BCS Week Six

[RedKingGold]

It looks like Penn State is a solid third, likely due to the other Big Ten teams in the rankings with them. There is actually a larger gap between 3 and 4 than 4 and 5

Should USC or Texas fall, the Nittany Lions should go to the title game

[pennywisesb]

I think its great to see Penn State near the top. I've always been a Joe Pa fan.

[Leonidas]

I think your are overlooking that special BCS clause that says if Notre Dame wins more than 6 games and if one of the two only undefeated teams ranked 1st and 2nd going into the last season of regular play loses then Notre Dame qualifies and has to play any Dave Wannstedt coached team for the national title.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

It looks like Penn State is a solid third, likely due to the other Big Ten teams in the rankings with them. There is actually a larger gap between 3 and 4 than 4 and 5

Should USC or Texas fall, the Nittany Lions should go to the title game

IF USC lost, I think they would stay above PSU in the polls, and possibly the BCS as a whole.... but probably a moot argument.

[scooper]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

IF USC lost, I think they would stay above PSU in the polls, and possibly the BCS as a whole.... but probably a moot argument.

I'm not so sure. Momentum means a lot to voters sometimes. Had they stomped Fresno, you may be right, but that scare, plus a loss would probably move PSU ahead in the polls.

[Galaxy]

Would be cool to see a USC-Penn State Rose Bowl, with the National Championship on the line. A pair of talented, tradition-rich schools in the great Pac-10/Big Ten battle.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Would be cool to see a USC-Penn State Rose Bowl, with the National Championship on the line. A pair of talented, tradition-rich schools in the great Pac-10/Big Ten battle.

It would be just like the Rose Bowl should always be, Pac-10 vs. Big 10

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by scooper

I'm not so sure. Momentum means a lot to voters sometimes. Had they stomped Fresno, you may be right, but that scare, plus a loss would probably move PSU ahead in the polls.

If the voters really cared about that game, Fresno St would have moved up higher from the 16th they were at last week. By Dec 3, that'll give the 90%+ of voters that didn't watch two weeks to forget about Fresno St game (other than Reggie Bush's performance, especially since it'll be Heisman hype week) and Penn St won't have played in two weeks. If anything, it could be LSU with the momentum, if they have a victory against a pretty good Arkansas team and then blow out Georgia in the SEC title game.

[BishopMVP]

Dola - even more so because what's holding LSU back is the computers. They won't lose ground to an idle PSU team in the polls, and wins over Arkansas and Georgia, plus possibly a loss by VT/Miami/WVU, all who are ahead of LSU but behind PSU in the computer portion I think would be enough to put LSU ahead of PSU. Not sure where a 1-loss USC team would fall there, or a 1-loss Texas team.

[scooper]

Certainly, LSU would have the chance to grab momentum. If the polls both put them second, computers be damned, they would play in the Rose Bowl under this scenario. It's really up to the voters.

I think the point is moot, though. USC had their latest wake-up call.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by scooper

Certainly, LSU would have the chance to grab momentum. If the polls both put them second, computers be damned, they would play in the Rose Bowl under this scenario. It's really up to the voters.

I think the point is moot, though. USC had their latest wake-up call.

Well, right now both polls put them a solid third ahead of Penn St, and they are 4th, well behind PSU in the BCS Standings. And I guess Virginia Tech is still floating around there with 1 loss. USC had like 3 bad first halfs in a row then the ND game... so IDK if they really are past their wake up calls... likely won't matter in the end, since UCLA will score some, but with their run defense Bush/White could top 500 on the ground alone.

[JW]

Lots of number-crunching going on at the LSU football forums right now. It reminds me a lot of 2003. Here are a couple of thoughts on the situation from the LSU perspective:

"IF we keep the exact same polls(won't happen, but we need a base point) there are 6 computer polls, lowest and highest are taken out.
Out of the 4 that will be kept, we MUST have an average of 4.5 or better. We can have 2 4th place computers and 2 5th place computers and our BCS total will be 0.8905 which will JUST pass PSU who is at .8900. That is the goal as of now. Get to 4.5 in the computers OR get those extra votes in the polls....

...In Harris and coaches the bigger the margin or gap LSU has ahead of PaSt the more points the BCS scores us. Even if we stay #3 and PaSt #4, if some voters peel off from idle Pa State, to support OhSt, ND, Vat...anybody, that gives us more BCS points even if the rank (LSU #3, PaSt #4) does not change."

Also the consensus among those who crunch numbers -- and I'm not one of them -- is that USC would probably still end up #2 BCS even if it loses a game. The best best for PSU or LSU would be a Texas loss.

