Crappy BCS analysis / prediction thread

[sooner333]

The funny thing is that if Boise State didn't qualify, the only other eligible team for the Fiesta Bowl would have been West Virginia.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I must be the only person in the world who likes the BCS system and is looking forward to some very intriguing bowl matchups.

I'm looking forward to most of the matchups if I look at them in a vaccuum, but how we got there is what bothers me.

[Arles]

I'm on the fence with the BCS. Outside of the Rose, this season is one of the reasons I don't like it. The Sugar, Fiesta and Orange all figure to be blowouts (spreads over 8 points). It may end up that they are all compelling, but if we are going to use this BCS system, then I think we need to do it based solely on matchups for overall interest.

Here's what would be better (IMO):

Rose is USC v Michigan
Sugar is Oklahoma v LSU
Orange is Lousville v Notre Dame
Fiesta is Wake v Boise State

Now, you have more compelling matchups and a system where all 4 games figure to be close going in. That said, I still think we need atleast a 4 team playoff. Think about it, we could have:

Rose: USC v. OKlahoma
Fiesta: Wake v. Boise State
Third BCS site: Notre Dame v. Louisville

Sugar: Michigan v Florida (12/30)
Orange: Ohio State v LSU (12/30)
Glendale: Winner of Sugar and Orange (1/8)

[Warhammer]

First, some have been griping that UM played a game in September/October the other teams didn't play. USC made that game up this week. Florida made up that missed week with a game against FSU last week. Florida then played another game this week, yeah, that's right, Florida has played 13 games to UM's 12. I am willing to bet that every computer poll has either a number of wins, win %, or something along those lines in their formula. By any measure, UF has an inherent advantage because they are playing an extra game. Sure, they could lose, but even one cream puff is enough to push them over the top in the computers. Oh yeah, that third top 25 team they beat happened to be in their conference title game, or rather their 13th game.

Second, the BCS is about putting the #1 team vs. the #2 team. Not the #2 team that didn't play against the #1 team already, not the #2 team that won their conference, etc. The #1 is to play the #2 team.

Look, I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm not a UM or UF fan, I follow Memphis, Notre Dame, and Illinois. I've watched USC, UM, UL, and UF play. UM was the best team by far, with USC next, UL, and then UF. Yes, USC was inconsistent, but they were better than UF. UF got extremely lucky in several of their games, and they had several USC v. UCLA moments, they just didn't have that INT at the 19 at the end of the game, they would have marched the ball in and escaped with a narrow victory. I understand that that counts for something, but they got lucky. UM was far more dominating in their games, and let's not forget, they lost on the road to OSU. If their wins are basically a wash (forgetting about UF's 13th game), UM's loss to OSU is certainly better than UF's loss to Auburn. I watched both games and UM v. OSU was much closer than UF v. Auburn. Take away the late personal foul for the hit against Smith and UM wins that game.

The problem for the BCS is this ALWAYS happens. The only way that this thing works is if you have two undefeated teams. Even if you have two one-loss teams you can make the argument that a 2-loss team is better than a one-loss team based upon schedule strength, etc. With two undefeateds, you can always argue that they beat the teams laid in front of them, and thus deserve the shot.

The easiest way to settle this is to play an 11 game schedule with no bye weeks. Let's not forget that many schedules are made easier by when you have your byes, so we're going to play from Sept. 1 through the third week of November with no byes, that's 11 weeks. Then, we take the top 8 teams, you have to win your conference, let's say the big 6 (SEC, Big 10, Big East, ACC, Pac 10, and higher ranked Mtn West/Conf. USA/Best Independent) and then the two other highest ranked teams. Then, over the next 4 weeks you play the playoffs and finish right before Christmas, or we could stop after the second week of December and play the championship on New Year's Day. It's really not that hard to do.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

UM's loss to OSU is certainly better than UF's loss to Auburn. I watched both games and UM v. OSU was much closer than UF v. Auburn.

