College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

IMO, I think if there was a playoff you'd see a lot more of non-SEC interplay in the OOC as teams seek out opponents which would test them for the playoffs.

It just seems the whole system becomes a larger mockery each subsequent season.

Right. Games like USC-Ohio State would become the norm. And everyone would be willing to play at Boise State.

 

[Proud2baLaker]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Also note on there that only 4 teams have never played a D-1AA team: USC, UCLA, Wasington, and Notre Dame. Washington will be adding one in 2011 I believe. I dont see USC or Notre Dame adding one for a long long time...if ever.

 

[RaceBoarder]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Excellent article on the debilitating effect the BCS has on college football's regular season:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=Av7QSbO63Bs_ng71.ncVBKQ5nYcB?slug=dw-bcs102009&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Yet another reason to dislike the BCS, as if there weren't enough already.

Almost enough to make me an Oklahoma fan!

That makes a good point, but I think it is flawed in one respect... The article implies that the BCS rewards not losing, but we see it every year where a WAC/Mountain West/C-USA team flirts with going unbeaten, yet receives little love from the system...

It just seems kinda contradictory to attack the BCS rewarding going unbeaten when this happens....

 

[Patman]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

That makes a good point, but I think it is flawed in one respect... The article implies that the BCS rewards not losing, but we see it every year where a WAC/Mountain West/C-USA team flirts with going unbeaten, yet receives little love from the system...

It just seems kinda contradictory to attack the BCS rewarding going unbeaten when this happens....

that's because the teams in question garner enough of an SOS advantage during their conference schedule. Its a matter of playing 4 quality opponents as opposed to say 1 or 2.

Even if you give Florida or Texas little blind sisters of the poor for every open date they still have to go against their conference line-up.

 

[bronconick]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

The obvious thing to do would be to push back in a separate strength of schedule component. They yanked that sucker out after Miami finished #3 to Florida State's #2 in 2000-2001 for playing 1-AA McNeese State in their non-conference despite beating FSU head to head. FSU actually went in with the highest computer rankings that year, and the computers got lessened in importance, as well.

Looking back, it's also pretty amazing at the SoS ranks that year (I think it was just a simple opponents and opponent's opponent record math thing)

1. Oklahoma 11th
2. Florida St. 2nd
3. Miami 3rd
4. Washington 6
5. Va Tech 14
6. Oregon St. 42
7. Florida 1
8. Nebraska 18
9. K-State 29
10. Oregon 24

4 in the top 10, and 8 in the top 25. Wonder how bad this year's will look.

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

that's because the teams in question garner enough of an SOS advantage during their conference schedule. Its a matter of playing 4 quality opponents as opposed to say 1 or 2.

Even if you give Florida or Texas little blind sisters of the poor for every open date they still have to go against their conference line-up.

Right, and just by virtue of being in a BCS conference, they're rewarded with a shot at making it to one of the BCS bowls. With that going for them already, its still pretty easy for teams to make it to The BCS Bowl Game.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

The obvious thing to do would be to push back in a separate strength of schedule component. They yanked that sucker out after Miami finished #3 to Florida State's #2 in 2000-2001 for playing 1-AA McNeese State in their non-conference despite beating FSU head to head. FSU actually went in with the highest computer rankings that year, and the computers got lessened in importance, as well.

Looking back, it's also pretty amazing at the SoS ranks that year (I think it was just a simple opponents and opponent's opponent record math thing)

1. Oklahoma 11th
2. Florida St. 2nd
3. Miami 3rd
4. Washington 6
5. Va Tech 14
6. Oregon St. 42
7. Florida 1
8. Nebraska 18
9. K-State 29
10. Oregon 24

4 in the top 10, and 8 in the top 25. Wonder how bad this year's will look.

I'd argue the best thing to do would be to let the computers do their thing with all the data available to them, instead of now where all they can use is who played who and who won.

Let the rankings use scores, margins, yards gained, home, away, the weather, I don't care... Give them the data.

Bill James on the BCS rankings:

http://www.slate.com/id/2208108/pagenum/all/

The problems with the BCS are:

1. That there is a profound lack of conceptual clarity about the goals of the method;
2. That there is no genuine interest here in using statistical analysis to figure out how the teams compare with one another. The real purpose is to create some gobbledygook math to endorse the coaches' and sportswriters' vote;
3. That the ground rules of the calculations are irrational and prevent the statisticians from making any meaningful contribution; and
4. That the existence of this system has the purpose of justifying a few rich conferences in hijacking the search for a national title, avoiding a postseason tournament that would be preferred by the overwhelming majority of fans.