I do think LSU has an advantage in that we still have two more games. Impressive wins over Arkansas Friday and espcially over a very good Georgia team in the SECCG will help give LSU a push, since PSU is finished with its season. Again, that is just like 2003, where LSU had to keep winning and winning impressively while certain other things happened, even if the formula is different this year. So LSU will go into those two games knowing it can affect things by winning and winning big.

I would have to say LSU is in the best position because it still has a chance to positively effect the polls and computers, just like in 2003.

IF an opening occurs, however, I think both LSU and PSU are very deserving teams.

[GoldenEagle]

I think Texas smokes USC, Penn State, or LSU. They ar by far the best team in college football this year. They just have to avoid injuries.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I'm not sure how much LSU gets out of winning impressively. They aren't going to be pulling votes from UT or USC unless one of them loses; I suppose they can gain a bit (how much?) in the polls, but their main problem right now is that all the mathematical rankings think the Big 10 is a lot better than the SEC. The best way to help their cause there is just to win -- margin of victory is not included in the formulas.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

I'm not sure how much LSU gets out of winning impressively. They aren't going to be pulling votes from UT or USC unless one of them loses; I suppose they can gain a bit (how much?) in the polls, but their main problem right now is that all the mathematical rankings think the Big 10 is a lot better than the SEC. The best way to help their cause there is just to win -- margin of victory is not included in the formulas.

The folks who crunch numbers like this seem to think that even small gains in the computers might be critical. And Winning impressively might open the human poll gap between LSU and PSU some, which apparently does have some importance. And you are right about the computers. The SEC has not done well against good OOC foes and has had a relatively weak OOC schedule, which hurts LSU at this point.

As for Gold Eagles' comment, I, also think Texas is the best team right now. But LSU (or PSU) is good enough to pull an upset over Texas (or USC), which is the point of trying to get to the Rose Bowl.

[Mr. Wednesday]

In Sagarin, the gap from LSU to WVU isn't all that high, but it looks like going up higher than 8th is a lot of ground to make up. Their biggest help here is that a VT loss would (best guess on my part) pull both Miami and VT down, maybe enough for LSU to pass both. I'm not convinced they can make up ground in that ranking. I don't know about the others.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

I'm not sure how much LSU gets out of winning impressively. They aren't going to be pulling votes from UT or USC unless one of them loses;

But that's what we're (or at least I) am arguing about - who plays in the championship game if USC or Texas loses. If they both win out, they go to the Rose and #3 doesn't matter, since both LSU and PSU will have automatic bids.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

I think Texas smokes USC, Penn State, or LSU. They ar by far the best team in college football this year. They just have to avoid injuries.

Seems like Mack Brown's constant runnning up the score has won one convert.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Seems like Mack Brown's constant runnning up the score has won one convert.

Seems like not actually watching Texas games has won one convert.

[Easy Mac]

I've seen about 5 or 6 Texas games this year, but thanks for playing.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I've seen about 5 or 6 Texas games this year, but thanks for playing.

Well then you don't know very much about football.

[Easy Mac]

You mean I don't know when someone's running up the score? No, I have that down pretty well.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Well then you don't know very much about football.

...and Texas fans wonder why people think they're obnoxious.

[Huckleberry]

Actually, it's quite clear that you don't have that one down.

Examples would be nice.

Reminds me of Mike Lupica blasting Bob Stoops for "running up the score" on Texas A&M when they beat the Aggies 77-0 in 2003. Nevermind the fact that Stoops did everything he could to keep the score down. Critical analysis would have been asking too much.

For the record I wondered why we left the guys in so long against Baylor. That's about it. Even then we got 13 carries out of our 3rd string TB and 3 carries out of a 4th stringer. And we scored on a fluke play from our backup QB, who's not a good runner.

Other than Baylor, though, I've actually wondered why we don't leave some of our guys in longer in some games to get work and stay sharp. I think that's actually what happened at Baylor after the poor showing in the first half at Oklahoma State.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by VPI97

...and Texas fans wonder why people think they're obnoxious.

Not really. I apologize if asking for examples and supporting evidence is too much. If somebody is going to put some attitude into a response then they shouldn't cry about getting some back. Easy Mac didn't cry about it, though. So I'm not sure why you're concerned.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Not really. I apologize if asking for examples and supporting evidence is too much. If somebody is going to put some attitude into a response then they shouldn't cry about getting some back. Easy Mac didn't cry about it, though. So I'm not sure why you're concerned.

