the field.

When I said "kids table" I did not mean to take away anything from the teams playing in that game, or the bowl game itself, only that they do not get to go up against a BCS team...to play with the "big boys". It's kinda like saying: "we will let you in to our clubhouse, but you can't talk to anyone, you can only talk to yourselves".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

MWC is 4 - 0 in this year's bowl games...TCU can make it a clean sweep!

I don't remember where I heard it, but someone was saying there is talk of giving the Mountain West and automatic BCS berth like some other leagues have.

They aren't hurting their chances when they turn in performances like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

I have no love for the Spartans or Red Raiders, but I have to give both teams major props for overcoming a great deal of adversity to play a great game. Well done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no love for the Spartans or Red Raiders, but I have to give both teams major props for overcoming a great deal of adversity to play a great game. Well done!

I agree...that was a good game. I watched Mich State play earlier in the year and they played good then to. However, I had to put the sound on mute for this game. I was tired of the announcers going over the scandal at Texas Tech over and over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share