In truth, my objections to the system are a little different than Stern's. His biggest objection, I think, is No. 4 above—that the BCS system is used to justify something that should not be justified. To me, the deal-breaker is No. 3—the imposition on the computer rankings of irrational rules that essentially guarantee the failure of the process.

So, to use TBA's point - that the BCS would be ok if it were just ranking teams for a playoff - um, no. It wouldn't, the same way that college hockey's playoff doesn't stop us from discussing the serious methodological problems with the PWR. It would only make it 'ok' by making it less of a deciding factor.

Simply bringing back SOS isn't going to solve anything. Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, etc.

Go back to the old bowl system or go to a playoff. Either way would be cool with me.

 

[The Darkness]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

that's because the teams in question garner enough of an SOS advantage during their conference schedule. Its a matter of playing 4 quality opponents as opposed to say 1 or 2.

Even if you give Florida or Texas little blind sisters of the poor for every open date they still have to go against their conference line-up.

Florida's entire season this year is bull the only ranked opponent Florida would have faced at the end of the year before the SEC championship game is LSU and everybody in the country knew that LSU was vastly overrated. If you took the average ranking of all of the teams that Florida has on it's regular schedule this year you will probably end up in the 50's.

 

[alfablue]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

That makes a good point, but I think it is flawed in one respect... The article implies that the BCS rewards not losing, but we see it every year where a WAC/Mountain West/C-USA team flirts with going unbeaten, yet receives little love from the system...

It just seems kinda contradictory to attack the BCS rewarding going unbeaten when this happens....

One issue with your idea (which is quite valid, BTW), is that the "leser" conferences only get a what's left in terms of a BSC bid. Say Bozo State, Utah, and Cincinnatti all finished unbeated, and somehow ND got into whatever position they needed to so that they get their "autobid"- which I think is top 8. OTOH, go with two of the auto conferences finishing outside of the top 10- you choose two. With ALL of that jumbling, of the 3 undefeated teams, even if they were 1, 2, 3 in the country- only ONE would qualify for an at large BSC bid. If wiki is right, no more than one team from the C-USA, MAC, MW, SunBelt, and WAC can get an auto birth in a given season.

The ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big 10, Pac-10 and SEC champs are all guaranteed a BSC spot, even IF they are not in the top 10.

Just think of the pandemonium if the final standings were (and I admit, it's never, ever going to happen, but I'm biased for UoI):

1: Idaho
2: Utah
3: Cincinnati
4: Florida
5: LSU
6: VT
7: WVU
8: ND
9: USC
10: OSU
11: OSU

etc.

Of that top 3, only Idaho would qualify for a BSC game, and it would still be controversial of the top game. And lets even assume that Idaho, Utah, and UC all played tough games in OC- say a few teams from the P10, B12, and B10, so it's not like they played pansies. Still, Florida, who playes some patsy from Florida would get the a bid for the championship game, and Oklahoma State would get over Utah, and Ohio State over UC.

That's how it's about money vs. anything real. And, sadly, I become a lot less interested in watching any games where it's a patsy. I turned off the DS game, since it was so bad- those potential advertisers surely missed out there. IMHO, regular season ratings are going to start suffering as these weak teams are scheduled. I have NO idea how they could claim +100k this past weekend at the Big House- the rush to leave at half time was really funny.

Anyway, that's my rant.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

One issue with your idea (which is quite valid, BTW), is that the "leser" conferences only get a what's left in terms of a BSC bid. Say Bozo State, Utah, and Cincinnatti all finished unbeated, and somehow ND got into whatever position they needed to so that they get their "autobid"- which I think is top 8. OTOH, go with two of the auto conferences finishing outside of the top 10- you choose two. With ALL of that jumbling, of the 3 undefeated teams, even if they were 1, 2, 3 in the country- only ONE would qualify for an at large BSC bid. If wiki is right, no more than one team from the C-USA, MAC, MW, SunBelt, and WAC can get an auto birth in a given season.

The ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big 10, Pac-10 and SEC champs are all guaranteed a BSC spot, even IF they are not in the top 10.

Just think of the pandemonium if the final standings were (and I admit, it's never, ever going to happen, but I'm biased for UoI):

1: Idaho
2: Utah
3: Cincinnati
4: Florida
5: LSU
6: VT
7: WVU
8: ND
9: USC
10: OSU
11: OSU

etc.

Of that top 3, only Idaho would qualify for a BSC game, and it would still be controversial of the top game. And lets even assume that Idaho, Utah, and UC all played tough games in OC- say a few teams from the P10, B12, and B10, so it's not like they played pansies. Still, Florida, who playes some patsy from Florida would get the a bid for the championship game, and Oklahoma State would get over Utah, and Ohio State over UC.