Really? I thought the opposite. Florida only lost to Auburn because of a controversial fumble call on Leak at the Auburn six yard line.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Take away the late personal foul for the hit against Smith and UM wins that game.

Take away the 2 OSU fumbles, and Ohio State wins by 20. Let's not play that game. Ohio State won, and proved they were the better team.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I believe that was 2001. It was probably a bigger issue then because the conference champ, Colorado, was the team that got the shaft at #3. At least in this case, the conference champion is #1, so you can see why the #2 team might not win their conference.

Also, Nebraska was killed by Colorado in the Big 12 championship game and another game down the stretch which was why everyone thought UC should play for the title.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Take away the 2 OSU fumbles, and Ohio State wins by 20. Let's not play that game. Ohio State won, and proved they were the better team.

OSU won the game, not arguing that. My point is that is a much better loss than UF's loss. I watched the UF-Auburn game and there was no outcry about Leak's fumble. Even now, you don't hear anyone bitching about that call, but you still have some saying what-if about the OU v. Oregon game and the bad calls there.

EDIT: Bad calls are not the same as turnovers either. Hell, Denver doesn't turn the ball over 5 times last night, they win.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

OSU won the game, not arguing that. My point is that is a much better loss than UF's loss. I watched the UF-Auburn game and there was no outcry about Leak's fumble. Even now, you don't hear anyone bitching about that call, but you still have some saying what-if about the OU v. Oregon game and the bad calls there.

So whichever loss the media hangs onto and dwells on is the better loss?


EDIT: I watched both the OSU/Michigan game and the Florida/Auburn game and both were close games. There's no point trying to differentiate between the two games.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Even now, you don't hear anyone bitching about that call ...

Umm ... I've heard it bitched about.
(although not that much, most people aren't all that fond of U of F)

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I watched the UF-Auburn game and there was no outcry about Leak's fumble.

It really doesn't sound like you watched that game since the replay challenge was a huge moment during the game and the majority of write ups after the game prominently discussed the call. If you thought it was no big deal, then my guess is that you're in the vast minority.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Atocep

So whichever loss the media hangs onto and dwells on is the better loss?


EDIT: I watched both the OSU/Michigan game and the Florida/Auburn game and both were close games. There's no point trying to differentiate between the two games.

But that is back to my point which I might not have stated earlier. We shouldn't have to interpret this stuff. But that is all we have to go on. Both teams have one loss, UL has one loss, how can we differentiate between any of the teams?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

OSU won the game, not arguing that. My point is that is a much better loss than UF's loss. I watched the UF-Auburn game and there was no outcry about Leak's fumble. Even now, you don't hear anyone bitching about that call, but you still have some saying what-if about the OU v. Oregon game and the bad calls there.

There was a ton of outcry after the game happened. You can also throw in LSU's loss at Auburn as another one a ton of ref outcry.

In fact, the Bowl Selection show had Leak's fumble as a key part of the discussion on Florida. Yet, I don't remember seeing anything on Michigan's personal foul.

You can play it the other way in that Michigan was fortunate enough to get a couple unforced errors by Ohio State and a dubious pass interference call late in the game JUST to lose by 3. Had Florida not had the incompletion/fumble result go against them, it would have been 4th and 3 at the Auburn 6. If you assume a FG, they go ahead 20-18 with 8 minutes left.

The point is that both were close losses against good teams. Try to differentiate on "who was closer to winning" is a little silly.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I was thinking Arkansas had the 2nd lost the weekend after the UM/OSU game, if I'm wrong, my apologies.

That's correct, the weekend of UM/OSU, Arkansas beat Mississippi State to go to 10-1. Loss to LSU was the Friday after Thanksgiving.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

You mean to tell me that conference winners Wake and Boise State are more deserving of playing in the national championship than a team that is far superior to them but finished 2nd in their conference? What if teams split their conference? Enacting such a written rule (apparently it is an unwritten one) would make the BCS even more of a waste than it already is. I would think it should be the two best teams in the country at the end of the season who should play for the championship. If you can argue that Florida would beat Michigan or has a superior team to Michigan, fine. But the fact that Michigan a) did not win their conference and b) lost to OSU should have no bearing on whether or not they are the 2nd best team in the nation.