Up 52-7 against Kansas midway through the 3rd quarter, Vince Young is still in the game passing the ball.
Up 48-0 against Baylor in the 4th quarter, Vince Young is still in the game passing the ball.
Up 45-17 against Texas Tech in the 4th quarter, Vince Young is still in the game passing the ball.
Up 42-10 against Colorado in the 4th quarter, Vince Young is still in the game passing the ball.

Do I really need to go back any further in the season?

[Dr. Sak]

I think it would be a great matchup if Penn State played Texas in the Rose Bowl. I am not sure if many Texas fans know this but before the season started the Penn State coaches traveled to Austin for a week to talk to Mack Brown and his staff on how they use Vince Young in their offense. It is hard to argue that without Vince Young or Michael Robinson either team would be where they are today in the polls.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Up 52-7 against Kansas midway through the 3rd quarter, Vince Young is still in the game passing the ball.

LOL. First drive of the second half. Nice one. Running up the score? Hardly. I doubt there are many coaches in the nation that wouldn't put their starters in for the first series of the 3rd quarter.

Originally Posted by VPI97

Up 48-0 against Baylor in the 4th quarter, Vince Young is still in the game passing the ball.

Agreed. Noted above. In the game passing the ball = Pass on 3rd and 9 from our own 44.

Originally Posted by VPI97

Up 45-17 against Texas Tech in the 4th quarter, Vince Young is still in the game passing the ball.

28 point margin and all the passes were in our half of the field on out routes or in the flat to a RB. Young had thrown the ball poorly that day and got some work in. I guess this could be defined as running up the score, but not to me. This is the kind of situation I like to see players get work in.

Originally Posted by VPI97

Up 42-10 against Colorado in the 4th quarter, Vince Young is still in the game passing the ball.

We got the ball on our 6 and he threw a screen pass. One pass.

Originally Posted by VPI97

Do I really need to go back any further in the season?

Well yes. To find a second good example. Of course, I'm not one to whine about this kind of thing. VY has something like 10 passes this season in the 4th quarter of the games not against Ohio State and Oklahoma State. Then again I remember ripping on moron Longhorn fans that thought Oklahoma ran it up on us in 2000 and 2003.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Well yes. To find a second good example..

I'll pass...odds are that nothing anyone posts will make a difference.

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Of course, I'm not one to whine about this kind of thing.

Too late.

[Huckleberry]

Up 45-14 against Virginia in the 4th quarter Marcus Vick in the game passing the ball

Up 48-7 against Georgia Tech in the 4th quarter Marcus Vick in the game passing the ball

Up 31-0 against Ohio in the 4th quarter Marcus Vick in the game passing the ball

Up 35-0 against Duke in the 3rd quarter Marcus Vick in the game passing the ball

Up 34-7 against Marshall in the 4th quarter Marcus Vick in the game passing the ball

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Up 45-14 against Virginia in the 4th quarter Marcus Vick in the game passing the ball

Up 48-7 against Georgia Tech in the 4th quarter Marcus Vick in the game passing the ball

Up 31-0 against Ohio in the 4th quarter Marcus Vick in the game passing the ball

Up 35-0 against Duke in the 3rd quarter Marcus Vick in the game passing the ball

Up 34-7 against Marshall in the 4th quarter Marcus Vick in the game passing the ball

The difference being that I don't whine and deny it.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Too late.

That's a nice shot delivered by intentionally (I hope) taking something out of context. I don't whine about teams running up the score with the exception of egregious and obvious examples.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by VPI97

The difference being that I don't whine and deny it.

You seriously think Beamer was running up the score? That's ridiculous. I watched at least 3 of those games and that wasn't even close to the situation.

I guess you're just one of those people that would prefer the better team just stop trying at halftime.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

I guess you're just one of those people that would prefer the better team just stop trying at halftime.

Yes, I would prefer not embarrassing the opposition by piling up score after score when the game isn't in doubt.

[VPI97]

dola -

Except in the case of UVA. We should have went for 100 on Saturday.

[st.cronin]

Of COURSE Texas runs up the score to impress the voters. I've seen quotes from Mack Brown explicitly admitting this.

[JW]

Here is a serious question: Does running up the score help your rankings? After all, rankings are the name of the game, poll rankings and bcs rankings. So if you are leading 35-0 at the half and fighting for a BCS slot, is it best to shut down and win 42-7 or to go for 70-0? Or does it matter? My thought has always been that it matters to some extent, since a lot of voters don't see you play and don't really know what happened in the game. Am I wrong?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Well, right now both polls put them a solid third ahead of Penn St, and they are 4th, well behind PSU in the BCS Standings. And I guess Virginia Tech is still floating around there with 1 loss. USC had like 3 bad first halfs in a row then the ND game... so IDK if they really are past their wake up calls... likely won't matter in the end, since UCLA will score some, but with their run defense Bush/White could top 500 on the ground alone.