That's how it's about money vs. anything real. And, sadly, I become a lot less interested in watching any games where it's a patsy. I turned off the DS game, since it was so bad- those potential advertisers surely missed out there. IMHO, regular season ratings are going to start suffering as these weak teams are scheduled. I have NO idea how they could claim +100k this past weekend at the Big House- the rush to leave at half time was really funny.

Anyway, that's my rant.

Isn't Cincinnati in the Big East?

 

[The Darkness]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

One issue with your idea (which is quite valid, BTW), is that the "leser" conferences only get a what's left in terms of a BSC bid. Say Bozo State, Utah, and Cincinnatti all finished unbeated, and somehow ND got into whatever position they needed to so that they get their "autobid"- which I think is top 8. OTOH, go with two of the auto conferences finishing outside of the top 10- you choose two. With ALL of that jumbling, of the 3 undefeated teams, even if they were 1, 2, 3 in the country- only ONE would qualify for an at large BSC bid. If wiki is right, no more than one team from the C-USA, MAC, MW, SunBelt, and WAC can get an auto birth in a given season.

The ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big 10, Pac-10 and SEC champs are all guaranteed a BSC spot, even IF they are not in the top 10.

Just think of the pandemonium if the final standings were (and I admit, it's never, ever going to happen, but I'm biased for UoI):

1: Idaho
2: Utah
3: Cincinnati
4: Florida
5: LSU
6: VT
7: WVU
8: ND
9: USC
10: OSU
11: OSU

etc.

Of that top 3, only Idaho would qualify for a BSC game, and it would still be controversial of the top game. And lets even assume that Idaho, Utah, and UC all played tough games in OC- say a few teams from the P10, B12, and B10, so it's not like they played pansies. Still, Florida, who playes some patsy from Florida would get the a bid for the championship game, and Oklahoma State would get over Utah, and Ohio State over UC.

That's how it's about money vs. anything real. And, sadly, I become a lot less interested in watching any games where it's a patsy. I turned off the DS game, since it was so bad- those potential advertisers surely missed out there. IMHO, regular season ratings are going to start suffering as these weak teams are scheduled. I have NO idea how they could claim +100k this past weekend at the Big House- the rush to leave at half time was really funny.

Anyway, that's my rant.

You do know that Cincinnati plays in the Big East, which is a Auto Bid Conference.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Just think of the pandemonium if the final standings were (and I admit, it's never, ever going to happen, but I'm biased for UoI):

There are plenty of REAL reasons to hate the BCS - no need to dream up bizarre hypotheticals such as these. Those teams finishing in the top 3 with plenty of B12, Pac-10, and B10 beef on their schedules is just silly, so it doesn't make a point. You might as well discuss what would happen if Ball State and Rice ran the table.

Part of the reason that scenario is so silly, unfortunately, is that the big football powers will stop scheduling a non-BCS team that looks like its getting "too big for its britches." Their strength of schedule will tail off, and they'll be shut out in the cold again while the BCS behemoths divvy up the pie.

The main reason, though, is that the BCS standings (which is what I assume you're talking about with your ranking) are so heavily dependent on the polls. If all three of Idaho, Cincinnati, and Utah were undefeated and Florida has one loss, then Florida is in the top 3 - guaranteed. It doesn't matter if I-C-U each have beaten 3 BCS conference teams as part of their undefeated schedules, because Florida would have defeated either 7 (if they got shut out of the SEC title game) or 8 BCS conference teams on its schedule - still a stronger resume. The only way 3 non-BCS teams end up in the top 3 is if *all* of the top teams from all of the BCS conferences have 2 losses, and that will just never happen.

Edit: oops - plus what bigblue_dl and tDarkness said!

 

[alfablue]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Oops- sorry about the Cin example.... Insert a better example, since it's hypothetical anyway. My bad.

Still, how is it not possible to have Bozo State and Utah be undefeated and in the top 2? It's happened before. And it's still possibe that they be 1-2 if Florida looses twice- since a two loss team in the top 5 still happens.

It's stupid that ONLY one non BSC conference can get in for a given season. Especially since the top MW and WAC teams are trying harder to have tough OC schedules to make up for the weak conferences. At least they are trying to be credible. Having Florida and Texas play patsy's is embarassing. I think that takes WAY too much away from college football. I hate OU, OSU, ND, and USC, but bless them for having tough schedules.

I'm ok with ONE interstate game, to help your state. But more than one is bad, if they are not D1A schools.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Oops- sorry about the Cin example.... Insert a better example, since it's hypothetical anyway. My bad.

Still, how is it not possible to have Bozo State and Utah be undefeated and in the top 2? It's happened before. And it's still possibe that they be 1-2 if Florida looses twice- since a two loss team in the top 5 still happens.