This is what makes college basketball far superior - it ends up with the team that is the best team at the end of the season as the champions. You are rewarded for winning your conference or having a tough schedule by getting a potentially easier road to the championship. Everyone plays every team in their conference at least once (in all but the Big East) and all but the Ivy League have a conference tournament and most importantly the games are played out and the champions are decided by the kids - not by pollsters with agendas. Yes, inevitably some teams get "screwed" but they're the 66th or so best team in the country - not arguably one of the top two.

Seriously, how can you have two teams both be the "national champion"?

First off, no sport has "the two best teams at the end of the season". College basketball has "the two best tournament teams" (you'd have a hard time arguing that George Mason was one of the top 4 teams in the country, but they got hot). Now, I'm not saying that the college basketball system isn't good, 'cause I think it is and I think it does an excellent job of crowning a "National Champion". I'm just saying I don't think anyone can ever figure out who the "best" team really is, but you can come up with a good definition for "National Champion", and basketball does a good job of fulfilling their definition. I just don't think that they are a good case for "2 best teams in the country".

But my case for the "Must be a conference champion" rule in college football is predicated on keeping the current BCS "single championship game" premise. It's absolutely insane / ludicrous / makes no sense for a team that is not its conference champion to be crowned a national champion given this sytem. With a single game, you need two conference champions playing, period. You've made the decision that the conferences decide who represents them in the BCS, then you give out a couple of at-large bids to handle Notre Dame / other independents and the mid-major conferences if one gets hot. Sure, if no other candidates qualify, you bring in non-conference champions, but that should be to fill out bowls with compelling matchups, NOT to go for the championship. In the current system, the regular season is filling the role of a limited playoff, and if you can't get out of it, why should you get a crack at the NC?

Right now, Boise State and Wake Forest ARE more deserving of an NC crack than Michigan, because Michigan had a crack and blew it. However, Florida is even more deserving, so they should get the shot.

Now, all of this goes out the window if they decide to get some sanity and go to a playoff. Then the regular season is posturing for seeding / home-field (so it means something), and you crown a "National Champion" (not the "best" team) after a tournament. Either you need a playoff where these teams that don't mix it up during the regular season get their cracks, or you stop pretending you are somehow crowning a "champion". But if you are going to pretend, at least be consistent, and stop someone who couldn't win their conference from getting a crack at the bigger award.

I think the BCS would do a decent job of seeding teams for a tourney (at least if you took the completely subjective human element out of it), but as for picking a "champion", it sucks.

[mtolson]

Originally Posted by Arles

For those stating human bias against a rematch is the reason for the swap, I'd say look at the computer averages:

11/26:
1. Ohio State 1.000
2. USC .940
3. Michigan .930
4. Florida .890

12/3:
1. Ohio State 1.000
2. Florida .9405
3. Michigan .940
4. USC .860

So, Florida's win over Arkansas was enough to bump the computer averages from 4 to 2. Why, then, is it unfair that some humans agreed with the computers? Is there some kind of formula against rematches in the computers?

Were did you get Florida having .9405 from. Everywhere I looked, its show .9400 or .940 for both teams. Just curious.

[mtolson]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The problem for the BCS is this ALWAYS happens. The only way that this thing works is if you have two undefeated teams.

It won't even work then. We have two undefeated teams now.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

That's correct, the weekend of UM/OSU, Arkansas beat Mississippi State to go to 10-1. Loss to LSU was the Friday after Thanksgiving.

Shew.. my point is still relatively valid then in the context of what KSyrup is saying...

The Monday after the OSU/UM game you had OSU, then a 1 loss UM, USC, UF, and Arkansas.