We had the same run defense last year and we did an admirable job vs Bush. We made him cough up the ball three times too! White was unstoppable and the refs bailed out USC

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Yes, I would prefer not embarrassing the opposition by piling up score after score when the game isn't in doubt.

But that's not what it is. It's getting your guys work and practice against an opponent. I can see it if each game was played in a vacuum, but the coaches have the rest of the season to worry about.

For example VT/GT. They may have been kicking GT's ass, but Beamer knows that the Yellowjackets present better athletes than anyone they'd played or would play for a while, excepting NC State's defense I guess. Anyway, Vick needed practice against that kind of speed and Beamer knew it. That's not running up the score, that's setting your team up for success as well as you can.

st. cronin -

That was last year in the Cal situation. You would say the same thing if you got burned by a close win. Anyway, he only did it this year against Baylor. After once again losing votes due to a close win. Accusing us of doing it against Kansas doesn't make sense because we already had the Rose Bowl locked down by winning out.

Brown has done it in the past after being slapped in the face with evidence that he needs to do it. We dropped after Kansas last year and Brown hinted that he would run it up if possible against A&M. We didn't have the chance. We dropped after Oklahoma State this year and we put points up against Baylor. The Hokies lost that night.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

st. cronin -

That was last year in the Cal situation. You would say the same thing if you got burned by a close win. Anyway, he only did it this year against Baylor. After once again losing votes due to a close win. Accusing us of doing it against Kansas doesn't make sense because we already had the Rose Bowl locked down by winning out.

Brown has done it in the past after being slapped in the face with evidence that he needs to do it. We dropped after Kansas last year and Brown hinted that he would run it up if possible against A&M. We didn't have the chance. We dropped after Oklahoma State this year and we put points up against Baylor. The Hokies lost that night.

I don't know how you can support a coach who says and does that - to me it's an absolute disgrace.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't know how you can support a coach who says and does that - to me it's an absolute disgrace.

I think I may remember the quote differently than you. I recall Brown saying it was regrettable that if you let a team back in the game it hurts your team in the polls. His primary focus this year has been leaving the first defense in too long to prevent that from happening.

I do regret the Baylor situation a bit, but at the same time recognize that VY was handing off to our 3rd team tailback. The thing I want to change is to stop seeing teams get punished for only beating a conference foe by 19 points, for example. It's a head coach's job to do the best thing for this team and his players and his athletic department. As long as the system is set up so that the best thing for those groups is delivering bigger victories so his team, his players, and his athletic department won't get downgraded in the polls and risk missing out on a better bowl, it's his job to prevent that from happening.

Regrettable, but it is what it is.

Institute a playoff and an undefeated major conference team won't have to worry about that.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

I think I may remember the quote differently than you. I recall Brown saying it was regrettable that if you let a team back in the game it hurts your team in the polls. His primary focus this year has been leaving the first defense in too long to prevent that from happening.

I do regret the Baylor situation a bit, but at the same time recognize that VY was handing off to our 3rd team tailback. The thing I want to change is to stop seeing teams get punished for only beating a conference foe by 19 points, for example. It's a head coach's job to do the best thing for this team and his players and his athletic department. As long as the system is set up so that the best thing for those groups is delivering bigger victories so his team, his players, and his athletic department won't get downgraded in the polls and risk missing out on a better bowl, it's his job to prevent that from happening.

Regrettable, but it is what it is.

Institute a playoff and an undefeated major conference team won't have to worry about that.

Assuming that your rooting for Texas football is based on some connection to the University of Texas at Austin, isn't it more important to ask what is the best thing for the University? I think Brown's coaching reflects poorly on the University as a whole, and I think that outweighs any benefit derived from competing for a 'national championship.'

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Assuming that your rooting for Texas football is based on some connection to the University of Texas at Austin, isn't it more important to ask what is the best thing for the University? I think Brown's coaching reflects poorly on the University as a whole, and I think that outweighs any benefit derived from competing for a 'national championship.'

I don't personally feel that anything we've done gets to the point of reflecting poorly on Mack Brown, much less the University. Obviously that's my opinion as this thread has shown. Our opposing coaches have never accused us of running up the score, and Mack Brown never accused Stoops of doing that when we lost by 49 and 52 points to the Sooners.