But only if you don't replace Florida with a 1-loss LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, etc. For your scenario, you need ALL of those teams to have 2 losses (not to mention USC, OU, Texas, OSU, PSU, etc)

It's stupid that ONLY one non BSC conference can get in for a given season. Especially since the top MW and WAC teams are trying harder to have tough OC schedules to make up for the weak conferences. At least they are trying to be credible. Having Florida and Texas play patsy's is embarassing. I think that takes WAY too much away from college football. I hate OU, OSU, ND, and USC, but bless them for having tough schedules.

I'm ok with ONE interstate game, to help your state. But more than one is bad, if they are not D1A schools.

I completely agree with all of this. The problem of course, is that "the BCS" IS the BCS conferences - it's just a bowl scheduling agreement amongst themselves. We're lucky they let ANY non-BCS conference teams (and independents) join the party - there is always a worse road than the one you are traveling on...

 

[alfablue]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

But only if you don't replace Florida with a 1-loss LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, etc. For your scenario, you need ALL of those teams to have 2 losses (not to mention USC, OU, Texas, OSU, PSU, etc)

Is it that hard to have all those teams have two losses? If the conference is as hard as claimed, it should be quite possible. USC could easily loose one more Pac10 game.

I completely agree with all of this. The problem of course, is that "the BCS" IS the BCS conferences - it's just a bowl scheduling agreement amongst themselves. We're lucky they let ANY non-BCS conference teams (and independents) join the party - there is always a worse road than the one you are traveling on...

That is the main issue, isn't it. Since it IS really about money, it sure seems like collusion and a set up system to benefit the BCS and ignoring free market challengers like the MW and WAC.

 

[Kepler]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

I dont see USC or Notre Dame adding one for a long long time...if ever.

The likelier (10% chance vs 0%) scenario for Notre Dame would be the service academies dropping to 1-AA.

As an Irish fan of 30+ seasons, I perceive a huge net pro-Notre Dame bias throughout the media. There's also a far smaller but still significant number of people with megaphones with an insanity-level hatred of Notre Dame. Basically, we're the Red Sox.

USC is the Yankees. The percentages are reversed, but again, few are neutral.

 

[bronconick]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

But only if you don't replace Florida with a 1-loss LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, etc. For your scenario, you need ALL of those teams to have 2 losses (not to mention USC, OU, Texas, OSU, PSU, etc)

I completely agree with all of this. The problem of course, is that "the BCS" IS the BCS conferences - it's just a bowl scheduling agreement amongst themselves. We're lucky they let ANY non-BCS conference teams (and independents) join the party - there is always a worse road than the one you are traveling on...

Shoot, two years ago you had undefeated Hawaii at #10 behind 1 loss Kansas, 1 loss OSU, and 7 2-loss teams. You'd have to have another year like that, but with undefeated Hawaii or whoever beating 2 or 3 of those 2 loss BCS teams. Maybe you can get them to #2 then. If it's a MWC team like Utah with BYU and TCU also top 20. It'd take a perfect storm, and I wouldn't put it past the voters and coaches to still screw them out the final weekend.

 

[Proud2baLaker]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

The likelier (10% chance vs 0%) scenario for Notre Dame would be the service academies dropping to 1-AA.

As an Irish fan of 30+ seasons, I perceive a huge net pro-Notre Dame bias throughout the media. There's also a far smaller but still significant number of people with megaphones with an insanity-level hatred of Notre Dame. Basically, we're the Red Sox.

USC is the Yankees. The percentages are reversed, but again, few are neutral.

If the service acadamies were ever to drop I wonder if Notre Dame would stop playing them. Frankly it wouldnt suprise me if they did. Heck with tradition.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

The likelier (10% chance vs 0%) scenario for Notre Dame would be the service academies dropping to 1-AA.

As an Irish fan of 30+ seasons, I perceive a huge net pro-Notre Dame bias throughout the media. There's also a far smaller but still significant number of people with megaphones with an insanity-level hatred of Notre Dame. Basically, we're the Red Sox.

USC is the Yankees. The percentages are reversed, but again, few are neutral.

USC is not the Yankees. USC is probably the Cardinals if you're picking a MLB team.

 

[joecct]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

If the service acadamies were ever to drop I wonder if Notre Dame would stop playing them. Frankly it wouldnt suprise me if they did. Heck with tradition.

Notre Dame will never stop playing Navy. In short - they owe them, big time.

During WWII ND was in the pits financially. Navy used ND as one of its training centers and the $$ the USN paid ND kept them afloat until the War was over and the GI Bill took over.