So, as far as UF not being at #2 at the time, how do you differentiate between UF and Arkansas? You don't know until they play (or in this case Arkansas lost the following week)..

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by mtolson

Were did you get Florida having .9405 from. Everywhere I looked, its show .9400 or .940 for both teams. Just curious.

He's maybe not throwing out high/low, then Florida gets an edge over Michigan. UM has three threes and three twos. UF has three threes, two twos, and a one.

[sooner333]

It was likely USC's loss that helped out Florida the most in the computers as there were a few that went 2. Mich 3. USC 4. FLA. Even if Florida didn't pass Michigan, they still gained a spot while Michigan stayed the same...thus even if Florida didn't play, the USC loss made Florida a higher ranked team.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

I'd prefer a 16-team playoff. Each conference gets an autobid (ends the charade of having to cook up special stuff to get e.g. Boise State in), which leaves five at-large teams (or possibly six this year, as one non-BCS conf. may not qualify). Max three per conference instead of two.

Personally, I think 16 teams is way too big.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Shew.. my point is still relatively valid then in the context of what KSyrup is saying...

The Monday after the OSU/UM game you had OSU, then a 1 loss UM, USC, UF, and Arkansas.

So, as far as UF not being at #2 at the time, how do you differentiate between UF and Arkansas? You don't know until they play (or in this case Arkansas lost the following week)..

That's between those two teams, and has nothing to do with Michigan. Between all of those 1-loss teams, the voters saw fit to rank Michigan ahead of them even though they had just lost. Assuming Arkansas hadn't lost a second game and either Arkansas or UF came out of the SEC title game with only one loss, the voters had already stated that neither of those teams was #2.

I guess the bottom line for me is...if you are going to still rank Michigan (or any team, for that matter) #2 immediately following their only loss, there is no justification for dropping them later. None. The point at which they lost is their weakest, and thus, you drop them for having lost. If you don't, you are saying that despite losing, they are better than all other 1-loss teams. UF's win over Arkansas did not wipe out UF's 1 loss. Any other result is inconsistent.

Look, the voters saw this coming. They also moved USC over Michigan, nevermind UF. They should have built in a drop for Michigan that gave them wiggle room to proclaim the "next best team we see" to be #2. But they didn't. They voted Michigan #2 knowing that USC had 2 more games, that UF was going to play 2 more games, including a conference title game, and that Michigan wasn't going to play again. The proper thing to do would have been to rank Michigan, say, 5th, and then moved them back up by default as the teams ahead of them lost. If those teams didn't lose, then Michigan is never "back in the title hunt" to begin with. This controversy only erupted because of where Michigan sat in the rankings the day after their only loss.

I know, my problem is that I'm looking for consistency and rational behavior out of bunch of nimwits with the attention span of gnats. But still, that's the only thing that irks me about this. I'm not necessarily arguing the merits of Michigan over UF, but merely that Michigan, by virtue of the process and where they sat in the rankings, should not have been dropped.

[Galaxy]

I wonder how much Notre Dame's loss to USC impacted Michigan in the computers.

Also, how much was Florida punished for playing a 1-AA team?

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I know, my problem is that I'm looking for consistency and rational behavior out of bunch of nimwits with the attention span of gnats. But still, that's the only thing that irks me about this. I'm not necessarily arguing the merits of Michigan over UF, but merely that Michigan, by virtue of the process and where they sat in the rankings, should not have been dropped.

Did you have the same level of indignation for the pollsters when they chose to move Michigan ahead of teams that didn't lose when they beat Notre Dame?

[Leonidas]

So if OSU takes care of business and wins this thing are we still gonna have controversy (ie: incessant whining)?

[Ufer]

Much more important: If it's true, or even just believed, I am concerned about favoring teams that play later games. My understanding is that the Big Ten does not want its "student-athletes" (and many of them are) playing games between Thanksgiving and finals, and that's part of the reason for no conference championship game. I hope we're not encouraging teams to play more and more games in December.