As for the overall effect on the University, applications for admission go up when your football team is doing better and ranked more highly in the polls. And our academic reputation will not be affected by somebody thinking we scored too many points in a football game.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JW

Here is a serious question: Does running up the score help your rankings? After all, rankings are the name of the game, poll rankings and bcs rankings. So if you are leading 35-0 at the half and fighting for a BCS slot, is it best to shut down and win 42-7 or to go for 70-0? Or does it matter? My thought has always been that it matters to some extent, since a lot of voters don't see you play and don't really know what happened in the game. Am I wrong?

If I recall correctly, the BCS made the people formulating the computer rankings remove margin of victory. So, if this is the case, running up the score would only affect the human polls...

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

If I recall correctly, the BCS made the people formulating the computer rankings remove margin of victory. So, if this is the case, running up the score would only affect the human polls...

But the human polls count for 2/3 of the BCS ranking.

To the extent running up the score affects the human polls, I think that there is a valid reason to do it. How could there not be? There are reasons not to run up the score (sportsmanship, etc.). But those have to be balanced against the fact that some sportswriter 3,000 miles away is going to help decide if your team plays for the national championship based on his impression of the final score of your game against East Podunk State.

[jackyl]

Damn, Mack loses to OU repeatedly and there are calls for his head. Now that he's faced with the weakest Big 12 in years with his strongest squad in his Longhorn tenure, people are upset that UT's running the score up. Does he leave the starters in to get valuable PT fully expecting them to score, or start substituting with just one half of football played? Tough gig. I swear people in Austin must have forgotten who Greg Davis even is.

Here's UT scores at the half with final results:

ULL 39-3, 60-3
at Ohio State 13-16, 25-22
Rice 42-0, 51-10
at Missouri 24-13, 51-20
Oklahoma 24-6, 45-12
Colorado 35-10, 42-17
Texas Tech 31-10, 52-17
at OK State 12-28, 47-28
at Baylor 27-0, 62-0
Kansas 52-0, 66-14

Four major blowouts (ULL, Rice, Baylor, and Kansas all were down 4 TD's or more) and one game going to the wire (Ohio St). The other five (Mizzou, OU, CU, Tech, and Okie State) were all put to rest by Longhorn-dominant second halves.

I think he plays the starters too long on occasion, but not moreso than a lot of top contenders. It's just that UT's sked has been so blah almost all season. Matt Nordgren (backup QB) has gotten snaps in six out of ten games and the third and fourth string tailbacks have played in evry game except Ohio State.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

But the human polls count for 2/3 of the BCS ranking.

To the extent running up the score affects the human polls, I think that there is a valid reason to do it. How could there not be? There are reasons not to run up the score (sportsmanship, etc.). But those have to be balanced against the fact that some sportswriter 3,000 miles away is going to help decide if your team plays for the national championship based on his impression of the final score of your game against East Podunk State.

I don't disagree with you. Mid-major teams and others without a prior reputation practically have to blow out their opponents in order to garner respect in the human polls...

[scooper]

I'm no big fan of Texas, but if you want a team to not run up the score-stop them. It's that simple. The current college football system is a dog and pony show dictated by two voter polls full of voters that will never actually see the majority of the games played. But they do see scores.

If running up the score gets teams into a better position come the post season, then have at it.

[JW]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

But the human polls count for 2/3 of the BCS ranking.

To the extent running up the score affects the human polls, I think that there is a valid reason to do it. How could there not be? There are reasons not to run up the score (sportsmanship, etc.). But those have to be balanced against the fact that some sportswriter 3,000 miles away is going to help decide if your team plays for the national championship based on his impression of the final score of your game against East Podunk State.

Yep, and that's pretty much what I think. It is unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Of course so many things skew the results. Texas might beat Podunk U 70-0 on a dry field. Miami might beat Podunk U 24-0 in a rainy, muddy quagmire with a 30 mph wind, a week before a critical game, and the voter in Alaska looks at the paper and says, damn, Miami didn't do very well. I think I'll drop them a spot.

Which all leads to the need for a playoff. Which of course would create its own arguments over seeding and who gets left out, i.e., the bubble team.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by JW

Which all leads to the need for a playoff. Which of course would create its own arguments over seeding and who gets left out, i.e., the bubble team.

This is one of many arguments for a playoff. Generally speaking the teams that are capable of obliterating opponents are in a major conference. If they know that winning the conference championship is all they need to qualify, then the final score of the games takes a dramatic hit in importance. Just win and you're in the playoff.

As for arguing about who's #8 or #16, that's not as bad as arguing who's #2 in seasons like last year or if one of USC or Texas loses this year, IMO.