I'm obviously an unhappy U-M fan but I won't repeat all the arguments other than to say that I don't believe the voters believe Florida is better than Michigan, they were just looking for a way to keep Michigan out. If USC had won, Michigan would've stayed ahead of Florida in the polls. I believe the way the system is supposed to work, Michigan should've gone but anyway, if we win the Rose Bowl, go 12-1 and finish #2, that's an awesome season. Ever since the Fab 5 scandal, I've toned down my desire for national championships.

A friend who is a USC fan said: "Now that USC is out, I don't care about Michigan or Florida but this screws the fans. Just like when they sent Oklahoma to play us -- and I was so happy we played Oklahoma instead of Auburn -- and when they sent Nebraska, the fans get the crappier match-up. OSU-Michigan would've been a game for the ages just like last year. Florida will probably be a crappy game."

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I know, my problem is that I'm looking for consistency and rational behavior out of bunch of nimwits with the attention span of gnats. But still, that's the only thing that irks me about this. I'm not necessarily arguing the merits of Michigan over UF, but merely that Michigan, by virtue of the process and where they sat in the rankings, should not have been dropped.

We have opposite problems with the voters then.

Personally, the biggest problem I see with the polls is the fact that the only way you see movement in the polls is when a team loses and moves down. I think that quality wins should cause teams to move up ahead of teams with off weeks or lesser quality wins more often. This idea that you can't move down unless you lose in that week is one I do not like at all.

[Ufer]

Also, doesn't prove anything for U-M or Fla but the coaches have no idea what they're voting for. They only watch game film of their upcoming opponents. Unless they played Michigan or Florida (and one of those guys chickened out probably to avoid "bulletin-board" material for whoever OSU would play), most haven't ever seen either team play.

For all those who say a conference runner-up shouldn't be in the NC game, if Arkansas had beaten Florida, should Oklahoma or Arkansas have gone to the BCS game?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Did you have the same level of indignation for the pollsters when they chose to move Michigan ahead of teams that didn't lose when they beat Notre Dame?

That was in October. Completely different set of circumstances. Michigan was ranked #2 following their only loss in their last game of the season, and every voter knew that fact.

Personally, I don't think polls/BCS rankings should be even taken until maybe mid-November. That way you don't have teams hanging around the top 20 on reputation (yes, like my FSU) when they don't deserve it, or upstarts getting such a late jump on being ranked that they are fighting an uphill, impossible situation to get into a good ranking position.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

He's maybe not throwing out high/low, then Florida gets an edge over Michigan. UM has three threes and three twos. UF has three threes, two twos, and a one.

Yeah, I probably should have stated how I got that result. If you take the sum of the 6 computer polls, Florida rates higher. Now, this isn't how the BCS does it, but it does show that it isn't unreasonable for someone to go from having Florida at 4 to 2 based solely on the Arkansas game. That's basically what the computers said as a whole.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That was in October. Completely different set of circumstances.

No it isn't...it's pretty much the exact same thing. It seems that you have no problem with Michigan jumping over teams that didn't lose, yet struggle with the reality that Florida did the same thing.

I understand it's a rivalry thing, so I can see where your motivation is coming from. But at least a part of you has to admit that moving UF to the #2 spot isn't anything new for the pollsters. Reshuffling teams like that happens on a weekly basis.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Personally, I think 16 teams is way too big.

Any smaller requires leaving out non-BCS conferences (undesirable), coming up with ad hoc rules to get them in (undesirable), or no at-large bids (undesirable).

I think 16 gets the best balance of major-conference participation (a total of 11 bids, between automatic and at-large) and minor-conference participation (no one gets shut out).

It shouldn't be a problem with the number of games, as I-AA, er, the Championship Division manages a 16-team playoff just fine.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Also, how much was Florida punished for playing a 1-AA team?

If you're talking computers, I don't know how they would have handled it, but I would expect either complete indifference (ignored entirely) or a very marginal benefit (since UF is so much better than the 1-AA team, their chances of losing were very small, so it does very little for their rating to win the game).

I would not trust any ranking that actually punished them for playing that game in any way other than an opportunity cost sense (i.e. that they could have been beating a better team); whatever else I might think of the decision to play the game, it's asinine to punish a team for winning a game. As far as I'm concerned, the opportunity cost is sufficient.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by VPI97

I understand it's a rivalry thing, so I can see where your motivation is coming from. But at least a part of you has to admit that moving UF to the #2 spot isn't anything new for the pollsters. Reshuffling teams like that happens on a weekly basis.

As much as it sucks for me to have UF (not to mention OSU) in the title game and Michigan not, my argument has absolutely nothing to do with the teams involved. I have a theoretical problem with how this played out. Teams being reshuffled in the rankings 3 weeks into the season is completely different than voting to keep the #2 at #2 after they lost their final game of the season. I understand reshuffling happens all the time, I just take the view that you aren't just "rewarding" the team moving up, but also "punishing" the team moving down. So I think there needs to be a reason on both ends of it to make a switch, especially given the stakes here. And a month into the season, teams are playing nearly every week and reshuffling is going to happen.

But here, the voters knew Michigan was not going to play another game, and they still ranked them #2 after they lost. There was no justification/excuse for moving both USC and UF above them, other than the fact that the voters simply voted the "most recent hot chick I saw" higher than the hot chick they saw the week earlier. The reasons for voting Michigan #2 didn't just disappear into thin air.

[Arles]

I completely get what Ksyrup is saying I think the problem is that people are expecting a perfect result from an imperfect system. I think gstelmack has the best post of the thread.

Should Michigan be punished and moved out of the championship when they didn't play? On its face, I'd say no. However, when you have no playoff and deal with numerous "viable" contenders, you have to have a somewhat unbiased way to separate them.

Before the Arkansas game, Michigan had a higher SOS, the same number of BCS wins as Florida and neither were conference champs. So, Michigan's "better loss" put them ahead in many people's eyes (including the CPUs). The fact that Florida's win over Arkansas gave them a SOS higher than Michigan, more BCS wins AND made them conference champs means that there is a very legit case for them to be ranked higher than Michigan. And that's why they passed Michigan on the sum of the CPUs (as well as some of the poll voters).

I understand reshuffling happens all the time, I just take the view that you aren't just "rewarding" the team moving up, but also "punishing" the team moving down.

I think what everyone needs to realize is that there are going to be seasons where a certain team will be denied a chance at a title simply because someone else had a tougher SOS and/or more top wins. There's nothing really fair about it, but with an imperfect system it's the only unbiased way to deal with similar teams.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think what everyone needs to realize is that there are going to be seasons where a certain team will be denied a chance at a title simply because someone else had a tougher SOS and/or more top wins. There's nothing really fair about it, but with an imperfect system it's the only unbiased way to deal with similar teams.

Don't worry. They'll tweak the formula in the offseason and everything will be just super.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I also understand what Ksyrup is saying, but he has to realize that there is no written rule in polls that late in the season a team cannot be dropped in the polls if they don't lose. It's not a rule (I know he knows that, but it must be remembered). Now, out of convention, many voters act this way but as Arles pointed out, this particular set of circumstances warranted a departure from the convention.

To clear up the Nebraska deal back in 2001. Nebraska, not only did not win the Big 12, but failed to make the championship game at all after Colorado waxed them 62-36 in Colorado in the last regular season game.

At the time the teams played, Nebraska was ranked #2 or #3 I think, and Colorado was ranked #9. It was Nebraska's only loss of the season (until losing to Miami in the championship game), but Colorado already had two losses at the time (including a very bad loss to Fresno State to start the season). After the game, Colorado moved up some and Nebraska dropped but Nebraska stayed ahead of Colorado (something like numbers 4 and 6). Colorado did not go ahead of Nebraska because there were a lot of better one loss teams in between. Colorado then went on to squeak out a win against 10-1 Texas in the Big 12 championship. The real chaos started when Tennessee (ranked 2nd), who would have been slotted to play Miami for the national championship, lost in the SEC championship game [And that is important to note that risk if one chooses to believe Florida should get no credit to jump Michigan for putting it on the line to beat Arkansas on the final week this season].

So Colorado still had two losses as compared to Nebraska's one loss, which I think is huge, but nonetheless, because of Colorado's win over Texas in the Big 12 championship game, the human polls moved Colorado ahead of Nebraska one spot (EVEN THOUGH NEBRASKA DID NOT PLAY OR LOSE) because the pollsters reshuffled things. The human polls ended with Miami at #1, Oregon at #2, Colorado at #3 and Nebraska at #4. The pollsters obviously believed a two loss team was better than the one loss team because they had beaten them head to head. Unfortunately, this did not help Colorado because on the last week of the season, some unrelated game helped to improve Nebraska's strength of schedule number (I believe it was the opponent of one of Nebraska's opponents got a good win). So, Nebraska managed to stay ahead of Colorado in the BCS rankings, but BARELY. As for Oregon, ranked #2 by the human polls, the PAC-10 sucked that year and Oregon's weak strength of schedule dropped them to 4th in the BCS.

In the end, Miami beat Nebraska easily for the national championship. But interestingly, Oregon completely crushed Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl 38-16. Oregon ended the season (with one loss) and ranked 2nd behind Miami.

The point here is teams get screwed left right and center all the time. Forget about Colorado, what about Oregon getting screwed. They played everyone they could and won their conference. However, in the BCS, they actually were behind a 2-loss team (including a loss against Fresno State) and a one loss team that didn't even make it to its conference championship. And what about Nebraska? They didn't play on the final week of the season but got passed in the human polls by a 2-loss team that got a big win. Colorado's gripe was similar but getting waxed by Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl didn't help in the end.

But my real point here is what a cluster f%ck that year was compared to this one. None of this is new. Give Auburn a call.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Ufer

Much more important: If it's true, or even just believed, I am concerned about favoring teams that play later games. My understanding is that the Big Ten does not want its "student-athletes" (and many of them are) playing games between Thanksgiving and finals, and that's part of the reason for no conference championship game. I hope we're not encouraging teams to play more and more games in December.

So the Big Ten doesn't play any basketball games between Thanksgiving to the finals? Shoddy argument.

This year, I think the pollsters has Michigan high because they forsaw USC and Ohio State in the NC. There was NEVER a realistic chance that Michigan was gonna go to the NC because a)most people that aren't Michigan fans don't want to see a rematch and, b)how can you justify Michigan being a "national" champion when they're not the champion of their own conference? When Florida won -- when pollsters saw them, saw that there was another viable CONFERENCE CHAMPION alternative to a rematch, they took it.

And probably more than a few remember the Auburn fiasco from a few years back and realize the SEC gets screwed quite a bit in the national championship picture.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Also, Nebraska was killed by Colorado in the Big 12 championship game and another game down the stretch which was why everyone thought UC should play for the title.

Nebraska and Colorado are both in the Big 12 North. And it's CU.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I thought I cleared that up a few posts above.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I thought I cleared that up a few posts above.

Yep. I just hadn't read it yet.

[JW]

Another problem that needs to be considered in 'fixing' the system is the automatic bias toward teams that start high in the PRESEASON rankings. Where you are positioned to start the season has an impact for the rest of the season. That positioning can be overcome, but a team's ranking before a single game is played can have a huge impact if that team continues to win. LSU's ranking for example was high at the start of the season thanks in part to its big bowl win the previous season over Miami, which may or may not make much sense. And the thinking of LSU fans is that LSU can possibly improve its #4 ranking with a win in the Sugar Bowl, thus setting LSU up for a top three preseason ranking in 2007 and a run at a national championship, especially since LSU doesn't have to face Auburn, Florida, Tennesse, and Arkansas on the road. That may not be fair, but that is the way the game is played.

[Brian Swartz]

Only way to do that is to throw out human polls altogether. I don't see that happening. I wouldn't mind it, but most would.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Only way to do that is to throw out human polls altogether. I don't see that happening. I wouldn't mind it, but most would.

Some have suggested that there not be any human polls until after the season is underway, maybe 2-4 weeks into the season.

[Brian Swartz]

Yes, but there's no way the media would do that, it would destroy all the buzz from their preseason polls and given them less to endlessly and pointlessly speculate about. It's one of those it'd-be-nice-but-hasn't-a-snowball's-chance ideas. And frankly, there's way too many fans addicted to them as well.

[sooner333]

Yeah, that 2001 season was pretty crazy. The week into the Neb/CU game, Nebraska was #1, Miami #2, Oklahoma #3 (lost to Nebraska), Florida #4, and Oregon #5, Texas #6, Tennesse #7, and Illinois #8 (!) all with one loss. Colorado was all the way at #14 hurt by two losses and a poor computer ranking (also 14th in the polls).

Nebraska lost to Colorado on Friday, then Oklahoma who controlled its own destiny was upset by Oklahoma State in Norman. Which made the standings Miami, Florida, Texas, Nebraska, Oregon, Tennessee, Colorado, Illinois. Nebraska was hurt by OU losing, but because they were still at #9, they still got some quality win bonus.

The first round of conference championship games occured (remember 9/11 messed up the schedule pretty majorly). Colorado beat Texas and Florida lost as well. However, Tennessee jumped to #2 from #6. The standings were Miami, Tennessee, Nebraska, Colorado, Oregon, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Stanford (!).

The last week Tennessee lost, giving Nebraska a .05 advantage in the 2 spot. The voters did move Colorado ahead of Nebraska without either team playing a game. However, it was the extra loss that did Colorado in (because losses were part of the BCS) and the computer polls. They almost made up for it with two huge wins over Nebraska and Texas as well as the 2nd hardest SOS. Oregon had the worst schedule of any of the four and only one quality
win over #12 Washington State.


The Pac Ten was not horrible that year, however, as they had 4 of the top 15 teams in the final BCS (#4 Oregon, #9 Stanford, #12 Washington State, and #15 Washington). The Big Ten was the non-factor with Illinois as the only team in the top 15.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Nicely done, your memory was even better than mine. I thought CU moved ahead after winning the Big 12, but you're right -- they moved ahead without either of them even playing a game. I am pissed at that even more now that I remember it.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by sooner333

...then Oklahoma who controlled its own destiny was upset by Oklahoma State in Norman.

I was at that game. Talk about the suck.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Colorado beat Texas

I was at that game. I remember that after Nebraska and Oklahoma lost the weekend before, I went onto eBay, and literally every single ticket for the game was on sale. That was the loudest game I ever attended. Because the game was the last one on conference championship day, Texas knew that if they won, they were probably in the BCS title game. Chris Simms had his typical big game brain fart in the first half, but Major Applewhite almost led Texas back for the win. Probably would have except for a roughing the punter call with a couple of minutes left. Texas was the first victim of the 'only 2 teams from a conference can go to a BCS game' rule. Which they were bitten by again two years later when K-State beat Oklahoma.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Yes, but there's no way the media would do that, it would destroy all the buzz from their preseason polls and given them less to endlessly and pointlessly speculate about. It's one of those it'd-be-nice-but-hasn't-a-snowball's-chance ideas. And frankly, there's way too many fans addicted to them as well.

That's true. And that is why LSU fans are saying a top three ranking in the preseason polls would be important for a title run. Of course you still have to win your games, but it is better to start closer to the top.